Suppose a complete stranger came up to your front door and said, "I am much better than anyone else around here at knowing what is best for other individuals. I am also better at knowing what is best for the community at large. In view of this I recommend that you give over to me and my confederates ( who are also better etc.etc.) a) the spending of much of your money, b) the control of how you spend the money that we decide to let you keep, c) the control of your safety (from all forms of harm,), d) the control of your provision of health care, for you and your family, e) the control of your provision for retirement pension ......in fact the control of most, if not all, aspects of your life. If you do not give this power to me and my confederates you will suffer, because others are going to come along with the same demands and they are worse than us."
Should this happen you would immediately be convinced that you were in the presence of either a ‘grade A’ confidence trickster or an individual whose ego had grown to such proportions that it had rendered him blind to reality (or it could be the Mafia's local agent !!!). You would also realise that, whatever the reason for his peculiar solicitation happened to be, he was a danger to the community and should be securely and permanently restrained in a place of safekeeping, along with his confederates, for the good of the community and for his own ultimate safety.
Unfortunately the above encounter happens thousands of times a day at every election, be it local, national or European. The electoral candidate, being either a con-man or mentally unwell, whilst not using the above words, tells us of his worth and of the worth of his party. He tells us of the things which his party will achieve on our behalf, but he has absolutely no idea of whether or not circumstances and external forces will permit these things to come to pass, nor, even if circumstances permit, just how these things will be achieved. On the other side of the fence, we, the general public, being brought up in the world of political doublespeak, are not aware of the reality behind what he is saying, and take it all at face value. We never question the reason for “the party system” or its value. We assume that because it has been going on for aeons it must be an acceptable and good institution. We are not told that the total party membership, covering all parties in the UK, is less than 2% of the total electorate. We are not told that the electoral candidates are not chosen locally to represent our interest, but are in fact selected, by the local party committee, from a very short list (often down to one in number) of candidates, chosen by the party leaders. Chosen because they will represent the parties interests in return for the opportunity to feed at the Westminster trough.
In order to keep us unaware of "reality" many ordinary words are used in political doublespeak that have had new meanings conferred upon them e.g. "it is better for the country to have a small amount of unemployment". The country consists of fields, trees, towns, houses etc. and is neither better nor worse for a small amount of unemployment. However, had the statement used the word "population" or "people", instead of "country", it would have been obvious that the statement was both untruthful and misleading and was designed as a cover up.
After the election it becomes apparent that the promises are not being kept, the elected body loses favour, it is forsaken by many of its one-time supporters, and a new election occurs. The cycle goes on "ad nauseam". It is patently obvious that any decisions forced upon the public, by a party with a membership of less than 0.8% of the electorate, can only very, very occasionally be popular, and as a result “the other side(s)” must come up with new false promises in order to usurp the incumbents and get their snouts in the trough.
This is the form of government that is held up to the world as ideal. This is the form of government that gave rise to "The Mother of Parliaments". This is the form of government called DEMOCRACY. This is the form of government where the same phrase is used three or four times, so that the speaker does not have to think too much, whilst trying to sound eloquent and articulate, in order to hide his cultural ignorance prior to getting back to the trough.
Real Democracy is said to be "government of the people, by the people, for the people", however what we see world wide, masquerading as democracy, is "government of the people, by an elitist group supported by "democratically" elected sycophantic puppets, for the self interest of this elitist group".
It is sometimes the case that the steps taken by the elitist group, whist basically being in their own interest, also happen to be to the good of the community, however this is rarely so. Uppermost in the minds of the members of this elitist group is the retention of power and a large amount of time and effort, not to mention subterfuge and manoeuvring, (and the public's money), is spent on just this, regardless of the welfare of the community. It makes no difference if the group is at local level, county level, national level or European level. So blinded to reality are these people, because they too have been brought up in an atmosphere of political doublespeak, that they have confused "politics" with "government" to the extent that they think they are the same thing. So confused are they that they often use phrases like "staying in power" quite openly.
It is no coincidence that the aberrant perspective, held by the elitist group that happens to be holding power, is mirrored by the concerns in the elitist group/groups that are referred to as "the opposition". So blind to reality and unable to think constructively are these people that they just "oppose" in such a programmed and predictable way that their "opposition" could be done by a trained chimpanzee or a four line programme in a computer. Their aim is not to participate in constructive government, by offering alternative suggestions or solution to problems, but rather to contradict, discredit, disgrace and confuse the group in power so as to rapidly supplant them.
In Gt. Britain, as in other democratic societies, the chances of change would seem to be nil, since the only peaceful and lawful way to change the system is for the system to change itself. Furthermore, since this is “The Mother of Parliaments" and “an example to the world" the system must be “the best there is" and therefore be beyond reproach. In view of this, and of the way we, the general public, are kept unaware of reality by doublespeak hypnosis, no one has ever put forward a system which could really be called DEMOCRACY.
