GLOBAL TRANSNATIONAL LAWMAKING :

THE REAL DEBATE

Britain As Democratic Self-Governing Nation

OR Britain As Undemocratic Global Province

WORLD PEACE — LIKE CHARITY — BEGINS AT HOME.

Compassion Abroad Must NOT Mean — and Does Not Have To Mean — Tyranny At Home.

THE MOST NOBLE CAUSES OF GLOBAL PEACE AND A FAIRER GLOBAL PROSPERITY ARE NOT SERVED BY BANISHING FROM PLANET EARTH, THE SIGNIFICANT GOOD OF MEANINGFUL NATIONHOOD, THE SIGNIFICANT GOOD OF MEANINGFUL DEMOCRACY, AND THE INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION AND PERSONAL LIBERTY.

UNDEMOCRATIC GLOBAL TRANSNATIONALISM

— An Anti-Holy Alliance of (Communistic) Undemocratic Left and (Fascistic) Undemocratic Right

Sadly, for most of our politicians, mainstream media and big business leaders, democracy is a dirty word. They don't even believe in telling the public the truth. This is what Sir James Goldsmith's unprecedented and history-altering intervention in British politics was all about. His Referendum Party's rallying cry of 'Let The people Decide' was based on a belief in the twin core principles of a civilised society — Truth and Democracy.


For all the contrary rhetoric down through the decades, undemocratic left and undemocratic right share much common ground :


  • Neither extreme believe in Judaeo-Christian ethics.
  • Neither extreme believe in democracy.
  • Neither extreme believe in the sovereignty of the nation state.
  • Neither extreme believe in telling the public the truth politically.
  • Neither extreme believe that their fellow human beings are even entitled to that most basic of human freedoms — the right AS INDIVIDUALS to live according to their own values and principles rather than those decreed by the state.

Therefore, although traditional foes, they have been able to work together to establish transnational institutions (such as the EU) that seek to turn the political clock, NOT FORWARD, BUT BACK, 200 years to a pre-democratic era — in hope and belief that they will one day be able to lie, plot, plan and impose their way to a 'brighter', choiceless, undemocratic global tomorrow.


Beyond their essential agreement on an undemocratic political system and an anti-Judaeo-Christian culture in place, the division of labour seems to have been allocated according to each side's supposed area of expertise — with the undemocratic left (finally conceding their former communistic economic certainties are unworkable) apparently put in charge of social policy, and the undemocratic right (always unsure of their touch, and not particularly interested in, messy emotional matters) allowed free reign on the economic front. The citizens, voters and consumers of Britain have in recent years therefore found themselves on the receiving end of effectively undemocratic lawmaking institutions, increasingly intrusive and controlling (communistic) social policies and an increasingly unintelligible and unaccountable (fascistic) privatised public sector.


With both sides (sort of) believing themselves to be preventing a third world war and ushering in an era of permanent global peace and prosperity, law-abiding British citizens have also been made to endure politicians endlessly publicly declaring their own policies (absolutely) 'right' — thereby effectively declaring any individual, organisation or political party that does not share their opinions as (absolutely) 'wrong'.

THIS IS NOT THE LANGUAGE OF DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS SEEKING TO REPRESENT AND SERVE THOSE WHO ELECTED THEM TO OFFICE. IT IS THE ABSOLUTIST RHETORIC OF A PRE-DEMOCRATIC DARK AGE.

The REAL Debate

The honest debate on Britain's relationship with transnational global lawmaking institutions is therefore NOT a debate about whether Britain will be financially better off inside or outside their sphere of influence, NEITHER is it a debate about the importance of nations agreeing to work together in new global political institutions (since Britain can engage in wide-ranging international co-operation whether signed up to binding transnational lawmaking or not). IT IS A DEBATE ABOUT MORE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS THAN ALL OF THAT.

THE REAL TRANSNATIONAL DEBATE — LIKE THE REAL EU DEBATE BEFORE IT — IS A DEBATE ABOUT NOTHING LESS THAN WHETHER BRITAIN SHOULD BE A PROVINCE IN AN UNDEMOCRATIC GLOBAL TRANSNATIONAL SUPERSTATE OR BE A SOVEREIGN, SELF-GOVERNING DEMOCRATIC NATION.

As successive UK governments (along with their media and big business allies) relentlessly seek to hardwire personal identification with undemocratic global government and its contrived, compulsory, cultural code into the very heart and mind of every British citizen (and their children), THE HONEST TRANSNATIONAL DEBATE IS ALSO, ULTIMATELY, A DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER WE, AS INDIVIDUAL BRITISH CITIZENS, HAVE THE FUNDAMENTAL, INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHT TO LIVE AS FREE PEOPLE IN A FREE LAND — speaking our own words in public places, thinking our own thoughts in our own homes, and living according to our own set of inner beliefs and principles, and not those of government — OR WHETHER WE DO NOT.

Global Transnational Lawmaking : For or Against?

