Democracy, or rather real democracy, is undoubtedly the best form of governance we have imagined. Unfortunately, as the recent U.S. election and the overwhelming support for another Lockdown in the UK parliament have demonstrated, democracy only exists in our imagination.
What we have instead is a corrupt system of centralised, authoritarian power. Rule through deception, coercion, and the threat of and use of violence.
Abraham Lincoln attempted to define democracy as “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” This is what we are taught democracy is. Indeed, that is how it is supposed to be. Unfortunately, that is not what we have.
We have a unified global tyranny, run solely for the benefit of a tiny clique of parasitic robber barons. They have established their hegemony through usury, war, terrorism, bribery, corruption and control of the monetary supply.
They have largely achieved this without resistance because too many of us think that their system of representative democracy is democracy. Which it isn’t.
The COVID 19 pandemic has long been planned to deliver the The World Economic Forum’s Great Reset. This merely repackages the tired, old obsessions of the parasite class. Namely, the creation of a New World Order.
It is common today for our oppressors to clothe their rhetoric in fluffy, progressive mantras, giving the false impression that they really care. This is all part of the sales pitch.
For example, Richard Haas (president of the Council on Foreign Relations) suggests World Order 2.0 is the way forward. We might ask what World Order 1.0. was, but it has certainly been the ambition of the globalists for some time.
Haas’s suggested “2.0” version was all about eroding national sovereignty, as it always is, by constructing an overarching, centrally administered “single authority” to rule every nation on Earth. The point being, that the select few will control the single authority. He used the soundbites of sustainability, resilience and climate action as the fuzzy vagaries to cloak his totalitarian aspirations.
These catchphrases are popular with other wannabe dictators. The drip-feed them into everything they say, to put us at ease.
Frequently positioning themselves as saviours, invariably from threats they have created, COVID 19 is the new danger they intend to rescue us from. Thereby, hoping to engineer our acceptance of their New World Order 3.0 (or whatever they want to call it.)
The words of the co-founder and current chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, illustrate this point perfectly. According to Schwab:
“The 21st century will most likely be an era devoid of an absolute hegemon during which no one power gains absolute dominance……In this messy new world …..spurred by nationalism and the competition for resources. If no one power can enforce order, our world will suffer from a “global order deficit”……
The pandemic crisis has both exposed and exacerbated this sad state of affairs….no extreme scenario can now be taken off the table…..The big problems besetting us take place beyond the control of even the most powerful nation states….[a]..strong interconnections exist between global governance failure, climate action failure, national government failure, social instability and of course the ability to successfully deal with pandemics.
In a nutshell, global governance is at the nexus of all these other issues….without appropriate global governance, we will become paralysed…..there is no “committee to save the world.”.
A vacuum of global governance…..make it more difficult to deal with the outbreak…….COVID-19 has reminded us that the biggest problems we face are global in nature. Whether it’s pandemics, climate change, terrorism or international trade, all are global issues that we can only address….in a collective fashion.”
Schwab bemoans the absence of a single system of world governance and strongly advocates a global power who can clean up the planet. He selflessly offers himself and his mates for the job.
By forcing us to comply with his orders, the world will be reborn. COVID 19 has opened the window for a new reality of extreme global events which only a single global committee can ever protect us from.
That we have never needed to be saved from such threats before doesn’t matter. We do now, so that’s that.
Authoritarian rule and the desire to build a totalitarian dictatorship, affording the select few absolute power, is the dream underlying this marketing. It is as old as humanity itself.
Hitherto, a global dictatorship has been impractical. Modern technology has finally brought this prospect within the grasp of those with sufficient resources to buy one.
Most people aren’t too keen on this idea and our expectant slave masters have been reluctant to openly declare their intention to make us their unwilling vassals. This could alert too many people to their plans and risks the population refusing to comply. At which point their hopes would be dashed.
Instead they need some sort of faintly plausible narrative to convince us to obey their orders. COVID 19 is the problem to which authoritarian diktat is the reaction and the New World Order is the solution.
Their claim that salvation can only be found through them, and fulfilment of their technocratic “vision,” is patently absurd. The idea that a tiny group of people can create an egalitarian global order is stupid. To assert that “global problems require global solutions” is tantamount to saying “the solution to knife crime is more knives.”
Humanity’s most pressing problems, such as conflict, health inequality, food & energy scarcity and global poverty, are largely caused by global corporations, their corruption of nation states and the pernicious influence of global financial institutions. As the various global industrial, economic, military and intelligence complexes compete, we all suffer the consequences. Some notably more than others.
It is unlikely any single “society of the elect” could even define the enormous array of issues faced by disparate communities across the world. That they suggest they can deliver one policy platform that will serve every community on Earth is ridiculous. Of course they can’t, but then improving the lot of humanity isn’t their concern.
To be fair, despite the fluffy language found in documents like Agenda 2030, or the Rockefeller’s 2010 Future Scenario or the WEF’s long standing Strategic Intelligence plans, it isn’t as if we haven’t been warned. The idea of a technocratic and scientific elite running the world has fired the imagination of globalist oligarchs for nearly a century.
