WHY VOTE? IT ONLY ENCOURAGES THEM.

If you were offered the choice of a) walking bare-foot across red hot coals or b) standing for ten minutes in a bucket of ice cold water, you would probably say no thanks, neither of those choices appeal to me.  But if you were then told, sorry but that's not an option, it must be either a or b, you would no doubt be incensed.

Similarly, if you were in a polling station on election day and were offered the choice of Party A or Party B when both parties were equally dedicated to globalisation, replacing the founding race with multicultural goulash, and maintaining an immigration programme which on a per capita basis is one of the highest in the world and aimed at an ever expanding population has even existing social infrastructure groaning and creaking under the strain, not to mention the looming catastrophe resulting in the overpopulation of the world's most delicate continental eco-system you would more than likely say again, no thanks, not interested.  But again you would be told that's not an option, or in this scenario, you don't have to be interested (or even be intelligent enough to understand the issues) you just have to vote.  That's Australian 'democracy'.

But of course the issues outlined above would never be mentioned.  The rationale for this seems to be that because our rulers don't give a flying fornicaton about your opinions on these matters - they are far too important to have you meddling in them - what's the point of mentioning them?

But to keep you biting so to speak, they will give you a choice on inconsequential matters, the type of minutia that dominates televised 'political news'.  If Nero really was in Rome fiddling while it burnt (which he wasn't but it's made for a timeless analogy) the nonsense that is supposed to set A and B apart would be a faithful equivalent.  So much sound and fury will be made of these little issues millions of punters in the body politic will be convinced that casting a vote is really exercising their democratic right to participate in the political process.  'By God, our forefathers fought for the right to vote and I intend to use it.'  Flying well below the radar of consciousness is the fact that in the old Soviet Union, people had the right to vote,  regular elections were held and people could vote for whomever they chose - as long as he was a communist.  Here people have the right to vote for whomever they like as long as he's a globalist who, no matter how much he bleats about the 'national interest', is fundamentally a traitor to Australia.  He, and increasingly she, are never more delirously happy than when strutting the world stage, such as at the recent Paris conference on climate change, a globalist event if ever there was one, the global warming hoax being tailor made for a 'global solution'.

The most prized gift to the ruling elite from elections is 'legitimacy' - see, they really do love us!  Yes we love them just like the infidel bride loves the the new Muslim husband she has just been sold to.  The vote and the sale are equally bereft of that quaint old commodity: freedom of choice.

But you say, there is a choice; Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee, although admittedly identical in appearance, are located at different callibrations on the left/right continuum.  Ha, ha, ha.  I'm sorry.  But the old left/right concept really doesn't cut it any more.  Well, to be fair, it may have meant something in the days of yore before the nation state had been slated for the garbage can of history by our political and managerial elite, and yes the original Labor Party just like its British counterpart 'grew out of the bowels of the trade union movement' as so eloquently stated by Ernest Bevin, but to the new improved ALP, the white Australian working class might as well have been hurled into the garbage can of history as well. Why else does it so heartily approve of its being replaced?  No, right and left has been replaced by who can dispose of Australia the fastest.  

But you say, there is a choice besides brand A and brand B.  What about the minor parties and independants?  What about them?  Besides their being window dressing?.  None of them have a hope in hell of claiming any real degree of power; at best, they might have nuisance power.  In a proportional electoral system such as is common in Europe minor parties can influence the direction of the country.  But we have a preferential system.  This in effect means that no matter who you vote for outside of A and B, your vote will more than likely eventually land with either one.

At the height of the anti-war movement in the sixties a popular sentiment expressed was 'what if they had a war and nobody came.'  Well, moving with the times, what if they held an election and nobody voted.  One can dream.