129 votes

Paradigm Lost: Why the rEVOLution Has Not Been Televised

To those who care about such things, the silence of the media about the extraordinary events around Ron Paul's campaign is deafening.

Some see conspiracy. I don't. I see the expected reaction to a paradigm shift -- a complete change in the concepts we use to make sense of our politics and culture.

An excellent illustration of the power of a "paradigm" is the Perceptions of Incongruity experiment that was conducted at Harvard in 1949.

In this experiment, subjects were shown playing cards and asked to call out what they saw. They would consistently identify the cards correctly. After a while, however, the experimenters would slip in "incongruous cards" in which the colors red and black were switched, such as black hearts or diamonds and red clubs or spades.

What did the subjects see when shown those incongruous cards? They did not see the incongruous cards, but normal playing cards -- the cards they were expecting to see, without noticing the incongruity. For example, when shown a black six of hearts, they might call out simply "six of hearts" or "six of spades" -- neither of which was correct. The subjects didn't misunderstand or misinterpret anything -- they actually misperceived something according to the paradigm in which they were operating -- in this case, "the playing card paradigm," comprising everything they already knew (wrongly) about the cards they were looking at.

Subjects continued to fail to notice the incongruous cards. Eventually, they would exhibit a physiological reaction of discomfort, knowing that something was wrong, but not being conscious of what. Only when they had been forced to look at many incongruous cards for very long times did they "get" what was going on and see what they were looking at. Suddenly, they realized that "the playing card paradigm" did not apply. They finally knew that reality included non-traditional cards. They thus adopted a new paradigm (that included black hearts etc.), and thereafter saw what was in front of their eyes.

As Goethe said, "We see only what we know."

So what do we know about American politics? We "know" that there are two opposing ideologies, Left and Right. We know they are largely staked out by two established parties, Democrats and Republicans. We know that all political positions that are "reasonable" or "mainstream" are represented by them. The trends in American politics can be identified by listening just to them: other views are held by so few that they can be ignored because they can have no significant impact.

All this "knowledge" is false, but it comprises the prevailing paradigm, so we know it nonetheless.

Any paradigm worthy of the name -- such as this American political paradigm -- lasts for a long time and is hard to unlearn.

But when it is about to collapse, a few things happen.

A) Most people ignore or try to "explain away" the data that threaten the old paradigm. B) The old paradigm becomes stretched in increasingly artificial ways to fit all the threatening data. This is called, "saving the phenomenon." C) More parochially, people with a career interest in the old paradigm fight for it with increasing dogmatism.

"Saving the phenomenon" is particularly interesting, and history (as well as everyday life) provides many clear examples. Consider the cosmological paradigm that prevailed for centuries. To a first approximation, heaven is perfect; circles (actually spheres) are perfect; planets are bodies in heaven, and so being perfect, they move around circular paths.

Thus, for centuries the motions of the planets were explained... until enough people made enough observations of planetary orbits that were not, in fact, circular: the circles were actually squashed. But since an entire theology -- and an entire political establishment -- were based on the idea of heavenly bodies' following the particular divine design that was endorsed by society's paradigm makers, the data could not be allowed to make the paradigm false. The "phenomenon had to be saved." Clever men worked out that if the center of a small circle was imagined to travel around a large circle, and a heavenly body traveled around that small circle, then the body would appear not to be traveling around a circle, but the motions would really all still be circular: circles on circles are still circles, and the old paradigm is still correct!

More data had to come in, and people with especially open minds apply themselves to the problem, before observers could actually perceive what they were observing: that heavenly bodies travel in ellipses. When they did, the paradigm shifted: Kepler was then able to formulate his law of planetary motion, political power throughout Europe was redistributed, and soon Newton would formulate gravity.

Admittedly, changes in a prevailing political paradigm are, unlike planets, hard to observe directly if they occur in people's heads, but many important political and cultural changes of our time are much more visible.

