or: The gears of the control system
- a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of an elected office. [synonyms: legislator, Member of Parliament, MP, representative, minister, statesman, stateswoman, political leader, lawmaker, public servant, elected official, office-bearer]
- [US] a person who acts in a manipulative and devious way, typically to gain advancement within an organization.
etymology: "poli" (Latin meaning 'many') + "tics" (multiple bloodsucking parasites)
A politician is a person who purports to have the superhuman ability of "representing" a group of people in such a way that he acquires rights that individuals and the group do not have — specifically the right to issue commands and enforce obedience by means of the initiation of violence. Since no person or group can delegate a right they do not have, no politician or group of politicians actually have the right to initiate violence, regardless of how many people may have come to believe that some politicians (those calling themselves "government") have been successfully delegated that non-existent "right" by "the people".
Because of how the media presents information about the "actions" of politicians, a default belief is subconsciously imparted in every "news" story. When one hears the media "report", for example, that "a politician broke his promises", it implies that politicians (in particular and in general) ever had an intention of keeping their promises — and implies that such "promises" are relevant "news" in the first place. But more importantly, it creates the grandiose illusion that we are choosing the problem-fixers (not that there really is a problem to be fixed, other than the belief in "authority").
How do politicians see the people they supposedly in some way represent? Larken Rose breaks it down most eloquently:
How They See You
If you've ever called your congressman or protested at some capitol building, maybe you need to take a moment to know your enemy.
There may be exceptions, but the general idea that a politician cares about the people whom he supposedly represents is absurd. It's not a matter of "corrupt politicians" (a redundancy) — they are and always have been serving a control system — specifically the part of it known as "the state", or "government".
A tellingly common retort is the question: How could citizens get anything done without politicians? Common-sense thinker Larken Rose breaks this question down to what it implies:
But What Will Be Done About...?
For those who ask how problems will be handled, if there was no "government."
As Larken observes, free enterprise created affordable cars, but building a road (i.e. a flat place) without politicians collecting tax money and spending some of it to hire someone to build them is evidently unimaginable to many people. It's difficult to imagine a better example of the degree of disempowerment and dependence on "big brother" that cultural consumers have allowed themselves to be subjected to.
Nobody explains statism better than Larken Rose:
Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion (feat. Larken Rose)
Once elucidated, statism is seen to be the largest religion on Earth. Statists (believers in government, i.e. unconscious believers in authority, and thus in the legitimacy of slavery) falsely believe that if there were no laws or government, chaos (which they equate with anarchy) would ensue, because, they somehow have come to believe, humans are not quite civilized.
Political parties are an illusion designed to make people believe they are choosing their rulers (slave owners).
Politicians can only sell bullshit to people who are willing to eat bullshit.
I lied to get elected, you gullible idiots! - Larken Rose
[Published on Dec 17, 2013] This is a speech of Grant Collins, a fictional character from "The Iron Web", a novel by Larken Rose. Listen and watch. Does this sound familiar to you? Do you see any similarities with the current situation? The printed book and audiobook "The Iron Web" are available at LarkenRose.com.
The media's control of politics
We like to say in this country that we have the ability as Americans to elect, but the problem is we do not have the ability to select — we can only elect — which means that we can only vote for those candidates which are put before us by our masters, our hidden masters behind the scenes.
The politicians are probably more accurately seen as actors in a real-time movie broadcast by the "news" media. The media's main "news stories" are essentially synonymous with "government-provided statements". Way back in 1880, John Swinton, a preeminent New York journalist known by some as "The Dean of His Profession", stated:
There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.
One of the "leaders" that the media took down almost overnight for some minor "scandal" involving theft — not of the "citizens" ("unauthoritative" non-"leaders"), but of the rival gang of thugs ("unauthoritative" "leaders") — put it more simply:
The American people don't believe anything until they see it on television.
