Guest Post: The ‘Lesser Of Two Evils’ Con-Game

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt-Market

The ‘Lesser Of Two Evils’ Con-Game

The moral relativism of the “lesser of two evils” philosophy has been draining the heart and soul of America for decades.  Many of us in the Liberty Movement understand that it is nothing new, and have come to expect the abusive and emaciated logic it entails from time to time.  However, over the course of the past year it has become apparent to me that the talking points and propaganda that drive the hypocritical worldview are being utilized on an even grander scale than ever before.  This fact struck me quite sharply while attending a local GOP Lincoln/Reagan dinner event while I was attempting to gauge the overall danger our country would be facing from potential RINO (Republican In Name Only) sellouts as well as what our hopes were for a possible political solution at the local and state level.  The “conservative” rally was, to say the least, disappointing.

One thing that stood out plainly at this event, though, was that there was an overall template; an action plan, a message that had been pre-engineered.  Someone had sent out a memo, or an email, or a guide, or perhaps beamed talking points directly into the cyborg brains of these political hacks.  Their rhetoric was repetitive and uniform and dry like elbow skin.  The demand was clearly stated; regardless of who won the Republican Primaries, no matter how unprincipled, how unconstitutional, how despicable, it was our “duty” as conservatives to back them through the national elections.  Obama and the Democrats had to be defeated at all costs…

Now, one of the first tenets or rules that a person learns when delving into the Liberty Movement is that there is no such thing as political parties in America today.  There are no conflicting interests in Washington D.C.  There is no “grand battle” between left and right for the minds of the masses.  It is a sham.  A con.  A fantasy.  A false paradigm.

In reality, the leaderships of both fraudulent parties support essentially the same methodology, and that methodology could be summarized thus:  Centralize everything, globalize everything, control everything, grow government power, reduce the effectiveness of the citizenry, turn the public against each other, rob them while they’re distracted.  If an American does not understand this dynamic and how it is used to dominate the ebb and flow of our culture, then that American knows nothing.  He is lost…

Sadly, even those of us who should very well know better than to fall into the false left/right paradigm trap do so on occasion, as has been made painfully obvious by the foolhardy actions of Rand Paul and his blank check endorsement of Mitt Romney.  Certainly, this epic blunder, which seems to me to be a blind stab at political maneuvering on the part of Ron Paul’s son, has set off an angry firestorm amongst true Constitutionalists who know every lie Mitt Romney has ever told.  People are using words like “betrayal”, and “traitor”, and with good reason, but let’s look at this calamity from the other side of things for a moment…

There are others out there who would applaud Rand Paul’s decision.  While many of them will openly admit that they do not feel very secure in the shadow of a Romney presidency, they still rationalize their position by making the “lesser of two evils” argument.  “America may be going off the edge of a cliff”, they say, “but at least Romney won’t press the gas peddle as hard as Obama”.  Here are just a few of the many reasons why this way of thinking will lead to the end of our society as we know it…

Lesser Of Two Evils?  There’s No Such Thing…

First of all, asserting that there is such a thing as a “lesser of two evils” is an act of naivety.  It relies on a very dangerous assumption; that one can somehow quantify which candidate is going to hurt the country less.  I’ve even read essays by people who pretend they can mathematically delineate the “more evil” of the evils!  Not surprisingly, their “logic” invariably leads them to proclaim the lesser evil to be the candidate of the party they happen to belong to.  Ignorant Republicans always see the Democrat as the greater evil, while ignorant Democrats always see the Republican as the ultimate monster.

Here’s some math for you:  there are two candidates for President of the United States, one is a cannibalistic serial killer who plans to murder 20 more people with his own hands while in office.  The other is a cannibalistic serial killer who only plans to kill 19 innocents personally.  Which candidate do you support?

The correct answer is NEITHER.

Unless you are a fan of murder, there is no inherent difference between these two demonic bureaucrats.  They both stand in opposition to the guiding principles of inborn conscience, as well as the protections provided by the laws of free people.  The fact that one man will do slightly less damage during his reign is irrelevant.  Is a choice between Stalin and Hitler, for instance, really a choice at all?  Which one is the "lesser evil" in this equation? 

Some may argue that this comparison is a bit over the top.  I beg to differ.  Presidents have the power not only to maim and kill en mass, but they also have the power to dismantle the laws which protect our civil liberties.  To drive the point home as far as Romney and Obama are concerned, let’s watch the following video, which removes the blinders and exposes these two charlatans for what they really are; two peas in a pod:

A refusal to vote, or a vote for a third party, is not a vote for Obama, or a vote for Romney, but a vote against the charade. 

