I still remember being excited about the midterm elections of 2018, and hoping “it” was all about to go down afterwards. How little we knew about the depth of the deception and corruption, and the scale of the war for the soul of our species! Still, better to have sought truth and imperfectly found, than not to have sought at all. The two pillars of a free society — honest money and honest elections — cannot be installed overnight when society’s load-bearing elements are controlled by criminals. If the visible takedown takes a decade, it takes a decade.
The escape from debt slavery and usury is a parallel story that may have some form of denouement with blockchain transparency, asset repricing, and technological elimination of the moneychangers. I hope we see fruits of the endeavour soon and have honest money again. In the meantime, today is a noteworthy day for the continued dishonest elections in the USA. The labels “11.3” and “NOVEMBER 3RD” have been trailed years ahead of time via the Q drops. Every election cycle is a test of strength in resolving the capture of lawmaking by rigging.
Modern American elections have two phases. The first, in which people vote and the nominal result determines the winner. And a second, grinding, destructive one where the legitimacy of the supposed result is argued over in the courts, media, and public forums. Few citizens have the stamina to examine the original data and make up their own mind directly; most accept ready-made narratives, either way. This is not always a bad thing. We have finite personal resources, and the outsourcing of trust manages our energy budget.
The issue is naively trusting institutions that don’t deserve it.
As I type, I am sat on the sofa of a good friend in the far north of Scotland, having a few days in the beauty of nature and with company who understand the struggle. Tonight is a kind of election party to see if there is a “red wave”. This would, hypothetically, ease a military-led reveal of the scale of fraud past and present. It is better optics if you essentially reject your own side’s “win”. The prospect of another two years of uncertainty and unresolved expectation into a 2028 election cycle feels unbearable. Something has to give.
My friend is a former socialite and sportsman, well-connected among the ruling classes. He spoke out against child trafficking and crimes against humanity. He endorsed the Q drops as our “placeholder” public front for the replacement power structure. He resisted Covid-era lies and abuses. As a result, he shares with me the experience of being targeted in the national press and alienated from family and polite society. What we have endured is painful, and it is only through solidarity with others who have suffered character assassination that we find the strength to persevere.
Last night I sat on his sofa, both of us watching on TV the Trump speech at the reflecting pool, with the President wearing a rather obviously symbolic white hat. What struck me was the contrast between the prior analysis of an ongoing celebrity rape trial in the UK and that of geopolitics in America. The former had a legal expert who was level-headed and saw the complexity of the case, rather than pushing a simple one-sided narrative. The latter had an over-energised political reporter spouting many of the usual Trump tropes, with little pretence at objective neutrality.
I believe the political reporter was sincere. He thinks this is politics. In his framing you can take sides. It’s a deliberately unstable contest within a stable meta-system.
But it’s not politics. It is war. The contest is a stable fraud. And the difference is everything. In this election, the meta-system of power is what is being contested. But voters only have an indirect role of overwhelming the cheat.
Elections can install enemies of the constitutional order into the highest offices of government. This renders the state into a ceremonial facade that offers cover for the destruction of civil society. Any election cycle could be the last meaningful one, and you likely wouldn’t know. Formal abolition of elections is unnecessary if the outcome is predetermined. Voters aren’t equipped to confront the failure of the meta-system or its hijacking by foreign forces. It’s not their job.
In the final reckoning, the task of safeguarding the integrity of the constitutional order falls to the military. That is why their oath is to that order, not the institutional state, since they are not synonymous.
The reflecting pool speech reads differently depending on whether you recognise the ongoing war or not, with step one being acknowledging its possible existence. The location is alongside the Washington Monument, a totem to the Cult of Osiris, whose influence we still feel. The occult symbology is dominant, not fringe. The President doesn’t have an obsession with rogue algae and water pipe de-furring. It’s all allegory of draining the swamp. This election isn’t a result within the existing system. It is a transition waypoint of handing back control to the people, as the broken system and meta-system are repaired and replaced over multiple electoral cycles.
The location is everything. The new reflecting pool lets us see more clearly the inverted reality of who rules us.
The news reporter said a long-winded speech about water quality and conduit replacement of a national monument, on the eve of an election, was not something that any rational political advisor would suggest. This is not a leading issue in the minds of voters. But that’s the whole point. The election outcome itself is not particularly important. Voters are not choosing the meta-system, which is all that matters by now. They are, however, injecting traces into the system as-is and exposing every trick and bent official. The formal outcome is largely irrelevant, as the task is beyond the realm of voting. The laws of war, not elections, are paramount.
Once you see the category error, there is no going back. It’s no secret, and doesn’t have to be hidden, only commonly ignored. It was the opening line of Donald Trump’s famous 2016 election speech: “Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American people.” That is exactly what is happening, as advertised. A perpetual shadow state beyond rejection by the people, animated by who-knows-what even darker structures, is tyranny. It steals your wealth, sends your children into barbaric wars, and vandalises your culture.
Overturning that unaccountable power (and establishing peace) is the goal. Today’s elections are a part of that process. Exactly how, we have yet to know. That is OK.
What fascinates me is that the news reporter doesn’t need to be part of any knowing grand conspiracy to be leading people astray by a framing error. Ordinary people participate in systems whose root assumption is infected by a falsehood. They can reason perfectly honourably from that point forward to come to incorrect conclusions.
Likewise, the audience can be completely unaware of the true nature of the conflict, or that anything of importance is being withheld from them. They continue to perform their function of forming opinions within the limited container being offered to them. The deception is a self-maintaining meta-system of its own.
