Funkhadafi

Yes Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi was a dictator (despite the fact that he did not consider himself as such and that his Libya was a direct democracy with socialism at its core.) Yes he was brutal in his rule. Yes he lived very well at the expense of the treasury. However, considering the salaries and bonuses of successful CEOs taken from their investors for a job well done, as well as the harm that many of these industries do to the public, perhaps, by Western standards, he deserved to.

Ten things you don’t know about Gaddafi’s rule, and the conditions within Libya.

CNN parroting the above. CNN officially claims that these reports cannot be verified, but they can be, and they have been.

Global Research published an illuminating article about Gaddafi highlighting the plans he had for his country and the opposition to his will expressed and implemented by the international community.

Additionally, Gaddafi was instrumental in liberating telecommunications in Africa.

“The Regional African Satellite Communication Organization (RASCOM) will provide telecommunication services, direct TV broadcast services and Internet access in rural areas of Africa. Under an agreement with RASCOM, RascomStar-QAF (a private company registered in Mauritius) will implement RASCOM’s first communications satellite project. This joint African project is expected to lower the continent’s dependency on international satellite networks such as Intelsat.”

Mercenaries could have been paid to assassinate Gaddafi and claim that the people wanted him dead. Or the people themselves, who enjoyed many of the astounding benefits seen in the above links, could have suddenly gone crazy. Unproven, either way.

It seems more likely that he was killed for the same reason Lincoln, Jackson (almost,) Garfield, Kennedy, and Hussein were killed… money. More correctly, the protection of American money – namely the dollar. Gaddafi was in talks to develop a pan-African gold-backed currency. Congressman Larry McDonald and senators John Heinz and John Tower all died in plane crashes after having criticized the Federal Reserve and called for audits. Chavez was also villified for his stance on re-patriating Venezuela’s gold.

The truth is that Gaddafi was an ardent supporter of direct democracy and a champion for his people. Bashar al Assad is supported by most of the Syrian population (saying that life was better with Assad than it is with ISIS) and it would appear that he will soon face the same fate as Gaddafi if the Americans get their paws on him. And don’t forget what happened to Arbenz, Mossadeq, Allende, Roldos, Torrijos, Aristide, not to mention Yanukovych… the list goes on.


*Update*

Article from Zerohedge:

British Parliament Confirms Libya War Was Based On Lies … Turned Nation Into a “Shit Show” … Spread Terrorism

Re-published here:

Parliamentary Report Confirms What the Alternative Media Has Been Saying for Years

The UK Parliament just confirmed what the alternative media has been saying for years.

Specifically, a new report from the bipartisan House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee – based on interviews with all of the key British decision-makers, review of documents, and on-the-ground investigations in Africa – found that Libyan war was based on lies, that it destroyed the country, and that it spread terrorism far and wide.

The War Based On Bogus Intelligence … Like the Iraq War

Initially, the report finds that the threat to civilians from Libyan  government forces was dramatically overstated:

Former French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé, who introduced Resolution 1973 [imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, and laying the groundwork for overthrowing the government], asserted in his speech to the Security Council that “the situation on the ground is more alarming than ever, marked by the violent re-conquest of cities”. He stressed the urgency of the situation, arguing that “We have very little time left—perhaps only a matter of hours.” Subsequent analysis suggested that the immediate threat to civilians was being publicly overstated and that the reconquest of cities had not resulted in mass civilian casualties.

 

***

 

The proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi  [which was the basis for the West’s war to overthrow Gaddafi] was not supported by the available evidence. The Gaddafi regime had retaken towns from the rebels without attacking civilians in early February 2011 …. Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians. More widely, Muammar Gaddafi’s 40-year record of appalling human rights abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians.

 

***

 

On 17 March 2011, Muammar Gaddafi announced to the rebels in Benghazi, “Throw away your weapons, exactly like your brothers in Ajdabiya and other places did. They laid down their arms and they are safe. We never pursued them at all.” Subsequent investigation revealed that when Gaddafi regime forces retook Ajdabiya in February 2011, they did not attack civilians. Muammar Gaddafi also attempted to appease protesters in Benghazi with an offer of development aid before finally deploying troops.

