NO CONFIDENCE: Vote for Yourself

As bad as the Star Wars prequels were, I could almost kiss George Lucas for re-introducing the American public to the idea of a “No confidence” vote.

The other day I read a commenter somewhere musing that, because it’s so difficult for a third party to get any traction in the US presidential election, there should be a “NO” option: everyone should have the choice of saying they don’t like either of the choices they’ve been given. If more people vote NO than vote red or blue, then both major parties have to scrap their candidates and start over.

That’s a great idea. Especially since the executive branch has been trying to grab more power in the past few decades. I’d be much less nervous about the possibility of a powerful presidency if we had a mechanism that made a NO CONFIDENCE vote in any part or player in the process—indeed, in even sitting officials—not just possible, but a constantly present danger.

Because we elect morons. Or rather, we elect evil people, because we’re morons. We worship morons, liars, and cheaters. Even when we try to break our usual corrupt mold, we don’t get very far: As happy as I am to see Donald Trump anally rape the Republican Party and the press, it in no way follows  it’s a good idea to let him run the country.

And though the DNC Dalek’s inculpated collusion with party leadership has gone a delightful distance toward wrecking her dishonest and moribund party, the spectacle has not been worth its ticket price—the possibility of her presidency, gods help us—either. (In fact, not even the funny vagina feeling I get from the thought of another lady holding the reins can make it palatable.)

I don’t know a single reasonable person who actually thinks either of these people will make a good president. I know quite a few people, on the other hand, who are willing to stump for a Trump presidency just for the “fuck you!” value of pissing off the establishment.

Doesn’t that tell you something?

Unfortunately, most of the barnyard animals who wind up voting for Trump or Clinton will be doing so out of tribal loyalty—a natural human sentiment which multicultural propaganda has managed to divorce from any nationalistic feeling and divert instead into the red-blue divide. And they’re still using that divide to keep us down on the farm. (The rich are smart enough to only be loyal to their progeny, which gives them far more room to maneuver.)

With every new fun fact I learn about the candidates, the more I think that anyone who wants to vote for either one must be ignoring information on purpose in order to be a good member of the left or the right. Which is understandable, but in the end it undermines your own personal values and weakens you as a person. Don’t force yourself to cheer for someone who undermines your ethics.

Let’s start on the right: allow me to remind you of Trump’s plan to (ominously vaguely) “open up” the libel laws. Most of the people whom I know or follow who are on the right are more or less free speech extremists. So what are you doing cheering for Trump? If elected, he promises to go after any member of the press whom he deems to be lying about him. Which sounds terrific coming from a scrappy, independent candidate. But if Trump is actually President and still thinks this way, he’s going to sound more like Chairman fucking Mao than a rebel. People’s views of their own past actions can be maddeningly warped, particularly if they’re high on power.

Skip to about 14:00 if you don’t want to hear the entire Milo-Ghostbuster saga and get straight to Donald Trump wanting to sue the fuckin’ Onion.

Personally, if I’m a single-issue voter, my single issue is free speech (except when I’m beheading liars). I can’t pull the lever for someone who wants to gag the fucking Onion, of all the humor-impaired bullshit I’ve ever encountered.

A friend of mine who keeps urging me to vote for Trump for the “fuck you” factor (and possibly to look cool?) argues that libel was never covered under the First Amendment anyway. But some things that aren’t currently libel may become actionable if Milo’s daddy gets his way. “Opening up the libel laws” means that an indefinite amount of additional, formerly-free speech—as much speech as a litigant can get away with classing as such—will fall under the category of unprotected.

This is no different from leftists trying to categorize more and more utterances as unacceptable “hate speech.” As someone who’s had to fight off a frivolous libel suit, I can tell you that as hysterically funny as it would be if Trump did it to HuffPo, a bullshit libel lawsuit is chilling when it happens to you. In a nation of laws and not men, ANY weapon that you forge to smite your enemies can ALWAYS be turned around and used on you. You need to think beyond the momentary advantage that creating a monster will give you, because it will always get off its leash sooner or later.

