RSS订阅 加入收藏  设为首页
幸运飞艇直播视频
当前位置:首页 > 幸运飞艇直播视频

幸运飞艇直播视频:“爱骗才会赢!” -民主是如何走上末路的

时间:2018/6/6 0:00:45  作者:  来源:  浏览:0  评论:0
内容摘要:【日期】2018年5月19日【链接】https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2 ... how-democracy-endedAuthored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,What ...


【日期】2018年5月19日

【链接】https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2 ... how-democracy-ended

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

What killed democracy was constant lying to the public, by politicians whose only way to win national public office is to represent the interests of the super-rich at the same time as the given politician publicly promises to represent the interests of the public — “and may the better liar win!” — it’s a lying-contest.

扼杀民主的是政客们不断对公众撒谎的行为,他们赢得国家公职的唯一途径是在代表超级富豪利益的同时,公开承诺代表公众利益-“爱骗才会赢!”-这是一场谎言竞赛。



When democracy degenerates into that, it becomes dictatorship by the richest, the people who can fund the most lying. Such a government is an aristocracy, no democracy at all, because the aristocracy rule, the public don’t. It’s the type of government that the French Revolution was against and overthrew; and it’s the type of government that the American Revolution was against and overthrew; but it has been restored in both countries.


当民主退化到这个地步,它就变成了超级富豪们的独裁,这些富豪可以为那些谎话连篇的政客提供资金,以这种方式形成的政府是权贵的统治而根本不是民主,因为统治者是权贵而非公众。这曾经是法国大革命和美国独立战争所反对和推翻的那种政府, 然而(现在)在这两个国家,它又死灰复燃了。

First here will be discussed France:

On 7 May 2017, Emmanuel Macron was elected President of France with 66.1% of the vote, compared to Marine Le Pen's 33.9%. That was the second round of voting; the first round had been: Macron 24.0%, Le Pen 21.3% Fillon 20.0%, Melenchon 19.6%, and others 15%; so, the only clear dominator in that 11-candidate contest was Macron, who, in the second round, turned out to have been the second choice of most of the voters for the other candidates. Thus, whereas Le Pen rose from 21.3% to 33.9% in the second round (a 59% increase in her percentage of the vote), Macron rose from 24.0% to 66.1% in the second round (a 275% increase in his percentage of the vote). In other words: Macron didn’t just barely win the Presidency, but he clearly dominated both rounds; it was never at all close.

首先要讨论的是法国:
2017年5月7日,伊曼纽尔•马克龙以66.1%的选票当选法国总统,而玛丽娜•勒庞得票率为33.9%,这是第二轮投票结果;第一轮投票结果为:马克龙24.0%,勒庞21.3% ,菲永20.0%,梅伦森19.6%,其他15%;也就是说,11位候选人中只有马克龙具备明显优势并在第二轮选举中胜出。(以上数据可以看出),在第二轮选举中,勒庞从21.3%上升到33.9%(她的得票率增加了59%),而马克龙在第二轮投票中从24.0%上升到66.1%(他的得票率增加了275%)。换句话说:马克龙不是勉强赢得了大选,而且他显然在两轮选举中都占绝对优势;(得票数)从未接近过。

But once in office he very quickly disappointed the French public:

On 11 August 2017, Le Figaro bannered (as autotranslated by Google Chrome) "A hundred days later, Macron confronted with the skepticism of the French”, and reported that 36% were “satisfied” and 64% were “dissatisfied” with the new President.

On 23 March 2018, Politico bannered "Macron’s approval ratings hit record low: poll” and reported that, "Only 40 percent of the French population said they have a favorable opinion of Macron, a drop of 3 percentage points from last month and 12 percentage points from December, while 57 percent said they hold a negative opinion of the president.”


但上任后,他很快就让法国公众失望了:据2017年8月11日的费加罗报报道, “上任100天后,马克龙受到了法国人的怀疑,36%的人对这位新总统“满意”,64%的人“不满意”。2018年3月23日,美国政治新闻网站"政治"(Politico.com)以大标题形式发表 “马克龙的支持率创历史新低”的文章。文章称,“只有40%的法国人表示对马克龙的看法良好,比上个月下降了3个百分点,比去年12月下降了12个百分点,而57%的人对总统持负面看法。”

On 22 April 2018, Europe 1 reported that 44% were “satisfied” with Macron, and 55% were “dissatisfied” with him; and that — even worse — while 23% were “very dissatisfied” with him, only 5% were “very satisfied” with him.