“Everyone knows this is how things are” ensures this is how things are. Perpetually. Unless something bigger intervenes.
The meaning of an election can only be understood within a pre-selected framework of what is considered to be “real”. What is believed to be real is limited to what is thought to be possible. If reality is considered impossible, then it no longer is considered to be real. That’s your problem. There may be no path of correction back to reality. The drift becomes so severe, whether deliberate or accidental, that the underlying truth of what’s happened, and what is ongoing, becomes inaccessible.
So what is this election really about? Politics? Or something bigger?
This brings me to the potential deeper significance of what is happening today, and it has very little to do with who “wins” (by endorsement by real voters or through fraud). Select accounts on social media slowly, over years, establish a network of interactions and apparent foreknowledge that, if you don’t track it, could easily be lost as noise or wild over-claims. My sense is that this hint below is, on the balance of probability, likely true. And it gives a completely different view of the war, who the players are, and what is at stake today.
The same account has been quietly revealing some of America’s lesser-known history, including the legacy of explorers from the Nordic countries, and the civilisation of Winneland they created in what we now know as America, and the traces of that era that still linger in the landscape. The evidence of extreme suppression of much of history is compelling; the victors write the textbooks. Past wars and genocides may have been expunged from the record. Those responsible still rule from the shadows. The resistance went into hiding in places like the fringes of Alaska.
The suggestion being offered is that the very concept of America as we know it may be a fabrication, and its political future may look little like its past.
That’s not what you were taught, I know.
What if the elections are for the government of a nation that is not what you thought it was?
If this deeper reading of alternative history is correct, the Donald Trump character is potentially played by multiple actors over time. It terminates with a real person occupying the necessary role and authority to “sign the papers” as the “impostor corporate state” is dismantled and replaced. And that real person may have an extraordinary lineage and pedigree.
If so, the truth is so strange it would immediately be rejected by most people as fantasy. Hence interim “acceptably weird” social realities are needed to slowly shift us back to something congruent with the original unmodified record.
That’s the bizarre context in which I am trying to make sense of this event today.
You can still love America and revere Old Glory while recognising that anything built upon lies is unstable. The news reporter cannot explore any of these wider possibilities because they are essentially meaningless in the audience’s concept of what could exist. Few are willing to consider that the nascent American republic was de facto rapidly recaptured by the European banking aristocracy, and re-colonised after brief independence. Or that the Civil War was a setup, and largely succeeded in ending the bid for freedom from taxes to foreigners. The methods of extracting tribute just evolved.
If WW1 and WW2 were similarly built on fraud at the behest of central bankers, as is alleged, that’s where we loop back to General Patton, who famously saw through the deceit. What we are watching may be the unresolved loose ends of WW2 coming together, as it didn’t end cleanly the way we are taught in school. Nor was it the simplistic goodies and baddies tale we are given. Everyone was dirty to some degree, serving destructive agendas.
Today’s election may structurally have more in common with the 1940s than those of intervening decades, because the problem it is solving (of intelligence agencies covertly running everything including elections) is located that far back.
This suggests three possible stances to make sense of what we see happening today:
The conventional tale of a mid-term election battle, taken as a continuation of ordinary political cycles.
The alternative tale of restoration of the constitutional order, with looming punishment for subversives, after a period of attack and degradation by outsiders.
The esoteric tale of what the baseline for restoration might actually be, because the history books are often propaganda and faked.
The most productive, if uncertain, may be the last of these.
I have learned over the years not to make predictions, as it is a guaranteed way of looking foolish. I don’t know what the outcome of today’s poll will be. A decisive and enduring shift away from fraud could easily be the trigger for far-left riots and martial law. California seems set for pioneering prosecutions for breaking election law, because many people there falsely assume they are protected. The pollsters and media appear set up for a fall. We shall see.
What I do know is that I didn’t have much clue back in 2018 what the silent war was all about, although that didn’t stop me having strong opinions. Even now, I only have a vague notion of how deep it goes. More keeps revealing itself as time passes. Every time I thought I had the scope and scale of it under control, I was proven wrong again. The world is a stage, and I don’t have any privileged access to the production crew. And if I did, I wouldn’t be sharing it.
In a scripted world with plans that span decades and centuries, few things of importance are purely emergent. Most opinions are formed from a narrowed worldview that limits the upstream concepts of reality. They may be right or wrong, but lack the vocabulary to distinguish between the two. Which is why the public are not the ultimate guarantors of freedom. They cannot know what they don’t know because it is classified or violently repressed.
What I can be confident about is that the whole picture is not widely shared or understood, if at all, by the general public. The Q drops and many associated initiatives may have primed many to seek the deeper understanding of what is going on. This election is real and meaningful to some degree. But what exactly is real and what its meaning is may take time to uncover. It feels significant in ways that mid-term elections generally are not, but not because of who is elected.
The outcome looks party political, but its key metrics are military, because industrial-scale fraud is a threat to the integrity of the Republic. How that plays out, we have yet to discover. In the meantime, most punditry is low-value, as it wrongly categorises what we are observing.
The story isn’t the political result of an electoral system. Even a “red wave”. It is the integrity of the system (who gets elected by whose consent) being made the focus by its meta-system (civilian and military supervision).
If every election has to be litigated for years, you don’t have a vote. You have a preliminary opinion that requires later legal recognition, which relocates power.
That’s not a government controlled by the people.
Changing that is what today is about.
Even if we don’t yet fully know how.
Or when.
Knowing that you are sharing this journey helps me immensely. May God bless your comings and goings always--much gratitude, Martin.