The Subversion Of Politics
Suppose you don't believe in governance by the people and for the people, but everyone else does. Find a way to undermine their faith in it so you may benefit from the resulting concentration of power
Now we move on to the field of representation that subverts activism against itself. After all, the best way to defeat the enemy of the monopoly of power is to get them to beat themselves. Politics is meant to be the State, a word that loosely means to make a structure. A structure of what? People. The State is intended to be a structure of people aimed at representing the will of the beneficiaries of that structure. The People. Yet, that depends on the express terms in a State’s trust constitution; if that is not well formulated, it may become a government. On this land, it would be proper to have the State advocate for the will of the people and the land, as the consensus would do well to refer to themselves as people of the land - Tangata Whenua.
Many believe our elected representatives work for us; after all, we call them MPs (Ministerial Positions). Which belies the idea that they carry out administration tasks that improve our ability to benefit from the trust they administer. However, when we look at what they spend their time doing, we find that "marketer of policy" is a better "interpretation" of the MP anagram. Who's policies do they market? Not yours...
This book doesn't just tell you who the government is but also what it is, which is essential; knowing what it is, helps you learn why it does what it does. If the government has become an instrument for criminality against the common people, then you need to know thy enemy. How did a structure of people built for the people become tax thieves and consent abusers? Wilful blindness on behalf of the beneficiaries.
Ian Wishart is half right, and if there was ever an article of his to read, it is his most recent one. Wishart showed the critical event of the Rogernomics "Revolution." A faux revolution driven by slavery dogmatists who have no faith in humanity. So, they use their 'cleverness' to rig the economic game, by creating a predictable boom-bust sequence, under the banner of Thanos-like callousness, dressed in a fake savior gown. How do we know this? Because many diligent individuals correctly investigated correlations that show means, motive, financial gain, and attempts to hide the proof with blatant censorship.
Why is Ian Wishart only half-right? Because the Parliament of Policy Marketers have no power. They are simply the mouthpiece of the evildoers; they use the repetition of carefully crafted narratives to encourage the naive children (citizens) to do stupid things that either enslave them, injure them, or get them to cull themselves through implied consent. Who are the evildoers? All of them. Ignorance of the law cannot be an excuse, especially for those who claim to "write the law." However, a power source directs this Act, this theatre show, and you likely find it by following the money and the advice.
Suppose the New Zealand Initiative thinks up the policies that the MP's market and the New Zealand Initiative consists of a consortium of Corporate representatives. Suppose these Corporations benefit from the policies the MPs present to the children/citizens. If that's the case, you could claim that Parliament is a middle-man for those who make self-gratifying policies. It comes back to the old saying, Qui Bono? Who benefits? More precisely, who benefits the most? If it's not the People, the supposed beneficiaries of this implied trust, then the trustee, the New Zealand Company Parliament, is acting like a Constructive Trustee. Which, in the Rules of Equity, is a thief.
A thief of what? The rights and financial energy generation of the children/citizens. Is it a crime? Do you believe that an agreement should have express terms? Or should the terms be implied? Should we encourage behaviour that aims to get away with unfair deals that benefit one party more than the other? Did you know that you had a choice between express or implied terms? If the answer is no, then that education needs to be front and centre, and if it's not, who's responsible for teaching fairness (equity)? Unfortunately, right now, it's the last people you would want. Those who are good at conducting criminal acts and convincing the beneficiaries that they are the guilty party.
"The State" has never been "a structure of people aimed at representing the will of the beneficiaries of that structure. The People." "The People" does not exist as a discrete entity, only individual human beings with various wants and needs exist - the individual is the starting point of all methodological and praxeological analysis of "society". "The State" is the organisation that claims the monopoly on violence and to coercion in a given "society". States by their very nature become centralised and increasingly authoritarian. Social order is a spontaneous, emergent phenomenon which functions best in conditions of individual liberty and the principles of human interaction (aka Law) that arise from that .