For example, the average adult under 30 is expected to feel that there's not much point in engaging in politics because she can't make much of a difference. Politicians are not rock stars and their ideas don't inspire young people to congregate in their thousands in stadiums to get high on old fashioned ideas like liberty or abstruse concerns like monetary policy, chanting their favorite lines from their candidate's "greatest hits" (unless of course, that candidate has already been nominated as his party's presidential candidate). People certainly don't make computer games out their favorite candidate's favorite positions. Hundreds of them don't spend hours writing songs and recording high-quality videos about political issues that turn them on. And, usually, people who read books about the history of central banking for fun don't number in the hundreds of thousands. In short, it's been several decades since so many people became more inspired by politics than by anything else in their lives, and felt so able to make a difference. It also used to be that most politically active, educated and non-religious under-30s voted Democratic, while the number of Americans who were politically active but felt completely unrepresented by either main party was too small to matter.

But the media are people too... and so, like everyone else, they do not see what their current paradigm does not allow.

That is why cable TV has not even considered the extraordinary rise of Independent political registration, the decline of party-political thinking, the upsurge of interest in America's political and historical identity, kids' climbing trees to hear an old white politician tell a story that no mass political movement, let alone party, has told for generations, or the remarkable scenes that are playing out in GOP caucuses around the country as the party breaks its own rules to ensure that those who don't like its anointed candidate cannot choose their own.

It is why the rEVOLution has not been televised.

But it will be.

The very fact that the prevailing paradigm cannot accommodate the cultural and political changes in the USA, or even the GOP, is evidence that those changes are radical enough to establish a new one.

Eventually, when the gap between what is so and what everyone "knows" becomes too large, it becomes impossible to carry on everyday life without seeing it, admitting it, and dealing with it. That point may finally be in sight.

This week, some people who both operate in, and shape, the prevailing paradigm came up against that impossibility for the first time. Two cable networks - Fox and MSNBC - discretely acknowledged that Ron Paul was now winning states (IA, MN etc.) and that it was likely (Fox actually ventured "inevitable") that he would win enough states to be on the ballot with Romney at the GOP convention for the presidential nomination.

Whether that happens is much less important than the paradigm shift that has led to it, for when paradigms shift, history is made.

We may not yet have a new narrative. But the old one just cracked.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Oh yeah that's exactly what it is.

And Arabs in caves imploded three steel buildings with two aluminum planes all in one day because they hate our freedoms. Pull your head out of your ass sir. It would do us all a good service. They ROTHSCHILDS ZIONIST are purposefully doing this.. It's not coincidence. How's that uncomfortable paradigm shift. It's the truth. There is more then just freedom at stake here. People are going to die before this is said and done. No power system so ungodly entrenched in every aspect of daily life will ever cede power willingly.

Spot on bud..

SPOT ON. Why do you think Obama just passed the unconstitutional laws he did?? These dirty dogs will use our military against us..but take this to heart..there are TOO MANY vets who are siding with Dr. Paul daily..this is no longer a cake walk for these Devils..the R3VOLUTIONS fire has caught the wind of Liberty and its spreading like the wild fire it is...Praise God. Its going to get interesting folks..COCKroaches hate the light of truth, and now there are more of us carrying these lights and the COCKroaches are running for cover..theres power in numbers and our numbers are growing larger everyday..Praise God for this. LONG LIVE THE RON PAUL R3VOLUTION!!

Cannabis Hemp Oil CURES DISEASE

Such a good article. Really

Such a good article. Really worth spreading to those who doubt Paul or can't quite put the picture together of what's going on in relation to the media/political system.

"One man with courage is a majority." ~ Andrew Jackson

Only 25 upvotes? We need a

Only 25 upvotes? We need a paradigm shift on that, ASAP...

Great analysis, and really expresses the sentiment I think most of us carry but have been unable to articulate; until this article.