2018年4月22日,法国欧洲第一电台报道说,44%的人对马克龙“满意”,55%的人对马克龙“不满意”;更糟糕的是,23%的人对他“非常不满意”,只有5%的人对他“非常满意”。

So, clearly — and this had happened very quickly — the French public didn’t think that they were getting policies that Macron had promised to them during his campaign. He was very different from what they had expected — even though he had won the Presidency in a landslide and clearly dominated both rounds. That plunge in support after being elected President required a lot of deceit during his campaign.


结论很明显,法国公众很快就意识到马克龙在竞选期间承诺的政策并未兑现。尽管他以压倒性优势赢得了大选并在两轮投票中都占据绝对优势,但他(上任后的表现)却与公众的期待大相径庭。在当选后支持率大幅跳水的现象足以说明他在竞选过程中制造了大量的慌言。

Second, is US:

The situation in the US was very different in its means, but similar in its outcome: it was a close election between two candidates, each of whom had far more of the electorate despising him or her than admiring him or her. Neither of the two candidates in the second round was viewed net-favorably by the public.


其次,我们来谈谈美国:
美国的总统大选方式很不一样,但结果却很相似:两位候选人势均力敌,每一位候选人都有更多的选民鄙视他(她),而不是仰慕他(她)。第二轮选举中,两位候选人都未能得到公众的青睐。

The key round of elimination of the more-attractive candidates, was in the primaries; and, after that, it became merely a choice between uglies in the general election. Any decent (or even nearly decent) person had already been eliminated, by that time. Consequently, the ultimate winner never had the high net-favorable rating from the US public, that Macron did from the French public.


淘汰更具吸引力候选人的关键一轮是初选;初选之后就只剩下小丑们在参与角逐了。那时,任何正派的(哪怕只是稍微正派的)人都已经被淘汰了。由此而产生的结果就是,最终获胜者从未获得美国公众的(象马克龙从法国公众那里获得的)高净支持率。

America’s system of ‘democracy’ is very different than France’s:

Throughout the primaries-season — America’s first round — the most-preferred of all candidates in the race was Bernie Sanders, who, in the numerous one-on-one polled hypothetical choices versus any of the opposite Party’s contending candidates, crushed each one of them except John Kasich, who, throughout the primaries, was the second-most preferred of all of the candidates (and who performed far better than did Trump did in the hypothetical match-ups against Clinton).


美国的“民主”制度与法国的截然不同:在整个初选季,即美国第一轮选举,最受欢迎的候选人是伯尼•桑德斯。在众多大选一对一模拟民调中,桑德斯击败了除约翰•卡西奇之外的每一位与之交锋的对手党派(共和党)候选人。卡西奇在初选中的受欢迎程度排名第二(他的表现比特朗普在模拟竞选中对阵希拉里时的表现好多了)。

In the hypothetical match-ups, Sanders beat Kasich by 3.3%, whereas Kasich beat Clinton by 7.4% — that spread between +3.3% and -7.4% is 10.8%, and gives a pretty reliable indication of what the Democratic National Committee threw away when rigging the primaries and vote-counts for Hillary Clinton to win the Party’s nomination. Sanders beat Trump by 10.4%, whereas Clinton beat Trump by 3.2%. That spread was only 7.2% in favor of Sanders over Clinton; but, in any case, the DNC cared lots more about satisfying its mega-donors than about winning, when they picked Clinton to be the Party’s nominee.


在模拟选战中,桑德斯以3.3%的优势击败了卡西奇,而卡西奇以7.4%的优势击败了希拉里,——即桑德斯对希拉里的优势为10.8%,这提供了相当可靠的证据证明民主党全国委员会操纵初选和计票,(抛弃了桑德斯),而让希拉里获得党内提名。(在模拟选战中),桑德斯以10.4%的优势击败特朗普,而希拉里仅以3.2%的优势击败特朗普,(也说明)有7.2%的人支持桑德斯而不是希拉里;但无论如何,民主党全国委员会在提名希拉里为候选人时更关心的是满足其背后金主的愿望,而不是在选举中获胜。

(Ms. Clinton’s actual victory over Mr. Trump in the final election between those two nominees turned out to be by only 2.1% — close enough a spread so as to enable Trump to win in the Electoral College (which is all that counts), which counts not individual voters but a formula that represents both the states and the voters. Sanders would have beaten Trump in a landslide — far too big a margin for the Electoral College to have been able to go the opposite way, such as did happen with Clinton. This fact was also shown here and here. That’s what the DNC threw away.)


