War Criminals and the Voters Who Elect Them - by Mark E. Smith

General George Washington, the first President of the United States, wrote orders to Major General John Sullivan to execute a "preemptory" attack on the Iroquois. A preemptory attack is a war of aggression, a war crime. Washington further wrote to Sullivan not to "listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected." The refusal to allow people to surrender and to insist on destroying them is another war crime.

Soldiers under William Henry Harrison committed similar war crimes against the Shawnees, and he also became President. So did General Andrew Jackson. In fact, it appears that the more war crimes they committed, the more popular US Presidents were with voters.

Nothing has changed. Only a war criminal can become President of the United States. The overwhelming majority of US voters will only vote for a war criminal.

So when voters are pretending to be peace activists and I ask them not to vote for war criminals, I invariably meet with intractable resistance. They insist that one war criminal is less evil than the other war criminal. They say that they're holding their noses when they vote for war criminals but that they are afraid of more evil war criminals. But no matter what I say, they absolutely will not consider not voting.

Third party voters are in even greater denial. They'll vote for a peace candidate who has absolutely no chance of winning, and insist that their votes, in our winner-take-all electoral system, aren't really votes for the winner but "protest votes."

My pleas not to vote in elections where only war criminals can win and where the only possible result will be more war crimes, is never going to sway US voters, because no matter how much they may try to deny it to themselves to or others, they love war crimes. They always have and they always will. War crimes are what "made this country great," enabling it to steal land, resources, and appropriate more than 25% of the world's resources for fewer than 6% of the world's population. War Crimes "R" US.

Fortunately, there are other arguments that have proven to be more effective among certain groups of voters. Voters who care about global warming or nuclear accidents can sometimes be persuaded that leaving such important policies in the hands of government is reckless and irresponsible. People who care about democracy and think their vote is a voice in government, can sometimes be dissuaded from voting when they learn how corrupt our electoral system is, and that uncounted, unverifiable votes for officials who can't be held accountable aren't really a voice in anything. Third party voters who have spent decades voting for candidates who never win are sometimes open to boycotting elections. But most voters vote because they know for a fact that they couldn't have their lifestyles if not for our government's continuous genocides, and they much prefer the genocidal status quo to the uncertainty of change.

While turnout in midterm elections may dip as low as 30% or 40%, that is because voters are secure in the knowledge that the war criminals they voted for and their genocides will continue at least until the next Presidential election. During Presidential races, turnout swells to 50% or even close to 60%, as the lovers of genocide flock to the polls to try to elect their favorite war criminal. Only about 40% of the electorate refuse to vote in elections where only continuing genocides against people of color can result. And even then, some may stay home out of apathy, not really caring which war criminal wins as long as they know that the genocides will continue.

So how many US voters really care about things like global warming, nuclear meltdowns, an unsustainable economy, and their own chances of personal survival, enough to be open to arguments advocating that we take power away from government and restore it to the people? Who are "the people?" Are there enough voters who consider other humans to be people, to make a difference?

Taking power from government and putting in the hands of voters certainly won't accomplish anything, as those who love genocide will continue to love genocide whether the government is doing it for them or they have to do it themselves.

Some say that there is a rising consciousness in the US, but if you look at their web pages, they're always talking about prosperity, and prosperity, being wealthier than other people, is impossible without genocide. I don't know if it was Gandhi, Mother Teresa, or somebody else who said, "Live simply, so that others can simply live," but it isn't a big seller in the USA. We're a consumer society and we judge others by how much they have, not by their value as human beings.

I'm reading Ward Churchill's book, *Perversions of Justice: Indigenous Peoples and Angloamerican Law,* and the information about our early war criminal Presidents comes from the last essay in the book, "'To Judge Them by the Standards of Their Time': America's Indian Fighters, the Laws of War and the Question of International Order." The Indian wars have never stopped and continue to this day. The same atrocities committed in those wars, including the slaughter of women and children, are ongoing in many countries where the US is waging wars of aggression. The US has exempted itself from international law and is every bit as genocidal as it was when it began, while voters are equally complicit.

But I can't give up. My personal survival is tied up with the survival of the planet, and that depends entirely on whether or not the United States government can be deterred from destroying us all. I'm not alone, even if we don't have anywhere near a majority, and more people really are waking up all the time. I have the dual challenge of being in my declining years on a declining planet. So I've chosen to spend whatever time I have left trying to stop the destruction in the company of those who have made the same choice.

I highly recommend Churchill's book. If your library doesn't have it and you can't order it, I ordered two copies today which should arrive within the next couple of weeks, and I'll be happy to send them to whoever asks, first come, first served, with the proviso that when you finish it, you pass it along to the next person on the list. It is heavy reading. Genocide isn't a joke. But since we're the perpetrators rather than the victims, we have the luxury of reading. And of thinking. And of trying to make it stop.

Maybe we can't succeed, but we'll never know unless we give it our all.

There is no worthier cause.


Link to source: https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/electionboycottnews/2012-12/msg00003.html

Discussion Forum