[Fighting888]

This is Judge Andrew Napolitano. He used to be a very popular, widely watched regular host on Fox News and have his own show, but he was cancelled shortly after making these remarks.

If you wish to have a true Red Pill understanding of the workings of American government and society today, this is a must watch. After seeing this, you'll have a better understanding of how politics and power really work in today's America.

[It_is_my_time]

That is excellent. The bigger the govt., the more feminism, the less rights and money we common men have.

[Cr33pin]

Andrew Napolitano for president 2016

[DChambers]

(07-29-2014 10:32 AM)Cr33pin Wrote:  

Andrew Napolitano for president 2016

If he's on the ticket with Rand Paul or Ron Paul he has my vote.

[TravelerKai]

That was some extra strength red pill stuff. He sounded like a paleoconservative.

[Cr33pin]

(07-29-2014 11:00 AM)DChambers Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 10:32 AM)Cr33pin Wrote:  

Andrew Napolitano for president 2016

If he's on the ticket with Rand Paul or Ron Paul he has my vote.

What about RuPaul?

[Fighting888]

The whole Republican vs Democrat debate is just a distraction that allows our overclass to loot the country while the population is distracted by debates on gay marriage and other superfluous subjects.

[JustJay]

Some talk show hosts do want to unplug from the matrix.

[polymath]

The only tasteless part of that was the plug for his book on the screen behind him near the end of his oratory.

[jariel]

(07-29-2014 11:00 AM)DChambers Wrote:  

(07-29-2014 10:32 AM)Cr33pin Wrote:  

Andrew Napolitano for president 2016

If he's on the ticket with Rand Paul or Ron Paul he has my vote.

One facet of taking the red pill, as it pertains to the federal government, is understanding that presidents are selected, not elected.

Thinking your vote makes a difference on who is the CEO of this multi-trillion dollar corporation owned by the world's elite is straight blue pill.

[jariel]

(07-29-2014 10:40 PM)Fighting888 Wrote:  

The whole Republican vs Democrat debate is just a distraction that allows our overclass to loot the country while the population is distracted by debates on gay marriage and other superfluous subjects.

The illusion of choice.

You're out here voting for uber-wealthy people to have power over your lives thinking they care about you because they look like you; they don't care about anybody.

[davyjose]

(07-29-2014 12:02 AM)Fighting888 Wrote:  

This is Judge Andrew Napolitano. He used to be a very popular, widely watched regular host on Fox News and have his own show, but he was cancelled shortly after making these remarks.

If you wish to have a true Red Pill understanding of the workings of American government and society today, this is a must watch. After seeing this, you'll have a better understanding of how politics and power really work in today's America.

Napolitano is great, one of the few in the MSM who tells the truth. Never understood how he lasted so long on Fox.

[Fighting888]

The sad aspect to this is that America, for most of its history, was actually a democracy in which common citizens did have power over the government and the national economic elites. There was a time when voting did matter and mass citizen mobilization could produce change. As recently as the late 1970s, common working men held the whip over the elites.

In the past few decades, our democracy has been eroded into an oligarchy in which few wealthy/powerful individuals and organizations run the game. These oligarchs dominate both parties. Most of our "political leaders" are not much more than front men for their paymasters. It doesn't matter if you vote for Bush, Obama, Romney, Clinton, Ryan, Christie. The oligarchs have bribed all our major leaders and will get their way no matter who wins. The system is rigged and choice is an illusion.

Unfortunately, the interests of the oligarchs are not aligned with those of the general population. The oligarchs are, for the most part, more interested in looting America for what its worth than sustaining our nation's long term viability. This is why our leaders are constantly embracing disastrous policies (free trade, mass immigration, financialization, the never ending "war on terror", pushing debt peonage onto the masses) which impoverish the masses and enrich 0.1 percent of our population.

America resembles the Roman Empire in its late stages - the rulers loot the empire, while the masses are distracted by "bread and circuses." In today's America, our "bread and circuses" are reality television, vapid social networking, nonstop selfies, sports, and celebrity gossip. The party can't get on forever and, at some point, our currency will collapse.

[TigerMandingo]

(08-01-2014 07:29 AM)Fighting888 Wrote:  

The sad aspect to this is that America, for most of its history, was actually a democracy in which common citizens did have power over the government and the national economic elites. There was a time when voting did matter and mass citizen mobilization could produce change.

This is a common misconception. The US was NEVER intended to be a democracy, and it never has been. At no point in American history did "the common people have the power over the government and the national economic elites". The US was founded as a constitutional republic with only the ELITE (the landowning elite at that time) serving as representatives.

