The Science of Thought Writing

 The science of thought writing: How to cast the System's spell, in order to get everybody on the same page.

We all like to think that our views and opinions are our own, we all have a brain and we have something interesting to say and worth listen to. I mean, how do you dare to suggest that my ideas, views and opinions are not mine, but I actually heard them somewhere else?

This current of thought is in this day and age particularly enforced by high-ranking journalists, Media professionals and Ideology's priests alike: we are not mere cogs in the machine, but we have agency and if all hell breaks loose, it is not because the System is evil and you were just following orders, but you are to be blamed, because you were free to make your own choices and you did what you did according to your own will. Our fake-democratic ideology blows its own trumpet over freedom of speech, but dare anybody in the Media publicly express any criticism about the System, question that "Democracy" may actually not be the best political system or admit that the System really does not work. Not unlike any living being, a system ideology needs to fight for its survival. No one is going to buy a system that does not work. You are most definitely not going to sell your product, if you keep talking about its deficiencies. Those who benefit the most from the System, will naturally be sure to use their ample resources to propagandize it far and wide, in order to keep the business going. Those brilliant professionals working in mass-Media will quickly learn what is the correct message to send to the public, in order to keep their lucrative positions. Clearly those little elements of the machine, which do not perform properly, will be quickly removed and replaced for others. If anything goes wrong, dare to blame the System. Considering that we are dealing with human beings, the System is as perfect as it can possibly get. Make no mistake, it is your fault and yours alone.    

 Yet, fact of the matter is most people confronted with the same situation act in roughly the same way. The Ideology will always disingenuously argue, that the existence of individual cases, where certain people reacted differently, proves that we have complete agency. However, such an argument not only has absolutely no scientific value, but also is grotesquely deceitful. Individual cases, as many as these may be, will never be able to prove anything. In the Life Sciences no theory can ever be proven; but may only be considered valid, until one day some case is found that disproves it. Fact of the matter is, regardless of how similar our backgrounds may be, no one goes through the exact same experiences, but each of us is unique and comes from a different trajectory. If we were to accept the Ideology's grotesque argument to prove the existence of agency, we would find agency wherever there is randomness. If we were to toss a coin, we would have to conclude that it will produce heads or tails, in accordance to its free will at the specific time. Similarly, the mechanisms governing the functioning of a neuron are so extremely complex, that we are not anywhere near to being able to pin them down in an exact manner. All what we know is that the probability that an action potential is triggered depends heavily on the neuron's membrane potential; but there is never any certainty that this will actually take place. Presented to the same input, a neuron will sometimes fire and sometimes will not; it is just that the higher the membrane potential, the more likely it is it will spike. However, it would certainly be nothing but magical thinking to sustain that neurons' capricious behavior is due to the existence of neural agency.         

In the same way that a system's changing responses to the same input does not constitute any proof of the system's agency, the fact that two different systems systematically produce the same outputs to a given set of inputs is an indication (albeit not any Proof) that both systems are following the same logic. Indeed, if confronted to the same situation, people coming from the same culture, react in very similar ways is because people coming from the same culture is socialized with the same set of ideas, beliefs, values and principles. If all prestigious journalists sing praises to the four winds over the wonders of our evil and most absolutely dysfunctional fake-democratic system, it is because they realized from very early on, they would need to do so, if they wanted to have a successful career. Those others who did not, were forever left forgotten in limbo. Yes, journalists enjoy freedom of speech and Nobody tells them what they have to say; they just figure out by themselves what is that they are expected to say. There is no wonder then, why it becomes pretty easy to predict what will be anyone's position in public.

Most definitely, there is a strong correlation between our backgrounds and our thoughts, views and opinions. Based on the culture we come from, it would be possible to make a pretty good guess of what are anybody's views of the world. Based on our family, place of origin, community where we live, sex, race, age, professional activity, etc., it would not be too difficult to raise predictions on what is our favorite cuisine; what kind of music we enjoy; how do we dress; what is our favorite place on Earth; what nation is dearest to our heart; what is our religion (if any at all); what political system we think is best, do you believe that whenever a whole lot of power is accumulated by a single person, he will automatically become a ruthless despot, or do you perceive the nation's supreme leader as the father of his people?; do you think that autocrats are generally ruthless or, much to the contrary you believe the autocrat is the commonfolk's only hope of protection against the upper class' abuse?; are women the kind of irrational creatures depicted by Classic Greek and Roman authors or women and men are the same and women are able to perform any job equally as well as any man?; are disabled people worth admiring or are they just pitiful?; is homosexuality sinful?; is slavery  OK?; are Whites in average more intelligent?; is the Earth round or is it blat?; etc.

In Statistics, two variables are said to be independent from each other, if there is no correlation between them; whereas they are said to be functional dependent, if they keep a one-to-one relationship. For example, in a random population, sex and nationality will be independent variables; whereas tax identification number and date of birth will keep a functional dependency. In numerical terms, the correlation coefficient for functionally dependent variables equals 1; whereas for independent variables the correlation coefficient will be 0. Yet, in the majority of the cases, the correlation coefficient between any to given variables will not be either one or zero, but something in between. For example, in a random population, height and weight will exhibit a significant correlation, since a person's weight tends to increase with height. However, that does not mean there is a functional dependency, since any person may still be heavier or lighter than what is the average for her height, depending on how fat or thin she is. In other words, from a person's height alone, we will not be able to know with certainty what is her exact weight. As important as it is to always keep in mind, that correlation does not mean casuality, correlation remains a very useful tool to identify possible causes for a phenomenon. For instance, given the high correlation between heavy smoking and lung cancer, it will generally be a good idea to check if someone's heavy smoking habbits may have caused the beginning of lung cancer. Yet, on the other hand, the lower number of women in management positions should not be taken as proof of discrimination, nor the higher proportion of incarcerated Black people should be taken as proof that Blacks have softer moral values. Undoubtedly, there are relevan alternative explanations for both of these unfortunate phenomena. For instance, given that any group of low socio-economic origin suffer higher-than-normal incarceration rates, it would be more reasonable to conclude that people of low socio-economic origin is systematically discriminated. Notwithstanding, strong correlation is always a good starting point from where to begin looking for possible causes. THe issue then is to find the true cause, not the one of our liking and befitting our case best.            

      

As much as we may like to think that there is true freedom of thought and our ideas, views and opinions are our own and we did not adopt them from somebody else, the strong correlation between our backgrounds and our views of the world show that there is no such ideal independence, but the culture we come from has a strong influence on how we perceive the world. While it is most absolutely arguable to what degree this correlation is due to sheer deliberate indoctrination or the actual causes are much more nuance, - in this world of ours, where the trumpets are constantly being blown over our abundant freedoms and the wonders of our fake-democratic "Democracy" system, it is critical to acknowledge our minds' vulnerability to external influences and manipulations.

Any white man or woman born two centuries ago would not have had any moral concern against slavery. In other words, if any of us had been born two centuries earlier, we would not have had any moral misgivings against slavery. Clearly, if we are today so vehemently opposed to slavery, it is because from the day we were born, we were indoctrinated into a firm and unyielding condemnation of slavery. Now, if we are not able to figure out by ourselves the repugnancy of slavery, how can anybody expect any credit for his or her rejection of (to name a few) racism, homofobia or religious intolerance? Right, when it comes to our views and opinions, my thoughts are my own and I did not take them from anybody, nor did anybody shift me to such position. But when it comes to our great grandparents being so adamantly in favor of their right to own other human beings as slaves, it is just that they were raised within a different culture and their beliefs were only the mere reflection of the ideas, which had been inculcated upon them since the day they were born. Clearly, either the former is true or the latter, but it cannot be both. In fact, considering that Radio, Television and Cinema has empowered a few to constantly bombard us with messages all through day and night, if there was ever a time where our opinions and views were free of any influence, certainly that would not be today. 

Indeed, it is as striking as telling that in the past intellectuals tried hard to understand human nature; whereas nowadys the individuals at the top of our societies, those most virtuous among us, focus instead all their attention on correcting the infinite flaws of our odious human nature and shape us into the kind of "good citizens", that best fits their taste and interests.

Still, we should cut our great grandparents some slack. Historians emphasized we cannot judge people in the past, by our modern moral code and standards; but (if at all) by their own moral code and standards. This is most absolutely correct. Nobody figures out the world outside by oneself; but the Ideology does for us. When we are little, we need somebody to explain to us everything. In fact, the whole point of the system Ideology is to tell us what is right and what is wrong, what we should do and what we should not do in order to be appreciated by the others, and if the Ideology has the most learned people telling us, that the Earth is flat, who are you to say otherwise? If our great grandparents were born to a world, where from day 1 everybody was telling them over and over again, that Blacks were not quite human and it was therefore natural, that Whites would keep Blacks as livestock; who were they to say otherwise? OK, I understand it would be reasonable to argue, that -despite all what they had been taught - they should have known that they were not any better; but Blacks are every bit as humans as Whites. As a matter of fact, our great grandparents were hypocritical enough, that they would not have any concern about likewise keeping other Whites enslaved, as long as they belonged to a different religion (and therefore to a different system ideology). Evidently, if white Pagans and Muslims did not believe in the only true God, it was only natural for any Christian to conclude, that they could not be children of the Lord. The reasoning was in fact sound enough that it would viceversa make sense to Muslims as well. 

Now, perhaps we believe to be any better than our great grandparents? That is exactly the issue: we all, big and small, are always inclined to believe whatever fits our interests best, and the belief, that We are Better is just the most basic expression of this principle. Fact of the matter is, let us be honest, slavery was never abolished out of moral concerns, but because of political and economic Reasons. Moreover, contrary to what our fake-democratic ideology preaches, the abolition of slavery is probably the best example of how the "Tyrant" single-ruler Boogieman was the only hope the downtrodden ever had of protection against the abuse and exploitation they have always suffered from the magnates. Definitely, it is not known of any slave owner, who has ever celebrated losing his or her human belongings. Obviously, to the extent that magnates were taking the biggest losses, they were as well the most belligerent against the abolition of slavery. If you think Abraham Lincoln got it bad, you ask Tzar Alexander II why is that they tried to assassinate him one time after another, until they finally blew him to smithereens on the seventh attempt. Clearly, the upper classes could not understand that it was only a smart strategic move, and there was no reason to go ballistic about it. It is really bewildering to consider what was really all the fuss about it, if nothing really changed. 

