Tag Archives: Democracy

Diary Blog, 15 November 2020

Anti-Covid vaccine discussion— proposed laws

The Party Formerly Known As Labour is pushing for a law to prevent anyone discussing online and negatively the anti-Covid vaccines currently under development.

Things have slid so fast in Britain that such a measure seems almost normal; to have an “urgent” law passed (at present only proposed, and only by Labour) which would have the sole aim of stifling or gagging discussion and views on a contentious bit of public policy.

One can see where the idea came from. Keir Starmer is married to a Jewish woman, a property lawyer, and their children are being brought up as Jewish. The “holocaust” narrative is protected from debate, analysis, or questioning in much of Western and Central Europe by means of “holocaust” “denial” laws, meaning that anyone questioning even part of that narrative faces prosecution.

Such laws can be compared to the religious heresy laws which were in force in much of Catholic Europe in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance eras.

It is natural for Keir Starmer, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, to see repressive law, or police and other punitive action, as the answer to a perceived problem of public belief in, or compliance with, government requirements. He believes in repression.

This kneejerk reaction, to ban any expression of dissent, is very much a sign of the times.

The conventional political wisdom is to think that, now that Labour is supposedly less “extreme” after the departure of Corbyn, the party is more “electable”. Perhaps, in Britain’s rigged binary system, which posits a “choice” between two “major parties”. Also, we have a government which exhibits incompetence and muddle exceeding even that of the previous decade. However, I would not put much money on Labour. It is still a party wedded to mass immigration, political correctness etc, still replete with black MPs, still full of petty would-be dictators such as Yvette Cooper and Rachel Reeves (both members of Labour Friends of Israel, incidentally).

While we are on the subject of System politics, consider the transnational element in the ZOG/NWO set-up. For example, Yvette Cooper went to work for then Presidential nominee Bill Clinton in Arkansas in 1992, after having left university but after a brief time also working as a researcher for the then Shadow Chancellor, John Smith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvette_Cooper#Early_life_and_education.

Another case: the present New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, worked for the Labour Party in London sometime around 2002 as a Special Adviser (paid £50,000-£100,000 p.a.), before she returned to NZ politics.

Trump

Trump needs to extend Presidential pardon to all social-national or allied prisoners doing time in Federal prisons. Stick it to “antifa” and other swine!

Tweets seen

Yes. Better-connected people in the Soviet Union had better hospitals. I met someone once who had been operated on in the Botkin Clinic [https://www.lonelyplanet.com/russia/moscow/information/botkin-hospital/a/poi-inf/1044137/360429; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Botkin], which at that time (1980s) was considered one of the best, outside of the Kremlin Clinic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Clinical_Hospital, which still exists today:

Главный и хирургический корпуса ЦКБ.jpg
[The “Kremlin Clinic”, near Moscow]

A Soviet-era poetic line about the Kremlin Clinic read, “The floors parquet, the doctors OK“, meaning politically-vetted (it rhymes in Russian): полы паркетные, врачи анкетные.

Again, yes. When my local GP (a nice fellow) was on paternity leave last year or the year before, he was replaced for the duration by a far more pro-active young doctor who improved my (high blood pressure, mainly) medication. Despite the fact that I only attend the medical centre about once a year, I was sorry to read in the newsletter the practice puts out that he had relocated to London to join a purely private practice. I looked up that practice online. Based in Kensington, and I noticed that a home visit was charged from about £250!

I have to say that that young doctor must have been very driven, because after all most GPs now get over £100,000 anyway, especially if partners, and if they practise in an area such as this they can play golf, sail, ride etc. In other words, they can live a rather pleasant lifestyle. Well, there it is…

…though anyone actually disappointed in Boris-idiot as Prime Minister was far too optimistic to start with…

The woman arrested (with a degree of brutality, at that) cries out, “I have not done anything!”, as if that matters in the Britain of 2020 (cf. Alison Chabloz).

At what point does the “Overton window” move to the extent that it becomes accepted that former British “democracy and freedom” have been subverted, and therefore that it is acceptable to do whatever it takes to restore our liberties?

It is not often that I agree with Dan Hodges! In an extraordinary year, this stands out. Britain is, arguably, now run by the “ho” (to use the now-ubiquitous black argot) of the part-Jew chancer currently posing as Prime Minister!

