Friends TV actress Jennifer Aniston recently stated, It’s not funny to vote for Kanye West in the upcoming 3 November US Presidential election because doing so would be wasting your vote. You know what is wasting your vote? Casting a vote for Biden or Trump. While I am sure there are many Americans out there that are Friends fans that will vote Democrat just because they worship at the celebrity altar of Jennifer Aniston, this is definitely not the solution to rampant dissatisfaction to the state of a nation. Under Trump, for all those that still don’t think he is part of the oligarchy, he continued, just like Obama did, to serve the richest segment of American society, and only this segment. The rich got richer under him, while the middle class continued its descent into the poor and the poor became poorer. The richest billionaires working in America – Gates, Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg – gathered another additional $637B of wealth during the viral inspired lockdown while the middle class and poor, as usual, became much poorer.
US bankers also received trillions of dollars of bailout through the overnight repo markets to solve a liquidity crisis that has been completely hidden by the mass media from public view, thanks to their constant focus on the virus that has been utilized to very deliberately and conveniently remove all focus off of the ongoing economic crisis. As soon as the world started to recover from the last global financial crisis in 2008, as the subprime mortgage housing sector was used to deflect all blame away from the true architects and engineers of that crisis – the bankers – I stated that whenever the next crisis arose, the bankers would find another scapegoat to blame for the economic fallout and misery to once again deflect blame away from themselves. In 2020, we learned that this scapegoat was a mild virus barely more dangerous than the common flu, and even then, only to an age demographic older than 70 years of age.
In comparison, the government “assistance” offered to American citizens, relative to the assistance offered billionaires and the wealthiest corporate sectors in America, has been and remains comical. If the stimulus checks offered to US citizens rivaled the stimulus money granted to the bankers and billionaires, they would not be a fraction of the income earned from the jobs US citizens lost as a consequence of a politically driven lockdown, but would comprise 100% to 200% of every citizen’s pre-lockdown income plus an additional 25% to 40% to compensate for the period of unemployment that will be required for everyone that lost their job to find a new job. And if you think that use of the economic lockdowns to shutter thousands of small businesses and transfer their wealth upward to the richest 1% of the nation was a feature distinct to the United States, you would be gravely mistaken. In China too, economic lockdowns crushed the financial livelihoods of millions of regular citizens, and the oligarchs in China parlayed lockdowns, financially devastating to most, into $1.5 trillion of additional wealth that would have been impossible to manufacture in the absence of the lockdowns.
“The world has never seen this much wealth created in just one year,” chief researcher Rupert Hoogewerf stated in response to the enormous wealth creation in China during the lockdown period. Marinate on this statement for just a minute, because neither have we ever observed a simultaneous period of enormous wealth destruction for the middle class and poor either. Understanding that within the same year, the greatest period of wealth creation among billionaires happened simultaneously with the greatest percentage of wealth destruction for the middle class and poor and you may finally start to connect the dots about the agenda of the ruling class. Again, the point of extending the economic lockdowns as long as possible (recall that initially global leaders promised us the lockdown would only last 15 days!) was so that the ruling class’s false narrative of the virus assuming responsibility for the exploding economic misery around the world could be sold to the masses while burying every other class under a mountain of debt.
Remember, the bankers’ motto has always been “Control the debt, control the people”, a process that starts soon after birth and doesn’t relent until death, from sending credit cards (i.e. debt cards) to children as young as twelve in order to condition them to living under debt, continues during university years, when they urge teenagers that are not even of legal age to drink alcohol to attend the “best schools” so they can graduate at age 20 with an additional few hundred thousands of dollars of academic debt, and then carries on to the encouragement of home ownership by age 30, which piles on perhaps a few more hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt upon assumption of a mortgage. Congratulations bankers, your plan succeeded and created entire generations of young adults barely 30 years of age that you have buried under a million dollars or more of debt. However, this year, 2020, provided the cherry on top of the ice cream sundae of debt, as the virus was used as an excuse to deliberately destroy millions of jobs around the world and further increase the debt burden of billions around the world, as borrowing among billions of citizens around the world soared to pay for food, mortgages, rent, and utilities necessary for survival.
Unfortunately, a horrific nature of this deliberately banker engineered mountain of debt per capita around the world is that this modus operandus has caused child sex trafficking to soar among the poorest nations in the world this year. The world’s poorest, unable to work due to politician enforced lockdowns and unable to secure loans from banks to feed their families, have been forced to borrow money from black market money lending operations run by criminal gangs that take these families’ young children as collateral for these loans. Consequently, these criminal gangs pimp out the young children, seized as collateral for loans on the black market that have exploded directly as a result of politician enforced lockdowns, in the underground sex trade.
