The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewLarry Romanoff Archive
Multi-Party Democracy - A Useful Substitute for Civil War
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

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.”

As another excellent example of the above:

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.”[1]https://www.unz.com/runz/our-american-pravda/

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.[2]https://dylanratigan.com/2013/10/18/those-who-nomina...ctate/

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.[3]Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience; https://www.ucl.ac.uk/icn[4]Right-wing brains ‘different’ | The Independent; www.independent.co.uk/news/science/right-wing-brains-different-2171127.html.

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.

Actually, the Right-Wing brain study was the shocking and totally-unexpected result of a joke, and was widely-reported in the UK media at the time. A gentleman whose name unfortunately escapes me was planning a political debate on a UK talk show. As preparation, and as a joke, he collected some neurologists and brain specialists and asked if they could identify anything in brain scans that made Right-Wing people naturally violent and stupid. The scientists dutifully performed said brain scans and other examinations and discovered to their great surprise there really were significant physical differences in the brain structures between those who identified as either Liberal or Conservative. This surprise naturally spawned many other studies and the results are now classic.

Actually, the Right-Wing brain study was the shocking and totally-unexpected result of a joke, and was widely-reported in the UK media at the time. A gentleman whose name unfortunately escapes me was planning a political debate on a UK talk show. As preparation, and as a joke, he collected some neurologists and brain specialists and asked if they could identify anything in brain scans that made Right-Wing people naturally violent and stupid. The scientists dutifully performed said brain scans and other examinations and discovered to their great surprise there really were significant physical differences in the brain structures between those who identified as either Liberal or Conservative. This surprise naturally spawned many other studies and the results are now classic.

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”.[5]After Conservatism | The American Conservative; https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/aft...tism-2 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”.[6]http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/28th-october...-edito Theodore Adorno diagnosed conservative views as symptoms of a pathological “authoritarian personality”.[7]Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality; https://solidarity-us.org/atc/187/p4900

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: [email protected]

Notes

[1] https://www.unz.com/runz/our-american-pravda/

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Democracy 
Hide 36 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Vintage Romanoff. I would only add that China and the US are both one party states.

    The Communist Party has ultimate authority in business and government in China and the capitalist party has ultimate authority in business and government in America. The big difference is, what do American and Chinese voters think?

    China, a socialist state, permits limited capitalism (Huawei) but no government factions.
    America, a capitalist state, permits limited socialism (Medicare) and factions in government (Democrats and Republicans). These factions disguise the fact that a capitalist oligarchy has ultimate authority in American business and politics. No educated American would deny that, and the truth of it is borne out by the fact that, no matter who people vote for, nothing changes.

    The United States Constitution, btw, does not mention political parties, primarily because the Founding Fathers did not intend for American politics to be partisan.

    “The management of politics through parties simply means management through interest groups.” Max Weber

    • Agree: Patagonia Man
    • Thanks: Jim Christian
    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Patagonia Man
  2. Alfa158 says:

    Thank you, that was entertainingly incoherent.
    To summarize Mr. Romanoff: “All modern day Phrenologists agree, the only solution to the deleterious effects of mentally defective Conservatism, is to replace multi-party electoral democracy with a system of single-party fascism.
    Or something.
    Well, I have to admit Mr. Romanoff’s new home country does seem to presently be riding high under such a system so I suppose he’s made a good point. I’ll be looking forward to the ten books.

  3. Tor597 says:

    Conventional right wingers are exactly the kind of Maga types you see stereotyped from the left. Low IQ proles who are extremely racist.

    But not all right wingers are like that. The libertarian branch of conservatism is where the smart conservatives are that encompasses Ron Paul and Peter Schiff.

    This group was making ground but has lot a lot of momentum since Trump took office.

    • Replies: @Realist
  4. What a bizarre combination of themes this Larry Romanoff presents to us

    On the one hand a quite accurate critique of Western party democracy as a corrupted puppet show manipulated by elites

    And on the other hand, a quite absurd set of insults and falsehoods about the Right being both mentally defective, and ‘war mongers’ as Romanoff claims

    Whereas it is quite clear from recent political years, that the war-mongering in the West is coming mostly from the ‘Left’ – the evil fake mis-labelled ‘humanitarian interventions’, the marketing of conflicts and tensions, supporting the elite war machine in general

    And it is the social ‘new Right’ – in fact more authentically caring for workers and people than the ‘Left’ – who are favouring peace, tension reduction, co-operative international relations, non-baiting and non-bashing of alleged foreign ‘enemies’ etc

    The idea of ‘right-wing war mongers’ is essentially a straw man, tho those corrupt slimy neo-cons are still out there, their support tho coming from the ‘leftist’ institutions

    The intellectual and populist Right, has been pervasively anti-war and anti-interventionist for quite a long time now, and it is bizarre that Mr Romanoff is trying to ignore that

    • Agree: Bro43rd
    • Replies: @Realist
    , @BaronAsh
  5. the ideological left and the religious right – between the pacifists and the war-mongers.

