FIDDLING SINCERELY WHILE ROME BURNS

by Jon Rappoport

June 24, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

“I don’t doubt the sincerity of my Democratic friends. And they should not doubt ours.” — John McCain

 

“Never try to look into both eyes at the same time. Switch your gaze from one eye to the other. That signals warmth and sincerity.’ — Dorothy Sarnoff

 

“In acting, sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” — George Burns

 

 

This is about the oh-so sincere illusion of TWO when there is really only ONE. The public wants TWO. Two Parties. Two earnest candidates. Two ideas in opposition. Two debaters. Two warriors going up against each other in the arena. Two answers, one true and one false. A test. Can you choose the right answer?

 

Actually, there are an infinity of choices, but the ONE controlling elite presents TWO. Night or day. Coke or Pepsi. That’s what the public wants. Two is good. It’s simple. It’s Yin versus Yang. It’s two teams battling it out on the football field. Who do you root for? The Patriots or the Giants? Boil it down to two. It focuses the attention. Either-or. Item 1 or item 2. That’s reality.

 

“Hey,” the Reality Designers say, as they put together The Matrix, “this is a great idea. Let’s give these human creatures A or B. Get it? They’ll think they HAVE TO take A or B. No other options. We’ll weave this duality and simple-minded opposition into The Matrix. We’ll make it seem like it’s always THIS OR THAT. It’s a winner. When they believe they have to go with A or B, their intelligence plummets. Their perception narrows down. Their minds shrink. It’s perfect!”

 

Let’s start here with a recent example of political sincerity.

 

Apparently, Obama and Eric Holder thought the ATF was writing a review of the movie, Fast and Furious—not some insane murderous operation in which the ATF sold thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels.

 

That must be the reason why Obama has asserted Executive Privilege and is withholding F and F documents from the Congress. He doesn’t want the movie review made public. He sincerely wants to protect the public from a bad movie review.

 

A new (questionable) Bloomberg poll shows Obama, at 55%, leading Romney by 13 points. However, 60% of the people polled said, simultaneously, “the nation [under Obama] is headed down the wrong track.”

 

Hmm. So this means Obama is wrong but Romney would be wronger?

 

Who to vote for? Wrong or wronger?

 

What about neither of the above? Can that be written in on ballots? “In a startling development, a candidate named ‘neither of the above’ is carrying thirty-seven states.”

 

The Bloomberg poll also revealed that 55% of the respondents believe “Mr. Romney is more out of touch with average Americans [than Obama].”

 

Subtle. The people polled weren’t asked what they thought. They were (sort of) asked what they thought “average Americans” thought.

 

It’s an interesting idea. The corollary would be: don’t vote for the candidate you prefer. Vote for the man you think nameless faceless average otherbodies prefer.

 

In which case, let the ballots reflect the real situation. We should have this sentence in bold black letters at the top of every paper ballot and touch-screen: WHO DO YOU THINK WILL WIN? INDICATE YOUR CHOICE BELOW. And this is how elections would be run.

 

Tautological headline in the NY Times: CANDIDATE MOST AMERICANS THOUGHT WOULD WIN DID WIN.

 

Of course, “neither of the above” is far better. He’s a candidate I can really get behind. I admire him. He has principles. He doesn’t mess around. He doesn’t make false promises. He isn’t a tool (as far as I can tell) of the Globalist criminals.

 

When “neither of the above” walks into the Oval Office to take up the mantle of president, I’ll be a happy man. I’ll be happy day after day. Can you imagine a presidency in which zero-lies emanate from the White House? People will die from the shock, but every revolution spawns collateral damage.

 

Here’s how I see the current campaign. In the middle of 2005, four guys whose names we’ll never know sat in a bunker below a farm in Virginia. The chief honcho said, “Okay, we know this character Obama will be the next president in 2008. That’s settled. We have to start thinking about 2012, because we want to push racial tensions to a new height, as a viable distraction, while on the side we steal everything we can from the American people. We need a real whitebread candidate to run against Obama. You know, white versus black. It has to be an extreme contrast. Gingrich is out. He’s mainly viewed as a talker. Perry can’t get a word out of his mouth. Santorum is a schmuck. That’s his distinguishing characteristic. But Romney. He’s a white android. He’s stiff. He’s Leave It To Beaver. He’s perfect. Let’s go with him. Make sure whenever he’s photographed without his jacket on, he’s wearing a blinding white shirt…”

 

Of course, both Obama and Romney are Globalists. Their main job is to mention the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, the North American Union, and free trade as few times as possible. So far, they’re doing fine.

 

So fine, in fact, that “the lesser of two evils” doesn’t apply to either of them. They’re in the same Globalist Club. Conservative Republicans don’t care about the Club, because when they look at Globalism, they mistakenly see American empire, and they like that. Democrats look at Globalism and see Fulfilling Needs of the Downtrodden, another complete delusion, a goal that isn’t in the Globalist playbook at all.

 

Coming down both sides of the aisle, it’s the march of the idiots, against which “neither of the above” looks very, very good.

 

In a letter to Jonathan Jackson, written on October 2, 1789, John Adams stated: “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 measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

 

In my experience, most people who say they are voting for the lesser of two evils are secretly in love with their “lesser.” They have a puerile adoration for a stereotype. They religiously believe. They look through a vision of a filter of a lens, and they melt hope into fact.

 

When I stack that up against “neither of the above,” it’s no contest. It’s as obvious as walking away from a conversation at a picnic where two people are earnestly discussing Oprah vs. Ellen, Maury vs. Jerry Springer.