Clearly political lockdowns, not the virus, have been responsible for well over 90% of the economic misery created in the world this year. Furthermore, Central Banking monetary policy since the 2008 global financial crisis, not the virus, created conditions at the start of 2020 that enabled the rapid deterioration of hundreds of millions of people’s financial lives. So quickly we have forgotten the US stock market plunge that began this year. So quickly we have forgotten that the entire global financial system came within a point of no return, in March 2020, of complete implosion that required US Central Bankers to call an emergency meeting to immediately cut the Fed Funds interest rate to zero, as they could not even wait a few more days until their regularly scheduling interest rate decision meeting to do so. If you have no idea of what I’m talking about, then just watch this video I published back in March titled, “The Real Reason the Feds Just Panic Cut Interest Rates to Zero.” Again, due to the mass media focusing all attention on the virus, no one in the media even pretended to investigate the real reasons why US Central Bankers could not even wait a few more days before announcing the interest rate cut back to zero back then.
The Irony of the False “Wasted Vote” Argument
The irony of people like Jennifer Aniston stating that a vote for Kanye West is a wasted vote is that this argument is actually the exact opposite of the truth. The only possible way to force positive change from the current political electoral process, whether in the US, Canada, Australia, Brazil, the UK, Germany or New Zealand is to cast a vote for someone running on the ticket of an independent party that is not beholden to lobbying interests because of massive financial donations to that candidate’s election campaign. While true that a candidate like Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen would be a much better vote than a vote cast for Ye, it is also true that Kanye’s zero political experience matches the political experience of our current US President before he became President in 2012. Common sense will allow people of average intellect to understand that someone cannot make a successful transition from being a reality TV star to being the US President without much more powerful people behind the scenes really making policy decisions and running the country. Thus if Kanye were somehow elected, he would only serve as a figurehead with his cabinet making all important decisions, much as many past US Presidents, Canadian PMs, Australian PMs and UK PMs have been.
Consequently, the fact that Kanye has no political experience would not be any more of a detriment to his ability to “run” the nation than Trump’s zero political experience before he became the POTUS. However, the reason why a vote cast for Kanye, or for any of the dozens of other independent party US Presidential candidates, even if they have zero chance of winning, is not a “wasted vote” is because people that really want real change in America are much better voting for Kanye or any independent party candidate, even knowing that they will not win in 2020, and I will tell you why. Again, because the majority of people today have little to no critical thinking skills and people are always twisting my words, let me reiterate one more time what I’ve already stated. What makes Kanye qualified to be President of the United States? Nothing, other than a publically expressed genuine desire to help the segment of Americans that are struggling the most, which already provides him with a quality that no US President during our lifetimes has possessed. Does this quality alone qualify him to lead a nation? No, and I never said that it would. However, it certainly does not disqualify him from leading the nation. But here’s why voting for any independent party Presidential candidate on 3 November is a more effective strategy to eventually force positive change to the electoral process than doing the same thing over and over again every four years, and caving in to the peer pressure of selecting the least worst candidate definitely will maintain the status quo.
The ruling class convinces celebrities like Jennifer Aniston to warn us to not vote for a third party candidate because doing so is “wasting a vote” because they understand that voting independent is the only possible way to throw them out of office. And I’m going to explain in this article how to achieve this, even with the knowledge that the independent party candidate for whom you vote cannot win the 2020 election, or the next national election in whatever nation you may reside. The beauty of the blueprint for change that I am going to provide you is that it will work in any nation, just not inside the United States of America.
Even though I always state that we must always take any poll results with a grain of salt, simply because most polls are funded by organizations with political agendas and directed to yield a desired result and therefore conducted with extremely questionable methodologies, I’m going to discuss the results of a recent poll run by the Pew foundation to make a point. The poll I’m going to reference concluded that nearly 9 out of every 10 Americans or 87% of Americans are currently dissatisfied with the current state of America. This would normally be the death knell for the incumbent President during an election year as one could extrapolate that meaning, normally with reasonable levels of confidence, to signify that nearly 90% of Americans want a new President. Digging deeper into those numbers, 7 out of 10 respondents said that they were “angry” and another 2 out of every 3 respondents said they were “fearful” about the state of America, an extremely volatile cocktail for violence to emerge from the election results should people not receive their desired outcome. As a martial artist, the two big enemies in battler are anger and fear. Strike out in anger, and not only will anger slow down your response time and make your striking less accurate and powerful, but it will also cloud your judgment. Respond to a life and death situation with fear, and the paralysis of fear will likely cost you to pay with your life.
