Submitted by Pater Tenenbrarum of Acting-Man
A Few Remarks On Elections
There Is No Choice
We have previously pointed out that there is actually no choice at all for the US electorate at the upcoming presidential election. This is because in terms of the policies they support, it is nigh impossible to differentiate between the two candidates. We were not just making an unsupported assertion – we offered proof, by showing a video in which they speak for themselves. If one cannot rely on their own words to represent what they stand for, what should one rely on?
Of course it has often been that way in the past too, but usually one only finds out for sure after the election, not already before it. However, the Obamney – clones are so glaringly similar that this time there can be no doubt about it from the very outset. Anyone who actually votes in this election (except if they log a protest vote for a write-in candidate) is basically wasting his time. Not only that, they are announcing that they are gullible and that they meekly support the status quo. As George Carlin once said, 'they lose the right to complain'.
Carlin suggested that if as an alternative to voting on election day, he were to stay at home and masturbate, he 'would at least have something to show for it at the end'. And that was actually quite a few years ago, we wonder what he would have to say about the 'choice' voters are presented with today. Evidently though, Carlin had come to the conclusion that democracy was for Old Greeks.
Allen Keyes on Obama/Romney
What prompted us to write this post was that a friend pointed us to the following video in which Allan Keyes discusses the very same problem. He says a number of interesting things:
Just to make that clear: we were hitherto only aware of Alan Keyes in passing and are not saying that we would endorse his political views in toto. In fact, a cursory examination of some other material we have come across suggests that we would have a number of differences with him. However, what he says in the video above is in our opinion both true and important.
He makes inter alia the point that if one can no longer differentiate between candidates based on their political program, one is theoretically reduced to judging them on the basis of personal sympathy or antipathy. However, unless one actually knows them personally, such a judgment is necessarily based on nothing but superficial impressions – in fact it is not possible to come to an informed decision.
To our mind the most interesting and important observation is however the following: Keyes suggests that if e.g. Mitt Romney were to be elected, he would have it very easy to pursue the very agenda currently associated with Obama – there would be little push-back from conservatives. They would likely cheer on the very policies they hated when Obama proposed or implemented them, if Romney were to propose them if he comes to power. At the very least their protest would probably be extremely muted.
Think back in this context to Bush the Second and the PATRIOT act, the warrant-less wiretapping scandal, the torture allegations and his wars. Left-liberals were manning the barricades against many of these policies when Bush introduced them. Many of them were convinced that if they voted for Obama, many, or even all of these policies would be repealed (that was certainly part of the whole 'hope and change' shtick). They have for the most part mutely watched for four years while there was not only no repeal, but an intensification of every Bush era rape of the Bill of Rights. Occasionally one of Obama's supporters took notice, such as Rachel Maddow e.g. did when the president talked about instituting presidential powers that sound like something from a dystopian science fiction novel (essentially he argued in favor of the president becoming the nation's personal 'pre-crime' division):
We are merely astonished that she seems so surprised by this. This is precisely how the ruling elites operate. In order to cement unpopular policies, they use the guy who is officially widely thought to be against them. Keyes has essentially hit on the establishment's very modus operandi in directing history in modern times.
The NDAA's provisions for military detention of mere 'suspects' were e.g. an Obama administration brainchild. Most Republicans were fine with it. There were only a few exceptions, such as Rand Paul, who delivered a notable and excellent speech against them (to no avail of course).
Our point is, regardless of who you vote for, you can firmly depend on being disappointed in the areas that actually count. The whole idea that the democratic system such as it is allows voters to alter a nation's course by simply voting for a different batch of politicians is profoundly mistaken. In reality, the ruling elites use the apparent differences as a slick political ploy: namely to implement whatever agenda they have already decided upon without arousing the anger of the hoi-polloi too much.
One must very carefully parse everything one sees or hears on the 'approved' news media these days. More often than not things are not what they seem, and it only becomes clear after some time in what direction they are about to be taken. Often we are confronted with seemingly diametrically opposed opinions on how to tackle a burning problem. Later a 'compromise' will suddenly and 'unexpectedly' make its entrance, consisting of the very policies the elites wanted to introduce in the first place. Upon hearing of the 'compromise', everybody nods sagely and agrees that this is what should be done, not realizing that they were duped from the very beginning.
A good recent example is actually provided by the euro area crisis. Although it appears at times as though the eurocracy's control over events may be lost, it evidently hasn't happened yet.
Consider though what has happened: decisive steps have been taken to protect the banks on the backs of tax payers and to take the EU closer to the point where it becomes a giant socialistic superstate/transfer union. Which as it were is precisely what Romano Prodi predicted back in 2001 already – namely that the EU's political elite would just wait for a sufficiently dire crisis to implement all the measures it couldn't yet put into place at the time the euro was introduced.
When looking at the countries making up the euro area, one quickly notices that voters in them are likewise faced with the 'no choice' dilemma. It matters not one whit who they vote for, the centralization agenda continues exactly as before every time.
Occasionally a referendum is held to decide whether there is sufficient popular support for things like e.g. the Lisbon treaty. In cases where the vote is unfavorable for the centralization agenda, the referendum is simply repeated until the desired outcome has been obtained. Of course it's all just a coincidence, right?
Right, and we have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.