There is no such thing as a “lesser evil”.  Either a candidate follows the path of truth and honor, or he does not.  If he does, he deserves our support.  If he does not, or if both candidates are criminals, then they both must be tossed to the wayside.  Just because the system has deliberately limited our choices does not mean we are required to participate in the flim-flam.

Participation Is A Duty?

I have also heard the argument that by refusing to participate within the system, and by refusing to choose a specimen from the carnival of horrors we are presented every election cycle, we are doing more harm to America than good.  This is the most prevalent falsehood of our era. 

The bottom line is, Americans have been dancing in the lesser of two evils pageantry for generations and our Constitutional shield has only been further degraded and destroyed in that time.  I defy anyone to show how choosing Obama over McCain, or Bush over Gore, or Clinton over Bush Sr. has helped this country or its people.  Where are these illusory advantages and benefits of participation?  Where has our country gone while the public fettered away years trying to decide which ghoul to hand over the scepter of empire to?  Or, the ultimate question; what specifically have they achieved?  Have they gained anything?  Has any minutia of our lives been made better by following the “lesser of two evils theory”?  Only a fool would claim yes…

One might argue that a non-vote is the same as putting all bad candidates on the same footing, and that this would be “wrong”.  I disagree.  In an election in which all candidates share the same disparaging policies, they are ALREADY on the same footing.  We simply refuse to give the farce legitimacy by casting our vote for any one of them. 

In the game of chess, the primary goal is to diminish your opponent’s options.  To force him into a corner where, no matter which choice he makes, he loses.  Chess, however, is not life.  In life, intelligent and creative individuals have the ability to walk away from the board completely and implement their own solutions.  The more we continue to participate in the rigged game, and the more we continue to view the future as a series of self contained boundaries administered by the establishment instead of a wide open frontier in which all is possible, the more we will lose, until there is nothing left.

Only Cowards Compromise In The Face Of Evil

Good does not compromise with evil.  As stated above, there is nothing to be gained by it.  I find that the people most prone to suggesting or demanding compromise with oligarchs and tyrants are usually cowards who have never faced down any legitimate struggle in their lives with any passion.  But, how do they sell this stunted philosophy to others?  The illusion here is one of “reason” or “objectivity”. 

Fearful men often use the guise of objectivity (even if they are not) to avoid confrontation, especially confrontation with a supposed authority figure or government.  Strangely, their powers of reason and deduction invariably seem to lead them to subservience to the establishment structure.  Compromise, for them, is a way to protect their flailing egos by playing the role of the “even handed citizen” while at the same time crawling towards servitude.

The argument to this position would, of course, be that many in the Liberty Movement compromise with evil everyday.  That we follow laws we disagree with and that we find reprehensible, and that this makes us somehow “hypocritical”.  I would say that this is a very narrow and disingenuous view.

Free minded people do not “follow” reprehensible laws so much as tolerate them while working to dismantle them (“following” infers acceptance).  Being honorable and generally of good will, we look for peaceful avenues of redress and change.  But, if those avenues are closed to us, and if the injustices expand, the free minded become freedom fighters.  Dissent and even revolution are inevitable in the face of tyranny.  It is an undeniable feature of human nature.

What I find most interesting though is the conundrum that this conflict of interest creates for the skeptical establishment slave.  If the Liberty Movement tolerates bad law while searching for a peaceful path towards change, they call us hypocritical.  If the Liberty Movement abandons tolerance and bring force to bear against tyranny and its abuse of the law, they call us “fringe extremists”.  Apparently, the only way we can be correct in the eyes of self proclaimed objectivists is if we bow to the constraints of the system, sit back, keep our mouths shut, and enjoy the bread and circuses. 

The Greatest Evil Is Moral Relativism

Collectivist governments seek to encourage extreme moral flexibility.  Totalitarian regimes cannot survive otherwise.  The lesser of two evils sales pitch is, in the end, an extension of the methodology of moral relativism.  It trains us to embrace the status quo, whether we like it or not, and to continuously rationalize our adherence to the sham just to get through the day.  The mental gymnastics we are required to perform become more complex and unstable.  Eventually, in order to ease our consciences which are screaming in agony at the pit of our chests, we have to stop caring about anything, and just go through the motions of participation. 