As a Ron paul Republican

I have a real hard time with "Blue Republican". I guess it's like being shown a "red" six of spades. I'm not going to say, "Six of spades", that would be wrong, (according to Robin). I'm going to say BS!

I'm new to the GOP, being I joined the LP in 76 and then became NNP in 93.. I was never a Democrat, and while I'm not proud to admit it, I will: I loathe most Democrats, they are the paracites, blamers, fakers, liars and ultimate haters who HURT wee the people the most. After working on Nader's campaigns, what the Democrats did to us, Ron Paul's campaign is a cake walk by comparision.. Nader was arrested for showing up to debate. I don't trust Democrats at all. So for anyone to say, "I'm a Blue Democrat", I try to ignor just so I don't puke. I'm not alone.

As for as I'm concerned, I'm a Ron Paul Republican, no color about it. Monet did a series of paintings, Water Lillies was one, Haystacks another, showed that colors change all day long, and Picasso went after shapes in Cubism studies... but ultimately the shape of the beast was more imporatant than the color...

Blue Republican.. I sure hope none join my RCC. To me thay are RINO, no better than neocons.. just another body snatcher who thinks we want to be entertained with color games to expalin the liberal censorship Democrats LOVE. To me the article is BS, like Blue Republican. Why not Ron Paul Republican? What's wrong with that? Heart belongs to the Democratic Party?" Yeahah

Your analysis doesn't allow

Your analysis doesn't allow for people to change. I have never voted for a Republican, but I haven't voted for a Democrat for President since 1972 when I voted for the anti-war candidate, George McGovern. For the last forty years I have "wasted" my votes on peripheral candidates like Nader, Buchanan, and Chuck Baldwin. I would never go back to voting for Democrats so maybe instead of "Blue Republican", it should be "New Republican".

Change is enevitable, eh?

I like how Nader handled the "wasted vote" concept.. "No vote is a wasted vote when it is given sincerely".

I was VERY afraid to join the GOP, but I actually believed Ron Paul. Ron Paul told the truth.. the GOP is being occupied by Republicans In Name Only. To me, a "Blue Republican" is just another chapter of this RINO.

The Neocons, Firth, Rumsfeld, Libby, WERE Democrats. The NWO global government idea was brilliant, no doubt. Take over of BOTH parties; Neocons came in and "busted" conservatives, moved them OUT.. while Neoliberals made sure liberals like Nader were rendered "spoilers".

What I love about Ron Paul is this opportunity to quinch the thirst for TRUTH. Most here are truth seekers or appreciators.. so to me, the "Blue Republican".. I see that backfiring on folks like you and me, who never voted for a Republican before, always voted for the peripheral candidates. It gives the Neocons who are established now, fodder to attack us as being the "infiltraitors".. I am far more conservative than the Democrats occupying my central committee as RINO, and they don't like Ron Paul, and don't like the rEVOLution, and snub, lie, cheat, betray.. and the only thing I've got to keep me in is I am open and honest, like Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a perfect political leader for me.

People change; that's what growing is all about. Right now, the Ron Paul rEVOLution is going through growing pains. We are the new kids on the block, so to speak.. many of us are changing to belong to a party we never thought we would. I proud to call myself a Ron Paul Republican... I would NEVER refer to myself as a "blue Republican." BOTH major parties are at their nadirs... I would hope we could take the GOP and let the Democratic Party follow.. Maybe Robin is waiting for his opportunity to take back his beloved Democratic party? That's what it seems to me. I don't know. To me, he's not very honest.. he's blue, as if he misses his Democratic Party.

In Ron Paul we see ourselves,

In Ron Paul we see ourselves, our families, our founders, our race, our interests, our nation.

I don't know, it sure seems like

Some very evil people own the media and are using it to make sure Paul is stifled as best they can. I don't know about the paradigm idea, perhaps....but more simply, it's just corruption and a purposeful deception being perpetrated by the "news". Sorry, just too many obvious anomolies for it to be by mistake or accident.

