-Caveat Lector-
12/17/00
The article below is a breakthrough. It is the first that I have seen
( outside of Nurev ) from the press, which has come around to recognize that
* apathy * is not the reason for low voter turn out.
It is just the beginning.
Nurev has been the originator of " No Mandate " since 1994, and " Boycott 2000 "
more recently. After this very important exposition of the true nature of
Plutocratic Oligarchy, A.K.A. the Y2K American Elections farce, it has now become
quite evident to all who are really interested that there is no democracy in
America and voting has no real value except to legitimize the candidates chosen
by the the rich and their corporations.
This has proven to be such a successful form of oligarchy, that it is being
introduced to other countries along with other aspects of Globalization. Britain
and Israel ( just to name two, ) have recently made changes to their electoral
processes more in line with how the USA works because the Parliamentary system
is simply too hard for the Plutocrats to control. THEY ARE TOO DEMOCRATIC.
Make no mistake about it. When all the institutions, rules, and politicians are
corrupted by big money, there is no place left for reformers to stand and fight
from. This is why Ralph Nader failed to achieve even 5%. Grass roots organizing
DID NOT WORK. This system is all sewn up by Big Business and has been for years.
The ONLY non-violent solution is to boycott the process. No one can prevent you
from not voting. No one can make you legitimize the very process which
disempowers you.
George W Bush was elected president with 24.?% of the eligible voting public.
Just watch and see the power of delegitimization at work on his presidency.
The elites will certainly come together again. They work together
to support the new president. This they must do. The system is more important
than the players. So they will put aside their competitiveness and show
how magnanimous they are. None dare threaten the system of those who supply the
cash.
But WE have nothing to lose and democracy to gain.
Joshua2
For Nurev
======================
18 December 2000
New Statesman (London)
Cover story - Frankly, I don't give a damn
Voter turnout is at an all-time low, but don't blame it on apathy. The
electorate has turned cynical, and that is quite a different matter.
By Nick Cohen
The great conflict of the 19th century was between those who could
vote and those who could not. All adults had won the right to vote by
the early 20th century, and they used it to fight among themselves.
Today, a new division is gaping, which the Chartists, suffragettes and
Labour class warriors - and their opponents - would have found
impossible to comprehend. The great split of the 21st century is
between those who can and do vote and those who can but, well, can't
be bothered.
Getting to grips with the Won't Vote Movement (or non-movement) is
necessarily a difficult task. It has no manifesto. It employs no
spin-doctors to brief journalists on its tactics and ambitions. The
BBC never feels that the duty to provide impartial coverage requires
that Tory, new Labour and Liberal Democrat suits on Question Time and
Today should be balanced with a casually dressed Won't Vote leader.
There is no leader. They have no representatives. Won't Voters are
disenfranchised in every respect.
And yet the apparently powerless are sucking legitimacy from public
life with extraordinary speed. The historic 1997 general election,
when the electorate was presented with the chance to - at last! -
remove a corrupt and loathed Tory regime, produced the lowest turnout
in the history of British democracy. When the Scots were able to
relish an opportunity of equal historic importance and bring what was
supposed to be the national project of generations to a conclusion, a
mere 60 per cent of citizens participated in the first Scottish
Parliament election. The London mayoral contest had much going for it:
charismatic candidates who offered a genuine choice to the public and
whose words were reported at exhaustive length by the metrocentric
national media. Only 34 per cent of citizens voted. Both Charles
Kennedy and David Blunkett have noted, with understandable shock, that
more people voted for extroverts to be expelled from the Big Brother
house than turned out to vote in England in last year's European
elections.
The swiftness of the rise of political indolence can be measured with
a glance back at the mid-1990s. The 1997 general election was prefaced
by two by-elections, in Wirral South and South East Staffordshire. The
turnouts were 69 and 73 per cent respectively. Last month, during what
every pundit assured us was the prelude to the May 2001 general
election, there were by-elections in West Bromwich West and Preston.
The turnouts were 27 and 29 per cent.