Virtually all of the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution came from privileged backgrounds, so right away you can dismiss this notion of "the common people" having any sort of say in how the country is run. If anything, they detested democracy.

However, I do agree with your assertion that the concentration of power/wealth has increased dramatically over the last decades.

[Truth Teller]

(08-01-2014 07:53 AM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 07:29 AM)Fighting888 Wrote:  

The sad aspect to this is that America, for most of its history, was actually a democracy in which common citizens did have power over the government and the national economic elites. There was a time when voting did matter and mass citizen mobilization could produce change.

This is a common misconception. The US was NEVER intended to be a democracy, and it never has been. At no point in American history did "the common people have the power over the government and the national economic elites". The US was founded as a constitutional republic with only the ELITE (the landowning elite at that time) serving as representatives.

Virtually all of the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution came from privileged backgrounds, so right away you can dismiss this notion of "the common people" having any sort of say in how the country is run. If anything, they detested democracy.

However, I do agree with your assertion that the concentration of power/wealth has increased dramatically over the last decades.

Yes, the United States was actually designed to be as undemocratic as possible, yet still allow the people a say. Only with the passage of the 17th Amendment did the Senate become answerable to the people.

Most people tend to forget that the Founders distrusted the common people, and in many cases, found ways to disenfranchise them. Until 1824, most men couldn't vote, as they didn't own property. Of course, most American History textbooks leave that out, because it doesn't fit the bill of "everyone else is a victim."

[kaotic]

Saw FOX, almost clicked away. Glad I didn't and watched entire thing.

The only lesson I've learned from this is, the USA

[Fighting888]

(08-01-2014 07:53 AM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 07:29 AM)Fighting888 Wrote:  

The sad aspect to this is that America, for most of its history, was actually a democracy in which common citizens did have power over the government and the national economic elites. There was a time when voting did matter and mass citizen mobilization could produce change.

This is a common misconception. The US was NEVER intended to be a democracy, and it never has been. At no point in American history did "the common people have the power over the government and the national economic elites". The US was founded as a constitutional republic with only the ELITE (the landowning elite at that time) serving as representatives.

Virtually all of the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution came from privileged backgrounds, so right away you can dismiss this notion of "the common people" having any sort of say in how the country is run. If anything, they detested democracy.

However, I do agree with your assertion that the concentration of power/wealth has increased dramatically over the last decades.

Up until the late 1970s, labor unions empowered common citizens to negotiate higher wages and pro-worker policies at the national level. Workers ran this country. They ran it fairly well. Economic growth prosperity was shared throughout the economic classes. Since then, most of the economic gains have gone to a few people, many of whom are parasitical.



America did have universal male suffrage by the 1820s.

The American democracy has had checks and balances to prevent mob rule and preserve the rule of law, but the point is that historically oligarchs did not dominate this country.

[Fighting888]

(08-01-2014 10:15 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 07:53 AM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 07:29 AM)Fighting888 Wrote:  

The sad aspect to this is that America, for most of its history, was actually a democracy in which common citizens did have power over the government and the national economic elites. There was a time when voting did matter and mass citizen mobilization could produce change.

This is a common misconception. The US was NEVER intended to be a democracy, and it never has been. At no point in American history did "the common people have the power over the government and the national economic elites". The US was founded as a constitutional republic with only the ELITE (the landowning elite at that time) serving as representatives.

Virtually all of the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution came from privileged backgrounds, so right away you can dismiss this notion of "the common people" having any sort of say in how the country is run. If anything, they detested democracy.

However, I do agree with your assertion that the concentration of power/wealth has increased dramatically over the last decades.

Yes, the United States was actually designed to be as undemocratic as possible, yet still allow the people a say. Only with the passage of the 17th Amendment did the Senate become answerable to the people.

Most people tend to forget that the Founders distrusted the common people, and in many cases, found ways to disenfranchise them. Until 1824, most men couldn't vote, as they didn't own property. Of course, most American History textbooks leave that out, because it doesn't fit the bill of "everyone else is a victim."

Even our system of letting only landowners vote was still more democratic than what we have today. Remember that a lot of those landowners were patriotic and civic minded. Today's elites are much different.

[Samseau]

(08-02-2014 12:57 AM)Fighting888 Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 10:15 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 07:53 AM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 07:29 AM)Fighting888 Wrote:  

The sad aspect to this is that America, for most of its history, was actually a democracy in which common citizens did have power over the government and the national economic elites. There was a time when voting did matter and mass citizen mobilization could produce change.

This is a common misconception. The US was NEVER intended to be a democracy, and it never has been. At no point in American history did "the common people have the power over the government and the national economic elites". The US was founded as a constitutional republic with only the ELITE (the landowning elite at that time) serving as representatives.

