All Articles All Articles

What Even One Person Can Do

What Even One Person Can Do

By Dennis Loo (8/5/16)

The New York Times reported August 1, 2016 that only 9% of the American people voted for the major party nominees to be Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

I’ll say that again: 9% determined that these two should be the rest of the nation’s choices for POTUS.

Yet despite how small a percentage this is, these two nominees and the two parties dominate the airwaves and print media. The pundits and politicians – even satirists - tell us that we have no other choice but to vote for either Clinton or Trump, if we act politically at all.

This is a myth. The truth is not what appears on the surface.

It’s an exceedingly widespread myth.  More than the 9% of the eligible voters who chose Clinton and Trump don’t vote at all, many of them convinced that it doesn’t matter what or whom they vote for because the system only ever offers Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

They’re right about that.

This time, Tweedledum is the dumbest person to ever be a major party nominee, but if you want an outsider, a narcissist who responds to any disagreement by lashing out, an ignoramus who has probably never read an adult book cover to cover, whose attention span is that of a gnat, then there he is for you, in all his fake tan glory, his bizarre inappropriate behavior (including towards his own family, especially Ivanka) and his twitchy Twitter fingers.

The degree of disaffection within the public is so great that a complete outsider ran away with the GOP nomination and the establishment’s hand-picked successor Clinton almost got beat by another outsider, this time, a non-Democrat promising a severely watered down version of “socialism,” even against the party’s best and dirty tricks to keep him out. As Sanders’ supporters know, Sanders polls nationally better than Clinton versus Trump, but the Democrats are not interested in that, because even though they know that Sanders himself can be and is a system-man, Hillary is the preferred, wholly dependable, front-person for this system.

What does it tell you about the security and stability of this system that the dissatisfaction is so immense that the best the system can do is offer up these two, wildly unpopular candidates? It is not just an accident that the system is resorting to such extreme measures but a product of its actual credibility being strained so much with much worse to come for the next POTUS, whoever it is. It shows a deeply fractured, deeply troubled, and an-in-crisis system!

The PTB want you to believe and hope they can continue to get you and everyone around you to believe their myth that voting is your only political act. Despite Clinton and Trump both being the very most unfavorably rated candidates to ever be offered the American people, that’s exactly what they say our choices come to: those two!

They want you to not see what is your real political role and what you are now doing and what you could be doing instead. Therein lies the secret they don’t want you to know. As I put this in one of a more detailed analysis:

How is it that in any every other human endeavor, people see the need for and routinely consult with experts – e.g., those wanting to become professional athletes or to win championships seek the guidance of the best coaches they can afford – yet when it comes to public policy and the allocation of resources for social needs and problems, the consequences of which spell life and death for millions, expertise is regarded as unnecessary? How is it that the inner workings and subtleties of every other activity except politics is something that is considered hard to discover, tough to learn, and exceedingly difficult to master? If Tiger Woods relied for his game wholly on what Golf Magazine’s monthly issues made available, would he be a multiple majors’ champion? 

Yet we are told, and most people believe, that they can rely for making good decisions about politics on what is said by the news media, their friends and associates, and by the major political parties’ candidates and officeholders themselves. In virtually any other activity, people who are training you in their fields aren’t trying to deceive you and people nonetheless recognize that they have to get the best guidance they can find and then they have to practice relentlessly to have any hope of getting any good at it. In politics the so-called experts – office holders and office seekers - that most people rely upon are actively trying to deceive those they talk to. Yet the average person and even nearly all of those who closely follow politics think that they can make political decisions based upon taking at face value or close to face value what those who are trying to fool them are saying! 

This is like trying to learn how something really works by going to the nearby newsstand and spending a few hours every week reading the newspapers and magazines on display. This is in fact what most people actually do the equivalent of to make their political decisions. “Sure, I’m a brain surgeon. I’ve spent many hours on my own at the magazine stands and watching videos about how to operate on people’s brains. Have I had specialized training and where did I get my medical degree? I don’t need those things, silly. I know everything I need to know from the books I read and the videos I watched.” Would you put your brain in that person’s hands? Why would you do the equivalent to that when deciding who is going to make public policy that affects everyone’s lives and fates?

If you accept the terms being offered you, then your thinking and acting along with the crowd feels right and comfortable. Since we’re social creatures, we tend to behave the way most others are doing, even if it’s not really what most people actually think and even if it’s not true, no matter how many people may believe it.

When it comes to knowing how one should act in a social situation, nearly everyone – except the insane or the very young or people with a disorder – knows without thinking about it consciously. Society needs this or else group life would be impossible.

But what makes perfect sense socially does not necessarily make perfect sense rationally when it comes especially to matters that are not social. For example, people know that in their daily lives they tell many white lies all the time and that that is the way things are. If someone in our daily lives were to tell spectacular lies that resulted in tens of thousands of people or more dying from those lies, what would happen to that person? The people around them would stop this forthwith. This is what politicians who tell huge lies rely on: that ordinary people will not believe that their leaders could tell us incredible lies because anyone who tells huge lives in their own everyday lives would be discovered and isolated.

So this is the first point and perhaps it's the most important one and if you can see it yourself and you can get others to see it, even if it's just one person, then this spreads like a rock hitting the water in outward waves: systems are different than the individuals making up those systems. Systems work according to a different logic than even the leading individuals of that system might wish. These systems don't change because you put different faces at the top. Bill Clinton was once asked what it's like being POTUS. His answer was that it was like walking in a cemetery and talking: you're over everybody but no one listens to you! The bureaucracies and institutions that run this system don't change when we have a new POTUS. Ask anyone who works in Washington. 

