COLLECTIVISM, AND THE LIMITS OF UNDERSTANDING IN THE MATRIX
THE TWO-PARTY NIGHTMARE
by Jon Rappoport
July 6, 2012
Fifty years from now, if nothing is done to stop it, all food grown on planet Earth will be genetically modified. And children growing up in that era won’t be able to imagine food ever existed in another form.
In America, people think of the two-party system of politics in the same way. How else can you do business? It has to be candidate A versus candidate B. Sure, you can spin off small parties and people can run as Independents, but it never works, so why try? Get real. It’s Democrat or Republican. Choose one side. If you have to, hold your nose and pick the lesser of two evils. That’s life. That’s reality.
Even if choosing A or B is like choosing between the Corleone and the Barzini crime families, it’s all we have. Get used to it. Nothing else works. Nothing else stands a chance.
The inevitable is the inevitable.
However, suppose voting for Obama or Romney AND THE POLITICAL PARTIES THEY REPRESENT really IS like choosing between Corleone and Barzini. Is that choice, by any reasonable measure, sane?
Actually, it’s madness, and once you can accept that, certain strategies open up and become available.
If Ron Paul had been fully willing to look at the two dominant political parties FOR WHAT THEY ARE, he could have, as a maneuver, begun his run for the presidency as a Republican, and then, when it became apparent the GOP was trying to steal Iowa and Maine from him, he could have used that occasion to bolt and declare himself an Independent candidate.
Then he could have gone on the attack, full-bore, by which I mean he could have begun talking to the American people about the deep and intrinsic and terminal corruption of the Democratic and the Republican parties.
Then, instead of talking to crowds of five or 10 thousand people, he would have ended up in stadiums talking to 50,000 people.
Some analysts and historians actually presume that the checks and balances instituted in the Constitution, to keep the central government weak, were also supported, for the same checks-and-balance purpose, by the evolution of the two dominant political parties.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
These two parties do NOT have the primary function of creating gridlock or canceling out each other’s excesses. That’s not the game.
The Republican and Democratic parties, as they have existed for a very long time, actually ensure the prolongation of a vast criminal enterprise, in which the creation of an illusion of difference is foisted on the American people.
It’s rather easy to see how that happened. The generations of leaders of both parties quickly realized that this illusion of difference could define, in the public’s mind, what Democracy was supposed to be all about. And under that cover, money, property, freedom, and lives could be stolen.
And the size of government itself could expand voraciously, because when you own a criminal organization, don’t you want to rule more territory? Isn’t that your objective?
Ask Al Capone. Ask Meyer Lansky or Sam Giancana or Santo Trafficante.
When you own the whole game through a phony two-party apparatus, you have a license to steal.
Now, the bigger this two-party mob becomes, the more obvious it is that a line of propaganda is needed to explain the bigness. You have to explain that BIGNESS OF GOVERNMENT is a good thing. You must. Otherwise, people will catch on. So you say: “the greatest good for the greatest number.” You say: “We’re helping everybody.” You say: “We’re fulfilling needs.” You say: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Now you have Collectivism.
THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM WAS ALWAYS POINTED TOWARD COLLECTIVISM, FROM THE BEGINNING.
COLLECTIVISM WAS ITS DESTINY.
COLLECTIVISM WAS ITS NECESSITY.
THE COLLECTIVIST PROPAGANDA WAS THE MEANS BY WHICH THE MOB GAINED CREDIBILITY, SUPPORT, AND SYMPATHY.
THE FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL WAS ALWAYS THE TARGET THAT NEEDED TO BE DESTROYED.
The two-party system as “the lifeblood of politics?” A giant steaming pile of propaganda.
The two-party system as “the only way to get things done in this country?” Another giant steaming pile.
The two-party system as “a proper reflection of the conscience of the people?” One more pile.
Whenever someone challenges the two-party apparatus, he is told about governments that have sixteen parties and the unworkability and corruption of that system. As if anyone in his right mind would suggest that more parties is the solution to two parties. It isn’t.
The solution to the two-party Collectivist concept is:
INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES RUNNING ON WHAT THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE.
INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES OPENLY AND HONESTLY DECLARING WHAT THEY BELIEVE.
CANDIDATES AFFILIATED WITH NO PARTIES.
And the whole reason know-it-all high-IQ idiots will tell you this won’t ever work is because they no longer know what a free individual is. And when they vaguely sniff out a free individual, they recoil in horror.
That’s the bottom line.
If what I’m proposing seems unworkable or absurd or naïve, it’s because the two-party system has buried the American people under a low ceiling of Collectivist thought.
“In order to run for office and win, you have to be affiliated with one of the two political parties.”
Translation: “You have to pledge allegiance to the political mafia, not the United States.”
If Ron Paul had declared himself a total and complete and absolute Independent, and if he had exposed to the hilt both parties, and explained what their game really is, he would have acquired at least 20 times the number of supporters he presently has.
But Ron thought he could be in and be out at the same time.
That was his problem. It still is his problem.
Imagine what America would have been like if, after the Constitution was ratified, NO POLITICAL PARTIES EMERGED AND ONLY INDIVIDUALS EMERGED AS CANDIDATES.
THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM WAS NEVER REALLY HEADING TOWARD INCREASED COMPETITION. IT WAS ALWAYS HEADING TOWARD COLLECTIVISM.
John Adams, in the early days of the Republic, saw it correctly and saw it exactly:
“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting [organizing] measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble opinion, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”
Even more tellingly, George Washington laid the system bare as he struggled to extricate himself from it: “…party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through which channel to seek it [truth]. This difficulty, to one [a person], who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented.”
Thomas Jefferson, who on a number of occasions registered his acceptance of political parties as inevitable and natural, broke ranks in this very personal assessment: “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men…where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction [to a party] is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go at all.”
Here is another myth: if all candidates for the presidency and the Congress were individuals and there were no parties, the range of opinion would be so great that nothing would ever get done in government.
I suppose that’s true IF the reference point of the Constitution is ignored. But it’s far more likely that 535 independent representatives and an an independent president would remember the Constitution.
Assessing the damage to liberty, private property, individual security, the honest prosecution of criminals at all levels, how has the two-party system fared? How has that system performed?
All major media outlets, and a surprising number of alternative outlets, will not declare the two-party system a hoax. People want to hold on hard to “reality.”
The philosophical underpinning of this “reality” is Collectivism itself. Specifically, it is collectivist perception, the means by which “everybody knows” becomes the consensus.
The primary feature of The Group is: its members look at events indirectly; they look at events in accordance with what they think other members are seeing; they don’t look at or judge an event through their own eyes or minds.
This method of seeing is, in fact, empty. It’s a fantasy. It’s like passing around an unknown object, from hand to hand, and describing it as you believe everyone else will describe it.
You are always listening for “an echo effect” before it happens.
And you claim the echo effect is what you perceive.
It’s a rank absurdity.
On the basis of this absurdity, people say the two-party system of politics is unshakable.
What they really mean, or should mean, is: the two-party system is an illusion, a zero.
Living on the foundation of such zeroes, in all areas of human life, and asserting they are obvious and factual, is the hallmark of The Matrix.
The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.