Loquendo believes political parties and our political system, as currently configured, best suit the infantile … because infantilism through the encouragement of dependency (in contrast to robust independence) is what gets rewarded most by such celebrity-based, candidate systems.
All you need do is a quiet space and an eager mind. Just take a long, hard, critical look at the types of behaviour our politics actually do encourage more of. There is also a disturbing level of global uniformity. Despite their wide geographic dispersal, and mutually unintelligible languages, you will find remarkable similarities between Scandinavia, Germany, France, and Italy (on the one hand) and the so-called Anglo-sphere of Britain, Canada, Australia, and the USA on the other. Even Japan is in on the game. Probably the most visible difference is that Japanese politicians tend to wear face masks and white gloves when out on the campaign trail. Nasty voters … they’ve got germs and viruses!
Meanwhile, those who do wish to be masters of their own lives, and who really do wish to become functional adults — as far as this is possible under the yoke of today’s widespread Bolshevisms — are increasingly giving up on the idea the existing system could ever be reformed from within; via reasoning and persuasion. And since the faux-‘terrorist’ events of 2001 (NYC) and 2005 (London) such expectations have in any case become delusional. Those two stage-managed, faux-terror events were carried out so that The State — the increasingly centralized Goliath we are supposed to enthusiastically vote for — could expand yet further, encroach into our lives even deeper, and thus acquire greater privileges for its functionaries, officers, and bag-men (and women).
Despite such a harsh diagnosis, the Jokers and perverts who keep occupying the visible positions of power … and yes that DOES include the whiskey-swilling Winston Churchill … are ultimately only puppets. They do indeed perform certain executive duties, adding their signatures to this and that, and taking part in debates that never solve anything. But their strings are being pulled by persons acting behind the scenes. Since about the 1850s, when the International Bankers started to gain their ascendancy, the so-called “Puppet Masters” have been dictating the direction in which we have all been traveling. They see us as a “collective”, or a giant herd to be exploited.
Indirectly, this arrangement can be proven to exist. Consider that all Western countries have been following increasingly coordinated policies for the past 30 years at least. For example, it was noticeable (to those paying attention) that the recent legal changes to same-sex marriage were applied by several different countries together, almost in unison. One after the other, and within a span of about 4 weeks, the MSM gleefully announced the legality of same-sex marriages in Britain, Canada, Australia, France, and the USA. Perhaps there are a few others I could add.
Ask yourself. How does five, six, or seven geographically dispersed electorates (including far away Australia) suddenly decide to become obsessed with legalizing homosexual marriage at one and the same time? It could ONLY happen if there exists a guiding or supra authority that is being secretly ranked above our so-called “Elected Representatives”.
Might a giant step towards a better future be easier to take than we realize? The so-called established political classes need to be “shown the door”. Sacked in other words. They should be obliged (using whatever duress seems necessary) to go find proper work and honest sources of income. Like any normal person.
Unfortunately we don’t yet have the mechanisms through which we could deliver such an ultimatum. But that isn’t to say we could never invent some. The persistent presence of ‘career politicians” almost guarantees the spread of deep-state corruption and the establishment of self-serving dynasties. Surely such a cause & effect will be obvious to most thinking people?
I know it is difficult. I am as revolted as you are. But please study the face of Tony Blair for a few moments, interpret his expression as best you can, then ask yourself these questions:
- How does someone who lies for a living, and who has a C.V. little better than a car salesman’s, get to be called a Leader of Men?
- Blair was voted-in to 10 Downing Street on 3 separate occasions — each time receiving disproportionate support from female voters — what does that tell you about the mental health, maturity, or self-respect of the average British voter?
- Lynton Blair was found guilty, at Bow Street Magistrates Court (circa 1975), for importuning in public (male) toilets somewhere in central London. He was fined £50.00 at Bow Street Magistrates Court. Is serial sodomy (such as being married to a transsexual) now an advantage, if not a prerequisite, for those seeking high office in certain Western nations? In other words, is “blackmail-ability” something the “king makers” of this world always look for when assessing each ambitious politician’s CV?
Our present political system has evolved from, or perhaps it emerged out of, those default arrangements that were extant back in the Middle Ages … when the majority were Serfs, and the King’s Entourage ruled absolutely without any checks and balances. The common man’s life and luck was unduly dependent upon the personality (maturity and wisdom) of his King (or Queen). And that was not all. So much could change on the monarch’s state of health. Just one chronic illness in the Palace could turn an entire nation against itself. Small wonder every King’s Court employed an Astrologer.
Many like to point to historic events at Runnymede, on 15 June 1215, and the signing (by Royal Seal) of the Magna Carta (“The Great Charter of the Liberties”). But this Charter was written to diffuse and unwind a simmering conflict between King John and his Barons, which had already reached boiling point. At that time, England had kept possession of much of Northern France (the land of the Normans). But to do so meant the use of aggression and occasional military conflict; an activity King John had not been especially successful at.
To pay for his armies, he had to raise taxes. A collection administered by the Barons, who also supplied the military conscripts. With northern France already lost, King John attempted to regain some of that territory in 1214, but failed. He returned to London and demanded yet more taxes without first consulting his Barons. The Barons rebelled and attacked London, but there was stalemate. By the Spring of 1215 both the King and the Barons were prepared to parley. The result of this parley was the Magna Carta.
