“History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism. […] By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete actions, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished.” -The Bankers' Manifesto of 1892
“The politics of failure have failed! We must make them work again!”- Presidential candidate Kang
One of the Triads of Dyfnwal Moelmud details the three ways in which a nation
is destroyed: oppressive privileges, unjust decisions in law and reprehensible negligence.
The political class is, by its own presumption, the most privileged class of
all. Privilege of this sort breeds contempt; oppressive privilege breeds
psychopathy, exactly the same kind that the global system's controllers possess
from birth. A psychopathy that is a hallmark of the insanity of this system, where
law is corrupted, truth and knowledge occulted, and where its agents, at all
levels, are so utterly ignorant that they have forgotten even their own history
and their own rules. The early editions of Black's Law Dictionary define
privilege as “a particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a
person, company or class beyond the common advantages of other citizens” (1st
Edition, 1891). The most recent edition calls it “a special legal right,
exemption or immunity granted to a person or class of persons; an exception to
a duty. A privilege grants someone the legal freedom to do or not do a given
act. It immunizes conduct that, under ordinary circumstances, would subject the
actor to liability.” (9th Edition, 2009.) Privileges, of course, can be
removed; the politicians thus argue that their ultimate subjection to public
opinion comes at the ballot box. This is complete rubbish, a total absurdity.
One set of overseers is changed for another set, welcomed with ticker-tape
parades and 24 hour news coverage, and the contempt for the people remains. The
previous lot merely move from one set of benches to another one, and the gravy
train rolls on regardless.
This state of detachment has only grown in extent since the rise of that
risible phenomenon of recent generations: the “professional politician”. Those whose entire existence
knows the bounds only of that particular bubble, going straight from socialist-controlled
academia into the ranks of The Three-Headed Party and then, one day, into the
rotten boroughs of local government or the festering corrupted viper's nest of the legislature. At all
levels, in all instances, they do the bidding, knowingly or unknowingly, of those directing
the greater agenda of global control: those who enable the politicians to have
their hour upon the stage, while ensuring the true agents of change multiply
across all facets of the nation, a cancer with a Common Purpose.
Today, as distractive boxed debate on the controlled mainstream media continues
ever onward, it is fashionable once more to rail against “Tory toffs”
populating an “out of touch” government of “the rich”, not least because it
attempts to create divisions amongst the people. This it still does
successfully, to an extent,although it can be argued such tried and tested
methods are slowly unraveling.
Yet be under no illusion: it makes no difference what colour rosette these
people wear. It makes no difference if they come from what we are told are
“well-off” or “less well-off” backgrounds. It is a total irrelevance because
once they sign up to play their role in the system they all become part of a
single homogeneous group, privileged beyond the wildest dreams of avarice, whose
interests and purpose are diametrically opposed from the “little people”, those
whom they bribe with false promise every few years in order to perpetuate the
fiction of choice. They are all linked to or approved by the controllers of the
agenda, in some way, because otherwise they would not be where they are. Just
take the three-headed hydra of the Lib/Lab/Con itself; you have Cameroid's
familial links to banksters, Milibean's father being tutored by Harold Laski,
Calamity Clegg's apprenticeship in Europe, or his supposed descent from
Blavatsky. (And in truth one could probably come up with half a dozen other
things for each of them without even needing to mention the dreaded word
So, to effect the change we desire, we should instead cast our vote instead for
“Any One But The Lib/Lab/Con”, should we? Recent weeks have seen pollsters remark on UKIP's
rise, a surge explicable because those who believe in traditional “Conservatism”
are simply realising that Cameron is a useless soppy socialist Eurotard and
that’s not what they want. So they will place their faith in someone else, in
the false belief that they will be delivered from this wilderness. “Or, what we
need,” say some, “is a 'None of the above' option!” Unfortunately, the system
has seen fit to forestall any such arrangement; under the Registration of
Political Parties (Prohibited Words and Expressions) (Amendment) Order 2005 the
phrase “none of the above” is prohibited (as the only things that can go on
ballot papers are registered parties, and under this “law” you can't call a
party “none of the above”, see?). It will never feature because they have made
it against their law. Yes, they wrote an entire Statutory Instrument just to
make sure that phrase would be prohibited.
What is the point in this lunacy? You place your tick next to your candidate,
you spoil your paper, whatever. The newly “elected” corporate executives then
proceed to ignore all their promises and continue the path of those they
replaced, contemptuous of public opinion. What do you do then? You absolve
yourself. “Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos,” you say. An easy get-out. You grumble,
moan, and do the whole thing again a few years later expecting it to be
different. It's all irrelevant as whatever the result of any election, the same
course is followed because this is how politics is designed to work in this
system. Things may move differently with one colour as opposed to another;
things may occur at different times with different levels of impact, but this agenda
continues onwards nonetheless. There is no realm of fiction that more embodies
“Oceania is at war with Eurasia” than that of politics. In opposition they
argue everything and were always against issues, in government they promote
them and always were in favour of them. The brief history of this atrocious Coagulation Government is proof, if the ones preceding it were not enough.
