By Will Schnack

Even if we were to vote, where is the line drawn? We all know that Ralph Nader gave Bush the election, and we know that Bernie and the Greens and Libertarians did the same thing. So, what are we to do? Press that even the exposure of these people is a good thing? That they put pressure on the others to bend their policies a bit, to appeal to more people? Or are we just supposed to run into the pen that the sheepdog leads us into every time we realize that the sheepdog was never going to win in the first place? And if we’re voting for people who aren’t going to win, why aren’t we all just writing in our disparate but favorite candidates, and our friends and neighbors? Where is the line drawn with useless voting?

The working class often votes Right-wing, because some of the working class is composed of the small property-owner or the owner-operator and sole-proprietor of their business, or are working to get there. Others are white trailer trash who see affirmative action and other programs as privileges that they themselves don’t have but are being punished for. Some are just rural folks. There are tons of demographics among the working class, and not all of them white, that supported Donald Trump.

And let’s have a look at our Left-wing options. Left-wing, progressive, and liberal candidates often rely on business unions (bureaucratic, contract-driven, trade unions) for their campaign contributions. In such a case, it is common for people to cheer them on as popular options, capable of positive reform. But this does not recognize that the favorable interaction between patriotic business unions and politicians is a practice all too close to fascism. Afterall, Benito Mussolini had been a national syndicalist as well as a corporatist. He said, favorable of fascism, that it ‘might as well be called corporatism, for it is the merger of corporate and state interests.’ Corporatism and fascism are all about more representation from the working class in politics, and are for “class collaborationism” between employers and employees. Remnants of fascism find themselves in the German workers’ councils, wherein representatives of a given staff of employees participate in governance, alongside the employers and other financial stakeholders. People like Bernie Sanders, who received their campaign financing largely from hierarchical labor unions, are basically operating on corporate fascist terms. It doesn’t matter that he is a secular liberal Jew, fascism is corporatism, and corporatism—without the removal of hierarchy— is class collaborationism. Bureaucratic “labor unions” are no better source of funding than are corporations. Revolutionary unions (as opposed to business unions) do not fund politicians.

If it mattered to the rich who lower class people voted for, they would not have expanded the franchise as a tactic to settle down threats against their land-ownership when they reacted as the Federalists against Daniel Shays. Some background: The rich established dual power structures, within the monarchical society, and thereby established a culture that was capable of overthrowing governments. The United States government developed from shadow governments, created within secret societies like Freemasonry. Among these shadow governments were the Committees of Correspondence that rigged elections held at the Boston Caucuses, wherein popular support was developed among the Sons of Liberty, which was more open to participation by laypersons. Officials would be pre-selected at the Committees of Correspondence, be publicly nominated at the Boston Caucuses, and compete for the votes of the Sons of Liberty. This built popular support in favor of the revolutionary leaders, who were merchants, gentrymen, and other bourgeois types. The Committees of Correspondence met at the St. Andrews Lodge of Freemasonry at the Green Dragon Tavern, which was also called the “Headquarters of the Revolution,” and was under the authority of Joseph Warren. After popular uprisings from an armed American lower and middle class, such as in Shays’ Rebellion, the rich decided to go back to using popular participation in rigged elections—instead of maintaining a direct-democracy amongst themselves like they had under the Articles of Confederation—, and extending the franchise, and they did this because they knew it was an even better way of maintaining their power than restricting the population from the franchise, and simply having more benevolent policies, would be. Other sections of the landowning class pushed back, as part of the Anti-Federalists (and later the Confederacy), because they saw this as a taking over of the government by an elite even amongst themselves. So even the lower strata of the ruling class didn’t want to change from the Articles to the Constitution, because even they saw it as concentrating too much power into the hands of an oligarchy.

It’s the policies the rich care about, not so much the people who execute them, or even the people who receive them from think-tanks and rich boys’ clubs before putting them out for legislation. The rich know that any of the choices have already gained support from those among their own class, that their class was present for all of the nominations, served on nominating committees, and so on and so forth, and that even if that wasn’t the case, still would not have challenged the shadow governments that are working behind-the-scenes. The elite among the rich have always influenced legislature from the outside, and have always known that no matter who is in power, they are going to maintain the interests of capitalism.

