It's a real joy to read or listen to someone making perfect sense - once again I find myself in total agreement with the author since I've raised similar questions over the years and arrived at identical conclusions.
All exceptionally good points. Ultimately it comes down to the stupidity of the people who keep voting for it. And the sizeable minority who don't - say 30% or so - don't have the political intelligence to vote for outsiders (independents, proper socialists etc.). If that number of people did vote accordingly then the criminocracy would be fucked. Why - because of your last point about vote rigging. If the people were made aware of the prevalence of rigging then this would be the spark that lit the revolution (ask the CIA - they love spreading those kinds of rumours to incite colour revolutions, because it works).
The important point is there is a real, logistical limit to vote rigging beyond which it becomes obvious. That's the point when they're fucked. In 2019, for example, I am convinced the actual result was the other way round, meaning they were able to give Johnson 3-4 million votes (postal votes) and take 3-4 million away from Corbyn (ballot boxes - this is why the official turnout was at least 5% lower than the actual turnout - it's not psychologically believable that 48 million people would bother to register to vote, but 16 million (1/3rd) of them didn't bother using that vote in the end). So I think that's about their logistical vote rigging limit. They do it by 1/ obviously the postal votes, and 2/ adding and removing ballot boxes in the right areas/wards. Ironically, it would take a relatively few counter-espionage observers (with the aid of tracking devices, cameras etc.) to gather the appropriate evidence.
I would imagine they will need to rig the result in Starmer's constituency because otherwise Feinstein will win. Even if Starmer would normally win, they need to rig it to make him look popular (same reasoning applies across the country, for that matter).
One thing we do know (as you highlighted with the polling/manipulation of public opinion) is the 'polls' are also rigged. Thus, if the official result is within a standard deviation (plus or minus approx. 3%) of the polls, then we know it was rigged. That's our starting point.
There is of course little we can do about this unfortunately, but if we bear in mind these statistics then we may be able to highlight this after July 4. And for future elections. Perhaps even set up a trap somehow (like a 'Feinstein' thing). And as I say, there's the revolutionary spark...
Totally agree. All of the points against 'democracy' or 'voting' made by Paul in the article completely vanish at the local level, where the people are so close to the seat of power that it is impossible for that power/local government to avoid scrutiny and accountability. There is, indeed, even a real physical threat/deterrent against any bad guys who were to even think about abusing their position or the people - this deterrent simply isn't there in a larger scale democracy (like a 'country'), because the individual and a community is so far removed from the seat of power/government.
Related, on the local level it's quite likely the elected representatives are known personally by the members of the community. They are more likely to be elected based on genuine knowledge of their motivations (benevolent).
This is essentially my view of socialism - it's a pre-Marxian view in which democracy can only happen from the bottom up (as opposed to Marxism which is top-down, and thus no different from any other form of hierarchy). This kind of 'socialism' likewise is inseparable from 'anarchism' simply on the logistical level.
I call this 'liberal socialism', although, that's just my own terminology. Others will use other terms, but it amounts to the same thing.
Hence what we really need is a 'liberal socialist' political party which, if enough people actually voted for it, the Establishment would be finished. In particular because of what I suggested about the logistical limits of vote rigging. That's the key point.
It's why I have zero respect for people who do not vote. Telling people not to vote is called voter suppression, and it only serves the Establishment.
Likewise, even if we were to want a totally anarchist revolution, this has to be done in steps, because otherwise it's far too radical a change for the people to psychologically accept. This is why I might also advocate voting for soft-left parties. Not Starmer, obviously (or other so-called 'centrists', since they are right wing), but there are plenty of options. With each step in the right direction, the end result seems less and less scary to the people.
“High on our list was the threat of the WHO treaty, giving unprecedented control to a global body...” — And control of bodies globally.
“Since he hadn’t even heard of the issue, one of our group explained it all to him and then asked him whether he agreed with us, in principle, that this was a worrying prospect. He wouldn’t give a personal opinion, insisting that he was committed to a collective outlook and that, basically, he would have to go and find out what the party line was before he could answer.” — I don't know which is more chilling: what the first sentence shows or what the second does.
There's one other problem, at the base: Coercive civil authority is inherently, intrinsically evil. #CCAIIIE
Even if all government officials and crony media/corporations behaved with impeccable forthrightness, what they do would still be evil.
It's a real joy to read or listen to someone making perfect sense - once again I find myself in total agreement with the author since I've raised similar questions over the years and arrived at identical conclusions.
Me too!
All exceptionally good points. Ultimately it comes down to the stupidity of the people who keep voting for it. And the sizeable minority who don't - say 30% or so - don't have the political intelligence to vote for outsiders (independents, proper socialists etc.). If that number of people did vote accordingly then the criminocracy would be fucked. Why - because of your last point about vote rigging. If the people were made aware of the prevalence of rigging then this would be the spark that lit the revolution (ask the CIA - they love spreading those kinds of rumours to incite colour revolutions, because it works).
