In A Democracy, You Can Always Replace Rulers You Don't Like

The above is what we may term the enduring lie on which 'democracy' is built. Mind, we're certainly not arguing that an outright dictatorship would be preferable – we're merely noting that the above is little more than a comforting lie. To the extent that democratic societies provide for bills of fundamental rights they are certainly superior to authoritarian states in spite of this fact – but that's as far as it goes.

In the Western democracies, we often hear that people are 'fed up with politics' and that this is allegedly highly deplorable. Indeed, the voter turnouts at elections regularly suggest that most people have simply given up – they no longer expect to be able to 'change' anything.

Non-voting is a political statement: it means you do not support the status quo. Many people who don't vote regard the State as akin to a mafia don: someone whose hired thugs show up now and then to collect the fees for their protection racket and are otherwise best avoided.

If one does vote in spite of the fact that it is certain that the vote is not going to alter the systemic status quo imposed by the establishment in the slightest, then one is  saying: 'I agree with the system as it is; I'm a happy slave; please rape me at your leisure.'

Here is Butler Shaeffer's highly recommended and timeless essay 'The Voting Ritual', which he wrote on occasion of the 42^nd anniversary of his non-participation in the process in 2006.

In the US, there is a minimal chance – but not a chance that is so small that it can be dismissed entirely – that one day a Ron Paul or someone like him could be on the menu of choices.

In that case, your vote would actually mean something. This small chance is owed to the fact that there is still a certain groundswell of support in the US for  the libertarian tradition that informed its founders. No such tradition exists in Europe – there may occasionally have been nascent classical liberal movements in evidence, but they were always quickly rubbed out again.

Until a real choice presents itelf, voting means absolutely nothing, except that you have allowed yourself to once again be hoodwinked by a bunch of low-life mountebanks into supporting their lies and thievery.

'Choosing' Between Two Utterly Vacuous Clowns

US citizens should by now be fully aware that there probably will be no 'lesser evil' to choose in November. There will only be evil. If you think otherwise, the video below will hopefully convince you otherwise.

We have always held that there is in principle no difference between the Democratic and Repuplican parties. Both are deeply committed to statism, they really are two faces of the same coin in this regard. What differences there are between them consist mostly of empty rhetoric. With regards to the modern welfare/warfare State, one party slightly favors welfare, the other slightly favors warfare, but in the final analysis, neither party decisively rejects either. In substance, they are on exactly the same page.

This year, for the first time we can remember, not even semantic differences seem to exist any longer. The two likely candidates may as well be one candidate. Both have exactly the same polices and political ideas. The difference between the candidates for the office of president of the US has finally shrunk to precisely zero.

Meet the Obamney hybrid.

(Collage source unknown – the Web)

We have recently come across the video below, which shows their ideas and political preferences as expressed in their own words.

Always remember that this allegedly represents your 'democratic choice':

The two vacuous clowns in their own words

In order to spice up the proceedings a bit, one of them has recently come up with the idea that 'every citizen should get $3,000 immediately to buy thingamajigs' (his words). There probably are quite a few people who would be  willing to sell their vote for three grand. We eagerly await the opposition's response ($4,000?).

It is precisely as H.L. Mencken once said:

„Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods.“

This way they even look alike….

(Image via http://truebornsonsofliberty.blogspot.co.at)

Perhaps Ron Paul can still produce an unexpected upset by means of his deft use of the GOP's delegates system? Consider:

„For example, originally we were all told that Mitt Romney won Iowa.

Then, later on we were told that a mistake was made and that Rick Santorum actually won Iowa.

Well, it turns out that Ron Paul actually won 20 out of the 28 delegates in Iowa. That is because the process of actually selecting the delegates occurred long after the voting by the public was over.

So what happens if the Ron Paul campaign is able to produce similar results in state after state?“

One can always hope…

Thank you for your support!

In case you prefer to donate bitcoins, the address is: 1DRkVzUmkGaz9xAP81us86zzxh5VMEhNke

Follow us on Facebook!