Rock the Vote! - #PropagandaWatch

01/29/2020154 Comments

Watch this video on BitChute / / YouTube

We all know that the powers-that-shouldn't-be don't put together a decades-long propaganda campaign to condition the public to believe in the plain, simple truth. So why have they spent decades (if not centuries) trying to condition us to believe that voting is important and effective? Today on #PropagandaWatch James explores the propaganda campaign surrounding voting and what it tells us about the statist indoctrination system we live under.

Fareed says vote

Obama says vote

Hadley says vote

Puff Daddy Vote or Die

You Choose - it's time to get out and vote!

Save The Day. Vote - IMPORTANT

History of voting!

Courtroom Testimony on Rigged Voting Machines

Voting Machine Hacks at DefCon

Voting Machines Elect One Of Their Own As President

Moyers on deep state

If Voting Made Any Difference, They Wouldn’t Let Us Do It

Interview 1225 – Larken Rose on the Immorality of Voting

Filed in: Propaganda WatchVideos
Tagged with:

Comments (154)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. twopillers says:

    As we have seen over and over again nothing has changed for the better. Jesus 2020!

  2. deacon says:

    I have been led to believe that not turning up to vote is not necessarily the best option: It would be better if everyone turned up and then spoiled their paper…

    Is this a good tactic? Is it even possible with voting machines?!

    • Duck says:

      Its a better tactic then not voting- sadly its an option you no longer have on machines -because spoiling ballots shows anger while not showing up to vote is generally taken as apathy.
      The fact is that people really do get the gov they deserve- a bunch of people who care and are awake to what the leaders do will keep those leaders in check whatever the system of government while people who are lazy and ignorant will always get robbed and beaten even in a system thats set up with as many checks and balances as the US system was set up with.
      Thats why people in the US have less say then people in some dictatorships on what happens

      • zyxzevn says:

        There are also organizations like:
        That help to improve the democratic system.

        Most people can accept this easily.
        It seems a good step away from corruption, and may help.

        • alexandre says:

          Sounds good, but … “improve the democratic system”? That would need some long debates and definition of terms, because it sounds like something of an oxymoron. Or something.

        • dregeye says:

          As I understand democracy, it requires an educated and accurately informed electorate and candidates that will follow through, implimenting the policies they espoused in their campaign rhetoric.
          Unfortunately that is not very likely.

          • Duck says:

            People tend to get the gov they deserve- like in that movie ‘Caligula’ when Emperor Tiberius says that in his youth he was a general but in his old age became a ‘swineherd’

  3. Duck says:

    Your vote could be a signal to the people who are in power that they need to change direction…. or it could just me a teddy bear to pacify you- in less free places you may have more leverage in then the US as these video talks about- it depends on the persons of the voters more then the system

    Even Romans had the deeps state of public servants who outlasted their elected officials. Cato had to deal with them

  4. A lot is made of particular population segments, notably the “evangelical” or “Christian” vote. But then for the Christian we should remember Christ’s words “For they preach, but do not practice” (Mat 23:3). When a Christian promotes a candidate or voting in general he should first read 1Sam8. Voting is no different than asking for a king or ruler. Back then they asked for a king to judge and got a king to rule. The price was heavy, and identical today. It is clearly described as a rejection of the Lord.

    So to my fellow Christians, from this repentant voter, remember when you vote you are putting you allegiance in man and denying the Lord. He states when you then ask for His help, He will not hear you (1Sam8:18). Voting is FOOLISH!

    • Duck says:

      ‘… remember when you vote you are putting you allegiance in man and denying the Lord…’
      The Bible at Rom 13 also says that
      ‘….The authorities that exist have been established by God…’
      ‘… whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted…’

      Humans should be VERY careful before ascribing any political position to God- even though I believe that the Bible if followed would create something like the “Republic” Tom Paine said the old pre-king jews lived in…. a state that saw them falling away and into subjugation time and time again. A “non-spiritual” view would be to say that became careless in their freedom and fell under the power of more organized peoples until the remembered their core values. Biblically speaking humans are hierarchical creatures who are themselves subject to the only true authority in the universe. The idea of GOD having authority over even the rulers of society is why so much time has been spent attacking biblical Christianity and replacing it with more paganesqe ideas in modern culture.

      The fact is that humans have never lived in total ‘anarchy’ because humans always create a hierarchy even in the most primitive conditions (Based in earliest times upon physical factors like skill and health)
      Humans never will live without some kind of social organization because those that try will get crushed by better organized people. The best you can hope for is a high level of freedom based on a high functioning population.

      • generalbottlewasher says:

        Deep diving Duck. Excellent analysis!

        • Duck says:

          General Bottle washer
          are you asking me?
          At risk of stepping into someone else talk

          ‘….Oh no your not done yet. The real ruler of the material world, who is the anarchist foile to mans ego, Woman. Why has modern religion vilified her so?…’
          Women are not naturally ‘anarchists’, they have a desire to be free (being smaller and thus subject to oppression) but they also have a strong drive to control others. This may be due to the risk to their personal kids in a multi-wife family or just because they were (more) subject to random dangers. Women bosses will “tend” micromanage more then men.
          In Christianity women are not actually ‘vilified’ (except in a few odd cults??) The idea that they are is part of the generational social engineering project to atomize the family unit by seting men vs women and kids vs parents.
 what happens to men without women
 kinda a dark take on the other side. He is a pretty good commentator but has a dark outlook

          • generalbottlewasher says:

            Duck, Distinct. ” no risk here” you are talking to everyone.
            No , yes to Bible. Bacon English has so twisted the translation it literally can mean diametrically opposite meanings

            Your are trying to define words in an area indefinable.

            All I know is Catilacxy, doesn’t appear in spell check.
            The home econemy is not described in the new testament.
            My counterpart in real life split our “duty” evenly.80-20.

            All men are the same, differntly.
            So you are debating, sounding very eloquent by the way, but the topic might as well be how many Angles can dance on the head of a pin. The history of the Bible is much like the history of WW1. There was a Hoover of that era too.
            The hamster wheel is waiting but I hope you all the best in this.

            • Granted there are those who use the Bible to their ends. However, there are a large number of people, dare I include myself and there is evidence for duck, that what to know what he Lord says through the Bible and that requires that we have a good source. The idea that the Bible, most notably the New Testament, is a translation of a translation is bogus. There has been a lot of work over the centuries to obtain the most correct version of the Greek that would match the original, and projects like CBGM are great examples of that work.

              What has been shown by those works is that the basic concepts are consistent, and details, such as does Jude 1:5 use “Lord” or “Jesus”, are where the changes occur. If you abandon the faith over such an issue, then I would again point to 1Jn 2:19.

              As a follower of Christ we are commanded to “test everything” (1Th 5:21) which includes the Bible itself. Our model is seen in Acts 17:11, “they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” Then we are called to “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 1:3), which is “epagōnizomai”, which you can see the English “agonize” in it. When we “Fight the good fight of the faith” (1Ti 6:12), we are essentially “agonizing the good agony”. Our reward is to find “the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding” (Php 4:7). That is a joy unspeakable!

      • First let me point out that the most anarchist book ever written is the Bible. It distantly commands us to put no one above you but the Lord, and not some person OR INSTITUTION.

        Mat 20:25-26 states “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them…It shall not be so among you.” The “rulers” is “archōn” which is a frequently seen term, but typically not in a good light nor is there a command to set one up or ask for one.

        Romans 13 has been misused by many to argue support for the state. Romans 13 follows Romans 12 and verse 10 tells us to “Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.” I contend this applies to those who are part of the state, but there is no command here or anywhere to be part of the state or ask for the state.

        When we have the “election” versus “selection” discussion, that has already been declared in Deuteronomy 17 where the Lord does not command a king but regulates one and points out that it is not us, the voter, but He who chooses, as seen in verse 15 “you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose.” Note also no mere man, in the Bible or elsewhere, has been shown to meet the qualifications in this chapter.

        The idea of hierarchy is a concept of man, specifically Jethro in Exodus 18, and not a command of God. King Saul used it in an attempt to maintain power (1Sam 22:7).

        Where I disagree with Duck is that the Book of Judges is the clear example of anarchy and widely considered the most peaceful time in history. When times of trouble did occur, leaders, not rulers, were used to restore peace. When people looked to leaders as rulers, such as with Gideon (Jdg 8:22), they refused. But even they were snared when they compromised (Jdg 8:27).

        Also if there is concern that you will be “crushed by better organized people”, then the Lord you serve it pathetic. The Lord of the Bible is the protector of those who trust in Him and the crusher of those who don’t. Try for example the book of Habakkuk. It is a short read.

        • Duck says:

          ‘….First let me point out that the most anarchist book ever written is the Bible. It distantly commands us to put no one above you but the Lord, and not some person OR INSTITUTION….’
          You and I agree on the SECOND PART of that- that biblically nothing is to be put before Gods Law and all human institutions (like human laws and Government) only exist at Gods Pleasure. From THAT grew the idea that even rulers had a boss above them (kinda like slave masters were to remember not to mistreat their slaves since THEY were themselves slaves of God and did not truly ‘own’ anything)
          HOWEVER… that is NOT anarchy- Anarchy as we see it today is AFAIK an outgrowth of enlightenment ideas of the ‘noble savage’ that humans existed in a state of freedom and goodness before being corrupted by civilization- thats where dumb ideas like primitivism (as in Unabomber) grow from. The Bible teaches subjection TO GOD and GODS LAW- sometimes thru people like Moses who killed people for worshiping the wrong God in the wilderness.
          “…Book of Judges,,,example of anarchy…most peaceful time in histor..”
          Nope.Biblically It was a time when the people of the land were being genocided and when isralites religiously went their own way (idolatry) they brought judgment on themselves for ignoring the rules of God.
          The Bible teaches that there are people who are leaders and people who are subject both in the church and in the world (King nebuchannezr for example…) The leaders in the church are to be servants and help the people, but the people are told to follow their instructions … and Rom 13 on Government

          • Anarchy is by definition “without ruler” and I contend from the Biblical perspective this is applied by having no man as your ruler, which includes the “dēmos” as in democracy. Therefore there is no need to vote. It is not a product of the Enlightenment, but a command of the Lord. Obviously we have the Lord as our head and the ultimate commands to love (Deu 6:5, Lev 19:18).

            There is no call for man to setup laws as the law of love is sufficient. I do not need man’s laws to know specifically what I can and cannot do to someone else if my drive if love.

            The Book of Judges spans a period of roughly 300 to 400 years. If you simply add the “land had rest” in verses 3:11, 30, 5:31, 8:28, you have 200 years of rest or peace. That is much better than average. What do you read virtually immediately after each period of peace? “And the people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the LORD.” It is not obedience to the Lord that brings calamity, but disobedience.

            The Lord does put rulers in place (Deu 17:15), but again does not call us to do so if you are a follower of Christ (Mat 20:25-26). There is nothing in Romans 13 that is a command giving even a hint of that idea.

            May I suggest: “Trusting the Lord or Voting”

            • Duck says:

              ‘…Anarchy is by definition “without ruler”…’
              IF you are without Ruler you are not puting Christ in that role- if you do not accept God/Jesus as your ruler you are NOT a Christian. Alinksy actually decicated his book to Lucifer the first rebel if I recall right.

              “….and I contend from the Biblical perspective this is applied by having no man as your ruler..”
              The Bible is chco full of people who run things thru Gods authority- though perhaps we should call them LEADERS since they do not ‘rule’ as a sovereign right. Their powers and right to run things could be revoked IF they acted against Gods will.
              Moses- leader who had many isralites killed for worshiping the wrong Gods
              Saul- who had the kingdom taken from him for disobedience
              Paul and the apostles who gave instructions and orders to the christian churches
              Nebuchadnezzar is told “….the Most High is sovereign over human kingship and gives it to whom he will..”
              Titus 3.1 ‘..Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed,..’
              Romans13 ‘..very person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God..’
              AND Jesus who rejects those who reject Him as king.
              While its possible to argue that Christians should abstain from politics they are NOT Bibically exempted from Government power

              • There is a clear distinction between leader (“hēgeomai”) which is to lead or go before, and ruler (“archē/archōn”) which is to be first in authority. We need to use the words in their context and not our own.