If you think a bunch of esotericists like those who created our country didn’t create shadow governments, you’re simply not paying attention. The whole Enlightenment was set off by influence from Islam during its Golden Age, and particularly by illuminationist Sufis, practitioners of esotericism, which gives us the name En-LIGHT-enment, as in being illuminated. Islam is so full of esotericism that its very symbol is an occulted moon with the planet Venus. Occult means hidden, and is basically the same thing as esoteric. The esotericists that founded the American government created and their heirs inherited a synarchy, just as could be expected. And I already explicitly outlined how they did this through the St. Andrews Lodge of Freemasonry.

After the change to the new Constitution from the articles, the corruption of a clearly-rigged two-party system gave first to the first American third party, the Anti-Masonic Party. That’s right, it was clear who was running the show. And this was your first political effort that would lead to progressive or populist political parties such as the Populist Party, the Green Party, and so on down the road, still wasting their time on politics that are rigged from their influence, thinking they can use a rigged system to unrig the system.

Picking sides in rigged elections only serves to polarize the populace. There is no consensus among the working class that any one politician is best, so picking sides, while also trying to build a consensus, only serves to keep others from participating in that consensus. Are you going to listen to me, if I say “I’m okay with taking away your rights that you feel are important, because I think the rights I feel are important are objectively more important and worthy of forcing on you” while at the same time saying “We should stop trying to force what we want onto people as if they are universal absolutes, and not at all contingent upon subjective human wants”? The two are clearly logically incompatible statements, and by necessity do not pair well, and by necessity, the use of the first argument weakens the second, and makes one questions another’s earnesty, and rightly so.

Campaign financing, gerrymandering, nominating committees, super-delegates, electoral colleges, gaslighting, “riders” on legislation, better organization on behalf of the rich, more bargaining power on behalf of the rich, shadow government, and a whole load of other things ensure that the rich are going to be the ones who get what they want. And working through all of these is much more difficult and problematic than starting over in our own associations, without regard for the distractions.

Any time spent researching politicians can be spent instead studying philosophy or social science. Spending time on researching politicians—like playing video games, watching movies, etc.— exists at the opportunity cost of self-development. And it is self-development, not petty politics, that is the crux of the matter.

Voting for smart people who are wasting their time encourages them to keep wasting their time instead of participating exclusively in revolutionary activity. Any politician worth consideration in the first place should be pressured through election boycott into revolutionary activity, and given support as organizers in revolutionary associations.

It doesn’t matter if you vote, or spend all of your efforts (such as by arguing for people to vote) to get others to vote. If you want people to do more than vote every four years, or you yourself want to do more than that, it will take effort and time from your life, and from those you inspire to do the same. And this will have a minimal effect, because, as suggested, politicians are persuaded from the outside, to do the bidding of people who pay them to maintain their class interests, and are already put through a rigged process before they are elected. This same time and effort could be used, again, for self-betterment and inspiring others toward self-betterment, or for community organizing, instead of picking the people who the politicians are going to economically pressure, while you hold signs begging them—with no actual power to bargain with, other than disrupting traffic— to act in the way you want them to act, all while having wasted your time arguing about elections.

The best thing to do is to do as the rich do, and to build power outside of the system, with which to actually bargain with, as a class (like the ruling class does). This means building directly-democratic workers’ and tenants’ unions and cooperatives, and participating in working class counter-economics, syndicalism, and dual power strategy. Once power is established, just like with the rich, it won’t matter who is in Washington, because the working class will be the class with the material power necessary to start barking the louder orders, and will have created the democratic structures by which to ensure that such orders are epistemologically and financially sound, and in line with what the people want, in the first place. Until then, it’s not even fruitful to discuss the policies the government is enacting, because we have no power with which to make any sort of difference either way, and are just whining. The alt-right has been making very fair assessments about that. So let’s not keep proving them right, by getting caught up in political theater instead of doing some actual work on ourselves and in our communities.

We’re on the winning side. Non-voters are in the majority, and it scares the elite, because they are losing their legitimacy, and it is being broadcasted. That is why the rich encourage people to “Just vote!” and tell people it doesn’t matter who they vote for. To the rich, it’s more important that the idea is bought into, than who gets elected.

When you vote, you participate in the ritual of consenting to be governed. You are playing the game, and by extension agree to the results of the game, even if your favored candidate loses. Just say “no”.