Pointing out the ridiculous levels of hypocrisy to these people does nothing
because they do not think in the same terms as those who are not in their own little bubble.
They are out of touch by design and contemptuous of those who dare to question them. Even the
most measured, reasonable, sensible individual can fall to this virus of madness
once they enter this world. The system, at its deepest, blackest heart views us
as dead entities, creatures, wards, infants, incompetents, enemies, “persons”,
useless eaters who must be controlled not just for our own good but for that of
Mother Earth to boot; and this disseminates across all those it uses as its
agents and overseers, in every field, not just the politicians, judges,
lawyers, councillors, “officers”, state employees and the like but everyone
involved in moving the agenda forward. To a lesser or greater extent they all
suffer from the same virus. In recent years the fiction of politics has been exposed to sharp relief as
never before, from expenses scandals to corporate collusion, to hypocrisy and utter incompetence.
A rotten sore born of privilege and entitlement. They fight and squabble between themselves,
a charade of conflict that in reality is a vehicle for self-aggrandisement; for proof of
this one look no further than this week's absurd Select Committee report.
This begs the question: why has this happened now? Anyone who thinks that all
of these problems only happened in recent years must surely be possessed of the most
colossal naivety. These are things that have been happening not just for
decades but centuries, and may even be endemic to the nature of representative government
when it is created by and exists under the auspices of a psychopathic elite
operating behind the scenes. The colloquial distrust of authority, these days
manifesting merely as a tired cynicism, has its roots in the past, not the present.
So, then, what if these “revelations” are part of a larger objective? Perhaps,
as things around the world escalate and the system either continues towards
collapse or prepares for its next stage (it depends what you read and who you
listen to), these continuous revelations of ineptitude, self-interest and moral
vacuum are all deliberately placed. To show, repeatedly, time after time, the wilful
detachment of the privileged political class from those they claim to represent.
Thus, when the disconnect is complete, the solution is ready to be provided; a
solution that, if the things go to plan, will be welcomed by the masses with thunderous applause
and multitudinous reverence, simply because it promises a different way. For, in
the future, control will come not from the people or legislatures, but from a
transnational nomenklatura that is already in place and seeks to “lead beyond
authority”. It will come from the apparatchiks of the world order, where all
things are decided and mapped out for the millions left behind after the billions
have died. As individual nations, their cultures and societies have no place in
this future the obviously neither do their systems of representative government,
but in order for the people to accept the removal of the latter, the corruption,
ineffectiveness, hypocrisy and crass stupidity of all those involved must be
revealed to the public at large, to manipulate opinion in accordance with the
more subtle, pervasive destruction of national traditions and their replacement
with values more “suitable” for a global civilisation. In a sense, dry runs have already occurred: the Italians elected a buffoon to
the highest office on multiple times, and (at first) cheered his replacement by a technocrat
imposed from above by the very same group that created the problems in the first place. One might
call the Greek experiment less successful, but it depends on how one looks at it: as the
centre collapses and manipulated public opinion moves to the extremes, the system rejoices
nonetheless. “History repeats itself in regular cycles”, after all.
However, the politicians are merely one part of the wider tapestry and in some
ways are slaves of this system themselves – some even willingly and/or knowingly.
They put in place the rules that the agenda demands and call them “laws”;
irrespective of who they are, what party they belong to or what worthless
promises they made. As stated by the banksters, the primary role of politics is
to convince you that you are not a slave. That you have a choice. That voting changes
things. That you can make a difference. To give you something to believe in. To
expend your energy fighting over questions of no importance. And look at how
that energy has been expended in this mass exercise in distraction. Generation after
generation joins in the game, their energy, intellect and endeavour sacrificed
at the banksters' altar in pursuit of the false left-right paradigm. And not
just those who vote, time and again, but those others who engage in writings,
speeches, theorising, activism; the work of entire lives from all sides of the
false divide, some of it indicative of sublime and immense talent, is utterly
wasted in the pursuit of the futile goal of using the system to change the system.
