Anda di halaman 1dari 3

c 


         
By Gintas Kamaitis

Before I start my article I need to tell you that since I was of voting age I made every effort to participate
in the various levels of government as a voter. I subscribed to the idea that if one does not vote and
participate in the selection of our political leaders then by default one does not have the right to criticize
our government. I felt that by that standard I was able to freely criticize our government and its actions.
I was puzzled by people who chose not to vote, and then openly criticized the government. Over the
last few years I have come to re-evaluate my position.

What has led me to questioning my original position? Many things, too numerous to mention, I will
address only the most blatant and egregious. The first is the myth that we in fact live under a
democratic system of government with one person one vote and that our representatives truly
represent the interests of the voting public. That myth is so easy to dispel l that I am convinced most of
us don͛t even process this fact rationally because the abuses are so widespread and blatant. We always
fault the system for being imperfect rather than to try to explain why our politicians promise the world
or whatever else is popular and almost always fail to honour their promises. We say the system is
broken and that we need this or that reform to fix the system. The harsh reality is the system is working
exactly as it is designed ʹ to give us the people an illusion of a working democracy while providing those
with access to the leavers of power the smoke screen they need to push their agendas forward. What
makes this so difficult to realize, is how intricate, interwoven and contradictory the system is if we only
follow the main stream media and examine one issue at a time. Isn͛t it funny that each party has some
glimmer of truth mixed in with a bunch of stuff we don͛t really like? Perhaps one of the advantages of
being left handed is a right brained ability to step back and view things as a whole. Once we do that a
different picture begins to emerge

Most of us work with the erroneous assumption that we have a multi-party system that truly can help us
change direction on any given issue. All one has to do is look at the history of free trade or the GST in
Canada to see how political parties that were vehemently opposed to certain positions, flip flopped and
adopted the very positions they so strongly opposed at the drop of a hat once they were in power.
What was that about? It is almost like they lured us in with false hope in order to gain control of public
dissention and once they were elected and the voters no longer had a say, they jumped aboard the
original agenda. They counted on enough other stuff happening over the next four years that our anger
and indignation would subside and that we would forget by the next election. The sad truth is that with
a compliant media we did forget. No wonder our youth is so cynical about the political process ʹ they
have every right to be. The name commonly given to this is paradox is the Left-Right paradigm. Where
forces that appear to be polar opposites are really ͚oppo-sames͛, they give the illusion of choice but
behind the scenes they are really following a common agenda. Why is this case? It is hard to know for
sure, but one would guess that the power brokers and the moneyed interests have established controls
on both sides of the political divide. How can you never lose an election? It matters not which side wins
since you have direct influence and control over both sides of the divide? One may ask ͞how can this
be?͟ Surely we the voters, through our elected representatives, exert our will over government. The
political party system is specifically designed to take away the power of your vote. Your representative͛s
first allegiance is to their party and its leadership ʹ not to you whom they are supposed represent.
Think about this; when was the last time a renegade politician, who went against the party͛s leadership
on any issue, was ever successful or promoted through the party ranks. In fact the party usually turns
on the renegade member and tries to discredit them and smear their reputations. They instantly
become a political pariah. Garth Turner is good example of such a free thinking politician. Look at what
happened to him.

This doesn͛t even begin to scratch the surface about other levels of hijacking of the people͛s power
through an entrenched and unelected bureaucracy which follows agendas and programs from selected
NGO͛s, the UN and international agreements over which the citizens have little say or control. This
entrenched bureaucracy represents the government behind the curtain and is beyond the reach of the
people of our country to manage or direct. These are the people who once hired cannot be fired and
are largely accountable to no one. Rather than serving the public they are increasingly taking the
position of telling the public how to live their lives through the selective enforcement of overlapping and
confusing codes and regulations.

There is also a tendency for the political process to focus on differences and special rights for various
groups rather than having entrenched rights for all people regardless of various secondary
characteristics. This has the advantage of being able to divide and conquer. Rather than letting the
public find common ground on vital issues, if you throw enough crap up to divide people along lines of
race, religion, political outlook, sex, sexual orientation, etc. and when the public becomes fragmented
and distracted, you can push ahead with your agenda under the smoke screen of granting special rights
or privileges to some unfortunate special interest group. On top of this you insert the whole idea of
presumptive guilt (where someone may someday commit a crime) or guilt by association (where if you
know or talk to the wrong kinds of people you also presumed guilty.) You now have a system for covert
suppression and intimidation which would make the likes of Hitler and Stalin proud.

