I haven’t voted in a U.S. presidential election since way back in 1992, when I cast my ballot for independent candidate, Ross Perot. That guy was a real hoot. I loved his charts and his home-spun, Texas drawl.
Although I’ve voted in local and state elections since then, and have been politically active in my own special way, I’ve always caught a lot of flak for not participating in the Big Boy elections. The main thing I’ve heard from naysayers has been: “You really ought’a vote, ‘cause if you don’t vote then you’re not allowed to complain about anything.”
That’s absurd, of course. I’ve had my reasons for not voting. So, I’ve kept right on complaining.
My main beef with “voting” in national elections has been (and remains) the following:
At the upper levels, I think the fix is in. Meaning: I’m pretty sure the Elites appoint their higher-level puppets well in advance of any “election day.” That means the decision has already been made, such that the notion of “voting” for U.S. Presidents and U.S. Senators and such is just an illusion, a public ritual without any real consequences. Furthermore, I suspect that the Elites have already decided upon a decidedly Marxist direction in which they wish to aim human society, and, at the moment, sadly, we’re all just along for the ride.
A Little about Marxism
Mentioning “Marxism” has the potential to open up a big can of worms, I realize. So, I feel like I should explain what I mean by it. By Marxism, I’m referring to the socialist ideologies promoted by Karl Marx (real last name: Mordechai), co-author of The Communist Manifesto. In a nutshell, Marxism is rooted in Conflict Theory – in which different groups in society are encouraged to embrace the idea of fundamental inequalities and to compete with one another for limited resources. It’s a flawed ideology, for sure, since it’s fundamentally self-contradictory, i.e., people are encouraged to continually focus on their differences in order to eradicate those differences. But never mind all that. At the heart of the matter is the fact that Marxists wish to transform capitalist societies into socialist societies through revolution, in preparation for embracing pure communism – which Marxists idealize as a sort of utopia.
Of course, the problem with socialism is that it concentrates power in the hands of a leadership class, an intelligentsia, to such an extent that they never let go of the reigns of power, so the pure communist utopia never arrives. Society gets itself trapped into a nasty paradigm where the majority of people suffer miserably at the hands of a small group of overlords who own everything and wish to keep it that way. History has proven this time and time again.
So, in simple terms, let’s say that Marxists, in general, consider themselves to be revolutionaries who wish to overturn capitalism and replace it with socialism. Many of them – due to either ignorance of history or outright naiveté – might even see it as a noble goal, mistakenly thinking that socialism is a better construct for supporting human dignity and liberty. Others of them probably understand exactly what they’re doing – which is grabbing power and control.
There’s also another, more subtle, layer to the Marxism onion. Pardon my bluntness on this, but it’s an ideological complexity related to Judaism and Freemasonry. Exposure of this layer is probably necessary, but it’s well-protected behind a cleverly-constructed firewall associated with “anti-Semitism.” So, I’ll attempt to tread lightly! (For the record: I don’t think for a second that all Jews or Freemasons are conscious evil-doers. But I do think they are all tangled up in a rather sticky web of deceit that’s been spun by a psychopathic spider.)
In brief, the sub-layer has to do with competing factions within Marxism itself. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, and based upon the fact that Karl Marx (Mordechai) was himself Jewish, that Marxism is an ideological construct with some sort of ties to Judaism or Freemasonry or whatever. Let’s also imagine that, realistically speaking, there might be different groups within the broader ideological camp, with different ideas about how the goals of Marxism should be pursued and achieved.
There are at least two such camps that can be readily identified based on historical happenings: Zionists and Revolutionary Communists. There are other identifiable camps as well, but let’s stick with these two for now.
Zionists and Revolutionary Communists have a shared ideological, Marxist base, which is underpinned by the radically racist belief system of the Talmud (the Hebrew Bible) – which declares Jews to be a separate and superior race of people who are authorized and encouraged to oppress all others – and “the great reveal” of upper level rabbinical and Masonic teachings: that the Hebrew “God” identified by the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, is, in fact, Lucifer, the light-bearer. So, the overarching, shared goals of both groups is decidedly nefarious, as it ultimately serves Evil. But each group has their own way of doing things (creating chaos, unleashing Hell on Earth, etc.) that they think is best.
Zionists are all about establishing a physical, Jewish homeland (Israel), rebuilding the Temple of Solomon to activate a direct communication bridge with God (Lucifer), and then expanding their base outward from there, killing and/or enslaving everyone else in their path on the way to claiming the whole world for God’s (Lucifer’s) Chosen People. Revolutionary Communists view the Zionist approach with some suspicion, thinking it to be a little too much like British colonialism for their tastes, and instead prefer to please God (Lucifer) by taking down capitalist nations one at a time through various overt and covert means, such that they can claim the whole world, step-wise, in a toppling dominoes fashion, where Israel organically engulfs the world like a spreading rash – also with plenty of killing and enslaving and so on.
In case I even need to say this explicitly: Marxism, in all its forms and disguises, is such an obvious expression of religious crackpot fanaticism, that it ought to be laughed and/or booed right off stage like a lousy actor, without a second thought.
