Friday, 8 July 2011

Discredited, Disenchanted, Disenfranchised

The fact that our present system of democracy is shot to hell, that democracy per se no longer exists as we live under a form of democratised dictatorship, is now a fact - just look around you and every day you will see examples of where those elected to serve us, be that nationally or locally, now control how we should act, think and speak.

Our politicians, by their very acts, are discredited in the eyes of the people; the people are disenchanted with those politicians they have elected, supposedly to represent their views; and the people remain disenfranchised by their politicians who refuse to grant them a voice over who should decide their nation's future and the laws by which they must live.

Yet still the people re-elect to parliament the same self-centred, self-opinionated, brain-dead; venal, incompetent individuals who have failed time and time again with the trust given to them. To use the words of Enoch Powell (slightly out of context, admittedly), we must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting this situation to continue unabated. The problem is that we are not mad, because if we were we would still have the power of reason - something now denied us by the brainwashing practised on us, to the extent we are fast becoming the slaves of those we are supposed to control.

To our detriment - and that of our country - it would seem that a quotation, one that I have taken from CallingEngland, will no longer resonate with the majority of my fellow men and women:
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
I know not yet how, but let those democratised dictators - who believe they can control my every thought, word and deed - realise that I am prepared to perish, rather than accept the status of a slave.


PeterCharles said...

As we know, we rarely vote for individuals, we vote on the basis of party, on the personality of leaders and on the issues the MSM decide are important.

Smaller parties get virtually no press and what they do get is relentlessly negative. No one in the media produces a comparative analysis of party manifestos, had they done so at the last election UKIP would have taken more seats than the LibDems and anyone who read the Green manifesto would have run away screaming. As an exercise in horror I recommend it to everyone.

On an individual basis no papers give an 'end of parliament' report on the sitting MP, what they voted for, how often they voted, how much they claimed in expenses, what they said in debates, etc. all of which would or should be of interest to voters.

We are resigned to the party system, on that basis the local candidate really doesn't matter and the voter knows that. The floating voters in marginal constituencies, that 10 or 15% of the electorate, are the only ones that matter in elections and they usually vote for the least obnoxious, to them, party's candidate.

We are not given a voice on policy, we are not told honestly what is intended when a party gets in power, we are expected to make a choice on the basis of vague intentions and undocumented resolve to 'do something'. No wonder so few can get worked up about it, what's the point is a perfectly valid response in this powerless situation.

The electorate will only really rise in great enough anger to effect profound change when life for the ordinary person becomes seriously uncomfortable and even the most enervated realise that there is a real crisis and even then we will likely make the wrong choice.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

PC: No offence but you are preaching to the converted.......

In regard to your last paragraph, my fear is that by the time the people do decide to rise up the grip the political elite have on society will be so great any revolt will not even get off the ground.

Senior said...

The existence of blogs accusing elected politicians of controlling "how we should act, think and speak" is proof that those politicians don't "now control how we should act, think and speak".

Claims about us not living in a democracy are the fiction of the paranoid. If those claims were fact, the people who made the claims would be censored, and their content would not be so accessible.

kenomeat said...

If I may respond to Senior...
At present there is little that the government can do to censor the internet and it is, perhaps, significant that there are so many excellent anti-EU blogs around that are slowly affecting public opinion.
I accept that we do live in a democracy, of a fashion. In a world so dominated by the broadcast media it was obvious that the last general election would produce a prime minister from amongst the 3 leaders invited to the leadership debates on TV. Had Farage (for example) been invited to the debates he would have undoubtably quadroupled (at least) the UKIP vote. The power of TV is absolute which is why we need a British Fox News to present an alternative view to the left/liberal BBC et al.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

S: Oh dear, so you too are among the brainwashed. As k says, presently censorship of the internet is in its infancy, but mark my words it is coming - you only have to look at what the EU wants in the name of preventing terrorism.

The bulk of the people are indeed controlled by the state because they have been indoctrined with the idea that the state will care for them and is the provider of all that they need.

You say we are not controlled - just look around you as I said. Name me 6 things where the state does not intrude into your life and your choice of how you live that life. I posed this question a few months ago and no-one could provide a satisfactory answer - not one example.

k: Thank you.

cuffleyburgers said...

I think Senior is correct.

To call our present situation slavery is foaming at the mouth. there is a great deal that must be changed for sure, the EU is an evil, malevolent construct, and our politicians have indeed systematically betrayed us, and it is true that the democraic system we allegedly cherish is skewed in favour of an incompetent kleptocracy. The cause of the decline is essentially cultural - people are comfortable and can't be bothered to fight for abstract concepts such as true liberty and small government when the current system doesn't seem so bad if you don't think about it which mist people don't.

However there are devlopments in train which can start to arrest this - people are now being systematically and noticeably impoverished by the green agenda and the EU. The losses of soverignty are gradually being noticed and despite the baleful influence of the BBC, the mood is shifting. Hopefully the rise of free schools may favour less marxist indoctrination of school children and reforms to the welfare state will reduce the optin of living at other people's expense.

