US is not a democracy – now it’s official!

By Mike Newland.

usa-is-not-a-democracy

 

Keen observers of politics have known for a very long time that the US is not in any meaningful sense a democracy.

This is so obvious that the big surprise is how so many people can have been hoodwinked for so long by the usual proclamations. Anyone can form a party and stand for election. There is freedom of speech and so on. All broadly true. Not mentioned is the billions of dollars now required to run for the presidency.

But the acid test for whether a country is in any meaningful sense a democracy must be whether the wishes of the people hold sway over policy. This has now been examined in a formal manner by Princeton and North Western Universities.

What they did was to look at the expressed preferences of voters concerning 1800 issues between 1981 and 2002 and whether policy actually reflected their wishes. The conclusions were damning. The report, entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens concluded that even substantial majorities of the population and its wishes were ignored. The country was, in fact, controlled by an oligarchy of the rich and powerful. When the people opposed these groups they lost. ‘Average citizens have little or no independent influence’ the authors damningly conclude.

It is easy to dismiss this research as academics making a living telling us what we already know but it would be wrong to do so. Most ideas that gain any prominence derive from academia. Rightly or wrongly it makes them more difficult to dismiss.

The fact that two universities have blurted out the realities about US political life is also important in that it indicates a real and growing disquiet even from inside the ruling system. Academics are not known for risking their careers. It’s no longer so dangerous to bite the feeding hand and challenge authority or this report would never have appeared.

We are, of course, in an identical position in Britain where the media and its ‘presstitutes’ collude systematically with the big parties in maintaining the fiction of democracy. An elaborate charade is played out in which the statements of different parties are presented as genuine choices for voters – choices which mysteriously don’t translate into what government actually does.

Sometimes one wonders why anyone would want to work in such a fraudulent industry as the mainstream media which Noam Chomsky described as working to ‘manufacture consent’. Morally the media is rather worse than the politicians since everyone knows they argue their own case while the media purports to be independent commentary. The combination of the two acting complicitly is lethal to any real democracy.

The issues of Europe and immigration are particularly clear examples of the democratic deficit in the United Kingdom and it’s unsurprising that they provide most of the traction which has propelled UKIP into the position it is now in. LBC recently referred to the ‘four parties’.

We don’t know the extent to which UKIP will emerge as yet another part of the sham. Its evasions and avoidance of detail are not encouraging. But what cannot be disputed is that its supporters are driven by an increasing realisation that Britain too is an oligarchy and that, as in the US, when the people object they lose.

 

27 thoughts on “US is not a democracy – now it’s official!

  1. The UK has not been a democracy for many decades. The proof of which lies in the way Parliament is run. The main political parties have a system whereby all members of Parliament have to vote as they are told to vote, by party whips. No free choice, no voting as the constituents wish, only to vote as ordered. Failure to vote as ordered results in discipline and action being taken against any MP brave and principled enough to vote as his, or her, constituents require.
    When the whip is withdrawn from and MP life is made very difficult for that MP to operate at Westminster. This is blatant interference with the democratic system and should be abolished. ALL votes in parliament by MP’s should be a free vote and a secret one to avoid any action being taken against those who put principle before that of career.
    Only when all Parliamentary votes and free and secret can we start to claim we are a democracy. It would be a fine policy for Nationalists to support.

    1. When was the UK ever a democracy, in early nineteenth century with a much more structured, and class ridden society than we have today, they nearly approached some sort of democracy. Even that arch reactionary Arthur Wellesley alias the Duke of Wellington was closer in mind and spirit to the people than almost all modern politicians. No I am sorry a Nationalist government will have to accept that it cannot carry out a program of Nationalist reforms by the present democratic system. Although it should aspire to government by whatever means are possible. Unfortunately sometimes democracy is often a sort of pandering to the lowest instincts we need to reform and establish a proper constitution.

      1. I agree with GrahamC when he says that the UK has never really been a democracy. That is to say, not in the sense that we believe that democracy should be. It wasn’t so very long ago that the only ones allowed a vote for parliament were a small number of the richest male landowners. Although the suffragettes did manage to obtain equal voting rights for women in the 19th Century, the majority of ordinary working men had not had the right to vote for much longer before that. Therefore it’s true that democracy here in Britain, as we know it, is quite new in reality

        However, I part company with you GrahamC when you suggest that democracy won’t allow us to carry out a program of Nationalist reforms. If the people of Britain were allowed referenda on the many vital issues that we as a party hold strong views, the polls clearly show that the majority would be supporting our policies. It is simply that the main parties do not allow the public a voice, and actively deny the wishes of the majority of Britons. Those MP’s we currently have in Westminster all seem to have a sneering disdain for the electorate. Many issues are referred to as being “populist” by them in order to dismiss the wishes of the clear majority of voters in favour of their own views. Such is the state of our democracy here.