The important point is there is a real, logistical limit to vote rigging beyond which it becomes obvious. That's the point when they're fucked. In 2019, for example, I am convinced the actual result was the other way round, meaning they were able to give Johnson 3-4 million votes (postal votes) and take 3-4 million away from Corbyn (ballot boxes - this is why the official turnout was at least 5% lower than the actual turnout - it's not psychologically believable that 48 million people would bother to register to vote, but 16 million (1/3rd) of them didn't bother using that vote in the end). So I think that's about their logistical vote rigging limit. They do it by 1/ obviously the postal votes, and 2/ adding and removing ballot boxes in the right areas/wards. Ironically, it would take a relatively few counter-espionage observers (with the aid of tracking devices, cameras etc.) to gather the appropriate evidence.
I would imagine they will need to rig the result in Starmer's constituency because otherwise Feinstein will win. Even if Starmer would normally win, they need to rig it to make him look popular (same reasoning applies across the country, for that matter).
One thing we do know (as you highlighted with the polling/manipulation of public opinion) is the 'polls' are also rigged. Thus, if the official result is within a standard deviation (plus or minus approx. 3%) of the polls, then we know it was rigged. That's our starting point.
There is of course little we can do about this unfortunately, but if we bear in mind these statistics then we may be able to highlight this after July 4. And for future elections. Perhaps even set up a trap somehow (like a 'Feinstein' thing). And as I say, there's the revolutionary spark...
Thus the logic of local government instead of the rule from afar makes perfect sense.
Totally agree. All of the points against 'democracy' or 'voting' made by Paul in the article completely vanish at the local level, where the people are so close to the seat of power that it is impossible for that power/local government to avoid scrutiny and accountability. There is, indeed, even a real physical threat/deterrent against any bad guys who were to even think about abusing their position or the people - this deterrent simply isn't there in a larger scale democracy (like a 'country'), because the individual and a community is so far removed from the seat of power/government.
Related, on the local level it's quite likely the elected representatives are known personally by the members of the community. They are more likely to be elected based on genuine knowledge of their motivations (benevolent).
This is essentially my view of socialism - it's a pre-Marxian view in which democracy can only happen from the bottom up (as opposed to Marxism which is top-down, and thus no different from any other form of hierarchy). This kind of 'socialism' likewise is inseparable from 'anarchism' simply on the logistical level.
I call this 'liberal socialism', although, that's just my own terminology. Others will use other terms, but it amounts to the same thing.
Hence what we really need is a 'liberal socialist' political party which, if enough people actually voted for it, the Establishment would be finished. In particular because of what I suggested about the logistical limits of vote rigging. That's the key point.
It's why I have zero respect for people who do not vote. Telling people not to vote is called voter suppression, and it only serves the Establishment.
Likewise, even if we were to want a totally anarchist revolution, this has to be done in steps, because otherwise it's far too radical a change for the people to psychologically accept. This is why I might also advocate voting for soft-left parties. Not Starmer, obviously (or other so-called 'centrists', since they are right wing), but there are plenty of options. With each step in the right direction, the end result seems less and less scary to the people.
Spot on throughout!
“High on our list was the threat of the WHO treaty, giving unprecedented control to a global body...” — And control of bodies globally.
“Since he hadn’t even heard of the issue, one of our group explained it all to him and then asked him whether he agreed with us, in principle, that this was a worrying prospect. He wouldn’t give a personal opinion, insisting that he was committed to a collective outlook and that, basically, he would have to go and find out what the party line was before he could answer.” — I don't know which is more chilling: what the first sentence shows or what the second does.
Here's very short take on representative democracy … https://redpillpoems.substack.com/p/representative-democracy
From an as-yet-unpublished poem:
Principally serving as legitimacy-conferring veneer
adhered to the surface of utterly corrupted governance
elections are employed as ploys to imply consent;
as props
to affirm the fiction that is the benevolent state;
as plinths to underpin the myth of said state's
heeding the pleas of its people's pleading voice.
Such being the case the grand facade that protects
and projects the soothing illusion of choice
must — as our most effectively deceptive
rulers have always known or promptly learned —
be reinforced and gussied-up at each and every turn.
https://youtu.be/SEH9SLG4X9E?si=RqQpHJ2badcGQOp1
To my mind the currency of power is awarded to those who cheerlead Zionism.
If democracies worked , the government would be out of a job.
Would you mind if at mises.pt and libertarios.pt we would translate your article to Portuguese and give you credit?
Please feel free! Thanks.
Thank you. Will link after
https://www.libertarios.pt/p/fraude-eleitoral-a-ilusao-da-democracia?utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true
Obrigado!