Interview 1225 - Larken Rose on the Immorality of Voting

11/08/201625 Comments

Your vote is statistically meaningless and will not sway the (s)election. Your vote is strategically meaningless and decides nothing about the future of the country. Your vote is useless, as the (s)election is rigged anyway. But as Larken Rose of reminds us, what really matters is that voting is immoral, legitimizing a system of authoritarian control and empowering the oligarchs who created the system and control its results.

Happy selection day!


The Most Dangerous Superstition

The Jones Plantation

The Mirror - Trailer/Teaser

Larken Rose on facebook

Support Larken Rose on Patreon

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (25)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. dfx says:

    No matter which way this election goes, I’m going to refer to the coming government as “Ridiculocracy”. Girlfriend and I are burning our ballots tomorrow afternoon.

  2. doublek321 says:

    On the other side of this debate, let’s say that candidate A has a far more peaceful foreign policy (that you truly believed would cause SIGNIFICANTLY fewer deaths) than candidate B. Voting for candidate A, however, would still be a “validation of the system” (or however Larken Rose phrased it). Question for the forum: Would it still be wrong to vote for that candidate?

    Another question along the same lines – let’s say Ron Paul were running in this race. Would it still be wrong to vote for him (again because it would validate the system)?

    • nosoapradio says:

      With all my due and sincere respect, Obama (despite his voting record as a senator) and despite the fact that he did not honor a single one of his anti-war promises and quite the contrary, was sincerely believed to be the candidate who many truly believed would cause SIGNIFICANTLY fewer deaths. Considering Guantanamo, Irak, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria, did this turn out to be so?

      Is Ron Paul running in this race? Why not?

      Now I’ll listen to the interview.

      • doublek321 says:

        Fair enough that it’s very difficult to trust what a candidate says. For the purpose of my question though, let’s just make it a given. Under that condition, would Larken Rose’s argument still hold up? (again – an open question for the forum)

    • jennerclay says:

      Yes, it would still be a waste of time to vote
      for Ron Paul. I thought most knew that Ron Paul
      is a dis-info agent; he’s a “made” man!

  3. NES says:

    Been saying the same thing–forever. Just walk away. Americans swallowed the blue pill and still have not awakened. Voting represents a so-called democratic election of leadership when nothing could be further from the truth. It merely represents a side-step within the old cast system where “selection” not “election” continues. I agree. In participating we grant permission, as has been done for thousands of years, to the same elitists who have appointed themselves and their blood lines as rulers of everything and everyone.

    Shunning has been used throughout human history to kill unwanted behavior. Personal responsibility requires shunning a system that perpetuates deceit over truth and power over cooperation and contribution. Again I say, just walk away.

  4. peace.froggs says:

    The only thing I would disagree with in this video is the notion that we shouldn’t participate. I think that is the wrong way to approach this.

    Democracy = Punch in the face or a kick in the crotch. I understand the false choice given here, however isn’t this the reason why countries have a constitution? So that the face puncher or the crotch kicker doesn’t go all Stalin or Hitler and sh*t on the populace.

    Like it or not, but mankind is a social animal. We need certain rules to coexist together peacefully. Democracy isn’t a spectator sport, we need to be constantly involved in the process, not just on election day every 4 years, but each and every day of our lives.

    For example, say Hillary wins the election, well then don’t let her get away with unconstitutional sh*t like more wars!!! Take to the streets if need be and protest.

    Another example, the American people were so war weary from Bush’s wars that Obama didn’t dare put troops on the ground in Syria unless the hawkish Republican run congress were willing to put it to a vote first, which they didn’t because they knew full well that during the next election cycle that they would lose their seats.

    The American Constitution was created to protect man’s unalienable rights. Lets make sure elected officials don’t ripe up this so called gawd damn piece of paper.

    Bill of Rights

    1- To act in self-defense (personal, family, innocents, nation).
    2- To own and carry weapons for self-defense and for ensuring that the nation remains free.
    3- To own and control private property (land, money, personal items, intellectual property, etc.)
    4- To earn a living and keep the fruit of one’s labor.
    5- To freely migrate within the country or to leave the country.
    6- To worship — or not worship — God in the manner one chooses.
    7- To associate with — or disassociate from — any person or group.
    8- To express any idea through print, voice, banner, or other media.
    9- To be secure in one’s home, papers, and person against unwarranted searches and seizures (privacy).
    10- To be advised of the charges, in the event of arrest.
    11- To have a judge determine if the accused should be held for trial or for punishment.
    12- To be tried by a jury of one’s peers and face one’s accuser, in the event of being charged with a crime.
    13- To be tried by a jury of one’s peers, in the event of a suit in which the disputed amount is substantive.
    14- To suffer no cruel or unusual punishment.
    15- To establish, monitor, control, and petition our servant government to help secure the above rights.
    16- To abolish said government, when it becomes destructive of these rights.