Indeed, if you wanted to still have a slave, not unlike before, you just needed to have enough money to pay for it. The only difference was that now you do not have to pay the slave trader, but instead you just pay the slave directly. This is really good, since now no middle man takes any commission. In fact, we save all the burden and surcharges, which came with the acquisition and importation of the slaves: they are so desperate to put themselves at our service, that they are literally dying to come here of their own accord and expense. The new system is without doubt much more effective than before: Under the old model, the slave did not have any incentive in following directions; whereas now, since it needs to get paid every month, it is kept constantly on its toes. Clearly, the carrot-and-stick approach is far more advanced, refined and effective than just the stick alone. If our great grandparents slaves thought they had it bad, nowadays' cheap labor really need to work their asses off, in order to stay fed. Or do you really believe prostitutes in today's brothles have it any better than any female slave in the past? Indeed, the current system allows for much more freedom: you can just contract the services of your slave whenever you have any need or use for it, and can then carelessly discard it once you are done with it. There is no reason to worry; we are free from all the burden associated with the maintenance of a permanent slave. Admittedly, it is possible to argue that there is also the risk, that one may one day find oneself as well on the wrong end of the scheme; but that is only for dummies, slackers and losers alike to be concerned with, and since that is neither my case nor yours, we can simply disregard such concern. 

   

Best of all, now we can have our cake and eat it! Since they are all so desperate to put themselves at our service, it is only reasonable that we do not call it slavery and are therefore totally entitled to claim absolute moral superiority. Indeed, nowadays, in order to clear any moral concerns, the right to abortion is called reproductive rights, even though it is really hard to see how both terms may not have opposite meanings. Likewise, corruption is now called lobbying; the right of the wealthy to abuse the poor and enjoy a for-all-one's-life 'get out of jail' card is called the right to legal representation; and, last but not least, the law of the jungle is called Democracy. Hence, what could be possibly wrong about calling cheap labor to slavery?

Yes, under Civilization it is no longer "I"; rather, from now on the System's ideology will have us all think of "we". Admittedly, no one likes to be subjected to some norms or rules; but, since we are now all together in this, we can count on the help of all our brothers and sisters. Not only do we feel taken care of, but we also feel appreciated. Clearly, we are more inclined to listen to somebody, who cares for us, than to somebody who does not. Obviously, if they appreciate us, then they should want the best for us, and so there cannot be any reason to suspect their words bear any bad intention. Whereas, if they do not care for us, we may want to be a bit more cautious.

It does not take a whole lot of reasoning to understand, that men and women are not the same and so there are certain tasks -particularly those which require significant force -, that women will generally not be able to perform quite as well as men. This is so much so that there are some other tasks, that men are outright unable to do. Yet, we also know that, if one works hard for something and perseveres, she may be able to achieve almost anything. Now, it would only be foolish to put a lot of effort, if there is no chance of success. Obviously, for anybody to push one's limits, there must be some hope that the effort is worth making. But here are you to burst the bubble, talk some sense and cut her wings with your cold-hearted words of wisdom, whereby it is difficult she will be able to dedicate her entire day to lifting weights quite as skillfully as men. Definitely, do not expect her to appreciate your common sense. I have always hated to fall into wishful thinking and so confuse the reality with my wishes, but perhaps there is a reason, why it is hard for everybody to refraining from doing so.    

   

Yet, on the other hand, it certainly had been better for the Crow to be more cautious, before listening to the Fox's kind, but deceptive, words of praise. It turns out we all have a natural inclination to be trustful. After all, for all of our history prior to Civilization, when we were living free in Nature at subsistence levels and it was not possible to accumulate wealth, no lie could yield much return anyway, and it was therefore reasonable to assume that everybody would just say the truth. Sadly, nowadays a single lie can certainly get you a long stretch down the road to unimaginable success, that one can afford to stab a few folks in the back along the way. Hence, as mama would say, it becomes necessary to be cautious before listening to just about anybody. Thankfully, today it is still, not only possible, but also generally beneficial to listen to certain trustworthy figures. Religious folks have, for instance, always been able to count on their local priest for some good advice, as, at least in a spiritual way, he certainly could be considered the father of the community. Alternatively, for those without religious convictions, now there is still Media to keep us informed. At least in theory, journalists are on our side, always vigilant of any abuse from the powerful. Contrary to what I usually sustain, they are not only there to fight for the freedoms of the wealthiest among us, but they sometimes also support the freedoms of the commonfolk. Divorce, for instance, is for everybody and it does not have to require much money to have it executed. Clearly, anybody can nowadays divorce whenever he or she wants so, and no one will need to go through any kind of serious explaining, in order for the court to get it done. Admittedly, it will then befall on the children to pay for their parents' reckless actions, but ours are great kids and we can rest assured that they will overcome any difficulty, come out successful, stronger than ever before, and will build the brightest future for our nation. Well, on a second thought, perhaps wishful-thinking is generally more detrimental than beneficial. 

  

We all like to think that our ideas are our own, we all have a brain and we have something interesting to say and worth listen to. Yet, there is no denial that, based on the culture we come from, we have strictly different views. We all have our own views, but, fact of the matter is, most folks in Western fake-democratic nations go along with the conclusions and official account of the September 11th Commission, according to which the September 11th attacks were masterminded in the Muslim world; whereas folks in the Muslim world are more inclined to believe, that the attacks were masterminded in the United States.

  

Leaving aside the entire question of who was actually at the origin of September 11th, it is also useful to consider what is the cause for the disparity of opinions based on each one own's background. National governments are usually accused of lying and rigging the investigation of this kind of atrocities; but a whole different ball game is to succeeding at convincing everybody of the lie. The government may lie as much as they want, but it is difficult to see how they may be able to have us believe anything they say (particularly, considering how much we distrust , even despise, our dishonest politicians). Given that we trust and give much more credit to our journalists, the Press is in a much better position to convince the people of a certain account. Still, it seems rather convoluted and unlikely that Western Media and Arab Media may have simultaneously succeeded at brainwashing, respectively, the Western audience with the official account and the Muslim audience with a conspiratory view. To begin with, as far as I know, Arab Media has never made any effort in disputing the credibility of the account raised by the U.S. government; let alone coming up with an alternative conspiracy theory. On the other hand, Americans do not exhibit in private the same confidence in the official September 11th account, as they do in public. It turns out, as much as we like to constantly speak about our freedom of speech, we still do not feel free to openly express our views and opinions. While it is undisputed there is no logical reason for anybody to fear being legally prosecuted, it is far more understandable to feel some aprehension, that it may be perceived antiamerican to express any concern the 9/11 attacks may have been masterminded in the U.S. Undoubtedly, the mere thought that a fellow American may have been at the origin of the September 11th evil is as perturbing as hurtful. It almost feels as if one had done it oneself. Undoubtedly, no one likes to think being responsible for an evil act such as September 11th; it is only natural to reject such a hurtful feeling. THe way I see it, the underlying reason why Americans have gone along the official September 11th account is because we have all embraced the fundamental idea that we are all united in this. As a matter of fact, I remember that for many months after September 11th, all across America people kept putting up signs reading: "United We Stand!". Be that as it may, whether we like it or not, there is no way around the fact that we have come to fully absorb Civilization's core slogan: It is not about "ME" anymore, but it is now about "US". Absolutely, if only one thing, Civilization most definitely succeeded at flashing our brains with the principle: "We are Better". Who in her right mind would want to reject such a powerful message of friendship? You really do not want to prevail? Are you with us or are you with them? Are you really going to side with the enemy? Not only does our Leader loved us; but he is going to defeat all our enemies and lead us into the Promised Land. From here on out, we will follow the Leader along with anything he does to other people. If it is not right, we will not be aware of anything; they surely must have done something wrong anyway... Yet, the day the spoils of war come home, we will be sure to be there to get our share. What else could we do? Shall we reject our share, so that somebody takes it instead? What good would that do?     

 While it is only natural to feel loyalty for our kindred, - given that nations are only a recent phenomenon - loyalty for our nation could not have existed when we were free in Nature, and therefore be inherent to our human nature. Evidently, the call to stand united behind our great leaders is a message that we are indoctrinated with from the day we are born. More often than not, however, the offer of friendship has not been sincere; but turned out to be a sham. It turns out, everyone only looks after oneself, and those at the top of our societies have evidently done better than anyone else at this. As natural as it is, blind trust in our leaders is anything but rational. If only because of the love to our nation and everybody's wellbeing, it not just behoove us, but it is only sensible to stay wary and keep our eyes peeled for any powerful elements in our society, who - in the relentless pursuit of their very private interests - will never feel the slightest trouble, qualm or concern betraying everybody else. Undisputably, it is just natural to fool ourselves with our wishes, and fall for some sweet words of praise and love, but it certainly did not do any good to the Crow to believe her singing was a gift bordering on that of angels in Heaven..

Be that as it may, the whole argument, whether September 11th was masterminded in the Muslim world or in the United States, is self-defeating,however: the moment we enter the discussion, we are conceeding - albeit inadvertently - the justification of the vicious and barbaric response following the terrorist attacks. Even worse, in general terms, we are conceeding that the invasion of a nation is immediately justified after an evil terrorist act. Indeed, beyond everything, even if the U.S. Government's account was correct and the attacks had been masterminded by Osama bin Laden, the immediate invasion of Afghanistan and the deaths of many tens-of-thousands of human beings it caused was not justified; definitely not with the hastiness it was ordered: when everybody's emotions were running so high and no thorough investigation had yet been conducted. Only once it had been firmly establish that the Afghan government had been decisively implicated in the plot, it had been reasonable to bring the international community together to determine and organize a concerted response. Anything else is nothing but barbaric. Before we start trumpeting "We are better" to the four winds, we need to first establish what we are, and based on our response to the September 11th terrorist acts, we are anything but civilized.

As humans began living in large densely-populated settlements, it quickly became clear to everybody, that we were not going to be able to keep the freedoms we used to enjoy in Nature. We all know it: my freedom ends, where your freedom begins. In order to ensure a peaceful cohabitation we would need to respect some norms of behavior. Some of these norms would be voluntary and were intended to educate and guide the individuals on how to win the appreciation of the other members of the community. Yet, some other norms were mandatory, in order to protect the weaker folks from the abuse of the strongest individuals in the society. The point of the Law was to codify what conducts were harmful enough, that had to be strictly prohibited. The Legal System was then likewise established to judge and sanction when such laws had been violated. In order for the whole system to work, one norm has to stand over all others: No one could be allowed to take the Law into one's own hands; otherwise all hell would break loose. Obviously, What is true at the individual level holds exactly the same at the collective level. In order to keep a peaceful cohabitation, no nation should take the law into its own hands, otherwise all hell will break loose. The publicly endorsed decision to invade Afghanistan in retaliation for the September 11th terrorist acts, evidences that, far from progressing, our moral code has degenerated to a really dangerous and frightening level. Our response constituted the ultimate triumph of the 'right makes right' principle. There is no doubt that nothing is as evil as a genocide. Yet, from here on out, no moral objection will preclude anyone to allege the same right to self defense, in order to justify a genocide. In other words, while we would all agree there is no justification to a genocide, we will still do it, if it so suits our interests. Indeed, It is not just that the 'might makes right' principle is wrong but it is the very negation of the sheer concept of a moral code. Yet, there should be little doubt that, without a moral code, our civilization is simply not viable, unless our real aim is to follow the law of the jungle to the fullest, until we finally succeed at wiping off all other peoples from the face of the planet.

Definitely, far from just a mere ethical issue, the necessity to abide by a moral code is a concern of existential consequence. With the rise of Civilization, the society got organized in three separate groups: those who fight, those who pray, and those who work. In a way, it is kind of a huge family, with lots and lots of children, some already grown up, many more still little. Dad and the big boys regularly go out to bring home some bacon, mom and the big girls look after and take care for everybody's spiritual and physical wellbeing, and the children - much like the adults - constantly quarreling one against another. Nevertheless, we still like to think we all love each other, we are all children of God and, on the whole, are a lovely family. What else could we say? What else could we do? 

As mama always says, we have to stay united or we will not make it out alive in this wild world of ours. From the day we were born, she devoted all her energies to make of us the best person. We were her beautiful, little project. She taught us our morals, and expected us to follow them. No doubt about it, the last thing we wanted in this life was to disappoint her. Certainly, we will never love anybody like as a child we loved our mother. That is why there will never be any more wonderful feeling than when she rub our back, hugged us tightly and said: "This is my child!" We have met her expectations and she loved us.    

Yes, we are good people and like to live peacefully. We would never want to hurt anybody, but one needs to stand one's ground, and should anybody ever try to injure us, we will most absolutely be sure to respond. Definitely, as much as we fully understand that in this wild world only the strongest survives, we still need to believe that, we are not only the strongest, but, above all, we are the good guys; or how else would we be able to argue that we are God's chosen people and the Lord is on our side? No doubt about it, propaganda was not invented because there was a surplus in the budget; but it had a crucial purpose to fulfill and a critical need to satisfy. What fool would speak of a Department of Attack, when you can just call it Department of Defense? Make no mistake, conquests were always only meant to extend Civilization, spread the word of God and illuminate the soul of all those brutish Barbarians out there. The Roman Republic, the genesis, cradle and dawning of the System (to the extent that it constituted the blueprint used by the founding fathers to design our current fake-democratic regimes) never initiated any unprovoked war. Rather, it always waited to get a 'casus belli': Whenever the Romans wanted to fight a war, they went on poking the victim in the eyes, until it would not stand it any longer and react; thus providing the excuse the Romans had so anxiously been looking for. Needless to say, the Romans would never state it so blatantly. Rather, Cicero, the most preeminent, illustrious and influential Roman intelectual, and master of orators, verbalized the Roman imperialist ideology in much more elegant and rhetorical terms: Rome would only fight just wars; that is, wars sparked by a provocation or justified by legitimate defensive concerns. Even then, entry in any war would always have to be preceeded by a ritually prescribed formal declaration. The ideology's point here is that scrupulous Roman piety would be essential to securing the Gods' favor, without which no imperial success would be possible. Long story short: Romans were intrinsically a cut above everybody else and thus worthy of leadership.

Now, we really do not need to dig that deep in the past in order to find imperialist ambitions and warmongers everywhere. In point of fact, as shown by the decision to invade Iraq based on the false allegations of Sadam Husein's weapons of mass destruction, there has always been and there will always be individuals everywhere eager to initiate wars, in order to further advance their very private interests. Needless to say, wars cause the loss of thousands of human lives; not only among our enemy, but of our own countrymen as well. If warmongers are ready to assume the deaths of thousands of fellow citizens in the war they so very strongly advocate and lobby for, it is a foregone conclusion they will equally lack sufficient troubles, qualms and concerns for the casualties a terrorist act here at home will cause. Then, considering that it is not that difficult to stage a terrorist act, in this day and age warmongers need not to put a whole lot of thought in order to figure out how to achieve their objectives. Definitely, there should be little doubt that, without a moral code, our civilization is simply not viable, unless our real project is to follow the law of the jungle to the fullest, until we finally succeed at wiping off all other peoples from the face of the planet.

  

OK, so we have come to understand that those individuals at the top of our society, the most educated and wealthy among us, just like good parents to their children, care for us and want nothing less than the very best for our nation. We are so happy to support and follow them in all their endeavors and ventures at home and abroad.

However, it will take a bit more than they repeatedly telling us how much better we are and how much they love our nation and care for us 

in order for us to just do exactly as they say. Definitely, why are we going to spend the entire day toiling, while they are basking in the sun, enjoying themselves at their luxurious villas? Most absolutely no! What kind of fools do they think we are? We will need to get something out of this, before we row once more. 

In fact, how did we come to this? How come just a few manage to have everybody else do as they say? I would also like to have folks do as I say; but nobody listens to me. Actually, is that not how things are supposed to be, anyway? Are we all not expected to sort out our own business, and not have others do it for us? At least, that is how it used to be in the good old days. Sure, we would come together and help each other, but certainly not spend the whole freaking day toiling for somebody else. No doubt about it, life was much simpler when we were free in Nature. We simply lived our lives feeling happy if we would just be able to fill our bellies and have the love of the people around us. We led our lives making our choices and taking our actions based on what we felt would bring happiness to our souls. However, one day Civilization knocked on our doors and along came money. As we were civilized, we learned that we could get (or so we believe) anything in life, as long as we had enough money to pay for it. Hence, we began focusing our lives, more and more, on the neverending pursuit of money. 

Yes, civilization came to completely shape our way of thinking and our understanding of the world. Civilization came to transform our very concept of our sheer aim in life. We forgot about being happy and instead focused entirely on making money. Well, are they both not the same? In fact, system ideologies are so powerful that we got totally convinced, that in order to be happy, we need to become ridiculously rich. The most fundamental of our priorities thus got switched. From here on out, we will spend our whole life totally obsessed with making as much money as possible, and will never have time to pause for a minute and consider, if money does actually contribute to our happiness. For most of our history, humans have done it without money, and, if it were not because of the occasional times of extreme scarcity,  they were probably happier than we are today. Babys could not care less for money (as a matter of fact, for at least the first year of their lives they do not even care for toys), but instead just want somebody who loves them and is willing to play with them. Thus, it cannot be something inherent to our brains. If we consider indigenous communities, one would say that the simpler we keep our lives, the happier we feel. Clearly, our instinctive conceptualization of happiness could not have evolved around the notion of money. How did we then come to so completely confuse happiness with money? The Ideology has drilled it so deeply in our brains, that we would swear it has always been there. No wonder we then spend the entire day toiling to make some bucks.

Our entire lives thus circle around money, so that the wealthiest among us control everything: nothing will ever happen, if there is no money to fund it; while, on the other hand, we will be ready to do anything for a little bit of money. Money is the bait our masters use to get us do anything. Now it is as easy as piling a nice heap of money on a place of their choosing, and everybody will immediately run to it. If it makes money, we will absolutely love it!

Rich is the God of the Wind, the Ideology is the wind that blows our sails, and money is the bait that sets the exact course we all are going to follow.

 Nobody will ever love you as dearly as your little child; yet women today do not care that much about having children, but now they have discovered that the real dream of their lives is to have a professional career. I think it would be reasonable to argue that perhaps the true desire is not that much to have a job, but to have an income and the financial freedom that comes with it; but, if that were the case, at this point both thoughts have become so intertwined, that probably most women would explain they just want it all.  

In our interactions with other humans, we are subject to two opposing drives: on one hand we want everybody do as we say, and be focused on accommodating each and all our needs and desires; however, on the other hand, we feel an existential need of love. We just have to come to terms with the reality that we cannot have it all. We have to choose between one or another, either we impose our will on the people around us, or we just delight ourselves with the wonderful feeling of being loved; but it cannot be both. Clearly, in order to be loved by somebody, you have to be attentive of that person's needs and desires. Therefore, if your real desire is to be truly loved, you cannot just go about carelessly imposing your will upon everybody around. Now, money seems at times may be the solution to this dilemma. It is usually said that everybody has a price. If that is the case, then it is just a matter of offering enough money and people will do anything for you. In fact, if you so happen to be a gold mine, they may even love you. Obviously, it is more than questionable they will actually love you or they will rather love your money; but, for all what matters, how will you ever be able to tell the difference? If only one thing, those who have always been able to buy with money their daily servings of love, will never have had the opportunity to get a taste of how it feels to be truely loved. Furthermore, as much as we all know that very few, if any body at all, will be there for you the minute money disappears, if you do not have any plans of going broke anytime soon, there is really no reason to worry about it. 

 

Let us all say it out loud, no matter how big your problems seem, Money will save the day! Money is the God we all now worship, opulence is the Heaven we all long for and the wealthy is the clergy whose teachings we all follow. 

Definitely, we all have come to completely absorb the elite culture. In the context of the social sciences, the term elite culture refers to the set of beliefs, values and practices shared among the most influential or powerful individuals and groups within a society. They set trends that others in society may follow or react against. 

Contrary to conspiracy theories, the elite is not a selected group of wicked, machiavellian and sinister individuals, who regularly assemble secretly in some dark room to decide the set of norms and policies, that the governments of the world will have to follow or else... Rather, elite individuals are just successful people, either due to their political or economic power, their physical, intellectual or artistic prowess or perhaps just simply their spectacular beauty. In any case, their success is attested by the staggering amounts of money behind them. No matter how much you boast about your talent, if it does not make you money, it is simply not worth it.

Now, elite culture is inherent to our nature. We all do our best to exalt our own excellence. What else could we do? You are certainly going to look very humble, honest and sweet, if you go on talking about your deficiencies and shortcomings, but do not expect to get hired for a good job that way, let alone find a partner. Definitely, if you do not sell yourself, nobody will do it for you. If you want to know how to do it, you can learn it from elite people; they are masters at the art of selling oneself; their success speaks for it. An elite person will never miss a chance to signify himself or herself from the rest. You may be able to recognize them by their fancy hairstyles or extravagant clothes; but, most of all, by their ostentatious displays of wealth. Now, make no mistake, it is not just that they are different - not even just special -, but simply superior. Since the first emergence of social classes way back in prehistoric times, those individuals in the upper levels of the community have put a whole lot of effort to justify and elaborate on all sorts of reasons, why they were naturally entitled to such a higher and privileged status. Elite persons are so much more beautiful, gifted, intelligent, virtuous and honorable than the rest. It is certainly difficult to find the right words to express in all their glory how special, amazing and fantastic they are. To make a long story short, they are simply the best or, if you so prefer, the aristos. Proof of their superior nature are the facts that these human beings do not smell, they do not have bad breath and they exhibit the most distinguished appreciation for the finest food and the most delightful music. Even if nobody is looking at them, these folks will still need to reaffirm their divine nature, by staying away from taking a graceless, unnoble and most undignified posture, should there be ever a time where they feel like rendering a visit to the toilet. Now, none of the above would hold any significance if it is not accompanied by an extravagant, ostentatious and most ridiculous display of wealth. After all, anybody can act wierly, but do you have any money to flaunt and show for? Much unlike everybody else, they are so awesome and consequently have so much money that they do not need to do any work, and that is why (so long most of the jobs were carry out outdoors) they made sure their skin would always look so chillingly pale white. It may sound sarcastic, but fact of the matter is that, if only because their wealth electrifies the wildest of our dreams, they undeniably constitute our models and set the trends we all so fervently follow. Regardless of whatever adverse effects on our health, we will so try to take a shower at the first sight of any sweat on our body, we will run to brush our teeth after each and every bite and, as we undeniably do need to use the toilet every now and then, we will likewise stay away from taking any graceless, unnoble and most undignified posture while doing so.