Without the media, how many people would even know about any of these clowns that proclaim themselves aspiring "leaders" who are "qualified" to lead the masses of people to some kind of reasonable destiny by means of enforcing arbitrary collectivist rules under the threat of initiation of violence?
As a peculiar example, cryptocurrency researcher Andreas Antonopoulos relates the story of Joshua Abraham Norton, a citizen of San Francisco who in 1859 kept proclaiming he was "Norton I, Emperor of the United States", "Protector of Mexico", etc, to whom nobody paid any attention or took seriously, until the media ran a report mocking him, thus giving him the required attention:
Andreas Antonopoulos - Best of The Future of Cryptocurrencies
Rarely if ever — especially in the case of heads of state and heads of government — do politicians write their own speeches. This task is the job of the speechwriter, which is the same role as a scriptwriter, only simpler, because not many new ideas are required, being mostly reiteration of the same vaguely-meaningful grandiose ideas of doing things on scales that individuals cannot do. After one has quit watching TV and paying any attention whatsoever to "politics", the highly-redundant speeches by politicians are difficult to perceive as anything but virtually meaningless posturing. Let's examine some of their favorite and most harmful buzzwords:
The very idea that war is not terrorism and that terrorism is always wrong but war can be OK is one of the most preposterous notions ever created, yet it persists to the degree that politicians keep repeating mantras about "fighting terrorism" which the media broadcasts to the attention of the media consumers or "citizens"/subjects. Terrorism and war are synonyms, if perhaps at different scales: war is perceived as "authoritative" while terrorism is perceived as "unauthoritative" (not backed by the rhetoric and/or "laws" of people who call themselves "government").
What are politicians really talking about when they discuss "national security policies"? Once again, Larken Rose explains it best:
As often as politicians and talking heads talk about "national security," most Americans have no idea what they're really discussing.
Whenever you have two groups who think violence is an option they are a vibrational confrontation waiting to happen.
Speaking about "security" implies a fear-based belief system. The very idea of feeling the need for "protection" invites attack (like vibration to like vibration). Aside from the media's broadcasting of the fear-mongering garbage of the politicians, the feeling of needing protection from some big powerful father figure or "big brother" has much to do with unresolved psychological issues/traumas originating from childhood. Most parents didn't provide any protection in the hostile authoritarian prison-like environment known as "school" — the 25,000-hour indoctrination system that the politicians have written on some pieces of paper somewhere is "compulsory" for young children to be put through, otherwise they have the "right" to command their conscience-less order-followers to kidnap the children of parents who refuse. Most parents are happy to send their children to school for other reasons anyway, often being very stressed, feeling that they have to work jobs they don't quite like in order to "make a living" and "bring food on the table".
Walking on eggshells / not really saying anything
Social-critic-thinly-disguised-as-comedian George Carlin exposes the sophistical, imprecise, vague, often grandiose terms that politicians and speechwriters use to give the appearance of (to paraphrase Mark Twain) "solidity to pure wind":
George Carlin - B.S. media / propaganda / politicians sophistry and lies
Politicians and war
I hate with a murderous hatred those men who, having lived their youth, would send into war other youth, not lived, unfulfilled, to fight and die for them; the pride and cowardice of those old men, making their wars that boys must die.
Nonetheless, the problem lies not in "those old men", for in reality all they ever do is make silly mouth noises (issue commands), which those youth, having been indoctrinated (brainwashed) by the "education" system and the media, use as a justification in their minds to do Wrong actions (i.e. actions that are contrary to Natural Law).
Bounded rationality is the idea that in decision-making, rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the finite amount of time they have to make a decision.
In the coming years, bounded rationality will be reduced due to the proliferation of unstoppable decentralized prediction markets. A government based on prediction markets has been termed a "futarchy", which is "a form of government proposed by economist Robin Hanson, in which elected officials define measures of national welfare, and prediction markets are used to determine which policies will have the most positive effect."
