Up until the second George W. Bush term, I took the "lesser of two evils" approach to voting. I registered, I stood in line, and I "exercised my freedom" to "do my part" to chose my new set of rulers for the next period of time.
A single trite statement at Vox Day's blog woke me up from this dialectical belief in voting I had been brainwashed with: voting for the lesser of two evil's is still voting for evil.
Since abandoning the voting booth, I've only become more steadfast in my belief that abstaining from voting is the only logical course of action under the two-party system. Now...if Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, and he actually makes it alive to the General election, I'll re-register, get in line and cast my vote for the man who represents literal good versus evil, freedom versus tyranny...or to put it more starkly - the first non-Federal Reserve/Council on Foreign Relations stooge to have a realistic shot at the Presidency in my lifetime.
Because unless you vote for someone who stands for obliterating the status quo and ending the Bankster Party's 98 year stranglehold on political power (they've run the show since the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913), voting for any other candidate than one opposed to the Bankster party's agenda is simply assenting to our collective Slavery.
Gary North describes it plainly in his latest post:
Whenever any would-be borrower approaches a lender for a loan, he must be prepared to offer collateral, just in case he cannot repay the loan. If he defaults, the lender wants to be able to gain possession of the collateral, and obtain it quickly.
Every government that uses bond sales to maintain its level of expenditures must offer collateral. This collateral is its ability to extract sufficient revenue from those people under its jurisdiction so that it can make interest payments on the bonds.
As North titled his article: YOU ARE WASHINGTON'S COLLATERAL
Think comparing a typical American voting tax payer to slaves is a bit over the top hyperbole?
North makes an analogy that clearly shows that in fact calling voting taxpayers complicit in their own slavery a literal statement of fact:
In the South of 1850, a planter could buy slaves on credit. He pledged the future productivity of his slaves as collateral for the loan. He made sure that he extracted sufficient wealth from the slaves to pay off his loans. He lived well. They didn't.
Why did he borrow? In order to buy more slaves. He used leverage. He built his plantation with borrowed money and the heirs of kidnapped victims. It was good business.
The typical voter thinks of himself as a free man. After all, he has the right to vote. He does not think of himself as a slave. While trade union organizers – a truly hopeless career these days – still use the phrase "wage slave," it never made any sense, either legally or economically. A worker can legally walk away from his employer. A slave cannot.
What happens if you refuse to pay your taxes on money you earned with your own labor? Our slave masters will show up with guns in your face and convert you from a productive slave into another make-work project for the Industrial-Prison complex.
Washington has borrowed more heavily than any planter ever dared to or could do. Why so much debt? To get more leverage today. What is being leveraged? Promises. Voters trade votes for government promises. This system requires an ever-increasing supply of slaves in order to pay the interest on the debt. Problem: the rate of population growth is slowing. There will not be enough slaves to pay off the debt.
Voters have not thought through the implications of government debt. They do not perceive themselves as collateral for loans. But they are. This is the meaning of the phrase, "the full faith and credit of the United States government."
This is the reality behind the admonishment of those of us who see "democracy" for the illusory lie that it is. "The Right to Vote" is nothing more than a mass delusion of implied consent to the systemic enslavement of the people to the State.
If you vote, and you base your vote on the idea that the politician you are voting for has suggested some policy or platform that involves using tax dollars to achieve it, you are complicit in your own slavery.
Often times, when I write a post like this, I often get negative feedback from commenters that I'm condescending or coming across as thinking myself superior to the average citizen. The phrase "sheeple" seems to offend many.
My fellow tax slaves, I'm no better off than you. When I say WE THE SHEEPLE, I am including myself in that statement.
I'm every bit the slave you are.
The only difference is, I've decided I will no longer go along with it as much as possible. I will resist wherever and whenever I can.
As long as we have a Central Banking Cartel system based on fiat currency and fractional reserve banking, and a government that finances it's operations by borrowing from that cartel using WE THE SHEEPLE's future labor earnings extracted by force as it's collateral, a vote for any politician who is NOT seeking to end the Federal Reserve Banking system and the Government borrowing endlessly from it, is a vote assenting to your own slavery.
I am a slave like anyone else in today's Brave New World Order. I do not vote, because I do not wish to be complicit in my own slavery.
In the 2012 election, Ron Paul is the only vote that would be a vote against our collective enslavement.
I'd like to wish all my readers a happy new year. I can't believe I've been doing this blogging thing for 5 years now. Thanks to all for your reading, and thanks to all for your commenting.
Hau'oli Makahiki Hou