The Lesser of Two Weevils

Same Species. They Both Want Your Lunch.

I’m a Kennedy Democrat. Definitions vary, but we exist no longer except in our own minds. Some still believe that the current iteration of the Democratic Party reflects the promise and qualities we felt were present during the JFK era, but then again some still believe he was murdered by a lone gunman.

Through the years I virtuously continued support of Democratic candidates, even through the tumultuous presidential election of 2016. I felt conflicted about the options I was given, but cast what would be my final vote as a Democrat. By November of 2020 I had foregone alignment with any political party, reflected in my vote for someone who I found interesting but had nary a chance of being elected. My departure from the Democratic Party was solidified during events of 2020 and beyond with what I consider egregious behaviors stemming from unquestioning and fawning appeals to authority.

By that time the question had become thus: Did the real nature of politics change so significantly since my youth, or was I just becoming more conscious of its nature? Or both? My take is a combination of the two with a transformative shift of consciousness taking precedence. Eventually the machinations of political machinery become more obvious to more people and its chicanery becomes more apparent as it happens.

I see our current state of politics as but one reflection of a relentless transformation of consciousness that is deconstructing how we perceive ourselves, our experiences and the workings of our world. Such a radical shift brings much change and challenge but also moves us into the restructuring needed for a new way of being. More about that transformation follows, but first a brief visit to the past.

Flashback

I’m a Baby Boomer, vintage 1949, hence a child in the 1950s. I remember the visage of President Eisenhower on our TV throughout most of those years, though I was too young to give meaning to his position and clueless about the world of politics.

Decades passed before I would appreciate the warning Eisenhower gave the world in 1961 during his farewell message, a perspective gleaned from his experience as a general during World War II and the ensuing years of his presidency.

Key elements of his message: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”

Eisenhower’s concerns, as summarized in a Peter Lang publication:

“Distortion of Political Institutions: He feared that the military-industrial complex would distort every US political institution, including the Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary, to serve its own interests.”

“Threat to Democracy: He warned that the complex could threaten democracy itself, as it would lead to the concentration of power in the hands of a few individuals and corporations, rather than the people.”

63 years later Eisenhower’s words not only seem prescient but vastly understated. We now have a military-bioweapon-medical-agricultural-educational-pharmaceutical-media-industrial complex that has become the de facto governing body of our nation. Many in this current time fret that we will “lose our democracy” if a certain person assumes the role of president. Nonsense. Democracy, at least on the federal level, ceased to exist long ago.

Back to the 50s

I was encultured during a time when war was shifting from hot to cold and when crouching head down in the school hallway or hiding under our desk was earnestly believed to be preparation for a nuclear explosion. Earnest, but irrational.

The driver of such behavior was fear, or more accurately the conscious utilization of fear by an authoritative entity to prompt a populace into embracing a particular conclusion or action. And, to not only accept, but embrace and defend against all who question such promptings.

Over time it began to seem obvious to me that those to whom we have abdicated our authority have only this single play in their playbook, which apparently is sufficient since the use of fear to manipulate response is exercised repeatedly and successfully. Simple, really. The de facto government formulates a narrative to be proliferated through its media machinery, while the same mechanism is used to discredit those who may point out ways in which a narrative fails the reality test. The play is consistently performed. It is only the subject that changes. Examples abound, whether from a lifetime ago or as current as whatever fear-mongering leads today’s headlines.

The grift is to create distraction away from the play itself by exploiting a response of human consciousness to choose sides, thus focusing into and energizing the play. The grifters don’t care which side one chooses. They are extractors, they seek the energy put into the game by whoever they con into playing. That energy is utilized to buttress positions of power and control, soon followed by claimed needs for money, and ultimately the coup de grâce…an upward transfer of wealth into proposed “solutions” addressing whatever crisis allegedly exists.

The Lesser Of

I don’t consider people to be “evil”. The title of this piece is meant only as wordplay on a common phrase often invoked around election time.

I do see our presidential elections as fundamentally well-crafted illusions of choice with viable options mostly pre-selected by a system designed to deliver only two. Either of those ends up beholden to the same machine that assured their place at the top of the list. Sure, we have a smattering of independents and small party hopefuls to firm up the illusion, but nobody expects them to prevail.

In trying to feel that our vote counts for something we dutifully select from the menu we are handed. Our choice is usually made from allegiance to one party’s façade as Truth, and/or the other party’s vilification as Demon. Should neither of the main choices seem appetizing we shrug our shoulders, hopeful that things will be different in 4 years, and opt for the candidate we deem less distasteful. Ironically, a dubious democratic process is proclaimed to be extremely important to protecting our democracy.

System Expiration?

That is the premise of this commentary, that we are in a transition between old and new. Structures born of the duality consciousness into which we all were inculcated are dis-integrating, both externally and internally. In their place arise different structures birthed by a new unified field of consciousness in which we function more consciously and without polarities.

Internally we may find our perceptions shifting, our lives changing and challenges arising in unexpected ways, while externally we watch the dissolution of societal structures and institutions we once considered infallible. In truth there is no separation between the internal shifts and the external manifestations. They are linked components of a single creative process undertaken at this time by the whole of humanity.

It’s not only boomers, of course, that have been raised within a controlled reality, though due to our longer immersion in the “matrix” we may be among the most challenged to examine our beliefs about how the world we have known really works. I called this shift of consciousness unrelenting. It is proceeding apace. The two choices we have in this story are much simpler to articulate: Be a part or be apart.

Election 2024. The End is the Beginning.

We’re moving through a necessary phase of the dissolution where illusion and revelation cross paths. Nothing is wrong, nothing is out of order, and the fate of the universe does not hinge on who wins the next election. Whatever happens will be exactly what we need to take our next collective step, and additional shakeups in the election drama over the coming months seem inevitable.

As for this election, I find it ironic how this dying, fradulent, aged system is perfectly reflecting itself by its current offering: Which of two addled, serial-liar, corrupt octagenarians do we want to represent our public face of "leadership".

Update: The shift from Biden to Harris only changes optics, not substance. The old story has grown predictable, but it does eventually reach The End. I sense that we’re on the last word of the last sentence of the last page of the last chapter. Are more shifts ahead? I don’t see how it could be otherwise.

---