However, this idea presupposes legitimacy and benevolence of the idea of "government". A futarchy would be necessarily combined with transhumanism and a scientific dictatorship — a dystopian "technotronic era" not unlike that envisioned by Brzezinski... Unless of course we decentralize away their centralized control over resources, as we are already doing.
The idea of "political science" comprises a comprehensive layer of obfuscation that makes "government" seem axiomatically legitimate, because how could no one have noticed by now that it's premised in the initiation of violence? All manner of "authoritative sources" are cited to create the impression of legitimacy, but it has still been unavoidably broken down into that very notion:
In political science, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime. Whereas “authority“ denotes a specific position in an established government, the term “legitimacy“ denotes a system of government — wherein “government“ denotes “sphere of influence“. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case, unpopular régimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential élite. In Chinese political philosophy, since the historical period of the Zhou Dynasty (1046–256 BC), the political legitimacy of a ruler and government was derived from the Mandate of Heaven, and that unjust rulers who lose said mandate, therefore lose the right to rule the people.
In moral philosophy, the term “legitimacy“ often is positively interpreted as the normative status conferred by a governed people upon their governors’ institutions, offices, and actions, based upon the belief that their government's actions are appropriate uses of power by a legally constituted government. In law, “legitimacy“ is distinguished from “legality“ (see colour of law), to establish that a government action can be legal whilst not being legitimate, e.g. the Southeast Asia Resolution, Public Law 88-408 (The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), which allowed the U.S. to war against Vietnam, without a formal declaration of war; a government action can be legitimate without being legal, e.g. a pre-emptive war, a military junta. An example of such matters arises when legitimate institutions clash in a constitutional crisis.
The Enlightenment-era British social theoretician John Locke (1632–1704) said that political legitimacy derives from popular explicit and implicit consent of the governed: “The argument of the [Second] Treatise is that the government is not legitimate unless it is carried on with the consent of the governed.“ The German political philosopher Dolf Sternberger said, “Legitimacy is the foundation of such governmental power as is exercised, both with a consciousness on the government’s part that it has a right to govern, and with some recognition by the governed of that right.“ The American political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset said that legitimacy also “involves the capacity of a political system to engender and maintain the belief that existing political institutions are the most appropriate and proper ones for the society.“ The American political theorist Robert A. Dahl explained legitimacy as a reservoir; so long as the water is at a given level, political stability is maintained, if it falls below the required level, political legitimacy is endangered.
As Stefan Molyneux succintly put it, "political science is the art of hiding crimes, in verbiage".
Before the time of the modern media, the "leaders" calling themselves "government" didn't need to put up much of a show, while today they have to create the impression of necessity and of "consent of the governed".
The illusion of necessity
One of the main tricks used is the idea of using big words denoting large supposed "problems" that an individual could not do anything about, such as "helping the poor", or creating a space program:
The incomprehensibly Big Lie
[Published on Aug 26, 2015] Why would anyone ever give up his freedom, in favor of having a master? Because aspiring tyrants are very good at deceiving people into thinking that it's for their own good. It's sad that this ever works, since it's akin to a slave-master convincing a slave that the purpose of the institution of slavery is to serve the slaves. How on earth could a megalomaniac ever make such a ridiculous lie sound believable?
One very popular means of deception, used in an effort to justify tyranny, is to talk in really big terms, on a scale that most people can't imagine. The aspiring tyrant needs to use problems--real or made up--to make normal people think that normal people can't possibly solve them.
The proposition that is being presented by politicians that appear in the media is absurd. "You have this problem (us)... here's how we can solve it (us)." There never actually was a problem to be fixed, other than "how to make tools out of humans".
The "political scientist" and "political philosopher" most credited with refining the methodology that has led to the current situation is Leo Strauss. According to researcher David Livingstone:
[...] It is for this reason that Plato has been at the center of all esoteric philosophy ever since, and been extolled by all the leading philosophers of the Illuminati, for whom he articulated the vision of a New World Order, like Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and recently, Leo Strauss, the guru of the neo-conservatives that have embarked America in proxy wars in the Middle East on behalf of Israel.
