Interesting article. The inability of the typical voter to hold a coherent or rational set of political beliefs goes a long way to explaining the type of government we endure.

In some ways I admire the newly liberated african countries method of "one man - one vote - once". Keeps it simple.

“The typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field,� the economic theorist Joseph Schumpeter wrote, in 1942. “He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. He becomes a primitive again. His thinking is associative and affective.�

In other words, they suspend the critical faculty and act emotionally.

In other words, they suspend the critical faculty and act emotionally.

Very much so. Even though I never supported Ross Perot in the 1992 Campaign, did anyone else here notice how quickly the masses turned away from him immediately after the media spread stories about his "paranoia", and that he was "crazy"???? There seems to exist within humans some primal fear of insanity, this fear is so deeply rooted that all it takes is a single HINT that someone is not "like you" to make people dislike that individual. The same thing happened with this Democrat Howard Dean SCREAM scandal early in the year. The lemming mind is frightened by anyone who is passionate because the lemmings are NEVER passionate about any idea beyond primitive survival. I've noticed this reflex reaction even in personal interactions with people...how quickly their eyes light up in fear or danger when expressions like "That guy is nuts" or "He's weird" are used......

This much is clear: Anyone who believes in anything which goes BEYOND personal material interest/desire for pleasure is not viewed as SANE by normal people.

The many clues that GWBush is insane were never picked up by the media.

This much is clear: Anyone who believes in anything which goes BEYOND personal material interest/desire for pleasure is not viewed as SANE by normal people.

I would also speculate that, like everything else, there are extremes of "saneness", and that one who is more sane than average will also be considered "weird", "odd", or - in some cases - even insane.

Ironically, those who are blessed with superior sanity appear to people of average mental health as "odd", or "weird", or - yes - even insane.

MUCH madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
’T is the majorityIn this, as all, prevails.
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,—you ’re straightway dangerous,And handled with a chain.

Emily Dickinson

I would also speculate that, like everything else, there are extremes of "saneness", and that one who is more sane than average will also be considered "weird", "odd", or - in some cases - even insane.

More sane than "average", you might ask?

Well, consider some parallels: Aren't kids in school who fall at one extreme or another in regard to intelligence always the object of derision? Stupid kids are always the butt of jokes, but also the very intelligent ones too, often derided as "eggheads". It is only the kid of average intelligence that usually escapes such derision.

Or take body weight: Aren't people who fall at one extreme or another in regard to their weight always the object of derision? Skinny people are called "beanpoles" and obese people are called "fatties", but those of average body weight are never ridiculed.

Or take physical appearance: People who are unattractice are called "ugly" or "dogs" and those with exceptional good looks are called "stuck up", or "vain". On the other hand, those of average physical appearance are rarely commented on one way or another. You see, they "blend in" to the herd, whereas people that are ugly or exceptionally good-looking do not, and so become the focus of personal attacks, either out of viciousness or jealousy.

Or, finally, take income: People who are poor or homeless are called "trash" or "bums", while those who are very rich are called "moneybags", "filthy rich" or worse. But the individual of average income is seldom ridiculed, one way or the other.

Which brings me back to the concept of "saneness". I contend that there are degrees of "saneness", and that's why those who are obviously suffering from mental illness are often the focus of ridicule, such as being called "nuts" or "crazy" or "whacko". But what few realize is that there is an opposite pole to "saneness" too, and that, just as there are those who fall below the "average" for what is considered normal sanity, there are those who are above the average of normal sanity. In other words, they are MORE sane than the average person, they are MORE mentally healthy than the average person, but, being as they are not in the "average range" of sanity, they too, like the mentally ill person, stand out in a crowd.

The result?

Ironically, those who are blessed with superior sanity appear to people of average mental health as "odd", or "weird", or - yes - even insane.

This much is clear: Anyone who believes in anything which goes BEYOND personal material interest/desire for pleasure is not viewed as SANE by normal people.

Right.

The Jews - using their control of the media - also define what is and what is not 'sane'.