    For most of the 20th century, the ideological left were the warmongers. At least in the US.

    • Agree: fnn
  6. Larry! As always, good takes. Brilliant background analysis in this. However, in the end, their game is this: Get ’em fighting with each other while we steal the last morsels. And there won’t even be a second round of table scraps, errr, Coronavirus Stimulus Checks thrown to the proles. There simply isn’t the money to do it after the Too Bigs are fed.

    And of course, don’t dare say the who (or is it whom?) of the matter.

    • Agree: Bro43rd
  7. Bro43rd says:

    The author provides a correct analysis of the us system and then without flinching goes about propagating the left/right divide. So ideologically blinded he can’t even learn from his own words. And he calls conservatives low IQ morons, that’s the blind leading the dumb.

    • Agree: TomSchmidt
  8. Realist says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    America, a capitalist state, permits limited socialism (Medicare) and factions in government (Democrats and Republicans). These factions disguise the fact that a capitalist oligarchy has ultimate authority in American business and politics. No educated American would deny that, and the truth of it is borne out by the fact that, no matter who people vote for, nothing changes.

    It somewhat pains me to agree with you…but this is absolutely true.

  9. Svevlad says:

    Heh. Democracy in that manner is a sham. A no-party, meritocratic state built on chains of command/social ladders (aka “mcdonalds”, where a fuckin’ trash man can climb up all the way to be the president if he shows that he’s skilled and talented and worthy), where the government takes care of the strategic decisions but all the minor bullshit is referendum-decided like in Switzerland is optimal, and I don’t think anyone can prove me otherwise

    • Thanks: TomSchmidt
  10. Realist says:
    @brabantian

    The intellectual and populist Right, has been pervasively anti-war and anti-interventionist for quite a long time now, and it is bizarre that Mr Romanoff is trying to ignore that

    That statement is ludacris. It would be almost impossible for anyone to be more populist than Trump…yet he is the most hegemonic, interventionist asshole since Bush II. Trump’s administration is full of interventionist warhawks. This does not absolve the left. The elected officials of neither party control the actions of the US government.

    The Deep State doesn’t care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the two parties as long as their important issues are advanced (wealth and power). As a matter of fact it strengthens the false perception that there is a choice when voting.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  11. Realist says:
    @Tor597

    The libertarian branch of conservatism is where the smart conservatives are that encompasses Ron Paul and Peter Schiff.

    I agree with your assessment of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. But not all libertarians are equal…there is a lot of diversity…and some are really full of crap.

    Nor do I absolve the left when it comes to subterfuge. But it matters not since most federal elected officials are minions of the Deep State.

  12. A123 says:

    Left/Right does not work as a spectrum any more:

    — The GOP wants to reduce visas so more U.S. Citizens have jobs
    — The SJW Globalist DNC wants more visas for their Corporate donors, resulting in fewer U.S. Citizens having jobs.

    If Worker/Labor by U.S. Citizens is Left then:
    — GOP is Left?
    — DNC is Right?

    Trying to redefine Left and Right is unlikely to be succesful.
    _____

    We need to scrap Left/Right and use the more meaningful terms Globalist/Populist. These better align to the current political debate:

    Populists — care about U.S. Citizens and U.S. Companies that employ them

    Globalists — include SJW’s (who hate U.S. Citizens) and Multinational MegaCorporations (who hate employing U.S. Citizens)

    It is much easier to understand the situation when you can intuitively grasp that NeoConDemocrats, SJW’s, and Multinationals are all on the same side. Foreign wars for “Responsibility To Protect [R2P]” are good for business. If Biden wins, the duo of John Bolton and Samantha Power will run the State Department war machine.