 

***

 

An Amnesty International investigation in June 2011 could not corroborate allegations of mass human rights violations by Gaddafi regime troops. However, it uncovered evidence that rebels in Benghazi made false claims and manufactured evidence. The investigation concluded that much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge.

***

 

In short, the scale of the threat to civilians was presented with unjustified certainty. US intelligence officials reportedly described the intervention as “an intelligence-light decision”.

Just like the ginned up intelligence used to justify the Iraq war. And the “humanitarian wars” waged over the last couple of decades.

The Libyan Government Was Fighting Terrorists

The report also notes that the Libyan government really was – as Libyan dictator Gaddafi claimed at the time – fighting Islamic terrorists based in Benghazi:

Intelligence on the extent to which extremist militant Islamist elements were involved in the anti-Gaddafi rebellion was inadequate.

***

Abdelhakim Belhadj and other members of the al-Qaeda affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group were participating in the rebellion in March 2011.

Secret intelligence reports from 2011, written before and during the illegal US-led attack on Libya and recently obtained by the Washington Times, state:

  There is a close link between al Qaeda, Jihadi organizations, and the opposition in Libya…

Indeed, the Libyan rebel commander admitted at the time that his fighters had links to Al Qaeda.  And see this.

We reported in 2012:

The U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists. According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:

The Hindustan Times reported last year:

 “There is no question that al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition,” Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and a leading expert on terrorism, told Hindustan Times.

 

It has always been Qaddafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi.

***

(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion.  But NATO planes stopped him, and protected Benghazi.)

The Daily Mail reported in 2014:

A self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

 

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

 

She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.

 

‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..

 

‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’

 

***

 

‘The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’

 

‘Some look at it as treason,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research.

The West and Its Allies Directly Supported and Armed the Rebels

The UK report confirms that the West and its allies directly supported and armed the rebels:

The combat performance of rebel ground forces was enhanced by personnel and intelligence provided by states such as the UK, France, Turkey, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. For example, Lord Richards told us that the UK “had a few people embedded” with the rebel forces.

 

Resolution 1973 called on United Nations member states to ensure the “strict implementation of the arms embargo”. However, we were told that the international community turned a blind eye to the supply of weapons to the rebels. Lord Richards highlighted “the degree to which the Emiratis and the Qataris … played a major role in the success of the ground operation.” For example, Qatar supplied French Milan anti­tank missiles to certain rebel groups. We were told that Qatar channelled its weapons to favoured militias rather than to the rebels as a whole.

The REAL Motivation for War

The real motivation for the war?  The Parliamentary report explains:

A further insight into French motivations was provided in a freedom of information disclosure by the United States State Department in December 2015. On 2 April 2011, Sidney Blumenthal, adviser and unofficial intelligence analyst to the then United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, reported this conversation with French intelligence officers to the Secretary of State:

 

According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:

 

  1. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
  2. Increase French influence in North Africa,
  3. Improve his internal political situation in France,
  4. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
  5. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.

 

The sum of four of the five factors identified by Sidney Blumenthal equated to the French national interest. The fifth factor was President Sarkozy’s political self-interest.

Gaddafi Tried to Step Down … But the West Insisted On Violent Regime Change

Gaddafi had offered to hand over power, but the West instead wanted violent regime change. (The British report notes: “By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change.”)

The Parliamentary report notes that Gaddaffi may have been attempting to flee the country when he was killed:

Muammar Gaddafi might have been seeking an exit from Libya in February and March 2011. On 21 February 2011, for example, Lord Hague told reporters that he had seen credible information that Muammar Gaddafi was on his way to exile in Venezuela. Concerted action after the telephone calls conducted by Mr Blair might have led to Muammar Gaddafi’s abdication and to a negotiated solution in Libya. It was therefore important to keep the lines of communication open. However, we saw no evidence that the then Prime Minister David Cameron attempted to exploit Mr Blair’s contacts.

