Saturday, December 31, 2011

Voting For Our Perpetual Enslavement

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


Anonymous said...

Happy New Year, Dave. Your family is blessed to have such a sound leader.

. said...

"If you... base your ... idea that... [has solutions which]... involves using tax dollars to achieve it, you are complicit in your own slavery."

Sorry for butchering a quote.

You're old school MGTOW, HL, even though you didn't associate yourself as such... but, you were part of it from close to the beginning.

What does it say to you when MRM activism is about "raising money to form lobby groups" and furthermore, so we can "achieve equality" by perhaps even "sueing the government for discrimination"?

Is not every major MRM leader not begging the government for crumbs? Is not demanding the government provide us with shared-parenting also requesting slavery?

Is supporting Warren Farrell's drive to create a White House Council on Men and Boys also not part of the dialectic where we request the government take control of intimate areas of our lives? The man, after all, wants to creat more androgyny as his solution to the gender war... and simply because he is on "our side," the MRM supports him, and his principles, in requesting more totalitarianism in our lives.

Stephen Baskerville is a man who had his reputation created because government intrusion screweed him over so badly... and yet, at the end of the majority of his op-eds, his demand is for more equality, and for more restructuring of the courts, and for more government organizations to be formed to "take note."

Should Glenn Sacks have had his way, Political Correctness would have expanded to include men as a protected victim group... giving hate-speech lobby groups yet more power.

Hell, even AH supports creating "MRM Organisms" to counter the vast left-wing organisms that have grown up over the past decades! Is that not the exact purpose of the dialectic? To set up such vast, but opposing political positions, which will battle eachother until every last ounce of freedom has been rung from us?

I have had a phone call conversation with someone involved with the shared-parenting movement about a year ago. He admitted that in states where shared-parenting was mandated, false accusations of abuse also increased... of course, if all you are going to do is say that women won't be able to get on the divorce gravy-train unless there is abuse of some sort... then gosh-golly, she will find an excuse to falsely accuse of abuse... and many single/divorced MRM fathers are quite ok with this, the throwing of other innocent men under the bus, in order to achieve their political aims and gain custody of their children. (In other words, fuck men's rights, I've got kids!)

Lol! Sorry, but it isn't just political parties that enable the dialectic. It is also each and every one of us, trying to achieve our own goals, and succeeding in pressuring the government to enable our goals.

Anytime anyone asks the government for anything, freedom is being lost. That includes even the MRM being "the other vote" that enables the dialectic.

But still,

Happy New Year!

Keoni Galt said...

Amen Rob. Thanks for reading and commenting after all these years. You were one of my original inspirations to start blogging in the first place. No Ma'am was probably the very first site that helped me begin to understand the big picture.

When I was enjoying Eternal Bachelor, Outcast Superstar, Captain Zarmband, Pook's Mill, Mirror of the Soul, The Black Misogynist and other old school MGTOW bloggers, No Ma'am was the first one I read that put it all into context and connect the dots regarding cultural marxism and it's long march through our cultural institutions, and how our current dystopia has been deliberately engineered.

I too have come to think a lot about the MGTOW/MRA/MRM/PUA blogosphere and how so many of them have become the dialectical opposition of the feminazi's most of us want to fight. The antithesis to the feminazi thesis. Creating a political "movement" would merely lead to a new synthesis.

It seems to me that we now have several "manosphere" blogs that I suspect are false flag operations designed to escalate the gender war and sow dissension amongst those of us striving to expose the truth and combat systemic injustices.

This is precisely why I have always opposed trying to form some sort of "movement" to try and effect political change.

I believe much of our problems were created by getting the masses to buy into collectivism...and the answer to collectivist problems should not be collectivist solutions, that would just lead to more "progressive" synthesis.

No, it is why I have always called myself MRA - Men's Rights AWARENESS.

Arm yourself with knowledge of the truth, and live accordingly.

Thanks for being an inspiring blogger and commenter Rob. YOU are truly one of the founding pioneers of this so-called "manosphere" yet many people nowadays have almost no clue who you are.

But I will never ma'am!

Happy New Year!

Ollie said...

Hawaii is an open primary state. Register and vote in the primary first. You've got to help win that one or all bets are off.

djc said...

I appreciate ALL you guys who blog the truth.

Conan the Cimmerian said...


A great post.
VD can add clarity.
One of my favorite blogs...
Along with yours.

Happy New Year.


Dalrock said...

Another thought provoking post HL.