If you are are on the libertarian spectrum (yes, I did that on purpose) or the non-authoritarian right, this candidate clashes with your values, and if you want to close your eyes to that, don’t send me your psychiatric bills later, por favor. VOTE NO CONFIDENCE.  Although there’s no mechanism for making a no confidence vote stick, you’ll feel less psychologically fractured in the long run—which is far more important to an individualist than being one more swinging beer stein in the retarded Greek chorus of an electoral count. It’s OK to not do what everyone else on the alt-right does. Just like it’s OK to not do what the mainstream tells you to do. Fuck, I can’t believe I have to explain this.

Now for the left. Christ, this should be easy, but leftists are experts at eloquently ignoring evidence and then projecting their closed-mindedness onto whomever they’re arguing with. Still, I’ll put it simply:

Hillary Clinton enjoys bombing people.

She fucking ENJOYS BOMBING PEOPLE, mostly BROWN PEOPLE, for the love of Christ. Is she that one exception you guys are willing to make for that “don’t hurt brown people” rule? Kind of like “let Muslims do whatever the fuck they want” overrules “don’t rape women”? I don’t know anyone on the left OR right who’s down with all these wars these days, but on the left especially, if you’re going to spend your life LARPing the 1960s, the least you can do is to keep in touch with the dove tradition. If you’re walking around in your blond dreads telling people to vote for Hillary because at least she’s on the correct team, you’re fucking mental.

circe

Actually, anyone who votes for someone because they’re on the proper team should be disenfranchised. If the vote were restricted to people who didn’t act like farm animals I would almost find democracy tolerable.

She’s the darling of Wall Street, she has helped her husband intimidate all the women he allegedly pestered, she’s the best-beloved of the neocons… the only things that are leftist about her are her minge and her multiculturalism—and for all her irritating rhetoric, she’s only into the latter because she assumes third-world immigrants will vote for her and her vague promises of government cheese. She does not align with the best of your values, and convincing yourself that she does just to fit in with the rest of your team will erode your soul.

You cannot, unfortunately, save the country from this election. But you can save the best of yourself.

(NOTE for anyone whom  I might have confused: Yes, I did model the Punks for Trump T-shirt. It’s not because I have a split personality, it’s just that it’s a cool fucking shirt, and I genuinely do understand the “fuck you!” value of supporting Trump. However I value my ongoing free speech more than I value a single statement.)

Comments

  1. EggWyt

    Mass immigration is a bigger threat to free speech than libel law. And it would be nice to see the pundit class defending free speech instead of providing rationales for censorship.

    But I’m probably not going to vote anyway. Does that count as no confidence?

    Non-voter Non-Punk for Trump

  2. MRDA

    “Unfortunately, most of the barnyard animals who wind up voting for Trump
    or Clinton will be doing so out of tribal loyalty—a natural human
    sentiment which multicultural propaganda has managed to divorce from any
    nationalistic feeling and divert instead into the red-blue divide.”

    You’re kinda assuming the latter hasn’t always existed in some form, being one of many manifestations of this abiding sentiment. Nationalism itself is also a fairly recent arrival, distorting the sense of kinship felt for family and friends beyond all practical dimensions.

    That said, I’m kinda glad the emphasis has shifted away from geographical to philosophical/political differences; that slither of choice in the midst of tribalism bodes well for individualists who wish to avoid been smothered in the scrum. Certainly beats more traditional identity politics, IMV.

    Re: Trump vs. freedom of expression, I can’t help thinking of a certain big wooden horse when I read stuff like this: http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/08/02/no-donald-trump-not-planning-ban-porn/

    1. Simon Elliot

      Glad I found you again. I’ve been having troble getting my head around a problem I seem to have come across, regarding anti-natalism. Now as you know, I will remain an anti-natalist for the rest of my life, as I think it is 100% correct in its bleak illustration of the human condition and the overwhelming amount of negativity therein. However, unfortunately there seems to be an asymmetry within the asymmetry, so to speak. Benatar says that failing to create new people is not bad because non-existent people will never be deprived of the paltry amount of good in the world, but if we accept that, then it also means that non-existent people are not spared the overwhelmingly negativity of life. We have not saved anyone, as there is nobody to be a beneficiary of our ethical choice not to procreate. If I decide not to stab a stranger, then that person has benefitted from my choice to refrain from action. But if I choose not to procreate, who has benefitted from my inaction? This conundrum I thought would have been apparent to Benatar.

      Also, he says that life is always an imposition, but an imposition on who? The person doesn’t exist yet, so who are you imposing life on? It implies that a person and their life are two separate things, which we know they are not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

6 − 2 =