The illusion of democracy has been successfully projected for decades even as democracy itself has been progressively eroded. All the trappings and symbols have been left in place, but have been either corrupted or bypassed. We still traipse to the ballot box and, very occasionally, we manage to deliver a message that is powerful enough to overwhelm the defenses of the ruling class. Brexit and the subsequent Brexit Party triumph in the 2019 European elections in the UK was one such message, the election of Trump another.
Ironically, those protest votes may have jolted our 'leaders' out of their complacency and persuaded them that they needed to move their timetable up. But, (in the meantime) as we saw during Trump's presidency, there are many ways to undermine a Chief Executive who refuses to get with the programme, choice of the people be damned. Likewise, the result of the Brexit referendum also revealed a hardcore political resistance movement which conducted a guerrilla campaign designed to subvert the 'Yes' vote and keep the UK in the EU.
Ultimately, the Remoaners were forced to accept the inevitable – after Boris's landslide in the 2019 general election delivered yet another resounding declaration of the people's intent – but it may very well be that this victory is of the Pyrrhic variety. A closer examination of the Brexit Deal is necessary if one is to speak with authority on its pros and cons, but the mere fact that those most vehemently opposed to it have not been petulantly stamping their feet and wailing hysterically, as is their wont, is in and of itself suspicious. And there is still talk of a return to the EU, which may yet happen, given that the public are being gaslit into a belief that the country's current economic woes are in some way inextricably linked to our exit.
The control mechanisms that are available to the elites are many and varied. They exist in contravention of established norms and are designed to keep the actual exercise of power as far away from the voting public as possible. Misdirection is important, as is curating the bounds of acceptability. Media plays the dominant role is setting the societal guardrails and in resetting the political needle firmly in the direction of the collectivist Left.
This is not a battle that they are winning. Trust in the mainstream media has cratered to the extent that, even two and a half years ago, 58% of Americans agreed with the statement that the media “are truly the enemy of the people”.(1) That sentiment will be even more widely accepted now. Their malfeasance has simply become too brazen and alternative platforms are now too visible.
That's why the corporate world are doing all the can to destroy Twitter/X. When the state was exercising covert control by getting Dorsey and co to ban anyone it disagreed with, all was well in the elites' world. If people didn't even realize that what they were getting was censored, all the better. The elites had successfully suborned the public square and their AI search engine algorithms could do the rest.
But when Musk acquired Twitter, matters soon went awry and they are still going further awry – Musk telling Disney CEO Bob Iger to “Go fuck yourself” when Iger and others withdrew their advertisements over a fake anti-Semitism furore is the clearest signal yet.(2) But, just in case that jibe didn't penetrate the woke echo-chamber, he then kicked sand in liberals' faces by reinstating Alex Jones. If I were Musk, I'd be enhancing my personal security detail right about now.
At present, whether the ruling class realises it or not, they can still control the orthodoxy but not the narrative. They can get the mainstream to publish what they want, but they can no longer wholly suppress alternative sources, nor can they erase the ever-widening gap between what people are told and what their lying eyes actually record. The ruling class cannot, in sum, control what people believe but, so far, they have been able to (largely) control speech. But, even if they succeed in suppressing all outward manifestations of dissent, people will still not be able to unsee what they've seen.
There is another not-so-subtle technique at work in society at large. For some time now (I'd say since the late nineties and the ascension of Blair), by rewarding that which is corrupt, unworthy, mediocre, self-serving and downright wrong, the establishment has initiated a sequence that, if it allowed to run for long enough, will complete the demoralization of the West. Because what would be the point of good people preaching the worth of virtue when virtue is actively unrewarded?
If getting ahead, achieving success and prosperity is no longer the reward for qualities like hard work, collegiality and honesty, then how is learning the value of virtuous qualities in any way helpful? Some who still believe have undoubtedly already switched gears. More will inevitably follow. Eventually, only the incurably stubborn will remain; their disciples will be obliged to find a new way to measure success. There will undoubtedly be a tipping point. If the decay is to be reversed by a population that can no longer abide the increasingly nonsensical morality imposed by the useful, wokeist idiots then we will know it when we see it. If we slide further into the moral abyss, we may not.
The gradual has definitely been replaced by the sudden. Until Brexit, the deterioration in living standards and in the togetherness of the West was discernible, but creeping. It was still possible to have at least a little faith in some institutions or individuals in political circles. We were plagued by the familiar; minor corruption and endemic incompetence. Or so we thought.
But somebody somewhere flicked a switch in late 2019 and nothing has been the same since. It has also become apparent that what we believed to be relatively benign symptoms of imperfect democracy were actually preparatory steps that needed to be put in place before the final push. The ongoing destruction of the middle class, the homogenization of the political class, the oppressor/oppressed dialectic, the criminalisation of opinions and the continuing imposition of globalization at any cost were all constituent parts of a framework that could be converted into a cage.
