Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: The ‘Lesser Of Two Evils’ Con-Game
Source:
Zero Hedge
URL Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest ... er-two-evils%E2%80%99-con-game
Published: Jun 12, 2012
Author: Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt-Mark
Post Date: 2012-06-12 14:29:14 by SJN
Keywords: None
Views: 26079
Comments: 64
The ‘Lesser Of Two Evils’ Con-Game http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/06/obamaromney3.jpg 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: 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…
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 50.
#1. To: All (#0)
When I hit preview to post an article I can only get the video by using that feature alone. If I hit Preview w/auto link, I can get the picture but not the video. So here's the picture that didn't show up the first go round.
So, what's the con?
The "con" is the idea that one has to choose between a lesser evil over evil. It's all evil. Since you had to ask, I can see why you are confused.
I am not confused; the author is bending logic out of reason. A moral man cannot be evil. It isn't a matter of lesser; it is not either or. It is absolute. "The Ethical man knows he shouldn't cheat on his wife. The Moral man wouldn't." Romney is a moral man. The other guy is not.
Romney is a moral man. The other guy is not. You mean to tell me there are politicians out there with morals??? I must have slept through that revelation being made public!! Looks like we know who you're gonna vote for....
#52. To: CZ82 (#50)
"Romney is a moral man. The other guy is not."" You mean to tell me there are politicians out there with morals??? Well, if all politicians are unethical if follows that some are moral. Thank you for your support. Nice to have some sanity back.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: SJN (#1)
#7. To: harrowup (#3)
So, what's the con?
#9. To: SJN (#7)
Since you had to ask, I can see why you are confused.
#50. To: harrowup (#9)
"The Ethical man knows he shouldn't cheat on his wife. The Moral man wouldn't."
Replies to Comment # 50. ""The Ethical man knows he shouldn't cheat on his wife. The Moral man wouldn't."
End Trace Mode for Comment # 50.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]