(在与特朗普的最后一轮交锋中,希拉里的实际优势仅为2.1%——这一优势太微弱,足以使特朗普在选举人团环节中逆转获胜(这才是最重要的)。这个选举团不算个人选民,而是一个既代表各州又代表选民的团体。(如果民主党提名的候选人是桑德斯而不是希拉里的话)桑德斯会以压倒性优势击败特朗普,这样选举人团也没有操作空间来逆转选举结果,就像他们对希拉里所做的那样。这个事实再一次证明了,这就是民主党全国委员会所抛弃的。

Hillary Clinton received by far the biggest support from billionaires, of all of the candidates; Sanders received by far the least; and this is why the Democratic Party, which Clinton and Barack Obama (two thoroughly billionaire-controlled politicians) effectively controlled, handed its nomination to Clinton. On 7 June 2016, the great investigative journalist Greg Palast headlined and documented "How California is being stolen from Sanders right now”, and four days later a retired statistician’s review of other statisticians’ statistical analysis of data from all of the primaries and caucuses, reaffirmed their findings, that the Democratic nomination had been stolen by the Democratic National Committee, and he concluded that “the whole process has been rigged against Bernie at every level and that is devastating even though I don't agree [politically] with him.” A more detailed study was published on 1 August 2016, titled "Democracy Lost: A Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries”.


在所有候选人中,希拉里•克林顿获得了亿万富翁们最大的支持,而桑德斯得到的支持最少;这就是为什么由克林顿和奥巴马(两位完全由亿万富翁控制的政客)有效控制的民主党,把提名给了希拉里的原因。2016年6月7日,伟大的调查记者格雷戈•帕拉斯特发表了有确凿证明材料的头条文章“加利福尼亚如何从桑德斯手中被偷走”,四天后,一位退休的统计学在为其他统计学家对所有初选和党团数据的统计分析撰写评论时,再一次确认了他们的调查结果,即民主党提名已被民主党全国委员会窃取,他得出结论:“整个过程从每一个层面都是针对伯尼(桑德斯)的,这种做法毁了一切,尽管我也不同意桑德斯的政见。” 2016年8月1日,他发表了一份更详细的研究报告,题为“民主的失落:关于2016年民主初选的致命缺陷的报告”。

Basically, what had happened is that the most-preferred of all the candidates got deep-sixed by Democratic Party billionaires, who ultimately control the DNC, just as Republican billionaires control the RNC. The US Government is squabbles between billionaires, and that’s all. That’s what’s left of American ‘democracy’, now.


真实的情况就是,所有的候选人中最受欢迎的那个被民主党的亿万富翁们抛弃了,这些亿万富翁们最终控制了民主党,就像共和党的亿万富翁控制着共和党一样。美国政府在亿万富翁之间争吵不休,美国“民主”发展到现在,就只剩下这个了。

On 12 August 2016, Julian Assange noted: "MSNBC on its most influential morning program, Morning Joe, was defending Bernie Sanders. Then Debbie Wasserman Schultz [head of the DNC] called up the president of MSNBC. Amazingly, this is not reported in the US media. It is reported in the US media that they called up Chuck Todd who’s the host of Meet The Press.


2016年8月12日,朱利安•阿桑奇指出:“莫拉姆•乔在微软全国广播公司最具影响力的早间节目上为伯尼•桑德斯辩护,随后黛比•沃瑟曼•舒尔茨(民主党主席)就给微软全国广播公司总裁打了电话。令人惊讶的是,美国媒体没有报道这一事件。美国媒体报道称,他们召集了媒体见面会的主持人查克托德。

@@ Something much more serious is not reported — that Debbie Wasserman Schultz herself personally called up the president of MSNBC to apply pressure in relation to positive coverage about Bernie Sanders on Morning Joe.” That was typical of what went on.