Not voting, in short, is all the rage, and yet few know how to pin
down the phenomenon. Backing away from politics is usually described
as "apathy". Voters are bored but contented, soothing voices assure
us. The hollowing-out of democracy is nothing to fret about. Indeed,
to those who bought Francis Fukuyama's theory that the fall of the
Berlin Wall and the success of western markets and democracy marked
the end of history, no less, nothing could be more welcome or more
natural than an outbreak of apathy. "The contagion of indifference is
spreading at a healthy pace," wrote George Walden, an ex-Conservative
MP, in the London Evening Standard. For 200 years "politics mattered",
added Barry Cox, a television executive who bankrolled Tony Blair's
Labour leadership campaign, in the Observer. "Now many people think it
doesn't matter. And surely they are right."
Both believe that there really is no point in voting. New Labour and
the Conservatives agree that capitalism is the best and only way.
Their disputes are noisy but trivial arguments about the detail.
Healthy and prosperous people have turned away and are now far too
busy discussing the merits of the latest iMac, gawking at the
Zeta-Joneses or trying to master Nigella's latest tasty recipe to care
about anything else. Politics is little more than the leisure option
of cranks - train-spotting without the travel.
It is easy to mock these gentlemen. The triumph of western democracy
brings the collapse of democratic participation! Things are so bad
because they're so damn good! It is easier still to point out that,
when the gulf in wage inequality between rich and poor has never been
greater since records began in the 1880s, and the deunionised and
downsized British work the longest hours in Europe, it is a tad
tactless to proclaim that all have reached a bourgeois utopia. The
followers of Fukuyama have not so much slipped into smugness as dived
in head first.
For all that, millions from the classes that Walden and Cox are most
likely to meet are enjoying a sweet life, and no conceivable change of
government will add a dash of bitters. Their apathy is more than
justified. Why should they trudge to the polling booth when they face
no threats?
The contentedly apathetic do not, however, make up all of the Can
Vote/Won't Voters. When Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell rant against
indifference, they do not attack the "apathetic", but the "cynical",
and they do so with real vehemence.
Their use of "cynic" is a smear. But you should always take your
enemies' insults as badges of honour and, before donning the
decoration, it is worth asking: just who is a cynic?
Cynicism is now the antonym of apathy. While the apathetic don't care,
the traduced cynics care greatly. When Blair goes for "cynics", he
means a democratic socialist or libertarian or anyone who clings on to
a principle. Norman Mailer once wrote that what disturbed him most
about Bill Clinton was that he was a man without a last ditch, a man
who would do or say anything. Clinton's British child, Blairism, has
gone further than its parent ever dared. It requires its adherents not
only to flee from any and every ditch on demand, but to do so with an
evangelical faith in the justness of their flight. You really will not
get on in the political class if you give up what you hold dear with
resignation, as a sad but necessary act in an inevitably compromised
world. You must retreat with joy, eyes shining with the fire of
belief. In these psychological circumstances, your former comrades who
stick in the ditch are cynics, perverse heretics who reject the true
religion.
Tellingly, this novel definition of cynicism comes from advertising.
In One Market Under God, his forthcoming study of how corporate values
have seeped into every crevice of public life, Thomas Frank describes
a speech that Phil Teer of St Luke's, the grooviest and most
influential ad agency in London, gave to his American colleagues. Like
Charles Handy, Charles Leadbeater and so many others in business and
politics, Teer sounded like the most radical of democrats. Business is
revolution. Hierarchies must be destroyed and boundaries transgressed.
All must unite in the task "of killing cynicism". His cynics, I
scarcely need add, are not those who persuade the public to buy goods
they don't need at prices they can't afford, but pernicious
know-nothings who refuse to believe in brands, who ignore media
messages and refuse to consume.
Frank echoes Eric Hobsbawm and many others of the left when he points
out that the populism of the market has undermined popular sovereignty
and the readiness to vote. "Free-market theory effectively claims that
there is no need for politics," wrote Hobsbawm recently. "If consumers
are able to achieve their aims by exercising their power of choice
every day through the purchase of goods or the indication of their
opinions to the mechanisms of media consultation, what exactly remains
of citizenship? Is there still any need to mobilise groups of people
for political objectives?"