                We also need to see that life and death are in God’s hands. Sometimes man is used, but often, such as during the time of Moses, it is directly seen as from the Lord, such as Korah’s Rebellion (Numbers 16) or Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10).

                Perhaps we are losing our focus? You quoted again Titus 3 and Romans 13, but in both cases it is a command to submit, not a command to take part or vote. It seems we might agree on this. Do we?

                Voting is asking for a king or ruler which is a rejection of the Lord. I am guilty and have repented. A follower of Christ who votes is rejecting the Lord. Do you agree on that point?

            • Duck says:

              here is a clear distinction between…. need to use the words in their context and not our own….”
              yES… i AGREE. However, asking for a king and choosing a leader is not always the same thing. It is dangerous to put political choices and opinions we hold and say that they are Gods.

              ‘..We also need to see that life and death are in God’s hands…”

              ‘..Sometimes man is used..’
              ‘PUT’ in authority is what I quoted and what Nebbuchanzzer hears too. Does that mean authority is aALWAYS to be obeyed – I would say NO but thats a different discussion from rejecting authority in principle

              “..Perhaps we are losing our focus? You quoted again Titus 3 and Romans 13, but in both cases it is a command to submit, not a command to take part or vote…”
              True, but does that mean you would vote if it was the law that you must?

              “….Voting is asking for a king or ruler which is a rejection of the Lord…”
              NO, it is no more asking for a king the discussing what route to take or how to go about a job is asking for a king. Its just a way of deciding a worldy issue- the apostles selected 2 candidates to replace Judas and then made them draw lots, but the selection THEY made. They also voted on if they should or should not require judaic law for gentile converts

              ‘…A follower of Christ who votes is rejecting the Lord. Do you agree on that point?…’
              No. It is hyperbolic in my opinion, as hyperbolic as suggesting that voting will change the system fundamentally or that not voting will do so. Its a way to decide worldly matters, thats all

              • You state “It is dangerous to put political choices and opinions we hold and say that they are Gods.” Agreed, that is why voting, irrespective of the issue, is imposing your choice on others and should not be done. I am not called to impose on you, again Mat 20:25-26.

                You brought up the idea that obedience to the Lord supersedes obedience to man. This is true. If man commands something that God prohibits or prevents something that God commands, we must choose the higher authority, God. Therefore if, like in some countries, state law requires my voting, I must refuse. I have no other option.

                When we see Matthias is chosen to replace Judas (Acts 1), that is the last we here of him. Perhaps it wasn’t a significant issue. What is significant is that it was the casting of lots, not voting. It was from man’s perspective random chance, but consistent with Deuteronomy 17 it was the Lord’s choice.

                The example you use is where “it seemed good to the apostles” (Acts 15:22) is the wisdom of man and not a command of the Lord. It has little weight and not in conflict with existing commands. It was also a group that came to “one accord” or “one mind” (Acts 15:25) and not a majority vote.

                But asking for state services or a ruler by voting for it is identical to the 1Sam8 example. There is simply no example where the Lord commands or even allows for that option. There is no “voting is rejecting me but you can under these circumstances”. Voting is rejecting the Lord, period.

                For the follower of Christ, it is Christ alone who makes the rules and we as His creation are to follow them. Our objective is obedience and not to change the system. The “system” is in His control, not ours. However, for the follower of Lord Pragmatism, i.e. the pathetic Lord, you should vote wisely, and let 1Sam8:18 weigh heavy.

      • manbearpig says:

        I feel like I should have some sort of coherent, even enlightened stance on this question of hierarchies and voting by now… of course I wouldn’t vote in any governmental titty ‘tainment selection circus as they currently exist in the U.S. and France…

        Duck says:

        “…humans have never lived in total ‘anarchy’ because humans always create a hierarchy even in the most primitive conditions (Based in earliest times upon physical factors like skill and health)
        Humans never will live without some kind of social organization because those that try will get crushed by better organized people…”


        In my limited experience, from what I observe with my altered, filtered, superficial gaze, human nature does indeed seem to adhere to these principles. Starts with familial hierarchies, and in the absence of another innate model, people recreate what is familiar and they are extrapolated to become societal. Vacuums are created and filled, people seek their subjective perception of order, to fill biological necessities, ego gratification. Most folks, like myself, seek maximum gratification for minimal investment of work and prefer to pass the buck of critical decision-making onto someone else (so I can later blame them for any problems that arise) and will negotiate with just about anyone who seems to be able to provide all that, keeping me willingly infantile.

        Some form of voting, I imagine, has always appeared to be the most enlightened and “fair” method of breaking deadlock among what are allegedly considered as “equals”.
        Compromise is the name of the game for any interpersonal relations however minimal. What constitutes a fair compromise is when the power games kick in.
        The most desperate, determined or ambitious and/or the least scrupulous will know how to manipulate such mechanisms to their advantage…

        So human destiny ultimately comes down to the benevolence and lack thereof of the strongest and/or least scrupulous and best organized of the group(s).

        What generational phenomenon could break humanity from this psycho-socio-biological imperative of creating hierarchies and voting?

        An elite that would, against all logic, decide to facilitate it?

        Or an elite who can provide the illusion of having done so or at least the illusion of maximum freedom?

        I have this idea (not derived from any scholarly reading) that “before”, the survival of the tribe required that the boss strived to make sure a maximum number of the members survived (if not for hunter/gathering/farming abundance then as cannon fodder). Pretty sure this ain’t true anymore.

        As a kid I chopped and stacked wood, hauled compost out to the pigs and tried to deal with faulty plumbing. Not sure I’m still up for all that now.

        disengage is the only solution I see…

        • Duck says:

          “…human destiny ultimately comes…of the strongest… best organized of the group(s)…”
          There is the Spiritual way of looking at things, via religion, or the materialist way- but THAT is the heart of the materialist view, yes.
          I haven’t read Hobbs but AFAIK he said life in a state of nature was ‘nasty brutish and short’, even though as Tom Paine says humans are social and come together to help each other in the naturalist view it is survival of the fittest person and group that trumps all.

          ‘…What generational phenomenon could break humanity from this psycho-socio-biological imperative of creating hierarchies..”
          Why would you WANT to? Hierarchy is not bad of itself- its ABUSE of others that is bad.
          Its not bad that Zuckerberg or Rockefeller has more money then us if he has a good idea- its wrong when they use that money to ABUSE people and steal their freedom of choice.
          I LIKE the idea that the best guy for the job flys the plane I’m on or leads me into battle or runs my workplace. Beware of the Anti meritocracy crowd who want equality of incompetence

          “….An elite that would, against all logic, decide to facilitate it?
          Or an elite who can provide the illusion of having done so or at least the illusion of maximum freedom?..”
          Freedom is not something a human can give you- its just easier or harder to enjoy dep on where you are. It comes from YOU being smart enough to know it, strong enough to KEEP it and moral enough to enjoy it.
          Dumb/lazy people will be slaves of the smart.
          Weak people will have their freedom stolen.
          Immoral people will trade freedom for self indulgence and destroy themselves

          “..disengage is the only solution I see…” How did that work for the American Indians?

          • manbearpig says:

            I’ll just say, as an addendum to my nano-reply to you below that:

            “…What generational phenomenon could break humanity from this psycho-socio-biological imperative of creating hierarchies..”
            Why would you WANT to? Hierarchy is not bad of itself- its ABUSE of others that is bad.”

            As indicated below, I personally, by all appearences, am quite content with the status quo but as an answer to his most esteemed Mr Corbett and his Larken associates (can’t remember his lovely companion’s name right now) who I’ve understood see this as an ideal to strive for and I must say it does sound enticing coming from them
            I’ll try to be more coherent tomorrw thanks

        • manbearpig says:

          I mean, disengage as much as possible from society, create what you want to see created and vote with your money.
          Conclusions I’d come to even before subscribing to this site.
          Essentially a bunch of stuff I don’t actually do myself.
          Guess I’m good with the way things are… Now I’ll go explain that to Freddy Romulus, the families of the 9/11 victims’ and my own kids…

          Had submitted above comment and then saw your response Duck. Thank you.
          I’ll have to reply tomorrow: no more neurons.
          I’m weak, dumb and lazy. Especially tonight. gnight.

          • Duck says:

            ‘…I mean, disengage as much as possible from society, create what you want to see created and vote with your money…”

            Truth… all good ideas.
            They’ve been trying to tie people into the system so that survival depends on pleasing the boss or not upsetting the service providers since they invented prussian education

          • Duck says:

            ‘…Sort of comes down to the fact that if you think you are but an amoral collection of matter then you are.
            And if you think you are a human being striving to have compassion, empathy, morals and the very human notion of “goodness”, then you are….’
            FUZZY thinking, no, the underlying instinct that leads humans to selfish behavior is still there….we just are never called to use it in the west.
            No one in the west needs to kill their neighbor for a loaf of bread… however, when it comes to it instinct WILL let them do it if they are hungry and scared…. no amount of ‘thinking’ or philosophizing it away will stop instinct (at least for 99% of humans), only training the will to conform to an outside principle (like religion) will ever be effective for the vast majority of humans to over come their instinctive animal brutality when push comes to shove- or even to stop appetite from over coming any moral system that is smaller then themselves.
            Imagine your average person after not eating for 5 or 6 days or when their baby is hungry… and think what they might do despite any idealized philosophical system of ethics
            You cant just THINK yourself better, you must BELIEVE in being better

            • manbearpig says:

              Well, at any rate, to mitigate animal behavior you need to first want to and then it becomes degrees of thinking, believing, dedication, will and pride to succeed..with some peoples’ thinking more reliable than others’ belief or faith… but not sure what I as a child would prefer to have as a parent if push came to shove; a parent who believed they absolutely couldn’t resort to murder to save me or who would…? Guess I’ll sleep on that.

      • usher says:

        The Bible does not teach that government is “established by God” and this is a horrible translations that has led millions to their deaths under the guise of “obedience to God”. The original language is clearly talking about church authority and various verses in the same books talk about the hierarchy of leadership in the church.

        Hosea 8:4 should be enough to put that myth to bed:
        “They have set up kings, but not by Me; they have made princes, and I knew it not.”

        Oddly it seems like the Apostles didn’t obey government very well when you read about them. (Acts 5:29 “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”)

        Finally we have the words of the Apostles who wrote their letters to those still use to follow law and commandments trying to free them from that bondage which is why we see so much focus on freedom from law.
        Acts 21:25 tells us what they laws they had for gentile believers “And as to the Gentiles who believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.”

        • Duck says:


          ‘..The Bible does not teach that government is “established by God”..”
          Yes, it actually does EVEN if you are right (as I have suspected at times)
          “….talking about church authority….”
          1 Peter 2:13
          Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme,

          Luke 20:25
          He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

          1 Corinthians 11:3
          But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

          Titus 3:1-2
          Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.

          Hosea 8:4 should be enough to put that myth to bed:
          “They have set up kings, but not by Me; they have made princes, and I knew it not.”

          Dan 2:21 He changes times and seasons; he deposes kings and raises up others. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning.

          Dan 5:18As for you, O king, the Most High God gave your father Nebuchadnezzar sovereignty and greatness, glory and honor.

          “…Apostles didn’t obey government very well…..”We ought to obey God rather than men.”)

          Indeed…when they go vs GODS law, Like Dan vs the Lions or Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego

          “…. Apostles who wrote their letters to those still use to follow law …”
          THESE were religious laws of JEWS, not secular laws- there was no secular law that demanded circumcision, however, there was a RELIGIOUS one. Like wise with eating pork and jewish Religious laws.

          Its amazing that I am forced to look like I’m defending government, one of my least favorite things, but the rejection of authority JUST because it ‘is’ authority is NON biblical. I am not going to tell people how the should act or not act but the text is pretty clear

          • Duck please read carefully the verses you quoted. They call the follower of the Lord to submit but there is no call to be part of or establish a state, such as by voting.

            You are correct in the examples of submitting to the higher authority, God rather than man.

            Where I disagree with usher is his statement “hierarchy of leadership in the church”. The word “church” is, using usher’s words which I agree with, a “horrible translation”. It comes from “ekklēsia” which is the called out ones or “assembly” or “congregation”. King James in his instructions to the translation committee, specifically commanded that the word “ekklēsia” be translated as “church”. Translate “church” using the primary English meaning back to Greek and you do not get “ekklēsia”.

