Why You Shouldn't Poll For Labour In 2023

Why bother informing you as to why we shouldn't vote for subversive marketing, when everyone else is already doing that?

Good subversive marketers are able to hide evil clown masks with masks of nicety.

What the Crown’s best subversive marketing team (Labour) did to the people of Te Ika a Maui and Te Waka o Māui is unforgivable to many. Fortunately for the Crown, half the country are the unwitting flying monkeys for a revolving door of narcissists and therefore, have no perspective. Half the country lack perspective, and one third of that perspective lacking group are divided on how to deliver the truth of the matter. This creates a situation where the result of a “royal commission” will go nowhere for justice because the majority will either agree with their predictable findings or be over it by the time they come to a finding. Why do we need to revere justice? Because it’s a core value of our long-standing value hierarchy. If you were “empathetic” you would comprehend the importance of justice. Some “empathetic” types don’t get it, why? Because they’re not empathetic they just pretend to be. Why? For the “greater good”.

There’s a reason why Neoconservative types refer to Neoliberals as useful idiots, it’s the same reason why psychopaths refer to empathy faking narcissists as useful idiots. It’s because they’re the same thing. This is why we have such a divergence of opinion on what Labour did to the people of New Zealand and Aotearoa. It’s because Māori and New Zealand persons are not aware of their own psychology. What’s required as proof for my assessment of political psychology is a long article, probably a book. Of which, will always require more observation and more proof. I acknowledge that, and encourage others to do the same. With many sources comes better perspective and better perception and therefore, a wiser species. It should go without saying, we should be guided by the wise, not ruled by the clever.

What all the above means is that it is pointless to attempt to write an article aimed at changing minds or getting approval from the lazy “wobbly middle”. To tell a half-truth, like Labour does, in an attempt to maintain peace will only cause a conflict that will always snowball over time. To pursue the truth is to offend everybody to a varying degree, because it reveals all the things that make us feel shame. That is why we all lie, to hide our shame. It is why the truth both offends us and sets us free. The lie is the start of your prison, it is after all, a limited idea entertained. Join in with the lie, and it becomes the future intensification of your prison until you revoke your involvement. Why lie? “Because it’s just easier” in the short term.

One of the most profound jokes I have ever heard, came from a book that changed my life. Twelve Rules For Life; An Antidote To Chaos. It was what Rudolf Steiner tried to do before World War I, just in a different way. Instead of trying to wake up those trapped in victimhood and unconscious servitude, Jordan and many others decided to try to wake up the potential psychopaths who manipulate them. Those who think they hold reason. The insanity that controls all psychopaths doesn’t like that, because it’s a wise thing to do if you want to reverse collective self-destruction. Problem is, it requires you to acknowledge that you are not as reasonable as you think you are, ever. It’s what the oldest book in the world would want you to do; convince those with swords who know how to use them to keep them sheathed, for it is the meek who inherit the world. Rightfully so.

The joke I was referring to is an old Soviet joke. An American dies and goes to hell. Satan himself shows him around. They pass a large cauldron. The American peers in. It’s full of suffering souls, burning in hot pitch. As they struggle to leave the pot, low-ranking devils, sitting on the rim, pitchfork them back in. The American is properly shocked. Satan says, “That’s where we put sinful Englishmen.” The tour continues. Soon the duo approaches a second cauldron. It’s slightly larger, and slightly hotter. The American peers in. It is also full of suffering souls, all wearing berets. Devils are pitchforking would-be escapees back into this cauldron, as well. “That’s where we put sinful Frenchmen,” Satan says.

In the distance is a third cauldron. It’s much bigger, and is glowing, white hot. The American can barely get near it. Nonetheless, at Satan’s insistence, he approaches it and peers in. It is absolutely packed with souls, barely visible, under the surface of the boiling liquid. Now and then, however, one clambers out of the pitch and desperately reaches for the rim. Oddly, there are no devils sitting on the edge of this giant pot, but the clamberer disappears back under the surface anyway. The American asks, “Why are there no demons here to keep everyone from escaping?” Satan replies, “This is where we put the Russians. If one tries to escape, the others pull him back in.”

The psychological lesson in this joke is slightly hidden by the use of nationalities as designations rather than psychologies. The English are those who favour order or reason, the masculine. The French are those who favour freedom or compassion, the feminine. The last cauldron contains those who favour neither and are trapped in the self-imprisoning nature of their soulless delusion. That if we just put up with tyranny our suffering will end. What are the devils on the rim pitchforking would be escapees? Our failure to live up to the value we claim to uphold, or those who project their demons onto you until you believe it and fall back into the pool of suffering. Either way, the outcome is the same.

The punchline in the joke is the pitiful state of those trapped in the last cauldron. They lack desire to do anything about their suffering and they insist on tripping up anyone who tries. That’s our whole country right now. Who convinces us to take on this attitude to suffering? Victimhood marketers like the Labour Party, those who wear the mask of nicety to hide the promotion of stupidity. Otherwise known as; professional fraudsters.

What many will tell you about the mandates in this sudden media environment of finishing off Labour, will only be portions of the truth. Which is normal for us, we are creatures that perpetually pursue truth while occasionally and stupidly proclaiming to be the single source of it. What I will tell you is what I have learned so far, let’s see how it measures up against what others have told you. It won’t be one breadcrumb like the recent brilliance delivered by Nathan Smith. It will be a few. It won’t be my truth, I don’t have all of the truth, far from it. Yet, I will do my best to tell you what I think it might be based on what I have observed.

Chris Hipkins didn’t lie when he said that his employer did not make vaccinations compulsory. That’s not what makes him the disdain of those who hold reason and good economics in high regard. Yet, if anyone claims that people weren’t forced, then they don’t comprehend the maxim; violence sometimes wears the mask of law. You have chat GPT now, you can learn the foundations of law yourself, and maxims of law and maxims of equity are pretty good tools for the comprehension of the foundation of law.