And yet there is even another way of looking at it. A darker, more insidious
theory that means far from simply voting for anyone else, or even not voting at
all, we should move instead to not even registering. Because, as this theory
goes, whenever anything is registered something is surrendered. A right, a
liberty, a power; whatever. You surrender it to the system by being on its rolls
and thus it does not matter whether you actually vote or not, you have played
your part regardless. Your consent is given, your power surrendered, your
responsibility relinquished, willingly and repeatedly. The system takes this
power, freely given, and drives itself forward. In this theory the levels of
participation are irrelevant. What is relevant is the rate of registration,
which is around 90%. This has dropped, slightly, over the years, from 95% in
the 1950s, yet still nine out of every ten people that the system deems
eligible to take part in this fiction are giving their consent to it through
the registration process, and are thus manifesting it into reality whether they
go into the polling booth or not.
Whether this is true or not, recall what the banksters say about the political
system. It does not matter what box you put your mark into. It does not matter
if you write “CUNTS” over the form. It does not matter if you add a box to the
bottom with your own name in and put your tick in there. It does not matter if
you add a box with, say, Lady Gaga's name in it and mark that one. It does not
matter if you scrawl all over it “FUCK THE NEW WORLD ORDER, YOU MORALLY BANKRUPT
SHITSHOWER OF ROTHSCHILD PUPPETS”. It does not matter if you stay at home and
do something else. You have registered; your consent is given. Your benefit
from surrendering your power is the ability, should you wish, to put a tick in
a box every few years. Whether you do that or not is irrelevant. Your
obligation from merely being on their lists is to abide by the result even if
you dislike it, because of course next time round you get the chance to change
things, don't you?
Hey, it's just a theory.
It is difficult. It will be difficult. The system has descended to such utter
depravity that it is more and more prone to marking anyone who ceases even to
vaguely support its measures, let alone oppose them, as terrorists/child
molesters/cybercriminals/whatever. Inter arma enim silent leges, said Cicero:
in time of war the law falls silent. And make no mistake: it is war. They declared
it very openly. Everyone within their juris-fiction is affected by their insane
actions and we must therefore become more aware and watch their movements with
greater scrutiny. Deliberate non-participation is not the reprehensible negligence Moelmud's
triad speaks of: it is, in fact, quite the opposite.
Also, there are many arguments that will be brought against those who either
don't vote or don't register. The facile, boring ones that go, "if you don't vote you
have no right to complain", "if you don't vote, you're giving
in". It's your duty, says Halsbury's Laws of England and a gazillion
pointless political columnists on media publications the world over. Absolute
rubbish, feeding into the insidious, growing calls for compulsory registration
which some countries already practice. Irrespective of party, the government
does as it is told to do by its controllers and claims it can do so because it
has a mandate, even if what it is doing is wholly at odds with what its members
promised to do when they sought this “mandate”.
And to pre-empt the other old, tired argument, people did not and have never
fought and died in wars (which were fostered by the elites in any case) just for you to tick a
box next to some idiot's name. If you want a more accurate reading of this, it was so you had a
choice whether or not to make your mark at all. If you are entitled to be
registered then common sense says you are surely entitled not to be.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting
a different result. The architects of the system created this hell on earth of
persons and fictions, of politics, money and religion. If the law is to be
restored it will not come from any of these, all illusions they created to
divide and rule, made manifest by the faith placed in them by us. Vote, if you want,
register, if you want, but do not for one second believe that playing a part in
it will ever change it.
Personally, I know where I stand on this issue. It's an exercise in futility,
an invasion of privacy; these idiots are not going to change course no matter
who marks what where. It's a waste of time to think problems can be solved by
those who create them in the first place.
jeez.. that is a book of a rant , ranty...
you have just raised the 'rant' bar a notch
It isn't my work. Wish it was.
TSL is the author.
Good post. Largely agree with the hypocrisy.
I'm standing today. I'm blaming the people too. Not the ones the people keep voting for. See here:
BTW Hint: Go easy on using the following phrase. The pedants will have him for breakfast on this.
Many thanks for this indepth aricle TSL. This is one of the best articles that I have read in a long time.
That really was a good article, and right on target. I'm presently being harassed in order to register and the cold shoulder is getting much use. Things have kind of gone a little quiet with the electoral office or whoever those shits are given that they have now sent two letters trying to scare me with that old £1000 fine horseshit to which they have received no reply or acknowledgment whatsoever. Maybe they are finally getting the message.
many thanks,to you,and tsl.
for a great piece of truth.
Great post TSL.
I came off 'The Register' a year or more ago and recommend that everyone of conscience does the same. Note that just not registering is meaningless as they just put you down as 'anonymous' and carry on regardless. You are still presumed to be on 'The Register' somewhere and therefore they have your consent to be anally gangbanged whenever the mood suits them. Get off it entirely and let them know you do not consent to be on there. Look at sections 4, 12d, 60 and 61 of the Representation of the People Act (hahahahahah) 1983. Do you really know you have legal capacity (to contract!!) or is this a presumption that you need the electoral registrar to confirm for you? Sign the form and you've just freely handed over Power of Attorney/ Power of Appointment to govt drones to do with as they will. This is why they talk about "being in Power" and no longer do they say "I hold Office". Big difference between the two. One works for you. You work for the other. You work out which is which.
