Global Politics, International High Finance, Propaganda

Thursday, 6 September 2007

The United Kingdom is NOT a democracy

The UK is a Monarchy, NOT a Democracy.

The biggest lie in British politics is that Britain is a democracy. Everybody who has ever said that Britain is a democracy was lying, (and that includes me until I bothered to find out what the word actually meant.)

The UK is actually a MONARCHY , we have an aristocrat as a monarch.
("Aristocrat" literally means "Ruler who is Superior" and "Monarch" means "Ruler who is a single person."

In the UK, the head of state is a monarch whereas in a democracy the head of state is the PEOPLE. ("Democracy" means "the rule of the people.")  In a Democracy there is no higher law than vote of a majority of the people.

The UK is definitely NOT a democracy.

The word "democracy" means a form of government in which the people are the government.

The word democracy literally means "the rule of the people" and it denotes a political system in which the jobs usually done by government officials are done by groups of ordinary people.

A good example of this would be the famous trial of Socrates ( a philosopher in ancient Greece ) in which Socrates was put on trial by a group of several hundred citizens who were judge, jury and parliament all at the same time. That is to say the citizens who sentenced Socrates to death were executive, judicary and legislature all the same time and there weren't special government officials called "judges" or "members of parliament ( or senators etc)" That is what a democracy is and that is what the word actually means.

A government composed of three branches - executive, judiciary and legislature is properly called a Republic and therefore the USA is a Republic but not a Democracy. It is true that in the USA the officials of the government (of the republic) are elected by popular vote - the system is partially democratic - hence the political system can be designated a "Democratic Republic" but that doesn't make it a proper democracy because in a democracy the people ARE the government officials, they don't elect them. The USA is principally a republic and secondarily a part democracy.

Democracy is NOT government *on behalf of* the people it is government *BY* the people. A democracy ISNT voting to elect government officials to RULE over the people, because in a democracy the people ARE the government officials.

In a democracy there is no one person who is the head of state - there are many heads of state because everybody is the equally head of state - so the multiple heads of state have to decide amongst them selves. The head of state IS the assembly of all the citizens.

In contrast the USA have several layers of government above that of the people. There are government officials who have greater political power than an assembly of all the citizens. So it is not a democracy.

What most people think of as democracy is actually a democratic republic, like the USA. Voting for your rulers is exactly what a democracy ISN'T - in a democracy there is no one above the people - the people ARE the rulers.

In a democracy the only votes that you cast are referendums.  As soon as you vote for somebody to represent you have stopped being a democracy.

In a democracy everybody swears loyalty to the people.  In the UK, NOBODY swears loyalty to the people. In fact nobody swears loyalty to Parliament - not even the members of Parliament!!

In the UK every public official swears loyalty to an aristocrat who is the monarch:-
  • Members of Parliament,
  • Mayors
  • High Sherrifs and Lords Lieutenant
  • The Police,
  • Judges,
  • Magistrates,
  • The Army,
  • MI5 and 6,
  • Civil Servants,
  • The Privy Council
  • The House of Lords
  • Everyone who receives a knighthood.
Nobody swears loyalty to the people - not even members of parliament.
Nobody swears loyalty to parliament- not even members of parliament.

A BRIEF ASIDE ON THE MEANINGS OF WORDS

The essential feature of of every political system is "who is in charge." This feature is so important that we often define an entire political system in terms of who is in charge - who has the power.

In english we specify political systems using words like "democracy" and "anarchy" because in ancient greek the words for political power were:-
* "KRATOS" means 'power', and from this we get the '-cracy' words
* "cracy"

The Greek KRATOS meaning 'power', and from this we get the '-cracy' words.
The Greek ARKHOS meaning 'rule', and from this we get the '-archy' words

"ARCHY" words

-archy' words are derived from the Greek work to rule or have authority. When you put a prefix with the word archy you get the different meanings. The meanings given for these are based on the original, they may have different interpretations in today's world. Some prefixes are:

mon = one
dy = two
matri = mother
patri = father
olig = few
an = without
auto = self

Therefore:

Monarchy is the rule of one.
Anarchy is the rule of nobody
Oligarchy is the rule of a few
Hierarchy is the ruke of the high priest
Diarchy is the rule of two.
Matriarchy is the rule of mothers
Patriarchy is the rule of fathers
Autarchy is "one who rules by himself" one person possesses unlimited power
Lunarcy is the rule of the moon --(Lunacy comes from lune-archy - rule by the moon)

'-cracy' words are derived from the Greek work to govern. When you put a prefix with the word cracy you get the different meanings. The meanings given for these are based on the original, they may have different interpretations in today's world.