Want to learn about the difference between force and violence? Read Hipkins Gives Us the Best News Ever. Want to know what they tried to do with a twisting of language, that is unworthy of a judge? Keep reading. Legally the government was ok to offer mandates to persons, provided they did not make false claims while offering the mandate. It’s the sort of thing that allows cigarette companies that sell you poison, to market their non-beneficial product to you. Yet, that’s a corporation, “governments” are supposed to constrain those, not market for them. Unfortunately, they made a treasure trove of false claims. They couldn’t help it, what they were offering was a fraud to its core, and any agreement induced by fraud cannot stand. In Latin, it is sometimes written as; Dolo malo pactum se non servabit. Which means; a pact made with evil intent will not be upheld

The irony is, judges in the Crown’s courts breach the maxims; it is a fraud to conceal a fraud and a twisting of language is unworthy of a judge, every single day.

They may have implied that mandate meant compulsory. Considering the fact that most of their policy enforcers had no idea how to enforce a non-compulsory mandate, most people were encouraged to believe it meant you had to comply or receive a loss or injury to your person. Which is unlawful, but made lawful with your informed consent. Which is consistent with another maxim; Compliance with unjust laws can lead to loss and injury.

Who knew the government couldn’t do what they were doing? Every single lawyer that isn’t "incompetent, dishonest, or both” through compliance with unjust laws. How many of those are there? According to a former chief justice of the United States supreme court, that used to be around seventy-five to ninety percent of trial lawyers. What do you think it is now? In a culture that arrogantly and stupidly believes that there is no black and white, only grey? Potentially all of them! The retarded nature of this woke proclamation is that the individuals saying this have definition thanks to the existence of black and white. It’s that naïve arrogance that often occurs while holding rare knowledge, the kind that can’t see the forest for the trees. Or, the trees of the forest for that matter.

They said they did it to check to see if they were meeting their obligations to their health and safety rules. A statute for persons that insists on procedures that hypothetically protect a person from hazards and risks. Did the response protect us from the identified hazards and risks? Hard to say, we’re still not sure what the hazard was and therefore the risk is a bit grey, so we focused on hypothetical future symptoms in healthy people. COVID-19. How did that go? Not good, turns out the only proof of substance we have for the spike protein was the result of the mRNA shots. Which may mean that we attacked ourselves with the hazard and tried to use that to protect ourselves from other natural hazards.

How did that go? It didn’t work, truth be told we knew it wouldn’t work, that was just our original marketing narrative. We did it to make money and advance science through the creation of lots of health data. After all, data is money now. Good thing we privately told the New Zealand Defence Force, the Navy, and the Police that this “virus” may have undergone gain of function enhancement. That way we could be forgiven for being extreme in our response while contradicting ourselves by temporarily telling the public that it came from bat soup. After all, we needed to keep them calmer than our policy enforcers.

Wow, did you at least do a good job of managing cold and flu symptoms? Did you use the correct procedures as per your obligations to your safety standards and hierarchy of controls? Um, no. Did you promote correct dietary and vitamin supplements as secondary precautions to boost the resiliency of people’s immune systems? Um, we told them to stay inside, and don’t talk to their neighbours. We also made them feel guilty if they didn’t help Pfizer make billions by gaslighting the “unvaccinated”. Oh, and we told Hone Harawira to give Māori unhealthy food for free. Wow, is that racist? No, you’re a racist, an anti-vaxxer, an anti-masker, a conspiracy theorist, and a potential murderer! Ok, did you provide the right treatments that help reduce symptoms caused by affliction with the risk of the hazard? We prevented them from obtaining those so they would take the bioweapon experiment when we offered mandates. Why?

Because, it was a good way to make money and learn more about gene-editing and bio-tech. But you don’t make money, you take money. Why should people give you money if you use it solely to benefit predatory crony capitalists? Good question, if you can answer that, you’ll answer why you shouldn’t pay tax to Corporate States that aren’t bound to beneficiary benefitting trust instruments.

That’s the point here, the government doesn’t make money, banks make a form representation of money. Yet, without any astute mathematical system for it’s lawful substance to form ratio, it’s just funny money that has implied value. That is until tangible producers and suppliers start to collapse because of Labour’s stealth war on them. That’s when that funny money becomes worthless and prices of goods double in price until there’s a crash. Now you know why Bill Gates transformed his funny money into American farmland. Are you getting it yet?

When the crash happens you’ll either learn this lesson now or you’ll likely suffer through some more intense scripts further down the track. Your government is either a corporate organisation that invests your money heavily in transportation infrastructure while they trade resource access to foreign creditors. Or, it is what this marketing flavour is; a criminal bulldozer that clears the way for future investment from those foreign creditors. Corporations that use our useful idiots to destroy our “complacent economy” in favour of a “better” one. Our clueless flying monkeys, our poor Russian souls, the ones who wear masks of nicety to hide the empty husk that is a narcissist. Forgive them father, “they know not what they do”. Keep Labour in and it will likely make it easier to convince the “reasonable” to wake up. That’s why Luxon and Seymour will be next, a good dose of economic selfishness to keep the tin men of Groundswell too busy to care.

Blue pill or red pill which will the media “force” you to choose? I’m betting it’s the blue pill. The black pill? Whatever that is, if it is what I think it is, that is not for the fragile of mind. The gaze into the abyss eventually reveals the light, but only to those whose light can constrain their equal and opposite abyss. They are the meek who will inherit the world. Hopefully, for the benefit of all. Why shouldn’t you Poll for Labour? Who cares? If you haven’t figured out what this game is yet, then why should I cast anymore pearls?