This is not the way to freedom. 

There are other ways to secure liberty beyond elections, but for these strategies to be effective, we have to stop asking for permission from the establishment before we take action.  Perhaps you seek to step outside the box and away from the controlled paradigm.  Perhaps you seek to confront the system head on, either exposing its duplicity and evil, or erasing it as an obstacle completely.  The system, its laws, and its political theater are of no consequence, especially when it has been so corrupted. 

Moral relativists, though keen on the idea of mutable law, enjoy the trappings of the law as long as it is to their benefit.  The law, as I have pointed out in the past, is arbitrary, and always has been.  The only true law is the law of inherent and universal conscience.  My conscience, as with most other people, tells me that choosing the “lesser of two evils” (an illogical abstraction) sends a message to the elitists that manipulate our culture that I am willing to help them perpetuate their fiction.  I become an accomplice in the crime.  I commit self mutilation.  I give power to the lie.

Such institutionalized misery can only be undone by uncompromising men and women who put principles and conscience before comfort, or even before their own lives.  All throughout history, this is how wrong is undone.  No society ever changed for the better by casting aside their beliefs and their individualism.  No society ever changed for the better by choosing the lesser of two evils.  No society ever changed for the better by holding out the hand of friendship to despots, maniacs, and con-men in the hopes that they would be spared just a little less tragedy before their time on this Earth is over…

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SilverTree's picture

Necessary evil.



Kirkpatrick Doctrine

Deo vindice's picture

When your choice is between two evils, choose neither.

Axenolith's picture

No, when there's a choice between two evils while you wait for the crap to hit the fan, you pick the one that lets you keep more of your shit and doesn't try to disarm you.  Easy choice.  

dwdollar's picture

Just because elections are held doesn't mean you live in a democracy or republic.

Pladizow's picture

Pepsi vs. Coke - Different Cans, same shit inside!

"If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal." - Emma Goldman

francis_sawyer's picture

I'm still writing in Ron Paul (as I did in '08)...

Fish Gone Bad's picture

... goodness knows the wickeds' lives are lonely.  ... goodness knows the wicked die alone.

Might be time to brush up on Wicked.

Chief KnocAHoma's picture

Hey dip shit... did you ever think that not voting is exactly the outcome tptb want. The masses not voting insures tptb will be able to manipulate the outcome. Not voting insures that the lobyist will have reign over Washington. Not voting puts us one step closer to full on enslavement.

By all means, don't vote! Watch American Idol or the NBA, NFL, Kardahian Sluts, that Madonna whore, or just go to a bar and slurp up some numb poison. But whatever you do, don't vote!


strannick's picture

Meet the Mormon boss, same as the Afro-American boss...

Abitdodgie's picture

Should I vote for Mr Black or Mr White , thats the only differance right .

whstlblwr's picture

Anybody been watching over at DailyPaul. CIA is rounding them up. I guess it's what happens when you let users have control of content. But it's fucking scary how easy those guys follow the wrong ones. Shit. They are collecting names, one by one. Not sure for what. Maybe so when we run for office they can try to smear our names.

The way for us to get rid of Blue Red is to take it over. And that's what we're doing. Running for local elections.

Leopold B. Scotch's picture

I prefer the lesser of two weevils.

FEDbuster's picture

Obamney won't be getting my vote.  Since Ron Paul seems to be out, I'll vote Gary Johnson, Libertarian.


h/t to my 16 yr. old son for "Obamney"  BTW has anyone ever seen a Romney bumpersticker? 

Michael's picture

I will vote for Obama if it looks like Romney is going to win instead of writing in Ron Paul like I did the last time.

I research all incumbents up for re-election on the ballet and vote against all of them too and try to get them out in the primaries.

TrainWreck1's picture

Job #1 is kicking out Obama in 2012.

Job #2 is kicking out Romney in 2016.

Using the analogy in the article: One is a proven cannibal, the other is a potential cannibal.

The proven cannibal's team is painting the potential cannibal as 'no different' in order to disenfranchise the potential cannibals' supporters.

Want proof? Here ya go:


For those that don't know, the Washington Post, (Obama's staunch supporter) is the publisher of Foreign Policy

Only one reason they are claiming Romney = Obama. It sure as hell will not change any Obama votes, but it damn well may erode Romney votes.