What is more, if ever a system were to be put forward that would bring real democracy, then the elitist groups, of whatever persuasion, would resist it with all the resources, both domestic and international, that they could muster. It would be like Civil War. The sad thing is that unless a system of real democracy is introduced in this country, and all other countries of the world, the suffering of millions of simple everyday people will continue for only one purpose, and that is the maintaining in power of so called leaders .
A prime examples of the system maintaining in power the leaders , regardless of the wishes of the people, is the loathsome debacle in Northern Ireland. A referendum could end this grievous pantomime instantly, but the result might not please the leaders of one or other of the factions involved, so there is no referendum, and the situation is allowed to continue, whilst the establishment pretends it is doing all it can to bring an end to the situation.
(Since writing the above, further repugnant manoeuvrings have taken place, in which, what is openly called “Power Sharing”, has been forced on the people by those holding power. This move was designed to pacify those seeking to overthrow the power holders by giving these would be power holders a share of power. In so doing the power holders hope that the would be power holders will be satisfied and will cease their agitations. The whole abhorrent debacle was carried out by coercion and subterfuge without the question, “What do you want?” being asked of the population. A similar “half-way-house” was tried before and only lasted until those who were the recipients of shared power expired, and then up went the balloon again.)
[Since writing the italics above, due to none of the power sharing idiots getting exactly what they wanted and not being prepared to compromise, the Power Sharing travesty has been wound up by further idiots sitting in the asylum of Westminster.]
{Once more the scene has changed since writing the above. Appeasement has come into play and murderers and thugs have been released onto the street, have been allowed to be elected and have been given offices in Westminster, all in order to facilitate the retention of power by our leaders!}
This is by no means the only example, look anywhere in the world where there is war and strife and you will see leaders using the people, by means of doublespeak hypnosis, quite often disguised as religion, to attack and kill neighbouring ordinary people, in order to gain more power. The leaders of these neighbouring people use their own people, by means of the same doublespeak hypnosis, to attack and kill the attackers so as to maintain their power, and if possible usurp the power of the opposing leaders should they manage to defeat them.
( Since the above few paragraphs were written (and added to) the world has gone deeper into the mire of political murder, pillage and revenge. The Twin Towers/Al-Quaida/Iraq debacle are proof positive of the unsuitability of politicians and power seekers to govern. We have here in the U.K. a party in power that can not even manage it’s own party finances (£20m in debt and growing) yet it’s dictator/leader not has only the ability to foul up every single thing he touches at home, but also the audacity to try to put the rest of the world in order, in concert with the other ne’er do well lunatic from across the water, safe in the knowledge that all he can lose is what he has already lost (his honour and self respect) having already ‘buffered’ himself financially and physically at the expense of those he is treating like imbecilic children.)
One of the biggest enemies of mankind is his view of NORMALITY. As individuals we each grow up, from birth, in a set of surroundings and with individual experiences which are peculiar to us, and the totality of these has got to be viewed by each individual as "normal", simply because he has experience of no others.
Our first affirmations of normality occur in infancy when we accept our parents, our siblings, our home, our food, our family relationships, our way of life as "normal" since we know no other. As we grow, we go out and have experiences which are, a) in line with what we have known before, and are therefore "normal", or are, b) different, and are therefore "abnormal".
Our strongest and most long-lasting affirmations of normality are associated with home, and are built up, subconsciously, in childhood. Therefore anything that is regularly experienced in the home, will become normality. If the things that are experienced are what society as a whole call "good" then normality becomes "good", and if things that are experienced are what society as a whole call "bad" then normality becomes "bad". As a result, the problem for us all is that, generally speaking, we view our own personal "normality" as being "right" or "acceptable".
Unfortunately, if we see lots of crime, violence, drugs, sex etc. on T.V., whilst we are still in our formative years, then because we have seen it at home it is subconsciously filed under "normal" or "right" or "acceptable". The vast majority of today's crime can be traced back to this root by comparing the crime with the age of the criminal and the types of programme on T.V. during that persons formative years (coupled with parental control of the "off" switch). The sense of normality is slightly modified by age and further experience in schools, colleges, employment and the world, but fundamentally much of the infant remains.
As far as the political system of a country is concerned, that too is first experienced in the home. It may have been talk between parents, it may have been an answer to a childish question or it may have been something seen on T.V. The system may be the most diabolical system ever conceived by man but if it was first experienced positively in the home then it is "normal" or "right" or "acceptable". If it had been experienced negatively then it would not have been "normal". It is not without significance that when politicians were more gentlemanly the general behaviour of the population was similar, but now that many are revealed as being dishonest and deceitful many of the population are following their example, because it is being seen as “normal”.
However, due to the way that we are kept in doublespeak hypnosis, we see our British democracy as "normal", and because we have experienced no other system, we see it as "right", whereas it is as far from right as a dictatorship or a feudal system, because the people that are being governed (which is doublespeak for "controlled") have almost no say at all in this "government".
