Tuesday, 10 December 2013

Broken Politics + Broken Society = Civil War

Cameron treatyWE LIVE IN DANGEROUS TIMES, when politicians have chosen to place their own welfare and financial greed above those of the electorate whom they serve.

Once there was a clear dividing line between democratic and dictatorial Nation states; but in 2013, that is no longer the case. Few would dispute that there is now a seemingly unstoppable, worldwide trend towards governments that impose their own will upon their citizens, rather than ensuring that the majority’s wishes are observed. Individual freedoms are eroded in order that a privileged minority might seize and retain power to satisfy their own narcissism and inflated concepts of themselves; citizens rightly feel disenfranchised; silent majorities hamper resentment; leaders impose restrictions upon others voicing their views – and society becomes a pressure cooker whose only remaining expression resides in violence and civil war.

We are now so accustomed to being lied to that we paint all politicians with the same brush. Moreover, the majority throws its arms up in desperation as it sees its freedoms reduced further with each successive government – blaming others for voting the liars in, when they, themselves, deserted the ballot box in favour of denying any responsibility for the result. Brainwashed by incumbent politicians that a vote for an alternative party will only result in the current opposition being elected because the last election saw them only narrowly rejected by voters, they erroneously conclude that their vote is worthless – and end-up with the politicians they deserve.

Change’, the incumbent politicians cry, ‘can only be achieved through us – because you elected us last time, proving that we represent the majority’s views.

We are listening to what you say, and we promise not to make the same mistakes again. (But you will have to live with the consequences of our previous decisions, of course).

Strange is it not? When it comes to casting our vote in the ballot box we are now encouraged to believe that we must vote tactically in the manner that would have ensured the party we dislike the most would have been denied power in the last election. And yet: circumstances have changed, time has moved on, and all main parties have modified their policies – just as manufacturers change their products to adapt to what they believe might provide them more profit. We are encouraged to vote in the way that would have led to a party’s success in a previous election, when it was standing for policies that it is not standing for today. And yet, when we choose to buy a new iPhone, a new cereal for breakfast, or a new outfit for the approaching season: we choose to purchase the item that best suits our needs. We seem blind to the fact that the blatant lie about ‘wasted votes’ is nothing more than a political tactic of last resort to have us ignore a party’s abhorrent policies and ensure we vote for them anyway. In effect: it is a tactic to ensure we only consider voting for the last two strongest parties, ignoring any possibility that there might be an alternative, and ensuring that the political merry-go-round is maintained.

The politicians encouraged us all to vote tactically in 2010 in a vain attempt to divide the electorate into just two camps in every constituency. They calculated that, by doing so, it would be an overall contest between just the Conservatives and Labour; but the result was a hung parliament in which the first instigators of tactical voting, the LibDems, held the balance of power to produce the aberrant chaos that we have today.

Interestingly, the concept of tactical voting was only invented this century, when one Dr Stephen Fisher, a so-called expert in political sociology at Oxford University, estimated that up to 9% of voters mark their ballot papers tactically, influencing the results of up to 45 seats. Another politics academic at the University of Strathclyde, Prof John Curtice, also suggested that tactical votes were worth as much as 3% of the vote – or 20 seats – to Labour when they swept to power in 1997.

During any Westminster election, however: 650 seats are up for grabs.

Tactical voting was seized upon by the Labour Party for the 2010 election, and has been encouraged by all main political parties ever since – showing just how adept they are at manipulating our beliefs in rubbish science over such a short space of time. (Up to 91% of voters did not vote as Fisher ‘identified’ in the 1997 election, and 93% of all seats were free of the tactic; but we are now encouraged to abandon principled voting, by all the main parties, in favour of voting tactically as they see their core support falling away).

There is a serious problem with our current political system, and it is the result of career politicians purposely undermining the founding principle upon which Democracy is based. In effect, they have created the condition where political parties create policies between which the public is then forced choose – rather than expressing their communities’ views in the debating chamber; forming loose alliances to produce a stronger voice; examining ways in which the majority’s wishes might be implemented – and then putting those options to their constituencies, in the form of alternatives, between which voters might subsequently decide.

Politicians are elected by the people to serve the people; not to erect a stall and sell their own ideas. Politicians are elected to represent the views of their constituents, to discuss their views in the political chamber and seek an agreement as to which of those views represent majority opinion to provide a series of options which can then be properly evaluated for cost and practicality, and from which the electorate may then choose. It is that process from which all policies should derive – unless society is threatened and time does not allow for detailed discussion and approval to take place.