We now know that much of the world around us isn't as we thought it was. We know that fakeness is everywhere and that our civilization is far more fragile than we had believed. We know that there is an incestuous relationship between government and the corporate boardroom and that, rather than being stubbornly wrong-headed about 'climate change', together they are seeking to cynically bludgeon us into an underclass with their supposed antidotes. We should also know that we cannot trust a single thing that the ruling class say.
Except 'we' will not include as many people as we might have hoped. Another of the elites' recent scams, the plandemic, has revealed that there exists a significant rump of bullying authoritarians, who appear to have no qualms about getting their own way, regardless. These people cannot be ignored, because they were (and will be) the shock troops of the ruling class; they will seek to impose the orthodoxy. And because (as you may by now be tired of hearing) politics is downstream from character, they are most populous on the left of the political spectrum. Not only are they domineering and autocratic, they are clearly ideological, because they do not learn from experience.
Figure 1
It is notable that, in March 2020, Democrats and Republicans alike had swallowed the Kool-Aid, but by February 2021 Republicans were much more likely to have ameliorated their opinions. 'Vaccination' also serves as a useful proxy for fealty to the orthodoxy versus the exercise of critical faculties.
Figure 2
Democrats, as a group, were remarkably censorious. The 'pandemic' brought out the worst in them and they just couldn't let things be. As late as January 2022, 78% of Democrats approved of Biden's proposed 'vaccine' mandate, 55% supported fines for the unvaxxed, 59% supported home confinement, 48% believed that the feds should be able to fine those that even questioned the efficacy of the 'vaccines' and, while 71% of voters strongly opposed a requirement to 'temporarily' live in a designated facility if they refused to get 'vaccinated' (until they saw the light, presumably), 45% of Democrats thought that was just fine and dandy.(3) Unsurprisingly,
“...President Biden’s strongest supporters are most likely to endorse the harshest punishments against those who won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine. Among voters who have a Very Favorable impression of Biden, 51% are in favor of government putting the unvaccinated in “designated facilities,” and 54% favor imposing fines or prison sentences on vaccine critics. By contrast, among voters who have a Very Unfavorable view of Biden, 95% are against “designated facilities” for the unvaccinated and 93% are against criminal punishment for vaccine critics.”(4)
In fact, as of September 2023, 84% of Democrats are still dumb enough to think that the 'vaccines' are very safe, compared to 33% of Republicans.(5) Perhaps half of Democrats (or 20%-25% of populations in the West) are not going to be in the trenches with us; they'll be using drones to drop ordnance on us, instead. They either believe the party line or pretend to believe it because doing so allows them to indulge their tyrannical side. They will never rail against control – they will revel in it, even as it grinds them down, too. As long as the independent-minded also suffer, I think they'll find that an acceptable price to pay.
Interestingly, Independents consistently evince beliefs that are far closer to Republican thought than Democrat. As I noted last time around, conservatives outnumber liberals in 47 of the 50 US states. Add to that dynamic the likelihood that Independents (who must make up the majority of so-called moderates) are considerably more likely to lean Right than Left, and the puzzle that is American general elections deepens. Gallup Polling offers the following unlikely explanation:
“When considered with party identification, these ideology findings highlight the role that political moderates currently play in joining with liberals to give the Democratic Party its numerical advantage.”(6)
In short, it seems that 75%-80% of the US population needs to be controlled by the political class and the rest are would-be jailers with a decidedly Leftist world-view. The latter grouping is, naturally, the most vocal also; 'naturally', because those who wish to impose their will on others will necessarily be noisy. They can be relied upon to amplify the collectivists' agenda.
But the rest of us still need to be corralled. The key aim of the ruling class is to retain power at all costs. The people must not be allowed to interfere with that task, but it's best that they don't know that. And, most of the time, it hasn't much mattered whether a government is ostensibly from the Left, Center or Right. (I suspect that, in the US at least, it is now vital for the Democrats to be in the box seat from here on in, partly because the pace of change the elites require probably couldn't be maintained by a party that is nominally right of center.)
This is because the first trick in the book is gaslighting the public about who and what it is that they are voting for. Say we are told that we are voting for a Center Right party, which is perhaps a reasonable descriptor of our political views. In the Netherlands, that would entail voting for the party of Mark Rutte, the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). In Germany, it would involve voting for the Christian Democratic Union (CDU).