͚Aha͛ you say ͚we have a free and open media that will report these abuses and turn the rage of the
public against them.͛ Other than the fact that most of the population focuses more on last night͛s score
or who the Bachelorette picked, unfortunately this is not how our media works. The other big myth that
helps to control us is that we have a free, open, unbiased and transparent media. This single myth
probably enslaves us more of us than any other. There have been numerous cases where investigative
reporters were silenced by their corporate bosses, and after taking their bosses to court, they were told
in no uncertain terms by the courts that the media is not legally bound to report the truth. Think about
that. The media have no requirement to be unbiased or to report the truth, just as long as they are not
sued by someone with deep enough pockets to fight them. This pretty well makes 95% of the
population fair game. It does not take much of imagination to realize that like most businesses the
media͛s first priority is their owners and their revenue stream (their advertisers). When we couple this
with the fact that a handful of corporations control over 85% of media, with overlapping ownerships in
pharmaceutical companies, the military-industrial complex and multinational corporations it becomes
clear that only what they really want you to know is reported. Can you imagine an investigative reporter
who wants to write a negative report about his company͛s major advertiser or shareholder? How long a
career do you think they will have? The trouble is many of these corporate interests, through various
old boys clubs and other less know means, have overlapping roles and interests and a vested interest in
protect the status quo which serves them so well. Take a look at the structure of the boards of major
corporations. How difficult do you think it is for information from the board rooms of one corporation
to flow to another? What mechanism is in place to prevent such individuals from using this information
for their personal gain? As George Carlin said, ͞It is a very small club and you and I are not in it.͟

On top of that, PC thinking and numerous enshrined sacred cows make discussing certain topics or
positions in open company career and/or social suicide. You don͛t think that is the case! Just ask a
simple mathematical question like how many people of all racial groups and nationalities were killed by
the Nazis and Communists in World War Two, and then ask for some proof of the numbers. Watch all
hell break loose when you ask about the number of Jews killed. Keep in mind that this is purely a
mathematical question. You are not passing judgement, expressing any particular view point or position
or assessing any kind of value to the answer of that question. It is just a simple question. Why is it so
charged? It is almost like you have desecrated the Ark Covenant and you are to be fried to a crisp. This
serves only to divide us further with lies rather than to unify us in truth. Honest inquiry should not be
stifled. In this case by not allowing a simple question you feed fan the flames of the Holocaust deniers
who see any inconsistency in the numbers as proof that the Holocaust is a conspiracy, totally negating
the massive suffering the Jewish population endured, regardless of the numbers.

Have you ever wondered why today we are seeing the hyper-sexualization of pre high school kids
through videos and music? Is that what we as society really want? Why is there so much random and
gratuitous violence and sex in the media? Why does the news media play up crime reporting when
statistics show that crime has actually declined in some cases? Why do the media only deal with
superficial fluff rather than meaningful information? How can the largest financial heist in world history
be perpetrated with little investigative reporting as to who got the pay offs. Instead they focus on
exorbitant CEO bonuses, while the real thieves made off with hundreds of times more long before the
bubble burst?

This gets us back to the question at hand - should we vote in elections. We know the system is rigged
and our votes are pirated by corrupt party politics and essentially auctioned off to the highest bidder;
the media is designed to only tell us only what they want us to know; and no matter how we vote our
vote will not produce any substantive change in the existing system. I think the answer should be
obvious - voting in such a system only provides the system with an implied legitimacy that it does not
warrant or deserve. By casting a vote you submit to the system and provide the system with a vote of
confidence, regardless of how you vote. For this reason rather than voting in the next election I will
send letters to all candidates and to Elections Canada explaining my position and how I choose as a
freeman to not submit to be represented by their electoral system. A basic principle of government is
that we must submit to be governed ʹ I no longer submit to be governed by a corrupt and illegitimate
system for me to do so would be a crime against myself as a free and sentient human being.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai