Success Warrior: The Blog That Embraces ADHD

The Logic Behind a Second Lockdown

So,

The second lockdown has commenced in Utah with the restriction that only people who live in your house are allowed in your house.  Your reaction to this over-reach that goes way beyond what we could have ever imagine happening in the United States is probably similar to what mine was.  This isn't the USSR, after all, but before you run off to post your rant on LieToYourFacebook which will just get censored anyway, hear me out.  I have been doing some research on the logic behind the lockdown and I've had a change of heart.  Let me share my findings with you to see if you too will come around to the right way of thinking.  For some people, the thought of going through logic may sound tedious so I'll use an analogy as I go to help clear up the logic while hopefully making it less boring.

The quick and dirty of the lockdown logic comes down to this: the number of dangerously contagious people in society is skyrocketing and therefore, we need to separate everyone from everyone.  It does impose on those that aren't a risk and those not at risk but the the virus is so deadly that it justifies the oppressive measure.  Until the United States becomes a truly 1984 police state where people wear or are implanted with biometric devices that signal when they are sick and surveillance is so complete that we know everyone that sick person has come in contact with, we have to use this less precise approach.  Luckily, the goal is to have the better solution in place by 2030 so it won't be long before mass lockdowns are a thing of the barbaric past that we'll be able to laugh at.

The problem we are trying to deal with is that people with C1984 are dangerous to everyone else in the population and should be isolated from everyone else.  By doing this, we can stop this cold virus from killing every human being on the planet.   For our analogy, we'll say that people who have accidents on the freeway where the speed limit is typically 75 mph (121 kph) or 80 mph (129 kph) on more remote stretches of road are dangerous to everyone else on the freeway.  The high speed on these roadways means that accidents are much more likely to result in serious injury and death than on roads where cars are traveling much slower.  Obviously, steps should be taken to remove these dangerous drivers from the freeway before they have an accident.  To help get funding and public support for increased safety measures, we need to demonstrate just how dangerous the situation is by reporting the extraordinarily high numbers of accidents that are occurring at the present.  How can we do this?

The key to knowing how bad things are and what actions are required is to identify the dangerous people.  With drivers, we enforce various traffic laws to keep cars in their respective lanes and at a safe speed.  Those that continue to violate these laws are deemed dangerous and their driver license is suspended with the intent of keeping them off the roads, hopefully preventing accidents that they would have caused.  With C1984, the common approach to identifying dangerous people is PCR testing.

Lots and lots of PCR testing.  Testing has skyrocketed around the world.  In Utah, the number of tests being done now is about 500% more than it was in April.  In the UK, I've heard the difference is about 20,000%.  You might think that by doing that much more testing, it might be natural to see a correlation in the number of "cases".  You're on the right track.  If you look at the number of accidents on the freeways now compared to 50 years ago, you would expect there to be more accidents now based on the number of additional cars on the road.  You might ask, "but is this justification to completely outlaw driving or lock everyone in their houses?"  Maybe not but it's a good way to ensure that the number of cases does go up somewhat dramatically and is a good first step toward that justification.  

What if there was a way to magnify the "cases" beyond what people might expect?  If you tested 5 times as many people and rather than getting somewhere around 5 times as many cases, you got 23 times as many cases using April 1 and Nov 1 in Utah as an example.  Now, we're definitely talking justification for removal of all human rights from the populace.  The virus has come back with a vengeance.  The people should feel lucky that we allow them out to get groceries.  We could have the national guard deliver meals on wheels and put everyone on house arrest (without the actual arrest, house detention).  

To accomplish this, we test as many people as possible as outlined above using PCR tests and call any positive results "cases."  There are several reasons why the use of PCR tests is vital for this logical lockdown.

First, and possibly most importantly, PCR tests do not test specifically for C1984.  They are testing for viral RNA, any viral RNA.  If you have a cold, a coronavirus, that isn't C1984, it will still return a positive result.  In our crash analogy, it means that we can count people who back up into a light pole in the grocery store as a freeway accident.  This doesn't carry the same risks as crashing at 80 mph but you have to remember that we aren't looking for truth or reality, we are looking for justification to lock people in their houses, keep them from associating with each other, destroy the economy, and make them more willing to accept the 1984 solutions presented when their lives are in complete ruins.

The viral RNA doesn't even have to be a close cousin to C1984.  According to the CDD and FDA, PCR tests will test positive for bacterial pathogens.  That means that in addition to adding people who run into light poles in a parking lot to our count of freeway crashes (cases), we can add people who ride their bicycle into a mailbox as well.

It gets even better though.  We can manipulate PCR tests so that they detect viral RNA that is long dead and inactive.  This is done by adding cycles to the test.  Basically, that means that we look for finer and finer tiny bits of viral RNA.  RNA that is no longer alive and no longer contagious.  We can get a positive result by testing someone who had a cold 6 months ago.  We can test asymptomatic people who are asymptomatic because they don't have C1984 and never have had it and get a positive result.  So, now in our count of freeway accidents, we can add to today's number anyone who has crashed (car or bike, freeway or parking lot or mailbox) in the past.  Dr. Falsey says that cycles should be limited to 35 or less to reduce the chance of picking up traces of dead RNA.  Other doctors say that it should be 33 cycles or less.  If you are actually looking for contagious RNA, it should be 24 cycles or less.  Companies are testing using 37 cycles, 40 cycles, and there is one using 45 cycles.  By doing this, we make it almost a sure thing that the test comes back positive and gets added to the number of "cases."  I'm sure you can see how useful this is in justifying a lockdown. 

It should be pointed out that the FDA recommends that PCR tests not be used for diagnosis because they don't point to a definitive disease.  We will need to ignore that and pretend like these tests were created for detecting C1984.  I'm sure you understand that this is something that must be done in order to justify lockdowns.

Here's the frosting on the cake.  PCR tests return positive results if the person has the antibodies that makes them immune to C1984.  I mean, it doesn't get much cooler than that.  We can add to our freeway crash numbers people who live in places where there are no freeways, where it is physically impossible for them to be in an accident on a freeway.  Seriously, this one doesn't score us as many positives as the healthy people who were sick with some kind of disease at some point in their lives but there is just something very empowering about telling someone that can't contract the disease that they have it.  In your face!

