This is Not Democracy

At some point we have to say that even without electoral fraud, what we are getting doesn't constitute democracy in any form

What is Democracy?

It’s one of those words that used to have an agreed meaning, an obvious meaning, but which is now often deployed as the exact opposite to its original and commonly understood meaning.

Like ‘social justice’ is so frequently code for rampant and determined racial injustice.

So let’s go back to the dictionary definition, before its conveniently rewritten. Mirriam-Webster defines Democracy like this “The meaning of DEMOCRACY is government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.” Dictionary.com defines it as “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.”

Britannica gives us the context of the historical origin of Democracy:

“…literally, rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek dēmokratia, which was coined from dēmos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) in the middle of the 5th century BCE to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens”

Even the outrageously selective and deliberate error prone Wikipedia can still provide us with a good general summation of what Democracy is and the two main forms it appears in:

“Democracy (from Ancient Greek: δημοκρατία, romanized: dēmokratía, dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule')^[1] is a system of government in which state power is vested in the people or the general population of a state.^[2] Under a minimalist definition of democracy, rulers are elected through competitive elections while more expansive definitions link democracy to guarantees of civil liberties and human rights in addition to competitive elections.^[3][4]

In a direct democracy, the people have the direct authority to deliberate and decide legislation. In a representative democracy, the people choose governing officials through elections to do so. Who is considered part of "the people" and how authority is shared among or delegated by the people has changed over time and at different rates in different countries. Features of democracy oftentimes include freedom of assembly, association, personal property, freedom of religion and speech, citizenship, consent of the governed, voting rights, freedom from unwarranted governmental deprivation of the right to life and liberty, and minority rights.”

I have retained the links of the original articles in case anyone wants to pursue them. More importantly all of the above is pretty clear on what Democracy is. At its core it is rule by the people. This can be direct, as in a system where every specific decision is put to a vote of the people, like the Athenian tallying of stones marked with different colors. But it quickly becomes impossible to make every decision this way, meaning that over time or in larger polities representatives must be chosen by lottery or elected by vote and then empowered to make a series of decisions for a set period of time (representative democracy).

Many Americans make a little too much of the difference between a Democracy and a Representative Republic, perhaps based on a strong sense of American exceptionalism. But whilst some Founders feared Democracy as the rule of the mob, and while the electoral college system adds a layer of balance to the direct democracy of the vote (that can then see a President elected without obtaining the popular majority of the vote), this protection of the rights of voters in the majority of the States from the overbearing power of the big cities is more a kind of regional protection than a real denial of Democracy. The exact system matters less than the recognition that the citizen has inalienable rights, that the system exists to protect those rights, and that the system is based solely on the consent of the people and removable by them if the government acts against those rights in any sustained way. All of those things are in the US system when it functions properly (without the kind of distortion and corruption we see today) and all of those things are the spirit of Democracy.

In all cases the idea is that representatives are empowered and employed by the people, and their power rests on the consent of the people. The people are the real Boss, and the representative is a mere servant.

You can have all kinds of different systems for working this out, and you can give the institutions that manage and enact this different names and divided powers and spheres of responsibility (Parliament, National Assembly, Senate, Congress etc). But ultimately it all is supposed to rest on the consent of the people, manifested through free and fair elections at regular intervals.

All of the features of Democracy that Wikipedia then lists, are things that supposedly flow naturally from this consent of the people, or things which emerge over time as protections and consequences of the primacy of the power of the people within the political system. These features define the ‘liberal Democracy’ that the Western world created and which most of us were born into, knowing these things were the end result of centuries of the power of the Church, the Monarch and the State shrinking, while the enfranchisement of the people and the rights of the individual gradually over the same course of centuries expanded.

The definition of ‘the people’ itself evolved over time, from a small number of narrowly defined citizens (male, property owning, often born to a very particular small region such as a specific city state) in ancient slave based economies to eventually encompass all adult (18 and above) citizens (all males and females regardless of wealth, property and class) in larger modern nations.

But the central concept no matter how broadly or narrowly applied remained that representatives are only custodians of power, not owners of it. These custodians must first obtain the consent of the ruled to that power wielded over them, and then must show at some regular interval that they retain that consent. They don’t own the power, they only gain the right to enact the power on behalf of the people.

Elections signal the consent of the people for a period of rule, and referendums signal the consent of the people for a specific policy or proposal. But Constitutions and legal boundaries defined by things like the English Common Law further clarify how these systems work and the things a representative government may and may not do.

