For those that don’t know, Roger Goodell is the commissioner of the NFL. The reason I bring that up is because the way Goodell yields power at the NFL is a very good analogy for how the deep state needs to keep the two party system going in order to maintain control.

So here is the analogy, Roger Goodell doesn’t care what team you choose to be a fan of. All he cares about is that you DO pick a team, and then conversely, dislike the other teams. He wins either way, as long as you pick a team. He doesn’t care what team you root for or which ones you hate (as well as their fans) because either way, his organization grows stronger as long as you pick a side and become emotionally invested in that side. The whole goals is to just get you supporting one side and vilifying the other. The side you pick is irrelevant to him or his organization, as they win either way. Of course, this is totally fine in the world of sports and I’m not accusing Goodell of being evil, but when this is applied to politics, it does become dangerous.

And this is exactly what the deep state does. They don’t care what team you choose, Republican or Democrat, as long as you choose a side. Once you choose a side, they win either way.

And here is one of the ways it works so well. With about half the country either being Republican or Democrat, no matter what crimes take place in government, there is always half the country who will defend the crimes simply because they are on the same “Team”. So if Bill Clinton committed crimes in office, half the country will defend him. If George Bush committed crimes, the other half will defend him. This all sets up a sort of gridlock where virtually any amount of corruption or even criminal behavior goes unpunished simply because there will never be consensus among the public to do anything. So you end up with a long public debate and arguments back and forth but ultimately nothing is ever done, nobody is held accountable, and the deep state just keeps on with business as usual, slowly concentrating power and creating the largest wealth transfer mechanism in history while the public fights over trivial issues.







Not only that, a media machine is built around catering to these two parties and the deepening divide between people’s political beliefs. You end up with a media landscape where truth is almost impossible to find since nobody will sacrifice their cash cow news gig by telling people the actual story and instead will just default to the same old “it’s the other sides fault”.

It’s such a simple and well known divide and conquer style strategy, but people just can’t imagine it could take place on a grand scale, or even that it can happen to them. They are so blinded by their loyalties to whatever ideology or political party they are in, there is no way in their minds they feel they could be getting played.

Now of course conservative and progressive ideologies are in fact real things and the differences can be discussed openly. They are not made up ideas simply for the sake of control. And people do generally tend to lean one way or the other. However, when that is used to divide people, that’s when you start having a problem. For example, people from two different ethnic cultures are indeed real as are their cultural differences, but once a third party starts trying to divide those people based on the difference, that’s manipulation. This is a key distinction, you can have an open discourse about the two ideologies and the spectrum they represent, but when it is used to divide the population, then it has gone beyond a debate and morphed into a control mechanism.

This is why the notion of “populism” is often used with a negative connotation in American political discourse. Populism is generally based on the common man being angry with the elite, and that common enemy (the elite) is what unites the population. Any attempt to pit the population against each other will be met with resistance as they don’t believe their neighbors are the reason for specific issues, but the elites in charge are the reason things are bad.

In 2016, the campaign of Donald Trump showed signs of a populist message, and it resonated with people who were formerly supporters of Barack Obama, so a populist message has the ability to break down the two party system. Of course, it was only a mild populist message, but even then, much of the media attempted to portray it as dangerous nationalism that could quickly get out of control and fuel a far right movement. Often invoking comparisons to the Nazis of World War 2 Germany. This was obviously a smear campaign against a populist message, the same way 3rd party candidates are smeared because they may disrupt the 2 party system.

In the end, a population has to unite if it wants a truly effective long term government. The only power the people have against a government is in their numbers. Once those numbers are allowed to be divided, the population loses its one and only truly effective weapon against their own government.







