Politics: From Prejudice to Patriotism

 

Mega Genius® Intelligence Briefing [46]:

 

 

An understanding of politics, defined as “the art or science of government,” must include a fundamental understanding of both prejudice and patriotism.  I will address the cores of those subjects in this briefing.  And to maintain your interest, I will offer three political confessions.

In the United States of America there are currently two major political parties: the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, along with three minor parties and 23 parties calling themselves independent or independence parties.  By counting all 28 of those parties, U.S. politics begins to immediately complicate, so I’ll simplify it by pointing out that only the Democratic (“liberal leftwing”) and the Republican (“conservative rightwing”) parties are recognized in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

Will Rogers, the leading political wit and highest paid movie star of the 1930s, was renowned for having said, “I never met a man I didn’t like.”

When asked years later what he would like engraved on his tombstone, he confessed, "I joked about every prominent man of my time, but always added that I never met a man I didn’t like.  I am so proud of that, I can hardly wait to die so it can be carved.”

Will Rogers had a lot to say about politics, too, having reached his own simple conclusion:  “I am not a member of any organized political party,” he explained.  “I’m a Democrat.”  Almost everyone laughed at that 85 years ago.  But today, with all the protest marches, clashes, and even riots, many Americans feel too serious to be able to laugh about politics, which is solely because their understanding of the subject of politics has diminished.

Like Will Rogers, I am not devoted to any organized political party in the U.S., but it is because I have yet to find one that adheres to an acceptable level of ethics.  So, in the interest of full disclosure, my first confession is that I have not only been friends with, and photographed with, many politicians on the state and national levels, but I have voted at different times throughout half a century for candidates from both parties.  As the ethics of candidates change, so does my political loyalty.

In fact, the foundations of many voters’ political loyalties shift like sand.  For example, an orphan, who later became a business associate of mine, used to be a strongly committed Democratic, but later became a steadfast Republican.  And her two children never let her forget the reason.  “Mother,” they would remind her, “You know that you were always a Democrat when you didn’t have much money.  It was only when you finally became wealthy that you became a Republican.” 

And then my friend would look at me and add laughingly, “And you know, they are right!”

The explanation for this behavior was emphasized to me later by a successful politician on the world stage, when he revealed one of his fundamental political secrets.  “When all the politicking has been said and done,” he confided to me, “voters cast their ballots for their own wallets.”

For my second confession, I recall the U.S. Congressional candidate who told me he would give me the shirt off his back if I would vote for him, and then, when I challenged him to keep his promise, literally removed his dress shirt and handed it to me.  And when I saw the shirt’s $150.00 Giorgio Armani label, I smiled and thanked him for it, and awaited his reaction.  Then he smiled, and thanked me, and walked away bare-chested.  So, although I am not particularly proud of it, my second confession is that I voted for him later for no reason other than that he kept his promise.

In my defense, constituents should keep their promises, too.

Normally though, I have a variety of reasons for voting for any candidate, and so should you.  For above all, we need to recognize the responsibility that we all have, throughout this world, of choosing sane and rational men and women to lead our countries.

Here is a convincing reason:  The intelligence, or lack thereof, behind the fingers that hover over the buttons by which intercontinental ballistic missiles can rain down nuclear warheads upon neighboring civilizations is not a trivial matter.  You should pause and think about it today, while you still have the opportunity.

Factually, such a launch is not initiated by the push of a button.  In reference to the U.S., for example, there is a card with the current nuclear launch codes on it.  It is known as the “biscuit,” and is personally carried by President Trump at all times.  Near him at all times is a military aide with a black-leather shoulder satchel, known as the “football,” which contains various items enabling the President to make immediate choices and communicate them to The Pentagon.

Accordingly, these items that constitute the so called nuclear “button,” enable the President, entirely on his own determinism, to launch nearly 1,000 nuclear warheads, each of which has from 10 to 20 times the destructive capability of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945.  The use of the biscuit today can result in a nuclear catastrophe some 15,000 times greater.  Most people cannot even comprehend an annihilation on Earth of such a magnitude.

As I dictate this 4th of July briefing on our nation’s 241st birthday, tensions are soaring in Japan, South Korea, and the U.S. over the issue of the intelligence, or lack thereof, behind fingers hovering over nuclear buttons.  A few hours ago, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, commonly known as North Korea, launched an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) into busy airspace used by commercial airlines, celebrating what it claims is its newly developed capability to strike the U.S.

If and when North Korea sufficiently miniaturizes its nuclear warheads to fit its ICBMs, and achieves the heat-shield technology to protect those warheads, it will have the capability of launching atomic and hydrogen bombs toward not only Japan and South Korea, but many other countries on other continents, including part of the U.S.

