There, is the problem

A few days ago I was sent this link, with the comment that it was thought this summary of where the world ‘is at’ very good and has a certain resonance to the THA as the quote from the article: You cannot influence people to volunteer for servitude and submission unless they are sufficiently terrified of the alternativ shows.

I replied that: While I can, to a certain extent, agree with the thrust of the article you quote, I fail to see any resonance with THA. The only alternative to servitude and submission must surely be direct democracy, so how can people be terrified by that?

The response to my question was: You are right and my interpretation of the quote is not applicable to the point I wished to make which is that things have got to get a lot worse before the people will get more involved and seek out options like THA to improve things.

I am forced to agree with my respondent in that it seems the dictatorial element of our current form of democracy will have to increase before the electorate/people do realize that they are being taken for fools and are being treated as voting fodder.

The problem encapsulated in allowing the dictatorial element in our current  form of democracy to continue to grow is that a point will be reached when the electorate/people will have become so brain-washed that they will have lost the ability to reason for themselves – if they haven’t already.

It has been said that democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education. This begs the question of how can an electorate choose wisely when: (a) they are lied to come any election –  be that national or local – and; (b) how can they choose wisely when they have not been ‘educated’ about democracy per se?

Sidetracking slightly, when I were a lad – in the 50s – we used  to have ‘mock elections’ which coincided with general elections. Candidates for the three parties were chosen by the pupils (the electorate) – (Primaries?) – and by heavens, were those candidates ‘put through the grinder’. It was while there that I first learned about democracy, ie demos – people, kratos – power: something which I had totally forgotten until a few years ago.

I understand that one of the most basic rules in advocacy is never to ask a question to which you don’t know the answer – however, here goes: when was the meaning of democracy last taught in our schools? From what I have read – and been able to discover from speaking in schools about democracy – is that political education can, today, best be summed up in the words of HL Mencken:

The most erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry.

If we are to discuss ‘democracy’ in our nation I find it incredible that those of us who have an understanding of the subject are ignored. In particular I find it similarly incredible that one person, who has made a study of extricating our nation from membership of the European Union, is ‘shunned’ by the commentariat, the media and politicians; who when also invited to appear before a Parliamentary Select Committee on the subject of Brexit was also ‘shunned’. That those, of all political persuasions, who profess – and would thus have us believe – they know all that there is to know on the subject of Brexit can behave in such a manner begs the question: wherefore democracy per se?

Whether one considers a multitude of questions which affect our nation, what difference does it make whether what appears to be the mad destruction of our nation is wrought under the name of democratised dictatorship – under which we currently suffer? Unless of course the indigenous people, to whom a nation belongs,  become the final arbiters?  Which is what of course DD4UK would provide them – assuming their power of reason has not, by then, been bred out of them.

Just saying…………..


11 thoughts on “There, is the problem

  1. As an optimist I would contend that however bad it gets the ‘people’ always contain the innate ability to eventually rise up against their oppressors.

    1. But how long must we wait before “eventually” arrives? (Me, I’m a very cautious optimist.)

  2. The people’s future is in their hands but they are unlikely to be bothered while they are generally as comfortable as they are.

    Coincidently the self-harm Brexit that Mrs May looks like she is going to serve up could cause the conditions for the people to demand changes to the way we are governed to prevent our politicians ever letting us down so badly again.

    1. Ah, now had a little thought been put into this problem earlier and had Demand 6 FlexCit been Demand 1, it is more than possible we would not now be in the utterly stupid situation that we are, wherein a group of elected politicians are making decisions on our behalf about matters of which they know nothing.

      1. The THA’s six demands is STAGE six of Flexcit and given that our government has already ignored STAGE one there really is no evidence that had THA’s demands been STAGE one it would have made ANY difference.

        Just saying…………

        1. So I confused Stages with Demands; anyhow, neither is there any evidence that it would not.

          Had THA been presented with the same intensity as FlexCit – and run as a separate campaign – who knows what might have happened. But then, as I have said so many times, it was taken over and then ‘parked’.

          Politicians are blamed quite rightly for the mess we are in; some of us blame those that appear to have treated promoting direct democracy as a ‘side-line’ and by making it Stage 6, consequently appear as an afterthought.

          Just saying………..

          1. I do have some sympathy with your point but do not accept it as realistic.

            First, Flexcit has thus far largely been ignored so whatever stage THA was would I contend have made little difference.

            Second, concurrent activity has its place but so does setting priorities and the THA by any reckoning, that is part fro you of course, was going to take second place to Brexit.

            What is without doubt is that during the Brexit campaign THA has had increased exposure. However what is also without doubt is that even amongst the committed supporters moving forward is a slow process.

            PS. when do you plan to give us an update on the future of your DD initiative?

            1. Niall,

              Re second para of your response,you’ve said that already; however I see no response regarding the possible outcome had THA had the same intensity of promotion as did Flexcit

              Re third para: Just who made the decision that THA would take second place – was that an arbitrary decision?

              RE fourth para: where and how did THA have increased exposure as I obviously missed that.

              Re last para: As and when I am ready – which will probably be the same time as we see an update on the future of THA


              1. 1. I’m not sure what INTENSE promotion Flexcit had but in all the promotion it had THA was a part in stage six.
                2. As the author of THA and Flexcit Dr North was at liberty to include THA in Flexcit as he did at stage six.
                3. THA was part of our launch and now gets regular airings on EU Referendum.
                4. THA’s continued promotion is in the hands of its main supporters who despite my best efforts go at their own pace. As far as I can see you have EXACTLY the same issue with promoting your DD initiative. I’ll keep an eye open on your developments to see if there is anything THA can learn form you.

Comments are closed.