As you can see, by increasing the number of people being tested and increasing the number of "cases" of this deadly virus exponentially, we have justified any and all unconstitutional or inhumane solutions, including lockdowns.  Easy, peasy, lemon, squeezey.

And that's where you must stop the logic.  If you take the next logical step, you completely undermine all of the work that has been done to this point so we won't do that.  For those of you that are happy that lockdowns have been justified and reinstated on the populace, stop reading here.  For those of you who are curious about the next logical step, read on but remember that this is something that will not be implemented because it completely derails the agenda.

In our car analogy, if you were told that freeway car crashes had increased by 23 times over a time period, you would have some expectations.  BTW, for those that are curious, the number of crashes in the United States has been essentially flat when factoring in the increased number of cars.  If there are 5 times more cars, there are about 5 times more accidents, as you might suspect.  Those of you who came to this conclusion earlier in regards to the number of tests being given really were on the right track.  Anyway, if instead of a direct correlation (5 times), you instead had 23 times more accidents reported by the media, you might expect to see:

• Crashed cars all the time on the side of the freeway
• News stories about how tow truck companies can't keep up with demand
• News stories about the trillions of dollars insurance companies are paying out
• Friends and family members who had been involved in some of these accidents
• Maybe even someone in your own household involved in at least one of these accidents

In short, you would rightfully expect to see a reflection in the real world of what was being reported by the government and propaganda sources.

This extremely deadly virus (which is still much less deadly than the boring old flu) has seen "cases" go through the roof, 23 times more now than in April for Utah.  We should be seeing the number of deaths going up in a similar manner.  You would think they would go up somewhere between 5 to 23 times as much, if this virus is so deadly and so many people have it.  Sadly, for our justification, the number of deaths is completely typical for this time of year.  We aren't seeing any correlation at all between "cases" and death.  This is why it is vitally important that we keep hammering away with "cases, cases, cases" and steer clear of any mention of the deaths or the dreadful lack thereof.  If we point this out, it would show that either the virus isn't that deadly or that there really aren't that many people who have it (kind of ruining the whole "pandemic" angle we're going for).  Just between you and me, it's both and this is something that we can't talk about at all or it will completely destroy the logic justifying mandatory masks and lockdowns.  Remember, the mantra for today is "cases, cases, cases" and let's see if we can get even more people tested with these completely unreliable, easily manipulated PCR tests.

We just need this to last a little bit longer.  We are working on our next scam, COVID-21.  We know that COVID-19 basically died off around June and we're asking you to really flog a dead horse by going along with this paper-thin justification but there is a light at the end of the tunnel.  Soon, we'll hit them with the new and improved (meaning more deadly or, at least, scarier sounding) scam pandemic and we can let go of 19.

For any of you that skipped the section on what to avoid and are looking for some kind of conclusion paragraph, I'll say this.  I think it has been clearly and logically demonstrated that lockdowns are completely justified and we are taking steps to make sure that they remain completely justified for the foreseeable future.  Spread the good news to everyone, especially those who have been wearing masks for so long that the reduced oxygen intake and increased CO2 intake has impaired their critical thinking ability.  

Who Won?

So,

Who won?

Trillary!

H'rump!

I'll bet neither of them has even touched a disc golf disc before.

Whuh?

I think we may have crossed wires but I must say that a disc golf tournament would be an interesting way to choose the president.

Right?  Maybe it could be one of the weekly challenges for next election's reality show:  Survivor: Presidential. 

To answer the question you thought I was asking, the winner was the 1% who duped 100 million people into voting that the 1% maintain control over the country.  It was pretty unclimactic but I did find a couple of interesting things in the voting numbers.

Hillary got 92.8% of the votes in the District of Columbia.  For those of you trying to figure out why Hillary lost, you don't have to look any farther than this.  A vote for Hillary was a vote for the corrupt system.  Not that voting for Trump was a vote against the corrupt system.  As part of his character in the 2016 Election reality show, he got to play the role of the outsider.  This played in his favor even though it was just written into the script for his character.  We all know that a true outsider would never be allowed to win the primary or be given the same amount of media attention as the 1% candidates.  Hell, Ron Paul won the Nevada caucus and the results were thrown out and McCain delegates were appointed by the RNC to represent the state.  A true outsider is never given the slightest chance of being seen as a viable candidate, never mind winning the election.  The fact that they appointed delegates rather than go with delegates selected by the people demonstrates that this country is not a democratic republic.  People are allowed to vote as long as they vote for one of the two puppets the 1% puts forward.

There have been a lot of things posted on Facebook by Trillary supporters with one side posting "Suck it!" messages and the other side announcing the end of the world.  The best that I have seen so far though was from a Johnson supporter reprimanding Hillary supporters for wasting their votes.  Had they voted for Johnson, he would have won and if he wasn't suicided or killed in a freak accident before January, things might have changed. 

Yeah, four years of zero presidential coverage from the media.

No bully pulpit for you!

Oh they would cover him extensively.  They would cover his inability to get along with congress members.  They would talk about how his vetoes were stopping the good work of congress, work done for the 1% obviously but that part would be left out, and his inability to get congress to champion any of his causes.  He would be portrayed as the biggest loser of a president every, a cautionary tale of what happens when the people vote third party.  It would have been very interesting but obviously people who vote for the status quo are not going to vote for change, only candidates who talk about change, but turning the common complaint of wasted votes upside down was a nice twist.

You know who really does want to break from the status quo? 

You.

Us.

Well, yes, but also people in Utah. 

We are in Utah.

Have you ever heard of Google Maps?

Voters in Utah.  Most states had single digit percentage of voters who voted third party.  New Mexico had double digits at 11%.  25% of voters in Utah voted third party.  That's freaking amazing.  It didn't change anything this time but we can always hope that people are waking up to just how rigged the system is.

Even if it wasn't rigged, it would still be a strange system.  18% of the population voted for Trump.  If Trump wasn't a puppet and actually decided the course of the nation, what kind of messed up system would allow 18% of the population to decide how the other 82% of the people had to live their lives, what they could do, couldn't do, and had to do?  That's crazy.  There may be new readers to this blog tempted to say something like, "Well, you could vote in the hope of determining how everyone should live their lives."  First, I have way too much respect for people to use violence and threats of violence to force them to live their lives in a way I find acceptable.  Second, the system is set up in a way to make sure every vote is a wasted vote.