 

Who do you want to captain the bureaucratically engorged ship of state? Obama or Romney? Is that really a question? Does it make any sense? How much externally and internally applied brainwashing does it take to believe it’s a choice? Tons and tons.

 

Yet, millions of Americans will gladly and sincerely and fiercely and selfishly and altruistically make that choice in November. Many of them will think they’re smart in doing so. And (paraphrasing George Carlin) they would tell me I’m forfeiting my right to complain after the election, because I didn’t vote. No, that’s backwards.

 

They are choosing to support the rotting gangrenous burning vessel that is moving in slow circles on the water. I’m not.

 

People are afraid of not voting. It makes them feel guilty. I suspect it comes from the same impulse that causes them to meddle. You know, “Someone somewhere may be making a mistake and I have to find him and make sure that doesn’t happen.”

 

If you draw it out far enough, the ultimate conclusion to meddling-thinking IS Globalism. The overarching plan. The Good for All. The single brilliant system that will include everybody. It’s a ruse, a con. It’s invented to diminish everybody.

 

When you approach the subject of choosing between two destructive alternatives, you’re brushing up against Matrix thinking. Matrix thinking is obsessively incremental. People believe they’re making an intelligent choice based on the assessment of consequences and so on, but really they’re in the swamp. They’re carrying out a line of reasoning based on false choices, bad choices, horrible competing premises. And why do so many people fall for this? Because they’re engaged on the level of systems. They believe in systems beyond the point of sanity. They are swimming and floundering in systematic thought-patterns, and they need to follow that course to its bitter end. And they do.

 

Colleges and universities are loaded with obsessive incremental thinkers. They are a sub-department of The Matrix. They live inside systems and they play those systems out, one drop and drip at a time. Eventually, they make their maze so complex no one can find a way out by following the accepted rules.

 

The ability to cast a vote of no-confidence (“neither of the above”) would have a tonic effect. It would start the adrenaline flowing.

 

In America, this amounts to treason, because we have to believe that one of the appointed leaders is right; otherwise nothing is right. That’s a hell of a precept. It was cut off at the knees once upon a time, when the Colonies created a limited government, a very small government, and within certain limitations tried to enshrine freedom, which meant that every person could make up his mind about most of the important issues. But somewhere along the line, America was bamboozled into giving up on that. Instead, it adopted leadership as the sacred object.

 

One of these morons/criminals running for president has to be right, and the other moron has to be wrong. One has to be the lesser evil. One has to be the greater evil.

 

But Obama was a disaster. Romney, if elected, will be a disaster.

 

You want to know how easy it is to co-opt either of these “opposites” into the Globalist Club? You tell one man Globalism is all about increasing the power of central government, so it can repair past inequities. You tell the other one Globalism is all about the right of big corporations to prosper and engage the free market. That’s it.

 

What you don’t say is that both routes are paved with bad intentions. Along both routes there is a funnel that sucks up populations (and national governments) into an overarching structure of global control, operated by men who care nothing about repairing inequities or engaging the free market.

 

By the time the presidential winner realizes what’s happening, his dissolute personality/character takes over, and he’s just another bad actor doing bad things in the parade. The vetting process that allows a man to win the nomination of one of the two political behemoths, in the first place, guarantees you’re going to have a pretty slimy creature out front carrying the banner.

 

Truth be told, he already suspected the political game, at the highest level, was a ruse, because he knows how to work a ruse. He knows. He’s already a gimcrack con artist. And the grooming period, if he had any doubts, let him know what was expected of him: to be an agent of the destruction of individual freedom.

 

This is where we are. A vote for Romney or a vote for Obama amounts to the same thing. You may feel more revulsion for one man than the other. That’s fine. But deploying that emotion in the service of accomplishing something good is a pipe dream of a very high order. It makes you a victim of your own irrational predisposition.

 

I believe millions of people know this, and they would exercise the “neither of the above” option if they had the chance. In fact, it would be sweet revenge.

 

Well, we do have that option. We may not be able to register it at the polls on election day, but we can stay home and make the point that way. We can abstain from the circus. We can even point out the insanity of voting for Slug One or Slug Two.

 

I know, it’s a long road to victory this way. Well, the road that got us to where we are now was long, too.

 

Ever since 1968, when I began paying attention to presidential elections and speeches, I was aware I was listening to two liars playing games every four years. At first, it was so obvious I imagined someone somehow would step into the fray and interrupt the charade and make arrests. Eventually, I put up with the cartoons.

 

Now, millions of us are aware that these campaign shows are cartoons. The actual human connection that flows from Obama/Romney to The People is sheer fantasy. Even if these two men were sincere, the distance at which they’re operating is too great to make a difference. They’re stereotypes spouting stereotypes to stereotypes. They’re outright frauds, down to their toes. One is pretending he’s a messiah; the other is pretending he’s a champion of freedom.

 

Which fraud is your fraud?

 

The tattered messiah, or the whitebread champion of liberty, whose coat would be tattered a year after he stepped into the Oval Office?

 

In The Matrix, when a person suddenly realizes he’s accepted the burden of choosing between two lies, a bit of an explosion occurs and he wakes up a little. It’s a start. The political arena is not a bad place to have one of those satori moments.

 

Bush-Gore. Bush-Kerry. McCain-Obama. Obama-Romney. Yin-Yang.

 

I’ll tell you a secret about political Yin-Yang. Merging the two opposing semicircles into a Whole isn’t the solution. No, the real answer comes from staring at the locked semicircles until, like a pricked balloon, the whole sphere blows up. Then you know something. Then you realize something. Then you feel a surge of freedom.

 

As I say, it’s a start. Politics 101, American style.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th 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.

www.nomorefakenews.com

qjrconsulting@gmail.com