Democracy: How Much and for Whom?
We delved into the humanoid roots of our collective problems long enough; now let’s focus on the Trojan horses built on them. Indeed, on that basis lots of different facets of suppression pile up, of which the media hammering us with plain exploitations of such humanoid vulnerabilities like simulated closeness, simulated seniority and simulated “everybody knows” is but one of the many fronts.
Later on, it may be a profitable exercise to review the humanoid faults and their exploitations, the related experiments and their resulting statistics, from an essentially quantitative point of view, and try to estimate their actual weights on the fates of us all. Loose cannons, as the Poet said, «We Do What We're Told». But how much destruction can these loose cannons bring about, to what degree survival is at stake? And then estimating how much on these premises democracy too is turned inside out – just as almost anything else on such premises can be, for that matter.
In fact, and specifically in terms of both quantity and freedom, if this general scene we may label humanoid weren’t already enough, there’s a maintained if controversial claim that the outcome of votes and elections is always determined by not only a minority of the electorate, but by the worst minority as well: the most … (full list of humanoid faults here), incompetent and easily manipulated by propaganda minority is always the one that holds the balance of power and tips the scales. If so, this demonstrates that humanoids repay any effort in making them humanoid first, and then in manipulating them, by acting through the vote mechanism as a powerful multiplier of any such effort. Whether those unflinching are stubborn or those unstable are fickle, the point of overcoming those very same faults applies in both cases.
Democracy: How Much and for Whom?, 2
Back to the aforementioned claim along this line, “If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it”, in my humble opinion, this formula lacks a key factor to be more accurate: if voting made any difference, if it were of any help in solving problems – once trapped under the hidden influence of the criminal conspiracy built on debt money and infinite debt trap – those criminals would certainly not allow us to vote, would they? Such a statement can be objectively tested against reality: while the criminal conspiracy, debt money and the infinite debt trap continue to exist untouched, do elections solve problems? In other words: if that huge drain at the bottom of our fish tank remains happily and steadily wide open, will any quarrelling about taps bring about any rescue from asphyxiation? So, why are we allowed to “freely” vote? To begin with, recall what that Mr. Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild said – and I hope by now you know who this person was: “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws”.
This gives you a first idea of the relations of power between the players. This said, then the so−called paradox of vote ensues: if it doesn’t work, why is it supported? Evidently, it must suit those who have the power to support it. Panem et circenses, bread and circuses, the Romans said: missing, stolen, poisoned bread and inconsequential distraction, we may translate it now. Cui prodest, the Romans also said: who profits from it, as usual one’d better ask? Democracy “works” – for the moneypulators – in a quite peculiar sense suiting their purposes: to the degree you think it 1) is operating and 2) is working out, it legitimates the arbitrary abuses of the autocrats. And that is quite in addition to its covering up their “squanderings” by blaming them on their victims, as mentioned before. As I already said: the purpose it serves is covering up the real causes, real responsibilities, real crimes and criminals, and let us believe it is all our fault and that’s just the way it is and goes, and there’s nothing we can do about it and no better way to go about it anyway.
Democracy: How Much and for Whom?, 3
Indeed democracy lends itself to such manipulations due to its limits and shortcomings I mentioned in the synopsis, intrinsic to proxy, to political representation: in democracy, on the basis of a vote at the very best sporadic, generic, emotional, superficial and approximate, we delegate others to take on our behalf a myriad of specific decisions on subjects we do not even know, that eventually fall on anyone, and, moreover, with the majority coercing the minorities.
Of course, the absence of democracy is even worse, but that’s merely our problem, not the moneypulators’ problem indeed… The difference between a formally totalitarian government and a formally democratic one is the same there is between a robber and a defrauder: totalitarian governments rip you off under threat of a weapon in plain sight; democratic ones dupe you into consigning them your purchasing power by ripping you off under threat of a “democratically ratified” weapon. From the viewpoint of those who profit behind them, they are but different tools, exploited according to their availability and fitness in a given social circumstance, to bring about the greater possible theft of purchasing power and freedom. From the viewpoint of suppressives, to bring about the greatest possible dependency, destruction and death. And in all this, institutions, governments and political parties are but tools to control and exploit. How? Bribing is not the only way. There’s a more safe and powerful way: debt.
The more indebted the country and the citizens are, the more enslaved they are in actual fact, regardless of what freedoms are stated in constitutions and laws. And any freedom, apparently conquered on stage but actually granted from behind the scenes, any shift from totalitarianism toward democracy may well be part of the plan, with the purpose of easing and boosting the inclination toward squandering together with the accountability of the citizens for it, so as to sink them more and more into a quicksand that does not exist in the first place: fraudulently induced debt.