Why did Donald Trump, or Hillary Clinton for that matter, even get one vote from the grassroots, not counting those faked votes from people involved in bribing the government?
Neither of these two pathetic clowns even did a good job pretending to represent the grassroots, while they were both involved in a mind boggling epidemic level of fraud that was partly exposed long before they made their candidacies official in 2015!
For that matter, if the political establishment knows how to run a better scam, which they do, why aren't they coming up with one?
I'll get back to that one, in a future article, although I've mentioned it before, and start with why there are so many cult followers pretending to participate in the democratic process.
Do you think that Trump voters ever really thought that Mexico would pay of that wall? The media is constantly interviewing these Trump supporters, many of whom can't see through the most obvious scams. I doubt if they're presenting them in proper context, and most of the polls show that his support has never been that strong. The only reason that he was able to get elected was because they managed to rig the Democratic nomination for another pathetic candidate that is almost as bad if not worse.
Hillary Clinton really wasn't much better, which is the only way an absurd clown like Trump was able to get elected! Is the public really that incredibly stupid? Actually no; they made it clear in polls long before these two were nominated that they weren't happy with either of these two candidates; and that if they were provided with a reasonable choice that they wouldn't have wanted either one of them.
The problem was the mainstream media and political establishment refused to provide reasonable coverage for a reasonable choice that had support from the grassroots. But this wasn't enough; in order to nominate these two clowns they had to convince a strong base to support them, even if it might not be quite as big as the media coverage seemed to indicate. The political establishment has been studying how to divide the public into two parties for decades if not since the beginning of the Republic, or when Niccolò Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" and his "Discourses" hundreds of years ago or sooner.
One of the most effective ways they've been able to manipulate the public is by studying how the crowds follow the coolest people or other leaders often without questioning them or holding them accountable and trusting things they say even when they don't make sense. There have been a long list of leaders in any given group that know how much they can get away with and one of the most common organization that has been teaching followers to obey and trust their leaders, prophets or messiahs is of course religion.
Religious people are accustomed to believing some of the most absurd things, although they don't seem to seem absurd to them and one set of absurd beliefs that is easily recognized in one place if often accepted without question in another; and even though we've become accustomed to it; since many people hesitate to discuss their beliefs publicly many of us are unaware just how many insane beliefs are acceptable to some people until it is widely reported as it has been among Donald Trump supporters.
During the primaries many of us focused more on Hillary Clinton's indoctrination because it seemed so incredibly easy to recognize the absurdity of many of Donald Trump's claims, including the claim that he could get Mexico to pay for the wall and that it can just get "ten feet higher" when he shouts it at a rally and repeats it over and over again; and apparently whether or not these people believed it or not they repeated it over and over again until, perhaps some of the people that didn't initially believe it started believing it.
Many people might think that the Democratic Party is less extreme when it comes to blindly obeying their religious leaders, and perhaps they might be a little bit; however if they had a strong base that turned out for Hillary Clinton, including African Americans or Latinos, and a major part of the reason is that the political establishment was able to get their religious leaders to line up behind her, despite her horrible record on many things including mass incarceration, it may not be that much better.
Hillary Clinton supported mass incarceration and the privatization of education along with NAFTA and many more of her husbands policies that were great for corporate America; but terrible for the working class especially minorities. These things should have been easy to recognize for people that were familiar with the news on the subjects, especially if they didn't rely on mainstream media which reported on it to a limited degree but omitted the worst of it. Many younger people that were much more accustomed to checking alternative media outlets and active politically were much less likely to support her; some of them supported Bernie Sanders or even Jill Stein; while others were skeptical of all politicians. At least when Bernie Sanders was challenged by the better informed Black Lives Matter movement he engaged them and responded to their legitimate concerns which may have convinced some of them.
Unfortunately when Hillary Clinton was challenged by the Black Lives Matter movement John Lewis came to her defense, although it's hard to image why. The mainstream media has been telling us for years that he's a "Civil rights Icon" which they began repeating much more often during the 2016 campaign and since then when he speaks out against Trump as if he can do no wrong. But when he claimed during the civil rights movement that he didn't see Bernie Sanders and stated or implied that Hillary Clinton was supporting the civil rights movement all along this was a partial lie. He may not have seen Bernie sanders and Sanders may not have been one of Martin Luther King Jr. closes allies at the time; however Sanders has always been a consistent supporter of the civil rights movement, even if at times some segments like the Black Lives Matter movement didn't always give him blind support.
Hillary Clinton was at best never more than a pretender although for a while in the seventies it might have seemed like some of her political activities might have been sincere, by the time she became First Lady of Arkansas, those familiar with her record and activities at that time should have known that she was far more supportive of Monsanto and other big businesses, including Walmart which she was on the board of at that time, than she ever was of the civil rights movement. When she was in high school as a Young Republican she supported Barry Goldwater who was one of the strongest opponents of the civil rights movement; and as First Lady of the United States, Senator, and Secretary of State she was even worse, and it didn't take much research to see how bad she was, which is why young people accustomed to checking alternative media outlets were able to see through her and spoke out against her.
