Saturday, August 8, 2020

Multi-Party Democracy - A Useful Substitute for Civil War -- August 7, 2020



Multi-Party Democracy - A Useful Substitute for Civil War

LARRY ROMANOFF • AUGUST 7, 2020

ENGLISH  ESPAÑOL

Let’s see. We’re having a birthday party and half of the children want to go to the zoo and half to the park. So we separate the two groups, give them sticks and let them fight it out. Whichever group wins, can make all the decisions. Would you do that? Well, why not? That’s multi-party democracy. Firmly separate your population on the basis of some ideology and let them fight. In a Multi-Party Democracy, there is no room for cooperation or consensus. We don’t talk; we fight. I win, you lose. That’s the system, inherently based not on harmony and consensus but on conflict.

It’s the cornerstone of the democratic system that the ‘winners’ control everything and the ‘losers’ are totally marginalised. In Western political society there is little apparent concern for the losers even though they can form 50% or more of the population. Western multi-party democracy is the only political system in the world designed to disenfranchise, isolate and betray at least half of the population.

If we wanted to separate our population politically into two ideological ‘parties’, the logical division would be a gender separation of men and women. Or maybe a sexual division – the homos and the heteros. That should make an interesting election campaign. Unfortunately for democracy, the deliberate cleavage of our societies for purposes of politics was done according to perhaps the most inflammatory of human characteristics, an irreconcilable simian-theological divide, creating two factions perpetually at each other’s throats.


We have many names for the ideological teams: Liberal-Conservative, Labor-Capitalist, Democrat-Republican. We sometimes refer to them as the Left Wing and Right Wing, but the division is more sinister than these names suggest. This ideological rift that has been created for the sake of politics is really between the ideological left and the religious right – between the pacifists and the war-mongers. And it appears that, though I make no claim to sociological credentials, human society, at least Western society, will automatically cleave along these lines if given a fertile chance. When we look at the often vehement enthusiasm with which many Westerners embrace their political convictions, it is apparent that this separation, this cleavage of people according to their propensity for war-mongering, involves some of the deepest and most primitive instincts and emotions of the human psyche. What sane person would consciously divide a population based on this ideology? And for what purpose?

The ideological rifts inherent in party politics have been introduced into Western government – by design – solely and precisely because they induce the conflict so necessary to any team sport. How can we have a competition if everyone is on the same team, just trying to get the job done? The inescapable conclusion is that Western democracy – politics, in fact – was deliberately and cleverly designed not to select good government but to delude the peasantry into participation in a primitive, socio-theological rite of competition, conflict and victory. A useful substitute for a civil war.

But it’s all a cruel hoax. “The People” are lured into choosing sides, engaging in battle, then forced into a patently unfair resolution by voting. The losers have been browbeaten, bullied, propagandised and hoodwinked into believing and accepting that, because they are the losers, their wishes, rights and welfare are now irrelevant and they must remain silent. To the victor goes the spoils. You lost the war; I set the terms. In fact, ‘the people’ are merely cannon-fodder in a pseudo-religious battle, joining the team, supporting, paying, protesting, yelling and screaming and, finally, voting. But then the game is over, everyone returns to their senses and their lives, and the elites continue with their agenda of controlling the government and running the country. Nothing has changed.

The combination of the primitive instincts and emotions that drive politics, team sports and religion is not only potentially explosive but essentially mindless; a kind of yearning herd mentality with a propensity for violence. It is clear that politics, in the Western sense, is seldom guided by reason. Reason can accommodate and withstand discourse; ideology on the other hand, cannot. Politics, religion, and team sports have a common root in the Western psyche. None can be discussed intelligently for very long; all raise violent emotions, all suffer from ideology that is blind to fact and reason, all possess the same primitive psychological attractions. People don’t join a political party from a commitment to good government, and they don’t join a Western religion to learn about God. In both cases, they do it to join a winning team.

Most Westerners will tell us that the multi-party electoral system is about freedom and choice and is “real democracy”. But the multi-party system is not about freedom and choice, and it is not about either democracy or government. It’s about a fabricated game of social conflict and competition, about playing in a team sport.