In the days of small communities, democratic politics worked; because individuals were elected to Parliament – not policies. MPs were elected for their personal qualities and for sharing in the majority’s principles so that those views might be accurately represented in the Nation’s debating chamber, and, when detailed discussion identified possible solutions to common problems and needs, it was easy for those MPs to consult their communities before formally voting for, or against, each new proposal.

The breakdown of Democracy can be directly attributed to population growth and the system’s failure to ensure that the societal link between representatives and their communities remained intact. Initially, that link was maintained through the local press; but, as politicians became subtly alienated from the societies that they served, and inscrutable press owners recognised the power they held to influence reader opinion: the system finally broke down.

Local newspapers expressed their own views in editorials; other titles sprung-up to represent alternative views; politicians organised themselves into political parties, and national newspapers mushroomed to communicate Westminster’s infighting.

Soon, democracy became a firestorm of political opinion fed by the latest fashionable ideas. Political parties selected their own candidates for local and national elections – and citizens were denied a choice.

Dispirited, confused, and purposely manipulated: the electorate began passing their full power to those whom they were being forced to select as their representatives – seeding the very conditions that, ultimately, lead to civil unrest and war.

These days, politicians see themselves as being elected to serve upon the board of UK Ltd as the only alternative to never having been able to secure a similar position in the real world. And, at each election, we are encouraged to vote for Conservative Ltd, Labour Ltd, or LibDem Ltd on the basis of which company will produce the best return in our pockets.

But politics is about people; not money…

I purchased my first flat when I married, just before Maggie Thatcher came to power and when the streets were littered with refuse and we could not bury our dead.

My £3,500 per annum salary (sweetened by a company car) backed a 95% mortgage to purchase the two-bed, ground floor flat, formed from converting an old Victorian, bay-windowed residence into two new homes. It cost £7,000 and, had I been able to afford the new 1300cc car I drove: it would have cost me £10,000.

The flat sold for £11,000, seven years later – but we saw no profit because all property prices had soared to new levels following Maggie’s Right-to-Buy scheme. It is an utter fallacy to believe that the increased value of a family home can ever be realised (unless it is abandoned in favour of living on the street or in a ghetto) because all property prices rise in unison. One’s home is not a financial asset; but the politicians would have us believe it is, and, as a consequence, we are encouraged to believe we can afford that extra credit.

That same flat sold for £190,000 this year; and I can still buy an equivalent model to the car I was once supplied for £10,000.

Had we remained in the flat, we would still have been no closer to affording a house than we were in the 1970s.

Modern day politics is no more than an extension of the mis-taught Dismal Science, in which all politicians profess expertise in order to secure our vote. But the fact is that all their promises are based upon the ability to simply print and borrow more money. As my personal anecdote clearly shows, and despite the actions of various governments, there has been no real change in individual prosperity over all those years; just a cynical manipulation of Britain’s economy to ensure inflation continues to grow at the right time so people feel better off when the value of their homes increase, or employers are forced to raise wages so that their staff can meet their household bills – whenever an election is due to be held.

We all just assume we are better-off: because technology has produced new inventions that we never had before; but not one of those modern luxuries resulted from politics.

Of course the politicians forced mass immigration down our throats; because traditional employers could no longer continue to keep paying more to their staff as basic household prices continued to rise. Population drives-up living and household costs; but it also drives-up property prices, making home-owners feel more wealthy and become blind to their leader’s manipulation of the economy. To ensure their families do not suffer, parents turn to credit that they believe they will be able to repay when things get better – and then vote for the party whom promises them more wealth (by printing more money and taking-on more debt to balance what they are being forced to spend).

Around and around goes the merry-go-round – until the politicians finally realise that they have come to the end of a dead-end street. Having taken-on the debt of all household credit spending by printing more money to accommodate it; having driven down wages through mass immigration to provide cheap labour so that firms can continue to produce goods without pushing-up inflation and revealing their political limited company’s real cost; having found that the real economy is coming back into balance and revealing that all property is over-priced: they do the only thing they can to hide their own incompetence. They provide taxpayer-backed mortgages to encourage the banks and building societies to lend more, push house prices back up to make people feel better, and go for one more round – hoping to form the next opposition because there are no more smoke and mirror economic levers that can be pulled by those in charge.

The moment that the politicians took control of the Bank of England, and the Gold Standard was abandoned, was the moment that Democracy finally gave way to Fascism in Western guise.