还有更严重的事情没有报道-黛比•沃瑟曼•舒尔茨亲自打电话给微软全国广播公司总裁,要求他对早上
莫拉姆•乔对伯尼•桑德斯(Bernie Sanders)的正面报道施加压力。

Hillary Clinton’s favorable rating, by Election Day, was 40.3%, her unfavorable was 55.3%. Donald Trump’s favorable was 39.8%, unfavorable was 53.4%. Bernie Sanders, as of the end of the primaries on 29 June 2016, was 50.8% favorable, 39.6% unfavorable, and it has been getting steadily better afterward. But the suckered Democratic Party voters (the ones who were counted, at any rate) voted slightly more for Hillary than for Bernie. Even despite Sanders’s having had support from few if any billionaires, he almost won the Democratic nomination, and that’s remarkable. He might actually have received more votes during the primaries than Hillary did, but we’ll never know.


希拉里•克林顿在选举日的支持率为40.3%,她的不支持率为55.3%。唐纳德•特朗普的支持率为39.8%,不支持率为53.4%。截至2016年6月29日初选结束时,伯尼•桑德斯的支持率为50.8%,而不支持率为39.6%,而且其后他的支持率一直在稳步提高。但那些被蒙骗的民主党选民(至少是那些被计算在内的人)投票给希拉里的比例略高一些。很明显,尽管桑德只得到了极少数(如果有的话)亿万富翁的支持,他还是差一点就赢得了民主党的提名。他在初选中可能得到了比希拉里获得更多的选票,但我们永远也不会知道。

So: America is a dictatorship by the billionaires. And this means that it operates by fooling the public. France is similar, though it achieves this via a different way. And, in both countries, deceit is essential, in order to achieve its dictatorship. Fooling the public is now what it’s all about, in either case. Democracy can never be won by fooling the public; because fooling the public means removing the public’s ability to control the government. So, calling such a nation a ‘democracy’, is, itself, deceiving the public — it’s part of the dictatorship, or else support of the dictatorship.


所以说:美国是亿万富翁的独裁国家。这意味着它是通过愚弄公众来运作的。法国也是类似的,尽管它是通过不同的方式实现的。而且,在这两个国家,为了实现独裁,欺骗是必不可少的。现在欺骗公众才是它的全部目的,在任何情况下都是如此。通过欺骗公众永远不可能赢得民主;因为愚弄公众意味着消除公众控制政府的能力。因此,把这样一个国家称为“民主”本身就是欺骗公众——它是独裁统治的一部分,或者是对独裁政权的支持。

In former times, this system was rationalized as ‘the divine right of kings’. Now it’s rationalized as ‘the divine right of capital’. But it’s also become covered-over by yet another lie: ‘democracy’. This is a ‘democratic’ aristocracy; it is an ‘equal opportunity’ aristocracy. In it, each citizen has ‘equal rights’ as every other citizen, no matter how wealthy. It’s just a castle of lies. And its doors are actually open only to the few richest-and-well-connected.


在过去,这一制度被合理化为“国王的神圣权利”,现在被合理化为“资本的神圣权利”。但这一制度也被另一个谎言所掩盖——“民主”。这是一种“民主”的权贵政府;这是一种“平等机会”的权贵政府。在这一制度中,每个公民,无论他多么富有,都和其它公民一样有“平等权利”。这一制度不过是一座谎言的城堡。实际上,它的大门只对少数几个最富有、关系最密切的人敞开。

Here, a former CIA official tries to describe how the American dictatorship works - the enforcement-part of the system, and he does (even if only by implication) also touch upon the financial sources of it.


在这里(此处有一个视频),一位前中央情报局官员试图描述美国独裁政权是如何运作的——这个系统的执行部分,他也提到了它的财政来源(即使只是暗示而已)。

He discusses his personal case: why he could no longer tolerate working for the CIA. But his description of how he, as an Agency official, saw the system to function, starts at 3:45 in the video. Key passages start at 12:45, and at 20:15.


他谈到了他的亲身经历:为什么他不能再容忍为中央情报局工作,以及他对作为一名情报局官员是如何看待整个系统的运作的。从视频中的3:45开始。关键部分是从12:45和20:15处开始。

Maybe any American who would email this article to friends who don’t understand how the system functions, will come under increased US surveillance, but that CIA official’s career and family were destroyed by what the system did to him, which was lots worse than just surveillance.


