Your votes don’t count in a Plutocracy

For a number of years I felt that the EU was drifting from democracy to plutocracy, this drift has in my view had a discernible effect on our own parliament. Before I make my point I thought it might be helpful to define the meaning of plutocracy and democracy.

The word plutocracy comes from the Greek words ploutos meaning wealth and kratos meaning power or rule. The Wikipedia definition of Plutocracy is ‘a society ruled or controlled by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens.’

The word democracy again comes from Greek, and means rule of the commoners. The Oxford English dictionary defines democracy as ‘a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation.’

Our media and our politicians constantly remind us we live in a democracy. In many ways this is true, we hold regular elections, parties and leaders come and go depending on the outcome. More recently we have seen a number of referenda, most recently the referendum over membership of the European Union. Our system has its flaws but I do feel it is one of the better ones in the world.

Yet when you think a little bit more deeply all is not well in our democracy. If our system was applied as it is defined then no one has more of a say in how we are governed than anyone else, that is no vote carries more weight than any other. However openly and in plain sight the wealthy and powerful enjoy special access to government. For some reason we have been conditioned into accepting this, that somehow this is the normal course of events, nothing unusual or unacceptable.

I am not one for conspiracy theories being a firm believer that humans can stuff up the most simple of plans. Nonetheless I do feel I need to borrow from one to illustrate a point. Many of you would have heard of the financier George Soros. Mr. Soros is a Hungarian with American citizenship. He has had a brilliant career in the finance markets, by most accounts he is a wealthy man indeed. Personally I have no real issue with people that work hard seeing the fruits of their labour – although I think making billions is probably way out of proportion to the achievement, I doubt the people that find a cure for cancer will see anything like that.

No, my problem with the wealthy elite such as Mr. Soros is this; he has direct influence over the way I am ruled because of his wealth – which is a bit bizarre when you consider that if we do live in a democracy I’m the one with a vote not him (he has no vote in the UK).

It is not just the access he enjoys to our elected politicians; it is his worrying ability to fund think tanks and charities that promote only his opinion. Our media seem only too willing to adopt his world view as some kind of truth when it is not, it is his opinion and that is all it is. The current narrative over the ‘migrant crisis’ is the imposition of his will trampling on the democratic will of the people – not just here but across Europe. However much you may agree with him have you not perhaps considered that your acceptance means the wealthy can pretty much impose anything else they wish to? Go down this path and you can be sure that one day something you do oppose will be forced upon you.

This problem is not confined to Mr. Soros; you may recall that after the EU referendum Richard Branson was granted access to make his case to overturn the outcome. Now think about this, a wealthy man is permitted access to the highest levels of government to demand they ignore the democratic will of the people. In terms of fairness, was a nurse from Boston who voted for Brexit invited in to make her case for why the result must stand and we leave the EU? I don’t remember that happening. Yet no alarm bells started ringing with our media or political commentators, the Branson story was reported as though he had some special right to do this. Can anyone point me in the direction of the piece of legislation that grants him this special right?

We seem to be operating on a razor’s edge between democracy and plutocracy. Brexit I would argue has given us the opportunity to examine how we are governed. We can keep ourselves on the right side of democracy but it needs us all to challenge the insidious nature of would be plutocrats. We cannot rely on our journalists and political commentators to do this, we have to do this ourselves – after all, why is it that nobodies like me seem to be the only people asking these questions?


The BBC promoting the acceptance of terror


In my previous blog I raised the issue of the BBC and its activities in sowing social division. The example I used was the promotion of the campaign group Black Lives Matter at the same time as quite blatant suppression of the facts surrounding the terrorist attack in Russell Square that resulted in the murder of Darlene Horton.

For me this highlighted another troubling aspect of the BBC, the way they corrupt the truth and try to turn what is abnormal and sinister into something mundane and ordinary. I don’t think it escaped too many people how the BBC went out of its way to withhold the truth about the Rotherham child abuse scandal. Given the BBC’s own relaxed views on child abuse this is hardly a surprise, yet as more of the stories emerge the less attention the BBC assigns to it as though this is just routine.

Many parts of our mainstream media are in decline, the rise of social media such as Twitter has I think contributed to this. This has not escaped the attention of the establishment which bemoans the fact that as more people use social media for their news rather than the more established methods they are becoming more anti establishment. Personally I do not find this very surprising, mainstream media has in the main been happy to promote the establishment – it is in their interests to do so, social media is not so easy to control and allows people to hear other voices. Clearly not all of it can be true – but it does help the average person see that there are alternative explanations for what is going on.

