In the United States, the members and followers of the Democratic Party are veritable sheep. This is a stunning hypothesis, and it is easily laughed off by anyone with an ounce of intelligence.
I have proposed it to various Americans, from my family members to groups in online discussion communities like Reddit’s boards. One frequent retort is that Republicans are sheep, too! Well, let me expand on this.
In life, an ounce of intelligence doesn’t get you very far. Let’s proceed by relating an average sheep as possessing several ounces of intelligence, and postulate that due to the physiological structure of a sheep’s brain, sheep are unable to possess more than several ounces of intelligence. Humans, by comparison, are able to possess tons of intelligence, although the vast majority achieve far below potential. Is this by design? And if so, by whom?
Look at a map of the 2020 U.S. election results by county. This is easy to find on your own by a quick internet search. There is one striking feature of this map to which I will draw your attention—— that is the overwhelming congregation of blue counties in urban, well-developed areas. Almost all of USA’s cities are Democrat-leaning. The urbanized counties surrounding city centers are also Democrat-leaning and voted blue.
We want to thank Kensley Vitoria for this Op-Ed. If you have an Op-Ed or LTE
you would like us to consider, please submit it to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
On the other hand, all un-urbanized land is red—— Republican. There is a marked split between people who live in less-populated areas and people who live in densely-populated areas. Why is it that people who live in less-populated areas choose to support the Republican party?
Rural lifestyle depends on the successful development of many attributes— self-sufficiency, a healthy relationship with society, a direct engagement with county- and state-level governance and law enforcement, a real understanding of self defense and ownership, and a strongly developed sense of courageousness. It takes courage to live in a rural area, apart from the hives that are modern cities. People in rural areas are more attuned to the natural cycles of the planet.
Many of them farm the land, thus their livelihood is dependent upon natural growing cycles and harvests. Interestingly, people who vote red aren’t overly concerned with climate change. Rural folks are typically not wasteful and get the most lifespan possible out of products they buy from markets.
City life, on the other hand, is vibrantly fast-paced. A typical citizen in a city never actually touches the Earth itself. All contact is through paved roads, sidewalks, or floors of constructed buildings. There is a real disconnect from natural cycles. Yet, these people living in cities are almost all in agreement that climate change is a threat to humanity.
City dwellers are dependent upon each other, typically extremely disconnected or distrustful of governance and law enforcement (unless they are a part of either), and largely unaware of the complex economies that allow they themselves to receive refined products in market — like food, computer hardware, anything plastic or steel, and furniture. Waste is a part of urban life— many people in cities throw anything broken away thinking it’s cheaper to just buy new than to repair.
This is a striking difference in lifestyle can be further crystallized by considering openness towards other perspectives. Broadly speaking, in the USA, city dwellers, based on voting patterns, are Democrats. The only way these statements do not hold true is if the US Democrat Party is committing widespread election fraud in cities and winning urban elections purely through fraud.
Let’s look at some real stereotypes about these folks. US Democrats do not want to accept other points of view about the way the world works. Critically, Democrats don’t even want to accept the possibility that there are other legitimate meanings to words and ideas. In Democrat-land, there is one way. It’s the Democrat way.
This is not entirely the case in counties that vote red. If you go to those places and talk to people there, you might understand that people who vote red in the USA do not typically force other people to change their views or opinions. Red state culture is relatively more laissez-faire— people are generally free to do and say what they like without the negative social ramifications that are prevalent in urban blue areas. Only a few areas of the country are rural blue.
Perhaps the most striking societal difference between red and blue in the USA is media consumption. Those who consider themselves Democrats or vote blue read CNN, MSNBC, HuffPo, and major syndicated newspapers and online news media platforms. These sources have one thing in common: they view any news sources that publish a variety of perspective on certain issues as taboo. Recently topics like January 6, the Freedom Convoys, wearing surgical masks to prevent flu transmission, and Hillary Clinton see a drastic divergence in perspectives.
In 2016 and 2017, around the time when the idea of fake news began to take hold more widely, CNN and several leftist corporate media platforms syndicated articles with a list of fake news websites. These were purportedly demonized websites that were considered dangerous to visit. News platforms like ZeroHedge. Breitbart, InfoWars, The Gateway Pundit, and a series of others are generally labelled as right-leaning, alt-right, or far right. The message from leftist syndicated corporate media was clear, “Don’t read these news websites because they are wrong.”
Not surprisingly, tens of millions blindly obeyed, without a trace of critical thought. Like sheep. A good-sized segment of the population only reads CNN and nothing else.
Even if a website like Breitbart broke real news about real things happening, leftist corporate media ignored it, and citizens with leftist alignments (i.e. those buying into the belief that anything but leftist corporate media was inherently taboo) were largely unaware of it.