Abandoning National Democracy For An UNDEMOCRATIC Globalism After World War II On Account Of The Actions Of An UNDEMOCRATIC Germany, An UNDEMOCRATIC Japan, An UNDEMOCRATIC Russia and An UNDEMOCRATIC Italy, Is NOT To 'Learn The Lessons Of History'...

...It Is To Build ANOTHER Unstable, Nations-Suppressing, Individuals-Oppressing, UNDEMOCRATIC TRANSNATIONAL EMPIRE. And REPEAT THE MISTAKES OF THE PAST.

In Many Ways, BOTH World Wars Were Caused By A LACK Of DEMOCRATIC National Self-Determination.

Whilst Nation-Based Politics CAN Become Nationalistic — It DOESN'T HAVE TO.

National Democracy Only Became Widespread AFTER World War I. National Democracy Has Therefore SCARCELY BEEN TRIED.

Nation-Based Democracy Is A GENUINE, NECESSARY, SIGNIFICANT DEFENCE AGAINST TYRANNY FROM HOME AND ABROAD...

The EU's founders and most supporters of global transnational governance today, hold to a few fundamental beliefs that provide the main basis for their belief that the EU and world institutions set-up along similar lines are the best hope for world peace and the best way to try and establish a more equal, just world :

1) Nation states pursuing narrow national economic self-interest inevitably come into conflict with other nations doing exactly the same, and history teaches that this conflict can lead to war

2) Voluntary international co-operation has already been tried in The League of Nations and it failed to prevent the horrors of World War II, so co-operation must be made compulsory, making war not only unthinkable but politically, economically and militarily impossible

3) International bodies with law-making powers over their member states are the best way to ensure a fairer distribution of the world's wealth, rather than the beggar-my-neighbour distribution produced by allowing free rein for national economic self-interest.

These are very powerful arguments that are not overcome by narrow, superficial debate about economics. Also, those pronouncing long and loud about the unambiguous folly of all things EU or UN do justice neither to the EU nor its supporters, nor to the UN nor, more importantly, to the horrors and lessons of history. Although it was NATO, NOT the EU, that kept the post-war peace (deterring aggression from a position of military strength), the EU can rightly take credit for helping to cement and institutionalise that peace. If an honest, thoughtful approach is taken to issues such as these — as it must — there can be no facile, easy answers of which one is utterly certain, all anyone can do is call it as they see it, and do so whilst remaining open to the possibility of being persuaded of the other's point of view. As one ordinary Scandinavian voter put it after voting in their referendum on the Euro, "Inside everyone who voted 'Yes', was a little 'No', and inside everyone who voted 'No' was a little 'Yes' ".

Globalists like to chide opponents about the need to learn the lessons of history and — believing themselves to be saving the world from World War III and the lives of millions from starvation — constantly claim the high moral ground in their pronouncements in the most absolutist manner. Yet meaning well is not at all the same as doing well and one of the lessons of history is that the left seem particularly prone to self-righteous yet mistaken, or worse, policies on the big issues — e.g. Communism, unilateral disarmament, etc. It may just be that the left, who are the most ardent supporters of the EU and global institutions, are also well-meaning but mistaken on this issue too.

For laudable as their motives and the ends they seek to achieve most certainly are — world peace and a fairer distribution of the world's resources — the means they have chosen to achieve them — imposition and the abolition of meaningful democracy right across the globe — are deeply, inhumanly, morally and politically corrupt. IN THE LONG-TERM, such draconian, short-sighted, illegitimate means therefore have no realistic prospect of securing the most noble ends sought.

As for moral absolutes, they are surely best left to the realm of religion, not politics, for when governing in an imperfect world full of imperfect people, discovering the most principled course doesn't even begin to justify just imposing it onto everyone else — let alone imposing it on a country, a continent or the entire world.

The EU and World Institutions Were Set Up From The Very Beginning To Merge The World's Separate Nations Into One Country

After the failure of voluntary international co-operation in the League of Nations to prevent the second world war, European and world leaders agreed that to try and prevent the national rivalries that caused the wars, Europe's separate nations must become one. This momentous and unprecedented unification process began in 1952 with the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) — with ECSC members agreeing to transfer some of their law-making powers to new Europe-wide institutions and run part of their individual economies for the benefit of a wider European economy. This act was fundamentally different to all previous international treaties, because the treaty establishing the ECSC was not just an agreement to work together and co-operate voluntarily in certain areas in the usual intergovernmental way, but an agreement to actually transfer the very right to ever again make policy in those areas.

The process of transferring political law-making powers has continued from that day to this, and always was intended to result in the creation of a new country called Europe — with the aim of making wars between member states not merely unthinkable but politically, economically and militarily impossible.

THE COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE UK'S SURRENDER

OF ITS OWN SOVEREIGNTY

And the EU itself, was just the start. The intention was and is, that the EU's transnational form of governance would steadily spread to encompass the entire world. It was Jean Monnet, architect and first Chairman of the European Coal and Steel Community (the fledgling EU), who said :


"... Like our provinces in the past, our nations today must learn to live together under common rules and institutions ... And the Community itself is only a stage on the way to the organised world of the future."