        We British Democrats have nothing to fear from real democracy, as we know that our policies would be agreed by the majority of the electorate. Our biggest problem is in getting the electorate to see us as having a feasible chance of becoming elected. The majority of British voters are extremely pragmatic, and will only lend their vote if they perceive that it will not be wasted. I have come to realise that our greatest strength as nationalists is as democrats. It is those on the left of politics who need to dictate to the people, not us.

      2. Britain NEVER has been a true democracy. We have an unelected second chamber of parliament and the House of Commons is elected by an archaic First Past The Post system that acts more like a lottery than a fair means of representing the people’s will.

  2. Roger, I don’t think that secret voting at Westminster would be an improvement, quite the opposite! How could an elector possibly decide whether to re-elect an incumbent without knowing his or her voting record?

    1. My thinking Adrian is, if the vote was secret no action could be taken against those voting for their constituents and not for party policy. There is no doubt that if a public vote, then, as now, would mean action either directly or indirectly would be taken against this member to keep others in line.
      A true democratic vote is a secret vote.

  3. Superb article by Mike Newland. Democracy seems to be very limited in its ability to represent the people when the state (or states as in the US) becomes extremely large in size. It seems to me that this is our biggest problem with democracy as practised within our oversized nations today. The media is complicit in diverting the attention of the voters and carefully “manufacturing consent”. Without enormous amounts of money no political party can hope to challenge the status quo, and that money can only come from big business.

    The problem is exacerbated by the state becoming even larger, and the growth of economic trading groups that are morphing into new superstates, like the EU, can only make real democracy impossible to practice. Perhaps this is part of the game plan of the major global corporations and the politicians who are in their pockets? The US has already lost its ability to practice real democracy, and the creation of the European Union can only spell the end for our own democracy here. That is, as long as we remain a member.

    1. Geoff is right.

      The argument that a world government would make things fair is totally barking mad. Who would represent the interests of specific groups? The nation state is a bulwark against world dictatorship. Above a certain size that effect diminishes which is why the greedy want the EU to be a state.

  4. (Party Member) The concept of examining actual Government Policy in relation to even substantial majority wishes is fascinating. I hope our party undertake a similar study, covering most issues. Amongst the biggest issues are Immigration, European Union membership and ‘Gay Marriage’. These are the most obvious cases where the United LibLabCon have totally gone against the wishes of the vast majority of our people and churches. Note; As clearly stated in our Policy Document our Party is in favour of using Referendum’s more in relation to the bigger issues of the day.

    1. I wouldn’t say gay marriage is an important issue or at least not in the sense of its ability to make people choose one party over another. In one polling report on it I saw, it was considered to be important by just 7% of the overall electorate and of those 7% about 4% said a party proposing it would be MORE LIKELY to attract their votes than to have the opposite effect.

      As far as the religious aspect of it is concerned, we need to remember that Great Britain is a secular state and whilst the churches certainly have every right to voice an opinion on government polices on whatever subject they have no right to demand the elected government of the day follow their teachings.

      At any rate, NO religion is being COMPELLED to marry gay people against their will. The government only made CIVIL gay marriage legal so religious marriage is being preserved. Also, the bill that was passed ENABLED religious freedom as some denominations WANT to marry gay people such as the Quakers and Unitarians and the previous outright ban on gay civil marriages prevented them doing this.

      I think, as a country, we could have avoided a lot of the controversy on this matter if we done marriages as they are performed in France (a secular Republic) ie if you want to get married then you go to the local town hall and obtain a CIVIL marriage which means you are legally married in the eyes of the French state and ONLY THEN do you get a religious blessing of it in the local Roman Catholic church.

      Regardless, if you obtain a CIVIL marriage in France you are just as legally married as if you also have that religious blessing in the view of the French government.

  5. Now when so-called ‘elected’ governments borrow from private banks who create that money from nothing there can be no democracy!

    The bought and paid for LibLabCon politicians are in the pocket of the Money Power as is the mainstream media and until or unless that changes we will continue to live under a Zionist dictatorship.

    The only way we can regain our sovereignty is by taking back the power from banksters to create the british money-supply.

    1. Mark explains exactly why British nationalism has been mostly a cult confined to the back rooms of pubs.

      If you put things that way the public run a mile whether a true portrayal or not. And that’s the problem. British nationalists in the main don’t give a damn really about winning mass support. A small self-congratulatory group who ‘know they are right’ is sufficient for them and their needs.