We mock this kind of ridiculous conducts with the disdainful expression: "monkey see, monkey do"; but the underlying concept does warrant some serious consideration. In our deeply rooted hubris, we enjoy to think of ourselves as the demigods of the animal kingdom, arrogantly looking down our noses to all other species. Yet, in the same way that elite individuals are as human as everybody else and there is absolutely nothing divine about them, human beings are no demigods and the mechanisms underlying our basic behaviors are little different - if anything at all - than those of any other animal species. Indeed, not unlike what is the case in any other animal, imitation is our brain's main learning mechanism. Not only there is nothing stupid about it, but it is only smart to learn from what has previously proven successful. Why reinventing the wheel, when someone has already done it for you? In the same way that children follow their parents guidance, because they are more experienced, knowledgeable and, all in all, wiser, it is only natural that children instinctively follow their parents' example and end up acting like them. After all, if it worked well for the parents, there is no reason why it will not work for the child. Things start going down the drain, though, the day that our model fails to be any wiser, let alone superior. Much to everybody's misfortune, it is more and more the case in human societies, that in order to reach the upper levels of the social hierarchy, it is not necessary to prove any greater talent; but it is just the mere consequence of mom and dad's ridiculous fortune.     

As a matter of fact, no matter how much they may try to disguise it with new  retellings of the Cinderella story, creative people have always come from the upper classes. The unwashed masses may have been talented for the art of war; but other than that, peasant youths cannot afford to be leisurely sitting there just creating art. Whereas peasant youths have always been insistantly reminded of their insipid, rustic and dull nature; uppor class youngsters are always cheered and encourage to allow their imagination to fly high and - no matter what - will in all occasions be praised to the skies for even the most rudimentary expression of their wonderful creative spirit. Definitely, if you do not love her art, it is only because you are a blank potato and do not know to appreciate art. Sooner rather than later we will all end up agreeing that an elite person's success nothing but speaks to his or her grandiosity. What had started as a justification, has ended up serving as proof. Our brains will never quite understand that their success is not the natural consequence of their extraordinary talent, but we find them so extraordinary talented due to the staggering amounts of money behind them. Ask Van Gogh how it was that he only sold one painting in his entire life...

    

This is, however, not to say that art, imagination and innovation are all just a big, fat hoax and all this talk about creative work is total BS. Or are you ready to argue that Opera is not superior to Pop music? While I believe it is certainly reasonable to make such a case, undeniably the composition of an Opera piece involves a much more intricate intellectual process and a much more intense mental effort than just cutting one more pop single out of a hit template. It requires considerably more training and skills to perform an Opera than recording a pop song in a music studio. Similarly, a newspaper editorial requires significantly more thought to write and, consequently, provides much more valuable information and insight than a tabloid's frivolus sensational story. As a matter of fact, hopefully you will think there is some substance in my analysis of human nature, and will not view it as some mere hollow ramblings. I swear I have spent years working on it! Now, obviously, in order to assimilate some complex material, a stronger education and a more intense intellectual effort will likewise generally be necessary. As much as certain distinguished individuals may try to deny it, no one is likely to feel a true innate appreciation for opera, but it would have to be first inculcated upon him or her. Alternatively, many folks - fully aware of the extent to which true passion for opera is associated to a more distinguished condition and elevated status - are willing to go great lengths, in order to warm up on it. Similarly, in order to understand an academic text, some basic training on the subject in question, as well as a little effor will be required from the reader, and it will therefore rarely be as entertaining to read as, for instance, a romantic novel. Much to everyone's disfortune, the lower classes have always been left out from these opportunities; they have never received neither the education nor the encouragement necessary to be in any good condition to understand and appreciate the most complex materials and cultural expressions. Consequently, as much as we will never want to admit it openly in public, we have all come to accept that the Children have never been prepared to tell what is good from what is bad, or what is right from what is wrong. However, in the same way that theater was created in Athens' Democracy to educate the populace on how to cast their votes at the newly instituted democratic assembly, the main function of modern Media is to provide useful information to the citizenship, in order to help guiding their choices.

On the other hand, the downside is that, since only people from the upper classes are able to express their ideas and interests on the Media, everybody starts embracing the views and ideas of the upper class. Above all, money will become the supreme value, for all of us to worship. If we could have so much money, we would be able to get and do anything we fancy. If only we could learn how to make so much money!; we better quit trying to come up with our ridiculous ideas and instead listen and pay close attention to everything they say. If only we could just be like them! But We would never be like them, because we will never have that much money. Worst of all, much like our heros, all of a sudden we no longer know how to achieve anything without money. Definitely, we have not yet been able to come to grips with how much of a pernicious effect does Media - especially Television and Home Cinema - have on our societies. We stopped thinking for ourselves. Now only the very important people in the Media does all the thinking, and we all just listen and nod. Indeed, we became slaves to the elite culture.

 How to get you to do as I say

The incredible scientific and technological advancements of the XIX and XX centuries led many to fear, that eventually things may get out of control. For once, everything seemed to be possible, and it was just a matter of digging a little bit further until somebody will figure it out. If we had found out how to build flying vehicles, transplant a human's heart, or record and subsequently play live video and audio; what would stop us from becoming invisible, traveling in time, bringing dead people back to life or traveling to distant galaxies? Considering the severe implications of some of these discoveries, it was only natural to be concerned about them falling into the wrong hands. What had happened if the Nazis had got the atomic bomb? Certainly, be careful what you wish for.

There is a good case to be made that, if there is any one such discoveries that warrants quite some shivers down everyone's spine is how to brainwash and program a person's mind. In fact, some of the most popular conspiracy theories center around the idea that certain high-profile assassinations might have been committed by someone, who had previously been brainwashed for that specific purpose.

   

Fact of the matter is the animal brain is so extremely complicated, that the idea of literally writing some thoughts into someone's brain seems even more unrealistic than finding a needle in a haystack. Furthermore, considering the Brain Sciences' current rudimentary state of the art, it is extremely unlikely that anybody may be anywhere close to achieving such deed anytime soon. Something totally different, however, is how to get a human being to follow - as voluntarily as religiously - someone else's directions. As powerful as it is, such an exercise is anything but extraordinary. As a matter of fact, we all continuously witness phenomena of that sort in our ordinary lives; or how have you come to always religiously pay all your taxes of your own accord? Perhaps you fear being fined if you do not; but what about going every day to work? Evidently, humans did not have to develop rocket science to figure out how to cast that spell; but for millennia those at the top of the social hierarchy have been following - albeit probably not in a deliberate, spelled out, principled and methodical manner - a certain set of practices; whereby they would not even need to resort to any coercion or threat of force of any kind, in order to have the entire population heed their every instruction. In point of fact, the art of getting folks to voluntarily follow someone else's directions constitutes the sheer basis of Civilization. The fact that already in ancient times a very reduced group of people kept entire populations under some kind of spell indicates that

whatever practices they followed should have been based in rather rudimentary principles. Furthermore, given that said practices have shown to work on any kind of people everywhere, the mental processes and mechanisms being exploited should be likewise basic. Indeed, as frivolous as it may seem, it is useful to consider why children obey their parents or, for that sake, any adult they feel cares for them? Yes, the most effective mechanism to have a human being follow someone else's directions is to convince him, that it is in his very own best interest . If we Frame it this way, the daunting, formidable , somewhat sinister, but certainly stunning, black-magic task of keeping a human being under some sort of spell, fullfilling the warlock's every command, gets simplified to the much more conventional and rudimentary practice of just talking that person into following someone else's guidance. No rocket science at all, indeed. 

Children have a firm understanding that their parents, not only are far more knowledgeable, experienced and know much better what is best for them, but also care for them and want the very best for them. Consequently, for a child, it would not only be misguided, but even stupid not to follow its parents' guidance. In general terms, much like children to their parents, we are naturally inclined to listen to and follow the guidance of those persons, who we feel care for us, and we find stronger, wiser, more insightful or simply successful and powerful. If they are so successful and powerful, they clearly must be into something, and therefore - given how very much we wish to achieve the same fortune - it would only be in our very own best interest to learn and follow their magic formula.  

Thus,in order to obtain someone's adherence and following, two basic conditions need to be fulfilled. First, the confidence and trust of the pupil has to be won: he needs to be convinced, that the master cares for him, and wants the very best for him. Next, the master has to establish his superior nature. Ironically enough, while the 'wanna be' master's affection for his 'to be made' pupil is more likely to be false, - given that we all love to hear good news - the 'to be made- pupil will generally be less skeptical of the 'wanna be' master's friendly advances, and - given that nobody likes to be told what to do - will instead be far more unwilling to concede, that the 'wanna be' master is more knowledgeable, let alone holds any intellectual superiority. Unless, the master has a lot of money to show for it, obviously... If the master is really successful, more often than not the situation reverses, and it is actually the prospective pupil, who will be actively seeking enrollment in the master's academy.

I think we have all had this experience in our conventional lives. Whenever a new group of people meet for the first time, everybody is very sweet, nice and friendly; at times even loving. Clearly, everybody is trying hard to win everyone else's trust and affection. However, it will not be long before the competition starts: we will never admit it, but it is not enough that you appreciate me, but I need you to appreciate me more than to anybody else. Folks, especially men, will then start trying to impress and flaunt their knowledge and overall intellectual talents. The endeavor is, however, as hopeless as foolish and pathetic; since no matter how much of a sound advice you may try to offer, no matter if they even actually agree with you, no one will ever genuinely concede to a peer (unless they are after something...), that he or she is right and is more knowledgeable, let alone intellectually superior. Ask Van Gogh how it was that he only sold one painting in his entire life... This odd behavioral pattern may help explain, why it is generally such a bad idea to physically eliminate a known critical individual. Once he is dead, this instinctive aprehension that he is just trying to become the next alpha male dissolves into incongruity, his critical message is first considered in its own terms and the soundness, strength and power of his arguments is appreciated and recognized in all its true value.