Strauss, like Plato, taught that within societies, some are fit to lead, while others only to be led. But for Strauss, it was Machiavelli who initiated the Enlightenment, by rejecting the purely theoretical world of Plato, in favor of a more practical interpretation of reality, thus creating political science. For Strauss, in accordance with Machiavellian thinking, virtue would not be applicable, because no regime could meet its standards. Rather, a new regime should be created, by accepting, understanding, and harnessing man’s tendency for self-interest, or “human nature“.
Strauss thought that those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality. Therefore, Strauss believed the world to be a place where policy advisers may have to deceive their own publics, and even their rulers in order to protect their countries. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, the masses would quickly succumb to nihilism or anarchy. They “can’t handle the truth“. Thus, according to Strauss, it is necessary to maintain these “pious frauds“, or “the Noble Lie“, as Plato would have referred to it.
Finally, like Thomas Hobbes, Strauss believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. In other words, Fascism. “Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed,“ he once wrote. “Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united – and they can only be united against other people.“ According to Shadia Drury, in Leo Strauss and the American Right, “Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat.“ Ultimately, as Drury clarifies, “following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured.“
Thus the political parties, "neo-conservative" or anything else, are seemingly in disagreement with many (inconsequential/irrelevant) things, but are always in agreement with the idea that "the nation is under threat" by some external force — and any other idea that benefits both of them.
While much of an oxymoron, there are exceptions to the "rule", such as Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and Ron Paul in the USA and George Galloway, Nigel Farage, Gerald Kaufman, and Ben Gilroy in the UK. These people appear to mean well and fully believe in the idea of democracy (as commonly conceived of) every bit as much as the media automatons presenting "the news".
These well-meaning people are a necessary component and would have to be invented by the control system if they didn't appear on their own, because without an apparent opposition against the "corruption" of the (otherwise supposedly benevolent) control system that "citizens" (media consumers) can direct their grievances and hopes toward — a snail-paced "opposition" which the media can pay much less attention to — people might actually do something themselves, rather than beg their masters to allow them to have more of what they already have (or to steal more from others in their name, or any other idea that the media says people ought to ask politicians to do).
The Donald Trump phenomena
The largest exception yet seen is the emergence of Donald Trump. In fact it is not really an exception because Donald Trump is not a politician. By early 2016 it is quite apparent that, absent some kind of an assassination event, Donald Trump becomes the next "President of the United States of America" and "Commander-in-Chief" or the "armed forces" of the nation, which will trigger changes of quite unimaginable scale.
We're gonna make things change. We have to. And we're gonna get the best people, to make the best change. Nobody makes things change like me. I am the best at change. So we're gonna make things change. And we're gonna make them change so much, you're gonna get sick of it. You're gonna say, please, Mr. Trump, stop making things change. But we're going to do it.
The slogan which the Obama campaign used for 2008, "Change you can believe in", seems to apply millions of times more to the idea of a Trump presidency.
Watch Donald Trump tell the uncensored truth about the politicians:
Donald Trump's Top 20 Insults
[Published on Aug 1, 2015] The day has come to pass when one of America’s wealthiest men will attempt to take the white house by storm. Real estate mogul Donald Trump has announced that he will be running for president, after persistently denying he would. Real Estate isn’t his only trade, he’s a television personality, founder of the Trump Entertainment Resorts, and of course his buildings are all over the world. He has made it perfectly clear that he doesn’t need anyone to donate to his campaign for he is as wealthy as they come. He has a degree in economics from the University of Pennsylvania and some experience in the political world.