The EU Is The Template For Similar World Institutions

FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, THE PROCESS OF UNIFYING EUROPE WAS SEEN AS THE FIRST STEP AND TEST CASE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIMILAR TRANSNATIONAL LAWMAKING WORLD INSTITUTIONS.

Like the EU itself, these institutions were not to be merely intergovernmental in nature but places where global standards could be set and binding international laws agreed. The aim was, and is, to construct international institutions capable of controlling aspects of economic and social policy on a global scale in hope of encouraging greater world peace and a fairer global distribution of wealth.

This process has seen the creation of the United Nations, World Health Organisation, International Criminal Court, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organisation, and the signing of binding international treaties on the environment (such as the Kyoto and Paris Protocols). Laws made by these institutions already bind EU and UK governments in the areas of financial regulation, trade, tariffs, employment law, defence and carbon dioxide emissions, with new areas being added all the time.

GLOBAL LAWMAKING MEANS UNDEMOCRATIC LAWMAKING


A GLOBAL 'WORLD ELECTORATE' SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST, MAKING MEANINGFUL GLOBAL DEMOCRACY IMPOSSIBLE

For global transnational institutions to form a truly democratic government (i.e. one that is truly a government OF the people, that is directly elected BY the people, and governs FOR the people) there needs to FIRST be a meaningful World 'people' in existence, with a true (not artificial) sense of a shared history, identity, culture, language and destiny. There is no such Global electorate. Not even remotely.


THE AGENDA OF UNDEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS CANNOT BE INFLUENCED BY ORDINARY PEOPLE BY RIGHT — ONLY BY SPECIAL PLEADING

Undemocratic world political institutions, whatever the original intentions of those establishing them, will grant future world leaders the ability to take Britain, Europe and the World in whatever direction — politically, economically, culturally and militarily — they think best, regardless of the will and votes and protests by millions of ordinary British citizens, by tens of millions of European citizens, or by hundreds of millions of World citizens. Those supporting global transnational rule today as a way to (undemocratically and therefore illegitimately) permanently entrench their favoured lefty-liberal or fascistic policies at a world level, would do well to consider this fact — they may well end up with the complete opposite of what they hope for. Permanently. Part of the beauty and the power of REAL democracy is that governments simply don't get to permanently insulate themselves in this way from the will of the people.




EVEN IF GLOBAL TRANSNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WERE TO BEGIN HOLDING ELECTIONS — THEY WOULD STILL NOT BE DEMOCRATIC

Holding elections does not a democracy make. Communist countries and Islamic states often hold elections too!! The result is 'rigged' not by not holding elections, but by ensuring that only pre-approved candidates with pre-approved messages get to stand at all. The whole point about meaningful democracy is not that elections are held for the sake of it (electing mere spokesmen or figureheads), but that the people can peacefully force real change upon those that are making the rules for them to obey all the days of their lives.


SOME GLOBALIST POLITICIANS OPENLY ADMIT THAT THEY NO LONGER BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY

The impression that globalist politicians don't really believe in democracy at all and are already preparing European electorates for an undemocratic future is hard to avoid. Why else would former EU Commissioner, Peter Mandelson speak of "The era of pure representative democracy coming to an end?" What other sort of democracy is there? Presumably a 'democracy' where the people aren't actually represented at all !

Other influential European politicians and parties openly talk about 'melding' the state and the individual — i.e. they do not accept the right of individuals to live as they please under their own consciences but should be moulded into conformity to whatever the state decides is best for them.

And this is no distant nightmare, we have already seen this agenda surface in attempts to appoint named "State Guardians" for every child in Scotland — even the judges overruling the policy termed it 'totalitarian'. And with the Covid tyranny of recent years, the globalists' miserable, GM, dehumanising vision for all of our futures was finally revealed.

The late Tony Benn MP (a great orator and an acknowledged authority on constitutional affairs) perhaps said it best, when he said that the EU represents a move to a political system in which the people are 'managed', rather than 'represented'.

GLOBAL CENTRALLY-PLANNED ECONOMIC REDISTRIBUTION UNDERMINES NATIONAL AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY


WHILST GLOBAL, 'TOP-DOWN' ECONOMIC REDISTRIBUTION MAY AIM AT ENSURING GREATER EQUALITY, IT WILL LIKELY REWARD NATIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL IDLENESS AND CORRUPTION

The same economic problems and issues of human nature that undid communism — and that, to this day, blight most state-run enterprises across the world — are also likely to undo the globalists' heavy-handed attempts to build a new global economic system that ensures a more equal global distribution of wealth. Where there is a guaranteed equal economic outcome, regardless of merit or endeavour, where is the incentive — for nations, for state-run departments and enterprises, for corporations or for individuals — to endure the necessary, costly, difficult effort (involving long hours, personal conflict, much hardship and personal sacrifice) to drive positive change forward? There is none.