In a multi-party democracy, the “game” is not good government but the election process itself. After my team wins the election, the game is over and we all go home. In the Western world, it is ‘politics’ that is the attraction, not ‘government’. I sincerely doubt that many people who are active in the political process give even a single thought to the quality of government that will emerge. Their only focus is winning the game for their team. The process has become so corrupted that Western democracy doesn’t even pretend to refer to the quality of government that might ensue as the end result after an election. And this is because the end result is the process itself – the competition, winning the election, nothing more. In a very real sense, the medium has become the message.

In every country with a multi-party democratic government, ‘the people’ are becoming increasingly aloof, disinterested and disenfranchised, one symptom of which is voter turnouts of as little as 30% in some major countries. That number is both astonishing and instructive, since it accurately reflects the dawning realisation that voters have little if any influence on either an election outcome or on the policies of any government so elected. People in Western countries are finally rejecting the delusion that they actually select their government. In any democracy, voters do not select the candidates, nor do they choose or nominate anyone – the Parties do that. Voters are then offered an after-the-fact opportunity to rubber-stamp one of two clones. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” is pure fiction and has never existed anywhere.

One of the more distressing congenital deformities of nations with multi-party politics is that by the time all the special-interest groups – the lobbyists, senators, financiers, bankers and flakes have grabbed their share, nothing useful is likely to remain for the common good. The outcomes are preordained because elected US officials are too busy looking after the interests of AIPAC, the Jewish lobby, the CIA, the US military, the defense contractors, the international bankers and the big multi-nationals, to worry about the people and the nation. The welfare of the voters is increasingly irrelevant. US-style Multi-Party Democracy is the one form of government that will guarantee decisions will be made to benefit the elite’s private interest groups instead of the country as a whole.

It is too late to reverse course, too late to eliminate dysfunctional ideologies and the curse of politics from government. The hole is too deep; we cannot return to the beginning and start again. To do so would require a social upheaval equivalent to a popular revolution, and any Western government would viciously put down any such attempt. In spite of all the propaganda to the contrary, no Western democracy would permit ‘the people’ to actually gain control of their government.

The Origin of Multi-Party Politics

We often credit ancient Greece for the conceptual creation of what today we term ‘democracy’, but that ancient form is not what manifests itself today. The transition from the European monarchies to a multi-party electoral selection process was not a spontaneous development, did not occur from natural evolution, nor because it was the epitome of the development of government. Rather than being a natural evolution, this system of dividing a nation on the basis of inflammatory emotional ideologies was deliberately created by a group of European elites as a method to pacify populations with the belief that they were in charge of their destinies while being controlled by puppet-masters in the parties, an enormous fraud perpetrated on unsuspecting populations.

Montagu Norman, who was the Governor of The Bank of England for several decades, had this to say in a speech to the US Bankers’ Association in New York City in 1924:

“By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus, by discrete action, we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.” And: “These truths are well known among our principal men, who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world.”

We have another excellent example of the above in Boris Berezovsky, once the most powerful of the Jewish Russian oligarchs, who almost completed plans to transform Russia into a fake two-party state of Left-Wing Social Democrats and Right-Wing Neocons, in which heated public battles would be provoked and fought on socially-divisive issues, while both parties would be controlled from the stage wings by the same small group of ruling elites and bankers.

“With the citizens permanently divided and popular dissatisfaction safely channeled into meaningless dead-ends, these puppet-masters could maintain unlimited wealth and power for themselves, with little threat to their reign.”

There is no way to misunderstand this. This is the principal reason the architects and proponents of the New World Order have been so determined for so long to indoctrinate Western populations in the religion of multi-party politics. No other system of governance provides as much opportunity for external control of nations and mass deception of populations as does a multi-party electoral system.