The question in the title for this post was supposed to lead into a discussion of my first disc golf tournament.

You should have been more specific.

Especially after such an emotional election.

My performance in the tournament evoked far more emotion than a fake election or the hysterical reactions of the disciples based on what candidates said they would do.  One of the biggest complaints about politicians is how much they lie and yet devotees on the right are screaming in triumph about how much things are going to change and zealots on the left are screaming in anguish about how much things are going to change.  Neither is waiting to see if anything is actually going to change.  So much drama, it's like the all the voters are high school students.

Maybe they should raise the minimum age for voting.

There are drama queens in every age demographic.

Ahem, back to the tournament.  It was a shotgun start and I started on hole with a narrow fairway that I usually play for and get par on.  I thought that I should try to play it safe, which of course, was a mistake because by changing my game, it just made things worse.  My first throw was out of bounds in a way that I have never done before.  My game had few shining moments in the first 9 holes while I made mistakes that I rarely make.  After that though, I seemed to find my groove getting birdies on several holes.  I would have done very well on the second half except for a couple of mistakes caused by trying to cut things too closely to trees.  One hit a tree and one went out of bounds adding 3 strokes to my score. 

My overall feeling was that I did not play the course as well as I usually do.  Tournament jitters maybe.  It was also a bit chilly at the start and I couldn't get my hands to warm up during the front nine.  Probably a bit of both.  The end result turned out to be a bit surprising.  I tied for third place in my class.  To keep it in context, I must point out that there were only 9 people competing in my class.  It was interesting to look at my score compared to the results of the other classes.  If I had played in the advanced class, I would have taken 6th.  If I had played with the best players in the open class, I would have taken 11th (which would have been third from last). 

I received $25 worth of credit at Infinite Discs for getting third place.  Pretty cool.  I used it on the spot to buy a couple of discs.  I got a fairway driver for myself that I had on my list of discs to experiment with.  I got a distance driver for Trey as payment for caddying for me for part of the course.  We tried them out at our local course on our way home.  I'll probably do a review of the disc I got in a future post after I've had a chance to throw it some more.

So, my first tournament went as bad as I feared it could and ended up with better than expected results.  I signed up for another tournament too, which those of you who know me will find surprising.  Not only because I never played tournaments before yesterday but also because it's in January in northern Utah.  I hate the cold and it will probably be about 32 degrees.  Come on global warming! 

I don't think that's PC.

Is anything he says PC?

All things considered, I'm glad I did it and plan on playing in many more tournaments next year.

Oh yeah, remember that I guessed that my PDGA player rating would be about 850.  The rating for my play on this course for this tournament was 882.  Since that's my only tournament rating, I think that will be my PDGA rating until I take part in more tournaments.  I don't have any other scores to average in yet.  I wasn't far off with my guess and was pleasantly surprised that I had guessed low.

 

 

Your Vote Has Already Been Tallied

So,

This is a couple days late because the weather went from "here comes winter" to "Ta da!  It's spring!".

Huh?

There have been several studies that show an inverse correlation between unseasonal warm weather and the ability to meet blog deadlines.

Really?

No.

I have spent a large part of the previous two days playing disc golf and plan on doing it again today, at least for as long as my arm holds up.  I played 5 rounds both days (that's 90 holes each day for those of you raised on common core).

Surprisingly, I feel pretty good so I'm just going to keep playing until I get tennis elbow or disc golf shoulder.

Or the weather returns to its regularly scheduled programming.

Or you have to go to work.

Yeah, it will all end when the weather turns cold.  I'm still considering the work aspect of the issue.  This has been the Year of Disc Golf for me, which is far more interesting than the illusory election that's going on.  I think I very well may have played more disc golf this year than I did in all the years prior to this year.  That's a long time so it might not be accurate but it might and even if it isn't, it accurately describes my impression of how much I played this year.  From June through August, I played 18 baskets during lunch and another 18 in the afternoon and then, quite often, another 18 in the evening when it had cooled down a bit.  I changed the discs I use, how I drive, and how I putt.  I now get my discs from Infinite Discs.  I don't get anything from them for the plug but if you play disc golf, you should check them out.  They carry just about every disc that is out there and you have the ability to look through their entire inventory to select your discs by color and weight (actual weight, not a weight range).  They have a Disc Comparison Matrix that compares many of the discs by flight characteristics allowing you to find a disc for particular shots or select other discs to try that are similar to discs you are familiar with.  Note:  The x axis of the matrix is labeled "Fade - Turn".  In reality, it's Fade + Turn.  Turn is often a negative number so a disc with a fade of 1 and a turn of -1 shows up as a neutral disc with a combined score of 0 (1 + -1), not 2 (1 - -1).

No one knows what you're talking about now.

And those that do, don't care.

I suppose you guys are actually right...this time.  Maybe I'll write more posts about my disc golf year later.

When it's cold, right?

You'll just be talking to yourself.

<sigh>Let's move on to the topics I said I would cover: the pseudo election. <gag>

Can we talk about Hillary being in Satanic cult?

Can we not talk about Hillary at all?

Let's go with the great and powerful Oz, Obama.

Boo.

<groan>

It's not Hillary.

I should have been more specific.

*I* was specific.

It appears that a month before the 2008 election, Obama's transition team received an email from Citigroup letting them know who would serve in Obama's cabinet.  This was a month before the election, not a month before Obama took office.  The article doesn't state if a similar email was sent to the other candidate.  My guess is yes.  If not, it would clearly show the value of voting because it would mean the 1% knew who was going to take office.  Even if it was sent to both candidates, it still shows the value of voting because, unless you are completely unfamiliar with the US oligarchical system, you know who ended up in Obama's cabinet and who would have ended up in the other guys cabinet.  In 2008, the election was over on October 6th, a month before the clueless went out to vote.  The cabinet of deciders, to use a Bushism, had been selected.  A cabinet who advised Obama to not only not punish the criminal actions of banks for the 2008 disaster, but rather, give the banks money.  The cabinet's advise, which Obama followed naturally fulfilling his role as puppet, was to create a climate of moral hazard such that such that a similar disaster in the future was a certainty.

Like the certainty that Hillary consorts with Satan worshippers and pedophiles.

I don't think moral hazard applies in that situation.

Speaking of Hillary...

Yes!

No!