The end result may well be the establishment of an UNSTABLE economic system that UNJUSTLY permanently transfers the FAIR rewards of earnest endeavour, the application of ability and respect for the rule of law in the more advanced nations (that is, future global provinces) to less-advanced nations (future global provinces) that continue in the widespread political, economic, legal, institutional and personal 'slackness' that (notwithstanding any 'legacy of colonialism') inevitably defeat the most sincere attempts at economic reform in so many underdeveloped nations today.

Doubtless, our enlightened leaders will have a 'fix' for this issue — presumably involving some degree of economic 'regime change' right across the developing world and entailing the micro-management of ALL (for they will need to be very 'thorough'!) manner of previously free economic actors. But any solution that relies on the addition of a top-down, outside-to-in, self-expression-suppressing economic system to a top-down, outside-to-in, self-expression-suppressing political system and a top-down, outside-to-in, self-expression-suppressing public culture, won't be — OR FEEL LIKE — much of an improvement on present arrangements!!

After 40 years of transnational EU-rule in Britain, there is no need to debate the finer points of international institutional arrangements or their ability or otherwise to truly govern in a flexible way capable of adequately reflecting national cultural differences and individual aspirations. For despite all the fine words and assurances from experienced globalist politicians, Britain's membership of the transnational EU has ALREADY been DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for much damage to Britain's political system, constitution and public culture. AND THE OPPRESSIVE FEEL OF UNDEMOCRATIC GLOBALIST TRANSNATIONAL RULE IN BRITAIN HAS ALREADY BEGUN.

History Teaches That Most Undemocratic Governments Quickly Descend To Controlling and Oppressing The People

Once an undemocratic system is in place :

THOSE IN POWER ESTABLISH LAWS, RULES, PROCEDURES AND INSTITUTIONS TO ENSURE THAT THEY STAY IN POWER — in the same way that a dominant business in any market sector will deliberately create 'barriers to entry' to prevent competitors from entering the market. The long-term 'market leaders' of UK politics — the Conservative and Labour parties — for this reason, have steadfastly refused to allow proportional representation for general elections to Westminster (the only elections that really count). The more undemocratic a system has become, and the more determined its ruling clique is to remain in power after the time has come for them to go, the more traumatic is the transition (back) to democracy. THIS IS WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT TO ACT AS SOON AS A SYSTEM SHOWS ANY SIGN OF GOING UNDEMOCRATIC.

OVER TIME, A GENERAL CULTURE OF UNACCOUNTABILITY AND LACK OF TRANSPARENCY INEVITABLY SETS IN AMONGST LAWMAKERS, and they become more and more remote from the concerns and wishes and protestations of ordinary citizens — whilst simultaneously granting privileged access to influential media corporations and big business who are willing and able (for a quid pro quo) to take the politicians' message to their respective captive audiences.

THE GENERAL POPULATION BECOMES DEEPLY DIVIDED BETWEEN THOSE THAT SUPPORT UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT'S POLICIES AND THOSE THAT OPPOSE THEM — Many support the policies of undemocratic governments even though they acknowledge those governments are unaccountable and undemocratic. Many even actively believe in undemocratic government — seeing it as a way to PERMANENTLY ENTRENCH the policies they themselves (currently) happen to believe in. Over time, this personal acceptance of the undemocratic principle (whether active or passive) inevitably hardens into intolerance towards contrary opinion and a refusal to accept any political outcome (no matter how democratic) that calls for change. We have already seen this process take hold in Britain, in the constant personal abuse levelled at those opposing EU-rule and the point-blank refusal of many to accept the result of the Brexit referendum.

THE SADISTS AND THE CONTROLAHOLICS SENSING THEIR OPPORTUNITY, THEN COME OUT OF THE WOODWORK to fulfil state-endorsed roles in which they get to intrude upon, intimidate and control their fellow citizens into permanent, compliant conformity to whatever the state demands. Even the worst of tyrannies (such as Nazi Germany and Communist China) usually don't start with a sudden lurch into blatant oppression and genocide. They can and usually do start with crafty apologists explaining away every 'apparent' intrusion and imposition. For every minor act of oppression, there is always a 'reason' that can be given.

THE NATURAL TIES THAT BIND CITIZEN TO CITIZEN ARE PROGRESSIVELY UNDERMINED — for the only people with a true stake in an undemocratic system are the rulers and those willing to do their bidding (for some form of personal emotional or financial advantage). For everyone else, its a case of having to 'keep your head down' and 'look out for no.1'. This is why communist countries, in spite of their emphatic 'community' focus (before finally disintegrating altogether) have such an impoverished sense of real community — if people are not truly free to express and love themselves, they are in no position to love anyone else. This undermining of individual natural ties makes it more difficult for moderate, coordinated mass reform movements to become established. It also makes destabilising separatist movements more likely — as has already happened in Catalonia in Spain.