People who work and pay tax care much more about these issues.

The EU is starting to crack and hopefully when it collapses the UK won't be too involved in the mayhem - however for our more excitable neighbours it will be a drama (damn - I live in Italy).

But to deride as you seem to do the man on the clapham omnibus for not rising up now against his slavery is actually rather childish.

PeterCharles said...

Well Senior the point you are missing is not that we don't have 'democracy' it is that the 'democracy' we have is completely inadequate because we are effectively disengaged from the real political process, this is why WfW calls it democratised dictatorship and I call it elective oligarchy, both acknowledge a degree of democratic content but the reality is it is only a fig leaf behind which the government can claim democratic legitimacy while doing what they decide. It gives no useful political power to the electorate except in allowing it to replace one segment of the political elite with another. We don't decide what is important to legislate for, we don't decide what should be subsidised, we don't decide what should be regulated, we don't decide what should be taxed or what the rate of tax should be. We are not even asked, we are allowed every four or five years to vote for this or that party where we are told what those decisions will be (maybe) if we vote for them. Well, I'm sorry, I approve of policies from ALL parties (with the possible exception of the Green Party, as far as I can see and I have looked, all their policies are lunatic), I disagree with how nearly all of them are implemented. Those outside of government who do have some limited power in the decision process are the MSM as K so rightly points out. Well I have even less liking for MSM prejudice than I do for that of the political elite.

That is not democracy in my book.

We are not saying government and the political process is deliberately or inherently evil, even if it sometimes sounds like it. Representative or Parliamentary Democracy was an acceptable system when little government did directly impinged on the man in the street, when legislation was used to facilitate solutions, not impose them, few people paid tax at all and it was recognised that small government was good government. Now that government has decided to intrude on every aspect of my life and regulate as much of it as possible while engineering me and the country to become what they think of as ideal it is completely invalid.

As to your other points, News International's arrogant stupidity will no doubt bring the press and media further under government and regulatory control and both the EU and the British government are hot to impose Chinese style internet regulation. We won't be asked if we want that either.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

cb: Please explain why it is 'foaming at the mouth' and why that term; also why is it childish?

PC and I agree with the present state of democracy that we experience, we may use differing terms but I believe we speak with one mind and voice.

I note that you were unable to take up my challenge - perhaps because you could not? Either suggests that you too have been brainwashed.

PC: See above comment/response to cb. Nice comment and riposte to cb, with which I agree - thank you.

Senior said...

Here is a list of six areas in which the state doesn't intrude into my life:
1. The state doesn't decide which football team I support.
2. The state doesn't tell me what clothes to buy or wear.
3. The state doesn't decide which TV programmes I watch.
4. The state doesn't decide what I eat. I am still free to eat as many biscuits as I choose.
5. The state didn't tell me which woman to marry, or that I should get married.
6. The state doesn't decide where I go.

Save 'Our Fiz' said...

What we need is to convince the state that soap operas and bingo are a malign influence and should be banned immediately.

Then the dozy brainwashed sheeple will rise up with a vegeance of terrifying proportions!

Trouble is, the b@stards in power know this. In fact, expect soaps & bingo to be made compulsory.

Delusional Tw@t said...

Hello 'Senior'.

1. The state, in a stitch up with BskyB (name sounds familiar at the moment...), decides that the ENTIRE NATION only wants to watch Man United or Chelsea etc on tv. No local teams (unless they're being slaughtered by Man U, etc).

2. The state DOES tell you what to wear (at least, what not to wear). There was the case of that guy who was/is repeatedly prosecuted for dressing like a school girl.

3. The state controls what gets aired on TV (ref the comment about "The Leaders" debates, etc).

4. "The state doesn't decide what I eat." Oh dear, where to begin... REDUCED FAT, REDUCED SUGAR. Plus all the old favourites, now banned.

5. The state now DEMANDS that religious institutions have to perform a service for who/whatever wants to marry who/whatever.

6. "The state doesn't decide where I go." Best one yet!!! Try boarding a flight (with a ticket paid for with YOUR money) after refusing to go through a nudity scanner.

Report - Must try harder.

Sean O'Hare said...


The state doesn't decide which football team I support

Football Licensing Authority

The state doesn't tell me what clothes to buy or wear.

Import regulations in clothing, footwear and fashion sector

The state doesn't decide which TV programmes I watch

They certainly conrol which ones you are allowed to watch.

Censorship in the United Kingdom

The state doesn't decide what I eat. I am still free to eat as many biscuits as I choose

FSA Banned or restricted products

The state didn't tell me which woman to marry, or that I should get married

Not quite, but they monitor and control nevertheless:

Marriage and civil partnerships: your legal obligations

The state doesn't decide where I go

They decide where you don't go:

Restricted Areas

Try again!

Delusional Tw@t said...

Thanks Sean, better effort than mine!!!

PeterCharles said...

I am sorry Senior, you obviously don't see it, but the state does indeed interfere in all six of your examples. That you don't see it is simply because it is not obvious, indeed I would say it is deliberately hidden.

