The Brexit argument in the UK has brought to the fore divisions and truths which, until recently, had been covered up by a “politically correct” or bien-pensant “consensus” in the (largely Jew-Zionist-controlled or strongly influenced) mass media and political milieux.
Anyone who imagines that “Brexit” is just about the UK’s membership of the EU is indulging in hobby-politics and joke-politics and/or exhibiting very poor political judgment. I have blogged about this on previous occasions, eg:
UKIP is the joke party and hobby-politics party of the UK, effectively a one-trick-pony, obsessed with the EU and EU immigration but not hitting hard on non-EU immigration and only peripherally touching on other issues. However, those voters who grasped at the UKIP straw up to 2015 were voting to a large extent not for Nigel Farage as Prime Minister, not for UKIP’s clown MEPs as UK ministers, not even simply to get Britain out of the increasingly sinister EU matrix, but as a protest and shout of anger against a whole host of issues, not all of which are connected directly to the UK membership of the EU.
What Is Democracy Anyway?
“Democracy” is one of those terms which is rather imprecise and commonly misused (another is “holocaust”, usually and deliberately misused and distorted by Jew-Zionists and others as “the Holocaust”, the definite article and the capital letter supposedly differentiating any misfortunes visited on Jews in the Second World War from similar misfortunes visited on non-Jews throughout history).
In ancient Greece (for example Athens, the home of the idea of “democracy”), we see that only the relative few had full political rights. In the 4thC BC, Attica had about 300,000 inhabitants (in the state as a whole, not just the “urbanized” polis of Athens itself). Out of that population, only about 100,000 were citizens. Out of that 100,000, only 30,000, being adult male citizens who had completed military service or similarly accepted service, were allowed to vote or to participate in political life. Women, slaves, freed slaves, children and metics (foreigners resident in Attica) were not allowed to vote etc. In other words, out of 300,000 inhabitants, only about 30,000, 10% of the whole, played a significant political role.
UK Democracy: the expansion of the electorate
In more modern times and in England/UK, we see that, though a kind of representative Parliament existed from the 13thC AD, the electorate (using the term broadly) widened over the centuries. At the time of the first great Reform Act (1832), the population of England and Wales (excluding Scotland) was about 12 million, out of which only 200,000 in counties and perhaps 20,000 more in boroughs had voting rights (see Notes, below), about 2% of the whole population (nb. population estimates of that era are not very accurate: some estimates say 400,000 in toto, so perhaps 4% of all inhabitants could vote), a far smaller percentage than in Periclean Athens! In France, the percentage with voting rights was even smaller, but was expanded hugely when universal suffrage was introduced in 1848.
The percentage expansion of the electorate in Scotland in the 1830s was far greater than applied in England and Wales. Some historians use the term “revolutionary”. I wonder whether that has perhaps had a lasting effect on Scottish socio-political attitudes down the line, even to the present day. Just a stray thought…
Further expansion of the electorate in the UK (as a whole, not just England and Wales) in the 19thC meant that, by 1912, there were 7.7 million voters, a figure that increased to 21.4 million following the Representation of the People Act 1918, which extended the franchise to most women of 30+ years, as well as to almost all men of 21+. Of course, the actual population had also increased very greatly, from 27 million in 1850 to 42 million in 1918.
In 1928, women 21-29 also gained the vote, increasing the number eligible to vote to about 27 million.
Changes in the Post-1945 era: where are we now?
UK voting qualifications have not changed substantially since 1928, except that, since 1948, university graduates have no longer had two potential votes, and the minimum voting age is now (and since 1970) 18.
There are now about 65 million inhabitants in the UK (some put the figure higher, by reason of undocumented, unregistered “illegals” etc).
Does “democracy” mean that all inhabitants of the state must be enfranchised?
The South African Example
We have seen that, in ancient Athens, only male citizens who had completed military service could vote. In “apartheid” South Africa, there was a fully-functioning democracy limited however to those of European (white) origin.
