I know what you're probably thinking: "But tipplenurkey, every American has a civil duty to vote!  That's what makes America a free country!"  Um, no.  What MADE our country great was being founded on solid, godly principles, values and morals.  The idea that everyone should be free to exercise their faith as they see fit, that no one person should have absolute power unchecked by those they govern and that family and community are sacred trusts that should be protected and preserved: those are the things that MADE America the free country that it was meant to be.

Yes, I know that the right to vote played a major role in America's rise to greatness, but the process has since been manipulated, twisted and perverted into just another means of controlling and subjugating the population.  We have somehow managed to slip from a glorious republic of free states into a confused and blinded democracy.  In case you are unaware, let me clarify the difference:

Republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them

Democracy - government by the people, especially : rule of the majority

Today, these two words are used interchangeably, but the basic ideas are quite different, as you can see. 

In a republic, the general population accepts that they lack the moral and intellectual capacity to govern themselves with absolute autonomy and that anarchy is dangerous and universally bad, so they collectively agree to elect representatives who best personify the ideology upon which their societies are founded (something that would be defined, for example, by a Constitution or similar document) and, if and when those representatives no longer effectively champion said ideology, to replace them through an established electoral process.  The decision to adapt or change the ideology that society follows is, in a republic, the responsibility of elected officials to propose and the population to vote on, yea or nay.  This is not a perfect system, but it is the most effective form of government, historically speaking.

Democracy is the idea that the majority of the population should be allowed to determine what is best for the entire population.  This wouldn't be a problem if the majority of any given population weren't short-sighted, uneducated crybabies concerned only with their own personal well-being.  There is no disputing the fact that average intelligence is average because it is what most people have.  It is also commonly accepted that average intelligence is insufficient for an effective leader.  No one wants stupid people representing them in government, but in a democracy, that's exactly what you get.  Right and wrong, law, principle and morality no longer matter: the only deciding factor in a democracy is "What do the most people WANT?"  Not need, want.  That is another important distinction.  Democracy is ultimately a government of all the people, by most of the people, for the whims of some of the people.

Now that we know the difference, which is America today?  That's an involved question, but what we've basically done is taken the worst parts of both types of government and mashed them into a disfigured, retarded, psychotic, gender-confused bastard child of a government.  The majority vote rules, except when it goes against a prevailing narrative, in which case elected government officials have final say, but only if they say what the loudest group wants them to say, which is whatever most mainstream media outlets and social platforms tell them to want those officials to say.  Of course, those media sources have their scripts fed to them by lobbyists, interest groups and corporations, along with a big fat check every time every time they dance to the right tune.  Yes, bang those cymbals, silly monkeys!

I refuse to have any part in a process that is so beyond repair.  If the general population were allowed to know that there are more than two political parties, that they can choose the lesser of a whole host of evils rather than just two, I might be inclined to start voting.  Honestly, at this point I can't see how it matters.  The line between Republicans and Democrats has become so blurred that I question its existence.  The other parties seem to have basically given up on breaking into the political game on any meaningful level.  Mainstream media rarely if ever even makes mention of third-party candidates, making it nearly impossible for them to gain recognition.  We have reached a point in our nation's history where it is socially acceptable to openly and blatantly violate the law just because "they're angry," and where any cry to our leaders to uphold the law is met with vicious insults, false labels and even physical violence.  Why?  Because people are easier to control when they are angry.

We are in a place now where the existence of a virus that causes harm to the body comparable to influenza is sufficient to shut down an entire country.  I don't care, okay, I DO NOT CARE HOW FAST IT SPREADS.  Common colds spread like wildfire, too.  When I got bacterial meningitis (mortality rate 19-37% in adults and can kill in as little as 4 hours) after brain surgery, I was assigned a pregnant nurse (she and I agreed that she would not be allowed into my room).  My wife and my mother were allowed to basically live in my hospital room without masks, despite the fact that a cough in the wrong direction could have infected and possibly killed them.  Why, then, is COVID-19 treated like the herald of Armageddon?  Because people are easier control when they are afraid.

All statistics show that there is a direct link between the poverty level in a community and violent crime rates in that community (thereby increasing police interaction and, by law of averages, cases of police brutality and excessive force).  Seems to me that the simple solution is to reduce poverty rates across the board, starting with the communities with the highest rates thereof.  Nobody, and I mean NOBODY is talking about this.  No one on either side of the argument has even once, as far as I have seen and heard, suggested that financial independence is the key to reducing crime AND police brutality.  Why?  Because people are easier to control when they're poor.