I heard some speculation that one of the reasons the FBI investigation into Hillary's illegal email server was because Obama obviously knew what she was doing.  One would think that the president and the secretary of state were emailing one another and getting an email from [email protected] would tip the guy off.  He did nothing about enforcing a law which has the intent of protecting national security, which is...ummm...bad?  Anyway, having the FBI investigate the president for his role in the criminal activity would be...

Awkwarrrrrd.

Pointless.

Last, I'll leave you with a paraphrase of a comment I read about why someone is still voting for Hillary: just to see the heads of Trump supporters explode.  Not because she will do a good job, because she won't, but just out of spite for the other team.

A compelling argument, to be sure.

That could be cool.

Polarizing the elections keeps citizens attacking each other while the rulers are free to do whatever they want, without pesky resistance from commoners.  However, if voting third party would have that effect on the supporters of both puppets, I might actually be persuaded to take part.

 

Political Drama has become Reality TV

So,

As this election is drawing to an end...

Thank gawd!

It really has cut down on the number of cute puppy videos on Facebook, hasn't it?

I can't really say that I've missed you guys not letting me complete...

That hurts.

You cut me deep, Shrek.

Can I share my thought on the election now?

Can we vote on it?

That does seem appropriate given the stated topic, although I have yet to see any evidence of the topic actually being covered.

This blog ain't no democracy.  This is the blog of Success Warrior.  I'm the president, I'm the emperor, I'm the king.  I'm Michael Jackson, you're Tito and uh, Jermaine.

Ummmm...

Kind of pushing the envelope on movie quote rules there.

I'm starting to get the feeling that I've kept these guys pent up in my brain for far too long.  Maybe a weekly furlough would be good for them, and by extension, for me.  Now, I've forgotten where I was.

Election?

My gawd man, focus!

Right, the election, if that's what you want to call it.  I really haven't followed it but there's been no escaping all the posts on Facebook.

As if.

How do expect these people to take you seriously when they all know you don't Facebook?

I've been trying to be better about it lately but this election has made it more difficult but is also the reason behind this post.  When Trump and Hillary...

Trillary?

I think that sort of thing is supposed to be used for couples, not rivals.

You're probably right but I'm going to use it because it fits perfectly with the theme of this post.

Theme?

Disjointed, multiple-personality, unhinged conversations?

'Zactly.  When Trillary started showing up in mass on Facebook, my thought was that this election wasn't between real people.  These two are caricatures of people.  I don't know if it's because we're in the age of the Kardashians, Miley Cyrus, and completely unbelievable "reality TV" that gave Goldman Sachs et al the idea of putting these two forward for this election's false dichotomy or if it came about for some other reason.  Whatever the reason, probably based on expensive and extensive psychological and sociological studies, what voters ended up with is a choice between outrageous characters in the political reality TV show.  The super villain vs. the super clown.

Hillary is a special brand of evil who should be isolated from people for reasons of safety.  She's a bat fuck crazy career criminal that even has an evil cackle when talking about killing people.

Rather than put her in a padded cell, people want to put her finger on the button.  Trump, I don't know that much about.  I can say that the picture of him as a statesman is the epitome of caricature.  Political cartoonist don't have to exaggerate any features to make him look comical in that role.  His quotes are truly meme worthy, not in a good way.  Even though he doesn't have 30 to 40 years of documented criminal activity being flounced about, the puppeteers don't select nominees based on outstanding moral character.  Quite the opposite, as having Hillary as a candidate completely and fully attests.

I had considered writing up a post on this observation months ago but waved the idea away.  Partly out of the inertia of not blogging for so long but mostly because it's the same thing as criticizing any other reality show.  Everyone knows it's not real so there's really not much point in writing up a blog post pointing out that it's not real.

But you ended up doing it anyway.

Incorporating comments from people who are not real.

Well, yes, but let me explain.

Like you can.

I can't wait to hear the explanation for comments from imaginary people.

Let me explain why I wrote this post, I can't explain comments from you guys.  

The reason I didn't post about this months ago is because everyone knows it's not real.  Except...

Facebook just kept heating up with people arguing nonsense from both sides trying to show how the one candidate was worse than the other.  It's rare to see any comments about actual issues or which candidate is better.  Admittedly, given the choices, you can't blame people for not trying to argue for which one is better.  Would Penguin or Joker be a better president?  But, that's the point.  I'm amazed how copiously and fervently some people are arguing on behalf of their caricature.  This election is completely nonsensical and yet people are giving themselves high blood pressure arguing about which TV character is going to be a better president.  All elections are nonsensical when you look at who ends up being presidential advisers and see where the decisions are really made.  This one, though, has gone above and beyond by just putting it out in the open.  It matters so little who is president that super villains and super clowns are viable candidates and it's far more entertaining for those that watch than having outwardly appearing serious and law abiding candidates face off against each other.

They should wear costumes.

To get people more interested, they could have a costume designing contest.

That could happen in next election.  Or maybe, they'll put all of the initial candidates on an island, give them contests and challenges to compete in, and each week the public can vote someone off the island.  The last person on the island gets to be the president.

Why I Don't Vote (Part 5): Clean Up

So,

In this post, I'll cover the follow up questions and then I'll make a point in the next post that I have found interesting to ponder in the last week, concerning voting.

First, I suppose I should address this common misconception from the first question:

"Doing nothing gets no results at all."

This is common thread and I suppose that it probably comes from the brainwashing that is done by the current rulers.  People have been trained that if they don't vote, they are doing nothing at all to change the system.  However, we all know that voting supports the system and will never create any substantial change to that system.  If it did, people would not be allowed to vote.  Additionally, not voting does not mean that a person is doing nothing.  That would be like me saying that if you aren't reading this blog, you're doing nothing.  People are always doing something and people who don't vote can still attempt to make changes to the system.  I live my life as an example of a peaceful person, I help my neighbors when I can, I teach my children that no one has the right to be their master and that dictating to others what they can do and can't do at the end of a gun is immoral, and I try to teach others about ethics and freedom.  It may not seem like a lot but compared to the nothing of voting, I am doing a hell of a lot more to change the system than voters are and there are people out there doing far more than I am doing.  I have been wrapped up in my day to day existence of starting a new job, still attending classes, moving, and being part of my family but I haven't given up on changing the system and I do what I can when I can while voters fight to keep the system from changing.

