"Democracy"

The Permanent Revolution against the Constitution.

" The will to power, operating under a pure democratic disguise has finished off its masterpiece
 so well that the object's sense of freedom is actually flattered by the most thorough-going enslavement that has ever existed”
 - Oswald Spengler, "Decline of the West" p461 Allen & Unwin Omnibus Edition.

Back to Start     Contents

"Democracy" or rule by the "demos" or people while stretching back to ancient Greece seems to have found its modern origins in the ideas of the revolutions.  However, since modern voters are increasingly disillusioned with democracy as practiced, and are apparently ceasing to vote in droves, perhaps it is not all it is supposed to be? It is quite dangerous for such a disinterest to thrive as it merely leaves a centralised power unopposed in any meaningful sense.

Winston Churchill apparently described what we know as "democracy" as the best of a bunch of bad systems. Yet this same system has been described on our Home Page by the late Lord Hailsham, former Lord Chancellor and lawyer, as in theory being capable of becoming the worst sort of tyranny.  Why this is so will be explained later.

Every system operates upon certain principles or ideas.  The idea which has sought over centuries of struggle against tyranny and to underpin the English system is one of liberty, as expressed by Magna Charta 1215, Bill of Rights 1689, Habeas Corpus and that in order to preserve this liberty all authority must come under the "Rule of Law".  Indeed it used to be  a maxim in English law that an official may only do that which is allowed by law and the individual may do anything except that which is prohibited by law.  Whilst the main authority was the King it was clear from where the threat to liberty might come, hence the Bill of Rights, Act of Settlement, which kept the King's power under check.

So eventually a system evolved where there were three separate institutions to keep power in balance.  The King, as head of the Executive or government, the House of Lords representing the nobility and the House of Commons representing the various interests of the people.  The central idea was that no law could pass without the consent of all three free and independent institutions.  Indeed, as we saw regarding the French Revolution here, it was for exactly this that the French people voted BEFORE the Revolution overcame them.

In England, to maintain this separation, for example, the Act of Settlement 1700 forbade a Minister of the Crown also being a Member of the Commons.  The reason is totally obvious.  If the Ministry and Parliament became entwined or one then how was the people's liberty to be protected from this combined might?

Yet this is precisely what has happened to us in England and elsewhere through the "democratic" party system!

"The charge made against Members of Parliament which is probably best founded and most
 serious is that they show so little independence and do always as they are told....
it is a surrender of conscience, reason and duty which ought to be intolerable to any Member of Parliament. 
 The coercion of these rules is a first step in the direction of Fascism and Nazism.
 It sets Party before country, FORCE above reason, debate becomes useless and electors are betrayed"
 - Lord Wedgwood. 'Testament to Democracy ' (1942) quoted in Douglas Reed "Lest We Regret" p161.  

Moreover, what our modern politicians call "Rule of Law" is actually Rule by Law, as in any other sort of dictatorship. The Government, nominally operating in the name of the Crown, is now merged with the House of Commons along party lines, and the Monarchy (at present our Queen), far from being free to refuse to assent to legislation in defence of the liberty of its subjects, is required by "convention" or reinforced practice (not law, please note) to assent to and sign anything put before it, however treasonable or unpopular that policy may be, on the grounds that  a majority of "the people" have at a certain time elected that government to serve their interests!!

Therefore it is implied that no authority however regal (monarch) or legal (i.e previous constitutional law) can be used to thwart this alleged "democratic" will. Whilst it is true that the House of Lords has often been the only body which does thwart that "democratic will" in pursuit of common sense and good government, we know that strenuous attempts are  being made to knobble that institution as well, for this very reason.

While clearly history has shown that there can be tyranny from Kings and Presidents, how many of us understand the tyranny of "majority" rule, especially if exercised in the name of the people but in fact by unofficial groups presiding behind and unseen.