There had, prior to 1910, been non-racial forms of limited democracy in Cape Province, limited by reference to property etc. From 1910-1961, the vote was granted to all white men in South Africa, to mixed-race men in Cape Province, and to black men in Cape Province and Natal. Only white men could become Senators or MPs. White women were allowed the vote in 1930 and could serve as MPs or Senators. Blacks and “coloureds” (mixed-race) were barred from holding those offices. In 1960, the black franchise was terminated; the mixed-race franchise followed in 1968. Later, in 1984, an attempt was made to re-enfranchise the mixed-race population and to enfranchise, on a limited basis, the Indian population.
In 1992, a small majority of (white-only) voters endorsed, by referendum, the end of the apartheid system, after which South Africa adopted a different system, under which all person of 18+ years can vote or be elected. In practice, however, this led to what is effectively a one-party, typically-African state, shambolic and corrupt. The African National Congress (ANC) operates what is effectively an elected dictatorship. In the most recent election (2014), its vote declined, but it still holds 249 out of 400 seats (on 62% of the popular vote).
Under this “new” (post-1994) “democracy”, the white population of the country is under siege from both crime (racially-based) and/or (connected) “political” attack, such as the robbery, rape and murder of whites, particularly in the rural areas. Neither are the (mainly black) poor of South Africa helped by the “elected dictatorship”. Indeed, in some respects they are worse off than they were under apartheid. The “infamous” pass laws may have restricted the blacks, but also restricted crime, which has become epidemic.
The USA is supposedly a “democracy”, but in practice any Presidential candidate has to be a multi-millionaire or billionaire, or have the support of such, simply to be seen as a credible candidate, or to be able to buy TV ads (this is about the same thing, in practice). If elected, he will find that to do anything effective requires that he be not opposed by either the Congress or the Supreme Court. This rarely happens. In most cases, the separation of powers prevents anything effective, let alone radical, being implemented.
In the UK, there is “democracy” (we think). Almost everyone can vote, almost everyone can be a candidate. Yet there are impediments: the powerful Jewish-Zionist lobby (special-interest group), the entrenched First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system, the need for finance, and the way in which boundaries are deliberately sliced up to provide a semblance of “fairness”, but in fact to favour 2-party or sometimes 3-party “stability” over real reflection of popular opinion. There is also the fact that “main party” (System) candidates are usually carefully selected to exclude anyone with even mild social-national views. The “choice” is then put before the electorate (together with the minor candidates who almost invariably have no chance at all).
Another important aspect is that, since the Tony Blair government passed its restrictive laws, political parties have to be registered, can be fined (eg for refusing membership to certain types of person, or certain racial or national groups), and can even be “de-registered”, thus barring them from standing candidates in elections. Democracy?
Here is an example from the General Election of 2015.
The Brexit vote has exposed the sham or part-sham of British democracy. David Cameron-Levita thought that the 2016 Referendum would be easy to “manage”. He had, after all, “managed” two previous referenda: the Scottish Independence referendum and the AV-voting referendum. Third time, he miscalculated. The people, on the FPTP basis, voted about 52% to 48% for Leave. This was a shock to the System. Immediately, the Remain leaders started to demand “No Brexit”, and for a second Referendum, which would (once the voters had been exposed to enough fear propaganda) come to a different result, and/or for Parliament (most MPs being “Remain”) to just ignore the 2016 Referendum result which (they said) had been procured by fraud, lies, or post-KGB Russian trickery…
The fact is that, leaving aside the “sheeple”, the hard core of anti-Brexit Remain consists of
- the affluent/wealthy metropolitan self-styled “elite”;
- the big business people;
- the Jews (most of them);
- those who have done well financially in the 2010-2019 period;
- the brainwashed under-30s, mostly from not-poor backgrounds, who imagine that not being in the EU somehow prevents them from getting (for most of them, non-existent) jobs in the EU, or that they will even not be allowed to travel after Brexit!
- Those shallow little nobodies (again, mostly young or would-be young urban-dwellers) who think that it is old, unfashionable and “gammon” (white Northern European British) to support Leave or indeed to have any pride in England’s history, race and culture;
- Almost all of those working in the msm.