    PEACE 😇

  13. anon[158] • Disclaimer says:

    The NATO bloc resides in a stagnant backwater disconnected from the outside world. Nobody in the US subject population can tell you the world-standard legal definition of democracy, even though it sits there in black-letter US law. In customary international law, and therefore in US state and federal common law, a democratic society is one that has come into compliance with the UDHR.

    https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf

    One look at the UDHR tells you the US government is nothing like a democracy. It’s the opposite of a democracy. Democracy is not based on picking a side and sitting in the stands waving your pompoms and cheering, then going home and getting fucked for four years. Democracy is based on your rights. And in the USA you’ve got jack shit for rights.

    That universal legal definition is in the Siracusa Principles. No American has ever heard of the Siracusa Principles, because they restrict the government’s ability to fuck you over with a perpetual state of emergency like the one we’re under now.

    The Siracusa Principles definition is not exclusive, so a nation could in theory define democracy for itself. The US regime favors a procedural definition of democracy. Fine. But the procedures have to meet the standards of the relevant provisions of the supreme law of the land, which are irrevocable and irreducible under the continuity of obligations principle and required for any sovereign state. What are the standards that any electoral procedure has to meet? Free expression of the will of the electors. That’s Article 25 of the ICCPR. Again, US “democracy” shits on this standard. The parties exist to deny the will of the electors. Parties express the will of the donors and the CIA.

    You could replace this kleptocracy with a world-standard democracy with one act: shitcan the constitution and replace it with the International Bill of Human Rights. Once your rights are nailed down, then you can dick around with org charts all you want.

  14. Some readers may be familiar with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: The 16 Personality Types. This test, truly interesting and revealing, divides personalities into Introvert-Extravert and ‘Sensory-Conceptual’, four types creating 16 different personalities. One of the most interesting takes from these results is that the US is apparently the only nation that is at least 75% Conservative or Right-Wing by the classical definitions. In another way of expression, the only country with two Right-Wing parties.

    I believe the American definitions of Liberalism and all the other words are conspiring to bury the underlying motivations. In practice, there was little difference in atrocities between Reagan and Obama although Regan had (and took advantage of) more available opportunities. But Obama, who told us “I believe that Christ redeemed me, and I take solace in this on a daily basis”, was no less a monster than Reagan, and it was he who protected the torture prisons created under Rumsfeld. Except for perhaps size, there was little philosophical difference between the destructions of Iraq and Libya.

    It isn’t a matter of opposing ideology but of degree of the same ideology.

  15. Anonymous[198] • Disclaimer says:

    Study John C. Calhoun on the “concurrent majority.”

  16. Cyrano says:

    Lemme explain why “democracy” is totally phony BS whose only purpose is to create an illusion of fairness. Winston Churchill once used a verbal diarrhea to describe democracy as: “worst form of government, except for all the others”. He was right only about the first part, since it only begins to explain the phonines of “democracy”.

    Prior to capitalism, going back through almost 10 000 years of written history, the thing that all rulers in every country of the world had in common was that were always the richest persons in the land. Whether they were called kings, emperors, or any other type of hegemons, usually the ruler of the land was the richest.

    With the arrival of capitalism, they wanted to create the illusion of fairness where governing the land is not to be in the hands of the wealthiest person, but instead it’s going to be handled by professional politicians, “democratically” elected by the clueless masses.

    The difference is superficial, the richest people in the country are no longer the rulers, they just hire politicians to do the “ruling” for them, and the way those politicians are selected are though reality shows called elections which are meaningless, because the politicians still get the marching orders from the rich, and not from the great unwashed who “elected” them. Totally meaningless exercise in futility.

    There has been a lot of talk in recent years about the “deep state”. People are mystified about this “deep state” and its members. Who are they, and how does one become a member? Well, the deep state should be called the deep pockets state. That will pretty much explain everything. It will explain that the richest elites are still the ones in charge, but instead of doing the ruling themselves – which might leave an impression of unfairness – they actually pay somebody to rule in their name.

    The professional politicians receive their orders from the deep pockets state, not from the clueless masses who are asked every 4-5 years to nod one way or another and who – beside that meaningless nod in one of several (or only 2) possible directions – don’t have any other say in how their countries are governed whatsoever.

    Yeah, sure, the great unwashed are really asked for an input and are listened to by the rich elites, they are in on the decision making process. I actually think that the Chinese model is superior to the American one, because of one big difference. The political elites in China don’t get the marching orders from the rich elites. The political elites are the ones who are actually in power, instead of what’s the case in the phony western democracies.

