"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."
The ‘Lesser Of Two Evils’
Con-Game
Submitted by
Tyler Durden on
06/12/2012 10:29 -0400
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:
http://youtu.be/IWDJEc92d38
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…
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-%E2%80%98lesser-two-evils%E2%80%99-con-game
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