 

***

 

Political options were available if the UK Government had adhered to the spirit of Resolution 1973, implemented its original campaign plan and influenced its coalition allies to pause military action when Benghazi was secured in March 2011. Political engagement might have delivered civilian protection, regime change and reform at lesser cost to the UK and to Libya. If political engagement had been unsuccessful, the UK and its coalition allies would not have lost anything. Instead, the UK Government focused exclusively on military intervention. In particular, we saw no evidence that it tried to exploit former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s contacts and influence with the Gaddafi regime.

The U.S. and France were also hell-bent on regime change.  And the New York Times confirms that Hillary Clinton is largely responsible for the violent regime change in Libya.

Why Should We Care?

Why should we care?

Well, the House of Commons report confirms that the Libyan war has wrecked the country:

The Libyan economy generated some $75 billion of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010. This economy produced an average annual per capita income of approximately $12,250, which was comparable to the average income in some European countries. [The former Indian representative to the U.N. notes that, before the war, Libya had less of its population in poverty than the Netherlands.  Libyans had access to free health care, education, electricity and interest-free loans, and women had great freedoms that were applauded by the U.N. Human Rights Council]. Libyan Government revenue greatly exceeded expenditure in the 2000s. … The United Nations Human Development Report 2010—a United Nations aggregate measure of health, education and income—ranked Libya as the 53rd most advanced country in the world for human development and as the most advanced country in Africa.

 

***

 

In 2014, the most recent year for which reliable figures are available … the average Libyan’s annual income had decreased from $12,250 in 2010 to $7,820.  Since 2014, Libya’s economic predicament has reportedly deteriorated. Libya is likely to experience a budget deficit of some 60% of GDP in 2016. The requirement to finance that deficit is rapidly depleting net foreign reserves, which halved from $107 billion in 2013 to $56.8 billion by the end of 2015. Production of crude oil fell to its lowest recorded level in 2015, while oil prices collapsed in the second half of 2014. Inflation increased to 9.2% driven by a 13.7% increase in food prices including a fivefold increase in the price of flour. The United Nations ranked Libya as the world’s 94th most advanced country in its 2015 index of human development, a decline from 53rd place in 2010.

 

***

 

In 2016, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimated that out of a total Libyan population of 6.3 million, 3 million people have been impacted by the armed conflict and political instability, and that 2.4 million people require protection and some form of humanitarian assistance. In its World Report 2016, Human Rights Watch stated that Libya is heading towards a humanitarian crisis, with almost 400,000 people internally displaced and increasing disruption to basic services, such as power and fuel supplies. Forces engaged in the conflict continued with impunity to arbitrarily detain, torture, unlawfully kill, indiscriminately attack, abduct and disappear, and forcefully displace people from their homes. The domestic criminal justice system collapsed in most parts of the country, exacerbating the human rights crisis

People-trafficking gangs exploited the lack of effective government after 2011, making Libya a key transit route for illegal migration into Europe and the location of a migrant crisis. In addition to other extremist militant groups, ISIL emerged in Libya in 2014, seizing control of territory around Sirte and setting up terrorist training centres. Human Rights Watch documented unlawful executions by ISIL in Sirte of at least 49 people by methods including decapitation and shooting. The civil war between west and east has waxed and waned with sporadic outbreaks of violence since 2014. In April 2016, United States President Barack Obama described post-intervention Libya as a “shit show”. It is difficult to disagree with this pithy assessment.

The Parliamentary report confirms that the Libyan war – like the Iraq war – has ended up spreading terrorism around the globe:

Libyan weapons and ammunition were trafficked across North and West Africa and the Middle East.