    Therefore, the Chinese model is more fair to the masses, even though they don’t participate in any phony elections, because the Chines politicians are able to make decision beneficial to the majority of the population, without being in the pockets of the deep pockets state.

    That independence of the political elites from the influence of the rich elites is what counts, not some phony elections. To be fair, probably a member of the rich elites in China still has more say and can exact a greater influence on the politicians then an average citizen can, but the politicians still don’t receive direct orders from the rich, like they do in the western “democracies”.

    The flow of power in the west looks like this: Rich – Politicians – Great unwashed. In China is more like: Politicians – Rich – Great unwashed. No voting needed whatsoever. To be fair, in a system like the Chinese, the concerns of the people are not more listened to than in the west, but at least in the Chinese system, the politicians are allowed to use their imagination and via their psychic abilities to try to at least guess what the needs of the people are.

    Western politicians don’t even want to tap into their psychic powers in order to guess what the needs of the people might be. Their main goal is to respond to the wishes and the desires of their masters – the rich elites, not to the plight of the masses.

  17. Kali says:

    This made me laugh so much! I bet you enjoyed writing every word of it Larry.

    An excellent analysis of Western “democracy” followed by a truly hilarious (deliberate?) goading of so many commenters on this website.

    I really hope they’re not too apoplectic (incoherent?) with rage not to comment! The most entertaining thing I’ve read for ages.

    Thanks Larry.

    Fond regards,
    Kali.

    • Replies: @Larry Romanoff
  18. Realist says:

    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.

    Hey Romanoff…perhaps you could explain Pelosi, Biden, Schumer, Swalwell, Waters, Norton, Schultz, Johnson, Nadler, Cortez and all the dumbass holes that elected them.

    • Replies: @BaronAsh
  19. BaronAsh says:
    @brabantian

    I find this article impossible to process for many of the reasons you cite. His citations from scientific reports about the conservative brain I find impossible to accept given that most conservatives hardly agree about anything! Smells like partisan junk science to me. But I might be prejudiced.

    I wonder what sort of brains the Antifa BLM types have? Seems to me that they are displaying all the characteristics of what are stereotypically attributed to ‘conservatives’ like herd mentality, loyalty-based, obedient to authority, know they are right and their opponents wrong, fanatic in support of their cause. Since progressivism is a modern form of religion, they are religious too.

    And then he has an article about Huawei with a very astute conclusion about what may really be behind the Tic Toc and Hua Wei bans.

    Disturbed!

  20. BaronAsh says:
    @Realist

    I rarely get upset reading stuff on politics but I find this extraordinary. Hopefully Unz will follow up with thorough analysis of these studies, which I am simply unwilling to believe have any validity without such treatment.

    • Replies: @Realist
  21. @Godfree Roberts

    “and the truth of it is borne out by the fact that, no matter who people vote for, nothing changes.”

    And why?

    … because institutions are set up in such a way to resist change.

  22. Awash says:

    Suppose we introduce some form of proportional representation, would the system works better?

  23. 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

    Methinks the enlightened anti-conservative doth mean fewer, ne c’est pas?

  24. @Realist

    “he is the most hegemonic, interventionist asshole since Bush II.”

    Remind me again: to this point in his first term, how many people had Obama droned to death versus Trump? How many wars has Trump started, compared to Obama? I should think you would care to rethink your words.

    Of course you’re right about the DS. So long as both parties agree to pour $1trln unaccountable dollars down their gullet, they’re fine.

    • Replies: @Realist
  25. Realist says:
    @TomSchmidt

    Remind me again: to this point in his first term, how many people had Obama droned to death versus Trump?

    I am sure as hell no apologist for Obama…I voted for Trump and he has been a great disappointment since.

    How many wars has Trump started, compared to Obama? I should think you would care to rethink your words.

    You’re comparing one asshole to another.

    Of course you’re right about the DS. So long as both parties agree to pour $1trln unaccountable dollars down their gullet, they’re fine.

    That is my point for decades Presidents have been minions of the Deep State.

  26. Realist says:
    @BaronAsh

    Most politicians are corrupt shit for brains or the would have productive jobs.

  27. @Kali

    17.Kali says:

    This made me laugh so much! I bet you enjoyed writing every word of it Larry.

    🙂

  28. 19.BaronAsh says:

    “His citations from scientific reports about the conservative brain I find impossible to accept given that most conservatives hardly agree about anything!”

