Thursday, February 28, 2013

Why Freedom Was Greater Under the Absolute Monarchy of Elizabeth I, Than Under the Democracy of Barak Obama

The West is at war with the Rest to establish a global system of governance subject to the  clandestine control of the money power.

The only effective resistance to this criminal war of aggression is provided by the independent nation states. All nation states, as independent political entities, are thus targeted for destruction, their natural and human resources to be appropriated in the drive for global empire.

The first nations to fall, were the European states, effectively occupied by the US, despite some French resistance, since the end of World War II.

These nations are now all more or less tightly bound into the globalist system, under the control of globalist plutocracy and their puppet rulers and systems of transnational integration, including NATO, the EU, and the WTO.

Thus destruction of the racial and cultural identities of the European peoples is well advanced and is almost certainly now irreversible, the process being driven by mass immigration, propaganda delivered under the guise of education, and legally enforced political correctness aimed at the demoralization of the indigenous populations and the near criminalization of Christianity, the moral system that dominated Western thought during Europe's age of greatness.

The European settler states are likewise in an advanced stage of disintegration as outpost of European civilization, the European majorities fast fading to powerless and more or less discriminated against minorities throughout the Americas, as in Africa and Australasia.

The Muslim states are now the primary target for assimilation to the global system, those that have proved resistant to internal subversion being subject to direct Western military intervention and the installation of globalist puppet regimes. Meanwhile, no opportunity is lost to incite destructive conflict among the most independent and assertive Asian powers.

Among the brainwashed of the West, the globalist transformation of the world through universal national genocide is largely justified by the spread of the West's supposedly most precious attributes: freedom and democracy. Yet such attributes are mutually exclusive.

Thus, Thomas Jefferson said of democracy:
It is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.
 To James Madison, a pure democracy
can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
 Most percipiently, John Adams wrote:
Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
So much for the globalist causus belli: mere rubbish to flatter the propaganda-addled masses into believing that those in power somehow, against all the evidence, actually give a damn about what they, the plebs, think.

And, in fact, the thoughts of the masses, stupefied as they are by endless propaganda force-fed as education, political correctness, TV lies, degrading entertainment, and bogus Hollywood history, are not products of independent thought or moral conviction, but only the end product of the process of mental conditioning to which the masses have been subjected.

Election outcomes are determined by the ruling elite through mind-control of the electorate.

The absurdity of confusing the West's so-called democratic forms of a government with some ideal notion of what those forms of government are supposed to be, is nicely expressed by Thomas, Lord Macaulay in his essay on William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, Elizabeth I's chief political adviser throughout her reign.
It has long been the fashion, a fashion introduced by Mr. Hume, to describe the English monarchy in the sixteenth century as an absolute monarchy. And such undoubtedly it appears to a superficial observer. Elizabeth, it is true, often spoke to her parliaments in language as haughty and imperious as that which the Great Turk would use to his divan. She punished with great severity members of the House of Commons who, in her opinion, carried the freedom of debate too far. She assumed the power of legislating by means of proclamations. ...

Such was this government. Yet we know that it was loved by the great body of those who lived under it. We know that, during the fierce contests of the sixteenth century, both the hostile parties spoke of the time of Elizabeth as of a golden age. That great Queen has now been lying two hundred and thirty years in Henry the Seventh’s chapel. Yet her memory is still dear to the hearts of a free people.

The truth seems to be that the government of the Tudors was, with a few occasional deviations, a popular government, under the forms of despotism. At first sight, it may seem that the prerogatives of Elizabeth were not less ample than those of Louis the Fourteenth, and her parliaments were as obsequious as his parliaments, that her warrant had as much authority as his lettre-de-cachet. The extravagance with which her courtiers eulogized her personal and mental charms went beyond the adulation of Boileau and Moliere. Louis would have blushed to receive from those who composed the gorgeous circles of Marli and Versailles such outward marks of servitude as the haughty Britoness exacted of all who approached her. But the authority of Louis rested on the support of his army. The authority of Elizabeth rested solely on the support of her people. Those who say that her power was absolute do not sufficiently consider in what her power consisted. Her power consisted in the willing obedience of her subjects, in their attachment to her person and to her office, in their respect for the old line from which she sprang, in their sense of the general security which they enjoyed under her government. These were the means, and the only means, which she had at her command for carrying her decrees into execution, for resisting foreign enemies, and for crushing domestic treason. There was not a ward in the city, there was not a hundred in any shire in England, which could not have overpowered the handful of armed men who composed her household. If a hostile sovereign threatened invasion, if an ambitious noble raised the standard of revolt, she could have recourse only to the train-bands of her capital and the array of her counties, to the citizens and yeomen of England, commanded by the merchants and esquires of England.
Likewise (to paraphrase Macaulay), it has long been fashionable to describe the Western form of government as democratic and Western society as free, as undoubtedly appears to be the case to a superficial observer. Barak Obama and other Western leaders, it is true, often speak to the public in language as humble and ingratiating as that which an accused person might address to a judge.

 ... Yet we know that such government is not loved by the great body of those who live under it. ...The truth seems to be that the democratic government of the West is with a few occasional deviations, a despotic government, under the forms of democracy. Despite outward marks of servitude to the popular will, the authority of Obama, Cameron, Hollande and their likes rests solely on the support of the police, the army, the security services, and the great bureaucracies of state that consume most of the wealth of the nation, while the hostility of the people is perpetually feared and continuously guarded against, with drones, surveillance cameras, spies, torture, assassination, agents provocateurs, and false flag terrorism.

Those who say that the power of Western governments is not absolute do not sufficiently consider in what that power consists. It depends on the legally enforced obedience of subjects to codes of conduct and speech that are antithetical to their fundamental beliefs and interests, the resort to all the standard means of control deployed by tyrants throughout the ages, but greatly enhanced through the application of advanced technology, and a sense of general insecurity induced in the populace through state-sponsored violence against innocent persons. These are the means, and the only means, which "democratic" governments have at their command for carrying their decrees into execution, for destroying the resistance of the people, and for creating hatred for those foreign nations yet to be destroyed.

No comments:

Post a Comment