The Blueprint to Take the Power Back
As I have stated numerous times in past articles I have written, the ruling class has very successfully implemented a binary decision-making model that only benefits them and never benefits the other 330 million American citizens of the US. Since this model is applied to every platform in modern day life necessary to control people, it has undoubtedly been applied to the political election model, and as such, is near guaranteed to produce hundreds of millions of very angry Americans about the election outcome on 3 November, regardless of the outcome. Now, imagine if the US Presidential campaign was run in a manner in which a third option was provided on the ballot that said “dissatisfied with both candidates” and if this option garnered the most votes, the opposition party in the election, in this case being the Democrats, would be required to withdraw their current candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency and offer another President/ Vice President pairing, thus giving rise to a new election. This process would be repeated until the ballot option “dissatisfied with both candidates” did not win the majority of votes.
Such a process would guarantee that the opposition party would had to provide candidates that American citizens actually believed would serve them instead of the ruling oligarchy, especially if they failed to offer such viable candidates during the first round of the national election. Of course, such a logical change to the election process that would guarantee a winner that the vast majority of voters strongly supported instead of a winner that was chosen as the “lesser of two evils” would never be voluntarily implemented by the ruling class as the oligarchs are only interested in getting incompetent people into office that will continue to maintain the current equilibrium and continue to serve their interests. Furthermore, as has been the historical case in US elections, though I imagine this election will see higher numbers, only about half of the eligible voting population ever turns out to vote in every US Presidential election. As there are massive numbers of Americans that never vote because they just do not see a candidate that will believe will serve them on the ballot, if a third option of “dissatisfied with both candidates” existed, the typical 50% of eligible voters that actually vote in US Presidential elections would likely explode higher from 50% to 75% or even 90% of all eligible voters voting. Such an option would present compelling reasons for all dissatisfied voters that believe they wielded no power in previous elections to come out and vote upon the realization that they actually possess a tremendous voice I who becomes the next leader of a nation. But here is the trick the ruling class has played on us. By getting us to believe that voting for an independent party candidate with no chance of winning is a “wasted vote” and by convincing social media influences to spread this false message of imprisonment to a highly flawed, unserviceable system, they ensure that this highly flawed and broken system will remain in use. What we fail to realize is that the third option of “dissatisfied with both candidates” already exists on every voting ballot but just not with those exact words. The third option of “dissatisfied with both candidates” in this year’s 2020 Presidential election all have names instead. This option is represented by Kanye West, Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen, Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins, independent candidate Jesse Ventura and every other name on a ballot that is not Joe Biden or Donald Trump.
And even though it is 99.99% guaranteed that no independent party member will win the US election in a week, here is why voting for any candidate other than Trump or Biden would ultimately be the best strategy for anyone that understands that neither the incumbent Trump or a new President of Biden will serve their interests. If people realized that every name that was not Biden or Trump represented, in reality, a vote for the “dissatisfied with both candidates” vote, and cumulatively, the dozens of candidates not named Biden or Trump captured 30% of the total vote, here is why this outcome is the only one capable of forcing positive change in America. Even if votes for all candidates not named Biden or Trump only totaled 10%, as may be more realistic than 30%, here is why this still is not as “wasted vote”. Even if the top non-Republican/Democrat independent candidate only captured 3% of the overall vote, with all the rest of the independent candidates not capturing any greater amount than 2% of the overall vote, the very fact that 30%, or even 10% of all voters essentially cast a vote for “dissatisfied with both candidates” would force the winning President to take notice of a large segment of the American voting public who were so dissatisfied with both candidates that they were compelled to cast a vote for a candidate that they knew would not win the election. Not wasted a vote, but were compelled to vote for a candidate they knew would lose. There is a massive difference between these two conclusions.
Since most likely, the blueprint to force positive change to a national election process would take multiple election cycles to achieve, if the independent party candidates won 10% of the overall vote, as long as education in the next four years ensued to explain this blueprint to more and more people, and to keep the 10% that cast a vote for an independent party candidate committed to voting independent in the next Presidential election, an increase of 10% to 30% of the overall vote won by independent candidates would be easily achievable. So, after the next election, for the first time in election history, the winning President would be forced to serve a segment of the US population for the first time in our lives that has been ignored by every single President (unless you were alive when JFK was President). At the opposite side of this decision spectrum is the decision to continue casting a vote for one of the two major party candidates, even though neither that has a record of helping the regular American citizen, and even though you already know that doing so is a poor solution to an even more poorly engineered political system. Consequently, instead of just casting a vote for who you truly believed would be the most likely to serve all 330 million Americans instead of just the few hundred thousand that reside at the top of the wealth pyramid, you ensure that the two party system captures 95% of the total vote in the upcoming election, and crush the hope of those that voted independent that they will ever be able to unite for the good of everyone to force positive change. As long as the winning US President reviews the vote count and views that dozens of independent candidates only captured a cumulative 5% of the total vote, then he will never serve that constituent base.
