Refusing to Vote for Stalin is the Equivalent of a Vote for Hitler

anotherjoe (66)in #philosophy • 8 years ago (edited)

Oh, wait!! The US actually supported both of those guys, at one time or another.

How many times have we heard this sort of argumentation? We're presented with what are supposedly the only two "qualified" candidates and told that they somehow represent the values of people in the US.

Early Twentieth Century

How has this misguided line of thinking served humanity in the past?
In the early 20th Century, the US had become an economic powerhouse. Ingenuity and grit gravitated to the country of opportunity. Borders were still open and huge swaths of land were just waiting for someone to come work them for sustenance and profit.

As Hitler rose in power, he had the full backing of the US. In fact, some claim that he was in many ways a product of the US, due to financial investments in Germany that ended up backing his efforts. Whether by political interest, misguided pursuit of profit or just one of those things you can't foresee, Hitler clearly benefited from US interests in Germany (including GW Bush's grandfather). I won't go into details, but you can start your own research here if you're interested.

Facing the atrocities of Hitler, the US chose what they considered the lesser of two evils, supporting one of the most evil rulers of modern times, Joseph Stalin. There's a tragically interesting discussion about who was responsible for more deaths, Hitler or Stalin. [According to this article](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/03/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/), it was Stalin by far. The lesser of two evils?

[NOTE: I'm aware of the claims by some that Hitler was not responsible for the deaths of what has been reported. This article isn't addressing the verity of the numbers or accuracy of the historical accounts so much as the tyranny of those involved.]

FFW to 2016

Source

The US is supposedly presented with two "candidates". On one side is the darling of the elite, who once whispered into the ear of the man who sat on the venerated White Throne in DC. The other claims to be a self-made and shrewd businessman, in spite of inheriting gobs of dough and having left a series of train wrecks in his wake.

While it is probable that the man with the orange hair has the moral high ground on the woman in the orange dress, those bragging rights are akin to boasting that one has better eating habits than Jeffrey Dahmer. The same can be said for Hillary's political prowess.

http://beforeitsnews.com

The purpose of this article is not to show how horrible either of these people will be as president though. Anyone even passively paying attention has no argument there. It's to point out the fallacy of the initial accusation. You can start reading about Hillary's shenanigans here and Trump's here.

Cognitive Dissonance Doesn't Always Register

If you don't vote for Trump, then you are defaulting your vote for Hillary.

If you don't vote for evil, you are defaulting your vote for evil.

If you don't vote for this prophet of baal, then you're voting for that prophet of baal.

If you don't vote for Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel, then that's the equivalent as a vote for Al Capone.

If you don't vote to be baked alive, then you're voting to be roasted alive.

How many ways can we turn this logic before the accusers are actually willing to stop and think about what they're saying?

Pixabay

First - Even if our votes make a difference, it would take a united front behind someone not beholden to the string pullers to really make any appreciable difference in the country. I have no hope of that whatsoever.

Second - It matters not one bit who we vote for in this presidential election. Hillary already won. She has already won because her throne was bought and paid for by her string pullers years ago. It's just a matter of delivery now.

GIPHY

Third - Any confidence in this wicked system whatsoever is delusional. It's a sham. A vote for either of these republicrats is a vote of confidence that the system isn't gamed already. It's a support of the system.
We do not have a two-party system. That's been apparent since at least around the time Clinton took office, and probably much earlier. Ike sure had a lot of warnings for us, regarding the oligarchy. Even Carter came out recently stating emphatically that the country is run by an oligarchy.

Fourth - There is no two-party system in the US. They're just two sides of the same coin, foisted upon a slave-nation. Here are your two choices - extortion by a guy in a red suit or a gal in a blue one.

GIPHY

Primarily - The state is the single most destructive organization throughout history. Untold millions, perhaps over a billion, have died at the hands of the state. For clarity, the state is the coercive agent that claims authority over persons within it's assumed jurisdiction. This is NOT NECESSARILY the same as a governing body, which CAN BE neutral. The state is always coercive and controlling, relying on violence to control the masses it claims as its own.