 

***

 

The United Nations Panel of Experts appointed to examine the impact of Resolution 1973 identified the presence of ex-Libyan weapons in Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Gaza, Mali, Niger, Tunisia and Syria. The panel concluded that “arms originating from Libya have significantly reinforced the military capacity of terrorist groups operating in Algeria, Egypt, Mali and Tunisia.” In the 2010-15 Parliament, our predecessor Committee noted that the failure to secure the Gaddafi regime’s arms caches had led to “a proliferation of small arms and light weapons, and some heavier artillery, across North and West Africa”. It identified that Libyan small arms had apparently ended up in the hands of Boko Haram militants.

 

***

 

In January 2014, Egyptian Islamist insurgents used an ex-Libyan MANPAD to shoot down an Egyptian Army helicopter in the Sinai.

 

***

 

The FCO told us that “Political instability in Libya has led to a permissive environment for terrorist groups in which to operate, including ISIL [i.e. ISIS] affiliated groups”.   Professor Patrick Porter, Professor of Strategic Studies at the University of Exeter, agreed with the FCO analysis, stating that “a lack of effective government is creating opportunities for the Islamic State.”

 

***

 

ISIL has used its presence in Libya to train terrorists. For example, Sefeddine Rezgui, the gunman who killed Western holidaymakers in Tunisia in June 2015, was trained by ISIL at its base in Sabratha along with the two gunmen who killed 22 tourists at the Bardo museum in Tunis. ISIL’s plans may extend beyond terrorism. Vice-Admiral Clive Johnstone, a Royal Navy officer and NATO commander, commented that:

We know they [ISIL] have ambitions to go offshore … There is a horrible opportunity in the future that a misdirected, untargeted round of a very high quality weapons system will just happen to target a cruise liner, or an oil platform, or a container ship.

And the UK report confirms that the Libyan war has created a tidal wave of refugees:

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimated that some 1 million migrants were present in Libya in June 2016. This estimate comprised 425,000 internally displaced Libyans, 250,000 non-Libyan migrants and 250,000 returnees. Most non-Libyan migrants travelled from West Africa, the Horn of Africa, South Asia and the Middle East. The most common countries of origin for non-Libyan migrants were Niger, Egypt, Chad, Ghana and Sudan. Between 1 January and 31 May 2016, 47,851 migrants arrived in Italy after crossing the Mediterranean from Libya. A similar number of migrants attempted the crossing over the same period in 2015. Despite the increased resources committed to Operation Triton, however, crossing the Mediterranean is becoming increasingly hazardous for migrants transiting through Libya. The IOM recorded 2,061 migrants as dead or missing between 1 January and 31 May 2016, which showed a 15% increase in fatalities compared with the same period in 2015.

In other words – just like the Iraq war – the Libyan war was based on fake intelligence, was carried out for reasons having little to do with national security or protecting civilians, destroyed a nation and created a “shit show”, spread terrorism far and wide, and created waves of refugees.


The following are selected quotes from Gaddafi (translated from French by yours truly:)

“La lutte politique qui aboutit à la victoire d’un candidat, avec, par exemple 51% de l’ensemble des voix des électeurs, conduit à un système dictatorial, mais sous un déguisement démocratique. En effet, 49% des électeurs sont gouvernés par un système qu’ils n’ont pas choisi, et qui, au contraire, leur a été imposé. Et cela c’est la dictature. Cette lutte politique peut aussi aboutir à la victoire d’un appareil ne représentant que la minorité, notamment lorsque les voix des électeurs se répartissent sur un ensemble de candidats dont l’un obtient plus de voix que chacun des autres considéré à part. Mais si l’on additionnait les voix obtenues par les « battus », cela donnerait une large majorité. Malgré cela, c’est celui qui a le moins de voix qui est proclamé vainqueur, et son succès est considéré comme égal et démocratique ! Mais en réalité il s’instaure une dictature sous des apparences démocratiques. Voilà la vérité sur les régimes politiques qui dominent le monde actuel. Leur falsification de la vraie démocratie apparaît clairement: ce sont des régimes dictatoriaux.”