That would be the same Mark Rutte who has ruled in coalition with the Labour Party and the Democrats D66 and was prepared to govern in concert with other Leftist parties rather than with the two parties to the Right of him. The man who tried to force through the collectivist Net Zero policies that would have seized 3,000 farms; who suggested that the EU should be disbanded and then reformed without Poland and Hungary, so that unelected bureaucrats would no longer have to deal with elected governments which disagreed with them.(7) Merkel, of course, is the architect of unlimited, illegal immigration from the Third World and an EU enthusiast. Neither are remotely conservative in their overall philosophies.
Previously, conservatives would hold views that were genuinely right-of-center – free markets, lower taxes, smaller government, national pride, family values rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. No genuinely conservative party would be in favor of EU membership, for instance, for the simple reason that the act of bending the knee to an unelected Commission which robs countries of their national sovereignty and whose declared end-goal is a federal Europe, the collectivist's wet dream, is abhorrent. The ethos of the EU is the antithesis of conservatism.
The same trick is at play with political parties. Genuine conservatives are rarer than hen's teeth. The closest approximations are to be found on what the liberals always refer to as the Far Right. The parties of Viktor Orbán in Hungary (Fidesz), Marine Le Pen in France (National Rally), Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and the AfD in Germany. These supposed radicals share an opposition to unfettered immigration, but only the PVV wants to leave the EU.
Le Pen is an economic Leftist, who specifically doesn't want to leave the EU or drop the euro. Wilders holds Leftist views about healthcare, social services and care for the elderly. Even the AfD are economic liberals, although they are Eurosceptic, in favor of deregulation and a more limited state and anti-climate change. Orbán is the most reliably conservative, but no more than that. And even he has to wrestle with his EU overlords.
In short, the liberal establishment have moved the goalposts to the Left. Traditional conservative views are now Far Right and the Center-Right is now Centrist or Center-Left. It's an inevitable consequence of a character trait that is present in Leftists everywhere; they are imbued with hubris and, because they are unable to apportion any credit to their opposition, they must characterize them as unreasonable and extreme. Plus, of course, in doing so they are also realigning the Overton Window.
Fifth Columnists are also numerous – those who represent themselves as true conservatives, but who morph into Centrists or Leftists once they achieve power. The Republican Party is groaning under the weight of its RINO members, the Conservatives in the UK are likewise littered with turncoats and it appears that Giorgia Meloni of Italy may well be another. Her primary campaign promise was that she would curtail the illegal immigrant invasion of military-aged men. She hasn't; in fact, it's worse than it's ever been.(8) And the press has given her a free ride, a sure sign that she isn't cutting the conservative mustard. Instead, she's allowing herself to be bribed by the EU to the tune of €191.5 billion in loans.
“The tale of Meloni is a parable of our times: a leader, once the voice of her people’s hopes, finds herself ensnared in a dance with globalist power structures far greater than herself, forces that orchestrate the political ballet; the semblance of choice was just an illusion. Italian populists, like a broken and betrayed lover, learn the truth too late. Those destined to truly disrupt the system are never granted the keys to the kingdom.”(9)
The parties themselves are responsible for nominating political candidates and, even when there is a supposedly competitive primary process, those not favoured by the establishment can simply be starved of funds. Both McConnell and McCarthy were guilty as charged last time around. McCarthy used money from FTX (and others), the crypto exchange that has just gone spectacularly bust due to the self confessed corruption of its CEO and others, to target not only the primary elections in a bid to select Establishment RINOs over America First candidates, but also – unforgivably – Republican candidates who made it through to the election itself.
“America First candidates and others who couldn’t be controlled by the establishment or, more importantly, couldn’t be bribed into supporting McCarthy for speaker, were sold down the river. The seats they were fighting for were surrendered to Democrats, and conservatives “in the know” spoke of a “power-sharing” agreement between McCarthy and Democrat leadership, which now appears to be materializing.”(10)
The same betrayal occurred in the Senate races. McConnell (the Senate Minority Leader) talked about unacceptable candidates (code for MAGA types) and refused to fund the campaigns of at least three candidates for Senate seats, all of whom lost. Even Ted Cruz was unhappy about this;
“...Masters said he would vote against Mitch McConnell. And so Mitch would rather be leader than have a Republican majority. If there’s a Republican who can win who’s not going to support Mitch, the truth of the matter is he’d rather the Democrat win.”(11)
If the public are still not taken in by these ruses, the next tactic is to cheat in the election. With a mail-in ballot regimen allied to online voting machines, this can be accomplished with relative ease. Trump and Bolsonaro both fell victim to electoral coups. We know that Americans weren't happy; neither were millions of Brazilians.
Figure 3
Not that it made any difference in either case. The red flags surrounding Trump's 2020 defeat are becoming increasingly well-documented. The theft of the Brazilian election is, if anything, even more egregious.(12) The Right won the other elections on the ballot, but not the Presidency.(13) The US is a superpower and Brazil is the largest country in South American with just under 200 million citizens, but some banana republics have more secure elections. Both were deposed by Far Leftists and both are now being victimized by the regimes that displaced them. Both regimes are illegitimate, but they are, nonetheless, in power.