And remember, it’s not worth time arguing for people to vote. But it’s worth the time getting them not to vote. *If you vote, you can’t complain! Don’t vote, it just encourages them! Nobody for president!*Solid as fuck REASONS NOT TO VOTE:

Even if we were to vote, where is the line drawn? We all know that Ralph Nader gave Bush the election, and we know that Bernie and the Greens and Libertarians did the same thing. So, what are we to do? Press that even the exposure of these people is a good thing? That they put pressure on the others to bend their policies a bit, to appeal to more people? Or are we just supposed to run into the pen that the sheepdog leads us into every time we realize that the sheepdog was never going to win in the first place? And if we’re voting for people who aren’t going to win, why aren’t we all just writing in our disparate but favorite candidates, and our friends and neighbors? Where is the line drawn with useless voting?

The working class often votes Right-wing, because some of the working class is composed of the small property-owner or the owner-operator and sole-proprietor of their business, or are working to get there. Others are white trailer trash who see affirmative action and other programs as privileges that they themselves don’t have but are being punished for. Some are just rural folks. There are tons of demographics among the working class, and not all of them white, that supported Donald Trump.

And let’s have a look at our Left-wing options. Left-wing, progressive, and liberal candidates often rely on business unions (bureaucratic, contract-driven, trade unions) for their campaign contributions. In such a case, it is common for people to cheer them on as popular options, capable of positive reform. But this does not recognize that the favorable interaction between patriotic business unions and politicians is a practice all too close to fascism. Afterall, Benito Mussolini had been a national syndicalist as well as a corporatist. He said, favorable of fascism, that it ‘might as well be called corporatism, for it is the merger of corporate and state interests.’ Corporatism and fascism are all about more representation from the working class in politics, and are for “class collaborationism” between employers and employees. Remnants of fascism find themselves in the German workers’ councils, wherein representatives of a given staff of employees participate in governance, alongside the employers and other financial stakeholders. People like Bernie Sanders, who received their campaign financing largely from hierarchical labor unions, are basically operating on corporate fascist terms. It doesn’t matter that he is a secular liberal Jew, fascism is corporatism, and corporatism—without the removal of hierarchy— is class collaborationism. Bureaucratic “labor unions” are no better source of funding than are corporations. Revolutionary unions (as opposed to business unions) do not fund politicians.

If it mattered to the rich who lower class people voted for, they would not have expanded the franchise as a tactic to settle down threats against their land-ownership when they reacted as the Federalists against Daniel Shays. Some background: The rich established dual power structures, within the monarchical society, and thereby established a culture that was capable of overthrowing governments. The United States government developed from shadow governments, created within secret societies like Freemasonry. Among these shadow governments were the Committees of Correspondence that rigged elections held at the Boston Caucuses, wherein popular support was developed among the Sons of Liberty, which was more open to participation by laypersons. Officials would be pre-selected at the Committees of Correspondence, be publicly nominated at the Boston Caucuses, and compete for the votes of the Sons of Liberty. This built popular support in favor of the revolutionary leaders, who were merchants, gentrymen, and other bourgeois types. The Committees of Correspondence met at the St. Andrews Lodge of Freemasonry at the Green Dragon Tavern, which was also called the “Headquarters of the Revolution,” and was under the authority of Joseph Warren. After popular uprisings from an armed American lower and middle class, such as in Shays’ Rebellion, the rich decided to go back to using popular participation in rigged elections—instead of maintaining a direct-democracy amongst themselves like they had under the Articles of Confederation—, and extending the franchise, and they did this because they knew it was an even better way of maintaining their power than restricting the population from the franchise, and simply having more benevolent policies, would be. Other sections of the landowning class pushed back, as part of the Anti-Federalists (and later the Confederacy), because they saw this as a taking over of the government by an elite even amongst themselves. So even the lower strata of the ruling class didn’t want to change from the Articles to the Constitution, because even they saw it as concentrating too much power into the hands of an oligarchy.

It’s the policies the rich care about, not so much the people who execute them, or even the people who receive them from think-tanks and rich boys’ clubs before putting them out for legislation. The rich know that any of the choices have already gained support from those among their own class, that their class was present for all of the nominations, served on nominating committees, and so on and so forth, and that even if that wasn’t the case, still would not have challenged the shadow governments that are working behind-the-scenes. The elite among the rich have always influenced legislature from the outside, and have always known that no matter who is in power, they are going to maintain the interests of capitalism.

