Sinister design - part three

You can read part two at this link.

Let's now explain the citizen's point of view more clearly.
When citizens place themselves onto the terrain of polarizations and pick a side on one or more of the polarized issues, they have already accepted the rules of the game: they have already been sucked into the whirlpool.
Citizens can therefore choose whether to throw themselves into the fray or not, and which pole they prefer. What they cannot do is decide the merits of the polarized issue, because they have already chosen it and so approved it as it stands.

So politics and the media select and spread the polarizations of the moment. These are offered to citizens as a choice: which pole they pick makes little difference; the goal, as we now know, is distraction, not substance.

It's as if they were saying: "This is the hot issue of the moment (the polarized topic). These are the sides. Pick one and commit to supporting it. Dig up sources, spread propaganda on social media, out in the streets, at the bar. In short, spend hours of your life in our service, on subjects you can't truly understand in depth and over which you have no power to intervene. And of course, you do it for free. And don't worry about what we do while you're distracted like that. We'll take care of your interests."

And to this invitation to intellectual, cultural, and moral suicide, the citizen clicks their heels and answers: "Sir, yes sir!"

You can find the other installments of the "Sinister design" saga at this link.

Drafted from Italian with Blog Translator, then revised by me.