Soon thereafter, North Korea’s nuclear weapons delivery capability could be expected to extend some 11,500 kilometers, or 7,145 miles, reaching every state in the U.S. except Florida.  (Guess where the main offices of Mega Genius, Inc. are located.)

This is not a time for brash moves or even minor misunderstandings.  North Korea’s representative at the United Nations, Kim Im Ryong, has warned that this is “a dangerous situation in which thermonuclear war may break out at any moment.”  Today the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has requested an urgent meeting with the U.N. Security Council. (And I am already scheduled to fly to both Tokyo and Seoul.)

Wherever we live on this planet, our reasons for voting for a candidate should be based on a sensible and balanced analysis of all useful facts.  But all useful facts are not what most people are getting these days.  Because the results of a thermonuclear strike could be catastrophic, the importance of a nuclear confrontation is extreme.  Yet the basis upon which most Americans vote for their highest leaders is irrational.  In fact, it is ludicrous!

First I’ll explain why, and then I’ll offer proof. 

Let’s turn back a page in history.  Less than one lifetime ago, in the mid-nineteenth century, the mainstream news media was compelled to report a multitude of pertinent facts, since it was common then for people to own shortwave radios.  Operating on frequencies just above the AM broadcast band, they received transmissions at great distances, often over entire continents or beyond.

For example, in those days, in Ohio, I and many others used to get our news day and night directly from London, Berlin, and Paris, or from wherever we chose, on our shortwave radios, in our homes.  Independent worldwide transmissions were available to us in many languages, through reporters with foreign accents, at our fingertips.  So, the mainstream news media was duty-bound then to report the facts, otherwise citizens would bypass them by simply tuning in directly to what was really happening across the nation and around the world on their “shortwaves.”

A major conversion has occurred.  That access that we had to a multitude of pertinent facts has largely vanished.  And specifically what is missing is startling:  People lost a freedom from ignorance!  Today almost all the national and world news is fed to the masses, through television, radio, newspapers, magazines and the internet, by just a few major “news” conduits.

To appreciate the importance of this change, imagine a fellow in his house having been free to look out of all the windows throughout his home, in a 360 degree view, so that he could understand what was happening outside … but who is now being restricted to looking out through just a few windows on only one side of his home, at “talking heads” behind those panes, who continually feed him both minimal helpful news and maximum airtime driving home their bosses’ opinions.

That is the world’s situation today.  Just watch almost any televised world-news program while you examine the content closely by continuously and conscientiously differentiating between the provable political facts being stated unemotionally and the partisan opinions of the network.  The mainstream news media’s attempts to think for you, instead of allowing you to think for yourself, will be obvious.

Decades ago I watched a popular news program from which I, and millions of others, obtained the national and world news.  It was substantially factual.  The other day, I tuned in to the same program again just to see the extent to which its news reporting had remained factual.  Whoa!  Nowadays the program scarcely reports any news at all.

I even looked at the channel listings to see if my television cable provider had the audacity to call the news program news anymore, and guess what.  It doesn’t.  Now it lists the famous “news” show as talk.  Hopefully, it will revise that to opinions.

Incidentally, when major news organizations report actual news, it is horrific!  Violence commands the headlines!  And with enough gory details to fascinate Jack the Ripper.  Then the rest of the news — except for the last story, about the adorable orphan who rescued the whimpering crippled fawn from the railroad tracks — focuses on as much additional conflict as possible.  It’s a daily dose of hostility, threats, legal battles, fighting, riots, war ….  It’s all like watching the transcontinental broadcast of a train wreck in slow motion, repetitiously.  Yet viewers’ lives are not improved by being continually subjected to such tragedy.  Is yours?

So as I travel across the continents, noticing throughout airports and hotels the same sort of headlines, broadcasting the same violence, conflict, accusations, arguments, and never-ending opinions that are passed off as news nowadays, I try to avoid most mainstream media news.  And my life runs along track perfectly without it.  And if our sun should unexpectedly flame out, I’m sure that I’ll notice in about 8 minutes and 20 seconds.

For those of you who like to expand your attention to see the “big picture,” I’ll let you in on an ancient secret — a phrase that has been used for eons in teaching mind control.  It is this axiom: 

“Look where he wants you to look, and you will see what he wants you to see.”

In other words, if someone captures and directs a subject’s attention, he can meaningfully control that subject’s thought processes.

It could be used for ethical purposes, such as by an educator to teach students in a classroom.  Or, by a magician to entertain his audience.  Or, it could be used for ethically questionable purposes, such as by either a man or a woman to seduce another person.  Or, it could be used for unethical objectives, such as by a hypnotist to overwhelm the thought processes of others (which would be atrocious mental technique).

The mainstream news media could even use it to brainwash multitudes of people.  Uh-oh!  In fact, they already do.  By the way, the one thing worse than having been brainwashed is never knowing that you were.