Some prefixes are:

demos = people
ochlos = mob
plutos = rich
aristos = best
theos = god

Therefore:

A democracy is the government of the people
A plutocracy is the government of the rich
An aristocracy is the government of the best
A theocracy is the government of the god(s)
A bureaucracy is the government of the non-elected government officials.
A meritocracy is the government of those with superior intellects (or ability).
An autocracy is the government of those from within a country.
Autocracy is rule by a single person
An ochlocracy is the government of the mob

Two usefull modern words:-

Kakistocracy is defined as “rule by the worst.”
Securitocracy - rule of the intelligence services

END OF "A BRIEF ASIDE ON THE MEANINGS OF WORDS"

It is her majestie's government and ministers are ministers of the Crown - not ministers of Parliament and definitely not ministers to the people.  They may be members of Parliament but they are Ministers of the Crown.

We have a Crown Prosecution Service and trials are called "Regina versus" so-and-so.

The universities, the professions and the BBC all have ROYAL charters.  Nobody has a parliamentary charter and absolutely nobody has a people's charter.

It is the ROYAL treasury that handles the money of the state.  The Treasury is NOT under the control of parliament.  Quite the opposite - parliament has to go cap in hand to the treasury for ALL its money.  In the house of commons sit two be-wigged and un-elected officials representing Her Majesties' Treasury.  They regularly veto bills before parliament.

It is Her Majesties Revenue and Customs who collect all the tax money. They in turn pass some of it on to the royal treasury who in turn pass some of it onto parliament..



The documentary above is an Investigation into today’s power structure in the UK and the role played by the British monarchy, it reveals the grossly disproportionate and undemocratic wealth and power of Britain’s Royal Family.

OATHS TAKEN BY POLITICIANS AND POLICE

The Parliamentary Oath, which must be taken before a duly-elected member of Parliament can take his/her seat in the House of  Commons, draw expenses and a salary, vote for/against legislative Bills, and … basically … operate fully as an MP:


I ………. swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.


Right. So a person puts their name down as a candidate in a General Election. The candidates go canvassing, making promises to that segment of the ‘Country’. They state that, if elected, they will perform such duties as to uphold the majority will of that part of the ‘Country’, namely the Constituency. Polling Day arrives, votes are cast by that ‘segment of the Country’, and a winner is declared.

Does the winner then goes to Westminster, and swear allegiance to those who voted for him/her?

Oh no! The winner goes to Westminster, does not swear allegiance to those who voted, but instead swears allegiance to some unelected Feudal Monarch.

Apparently that is called ‘democracy’.

This Feudal Monarch will open Parliament by reading a statement explaining what that session of Parliament proposes to do. During that reading, she will refer constantly to ‘My Government …”.

Apparently this is called ‘democracy’.

All ‘official printing’ that emanates for the Houses of Parliament are published by HMSO. Translation: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. (Not even “The Government Stationery Office” … and a far cry from “The State Stationery Office”)

Apparently this is called ‘democracy’.

If any UK Citizen falls foul of the laws made by these Monarchical-allegiance-swearers, are they prosecuted by the State Prosecution Service.

Oh no! They are not prosecuted by any State Prosecution Service, but instead by the Crown Prosecution Service!

Apparently this is called ‘democracy’.

Now let’s look at the oath taken by the enforcers of the laws made by these Monarchical-allegiance-swearers.

The Police Oath (varies between England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland … but is essentially the same ‘flavour’)

I, ……………, of …………. , do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve Our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of constable, without favour or affection, malice or ill will; and that I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved, and prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty's subjects; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all; the duties thereof faithfully according to the law.

Does anyone see just a few little flaws in this oath?

Primarily (of course) it is allegiance to that ‘dear old Monarch’ once again. (Oh, how the British love their Monarch!). When it gets down to the nitty-gritty (bear in mind the Monarch has her own, private, protection squad), it babbles on about ‘preventing all offences against the person and properties of her Majesty’s subjects’.

Do you get the feeling that “We, the people …” is just not a concept that enters into this whole idea? One could quite easily substitute the word ‘toys’ for ‘subjects’.

Well … yes … but it’s all ‘tradition’ … see?

Errr … no … I don’t see.

I don’t see why Members of Parliament should not swear allegiance to those who actually put them in that position.

I don’t see why Police Officers should not swear to uphold the law, keep the peace, and swear allegiance to the Country they serve, and those who actually pay their wages.

---------------------------------------------------

adapted from Veronica Chapman, July 1st, 2006







[Back to Main Index]

No comments:

Post a Comment