How People Stay Stupid & Democracies Fail

How People Stay Stupid & Democracies Fail

Megyn Kelly, Bret BaierPhoto From thepageantplanet.com

The concept of democracy is based on citizen responsibility because it is citizens who ostensibly choose their own leadership and by so doing the road they are choosing for their collective future. Yet real democracy is as scarce as a hen’s tooth.

For the most part these pseudo democracies devolve into de facto oligarchies, which run candidates of supposedly different parties to prosecute their agenda, not those of the people. There always have been amongst us and always will be, people who are well liked and will try and leverage their electibility into attaining personal fortunes. And of course in almost all countries people with wealth can leverage it into influence and power with elected politicians.

All of this power comes at the expense of ordinary citizens. In a democracy all are equal, except those who are more equal. But a vigilant well informed citizenry does not have to surrender its political power to to elites. Yet they invariably do.

One way this happens is that most citizens are uninterested in and dis- engaged from the political processes of their countries. Frequently people who are engaged think of those who are more interested in football games and entertainment media as being stupid. Being uninterested in something doesn’t make you stupid.

But it a structural weakness, (fault-line) in democratic systems that these people who have little to no engagement in the political processes of their times and little to no knowledge of the issues that their countries, or communities are facing have votes that count the same as those who do. Generally speaking if those who have no knowledge of, and have shown little concern for the collective issues of their time, decide to engage only on election day they only serve to distort and damage the political process. Without knowledge their votes will be cast mostly randomly, based on the personalities, and/ or looks of those presented to them, as well as how they do on sound bites, or how their favorite news broadcasters present them.

As power devolves a few Elites control the main political parties, whose leadership invariably represent them. They also control mainstream media. And that media controlled by a handful of corporations, (who may have interlocking ownerships) present a narrow range of acceptable debate between their news media ostensibly on one side and their media ostensibly on the other.

In reality both sides, (usually called “conservative” and “liberal”) are acceptable to the elites or they would never be presented in the first place. The people who make the presentations are hired by how effective they are in selling the agendas of elites. They are paid to be attractive, like-able and viewed to be trustworthy so that those who are on the receiving end of what is in the end propaganda, are likely to imbibe it and digest it.

Those who do this well are paid a LOT of money. They can bring down salaries of hundreds of thousands per year into the millions. The reason for this, is that in the US for example 6 corporations control 90% of the media and all of the major ones. These are very big corporations and they have a LOT of money available to pay people, on their very own media to represent their interests, to the pubic well.

People who have little interest in the political processes of their democracy, no real knowledge of what the candidates stand for, what the important issues of their day are and only pay attention at election time, are extremely vulnerable to this process of the dissemination of what amounts to corporate propaganda.

There is a second group of people who are arguably worse than those who spend their time watching sporting events and entertainment channels. That is people who do get involved with the issues of their time, but ONLY as they are defined by the corporate media and a political system that has long since been bought out by the same corporate interests as well.

Since at least two sides are presented of allowably debatable issues, (anything outside the acceptable box is labelled “crackpot” “extreme” “dangerous” “unrealistic” etc.) people are encouraged to have heatedly opposing views on topics that will never effect the main issues of their day, war and peace, wealth and poverty etc.

Massive political heat over well chosen issues, creates the illusion of free speech. But the crucial thing is that the allowable narratives are set by the propaganda media.

It is understood by their corporate owners that the Ken and Barbie presenters of the “news” only have so much credibility. Some among their audience, (and sometimes opinion makers for the majority with a limited interest) want to hear the propaganda from “experts”. And that is what Foundations and Institutes are for.

They are funded by the same people who own the media. And they are supposed to give the selling, (debating) points of one flavor of corporate media or another. When you hear a talking head bring in an “expert” and call him a Senior Fellow at the Brooking’s institute that guy is making $175,000 per year to disseminate the propaganda of the corporations who fund Brookings.

Other Institutes and Foundations, like Heritage, Cato, American Enterprise etc. are not as open as Brookings, as to what they pay their propagandists, but we do know what their CEOs make, (hundreds of thousands to more than a million) and we can expect their top propagandists “experts” (who will strut their stuff on TV)  to be paid salaries commensurate with Brookings or they can easily go and work on the other side of the fence.

These institutes and the media together form an integrated network intended to define the narratives of our times and effectively control the thought processes of the majority of people on public issues deemed of interest by those who own/ control these handful of corporations.

When people heatedly debate these manufactured and well controlled issues, they effectively spread propaganda and they don’t even get paid for it. Then they vote for one candidate or another based on the support they give to one or another of these issues, which are either irrelevant or if they are relevant, once elected the candidate will do what his financiers tell him to do anyway, or he or she won’t get the money necessary to ever run again, monies that will indeed go to their opponents.

When you meet people from this half educated but very politically involved group, you can know them instantly because their words will be essentially a rephrasing of the propaganda they have recently heard on their favorite mainstream media. These first two groups, uninvolved, and involved in the cloning and passing on of propaganda are the conduits for the Banker Corporate state. These are the people who have effectively surrendered their sovereignty, destroyed their democracy and paved the way for the oligarchs.

There is however an especially sad third group. Those are the ones who imbibe the media propaganda and know that something is wrong. That the things that are said frequently make no sense. are not going to lead to the social good but quite the opposite help to create disasters, poverty and unnecessary wars.

What makes this group so sad is that they almost got it, But in order to really get it they need to develop their own narrative. That is what we are trying to do here on Red Pill Views.

Instead of developing their own narrative however they spend endless time debating and arguing with the latest piece of propaganda they have just read or seen from what they KNOW is a media source that is controlled by a Mega Corporation. Either they don’t put it together that what they are arguing against is propaganda or they actually debate propaganda.

Debating propaganda is at best like having an argument with a computer voice that answers your telephone telling you what buttons to push or words to say. The people who write or sell propaganda, (like Kens and Barbies) may not even believe a word of it. They are paid to do what they do and when they are good at it they are paid very well indeed.

All propaganda has an underlying narrative. When you debate propaganda you are staying on the page of that narrative, THEIR narrative, THEIR page, not your own.

People who debate or try to debunk propaganda, even if they have an out of the box view are also subtly supporting the propaganda and the narratives of the elites. In order to be free oneself, first one has to cut oneself off from propaganda altogether, like getting off of a drug. If you have to hear it or view it, look at it as propaganda. Never take it seriously, or engage with it intellectually or emotionally. If you do that you will be hooked in.

It would seem to me that a far better use of your time would be to create your own narrative of how you see the world around you. We can always learn by coordinating and/ or debating with others who have different unique and real narratives.

But there is nothing to be gained by debating with a programmed computer voice, or the local “conservative” or “liberal” TV channel or newspaper. The former is not conservative and the latter is not liberal.  They both come from exactly the same source.

People who have taken the Red Pill have a view that goes beyond the propaganda programming of the elites. They have their own unique narrative. It is by developing those narratives and sharing them with others that they will learn. teach and grow.

That is what Red Pill Views is all about.