SO YOU THINK YOU LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY

 You really think you live in a democracy? Ha ha ha! Sorry. It's just that, well "democracy" is really very close to being just a made up word like "homophobia" designed to have you thinking a certain way. For an analysis of this kind of scam, you couldn't do better than checking out George Orwell’s essay, Politics and the English Language. 

Speaking of Homophobia (you may say) haven’t we just been given an excellent illustration of true democracy in action in the postal vote/survey/plebiscite in which we were able to have our say in whether or not to overturn thousands of years of history, tradition and normality and allow homosexuals to marry? True enough; you were. But this was really just a gimmick to spin the illusion that people could prevent something that was going to happen anyway, by whatever means. Something this fashionable and trendy and such a hot number with the leftist hegemony was never going to be stopped.

Let’s look at something a little more substantial and far more nation-wrecking than homosexual marriage – something like, say, mass immigration and its conjoined twin, multiculturalism. Now think carefully; when was the last time you were allowed to have a say regarding these twin evils. That’s right. Never. Rather than an illustration of democracy in action, this has been a graphic illustration of revolution from the top down. You were never allowed to have your say because our masters knew perfectly well what you would say – that you didn’t want a bar of either. Every opinion poll ever conducted has shown that conclusively.

To completely shut the people out of a political decision is obscenely easy. All that’s needed is a bipartisan policy. This is when Lib/Lab drops the charade of being mortal enemies in the game of my turn – your turn, and show their true colours of being a united elite saying “up yours” to the proles. “We have every right to do this because of conditions agreed to in the social contract,” they might add. (I see you scratching your head, trying to remember when you signed up to such a thing.)

The quarantining of the immigration issue represented a doubling down on any form of open debate with a place at the table for those most affected by it: those lacking the wherewithal to take take to the air in white flight. Former Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, for example, stated bluntly and arrogantly that “We will not allow to become a political issue in this country the question of Asianisation”. The Liberal Party and the lapdog media were only too happy to comply.

Their never-fail fall-back is to remind us after all that our political system is called representative or responsible government, meaning that we have chosen them to represent us and take on the responsibility for what happens (which curiously they never do. This is where the two-party system comes into its own. The party responsible for the fuck-up simply blames the other party for laying the ground-work to it.)

It has to be grudgingly admitted they have a point. Anything coming close to the ideal democracy of which we dream could only appear in a city-state such as ancient Athens, about the size of Dubbo and even then, it was a male only affair (settle down girls). Applied to anything bigger, it would cause the system to seize up and collapse under the weight of its own complexity .

And of course, as civilization became more intricate, complicated and technologically advanced, Joe, the working stiff would have been hopelessly out of his depth in contributing in any meaningful way to arriving at a decision that would affect all. Representative government was an idea whose time had come. The problem here though is that, distilled into its purity, the idea was that mug citizen could compare and contrast candidates for government with a view to winnowing out the person with the views, opinions and attitudes closest to his own to represent him. Note the emphasis is on him (OK) or her. Him or her and not the frigging party to which said candidate belongs. This is the party trick that's been pulled on the proles for centuries.

No matter what your "representative" has told you before the election, it doesn't matter. Once in, he or she will have to toe the party line and if by some slim chance that somehow coincides with what you want, then you've won the electoral lottery, but most times it won't. It's not outside the realms of possibility that a politicians' handbook exists providing a surfeit of excuses for not being able to follow through on a promise to voters. Top of the pops would be that a sudden, totally unexpected downturn in the economy has thrown up a road block to planned initiatives. Another favourite is that the previous government has wrought even more damage than was formerly suspected. This could be termed the "damage control" clause. Or perhaps, linked to the economic excuse, the sudden sinking of the dollar has unfortunately caused the expense of the bag of promises to be prohibitive. It doesn't matter that you know they are lying; they don't care. After all, lying is what politicians are expected to do. It goes with the territory almost to the point where it is a prerequisite for the job. And naturally to be able to lie so convincingly and so utterly remorselessly presupposes a certain level of psychopathology.  

If wondering who the all time champions in this game were, look no further than the 1940 US presidential election in which both candidates, Wendell Willkie and FDR, both went to the people promising to keep America out of the war when both were conniving to get America into the war. (The rest of course is history. FDR forced and allowed Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor - the infamous "back door" into the war.)

Most people have heard of "pressure group" politics but its possible few have considered the phenomenon as a wrecking ball swinging against what shell of democracy may be remaining. While all voters are equal (as long as they haven't voted early and often which in Australia is particularly difficult to rule out) not all pressure groups are equal so neither is the power they wield. And of course it all takes place after a government has been elected. The Teachers' Federation, for example, is powerful in its ability to steer curriculum toward the lunatic left. However, its power pales considerably in comparison to really big hitters like the media or big business, closely aligned of course. But the biggest elephant in the spare bedroom is the banks, while riding the elephant is the central banks and the central banks' central bank, the Bank for International Settlements, BIS, in Switzerland radioing instructions to the jockey. 

How powerful are the banks?  Would you agree that wealth equals power? Then how much power would you have if you had a machine that could produce an infinite supply of money?  It just so happens that the banks have such a machine whereby, courtesy of a magician's trick known as "Fractional Reserve Banking", banks have the ability to conjure up credit (money) out of thin air and then charge crippling interest on it. Their most valued customers? Governments of course - guilt edged prospects because of the power of taxation they have over their mug subjects. Common politicians' lie omitted from previous list: "we will reduce the national dept!". No they won't. The national debt will not only remain, but continue to grow like a fat person trapped in a MacDonald's. Why? Because this is the way the banks want it. Who after all would like to see their golden goose slip the chain?

And not to leave out a powerful interest or pressure group, let's not forget the Jewish Lobby, which former NSW premiere Bob Carr politely termed "the Israeli lobby", when wanting to draw attention to its power staggeringly disproportionate to the number of Jews in Australia.

Now for a spot of interactive blogging. See if you can guess from the short list of pressure groups provided which groups drive our immigration policy.

It could be argued that nothing prevents Joe Citizen from organising his own pressure group once he realises the worthlessness of his vote, but even if he had the time, the education, the resources, the energy after slaving at his slave job five days a week, or even the inclination, his efforts, given the phalanxes of hostile giants ranged against him, would be no more than a mosquito bite on a rhinoceros.  

All of the above may just provide some insight into why the American founding fathers decided to include the second amendment in the US constitution. They were prescient enough to know that there had to be a better way than the ballot box to get rid of a regime that was fundamentally opposed to the interests of the people for whom it was supposed to providing government, moreover, showing by its actions that it had nothing but contempt for those same people. Interestingly, they never even pretended to be giving birth to a democracy, something they feared and loathed as mob rule. It was the founding of a republic with only limited suffrage they were concerned with. Perhaps it was another example of their extraordinary vision that they knew exactly where democracy would lead to - a secular religion with fraudsters and psychopaths as its high priests. Where we are, at the end of that long road, democracy bears an uncanny resemblance to communism in that a promise of the purest freedom led to its opposite.