So work on the Senatorial & Congressional elections, where there are battles to be fought, and punt the Kenyan back to the windbag city. Then get to work on a better option for 2016.

No, it's not perfect, but life isn't. Gotta play the hand we are dealt. C'est la vie.





Doubleguns's picture

arsenic or strychnine which do you prefer. Yes you will die.

FeralSerf's picture

Arsenic is allegedly sweeter.

Grinder74's picture

Uh, the 1st Black President is also the 44th White President.

OpenThePodBayDoorHAL's picture

why do I have to be Mr. Pink?


redpill's picture

Dude please, the preferred term is Basketball-American.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Basketball jones,
I gotta basketball jones,
I gotta basketball jones,
Oh baby oooooh oooooh oooooh.....

Chief KnocAHoma's picture

IDIOTS!!!! Disenfranchisement is their intended outcome. But there is some positive energy here, because if you aren't smart enough to recognize this, maybe you shouldn't be allowed vote.

If you can not recognize this, you are most likely sucking the government teat anyway. So blast off!

And another thing... voting in local elections may be even more important because the country has to change directions at the street level first.

i-dog's picture


"not voting insures tptb will be able to manipulate the outcome"

You're not paying attention!!! 

They've already manipulated their own two choices into place (and sidelined another alternative) to ensure that they get what they want ... no matter how you vote. Diebold will clear up any last minute anomalies.

jus_lite_reading's picture

The criminal enterprises of Whore Street have already bought and sold the two candidates they want. At this point, you might as well vote for your aunt Mitilda. It's game over. Too many people know about the scam. They know the US is corrupt and vile. They know the "stock markets" are a giant ponzi scheme designed for the insiders to get rich. They know the thought of the US being a democracy is a total joke. 

Just as Monsatan has its "former members" sitting on the boards at the FDA and USDA, the Morgue has its "former members" working for the Obaney team(s). 

You ain't seen nuttin yet!! The truth is getting out...


Chief KnocAHoma's picture

No Dog, you're not paying attention... I am not arguing that candidates are weeded out by powerful forces. Believe me when I tell you I KNOW THIS, up close and personally.

But not voting is not the answer. Vote, voice your opinion, and most importantly, do this on the local level. 

Tptb can not influence every house member in DC. Not enough time, or manpower. Lobyist can knock on your reps door after he sets up office, but this is why you need to get involved in the process, not run from it.

Try to get to know your rep before pulling the lever. Ask them, if given the opportunity, what lobby they will take money from. Then hold them accountable if it turns out differently.

Don't run from the process, get involved in it.


NotApplicable's picture


Besides, we're nearing a century of government by the banksters, of the banksters, for the banksters.

Voting to support the "Coup of '13" is TREASON, if you were say, a strict constitutalist.

koaj's picture

you're actually better off voting Gary Johnson if Ron Paul is not the GOP nominee...a write in vote goes in the garbage and is never even counted

mr_T's picture

    Btw.. Ron Rand Paul sold out to Mitt....

Bob's picture

Peirs Morgan had Jesse Ventura on CNN for a good half hour last night.  It's the first time I've ever heard somebody with comprehensive "unapproved" views given that much time on CNN.  Morgan had a hatchet job in mind, but Jesse comfortably ate his lunch.  Hell, he cleaned out his entire pantry.  Great show.

Jesse has no more love of Rmoney than Barry O. 

kralizec's picture

Jesse is a boob.  He was a joke as a governor and would not be elected if not for the "My Governor can beat up your Governor" bumperstickers so popular in the trailer parks.

Bob's picture

I'm not pushing for him as Prez, but he has a pretty simple criticism of the blue/red game: Eliminate "straight ticket" voting by which ballots are organized by red/blue categories which require voters to know nothing about the actual candidates or their platforms while pushing those two parties to "featured product" status and relegating competing parties to "fine print" status on ballots. 

Just look at the physical ballots and you can see that red/blue is set up to dominate. 

His new book is Rebloodlicans and Democrips: Getting the Gangs Out of Washington,iirc. 

He says he can't get on Fox or MSNBC (though I suspect Ratigan will take up that challenge.)  Likewise for the broadcast networks, of course.

kralizec's picture

It's a false argument to say red=blue.  The democrats have been hijacked by the far-left socialists, the GOP is dominated by mushy-headed moderates, RINOs whatever you want to call them.  The Tea Party has the right idea, convert the GOP from within and make them more conservative and liberty conscience.  Who attacked the Tea Party candidates?  Rove and the rest of the moderate punks.  To say red=blue means admitting Ron Paul is living a lie, why else does he run as a GOP candidate?  Why does he participate in such an unholy alliance willingly?  Converting the GOP for within makes sense.  Having a tantrum and staying home is childish, as is saying red=blue in all things.