Women, on the other hand, do not seem to have this annoying inclination to time and time again boast about their intellectual abilities. In fact, a woman generally will not need to prove her intellectual superiority in order to have her say. Let us be honest, whether it is politically correct or not, intelligence is not the woman's attribute men go bananas about.

To make a long story short, contrary to what our fake-democratic ideology disingenuously argues, regardless of one's sex, nobody ever ascended to power because the rest came to concede he was the brightest bulb in the room. Rather, only the strongest - either physically or economically - would be able to make his way through. In general terms, in order to become supreme leader, it is necessary to prove one's wits, by first building an imposing fortune. Only once you become the wealthiest guy in town, folks are going to be willing to listen. Your success evidently speaks to your superior nature. For all what matters, you are a God to us. You are our loving Father and very much care for our wellbeing. We know the rules: if we worship you and do as you say, the land will flourish; but, if we dare to challenge you, you will push us back in our place. 

While the elite's rise to power required for the emergence of Civilization probably involved in most cases some use of force, systematic violence is obviously not a viable long-term approach to govern a large population. Rather, in order for Civilization to take root, it was necessary that man came up with some idea, by which he would be able to keep the entire population under some sort of spell, always following his every command. There is a very good case to be made, that religions - more than military conquest - played a major role in the expansion of Civilization, through the transmission of ideas and practices to foreign rulers, that these could in turn use to obtain the unconditional loyalty and following of their subjects. The historical record shows innumerable cases of religious sages from the civilized lands fanning out bringing their teachings to Barbarian chiefs revealing the secret formula, by which a dynasty may be able to rule over millions of people in an empire stretching for thousands of kilometers. The chief needed to associate himself and accept the embrace of the Gods. The idea is basically, that the King ought to give to the Gods, and in return He will receive Their blessings. Thus, empowered under the Gods´ wings, - not unlike the Pharaoh - the King would be able to provide for the prosperity of his subjects; if they did as He said, that is. It goes without saying the King - not unlike the Pharaoh - knew best what pleased the Gods and what brought their wrath. There was certainly a reason why the old King always took us to be His children, and we in turn observed him as our loving Father. We definitely followed Him with the same veneration, devotion and fervor as children follow their parents guidance.

Absolutely, the beauty of the scheme was that now the King's conquests were no longer merciless violent agressions. Rather, not unlike today's expansion of fake- Democracy, there were mere sort-of-evangelizing educational campaigns. According to this propaganda, the King was not seeking the people's submission, but only bringing the blessing and protection of the most powerful of all gods. Yes, other warlords worshipped other gods, but the King's divine patron was the true one or, at least, the most powerful. There was in fact a win-win association between the King and His divine patron: Thanks to His God, the King was able to effortlessly obtain everybody's submission without even firing a shot. On the other hand, the God was using the King to likewise extend Its dominions over all humans. Interestingly, two vicious, tightly intertwined fights were simultaneously playing out: while down here on Earth warlords were savagely exchanging blows for terrestrial supremacy, right above them the Gods were vieing for divine supremacy. In reality it is all part of the system ideologies' fight for survival and world supremacy over all humans. Back in the day it was kings exchanging blows by the grace of each own's God; today it is nation states competing on behalf of their respective political systems' ideology. Either way, much like living species' survival-of-the-fittest rule, Whichever ideology produces the strongest society will eventually prevail.

        

As a matter of fact, feasts and religious sacrifices, and the loyalties that arise from them, have also been suggested as another potential factor in the rise of Civilization. If you were a successful hunter, had lots of game to spare, and did not have any fridge where to save it for later; would you not be happy to throw some party and invite some friends over? Furthermore, who does not love to be treated to some free food? But, wait!, has there ever been anything such as free food? For religious and political leaders, feasts, banquets and free food events in general have certainly always been the best and most successful recipe to gather acolytes, devotees and followers alike. Definitely, the conquest of anybody's heart has always begun at the stomach. In fact, as it turns out, the stomach holds the key to the brain as well. Are you not going to be grateful to the hand that feeds you? Would you not want to, at a minimum, listen to your host? Would you not want to learn how did he manage to get so much food? Whatever his secret, one thing is certain: the Gods favor him. Clearly, the scheme is and will always be the same: May the Shepherd lead His flock to green pastures.       

With the rise of Civilization, one (linked by intermarriage) extended family rose to power and, consequently, two classes of people emerge in the society: namely the aristos and the commonfolk. As much as they will always say, that they care for us, we are just like a big family and we should all work together for the greater prosperity of the land, good education will always be restricted to the upper class. Not unlike parents to their children, it will be left to those at the top to explain the world to the Children, so that they can judiciously navigate through life. We so learned that money is the most reliable route to happiness, We are better than Them, There are good people and bad people, and there are intelligent people and, then, there are some others, who are kind of dumb, or at least are not so intelligent.

These few ideas constitute the core of any system ideology past and present. They establish the foundation, whereby those at the top are able to legitimize, justify and perpetuate their powerful and privileged position. This ideological framework has been engrained in any civilized human being of the past and the present, to the extent that we have all wholeheartedly embraced it and will faithfully adhere to and follow it throughout our lives. Yet, as much as we all have very little doubt, that these principles are fundamentally true - sometimes even swear it -, there is in fact an excellent, rather elementary, case to be made that, each and all of them are actually profoundly incorrect. Those at the top systematically restrict good education to their offspring. No wonder then, there are the most knowledgeable! They will obviously be better able to tell how things work and therefore look more intellegent than the rest. Now, since their superior intellect entitles them to systematically determine what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong, it does not get too difficult for them to be the kind of good citizens, who always stay on the right side of the Law. If they ever fancy anything they do not already enjoy, there will never need to resort on any violence to get their way: they had already established that the State has the monopoly on violence, so the Law will systematically, expeditely get it done for them. If they ever want anybody to do anything for them, they will only have to point out their bank account and we will all go bananas about it. If they ever run low on cash, they will only have to say the word and, following their superior judgement, we will go rob some other people's bank or just invade some resource-rich nation. Yet, much to everybody's frustration and grief, no matter how much money we make, nobody will ever be happy, because - as it turns out - the key to happiness is just to be loved, and the more money we own the more difficult it is to be loved for who you are, rather than for the money they can get from you.

 

Still, in order for a system ideology to grow strong, it needs to include some provision controlling the access to political power. Otherwise, if the wrong guy ascends to power, the Ideology may get undone. As a matter of fact, the origin and raison d'etre of system ideologies is to legitimize political office. As strong as the Pharaoh certainly was, he could not afford to be time and time again going out to stamp out some rebellion. Rather, it was a far better approach to explain, that He was the Gods' First Servant and Protégé, so everybody did what He said or all hell would break loose. As a matter of fact, the reasoning kind of made sense: In all likelihood they already believed some Gods existed, who were in control of everything. The Pharaoh had pulled off this incredibly miraculous, superhuman and supernatural feat of defeating all his rivals and unifying the Northern and Souther Egyptian kingdoms. ...There was no way around it, the Gods favor Him, so better do not mess up with Himn or else... 

  

Well, if you do not believe in the Gods, you are probably not going to buy the idea; but in Ancient Egypt,it most absolutely did it for the Pharaoh. Thus, from here on out, any man who succeeded seizing power did not really have to bang his head much to understand, that, if he wanted to perpetuate himself on top, the most successful recipe so far was to explained his triumph was nothing but proof, that the Gods favor Him. Consequently, so long we worship Him, our loving Father will bring the Gods' blessings to His Land.

However, as time passed and our scientific knowledge of the world slowly grew, the old King's 'divinely appointed monarch' account of the right order of the Universe became more and more untenable. Bless the Children!, they will never stop playing, asking pointy questions, always messing around! For goodness sake! the old Pharaoh had not even got right, that the Earth is round! Indeed, if we consider old legends and oral traditions, let alone written historical accounts; it is not that we can say that the most educated of our societies have ever been any truthful. In fact, it all seems like the right question to ask would not be, where is that they lie; but if there was ever a time where they actually told the truth. It definitely appears to be part of educated people's DNA, an existential preocupation in the neverending pursuit of an account of the world and supporting arguments, that would justify and consolidate their dominance over the rest. As Civilization slowly expanded, the Alpha -Male would less and less be the strongest, but the most knowledgeable. Whoever came up with the best account would prevail. With the rise of the French Revolution, the most grown-up Children among us chopped the old Father's head off and installed a new order. From here on out, force will no longer legitimize power, but the most educated among us will become the new Alphas of the society. Money is the new Adult class' God (although for obvious public-relations reasons, they prefer to be constantly referring to It by the lofty name of Freedom), and it goes without saying that Money favors them: So long we worship them, they will bring Money's blessing to the land of the free.  

It is easier for them to say it, than for us to do it, though. The idea was that if one was smart and worked hard, we would eventually likewise make it to Heaven of financial freedom; but that does not seem to work anymore. In fact, our world has grown so complex, that, if we do not have someone to explain stuff to us, we would definitely feel at a lost. How does a bulb magically light up after turning a switch on. How does a computer work? How does a car engine function? How can be weather forecasted several days in advance? How does a freezer produce ice? How is video and audio taken in some place and then transmited and broadcasted to locations thousands of miles away? 

 

Furthermore, now that the Father of the Nation has been removed and we have been instead empowered by our so-called Democratic System, we have to take responsibility for our own lives and decide for ourselves what way we want our society to go. Indeed, we are expected to make choices and decisions, and take responsibility for them; yet, how are we going to do it, if it all seems like it is necessary to study a master's degree in each and all of the many important facets of life and our modern world, in order to start reaching any basic understanding of all that is needed? Which professions offer the best  prospects? Which are the top schools in my desired field of study?

How can I stay healthy? What are the latest trends in beauty and fashion?, which are the best movies now playing? who are the most successful singers of the moment? Which are the best cars currently in the market? Which are the most profitable investment options today? How does the economy work? Is Sadam Husein stockpiling weapons of mass destruction? Is climate change caused by humankind? Which political candidate will make for the best president? 

In today's world we have several different options, from where to gather the information, that may help guiding our choices. Probably the most common option we rely upon to obtain some insight is the Media, in its various forms: Radio, Television, newspapers, etc. More recently, we have been blessed with the invention of the internet, which I really love. Online we can find comprehensive information on any topic, in whatever level of detail we may require. However, on the internet it is typically difficult to identify, who is the author of the material provided, and, most importantly, how reliable it is. 