Sometimes, too, such systems include very clear articulations of the right of the people to cast off a government that forgets that its rule is supposed to be based on the consent of the ruled or that acts in a sustained tyrannical manner, as for example the US Declaration of Independence does:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.—That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness….when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” (bold added for emphasis).

In other words two things justify even a violent Revolution-lack of consent from the people for what the government does, and design or conspiracy towards tyranny from the government itself.

Now this is the beginnings, in most ways, of the US and the entire US Constitutional settlement and legal code. Of course there are earlier influences, both the retained parts of State legislatures that existed under the colonial administration and great precedents like the English Bill of Rights, English Common Law and Magna Carta, but this is so to speak the first sound from the throat of a newborn nation, the beginning of the nation as an independent entity expressing itself. The US is therefore founded and begins in this understanding: everything rests on the consent of the governed, and any design of tyranny abnegates all of the power of the government and returns it to its true owners, the people.

Just as if we gave a man the keys to our home to be a paid caretaker of it, and he abused the position and our trust by making it our prison or by inviting strangers to ransack the property, we have every right to forcibly eject that caretaker, so too do we have the same right regarding a government (indeed an entire institutional system) that abuses the people and their property in similar ways.

Of course the globalist and progressive policies we see today throughout the western world fit the requirements for a ‘dissolving of bonds’ as described in the US Declaration of Independence. There is both lack of consent from the governed for the things that are being done AND an obvious design of tyranny from the globalist administrations of every major western nation today. If we today were the same people who rose up against George III we would, also, have violently risen long before today. And if they were justified in that rebellion, we would be justified too.

Because what we commonly once agreed was Democracy, is not what we experience today. And what globalists and progressives describe as Democracy is usually its opposite. When they say they are ‘fortifying’ Democracy, they are actually circumventing it. When they say they are spreading Democracy, they are actually merely waging war for their own ends. When they say they are protecting the right to vote, they are manufacturing fake votes which deny real ones. When they say they are enfranchising more people, they are now disenfranchising the real citizen by offering votes (and filling them in themselves) to imaginary people, dead people, and people who aren’t actual citizens.

The reality is that George III probably had far less design for tyranny (and far less capacity to enact it) than any globalist leader alive today. George III did not envisage a security apparatus like the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, and the whole Alphabet Soup of agencies which monitor the American citizen, spies on them, records them, tracks them as a matter of habitual and technologically mechanized normality. The colonial administration of the 13 colonies taxed Americans at a rate far below the very lowest modern tax rates. The British Empire interfered far less in most areas of life and thought than any modern ‘liberal democracy’ does.

America today routinely passes bills adding tens of thousands of tax inspectors (armed with guns for some clearly non-tyrannical reason…hmmm…oh look, and with a huge new HQ planned that has….well will you look at that holding cells in the architectural plans….) when the British Empire administered between a quarter and a fifth of the entire globe with fewer permanent official posts than would appear today in a single large hospital (if you think that’s an exaggeration, the Colonial Office for example had just 25 staff right up to 1850. Even the vast territories of India were run by just a few thousand people when INCLUDING the non-Indian British military presence).

The ‘intolerable burdens’ that caused the colonists to rise up and overthrow the most powerful Empire on the planet were minute compared to current globalist plans and actions. George III and the British Parliament may have taxed without representation, but they didn’t have 35,000 FBI agents ready to shoot you on your doorstep if ordered to do so. The entire British armed strength in the colonies during a war to retain them was only slightly larger than the modern FBI. Now add between 40-50,000 people who work for the NSA. Now add about 20,000 publicly declared employees of the CIA (with a 53 billion dollar budget). Now add about 850,000 people in the US who are cops of one kind or another.

Of course, population generally is much higher, but the reality is that the capabilities to enact tyranny of the modern ‘liberal democracy’ or the modern ‘federal Republic’ far exceed the money, men and materials in every possible way that any tyrant of the past could supply. The gap between the technology alone makes modern tyranny more terifying.

George III wasn’t injecting most of the planet with experimental gene therapies that kill people and can alter DNA, as modern ‘democracies’ have done.

The intent to tyranny AND the capacity for tyranny are economically, scientifically, technologically advanced today in ways that old tyrants or monarchs could not even begin to comprehend. Twenty four hour surveillance. Phone tracking. Media empires pumping out constant propaganda. CCTV cameras. Speed cameras. AI systems. Social media censorship. Digital currencies. Investment banks forcing ideological conformity. Thousands of NGOs and lobby groups and pressure groups and special interest groups pressing agendas. That’s within a single nation.

