A cliffhanger? Hardly....

And now, in my own words

In 2008 I wrote a piece entitled The only two choices for the 2008 Presidential election: Nader vs Solzhenitsyn in which I concluded with the following words:

If you have any faith left at all in the American democracy, then, by all means, vote Nader as any other vote is a vote against the American Republic (and for a Fascist Empire). If you, like myself, believe that the system cannot be reformed no matter what, then stay away from it. Limit yourself to an "internal exile" and follow Solzhenitsyn's advice to live not by lies. This method brought down the Soviet Union and it will also eventually bring down the American Empire.

Now, four years later I will argue that after 4 years of the Obama presidency the first option has now vanished and the only logical, pragmatic and moral choice is to look at reality and act accordingly.  Here are some of the key features of the reality we live in:

1.  There is no correlation whatsoever between what a presidential candidate promises to do and what he then actually does.  While Obama is probably the worst liar in US history, he is far from being alone:  from Papa-Bush's "read my lips, no knew taxes", to Clinton's "liberalism", to Baby-Bush's "modest foreign policy" to, finally, Obama's mega-orgy of broken promises and lies, the undeniable fact is this: there is absolutely no correlation between what you vote for and what you get.

2. Interestingly, US policies, internal and external, are remarkably consistent.  Yes, they are flexible in their tactics, but their strategy and goals do not change: external imperialism internal plutocracy.  Thus, there is no evidence whatsoever that the outcome of elections influences US policies.

3. The choice between the Demoblicans and the Republicrats is, obviously, a false choice.  For the vast majority of Americans that "choice" is as meaningless as the choice between the SA and the SS in Germany: yeah, there are nuances and the two camps hate each other, but they are fundamentally of the same party.

4. No change in US history has ever been achieved by the ballot box.  All the changes in US history have been achieved in the streets and through social movements.

5.  The US regime is not a "one man one vote" democracy but a "one dollar one vote" plutocracy.  Considering that the top 1% own more than the bottom 90%, it is easy to see why voting in the USA makes absolutely no sense at all and, worse, no difference either.

6.  The primary purpose of elections in the USA is to give an illusion of pluralism, of choice, of democracy.  It is to stupidify the people and make any talk of regime change look subversive and un-American (even though even the Founding Fathers did foresee a situation in which the People could overthrow an anti-people regime).

7.  The secondary purpose of elections in the USA is to give the regime a thin but indispensable veneer of legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the planet.

8.  The third purpose of elections in the USA is to make each person voting a de-facto accomplice to the evil deeds of the US regime.  How can a putatively innocent American say "not in my name" when, in fact, he/she gave his seal of approval to the regime itself (by voting) and possibly to the administration in power (by voting for the winning candidate)?

Bottom line: if you go and vote next Tuesday, you will not only act with a total disregard for undeniable facts and basic logic, you will soil your soul by becoming an accomplice to all the actions which the regime in power will commit in your name.  This is why today I will be far more blunt and direct than in 2008 and tell you this: if even the election of Barak Obama - the worst liar in US history - did not convince you of the futility of voting, nothing else will.  If even after Obama you are capable of seriously seriously believing that by voting for the lesser evil you are not voting for evil nonetheless, you are morally bankrupt.  Make no mistake, voting for evil, any evil, is still a vote for evil.

Voting in these upcoming Presidential elections is both terminally stupid and deeply immoral.

What is the alternative?

It is rather obvious: do not vote and, even more importantly, tell all your friends not to vote.  Help them take the Red Pill and bring them back to the real world, not the media-induced illusion they live in.  And then, with your friends, fight the regime itself, the puppeteers rather than their puppets.  How?

