The Politics of Insanity

“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 “Bilderberg”.)

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.

Happy voting.

Regards

TSL