    20.BaronAsh says:

    “I rarely get upset reading stuff on politics but I find this extraordinary. Hopefully Unz will follow up with thorough analysis of these studies, which I am simply unwilling to believe have any validity without such treatment.’

    Actually, the Right-Wing brain study was the shocking and totally-unexpected result of a joke, and was widely-reported in the UK media at the time. A gentleman whose name unfortunately escapes me was planning a political debate on a UK talk show. As preparation, and as a joke, he collected some neurologists and brain specialists and asked if they could identify anything in brain scans that made Right-Wing people naturally violent and stupid. The scientists dutifully performed said brain scans and other examinations and discovered to their great surprise there really were significant physical differences in the brain structures between those who identified as either Liberal or Conservative. This surprise naturally spawned many other studies and the results are now classic.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @A123
  29. @Larry Romanoff

    You are referring to ‘medical’ studies.

    Would that be the same kind of study that told us that coffee is bad of us and then told us it was good for us because of antioxidants?
    Would that be the same kind of study that blamed cholesterol for heart issues and then switched to triglycerides?
    Would those studies be run by medical doctors that were featured in Marlboro cigarette commercials before they decided that smoking causes cancer?
    etc,etc,etc

    There are certain ‘professions’ that are at least part fraud like medicine and some totally fraudulent like economics. Ascribing ‘expert’ status on professions that rely on consensus to determine truth leads to what we have today – the inmates running the asylum.

    Any ‘profession’ that can in any way be considered a soft science, isn’t a science at all, just a bunch of monkeys scratching around trying to figure something out and have no absolute proof for their theories. We should hear them out in case they might have stumbled upon a fact as opposed to an assertion, but till they can definitively prove what they say is true, we should generally ignore them.

    • Replies: @Kali
  30. A123 says:
    @Larry Romanoff

    some neurologists and brain specialists and asked if they could identify anything in brain scans that made Right-Wing people naturally violent and stupid. The scientists dutifully performed said brain scans and other examinations and discovered to their great surprise there really were significant physical differences in the brain structures between those who identified as either Liberal or Conservative.

    Q: When did the transposition of Left & Right happen between then and now?

    Look at the objective SJW fact pattern from CHAZ/Seattle, Minneapolis, Madison, Portland, etc. Currently, Left-Wing people are naturally violent and stupid.

    In the name of far-left values, the dangerous and moronic left toppled the statue of an Abolitionist, Col. Heg (Madison). And, they burned the statue of an apparently racist elk (Portland). How can an elk be racist?

    Low IQ and a predilection for mindless violence are now core SJW Globalist values.

    PEACE 😇

  31. Chris Moore says: • Website

    Primitive, “right-wing” warmongering Jewish neocons came out of the left-wing Marxist tradition — and never left it.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323705416_THE_NEOCONSERVATIVE_MIND_They_Knew_They_Were_Right_The_Rise_of_the_Neocons

    This is because they operate from the reptilian brain that the author alludes to. Marxists, “liberals” and neocons all intellectually operate from this region. So do Zionists. So do black gang-bangers.

    These reptiles bring in like-minded reptiles because they feel more comfortable around fellow primitives. Jews were heavily involved in the transatlantic slave trade. It was also an easy way to quick-buck profits. Their only concern was the purity of “Israel” — then an abstraction, now a reality.

    This is how Constitutional America was eventually destroyed. This is how infiltrated America and infiltrated Russia destroyed Germany. This is how the reptilians are dumbing down and destroying the world… etc, etc.

    The Bible suggests the cold-blooded Serpent is at work in the world. This was before science concluded it was actually reptilian-brained “humans.”

  32. Kali says:
    @RoatanBill

    I could be mistaken, RoatanBill, but I get the feeling Larry wrote this article as comedy.

    Of course scientists will often produce whatever evidence the client pays for. (Just look at “global warming” for goodness sake!).

    The “left/right” dichotomy is nothing but political entertainment and distraction for the easily duped masses. It’s theater, a masquerade of “representative democracy” which is an impossibility, thrown to the masses to distract, whilst Big Money gets on with the task of taking control of every aspect of our lives and “ownership” of every inch of the planet.

    There is no “left-wing/right-wing” just entrenched ideologies which people “beleive” in, fight for and fight over as they hand their power, their agency, over to some “left-wing/right-wing” “representative” who is more interested in his career-climb than in his constituents and in the wealth he might amass for himself than the welfare of the people/country he “represents”.