"Money organises the process in the interests of those who possess and election affairs
 become a pre-concerted game that is staged as popular self-determination".
 -  Oswald Spengler p 464.

And what of the suspicion, which has clearly dawned on "the man in the street" that "there ‘ain't much difference between them nowadays" as alluded to by Chesterton on the home page, that voting (for a party) is about as useful as having a railway ticket when the line is blocked.  But, of course, until now and the Internet the "man on the street" could not know where to clarify his thinking.

Where is he to find the understanding to combat the tyranny which he feels in his soul and which induces, like a person unable to climb a high wall, a state of hopelessness?

But what are the wrong concepts which underpin "democracy" and which have "the potential for tyranny?" - Lord Hailsham.

Mainly that you the voter can use the power of the law (assuming that there are enough of you) to acquire some benefit for yourself and thereby FORCE the rest of the population to provide it for you.  As a result "the law"  instead of being a means of protecting individual liberty and keeping power under control is turned upside down and becomes a weapon in the hands of whoever can best bribe, lie or otherwise persuade their way into power.  Indeed, the parties' sole aim is to gain power for themselves. They brazenly say so, as if nothing is wrong!!

Whilst quite obviously the laws of survival require people to pursue their interests and to associate freely with others to do so, the situation created by "democracy" or the "electing of a government inside Parliament" is thus: a sort of civil war is perpetuated between various interest groups who feel compelled to join one group or another to protect themselves from "the others" and to acquire government power as the best means of achieving that end.

Coupled with this is the idea that the political parties must have a policy on everything or a set of "packages" and if they have the majority that is the set of packages they will enact.  So, what if you don't like a particular policy?  At present, tough.  Can you opt out?

Unlikely.  Freedom is said to be the "ability to accept or reject one policy (course of action) at a time" but since “packages" are the only thing on offer by the parties the voter is going to get a "package" whether he likes it or not.  The general direction in which they are all going is glaringly similar, as if someone else is pulling their strings. So, not only is the general framework of our existence decided, e.g. the "New World Order" but far from the internal social framework in which we live being a matter for ourselves, that too is decided by the NWO.  For example, the European Convention on Human Rights determines the penal policy of every British government.  Every government which has signed up to this and the UN Charter is forced to adopt the aims of the Charter however much this conflicts with the interests of the native population.

The word "discriminate" can be described as "the freedom of an individual to differentiate between differing courses of action for the purposes of selecting one or other".

Yet, in terms of social policy the voter finds his freedom to choose or discriminate SOCIALLY, and so reinforce the social environment he finds most congenial, almost completely curtailed.  He cannot reject another on grounds of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or physical ability in an official position (e.g. as an employer or association leader) without the risk of being hauled before a tribunal and punished!!

So the framework of society is determined by those at the top passing laws in order to "re-make the world" as they want it (sic) instead of those at the bottom deciding what is just and fair. Thus successive governments have FORCED through a torrent of laws to prevent the native people deciding by their own social decisions what society they want.

The voter, and not only the poor one, has been taught that it is right to VOTE for what you want rather than earn it (thus turning the law into a weapon of oppression instead of protection).  So the farmer or businessman looking for government contracts or subsidies is as happy to have someone else's money stolen through taxation and given to him as is the poor man on benefit.  The money for so many of these sorts of ventures is from EU funds which is largely British taxpayers' money sent to Brussels and then re-cycled according to Brussels requirements and the NWO.  Where is the freedom to say "No"?

So what is the individual to do, other than give up and "let them get on with it"?   Simply, understand how we are enslaved and apply the correct remedial principles, the most important of which is to shun ALL political parties, so that government can only originate from outside the Commons and not inside it.  Follow this up with voters right of recall to every MP who breaks a manifesto pledge, so that he/she can be challenged in a by-election.  Vote only for candidates who put individual liberty high on their platform of beliefs.  End, for example, the use of taxpayers' money to fund political parties, which is propping the system up while members and voters are leaving in droves.