"So how do you reduce the coercion if you don't get in the system to change it?"

First off, the fact that you understand that government is coercion and you support it should prompt some soul searching for you.  Even if you had a sliver of a chance to change the system from within the system, are you willing to sell your soul in the effort?  Using force to compel others to act in a way that you find acceptable is evil.  If you are willing to lower your standards to that point, these blog posts have been in vain.

Secondly, you can't reduce the coercion by voting in support of the coercion (That don't make no sense!).  You reduce the coercion by not taking part in the coercion, teaching others about the reality of the system, and creating and using systems and resources outside of the system as much as possible (and in line with your risk tolerance).  Most people avoid doing what they see as evil and are quick to condemn those who stray.  You point out that voting in support of the system is unethical and socially unacceptable.  People in a civilized society do not use violence to force others to do their bidding. 

Do you know what is scarier to the 1% than a Libertarian being voted into office?  An election where no one shows up to vote.  A populace who views the use of coercion as evil and voices this truth to others and refuses to take part in the coercion will make substantial and lasting changes.  People want to be good and they tend to shun that which is evil.  If you want to change the system, continue to point out the evil of the system and the system will collapse.  Why do you think Australia has a law making it mandatory that citizens vote?  Voting ensures that the system never changes.

"In mob rules as we now have, I believe you need to get someone in place to pull the state back in layers. The government will never just let it's power go."

We don't have mob rules.  We have 1% rules.  You're never going to get anyone into the system who has the power to pull the state back in layers.  This government is going to continue until it implodes, as all empires do.  What's important to me is what people will want to put in its place.  This is why education on ethics is so vital.  If this government is replaced by another government, we have gained nothing.

"I have studied a lot of history. It appears someone is always in power."

Then it truly would be a change if there were no rulers.  You do want change, right?

"I suppose I'm trying to get people to organize so they have a say and their group is in power and it is a real choice."

If there are no rulers, then you have a *real* choice.  Otherwise, your choices are limited by the dictates of the rulers.  My next post will be on choosing between rules and rulers.

"Maybe get a trusted person from your group in power. This opens up the possibility for the public to have a real choice."

The only person that I trust to decide when and when not to point a gun at my head is me.  The only person that I trust to have the ability to control every aspect of my life is me.  You want a small government but I want a smaller government.  I will govern my own actions and I refuse to use force to govern the actions of others.  People who have this same ethical code are people that you can truly trust.  Anyone who runs for office in an effort to gain control of that power is suspect.

"And if your group is ethical and your guy goes on some super power grab you can toss his ass out."

My group is ethical.  That's why my group never has a candidate in an election and never encourages people to take part in such an unethical system.  No truly ethical person would ever voluntarily take part in something so evil.

 

Why I Don't Vote (Part 4): The Rigged Game

So,

Compared to the first two reasons, this last reason is like a sprig of parsley sitting next to the main course.  I include it though because in my own search for the answer of what can be done, this fact spurred me on to keep looking.  Prior to the 2008 presidential election, I was in a position that was probably very similar politically to the person who asked why people don't vote.  I was part of the Ron Paul Revolution and luckily for me, I was living in Nevada at the time.  Most people probably don't know this but the Ron Paul Revolution won the Nevada Republican caucus but the record books won't show this. 

Not even with an asterisk?

Not even.

Going into this process, I understood that the game was rigged and that the 1% picked two acceptable candidates to represent the two faces of the one-party system.  I understood that the media companies the 1% own (all of them) programmed viewers to choose one or the other and disparaged any candidates other than the two they found acceptable.  My Democrat friends had been swept up in the Hopey Changey mantra and I admit that I was too although I knew that with Obama, there was no hope for change.  They still went with their guy even though many of them had a gut feeling that he would not change anything but they so *wanted* to believe.  I wanted change to and I found myself more involved in the political process than I had ever been and I was shown exactly how pointless it all was.

The grass roots campaign for Ron Paul had been strong across the entire nation but in Nevada, we rocked!  People took classes on how the caucus works and parliamentary procedure, went door to door, set up call centers, and made plans to win the caucus.  It worked too, incredibly, amazingly well.  Ron Paul won precinct after precinct and county after county.  Going into state caucus, there was an air of excitement because it was a sure thing that Ron Paul was going to win and even though the politically small state of Nevada would not change the outcome of the election, it would be a great moral victory and possibly garner attention for future elections.

Stickin' it to the 1%.

Even in losing, that would have felt good.

At the state caucus, it quickly became apparent to the Republican National Committee (of the 1%) that Ron Paul was going to win the caucus and do so unanimously or nearly so.  Again, this would have no effect on the election but it would be a moral victory for the people and the 1% may have seen this as Smaug's missing scale.  This small opening, this chink in the armor, this giving of hope to the people that they can actually make a change could not be allowed.  It would only encourage people to continue to attempt to change the system.  To make sure that never happened, the caucus was closed, the results locked in a casino vault, and the RNC hand picked McCain supporters and sent them to the national convention.

That probably saves a lot of time too.  They should just do that every time.

That would take away from the fake drama created by the fake system.

Of course, the Ron Paul Revolution did not just shrug their shoulders and walk away.  They filed a complaint with the RNC who reviewed what had happened.  They sided with the Ron Paul supporters and said that what was done was wrong and they dismissed the McCain supporters that were set at the state level.  The RNC replaced the dismissed delegates with McCain supporters that they hand picked themselves. 

That seems fair.

GIGO.

The happy ending to this story, for me personally, was an unwavering knowledge that you can't change a rigged system from within the system and a better understanding of just how rigged the system is.  Going into the process, I understood that we had to fight against media blackouts, which would change to intense mudslinging if we managed to garner some attention.  I knew that the media would continue to steer the mindless Republicans and Democrats into fighting for the candidates chosen to be the front runners for either side (the idiocy of the horse-race mentality) and that the sheer number of zombies would crush any chance of Ron Paul getting elected.  I knew that we weren't going to win but I truly thought, hoped, that we would make some small difference.

A naivete bested only by Obama supporters.

Which is only bested by those who voted for Obama a second time.