The danger is that such musings lead to a reflection of Fukuyama and
Walden from the other side of the looking-glass. The common belief is
that, for better or worse, the values of consuming have conquered the
virtues of citizenship. I've no doubt that they have in part, but
their success is not total.
Both William Hague and Blair, after all, have adopted all the
techniques of corporate marketing. They have PR men, pollsters and
focus-group organisers at the top of their debased professions who
have dedicated their waking hours to finding and accommodating
consumers' desires. As Hague proved in the summer and Blair proved in
the Queen's Speech, there is no populist bandwagon they won't jump on
if the opinion-poll numbers order them to leap. The most basic test of
a political marketeer is his ability to get the voters through the
door of the polling booths. By this measure, and on their own terms,
the Philip Goulds and Amanda Platells are utter failures who have
inspired the cynicism they are meant to counter.
For all the difficulties of getting to grips with why people don't
vote, there is circumstantial evidence that many are doing so out of
political disgust rather than a surfeit of apolitical contentment;
that they are propelled by "cynicism" rather than apathy.
The great mass of absentees aren't the happy haunters of juice bars
and gyms of Walden's and Cox's imaginations, but the wretched poor and
the working class. It wasn't Fulham or Solihull that recorded a
turnout of 1.5 per cent in the 1999 European elections, but the slums
of Sunderland. In every contest since 1997, the sharpest falls in
voting have been in the poorest areas. Labour governments are meant to
redistribute wealth. When they don't deliver the money, they don't get
the votes.
For new Labour's middle-class supporters - the bleeding heartlands, if
you will - the urge to join the cynics comes from the abuses of civil
liberties and persecutions of asylum-seekers, which would have been
quite unthinkable even in 1997. I frequently hear that they and many
from the sullen working class will stay true when the general election
comes, and prefer to ignore their churning stomachs and vote new
Labour to prevent a Conservative revival. The lesser-of-two-evils
argument is a powerful rejoinder to cynicism, which we will hear daily
as the election approaches.
Yet to support an evil party because it is not quite as evil as its
rivals is not, I think, a resolution that can be taken indefinitely.
Labour leftwingers or Tory Europhiles are, in effect, being asked to
give their leaders a free pass; to grant their support to policies and
to politicians they find repellent and to forget about their
democratic right to have their opinions represented.
The alternative to this unappealing bargain is to refuse to be
complicit. In a country without proportional representation, joining
the huge numbers who refuse to vote is one honourable option. You may
not do much good - and you won't do any good - but you will not lend
your name to those you often despise (and who often despise you).
In the fourth century BC, Alexander the Great went to meet Diogenes of
Sinope, the original cynic. He asked if there was anything he could do
for the philosopher. Yes, replied Diogenes, get out of my space.
Charles Clarke on cynicism, see Interview
==========================================
BOYCOTT
=========================ELECTION 2000===============================
The accumulation of wealth brings with it an accumulation of power
and influence disproportionl to the actual numbers of wealthy groups,
and individuals existing in a society.
1) I believe there is a way to break the hold of big money on the
Presidency, and other major political positions at the national
governmental level. This can be achieved by modifying our views on
how to utilize the electoral process to recapture and strengthen the
limited democracy we had. Whatever power voters had was stolen from
the American people by U.S. and foreign moneyed interests.
2) Nullifying political bribery by the Duopoly can be accomplished
in a non-violent manner, and DOES NOT REQUIRE ACTIVE COOPERATION
AMONG GROUPS WITH DIFFERING IDEOLOGIES.
Please consider the following:
The diversity and size of the U.S. plays right into the hands of the
ruling class and their institutions. It's easy to keep a society like
this divided along natural fault lines. Class, race, religion, gender,
sexual preference, occupation, philosophical outlook, regionalism, and
multiculturalism are some reasons that truly mass movements are almost
impossible to organize in this country. The obvious exceptions are war,
and disaster.
Though there are more people getting involved in grass roots politics,
they are organizing around narrow interests. I'm not belittling those
interests. I'm simply saying that the mass power of the public
is not being focused on the weak points in the system. Those are, the
ability to effect change through voting ( or not voting ), spending
( or not spending ), and paying taxes ( or withholding your taxes ).