If civil war is to be averted, it will only be by repairing our broken democracy; and in order for that to happen: we need to return to basics and understand how societies are created – and destroyed

clip_image001Abraham Maslow was an American psychologist who was best known for creating Maslow's hierarchy, which explains how humans prioritize their needs in order to achieve satisfaction. He stressed the importance of focusing upon the positive qualities in people, as opposed to treating them as a ‘bag of symptoms’ that governments need to control. We do not need a psychology degree in order to understand his theory, we just have to look at his pyramid to see how accurately it describes ourselves and everyone we know.

Maslow designed his pyramid to illustrate how, as each individual need was satisfied, another need was identified, one after the other, until satisfaction was finally achieved at the top. His pyramid also identifies the areas that, when attacked, undermine the individual and fragment society to produce criminality, violence, and mental illness, which are the results of an individual’s frustration at being denied their heritage, self-expression, and self-esteem.

At the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid we have: breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis (protection from the elements) and excretion as an individual’s basic needs; and they correspond to: unpolluted air, food, utilities, housing, sewerage and waste disposal and collection. These are all basic needs that any state must ensure are provided to all its citizens before anything else. It does not matter how those needs are met, whether they be provided by the public or private sector: the point is that they must all be accessible, and affordable, by anyone, no matter what their financial situation or how much they earn.

First political principal: to protect the fundamentals required for a healthy life to which no citizen should be denied.

Maslow identifies safety and security as an individual’s next need, and he breaks that down into: body (laws against harming another); employment (laws against dangerous working conditions); resources (the protection of sensitive installations that might be attacked by an enemy); morality (the upholding of the Law – and ensuring the truth is always told); the family (the right to defend one’s family and indigenous race and culture); health (the right of access to medical services); and property (the material right to own).

The pyramid’s red area is all about the role of coercion, by the majority, in order to ensure that society’s weak are protected by providing all individuals with the right to physical protection by the state and the right to self-defence. Notably, it is all about the state and individuals interceding to prevent physical harm of its citizens – and nothing else. The fact is: we do not need to ‘legalize’ anything; we just need to proscribe that which has been definitively proved to always cause others harm. Around ninety per cent of our Laws are totally unnecessary and simply provide the solicitors and barristers to discover loop-holes that can be exploited and justify their excessive remunerations. We need a bonfire of Laws, and the quangos created to invent and oversee them, so that we can once again concentrate upon what is wrong, and what is right, to create a fair and strong society.

Second political principal: To only enact and uphold those Laws designed to protect all citizens from malice without advantaging any other, and to defend each citizen’s inherent right to self-defence.

Maslow’s Love and Belonging, which is the next need in the hierarchical pyramid has nothing to do with politics. It is the fulfilment that is naturally achieved by citizens as a direct result of the state satisfying their first two requirements.

The next Maslow area that concerns us is the purple step, containing: self-esteem, confidence, achievement, respect of others, and respect by others – and it is all about education.

Children need to be taught to think for themselves and not be dependent upon what others say. They need to be taught that everybody lies – whether it be to save face over something they are embarrassed about, to purposely seek an advantage, or simply because they are repeating the lies told to them by others. We might go so far as to say that we need to teach all our children how to lie and spin a statement, just so they can distinguish how their young minds can be easily manipulated by others. There is always more than one side to a story, and the truth is normally to be found somewhere in between. There are no universal facts, other than the Three R’s, that always remain true: because all life evolves, all evolution is change – and no statistical correlation is proof. (There is a highly significant correlation between furniture sales and house building, in excess of some 90%; but buying either does not force the other to magically appear).

All computer forecasting, upon which modern politicians base their decisions, is conducted by statistical algorithms that examine disparate sets of data that its designers hypothesise might be interrelated. Then the computer calculates the statistical correlation between those various data points for the time-period being investigated, assumes that the same relationship will always exist, and then uses the mathematical formulae that best expresses each graph in the timeline to project those correlations into the future. You get the idea: ‘The last time I sacrificed a bird and discovered corn in its stomach, it rained three days later. But I also remember a time when the same type of bird showed no trace of corn, and it did not rain for two whole months. We can therefore conclude that rain depends upon eating corn and that, the more corn we produce for the birds to eat, the less likely it is that we will ever again be faced with a drought.’

Present that same argument to any group of young children whom have not been taught to think for themselves, and they will readily believe it. Just as many adults believe in global warming and destructive floods; because they have never been taught that salt water ice does not increase sea levels when it melts, that the land’s fresh water table is depleted when ice forms above it, and that our precious fresh water supply is only replenished when ground ice melts to allow the subsequent water to permeate the top soil, bring vegetation to life, and trickle downwards to the earth’s arteries that carry that life giving element throughout our planet. In other words: the global warming alarmists assume that the earth is just a large ball of concrete, that all land masses are pyramids, and that, when fresh ground water ice melts: it has no place to run except the sea.