I was stunned for a while with the blatancy of the cheating that was involved and the motto of a government for the people, by the people still makes me want to hurl.  The American people are not allowed to have a say in anything that the 1% deems important, especially who is going to "represent" them.  This is a government for the 1%, by the 1%.  I suppose that it always has been although in the past, they used to try to conceal it better and be more subtle in telling the American people to "Suck it!"  Those days are gone.  Obama's promise of transparency is one that he has actually kept, just not in the way that he was pretending that he would.  He has openly served the 1% and has embraced the use of violence in a way that probably gives Cheney wet dreams. 

I don't vote because every vote is a wasted vote.  The system is designed to give people a false sense of control in order to keep them from looking for actual solutions which are outside of the system.  It's a mental prison that keeps people under control and productive.  Keeping people under control through the explicit use of force is expensive, creates physical resistance, and can sway public support to the people being oppressed.  It's much better for the rulers if people will voluntarily submit to the rules and they probably laugh about having people actually vote to have their human rights stripped away.

Once your mind escapes this Matrix-like system, you can never look at it the same ever again.  Like Neo, I was looking for an answer, always feeling uneasy with how things were.  The Ron Paul Revolution was my red pill.  I won't kid you into thinking that it was an easy thing to wrap my head around but I will add that there is no way that I would ever intentionally go back to that level of ignorance or naivete.  I know that there is still a long, uphill battle in getting the changes that I want but knowing that my choice is ethical and makes sense logically and that even if I discarded those two aspects, I wouldn't be able to change the rigged system anyway, knowing these things, I have found great peace of mind in this area of my life.

Why I Don't Vote (Part 3): Logic

So,

The unethicality of voting is reason all by itself not to vote.  People who are trying to lead good lives really don't need any more reason not to vote beyond the fact that voting supports an organization based on unethical actions and, more than that, is an attempt to take control of that organization so the evil power can be wielded according to their desires (even if that desire is to lessen the amount of evil being done, in the case of Libertarians).

But some people are better at doing evil than others.

And what kind of people do you think are attracted to a position that excludes them from the bounds of ethical behavior?

Underlying this principle is a certain logic, in that, if it is unethical for people to take the property from others through force or intimidation and "the government" is an organization of people, then it clearly follows that if they take property from others through force or intimidation, their action is unethical.  This simple logic is why it's so important to point out that there is no such thing as a government.  The government doesn't collect taxes and fuck up the lives of people who resist.  It can't because there is no such thing as a government.  People collect taxes and people fuck up the lives of those who resist.

You want I should break his legs?

Try late fees and fines first, to get more money out of 'em.  People with broken legs pay less taxes.

This simple fact, that "the government" is just a group of people who have claimed the authority to initiate violence on everyone within a certain geographical area (that area is called "The World" if it's the United States government) undermines, logically, arguments put forth by people who want to use "the government" as a solution to some stated problem.  I pointed this out in my posts about gun control. 

Gun control activists want to outlaw guns.  If you ask them who will enforce the law, they will say, "the government," and then try to change the subject to what they think will happen on <insert some assinine TV show name here since I'm out of touch with the current popular idiocy>.  They don't want to think about what they are really saying and if you tell them what they are saying, you'll just piss them off.  Since there is no such thing as "government," they mean that people will enforce the laws.  To ensure that happens, gun control activists will issue guns to people even though the main premise of their argument is that people with guns are dangerous.

Libertarians are not free of violating this law of non-contradiction.  If you take a very basic premise that government employees should do no more than provide cops, courts, and a standing army and drill down a bit, you find the same problem.  One reason that there should be cops is to protect citizens from having their property taken from them against their will, such as robbery and theft.  How, exactly, will the Libertarians pay for these protective government employees?

Bake sale?

That's a better idea than by taking their money through the use of intimidation.

Not only does it boggle the mind to think that the protectors will take money from people through the use violence and threats of violence in order to keep people from taking money from people through violence and threats of violence but the disparity between how much will be taken by the two groups of thieves is monstrous.

I looked at some stats, unfortunately a bit aged, but common sense should fill in the gaps.  There is a 99% chance that someone will steal something from you in your lifetime at least once.  Odds drop considerably (single digits) that you will be a repeat victim.  Robbery, once in a lifetime, was about 30% with very low odds of repeat victimization.  There weren't numbers on the dollar amounts that were stolen but I can't imagine that it's very high.  A couple hundred bucks or a couple thousand?  For most of us, at least.

How much do government employees take from you every year in income tax, property tax, sales tax, and other fees, fines, and taxes?

Like taxes tax.

Is that a tax on your taxes?  You are probably being gouged by the stupid tax.

I'm going to be honest with you Libertarians, I'd rather roll my dice without your "protection."  There is absolutely no way in the world that I would be the victim of robbery, theft, and burglary in my lifetime to the point where my loss would ever come close to what government employees take from me every single time I make a purchase at a store, every year that I want to keep *my* property and live in my house, or every April 15th.

Your "cure" is like giving me cancer so I don't get a cold.  No thanks.  I'll take my vitamin D and vitamin C and take my chances.  If I catch cold, I'll deal with it.  You can keep your solution to yourself.

Plus, they don't really prevent that much.  Mostly just try to catch the bad guys afterwards.

And government employees keep the fines and the victims pay to feed and house the bad guy in jail.

Are you guys trying to take over my blog?

Well, we would do a better job.

I'm with the twit on this one.

This collection of fines by government employees and revictimization of the person who had their property stolen is sold to the public under the euphamism of "justice."  You want justice, right?  Who doesn't want justice?  Government employees take 40 - 50% of everything you make over your entire lifetime, collect any fines they can from the perpetrator, and pass the cost of jailing offenders on to the people who had their property taken.  If there is any justice in there, I can't see it.

Maybe it's like a search-a-word.

Why don't you look for it and don't bother us until you find it.

This isn't just about theft and burglary but it served as a good example.  Just about any proposed "government" solution is like this.  Democrats want to prohibit any monopolies so they support an organization that has a monopoly on the initiation of the use of force.  Can it get any more frying pan to the fire than that? 

The bottom line is that you can't achieve your stated goal by doing the exact opposite.  You can't say that you promote freedom and then put effort into supporting an organization that forcefully rules over the people that you want to free.