A case in point is the name of CNN pundit Brian Stelter’s show Reliable Sources, which may be one of the most slanted and opinionated television shows on TV masquerading as journalism. This show only covers a few specific news events, and these are skewed by a surprisingly heavy dose of opinionated political commentary.
Imagine if you only watched Brian Stelter and relied on nothing else for your understanding of world events. Well, there may actually be people like that out there.
The reader would do well to further understand journalism in its modern sense. Corporate news is heavily thought siloed. There are very insulated pipelines from journalism schools like GW’s School of Media and Public Affairs to NYU’s Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute that train people to think and act a certain way.
Nearly every single one of these institutions is in Democrat-run cities. Any students with views considered right-of-center are typically brainwashed before graduating. The top students become interns for corporate media companies where thinking a certain way is rewarded with promotion.
The field of journalism is divided most starkly into investigative reporters and pundits. Pundits are the guys like Don Lemon and Brian Stelter who are more interested in framing real events in the context of their narrative than in seeing the world for what it is. They are not realists. They are almost like magicians, in the sense that they use spells to make people think a certain way. They project their worldviews, which are rife with political slant, racism, ideological dogmatism, and stigmatisms.
Consider stigmatism. What do the terms right-leaning, alt-right, or far-right even mean? These are highly stigmatized ideas. When someone says them in a way that is critical of information, they typically are attempting to other that information and slander it. By attaching this label, the implicit will is to make that information unreliable, unrepeatable, and counterfactual.
What’s so bad about the political right? Well, I would say— nothing. If anything, recently in the past five years at least, they have become not only right in a political sense, but also in a moral sense. As in, they have no shred of moral grounding whatsoever.
It’s pretty clear that the left has totally abandoned morality. Most Democrat leftists don’t even think in terms of morality. Many leftists are nihilists, having no faith in society and little understanding of the ideas of good, order, and justice. Their actions are not driven by what is good or bad in a more universal sense, but by what is good or bad only for themselves as individuals, and especially what is good or bad for their perceived tribe. They willingly do bad to people who they consider oppose them. Even if those people are their fellow countrymen and women, leftists are willing to do bad to them in order to elevate and enrich themselves.
Historically, the idea of a political right and left derived from French politics around the time of the revolution in 1789, which marked a transition from monarchial rule to a constitutional parliamentary republic. The left side of the National Assembly was where the revolutionaries gathered, while the right was where the supporters of the crown met.
Interestingly, in the French language, the word for left is gauche, which also means wrong, foolish, unhappy, or clumsy. The word for right is also similar to the English word, with connotations of justice, truthfulness, naturalness, and goodness. This is a fascinating juxtaposition in connotation.
Why do leftist political leaders in the USA do the things they do and say the things they say? Are they actors? Are they doing these things knowing their decisions are going to have evil effects on their citizenry, the people that they represent? Or are they doing them out of stupidity and do they lack the brainpower to know better? Do they do these things because they honestly think that they are doing something good and worthwhile? These are important questions, and it may be the case that it is a combination of all three, with other causes as well.
Most essentially, leftists have completely lost alignment with one of the most core components of being liberal— that is democracy itself. Democracy is a system of governance that encourages and enables everyone in a society to participate in governance and the political process.
Yet, modern US so-called Democrat leaders are encouraging the destruction of a decentralized voting system, enabling people to commit voter fraud, abetting violent attacks on their political opponents, breaking established law for personal political gain, fanning the fires of racialized conflict, jailing those who criticize their legitimacy, and weaponizing law enforcement to destroy peaceful protest. None of this is democratic. In fact, all of these actions run directly counter to the very idea of democracy.
Through it all, leftist corporate media ignores any discussion of these fundamental realities. Instead, they refer to it as disinformation or misinformation. Then, they construct other narratives as a distraction. For instance, a possible Ukraine-Russia war or drama surrounding the Olympic Games.
Today, when a household pet, like a dog or cat, or a farm animal, like a sheep or goat, injures itself, a doctor will typically apply a conical collar to prevent the animal from licking or biting the wound and exacerbating the injury. This device has the indirect consequence of severely limiting vision. It is called an Elizabethan collar, after a European-style ruff worn around the neck in the 16th and 17th centuries. In US cities, where the flow of information is high volume and life is fast-paced, the common citizen unknowingly wears an Elizabethan collar. To their detriment.
This is what modern leftist leaders in the media have done to citizens in cities. Outfit them with veritable psychological blinders. It is a dangerous tactic to willfully stupify the citizenry. A democracy thrives when the maximum number of people are intelligent and well-informed.
Let this be a call to the leftist corporate media syndicates.
Inform the masses. Give people the intellectual tools to see information from various sources and to decide for themselves what to believe and what opinions to support.