Should the entire civil rights movement stand down when the great and glorious "Civil Rights Icon" that the media often portrays as the "conscious of congress" tells them to even when he's endorsing one of the most outrageous candidates the Democratic Party has supported in decades who the vast majority of the public doesn't like?
That's clearly what the entire political establishment was counting on and they successfully used this tactics to help rig the nomination for Hillary Clinton and if their nominee wasn't so horrible and unpopular there is no way that a clown like Donald Trump could possibly win!
Why did so many of Clinton's supporters blindly trust their leaders when they endorsed such an awful candidates; and why do so many of Trump's supporters still support him even though he's such an obvious clown that I usually don't even bother making a case against him and if I did there is no way I could keep up with more than a small fraction of his scams, or Hillary's for that matter, even though at times I've tried.
Many of these people have been taught from birth to trust their leaders and respond more to appeals to emotions than to develop critical thinking skills; and an enormous part of the reason for that is religious indoctrination which was much more prevalent among older people. This is why younger people were much more likely to support Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein, and often not without reservations when they think their might be problems.
A major part of the reason why older people are much more likely to believe their leaders without question or recognizing incredibly obvious flaws in their arguments may have been their early upbringing when they could have done a better job developing critical thinking skills. One of the earliest methods of child rearing recommended by the Bible, in numerous versus involves the use of corporal punishment to teach them to behave, and although it may not always specify it is also used to teach people to believe what they're told and to trust their leaders without question.
A small sampling of the Proverbs that encourage spanking or some other form of corporal punishment include 13:24 "Whoever fails to use the stick hates his child; whoever is free with correction loves him." and Proverb 22:15 "Folly is anchored in the heart of a youth, the whip of instruction will rid him of it." However not all Christian leaders have supported these interpretation; Saint Augustine has never approved of the use of corporal punishment, and his arguments against it in his writings are based on rational experiences that have shown that it doesn't work. And more recently Christian child psychologist James Garbarino has recommended different methods without abusing children although he hasn't often come out entirely against corporal punishment, as many secular child rearing experts have.
This is the way children are taught from an early age, James Dobson recommends that spanking begin no later than when a child is eighteen months old before he even knows how to talk or understand why he's being punished, which teaches him to act out of fear and seek the most effective way to avoid pain instead of learning how to develop critical thinking skills.
This is how many children are taught to begin worshiping God and adopt their "chosen" religion, which is actually chosen by the parents and forced on the child using coercive methods. Then some of them go on to teach them to treat the Bible, their God and belief system with awe instead of applying scrutiny. One of the Catholic translations of the Bible even provides instructions on how to read it that start with saying a brief prayer and kissing the Bible as if it is a magical object and reading in a in a state of awe, instead of understanding it or, heaven forbid, figuring out if their might be problems or contradictions in it.
If you're supposed to figure out anything about the Bible it's supposed to be how to worship God and how to interpret it in a manner that glorifies God and makes him seem worthy of blind faith, instead of figuring out whether he actually exist or not; or asking why God doesn't communicate when so many wars based on lies are fought based on religions he allegedly inspired. This creates a lot of problems since the Bible recommends slavery; suggests that it's appropriate for Lot to offer to allow his daughters to be raped in order to spare people he thinks are Angels; and that it is acceptable for God to demand that Abraham sacrifice his son on an alter, only to have him saved at the last minute when God intervenes.
A common justification for the infamous demand that Abraham sacrifice his son is that this was God's way of saying that it would no longer be necessary to do this; in some cases some people making this case have said it very passionately, including on religious shows where audience members can't ask questions; but if they could they might hesitate to do so since the speaker seems so emotional they might expect her or him to get angry which many people do when discussing religion.
However if you read the Bible it doesn't actually say it that way at all; it just lists Abraham's activities in a mater of fact manner without any mention of him agonizing over it, as most modern interpretation seem to say he does. This is a common theme of blind obedience that is repeated over and over again and that it was interpreted for thousands of years until it became morally unacceptable to interpret it that way by people that challenged blind obedience then some modern interpretations kept as much support for blind obedience as they could convince people to go along with, even when leaders are incredibly corrupt of lying constantly leading people into wars based on those lies or other serious problems.
Exodus 14:4 says "I shall then make Pharaoh stubborn and he will set out in pursuit of them; and I shall win glory for myself at the expense of Pharaoh and his whole army, and then the Egyptians will know that I am Yahweh.' And the Israelites did this." which should be considered an obvious form of entrapment; however religious people aren't taught to develop critical thinking skills or challenge their leaders.