“The political struggle which ends in the victory of one of the candidates, with, for example 51% of the total of electors’ votes, leads to a dictatorial system, but under the guise of a democratic system. In effect, 49% of the voters are governed by a system they have not chosen, and which, to the contrary, was imposed upon them. And this is dictatorship. This political struggle can also end in the victory of a system which represents the minority, most notably when the electors’ votes are spread out over a certain number of candidates where one gets more votes than any of the others individually. But if we add up the votes of all the “beaten” candidates, it would show a large majority. Despite this, the one with the lowest tally is proclaimed victor, and his success is considered equal and democratic! But in reality, a dictatorship is installed through a disguise of democracy. Here is the truth about the political regimes which dominate the world, today. Their falsification of true democracy appears clearly: these are dictatorial regimes.”

“La démocratie directe, quand elle est mise en pratique, est indiscutablement et incontestablement la méthode idéale de gouvernement. Comme une nation, quelle que soit sa population, ne peut être rassemblée pour discuter, étudier et décider de sa politique, les sociétés sont détournées de la démocratie directe, qui est demeurée une idée utopique éloignée de la réalité. Elle a été remplacée par de nombreuses théories de gouvernement, telles que les assemblées parlementaires, les coalitions de partis, les référendums. Toutes ont conduit à isoler le peuple de l’activité politique, à usurper sa souveraineté, et à confisquer son pouvoir au profit d’ « appareils de gouvernement » successifs et en conflit, qu’ils soient individu, classe, secte, tribu, Parlement ou parti.”

“Direct democracy, when put into practice, is incontestably the ideal method of government. But as a nation, whoever makes up the population, cannot all be reunited to talk about, study, and plan its policies, the idea of direct democracy is illusory and utopian and is divorced from reality. This concept has been replaced by numerous theories of government, such as parliamentary assemblies, party coalitions, referendums; all of which have served to isolate the people from their political activities, to usurp their sovereignty, and confiscate its power to the profit of successive ‘government apparatus’ and conflict, be they individual, class, sect, tribe, Parliament (sic,) or party”

“La propriété pourrait bien changer de mains, le résultat serait le même: le travailleur demeure un salarié tant qu’il n’a pas été rétabli dans son droit sur sa propre production, et que celle-ci continue à être détournée au profit de la “collectivité” ou de l’employeur.La solution finale à ce problème consiste à abolir le salariat, par la libération de l’homme de l’asservissement dans lequel celui-ci le maintient.”

“Property could change hands, the result would be the same: the worker remains a salaried employee as long as he has not reclaimed the rights of his personal production, and so long as it continues to be usurped to the profit of the ‘collective’ or the employer. The final solution to this problem consists in abolishing the working class by the liberation of the man in a condition of servitude through which he is held.”

“Celui qui possède la maison que vous habitez, la voiture dans laquelle vous vous déplacez et qui assure votre salaire pour votre subsistance, s’approprie en fait votre liberté, ou du moins une partie de celle-ci. Or, la liberté est indivisible.”

He who owns the house you live in, the car you drive in, and who assures you a salary for your subsistence, is, in fact, appropriating your freedom, or, at least, a part thereof. However, liberty is indivisible.”

“LE LOGEMENT est une nécessité pour l’homme et sa famille. Il ne doit appartenir à personne d’autre qu’à lui. Un homme n’est pas libre quand il habite une maison louée. En matière de logement, la politique suivie par les Etats a consisté à réglementer la location en bloquant ou en augmentant les loyers. La seule solution radicale et définitive est l’accession à la propriété. Dans la société socialiste, nul ne peut être maître des besoins de l’homme. Personne ne peut dans cette société, bâtir un logement autre que pour lui-même et ses héritiers. La maison de l’individu étant un de ses besoins fondamentaux, nul ne peut construire dans le but de louer.”

“Housing is a neccessity for man and his family. His house must belong to no other but him. A man is not free when he inhabits a rented house. Where housing is concerned, the policies followed by the State consists in regulating rental by stopping or raising rents. The only definitive solution, be it a radical one, is accession of property. In socialist society, none can be master of the needs of man. Nobody, in this society, can build housing for anyone but himself and his heirs. The individuals house being one of his fundamental needs, none can build with the goal of renting.”