Cheating is a widespread phenomenon. Colombia recently held recent elections that defied expectations,(14) and the French election of 2017 witnessed a record breaking 4.2 million (12%) spoiled ballots.(15) The presidential election in 2022 was a repeat performance, with vast numbers of unusable Le Pen ballots.(16) The Spanish elections, in June 2023, featured mail-in ballots and another election that defied expectations. The Far Left, in office since 2019, were expected to take a shellacking, with the main opposition party an average of 6% ahead in the opinion polls.
In combination with the other conservative party, the Right was expected to win 47%-50% of the vote, 20% more than the socialists. It didn't happen. The conservatives came up six seats short and the gap between the two main parties was a measly 1.4%. The socialists, despite being 49 seats in arrears, formed the next government.
This is yet another trick that the Left has up its sleeve. They are unscrupulous enough to make a deal with all sorts of political opponents, unless they are conservative. Similarly, the Basque and Catalan separatist parties in Spain (and the Green parties and other fringe movements) are willing to ally with Leftists, but rarely – if ever – with conservatives. Hence, the Right won the most seats in the recent elections in Poland, Spain and the Netherlands. In the latter two, there are ostensibly two conservative parties. Despite this, they'll be lucky to form a government in any of them.
In Poland, the wordsmithing has reached epic proportions. Wikipedia would have us believe that there is only one Leftist party and four Right Wing parties, on each in the Center, Center Right, Right and Far Right. This is nonsense. The Civic Coalition, allegedly Center Right and the second biggest party, has formed a coalition with the Third Way (Center/Center Right) and a coalition called The Left. The head of this coalition is Donald Tusk, known to Brits as the EU mandarin who was intent on making Britain's exit from the EU as painful as possible. His party put up taxes and want to end the use of coal because of 'climate change'.
In the Netherlands, Wilders won 37 seats; that puts him 12 ahead of the next best coalition of the Greens and Labour. Rutte's sham conservatives are next with 24 seats, followed by a new party, New Social Contract (which looks to be centrist) with 20 seats. Seventy six seats are needed for a majority. One might think that these three parties ought to be able to find enough common ground to form a government, even though two of them lack any rue conservative instincts. Nearly two-thirds of Dutch voters want them to, adding the 7 seat BBB Farmers' Citizens Movement to the mix.(17) They clearly want to bloody the noses of the elite. So, eighty eight seats ought to do it.
However, three weeks have passed and there has yet to be a deal. This is likely the result of a policy that is common throughout Europe; the cordon sanitaire. Leftists, Centrists and fake conservatives team up and swear never to form a coalition with genuine Right Wing parties. Hence , New Social Contract say they won't govern with Wilders. The VVD say they won't either. If these two get the opportunity to form a coalition with GL/PvdA and D66, both left of center (despite what they may claim), they will have 78 seats. Only 26% of the public are in favor of this option.(18) We shall see how many concessions Wilders has to make in order to form a government.
But the cordon sanitaire has been a feature of many European democracies, occasionally excluding Communist parties in Easter Europe, but almost exclusively disfavouring the 'Far Right'. Refusing to work with Right Wing parties has resulted in socialist coalitions (whether acknowledged or not) in most of Europe. The EU itself is also guilty of the practice, as it wants nothing to do with those same parties.
Banning conservative parties from government is all of a piece with Leftist autocracy, because it is redolent of an attitude that infers that they know better than the voters, although it seems to have become time limited. The advance of the Right (in Europe, in particular) is gradually undermining the policy in France and Sweden. Germany looks to be the most staunch defender of the policy – there is no sense that the condemnation of the AfD will be tempered. Indeed, even though the party now polls higher than the three parties in government,(19) the state spy agency targets them (20) and the government mulls whether to ban them.(21)
The need for Right Wing parties to form coalitions with those of a more Centrist persuasion has the potential to undermine their policy platforms. But, having seemingly done the hard part, one then has to get stuff done. Wilders, in particular, is going to have his work cut out, as most of his policy positions run counter to EU orthodoxy. And the EU likes to throw its weight around, as Orbán can testify. Usually, this revolves around a specious argument about concerns for the 'rule of law', which then justifies the withholding of funds - €22 billion in Hungary's case.(22) They will go after Wilders just as hard.
