Sad to say, many people in this increasingly fractured kingdom of ours are under the delusion that we live in a democracy. This will be the underlying theme here, though I hope the reader will forgive some straying off-topic now and then; this is intended as political polemic, not an academic treatise.
What does a democracy look like? We wouldn’t know, since we’ve never seen one. The original Greek model existed only in Athens, then a small city state, and only free adult males were classed as citizens, with voting rights. Women and slaves were automatically excluded, indeed anyone suggesting giving them a say in the affairs of state would have been cast out to the local loony colony, or whatever they did with the deranged back then.
Maybe it was Francis Galton, that man of genius and cousin of Darwin, who gave us a true demonstration of democratic principles. Galton was keen on eugenics, noting that the great surge of scientific ideas and inventions in his day came from just a tiny number of learned men. Between Darwin’s time and the 1930s practically everyone favoured eugenics, even the suffragettes. What we have now of course is a highly dysgenic society, and the more useless you are the more benevolent the State is towards you.
In 1906 Galton attended a country fair, the West of England Fat Stock and Poultry Exhibition at Plymouth. There a stallholder had on display an ox, with a competition in which participants guessed its dressed weight. That is, the weight in meat resulting once it had been slaughtered and the various offal parts removed. Each entrant paid sixpence.
There were 800 entries, and Galton asked to be given the tickets once the correct value had been established, which was 1198lbs. The surprising outcome was that the middle-most, or median, entry was 1207lbs. To quote Galton: “It appears then, in this particular instance, that the vox populi is correct to within 1 per cent of the real value... This result is, I think, more creditable to the trust-worthiness of a democratic judgment than might have been expected.”
The account appeared in a short article entitled ‘Vox Populi’ in Nature, 7 March 1907. It is available in full online. Galton’s finding, contrary to his expectation that learned and expert judgement would prevail, was that the crowd en masse was capable of an accurate assessment. We can examine our current position in light of this. Lest there be any lingering delusion that our political system is democratic, three notable examples will be quoted.
First of all, there is capital punishment. Whatever one’s stance on the matter, the indubitable fact is that most approve of it for the most serious crimes. Despite a long series of opinion polls showing public favour for the policy however, we still do not have it.
Second, mass immigration has never been approved by the British public. The issue has never appeared in a party manifesto (except in uncertain undertakings to reduce it, well after the fact), so not even a tacit mandate has ever been received by any British government to import people from other countries. Yet look where we are now.
Thirdly though, and perhaps the most profound change of all, was giving women the vote. This in my view was the most egregious abuse of parliamentary power ever, because from it so many others followed. The government of the day had absolutely no mandate to do so, and in fact by 1918 when the franchise was extended to women of 30 and above, public sentiment had long-since set against the suffragette cause.
I don’t need reminding that this attitude, that women should play no part in the political process, is a minority view. However I say that women simply do not have the capacity, the breadth of view or objectivity, to weigh national issues in impersonal terms. When we consider democracy as an aggregate of votes, we are relying on a summation, ultimately, of instinct. Female instincts all derive from mate-selection and child-rearing, as befits their essential role as bearers and nurturers of children. These instincts are fundamentally inappropriate to national affairs.
Two consequences of feminized politics can be quoted in illustration. One, hugely bloated government, which attempts to protect us from every eventuality. This satisfies the female yearning for safety, plus her desire not to be beholden to men. Evidence exists that government size, measured by expenditure, rose sharply immediately women started voting (Lott & Kenny, ‘How dramatically did women’s suffrage change the size and scope of government?’). Two, the election of inane politicians who “look good on telly” – Tony Blair might be the supreme example. It is said that due to the female vote it is now impossible to elect a national leader who is bald: the last such American president was Eisenhower (1953) and the last bald prime minister was Churchill (1951). As if this made any difference to the issues, or the competence of the candidate! It is comparable to the practice of some American Indian tribes, who would elect a chief solely on the length of his hair.