Following the idea of finances being linked to crime rates, where should improvements be made to reduce poverty rates? That's easy: education.  80% of all US millionaires today have a college degree of some kind.  Most of them are Masters or higher, but relatively few of them are ivy league.  That suggests a link not between the reputation of your university and your success, but a link between your own determination and commitment to a goal and your success.  Potential employers like to see that degree because it tells them that, if this person is willing to spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours relentlessly pursuing a piece of paper, they are likely to be equally committed to pursuing success within my organization.  So, why is no one talking about improving education in poverty-class communities to improve the odds of success and thereby reduce the rate of violent crime and police brutality?  Why?  Because people are easier to control when they are uneducated.

In America today, people are being taught that feelings are important and valuable, that truth is subjective and that emotions should be given greater consideration than facts.  We are teaching our children that what IS isn't relevant, only what they WISH WAS.  The mentally ill are now being treated as if they are perfectly fine and that their delusions are real.  Let me give you an example:

If one of your neighbors came to you one day and said, "Hey, I was in my kitchen and the microwave told me to kill the guy that lives across the street," you would not, as a sane human being, turn to your neighbor and say, "You are absolutely correct.  Your microwave DID tell you to kill that guy and you totally should because your microwave would never lie to you."  No, you would break contact as carefully as possible and, hopefully, alert local authorities to the possibility of an impending murder.  So why, then, are we all expected to have a man approach us and say, "I am actually a woman and I should be treated socially and medically as a woman," and agree with what is obviously an untrue statement?  That man is not a woman, has never been a woman and will never be a woman no matter how much surgery he has or how many hormone pills he takes.  No amount of medical intervention will change the fact that every cell in his body, with the exception of some of his sperm, carry a Y chromosome.  Clearly, this man is confused about what is reality and what is fantasy, and he needs professional help and treatment for a recognized mental health disorder formerly called "gender identity disorder" and now known as "gender dysphoria."

So, what's going on?  Everyone knows that how you feel about something doesn't change the truth of it.  You may absolutely hate the fact that 2+2=4, but that just sucks for you because it is still true and always will be.  You may not like the fact that most of the Eart's surface is covered with water, but it is.  You may not like the fact that you are a man, but you are and always will be.  Yet, our society is rapidly becoming one where it is common practice to ignore the truth in favor of what we wish the truth was.  Why?  Because people are easier to control when they are ignorant.

Left America has been waging a war on the Second Amendment for decades.  This, too, is an exercise in ignorance.  Those who would do away with the Second Amendment don't like hearing about how 98% of mass shooting occur in gun-free zones.  Turns out psycho murderers prefer targets that are extremely unlikely to shoot back.  The people who push for stricter gun control willfully ignore the fact that criminals who intend to commit crimes with guns don't give one naked mole rat's ass if having that gun is also a crime AND if you think they're getting these guns they intend to commit crimes with through legal channels, you're delusional beyond curing.  If you believe gun laws prevent gun crimes, then you must believe that assault laws prevent assaults, theft laws prevent thefts, etc.  And you'd be wrong again.  No law has ever PREVENTED a crime.  Laws exist to define what behavior is unacceptable in a society and what consequence should be faced for that behavior.  So, it is not the law, but the fear of consequence that prevents crime.  Career criminals obviously do not fear the consequences and so do not obey the law.  Therefore, the only people who would be affected by stricter gun control are the people who are ALREADY DOING THE RIGHT THING.  If this is true, and I assure you it is, then what is the point of pushing such a gun control agenda?  Why?  Because people are easier to control when they are unarmed.

I will obey the law as long as it does not prevent me from the free exercise of my faith, but I will not take part in a system that has been twisted in design to arrest control of my life away from me and put it into the hands of those I would not trust to govern a goldfish bowl, let alone a country.  What I WILL do is prepare myself for the inevitable eventuality of revolution.  The wheels of uprising were set in motion when federal government refused the South its Constitutionally protected right to secede and declared civil war.  This had nothing to do with freeing black slaves, people.  That was a brilliant propaganda move by Lincoln, who did not support slavery but also did not believe in equality of races, to destabilize the southern economy and bolster the Union army's numbers with cannon fodder.  Lincoln was also the first president to make the power grab that we call the "executive order."  This is an unconstitutional means by which the president essentially asserts, "My word is law."  It isn't.  Only Congress has the power to create laws.  Only the Supreme Court has the power to interpret laws.  The president's only duty to the law is to see it executed and enforced.

That's why I don't vote.  I will not actively promote one lie over another.  I will not support one evil over another.  I will not allow my voice to become part of a chorus of corruption, or to be drowned out by it.