Even in Britain, it is EU-rule and its devolution (break-up nations) agenda that has ALREADY diluted centuries-old ties between England, Scotland and Wales.

PART OF THE SIGNIFICANT GOOD OF NATION-BASED DEMOCRACY, IS THAT IT QUITE NATURALLY (AND WITHOUT ANY NEED FOR CONSTANT CONTRIVANCE FROM GOVERNMENT) ENGENDERS A GENUINE SENSE OF TOGETHERNESS BETWEEN DISPARATE RACES AND CULTURES.

PEACE AND STABILITY — LIKE CHARITY — BEGIN AT HOME.

It is conceded that most of those currently in favour even of an effectively undemocratic European and world political system do NOT want to see a system that cruelly tyrannises over the European populace in the same way as 20th-century Communism or Nazism. Their belief is in a benevolent system of government that removes the heated verbal exchanges of open democratic debate and the wasteful doing and subsequent undoing of key policy initiatives with the election of every new government. Under such a system, where policy direction doesn't change in response to voter concerns, detailed long-term planning becomes possible — holding-out the promise of stable, efficient governance. This approach to policymaking is already increasingly in evidence in UK politics — with the increased EU-control over UK law-making of recent years has come such a narrowing in policy differences between the main parties that increasingly the talk is of the need for 'consensus' politics and the call is for policy proposals to be consistent with very long-term predetermined legislative framework documents.

However, for all the elite cliques' well-meaning certitude about self-determining nations causing wars, it is a simple fact of history that it was the UNDEMOCRATIC nations of Germany, Japan, Italy and Russia that either caused the second world war or sided with the cause of tyranny across the globe. And it was the DEMOCRATIC nations of Britain and the United States that successfully opposed them.

And looking a little deeper, it is also true to say that within those undemocratic nations, it was NOT the ordinary people in the street that clamoured for the overthrow and invasion of other self-determining nations, but the want-it-all, know-it-all, control-it-all, people-are-my-possession megalomaniacs at the helm of the political and corporate ruling class. The ordinary man or woman in the street mostly just wants to get on with THEIR OWN lives — but are invariably the ones called upon to pay the price for their overachieving, overreaching leaders' latest vainglorious 'Grand Plan'.

It is also a simple fact of history that it is undemocratic governments that tyrannise over their captive populations, NOT democratic ones. The trouble with political systems — like ours in Britain — where meaningful elections don't FORCE the people's agenda upon government, is that sooner or later, government begins to FORCE ITS OWN AGENDA upon the people.


History cautions all of us, any of us, leaders or led, that once the Rubicon to undemocratic governance is crossed, it invariably leads to ugly, old-fashioned tyranny. AND APPALLINGLY, IT INVARIABLY DOES SO, QUITE REGARDLESS OF ANY CONSCIOUS BENEVOLENT INTENTIONS THOSE INITIALLY INTRODUCING SUCH SYSTEMS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE. The no-nations transnationalists look to manipulation by mass media, (re-)education, intrusive civic control (and doubtless eventually mass genetic modification) to safeguard their no-choice, no-nation, no-religion, vision of the future — perhaps believing that the reach of new technologies and the ability to micro-manage everything and everyone will somehow magically manage to avert the disasters, the misery, the destruction and the death of previous attempts at undemocratic transnational government. But history, conscience and common sense beg to differ...

For all their mighty intellects, the elites are nevertheless prone to several weaknesses :

  • THEY ARE 'DRIVEN' IN A WAY THAT ORDINARY FOLK GENERALLY JUST AREN'T. This compels them to be ever-seeking to be the first, the best, the most influential. This hyper-ambition makes them inclined to go overboard on the 'latest big idea' doing the rounds in elite clique world — so they all pile in helter-skelter on the newest, latest, greatest, most self-important thing, terrified that they will be the ones to be 'left behind'. This hyper-ambition, coupled with the practice of routinely gathering around big, shiny tables in high, remote, exalted locations — having ditched loyalty to country and the nation of people that elected them to office — and armed with a ruthless determination (for the window of opportunity is 'now') to globally 'improve the affairs of men', can't but cause them to 'plain get carried away with themselves' and quickly descend into ugly, old-fashioned, over-involved, dehumanising control-freakery.


  • AN OVERRELIANCE ON THEIR STRONGEST SUIT — THEIR SIGNIFICANT INTELLECTUAL ABILITY — can incline them to become too abstract in their thinking, to take too superficial a view of life's deeper issues and consequently to blur life's fundamental moral, psychological and emotional boundaries : causing them to place insufficient emphasis on the real-world practical aspects and the deeper human emotional implications of their policies. Being overly-enamoured with the tightly-focused logic of their thinking can also cause them to overlook broader themes. These 'blind spots' can make them prone to propose 'solutions' that are simultaneously too superficial, too narrow and too extreme — for e.g. the inhuman abominations of Communism and Fascism. Their latest 'big idea', Globalism, is also the product of this shallow, blinkered way of thinking about politics and about the human condition — and so repeats many of the mistakes of Communism and Fascism.