Not through violence, no need for that at all.  All that is needed is to follow Solzhenitsyn's advice: live not by lies.   Make sure that the regime does not survive through you, through your vote, for example.  Make fun of it, humor is a devastating weapon.  Never voluntarily show any respect for the regime's symbols.   Sever all your voluntary exposure to the regime's mass propaganda machine otherwise known as the "corporate media". Do not own a TV or a radio, never subscribe to a newspaper, always get your information pro-actively, through the Internet, and only from sources you have good reasons to trust.  Last, but not least, use this once-ever-four-years opportunity that the regime gives you to tell it to go and screw itself, it ain't much, but it sure is better than sheepishly playing it by the rules and, like a dumb and obedient robot, drop your ballot in the box.

We, as individuals, cannot change the world we live in (although united with others we often can).  But what we can do is safeguard our own dignity and honor by denying our participation in, or assistance to, the regime which oppresses us all.

The Saker

A good take on the voting charade

Submitted by The Needle Blog on ZeroHedge

Why I Don't Vote



Democracy has become a religion and anyone who criticises it is labelled a heretic.

How many times have you heard the mantra that ‘if you don’t vote, you can’t complain’? Whereas, actually, the opposite is true, ‘if you do vote, you can’t complain.’ It is no coincidence that the emergence of the philosophical concept of the ‘Social Contract’ runs parallel to democratic development in the modern era.

In political philosophy the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.

Source

Democracy legitimises authority.

Every time you vote you sign the Social Contract.

If you vote and your ‘favoured’ candidate does not win, you have absolutely no right to complain because by voting you have accepted the process and are bound by it’s result. It is not a coincidence either that you are asked to put a cross, also used as a replacement for a signature for a person who is illiterate and thus cannot write their name, next to your choice on the ballot.

The policy differences between different candidates are exaggerated. This encourages you to sign the Social Contract by making you believe that you have a real choice. But the choice is an illusion because the true policy differences are slight and 99% of leadership is management, keeping the bureaucratic apparatus of state moving and reacting to events.

For the overwhelming majority it makes little difference which candidate wins any election. Only the wealthy and powerful who can expect some kind of reward, in the form of patronage or largesse, Government contracts etc, for their financial, political, and media support have a dog in the fight.

Your role, by voting, is to legitimise this corruption.

Democracy encourages short-termism. Instead of our leaders planning for a sustainable future they pander to a selfish and fickle electorate who only want jam today and who will punish any politician at the polls who does not give it to them. As a consequence the farsighted, fairminded and responsible leadership that the world needs in the 21st century, is completely absent, made obsolete by an evolutionary process which rewards the shortsighted, corrupt, ambitious, greedy, and vain.

This is a genuine story, In 1974 in the UK there were two general election. The first in February was inconclusive and it led to another in October. In the run up to this second election the leaders of all the main political parties made the most extraordinary undeliverable promises to buy the votes of the British electorate.

I was six years old, and attending my local infants school, when the teaching staff there taught me one of the most important lessons I’ve ever learned. They decided to hold their own school election at a special assembly at which all the parents were invited to attend, though only the children would vote. Before the assembly they took myself and a young girl into separate classrooms, to the young girl they explained the needs of the school and what changes would be beneficial to the pupils education,. To me they just gave one simple instruction “Just get elected.”

The young girl addressed the children, parents, and teachers and made a very sensible address, “more books, longer school hours, and a healthy diet”.

I, on the other hand, decided to stand on a very simple platform of “Chips (fries) everyday, and longer break times.”

The result will come as no surprise, I won by a landslide. As I grew older and began to reflect more on this the lesson became clearer. The electorate will always vote for what they want, rather than what they need. The electorate are no better than a cohort of infant school children.

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

Aristotle would have disagreed with Winston Churchill. Aristotle thought that democracy was a perverted form of Government which served the indignant (or capricious) mob at the expense of the broader interests of the state and it’s citizens.

Voting for Libertarianism is oxymoronic. You can not vote for your freedom because the ballot is a signed contract which binds you to a democratic system specifically designed to defraud you of any choice. Only by not voting can you opt out. This does not mean that you will not be subject to the tyranny of the majority but you will be free.

US Elections: Pick Your Poison