These groups have become ever more severe and open in their hatred of Leave supporters. There are now open calls for the rights of, in particular, voters over the age of, perhaps, 60, to be restricted, for older people to be disenfranchised, especially if white, (real) British, or “racist” (i.e. people who see their land and culture being swamped and destroyed).
Here, for example, we see an almost archetypal Remain whiner, the broadcaster Jeremy Vine, 53, who is paid over £700,000 a year by the BBC and maybe as much as £100,000 p.a. from elsewhere (despite having been awarded only a mediocre 2:2 in English at university and then been –in my opinion– a markedly mediocre Press/radio/TV journalist).
Here’s another idiotic statement by Vine, though on an unrelated topic:
We see from examples around the world, eg South Africa, or Zimbabwe (etc) that one-man one-vote “democracy” can lead to elected dictatorship. In the UK, it has become increasingly clear that the Parliamentary democracy in place does not reflect the views of the bulk of the population, and certainly not the bulk of the white real British population, those with whose future I concern myself.
Leave may “only” have won the EU Referendum by 52%-48%, but there are nuances here: the assassination of pro-Remain MP Jo Cox, only a week before the referendum certainly had an effect, and is thought to have changed the outcome by as much as 10 points (at the time of her death, Leave was 10 points ahead of Remain in some polls); particularly as much was made of supposed secondary culpability of Leave propaganda for the attack. The referendum outcome might easily have been 60% or even 65% for Leave.
There is also the point that most “blacks and browns” and other ethnic minority voters (eg Jews) voted Remain if they voted at all. Most Scots voted Remain too (no doubt because they have a faux-nationalist SNP as a comfort blanket). Take away those Remain blocs and it might be that about 60% of white English and Welsh voters voted Leave, which might have been 70% without the Jo Cox matter.
Alternatives to Parliament Deciding Everything
I favour the Rudolf Steiner concept of the “Threefold Social Order”. As I paraphrase it, and in the contemporary UK context,
- it means that an elected Parliament decides matters properly within the political sphere or “sphere of rights”;
- it means that Parliament (and government) does not run the economy or economic enterprises (though it can regulate it and them); likewise, economic forces and personalities cannot rule the political sphere and/or “sphere of rights”;
- it means that the State (or economic forces) cannot rule over the proper ambit of the sphere of spirit, culture, religion, medicine, education.
This obviously moves on from the conventional “Parliament rules supreme” idea, developed in the UK since the time of Cromwell.
We can see that Parliament in the UK is no longer fit for purpose. Those currently elected have only a limited mandate. Greater freedom and a more efficient as well as a more just society depend on proper integration of the three basic spheres: political, economic, spiritual/cultural.
There is no necessity for everyone to vote. Voting should be for citizens who are resident and who are of suitable age (I favour 21 years, at minimum). Foreigners, offspring of foreigners, persons who are mainly of non-European origin etc should not be allowed a vote.
Brexit and the future
People voted for Brexit for many reasons and fundamentally out of a lack of satisfaction with the existing way of life in the UK. That urge for something better may be the basis for social-national reform or even revolution. The British people will no more allow themselves to be treated as helots.
Update, 25 March 2021
Well, it seems that I spoke too soon in saying that the British people will no longer allow themselves to be treated like helots! The “panicdemic”, weaponized for the purpose, has (or the moment at least) put both the British people and “democracy” back in the box. Still, “the night is young”, I suppose. “Tomorrow is another day”…
15 thoughts on “Has Parliamentary “Democracy” (as we have known it until now) Had Its Day in the UK?”
Re that Jo Cox murder, strange though it is to say this and going against conventional wisdom, I believe her killing, or rather the REACTION to it by the globalist nation wreckers in the House of Commons was a pivotal moment for the leave campaign and actually helped them get over the line and win in so much as a truely wise political Establishment would have paid respect to her memory but NOT gone so over the top reacting and getting the media to insinuate all leave voters were culpable for causing it to happen. I think by acting as they did they got some people who were angry with the political establishment in general for things like poor wages, austerity, mass continual immigration and EU membership to come out and vote leave whereas they would probably have just stayed at home and considered a remain win a foregone conclusion if said political Establisment had remained more calm and that organised mass wake for Jo in the Commons had not happened.