However, as I noted above, if the independent vote registers only 10% in the voting totals of this election, and this amount may not be enough to force the incumbent President to serve the constituency that comprised this 10%, this would still be progress as long as the 10% spend the next four years educating everyone about how to use their strategy to force change and as long as the 10% remain committed to a multi-election cycle time period for the strategy to work. Then, as I noted, perhaps four years later the 10% morphs into 30% and of that 30%, a single independent candidate captures 10% of that 30% of the vote. This achievement would definitely convince the winning President to serve the 10% of the constituency that voted for this independent party candidate as that 10% is a significant enough percentage of the overall vote to swing the next election in or out of his favor.
In the next Presidential election, the independent voters that collectively captured 30% of the vote would then need to identify a viable independent candidate that the majority of them could back, stay committed to the process, and not vote for the incumbent simply because he was forced to serve their interests during the prior four years. Then, during this election, they may be able to funnel 38% of the cumulative 43% independent vote to one candidate, and elect an independent party candidate just three Presidential election cycles after the strategy was deployed. However, as long as the ruling class keeps successfully spreading the message that a vote for an independent party candidate is a wasted vote and that you are much better off voting for someone a candidate to lead your nation that you dislike less than the opposition, you will keep casting votes for continued helplessness among the masses and concentrated power within the hands of the oligarchs.
Even if this process wasn’t achieved in three Presidential cycles but required four or five to achieve, it is still a process that is infinitely better than continuing to vote for the least worst candidate in every national election, a behavior that guarantees the next election cycle will once again force you to vote for the least worst candidate instead of an awesome one. And this is why voting independent is not a waste of a vote. It is only a waste of a vote as long as voters believe they are helpless and powerless. But for every other person that recognizes he or she is not helpless and powerless, voting independent can be a strategy for real, positive change in the future.
Historical Precedent Exists that Proves My Blueprint to Take the Power Back Would Work
Only people that believe themselves to be powerless and helpless against the edicts of the ruling class would believe that the above strategy could never work. In fact we already have historical precedent, and not even that long ago, that proves such a strategy will work. In 1980, Independent Party candidate John B. Anderson captured nearly 7% of the total vote, while in 1992, Independent Party candidate Ross Perot captured a stunning 19% of the total vote. While most people do not remember Perot’s second run for the office of the US Presidency in 2006, he still captured a significant 6% of the vote during his second run. Furthermore, in all three of these instances, independent party members won significant portions of the total vote with no cohesive, strategic, multi-election phase plan among all citizens dissatisfied with both major Party candidates. Consequently, if a multi-election cycle commitment to a cohesive, lucid strategy existed among all people dissatisfied with the current two party system, my blueprint by which people could take the power back could most definitely work. And if we only realized how to utilize our collective power in unifying with one another, we could easily produce a candidate during a national election that, for the first time in any of our lives, would serve our interests before those of the oligarchy.
For the Blueprint to Work, We Must Also Escape the Binary Decision-Making Model Intended to Enslave Us
That said, people of color also need to realize that just because someone may have the same color skin as yourself does not mean they have your best interests at heart. In fact, in politics, most likely they do not, though they may try to leverage this shared trait to dupe and deceive as many people as possible to gain the vote of others that may look like them. I’ve said a million times before, even if Andrew Yang captured the Democratic nomination this year, though I’m sure millions of mindless Asians would simply vote for Yang because he would have been the first Asian American candidate for Presidency in US history, I would have needed to more carefully assess his background and his platform first before just deciding that Yang deserved my vote. Or if this happens in the future, and the incumbent President, because he or she was an independent candidate that won and truly served the American people’s interests during his or her first term was running against Yang, I really would have to assess who was the better candidate of the two before deciding for whom to vote, as simply voting for someone due to shared skin color or racial traits is the action of a complete non-intellectual.
Many people of color should study Biden’s and Kamala Harris’s track record in the US justice system and understand that this pairing is the very reason many brown and black people are in prison today before just blindly casting a vote for them. Again, I’ve always said the better or worse argument is horrible – that I have to take this action because it is the lesser of two actions, both of which I believe are bad. The moral choice is always the best choice, meaning vote for the candidate that you believe is the best one among all choices, including the dozens of independent ones. While true, for 2020, due to the lack of understanding among people that such actions will force zero positive change, if people keep voting for the candidate they believe is less worse than the other one, then the one certain outcome is that no positive change will ever happen. If everyone followed their moral conscience in voting for the best possible candidate that they believed would serve the American people and not the ruling class of oligarchs, which face it, we all know will happen with another Republican and Democrat in office for the next four years, even if we can’t start out with 30% of the vote captured by the independent vote, but only 3% of the entire vote, then this is a start. Because with further education in the next election cycle then maybe the independent vote can grow from 3% to 10% and grow exponentially with the deployment of the strategy I have provided to finally win an independent party candidate the Presidency in the future.