    Reread 15 and 16 if need be.

    By the way I’m Canadian, and even I know that if it wasn’t for the founding of America in 1776 chances are our Bill of rights which was written 100 years later wouldn’t exist as is, if it wasn’t for the US constitution.

  5. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Fantastic interview!!!
    This line of thought is what will change the world.

    – Thanks for the links.

    I would like Corbett to revisit Larkin Rose in the not too distant future. Ideas such as what was discussed will shape new moral ground across society.

  6. Mark says:

    Okay, my main problem with this position is that “voting” has largely been equated with “voting for president”. If you don’t vote period, then you don’t vote for local candidates or initiatives, and that’s where we do have some level of actual democracy. Where I now draw the line on democracy is at the state level (I live in California, so it’s really the same as a national level), where it’s Dems vs Pubs, which by definition means no real democracy. Hell, our senate race is between two Dems, so who cares? House seats are probably the same, but at least there is the possibility that you might actually have an option that’s worth something there.

    My second issue is that this is an off-the-shelf piece that would have played no matter what happened in the election process so far, and this has been that once-in-a-century election process, something that hasn’t happened before in my lifetime (and I’m no spring chicken). I haven’t yet decided how I will vote (for prez), except that I will, and to me it’s about the best possible outcome. That might be something like, say, Hellary winning the electoral vote but Trump winning the popular vote, and Johnson and Stein both taking a decent chunk of votes as well. That to a real degree delegitimizes the Clinton presidency before it even takes over, and signals a populace who have rejected the two-party system to a significant degree. Hell, maybe that might lead to the proverbial “constitutional crisis”, and the system will further reveal itself to the still-clueless out there. [Can you imagine if she wins but with 40% or less of the vote?] If I felt that way, then why wouldn’t I vote for Trump, in a state where he has no chance of actually winning? Or Stein, maybe, helping the Greens get over that 5% hump?

    While I absolutely agree with the “lesser of two evils” position here (and that took me decades to get there, I admit), I don’t think not voting accomplishes anything. Hell, that’s what the oligarchs really want, right? Disenfranchise the masses by driving them out of the process. Voting doesn’t mean one has legitimized anything or accepted the authority of anyone, it just means you have chosen to participate in a process that does have some potential to at least make some sort of statement. I mean, what would have happened this year if no one sufficiently disillusioned had bothered to vote for Trump in the primaries, and we ended up with the predicted Bush vs Clinton II? Would that be the same thing? I don’t think so.

    “Don’t vote” here just seems like an editorial position of “you don’t vote because I don’t believe in any form of government”. If so, this piece isn’t entirely honest, I don’t think.

  7. Strandy says:

    Perfectly lined up discernment that you guys do in this conversation but I would point out some more aspects to these matters.
    Most if not all constitutions have been founded on that the individual is within their divine right to express and do what so ever and constrained only by what you can do to others! That points towards that any individual is a sovereign being with emphasis on “being”, so we are not just humans we are also beings and we are sovereign…..
    So we have been aware of what we are but still allowed this madness of giving away our sovereign being to be ruled from the outside….. (democracy) or like I would put it, DEMO n CRACY
    These understandings of our nature has been hijacked by our shadow selfs in order for humans to deny our divinity….
    At this point of time the human- being expression has become totally self denial, like a collective suicide where the expressions only circulate around how much self hate we can trump up, pun intended! In Hillary-ious ways….

  8. erichard says:

    I believe we should vote because God will look at how we voted and bless us if we voted sincerely trying to do what is right.

    It is a correct principle for public servants to be subject to the voice of the people. We cannot stop trying to make it work.

    If we do vote carefully and sincerely seeking what is best, then we DO have the right to complain when the country goes differently than we voted and that different way has problems.

  9. m.clare says:

    Voting is nothing more than:

    – Smoke and mirrors to distract us from the truth
    – Year long propaganda opportunity
    – 100% b.s.