No, it is why I have always called myself MRA - Men's Rights AWARENESS.

Arm yourself with knowledge of the truth, and live accordingly.

I think this is the only practical advice for men at least for the near term. This also has the follow on benefits of changing the opinion of the populace (at least by degree) and depriving the Socons of the drugs they are most addicted to: grooms and walking wallets. Far too many women are being given the honor of marriage who absolutely aren't fit for nor deserve it. By speaking honestly we can help protect men and hopefully jolt the addict at the same time.

From here I'm not sure where we will need to go. I'm not opposed to addressing the corrupt system via law, but we also will need to be very careful not to turn into just another interest group. MA's recent law on alimony strikes me as a good start, for example. Repealing VAWA would be another one. But I do think great caution is in order any time one turns to government for solutions. Something Vox Day wrote on a recent post really resonated with me:

The dreadful reality of history is that there are few governments so bad that they cannot be made much worse by a revolution.

Anonymous said...

Mirror of the Soul was great. I wonder what ever happened to him.

dienw said...

RE post:

The National Government operates under the premise that it is the ultimate owner of the land, its mineral wealth, and its water; such would be the real collateral for any loans in the long run: yes, that means invasion; and that means an Elite that deliberately destroyed the political, economic, and military strength of this nation. Making money via taxes off a slave labor force is only effective until a nation defaults.

Ryan said...

If a person plays games of chance, buys lottery tickets, is overweight and out of shape, and is depending on government programs to take care of him when he can no longer work, voting probably makes sense to him.

If a person doesn't gamble, works and invests to build wealth, regularly exercises, and keeps a few hundred K stashed in Au and Ag, preparing for future defaults, then voting or discussing politics is a complete waste of time.

Are you in group A or Group B?

The Original Hermit said...

On the rare occasion that I vote, I only vote in local elections, and for candidates I actually agree with. In the last presidential election, I voted for Chuck Baldwin. I realize he had no chance of winning, but I like to give my "encouragement vote". I assume that most people that would otherwise vote for him, defaulted to McCain because he actually had a chance of winning, even though he was still an "evil" choice. Hope fully if good candidates like him get enough encouragement in one election, they'll run again with more support in the next one, and so on. I'm probably jsut wasting my time, but with mail-in ballots, it took more time out of my day to write this post than it did to vote last time.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that we now have several "manosphere" blogs that I suspect are false flag operations designed to escalate the gender war and sow dissension amongst those of us striving to expose the truth and combat systemic injustices.

Keoni, I'm having some trouble understanding how this happened. Could you expand on this so we can have an explination on exactly who these false flag blogs are, who they work for, why they are present now but not five years ago, and what can be gained from trying to influence an unforunately tiny segment of the population? It would help if you could list examples of the false flag blogs. Without examples, it's very hard to understand how and why there are manosphere blogs than can be false flags.

dienw said...

"It seems to me that we now have several "manosphere" blogs that I suspect are false flag operations designed to escalate the gender war and sow dissension amongst those of us striving to expose the truth and combat systemic injustices.

Keoni, I'm having some trouble understanding how this happened. Could you expand on this so we can have an expl[a]nation on exactly who these false flag blogs are

This is an excellent question. It causes me to ponder: on how many levels are there false flags: spiritual, philosophical, moral, and political; do all of them know they are false flags or are they the fruit of previous false flags?

An excellent position to start is "You shall know them by their fruit," but that presupposes that you have a true, objective standard by which to judge them. We must also ask "what is their staring point for their position?": Libertarianism? Christianity -- true or apostate?An immoral situation: a culture of sluts leading to the pickup artist as the role model for other men -- is the fruit of wickedness creating more wickedness?

And remember these blogs deal with ideas: we read them and are convinced: our remade minds and our ensuing actions are the fruit of these blogs.

Keoni Galt said...

It would help if you could list examples of the false flag blogs. Without examples, it's very hard to understand how and why there are manosphere blogs than can be false flags.

That Hawaiian libertarian guy is a false flag!


Joe said...

Thanks Keoni,

The struggle for the future of freedom has many tangents.



That Damn Libertarian said...

I haven't voted for a Democrat or a Republican in over two decades. I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson for President.

Anonymous said...

Part of your situation in the States lies in the inherent problems of two-party system.

As I understand, it really doesn't matter if you vote when you have only two options to choose from: the elites of those two will be in cahoots in the background.
Just like when cartels happen when there are only two big producers.