As Stefan Molyneux, whose video analyses brilliantly deconstruct the incredibly-outrageous lies and false narrative that the MSM portrays of Trump, put it:
Donald Trump is such an unexpected, unprecedented, and unknown factor in politics, that I don't know what to make of him, because he does not match any of the standard statist paradigms that I know of today. [...] The fact that he's self-funding his whole campaign means that he is not directly beholden to special interest groups.
Donald Trump appears to be a major part of the changes happening around and after the fall of 2016, acting as a catalyst for unprecedented change in the idea of governance and nation management.
Politicians as cannabinoid-deficient people
Power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind.
Just as a lack of tryptaminergic hallucinogens in the diets of early humans may have led to the development of the ego (as proposed by Terence McKenna), an excessive anchoring into the 3rd density may be correlated to low cannabinoidergic neuromodulation:
Politicians & Cannabinoids - FLP/BLP Theory, Dr. Bob Melamede
"Cannabinoid-Deficient people tend to accumulate in government", says Professor Robert Melamede, PhD as he expounds on his "Forward-Looking People" & "Backward-Looking People" theory of political inertia.
As YouTube commenter 'hypnofan35' (such an authority figure!) writes:
Seems like religious and hierarchals tend to look backwards. Unhappily the distant past is supposed to be wherefrom they derive their holiest beliefs, leaving thinking in present time somewhat out of the question. It's a kind of conceptual or creativity degeneration. It is the way people have been conceptually herded. We are skillfully herded with agency and taboo.
And by looking backwards so much, the agendas gain more and more resonance with the previous patterns ("past" events), repeating themselves in ever more grandiose form. That is what we have been calling "history": the tiniest slice, insignificant/unimportant by itself, of the infinite number of things that were also going on at the moment of "historical events". Not only do the winners/conquerors write the history; the act itself of writing "history" creates the "history". Almost all the events that were not written about are thus not considered "historical events". The idea of "history" is thus primarily about control agendas relating to empires. We come to think of "governments" and empires as "just the way it is" because this is the kind of "history" we are "taught" in "obligatory educational centers" (authoritarian indoctrination prisons) run by these very same cannabinoid-deficient people who supposedly believe it "fair" to imprison anyone caught using phytocannabinoids to help facilitate the letting go of ego resistance.
For the basis of all political action is coercion; even when the State does good things, it finally rests on a club, a gun, or a prison, for its power to carry them through.
In words are seen the state of mind and character and disposition of the speaker.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.
Corrupt politicians make the other ten percent look bad.
It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race, or his holy cause. A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business.
It's crazy: Governments are borrowing from the future to build stadiums, which few people go to, to house athletes who live in poverty, for the administrators and politicians and bureaucrats and coaches to get rich. And of course for the politicians to have their 15 minutes of prestige.
I never favored any political party. Being a conservative or a liberal, a Republican or a Democrat, these are just labels that people use to categorize each other so that they can quickly decide whether or not they want to listen to what they have to say. Politicians are not interested in empathizing with each other. They simply try to do as little as possible in the way of serving the public while building their reputation among their peers, amassing power and wealth that is unimaginable to the common American citizen that they supposedly represent.
We have the money, the power, the medical understanding, the scientific know-how, the love and the community to produce a kind of human paradise. But we are led by the least among us — the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary. We are led by the least among us and we do not fight back against the dehumanizing values that are handed down as control icons.
Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations that've long since bought and paid for, the senate, the congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pocket, and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all of the news and the information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them.
The only revolution that will change anything is a revolution of perception.
Models/approximations of political ideologies to help grasp their relationships and differences:
Max Igan - The World Is Run By Psychopaths And Wrapped In Bullshit (full show)
[Published on Mar 7, 2015] Max Igan - The Crowhouse - Surviving The Matrix
Larken Rose - IT'S not the POLITICIANS it's PEOPLE who BELIEVE in Their AUTHORITY
Larken Rose on criminality, submission, politicians, car jackers, mercenaries (order followers), and the illusion of relevancy.