假如一个美国人把这篇文章通过电子邮件发给那些不了解这一系统运作方式的朋友的话,他也许会受到美国越来越多的监视。但对那位中情局官员来说,他的职业生涯和家庭生活都已经被这个系统毁了,这比受到监视要糟糕得多。

Remarkably, he nonetheless had the courage to persist (and thus did that video). However, when one sees how politically partisan (and so obtuse) the viewer-comments to that video are, one might be even more depressed than by the account this former CIA official presents. But, even if the situation is hopeless, everyone should at least have the opportunity to understand it. Because, if the aristocracy are the only people who understand it, there can’t be any hope for democracy, at all.

值得注意的是,虽然生活受到了破坏,他还是有勇气坚持下去(并制做了这个视频)。然而观众却对该视频反应迟钝,评论也充满政治偏见,看到这些比看到这位前中情局官员所叙述的真相更加令人沮丧。不过虽然情况令人绝望,但每个人至少都应该有机会去了解真相。因为如果只有权贵们了解真相的话,那民主就彻底无望了。

评论翻译:

revolla Sat, 05/19/2018 - 23:01 Permalink
"America is a dictatorship by the billionaires."
Especially the FAKE Hebrew billionaires who love FAKE Biblical Israel above America. They're know as the Dual Citizens, the Neocons, the Zionists, and the former Bolsheviks.
They LIE about their true identity, and likewise negatively influence every US politician. That's how they managed to bog down the US in the Middle East. Through ENDLESS LIES.
Theirs is a spirit of deception and destruction. A cancer that has metastasized and needs to be extricated.

“美国是亿万富翁的专政。”尤其是那些希伯来亿万富翁们,他们是骗子,他们爱伪圣经上的以色列胜过爱美国。他们被称为双重公民、新保守主义者、犹太复国主义者和前布尔什维克人。他们撒谎掩盖自己的真实身份,同时也对美国的每一个政治人物产生负面影响。这就是为什么他们通过无尽的谎言设法把美国困在中东。他们的精神是一种欺骗和毁灭的精神,一种已经转移并需要被切除的癌症。

J S Bach  Oldguy05 Sat, 05/19/2018 - 23:23 Permalink
“What killed democracy was constant lying to the public, by politicians whose only way to win national public office is to represent the interests of the super-rich”
Put another way…
“What killed democracy was the complete strangling of all opposing points of view to politically correct narratives.”

“扼杀民主的是政客们不断地对公众撒谎,他们赢得国家公职的唯一途径是代表超级富豪的利益”,

换句话说,…。“扼杀民主的是对政治上正确叙述的所有对立观点的完全扼杀。

This is done through bribery, coercion, "fake news" media assaults, and threats against the livelihoods of any who would dare dissent. Politicians will naturally gravitate toward whomever they deem has the most power, thus ensuring their safety and careers.  Sadly, they are mere whores.  In this world of today, where morality – once the guiding force behind many a statesman in a bygone era – no longer exists... only self-serving materialism rules.  Courage, fortitude, an unyielding adherence to truth, and sheer will are the only recourse against the satanic powers that threaten ultimate doom for mankind.

这是通过贿赂、胁迫、“假新闻”,媒体攻击以及威胁任何敢于反对的人的生计来实现的。政客们自然会被他们认为最有权势的人所吸引,从而确保他们的安全和前程。可悲呀,他们只不过是妓女罢了。在当今世界上,道德——曾经作为许多政治家背后的指导力量——已不存在。只有唯利是图的物质主义法则。勇气、坚韧、对真理的坚定坚持和纯粹的意志,才是对抗威胁人类最终毁灭的邪恶力量的唯一手段。

ItsAllBollocks  J S Bach Sat, 05/19/2018 - 23:50 Permalink
I believe it's called lobby groups. Designed specifically to legally bribe politicians...

我相信这叫做游说团体,专门为合法贿赂政客而设计的。

Four chan  Four Star Sun, 05/20/2018 - 02:38 Permalink
REMEMBER WHEN HILLARY HAD THE QUESTIONS BEFOREHAND AND
LESTER HOLT PRETENDED SHE DIDN'T? YEAH ME TOO (((THE MEDIA)))

还记得希拉里事先就知道了要提的问题,李斯特霍尔特(NBC新闻主播)假装她不知道的事儿吗?
媒体也一样对此装聋作哑。

MoreFreedom  Four chan Sun, 05/20/2018 - 10:23 Permalink
I'm still waiting for CNN to write the story as to how the questions weren't protected, and who else besides Donna Brazille was involved in Clinton getting the questions.  That they don't write it just shows they were in the tank for her in the worst possible way.  After all if they aren't telling us, we should assume the worse.