Sorry, but in the tradition of Dr. Spock, this does not fully compute! I see little to connect this event next to the River Thames at Runnymede (not withstanding its huge significance) to the granting of suffrage to ordinary men (having little or no power, other than family) 600 years later.
Remember, we do not have any Right to vote. We are simply being ‘allowed’ or permitted to vote; at the alloted time, as players in an artificial (and some would say “rigged”) system, which has been set up by those who think they are somehow more important and more regal than we are. Let us keep things in perspective. Those who actually do possess power, are allowing the lumpen masses to vent a little of their steam by occasionally placing a cross next to some candidate’s name.
The true origins of ‘universal’ suffrage lie in the the Eighteenth Century phenomenon known as “The Enlightenment”. The superstar of this ephemeral movement is of course the Frenchman, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). He is probably best known for his discourse, submitted to the Academy of Dijon entitled: The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and for his later work, The Social Contract (pub. 1762).
Rousseau greatly influenced Immanuel Kant’s work on ethics, and his political ideals were championed (sometimes violently) by both the leaders and rabble-rousers of the French Revolution.
In the USA, suffrage, the franchise, or the ‘right’ to vote was originally guaranteed (depending on your interpretation) by its Constitution. But following the Civil War (1861-65), that Constitution came under increasing attack, until it was finally perverted by the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, and then by Roosevelt’s Bankruptcy Declaration of March 9, 1933 (collectively referred to as the Emergency BANKING Relief Act); and executed via Executive Orders: 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260.
In the British case, the franchise was only ever given to neutralize (deflate) a growing movement towards revolt or revolution. Mainland Europe had already seen a number of anti-establishment uprisings;the most famous of which was the Paris Commune of 1848. The English aristocracy were genuinely fearful such calamitous sentiments would soon spread to Britain.
Other factors were at play. During the second half of the 19th century, as the British (especially English and Welsh) populations shifted from the land to ever more swollen and unhygienic cities, a political powder keg was primed and just looking for a fuse. The newly expanded railway network had expanded political awareness up and down the country, in ways not unlike the Internet’s influence on us today. Furthermore, Britain’s new industrial class (the Factory Owners) were demanding the franchise be expanded. They desperately needed social stability and peace to function. They also felt aggrieved that they lacked representation even though they were becoming the primary engine of economic growth in the Empire.
The right to vote arrived very gradually. The First Reform Act of 1832 gave greater influence to the middle class. The Second Reform Act of 1867 gave the vote to the skilled working class in the towns. Then by 1884 these same rights were extended to rural workers (peasants if you will).
The push for the right of women to vote became (in Britain) a national movement in 1872. Although it should be understood that women already had the franchise in local government, school boards, and health authorities from the 1890s. But they remained (some may argue, rightly) barred from national elections. The suffragette movement introduced militancy from 1905 onwards.
The First World War literally decimated (deaths + mutilations + psychiatric damage) an entire generation of young men. During the 1920s the political landscape in almost every European country was reconfigured either by economic calamity or by social upheaval, or by the final push to enfranchise women. In Britain, the Representation of the People Act 1928 extended the voting franchise to all women over the age of 21.
One year later, and “The Great Depression” became the catalyst for another great wave of enforced political and economic change; the remnants of which we still struggle with today.
We call it “Democracy” but the structure is still top-down or pyramidic. All the apparati and traditions of our political system were conceived (reluctantly) by the so-called elite, and then implemented by the elite in ways that best suited themselves, as a group (or class). What we have in place is “democracy” in name only … and not in substance.
When dealing with legal issues, the correct words must always be used in their proper context. That is why Lawyers are paid so handsomely. Try misusing certain key words in Court, even relatively innocuous ones, and see where that gets you.
A system revolving around established (“permanent”) political parties requires huge campaign donations that can only really be provided by corporations and uber-wealthy individuals. This on its own creates a membrane that acts as a barrier between those who seek election, and those whose ‘vote’ performs that electing. Inevitably, the present system attracts the wrong kind of people: whether male or female.
Instead of obeying the will of the electorate, our “representatives” act as if we must obey whatever policy they decide (via means foul or fair) to enact. Their arrogance is given an edge (chutzpah) because being a politician is one of the surest routes to gaining perks and long-term financial security.
You cannot have a functioning democracy when those employed to make it work come from a single class of people, or when a career is made out of the activity. In contrast, what should happen is that ordinary people are called periodically to political duty along the lines of Jury duty now. Instead of Parliamentary debate, the most contentious policy decisions should be settled by Referenda.
Politics evolved in order to reduce the numbers of men being killed as a result of competition over local resources, disagreements over priorities, or any other significant difference of opinion. Despite the endless mantra, “democracy” is not about equal rights nor fair distribution. It is merely a game whose best players are narcissists and sociopaths, and whose rules can be re-written at will by the unscrupulous, and/or power crazed.
Prior to its Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church taught:
The essence of politics is not votes, but the transmission of authority, which according to natural law can only proceed downward from God throughout society.
Clearly, we have totally lost sight of that essence. Too many voters are quite happy to attribute God-like powers to the elected, and especially to Presidents and Prime Ministers. So few realize that each of us has God-like powers within us … if only we would make the effort to cultivate them!
I am throwing this short essay “out there” so my readers can be prodded into far deeper thought and reflection than hitherto. And of course, I invite feedback and any polite comment as this will surely help other readers gain additional perspective.