Who is Carrie Symonds? This is what Wikipedia says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Symonds.

A degree in art history and theatre studies, then Miss Symonds joined the Conservative Party in the lowly position of one of many press officers. Nine years later, she was heading that department, but “It was reported that she was asked to leave her post as director of communications after sources claimed party chiefs had said her performance was poor, and questions were raised over significant unjustified expenses claims.” [Wikipedia]

I notice that Miss Symonds was appointed to head the department in which she had worked for many years in 2018, the same year in which she started her affair with the still-married “Boris”.

“It’s not what you know but who you know”…(or should that be “It’s not what you know but by whom you are known”, using “known” in the “Biblical” or “Ugandan” sense?)…

Miss Symonds is an advocate for animal welfare. I like that. However, as Hodges says, this is no way to run a government.

More tweets

Laura Towler and her husband, of Patriotic Alternative, were attacked by three “antifa” swine yesterday, but beat them off. This has generated very many tweets.

Brave lady. What a contrast to the “Mike Stuchbery” types…

Alison Chabloz

A reminder to all that Alison Chabloz will be put on trial at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, 181 Marylebone Road, London, on Tuesday 17 November. That is the day after tomorrow. All supporters welcome. THe nearest Underground stations are Edgware Road (District, Circle, Bakerloo) and Marylebone (Bakerloo). The trial is expected to start at 1000 hrs.

More tweets

Idiots such as “@MunroeL” are all too prevalent in the Britain of 2020. He or she would have been right at home in the days of the Inquisition…

Galileo had “dangerous” ideas which were treated as “lies”…

Life is very short in any one incarnation. “There is the individual, but beyond the individual there is the race” [Adolf Hitler, after Stalingrad].

Why do almost all self-describing “anti-fascists” have mental problems? I even blogged about it a year or two ago: https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/07/18/theyre-coming-to-take-me-away-ha-ha/

The Sunday Times? Murdoch. NWO. ZOG. Lugenpresse. Judenpresse.

One less. On the general point, if a woman attacks a man in any serious way, she gets what she gets.

They don’t want Israel flooded by (non-Jewish) immigrants, though!

Interesting video

Watching that Schwab “Great Reset” video above reminded me of the opinion of Max Planck, who said that most scientists [and therefore people in general] are not convinced by theories, facts or new facts, but that once that sceptical generation is replaced by a new generation brought up with those new facts, the new theory becomes accepted wisdom.

That is what the propaganda is aimed at— the younger generation, including young children. What propaganda? Not just the “Coronavirus” stuff, but also “Black Lives Matter”, the whole racemixing agenda, all sorts of associated stuff too. The Great Reset. The Great Replacement. White Genocide.

It is not aimed against people born( like me) in 1956, nor at those born in 1966, or 1976, or even 1986. It is aimed at those born in the 1990s, the 2000s and the 2010s.

Late tweets

The problem with that view is that the “Judenpresse” is, and for a long time has been, owned, controlled or very strongly influenced by the Jew-Zionist element. The Internet promised —and briefly delivered on that promise— to provide free expression, but “they” are now reasserting control, and only the harshest resistance will prevent that.

Peter Hitchens’ view of “Press freedom” is very out of date.

Image
Image

Surprising that such wild country is so near to Edinburgh (I have never been there, perhaps obviously).

Late music

Has Parliamentary “Democracy” (as we have known it until now) Had Its Day in the UK?

Preamble

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:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/02/brexit-is-to-some-extent-only-a-metaphor-what-could-it-mean/

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

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.

The UK

c64bh5xw0aiwygy

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.

C3l1gk9XAAMHAwF

Brexit

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:

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/carol-vorderman-defends-devon-girl-2429731

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.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_United_Kingdom_general_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_constituency#United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_South_Africa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_South_Africa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/26th_South_African_Parliament

http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/Registrations?currentPage=1&rows=30&sort=RegulatedEntityName&order=asc&open=filter&et=pp&et=ppm&register=gb&regStatus=registered&optCols=EntityStatusName

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/party-or-campaigner/guidance-for-political-parties

http://www.brugesgroup.com/blog/the-british-road-to-dirty-war-analysis-by-david-betz-mlr-smith-1

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”…