If you think a bunch of esotericists like those who created our country didn’t create shadow governments, you’re simply not paying attention. The whole Enlightenment was set off by influence from Islam during its Golden Age, and particularly by illuminationist Sufis, practitioners of esotericism, which gives us the name En-LIGHT-enment, as in being illuminated. Islam is so full of esotericism that its very symbol is an occulted moon with the planet Venus. Occult means hidden, and is basically the same thing as esoteric. The esotericists that founded the American government created and their heirs inherited a synarchy, just as could be expected. And I already explicitly outlined how they did this through the St. Andrews Lodge of Freemasonry.

After the change to the new Constitution from the articles, the corruption of a clearly-rigged two-party system gave first to the first American third party, the Anti-Masonic Party. That’s right, it was clear who was running the show. And this was your first political effort that would lead to progressive or populist political parties such as the Populist Party, the Green Party, and so on down the road, still wasting their time on politics that are rigged from their influence, thinking they can use a rigged system to unrig the system.

Picking sides in rigged elections only serves to polarize the populace. There is no consensus among the working class that any one politician is best, so picking sides, while also trying to build a consensus, only serves to keep others from participating in that consensus. Are you going to listen to me, if I say “I’m okay with taking away your rights that you feel are important, because I think the rights I feel are important are objectively more important and worthy of forcing on you” while at the same time saying “We should stop trying to force what we want onto people as if they are universal absolutes, and not at all contingent upon subjective human wants”? The two are clearly logically incompatible statements, and by necessity do not pair well, and by necessity, the use of the first argument weakens the second, and makes one questions another’s earnesty, and rightly so.

Campaign financing, gerrymandering, nominating committees, super-delegates, electoral colleges, gaslighting, “riders” on legislation, better organization on behalf of the rich, more bargaining power on behalf of the rich, shadow government, and a whole load of other things ensure that the rich are going to be the ones who get what they want. And working through all of these is much more difficult and problematic than starting over in our own associations, without regard for the distractions.

Any time spent researching politicians can be spent instead studying philosophy or social science. Spending time on researching politicians—like playing video games, watching movies, etc.— exists at the opportunity cost of self-development. And it is self-development, not petty politics, that is the crux of the matter.

Voting for smart people who are wasting their time encourages them to keep wasting their time instead of participating exclusively in revolutionary activity. Any politician worth consideration in the first place should be pressured through election boycott into revolutionary activity, and given support as organizers in revolutionary associations.

It doesn’t matter if you vote, or spend all of your efforts (such as by arguing for people to vote) to get others to vote. If you want people to do more than vote every four years, or you yourself want to do more than that, it will take effort and time from your life, and from those you inspire to do the same. And this will have a minimal effect, because, as suggested, politicians are persuaded from the outside, to do the bidding of people who pay them to maintain their class interests, and are already put through a rigged process before they are elected. This same time and effort could be used, again, for self-betterment and inspiring others toward self-betterment, or for community organizing, instead of picking the people who the politicians are going to economically pressure, while you hold signs begging them—with no actual power to bargain with, other than disrupting traffic— to act in the way you want them to act, all while having wasted your time arguing about elections.

The best thing to do is to do as the rich do, and to build power outside of the system, with which to actually bargain with, as a class (like the ruling class does). This means building directly-democratic workers’ and tenants’ unions and cooperatives, and participating in working class counter-economics, syndicalism, and dual power strategy. Once power is established, just like with the rich, it won’t matter who is in Washington, because the working class will be the class with the material power necessary to start barking the louder orders, and will have created the democratic structures by which to ensure that such orders are epistemologically and financially sound, and in line with what the people want, in the first place. Until then, it’s not even fruitful to discuss the policies the government is enacting, because we have no power with which to make any sort of difference either way, and are just whining. The alt-right has been making very fair assessments about that. So let’s not keep proving them right, by getting caught up in political theater instead of doing some actual work on ourselves and in our communities.

We’re on the winning side. Non-voters are in the majority, and it scares the elite, because they are losing their legitimacy, and it is being broadcasted. That is why the rich encourage people to “Just vote!” and tell people it doesn’t matter who they vote for. To the rich, it’s more important that the idea is bought into, than who gets elected.

When you vote, you participate in the ritual of consenting to be governed. You are playing the game, and by extension agree to the results of the game, even if your favored candidate loses. Just say “no”.

And remember, it’s not worth time arguing for people to vote. But it’s worth the time getting them not to vote. *If you vote, you can’t complain! Don’t vote, it just encourages them! Nobody for president!*