    They don’t care who you hate so long as you hate one of the candidates.

    The Blue tribe lines up to bash their heads repeatedly into the Blue side of the brick wall while the Red tribe are on the other side bashing their heads into Red bricks. It is beyond absurd. It is less than pointless.

    Abandon your tribal hatred. Stop playing along. Don’t vote.

    Seriously. Litterally. Stop.

  10. Ragnar says:

    If the election were invalid unless a certain number of people voted, I could see not voting. But, even if 1% of the population voted, they’d still say “the people have spoken” or whatever.

    I disagree with what the government has become. But the people have to get sick enough of it to stand up and change it. Until then, “they” are going to rule…

  11. Ragnar says:

    Something I’ve been considering since the late 1990’s. It solidified after OBushma took power (OBushma because he just continued what Bush was doing). A group, that transcends political parties, has the same end goals and despite their outward party, they will continue reaching for their ultimate goals step by slow step. I feel that group is the globalists and they seek a one world government.

    Yes, it’s conspiratorial. But I haven’t seen anything that disproves that notion.

  12. VoltaicDude says:

    “It is immoral to vote!” – I like it that! The whole get out the vote meme is a brainwash.

    What should be mentioned endlessly every election cycle (if there was really any freedom in the mainstream press) is that in fact about 50% of the eligible-to-vote population doesn’t vote, and often on purpose – because they’re savvy to the con.

    Many of those people are aware of the rot in our unrepresentative system, but the “get-out-the-vote” campaigning actually paints them as irresponsible or just too ignorant to get off their duff’s and go vote – they may very well be the real silent majority (as repugnant and inaccurately-assigned a title as that has unfortunately become through association with “Rev.” Falwell).

    (By the way, that was also essentially a get-out-the-vote campaign that helped bring us eight years of Reagan by getting “both sides” to emotionally invest in the divide-and-conquer two-party false-dichotomy.)

    That’s why I like your slogan, “It is immoral to vote.” It may not literally be true in every way and in every instance, but that is the nature of language. There IS a powerful and important message in that slogan – which is how I feel about “Black Lives Matter” too!

    Many well-meaning alternative-political activists that are aware of Soros’ machinations in funding the “Black Lives Matter” movement respond with, “no – All Lives Matter,’ not realizing the inherent problem with that rebuttal.

    Conceptually, America was founded on rhetoric and mythology conveying the “All Lives Matter” meme, even if not literally with that slogan. However, in reality that foundation actually meant “except for black lives,” and that has been a deep-set and insidious reality for a long history now. That is the point.

    So I think the better response is, “Yes indeed, Black Lives Matter, so don’t fall for the trick of following a path that defines your existence as “expendable.” I am pleased to say that not too long ago I interacted with a group of young people – late-teens, early-twenties – in a public square – I was distributing my political paraphernalia – and the savvy-ness they expressed about just this subject was heartening.

    But getting back from that digression here – after listening to this podcast with empathetic joy, last Tuesday I immediately went out and voted! I realized I did not have to be silent in my rejection of this great “democratic” deception, and I cast a write-in vote for George Carlin for President.

    The ballot also included a number of other state and local electoral positions. For those positions I cast write-in votes as follows: French Vanilla; Chocolate; Strawberry; Peach; Coconut; Pineapple; Raspberry; Lemon Chiffon; Chunky Monkey; lastly but certainly not least, the late, great, Cherry Garcia.'s_flavors

    What if next presidential election millions of people cast write-in votes for George Carlin – that’s a campaign I could promote. Write-ins have to be tabulated and published as part of the results. Nobody could confuse that with apathy or complicity.

    • VoltaicDude says:

      My mistake: I confused Richard Nixon’s “silent majority” with Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority.” While the latter was probably a PR development spinning-off of the former, and they could both apply similarly in my commentary, it’s important to clarify the difference and correct the mistake.

  13. mkey says:

    Abstain From Beans

    ANARCHISTS OPPOSE THE STATE. But does that mean you have to avoid the state everywhere, anytime and in any form? Can, for instance, anarchists vote? In this classic essay Robert LeFevre argues why anarchists should “abstain from beans.”