  • PERSONAL AMBITION AND A FOCUS ON 'BEING SUCCESSFUL' AT ALL COSTS, inclines them to adopt a view of politics and of the economy that is so focused on money that it crowds out an appreciation of the importance of the non-financial aspects of politics, economics and of life.

  • SUBSCRIBING TO A 60s RELATIVISTIC VIEW OF MORALITY — that fails to adequately acknowledge fundamental emotional, psychological, moral and spiritual distinctions. When coupled with a determination to 'improve society', this inevitably spawns a great slew of self-righteous, intrusive, corrupting social policies that damage individuals, families and the whole of society.

  • A FAILURE TO RESPECT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PERSONAL AND SOCIETAL SPHERES — so that society-level political aspirations and sociological truths are simply applied directly at the psychological level of the individual. Whilst their ability to attend to and control details makes them successful in business and capable managers in the workplace, in politics (which is an entirely different sphere) this ability coupled with an over-eagerness to perform 'good works' on an ever-grander scale — in the lives of others — almost inevitably causes them to run ahead of life's true moral dimension and transgress others' personal boundaries. Inner pushy-parent 'aspirations' and motivations, and a good works-based notion of religion are just lifted and imposed onto and into the lives of other freedom-loving, law-abiding adults — spawning controlling, dehumanising policies that instil a debilitating communistic self-displacement in citizens.


  • A CLOSED-MINDED, SNEERING DISMISSAL OF TRUE RELIGION — that leaves most prone to take too superficial a view of human existence itself, too high a view of themselves (and like-minded peers) and too low a view of everyone else. Acknowledging no greater authority in life (or the entire universe) than themselves, this almost inevitably leads to policy-making that blithely and blindly reconciles good with evil.

And like the rest of us, they too are prone to the fallen (at times, being honest, that 'Oh So Fallen') human nature that afflicts us all. Human nature being what it is — a funny old, ugly old beast — it is JUST NOT SENSIBLE to give that beast too much power. No matter in whom that beast resides ...

The simple truth is, undemocratic government is so fundamentally dehumanising that even with benevolent and capable leaders at the helm, undemocratic global lawmaking would still wreak its inevitable havoc on the powerless ordinary citizen by :

- STRIPPING ORDINARY CITIZENS OF THE INESTIMABLE DIGNITY OF BEING COUNTED WORTHY OF APPOINTING THE GOVERNMENT MAKING THE LAWS THEY ARE EXPECTED TO OBEY THEIR ENTIRE LIVES and instead assigning them the political status of permanent political infants, capable only of being told what to do.

- INDOCTRINATING AND PRESSURING PEOPLE TO YIELD THEIR ALLEGIANCE TO RULE-MAKING BODIES OVER WHICH THEY HAVE NO MEANINGFUL CONTROL. This is to pressure people to betray their own legitimate self-interest and live in an unnatural, cultic mode of outside-to-in self-suppression. It is a cultic call to self-betrayal (the sense of 'perviness' encountered as one considers yielding active allegiance to EU-rule, is our heart and deep emotions alerting us to a danger of which our pressured, propaganda-saturated head is unaware). And self-betrayal is no more sure a foundation for a political system or society than it is for personal relationships — with either oneself or with a life partner.

- DENYING ADULT HUMAN BEINGS THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND STRESS-BUSTING, HAPPINESS-HELPING FREEDOM TO GOVERN THEMSELVES, THEIR FAMILIES AND THEIR AFFAIRS ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN PERSONALITIES, DICTATES AND CONSCIENCE. History shows that people just do not do well under undemocratic political structures, tending to become passive, depressed and deprived of their own natural motivations and affections. Worse yet, as the unyielding, unhearing tyrannical spirit of undemocratic government comes to dominate the entire culture, the growth of unyielding, unhearing and tyrannical character traits are encouraged within the people. People NEED to be free.

The trouble with government so stable that it never does nor can change in response to citizens' demands, is that no matter how thoroughly modern and benevolent the intentions of the policymakers, their efforts cannot fail to be both perceived and received as ugly, old-fashioned tyranny.

WORSE YET, ONE OF THE LESSONS OF HISTORY IS THAT ONCE GOVERNMENT CROSSES THE RUBICON TO UNDEMOCRATIC POLITICS, BENEVOLENT AND CAPABLE LEADERSHIP DOESN'T REMAIN IN PLACE FOR VERY LONG. THE ILLICIT 'OPPORTUNITIES' AFFORDED BY UNDEMOCRATIC, UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT DO NOT GO UNNOTICED. THE MOVERS AND SHAKERS, THE WHEELERS AND DEALERS, THE GREEDY, GRUBBY MERCHANTS OF MISERY, ORGANISED CRIME SYNDICATES AND THE PATHOLOGICALLY CONTROLLING, SEIZE THEIR CHANCE. AND THE EROSION OF BENEVOLENT LEADERSHIP — AND THE DESCENT INTO BLOODY TYRANNY — BEGINS.