Yet, for some mysterious reason, Marxism continues to flourish. It’s like an invasive, non-indigenous weed that’s taken root in our garden, and it will continue to pop up unless we get really serious about eradicating it.
OK, that was a bit of a ramble! But I think it’s necessary background for continuing on about the U.S. presidential election . . .
“Trump vs. Harris”
Getting back to the main thrust of this article:
Are we really being offered a choice at the ballot box this year when it comes to the presidential candidates? Meaning: Do Trump and Harris really represent anti- versus pro- Marxist ideologies?
I think not. I think Trump and Harris are both marching along merrily to the beat of the Marxist drum. It’s a different drumming pattern, though. One is Zionist, and the other is Revolutionary Communist. Pick your poison.
Harris has clear ties to Revolutionary Communism. It’s evident in her proclaimed key policies, which are derived directly (and unimaginatively) from The Communist Manifesto. Her Jewish husband, Doug Emhoff, speaks openly and often about his sympathies (which are presumably of some influence on Harris?) – while Harris herself, curiously and suspiciously, chooses to downplay her thoughts about supporting Israel (the pseudo-nation that’s been forcibly carved out of Palestine). Harris also hides her Sephardic Jewish ancestry, preferring instead to highlight other, social-hot-button elements of her racial heritage. If you ask me, it’s all a bit much, and it comes across as overtly patronizing. In a classic, Revolutionary Communism sense, having Harris in the White House would be akin to having a fox in a chicken coop.
Trump makes so much noise about so many random topics, that it’s hard to pin down his Zionist ties unless you go looking for them explicitly. But sure enough, they are right there in the open, for all to see. Here’s a great example from his September 19 speech at the Israeli American Council Conference. At time stamp 31:15 – 32:30 you can watch him bragging openly about his previous (shockingly unapologetic) graft arrangement with billionaire Zionists, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson. Trump proudly announces, “I gave them Golan Heights” – referring to a previous Israeli land grab that Trump sanctioned in exchange for financial support from the Adelsons. Other indirect evidence of Trump’s Zionist alignments abounds. To wit: The massive U.S. economic and public health destabilizations created by Trump’s previous CARES Act, Operation Warp Speed, etc. – all, no doubt, driven by Zionist efforts to explode capitalism from within and transfer wealth from the U.S. to Israel. In a classic, Zionist sense, having Trump in the White House would be akin to having a bribed boxer in the ring, capable of putting on a good show, but ultimately willing to take a dive in the second round to get his handsome mob payoff.
It’s a sad state of affairs.
Ice-T Speaks
Thankfully, everyday people are now becoming aware of the Marxist game.
It’s a painful but necessary step. Painful because it’s daunting to come face-to-face with such Evil. Necessary because clearly identifying The Enemy gives us a much better shot at bringing it down.
One of the crispest summaries of the bogus Republican vs. Democrat dichotomy I’ve heard is from Body Count, the L.A. metal band fronted by Ice-T. In their recent song, titled Fuck What You Heard, Ice-T likens our two political parties to gang-bangers – “Democrips” and “Bloodpublicans,” pretending to do battle under their respective colors. The punchline (or hook, I guess) is this: “Listen, fuck whatcha heard. Both wings are on the same bird!”
Indeed. I really can’t say it any better than that.
All I can do is try to describe some of the feathers.
Phil’s Two Cents
Bottom line: Does it matter whom we actually vote for, in terms of candidates in the upcoming presidential election?
With things being how they are currently, my instinct is this: probably not.
Nonetheless, I’m having a serious think about “voting” in the coming days.
If I do “vote,” it’s not because my views have changed. And it certainly won’t be because I’m backing a particular candidate. If I vote, it will simply be because I think it might be useful to add one more voice to the total headcount of participating voters this year.
About 66% of the voting-eligible population supposedly turned out for the 2020 presidential election, and I think it would be rather nice to contribute to a higher number here in 2024. Mainly, because I think this number might roughly correspond to the number of people who actually give a shit about which way our ship is headed and who’s at the helm.
Demonstrating that we actually give a shit might be the only thing we can do right now, as individuals.
After all, voting is meant to be more than an illusory public ritual. It’s meant to be a mechanism for periodically appointing stewards of public sentiment. And although the mechanism of voting feel futile right now, if we give up on the fundamental concept of voting, I’m worried that we might be surrendering something quite important. Something worth keeping around that might prove quite useful later on, provided we can repair some other areas.
My grandfather used to stand in front of daunting household projects, sizing them up with both hands on his hips, and saying, “There’s lots that needs fixin’ so we best get to it.” I remember him making a declaration like this one time, just before we got up on his roof to lay shingles. It was about 100 degrees out, and the roof was a mess on account of a recent storm. I was his 12-year-old helper. I held up a hammer and asked him if we needed it. “Not just yet,” he said. “We’ll need it, for sure, but first things first.” I kept the hammer at the ready, and held onto the bottom of the ladder as he climbed up to get a good look at things.
– “Phil”
Be First to Comment