As previously mentioned, the personal attack is a favored tactic because it can be effective (certainly in terms of the time and money that is wasted in combating it) and it is profoundly satisfying to the Leftists who launch them. Trump has spent millions on his defense in six separate court cases, with more to come, and it'll likely be in vain; the deck is stacked against him and the administration only has to win once. Bolsonaro has been banned from running for political office until 2030, for the crime of questioning the grossly fraudulent 2022 election.(23)
Netanyahu has been repeatedly snubbed by Obama and Biden and indicted by his own Attorney General for fraud, amongst other crimes. That case has been rumbling on for four years and is thought to be weak to non-existent. There is also clear evidence that the Israeli military chain of command was fully in the know about Hamas' training activity for months prior to October 7th, yet they did nothing to prepare.(24) There is now talk of a similar scenario developing in the West Bank.(25) The anemic military response (the Prime Minister is not Commander-in Chief in Israel) is also noteworthy and difficult to understand. And, in the Netherlands, Wilders has been living under police protection since 2004.(26)
But these travails are small potatoes when one considers the possible assassination of the Polish President, Lech Kaczyńsk and 95 others in a plane crash near the city of Smolensk in April 2010. The official version is that thick fog was responsible; that would take no account of the distribution of the wreckage and the 850 positive explosives signals that were apparently found on the wreckage.(27) The President was a conservative and many in his Law and Order party think the Russians are the culprits, with some encouragement from Tusk.(28) Ironically, it is Kaczyńsk's twin brother that Tusk has replaced as Prime Minister. Tusk was also Prime Minister at the time of the assassination and was the man that Kaczyńsk had defeated in the presidential race in 2005.
As with Italy and Hungary (and, no doubt, the Netherlands, in short order), the EU also wields the big stick in Poland. Tens of billions of euros have been frozen over the same 'rule of law' issues that are the excuse of choice. Charting an independent, sovereign course guided by Christian values was never going to appeal to the EU. Tusk, on the other hand, will do the globalists' bidding. Expect increased immigration, more support for the US proxy war in Ukraine and an erosion of Poland's independence. The Poles overwhelmingly voted for parties that purport to be right of center – they're going to get a government that is decidedly left of center. That's how this works.
The violence and astroturfing aren't always directed against the individual themselves, although they are always the putative target. Trump was treated to a domestic version of a color revolution through most of 2020, when Antifa and BLM rent-a-mobs rampaged through urban America. Innocents were killed and billions of dollars of damage was caused. Not only was it a threat in the present – it was also a warning. 'This is what will happen if Trump is re-elected.'
Netanyahu, re-elected convincingly having campaigned on a promise to curb the influence of the Supreme Court (which, decades earlier, had granted itself powers that stymied the Knesset's will and thus, the people's will), was met with massive, orchestrated, US-funded protests when he attempted to do just that; all breathlessly reported in Western media. A counter-protest, of even larger proportions, was ignored.
USAID and other assorted NGOs tried the same trick with Orbán, too. Thus, the desired impression is created. People too stupid to do their own thinking get the message – a democratically elected administration that does what it says on the tin is excoriated, opposition is funded and support is minimized. Realpolitik (another way of saying amoral), heading your way if you're not a member of the club.
EU citizens must deal with the realization that the EU has hegemony over the nation states of Europe. It is a little known fact that MEPs are effectively rubber stamps in human form; their existence provides a veneer of democracy, but they propose no legislation themselves. They are not lawmakers in a parliamentary system. They have no executive power. It's the EU bureaucracy that proposes law and enacts it. Therefore, citizens are partaking in what is effectively political theater because whichever combination of the elites assume power domestically has been largely irrelevant.
Other globalist institutions also erode national sovereignty. The UN has the climate change portfolio, plus global health response via the WHO, which is currently doing its utmost to gaslight us into believing that it isn't colluding with governments in an attempt to offshore the ability to mandate lock-downs, 'vaccinations' and much else besides; but, it is.(29) However, the WHO is merely a cypher, created by those same globalists. It isn't dictating policy on its own. It simply represents a way for the elites to deflect attention from their own actions. It is they that are using the WHO as a vehicle to impose greater control over their populations.
The IMF and the World Bank, both founded in 1944, are further lynch-pins of the global order. They are a weapon for the powerful Western countries who control them. If you play nicely, you'll be rewarded with some folding green. If you're not a team-player (or if you don't have something that they want to take from you), forget it. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the central banker's central bank, co-ordinates global economics via the privately owned central banks in 217 different jurisdictions. Responsibility for the smooth operation of the national economy is theirs, often (allegedly) free of political influence. One more lever that is out of reach.
Your predecessors will have signed treaties and accords, dealing with all manner of issues from trade to human rights. This activity is almost entirely disconnected from any semblance of domestic consent. There are very few referenda concerning treaties and even fewer when a negative result was actually heeded. Treaties usually need ratification by lawmakers, but the process is rarely contentious or extensively covered. Details of agreements are not widely shared. Accords, such as the Paris Climate Accords, are non-binding and aspirational; they're not treaties, but they are accorded the same reverence by the globalist elite because they allow them to pursue their own ends. The same goes for UN Agenda 21.
