VOTE OR DON’T VOTE: ARSENIC OR CYANIDE?
By Jon Rappoport
June 14, 2012
Well, we must vote in the upcoming presidential election, right? How can we abdicate our right? How can we leave the battlefield to the robots? If we don’t vote, we can’t criticize what happens in the next four years.
On the other hand, if we’re standing in a room behind a table that holds two levers, and if we pull lever 1 a bullet is going to come out of the wall and kill us, and if we pull lever 2 a flame is going to shoot out of the wall and burn us down, it becomes a matter of idiosyncratic preference, doesn’t it?
Aren’t we entitled to consider that levers 1 and 2 conspire to produce a false dichotomy?
Or is that act of considering an indication that we’re too intelligent for the society we live in, and therefore we should sign up for “re-education?”
No matter how much passion we have for choosing a true leader who is independent of “the bullet and the fire,” suppose there is no lever 3?
Should we exercise our passion by pretending lever 1 or 2 is really the object of our desire?
“You know, at first I thought Candidate A was a dangerous idiot and a puppet of larger sinister forces, but after brainwashing myself into oblivion, I realize he’s quite a patriot and has godlike attributes. How could I have missed that?”
(By the way, it turns out that, since 1960, the three highest-percentage turnouts among the voting-age population, in a presidential election year, were 1960, 1964, and 1968. And those three weren’t anything to write home about: 63.1, 61.9, and 60.8.)
We’re told that political change comes slowly, and working within the two-party system, we have to satisfy ourselves with the slightly better candidate, or the lesser of two evils. This is what responsible adults do. But suppose this system is terminally corrupt, and suppose that is precisely the reason for the “slow change?”
Of course, the media will try to whip(saw) us into a frenzy about Election 2012, with oh-so earnest reportage on the campaigns and the issues. We will be told (and I have heard this since 1956), the present election is, in rank of importance, the most vital of our lives. On its outcome hangs our future as a nation.
I’ve seen the nation hanging like a man with a rope around his neck since 1964. Before then, I was too unconscious to know what I was seeing.
I can assert with confidence that, in this election, I would prefer Donald Duck to Barack Romney.
The most important political issues are the unspoken ones. In particular, since 1945 at the very latest, and actually, much earlier, the biggest issue on the table has been what we now call Globalism. It sounds, on the surface, like a fairly interesting subject for debate among scholars and pundits and economists. Actually, Globalism is about suffering, poverty, slavery, and death. It’s about created crises whose resolution leads to an overarching planetary management system, under which the individual has only a vague lingering memory of freedom, and all goods and services are rigidly distributed from Central Planning, for “the benefit of everyone.”
And without exception, every modern president has been on board with the Globalist plan. In a few cases, the degree of presidential surrender to the agenda has been marked by passivity and stupidity. But surrender it was and is.
And this is, of course, what we are dealing with in 2012, as Mitt Obama runs for office.
Crown him or don’t crown him? The lemmings have already decided that question, but we don’t have to attend the coronation.
To offer what seems like a fairy tale, suppose enough of us expressed our political persuasion with a no-vote? What would happen if the turnout for Election 2012 was so low it was obviously a sign of no-confidence in The One Party With Two Heads?
Would never happen, you say. I agree. Not this year. But here is my thinking, which I expressed in a piece the other day. You have to calculate whether we are closer to putting truly independent president in the White House—a president who values individual freedom and drastically limited central government above all else—or are we, in fact, closer to putting a puppet in the White House who squeaks in with only, say, 25% of the eligible voters showing up at the polls? Because 25% could not be swept under the carpet. 25% would let the world and the solar system and the galaxy know we are not happy. We are not satisfied. We are not playing along with an oligarchy that is terminally corrupt. We are intensely desirous of offloading the whole stinking mess.
Yes, both of these alternatives are long shots. But we are living in a long-shot society.
I gladly don’t vote for president. I enjoy not voting for president. I haven’t yet reached the point where I revel in not voting. I don’t feel the ecstasy yet, but if enough of us were of the same mind and the same no-action, I’m quite sure I would begin to feel that Chris Matthews tingle run up my leg.
As an added bonus, I would eat much popcorn while watching beautifully coiffed network news anchors and analysts and pundits and Party hacks trying to spin and worm and feint their way out of that one.
“Well, Jim, there was bad weather across the nation today. Gas prices have risen as well. The illiteracy rate is so high millions of people can’t read the punch cards and touch screens. If only we’d had twelve presidential debates instead of eight. Some states actually required ID before allowing people into the voting booths. The outbreak of cancer and heart disease from raw milk has been spreading across thirty-four states. The mid-air collision between eight drones over Chicago captured the attention of the nation today. We were forced to cover it, so in fact we may have contributed to the problem of the astonishing low turnout. Mea culpa. And you know, new polls show seventy-nine percent of the American people believe the world is ending on December twenty-first, 2012. So that could certainly be a factor. And here’s a breaking story out of the Harvard School of Psychological Assessment. Hmm. Never heard of that school before. A last-minute survey reveals a significant proportion of Americans are confused by the very similar spelling of ‘Obama’ and ‘Romney.’”
Yes, I would consume many tubs of popcorn watching that show.
The two candidates for president this year, as always, are in the Globalist club. They don’t talk about it, of course. They talk about everything else. Which is a clue.
I have a dream. Other people have theirs. Mine is watching some piece of Globalist dreck stumble into the Oval Office after 15% of eligible voters have shown up on election day.
And the crowds in the streets are composed of…us.
Cheering madly, wildly, waving our signs that read: NOPE. NO. WE ARE THE 85%. DID YOUR MOMMY AND HER THREE FRIENDS VOTE FOR YOU, MR. PRESIDENT? WHADDYAGONNADONOW? THE GREAT SERENE VOID HAS TRIUMPHED. RULE THIS. COULDN’T BUILD A BURGER THIS YEAR.
My sign would say, WE BLEW A HOLE IN THE CARTOON.
It’s called theater with a purpose. That happens to be what reality is.
THE VOTERS’ COALITION FOR NOT VOTING. A MAJORITY OF NONE. A COALITION OF THE UNWILLING.
The author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.