Saturday, November 06, 2004
Like many people, it has taken me a few days to collect my thoughts and process a coherent response. The first and most important thing I want to stress: WE MUST NOT SET OUT TO PROVE THAT KERRY WON.
Since inception in April, GuvWurld has strictly adhered to the position: there is no BASIS for confidence in the legitimacy of the results reported in US elections. So much uncertainty has been sown that it is impossible to positively and definitively know the outcome.
As the details of this week's fraud become increasingly revealed, some data may indicate that Kerry was indeed the victor. It may be tempting to make this argument, but it will be more effective to indict the system as a whole. People who turn defensive against a claim of a Kerry victory will continue to blind themselves to the myth of democracy. It is also important not to argue for Kerry so as not to validate the "election" frame as a legitimate contest.
For the few days grok I also began to see Kerry's early concession putting him in the role of stooge and patsy. As a rule, I don't do name calling. I'm trying to map this onto the usual GuvWurld paradigm of simulated competition. If you haven't really been onto this yet, it must now be unmistakable.
If Kerry had ever been in it to win it he should have given us a hopeful vision for a peaceful future; he could have pledged to reverse the media consolidation that has led to manipulative brainwashing; he would have feigned an interest in undoing the Patriot Act to restore civil liberties. A shrewd opponent of Bush would also support the 9/11 Truth Movement and the victims' families who last week successfully submitted a criminal complaint to NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
In this entire campaign, John Kerry never stood up for anything - he just stood in. He was like a sparring partner, there for a workout but not to knock you out. And wasn't he using Springsteen's "No Surrender" as a campaign theme? How do you ask a man to be first to concede a "contest" he may yet be "proven" to have won?
I suspect that to the powerful partisan insiders who cast Kerry in the role of candidate, he was also a hedge bet. President Kerry would keep the war machine revved and the secrets of 9/11 concealed; allow further restriction of information through anti-competitive and anti-capitalist media mergers; and perpetuate the illusion that two major corporate parties are actually fighting over how best to represent you. This campaign was not only simulated competition, John Kerry represented a false alternative. If these common GuvWurld refrains are new for you, hopefully now you'll notice the abundance of additional examples.
Also beneficial to the establishment, Kerry's early concession confined the range of possible responses to potential post-"election" chaos. For example, on "election" night, Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb was prepared to fly the following morning to Florida, Ohio, or wherever the legal flashpoint turned out to be. Instead, on Wed afternoon he was on the plaza in Arcata, CA speaking to at most 75 people about the same wonderful and positive messages on which he ran his campaign. In fact, he gave the stump speech I'd seen him do just two weeks ago.
I highly doubt Cobb was the first thing on most people's minds when, before the "election," they pondered what kind of leadership we'd find for a post-"election" protest against fraud. I'd like to say that Cobb could do this. He is very bright, totally charming, unassuming and approachable, and he gets the full mythology (we do not really have democracy, capitalism, free speech or a free press in America; these are myths we must debunk).
Unfortunately, as Cobb campaigned he also talked about voting for Kerry, a well-reasoned but utterly foolish and hypocritical position. Cobb himself was engaging in the simulated competition. I'd get over that in a hurry if his leadership, just on a local level, was immediately put towards exposing this week's "election" fraud; if he publicly espoused the simulated competition frame among the grounds for declaring No Confidence; and if he worked for local passage of a revised No Confidence Resolution that would, like before, refer to the Consent of the Governed.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.The bottom line, for now: This "election" has broken the bank on what passes for reality. If you were in the Anybody But Bush camp, you may feel like Kerry sold you out. Let it go. The entire government has been pissing in your ear while picking your pocket and mortgaging your future. Getting to the bottom of what happened this week must be connected with the long-term and systemic changes described throughout the GuvWurld blog for the past seven months.
--US Declaration of Independence
(I'll try to synthesize a summary of the fraud charges and other resources for responding by Sunday night - for now, please visit the GuvWurld News Archive.)