IT IS A PLAIN FACT OF HISTORY THAT UNDEMOCRATIC LEADERS AND GOVERNMENTS ARE THE ONES THAT TEND TO TYRANNY, NOT DEMOCRACIES. THIS SEEMS TO BE THE CASE EVEN WHEN INITIALLY BENEVOLENT LEADERS SEEM TO GENUINELY WANT TO SERVE AND HELP THE PEOPLE. OVER TIME, SUCH SYSTEMS INVARIABLY DESCEND FROM IGNORING PEOPLE'S WISHES, TO DESPISING PEOPLE FOR HAVING 'OPINIONS', BEFORE FINALLY — AND WITH INCREASING FORCE — FLAT-OUT SIMPLY REQUIRING CERTAIN OPINIONS AND ACTS OF THE PEOPLE.

The EU and Undemocratic Supra-Nationalism — A Destabilizing Overreaction To World War II

Meaning well is not at all the same as doing well, and it is a simple fact of both international history and individual experience that people do not do well under intrusive, controlling government — never have done, never will do. Cult-like (and whatever the benevolent conscious intentions of those imposing undemocratic regimes), a public domain suffused with ubiquitous 'do this', 'think that', 'be the other' injunctions, coupled with permanent personal economic and political powerlessness, over time, undermines and then displaces people's natural hopes, aspirations, feelings and wishes, impoverishing citizens in their very selves — making for a sadder and weaker, not stronger, British, European and world society. ONCE THE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE IS VIOLATED BY THOSE IN GOVERNMENT, THERE IS ALWAYS A PRICE TO PAY.

Whatever the original intentions of those establishing them, undemocratic world political institutions will grant future world leaders the ability to take Britain, Europe and the World in WHATEVER direction — politically, economically, culturally and militarily — they think best, regardless of the will and votes and protests by millions of ordinary British citizens, by tens of millions of European citizens, or by hundreds of millions of World citizens. Those supporting global transnational rule today as a way to (undemocratically and therefore illegitimately) permanently entrench their favoured lefty-liberal or fascistic policies at a world level, would do well to consider this fact — they may well end up with the complete opposite of what they hope for. Permanently. Part of the beauty and the power of REAL democracy is that governments simply don't get to permanently insulate themselves in this way from the will of the people.

It is also no coincidence that undemocratic governments follow a similar path — even when initially benevolent leaders seem to genuinely want to serve and help the people. Sooner or later, having crossed the Rubicon of sidelining truth and democracy in pursuit of 'a higher good', even this level of imposition soon tends to not be sufficient to allay leaders' concerns about the malign influence of individual self-determination — that forever threatens to impede the progress of their own particular 'Grand Plan'. The 'necessity' therefore tends to quickly become that of hard-wiring the solution into 'problem areas', then into all of civic life and eventually directly and with increasing force into individuals themselves...

...THE TROUBLE WITH UNDEMOCRATIC GRAND PLANS, AND THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THEM, IS THAT THEY NEVER KNOW WHEN TO QUIT.

A position of favouring a merely intergovernmental approach to European and world politics is to remain open to the charge of adopting a policy that in the form of the League of Nations failed to prevent the 2nd World War. Yet looking to cosy compulsory conformity to an overarching supranational authority as a way to guarantee that nations and individuals only make good choices has also been tried before, repeatedly, in the form of communism.

'Learning the lessons of history' means accepting that communistic, top-down, 'like it or not', 'we know we're right' politics not only DOES NOT WORK, but was DIRECTLY responsible for TENS OF MILLIONS OF DEATHS in the 20th century — a diabolical, genocidal body count that far exceeds that of all the other inhuman, genocidal political ideologies and both world wars combined. Learn the lessons of history? Yes, let's.

Sadly, tragically, given we are now in the era of a ubiquitous mass media (dominated by unreconstructed 'communists-lite') ever-seeking to manipulate people's hearts and minds into conformity with the flat-earth, flat-people vision they have decided is best for all our futures (whether we want that future or not), it is possible that most people will eventually come to accept their new status as infantile, modern-day political serfs in a former democratic land.

The global listless, dead-eyed peace that would then prevail might be the long-sought victory of some, but it would be a tragedy for the human race of barely less destructive proportions than world war III itself.

As for guarantees and certainties, there are none.

It is surely time those so intent on displacing the freedom, the life and the love out of the rest of us came to accept that immutable law of human existence — past, present and future — before its too late.


ITS NOT SELF-GOVERNING NATIONS THAT CAUSE WARS, BUT ANTI-DEMOCRATIC LEADERS, ANTI-DEMOCRATIC NATIONS AND ANTI-DEMOCRATIC ORGANISATIONS (LIKE THE EU AND GLOBAL TRANSNATIONAL LAWMAKING INSTITUTIONS) THAT REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND DESIRE OF OTHER NATIONS AND OF INDIVIDUALS, TO GOVERN THEMSELVES.