      1. Observing Nationalism and studying it’s past in Great Britain, I’d have to agree that Nationalist parties are clearly in a phase of small pub groups.
        To imply that the reason is because they don’t “.. give a damn.. about winning mass support” is a problem. To gain mass support Nationalist groups would have to abandon the very concept of nationalism.
        The masses have and always will cow-tow to the ruling authority. The powers that be can rape their women, enslave their children, and do the most monstrous things to them; but, they will put up with it.
        The one exception is when food becomes scarce. Even the Martin Luther inspired revolt in Germany in 1525 was largely about farming, hunting, and water accessibility for the peasants.
        The modern rulers know this very well. The Muslim Brotherhood revolt in Egypt happened when food prices had skyrocketed. The most recent revolt in Ukraine correlated to rapidly rising food prices. Both “revolutions” were, as I’m sure you know, orchestrated.

        Nationalists need to really brain storm on how to tap into the human instinct to revolt in the face of food shortages without an actual food shortage. I’m not bright enough to work it out myself.

        1. Well UKIP is receiving mass support with nationalist motives on the part of its supporters so I don’t think mike’s argument holds water.

          You may say the supporters are being misled but that’s another question. They are voting nationalist as far as they are concerned.

          You can sum up the traditional ‘British nationalist’ approach to presentation and it’s in Mark’s post. ‘Stop the Zionist gangster bankster conspiracy’ expressed in six words.

          Try that slogan on a soap box in the street and see how much support you get.

          1. Yes, UKIP has the support of a large percentage of the “mass population”.
            Is it because they champion issues the masses agree with? Or, is it because the existing power structure is giving them plenty of face-time in media with the bare minimum of acceptability?
            This works subliminally on the collective mind of the British masses. Why would I vote for a party like the NF, BNP, etc. when I can vote for the paper tiger party (UKIP) to “voice my protest”?

            Look at the 1979 general elections. The NF was on track to gain a foothold in government because of the popular disapproval of alarming numbers of “immigrants”. All it took to cow the masses was for Thatcher to imply that if elected she and the Tories would put a stop to immigration.

            The masses obey authority, whether it’s authority of the governor or authority of the social collective. The Zionist bankers, we know are the real power, command authority in both the seats of power and the societal collective consciousness with media.

            As far as people not willing to back a candidate/party based on the root issue of monetary reform, in the U.S. Ron Paul ran on the base issue of “End the FED” (privately owned central bank of the U.S.). While the Republican candidates the ruling authority pushed as kosher weren’t even able to get a small auditorium a quarter filled with supporters, R. Paul was getting crowds of supporters in the thousands. In fact, voter fraud within the Republican primaries was blatantly rigged in numerous states. The only reason Mitt Romney was selected as the Republican nominee to run against Obama instead of R. Paul in the final Republican convention was because the rules were changed at the last minute by the seats of power in the Republican party. Many polls taken showed that R. Paul would have won the general election and beaten Obama.
            The masses were all too ready to take the real issue head-on – monetary reform. But, all it took was slight of hand by the existing power structure to stop it dead.

            If the existing power brokers were to allow a competing ideology (Nationalism in our case) to get a foot hold in the power structure a “war” of competing structures would inevitably lead to their defeat.
            That’s why I referenced Peasant Revolts because that is what it is going to take to get even a foothold in power. If you study peasant revolts, they are almost always due to food shortages. This is my premise.

            I’m just a dim witted factory worker. I only bring this point to your attention in hopes that minds much more qualified than mine can use the information to come up with a real winning strategy.

            cheers.

          2. British nationalists have spent far too long on issues which either the public don’t understand, find totally irrelevant ect so the main issues they have rightfully campaigned upon look like they are regarded by nationalists as unimportant. In politics, it is important for your main points not to be ‘overwhelmed’ by other issues so that the main thrust of your message to the electorate is clearly understood by potential voters.

            Also, presentation is very important and nationalists haven’t presented themselves well and thereby given too much ammunition to their opponents to give nationalists an image which makes them appear to have sinister motives ect.

      2. I have to agree with you here. Nationalist political parties have too often allowed themselves to be sidetracked onto issues the public don’t consider important enough to decide how they vote in elections whilst ignoring the really big issues that do. Also, they haven’t presented themselves well.

      3. I’m sorry Mike but I disagree, British nationalism may be seen as a bit of a cult at the moment but that’s not because of nationalists talking about and identifying the real riot problems we face. That is down to the control of our media and money supply by mainly Zionist banking families whether you want to hear the truth of not.

        The way to build mass support is by concentrating our focus on these issues and especially the ruination of our economy and industry by the money power establishment’s pet baby globalisation.

        Obviously we need to offer and promote a positive vision of how we can create a society where people have jobs, houses and a good standard of living whilst are industries are protected and nurtured. I think you would find mass support would quickly build when people see a political party fighting for the ordinary people rather than the evil establishment.

    2. Well and bravely put Mark! You’ve touched the root of Christendom’s current dire state. The British public must be told the truth in small bytes, even if it scares them. Our main function is education. With no money we can never achieve modern ‘democratic’ power. More folks are waking up to the reality of the Money Power, HQd in The City, and behind most of our wars, wicked laws and misery.