Basicaly, Establishment MPs and their deification of Jo Cox really riled some people, especially when the globalist media showed clips of Jo clearly making speeches in the house showing far more concern about foreign peoples in far away lands than the problems of the many poor people in her own constituency (so much for that fabled ‘constituency link’ so many MPs whittle on about whilst castigating the alleged evils of proportional representation).
You are up late tonight! (so am I, I concede—“Smersh Never Sleeps!”).
I agree. Beatification, canonization, and almost deification.
Brendan Cox, the deceased MP’s husband, is a sinister character. Some stuff came out about him, but I daresay much remains under cover, about his assassinated wife too. As for the “Jo Cox Foundation”, it has received millions from the public and large donors and even from the taxpayer, but is opaque: Filed accounts only recently, never revealed how much Brendan Cox is/has been paid (he resigned only in February 2018!); Same as to members of Jo Cox’s family.
Income in 2017 was £1.4M; expenditure only £1M. Why is it building up a retained sum of nearly half a million pounds a year? How much have the trustees been getting?
“Aims & activities:
“What the charity does:
General charitable purposes”
“Who the charity helps:
The general public/mankind”
“How the charity works:
Makes grants to individuals
Makes grants to organisations”
Very general objectives…http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regid=1170836&subid=0
All monies spent were within the UK, not in the Middle East or elsewhere… http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regid=1170836&subid=0
Get this! “FINANCIAL REVIEW
Principal funding sources
In addition to the funds raised by the GoFundMe appeal (of which £1million was not distributed by the Foundation), the Foundation
also received a number of grants restricted for use on The Great Get Together project from The Roddick Foundation (£50,000), GMB
Union (£10,000) and Mervyn Davis (£10,000).
In addition, the Foundation received restricted income of £45,020 for use on the Loneliness project.
In addition, the Foundation received income from the royalties from Brendan Cox’s book about Jo’s life to the sum of £62,201.
The Foundation also receives donations from community and individual fundraising initiatives, particularly in relation to The Great
Get Together events.”
In this financial year, the Foundation has maintained unrestricted reserves of £345,112. Reserves during the period covered in this
report are comprised of the original GoFundMe funding combined with subsequently received unrestricted funding from community
and individual fundraising through campaigns including the Great Get Together. In 2016 at the point of founding the Jo Cox
Foundation, the trustees agreed that the charity’s reserves would be used to for ongoing core funding, namely core salary and
non-salary costs for 3 years until the end of 2019. Campaigns and specific projects would therefore predominantly be funded through
restricted funds from trusts, foundations and high net-worth donors. Therefore, the reserves at the end of this reporting period are
intended by the Board to be spent within the next two years in a similar way; on core costs to fund the operations of the organisation.”
“the funds raised by the GoFundMe appeal (of which £1million was not distributed by the Foundation)…”
So the public gave over £1M in 2016 to the Jo Cox Foundation via GoFundMe, which has never been used for any charitable activities!
The Foundation does this:
Safeguarding vulnerable beneficiaries
Conflicts of interest
It’s a scam…
“In early 2018, The Foundation in partnership with the Department for International Development launched the Jo Cox Memorial
Grants totalling £10m”
DFID gave £10M!
Click to access 0001170836_AC_20171231_E_C.PDF
The whole thing is a boondoggle!
Bastards like and inc. Brendan Cox were getting £200,000-£300,000 pa from Save The Children! Old ladies and well-meaning mugs in bobble hats give pennies and these swine legally take it via inflated salaries!
How is Brendan Cox getting paid?
How much are the family dragging down?
He has a Twitter account: https://twitter.com/MrBrendanCox?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
And look who is getting onto the gravytrain now! Expenses cheat Jacqui Smith!
pps: the bastard “wept” (having finally had to admit at least some of his crimes!)
Yet here we are, a year later, and the bastard tweets this! A sex pest and rapist who grabbed women by the throat! What a prize hypocrite!