(回复上一条)我还在等CNN发文解释这些问题是如何被泄露的,以及为什么没得到保护;除了唐娜•布拉斯尔之外,还有谁卷进了此次泄密事件。他们不写文章澄清本身就说明,搞不好他们和希拉里就是绑在一辆战车上。毕竟,如果他们不告诉我们真相,我们就应该做出更糟糕的假设。

a Smudge by an…  Four chan Sun, 05/20/2018 - 04:58 Permalink
This is getting so repetitive. How many times do we have to break the crystal glasses of the cognosenti and gently explain that WE NEVER GAVE A GOD'S DAMN LICK ABOUT YOUR STUPID FUCKING DEMOCRACY, ALL WE EVER CARED ABOUT WAS OUR REPUBLIC?

同样的故事不断上演。有多少次我们不得不打破精英们的水晶眼镜,并温柔地解释说,我们从来没打算动你那该死的民主制度的一根毫毛,我们只是关心我们的共和国?

And how about we generously PISS ON YOUR BELOVED FANTASIES ALONG WITH THE VERY CONCEPT OF A POPULAR VOTE DETERMINING WHO IS YOUR PRESIDENT?

如果我们毫不留情地亵渎了你们心爱的幻想,以及由普选方式决定总统人选的理念,你们又会怎样?

But hey, whatever, our republic got taken over by elitists and the MIC so mech, we all lost. Our consolation prize? Same as everybody else's. We were wrong but for our own reasons, not yours. Just like John Bolton. It's never a mistake to invade another country, the only difficulty arises when we don't win.

但是,嘿,不管怎么说,我们的共和国被精英主义者占领了,我们都输了。我们的安慰奖呢?和其他人一样。我们错了,但这只能怪我们自己。就像约翰•波顿说的那样,入侵另一个国家从来没有错,但你要是不能获胜,那就麻烦了。

At this point the powers that be have noticed that there's just too damn many of us with opinions and they have plans for this.
At a certain point is it gonna be fun anymore?

此时,有些大国已经注意到我们中有太多人有意见,他们对此早有安排。
到了无可挽回的时候,事情可就不好玩了。

Cloud9.5  a Smudge by an… Sun, 05/20/2018 - 08:02 Permalink
The pretext that the nation was run by anything other than oligarchs is a misrepresentation of history.  When you look at men like Washington, Hamilton and Jefferson, these men were not commoners.  What has changed over time is the result of the exponential growth of bureaucracies.  Even the Library of Congress has a SWAT team.  The larger the bureaucracy, the more intrusive it becomes. As we all know the exponential growth of government has been financed by the magic money of the Federal Reserve.  We  have had much more government than we can afford for more than a century.  This trend will reverse when the petro dollar implodes.

保证国家不受政治寡头的操纵这一前提是历史的托辞。看看华盛顿、汉密尔顿和杰斐逊这些人,他们可不是平头百姓。随着时间的推移,官僚机构呈指数级增长,甚至连国会图书馆都配备了一个特警队。官僚机构越大,侵扰性就越强。我们都知道,这些以指数级增长的政府是由美联储提供资金的。我们拥有的政府规模足够我们负担一个多世纪了。当石油美元崩溃时,这一趋势将逆转。

NidStyles  a Smudge by an… Sun, 05/20/2018 - 05:09 Permalink
There is far more involved than just lying and lack of belief structure. However if the public truly understood what was going on in most of the country there would be a revolution tomorrow, and I am not just talking about the banking system.

问题可远不止是谎言和缺乏信仰这么简单。然而如果公众真正了解这个国家大部分地区正在发生的事情,明天就会发生一场革命,我说的不仅仅是银行系统。

Honest Sam  NidStyles Sun, 05/20/2018 - 08:04 Permalink
I don't think so. Most of the country and particklerly those who vote amongst them, are in capable of revolt.  