    In ancient Athens, those who admired the Stoic philosophy of individualism took as their motto: “Abstain from Beans.” The phrase had a precise reference. It meant: don’t vote. Balloting in Athens occurred by dropping various colored beans into a receptacle.
    To vote is to express a preference. There is nothing implicitly evil in choosing. All of us in the ordinary course of our daily lives vote for or against dozens of products and services. When we vote for (buy) any good or service, it follows that by salutary neglect we vote against the goods or services we do not choose to buy. The great merit of market place choosing is that no one is bound by any other persons selection. I may choose Brand X. But this cannot prevent you from choosing Brand Y.

    When we place voting into the framework of politics, however, a major change occurs. When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and extolled for obtaining monopolies of power. Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes right. There is a presumption that any decision wanted by the majority of those expressing a preference must be desirable, and the inference even goes so far as to presume that anyone who differs from a majority view is wrong or possibly immoral.

    But history shows repeatedly the madness of crowds and the irrationality of majorities. The only conceivable merit relating to majority rule lies in the fact that if we obtain monopoly decisions by this process, we will coerce fewer persons than if we permit the minority to coerce the majority. But implicit in all political voting is the necessity to coerce some so that all are controlled. The direction taken by the control is academic. Control as a monopoly in the hands of the state is basic.

    In times such as these, it is incumbent upon free men to reexamine their most cherished, long-established beliefs. There is only one truly moral position for an honest person to take. He must refrain from coercing his fellows. This means that he should refuse to participate in the process by means of which some men obtain power over others. If you value your right to life, liberty, and property, then clearly there is every reason to refrain from participating in a process that is calculated to remove the life, liberty, or property from any other person. Voting is the method for obtaining legal power to coerce others.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Good post! Thanks for the excerpt.

      …we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and extolled for obtaining monopolies of power.
      …This means that he should refuse to participate in the process by means of which some men obtain power over others. If you value your right to life, liberty, and property, then clearly there is every reason to refrain from participating in a process that is calculated to remove the life, liberty, or property from any other person.

  14. ronnie.a says:

    I became aware of this mindset, many years ago, and at the age of 32, voted for the last time in a national election. I keep this to myself, as I have many friends who would condemn me for my choice of not choosing. I took a load of crap when I first pointed out that a certain young woman who was celebrated for her message of climate change was a pawn. My social media friends run the gamut from far left, to far right. I truly love my friends, and do not want to cause turmoil, so I hesitate to point out the elephant in the room. For some reason, I have been blessed in life to have met, and had conversations with very many so- called famous people, in many different walks of life. I am loathe to call my friends and associates ignorant, but it seems to be true of many of them. I understand that from the beginning, our Democratic Republic has been compromised by those with money. I love James Corbett’s documentaries. I feel we truly live in a dumbed down society. The purpose of education should be to nurture an inquisitive mind. Sadly, this is not the case.

    • cooly says:

      Hey ronnie-

      I hear you. Personally, I have never voted. At first because I was young and only cared about girls and how cool my car stereo was, that kind of thing. Then later it was because I started catching on.
      And yea, I don’t bother anymore trying to wake people up. It’s a fucking waste of my time. The blank look on their face gets old. Fortunately for my sanity I do know a couple people who are tuned in and curious. For them I just ordered some Corbett DVDs for Christmas.
      And to your last point. Education should be that, by definition. Unfortunately when the state dictates what that is, game over.

      • ronnie.a says:

        Hey Cooly. When I was 15 i got kicked out of young republicans. (1972) I moved to San Francisco in 1979. Of course, this is one of the most liberal cities on the planet. I was surrounded by the knee jerk liberal point of view. I even had a couple of occasions to talk with Diane Fienstein, then mayor of “The City”. (I was a newspaper reporter at the time, covering the city courts). I also had the opportunity to speak with Barbara Boxer. So, when Obama was elected, (I then lived in east tennessee) I was very hopeful. Thanks to James, and other researchers, I became aware of some of the detrimental policies of that administration. My first concern about him was when I learned that Brezinski (sp?) was an adviser to him on foreign policy. Early in the 1980’s I became aware that most of our Secty of State people came from the CFR. At that time, I worked for Chevron, and Bechtel had it’s headquarters in the building next to the one I worked at. Hmm. At that time George Schultz, ex bechtel was secty of state. At the time I got to meet John McCone, former head of cia. Appointed by Kennedy. I was then, and still am, just a guy with a job. (most of my life, I played guitar for a living. I also had the opportunity to meet many 80’s rock stars and go twice to the grammies, and get to know Prince and Mick Jagger among others. I also opened for many other so-called rock stars.) I have always been interested in how the world works, and who is pulling the strings.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top