Add all the international bodies that no citizen in any nation ever really gets to vote for or against. I am 50 years old and only ever had one vote on whether I wanted to be ruled by the EU. I have never had any kind of vote or ever been asked if I want to support the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, or any of the transnational bodies and agreements my nation has signed up to without these things being in any election manifesto or put to any referendum in my nation. Yet all of these bodies have for 70 years or so exercised power over everyone in my country in various ways. More and more power has been transferred to these bodies.

Was I asked if I agree to the UN, support the UN, accept the World Health Organisation as an authority able to dictate policy my government follows? No. Were you? No.

Where is the democratic consent, exactly, in these now vast networks of power, patronage, influence, in these thousands of very well paid jobs for the ruling class, in these bodies whose decision making occurs behind closed doors in meetings we know nothing about, quite frequently? Even if they have some democratic, voted for components within these institutions, did I consent to pool my English vote, manifesting perhaps if I am lucky with a handful of MEPs in the EU for example when we were a member state, with French and German and Belgian votes and representatives? When did that, in my lifetime, ever gain my consent? When did I say ‘I consent’? When was I asked?

Transnational bodies are by definition a betrayal of the national requirement of the consent of the people, because each ‘the people’ is a specific people. Therefore all transnational bodies are anti Democratic and inherently tyrannical. They are examples of us being ruled without our consent being asked for or obtained. They are foreign rule without consent. Even before we notice how the things they want (ESG policies, DEI policies, Net Zero policies, global governance agreements, global tax systems, global ideological positions, censorship of anti-globalist views, restriction of anti-globalist policies, increasingly technocratic rule by unelected self-declared experts, versions of the Chinese social credit system) are obviously tyrannical, their inherent nature is obviously tyrannical.

None of these things are rule by the people. they are rule by ‘the right people’, now often acting in ways they KNOW the majority of the people in any specific nation don’t want and wouldn’t vote for.

Look at polling on what people want on immigration and border policies. Then look at the open border policies that are actually delivered.

That’s a significant and obvious case where the systems we live in aren’t in the least bit democratic and don’t intend to be democratic. And where the people have been denied the right to vote for what they want, or when they have made it abundantly clear what they want, that statement (voting for Trump, voting for Brexit) has been rejected by the institutions that should accept and enact it.

At the same time, all of the things that we were told follow from Democracy or protect Democracy, like a free press, are now engines of the destruction of that Democracy which existed when we were born. The ‘free press’ is not a thing holding tyrannical governments of any stripe to account, but a purchased agent of tyranny pumping out propaganda for anti-democratic governing regimes with a coordinated, controlled, malign and uniform voice.

Even the claims of a majority are now entirely false. The majority of the people do not back any of our present governments. Increasingly tyrannical actions and increasingly obvious examples of the political system being rigged with stolen results or with policies that continue whichever party is in alleged power have led to a collapse in the point of voting and therefore a sharp decline in the number of people even bothering to vote. How much legitimacy of rule and representation, how much democratic consent, really exists for candidates who obtain just 20% of the eligible vote?

Is 20% consent really a democratic majority? 80% of people could detest that person or their party. In the UK in a few days a widely despised Labour Party is set to secure its greatest ever electoral triumph with a vast majority that confers a period as an elected dictatorship. Their lead will be such that they can force through almost any legislation imaginable. All on a 40% vote share with perhaps just 15% of eligible adult voters actually wanting them in power. A few years ago UKIP secured over 4 million votes without obtaining a single MP.

During Brexit both main political parties heavily opposed it. The vast majority of MPs opposed it. The Speaker of the Commons twisted his existing powers to oppose it. The Conservative Government that called the referendum used State funds and taxpayer provided money to heavily support the pro EU Remain vote, including printing and sending pro EU leaflets to every household. International bodies and transnational corporations interfered in Britain’s democracy to heavily back the EU. Foreign owned news organisations ran ridiculous scare stories. Various shadily funded NGOs campaigned against Brexit. G7 leaders spoke against Brexit. All direct interference in the British vote, which thankfully the British people, the real demos, were strong enough to resist.

But just how democratic is any of that, that kind of Establishment resistance both before a vote and after a vote?

And such an example severely questions whether we live in a democracy anymore even before we think about how few people are voting or how few genuine options appear on a ballot paper. We are constantly in a multitude of ways denied the opportunity to say I DO NOT CONSENT. COVID mandates were just the final logic of an ongoing process. A vast sea of automatic choices occur without our consent, and sometimes the system goes to extraordinary lengths to even avoid us being aware of what these choices were.

Even BEFORE people start using Dominion machines the old US Revolutionary tests have long since been met. They don’t have our consent, and they do intend tyranny.