(关于革命)我不这么认为。这个国家的大多数人,尤其是那些参与投票的人,都有能力反抗。

The day-to-day efforts to survive and maybe prosper a bit, takes up all their time that isn't consumed by sleep, eating, screwing, and drinking.  That leaves about 3-4 hours per day that is then consumed escaping the drudgery, or hobbying.

日复一日,除了睡觉、吃饭、上床和喝酒之外,人们的时间都用来努力维持生计,或者琢磨着怎么能过得宽裕一点。然后每天就只剩3-4个小时得以逃避这些苦差事了。

What time is left to get ready for a national coup d'etat, and what would it be replaced with?

所以人们哪有时间准备什么革命,又拿什么来取代它呢?

We aren't a tiny nation like Cuba, or Calimexifornia that will coalesce around a messiah who magically descends from on high to lead us to a return to a government of the people, for the peeps, and by the sheep.

我们可不是像古巴这样的小国,也不是一个团结在救世主周围的国家。这种国家的救世主从高处神奇地降临,带领我们回到一个由绵羊组成的,为窥探者服务的人民政府。

No solution, that.
无解。

Escrava Isaura  NidStyles Sun, 05/20/2018 - 05:50 Permalink
No, it was not. And there’s empiric evidence about why all humans lie. Here’s one:
A study published in “Developmental Psychology” asked a set of 65 kids not to peek at a hidden toy. When the examiner turned away, 50 percent of 3-year-olds and 80 percent of 8-year-olds snuck a look. When asked whether they peeked, most of the set had lied.
The first level of primary lies emerges around 2–3 years of age when children begin to be able to deliberately make factually untrue statements. However, they do not necessarily take into consideration the mental states of the listener. Secondary lies emerge around the age of 4 years and require children to understand that the listener, unlike themselves, does not know the true state of affairs and thus is susceptible to false beliefs. Finally, around 7–8 years of age, children begin to reach tertiary lies where they are able to conceal their lies by maintaining consistency between their initial lie and follow-up statements.

“扼杀民主的是政客们不断对公众撒谎的行为”。不,不是这样的。有经验主义的证据证明了所有人都说谎。这里就有一个:
发表在“发展心理学”上的一项研究要求一组65名儿童不要偷看隐藏的玩具。当考官转身离开时,50%的3岁儿童和80%的8岁儿童偷偷看了一眼。当被问及他们是否偷看时,大多数人都说谎了。初等谎言出现在2-3岁左右,孩子们开始故意做出不真实的陈述。然而,他们不一定考虑到听众的心理状态。次要谎言出现在4岁左右,孩子们明白倾听者与他们不同,也不知道真实情况,因此容易相信慌言。最后,在7-8岁左右,孩子们开始进入第三级谎言,在这一阶段他们能够通过保持他们最初的谎言和后续陈述的一致性来掩盖他们的谎言。

“Deception, machination and mendacity lie at the core of human intelligence, like worms coiled at the core of an apple” — Mark Rowlands
Now why that intelligent people such as Jews and Christians lie through their teeth? Because intelligent people have ideologies and most ideologies such as religion, political, and cultural can’t survive scrutiny. Keep in mind that culture ‘general population’ is heavily influenced by religion and political dogmas and indoctrination. But why?

“欺骗、阴谋诡计和谎言是人类智力的核心,就像蠕虫盘绕在苹果的核心上一样”——马克•罗兰。为什么像犹太人和基督教徒这样聪明的人会睁着眼睛说瞎话?因为聪明人有思想体系,而多数思想体系比如宗教、政治和文化等都经不住仔细推敲。请记住,文化的母体深受宗教和政治教条的影响,但为什么呢?

For personal gains.
Can you blame them without blaming yourself?
If you can’t it’s because you’re on the primary phase of lying which is not the case with most Hedgers.

为了个人利益。你能责怪他们而不责怪自己吗?如果你不能,那是因为你正处于说谎的初级阶段,而大多数零对冲(网站名)网友都不是这样的。

1 Alabama  Escrava Isaura Sun, 05/20/2018 - 06:11 Permalink
What part of todays gvt is the life blood of satan do people NOT understand?

现在的政府其中一部分就是撒旦的生命之血,难道人们不明白吗?

BabaLooey  DownWithYogaPants Sun, 05/20/2018 - 06:55 Permalink
One of the main problems WITH getting this excellent video out to the masses is that most of the masses - are asses.