A mate had the usual threatening letter from some dodgy foreign named drone (I'm seeing more and more foreign names appearing in positions of authority which is a topic for another discussion) from the electoral registration office. He was told they needed to know if he was a Citizen of the British Commonwealth or not. WTF is that? Are we Commonwealth Citizens by default and can only be British Citizens by choosing this option? Any informed peeps out there with an answer to this? And what is a B C Citizen? Do they do passports, driving licences, marriage certs etc etc? Interesting find that could be something or nothing but I wasn't aware of this before. I've never been comfortable with the presumption that I am a Citizen of anywhere anyway.
Just remember that you, the man/woman, CANNOT prove you are the Legal Person even of you wanted to. Your identity as the Legal Person is legally on a balance of probability, I am told. You accept the Name then that is good enough for the legal world. It is an allegatory (alleged) Title based entirely on hearsay and presumption. Electoral Office don't bother me. They do not have my consent and I sleep like a baby. I don't vote for warmongers or corruption or a police state or the EUSSR or Common Purpose or SERCO or G4S or CAPITA. Yep, I sleep like a baby with my conscience clean.
Great post TSL, as I was reading, I was thinking is it Harbinger, or TSL,
I'll say it again FUCK ME.
And again FUCK ME!!!
What an absolutely, phenomenal, erudite piece of prose I've ever read and I've read a fuck of a lot of them.
TSL, you've always been explanatory in your replies. Replies, through length, others have switched off at, purely because they've been conditioned to do so from a young age, but I realised a long time ago that if you want to educate and more importantly help people understand the bigger picture of reality, you have to exceed the boundaries of explanation your average Joe has come to accept.
This reading has been nothing but a privilege to view. I take my hat off to you for yor wisdom in your explanation of the the madness of politics and the utter futility of voting and keeping the system alive.
Thank you TSL. Mucho respect and kudos and Cap'n, thank you for giving a space to show the true capabilities of a follower of your blog, one whom would have remained amongst the millions of unknown brilliancies out there doing their best to eduate the majority of wilful ignoramuses who couldn't give a fuck about individuality, liberty and freedom.
"had it not been for encountering him here on Captain Ranty's blog"
is what I forgot to add on the end of my reply above.
The anyone but the big three idea did not seem to grab the average punter though yesterday. They continue to swing one way, then the other.
I think I infected the Scots.
Just heard this on the tellybox: "Lowest turnout ever".
Music to my ears.....
Thanks everyone, for reading and for the comments and thanks also to the Captain for the invitation to contribute.
The No Contact method is fun. Field agents appear from time to time, sometimes someone happens to be there when I'm going to and fro. You get a sense for them after a while be they EROs, Crapita salespersons or whatever.
According to this link from an FOI page on the Dorset Council site:
"If someone has not returned a canvass form for more than two years they are removed from the Electoral Roll."
It is buried about 3/4 of the way down the page under "Other Information". If that is true the letters/visits probably continue anyway; these lower-end parts of the system are increasingly automated these days.
Sticking that quote in Google reveals various similar statements from a few other councils up and down the country!
On Commonwealth citizens, this may explain the thinking (emphasis mine, & footnotes excluded due to length):
Halsbury's Laws of England/BRITISH NATIONALITY, IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM (VOLUME 4(2) (2002 REISSUE))/2. BRITISH NATIONALITY/(1) INTRODUCTION/11. Commonwealth citizens
11. Commonwealth citizens.
From 1 January 1949 to 31 December 1982 the term 'Commonwealth citizen' had the same meaning as 'British subject', and included a person who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies or of a country mentioned in the relevant provision of the British Nationality Act 1948, or who qualified in some other way as a British subject. The British Nationality Act 1981 introduced a new list of countries whose citizens are Commonwealth citizens, and the terms 'Commonwealth citizen' and 'British subject' are no longer synonymous. Since the commencement of the British Nationality Act 1981, the following, and no others, have the status of Commonwealth citizen: every person who is a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British national (overseas), a British overseas citizen or a British subject, or who is a citizen of any country which is mentioned in the relevant provision of the British Nationality Act 1981. Commonwealth citizens may vote and sit in Parliament.
Thank you also, not just for your words above but for the comments you make as well and the many sources of information that you refer to. Brutally honest, I believe you once said, or words to that effect; such is truth, and though it can be difficult one can't go back, only forward. Anything else is dishonour.
Post a Comment