            Therefore my refrain: the Bible is true and the institutional church is a fraud. The only institution the Lord institutes is the family.

            • Duck says:

              ‘…They call the follower of the Lord to submit but there is no call to be part of or establish a state….’
              TRUTH, however, there is no call to flee to the wilderness in peacetime. I am NOT saying you SHOULD vote (often its a waste of time) but there is no prohibition on it.
              I am opposed to giving scriptural weight to ideas that are not VERY CLEARLY stated as commands- even if they are good ideas worth following giving them scriptural weight when beyond the text is unwise.
              Thats kinda hoe anabaptism started and it gave birth to all kinds of really out there movements- some VERY clearly bad.

              1 Corinthians 5:9I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. 10I was not including the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But….

              Living at peace ‘as far as’ it is down to US might involve taking part in politics, certainly some early Christians were slave owners and business owners and soldiers (first non-jew baptized) who are not recorded as ‘dropping out’ of society and rejecting these roles.

              ‘… institutional church is a fraud….’
              Not so!
              While there is some debate as to what/who “THE” church is that it was established and governed is NOT in doubt. After the scattering it organized into local groups that were mostly self governing but who clearly looked to higher leadership for guidance at least sometimes. Clearly that IS a clearly sanctioned institution, and if God establishes kings and rulers and such then government is also biblically sanctioned.
              Now… thats not to say that some churches have not gone… a.. uhm.. ‘little bit’ off track and might reasonably be considered no longer part of the real church

              • When you take 1Sa 8:7 and Exo 20:3 together that seems like a pretty strong prohibition on voting, which is asking for a king or ruler. Considering Mat 20:25, I think the Anabaptists generally have this right.

                The stated reasoning used on 1Co5 might be applied as there is a whorehouse down the street, so I might as well use their services to live at peace with them. There is a flaw in the reasoning here isn’t there?

                Just as there is no verse showing a command of the Lord to establish a state, there is no verse were there is a command to establish the institutional church. Rather there is strong condemnation, such as Matthew 23. Four times Paul greets churches or assemblies and in all cases they meet at homes, not institutions.

            • Duck says:

              ‘… voting, which is asking for a king or ruler..’
              I thought we put that to bed, not a ruler just a LEADER

              ‘..The stated reasoning used on 1Co5 might be applied as there is a whorehouse down the street, so I might as well use their services to live at peace with them. There is a flaw in the reasoning here isn’t there?….’
              Yes, since you be engaging in sexual immorality…unless you got them to do your clothes mending in which case you would be OK
              Or do YOU think God wants you to attack them???????

              ‘…. institutional church. Rather there is strong condemnation, such as Matthew 23…’
              That is a condemnation of teaching things that are not true…hypocrites and simoniacs
              Compare with
              Matt 16
              Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.
              Also with the great commandment and the acts of the early church which WAS to organize.

              Now… if you mean ‘institutional’ in the sense of having a cardinal , patriarch, a pope or whatever you might be making an argument. Correct church organizational structure IS laid out in the bible

              ‘…Four times Paul greets churches or assemblies and in all cases they meet at homes, not institutions…’
              The church IS the institution, and AFAIK there is zero proscription of holding assembly in a field or a house or a cathedral. Going beyond what is writian is unwise and is exactly what is condemned at Matt 23- making HUMAN ideas into Gods commands which is expressly forbidden and warned against

              • If the issue is put to bed then why are we on opposites on the foundation of the voting question? Again there is a difference between a ruler (“archōn”) or king (“basileus”) and a leader (“archē” in context) which is someone who goes before as an example but does not rule. Rulers and kings are placed over you and when you vote for one (1Sam8) you are rejecting the Lord. This is simple, and consistent with the point of James’ video. A leader, like Gideon sets the model (Jdg 7:17), but refuses to rule (Jdg 8:23).

                Agreed that Mat23 describes hypocrites, which I contend is inherent when your allegiance is the institution. But you are making the same mistake as the Roman Catholic Church with Mat16 as Jesus will build His “assembly” or “called out ones”, but not an institutional church. That again is not the meaning of “ekklēsia”.

                The great commandment is to make disciples, not form an institution. It is reading it to find a command to organize.

                The first English definition of “church” is the institution. But the third of “church” and only definition of the Greek “ekklēsia” is the people. I agree, we should not go beyond what it written. The “ekklēsia” is the people; the church is a fraud.

              • Duck, may I also add that I appreciate the rational discourse with you.

            • Duck says:

              ‘..Duck, may I also add that I appreciate the rational discourse with you….”
              And I with you, though I think were coming to and end point. I has been interesting though and made me look things up again.

              “…If the issue is put to bed then why are we on opposites on the foundation of the voting question?…’
              Because we’re having a different understanding of what elections are- by my understating elections do not invest any winner with kingly power.

              ‘…which I contend is inherent when your allegiance is the institution…’
              The allegiance should NOT be to the organization, the organization exists to facilitate church functions
              The assembly of believers, the Church, is just a group of people whos worship and have been organized under leadership- biblically speaking Elders and their helpers decons. (the actual name used is not important)

              “… Jesus will build His “assembly” or “called out ones”, but not an institutional church….’
              We are not using the same meaning for institutional- it is an ‘institution’ in that its set up under biblical authority. It is meant to exist as a group of people with a structure.

              ‘…The great commandment is to make disciples, not form an institution. It is reading it to find a command to organize…’
              True, but after the arrival of the Holy Spirit people DID organize and then after scattering they formed organized groups in their cities- the Book of Acts ad the letters describe that structure as much as is needed.

              ‘…and only definition of the Greek “ekklēsia” is the people. I agree, we should not go beyond what it written. The “ekklēsia” is the people;..”
              True, but the Apostles organized and the early church organized so clearly some form of organization was needed and sanctioned

              • generalbottlewasher says:

                Oh no your not done yet. The real ruler of the material world, who is the anarchist foile to mans ego, Woman. Why has modern religion vilified her so?


              • But voting does invest power, and as James wisely points out, that power is not only in that person but subsequent persons who hold that office. Voting acknowledges the office exists and empowers it.

                That power is a power of authority to reign or rule. A king or ruler, by definition is the person with that power. Read 1Sam8 and those are the words used. Just because we use the terms president, governor or mayor, we are referring to a ruler or “basileuō”.

                Elders, or “presbuteros” are by definition a person who is older. To us the terms elder and deacon as offices in the institutional church can be shown to be a fallacy used to support the concept of the institution. This is another long rabbit trail that we could get into.

                The “church” as an institution has been built up long after the time of the New Testament writing, not by the Apostles. There is not a command or clear example of any institutional church in the text. We are commanded when we gather to do so in decency and in order, but in no case is there man made authority or hierarchy.

                It wasn’t the Holy Spirit doing the organization of the institutional church, it was men who were often like those described in Matthew 23.

                It is like the paradox that we are called to teach, but not to be called teacher, as we have one teacher, Christ. We are called as brothers, and there is no hierarchy, except within the family, ever commanded. Again that is still consistent that we must submit to state authorities when they are in place.

                Generalbottlewasher, as previously stated “Have you done some study on how often the Bible condemns religion?”

    • pearl says:

      Last year, I recalled a similar verse, how trusting in man, horses and chariots is misguided. In fact, having walked away from institutional religion altogether, I see things much differently now. I was always annoyed by the marketing and merchandise surrounding the question “what would Jesus do?”, but applied here, it’s laughable to imagine Him ever voting given that He clashed with those “vipers” and “foxes” on a daily basis. So why on earth would I?

      • Perhaps you are referring to one of the two below:

        Psa 20:7 Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.

        Isa 31:1 Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD!

        Note that our trust is to be in the Lord, not man.

        However, you also mention institutional religion. I agree it is an institution defined by man not the Lord. But I will also contend that the Bible is true and the institutional church is a fraud. I will do so from the Bible and welcome any serious dialog or even public debate with anyone who shares the foundation that the Bible is true. Any takers?

        • pearl says:

          “But I will also contend that the Bible is true…”

          It’s interesting how so many of us contend that the bible is our final authority and yet are unable to agree what so much of it means. I’ve had my fill of scripture-stacking debates; nothing good has ever come of them. So, no thanks.

          • generalbottlewasher says:

            Pearl you show wisdom here. Plato had a lot to say on the subject. Learned men knew centuries before him how to manipulate the truth in mens hearts with sophistry and politics of the head. Our founding fathers were educated aristocrats and new of the manipulations of states, monarchs and Pharaohs and Rome . The Mycenaean council was political , King James was political and Francis Bacon the great profidios translator and Lawyer compiled a political book much like the Scribes Class that ruled Egypt did with the book of the dead. The hand of man has created nothing perfect. What we hear in our heart governs what we hear in the head is and always has been easily fooled. In My Humble Opinion.
            This is some of what Plato had to say, translated and past down through second parties.


            • pearl says:

              Interesting link, GBW, thanks. A few years ago I listened to a series of lectures on the history of thought leading up to Plato with emphasis on church history via Augustine, Luther and Calvin. Hours and hours of fascinating stuff, most of it now lost in a hazy fog, but his concept of the usefulness of a Noble Lie was a wake-up call. Nothing new under the sun, eh!

              • generalbottlewasher says:

                This is where I must channel the Inner MAN-BEAR-PIG, You are an Illustrious Pearl!

                Im having a dopimine overdose. Gotta stop.

              • pearl says:

                My goodness, thank you! You’ve bestowed on me a tremendous albeit undeserved compliment.

                I feel I must clarify what I am calling the noble lie: it’s the orthodoxy of any institutional religion. As I’ve mentioned numerous times, my experience comes from the Protestant branch, as penned by neo-platonists Luther, Calvin and other “Divines” (aka philosopher kings) to keep the guilty masses cloaked in perpetual shame and condemnation which has the amazing ability to produce unquestioning obedience. Just sayin’.

              • manbearpig says:

                christmas repeat:



                who outdrew ya?

              • pearl says:

                Perfect choice of a song there, mbp! And what an incredible talent!

              • pearl says:

                But they didn’t outdraw me, ’cause I still believe in love:


              • manbearpig says:

                this transatlantic time gap thing can be really annoying…

                But at least I had your warm, relaxing, thought-provoking song to wake up to on this Saturday morning on the first day of February of a new decade… (always irrationally joyful when January’s behind me)

                thanks dear Pearl…

              • manbearpig says:

                “…the noble lie…to keep the guilty masses cloaked in perpetual shame and condemnation which has the amazing ability to produce unquestioning obedience…”

                I’d wanted to mention (in broken-record mode) that the Climate Orthodoxy has just that effect! Especially as it’s been totally, inextricably conflated with environmental concerns!

                And it works amazingly well! I’d venture to say the Majority of my students, be they of the business or university bent, really DO feel SUPER GUILTY about all the pollution they represent as a person! They feel like ambiant pollution and they’re happy to have the chance to atone for it!

                Almost more efficient than even Original Sin!

                Now gotta go feed the neighbor’s cat who must be starving… at least for attention…

              • pearl says:

                Ah, February! So it is! Signs of spring are here, the purple martins are trickling into the southern states.

                And yes, the climate cult: same philosophy, different priesthood.

            • manbearpig says:

              Easter repeat:


              not a Bob Dylan fan but somehow his face replaced Don Mclean’s…

    • I made a comment listed above as 01/29/2020 at 11:06 pm. Then I read the comments that have come in the following days and was reminded of the article: “Study: 70% of Facebook users only read the headline of science stories before commenting” ( Do you see the connection?

      The video from James Corbett unambiguously points to the foolishness of voting and that doing so gives power to the system. This I wholeheartedly agree with. It must be made clear in peoples minds when we hear “freedom AND democracy”, they are opposites as the choice is freedom OR democracy. With democracy, which is what voting is, there is inherently a minority who does not get there way and therefore they are not free.

      My point was to encourage the Christian, as in those that follow the Bible’s definition and not the institution’s, that they have reason, or even more a command not to vote. But the responses went on tangents.