Clearly ENORMOUS POWER resides in the ability of government to tax generally and spend where it wants and it is this which makes us so unfree.  It has meant that a Labour government could go to war in Iraq and there was nothing we could do to stop it as we were FORCED to provide the money.  It means that Gordon Brown (or any other government) could borrow another £37billion and send you the bill and there is nothing you can do. (and to allow that  to continue  is the mentality of a slave - see Spengler quote above).  The antidote to this is surely Hypothecated Taxation, where if you use a public service then you pay for it (albeit on a graduated scale).  If you pay car tax or fuel tax it can only be used for transport policy. If you don't have children you don't contribute to education.  Something has to be done to simply stop government doing just as it likes because it has all your money.  No doubt the reader can think of many other government activities he or she would like to stop. The only way to do that is to be able to withdraw your financial support or money.

From this article and the rest of the website it should be clearly up to the individual who detests the way we are being governed to find Independent candidates whose first aim is to get into Parliament (not as government) but as watchdogs over government so as to restore the liberty of the people, our constitution and the re-separation of powers.  Do we not need to bring back into line the very simple adjustments and the restoration of the written laws of our Constitution still on the Statute book and the principles behind them which party politicians ignore to suit themselves?  For example, laws which forbade the King from interfering with Parliament (Act of Settlement and Bill of Rights) are of no avail to prevent a Prime Minister and the party "whips" interfering in a like manner.  Indeed, such interference is deemed perfectly proper as the quid pro quo for a party ticket into the Commons!!

It is vital to realise that no matter what the party the effect on the constitution is identical and the separation of powers is destroyed and that thus there is no salvation or liberty for us in any of them for this reason.

Do we not need a "Royal Democracy" just as badly as the French did, so that when we petition the Queen under the Bill of Rights our petition can be acted upon by Her (because She appoints the Ministers and it really is "Her government") and she can direct a Minister to act accordingly, rather than our petition going to a government department and being lost forever (with a list of all the names and addresses of the objectors handed on a plate to the "enemy" to put into its computers)?  Those of us who petitioned the Queen to prevent entry into the "Common Market"  or to prevent the Treaty of Amsterdam know to our cost what a futile exercise it was, since "Her Ministers" were "advising" Her otherwise. 

How many more "failed" British politicians will we tolerate who simply find cushy and very lucrative jobs at our expense across the Channel?  Indeed, that tyranny they have joined over the water has taken to itself powers to ban political parties it does not like and to establish a European-wide police force not answerable to local laws and to libertarian restraints like Habeas Corpus. Rather it has adopted the Napoleonic code of "you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent".  When it will need to shows its teeth depends on how feeble our local tyranny becomes?

How much longer will we tolerate our liberty being extinguished?  What about those little government tyrants in North Yorkshire (acting on central government directives!!) who in December 2003 instructed a local farmer to take down a flag because it is deemed to be advertising and that only the national flag is "permitted"!!! (for the moment). At the time of writing it appears there may be a hell of a lot more flags going up - a very healthy sign of resistance.

Perhaps it is beginning to be more obvious why this sort of tyranny is of the worst (see Lord Hailsham on the home page) because it is allegedly carried out as the  "the will of the people" and therefore the "dictatorship" is allegedly willed by the majority, though whether they understand all this is another matter.  Of course, the dictating is carried out by the few in power acting for the vested interests who put them there. Moreover, these elected governments can do a lot of damage in 5 years so it is scant compensation to kick them out after 5 years, only to replace them with another acting likewise and with the identical mechanisms at its disposal too.  So it is plain that when "the people" want to protect society from all these murderers by restoring capital punishment and corporal punishment (as a prelude to preventing the former being necessary) the politicians ignore their wishes.

This is because the politicians have signed away our self-determination to all these overseas influences of the New World Order

If the reader agrees with much or most of this analysis, please tell a friend about this website. . . .