in a couple of weeks there will finally be an election after months and months of inane discussion on topics of great importance by minds of little relevance. the establishment has presented two candidates, both guaranteed to enable the status quo.
which one wants to abolish the evil federal reserve? which pledges to end the empire? which is dedicated to the principles of private property? which is an adherent of the economics of the free market?
the easy answer to all of those critical questions is: neither.
the state power structure is not what it is by accident. it is the product of years of development by the political class to ensure the continued and accelerated transfer of wealth and power from the citizens to the politically connected. it is designed to keep society under control of the political elite as a shepherd controls a flock in order to direct its actions to his benefit. the state controls education to teach the myths of state legitimacy and controls the media in order to perpetuate them. though no one can point out where the state's endeavors have benefited society, none the less the state is seen as the solution to every problem, as state indoctrination teaches. those who love power and live lives of privilege through the use of the state apparatus will never allow their status to be compromised by the desires of the public. they will wage war and use the wealth of the people to pay their friends to rebuild the damage. they will destroy the economy and use the wealth of the people to bail out their friends and benefactors. even as this goes against the will of the vast majority of people for obvious reasons, public dissent will be met with a cold and uncaring hand. then, at election time, two candidates, who are virtually indistinguishable in policy, will divide the indoctrinated masses against themselves, confused by doublespeak and emotional, but empty, rhetoric. they will label themselves as reformers, as the final end to corruption, as responsible and caring; they will appeal to the people as saviors from the slaughterhouse, even as they lower the blades. as programmed, the people will believe, as they always do, and go out of their way on "stupor tuesday", to support the ambitions of their new messiah.
it will, as always, come to naught.
voting is the response of the naive to the demands of their masters. it is wrong and irresponsible. it is the participation in the process from which these monsters claim their mandates. it is the illusion that the marionette controls the puppeteer.
voting accomplishes nothing except the legitimization of the rule of the political class. a voter can never know, since politicians are liars, what a politician will do once in office. so, how can someone go to the polls and support some unknown and probably dangerous individual to hold the reigns of such great power? what if the candidate you supported, who told you he would end the wars, attacks another country instead, killing many more innocent civilians? will those voters accompany the man they helped get into office to the hague to answer to war crimes?
many will say that they have to vote for the lesser of two evils. why? can't one simply say "no" to evil entirely? why support it? if hitler ran against stalin which one would these voters go out of the way to support? even more important, why would they do so? out of some phony sense of duty?
unless your goal is to support evil, make our situation worse or legitimize state power, why not save yourself some effort and actually do some good by staying home on election day? i know i will!