It's not

coincidence it is fact. This is being done purposefully. You can't beat him by attacking him so you hope you can stop it by ignoring him. Neither are going to work at this point.

I really enjoyed reading this


One day, I'm gonna' change my name to Dale Lee Paul

Excellent analysis, Robin. I

Excellent analysis, Robin. I feel certain that the paradigm shift will make the self-conscious use of the female pronoun rather than the traditional male pronoun nothing more than a silly pretense. I sincerely hope the corruption of language as a way of imposing "equality" and reordering the natural world will become an embarrassing and irrelevant anachronism.

historical shift

Great food for thought.


Really great article!

I had one "Ahah" moment after the other. If this isn't on the main page, up front, at top, it better be soon. This is required reading for every one of us RP supporters because of the understanding it gives us for our counterparts and with it, maybe the patience to smooth the change of understanding the new paradigm.

You know, I'm honored to be in such company.

Now it's about the Constitution and the fight to defend it.

Great article,

when the author describes people under 30, that was me. Lol

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
-Thomas Paine

complicated spin.

The MSM belittles, ignores and ridicules Ron Paul, because the people who own the Media stand to gain from the 2 party, one ideology system that has been so carefully nurtured by the people who profit from it.Can you really see Rupert Murdoch being a Ron Paul supporter?
The plastic Talking Heads of Fox etc are regurgitating the rubbish they are fed, without an ounce of journalistic integrity. Perfectly programed androids.


lets not forget the paradigm shift of having an honest politician ;-)

Interesting but Flawed Theory

This could explain the inability or unwillingness of otherwise intelligent citizens, and probably the average news reporter or editor, to acknowledge the obvious. But this theory seems to ignore the fact that the people who actually own and manage the MSM know exactly what is going on and are consciously involved in covering it up, because the truth is a profound threat to their profits. There is no cognitive dissonance among MSM executives--just cynical profiteering off of mythology. They will not simply see the light and start reporting the truth because it's no longer possible to deny. They are actively involved in preparing the population for the kind of totalitarian control that would make the truth irrelevant. They will not change. They will have to be displaced by independent, non-profit sources of information.

When enough people realize

When enough people realize they have been held in thrall by an existential enemy they will resist. The European peoples have met all such threats with resistance. I think it is a biological phenomenon that occurs when there are no other options for survival. Understanding the media as an enemy disabuses of an illusion and removes an option; it is one more thing that will ensure a massive revolt.

reedr3v's picture

It's hard to tell from this distance what's in

the heads/hearts of the MSM management. Some of their bias has to be cynical, power-chasing. But my direct experience with most people is in line with Robin's main point. And many of us went through the excruciating experience of giving up cherished, long-held, security-blanket paradigms for a much harsher reality. Re-learning history, political science, economics, even sociology and philosophy is not just hard work, it is painful, gut-wrenching, a test for the soul.
Most people are going to follow trends, including the empty talking heads on the MSM. The strong are able to look outside and become leaders, teachers, guides to the future paradigm.

The rise of a free, independent, truth seeking media (for profit or not) will point the way for those who cannot find their own paths.

Why just Non-Profit?

Why not real, free-market capitalist media? Lets not forget our free market values.

Ron Paul - Intellectual hero

Doesn't have to be non-profit . . .

For-profit media can decide to be objective and truthful any time it chooses. It has just never consistently done so in my lifetime. I personally will not trust any media source that disseminates information for a profit. But that's just me.


This is exactly what I see with so many people. The more a false logic crumbles, the harder people fight to hold on to what they think they know. It's a process, kinda like breaking a horse-only in reverse.

Speaking of horses....

imagine how things started changing once the automobile hit the streets-- The guys who sold horse shoes were fighting to keep their jobs! "That automobile fad will never last." Fear. Fighting to keep what they "know."

There are still horses that need shoes, but a much smaller number.
Why not start manufacturing tires instead....?