      So may I suggest to those clear thinking people that they should use the scientific method for this question. Some will propose the Big Bang as their reference, but that is not a testable theory and with a vast array of conflicting evidence, let alone Ezekiel 20:32 and Revelation 9:20. But in reality their reference is “scientists” not “science”.

      Then there is the “religion” sentiment. Have you done some study on how often the Bible condemns religion?

      But use the scientific method to validate the proposal stated by the Bible. Ideas such as the universe is not self-existing but created, and not only that, sustained by God alone. Bring up these questions, the best most do is shoot the messenger.

      The bottom line is I will contend that those who use the Bible as their reference should not vote ever, as putting authority in a man made institution is a rejection of the Lord. If you do share the reference, then from the reference can you show me were I am wrong? If you do not, ignore this as I am not imposing on anyone.

      • Duck says:

        “…he bottom line is I will contend that those who use the Bible as their reference should not vote ever, as putting authority in a man made institution is a rejection of the Lord.,,’
        You are free to do what you wish but I think you are misreading the text.
        That said If I’m not gonna convince you and your not gonna convince me… 🙂
        Be happy and lucky!

  5. zyxzevn says:

    For people that believe in voting:

    Lee Camp clearly likes Bernie’s plans, but he also can clearly
    list the major problems that Bernie has
    (summarized the points)

    Vote for the lesser of two evils?

    Not breaking any laws?

  6. flammable says:

    I think the belief that no one should vote or voting is dangerous still wrong. Because we are still believing in the voting propaganda but on the other extreme side.

    Really voting does not give power. It is trust that gives power. Even if you vote you don’t have to adhere to giving away your rights to the government for the remainder of 2 to 4 years.

    Voting is merely a contract giving permission to the government to act on your behalf. Like every contract we can break it as long as we accept the penalties for leaving. Luckily a vote has no penalty.

    The voters have always met their end of the contract but politicians have violated the contract in so many ways. From vote rigging, continuing wars, taking away more rights, theft, endangering public health and safety, lack of transparency.

    It does not matter how many votes a candidate has. We don’t have to listen to what they say if we don’t trust them or the voting system. And of course if we don’t vote they have no permission from us. Either way voters and non-voters can come to an agreement to stop feeding the corrupt system

    • wylie1 says:

      Agree and well said. Far below here, I gave a real example of small time water system voting. Not sure there is another way to do it.

      Solve trust issue?: Very specific govt office/job holder contract citing their Extremely Limited Authority and enabling easy removal for lack of performance, breech, lying, etc. to include all, even the Supreme Court positions.

  7. david.e1 says:

    James, I mostly agree with your (and Larken Rose’s) opinions, but disengaging from politics completely won’t accomplish anything. We are always going to have a government of some sort. It is in the human DNA. Most people need to worship or idolize or cheer for some celebrity or deity or politician or king/queen or sports team. Even if we could somehow get rid of government entirely, it would take about 37 milliseconds before some other government or army or mafia moved in to fill the vacuum. As the famous quote says – Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.

    So the objective should be to get the smallest government possible, not get rid of government completely. Basically, keep reducing government until society begins to quit functioning, then raise it back up just slightly above that point and keep it there.

    There is nothing inherently wrong in theory with voting for some political positions. Now it is true that the elections in the U.S. are a sham, both because of the fact that we are usually limited to choosing the lesser of two evils, and because our first-past-the-post method is ineffective (many other types of voting such as Ranked Choice Voting are better), and because of the fact that there is a lot of outright election fraud, but that doesn’t mean voting is inherently evil or ineffective. However, since we are probably never going to be able to fix these problems (unless and until we have a revolution, and probably not even then), the best thing to do to protest the system is to vote for a third party candidate. Voting for a third party candidate is more effective than not voting at all, because it tells the system that you don’t like either of the false left/right options they gave you. If you don’t vote at all, that tells the system that you don’t care at all who gets elected. And not voting certainly doesn’t delegitimize the system in the view of the establishment. Even if only 5% of the population voted, that would be good enough for them. The ultimate irony here is that voting for a third party candidate is actually the most effective vote a person can make, in direct contradiction to the often repeated mantra of the sheeple that “I can’t vote for a third party candidate because I don’t want to waste my vote”. And if enough people started voting for third party candidates some of them could actually start winning, which would almost certainly be an improvement over our current system.

    • Octium says:

      No, that simply doesn’t work. If a minor third party gets in they either remain independent and achieve nothing or at best they might get to ask some embarrassing questions like Cynthia McKinney did, however she eventually got pushed out of politics and became an anarchist. More likely they will horse trade with the slightly more popular parties and form a compromised alliance. (The worst of both worlds)

      Alternatively the third party might grow in popularity other the years, but to do so they have to abandon unpopular non mainstream ideas to chase after political donations and support.

      The problem isn’t with the candidates, the problem is with the game itself. It’s like joining a baseball club and insisting on playing with a cricket bat!

      And yes, voting is evil if expect other people to obey the laws your candidate passes or be punished. (those rules are part of the game) If you don’t expect others to obey the laws that are made, then what is the point of it all?

      • david.e1 says:

        I didn’t say that voting for a third party would “work”. I said that it is a more effective way of protesting the system than simply not voting at all. Go back and read my comment again. Pay attention this time.

  8. Drazen says:

    Voting for “Leaders” is Psychological Acquiescence.
    It is abdicating responsibility for Ones own life while creating the illusion of power.

  9. Libertydan says:

    The Original “Limited” United States Government did not include a National Popular Vote. It was the Legislatures of the Free and Independent States that chose their two U.S. Senators, and it was these Senators (who actually did represent their State) that determined who would serve as President and Vice President. The Man with the most Senate Votes was made President, and man with the second most Senate Votes was made Vice President.
    In the beginning, the Federal Government was delegated very few powers which were limited to those things that were determined to protect all of the States from foreign aggression. The idea that we must stand together or we will be hanged alone, was an inspiring one. (All that changed as the power of the money supply was handed over to World Bankers.)
    One must Registrar to Vote in a National Election. That is, Registrar as a “Citizen of the United States” (whatever that is). In the beginning we had people that voluntarily became Citizens of one of the States. National Citizenship, marked the beginning of the U.S. Empire, and it’s “Citizens” are it’s subjects.
    Thus, Voting in a National Election, requires that one Register as a “Citizen” of the Empire. In order to have any real effect masses of people need to reject their “Citizenship” in the Empire. Note that the United States Government and the Federal Income Tax only applies to it’s Citizens.
    Therefore non-Citizens need not pay tribute to it.

    • Duck says:

      ‘..Note that the United States Government and the Federal Income Tax only applies to it’s Citizens. Therefore non-Citizens need not pay tribute to it…’

      vote or dont vote… but they ARE gonna rob you for taxes eitherway.
      Taxes always make me think of a guy coming over and taking a bite of the burger you just bought… which makes tax rebates kinda a gross image.

    • weilunion says:

      The US government was not founded on limitation and has never been limited. From the inception it has been imperialist.

      The founders, whoever they were, loved government for it was for the rich, by the rich and for men and by men. Not to mention white men.

      It is incorrect to think the US was founded on purity and just got lost.

  10. HomeRemedySupply says:

    I’m laughing and slapping the desk as I watch this.
    A fantastic presentation of “the most important thing I can do”!

  11. dregeye says:

    As a self-emancipated former fundamentalist Christian preacher/pastor/evangelist, I am tempted to address specifics in the religious dogma being pathetically displayed here in many comments, but will simply say,
    IF YOU personally are NOT the “God” you refer to, then you have already forfeited your unique authentic “power” for your ‘self’ to the illegitimate dominion ideologies of others, and thereby have abandoned access to perceptions that might manifest wisdom.
    Embracing wholeness individually facilitates mutually-enhancing anarchic behavior while religion mandates submission to imaginary forces, disregarding reality.

    • Dregeye, you are describing yourself as one who fits 1Jn 2:19 “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” The appropriate term is apostate, which is not an offensive term but a statement of fact that you have turned from the faith.

      It seems like you were very much a part of an institution, which is different from being free as described in Gal 5:1 which the previous chapters show it is being set free from institutional religion. Obviously I would suggest you threw the baby out with the bathwater in that it is the Lord Jesus who sets you free, not individualism.

      As I described above, I will contend that the Bible is true and the institutional church is a fraud. I will do so from the Bible and welcome any serious dialog or even public debate with anyone who shares the foundation that the Bible is true. I’m guessing we don’t share the foundation, but I am also willing to rationally examine from internal and external evidence that the Bible is true.

      • dregeye says:

        Distinctivist, your initial inclination to invent ‘us & them’ epitomises my assertions concerning religion.

      • dregeye says:

        The “us & them” perspective is an essential step to personally validating subjection to other’s authority projection upon us, be it “diety” or mortal.
        Now the ‘subject’ is ready to be encouraged to “VOTE!” in a vain attempt to influence the self-imposed “God” to which we “subject” ourselves.

    • Duck says:

      “..IF YOU personally are NOT the “God” you refer to, then you have already forfeited your unique authentic “power” for your ‘self’ …”
      If YOU think you are god then you are basically putting yourself in the position of the disgusting freaks that Mr Corbett reports on- an Epstein, Rockefeller or Soros is the company you keep with that opinion.
      You are no doubt small potatoes vs them in power, but would be ‘morally’ free of constraint to act in the way they do if able to. I am not saying you WISH too, just that there is no constraint other then one you artificially set up yourself and can remove at will
      Aside from making a person Amoral (since a person who sets themselves up as ‘god’ cant have a morality held to measure by anyone outside themselves) this idea is basically the kind of Gnostic luciferianism that is behind Trans humanism, Technocracy and the other Illuminist ideas being nurtured today.
      The funniest thing is that without the idea of an external source of morality nothing is forbidden and regular folks are left ideologically helpless vs “….the illegitimate dominion ideologies of others…’

      • dregeye says:

        Sorry “Duck”, I ought to have stated that, for me,
        I AM “God” for me, me alone.
        YOU are “God” for you, you alone.
        And I empower every individual being with that level of empowerment (in the ‘reality’ I create and inhabit).
        All power for self.
        No power-over others.
        Coersion is violence, and I oppose violence.
        btw, have you noticed that, although religion is by no means “free” “morally” it is certainly used to “morally” JUSTIFY imaginary-division and very real relentless VIOLENCE.
        Have you ever heard the concept of treating others as one wants to be treated one’s self?
        I came by it by experience, not religion.

        • Duck says:

          Please dont take this a a personal attack, its not but

          “….I AM “God” for me, me alone.
          YOU are “God” for you, you alone……’

          You and I are not in supernatural control of the physical world… we are forced to interact with it and with other people. We may compete for resources and trade goods or services. This means that if you and I have different desires one of us may be forced to take a non ideal result in the physical world

          “…And I empower every individual being with that level of empowerment..’
          You may choose to treat people in that way, but there is nothing forcing you to do so. There is nothing but your CHOICE standing between you acting as a kind giver or as a ruthless rapist.
          Your arbitrary choice is a poor barrier to appetite and need- see what you would do for a meal after week hungry- what you would do to others.

          ‘… (in the ‘reality’ I create and inhabit)…’
          You do not live in a reality you create, you live in the physical world outside your control. This kind of thinking is flat out gnosticism for the masses- the idea of personal apotheosis is utter BS and one followed by bad people.

          “…I oppose violence…’
          Me too, but if only I oppose it then I CAN change my opinion when it suits me… if GOD opposes violence then its a principle that I CANNOT change, just ignore or break with.

          “… “morally” JUSTIFY imaginary…”
          Division is in no way imaginary, individuals have different values, needs, and skills. We are not one mind or body- thats , again, Gnostic thinking being mainstreamed.