I don't vote because I believe humans should coexist peacefully on the planet and that no one has the right to rule over another person through the use violence and threats of violence.  Voting, especially in America, would mean that I support violence and that I believe that there should be rulers over us.  You can't, logically, say that you believe in freedom and also say that everyone should vote for their rulers in order to achieve this freedom.  You can't, logically, say that you believe in peace and then vote to support the most violent organization in the world.

Giving guns to people to keep people from having guns, taking their property to protect them from having their property taken, creating a monopoly to prevent the creation of monopolies, voting for rulers in order to achieve freedom, supporting an organization that exists through the initiation of force on others to make the world more peaceful . . .

  

Why I Don't Vote (Part 2): Ethics

So,

I gave this aspect a brief shout out in my original answer.  I did give it as the first justification and maybe the reason I didn't elaborate more on the topic is that it's a topic that doesn't really need elaboration, at least not in itself.  Most people want to make ethical decisions and might consider ethics to be a no-brainer although they may be confused about how it can be unethical for me to vote while it's their "duty" to vote.  Most likely, they would just blow it off as some crazy notion and give it no more thought because that would require thinking.

What is this "thinking" that you speak of?

It's like when you really try to answer a question but it hurts.

I did that once.  Didn't llike it.

You and just about everyone else, my friend.

People don't apply the same ethical standards to government employees as they do to themselves.  Government employees are allowed to violate common ethical standards.  In fact, they are tasked with actions that violate ethical behavior.  That's their job.  If they didn't act unethically, they would be shirking their duties and would be fired.

I believe, and this is just my view, that the reason for this obvious double-standard lies in the reification of the abstract concept that people call "government."  People speak and act as if there really is such a thing as a "government" when, in fact, there isn't.  I have written in the past how this reification is something more, something approaching deification, but most people would reject the notion of the government as a god out of knee-jerk reaction and, once again, give it no more thought.

You're obsessed with this "thinking" thingy.

It does fly in the face of America's Cult of Ignorance (hat tip John McDaris).

In seeing the government as something that exists but something that is not human, something that is greater than humans, something with powers and abilities beyond those of mere mortals, people allow government employees to do things that they would never accept in themselves or their next door neighbor (even if their next door neighbor was a government employee but was "off duty").  It's unethical to murder and steal but it's okay for "the government" to do these things.  Now, obviously, to help with the disconnect, this double-think, euphamisms have to be put in place that will be applied when government employees take actions that others would otherwise look down on because of emotional ties to the words like murder and theft.

If you blow someone up with a missile, it's called murder and terrorism and dangerous.  If a government employee does it, it's called a targeted drone strike and patriotic duty and promoting safety.  In the past, for a quick summation, I have said that government is violence.  George Washington said it this way: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force."

Pshah!  What does this George Washington guy know about government?

You never cease to amaze me.

It would probably be just as true to add that government is spin.  Yes, it's violence, force, coercion, rule by intimidation but I think that it only exists because people mentally and emotionally give government employees exemptions from accepted ethical standards.  They do this by talking about how the "government" will do this or that and by hiding the truth of what this or that really is by using euphamisms. 

You can see the fringe of this disconnect in stories about individual lawmakers.  Many times there is public outrage when a senator or congressperson performs some unethical action for their own benefit.  When one of these people, whose lives are a quagmire of evil actions, performs an evil action outside the scope of "government," it suddenly becomes wrong again, in the eyes of the people.  The truth is that the action is evil regardless of who the benefactor is but many people will condone these actions if they are purportedly done on behalf of "the public."  By lumping themselves in as "the public," they can also pretend like unethical actions aren't being taken for them directly.  If a government employee takes money from someone and uses the money to build a road for "the public," then the person using the road can take comfort that the money wasn't stolen and the road built for them.  That would be wrong.

This brings us to voters.

Really, two-thirds into the post and you are finally going to get to the point?

I'm with the twit on this one.

When you vote, you are hiring someone to perform evil acts on your behalf (as well as a shitload of evil acts that you would never ask anyone to do, ever).  Even if you vote Libertarian and your agent never gets the position, you are still announcing your support of having people act on your behalf in committing actions that you would never do yourself, ever.  In that way, it can also be seen as cowardice.  You wouldn't steal money from your neighbor but you're more than willing to hire someone to rob your neighbor for you.  Most voters may go with the lesser of the two evils (as they perceive it) and Libertarians will go with the least of the three proffered evils but they are all still voting for evil.  Plain and simple.  People try to console themselves and rationalize away any uncomfortable feelings by telling themselves and others, with a shrug, that they voted for the lesser of the evils.  Most everyone around them will let them get away with it, especially if they also voted for agents to peform evil actions on their behalf.  It would be way too uncomfortable to delve into what it might mean about their own character, their own ethical standards, if they admit they just hired someone to perform evils actions for their own benefit.

And if you point it out to them . . . goodbye friends.

Truer words were never spoken by a twit.

I should point out that "their own benefit" doesn't necessarily mean some direct benefit.  It could be simply to force people to live their lives in a way that the voter finds acceptable.  They want laws passed that will require everyone in the country to abide by what they believe to be tolerable behavior.  They want to use government violence and threats of violence to force everyone to live within what they personally feel are accepted norms.  That's not just unethical, that's psychotic.  Laws, used in this fashion, are nothing more than an opinion with a gun.

I would never force anyone to live their life in a way that I see fit.  I would never take money from someone through intimidation to use in a manner that I would then have to attempt to justify to be good enough to outweigh the evil of taking the money in the first place.  I would never do this and most people I know wouldn't do these things either.  Voters manage to get around this inconvenience by voting for a middle man rather than "hiring" one, using abstract terms like "government" and "public" to escape ethical standards applied to humans, and coloring all of the evil actions with euphamisms so they can pretend they aren't really evil actions.

I don't vote because, not only would I not do these actions, I also wouldn't hire someone to do these things for me.  That would be just as evil as if I had done the actions myself.  I don't pretend that there is a magical entity called "government" that doesn't operate under the same ethical standards as the rest of humanity.  When a government employee takes money from another individual through intimidation, it's just as evil as when a non-government employee does the same thing.  People are people and the rules that apply to one person apply to every other person.  I won't hire an agent to do evil on my behalf and I won't support the delusion used to bypass ethical standards.

Why I Don't Vote (Part 1): Introduction

So,

This question was posed by a friend on Facebook:

"I have a question for all of the non-voters. Why are you a non-voter? Wouldn't it workout better if you found like minded people and started your own thing? That would influence the system. Doing nothing gets no results at all."