“L’éducation obligatoire et standardisée constitue en fait une entreprise d’abrutissement des masses. Tous les Etats qui déterminent officiellement les matières et les connaissances à enseigner et qui organisent ainsi l’éducation, exercent une contrainte sur les citoyens. Toutes les méthodes d’éducation en vigueur dans le monde devraient être abolies par une révolution culturelle mondiale visant à émanciper l’esprit humain de l’enseignement du fanatisme et de l’orientation autoritaire des goûts, du jugement et de l’intelligence de l’être humain. Cela ne veut pas dire qu’il faille fermer les écoles ou, comme pourrait le supposer un lecteur superficiel, tourner le dos à l’éducation. Cela veut dire, au contraire, que la société devrait fournir toutes sortes d’activités éducatrices, permettant aux jeunes de choisir spontanément et librement les matières qu’ils souhaitent étudier.”

“Mandatory and standardized education consists of, in fact, an enterprise of mass-stupification of the masses. All states which officially determine the subjects and knowledge to be taught and who thereby organise education, exercise a certain constraint upon the citizens. All the methods of education in the world should be abolished by a worldwide cultural revolution which should aim to emancipate the human spirit from the teaching of fanaticism and the authoritarian orientation of human tastes, of human judgement, and of human intelligence. This does not mean that we must close the schools or, as a merely superficial reading would indicate, turn our backs to education. To the contrary, this means that society should supply all sorts of educational activities, such that children could spontaneously and freely choose the subjects which he wishes to study.”

-Mouammar KADHAFI

To Vote Or Not To Vote…

The CBC has been on a fact-finding mission; they want to know why so many people, and young people in particular, are uninvolved in politics. They have asked ‘experts’ (self-proclaimed, no less) to chime in, they have brought forth their own opinions, they have even tried to compare politics to sporting events. None of it has brought them any closer to the truth.

There are many legitimate reasons for the lack of interest, but none of these have been considered. Young people are not uninterested in politics; young people are uninterested in politicians. If anyone doubts this, they need only try to tell a young person what to do (or what not to do.) The youth are fiercely independant and do not easily subject themselves to the trappings of authority, to their credit. The youth have always been an energetic and enthousiastic voice for change when it was needed (do you remember the ‘Printemps Érable’?) They just don’t like the system as it stands, and they are simply not hypocritical enough to use it for the obtention of their objectives. After all, politics is full of old people, and old people don’t listen to the young.

This is not about apathy. If the youth understood to what extent politics affects their lives, they would say so aggressively. Futility is probably a better word. No matter how hard we push, some things never get done, some promises are never kept, and some people can never be trusted. In essence, trust in the government is a more important consideration. Dissatisfaction with the results of misplaced trust is another leading factor. Politicians tend to promise many things which they cannot deliver, whether or not they know this when making those promises speaks to the trust issue once again. Is it ignorance or deception? If we do not know, we will assume the worst. Neither do we seem surprised if it is deception. For once, we might say, expectations were met. If the above reasons are true (or can be shown to have some merit,) the only conclusion we can come to is that there is a tremendous waste of time and money involved.

With apathy not being the case, and futility, dissatisfaction, and mis-trust being the key issues, how can we re-engage the populace to take more action when it comes to picking a leader? Given that most leaders tend to act in similar fashion when elected, and that most of them are not particularily charismatic to begin with, perhaps, as was positied by one of the CBC’s guest analysts, all which needs be done is to jazz up the look of advertising. Saying that the young are so superficial that an improved ad campaign would change everything is naive and insulting. The truth is that the ads reflect the state of politics: black and white and boring, the way it should be. We certainly don’t need to put lipstick on this pig; we need to explain that this is where bacon comes from.

Continue reading “To Vote Or Not To Vote…”