Finally, to further illustrate the degree to which the system is rigged and that the only positive change can be made by forcing decisions outside of the binary decision matrix, I am going to predict that the mass media will run a slew of headlines of increasing virus infection numbers in the days before the 3 November election in the US? Why? Well clearly, much of the US media has shown a great distaste for President Trump during his first four years of office. Again, my preference for who wins the 2020 US Presidential election is neither two party candidate. One way to hurt Trump’s re-election bid would be to report on surging virus infection numbers in the days leading up to the election simply due to the ignorance of many Americans that their economic misery is NOT a result of the virus and how Trump has handled the virus, but rather a direct product of the actions of their State governors and municipal mayors that self-anointed themselves as Queen and King of the territories they ruled to impose economic tyranny upon citizens. Secondly, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if China reported a huge outbreak in a major city and maybe, since Wuhan has the best name recognition, even another second wave of massive infections in Wuhan? Why? Because I think that Chinese State officials believe Biden would be far more accommodating than Trump regarding the current ongoing economic war. If Chinese media reported a second wave of infections, which I believe would be entirely manufactured if it were to happen, this would likely be done with the objective to inspire more lockdowns in the US immediately prior to the elections to hurt Trump’s re-election possibilities. Despite the US media reporting stories that Biden should win re-election in a landslide, I’m not buying that the election contest will be a runaway win for either party.
As I started writing this article during the week of October 20th and am only publishing it on my skwealthacademy news site on the 26th, I’ve already seen, unsurprisingly, news of second waves of infections in US, China an Europe just as predicted. However, I expect the news of exploding infections to reach a frenzy and peak towards the end of this week and on the day prior to the US election. It’s nearly guaranteed that the worst news about these second wave of infections will be reserved for the days immediately preceding the US election. And if we do, which is nearly inevitable at this point as we already can observe mass media priming us for far worse news on this front, this may help those of you understand just how the ruling class widely uses their management perception game to affect behavior of the serfs over whom they rule as well as exert undue influence over the outcome of the election (I only use the term ‘serfs’ because undoubtedly that is how the ruling class perceives all those that are not members of their class).
More Management Perception in Play?
The one aspect of the divisions in the US political game that I have still been unable to determine whether or not are real or part of a management perception game is the presentation of the opposition of most of the US alphabet (intelligence) agencies to President Trump, including even the leaked story about how Trump will immediately fire FBI Director Christopher Wray and CIA Director Gina Haspel if re-elected. I am still not certain that these stories are not manufactured to give the public the impression that Trump is at massive odds with US intelligence agencies even though he is really not. In other words, even if Trump is re-elected, and Wray and Haspel are fired, that could be a move deemed by intelligence agencies as just two lambs that need to be sacrificed in order to maintain this public belief. After all, is that not what intelligence agencies do? Deceive and mask the true relationships that exist? Even regarding the leaked stories about how ex-FBI Director James Comey ignored and buried evidence that “U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server” the would have disproven the Russiagate scandal that cemented opinion in most people’s minds that the FBI and President Trump hated each other, how do we know for certain that this is not just a cover to build a false narrative? Again, I know many people would dismiss this possibility simply by stating that President Trump is not smart enough to accomplish this, but no one’s perceptions could ever be successfully managed if they understood that their perceptions were being managed. The perception management game can only have great success when the targeted audience fails to realize that their perceptions are being actively managed. If Trump wins re-election, I believe that the narrative built for the past several years of Trump being at tremendous odds with US intelligence agencies is a false, managed one.
All skwealthacademy content is 100% supported by my listeners. To support us, please visit patreon.com/skwealthacademy. For financial news with a critical eye, please bookmark our website at maalamalama.com/wordpress. To help us launch or online academy, skwealthacademy, please visit gofundme.com/f/skwealthacademy. Only THREE WEEKS LEFT in this campaign to help us get off the ground. This campaign, due to the global economic lockdowns, is vital to a successful launch. If you’ve enjoyed this article, to ensure that I retain the ability to keep producing such articles, please share this article with everyone you know. To download an mp3 audio file of this article, please subscribe for free to my podcast downloads here.
