 |
This is often the painful call out we hear from so many citizens. How would I answer?
I would say, "so do not vote".
If you vote for the least bad among them, you are still voting for bad. You will still be contribution and upholding the social perversions so widespread today.
So do not vote.
Many will now say "but that means the worst will get in". But do we not already see the worst kind of perverts in power? This view is a fallacy evidently.
So what shall you do?
I say do not vote.
And then watch what happens.
When the electorate only turns out with less than 50%, democracy is already meaningless. And it then remains down to the people to see what they can make of it.
It's my view, if enough people abstained, Power would collapse because everybody would be ignoring it.
Yes, yes, yes, stop your bleating: Perverted Power would do a lot of killing while it collapsed, scorched earth style. We can already see this happening in the inner cities around the world of course.
Others will forecast civil war as if that is worse than voting for perverted demagogues.
So how do I decide, I hear you say?
It's not that hard to understand and see clearly:
- how high will the excess death toll be if you vote, compared to
- how high will the excess death toll be if you do not and there's a civil war?
It seems to me the death toll will be far higher when the people vote for the least worst pervert to rule them, than to abstain and work through the transitional collapse and rebirth.
This is hard for people to understand literally. Because death during conflict is directly attributable even though the numbers are low, the tribe has someone to blame and escape their own complicity.
But even when the excess death toll is staggeringly high during peacetime, far far higher than during any war, it's hard to attribute the blame to any particular thing.
That, is democracy for you.