I pointed out in another article something here regarding ideas that is worth sharing now:

These ideas aren’t the dominant ideas because they are simply the best and most advanced ideas. They’re the dominant ideas because those who dominant are dominant to a large extent because the ideas that they promote serve their interests and are accepted without question as common sense and as correct unthinkingly by the majority.

Without training and exposure to alternative ways of thinking, even those who receive a higher education automatically apply the analytical methods and outlook of those in authority, even while some among them might be searching for ways to undo the status quo. People pick up the ideas that they have been taught and are most familiar with, so familiar with that they don’t think to ask whether or not the ideas that they are using are the most appropriate or the truest. They take for granted that these ideas are true because nearly everyone around them has told them that they’re true since they were a child and they can readily find approbation for their ideas in people around them. The dominant ideas are so dominant that anyone who questions them is considered a little odd.

Ideas, in other words, are very powerful but if you're merely repeating the ideas of those around you and they and you are reciting the ideas that you hear from authority, then you're not thinking up these ideas yourself but borrowing others' ideas: the ideas of the dominant groups whose ideas not by accident serve their interests.

Let me tell you the truth instead of perpetuating a myth: individuals – you – already exercise a lot of political influence on those near and those distant from you by what you say and by what you believe. Every one of us, except perhaps very crazy people who mutter to themselves - people that others pay no attention to - already affect hundreds of others that we are connected to. If you are a student then hundreds of other students, you, already impact teachers, and staff. If you are an adult, then you influence your circles of those you work with or interact with on a daily basis, including your family, friends, and neighbors.

The dramatic example in cinema of what I’m talking about is It’s a Wonderful Life when the protagonist, George Bailey, is shown what happened to his town by the angel-in-waiting Clarence if he hadn’t been there.

To be more specific: we are always part of things that are larger than ourselves. We interact and are connected to others around us with a kind of invisible set of threads and what we do and what we think has major repercussions. The PTB are hoping and praying that despite a major revolt underway against their system, people will confine their actions to voting the “lesser evil” or the guy who says he’s going to change it all. Whatever you do, the PTB don’t want you to dare to step outside that conventional thinking and say aloud so that others may hear you that the only choice is NOT to vote for one or the other. 

The key here is that systems are more important and govern how individuals function within those systems and their system-logic. When you use the term "system" you are speaking scientifically and not rhetorically. It is in fact based on solid empirical evidence accumulated over hundreds of years and forms the foundation for the two sciences to do with society: anthropology and sociology. See this from a larger argument:

The stakes involved in the outcome of elections are so immense that those who control the levers of power would be foolish to provide a legal, secure, simple and official means by which their power could actually be completely broken. They make sure that those who are on the final slate of candidates, no matter which one of them ends up winning, will be acceptable to the PTB. And if one or more of those elected are still unwilling to play ball with them, then they will make sure that those individuals are either bought off or stymied at every turn. If those efforts still prove unsuccessful, then the troublemakers will be eliminated through any number of ways such as a scandal, a sudden discovery of their adulterous behavior, or an unexpected heart attack or fatal car accident.

While it is most useful in general if you join others who are already protesting openly against this system’s “choice” and calling for a system change, in other words, a revolution, or joining Black Lives Matter that is protesting in many places, that is not the only things that you can do. You can speak up in class or around the water cooler and say something in general along the lines of pointing out that the elections is a charade and that real political power isn’t decided by elections.

A very good analogy to this scam on the people is the long-practiced and almost always effective “good cop/bad cop” routine. Without this tactic, police would have much more trouble getting suspects or even totally innocent people to do their bidding.

Tell me how the Dems vs. GOP is any different than the good cop/bad cop strategy. When there is a major power differential between the civilian and the cops, the cops have to rely both on deception and coercion to maintain their power. It has always been so in situations of big differences in power that those who hold that power have to use persuasion and force to stay in power.

Force is not enough by itself because if you only rely on force than it elicits rebellion inevitably (even animals like dogs and cats will show their displeasure if mistreated, why wouldn’t humans do too?). For the majority of people to comply with the status quo, persuasion and deception must be used on them because there are not enough cops and soldiers to “maintain order” if the majority have come to the conclusion that those in power and the system itself is illegitimate. And one of the most potent ways that they come to this realization is when the system does resort to violence, thus tipping their hands to what political power at its core really rests upon, not the vote but violence.

So even as small as one individual can cause repercussions around them when they dare to question conventional wisdom that elections mean anything. Elections don’t do that at all. They exist to maintain the charade that the public rules when elites do.  What does matter, however, is social movements like Black Lives Matter or Occupy or those who are working for revolution, an actual one, not the rhetorical and fake one that Bernie Sanders was talking about. But think about what would have happened if Sanders had not jumped into the Democratic primaries where those who are so disaffected by this system would have gone if Sanders had not tried to keep them within the fold and convinced millions that the system could be changed through the normal channels? This time around there wasn’t a charismatic black man saying “hope” and “change” and the system had to go a step further to bring forth this time a pseudo-socialist to keep millions’ hopes alive within the orbit of this system.

Sanders was always going to at the last moment endorse Clinton as the “lesser of two evils” and steer people back to the good cops, the Democrats. But both the bad and good cops are cops.  And cops kill three black people every day on average in the US. And the really big cops, the POTUS et al, kill people all over the world as an important part of their real jobs for this system. Don’t be confined by those 9% I spoke of earlier: make your views about this scam of good cop/bad cop known to those circles you belong to. You’d be surprised at how much of an effect you can actually have.



Add comment

We welcome and encourage discussion and debate. We find truth via contention.

Security code