It is very hard to see the “regime” for what it is and what it is doing. Never mind the idea that their actions are covert, because they’re not. Their actions are in plain sight and many applaud and defend their efforts, unbeknownst to even themselves. It’s hard to piece together the comprising glass of the cathedral because of the way the media presents information. Most information today is “breaking news,” released in momentary soundbites where articles are essentially written in at most 500 words, with the bulk of the topic based on what we already know and then pivoting to tangentially related information, with only a small snippet of the update in a paragraph or two to pay homage the headline.
On cable news, we may have greater commentary into these subjects but it still cannot be classified as journalism because it is a priori motivated by a desire for something to be true, even truer than it might be. So if you were to browse any outlet at all and search “FBI raid,” you would receive dozens of articles that span across the duration of the news cycle, be it a week, a month, and then increasingly longer intermittent intervals when the cycle has gone and no longer incentivizes its coverage. There would be a lot of redundancies and hardly ever a summation and deep dive into the incident—unless we look elsewhere than the mainstream.
We can offer up the excuse that the public has lost their minds and cannot concentrate for more than a few seconds and for more than a sentence at a time, but this would only be partially true. The relationship between the public and the media is mutual: if the media were to push the brakes on the redundancies tomorrow, then they would immediately take part in shaping the attention span of their audience, although they would simultaneously harm their profits as they are no longer exploiting the public’s addiction to outrage and clickbait that the regime and media have hooked them on to begin with.
The public is left to piece together all of this information themselves which, for better and worse, prevents them from understanding more than the bare essentials—and even this is a being gracious concession because they don’t generally have the time to understand even that. This is dangerous to democracy because this ignorance is exploited by the regime in order to hide itself within the canals of the media: in other words, the more a public is kept superficial and ignorant of the issues of the day, the better the chance for the parasite that is the administrative state to survive and pursue its ideological ends.
The so-called “democracy” that our constitutional republic is synonymously referred as is not under threat because some rednecks stormed the capitol or even because some semen-stained black hooded dweebs decided to set a courthouse ablaze; if our “democracy” were to be under attack it would be because the public is becoming increasingly more despotically democratic—that is to say that they are rehearsing a premeditated script while being offered the opportunity to exercise their voices (really the regime’s voice) through the ballot (envision zombies going to cast a ballot, or sheep, if you prefer—they have no idea who or what they are voting for, only that it is good).
The safeguards heralded by the republic instituted in the Constitution is clearly not enough to keep the deaf and blind masses at bay, who are groomed by the regime as it strives to maintain informational uniformity through the media. The media is uniform and consequentially effective for the regime because it has a “transitory formula” (breaking news saturating the public’s political conscience) that is exploited to demand of the public that they do a journalist’s job—that is to say that if they want to be, not only informed, but aware of what the regime is up to, then they must do what is historically the job of the journalist: figuring it all out. The issue for the public, however, is that the average citizen cannot afford to spend his days keeping a watch on the inner workings of the regime.
You see, life is not going so well right now. Knowledge is the privilege of the rich, not the profession of the working class; so when the working class begins to push back against the machina, he is nothing less than a terrorist who seeks to destabilize the somnambulism of the public (or, if you prefer, he forestalls the zombie apocalypse) that ushers in the elitist utopia that they have everyone sold on—the sooner you are asleep, the sooner you are awake; the sooner you own nothing, the sooner you will be happy.
To solve for this incapability, the citizen might voluntarily cede discretionary power to his representatives or senators to serve within the government as its watchdog. The Constitution is essentially the surveillance of this state allegedly serving the people: in other words, it is a “shield to protect the people from the government…the Constitution was designed to govern the government, not the people.”
Unfortunately, even our representatives are unable to successfully keep a watchful eye because they are slighted by the regime’s established bureaucracy.
When Senator Chuck Grassley, the top ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked FBI Director Christopher Wray for a copy of Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten’s case reports, the FBI does not have to provide those documents. This is in spite of the fact that Auten, who vetted the falsified Steele Dossier and allegedly discredited evidence against Hunter Biden prompting an investigation into his business dealings to close in 2020, is now handling the documents obtained by the agency in the raid against the former president.
As more information comes out over the FBI’s raid, the so-called investigation into the president is demonstrated to be built on false pretenses—it’s corruption. Is Senator Grassley capable of effectuating meaningful difference in this matter? The answer is no. Because there are no institutions for accountability that are beyond the regime’s control.
The second solution appears to some as not only taking back Congress but winning the presidency. This too, is ineffectual. Since Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), the president is held captive by the administrative for being unable to fire those within agencies that are only symbolically under his power. The case ruled that Congress could establish “independent” agencies within the executive branch; the caveat, however, is that the president cannot exercise full control over these agencies nor its employees, giving us a government not outlined in the Constitution and one which the public does not think of when they think “democracy.”
So when the public decries the unelected bureaucracy, the public’s elected officials cannot retire them. In fact, they are beholden to them. If there ever was a democracy, it would now be held captive by a government altogether different than that established in the Constitution and founding documents. Alas, although the United States structured its constitutional republic to stifle the unfettered democratic impulse that lends itself to tyranny, that tyranny has nevertheless leaked its way into our system by the same safeguards—the judicial branch, unbeknownst to them, rendered the president a figurehead and Congress solidified that symbol when they delegated power to “independent” agencies that have taken power away from them all.
At the same time, we are also experiencing the same tyrannical majority, characteristic of a democracy, of which the founders had warned us. The regime—that combination of unelected officials (we shall call them the untouchables) and institutions that do their bidding, such as the aforementioned media—is exploiting the masses ignorance and diluting the vote to create the perfect zombie-like populace that will overwhelmingly give credence to their plans and solidify their control.
But ultimately, none of this is true. The government cares about us and our bureaucracy works for the public’s best interests. They do not scoff at “we the people,” in the same way the disillusioned right does. They are the gatekeepers to this nation, and everything is fine. Go back to Twitter, scrolling through headlines of rage—let the scientists worry about the more important things.