          “…very real relentless VIOLENCE…” HUmans without religion are quite good at that too. Plenty of atheist serial killers and secret policeman for every Spanish Inquisitor…. or like slavery- almost all the world HAD slavery or servitude of some kind. The Greeks thought it was the natural way of the world, and they were right. Only the UNnatural, supernatural thinking of religion is sufficient to force people to make hard choices that don’t benefit them and be against slavery, or do something else that may hurt them in the physical world for a value that is unchangeable and outside themselvs.
          The modern drive to discard religion grows from a desire to be unconstrained by morality- it will end badly

          • generalbottlewasher says:

            Duck, I can tell you from experience that you too can learn from a closer examination of the work and history of Mary Baker Eddy who founded Christian Science. Im the poorest of practitioners but can say with certainty your absolutism on matter is unfounded and misunderstood. That’s all I can say for its not easily proselytized. I wish you the very best too.
            P.S. the other morning I wrote a comment on how this topic has a million ways to go existential and was wondering if that was James philosophizing point of direction. I erased it before time ran out. Now I put it to James , ” this is like a religion , like the pilgrims first year in the new land. We can’t set on the sidelines and make it work. Its going to rock you down to your very core of existence. Its a bit uncomfortable but worth it. We are spiritual not physical at our core.

            • Duck says:

              Hi, thanks for the suggestion- I wikipedia’d her. This isnt really the place to discuss religion, (I fear I got a little carried away earlier) but I would caution you to consider that Christian science looks very like the whole ‘New Age” movement and, like it, teaches what look like Gnostic religious teachings.
              This is not the place to go into why I think those are wrong,(I’m not much of a theologian anyway) but the lineage of those ideas and the forces that have caused them to flourish are directly related to the kind of people Mr Corbett reports on. Their ideas produce bitter fruit.
              A book I’m in right now is a pretty good guide, ‘Occult Theocrasy’ by Edith Starr Miller. Here is the internet archive version (not compared to my paper version)
              Constance Cumby is also a pretty good researcher, but from a religious rather then historical perspective. You can hear her talk on Youtube.
              Best wishes and thanks again

              • generalbottlewasher says:

                Thanks Duck I’ ll check it out. I remember a student adviser I had who told me ” until you experience a white hot religious experience 1st hand you remain sceptical. Than after doing so you question your lying eyes for the rest of your existence”
                I ask you how do we find release from the sceptical trap.? Im no philosopher. I wish you knew…

            • Duck says:

              ‘..I ask you how do we find release from the sceptical trap.?..’
              Its just a choice.
              If you believe in God you see evidence of it, if you don’t you see evidence of the opposite. I know that people who do have faith tend to have better life outcomes, because thinking what you do matters eternally makes a huge difference from the deconstructed nihilism that atheism always breeds in a society.
              I’ll choose life over that, even if I was objectively wrong which I don’t think I am

          • dregeye says:

            “You and I are not in supernatural control of the physical world…”
            Agreed. My assertion on this is that no conscious individual entity is “in supernatural control…”
            You write, “This means that if … one of us may … ”
            IF and MAY only lead to meaningless ambiguous projections.
            “There is nothing but your CHOICE …”
            Yes, so why aren’t you commending me on my CHOICE to be the “kind giver” and not the “ruthless rapist”? Rape is quite coercive. I oppose coercion.
            You think my “arbitrary choice is a poor barrier” yet it is all that any of us really have.
            Your own “beliefs” are exactly that. YOUR CHOICE that brings with it whatever it is that you are deeming to be more valid than what I “empower” you with in my terminology. We all make a succession of CHOICES every instant of every day.
            You CHOOSE to believe that religion holds the monopoly on morality while I CHOOSE to believe that you make the CHOICE to believe that your morality is sourced externally, and thus CHOOSE to shape your interactions according to your CHOICE to believe that.
            I just CHOOSE to bypass all that and embrace my personal wholeness, and simultaneously (treating you as I want you to treat me) acknowledging YOUR CHOICE to believe that you need to look outside your ‘self’ to find morality (while my ‘belief’ is that the morality you ‘find’ is the result of YOUR CHOICE, just like mine.)

          • dregeye says:

            Try to understand that your perception of “reality” is unique to you and you alone. No one else sees life as you do. Your concept of God and Jesus is unique to you alone. The God that loves you loves you like only the God that you imagine loves you, and everyone else that ‘believes’ in a God that loves them has each their own unique perception of God that loves them in the unique way that each individual perceives what it means to be ‘loved by God’ in the way that satisfies their desire for a God that loves them.
            I CHOOSE to embrace wholeness, in that ‘all is’ and ‘all are’ whole, complete and in balance in the natural world. I also believe that it is the relentless attempts to “fix” what is not “broken” that results in the projected imbalance, coersion, violence and suffering that is manifest in the current Earth experience.
            You express a great deal of fear of humanity unrestrained by religion.
            I have experienced the vile projections of religious attempts to intimidate and slander the essence of MY BEING. A portion of which I freely shared with this community in these comments. You chose “Please dont take this as a personal attack, its not but” to preface your demeaning and unfounded assessment of all of humanity by way of me as example.
            Having identified my beliefs as ‘bullshit’ and my essence as “bad people” makes it clear that your “not personal” premise is what is bullshit here.
            Thank you for expressing your limited capacity for understanding so that I may embrace the freedom to ignore your religious projections in all their useless vile derogotory attempts to convey the “morality” of your “God” that YOU CHOOSE (and create, yes, create) FOR YOURSELF everyday…
            Without word-language to create the illusion of division, our body-language (helping each other in tasks) could result in meeting mutually existenial needs. Bigotry sucks.

            • Duck says:

              ‘…You think my “arbitrary choice is a poor barrier” yet it is all that any of us really have…’
              No, its not. If you believe that I would say it unlikely that you were ever really convinced of your faith.
              ‘..Try to understand that your perception of “reality” is unique to you and you alone..’
              Perception may or may not be correct but reality exists aside from my perceptions…The rejection of objective reality is basically insanity and cuts each of its sufferers off from everyone else, creating the very ‘…illusion of division…’ you appear worried about. Its a very useful tool for those who want to create a weak population, each unit conscerned with their own gratification and needs,
              “…You express a great deal of fear of humanity unrestrained by religion….’
              I have seen some of what humanity unrestrained by morality is capable of and do not wish to see more of it. Only our comfortable,spoilt lives of luxury in the west make it possible for such stupid ideas as ‘everyone is nice by nature’ to exist. Pigs in the trough wont fight when there food…as soon as scarcity appears nature returns.
              ‘…Without word-language to create the illusion of division, our body-language (helping each other in tasks) could result in meeting mutually existenial needs…’
              Watch chimps in nature…they do not need to talk in order to kill each other and make war

              • manbearpig says:

                “…I have seen some of what humanity unrestrained by morality is capable of and do not wish to see more of it. Only our comfortable,spoilt lives of luxury in the west make it possible for such stupid ideas as ‘everyone is nice by nature’ to exist. Pigs in the trough wont fight when there food…as soon as scarcity appears nature returns…”

                Sort of comes down to the fact that if you think you are but an amoral collection of matter then you are.

                And if you think you are a human being striving to have compassion, empathy, morals and the very human notion of “goodness”, then you are.

                But like France’s system providing health care and retirement payments for its population can’t possibly compete economically with countries offering considerably fewer advantages for their populations

                scrupulous humans cannot compete with amoral collections of matter donning human form for influence or survival.

                so France is eroding its statist benevolence and humans seem to be increasingly resembling amoral collections of matter with wires or twigs hanging out of their auditory organs.

                Actually some bear a striking resemblence to Shrek with his funny ears…

            • weilunion says:

              Appeals to supernaturalism are abound today as they were doing the early Greek mythology movement and throughout history.

              Any appeals to supernaturalism are immoral. Why? For they require we abandon reasoning in favor of belief and what has been done in the name of supernaturalism, be it Gods or rabbit feet is historically quite obvious.

              I would defer to George Carlin for more on religion.

              There is no such thing as objectivity. We do not stand outside of our history and see it as an object.

              The key to critical thought is to understand ALL points of view are biased for what they believe, be it conscious or unconscious.

              The issue is to find the bias in both ones’ own thinking and others and put them under the critical microscope of thought.

              Understanding this is essential for critical thinking and analysis.

              • Duck says:

                ‘…There is no such thing as objectivity. We do not stand outside of our history and see it as an object…’
                No, but things have asn OBJECTIVE TRUTH that stands OUTSIDE of us and our understanding- I may be wrong about what happened in history but its insane to imagine that there is no objective reality as to what DID happen.

                It would be like saying that there is no such thing as the scientific method just because its impossible for a scientist to TOTALLY ignore his own biases and is ACTUALLY impossible for him to ignore how past experience and knowledge shape his perception

                ‘…The key to critical thought is to understand ALL points of view are biased for what they believe, be it conscious or unconscious….’
                True- but without a belief that a)Truth exists and b) I can know it nothing would be knowable and everything subjective and fuzzy and imaginary

                “…Any appeals to supernaturalism are immoral. Why? For they require we abandon reasoning in favor of belief and what has been done in the name of supernaturalism….’
                How would you define ‘MORALITY” within a system that is self contained… I’ll link to the CS Lewis video but basically every idea of what is “moral” must be based on an idea that precedes it- and those ideas turn out to at some point be axiomatic- “because I feel it so”, or “Because its TRUE’. ONLY a supernatural source of morality can actually make a claim to being objectivly true (EVEN if it is NOT true … if there is no outside source there is no objective morality and SUBJECTIVE morality is ultimately fatal to people and civilizations)
                Chapter 2 Lewis doodle ‘the abolition of man’

                You should hear the earlier chapter ‘men without chests AND the next one ‘abolition of man’ which predict the Tecnocratic destruction of humanity

  12. weilunion says:

    Anarchist, Emma Goldman,before she was deported by the US corporate class and their deep state said:

    “if voting could change anything it would be illegal.”

    It almost is and she was right.

    • Duck says:

      I dont know much about her… but it looks as if her ideas were unable to stand vs Bolshevik organized violence. I read she was an early denouncer of the USSR.

      Funny thing is the Bolshevik revolution was bankrolled by Wall street bankers and industrialists- similar to how they helped Hitler rise. The corporate class playing both sides at the same time.

      • weilunion says:

        “but it looks as if her ideas were unable to stand vs Bolshevik organized violence. I read she was an early denouncer of the USSR.”

        Emma Goldman moved to the USSR, or was deported there better said. She never denounced the Soviet Union.

        Many early radicals in American history who were not jailed by the ruling class or murdered moved to the Soviet Union.

        Not sure what you mean when you say “her ideas were unable to stand”.

        You should learn about her life and the early life of struggle in the US. Especially the struggle of the industrial working class and the anarchist and socialist movements in the US.

        You might like the book Dynamite, by Luis Adamic.

        As to corporations backing Russia and the Nazis, sure. Capitalism is a system that puts profits before people so this makes perfect sense.

        • Duck says:

          Emma Goldman according to bastion of truthiness Wikipedia wrote
          ‘My Disillusionment in Russia’ criticizing the Bolsheviks after becoming unhappy with the Bolshevik state- being essentially anti-statist. She was I read unhappy with the repression and centralization of bolshevik and esp unhappy after the destruction of the Sailors at Kronstat (who had been the biggest force supporting the 2nd (bolshevik) revolution and who had also become unhappy with the reality of Bolshevism vs the ideals espoused)

          When I say her ideas were unable to stand I mean that (according to wikipedia…not my own research) she wrote that she would never work happily within a state because she was against the state. She was unhappy that the bolsheviks regarded freedom of speech as a petty middle class conceit and were generally not what she stood for- again according to wikipedia not my own reading

          • weilunion says:

            After Kronstat, all anarchists were unhappy with the USSR. The Kronstat rebellion and the Leep watch factory rebellion were all done against the stifling failure of USSR socialism, which it was not.

            But as you note, Wikpedia is not a real source.

  13. alexandre says:

    I stopped voting about 8 years ago. Friends told me, with a voice full of fear: “But then you can’t travel anymore! You can’t do this or that and you’ll have to pay a fine, oh my god”. One day at the prefecture I asked the guy to check my situation. Well, my elector’s card was cancelled and if I wanted to make it good again I’d have to pay a fine indeed. A 5 dollars fine. Five dollars? For 8 years not voting and a cancelled card? People don’t even know how much the fine is, but they’re scared to disobey from cradle to grave, like … a lot. Of course, in Brazil (a democratic federative republic – many laughs) voting is mandatory, as is the military service, which speaks wonders about the word democracy.