As Steve Moxon points out in The Woman Racket, women have always been able to vote at the local level. Granting national voting rights to women may have been the event which gave birth to what is now known as the “political class”: a distinct population which operates in its own interest, and only incidentally, if at all, in the interests of the people they are supposed to represent.
Such a political class, acting for their own preservation and in their own interests, would prefer an impressionable, malleable electorate, which cleaves to authority and decides how to vote in the few short weeks before an election. This would leave them free the rest of the time to engage in facile, but profitable, posturing and the pursuit of private agendas. Isn’t this exactly what we see?
The suffragettes, contrary to the rosy picture painted by ‘Auntie Beeb’ and the rest, were a tiny minority of middle-class women who lived privileged lives. They seriously proposed that they should be entitled to vote while working-class men, whose toil sustained the comfortable lifestyles they enjoyed, should not be. Working men, they said, were “almost wholly occupied with economic issues.” By this the suffragettes did not mean debates about the national economy, but the harsh reality of working six-day weeks to put food on the table for their families. Thus we have a precedent for the unconscionable arrogance of our present-day politicians. The blinkered, cosseted women of the suffragette movement, in-between burning down historic churches, smashing hundreds of shop windows and vandalising works of art, professed to tell hard-working men what was good for them. Indeed, led by the elder Pankhurst, who returned from exile in Paris full of rabid fervour against Germany, the suffragettes spent the duration of the First World War handing out white feathers to any man not in uniform. Even boys and soldiers on leave were branded as cowards.
It is obvious to all, but rarely commented upon, how prevalent women are in left-wing, environmental and similar movements. Women are in the thick of it, if not leading the charge. Of course “the left” doesn’t have a monopoly of concern for the environment, or opposition to the bullying activities of Western governments when their favourite tactic of aerial-bombing is employed against some practically defenceless second or third-world country. But they like to think they do.
Once a group of BNP members tried to join a demonstration in London against the invasion of Iraq and were driven away. The first priority of liberal bleeding-hearts is to nurture their sense of self-righteousness, to assure themselves of their singular virtue. Hence grand objectives are often adopted like ‘Make poverty history,’ because the grander the goal the more virtuous they feel, and that feeling is the real, unstated motivation. (Plus an unachievable goal has the advantage of there being no blame when it fails.)
To test this, try telling one of these bleeding-heart types that blacks in Zimbabwe were better off under White rule. This is rejected out of hand, because the welfare of said blacks is actually irrelevant – floating along on a cloud of moral superiority is the object, perhaps their favourite indulgence. This philosophy, that feeling is all, is of course feminine.
When we look around the nationalist scene we see a predominantly male environment. Women are conspicuous, if not by their absence, then by their rarity. Women in British nationalism are ‘the fringe of a fringe.’ I wish it were otherwise. The situation may be different elsewhere, and perhaps some nations’ womenfolk are cut from a more masculine cloth, but that is the case in Britain. No one goes to a nationalist gathering here expecting to encounter many of the fairer sex. The BNP at one point attracted a fair number of women members, but only after the party had emasculated itself.
This makes perfect sense, from an evolutionary perspective. Nationalism is masculine, because it was men who fought to defend the tribe. Women were passive, the spoils of war (and, Darwin noted, often the cause of it).
|PC Kennedy in his undercover days|
For an interesting psychological insight we can cite cases like that of undercover policeman Mark Kennedy. As ‘Mark Stone’ he infiltrated an environmentalist group and later claimed that having sex with women activists was necessary to maintain his cover! Between 1987 and 2010 at least ten women were involved in “intimate, long-term relationships with undercover policemen.”
Such are the lengths the British Establishment will go to disrupt political opposition. And if the State is prepared to mount such long-term undercover operations against relatively benign environmental and anti-war groups, what can nationalists expect? Given that the paymasters are obsessed with race, their activities against racial-nationalist groups will be greater by an order of magnitude at least.