All of these constructs are control mechanisms that augment (for which read replace) effective democracy. Financial carrots and sticks, private control over the money supply and fealty to globalist entities are tools that have been created for rulers, not representatives. We, the people, have no say in the decisions that are taken.
And that's before the domestic inhibitors are factored in. Successive administrations have awarded themselves ever more reach. Presidents get to issue Executive Orders that circumvent Congress (because they frequently order action that has already failed a floor vote) and governments declare 'emergencies' and abjure basic rights. When there is any suggestion that their sacred cows need to be slaughtered, they are insubordinate. Brexit is, again, a case in point.
Politicians made the case, for at least two years after the Referendum, that they must be allowed to operate as to their conscience, rather than heeding the express wishes of the electorate – who they represented. There was little attempt to sugar coat it; they openly declared that they believed that the public had got it wrong. They advanced this argument as a valid and honorable position to adopt. Which, of course, it is if they believed that they knew better. Many advanced the theory that the public didn't understand the complex issues at play (always a favorite explanation for the elites when things don't go their way); as if over 40 years of membership of the EU (or its predecessor) wasn't sufficient time in which to make a judgement.
This phenomenon happens when the political elites become detached from the people they serve and, instead, incestuously involved with each other. This cannot be unusual, despite their alleged differences. We know that it is easier to maintain a dislike for someone when there is distance and often more problematic if we actually meet them. Members of Congress or Parliament spend far more time with each other than they do with the actual voters.
The ideas that they are infused with frequently come from each other, not from the grass roots. The risks are obvious. A shift to humoring the public and ploughing their own furrows rather than listening to the electorate and providing representation is not only possible, but likely. The voters could rapidly come to be seen as an encumbrance, an obstacle to be maneuvered around.
The Executive Branch in the Trump administration simply failed to follow orders if it didn't approve of them. The Armed Services Chief of Staff twice called his Chinese opposite number (on his own initiative) to reassure him that he would give a heads up if the US intended to attack. He also colluded with the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer and inserted himself into the sequence for a launch of nuclear weapons.(30) If one is disfavoured by the totalitarian Left, nothing is truly off-limits.
Both the British Parliament and the US Congress have willingly divested themselves of much of the authority with which they were invested and handed it, instead, to the administrative state; the bureaucrats and the 'experts'. In fact, the Brits have done it twice over. Once with the EU and once with their own Civil Service.
It is a little known fact that lawmakers in the UK have chosen to re-define the way they go about their primary function without so much as a by your leave from us. This is not a practice that has been introduced recently; it has been in place for a century or more. An actual bill, the Act Of Parliament, is usually just the legal scaffolding. The detail is filled in by an 'entity', otherwise known as a government department staffed by unelected officials, and referred to as secondary legislation (SI). For instance, in 2020 alone, 1,618 SI's were passed, as opposed to a mere 29 actual bills.(31) As is frequently the case, this process was introduced with good intentions. There are, historically, many matters of a technical or administrative nature that do not necessary benefit from parliamentary debate.
But, as is inevitable once a principle is departed from by reason of expediency, such a system is prone to abuse. As the budget reconciliation process in the US has been recently suborned, so it was with both Brexit legislation and Covid law in the UK. Important matters are being decided by the 'experts' and signed into law and, unlike Acts of Parliament, there is no amendment process.
Another protocol has also proven useful in circumventing proper scrutiny. Draft legislation can be submitted to committees, which are controlled by the government of the day and then effectively rubber stamped by both Houses in whipped votes. In total, 379 Covid SI's had been passed by March 2021. Between June 2018 and December 2020, 622 Brexit SI's became law, with almost no parliamentary scrutiny.(32) These processes are not redolent of robust democracy.
Congress has largely surrendered its oversight role and has allowed federal entities to impose standards that should have been subject to a vote. The much-discussed Chevron Deference, which allows administrators far too much rope when a law is 'ambiguous', is key:
“...the Supreme Court held that whenever a law is ambiguous, a federal agency is free to interpret the scope and content of that ambiguity any way that it likes, limited only by the requirement that its interpretation be “reasonable.” Not surprisingly, agencies have exploited this deference to expand their powers for nearly 40 years.”(33)
That decision was made by a court seemingly lacking any understanding of human nature. Or, quite possibly, by Justices seeking to undermine the power of Congress, instead. Either way, agencies have claimed power over issues of major political or economic significance, usually without legislative push-back until cases reach the highest court.