"Fundamental freedoms are not an ideology. Human dignity requires freedom as much as it requires health and economic opportunities."

— Ernesto Araujo, Brazil's former minister of foreign affairs

IT WOULD BARELY SEEM POSSIBLE, BUT BY DECIDING TO DISMANTLE MEANINGFUL NATIONAL DEMOCRACY ACROSS THE GLOBE AND UNDERMINE INDIVIDUALITY ITSELF, EUROPEAN AND WORLD LEADERS HAVE ACTUALLY SUCCEEDED IN OVERREACTING TO WORLD WAR II. THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONS OF EUROPE AND ACROSS THE WORLD AND THEIR PEOPLES ARE BEING MADE TO SUFFER PERMANENT POLITICAL AND PERSONAL IMPOVERISHMENT FOR THE EXCESSES COMMITTED ONLY BY AN UNDEMOCRATIC GERMANY, AN UNDEMOCRATIC ITALY AND AN UNDEMOCRATIC JAPAN.

IT IS ALSO HARD TO AVOID THE SUSPICION THAT, RATHER THAN BEING (MERELY) AN OVERREACTION TO TRAGIC EVENTS, THE USUAL SUSPECTS — THE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, EVERYONE-MY-RESPONSIBILITY, CONTROLLING LEFT AND THE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, EVERYONE-MY-POSSESSION, CORPORATE RIGHT — HAVE JUST CYNICALLY USED (EVEN) WORLD WAR II ITSELF, WITH ALL ITS HORRENDOUS SUFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES, SIMPLY TO FURTHER THEIR OWN ENDS : THE FAR LEFT, TO EXTEND THEIR MISERABLE, SOUL-CRUSHING, IDEOLOGICAL CONTROL-FREAKERY TO THE ENTIRE WORLD; AND THE (FINANCIAL) FAR RIGHT TO PERPETUATE THEIR LATEST INSTITUTIONALISED LEGAL SCAM TO PERMANENTLY EMBED THEMSELVES AND THEIR MATES AT THE FINANCIAL TOP TABLE (NOW THAT THE MONEY-FOR-(ALMOST)-NOTHING, WEALTH-CREATION 'GAME' HAS MOVED ON FROM COLONIALISM, RACKETEERING NATION-BASED FINANCIAL SECTORS AND FAKE NO-CHANGE DEMOCRACY).

EVEN AS GOVERNMENTS IN THE UK AND BEYOND SEEK TO BUILD A TRULY ENDURING GLOBAL PEACE, AND A ROBUST AND JUST GLOBAL PROSPERITY, THEIR APPROACH SHOULD BE, MUST BE, ONE OF DEMOCRATS AND INDIVIDUALISTS FIRST AND LAST — BELIEVING THAT NO MATTER HOW TERRIBLE THE MISTAKES OF HISTORY AND NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE PRIZE, THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THESE NOBLE ULTIMATE ENDS IS MOST LIKELY TO BE ACHIEVED, AND SHOULD ONLY EVER BE ATTEMPTED, BY DEMOCRATIC MEANS THAT RESPECT THE FUNDAMENTAL INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS AND OF NATIONS (OF INDIVIDUALS) TO LIVE AS THEY PLEASE.

WHETHER YOU LOOK AT HISTORY AROUND THE WORLD OR PRESENT-DAY REALITIES IN BRITAIN, THE SAME MESSAGE IS EVIDENT : UNDEMOCRATIC POLITICS UNDERMINES PEACE AND PROSPERITY AND MOST OF THE THINGS THAT MAKE FOR LIFE, NOT HELP ESTABLISH THEM.

THIS IS WHAT OPPOSITION TO THE EU AND GLOBAL GOVERNMENT IS ALL ABOUT — NOT WANTING TO PRESERVE EMPIRES WILLINGLY RELINQUISHED LONG AGO, A DESIRE TO CONTINUE PURSUING A NARROW NATIONAL ECONOMIC SELF-ADVANTAGE, OR PRESERVE EXISTING RACE-BASED MAJORITIES WITHIN NATIONS.

ITS ABOUT A DESIRE TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY FREE AS AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN PERSON.

ITS ABOUT THE BELIEF THAT FREER PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER PEOPLE.

AND ABOUT THE BELIEF THAT DEMOCRACY — AND THAT MEANS NATIONAL DEMOCRACY (FOR ALL ITS FAULTS AND THE FAULTS OF GOVERNMENTS AND THE FAULTS OF THE GOVERNED) — IS THE BEST LONG-TERM GUARANTOR OF PEACE, AND PROSPERITY, AND OF FREEDOM, AND OF HAPPINESS.

FOR ALL RACES AND FOR ALL CULTURES.

FOR BRITAIN.

FOR EUROPE.

AND FOR THE WORLD.

Amen.