More to the point, Kennedy and his undercover colleagues provide us with a formal, documented example of a general process, because it is my contention that the male is obliged to be dishonest to obtain any relationship with a female which is beneficial to him. Males quickly learn at adolescence that the straightforward approach is rarely successful.
The reader may be forgiven for thinking this only concerns juvenile fumblings on the babysitter’s sofa. No, in the great evolutionary game the number of progeny we leave behind is the only score that matters. The male may feign or adopt feminine sympathies to enhance his (reproductive) success.
Then of course the most convincing liar is one who has deceived himself. Tony Blair is again the perfect example – at the time he was delivering his rhetoric, he really believed it. Perhaps it was only minutes later that he no longer did, but by then it didn’t matter. The speech had been delivered, the applause received, and an admiring audience of party faithful had been warmed with idealistic fervour. Job done.
We should not be surprised to find a strong contingent of psychopaths amongst our politicians. Their single-minded drive for power, being prepared to say anything to gain power or hold onto it, the back-stabbing and intrigues they engage in to win approval from power-brokers and paymasters – this is applied psychopathy. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology, psychopathy is “a mental disorder roughly equivalent to antisocial personality disorder, but with emphasis on affective and interpersonal traits such as superficial charm, pathological lying, egocentricity, lack of remorse and callousness.” Any normal, reasonable person would not only be unable, but unwilling, to compete with such individuals.
It could be argued that today’s politicians are not really politicians at all, but rather the ultimate selfish pragmatists. Most MP’s nowadays are former lawyers, and adept at adopting whatever view suits their role: “My client is guilty but...” and “My client is innocent” are exchanged with alacrity. To further their ambitions, many would unhesitatingly hitch their colours to a different mast if not for the opprobrium they would receive from their peers. The patriarch of the present regime is Churchill, now lauded by the media, but one can imagine with what regard he was held by his early contemporaries, because he changed allegiance multiple times. It is said that at the end of the Second World War Churchill was great but Britain was no longer so. The man now heralded as a ‘great war leader’ sacrificed Britain’s pre-eminence for his own vainglory. What a role model!
One can only marvel at the sheer chutzpah of MP’s, like those of the Labour Party at the moment, who rise in synthetic indignation at their opponents for implementing the same policies they were just a short while ago. For example, Royal Mail was sold off without impediment because the necessary legislation had been passed by the previous Labour government. The Tories put the seal on Harriet Harperson’s insane “Equalities Act.” Just what is the point of this elaborate charade except to keep MP’s in perks, with a steady supply of “research assistants” (many imported from America) to copulate with? This is no way to run a political system.
Our politicians are adopting the traits of their mentors. Just look at the people they deem worthy of honours – such as Gerald Ronson, Jewish property speculator and fraudster, convicted in 1990 in the infamous Guinness shares scandal, who has poured millions into the “anti-racist” movement. He was made a “Commander of the British Empire.” Surely this is some sort of perverse joke? Whatever it is, it’s plainly at our expense. Paul Ruddock, a financial speculator who made a fortune out of the collapse of Northern Rock, was made a Knight. Any Knight worthy of the name would be inflamed for righteous vengeance: he would charge into these amoral, profiteering low-lifes and cut them down with a swing of his mighty sword.
We may ask, who voted to ban smoking in pubs? We certainly didn’t. Or before that, “anti-discrimination” legislation was passed, depriving us of our basic freedom to employ and associate with whomever we wish, instead according to government-dictated dogmas and quotas. One is required to obtain government permission to enter the hull of the Titanic or launch a space rocket; it is illegal to put a goldfish into a river or natural pond, or to land a catch of unsorted fish at a harbour. Lighting up in a bus shelter is an offence, and sticking two fingers up at someone can land you an £80 fine under the Public Order Act for hurting their feelings. Thousands of new laws have been created. It seems that the more “democracy,” “data protection,” and “freedom” are proclaimed, the less we actually have.