This caveat rarely applies with the Media. Indeed, Media outlets are generally big and prominent organizations, which would hardly ever be able to be involve in any illicit activity. After all, the Media is controlled and run by people in the upper levels of the society, and it only makes sense that no one like those who get the most, have more to gain or to lose from, respectively, the nation's positive or negative fortunes. The most educated people is evidently more knowledgeable and is better prepared to understand the finer details of any material. They are likewise best suited to explain and tell stories, with which to educate the public.  If that would not be enough, - since everybody but the most awkward folks is always eager to be publicized - no one like the Media has ready access to the most eminent figures in any field. Equally as important, if not more, is the fact of the massive resources required to create any kind of quality content: It certainly takes a lot of time, effort and money to write a book, make a movie or produce any kind of show; let alone to run a Media outlet. Furthermore, Media is clearly not the sort of business activity with the best prospects of yielding a high profit. Clearly, whoever invests in Media does not do so with any kind of focus on gaining a lot of money. Rather, the general argument typically made is that Media is a service provided to the public, as a means to give back to the society. Whether we want to believe it or not, it certainly stands to reason that the prosperity of the nation is in the best interest of the wealthiest in the society, since they will always be first in line to benefit from any economic boom. If only because it is ultimately the people who elect the government, it is in the best interest of the wealthiest to provide good insight and guidance, or a bad government could lead to everybody's downfall.

Still, as strong as the argument certainly is, it is likewise true that historically it has been very rare the case, where this tight interdependence between the fortunes of the privilege and the nation's has not been lost on the former. Indeed, most often those at the top of the society have been so myopically obsessed with their immediate enrichment , that they completely lost all perspective of the long-term consequences of their insatiable greed. After all, distributing your money among anyone around is not the most straightforward approach to get filthy rich. Now, mass-Media certainly goes great lengths to have us believe that not only do they seek the nation's advancement, but they also care about our wellbeing: mass-Media is always looking for any chance to give us useful information and advice on good health habbits, leisure activities, safety, consumer products and services, etc. Mass-Media loves to tell beautiful uplifting stories of hope, overcome, encouragement, empowerment and overall positive, inspiring attitudes. If there is any injustice, abuse or violation of human rights, (particularly if a despicable politician is to be blamed for the immorality) mass-Media will be the first to voice its outrage and express the harshest condemnation. If there is any calamity, mass-Media will manifest the deepest dismay and will go beyond to provide all the relief, help and support to the victims. And you say that journalist have a heart of stone? 

Well, given our historic experience it is not only reasonable but also smart to question, whether those claims are true or not. We definitely would not want to be duped once more; as the saying goes, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Unfortunately, figuring out whether mass-Media's alleged mission is actually what it purports, or there are in addition some other more dubious motives, is easier said than done. Undoubtedly, whoever intends to make the case that mass-Media defends the interests of the wealthiest families in the society, will definitely have to dig deep for strong arguments. To begin with, mass-Media has quite an undeniable record they can point at, uncovering one after another scandals and cases of corruption, by the most prominent politicians and high-ranking officials in the Administration. Whether well deserved or not, fact of the matter is mass-Media has a well-established, solid reputation of credibility. Adding to this is the fact that there are some ideas, which are really easy sells: it certainly does not take much convincing to get a child to embrace the belief, that every year Santa brings gifts on Christmas Day. There is a good case to be made that, contrary to what our fake-democratic ideology affirms, women were overall not discriminated in traditional societies. Yet, who is going to bell the cat? I certainly would not want to take it to my girlfriend...

There are obviously several well-studied techniques to convince people of even the most non-sensical ideas. We are all familiar with the 'three men make a tiger' strategy: anybody would end up believing anything if sufficient people repeat it. It is not a sign of stupidity, but it only makes sense: if everybody agrees, what makes you think that you know better? Another very effective approach is to cleverly slide some falsity amidst a long discourse of sound and truthful statements. Clearly, the orator first builds up on his audience's trust, with a charming, powerful and spellbinding exhibition of well-thought-out, rock-solid, wise and judicious arguments; and once the listeners have lowered their guards and are ready to take anything from him, the poisoning message is injected. This strategy - if conducted with sufficient care and conscientiousness - works really well for intricate and controverted subjects, and can be truly powerful. Naturally, if you do not master a given subject, you can only go by trust. For instance, if a political candidate says that the elections have been rigged, no rational analysis of the evidence will ever determine whether we agree with him or not. Rather, those who believe he will favor them - and love him as a result -, will agree with him; whereas those who believe he will go against them - and dislike him as a result -, will not agree with him. Evidently, emotions play a fundamental role in the human brain. It does not matter if the brightest expert comes to set the record straight; how could you know that he does not have an ax to grind? There are all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories out there, perhaps a few of them are right on, but how would you know which ones? Clearly, once our trusted cicerones and guiding lights alike have reached a conscensus, it becomes a fool's errand for anybody outside that circle to try to turn the tide; it is basically like running uphill against an avalanche.

Fortunately, however, there is still a rather simple way to find out, when someone is being dishonest. Evidently, if one person says one thing and later says the opposite, either he lied on the first time or he lied on the second. However, sometimes it gets a bit more subtle: rather than blatantly lying, some double standards are used. That is, first one rationale is followed to argue one thing, and later the opposite argument is applied to contend something different. Now, whereas exposing a lie normally results from an unintentional slip; the practice of double standards are nothing but voluntary. Clearly, it is necessary to organize one's thoughts and reasoning things out, in order to elaborate an argument.

Typically, double standards are used , in order to boast someone's interests; either a single person's or those of a collectivity. Now, when a journalist follows double standards, it is obviously not in order to advance her personal interests. Clearly, the media outlet that pays her will never allow her to use the company's muscle in her very own private benefit. Rather, she is advocating for the ideology that her boss is aligned with. In other words, she is basically speaking on behalf of the ideology that pays her, and it is just that said ideology is sometimes a bit contradictory. Certainly, nobody enjoys to act dishonestly; but, if your livelihood depends on it, what else could you do? It is all well and good to stand by one's moral principles, but, as cynical as it may sound, fact of the matter is, if you decline to follow directions, you can be sure you will be push aside and someone else would do it instead.

It is generally said that mass-Media is biased in one way or another, and its real aim is to influence the vote of its audience. Yet, manipulating the people's vote is definitely far easier said than done. Whatever the bias being applied, it has to remain really subtle, or it will no longer pass unnoticed. Obviously, once it has become exposed, the exercise would be nothing but preaching to the choir, and will therefore be of no consequence. Going fake is definitely a tremendously (probably the most) effective strategy to get someone to do something against his or her will; but it only works so long it is not discovered. 

I therefore believe it would be fair to concede, that - while individual media outlets may always try to favor certain related political tendencies - mass-Media overall is not about instructing the people on how to vote, but to inform and explain what they believe is good for the country. From there it is up to us to decide, which political candidate we consider will make a better job. Still, however we choose to cast our vote, mass-Media does stress the supreme importance that we do exercise our right to vote: it is paramount we understand, that we have to cast our vote or our opinion will not be counted.

The only problem is, if for whatever reason, one's opinion just happens to be a profound discontent with our fake-democratic system, it is rather difficult to find any way to make one's opinion at all heard. After all, as far as we can remember, there has never been any elected government that we have quite liked. Furthermore, if by any chance we ever find a good government that we really appreciate, the way our fake-democratic system works, we would not be able to elect it ever again. More and more it feels like our fake-democratic system only allows us to choose between the lesser of two evils. Last but not least, if all that would not be wicked and sinister enough,altogether skipping voting would not even do to express our discontent with the System, since that is always read by mass-Media as a sign of our indolence and sloth. You know, if you do not vote, you have no right to complain. THe logic is actually rather awkward: apparently, you would have more of a right to complain, even if you were part of the majority who voted for the winner on the last elections. Goodness gracious, as it turns out, the System fights tooth and nail for its survival!

 

It is, however, not mass-Media's fault that our fake-democratic system does not allow us any option to vote against it: It is not mass-Media's role to take decisions, but, at most, to help taking informed decisions. The problem is that mass-Media is only concerned and preoccupied with the populace's education. Yet, if it is important that the citizens make well-informed choices, equally so (if not more) is it that the government has a good understanding of what are the citizenship's problems, needs and grievances; particularly if the elections - beyond cosmetic retouches - do not provide any alternative to make any sort of meaningful systemic or structural changes. As a matter of fact the Press' raison d'etre was not to educate the citizenship; but it came into being as the commonfolk's only opportunity to voice their opinions.

Our fake-democratic system was born to the French Revolution, when the bourgeoisie brought down the Ancient Regime's 'divinely-appointed-monarch- royal ideology. Since the king had the last word on anything, nobody was really happy except for the king, of course; however, most vociferous were the bourgeoise. The high aristocracy was not that bad after all, so they were not particularly keen of seismic convulsions. On the other hand, the peasantry had enough struggling to stay alive, that naturally they did not have time to worry about politics. The bourgeoise made up for the bulk of the skill workers: craftsmen, artisans, merchants, doctors, journalists, lawyers, etc.. I think it would be fair to say they constituted the base of the French Kingdom's economy. Yet, no matter how much they worked, how much talent they exhibited and how much wealth they generated, they had no say in matters of state, because they did not belong to the right bloodline. Towards the end of the XIIX century the French Kingdom went bankrupt, and the King could not think of any better idea than to ask those who had most money to chip in some coins. Needless to say, all the wealthy folks were mightly unhappy, and the Press made sure to express that out loud, far and wide: if the kingdom was bankrupt, perhaps Maria Antoinette could pawn her jewelry? Then the odd diamond necklace affair broke up and the Press escalated its castigation: it turned out the king's tax increase was meant to collect funds to buy a beautiful necklace for the queen! The old Father of the Nation did not understand why His Children did not love Him anymore; God had given Him the mandate of caring for His Children, that is what He had always done and He intended to continue doing. However, obviously, that all sounded total bullshit to the educated people of the realm. As far as they could tell there was nothing divine about the guy. He definitely did not look any stronger, smarter, wiser, or whatsoever; hence, why would you take orders from him? Not unlike children who reach puberty, the bourgeois had the motivation, the skills the muscle and the money to challenge the King's supremacy, and it was so not long before revolutionary pamphlets were rolling down the presses, calling for popular uprisings. The bourgeois did not need to rack their brains to realize that the survival of their revolutionary cause depended as critically on their freedom to disseminate the new ideology as the royal ideology's fate necessitated to stifle any voice of discontent. In order for the Revolution to succeed, the bourgeois needed freedom of assembly as well as freedom of speech and press. However, the royal officials were sure to argue that, in order to keep law and order it was necessary to conduct searches and seizures in the home of those suspected to maintain weapons and subversive propaganda. In fact, the King had all the might of the most powerful army in the world at his disposal to crush the revolutionaries; but the pathetic tyrant did not have the cojones of doing so. Probably the poor fool genuinely believed a loving father would not do that to his children. Evidently, the king was doomed: the beast had woken up and once it got into motion it was impossible to turn the tide. Modern Democracy was so born and freedom was pledged to everybody. 

That is, however, when repression began in earnest: With the rise to power of Democracy, the new French Nation got submerged into a reign of terror, where nobody was safe. Indiscriminate searches and seizures, trumped-up charges, show trials and summary executions became the norm. The Press remained aloof to the horrific bloodbath, though. The new ideology was still in its infant stages and, much like a savage newborn beast, it had to viciously fight tooth and nail for its survival; all enemies had to be mercilessly eliminated. Much like a virus in the organism, whoever did not steadfast support the Revolution was not a true French, but a criminal guilty of high-treason. It may sound overdramatic, but, as the first commandment of any system ideology unequivocally affirms, in this world there is only one true God; so that you ought to obey the Almighty and are forbidden of believing in any false god. In other words, you cannot follow two different systems at the same time; thus, whoever did not believe in the new ideology, obviously had to believe in the enemy's ideology. Indeed, there were still many royalists around, who were mightly unhappy with the new state of affairs, and understood equally well that their sheer survival depended on bringing the Royal Ideology back.  This was so much so that they were ready to join the foreign forces of the continental alliance against the new French Republic. It turned out, the European monarchies likewise saw the Revolution as a virulent virus and did not want the infection to spread into their realms. They knew what had happened to the French king and nobody wanted to be next on the chopping block. As the royalist forces progressed on their way to Paris, the days of the new french Republic seemed to be counted; but the new ideology was stronger than anybody could have ever anticipated. The Press had succeeded at creating a sense of unity and our land was no longer known as the French Kingdom, but it was now the French Nation. Indeed, whereas the European monarchs had to hire mercenaries to fight for them, every French citizen was a soldier ready to die for the Republic. The new Republic's ideological advantage was definitely decisive: so long the land belonged to the King, it was his responsibility to defend it; but now that it belongs to us, it is our duty to fight for it. THe call for levée en masse was so a total success, and it was not long before the tide turned and the royalist forces were on the run.

Paradoxically, the bloodshed of the Revolution's reign of terror was not limited to the royalists, though. Yes, the Revolution ended up eating its children. Clearly, the fight for power knows no friends and pretty much all the Revolution's original political leaders likewise ended up on the chopping block. Man will never understand: we keep thinking that we can use the ideology's line of argument to advance our own private interests; but it is only the ideology that keeps riding on our backs and horses are periodically changed on its way to supremacy.  In the years after the French Revolution, politics became indeed an extreme sport. After all, the fight for power had always  been. Just because violence could no longer be used to legitimize power and it was now necessary to defeat one's opponent with stronger arguments, that did not mean that you could still eliminate him, politically or altogether physically, with, for instance, a smear campaign, trumped-up charges, political assassinations or an outright coup.

The XIX century was in fact an extremely convulsive time; probably like no other one in our history. Humankind was definitely at a lost. All until then, we had come to accept a framework of ideas, that seemed to explained how the world worked: Some Divinity existed and, as much as there was some controversy on what was its exact nature, everybody seemed to have a firm understanding, that it controlled everything that happen down here on Earth. It then goes without saying, that the Divinity likewise determined who would rule us on Its behalf. On this most importan little piece, however, there was generally quite a bit of an argument: In all likelihood, no matter how they looked at it, the king's siblings and cousins, familiar as they were with God's appointee, just could not make out anything divine about the guy. OK, Dad was totally a God, and His conquests most absolutely speak to it; but this guy here...? Yet, what could they do about it? Everybody worships and follows him so very obsequiously, sheeplishly, stupidly, as if he were some sort of freaking demigod! Needless to say, it would only be foolish to try to convince anybody that the whole thing is a sham, the guy is full of it, there is nothing divine about him, but he is just some mundane jerk. Is it here the argument that everybody fell hook, line and sinker? Not only is everyone going to find it a vile, heinous and ghastly insult to the Gods; but they will be mightly enrage at the suggestion, that they were all stupid enough to fall for the sham. Furthermore, why bother? Why bite the hand that feeds you? Why shit where you eat? Are you really doing that bad? You really want to blow up the whole system asunder? Be careful what you wish for, because you may actually get it. Definitely, if the royal siblings and cousins knew what was good for them, they certainly would not want their wildest dreams to come to fruition. If there was anything the upper levels of the social hierarchy did not want, it was to undermine the set of ideas, beliefs and practices, that so very much privilege them. For goodness sake, our ancestors had precisely come up with such a framework of ideas, so that the family would forever stay on top! That was exactly the greatest of their feats; that was precisely what was so awesome about them. If we can enjoy such lavish and luxurious lifestyles, it is because folks believe we are related to God. So long folks keep thinking we care for our people, and we know best what is good for them; they will continue following our guidance and doing as we say. So, dumbhead, do you really want to break the spell? Are you really sure you want to mess up with the system ideology? 

As a matter of fact, at some point one may start wondering, who is really in control? Is Man still free or did the ideology actually take over? Indeed, given that we all tend to believe in whatever fits our interests best, if the system ideology is the hand that keeps us well fed, at what point our belief in the system stops being a free choice and at what point starts the ideology actually running our mind? Did the royal family believe in the word of the Lord, because they genuinely believed in God's existence, or because the Lord had granted them a divine mandate to rule over all other humans? In point of fact, all throughout History, everywhere we look we can see a regular pattern: the first king of a dynasty was always the charm, whereas all those who followed were just hopeless. The guy who starts the dynasty, was not born to rule; rather, he climbed through the ranks and, by his sheer courage, effort and talent, eventually was able to seize power for himself. Through hard work and trial-and-error, he had developed the street smarts necessary to figure out what it takes to cast a spell to get everybody to do as he said. Afterwards, instructed and disciplined by his father, the old King's son may actually extend the family's fortunes for a bit longer; but once the old King's battle-hardened spirit is dead, all those who follow are just hopeless. There is no way around it, the way the brain works, those who never have to put any effort in achieving anything, will never develop any talent. Befitting to the heir to the throne, the new King may have been put through the finest education, but he will forever remain a spoiled kid. The entire family will see that the guy is a pathetic, useless jerk - if there is a God, it could have never sent us this hopeless monkey to throw us off the cliff -; yet, we will all abandon ourselves to our tragic fate, before anybody would dare to point out, that the Emperor is actually naked, there is actually nothing magic about His new clothes and the whole spell is actually nothing but a sham.

Never mind, the bourgeois had just now burst the bubble and brought the whole system down, as a matter of fact. It should not come to anybody's surprise, let us get real, not only were they playing the fool, but they have come to be aware of it. While we were resting on our laurels, they were working, turning thoughts over in their minds, figuring things out. They were nobody's fools, and they were getting done being taken for fools. Let us admit it, for quite a while we had been making it blatantly transparent we could not care less for our people, to the point that anybody could read it from our foreheads; but now it was likewise becoming clearer and clearer that, if God existed at all, it most absolutely could not care less about our family, let alone favor it. It actually all started going down the drain the day our incompetence became as glaring as the light of day. The Children were going to stay ready to fool themselves and keep on believing, so long Santa continued showing up on Christmas Day; but now it was just getting hopeless.    

The cast having been broken, it was now necessary to cast another one; so that the society could keep going. Everybody needs to be on the same page or we will not go anywhere. As a matter of fact, it would be fair to say, that during the decades following the French Revolution, we were running around like a headless chicken. Yet, who do we follow now? If God does not exist, or, at least, it is not part of Its pay rate to appoint our shepherd, how are we going to figure out, who is going to lead us to greener pastures? Big problem! Well, not really for our revolutionary fathers. For them it was actually piece of cake. Definitely, for them it was pretty self-explanatory; no matter how they looked at it, they could not see it any other way: the most intelligent individuals in the society are obviously those with the most money. Clearly, it is part of elite individuals' DNA to conclude, that their privileged status cannot be anything but the natural consequence of their superior nature. Or, perhaps, you have ever met anybody ready to concede, that his or her success was mostly a consequence of the fact, that they enjoyed far more opportunities than most other folks? You are certainly not likely to reach success with such a humble attitude, in the first place. Prior to the Revolution, the idea had been that the aristocrats' divine bloodline and noble origin was the cause for their superior intellect, as proven by their victories in the battlefield. Today, under the new fake-democratic ideology - since the argument had been that the existence of God cannot be taken for granted, and violence could not be used to legitimate power -, those at the top of our society limited themselves to pointing out, that their superior intellect - as gifted to them by the grace of Nature - was unequivocally proven by their ridiculous wealth.

Furthermore, if it was self-explanatory that an individual's wealth is unequivocal proof of his superior intellect, it could only be reasonably concluded that those wealthiest among us should set the course the nation will have to follow. This is so much so that, as freedom-loving, equal, and fraternal as we were, our revolutionary fathers originally only allowed the vote to the richest individuals in the nation. Now, the new system's unwavering veneration and worship of the almighty God of Money had only started with restricting enfranchisement to the richest men in the nation. Most Absolutely, the new fake-democratic ideology, even more than ever before, consolidated and reinforced a mentality, whereby those individuals born to a wealthy family will enjoy all the opportunities ever imaginable to finding a dwelling place in the Heaven of Money. Yes, our fake-democratic system granted us a buttload of awesome rights and freedoms; but their actual worth is as good as one's money: no money? no rights. Yes, we have the best health care professionals; but do you have the money to pay the worldwide highest prices on health insurance and prescription drugs?  If you do not like any of this, - as unpatriotic as it is to criticize our beautiful fake-Democracy - you are most absolutely free to say it; but do you really expect any media magnate to offer you their microphones to take note of your speech? Still, worse comes to worst, if any of your many freedoms and rights is not recognize, you most absolutely have the right to take it to the crooks system; but do you have the money to pay the kind of powerful attorney, needed by the crook in order to rule in your favor? Definitely, ours is the best system your money can buy.        

Oh my God!, did we really go through all that Revolution trouble, just to come back here, where we have always been? Well, not everything remains exactly the same, though. At least now we do not have to deal anymore with some ridiculously clownish Father-of-the-Nation tyrant, always annoyingly standing in the way of business, goofly and pathetically arguing time and time again, that it is His divine mandate to protect His children from the abuse and exploitation of the magnates. Indeed, we jump out of the frying pan, only to fall into the fire. Now, it goes without saying, leaking this to the children would be as dumb as it had been of the old King to admit, that God actually did not play any part in His appointment. As a matter of fact, the new ideology of the nation had pledged liberty, equality and fraternity for all, and that was why the children had followed us all along the Revolution. Consequently, while the System does what It does, we better tell folks, that, for grown-up Children, Santa comes on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November, or we can be sure that the family's fortunes will go down the drain.

   

Definitely, the Adults have always had this full-of-oneself ways of thinking, that the Children are stupid and will always fall hook, line and sinker for any BS they may come up with. While it may seem sometimes reasonable to conclude that Children are as over-trusting as good-natured, it is likewise reasonable to call into question, if perhaps the Adults are any smarter at all. Indeed, we are all born with the same brain and - no matter how many people, how many times they say it - it is most absolutely false that some people is born more intelligent than others. There are some folks, who we may say are learned, and then there are some others, who - either because they never had the opportunity to receive quality education, sufficient encouragement or whatever other reason - have been left uncultivated; but that does not mean that if they had enjoyed similarly favorable conditions they would have likewise excelled. In fact, it is actually not as easy as to just barking one's orders around, and everybody will follow. Rather, there is some trick to it, and, if not done properly, the spell is just not going to work.  

Undoubtedly, the smartest approach to tackle a problem is to research how that same question has been addressed in the past, and imitating whichever solutions seem have yielded the best results. Why reinventing the wheel? The bad news for our revolutionary fathers was that, the most-common 'divinely appointed monarch' spell was, for obvious reasons, not an option. The good news were, however, there was still one other ancient system ideology, which suited our revolutionary fathers' needs beautifully. Indeed, the Roman Republic's - likewise fake-democratic - ideology, not only had done wonders (as proven by the unparalleled success of the Roman Empire); but, befittingly enough, it shared the same sick repulsion and abhorrance for any autocratic figure. Given our deeply rooted inclination to confuse the reality with our wishes, it was only natural that, from all possible causes to explain Rome's success, our revolutionary fathers chose the one, that best fitted their likes, and, consequently, determined the key had been the Republic's military prowess. It is just too bad that our revolutionary fathers completely missed the fact, that Rome's maximum territorial expansion, as well as greatest prosperity and highest standards of living took place during the II century AC; well in the era of the emperors. Ironically enough, if the American founding fathers ever had any doubt on this interesting detail; - as Jefferson was getting ready the Declaration of Independence - he could have checked the point on Edward Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", freshly published just a few months earlier. It turns out, as intelligent as we enjoy thinking we are, it is generally the case that we try out stuff, but then do not have a clear idea of why it worked. Hence, when we attempt to replicate the experiment, we only get mixed results. It is then not really surprising, that, in the U.S., where there were still vast swathes of land available for expansion, and there were good opportunities for most everybody, fake-democracy - much like in the Early Roman Republic - worked fairly well during those earlier times; whereas in Europe, where the social classes were much more markedly defined and equal opportunities had gone out the window long, long time ago , fake-democracy - much like in the Late Roman Republic - was characterized by intense social, economic and political upheavals and convulsions. The logic of the fake-democratic ideology was, that - in the same way that scrupulous Roman piety had ensured the Gods' favor, without which no imperial success would have been possible - our religious adherence to the fake-democratic creed is likewise essential to securing the favor of the God of Money, Democracy and Freedom. Yet, even in the U.S. it would not be until victory in World War II that the American economy would really ignite. From the citizens' perspective it certainly stood to reason, that, if the System would never worked for everybody, it was because only the wealthiest were allowed to vote. We therefore got so excited when universal suffrage was finally granted. It was the dawn of a bright new era. The change we have for so long been wishing for - but feared  would never quite arrived -, had finally come into being! Clearly, whoever had ever argued that the upper class did not care for us and only intended to perpetuate itself on top, had just been proven sorely mistaken. It was certainly as impressive as unprecedented, that the upper class would so generously be willing to give up power just because; but, fact of the matter is it had already been quite a while, that the magnates had lost interest in political power: it was just not worth the trouble. You see how much Hell uncle Louis had got, just because some journalist had maliciously suggested, that the whole tax rise was about buying some necklace for the queen? If violence can no longer be used to legitimizing power or advance the head-of-state's interest, and the Press is always going to be turning around every stone, looking for the flimsiest excuse to chop the President's head off; then seizing the highest state office for oneself not only does not offer any incentive to a magnate anymore, but is not good at all for one's own business. As far as the magnates were concerned, whether the president would go left or would go right, so long he would not stay in the way of business, it was all good with them. Let the children kill each other over the crumbs... After all, the President will surely always be looking forward for the exciting opportunities that, so long he stays a good boy, one day will open up for him, once he leaves office and the Press' hawk eyes are finally shifted away from him. Indeed, given that the Press is only concerned with matters of state and the President's patron's private business is off limits, it is much better for one's own business to have the President on one's current or future payroll. Interestingly, political corruption somehow became the stone that kills two birds: on one hand, it is by far the safest scheme to have the state work for one's own business, while, on the other hand, - as uncle Louis could tell you - the profound, irremediable discredit of the political class ensures that no politician will ever be able to amass the required political capital to stay in the way of business.

In fact, remarkably enough, the President's popularity never gained traction. Much unlike Rome, there has never been any claim, that the President held any kind of connection with the Divine. Hence, mundane as he was, there was for us no indication, that he would love or care for us. In fact, as much as we could tell, he very much looked to us like just one more of those unscrupulous, self-serving, corrupt, hypocritical and, most of all, despicable politicians. Yes, we have always understood he is very powerful - he is probably very clever and knowledgeable as well -; but if he does not truly care for us like a loving father; we definitely cannot trust him and it is only foolish of anybody to expect, that we will ever feel captivated by his spell..

On the other hand, there is no doubt that, from day 1 we have adored the idea of democracy; to the extent that we religiously venerate, worship and follow it, as if it were some sort of God, and we hold absolutely no doubt, that, by doing so, one day, soon enough, we will reach the paradise of riches. As a matter of fact, Cicero, as the voice of the Roman Republic's ideology, had been living proof, that leadership could be exerted even more effectively with the word than by the sword. His discourse was the kind a strict but loving father would use with his children: on one hand he liked to exalt the superiority of the Roman character and always encouraged his citizens to strive to give the best of themselves; but, on the other hand, he would not beat around the bush to castigate anyone who had fallen short of his expectations. Clearly, the Romans did not only see him as a wise and enlightened senator, but a caring human being as well. By a stroke of luck, he had hit upon the 'Spell Casting' magic formula; his "We Are Better" discourse had unlocked for him the Roman citizens' minds. 

In the same way, we follow the guidance of our journalists: not only do they have the best information and have readily access to the most knowledgeable people, but we understand they care for us like good, loving parents. Thus, paradoxically enough, we profoundly distrust the very person we have just chosen to taking care of us and protecting our interests; whereas we deeply trust and religiously follow the guidance of the media professionals on the payroll of the magnates, who we seek protection from. In fact, this paradox will soon highlight a fundamental contradiction in our fake-democratic ideology (especially as mass-Media grows more and more pervasive with the advent of Television): namely, we elect the President to fight for us; but the fake-democratic ideology's first amendment establishes that the President has to answer to the magnates' employees. Indeed, awkwardly enough, we faithfully trust the journalists' on mass-Media magnates' payroll to scrutinize and inspect the dealings of the very person we elected to protect us from the magnates' abuse, in the first place. Oh my God, please, save us!, The hens themselves expect the fox to guard the henhouse. Yes, we will definitely need God to save us, because the President will most absolutely not. We expected him to fight for us; but in order to keep his job, he has to court the wealthy's clergy's favor. No wonder we cannot trust him; he is most absolutely going to double-cross us! If at least journalists were on our payroll, and not on the magnates'. If only it were not a fake-Democracy; but a true democracy! 

Dejectedly, if all what is left to us is to pray and hope, as fake-Democracy's Pontifex Maximus prescribed, we ought to scrupulously adhere to the commandments laid down by the God of Money, Democracy and Freedom. In fact, staunch and zealous devotee of the Ideology as it undoubtedly is, mass-Media clergy is relentlessly committed to strengthen and heighten our Democracy fervor and compliance. 

We certainly can rest assured that mass-Media will move Heaven and Earth to maintain our immaculate and virginal fake-democratic purity. Thus, there will be absolutely zero-tolerance with any politician's lie. As Nixon or Clinton could tell you, any politician caught lying should be immediately be burned at the stakes. Since it is a subject prone to cause confusion among folks unfamiliar with our fake-democratic ideology, it is here important to explain, that the issue is not the severity of the fault the politician attempted to conceal; but the lie itself. Indeed, the question was not whether Clinton had had sex with his White House assistant, but; whether or not he had lied about it. Moreover, since it is often pretty much impossible to ascertain the actual facts beyond any reasonable doubt, not unlike Caesar's wife, politicians must be above suspicion. Any vacillation in our fake-democratic piety will be dealt with the harshes castigation.  

 

For instance, no opportunity will ever be missed to clarify that no evidence has ever been produced to support a losing candidate's allegations of electoral fraud; whereas in sharp contrast mass-Media clergy remained strictly ambiguous on the U.S. Administration's false allegations of Sadam Husein's weapons of mass destruction, and rebukes from the pulpits were only fittingly pronounced after the fact. Since our fake-democratic morality is sometimes a bit circuitous, it is important again to explain, that this apparent double-standards should be understood in the context of the strict and very relevant difference between the politician's lie and a "failure of intelligence" - or, at most, an unfortunate slip of the tongue - of the fake-democratic state itself. Furthermore, whereas the politician's baseless allegations of electoral fraud - as sinfully as outright intolerably - undermine the very God of Democracy's credibility; the invasion of Iraq - bloody as it was - blessedly brought the tru faith of fake-democracy and all that awesome freedom stuff to the pour, orphan souls of the Arab lands. Last but not least, - not unlike the crusade's justification of the slaughter of the infidel - as much as we all deeply regret the "collateral damages", you just cannot compare the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens of Sadam's dictatorial regime, with the sheer survival of the very God of Democracy.          

Definitely, the survival, vitality and vigor of the God of Democracy is paramount and no effort should be spared to deny any crack in our ideological framework. This herculian enterprise has two fronts: on one hand, any intrusion by an alien, ungodly ideology should be conclusively, viciously repelled. On the other hand, - considering that folks often give themselves up to demoniac thoughts, by which our ideological framework feels at times a bit circuitous, inconsistent and hopeless - it becomes imperative that fake-Democracy's clergy does ceaselessly, day in, day out, morning, noon and night preach and sing the praises of the word of the Lord of Democracy, in order to combat any localized internal dissent and overall public dispair.