    Speaking of words, reading the incredible biblical tennis match above, with which I would never even dream to interfere, I remembered a Joseph Campbell story. (I’ll be paraphrasing since I don’t remember the exact words).
    He attended a lecture by a rabi once and at the Q&A time he raised his hand and said:
    “I have a problem with a word you used a lot in your talk”.
    “What is that?” – asked the rabi.
    “God.” – replied Campbell.
    The rabi asked if Campbell didn’t know what God means and he replied:
    “I don’t know what you mean by God. You talk of an angry God that hides his face and I just came from India where people experience God every day.”
    The rabi dismissively said: “Do you mean to compare?”

    Indeed, comparative mythology was Campbell’s area. My point is “definition of terms”. Sentences like “…a command of the Lord ” mean one thing to person A and another to person B (and absolutely nothing to person C), so how can one discuss such things without first carefully defining terms, specially over something written so many years ago and translated who knows how many times, by whom, when and how? And then to apply that to … voting? You guys are way ahead of me.

    Anyway, sorry about that.
    As you were.

    • dregeye says:

      alexandre, I agree on “definition of terms”.
      I have added my personal definition of “God” to my part of the exchange above.
      It is very true that word language can inhibit functional communication as I experienced above by an other’s grossly erroneous extrapolation upon my assertion that I AM “God” now clarified as, for me and no one else.

      • alexandre says:

        The most difficult of subjects, but it’s similar to Larken Rose’s system. With the proper procedure one finds out that everyone is a voluntarist etc? Well, the same applies to religiosity. Joseph Campbell and Jung were kind of Larken Roses of the past on the subject, but unfortunately people are much more fundamentalist with religion (or their religiosity) than with politics. When two different names refer to one thing, if people don’t understand that the thing is the same but the names (mere references to the thing) are many, the fights will never end – as they don’t – over the reference, not the substance, which is the same. Over here (at CR) the thing is quite civilized, fortunately, cause at the start I was fearful it was going to descend into a fight, as it always do. Everything is God, I’d say, but imagine what would be necessary for that to be properly understood.

        Otherwise, voting is indeed a waste of time and for me all it took was a Lula in power in 2003 to understand that it really means nothing. A friend once sent me an email: “Hamas has won! Things will change!” Imagine that.

        • dregeye says:

          alexandre, I understand, yet, I hope Lula is recovering, and Glen Greenwald and family are kept safe.
          After avoiding contact with ‘civilization’ for over a decade I returned some years ago and voted in Oregon, USA to mandate GMO labeling. We have vote by mail, possibly as good a ‘system’ as can be had.
          We got the votes needed to pass, but a ‘judge’ threw out thousands of ballots, claiming “signatures did not SUFFICIENTLY match what is on record”. (emphasis added)
          When I became aware that the election law in Oregon has NO ‘signature match’ requirement of any kind, I understood that, regardless of the votes cast, the powers-that-ought-not-be have ways to accomplish their undemocratic ends.
          Then I still got sucked in on “Bernie 2016” wherein he withdrew a full month before the convention, handing HRC all the donations and his support, opting to “suspend the rules” [suspend the delegates’ vote] and nominate her directly.
          It’s possible that has cured me of any trust in ‘civilized’ institutions and/or politicians.

          • alexandre says:

            Interesting. And good for you. Whatever it’s needed, however long it takes.

            I was thinking, reading what has developed into a biblical storm after all, that the word ‘religion’ as often [mis]understood (bearing little resemblance to the original meaning) is applicable to politics in a serious way. “Politics is a religion” is a phrase, but really, by the time it takes for us to understand things like “voting is useless” you can see there’s a religious subject at the bottom. It adheres, as it were, to our innate religiosity, destroyed and left orphan by the organized religions, and so we’re stuck to whatever and wherever projections occur. Religiosity was substituted by, or redirected to politics, TV, sports – now identity, social media etc, so it’s impossible to talk about these things without a fight at the end. Practical subjects should be dealt objectively and without passions, but mention the name “Bolsonaro” over here and see what happens. Faces change, groups separate, the volume goes up, emotions start to threaten everything around. You’ve entered a mythic realm now and nothing is what it seems anymore. If you mention Corinthians (a football team here) it’s the same and when I say I don’t have whats-app, it’s like I farted in the church. Then people say they’re not religious, that religion is bullshit etc, because the same energy was redirected to other things (the names were changed), and THAT is the ultimate vehicle of control. Carlin said “They got you by the balls”. Yeah, by the religiosity, which is way down there in the unconscious, in the balls.

            Larken Rose’s system sounds very good, and apparently it works, which is great, but I wonder how long it takes for everything to go back, because if you take the guy’s religiosity away, where does he put it now? He had all this energy invested there and now that you gently made him see the illogical nature of his belief (in the state), what does he do with that energy? If he doesn’t find where to put it, it may well roll back with a vengeance, and if Larken and Amanda don’t address this issue, properly, his great system may never work for real, not to say that it may work in the opposite direction.

            Anyway, long difficult subjects that connect to other subjects and it gets pretty big very quick.

        • candlelight says:


          “Speaking of words, reading the incredible biblical tennis match above, with which I would never even dream to interfere,…”

          I laughed loudly out loud on that one. You have an incredible way with words, which you don’t mince, and are funny.

          Your point “definition of terms”, et al, though not funny, aren’t minced ideas, either. Verily, without this key understanding – dare I say, esoteric understanding – ain’t nobody getting anywhere, except perhaps some vaulted position within the tower of babel.

          Your friend with the email, now you can send him/her a link to the TCR, no?

          • alexandre says:

            Thanks Candlelight. Makes me feel good when I make a strike with words not in my language. I can’t strike even in Portuguese most of the time.

            Esoteric understanding? I see it as the most objective empirical understanding. (Unless I don’t know what esoteric really means, which is very likely).
            An Apple has many names: Apple, manzana, maçã, apfel…which one is the right, or true one? Does it make sense to fight over apples or apfels? “Those ignorant inferior beings over there that like ‘apfels’, humpf!” It’s ridiculous, and so it is with Buddha, Jesus etc. BUT…better not to interfere or you can end up like King Charles the first.

            Send my friend a Corbett link? No chance. In fact I did once, I sent him the “China and The New World Order” video. I never spoke to him again. The last sentence I remember from him was “the problem with conspiracy theorists is that they miss the forest for the trees” – is that right? Or the trees for the forest? That one. Funny that HE was the one who started me on this path, first with Chomsky, then Pilger, Robert Fisk etc. As I went further, he backed away, like “I went too far”.

            Look what I just found. A paper from the Association for Psychological Science about conspiracy theories. There must be a billion of those, but it’s the kind of guy my “friend” is. He writes music in/for Hollywood. Works with one of the giants there. Get it? He’s part of the beast now.

            Go and learn “What psychological factors drive the popularity of conspiracy theories ” Try not to fall asleep.

            • Duck says:

              ‘…An Apple has many names: Apple, manzana, maçã, apfel…which one is the right, or true one? Does it make sense to fight over apples or apfels? …’
              An apple has an objective reality as to WHAT it is that stands aside from its name. Naming it a fuzzyweg does not change that it is what it is. Naming an orange an apple might confuse people but it does not change the physical fact of what that thing in the real world IS

        • weilunion says:

          Did you know Karl Jung was a supporter of Hitler’s Nazis?

          • alexandre says:

            No he wasn’t. That’s like saying Trump is an anarchist. Why would he write a whole book about the psychological illness Germany went in that lead to that catastrophe? He only didn’t know the west financed Hitler, as we know today, and analyzed the thing from his point of view – mass madness.

            Read the man, not the propaganda.

            • Duck says:

              The rise of hitler was no more ‘madness’ then the rise of trump was….(NOT saying they are ‘the same’)
              Under the political and social circumstances they arose in the appearance of a figure saying what either character was saying to the unhappy masses is a pretty easy idea to follow. I make no claim that either has any wonderful cure for the issues, but they did speak to issues that hurt regular people
              Read “1924: The year that made Hitler” by Peter Ross Range for a quick into into the circumstances

              • alexandre says:

                Not the same but pretty similar. Jung would be climbing the walls today just with Facebook alone.

                I’ll try to get the book, thanks.

            • weilunion says:

              Like many others, Jung initially welcomed the focus of unity that swept across the German land as the National-Socialist “revolution” took hold (Stern, 1976). Though as time went on and Jung grew increasingly cautious in his views, accusations of being a “Nazi sympathizer” emerged; accusations which, in some respects, seems justified as we will see.

              In 1928, Carl Gustav Jung became a member of the International General Medical Society for Psychotherapy (Gallard, 1994). This society, which began two years earlier, was founded on the desire to develop a psychotherapeutic science with a spiritual, rather than widely popular material, emphasis. In the same year that Jung joined the society, so too did Matthias Heinrich Goring, the cousin of the now infamous Marshall, Herman Goring. Jung was elected vice president in 1930 and was asked to assume the presidency in 1933 due to the deteriorating political climate. It was believed that Jung, being a Swiss National and thus neutral, would be in a better political position to handle the role (Gallard, 1994).


              Jung,like Julius Evola the fascist Italian philosopher and one Steve Bannon follows, was caught up in history and made some very bad choices, such as the occultism that he lent to the fascists.

              • Duck says:

                Jung and Sigmund Fraud…two people to not pay attention to.

              • alexandre says:

                Ok, I can’t argue. I’ll just ask: Have you read any Jung? After you do, then you tell me how to reconcile his words and thoughts with the info you just posted, because it’s exactly like saying Donald Trump is a member of the anarchist society and promotes the abolition of government. If we have factual evidence for that, then we’ll have to reconcile that with what he’s doing and saying.

                Leaving aside the intentional defamation and destruction of people like Jung, is there a possibility of misinterpretation, confusion etc due to historical contexts? – like affirming that Nietzsche killed God or that he gave the nazis the idea of the super-man, and so on? Let’s say 20 years from now it’s discovered that Bolsonaro killed 20 million people in the Northeast. What do I do with a friend that supports Bolsonaro today? Will he automatically become a nazi?

                The link you sent reads:
                “…an international edition edited by Jung, and a German edition under the control of Goring for the purpose of ensuring that all material conformed to Nazi ideology (Sherry, 1986)

                This is ridiculous beyond belief, only accepted by someone who knows nothing about the man himself, but I’d have to do one of those Corbett researches (which I can’t do) to find out the truth of this blatant propaganda. It’s getting worse, like saying Trump is actually a black woman.

                I can’t do this. This millenium is the nazi “burning of books” version of everything. Burning of whatever doesn’t serve the coming Technocracy. If Jung was a nazi, he would be taught in every school today, not being attacked like that.


              • weilunion says:

                No need to apologize.

                You said:

                Let’s say 20 years from now it’s discovered that Bolsonaro killed 20 million people in the Northeast. What do I do with a friend that supports Bolsonaro today? Will he automatically become a nazi?

                You tell the friend he is wrong,irrational. You do not try to exonerate Bolsanaro. and if your friend continues to support fascism, he becomes your enemy

              • alexandre says:

                Duck: Jung and Freud, two people not to be put together in the same sentence, unless having read both extensively – and understood them correctly. But ok, if this century’s main function is to rapidly throw in the fire everything from the past (as the nazis, Mao, Stalin etc wanted to do), let’s burn these two also. Joe Campbell as well, why not? Probably just another eugenic theosophist follower of Blavatsky etc. And all the old philosophers too.

                wellunion: you didn’t understand my analogy.

                Ok, time for a break. This is turning into Facebook for me. I’m feeling the same electric addicted agony thing. Not good.


              • candlelight says:


                Reading your link, the first line of the author’s conclusion reads – “Was Jung a Nazi sympathizer and ant-Semite? The answer is most likely no.”

                The author argues in one instance that through shear ignorance, what some may have construed to be anti-Semitism on Jung’s part, equating Jewish psychology to that of Chinese psychology, was actually indicative of praise, given how Jung had embraced and had a “great respect” of Chinese culture, which culture was foreign to Western understanding at that time. The author adds this: ” In fact, at one point, he stated that Jews were more vastly conscious than the barbaric Germanic people and had a higher degree of civilization and adaptability (McGuire, & Hull, 1977).”

                There are other examples in your link to suggest that Jung, the man, the philosopher, the psychologist, was not anti-Semitic, whatsoever.