Heat only rises upwards, it does not permeate below. The sun, through the atmosphere, can warm the oceans when it is risen; but that water cools again when the sun sets. A sustained increase in ocean surface temperature has nothing to do with the atmosphere above it, through which all heat rises: it has everything to do with the earth’s molten core that expels its heat from fissures in the ocean’s depth and transmits it to the surface in accordance with the cyclical movement of the earth’s magnetic poles. Place your palm beneath a lit match; and then place your palm above it, to prove that the idiotic conclusions of the global warming lobby are completely unfounded and, specifically: untrue.

Global warming activists inhabit a mind-set in which the sun revolves around the earth and everything is measured in terms of an earth-year. They have yet to discover that the earth orbits the sun, and that life is created through the interaction of many different cycles of which our annual calendar measures just one. However, global warming activists convince many that what they say is true: because, as children, they and those they seek to convert have been denied a basic education in the fundamental truths from which all life derives. 

We need to return to focusing on the three Rs: Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic to ensure that our youngsters can fully understand what others write and say – and clearly express their own ideas. Moreover, if parents have not taught their children our language’s fundamentals, how to count from one to twenty-four, and tell the time: those youngsters should be excluded until they can; because, if they are unable to communicate properly with their teachers and their peers: our indigenous children are denied the full education to which their parents taxation has contributed, and to which they are entitled. Moreover, if pupils cannot adequately communicate in the Queen’s English, they place themselves and others at risk through misunderstanding instructions designed to keep them safe. But the most important reason is because our children are most likely to believe anything they are told when their young minds are still developing – and all primary school children are apt to trust their peers before trusting their teachers. On their very first day: all children must be able to fully understand what they are told when their first teacher informs them why they should trust them, and why they must always think first before acting.

Third political principal: To teach all young citizens how to think for themselves and distinguish fact from fiction. To ensure that all lessons are taught in standard English; that no word be banned from common usage, and to uphold the right to Free Speech and inquiry for all citizens.

The blue tip of Maslow’s pyramid containing: morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice, and acceptance of facts contains all those attributes that naturally evolve as a result of all the lower steps having been negotiated. It contains all those attributes that a carefully nurtured society ultimately produces, and which it subsequently selects in its leaders. In other words, Maslow’s pyramid is self-fulfilling in that it produces those individuals best suited to maintain the conditions through which their society might be protected and continue to peacefully evolve.

Few will be able to see any correspondence between those blue attributes and our current leaders – and a simple review of those three, indented, basic political principles will clearly explain why…

At the ripe old age of 62, I look back and despair at what we have allowed to become of the once contented and peaceful Nation I remember as a child. It seems I spent the majority of my working life casually exposing the lies and deceit of others, only to be presented with incredulity by a new generation unable to distinguish fact from fiction, and the unbelievable assertion that an individual’s right always outweighs that of a society’s majority.

We have, in the main, produced a society of low-esteemed, unconfident, low-achieving individuals with no respect for majority views, which has resulted in no respect from the aged majority whom benefitted from a decent education. The young politicians have successfully ensured our children believe that they have a right to do anything they wish, despite what their actions might have upon others, in a cynical attempt to harvest their votes. Moreover, they have manipulated each child’s young mind to conduct emotional blackmail upon its parents, in a concerted attempt to ‘mend’ the latter’s politically unfashionable ways. The politicians, and their celebrity counterparts, continue to present themselves as role models of a New Age in which everyone places their own desires first, at the expense of everyone else – and our youngsters are encouraged to believe that fortune equals fame; and that poverty awaits those whom are not famous.

The politicians have created an intentional hiatus in which all principle has been abandoned in favour of personal satisfaction (the ultimate vote winner); and it is therefore no wonder that the evil of Islam and the paedophilia and sexual perversions it shares with our indigenous religions is now commonplace.

As Maslow observed, no society can exist unless its citizens are fully protected from those whom would seek to destroy or undermine it; but the British electorate have consistently elected those very subversive elements, whom, since Thatcher’s time, have ensured that each subsequent generation of voters are only taught fashionable ‘facts’ – whilst implicitly denying them the education to think for themselves.

What goes around, comes around. That which we vote for will be forthcoming. The consequences of our moral apathy will begin to be felt by everyone in the New Year – so please make this coming Christmas extra special.

I fear that it may be the last peaceful holiday that we celebrate for some time…

No comments:

Post a Comment