Truly this is a sordid parody of democracy. MP’s are elected to represent us but, having conned us into voting for them, they hand the power we have entrusted to them away to a foreign power – which is High Treason. Formerly persons committing this crime were hung, drawn and quartered, so seriously was the offence regarded. These same politicians – criminals of the highest order – have repealed the death penalty for the very crime they are committing. It is practically the only law they have repealed, while the country flounders in a sea of petty regulations they have conjured up to justify their existence. Non-entities up and down the land seize upon this legislation and even extend it, treating it as a cue to throw their weight around. Expenses fiddles are the least of politicians’ crimes – their betrayal of the British nation is infinitely more grave. Psychopaths and traitors: what crass, sorry excuses for human beings our politicians are!
|Therea May simpers like a schoolgirl before a synagogue audience on 22 April 2015. www.youtube.com/watch?v=75bfKQLUaUY|
Then there is the police, in their new role as henchmen of government criminality. Only a few decades ago the police refused to be drawn into political matters, but now they enforce the ruling elite’s political dogma with religious fervour. Been burgled? We’ll send round an amateur bobby, probably a middle-aged woman who can just make 5ft. in her boots, in a few days. Been called a name, one of the ever-increasing list of forbidden words? Don’t move, half the police station will be round in full gear in just two ticks. We all know it’s true. Even some police officers privately lament the present state of affairs. The older ones, who can remember how it used to be in saner times, can’t wait to retire and escape from it all.
The best thing about our police force though is that they are so cheap. All it takes is one or two grand into the Police Benevolent Fund and the donors can do no wrong. Meanwhile these same “philanthropists” give many times more to the Community Security Trust to fund its highly questionable intelligence-gathering operations and their almost-army of paranoid security personnel. Having a rabbi inspect the passing-out parade at Hendon Police College is an extra bonus.
Not just politicians, the party system itself is inherently corrupt. Congregation into parties stifles principled opposition and dissent among MP’s as they slavishly obey their party whips. Chiefly though it garners votes from people who are more likely to vote for a party than a person. People often vote according to a convenient label, or how their family has traditionally voted. Now the Ukippers say “Vote Labour, get Tory; vote Tory, get Labour.” UKIP may be Britain’s last chance for radical reform within the constraints of the existing system, before immigrant demographics make change impossible short of economic or societal collapse.
The closest we come to true democracy is when a referendum is held. Although rare, they provide glaring examples of how the people’s will is perverted. During the 1975 referendum to legitimise our entry into what was then called the Common Market, the electorate was tricked into assenting to one thing while the real agenda was another – surrendering our sovereignty to a European superstate. Or they are repeated until the desired result is achieved, which was how Irish ratification to the Lisbon Treaty was obtained in 2009.
Power is held by an unholy trinity of government, banks and the media. But in reality, government is the least of these. The banks control the money, and the media control perception, particularly perception of what is normal. It is the media that presents the far-reaching social changes of recent times as “progress.” This is another widespread delusion.
What, and who, is worth talking about is defined by the media. The following is from Esther Vilar’s astonishingly forthright book The Manipulated Man, and the reader can decide whether she overstates her case:
‘Women’s stupidity is so overwhelming that anyone who comes into contact with it will become, in a way, infected by it. That this is not obvious is solely because everybody has been exposed to it from birth and, as a result, has become inured to it. In previous years men either ignored it or believed it to be a typically feminine characteristic which harmed no one. But with the increase in leisure and money to spend, woman’s need for entertainment has grown. Consequently, her imbecility is spreading into public life as well, reflected not just in vases, bedroom pictures, brocade curtains, cocktail parties, and Sunday sermons. The mass media have become more involved in it. Women’s programs are gaining ground in radio and television. And even respectable newspapers print society gossip, crime features, and fashion news, horoscopes, and cooking recipes. And women’s magazines become every day more numerous and sumptuous on the stands. Step by step, not only the private sphere of men but all of public life has become infected by this stupidity.’
|May is giving over £11.5million of public funds to the Community Security Trust, the Jews’ private security and intelligence-gathering organisation.|
An essential cornerstone of a democracy is free speech. No one can expect to reach a fair conclusion without hearing both sides of the argument. Indeed, if one side is suppressed it is a guarantee of distortion.