The New Testament isn't always much better, in Matthew 10:34-7 it says "'Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword. For I have come to set son against father, daughter against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law; a person's enemies will be the members of his own household. 'No one who prefers father or mother to me is worthy of me. No one who prefers son or daughter to me is worthy of me." This should be considered some kind of belief system that indoctrinates cult followers to blindly obey their leaders or they'll turn them against each other, yet it's been in the Christian Bible all along, and there's much more.
If you take the Bible literally, after leading his people into slavery in Egypt and helping to free them by entrapping the Pharaoh along with the entire Egyptian population God allegedly leads them wandering in the desert before promising to help them invade another country, not becasue they're so good but becasue God is so angry at someone else and he's using the Israeli's to punish them according to Deuteronomy 9:4-6 "Do not think to yourself, once Yahweh your God has driven them before you, "Yahweh has brought me into possession of this country because I am upright," when Yahweh is dispossessing these nations for you, because they do wrong."
"You are not going into their country to take possession because of any right behaviour or uprightness on your part; rather, it is because of their wickedness that Yahweh is dispossessing these nations for you, and also to keep the pact which he swore to your ancestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
"Be clear about this: Yahweh is not giving you possession of this fine country because of any right conduct on your part, for you are an obstinate people."
This God allegedly works through revelations without an open honest line of communication; but how can people tell whether these revelation are real if they're only given to one person who then relays it to other; or how can they be certain that God isn't a liar? According to Deuteronomy Chapter 18:20-2 "But the prophet who presumes to say something in my name which I have not commanded him to say, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die."
"'You may be privately wondering, 'How are we to tell that a prophecy does not come from Yahweh?' When a prophet speaks in the name of Yahweh and the thing does not happen and the word is not fulfilled, then it has not been said by Yahweh. The prophet has spoken presumptuously. You have nothing to fear from him.'"
Which seems to mean that they're supposed to trust alleged prophets but when a false prophet comes along they won't find out until after it's too late. As for how they might know that God himself isn't a liar; they're not even supposed to consider such a possibility, which would be blasphemous according to many Biblical quotes; or at least that's what many of the most devout seem to believe; and in many cases if they encounter people who consider this question the most passionate faithful people might respond with anger that could escalate to violence killing people they disagree with!
But if people with critical thinking skills do question God's honesty it shouldn't be hard to figure out that if he was honest he wouldn't communicate in deceptive ways that lead to support of one tyrant after another fighting one war after another based on lies or Biblical Prophecy which makes no sense at all.
Religion is supposed to teach a higher sense of morality, or at least that's what the faithful claim; however as I pointed out in Apartheid States of America many of the most religious areas have the highest murder rates in the country and less religious areas like Europe are even less violent than the least violent of the United States. This article also points out that religion is a major aprt of the reason why we ahve so many abandoned inner cities and instead of funding education and child care that could dramatically improve quality of life, teach critical thinking skills and reduce crime, they're spending fortunes on Megachurches and televangelists that are scamming the faithful on a massive scale, and helping to indoctrinate them to support one war after another based on lies from their political leaders.
And other articles that accompanied that show that our political leaders aren't paying any attention to other research on other contributing causes of crime, including Gambling, insurance, income inequality, lack of education and an incredibly unfair economic system which few if any establishment politicians challenge, although many pretend to speak out against it.
We can't get "freedom" by worshiping it and picking leaders that we trust without scrutiny, including great and glorious "Civil Rights Icons" and allowing them to do everything for us! Instead people at the grassroots have to do a better job developing critical thinking skills and stop trusting leaders who have an incredibly long record of betraying that trust!
I don't know why John Lewis and many of the so called Civil Rights leaders caved and supported Hillary Clinton who clearly never supported the civil rights movement as much as she pretended to when it suited her political agenda; but for one reason or anther they did. Some seem to think they sold out to Big Pharmaceutical companies or other Wall Street interests, and I can't completely rule this out, especially since there is some circumstantial evidence to support this belief and there are some that have been caught blatantly in corrupt activities that are even worse although I suspect that if we could get the whole truth we would find out there's more to it than that.
I don't want to be cynical and oppose everything the Democrats do, especially when they're standing up to Trump but their past corruption and political activity is what enabled him to get into office in the first place and blindly trusting them isn't going to solve the problem!
The following are a few additional sources for this article:
Open Secrets: John Lewis Health Professionals Total: $68,151 Individuals: $27,351 PACs: $40,800 (retrieved 01/23/2018)
In These Times: The Black Political Establishment Should Never Have Given Hillary Clinton a Blank Check 08/08/2016
Who Endorsed Hillary Clinton? The Congressional Black Caucus or Its PAC Filled with Lobbyists? 02/12/2016
Old black men don a cape for Hillary Clinton Here John Lewis comes to save the day for big pharma, private prisons, Walmart, etc. 02/12/2016
The Congressional Black Caucus’ Endorsement Of Hillary Clinton Is Outrageous 02/12/2016
No comments:
Post a Comment