By Mike Newland.
The entire country is being destroyed as a recognisable British society and power transferred elsewhere. Voting is largely pointless if you pick any of the main parties. They all stand for the same thing – their own short-term benefit.
So who oh why do people keep on voting for those who ignore their interests – and display open contempt for their own supporters?
The nationalist reaction is to say that ‘the people are sheeple’ – brainwashed by the system into a belief entirely at odds with obvious realities that their rulers care about them.
The mainstream media will claim that Britain is a democracy and that if there were any appetite for any other type of rule then people are free to stand for election and to vote for something else. Why have new parties not flourished to the point of acquiring real power? Wonderful word democracy! It conceals more than it conveys.
The true division is between a genuine democracy and a sham system where you can vote but it makes no difference. If the only parties which can realistically win are ones with essentially the same bad intentions then voting becomes pointless except on the basis of least worst. Better than nothing but a charade in which a gang of careerists play musical chairs over who gets the cars and flunkeys this week.
We nationalists want a genuine democracy with realistic choices not a ballot box ceremony to sanitise the operations of cynical careerists.
The core of the mystery from the viewpoint of the motives of voters is this. They are not stupid at all. They reason that since – as they see it – nothing can be done to halt the path to destruction of our country then logically one votes for the greatest comfort along the road. If death is imminent then there is no point storing up bottles of booze in the cupboard.
Here the big parties play their trump card. The handout. Handouts in the modern state come in many forms. It may be a benefit payment or it may be a reduction in the tax taken out of your pay packet. Get people focused on the division of the pot and the big parties can play the voters between each other as to who gets what and not bother them about the condition of the whole society.
For most of the post-war period the dividable pot has been getting bigger. This has not been because of politicians – although they’ll claim the credit – but because God and the engineers provided methods of increasing productivity. The lack of a major war has also helped enormously. During the last procedure, 40% of national income was directed towards the war effort rather than towards creature comforts. More luck than judgement there that politicians have had cake to share out!
Since the downturn in 2008, the handout gap has been filled by borrowing rather than new income. So politics has carried on much as usual.
Whether growth in productivity will resume in a major way is the core question for the future economy. Some say that there are no world-changing inventions to sustain a huge new burst in output – steam power, petrol engines and electricity for example – while others say that major growth can come from a host of small improvements.
One example offered recently was a lettuce thinning machine. This apparently is a very labour intensive task at the moment. The technicals of lettuce thinning have never been an issue for most of us so we’ll say no more about lettuce thinning.
But all that is for the future. Back to the voters.
Big question. Why do the great Britons carry on as they are? Why not form new parties and oppose the existing creatures? Here again the lack of enthusiasm among individuals about securing their own futures cannot be put down simply to stupidity. They are simply aware of the obstacles which a ruthless political class and its media servants place in the way.
One of the most irritating experiences you can have talking to the media as a political outsider is when their smug operatives tease you by enquiring as to why, if things are as bad as you say, your small party has not swept to power.
They know perfectly well why and also the part they play in protecting the big party system but they won’t be admitting it any time soon! Indeed, as I liked to tell them when I was busy doing press work, they’d be down the road with their P45s pretty damn quick if they fulfilled their claimed objective of fair coverage for all. That was good for shutting them up!
Media people, or perhaps as most of them should be described presstitutes, like to say that no one tells them what to write. They don’t need to. They know the rules. Serve the system or depart.
A favourite stunt is the headline ‘Rotten party to stop whatever’. Then you read that this popular cause is merely a possibility in quite a few years time and which is up for discussion. There are thousand ways to present news in a way which is superficially factual while favouring one party over another.
The official obstacles placed in the path of anyone trying to set up against the big parties are numerous and have increased. The Electoral Commission was set up precisely to create bureaucratic obstacles. One might say that at least the rules applied to everybody if the system were more vigorous in applying itself to scandals like postal voting which benefit the big boys. Apart from anything else, people have often voted before smaller parties even have the opportunity to campaign.
The Electoral Commission thinks voters presenting themselves at polling stations should be required to prove who they are. By 2019. Delay delay delay!
A book could be written laying out all the means used by fake democracies to cover their tracks or to mislead people into blind alleys.
UKIP has received gigantic levels of media coverage which focus largely on their supposed opposition to immigration. Everyone knows that UKIP is strongly opposed to immigration do they not?. The media has reported it endlessly. ‘He’ talks a lot. Yet UKIP’s leader has now admitted that he has no policy concerning immigration! Did that make a headline? Nah. Tucked away in the text of the Mail.
So is it all hopeless?
The web is bypassing the controlled media on an increasing basis. Small parties can communicate more effectively than ever before. Doubt has crept in about the motives of the political class to probably a greater degree than since the first half of the 19th century when Britain was racked by the social effects of the earlier Industrial Revolution. The big parties no longer command an army of true believers ready to march the streets free of charge in all weathers extolling their religion.
Their leaders are on the backfoot apologising for mistakes and swearing that they have seen the light over such things as Europe and immigration. It’s a pack of lies of course to get them through the next election but they are still on the backfoot.
Small parties are in many ways better placed than ever before to flourish. The principal barrier is a belief among the public that the system is so entrenched than nothing at all can be done.
In fact, it’s a house of cards.