Virtually all of the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution came from privileged backgrounds, so right away you can dismiss this notion of "the common people" having any sort of say in how the country is run. If anything, they detested democracy.

However, I do agree with your assertion that the concentration of power/wealth has increased dramatically over the last decades.

Yes, the United States was actually designed to be as undemocratic as possible, yet still allow the people a say. Only with the passage of the 17th Amendment did the Senate become answerable to the people.

Most people tend to forget that the Founders distrusted the common people, and in many cases, found ways to disenfranchise them. Until 1824, most men couldn't vote, as they didn't own property. Of course, most American History textbooks leave that out, because it doesn't fit the bill of "everyone else is a victim."

Even our system of letting only landowners vote was still more democratic than what we have today. Remember that a lot of those landowners were patriotic and civic minded. Today's elites are much different.

Agreed. A public vote system cannot function if too many people get the vote. Rousseau talked a lot about this in The Social Contract. He claimed representative systems were bullshit, because the representatives were only held accountable for their actions at election time and were free to act as they please otherwise. In a big democracy, this problem is exacerbated if the general public is ignorant of how the man in office is behaving.

[Fighting888]

I think public ignorance has increased quite a bit over the decades. If the American public was vigilant about its politicians, they couldn't get away with this stuff. If Americans devoted as much time to politics as they do to selfies/celebrity gossip/sports, American politicians wouldn't be able to get away with this type of criminal activity.

[Veloce]

I think I have a pretty solid analogy to exactly what an elected official is.

An elected official is very much like a corporate HR person.

HR managers give the line level employees the impression that said manager is out for the best interests of said employees. The employees go to the HR manager to voice their concerns, disputes, grievances etc, just like citizens voice their concerns and grievances with their elected officials.

From a line level employee's perspective, HR is their bastion of hope, the power that is on the PEOPLE'S side, HR is where they, the employees, get to make a difference for themselves. And this is true to some extent. The HR department makes sure that the corporation is compliant with labor laws and treat their employees fairly.

But what HR is really for, is not for the benefit of line level employees. Human Resources departments exist to primarily protect the corporation from any number of things; liability lawsuits, strikes, or otherwise disgruntled employees. Behind closed doors, upper level management and HR work very closely to maximize sheep-like behavior and keep employees as subservient and obedient as possible. When a troublemaker comes along, HR is the first line of defense in court and chances are, they have 100 times more documentation than the employee does.

So it is with our elected officials. They protect the global elite from the "employees" through many of the same tactics. More and more legislation gets passed that protects corporations as individual citizens, all of it happening with our full consent and approval. HR managers and politicians are one and the same; a public face for the people, someone to stand on a podium and keep the masses calm, and subsequently turn their back and go back to serving their masters.

[Quintus Curtius]

I find it bitterly ironic that the same television news network which now paints itself as a guardian of individual liberties was only a few years ago relentlessly cheerleading for that very same oppressive government which it now condemns. It voiced unrestrained enthusiasm for foreign wars, intrusive spying on citizens, and unchecked government power.

This is the same network that is owned by an Australian right wing lunatic (Rupert Murdoch), the same network that hosts panelists who are deniers of scientific fact, who are religious extremists, who are fanatical Zionist mouthpieces, who aid and abet the super-rich in their plundering of the country, and who in general spit anti-intellectual venom on a daily basis.

[rekruler]

(08-03-2014 06:38 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I find it bitterly ironic that the same television news network which now paints itself as a guardian of individual liberties was only a few years ago relentlessly cheerleading for that very same oppressive government which it now condemns. It voiced unrestrained enthusiasm for foreign wars, intrusive spying on citizens, and unchecked government power.

This is the same network that is owned by an Australian right wing lunatic (Rupert Murdoch), the same network that hosts panelists who are deniers of scientific fact, who are religious extremists, who are fanatical Zionist mouthpieces, who aid and abet the super-rich in their plundering of the country, and who in general spit anti-intellectual venom on a daily basis.

Rupert Murdoch is anything but a "right-wing" fanatic. It has been a long, long time since anyone "right-wing" has been allowed to hold any power whatsoever in the West.

[Fighting888]

"Right" and "Left" aren't really meaningful terms anymore. Right-wing politicians come into office and expand the size of government and bow their heads to PC. Left-wing politicians come into office and allow financialization and corporatization, which enriches 0.1% of our population and impoverishes our masses. What really is the functional difference between our "conservative" and "liberal" politicians?

The conservative/liberal division is just theatrics. Both parties have the same paymasters and use rhetoric and propaganda to exaggerate their differences.