Saturday, October 13, 2012
Choosing The Lesser of Evils
It's been fascinating to observe that many Christians are lining up solidly behind Romney for president. Given the fact that he's a Mormon is not easy to overlook, since many Christians still regard this as a heretical "cult". Then there's the fact that Romney has adopted lying as a primary campaign tactic. Oops, what does the Good Book have to say about that? Do the ends justify the means if lying gets him elected and then works to outlaw abortion? Hmmm...
Of course, evaluating candidates on moral issues is aways a tricky affair. Much hinges upon a person's prevailing worldview. For some, abortion is the ultimate evil, and they will automatically pivot toward anyone that identifies with the "Pro-Life" label.
Other Christians may recall that the only time Jesus really lost his cool was when he drove the evil Banksters out from the temple. No similar scene is recorded of him castigating homosexuals, or condemning socialist economic policies. In fact, some of his pronouncements regarding the poor could be construed as socialist-leaning.
The Christian spectrum spans from Neo-Nazi to Liberation Theology, so that takes in a lot of political territory. Thus it's understandable that both candidates get demonized by one side of the spectrum or the other.
I have bad news for anyone that thinks their candidate is "good" and the other one is "evil": Both parties are corrupt and irretrievably evil. Our entire political system is evil, and has been taken over and dominated by an evil force for some time. Perhaps it has been that way since the founding of the Republic. This is simply the way things are in the world.
Here's how it works: We go through the motions of an electoral process to choose our leaders. This way we can remain attached to the delusion that we are a self-governing democracy. However, the Powers-That-Be (PTB) control both major parties. They don't care if you hate the Republican Bum and vote instead for the Democratic Bum. The PTB controls journalists and corporate media, and even the judiciary. Any candidate that decides to speak truthfully and independently is not given a chance.
The conspiracy is very subtle. Journalists can only rise to key positions in corporate media if they subscribe to the prevailing worldview of the PTB. Stories that stray into undesirable areas get killed with a phone call to an editor. I have seen many examples that document and illustrate this. This is why the mainstream media never reports on controversial subjects like who owns the Federal Reserve, what government agency is behind spraying Chemtrails, or the fascinating proliferation of crop circles. These subjects are strictly verboten except in the fringe or alternative media. The alternatives can print what they want, but the PTB deals with them in a different manner.
Since the corporate media cannot even acknowledge that certain issues exist, politicians certainly cannot address them. It's widely known and understood that you must adopt the expected official line or else you cannot participate in the political system. It's thoroughly accepted that some unknown power center guides these things.
This is why John Kerry could not accuse President Bush of lying about the 9/11 attacks. Think about it...if the evidence could have been presented by the president's opponent in 2004, that the 9/11 attacks were contrived to get the nation lined up behind invading Iraq and Afghanistan, not only would Bush not have stood a chance of being reelected, but he and Cheney would likely still be serving time in prison. But this does not happen, and cannot happen. If Kerry had tried such a brash move, he would have been swiftly dealt with. An "accident", or perhaps sudden "psychiatric illness" would have quickly taken him out of operation. The facts are all there...no problem with that. But facts don't matter if they conflict with the prevailing implausible myth concerning 19 hapless Arabs.
Or conversely, when the Obama administration claimed to have killed Bin Laden, and basked in the glory of it, Romney could have presented convincing evidence that Bin Laden had been killed years earlier, or had died in a cave of kidney failure (There were actually multiple Bin Ladens). The available facts would have backed him up, but no such chance that would happen.
So the result is, we get lied to and everyone on the inside accepts this. Politicians are only allowed to attack each other on marginal issues. Even when they promise they will change things, nothing changes. This is the most damning piece of evidence for this thesis, that so little changes between administrations. It's clear that someone is in control; we just don't know who it is. It wasn't Bush, and certainly not Obama, since very little changed despite vast rhetorical differences.
Before making serious runs for the presidency, Ron Paul was sympathetic to the 9/11 Truth movement. Presumably he was made to understand that this would not be tolerated in a national forum, because he dropped mention of it. What he had to say in the 2012 Republican debates was radical enough, with his questioning of military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was the only candidate in either party to take an anti-war position, but the corporate media ensured that Paul's message was ignored or ridiculed.
So what choices do the voters have in the 2012 election? Vote for more war, or vote for more war. Vote for more debt, or vote for more debt. Whether there is a robust economic recovery or another recession is probably out of the hands of the next White House occupant. Romney claims "the middle class is being crushed" but the decision to do this was not made in the White House, nor by any elected official, and no president can do anything about it.
I choose to vote for Obama because (a) Romney's lying is blatant and disgusting, going beyond the "normal" level of deceit by a politician, and (b) because the Democratic party tends to take marginally better care of the poor and working class. The Republicans will attempt to gut labor unions with "right to work" legislation and roll back help for the poor. I'm under no illusions that Obama will ever do anything meaningful to challenge the power of Wall Street and the Bankster cartel, but the rhetoric of standing firm against further tax breaks for the rich at least feels better.
For anyone that feels convinced that Romney would truly make a difference for the better, I pity that. Disappointment is sure to follow. Likewise Obama supporters had best not harbor hopes that their guy will improve things. Maybe stave off disaster a bit longer than Romney; that's my hope.
On the other hand, we are all victims of a corrupt system that limits our choices. What ardent Christian conservative would not rather have Rick Santorum or even the faux-pious Rick Perry on the ballot in November? What progressive wouldn't wish to see their side represented by the likes of Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich?
For this reason, I offer a bit of empathy and respect to my right-wing Christian friends. The way the system is rigged, we are all so screwed. We are all in this together.