The problem with voting, is that those who have stolen the democratic
process, present us with the option of picking any one of THEIR candidates
that we like. The process of running for any national office,
is actually a filtering process that "BOTH" parties use to insure that
only those acceptable to the ruling class will be presented to us for
rubber stamping. Thus, they have taken the choice out of our choosing process.
Most people now realize that something is very wrong here, and
are quite angry about it. This is not democracy !
["Don't cling to a political party that has been converted to neo-conservatism.
[[ Like Clinton/Gore's " New Dems," or " New Labor "
in Britain, or " Third Way " Socialists. - J2 ]]
Once the party has been taken over, maintaining solidarity on the outside
while seeking change from within merely gives them more time. When the spirit
of the party is dead, shed the old skin and create somethingnew".
- TIPS ON HOW TO OPPOSE CORPORATE RULE - from the book
" Economic Fundamentalism " by Dr Jane Kelsey, U of Auckland, NZ ]
Because he was elected with only 43% of the vote (1992- in a three way
race ), Clinton was perceived as being politically weak, and forced to
compromise more than he really wanted to. Of course that didn't extend
to pro business issues like NAFTA and GATT and Fast Track.
Reagan, on the other hand was perceived as having won by a "landslide",
and had a strong mandate to do anything he wished, while the press
cowered before the will of the people. Consequently, he became the
" teflon " president.( Referring of course, to the substance between his ears.)
The point is; the importance of the perception of popular support.
Imagine a President elected by only 35% or less. How difficult might
it be for such an unpopular elected official to raise taxes, cut social
programs, get us into an oil war, or turn our national forces over to
the institutions of World Federalism like NATO and the U.N., when so
few would have voted for him (/her)?
I am convinced that elections in the near future will incorporate
"third" parties. This will become necessary to maintain the illusion
of democratic participation. The Duopoly has played itself out. Too
many voters hate the Democrats AND the Republicans. Successful "third"
parties will also be owned by Big Business. Why give up a good scam?
This will then camouflage the lack of democracy for yet one more
generation, while rich ruling "elites" around the world link up to
achieve their long held dream of a worldwide economic system with them
in charge.
If this scenario does in fact play out, then imagine what it would
take to dislodge them from positions of power around the world.
I have a simple, do-able plan to stop, or at least slow down this
process of fake democracy. The solution is to allow people the choice
of NOT voting. Legitimize not voting as the only real choice in a field
of hand picked candidates, and you will have a defacto "NO MANDATE"
movement. A national expression of no confidence for all the world
to see.
The American Emperors will have no cloths.
Not voting will require legitimization. For all our lives we have been
propagandized into thinking that the vote is a powerful, and
meaningful act. But this is only true when there are real differences
between the parties or the candidates. The unfortunate fact remains,
that statistically, the single vote is irrelevant at the national
level ( Y2k election being unique - J2, 12/17/00 ), and casting our
ballots for pre-chosen candidates of the Big Business Parties is not really
to our benefit as citizens who at least theoretically control our own
government.
Once the public sees that not voting is a positive expression of
dissatisfaction with the status quo, then all individuals and groups
who are in fact dissatisfied ( for any reason ), will be acting in
UNITY, no matter how ideologically diverse they may be. For example:
The Ultra Right will notwish to endorse the Establishment's undermining
of America's sovereignty for the sake of globalism. The left will
finally come to realize that it has no home in the Democratic Party.
Unions will have learned ( hopefully ) from the Clinton / NAFTA
/FASTRACK experience that it's going to take much bigger bribes than
they can afford to match Big Business' purchasing power of politicians.
Then there are the Libertarians, the Anarchists, Socialists, the extreme Right
(religious or otherwise), all people who know that there is no one on the final
ballot who represents them. They don't have to communicate with each other,
or marry each other's sisters, or even like each other. All they have to do is
not vote. Quite a coalition!
If you think that this is just a pipe dream, just look at what happened
with the recent [June 99 ) EU vote. The voter turnout in each EU country
was so low, that the political elites in each country were absolutely panicked.