Which politicians you vote for is none of my business.  None at all!  Since you are as free as you have choices, you should have the right to support, and vote for, whomever you prefer.  But you cannot do that intelligently if your attention is continually contracted, and directed away from examining pertinent facts, and toward assuming that the political opinions and bias of a small group at the top of the mainstream news media know what is best for you.  They want to influence your vote by minimizing your options.

As I told you last year, in Mega Genius® Intelligence Briefing No. 45: “Who Do You Trust?”:  “Those who are unable or unwilling to think for themselves will be taught how to think by the mainstream news media.  Whether you conscientiously apply ‘The Genius Formula™’ [as explained in The Mega Genius® Lectures], or strap on the news media’s horse blinders, is solely your responsibility.”

Do you need proof?  Sit back and consider this.  Several weeks ago, a major new study came out of a research center of Harvard University, specifically from academics at their Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, that analyzed coverage from President Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major television and publishing sources.  Their study was based on seven major news outlets in the United States and three in Europe.

Here is the percentage of news reports in the United States that showed a positive or negative tone.

U.S. News Outlets: Negative Positive
CNN 93 7
NBC 93 7
CBS 91 9
New York Times  87 13
Washington Post 83 17
Wall Street Journal 70 30
Fox News 52 48

 

 

 

Here is the percentage of news reports in Europe that showed a positive or negative tone.

European News Outlets: Negative Positive
ARD (German) 98 2
Financial Times (UK) 84 16
BBC 74 26

 

Incidentally, these recent findings from Harvard — the oldest institution of higher learning in the U.S. and among the most prestigious universities in the world — were virtually ignored by the mainstream news media.  Do you see?  It wasn’t that you inadvertently missed hearing about this important political revelation.  It was that the mainstream news media chose not to report it.

By the way, are you aware that 6 members of the news media were charged earlier this year with felony rioting, which is used in instances of rioting, or inciting to riot, resulting in at least $5,000 in property damage or serious bodily damage?  In this instance, the Washington, D.C. police reported that there was more than $100,000 in property damages, and injuries to several police officers.  Each of those members of the news media face the possibility of 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $25,000.

So, were you aware of that?  Or maybe this is news to you only now, because it is one more revealing news item that the main stream news media chose not to report.

Now, what emotions have Harvard’s findings stirred up in you?  Are you annoyed?  Angered?  Outraged?  Or something else?  Or, and this is my third confession, did you laugh out loud at the ridiculousness exposed by Harvard University, as I did?  My point is not about who is or isn’t the President, or who could or could not do a better job in that office, but solely about the extent of the mainstream news media’s prejudice.

We don’t have sufficient knowledge yet to know how skilled President Donald J. Trump will be, intelligently measured by the results that he will, or will fail to, produce in office.  He may become the worst president in the history of the U.S.  Dogs may cower and growl at him; toddlers may flee screaming.  Or he may divert a nuclear catastrophe that has been decades in the making throughout other administrations.  And, thereby, wherever you live, he may save your life tomorrow.  But we will not have sufficient knowledge to know the full extent of his abilities to produce the desired results until after his days in the Oval Office have passed.  (Know defined: “to be aware of the truth or factuality of.”)

Now, did you notice what just happened?  We are staring face-to-face with prejudice, and the realization that many of us, who consider that we most certainly are not prejudiced, in fact are.  Prejudice defined: “an adverse opinion or leaning formed in the absence of sufficient knowledge.”

Now, on this American holiday of patriotism — of flag waving, and picnics, and hot dogs, and fireworks … and of anti-Trump marchers clashing with police, and U.S. Congress members ridiculing President Trump, and a television host’s obscene rants about President Trump, and Republican Congress members being shot, and the effigy of a bloody and severed head of the President being held high by a Hollywood comedienne — how patriotic are these protesters? 

Well, we only need to look as far as Merriam-Webster’s definition of patriot.  Patriot defined: “One who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests.”  [Emphasis mine.]  Obviously, many Americans who consider themselves patriotic are ignorant of the word.

There is one more thing to know about politics, which can change your life.

Again, the absurd degree of bias displayed by the mainstream news media, as confirmed by Harvard University, is what I laughed out loud about.  And as I said earlier, “Too many people are too serious to laugh about the subject of politics today, which means that their understanding of it has decreased.”

I have also said, “Anytime that you cannot laugh, you are off the track.”

So, if you live in a country that allows you the freedom to vote, do so as you choose.  But, regardless of how the mainstream news media tries to manipulate your mind, please also do this consistently: Stay on the track!

In brief, feel free to argue at length with Harvard University, if you choose, but faithfully remember this:

People who laugh easily, and often, have longer life expectancies, and those who become too serious … deadly serious … get buried.

 

Mega Genius®

4 July 2017

 

Copyright © 2017 by Mega Genius®.  All rights reserved.