We certainly don’t have free speech in Britain: under the Public Order Act one can be criminally prosecuted for causing “alarm or distress,” regardless of the degree of provocation or the truth of what is said. In at least three cases, brought against Joe Pearce, Lady Jane Birdwood and myself, judges have confirmed that the truth of what is said is irrelevant. Treating ‘what is said’ as equivalent to ‘what is done’ and deprecating cold, hard fact in favour of sentiment are unmistakeable stamps of feminization. The problem with sentiment, of course, is that it can be invalid. Specifically, feelings can be manipulated.
This is happening today on a massive scale – there is no evolutionary precedent for television and humans have no natural defence against it. Its only check is the free expression of criticism and contrary views.
In an early preface to Animal Farm, which the publisher rejected, Orwell wrote that “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Our inability to do this is proof-positive (if any more proof were needed) that our supposed democracy is a sham.
Drawing inspiration from Galton then, the obvious model for a true democracy is to spread it widely, not extending the franchise, including more and more people in a practically meaningless voting process, but massively extending the issues on which we vote. My view is that voting should be restricted to native male Britons over the age of 21. There are many epicene men, plus those who have adopted feminine views, and yet further, men have strong protective instincts towards women. The combined result is that even with an all-male electorate the female voice would still be heard. But whoever is eligible to vote, the principle remains the same.
Mobile phones are now ubiquitous, and computers are routinely used to issue messages and process responses from them. Thus, registering a voter need involve nothing more than associating a phone number with him, allowing him to vote by short text message on any issue. Like any system, abuse would be possible, but minor cheating would be insignificant to the outcome and major abuse could easily be detected by computer algorithms, much as credit cards are monitored now (unusual spending patterns raise flags).
The day of voting would be preceded by broadcast debates. A random selection of voters would be chosen to debate the matter, just as juries are, and they would gather to give their views at a venue, possibly the House of Commons itself. That is, the process would be public, using a random pool of voters who engage in a televised debate. This would be infinitely superior to the bunch of braying, overpaid poltroons we currently have. Who needs these crooks and windbags called MP’s? We can dispense with the lot of them!
A chairman, equivalent to the Speaker, would comment only on matters of fact and wind up the debate when nobody had anything new to say. Drawn from the general public, these debates could certainly be lively, and may even make riveting viewing. They would constitute a parliament, and of course the participants would enjoy complete freedom of speech. Perhaps it would be restored for the rest of us.
A critic might say that law-making is too complicated for ordinary people, but this would be a sophism. Laws are meant to be adhered to by everyone, and a law which is too complicated to understand is inherently unjust. People must be able to know what is legal and what is not. The volume and inordinate complexity of present legislation is the consequence of a parliament dominated by lawyers.
Finally, what does it mean when Western leaders, hailing themselves as paragons of political enlightenment, seek to export this glorious system of “representative democracy” to other countries, like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya? If it is not a true democracy at home, it will be even less of one transplanted to some foreign, arid place which hasn’t even a tradition of personal freedom and individuality. In practice it is just the expansion of a self-serving coterie of politicians, servile to the manipulators, international finance and the media.
Britons suffer the worst of both worlds. We have absolute rule by an oligarchy but with the cost of a democracy. It is a capitalist system in cahoots with a bloated, imperious, soviet-style bureaucracy. The duopoly imposes its dogma with an intolerance of dissent characteristic of communism, with a controlled press and mass-monitoring of the populace with CCTV. At the same time we endure the worst aspects of capitalism – the super-rich at the top of the pile, growing ever wealthier from unrestricted international trade and imported labour.
A regime that claims to be a democracy yet relies on lies, control of information, and suppression of dissent to stay in power has no legitimacy. None at all.