A people seeking a life of liberty and thus a freedom to choose, do not look upon those whose measures create a loss of that liberty and freedom to choose; and it should be remembered that it is the supposedly well behaved citizens that eventually make the most formidable revolutionaries. They say nothing, they are in plain sight all the time; during which, eventually, they make their 'masters' invariably pay the ultimate price. People have memories and politicians would do well to realise that that is something that cannot be taken away. For such people revolt is but an inch beneath the veneer they present to those politicians.
To those who decry the calls for mass revolution and that change can only be made using the 'democratic' system currently in use, I would refer them to a quotation, one attributed to Audre Laude:
"The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never allow us to bring about genuine change."Something else I felt just needed saying..........
6 comments:
We always need to distinguish between what we want to happen, what we think will happen and what is actually happening.
I want a complete extirpation of the ruling stratum of our country.
I think they will stay in place for the time being but eventually pressures will rise and they will have to change their ways. But this could be some long way into the future.
I don't see anything currently happening that will cause our public servants to change their ways;in fact, I think they are emboldened by the actions of the EU elite and the way peoples rights are trampled into the earth by them.
Magna Carta has only one important provision today, the right to due process. Other than the protection of the rights and customs of the City of London and the freedom of the Church the rest have all been repealed, mostly in the late 19th Century.
Effectively it has been completely negated.
jic: You have not read that which I wrote.
PC: Be that as may - just who gave the politicians the right to negate or change anything?
WfW - I would consider myself one of the law abiding chaps who form the most formidable revolutionaries and therefore well qualified to pass comment.
You are right we need to overthrow the present system. But the real problem is the majority of folk do not see that because they don't think terribly hard about it and are not exercised at the loss of liberty and sovereignty that has taken place since winning the great wars for liberty and sovereignty in the 20th century.
Therefore it would be wrong to partake in a violent action since it would be an infringement of their right to live in a tyrannical shithole.
Therefore our concern must be not to hang Cameron or bomb Sarkozy's bunker, however desirable that may seem, but rather to push as aggresively, noisily and angrily for individual liberty, and I still believe that mass protest and old fashioned methods working within the system can achieve a great deal in this respect.
In any case things will have to get a huge amount worse before you will have enough people who care in order to stage any sort of armed uprising. Having said that things are getting worse quickly!
Sorry for the rambling post!
"Be that as may - just who gave the politicians the right to negate or change anything?" If we are going to be pedantic it was Queen Victoria who signed most of it away. However, the short answer is they simply appropriated the right and no other power had the ability to stop them. But that goes for Magna Carta as well, don't forget it was about curbing the powers of the monarch by the nobility and the Church, extending their own power and protecting their persons and interests. That the only way to write it couldn't specifically exclude ordinary folk was happenstance, not design.
Others may well quibble that it is a bit late to complain about legitimacy after 150 years, although a fair repost would be that politicians 150 years ago had even less democratic legitimacy than those today, a higher belief in God, Country and Empire not withstanding. In fact I doubt they would have claimed to be democratically legitimate, that is what extending the franchise and emancipation was all about after all. British 'democracy' was always a 20th century sham, its roots in the precursor to social democracy, Social Liberalism. Politicians crowed 'democracy' louder and louder as they became more and more objects of contempt in an attempt to justify their perceived right to govern. Too many people listen to the deluded or mendacious fools who complain about loss of democracy, we never had it to begin with.
cb: Ramble way, please. That is what I view the comment facility for - your views, regardless.
Agree to a certain extent with what you say, but as you may have noticed patience is not my strong suite!
PC: As always, well said!
Post a Comment