Bob's picture

Just close your eyes and believe?

takinthehighway's picture

"There's no place like home...there's no place like home..."

Bob's picture

I picture a paddle with a ball connected by a rubber band.  The "parties" take turns playing each role, knocking one another back and forth.  We're supposed to pretend that between them they embody the entire universe of valid possibilities and that the process is inherently productive.  Apparently, it's the only game that exists and for good reason.

When two parties dominate any market it is by definition an oligopoly. 

I don't think this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.  There aren't too many modern theorists who see it as a good idea, either. 

Find any domocracies set up in the last hundred years who practice such a system. 

JB's picture

Last time I checked, Ron Paul was the chair off the House Finance Committee... You do the math. ;)

AnAnonymous's picture

His new book is Rebloodlicans and Democrips: Getting the Gangs Out of Washington,iirc.


Title of interest. Nice analogy.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

"Pepsi vs. Coke - Different Cans, same shit inside!"

Yeah. But my shit tastes better than yours.

The ultimate control used by the control system, one that we all embody to some degree or another (even those who insist they are divorced from the control system) is the false paradigm of duality, of right or wrong, black or white, better or worse, good or evil, left or right.

The real world consists of a million shades of gray. Seeing the false reality through the lens of duality has the same effect upon us as wearing blinders and a restrictive neck brace.

Gully Foyle's picture

Cognitive Dissonance


Everything is.

It's how we choose to interpret the world that fucks us up.

Be here now is all that matters.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I beg to differ. Everything is not a yes/no choice. The false paradigm, the present consensus reality/illusion, has conditioned us to interpret the world in this way.

Once we grow weary of pounding on the closed door in front of us, a door previously open, and look around us with truly open eyes (by first looking deeply within) we discover that there are dozens, even hundreds, of doors and choices all around us. This is the first step to regaining our true inner sovereignty.

MilleniumJane's picture

So true, but I find myself standing still wondering which door to choose.  Still struggling with the programmed slave mentality...

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

As do I.

I am finding that the key is to practice the mental/emotional/physical shift that's required to be a true sovereign. In other words, fake it until you make it. If you think about it, all our (not just physical) actions require some fore thought prior to the actual act. Routine actions need little to no imagination while new actions require almost all imagination. Engage the imagination reactor. "Play" with the concept first, then take a few baby steps and see what you find. You will be surprised what will come out once you fire up your inner knowing.  

Being sovereign, or should I say becoming sovereign, is not something you just turn on and "be", but rather something that is learned over time and with much trial and error. It is mostly about being 100% responsible for what you are, do and feel and being centered, being settled, with the decision to do so. 

I'm trying to put together an article on this concept and quite frankly I'm struggling. I am finding it difficult to find the proper words to describe a state of mind, body and spirit.

JimBowie1958's picture

We cannot set up false dichotomies to chose from, instead we must take every means available to change the system. We must subvert each institution to our oals where we can and neutralize those we cannot. We must also work within the parties and outside of them too, and prepare alternatives if our will continues to be ignored.

Our problems start with our division, lack of common values and an opponent who is the best ever known at decieving the masses with false choices and creating common notions that are to their interests, like the Romney bots claim early on that his nomination was inevitable. It only became inevitabel because GOP leaders in the TPM  fell for the lesser of two evils lie and thought that they could bargain with the Devil.

LooseLee's picture

Have a look at the writings of Jiddu Krishnamurti, the Indian author and 'Spiritual Guide'.......

JimBowie1958's picture

So true, but I find myself standing still wondering which door to choose. 

It doesnt matter at the moment because all doors lead to the same place: serfdom.

We are going to have to make our own godamed door to where we want it to go to - freedom and prosperity.

With the coming tech revolution we will have a utopia of ease and plentifulness *IF* we can make the bastards share it with all of us.

Ricky Bobby's picture

Zombie Troll Alert. Remember Gully it is Doubletap for Zombies.

DeadFred's picture

The Soviet Union had regular elections giving the people a choice of which candidate they wanted to abuse them. Their voter turnout was better too.