    Kind regards,
    Kali.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  33. @Kali

    I don’t believe Larry does comedy. From his writing, I think he’s a serious person, albeit prone to believing in some science charlatans and their theories that they like to advertise as established fact when they are established bullshit obvious to anyone with a real engineering / science background.

    As an anarchist, I was agreeing with him up to the point where he went off on his phrenology like rant; hence my comment. If any good comes out of this Covid & lock down nonsense, it would be that most of the liberal arts colleges go out of business. Almost everything that falls under the umbrella of ‘social science’ or ‘humanities’ should be scrapped. Those with degrees in these fraudulent areas should have their degrees, past bachelors, rescinded. The society needs to stop listening to pseudo scientists with PhD’s.

    • Replies: @Kali
  34. Kali says:

    Re-read the article, as I just did, and you’ll see it’s a work of genius with a huge dash of funny injected… with good reason. 😀

    • Agree: GomezAdddams
  35. Kali says:
    @RoatanBill

    As an anarchist, I was agreeing with him up to the point where he went off on his phrenology like rant;

    But that was the comedy gold in the peace, RoatanBill.

    He went from a very accurate description of Western “democracy” and the religious characteristics of partisan ideology to flatly rubbish, maligned and castigate one side, and one side only, of that partisan ideology.

    So, he was either entirely rubbishing his own theists by demonstrating his own party-religious-ideology, or he was employing a comedic technique to demonstrate it.

    Either way, I at least got a good, long laugh out of it.

    On the point you make regarding humanities I’m somewhat torn. I myself have a degree in politics and sociology (comb hons) which is not worth the paper it is writen on, so to that extent I agree.

    However, where psychology concerns itself with the behaviour of the individual, sociology may be defined as applied behavioural psychology.

    In this regard, we are all the victims of sociologists who employ mass psychological manipulation to society as a whole, thereby shaping our lives, attitudes, judgements, etc. (One very significant aspect of the massive MKULTRA programme).

    If we recognise the manipulative techniques being used against us, then we can counter them. The Protocols of Zion certainly recognise the ways in which “the masses” – i. e. “Society” – can be moved in any given direction, the uses of propaganda, etc.
    In order to guard against such mass manipulation, it may be wise to understand how they work.

    (Disclaimer: This is a very loose thesis which I haven’t given more than passing though to.)

    On the other hand, even “hard” sciences can be manipulated to provide the results required by the customer. “Global Warming” being a case in point.

    With love,
    Kali

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  36. @Kali

    People in the business of mind manipulation ultimately rely on deception and the low IQ of their target to succeed. Since the low IQ are allowed to vote for some bogus reason, their manipulation impinges on my existence.

    All the techniques used to influence the masses that can not be directly relatable to empirically derived facts should be illegal. Advertising is professional lying, for example. The harm it does to the society is immeasurable. If advertisers were restricted to only reciting facts about their product or service, I’d have no problem with it. As it is, bogus claims are routinely broadcast and the deep state shills like Google and Facebook make a fortune to be used against the population on a second and subsequent passes. It’s a never ending loop of manipulation that IS the normal for most people.

    A correction – climate science is a fraud perpetrated for political ends. Just because someone takes some readings and records some numbers to be used to produce a graph does not make it scientific, hard or soft.

    [MORE]

    No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.
    Christine Stewart (Former Canadian Minister of the Environment)

    We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.
    Timoty Wirth (President, UN Foundation)

    It doesn’t matter what is true. It only matters what people believe is true.
    Paul Watson (Co-Founder of Greenpeace)

    Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parent hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.
    David Brower (Sierra Club)

    A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material sandard of living would be 1 billion. At a more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.
    United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment

    We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.
    Dave Foreman (Earth First)

    Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.
    Professor Maurice Strong (Population Control Advocate)

    We believe planning should be a tool for allocating resources … and eliminating the great inequalities of wealth and power in our society … because the free market has proven itself incapable of doing this.

    Plannersnetwork.org – The American Planning Association is a member and supporter of these principals.

    Giving society cheap, abundant energy is the worst thing that could ever happen to the planet.
    Professor Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Population Studies, Stanford, University)

    Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.
    Amory Lovins (Rocky Mountain Institute)

    The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.
    Jeremy Rifkin (Greenhouse Crisis Foundation)

    With your sign off, I sure hope you’re a woman. 8)

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Larry Romanoff Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Becker update V1.3.2