Franklin D Roosevelt.
Winston Churchill wasn't as polite about it........
"The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
And of course my favorite of the group was Mark Twain......
"If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."
Imagine for a moment you are in the ruling class. Now imagine that you wanted to preserve your interest against any interference from the pesky people, what would you do? Well you would have to make sure that the general public was kept as uniformed as possible, and not exposed to any point of views that would contradict your establishments practices. Along with that you would have to eliminate as much independent, logical, causal, scientific thought that would go along with the a fore mentioned anti-establishment points of view.
Step One in this process, you have to support a severely underachieving and underfunded public education system. This public education system is designed to merely focus on getting you a job one day, and not to teach you any form of critical or independent thinking. This strategic under-educating of the American youth is a direct factor in the out-dated two party political system. The main idea here being keep them stupid, and easily entertained, and they will not be able to fight back.
However the dumbing down of our youth is not enough. We also have to push belief systems that actually reward passive obedience. You guessed it, religion. Religion is very helpful in promoting belief systems that are stubborn and irrational. The worst thing that religion does in my opinion is promoted closed off thinking, the very opposite of what a society needs to thrive. It has always been my belief that if people are groomed to follow blindly and be obedient, then they are very ripe to extend that belief to others who claim authority of any sort. This is how the establishment has dumbed us down.
To fully understand this next step it is important that we first recognize a very unique sociological characteristic of the human condition, lets call this characteristic, to quote Peter Joseph, herd psychology. He describes herd psychology as the tendency of humans when faced with mass appeal to behave in a thoughtless and malleable way. This idea doesn't just apply to say a soccer riot or an NBA riot. This mob persuasion can be generated through shared cultural events. This was on display right after the attacks on September 11, 2001. Remember how pissed off everyone was, and how easily everyone was persuaded that the evil doers had to be brought to justice? Talk about mass insanity, that event triggered an immediate reaction of fear and revenge. It didn't take the US government, or other world governments for that matter, to harness that mass insanity into support for Draconian legislation and illegal invasion of countries alleged to harbor terrorist or have any link to the attacks on the World Trade Center that fateful day.
This tactic of herd psychology is not only useful in guiding the issues of perceived importance, it is also quite useful in setting very rigid limits of debate among individuals. This creates the tendency for those who question the issues beyond those limits to be ostracized and rejected from the herd. You have all witnessed this, if someone talks about a more equitable distribution of income among society, then they are a damn communist. I am often labeled a nut when I offer speculation about the obvious power manipulation and corruption at not only the highest levels but also the local levels. That one is very frustrating, but that's a whole other blog post. And god forbid we get those do-gooders who understand modern science and technology and want to improve society with it. Because if there is one thing that we all know isn't real in this world, its science, come on you don't go to church? Who are these people that want to feed, clothe and house everyone on earth with the help of modern technology? Utopian jackasses that's who.
The best way to control human thought is to establish this deep rooted fear of social rejection. Why don't more people question the actions and the behaviors of their elected leaders? Because in order to have friends in this life, you have to fit in with the herd. By associating that fear of social rejection to culturally taboo subjects, the masses shall never get out of step, or question the official line, ever.
So with the foundation neatly laid for the ultimate control of the individuals psyche, we now have to deal with the issue that the pesky people just might wise up to the game plan, and work to maneuver a candidate into power who may be able to right the ship, therefore some more specific structural safeguards have been put in place.
First, we have to make sure those unwanted candidates are unable to get anywhere near the major outlets for public consumption. These major outlets I am referring to would be of course FOX, CNN, NBC, CBS, and just in case they do get through, well then the establishment must treat them like freaks. You don't have to look any further than what the mainstream media did to Ron Paul this year to see a great example of that. How does the establishment do this you ask? Well with money of course, and our corporate constituency has more than enough. So how do you make sure your money can buy the right candidate? You just have to make sure the use of your money, for political influence, goes uninhibited.
In a 1975 Supreme Court decision the freedom for a candidate to use an unlimited amount of his or her own money for a political campaign was deemed legal. The Supreme Court decision basically equated spending money with the right of free speech. So what this basically does is removes any sort of regulation of fairness of expression, so who ever has the most money, has the most resources, and therefore has the most effect.
However as if that wasn't a secure enough plan to as it was, the powers that be took it a step farther. The king makers needed to make sure that their corporations were given the legal right to promote our puppet leaders without any regulation. So once again the trusty supreme court came into play and ruled that the government cannot restrict a corporation from political spending in candidate elections, because they are protected by the first amendment. Once again equating money with speech, and people with corporations. This was probably the worst thing to happen to the free election process since the a fore 1975 Supreme Court decision.
But they still need more control, so why not patrol every nuance of the voting system, guaranteeing that only the right candidate gets voted in. This is achieved with the false duality of a two party system. These two parties disagree in general terms, but on the elitist ideas that will further the globalist agenda, and domination of all mankind, they agree 100 %. The absolute beauty of the two party system farce is it not only gives the mass public the illusion of choice, but it also oppresses those upstart third parties. Just for the record, these annoying third parties have historically influenced the changes that we see as major in this country. They have affected women's suffrage, civil rights, environmental protections, broad worker rights and child labor laws to name a handful.
The result of this process, has been that Americans have gotten so used to the idea of the two party dictatorship, that they don't mind that the two parties have been given the right to control most of the electoral process itself. The people get the right to do some of the minor stuff, but the parties get the right to control a huge part. But after all isn't that what the capitalist system guarantees, the freedom to manipulate everything.
Enter the Commission on Presidential Debates. In 1988 the Democrats and Republicans, or the Demopublicans, negotiated the Commission On Presidential Debates. Posing as a non-partisan institution the CPD took control of the most influential event of the Presidential Elections, the Presidential Debates. The CPD, which is a private corporation, co chaired by former heads of the two parties agree through secret contracts who will be invited to participate in these debates. So those third parties or controversial ideas only come into play if the demopublicans say they can.
So you can understand now why i am not going to vote for either of the mainstream candidates this year, or probably ever again. The system has been manipulated at every juncture, and there seems to be nothing the people can do about it. Which brings me to my last point. What if the we the people can spark a revolution of knowledge in this country. The disinformation campaign designed to keep us dumb has worked for the most part, but its not too late. Knowledge is power, and we can have a lot more power to control our own lives if we just continue to seek knowledge, and leave the to a minimum. What if the entire country just didn't vote? Its clear to me that we are a culture in decline, but it may not be too late. I fear though if we don't wake up, we face some very dark days in our future, darker than most can imagine.