                Therefore, 2 points I give to the Corbett board’s in-house Brazilian esoteric musician/philosopher nearly over-the-top conspiracist – saved perhaps by the slightest margin of error – my goodness, and English his second language to boot!, alexandre! His advice being, as intimated, read the man, not the propaganda.

                Speaking of Chinese culture, after chowing down this evening’s hot and sour soup, and chicken lo mein, my fortune cookie had I would say one the bestest fortunes ever which I really enjoyed getting, as well as making me laugh…And Think!:


                It’s something to chew on, for sure.

  14. Stronghorse says:

    The system is broken and corrupted. FULL STOP.
    So why would anyone choose to participate in a rigged game? No thanks, count me out.
    I’ll still vote on local issues that effect me, but I will not participate in any federal elections again. They are not even conducted legally. Every Presidential Election since FDR ran for his second term, has violated the 12th Amendment, and that is just ONE of the numerous problems.
    Those of you advocating for elections in the UNITED STATES evidently do not understand that the Primary Elections are not even a function of government at all. They are Private Corporate Elections that the political parties inserted in place of the nomination process, because it is to their advantage. It gets the public to pay for their corporate elections, and ensures that they, the political parties, get to decide who gets to run for office.
    Political Parties are Private Corporate Clubs. Have you never wondered why they can change the rules mid-election, in order to take delegates away from one candidate and give them to another? With no recourse. It’s because they are Private Clubs who can change their corporate rules any time they choose, and there is nothing anyone can say about it.
    That is why you are always given the choice between two evils.
    But hey, if you believe that your religion demands that you participate in a con game, please, by all means, continue. Just understand that so long as enough people continue to add legitimacy to the corrupt system, things will indeed remain the same.

    • Drazen says:

      “The system is broken and corrupted. FULL STOP.”

      That’s quite a catagoric statement Stronghorse.
      I would counter that with,

      “The system works exactly as it is supposed to work.”

      How the system has been presented to work and how it actually works is two different things.

      • Stronghorse says:


        Point well taken. I like the way you put it better than I did actually.
        Thank you.

        • Drazen says:

          You’re Welcome Stronghorse.

          It is always helpful to express a perspective even if it is not accurate because it opens up the opportunity for someone to offer clarification.

          Provide that clarification is welcome.

          • Stronghorse says:

            Always welcomed on my end. These things get me so angry at times, that I don’t think through properly. I’m typing, but my brain is about 2 or 3 paragraphs ahead of me. I do a lot of editing on anything I write because of this.
            So I need all the help I can get.

  15. wylie1 says:

    I appreciate all the comments above since thought provoking.

    When I lived in a small rural area where there was a fair bit of space between neighbors. That area obtained its water from yonder hills. Did each household run its own pipe the couple miles over and up? No.

    They formed an association and VOTED every few years for a few People called Directors to maintain the source spring box, piping, fix leaks, etc. Along with a secretary-treasurer. If you “won” election, your reward was extra work but ONLY when NEEDED. That kept everyone’s water bill low. Fewer complaints when your water bill is under $100/year(not month) compared to your friends in town which paid similar every month. And they didn’t mind benefiting neighbors by their work.

    Assessments(TAXES) were levied to maintain the system. Pay for repairs, water tests, pipe replacement, etc.

    VOTING made a difference, readily demonstrated in the quality of accounting and secretarial work. Not so much the labor since the most experienced qualified were always nominated and voted for.

    So, was voting Anti-Christian? Were we asking for kings of water? No. Simply asking for someone to do the jobs that needed to be done. If had each person, some incompetent, some incapable, some untrustworthy, doing those jobs on a haphazard basis, would have been foolish.

    Is there some other better way to accomplish the maintenance of a community water system in which each person has a right?

    Expand this to the County, State, or National level. What is the difference?
    1. There are some jobs that are needed to be done. But at the higher levels, VERY FEW are needed compared to what they doodoo.
    2. At the lowest level, people actually knew who they were voting for. Not so at the higher levels.
    3. At the higher levels, too many of those elected that we don’t really know, try and doodoo things that they are expressly Not supposed to do: Lie, cheat, steal, murder.
    4. At the higher levels, too many of those elected we don’t really know, work to subvert and/or change the rules to benefit themselves or their masters.
    5. At the higher levels, too many of those elected we don’t really know, work to grab more power and authority than they have any right to.
    6. At the lowest level the accounting books are open. At the higher levels they claim accounting closed due to National Security. This SHOULD mean to all, that if accounting exposed, people would choose to act differently/wiser.

    It is my understanding that NO RULER doesn’t mean No Rules.

    What is the upshot, the take away?
    –1. VOTING, in my experience, is Not immoral nor unChristian.
    –2. Voting is asking a particular person to do a particular job. Some mistakenly call that job filler, a leader.
    –3. If people want and consider that person to be a leader, then maybe it is immoral and unChristian for them to vote.
    –4. All people need to gather together so those who know the people, can put forth honest decent candidates.

    [SNIP – Please keep comments to 500 words or less. Longer comments can be split into multiple posts. -JC]

    • alexandre says:

      Quoting the rabi: “Do you mean to compare?”
      The smaller, the higher the possibility of it working right. The problem you bring up is the size of the “society”, not the morality (or whatever) of voting, I think. The city of São Paulo (here in Brazil) is kind of big (587.3039 sq mi) and has around 15 million people. How, in the name of Christ (or Buddha or Orus), can one expect a central government on a city that size to work? Voting in those conditions means nothing. In a small town the chances are better, but still voting may not matter because whoever gets in has to deal with…as Corbett says “shall we say it together??” … AGENDA 21! But what you say at least can work in a small town, not in a big city, let alone a country.

      • wylie1 says:

        I was addressing several issues. Some of which got cut off. A commenter was claiming it was unChristian to vote. Larken Rose claims it immoral or seems to imply that. Both untrue as I clearly pointed out, for an area Water system.

        I would like someone to tell me how to run an small area Water system better than the people who all have a right to it, gathering together to vote on what is done and who is going to maintain it.

        If the people are too lazy and not willing to gather together to correct an over bloated govt then whatever anyone suggests in the way of No Govt at all, is moot.

        My contention is that we only need a minimal govt to deal with roads and a few other things, which can be done at a smaller level than nationally.

        However, suppose China decided Brazil would be a good place to take as a food supply for its population? How would you prevent that? Do you think a bunch of people with rifles would be enough? (it wouldn’t be) At the same time, most nations don’t need standing armies…but they do need a trained militia ready to act, with sufficient type of weaponry to repel all attackers. You cannot count on other people being reasonable. Was Stalin, Churchill, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, or some usa presidents reasonable?

    • wylie1 says:

      –The rest of the story Continued from item –4. above:

      –5. It is MUCH cheaper with a better outcome, for people to gather together themselves to get a job done, even at high wages, than to have a permanent full time bloated govt do that job.
      –6. Since many people have to sign employment contracts for their jobs, it would seem wise to REQUIRE any govt job filler to sign a VERY SPECIFIC JOB CONTRACT, laying out penalties for breech, inept, fraud, Conditions for easy removal and prosecution; including Supreme Court Judges.
      –7. Was it necessary for the president of the water system to lie? No. Is it necessary for any govt jobholder, incl. policeman, judge, lawyer, or prosecutor to lie? No.
      –8. Therefore such govt employment contracts should have severe penalties for lying.

      >> That of course would eliminate most of govt authority, many or most laws, and most govt jobs, as it should.

      Also, some people chose not to participate(give input or vote) at all in the water system. I still view them somewhat unfavorably since the rest of us took the time to deal with an actually important item.

      Extrapolating that to the method we currently use to deal with a number of items that require attention, it would seem those who don’t provide input nor vote are either lazy or misguided.

      Nothing stopping you from working to educate all on abuse of power, the govt of No Authority, and a mostly VOLUNTARYist system. However, if you want someone to fix the roads, you are going to have to collect money to pay for it. Be it fuel tax or tire Tax. That means there will be some sort of govt.

      Additionally, if you live in the USA and you want to prevent China from taking it as their food basket for their population, as they have stated they want to do (go find it online), you will need to pay for some deterrent weaponry. Likewise, if you want to prevent the Progressives in the Deep State from eliminating YOU enroute to their New World Order, whatever militia you support is going to need some decent weaponry. Your rifle isn’t going to be enough.

      So, even though I enjoy Larken Rose and James Corbett points on Anarchism; please show me how it is MORAL to avoid paying for what you use, such as roads. Please show me how it is Moral to have others spend their time and effort to deal with matters you benefit from, while you spend none: Either providing input or voting on who is to deal with maintaining roads or police or whatever else you may use or benefit from.

  16. sTevo says:


    I would put money on the bet that the CD case on your book shelf is:

    Les McCann & Eddie Harris
    Swiss Movement,
    Recorded Live at the Montreux Jazz Festival, Switzerland.

    For the first part of the video…

    Other than that, Vote smote.


    • generalbottlewasher says:

      Good call sTevo, Alex, anyone of you existential sophists know who is playing Trumpet? You got to hear Cold Duck Time if you enjoyed Compared to What?

      • alexandre says:

        Possibly Benny Bailey – trumpet.

        I beg your pardon. Existential sophist? I’ll look that up and you’ll hear from me, Mr! My seconds will call on your seconds!

        • alexandre says:

          HEY, I’m a sophist?! Like Protagoras? I like it!

        • generalbottlewasher says:

          Alex thanks , I was going to vote for Ben Bailey as one of the truly great horn players. But alas, I got no more desire to vote for nothing. I miss watching all those gigs you had recorded . I was expecting to hear your name on The Scenes of Loral Canyon , that was interesting. Hope the link returns so I can finish going through the catalog, vast. Take care of the Armadillos. Send some heat this way. You Sud Americans hogging all the heat, come on give it up! Bon noir.

          • alexandre says:

            Hi there, GBW.
            I would send all the heat over to you with the greatest pleasure, since I’m tired of sweating and smelling and washing clothes and swimming in the pool. My life is a living hell. (I have to tell you, the other day, around 2AM, it was very cold. Strangely cold, like winter. During the day, before the rain, it heats up like you can’t believe it. I hate it. Full of bugs, the bushes grow by the second, flies everywhere, a billion types of bees and wasps and marimbondos, two black little snakes that no one ever saw before, rats, frogs, spiders, lizards, birds singing in full volume, and a billion of them, life in its full insisting glory…)

            Don’t vote, please. Not even for Ben Bailey. (I didn’t know him. It’s not exactly my cup a tea that music, although very swingy and cool). On the video you see at one point Ella Fitzgerald coming in and sitting down to watch. Noticed?

            Dave McGowan, yes indeed, most interesting.

            No armadillos. Today I was bitten on the finger by something that my friend here thinks was a “spider-ant”, that is, an ant that goes down trough a line of…web…that comes out of its….arse? You know? An ant that makes webs? Spider-ant? Well, it hurt like a MOTHERF….****RRR! My god, what a pain. But afterwards I was kind of cool, like…now I’m one of them….kinda thing. I was baptized.

            What do you mean “hope the link returns”?

            Bon jour.

            • generalbottlewasher says:

              Alex, the name Alexandre use to be blue the colour, azuel. I could click it and your web site would pop up with tons of videos of your gigs and tons of your sound recordings. No Mas azuel , musica no mas.

              P.S.- you should see a antomologist if silk starts coming out your arse in day or two. I wouldn’t advise a Doctor. Cause they don’t know ants from caca .

        • sTevo says:

          Record sleeve does list Benny Bailey as the trumpeter.
          Do you call them liner notes if the notes are on the back of the jacket?

  17. wylie1 says:

    There used to be a website called which demonstrated how easy it was to hack a voting machine as well as the paper ballot counter modules.

    Still existing:
    Might cover some of that in archives? Haven’t been there in a long time.

    Such would explain how a popular person could lose an election at any level of govt.

    The only way to have a large vote be legitimate in this day and age is to have paper ballots counted by 3 sides.

    Any comments regarding no vote is legit are wasting their effort and didn’t read my treatise above.