When these international banking elites spawned the European revolutions that removed all the monarchs, they accomplished many ends besides the removal of a person who had absolute power over them, including the power to expel them from a nation when they became too powerful or troublesome. As a replacement, they introduced a fragmented ‘government by the people’ with a political ideology that would bitterly divide societies and make the population subject to fear, and therefore easily manipulated and controlled. They created the opportunity to either found or take over the central banks of many nations, thereby obtaining financial, and effectively total, control of those countries. They did indeed secure for themselves ‘that which had been so well planned and accomplished’.

Dylan Ratigan, a best-selling US author, expressed it perfectly when he wrote, “Power, whether in an electoral system or a corporate boardroom, originates with the people who control the nomination of candidates, not with those who “vote” after this process is complete”. Those who nominate, dictate.[1]

Americans tend to think of political parties as a kind of ideological abstract, as a way of defining people’s attitudes, but political parties are not abstract; they are real, and they have all the power and control. The people enter the process only at the very end, in a pretense of choosing those whom the parties have already selected. This cannot change unless the parties themselves are eliminated, and that will never happen. The small elite group who control the political parties from the shadows are far more powerful than the people, and they will never relinquish control.

Someone wrote that “The faceless plutocracy that controls the US government promotes an illusion of legitimacy by allowing the people to vote for a variety of political candidates … who have been bought and paid for by the plutocracy. The fiction extends to the “independent” judiciary, whose members are carefully selected by the plutocracy and who promote its agenda.”

The Right-Wing Brain

We now have scientific proof that those who belong to the political Right-Wing are more primitive and less able to reason clearly than the rest of us, according to a recent study by the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience in the UK. Neuroscientists have discovered evidence that the brains of political Right-Wingers are a different shape from those of normal people, lacking grey matter in a vital portion of the brain associated with development, indicating a strong correlation with primitive political views and religions based on witchcraft and crop circles.[2][3]

Right-Wingers have a thinner section of the brain that permits rational and conscious thought – the anterior cingulate portion, and a much thicker, enlarged part – the amygdala – which is an ancient part of the brain associated with primitive emotional aggression. Given the typically pre-human tendencies of the political Right Wing, it appears that these political allegiances are hard-wired into these people as a genetic defect due to the shrunken portions of their brain related to human development and civilisation. No surprise there.

This stunning scientific revelation finally proves what we always suspected, namely that the Political Right Wing is a kind of Cro-Magnon deviant from the “normal” Left-Wing brain, having somehow escaped evolutionary extinction while preserving its Neanderthal outlook. We now see why it is so difficult to explain things to conservatives in ways they can understand, since their mental processes function only in terms of three or less bulleted points, migraine headaches being the most common result of exposure to concepts. It seems their primitive religious and political inclinations would be unresponsive to education or environment, which would explain the high US crime rates and propensity for guns and whacky Christian religions. This explains much about Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan, all of the US Congress, much of the population of Israel, most of the UK and 85% of Australia.

In 2011, Samuel Goldman wrote a useful article on this same issue, noting that sane people “have dismissed conservatism as a mental defect ever since it emerged as a distinctive brand of political thought”.[4] Thomas Paine equated conservative minds with “an obliteration of knowledge”. Goldman related John Stuart Mill’s assertion that, “although not all conservatives are stupid, most stupid people are conservative”.[5] Theodore Adorno diagnosed conservative views as symptoms of a pathological “authoritarian personality”.[6].

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Finally, the universe is unfolding as it should. If we can evolve a little further, perhaps we can consign the Political Right Wing to the historical trash bin and build a more peaceful future for those of us who survive.

*

Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com

Notes

[1] https://dylanratigan.com/2013/10/18/those-who-nominate-dictate/

[2] Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience; https://www.ucl.ac.uk/icn

[3] Right-wing brains ‘different’ | The Independent; www.independent.co.uk/news/science/right-wing-brains-different-2171127.html.

[4] After Conservatism | The American Conservative; https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/after-conservatism-2

[5] http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/28th-october-1882/14/john-stuart-mill-and-the-conservatives-to-ms-edito

[6] Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality; https://solidarity-us.org/atc/187/p4900


            Copyright © Larry RomanoffMoon of Shanghai, 2020
             Posting: lv