把这段精彩的视频公诸于众的主要问题之一是,大多数民众都是傻瓜。

The sheer volume of dis-mis-information and outright lies and felonious glomming by the shadow government is hard to compete with. Joe Goebbels would be proud. Akin to the allies bombing Germany 1942-1945 - U.S. by day - the UK by night. Constant - propaganda.

纯粹的虚假信息、彻头彻尾的谎言,就连影子政府所犯下的重罪都难以与之匹敌。(也许只有)乔•戈培尔会引以为傲。类似于盟军在1942-1945年对德国的轰炸——白天美国负责轰炸,晚上英国负责轰炸。不间断的宣传(洗脑)。

See: Snowden, Manning, and so many others as to this. How are they painted and framed to the public....?


看:斯诺登,曼宁,还有很多其他的人。他们是如何在公众面前被媒体任意抹黑和陷害的…?


Hollywood - that cabal of cunts - is EASY prey for these fuckers. Pick the most narcissistic, self-centered, attention whores that the masses "look up to", "admire" - want to be like, and turn them into Twattering douchebags - . easy peasy. Look at how Meryl Streep portrayed Graham in Speilberg's re-write of Watergate (lame, compared to the SHIT done since 1947).  All you need to do is ask your own circle of friends about ANY of this - and you'll see how "effective" these cunts are.


好莱坞——那个狡猾的阴谋集团——很容易成为这些混蛋的猎物。挑那些大众“仰慕”、“崇拜”并乐于模仿的最自恋、最自我中心、最能吸引人的妓女并把她们变成喋喋不休的蠢货,很简单。看看梅丽尔•斯特里普是如何在斯皮尔伯格翻拍的水门事件中描绘格雷厄姆的。这部电影拍得比1947拍的那部狗屎更差劲。只需要问问你自己的朋友圈,你就会发现这些东西多“有效”。

Got The Wrong No  BabaLooey Sun, 05/20/2018 - 09:04 Permalink
Absolutely true. I've given up trying to talk to people about anything related to politics or the economy. It just leads to bad blood. The MSM is controlling the narrative for the people too busy, too lazy or too stupid to be informed.


完全正确。我已经放弃了和人们谈论任何与政治或经济有关的事情。这只会导致厌恶感。男性同性恋控制着向人们宣传话语权,而这些被宣传的对象太忙,太懒或太蠢,他们不配获知真相。

divingengineer  ItsAllBollocks Sun, 05/20/2018 - 12:07 Permalink
They bullshit us.
Is this news?
Who didn’t know that?


他们骗我们。这是新闻吗?谁不知道?

Quick  J S Bach Sun, 05/20/2018 - 08:19 Permalink
" Basically, what had happened is that the most-preferred of all the candidates got deep-sixed by Democratic Party billionaires, who ultimately control the DNC, just as Republican billionaires control the RNC. "

This one line shows me how lies are used to "bend" the truth as you wish it to be bent ---
Trump was NOT the choice of Republican Billionaires. Trump was not the choice of anything Republican.EVERYONE in the election process was against Trump but the people who voted for him.This article should be titled "How The Democrats Screwed Bernie"

“真实的情况就是,所有的候选人中最受欢迎的那个被民主党的亿万富翁们抛弃了,这些亿万富翁们最终控制了民主党,就像共和党的亿万富翁控制着共和党一样。”
(你文章中的)这一行向我展示了谎言是如何被用来“扭曲”成你想要的样子的。——特朗普不是共和党亿万富翁的选择,也不是任何共和党人的选择。在选举过程中,除了那些投票支持他的人之外每个人都反对他。这篇文章的标题应该是“民主党如何欺骗了伯尼(桑德斯)”。

telemann  J S Bach Sun, 05/20/2018 - 12:39 Permalink
Insightful assessment.  You grasp and express this non-obvious (to most) reality very well.  I hope you have other, more visible, outlets for your analyses, because people need to hear it.  Make your voice heard.  


有洞察力的评估。你很好地理解和表达了这个不明显的现实。我希望你还有其他更明确的分析,因为人们需要听到。让你的声音被听到。








相关评论

本类更新

本类推荐

本类排行

本站所有站内信息仅供娱乐参考,不作任何商业用途,不以营利为目的,专注分享快乐,欢迎收藏本站!
所有信息均来自:百度一下 ( 幸运飞艇直播视频)
蜀ICP备12010380号