Showing Political Ads on Repeat Proves That Democracy is a Stupid Hoax

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
February 18, 2020

I saw someone make this comment the other day:

And it got me to thinking.

Both Mike Bloomberg and Tom Steyer are being accused of trying to “buy the presidency,” and this process involves nothing other than advertisements. And indeed, with nothing other than advertisements, both of these candidates have been able to garner a percentage of public support in polls.

These political ads that we are shown constantly are a very basic and barbaric form of brainwashing.

Neuroscientist and physiologist Kathleen Taylor wrote a book called “Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control” that describes the process of brainwashing as is used by cults and authoritarian governments.


In the Part I of the book, titled: “Torture and seduction”, Taylor analyzes how various parties have used certain techniques in influencing and brainwashing others, including a restriction of individual freedoms, deception, and methods that conflict with one’s decision-making processes. She utilizes case studies including Patty Hearst, the Manson Family, and the mass murder/suicide of members of Peoples Temple at Jonestown to illustrate the neurology she explains in Part II, “The traitor in your skull”. In the case of the Manson Family followers of Charles Manson carried out multiple murders in 1969, and with Peoples Temple over 900 followers of charismatic leader Jim Jones died in 1978 in Jonestown, Guyana after consuming cyanide. Taylor asserts that the techniques used by cults to influence others are similar to those used by other social groups, and compares similar totalitarian aspects of cults and communist societies. These techniques include isolating the individual and controlling their access to information, challenging their belief structure and creating doubt, and repeating messages in a pressurized environment

According to Taylor, cults emphasize positive aspects of the group over negative aspects of outsiders, endlessly repeat simple ideas in “highly reductive, definitive – sounding phrases”, and refer to “abstract and ambiguous” ideas associated with “huge emotional baggage”. Taylor writes that brainwashing involves a more intense version of the way the brain traditionally learns.

This is more or less the exact definition of advertisement itself.

Every advertisement uses repetition of simple phrases linked to huge emotional baggage.

Toothpaste advertisements tell you that using this toothpaste will make your family happier.

Perfume advertisements tell you that wearing a perfume will cause women to have sex with you.

Mountain Dew commercials tell you that drinking Mountain Dew will make you into an invincible ninja.

This is the moral quandary with the concept of advertisement in general, as we ask: “do corporations have a right to use psychological methods of brainwashing on you in order to manipulate you into buying their products?”

I would say that the answer is a definitive “no” in any sane society. But when you get into political advertisement, you reach a level of absurdity that, if it were to be considered, would undermine the entire structure of our political order.

Every article you read about political races mentions the importance of the advertising budget of candidates. And this advertising budget exists almost exclusively to use psychological methods to condition people to vote for specific candidates.

If this was simply about informing people about which candidate believes what and what his record is, then the government could allocate television time for each candidate to say what they believe and what they are promising to do and say “to learn more, check out my website.”

If the theory of democracy is that we live in a society of fully actualized individuals capable of making informed decisions about the way the government functions, then it would be impossible that opinions could be changed by bombarding people with advertisements.

Furthermore, if that were actually what democracy was, we would have zero problems with so-called “foreign hackers” meddling in our elections by posting “disruptive information” on the internet.

Related: If Fake News is a Problem for Democracy, Then Democracy is a Problem

So the fact is that no one actually believes in “democracy” as it is presented. In fact, by all accounts a democracy system is nothing more than a contest of who can manipulate the most people using the psychological methods of advertising. This is an extremely unstable system, wherein the only possibility of maintaining stability is through a centralized media, which determines what people are or are not allowed to see, in the same way that a cult determines what information people have access to.

That is to say: you have no more freedom in a democracy than you have in a Jonestown style cult, as both rely on the same mechanisms to alter your behavior. Of course, anyone could leave Jonestown. They were not physically forced to be there. And that is the core claim of why democracy equals freedom: because in a perfect democracy, there is no force involved.

That was also the model for Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel “Brave New World.” This book portrayed a society where the ruling class had reached perfect control of the people, so there was no need to use force because no one was resisting, due to the control that the state had over information.

Sigmund Freud and classical conditioning were in fact featured heavily in the book. Huxley was writing at a time when democracy was relatively new, and all he was doing was describing its perfect form.

It should be extremely disturbing that this system is celebrated as the pinnacle of civilization, and one which should be aggressively spread across the planet, given its obvious flaws and the total refusal of democracy believers to ever address any of these flaws.

Mankind should fight for freedom. And there is no freedom here.