The administrative state, certainly in the UK and the US, has effectively high-jacked the democratic process. Guidelines, rules and regulations that have the force of law (if there are punitive fines or confiscations in the mix, then that's what they are) now govern our lives. The vast majority have never been voted on; they have simply been imposed upon us. And institutions that were supposed to benefit us (such as the health service, the courts and education) have been weaponized against us. The latter, in particular, is important to the Blob. While a defective health service may be used to punish those who won't play ball in the hear and now (the courts, likewise), control of the education system teaches tomorrow's conscripts the cultural Marxist ideology that will ensure a woke future, too.
As can be seen, the control system is akin to autocratic Whac-A-Mole. Or a Gordian Knot. How to get out from under is a mystery, one that will not be solved by four more years of Trump or similar. Yes, this time around he has much more of an idea of the size of the task, which is clearly Sisyphean. But finding the right collaborators will still be problematic, as all will be aware that it's a high stakes game; if they fail to clean house, the Left will destroy them and enjoy themselves while doing so. What they are doing to Trump will be replicated (and already has been for any number of his former colleagues) on a much larger scale. The witch-hunt will be never ending. People with the correct skill set and the sort of courage that can recognize this threat and, nonetheless, join battle will be thin on the ground.
At what point is it fair to say that the social contract between the ruling class and the masses has been violated and that a correction is required? Not requested; required. Because we know that no political system lasts forever – or has done so far. There is a natural lifespan during which the ruling class' plundering becomes ever more brazen and then, eventually, things go south. This time around, the breach is rapidly approaching because they are no longer content to simply rip us off in perpetuity. They want to consolidate their hegemony; they want to future-proof it.
Quite was the catalyst was, I know not. But the current push can be dated to the late eighties and the start of the climate change scam. Further step-changes occurred under Bush the Younger (the Patriot Act, draft legislation that was simply waiting for the correct category of crisis to happen along), the Global Financial Crisis in the noughties – another vast transfer of wealth to the already wealthy – followed by the years of 'austerity', the ascent of Obama which coincided with a pedal to the metal adoption of woke culture, then the 'pandemic' and the installation of the puppet Biden. The Cloward-Piven strategy in excelsis; anomie, the result. And, as we know, what happens in the US always ends up on our shores eventually.
The American resistance speaks of a Convention of the States, whereby amendments to the Constitution wrest control from the feds. Mark Levin, a notable conservative, has become a fan:
“The state convention process bypasses the intractable architects of this calamity, who have obstructed and sabotaged all other routes to constitutional adherence. It is a bottom-up, grassroots initiative that empowers the citizenry, organizing in neighborhoods and communities, and working through the state legislatures, to stem federal domination, reverse course, and escape ruin.”(34)
Republicans reference a Balanced Budget Amendment, to rein in uncontrolled spending,(35) an amendment to end mass immigration,(36) perhaps an amendment that nullifies election fraud and more besides.(37) One problem is that two thirds of state legislatures are required to call such a convention and the numbers just aren't there, as Democrats are quite content with the status quo, thank you very much.
Another is that the federal government routinely flouts the Constitution as it is; why would it not just continue to do the same thing with any new amendments? Lastly, some milquetoast will inevitably ensure that any amendment was not worth the paper it was written by including opt-outs in an emergency, an emergency the feds would waste no time in cooking up. And, of course, all the others elements of the control framework would still be in place.
It feels as though a more abrupt solution might be in the offing, instead. Judging by the US establishment's incessant attempt to gut the Second Amendment, they think so too. There have been pockets of more muscular resistance in the past few years. The French have frequently been in the vanguard and they are at it again, decorating government buildings with manure in protest at the ever-fraudulent climate hysteria.(38) We also know that color revolutions work, but that is simply a matter of changing horses in mid-stream; all the control structures still remain. The Sri Lankan uprising is one of the few successful organic coups in recent memory.
Empires never know when they are done. They don't bow out gracefully, metaphorically doffing their cap to whatever replaces them. There is much talk in resistance circles of identifying our current woes, but the problem of identifying solutions that aren't magical thinking is ever-present. I suspect this is because many are going through the same thought processes as I am. I suspect that many fear the answer. I suspect that embracing the logical conclusions that are the fruit of critical thinking has its limits for most people.
This is why realistic outcomes are never addressed. We talk about not falling for the next depredation, but not how it is possible ensure that there isn't a next depredation. It's a question that is permanently to be filed in the 'too difficult box'. But the truth is that we're not in a 12 round fight governed by the Marquess of Queensberry rules. We're in a knock-down, drag-out bare knuckle brawl and some of them used to last 75 rounds or more.
