I don’t know how well my theory will be accepted by my peers on this site, but I strongly believe that this is in the public’s interest and I am citing my right to free speech which is a globally recognised right (in most countries).
This following piece does contain references of an explicit nature. Due to the platform of dissemination it has been toned down a great deal; unnecessarily I feel, but that is just the way the cookie crumbles.
I feel that one should not be given the right to say what one wants to and then be crucified for saying it…
Voltaire said this about drugs: that he does not support what the person does, but he will defend to death the person’s right to do it.
Steve Biko famously published a book called “I write what I like.” Funny though, being a South African I have never read this book, nor do I know anyone who has read it. But I have heard so much about it. I guess Biko really wrote what he liked then.
“And I have found both freedom and safety in my madness; the freedom of loneliness and the safety from being understood, for those who understand us enslave something in us.
But let me not be too proud of my safety. Even a Thief in a jail is safe from another thief.” – 1918; Kahlil Gibran; The Madman’ p.8. (Introduction; last two paragraphs.)
With that said, let us move on to the brass-tax – the work as it is.
My theory is called the behind-analogy. I am curbing my foul language here but in a while you will get the whole picture.
The behind-analogy is derived from the following hypothesis:
It is not in a politician’s interest for people to focus on issues. Instead, the politician will use every trick in his arsenal to focus attention on the politics around the problem. That is why we call them politicians.
The politician will spin the politics and turn people on each other, the more severe the problem becomes, the more mobilised the people will become around the issue.
Thus: The behind-analogy derived from above:
You are out at a bar and drinking with your friends. Across the room from you is a girl with a nice behind, but not such a nice face. She is making eyes at you.
What she does is; she waits for you to get a little drunk and then she starts shaking her behind next to you.
In this analogy the alcohol is election fever, the girl is the politician, her behind is the politics and her face is the issue.
The politician waits for you to become whipped up with election fever, the politician shakes the politics around to get your attention away from the issue.
The next thing you know, you wake up next to the politician staring the issue in the face.
From the behind-analogy it becomes apparent that political ideology is instrumental in the manipulation of the masses.
