I am sure that I caught everyone’s attention with that headline, so now bear with me for a moment while I explain why Donald Trump is the best possible candidate we could hope for. First, for the purpose of full disclosure, I will admit that I do not plan on voting in this—or any—election, as I am an anarchist and a principled non-voter. I am also by no means a fan of Donald Trump.
By: John Vibes
This article first appeared at ANTIMEDIA.
I do not believe there is ever a “lesser of two evils” in politics because regardless of who rises to power, the government always wins. The fundamental problems of the power structure that controls our lives are never questioned by any of the candidates on the ballot.
The myth of the “lesser of two evils” is what keeps the vicious cycle of government and politics alive. Because each side is so terrified of the other, they end up voting for the smoothest talker that best appeals to their sensibilities. In reality, none of these candidates are different—they just have different marketing schemes that appeal to different demographics.
We can see this dynamic plainly over the past several presidencies, which all followed the same basic mold on key issues like war, central banking, and non-violent crime, though they may have had minor disagreements about how tax money was spent on various government programs.
Looking back at Bush and Obama, there was really no difference, especially when considering thenumerous wars that Obama expanded and began during his presidency, as well as the homeland police state that has continued to grow in size and strength. The only difference between Bush and Obama is the fact that Obama is a smooth talker who has been able to convince millions of people that he is a proponent of peace and freedom while he advances war and oppression. This fact alone makes Obama significantly more dangerous.
In fact, from an activist’s perspective, life was way better under Bush than it was under Obama. At least during the Bush presidency, people were not afraid to get out in the streets to criticize the very foundation of government—violence. In the Obama era, it is barely socially acceptable to criticize the president or the government, which makes it nearly impossible for activists to have meaningful conversations on the topic or convince people to question the institution of government as a whole.
That being said, it is far more beneficial to have a president that everyone hates than to have one that everyone loves, and Donald Trump seems to be the candidate that everyone loves to hate. A Donald Trump presidency, with a daily dose of Donald Trump gaffes and blooper reels, would likely push millions to give serious consideration to the prospect of anarchism, leading them to question the very concept of government.
What we do not need is another smooth talking politician, like Obama, Rand Paul, or Bernie Sanders, each of whom is able to talk a good game and convince people that the government can be saved and that it can be used for good. When push comes to shove, all of these aforementioned candidates would probably do the same exact thing with their presidency as Donald Trump, but they would do a better job at hiding their dirty deeds. In contrast, Trump would give people a daily reminder of how ridiculous the concept of a president is to begin with.
When a problem occurs or when something is wrong, we have traditionally been conditioned to find someone who is “in charge”—a final arbiter of decision-making who will have all of the answers and know all of the right things to say and do.
Typically, those who find themselves “in charge” are no more qualified or knowledgeable than those who are not, yet these false prophets continue to swindle generation after generation of people, nonetheless.
The worst aspect of this whole situation is that these so called “authorities” maintain a monopoly on problem solving, meaning they are really the only ones who are allowed to develop solutions to serious dilemmas. Thus, over time, people begin to believe that those in authority are the only ones who are actually capable of spurring progress when in reality, they are no more qualified than anyone else.
If we apply this understanding to the realm of government, it is not difficult to see that the current system of electoral politics is not an effective or moral way for people to actually create meaningful change in their communities and the planet as a whole. Year after year, administration after administration promises change, but the oppression continues to escalate.
Even if your vote is actually counted (it probably isn’t), it still won’t matter who wins in the end, anyway—they are all going to carry out the exact same policies with just slightly different rhetoric behind them. It should be obvious by now that this system is not only inherently corrupt, but is also failing miserably and in the midst of collapse.
So what do we do? How do we solve these problems? Do we look to authority? Do we put someone else in charge? Of course not! How has that been working out for us all along? Not so well, right?
Yet when I suggest that everyone needs to give up on voting and take matters into their own hands in their personal lives, people seem to get the impression that I am suggesting they “do nothing.” In reality, the complete opposite is true. I am suggesting that they actually get out and do something to make an impact on the problems that concern them instead of just pushing a button in an election booth, throwing the problem in some politicians lap, and thinking something will actually get done.
If anything, that political approach is the lazy way of going about change, but actually working on solutions yourself is truly meaningful action. There are a plethora of ways you can contribute to helping the global situation outside of traditional politics. In fact, you will do much better than the politicians at actually achieving that goal.
Instead of political action, engaging in Agorism (building your own non-governmental solutions) is the best way to actually create real change in the world. Agorism is a strategy of noncompliance that uses counter-economics and underground markets as a way of keeping power in the hands of average people, thus slowly diminishing the power and relevance of the control structure. Growing food, using Bitcoin, educating children through homeschooling, running small businesses without licenses, bartering, and starting community currencies are all examples of Agorist activities.
Some Agorists are even so bold as to create businesses that will challenge existing state monopolies, like we saw last year when Detroit residentscreated their own community protection agencies because the police were no longer responding to 911 calls. It is as simple as finding a need in your community for a particular good or service and attempting to provide that value without any sort of interaction with the government or any other unchosen third parties. In other words, the basic idea is to try solving the problem yourself, with your community, instead of waiting around for a politician to make the problem worse.
Regardless who gets into power, they will undoubtedly make things worse because they will expand government in either one direction or the other, depending on whether their shade of authoritarianism is red or blue. So if someone must be in power, it should be the guy that everyone loves to hate—maybe then they will actually begin to realize that no one should be in power in the first place.
This article first appeared at ANTIMEDIA.