It seems like the Election of the Dead gets started earlier and earlier every election cycle.
If dead communists and socialists aren't your thing, there's now the dead occultist, reputed in life as the "wickedest man in the world" Aleister Crowley:
Aleister Crowley is dead, British, and not running for office. No, we don’t want him as President of the United States of America. We’re not trying to win an election here. We’re trying to send a message. [Aleister Crowley 2012]
The good folks behind Aleister Crowley 2012 seem earnest, with the objective "to promulgate [Crowley's] Law of Liberty." The apathetic anarchist in me is all about liberty, but the question is worth asking: can a message be promulgated through a write-in campaign for a dead guy? Because it's like Guy Debord said, "you cannot combat alienation by means of alienated forms of struggle."
Upon the realization that the electoral process is a sham, voting dies as a means of resistance. Utilizing the process, even if only "to send a message," actually validates the legitimacy of the system being rejected! (Think of the influence, say, "record voter turnout figures," have on the perception of the process. Or a breezy human interest story on the 6:00 news about the festival atmosphere at the polling station where you just wouldn't believe the wacky people you might run into.)
I first advise abstention. Or perhaps the fouling of one's ballot so it cannot be processed, thereby increasing the "undervote" and calling voting mechanisms into question.
Nonetheless, (what the hell, right?) In closing, if you simply must vote, why not consider a dead dude? Dead guys aren't superior to your standard political candidates because they're communists, socialists, or occultists. They're superior candidates because they're dead.
And if you simply must vote, for someone alive, consider this guy:
We all agree we're fucked, yes? that progress can only be defined by
capitalism's metrics and that the destruction of our species is
progress's inevitable success, and since that success is inevitable, we
typists are competing only for top Cassandra. Old news.
Seriously...people in the arts community...if you are suddenly frightened by the American ethos then you clearly have been trapped in the celluloid you produce for a living. There's no such thing as a get out of jail free card for artists - only politicians and white-collar executives are privy to that golden ticket.
Celebrity bashing website, What Would Tyler Durden Do? takes a moment away from bashing celebrities to bring us the latest news in police taser use:
FUN WITH TAZERS - Police in Merced, CA. used a stun gun on a man with no legs in a wheelchair. Twice. Then his pants fell down as they handcuffed him on the ground, and they left him that way in broad daylight. Then he sat in jail for 6 days, then was released for lack of evidence. Why would they do all this? Probably because the guy was an asshole. ... (ap) -- [WWTDD]
Also, have some Wednesday morning defeatism with your coffee:
"[L]et's face it, the easiest way to get on television right now is to be really rude." [Obama, on every Sunday political talk show not on FOX.]
This approach hasn't been working for me at all! In reality, the easiest way to get on television, at least in this context, is to be a powerful member of the political elite. As for those having attained the requisite status: being rude is is the least of their shortcomings.
ACORN has ascended. They elect our politicians and receive billions in
tax money. Their world is a revolutionary, socialistic, atheistic
world, where all means are justifiable. And they create chaos, again,
for it’s own sake. It is time for us to be studying and applying their
tactics, many of which are ideologically neutral. It is time, as
Hannah said as we walked out of the ACORN facility, for conservative
activists to “create chaos for glory.”
It's a novel idea, really. I'm glad to see conservatives improvise a little.
The Obama administration’s decision
to scrap the missile-defense sites planned for Poland and the Czech
Republic is bad news. Not so much because the sites are vital to the
defense of America or our allies. The administration is undoubtedly
right when it says that the immediate threat posed by Iranian missiles
is more short-range and that it will be a while before Iran has
longer-range missiles capable of hitting Europe. Thus it makes sense to
concentrate for the moment on building shorter-range missile defenses.
And even longer-range sites don’t necessarily have to be located in
Eastern Europe for maximum effectiveness.
Just talked to John Bolton. Here's his take. "This is just pre-emptive
capitulation, although like everything else, the rhetoric is that we're
doing the opposite." It doesn't make sense that we should only be
concerned with the short-and-medium-range threat and not also with "the
long-range threat 2 or 3 years from now." And our intelligence on Iran
is manifestly "inadequate." I wouldn't "bet a lot of money on it being
right," and in any case, "there's this concept called 'break-out,'"
where they achieve a quantum leap in their capability. It's a "bet
against the future" that leaves "us and the Europeans in a more risky
situation." All the talk of the intelligence changing and an enhanced
short-and-medium-range capability is "blue smoke and mirrors" because
they never believed in missile defense. "It's a convenient smoke-screen
to do what they wanted to do anyway, which is to give up on missile
defense in the hope the Russians will be nice to us." Secretary Gates’s
comments were the "most disingenuous." Yes, we want a defense against
the short-and-medium-range threat, but the whole idea of missile
defense is based on a "layered defense." "Gates was a problem in the
Bush administration on missile defense. He was always weak on this."
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in
which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned
collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and
controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between
capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy
under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully
Nazism, known officially in German as National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), refers to the totalitarian ideology and practices of the Nazi Party or National Socialist German Workers’ Party under Adolf Hitler, and the policies adopted by the dictatorial government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.
Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right. The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group.
The Nazi Party presented its program in the 25 point National Socialist Program in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism, eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.
No wonder the Nazi-Soviet pact only lasted for two years...
The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition kicked off a series of "buycotts" in Dallas and St. Louis on Tuesday, asking consumers to support Mackey by doing their entire week's grocery shopping at Whole Foods that evening. Meanwhile, conservatives and libertarians of various stripes are blogospherically smacking their lips so loudly you'd think they just had a helping of Chilean sea bass en papillote from the Whole Foods deli counter.
"If the brainwashed, hemp-smoking zombies of the left stop shopping there, we conservatives can fill that market hole," wrote an anonymous poster on the blog Conservatives for Change.
Conservatives for Change? Huh? Sounds like a bunch of oxymorons to me.