This fits in with a new narrative being peddled by the BBC and other parts of the mainstream media – the growth of ‘populism’. Since serious challenges to the establishment line are now coming from the left as well it is not so easy to pin the label of ‘extreme right’ on dissident voices – so a new enemy is conjured up, the threat to the established order seems to be from ‘populism’. This does strike me as absurd, it is generally the case that in a democracy the most popular party tends to win, so the line of the BBC and others seems to be that the greatest risk to democracy is, well, democracy. I would suggest if you read an article or hear a news item about the perils of populism I would stop reading or change channel, you are probably being lied to.

The recent spate of attacks has revealed a lot about the BBC. All too happy to push out a line that the killer was mentally ill, visited gay bars and had a history of petty crime, there is now a clear credibility gap between what the BBC say and what people know to be true. There is little that I believe from the BBC anymore and I know that millions are coming to the same conclusion. Even so if the main criticism of the BBC was that it was not exactly honest all that can be really said is that it keeps good company with the rest of the mainstream media. However it does not confine itself to distorting the truth, the BBC has an agenda, it actively promotes those that seek to sow social division whilst at the same time trying to create an acceptance that these things are normal. It is only a matter of time for the BBC to introduce a narrative that constant terror is just a feature of normal life, something we have to accept.

But this is not normal, what is happening here and in many countries around the world – particularly in the EU is not normal. It is abnormal, base and perverse. If we allow the BBC to get their way then abuse of minors, sexual assaults and a constant fear of terror will be considered the new ‘normal’. We must not accept this.

This is the land of the enlightenment, we must not let the light of truth and reason be extinguished. We have the right to defend our freedoms, we have the right to resist those that will take them from us.

In September of this year there is a mass call for all of us to stop paying our licence fee, you do not need a licence provided you do not watch live or recorded live TV. Join this movement and tell others, we have to stop this, we have to allow other more truthful voices to be heard.

Why not all lives matter to the BBC

BBC Lies

Last week as I was getting myself ready for work I listened to a radio 4 interview with Adam Elliot Cooper from Black Lives Matter and Dr Tony Sewell from the Youth Justice Board. By BBC standards the interview was reasonably balanced and I thought Dr Sewell made some very telling points about there being no need for this type of movement. Perhaps the most striking point for me was that since the Mark Duggan incident over two hundred black males have been murdered by other black males.

And there I left it, thought no more about it and got on with the rest of my day.

Until mid-morning that is, then the news started to come in that activists had started to blockade routes into major infrastructure hubs such as Heathrow. As the news stories started to come in of other actions I started to think – what are the odds of that? I mean really, an organisation practically unknown in Britain gets airtime on national radio on the day it orchestrates nationwide protests. A bit too much of a coincidence for me.

As I mulled this ‘coincidence’ over in my mind I remembered where I had heard Black Lives Matter (America aside) before on the news, then it came to me, a riot in Hyde Park a few weeks back (the one the Mayor put down to the summer heat) was reported by the BBC and it mentioned the rioters were chanting ‘Black Lives Matter’.

This seemed to a thread. I considered this thread further, in the same week of the Black Lives Matter interview the BBC had performed an excellent job in covering up the terrorist attack in Russell Square managing to find a narrative that the assailant was a mentally ill Norwegian. Personally I prefer the more plausible version that he was a Somali Muslim who deliberately attacked as many white people with a knife as he could as opposed to the BBC mantra that the killer was mentally ill /frequented gay bars / drank alcohol/ was involved with petty crime.

Did the BBC perhaps consider my feelings when they decided to promote Black Lives Matter but deliberately obfuscated the truth when white people were murdered for no other reason than their colour?

It is noted by many of us that the BBC refused to accept the Brexit result and spent the next couple of days running the remain counter narrative i.e. the Nazis have taken over the country. You surely noticed the theme of hate crimes going up after Brexit, there may be some truth in it – over a hundred people have been murdered by terrorists since. I doubt very much the motives of the killers was Brexit.

Maybe it’s just me but I am coming to the conclusion that the BBC is actively sowing social division in this country. Millions of us are now of the view that the BBC has long since stopped truthfully reporting the news, I would argue it is now involved in creating ‘news’.

On the 1st of September this year there is a mass movement to stop paying the licence fee – the day of truth for the BBC. If you care about your country and want to stop the BBC poisoning our society then I urge you to cancel your Television Licence, you don’t need one if you don’t watch live or recordings of live broadcasts. If you have already cancelled your licence then good for you – but spread the word to others.

We have to resist, we have to start fighting back.