      The D.Telegraph-led expenses scandal rumbles on. MPs were nearly all ‘at it’, and pretending to the public they were only on £60k a year. Unfortunately they are selected for their fondness for money, and they work for the highest bidders who are exclusively from the club of big finance houses, global corporations and shadowy oligarchs.

  6. (Party Member) After years of undermining Christianity and it’s values that this Party supports, culminating in ‘ gay marriage ‘ legislation, David Cameron has had the gall to assert that Britain should be ” more confident about our status as a Christian country”. This has caused an outcry from the usual ghastly liberal and lefty types who pander to Islam in our Country. A Downing St. spokesman replied to them by saying ” the U.K. is a Christian country and should not be afraid to say so “. He could have said that with various elections coming up we Conservatives have to pretend to be doing something about immigration and the European Union and traditional family values like the British Democratic Party !

    1. johnshaw, I disagree that gay marriage is undermining Christianity because it was CIVIL marriage (ie in a registry office) which was made legal and the only gay religious marriages that are now legal are those WITH THE APPROVAL of the small number of religious denominations that have always wanted to perform them (ie Liberal Jews, Quakers and Unitarians)

      Most denominations are still against them and probably always will be (ie Church of England, Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church). NONE of these is going to be COMPELLED to perform them against their will so religious freedom has been protected by the recent legislation.

      As for David Cameron’s farcical claims he is a Christian, I take that to mean yet another example of his disgusting hypocrisy. A REAL CHRISTIAN wouldn’t introduce so-called benefit ‘reforms’ like the Bedroom Tax that have driven some vulnerable people to commit suicide.

      If we want to highlight his spurious claims to be a Christian and that of his repellent unelected ‘government’ I would suggest we attack them on that point.

      A truely Christian society looks after its most vulnerable citizens and certainly DOESN’T drive them to take their own lives. Those who voted for David Cameron and his vile henchmen at the last election should look deeply into their souls and repent of their sin of voting for these evil people.

      1. David Cameron is NO Christian. If he were, he would never have appointed in the first place (let alone continued to let him be in charge) that evil, bigoted, truely repellent, walking example of why the Conservative Party is correctly called Britain’s ‘nasty party’ character called Iain Duncan-Smith. That evil wrench has driven some of Britain’s most vulnerable citizens to take their own lives. We ARE NOT a Christian society if ignorant and repulsive ‘men’ like him can not only be in our parliament but obtain high office and proceed to ruin people’s lives.

        If anyone thinks I am being too hard on IDS, I would suggest they look on Youtube and look how his evil ‘man’ responded on Question Time when he was questioned about Brian Mcardle’s death – just one person IDS has driven to an early grave.

      2. Steven, sorry: Real Christian societies used to operate VOLUNTARY, closely-monitored, fraud-free, moral-based, efficient welfare, exclusively within extended-family groups and neighborhoods of fellow kinsmen. Taxes were very low and motivation to work and produce and leave to posterity, was high. Folks had to broadly get on with each other, or beg.

        Our vast, expensive “Welfare” State has done some good but overall has helped break up nominally-Christian families, destroy incentives, manufacturing, self-reliance, and transfer our hard-earned wealth to, first our own feckless and now to millions of non-Caucasian immigrants, particularly of certain low-skilled, low-creative, dull and lazy races, most of whom are here for the handouts while taking-over our homeland and its wonderful infrastructure, for FREE.

        We are now either sweat-shop/tax-slaves or benefit-slaves, totally dependent on the LibLabCon government (and their sponsors), who have planned this since the days of the “French” Revolution.

    2. I live in an an extremely Tory area ( I believe my Tory MP has their 30th odd safest seat) and they normally don’t bother campaigning around here to any great extent because Tory votes are weighed rather than counted but last Sunday I received their EU election leaflet and a local one. Needless to say, it boasted about how they had ‘reduced’ immigration and that voting Tory was the only way to secure an ‘in-out’ referendum on the EU. You would have to be feeble-minded to believe their lies on migration as I don’t see much evidence when I open my eyes of its so-called ‘reduction’. Why should anyone believe them when they have such an appalling track record on this subject and on the EU? It is easy to promise an ‘in-out’ referendum when you know you are going to be chucked-out of office next year and therefore in no position to actually call one! It wouldn’t be a fair referendum anyway!

  7. I don’t see our “Defender of the Faith” doing much to reinforce the concept of Britain “being a Christian country”! Like a fish – it rots from the head, as someone once said.

    1. I agree but look at who her replacement is going to be! Charles definitely won’t be the defender of the Protestant faith and indeed wants his Coronation to be ‘multi-faith’.

      1. Charles has one ambition and that is to be Monarch of a multi-faith, multi cultural Britain he see,s himself as a reformer and a visionary. In reality the population see him for what he is, a prat.

Leave a Reply