The state doesn't dictate what football team you support, although that is akin to saying the state doesn't dictate which passing cloud you deem to cast your attention on, but it certainly intrudes into football, competition law, employment law, health and safety and a host of other things affect it.

The state most definitely DOES tell you what clothes to buy and wear for work in many circumstances.

The state doesn't decide what TV programs you watch, but it does intrude in terms of content and structure and even in some cases whether a particular program can be screened at all.

The state does decide what you eat in many ways by regulating the content of many foods and drinks and by various forms of price control.

The state doesn't tell you who and when to marry but it entails a whole regulatory regime if you do so and will affect your pension and welfare rights on the basis of it.

The state often does decide where you go, especially if you regularly attend football matches or try to legally demonstrate in public.

Neither WfW nor I has ever said the state controls everything we do, just that it has laws and regulations that affect everything we do, often in hidden and unknown ways. Can you name the four nutritional supplements that must by law be added to bread, for instance, or do you know what types and levels of adulteration are permissible for other foods?

No one has ever asked the public to decide if they want these things regulated in this way or that or not at all. That is our whole point.

PeterCharles said...

Oh blast, Sean said it much better than me!

WitteringsfromWitney said...

SOF: Lol!

Sen: Afraid I have to mark your homework 0/6 as DT and SO'H have done the job for me!

DT & SO'H: Thanks! As you have demonstrated they are not 6 questions which are easy to answer.

PC: Thanks also to you too - for saving me some typing!

TomTom said...

The passivity of the British is amazing. They complain but do not rebel. Even the simplest rebellion is too much effort.

Simply ask your Councillor how much Council Tax is collected in his Ward; how much is spent in his Ward, and on what ?

That little piece of information is one they will avoid giving you, yet it is the basis of Democracy. Controlling purse-strings.

That simple action is beyond most voters. To demand an Account of which wards raise most Council Tax and which produce most Arrears.

Before you burn the town hall, make them work under Freedom of Information FOR YOU !

kenomeat said...

Off topic I know, but I've just watched part of Channel 4 News and switched it off in disgust. I know the BBC News is biased but Channel 4 isn't even trying to be subtle about it. It broadcast a report from Cambridge on the EDL / AFL clash today. The reporter spoke on air to 2 witnesses, both supporters of a multi-racial Cambridge community and anti-EDL. No sign of an opposing viewpoint. This followed an item on Murdoch in which the Ch 4 presenter stated that the winding up of the NOTW was simply an attempt by Murdoch to save his BSkyB bid.
The sooner we have a British version of Fox News the better.

Anonymous said...

This is a start if Hungary v=can get away with it.

Hungary - exemplar or threat?
I make no apologies for featuring Hungary yet again; right now, it's the most interesting nation in Europe. Those of you familiar with previous threads will know that whilst my heart resonates to a new national will based on 'home, family, work, health and order' my head is ringing warning bells.

Read it all.

Anonymous said...

This is a start if Hungary v=can get away with it.

Hungary - exemplar or threat?
I make no apologies for featuring Hungary yet again; right now, it's the most interesting nation in Europe. Those of you familiar with previous threads will know that whilst my heart resonates to a new national will based on 'home, family, work, health and order' my head is ringing warning bells.

Read it all.

Anonymous said...

And the quotation is by one W S Churchill - overweight, smoking, drinking politician - but boy, do we need him now!

TomTom said...

one W S Churchill.......ah yes, the man who used the BBC newly nationalised by his PM as a propaganda machine during the General Strike.

The man who jailed innocent people under Rule 18B - "detention without trial"

The man who wrote adoring letters to Mussolini pre-war.

Or would you prefer Neville Chamberlain who had opponents' telephones tapped and Pathe newsreels censored ?

Why not go for a Salazr or Caetano, or Horthy or Franco instead ?

WitteringsfromWitney said...

TT: People seem to forget that Churchill had a fault or two and that spin is not new!

Anonymous said...

WSC did provide genuine leadership tho'. Maybe, going for the more modern, a Ronald Reagan or Mrs T then.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

A: Although I admired the Maggietollah, although it may well create controversy, if I had to choose between her and RR I would take RR!

cuffleyburgers said...

Hello WW

foaming at the mouth - because grossly exaggerated - real slavery is far worse than what we experience now.

Rather childish - better might have been simplistic - you can't expect people to rise up against something which they don't experience as all that bad.

I'm not saying I don't agrre with a tremendous amount of what you write, I share your disgust at the government's behaviour and the EU, and your frustration at the complacency of people who don't get as exercised as we do about certain things (or about everything), I am merely pointing out the reality of the mountain we have to climb.

Senior - your list of freedoms looks pretty poor to me - if you're happy with that, and it could be that plenty of people are, then the revolution is indeed a long way away.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

cb: Thanks, will accept simplistic and also acknowledge your comment that followed.

Also accept real slavery worse, but it is a short step from where we are to rweal slavery, hence as a degree of slavery - it is slavery.

Appreciate yr endorsement of the majority of my views.

Agree Senior's list was poor - he had obviously not fully considered the question.