I gave this for a short answer:

"Voting violates my principles. I don't believe anyone on the planet has the "right" to dictate at gunpoint what others can do, can't do, or must do. When you vote, you are voting for people who use violence and threats of violence to force other people to live their lives in a way that the people with the guns find acceptable. I know you're a libertarian and so you want to repeal most of rules governing people's lives but the game is rigged and you're never going to win. More importantly, when you vote, you legitimize (at least in the minds of many people) a system of control based on violence. And, true to Obama's promise of transparency, it has become quite clear that when you vote, you are voting for the 1%. It's their system and when you vote, you're saying, "I support you in screwing me over for your benefit." Voting is a trap for your mind, an illusion that you have some influence over the system, a way for them to maintain control. As long as you keep supporting them, you will never have the freedom that you think you are working so hard to achieve. You will never be free by voting for new masters."

That's the short answer?

Well, by comparison, this is "Part 1" of a series dedicated to answering the question.

Point taken.

A couple of follow up questions were asked and I gave them quite a bit of thought because I know that the person asking the questions is actually looking for some answers.  Many times, questions in this vein are asked in a shocked, rhetorical fashion in an effort to bring the poor, misguided soul (me) back in line with supporting the rulers (or, at the very least, to get them to shut up).  In this case though, the questions were asked in earnest with a sincere desire for a thoughtful answer.  The first thing I had to do was quiet the knee-jerk sarcastic responses in my head because of how these questions are usually asked.

Well, I mmph, mumble, mumble, humph.  Hey!

Yes, he meant you.

Following that, I gave the questions some thought, reread the original question and my response to that question, and reread the follow up questions.  The fact that the question was asked by a libertarian (who, many times, posts anarchistic quotes on his Facebook timeline) motivated me to make a sincere attempt to provide an informative answer.  Rereading my original response though, I felt like I touched (however briefly) on the reasons that I don't vote. 

Those reasons, summed up to the point of being blog post titles are: Ethics, Logic, and The Rigged System. 

For the rest of the week, I will delve more deeply into each topic, expanding on my original comment in depth, and do a final "clean-up" post to address the follow-up questions that were asked.  I will start with the topic that I think is the most important and, ironically, was covered the least in my original comment: Ethics.  If children were taught ethics instead of obedience, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  Obviously, the rulers are not going to teach children something that will end their reign so it's up to us to do it.

I don't think . . .

No, you don't.

Couple ethics with logic and you have a serious game changer, which, of course, means that logic and critical thinking will definitely not be part of Common Core.  These two principles, when linked together, are far too dangerous to a system that is based on double-think.  People must believe that good is bad and bad is good and that the only way to change the system is to keep doing the same things over and over, without change.

Persistence is the key.

Persistent ignorance?

And just in case some group comes along that learns how to play the game in such a way that it might possibly throw a wrench into the plans of the rulers, a strategy must implemented to convince people that the only way to change the system is from within the system and procedures put in place to ensure that the system can't be changed from within the system.

That's a solid plan.

Obviously.  Congress has a 16% approval rating but people still vote for them.

Each day, I'll go deeper into each of these topics to explain in more detail why I don't vote, at least not in the manner expressed by the question.  I still vote, just not in that way.  By not voting in the charade of the current system, I am voting for a change to something better, something morally sound, something that consistently makes sense, and something where change is actually possible.

Cuz I Said So

 

 

So,

The US government has shut down.

Really?

No, he’s teasing.

I’ve paid as little attention as possible to this story because:

1. It’s not true.

2. It’s political drama in an effort to get the Republican minions and Democratic cult members to fight against each other after coming together in opposition to attacking Syria.  Unity cannot be allowed because it challenges the one-party system.

3. I was trying to finish up a research paper.

Today, with college finally over, I decided to take a peek into the political headlines to see what nonsense was being put out as “news.”  Here’s some great stuff from an article written by Mark Felsenthal for Reuters, “Obama pulls out stops in warning on debt default.”

“A decision to actually go through with it, to actually permit default – according to many CEOs and economists – would be, and I’m quoting here, ‘Insane, catastrophic, chaos.’  These are some of the more polite words.” – Obama

Funny, those are the same words I would use to describe voting Obama in for a second term.

Except you didn’t use the more polite words.

“Warren Buffet likened default to a nuclear bomb, a weapon too horrible to use.” – Obama

It's worth noting that the nuclear bomb was used twice after the Japanese surrendered and now uranium depleted shells used in the Middle East have created a radioactive situation worse than those two atomic bombs.  If this debt default is like a nuclear bomb and nuclear bombs are too horrible to use and the United States government uses them to murder innocent people, does that mean that Obama is arguing FOR debt default?

“This is not just for me.  It’s also for my successors in office, whatever party they’re from.  They shouldn’t have to pay a ransom either for Congress doing its basic job.  We gotta put a stop to it.” – Obama.

Apparently, when making financial decisions for a country, dictators should not need permission from the people who hold the specific duty of controlling the purse strings.

That seems true enough.

Congress should just be renamed as “Rubber Stamp.”

“’This is the creditworthiness of the United States that we’re talking about,’ [Obama] said.  ‘This is our word.  This is our good name.  This is real.’”

He makes it sound like the world will look down on the United States government if it defaults.  The only people who think the United States government has a good name are ‘Merkins who live in Pretendland.

Then, apparently, The Great and Powerful Oz turned toward the usual tactic of describing end-of-the-world scenarios that will occur if people don’t do what He says.  I don’t have my finger on the pulse of what constitutes popular thinking (using the term oh-so-loosely) but I have to wonder if His threats carry the power they once did.  How many times can people hear these threats before the empty threats lose their oomph?  How many times can Chicken Little cry wolf before doubt about His credibility occurs, even in the minds(?) of the spoon-fed zombies?

You aren’t including his Keynesian Klown cult members are you?

It doesn’t look like it or there wouldn’t have been a question mark behind the word “minds” and there wouldn’t have been the word “minds.”

Either you’re with him or you’re with the terrorists.

Wrong president.

Same logical fallacy, though.

Apparently, the puppets are easily interchangeable.

 

Related articles

Guns and Control (Part 2)

Guns and Control (Part 1)

Obama pulls out stops in warning on debt default