  18. parzival says:

    Excellent vid for #PropagandaWatch James! As always love the show notes included. Love the comments… “But we can…” “WE will show them…” Blah blah blah. Look. The creeps that run the sh!+ show want to kill you! There are too many examples to list. The only person who could cover this topic any better than James in 9 minutes or less was the late George Carlin

    • parzival says:

      Here’s a partial list of too many examples of how the creeps that run the **** show want to kill you: Fukushima, Chernobyl, Bhopal, Hanford, Love Canal, acid rain, dioxins, plummeting sperm counts, plummeting testosterone levels, PCBs, asbestos, creating killer bees and then letting them loose (oops!), opioid epidemic, BPA in plastic water bottles, fluoropolymers (PFOA / C8), high fructose corn syrup, the junk food industry, planned obsolescence, zeranol, atrazine, leaky gut syndrome, diabetes rates tripling, collapsing bee colonies, SV-40, Aspartame, Olestra, Senomyx, Seroxat, Thalidomide, Vioxx, Bextra, Ketek, Trasylol, Oxycontin, Avandia, Benzodiazepines, Advair, Luvox, Paxil, Risperdal, fluoroquinolones, Thorazine, lobotomies, electro-convulsive treatment, Morgellons,the torture and destruction of Leonard Kille, MK Ultra, Operation Top Hat, Project Bluebird, Holmesburg Prison Skin Experiments, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, Gruinard Island anthrax experiments, Unit 731, eugenics, forced sterilization, C. auris fungus, Guillain-Barré syndrome, Gulf War Syndrome, depleted uranium ammunition, Zyklon-B, mustard gas, phosgene and chlorine gas, VX and Sarin gas, agent orange, killer robots and drones, wars for oil, conflict minerals, vivisection, and weaponized viruses.

  19. Nick Web says:

    Vote For NOBODY
    NOBODY Will Keep Election Promises.
    NOBODY Will Listen To Your Concerns.
    NOBODY Will Help The Poor & Unemployed.
    NOBODY Will Protect Our Children From Predators.
    NOBODY Will Protect Our Environment.
    NOBODY Tells The Truth.
    NOBODY Cares!

    If Nobody is elected, things will be better for everyone.

  20. squidly says:

    If you’re weary of the present system and would like to change it, then all you have to do is to stop supporting it.

    DON’T VOTE……..for anyone…….ever!


    • wylie1 says:

      What would happen if 51 percent or more of the people didn’t vote? That happens frequently already. At times only a third vote. One could say that not-voting has made things worse, since things have gotten worse.

      What happens if only 10 percent vote? Same only they have larger impact.

      Clearly people have been inserted into the system to change it for the worse (better for the banksters).

      If you want to change the system non-violently it will be necessary to insert people into the system who are contract bound to do what you want and will be easily replaced if they don’t. That requires people getting off their hiney to find many of those people and put them in to decrease the govt to the minimum necessary, which isn’t much; and to make those changes permanent.

      • Duck says:

        Too few people vote so the elections are decided before a vote is cast- and who will win that election is decided at the primary…and who wind the primary is decided by a tiny number of people.
        What is weird is how so many people vote for a president their vote matters zero too, but ignore their LOCAL elections where they can have a real effect or let ten power crazed guys run the housing association they were dumb enough to live under.

        • flammable says:

          Voting for the US Presidential elections is a shortcut for most people. Since a Presidential vote in the US includes multiple selections of state and local politicians on one ticket.
          Yes these specially selected candidates are lumped in with a Presidential candidate. And of course they are all linked to major corporations, think tanks, and Wall Street banks.
          Even if a Presidential candidate is truly independent, a bunch of corrupt politicians in lower offices will be voted for as well should you vote for this independent candidate.

        • wylie1 says:

          Still waiting for people to stop complaining and act. Not Voting or Doing nothing won’t change a thing.

          Gathering together independently of any party to screen for and support contract bound govt reducers you desire is the way that things “could” improve.

          Unfortunately, in my experience, people find it much easier to point fingers than look in the mirror. Much easier to grab a beer and watch tv than to spend an hour a month gathering to find and supporting the right people to eliminate most of govt. Much easier to claim, “I voted so I did my duty.” …as many claim when I floated this balloon(rock) among those I know.

          My conclusion is that people don’t really care about the future they leave for their kids or they would actually do instead of sit.

  21. CRM114 says:

    Just for a laugh:

    Kimmel show asks people on the street how they voted in the trump impeachment

  22. wylie1 says:

    Personally, I would like to move to my own island and immorally vote myself ruler over myself. Then immorally abuse my power to confiscate (TAX) some of my dough to pay for some naval weaponry to offensively defend myself from any immoral lustful mermaids that might be trafficking items I arbitrarily deem illicit.

  23. There is something eternally infantile about voting that appeals to some deep subconscious urge in the human condition, which is still a child in its consciousness. It is a regression into a child-like state whereby you want to be parented. The very idea of “electing” someone to “represent” you is not only morally indefensible, but it is practically empty. In it’s most basic form, it is a complete abrogation of one’s right to self-ownership. Essentially, when you vote, you declare “I do not own myself. Here, you, Candidate Coke or Pepsi, please make decisions for my life.”

    When I explain to people why I do not vote, it’s as if one is speaking to a child incapable of comprehending there is a world outside of that paradigm. I always say, I do not vote because I do believe in someone “re-presenting” me, for I, and I alone, can present myself. No one else can present me in my stead. When I breakdown the word, it sometimes makes more sense, but generally, it is still an uphill battle trying to convey these nuanced ideas to a consciousness that is still not ready for reception.

    • wylie1 says:

      There are a LOT of people who don’t vote in each election, have things improved?

      Who is infantile? Typically the arrogant folks who think they know better but don’t get out far enough to know there is more to the story that they can’t or don’t want to see due to their limited understanding via limited experience.

      If you live in a small town or a megalopolis, after you strip away all govt authority… then what? There is water, sewer, roads, neighborhood watch (or police), volunteer fire dept. that you are going to have to deal with. If you want all the infantile unqualified untrained persons who thinks voting is dumb, to be dealing with those things on a haphazard whenever basis… simply unwise. I have yet to see a better fairer way of selecting/assigning who is to deal with maintaining such systems.

      If a person were to say, only the most qualified should be doing it, case closed no vote needed. Still unwise. What if that person is a royal A-hole? What if two or more are equally qualified? Even if the community decides to hire someone to deal with rounding up all the people for those jobs, that will be significantly more expensive and folks should have a say if they want to do it that way or not. How to have that say?

      I certainly can agree that we don’t need most of govt. However, you could get less of what you don’t want much quicker by inserting (voting) people contracted to do just that. Basically like a years ago candidate in New Zealand. He promised the moon and when got elected cut things back. There would need to be follow through to keep that situation going.

      Essentially eli.d is correct, it is the lazy minded do nothings that are the problem. If the people wanted to cut govt to the bare minimum, they could. They prefer to say infantile things like, voting doesn’t matter.

      The state I live in, the people put forth ballot measures to change the way govt operates. Some of those pass thereby limiting taxes.

      An immoral infantile person would be one who uses roads and public restrooms, sidewalks, etc. but doesn’t want to pay for them nor spend the bit of time seeing to it that decent honorable people are dealing with all the things that need to be dealt with.

      The only people that shouldn’t need to vote are those living out in the sticks off grid.

  24. eli.d says:

    Larkin’s ignorance here is astounding. We are not a democracy, we are a Republic. When I vote for a candidate, I’m not voting for someone to rule over me, I’m voting for a public servant. The fact that most of the people who get into office betray the Constitution and unlawfully rule over people instead of serving the public, is due to the public’s inattention to whom they are voting for and their inattention to the voting machine fraud. Those are both solvable problems. If the public demanded that we go back to hand-counting paper ballots in public with an open chain of custody of the ballots so a recount can uncover fraud, and if the public only voted for people who would uphold the Constitution, then voting would not be giving consent to being ruled over. Voting is not the problem. Ignorance and apathy among the public is the problem.

    • I suppose I don’t blame you since I too used to think that way. What is a “public servant”? One who serves the mythical “public”? Or is it one who is served by the “public”? Also, the constitution is a piece of paper written by the landed gentry at the time. It is not worth deification and it is ultimately meaningless. Lastly, almost all politicians are either psychopaths or display psychopathic tendencies. This has been covered very thoroughly on this website and plenty others over the years. Only the worst rise to the top and they are the ones who are “voted” in. Those who are not compromised or blackmailable will have a hard time rising through the ranks.

    • wylie1 says:

      Although I agree with you, I also agree with Larken Rose on Govt not having any more Authority than anyone else. You cannot delegate rights that you yourself don’t have to anyone else.

      However, I do believe that in order to obtain a minimalist govt, there needs to be a lot of cleaning house in the schools and I question the need for a federal govt at all. The governors of each state could meet periodically to deal with any interstate matters. Heads of each state’s national guard could meet if needed to coordinate efforts or assist each other. I can’t think of one federal agency that would serve the people better if it were extinct.

    • a822 says:

      regarding voting and government
      recently found strong relevance in
      Liberty, Dicta and Force | Chapter 1: The Political Box

      • wylie1 says:

        No relevance.

        Is saying that a free market company never has a meeting in which the board votes?

        Please explain how to run a small community water supply system better, than those members of the community, each being an owner of the system, delegating their authority to those physically and mentally capable to maintain it, by VOTING for who they want to perform those tasks?

        Theories are nice. Practical matters need to be dealt with in some credible logical method. i.e. voting.

        How is the free market going to solve the very real situation of selecting competent people to run the water system? Could put everyone on a rotating schedule. Some would forget and others would do the wrong things with bad results. I have first hand knowledge of people doing the wrong thing when specifically instructed and paid to do things a certain way necessary to get the desired result.

        Was voting invented by a nefarious group or by practical people to obtain a reasonably acceptable result? Like all things in the hands of mankind, it has been abused and used for things it shouldn’t.

        Voting isn’t the problem, it is abusing it to make people think govt has authority it doesn’t have.

  25. danmanultra says:

    I am personally convicted that voting to impose my wishes onto others is immoral on principal. The fact that no politicians actually represent my wishes is just extra incentive for me to withdraw my consent. I like Corbett’s message of living subversively the best. I want to prove that I don’t need the would be rulers of this world to live the best life I can lead, even if its one step at a time.

  26. flammable says:

    Voting causes different arguments to come up. Voting is a necessary action within a group of people so it’s not useless. Maybe the right word we should use is ballot. Casting a ballot changes nothing and is immoral.

    Real voting happens in our every day actions. Like James brought up in a previous video. It’s how we spend our time, spend our money, what we invest our energy in, what actions we take. That is what real voting is.

    I don’t feel right letting propagandists manipulate another word such as voting. Plus I feel like we’re falling for the mirror image of the voting propaganda when we say voting is wrong. I say let us refuse to call pressing a button or pulling a lever in a polling station voting. It’s balloting until a better name can be made.

    • wylie1 says:

      Go ahead, call it balloting. There are still instances when Balloting is the wisest thing to do.

      Suppose I and 2 others own a company. Suppose we have a request by another company to do some work for them. How are we to decide if we are going to do that work or refuse it? We can try to cover all the pros and cons but ultimately we will each have to make a decision… which essentially is voting or balloting.

      Such a vote could have serious consequences. Could provide that company (or govt) something they shouldn’t have. Could cause an owner to want to sell his share. Best case scenario is to agree(vote) at the beginning of the company that all owners must agree on something before they do it, rather than majority rules. That way no one is forced into doing something or being responsible for something they don’t want.

      Voting or balloting is not the problem. Sometimes it is a wise method. Unfortunately mankind has abused balloting into fooling people into thinking it gives govt authority it doesn’t have.

      Sometimes people use an adjustable open end wrench (crescent wrench) as a hammer… People are the problem not the tool.

  27. This dialog still amazes me. It is not clear that voting in an institution, such as the government, is the opposite of freedom. If most vote for a country leader so he can kill people in foreign lands because they don’t look like me, or for a community water supply, there is the minority that has no options. The minority is not free, but imposed upon. You may salve your conscience by calling it a republic, but is it NOT freedom.

    However, I do agree with voting with your dollars. I simply do not buy Nestle products because I have issues with buying little kids to harvest my cocoa. I don’t buy Bayer products, because I am aware that is it more than just cancer that is caused by glyphosate. Those kinds of votes are the only ones that really count. That is what a wise and loving “vote” is.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top