NotApathetic is closed to new submissions. The site is available as an archive for you to browse. Find out more...

Not Apathetic

Tell the world why you're not voting - don't let your silence go unheard

They're not voting because...

Deeply Offensive

The argument goes "... if you don't vote, you don't have a right to comment or complain after the vote."

This nonsense just doesn't hold water as the argument implies that voting is "having your say".

Those who voted have already HAD their say so it is voters who do not have a right to further comment - by their own (lame) reasoning.

Those of us who do not vote have even MORE right to voice our opinion in ways other than the useless ballot box.

The fact that Bliar is now using the votes of less than 25% of the electorate to justify the most obscene actions is a good reason to NOT vote.

For example: It is deeply offensive to any right thinking Briton that a vindictive, dishonest, fascist (Blunkett) is appointed to such high office in this country. Yet, voting could not have prevented this!

written 16th May 2005

Responses

Max replies: If you were "right thinking", you wouldn't be pigeonholing yourself as a "Briton", but as a member of the world's working class, whose common interest lies in abolishing the capitalist system of exploitation.
Voting could have prevented Blunkett getting high office, unfortunately it would just meant someone of a very slightly different political persuasion in another party getting there instead.

written 16th May 2005

Frederick Hause replies: Sir, "right thinking" was used to indicate a subset of Britons, not as an adjective of Britons. I make no apology for "pigeonholing" myself as a "Briton". I am certainly NOT "a member of the world's working class" and have no "common interest" in abolishing "the capitalist system" whatever that may be. Indeed I abhor most forms of collectivism, particularly the "dead hand of socialism" which has sapped human will and mutilated truth for far too long.

www.jk5.net

written 16th May 2005

Max replies: You are very lucky not to be a member of the working class. Presumably you live off rent, interest or profit and are "not available for employment"?
It's because workers don't recognise their common interest that they are persuaded by the respective governments to kill each other from time to time, appealing to their "Britishness" or whatever.
Capitalism means that the means of production (factories, agricultural land, shipping, mines etc.) are owned by a minority, forcing the rest of us--the working class--who own very little, to work for them.
Do you believe that countries like Russia, China, Cuba etc had anything to do with socialism? Even the US government didn't believe that; they published a document in, I think, 1951 stating that what existed in the USSR had nothing to do with what had been expounded by Marx and Engels.
What existed/exists in those countries was/is state capitalism, where the state monolopised production, and officials in the various "Communist" appropriated wealth through inflated salaries and privileges.
Socialist hasn't failed--it has never been tried!

written 16th May 2005

james replies: I am in total agreement with Max. As a fellow prole, I salute you, comrade! And the original poster, I am in agreement with also. Voting changes (some of) the bosses -- the right thing to do is to promote ourselves, everybody rise! (p.s.: sorry about using the "c" word.)

written 16th May 2005

JK5 replies: Quite apart from personal definitions of capitalism (or whatever), perhaps we are agreed that the act of voting does not confer on one any special right of comment. Conversely, the act of NOT voting does not disqualify one from comment, complaint or non-traditional political protest.

Indeed, we submit, that the deliberate act of not voting (perhaps more particularly in countries where voting is compulsory such as Australia) may confer even MORE right of comment, complaint etc.

Consider:

When a politician lies he disenfranchises those he purports to represent. When a politician lies he prevents electors from making a rational, informed choice at the ballot box. He defrauds the electorate and defeats democracy.

It may be argued that those who vote (for such people or for the parties which have endorsed their lies) have been fooled. As fools, perhaps their vote is not worthy of recognition. Conversely those who have not been fooled (not voted) may bear opinions which should be taken more seriously.

There is ample evidence of politicians (of many factions) lying, distorting the facts and lying by ommision. Peter Obornes recent study, "The rise of Political Lying", Free Press, 2005 is a useful resource for anyone who seriously wants to know more about the ACTUAL lies politicians have told.

More can be found on our website - www.jk5.net

A major threat to the National Interest is when a politician lies and thereby places himself (without any mandate) above democracy. When a politician has lied, his moral authority is void, he has no mandate and he has no right to occupy office of state.

When a politician has lied he has committed the most egregious crime against the whole electorate - TREASON! Politicians who lie must be exposed and dealt with harshly.

www.jk5.net

written 17th May 2005

Max replies: I agree with a lot of what jk5 says, until he refers to the "National Interest". That is another lie, used by the state to try to convince workers that they have something special worth defending, when all along conflicts are fought for economic reasons.

written 17th May 2005

jk5 replies: Max - "National Interest" is used "tongue in cheek". You are spot on in our opinion. NI is used as a manipulation keyword by totalitarians to coerce people (NOT just "workers") to raise arms in the defense of assets of the elite.

Suggest you might like to look at:
"Creature From Jekyll Island; A Second Look at the Federal Reserve"

http://www.realityzone.com/creathar.html

We recognise this is from a USA perspective but the info is REALLY staggering!

written 18th May 2005

jk5 replies: More recently (Iraq & Afganistan) NI is used to coerce people (and whole countries) to help STEAL assets from the weak to further empower the elite.

Bliar has helped the Bush crime family to do this.

Suggest you may like to look into "Carlyle Group" - a private entity controlled largely by the Bush family and associates. John Major was made EU chairman of CG in return for selling off DRA (Defense Research Agency - part of MoD - now Qinetic) to the Carlyle Group.

Our prediction is that Bliar will become a senior figure in CG on his retirement from politics. We also predict that the little slime bucket in Oz (Johnny Howard) will be similarly appointed in Asia.

written 18th May 2005

Mond replies: Just to say hellow!

written 16th Sep 2005

About Not Apathetic

NotApathetic was built so that people who are planning not to vote in the UK General Election on May 5th can tell the world why. We won't try to persuade you that voting is a good or a bad idea - we're just here to record and share your explanations. Whether ideological, practical or other, any reason will do.

A lot of users would like us to mention that if you spoil your ballot paper, it will be counted. So if you want to record a vote for "none of the above", you can.

Search