And our opponents are not going to go away. They don't care what we think. They will never retreat. They will always double down. You cannot negotiate with them. You cannot compromise with them. These are not nice people. And I think it's entirely possible that, at some point soon, someone who understands these truths may turn over the entire apple-cart. And that is going to entail direct action.
This is something that our elites and every 'conservative' is always at pains to denounce, the better to signal their virtue. That political violence is wrong is considered axiomatic. However, they appear to have collective amnesia; had the ancestors of today's US politicians believed likewise, American would still be part of the British Empire. Without political violence, France would still be a monarchy and Cromwell's Commonwealth of England would not have set England on the path towards parliamentary monarchy.
I don't believe there is a general sentiment across the pond which holds that the United States is, therefore, an illegitimate state. Nor is there much wailing or gnashing of teeth in Britain concerning the demise of the absolute monarchy. The French don't riot to demand the return of their monarchy, either. The problem comes not necessarily in the acknowledgement that political violence is sometimes necessary if tyranny is the only alternative, but rather when it is legitimate and that is not a question that the state is qualified to answer, given that it will always say no, no matter what. And by pretending that the question is illegitimate, it doesn't have to address it, anyway.
The danger is that the elites have lost the ability to read the room. The progressives themselves don't deem that talent necessary, but those who pull their strings probably do. But they may have become so divorced from reality, both by dint of their natural disconnect with ordinary folk and by virtue of their suppression of dissent, that they no longer understand what is likely to be the result of their actions:
“Another common factor driving the masses to revolt is when the essentials of life are no longer affordable or available in sufficient quantity...
...Yet another potentially explosive factor is the supreme confidence of the wealthiest elites that the system they rule could ever turn against them or crumble beneath their feet--in a word, a hubris as extreme as their wealth and power. The resignation of the masses and the ease of distracting them with ginned-up controversies and crises and consumerist novelties has fed elite confidence that their supremacy is unassailable.
This hubris leads to the elite becoming tone-deaf to their own excesses and the instability their excesses are generating within the system, an instability that's currently hidden beneath the resignation and distraction of the masses...”(39)
Certainly, their persecution of Trump has resulted in a great deal of anger. Their controlled demolition of the US economy is causing profound pain. The 'pandemic' narrative has gradually unraveled and a majority believe that the current administration is illegitimate. Other parts of the West are similarly stressed, but most do not enjoy the protection of a Second Amendment. If the fever is to break, it will have to do so in the US.
Some are already speculating that “a tumultuous reset of how resources and power are distributed” is possible.(40) I wonder whether, instead of hubris, at some level there is calculation. That a conflict will be welcomed, perhaps pre-empted, perhaps even manufactured if the repeated provocations don't result in the conflagration they seek; another engineered January 6th, only much bigger.
We know that they are capable of it and have been for decades; Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation that would have resulted in hijackings and bombings in US cities (carried out by the US military or intelligence services), which would have been used as a pretext for war with Cuba in 1962.(41) Given the 'pandemic' and the 'vaccinations' that followed, it is clear that they have kept their hand in.
Power structures that flex when required, that can reset themselves so that more equitable outcomes are possible, can survive. The current power structure is specifically designed to be rigid. It's its raison d'être and, given the character of the progressive foot-soldiers who administer it, it will not flex. Amelioration is not an option. So, it may be that 'a tumultuous reset', whether the result of an establishment false flag event that gets away from them or by action instigated by the people, is what is required if we are to exit the ring as victors.
Citations
(2) https://www.tmz.com/2023/11/29/elon-musk-bob-iger-advertisers-x-go-f-yourself/
(4) Ditto
(5) https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/23/gop-voters-vaccines-poll-00117125
(7) https://euobserver.com/opinion/149470
(8) https://www.theamericanconservative.com/giorgia-meloni-falls-short/
(9) Ditto
(12) https://colombiareports.com/voting-fraud-in-colombia-how-elections-are-rigged/
(15) https://nationalfile.com/mccarthy-used-ftx-cash-to-defeat-conservatives-in-2022/
(16) https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/11/blaming_trump_for_the_midterms.html
(17) https://twitter.com/geertwilderspvv/status/1728886659251642692
(18) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EenVandaag
(20) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56250460
(21) https://www.euronews.com/2023/06/14/should-germany-ban-afd-what-impact-could-this-have
(23) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jair_Bolsonaro#Post-presidency_(2023%E2%80%93present)
(27) https://www.smolenskcrashnews.com/2015-explosives-report-released.html
(31) https://eachother.org.uk/covid-19-brexit-secondary-legislation/
(35) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/04/draining_the_swamp_with_article_v.html
(36) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/08/a_maga_convention_of_states.html
(37) Ditto
(39) https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/could-america-have-french-style-revolution
(40) https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Northwoods.html
(41) Ditto
Figure 3