Tony Blair had to alter his aggressive agenda on changing the Sterling to
the EURO. He was forced to put it on the back burner because
of the weak support for Labour DUE TO THE LOW TURNOUT OF VOTERS.
GLOBALISM WAS TEMPORARILY NEUTRALIZED IN EUROPE!
A non voting protest movement will automatically include all those
people who have been marginalized non voters. The poor, the homeless,
the so called lazy apathetic masses, whom the media and the middle
classes have despised for years, will be indistinguishable ( at least
statistically speaking ) from the rest of protesting America. We are
now talking about a very large majority of " eligible " voters no longer
willing to legitimize a process that works against themselves.
A milder version of this concept would be a " None Of The Above " slot
on ballots in all federal (and other) elections. A great idea. Even Ralph
Nader has suggested it. So why don't we have it? Because, between the
voters' desire for it, and its implementation, stand the politicians who
want this like brain cancer. And this is the heart of the problem of
working through the system. YOU CAN'T!
One hundred and thirty years of incremental advantages for the rich and
their corporations have brought us to the point of losing our livelihoods,
our limited democracy,( such as it was,) our sovereignty over our
environment, our economy, our food supply, our energy supply, our educations,
our safety, and our children's futures. The advances we made through the
political system at the turn of the century, the thirties,
and the sixties haven't come to much. Representative democracy doesn't
represent us. We need direct democracy. They won't give it to us, we must
take it anyway.
What if they gave an election and nobody came ? Well, you would have a
government elected by a small percentage of the voting public, but takes
taxes from 100% of the voting public. This means that a vast
majority of Americans face " taxation without representation." As we
know from U.S.history...the founding fathers used this as an excuse for
revolution.
Once the duopoly is broken open, only then will real and fundamental
changes have a chance. Real environmentalism, not relative to the bottom
line, or nature shows sponsored by Shell Oil. Economic democracy. A serious
rethinking of Capitalism, particularly corporate capitalism. Employee
ownership and control of all businesses over a certain size. Permanent
progressive taxation. And anything else that you can get into
the national agenda that was excluded by some politician because his
owner wasn't interested, or couldn't profit from it.
A boycott of national elections should be considered a TACTIC, not a
permanent solution. If a real choice is offered, then that is different.
The rule of thumb is simple - vote for the candidate you want,
or don't vote at all.
This notion of voting for the lesser of two evils is morally, intel-
lectually, and logically bankrupt. For those of you bent to the Left,
the Democrats are the lesser of two evils. For those of you bent to
the Right, it's the Republicans who are the lesser of the two evils. If
biology worked this way, we would all be devolving into bacteria.
The fact that so many citizens feel compelled to vote on the basis of
such a flawed philosophy, attests to the sophistication and effectiveness
of America's political propaganda machine. By using such ploys as * Get
out the Vote *, * Rock the Vote*, and the ever popular guilt inducing,
* think of all the dead soldiers who bravely gave their lives so that
you may vote *, you dear voter are duped into rubber stamping the
representatives of the rich.
Vote for a candidate you want, or don't vote at all.
Thanks for listening,
Joshua2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE DEMOCRACY ILLUSION:
Andrew Marr Of 'The Independent' Interviews Noam Chomsky (MIT professor)
What we call politics is really a shadow play conducted by corporate
power. Parliament [Congress] is the buffer between the popular desire
for democracy and the reality of corporate rule. People, after all,
are unlikely to resist that rule so long as politicians (and journalists)
succeed in persuading us that it is not there; that in
fact it is we who are in control. The mass media plays a crucial role
in supporting the democracy illusion by pretending that the arguments
presented to us - together with the parties we are allowed to choose
from -constitute a free and fair spectrum of choices, which are our choices,
and not what is left after state and corporate power have
filtered out choices that threaten to interfere. One of the choices
deemed unfit for public consumption is the idea that the mass media
is a propaganda system.
<htp://worldmedia.com/archive/index.html>
=====================================================
"The Roman government gave them bread and circuses.
Today we give them bread and elections..."Will Durant
=====================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