With their various pandemic planning events like 2001’s Operation Dark Winter and 2019’s Event 201, the plan to use pandemics as the catalyst to create a global technocracy is no secret.
In this technocracy, benign scientists, objective economists, dispassionate political philosophers and engineers won’t really be in charge. AI will allegedly be making the decisions. It will be programmed by the parasite class.
Just as we have seen with Lockdown policy responses to COVID 19, the science can be cherry picked to suit the oligarchs agenda. Well funded institutions like Imperial College will always be on hand to create the science to order.
In truth, the claimed desire for a global technocracy all boils down to the sociopath’s belief that they were born to exercise the “divine right of kings.” Their offer of a global society in which we own nothing only means that we, the people, own nothing. They, the parasite class, will own everything. Including all of us and the Earth itself.
Their whole ethos is quite insane and is more like the myopic, delusions of unhinged cult leaders than any rational political philosophy. So they obscure it with talk of sustainability, equality and diversity. It’s all deception. The flimflam of snake oil sellers.
As we enter yet another Lockdown of assured economic annihilation, in preparation for the Great Reset, given that there is no evidence that Lockdowns work, it is clear that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum. They have been in charge for thousands of years, but now their global ambitions are coming to fruition. The question is, what are we going to do about it?
Our consent to this insanity is a choice. We don’t have to comply. If only a few refuse to obey an example will be made to deter others. However, if millions, and eventually billions, decide they aren’t going to mindlessly follow their orders to self destruct, the game is up for the parasite class.
Their grasp on power is based upon illusion, not reality. Quite simply, they lack the numbers to enforce their global dictatorship without our collective consent.
This is why we are given the silly ordination ritual of elections and told that government exists by the consent of the governed. It allows the parasite class, who own the politicians, to sell us the deception that we have a say in power.
Thus distracted, it seems the vast majority of us don’t even recognise the self-evident. We are not making the decisions and have no influence over the policies that rule our lives.
There is no political mechanism that has ever allowed us access to executive power. Occasionally populists emerge, but when they do they are hobbled, undermined and contained before being ejected at the next available opportunity.
Policies, once formed in royal courts, are now developed in globalist think tanks and corporate boardrooms. The only purpose of the political class is to keep us engaged in the pointless charade and, in so doing, convince us to accept the policies of the parasite class.
So wedded are the common folk to this idea of representative democracy, promising us control via the democratic process, that we fiercely resist anyone who suggests we have no stake in the political system.
In order to accept our own impotency, to see the cockeyed mirage of representative democracy for what it is, we need the humility to confront our own lack of political power. Most of us seem unwilling to do this while simultaneously accusing those who are of arrogance.
The political class, and their parasitic handlers, would have us believe that representative democracy is the best and only fair system of government we have yet devised. This lie contains two fundamental falsehoods.
Firstly, representative democracy is a form of democracy, not democracy itself. It is watered down democracy and is designed to concentrate power in the hands of a select few. Which is why tyrants want you to like it.
Most importantly, we don’t need government. A decision making process of governance is required, but this need be no more than the rules by which we agree to live. The Rule of Law in other words.
The good news is, in Common Law jurisdictions, we already have that system of governance in place. The Rule of Law is the ultimate power and it is the sole purview of the people. Our problem is that this has been denied to us for centuries.
Eager despots, like Haas and Schwab, are determined that you will never realise this. Hence representative democracy, with its claims of parliamentary sovereignty, guaranteeing them control over all of us.
In a representative democracy, we don’t have the Rule of Law, we have a “legal system.” This is law supposedly formed from precedent, wrongly called the common law in some jurisdictions, and legislation, decided by parliaments, senates and the like.
With judges, often dishonest, in charge of their legal system, justice is up for sale. Deep pockets, not the evidence, determine what you can get away with.
We don’t have to accept this. It does not need to be this way. It is, because the system of representative democracy we cling to is inherently corrupt and designed to serve the parasite class who own it. People like Klaus Schwab, George Soros and Bill Gates can pull the strings of the puppet politicians they give us to select.
True democracy (demos kratos), meaning “people power,” is governance by trial by jury. It is the Rule of Law which sits above all other authority. It has nothing to do with representatives, senates or parliaments. Those are just additional constructs to give the parasite class political power.
In a true democracy, governed by the Rule of Law, if we chose to elect leaders to legislate, any and all legislation could be overturned (annulled) by a randomly selected jury of ordinary men and women. This would deliver justice on a far more regular basis and everyone, regardless of their social standing or wealth, would be equal under the Law.
Corrupting politicians would be a waste of time, because corrupt legislation and policies which destroy human lives would be overturned in the Common Law courts. Politicians would be forced only to create legislation and regulations which the people find to be reasonable and just. If the people found them to be unreasonable or unjust they would be annulled.
Anti-democratic, power grab legislation, such as the Coronavirus Act and the disgusting proposed Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill, by which the UK government intends to give themselves the legal power to commit any crime they like, including murder, would be impossible. Representative bodies, such as the UK Parliament or U.S. House and Senate, would not be the highest authority in the land.
In order to build a global dictatorship the likes of the Bank for International Settlements, World Economic Forum, The Club of Rome, the Bilderberg Group and others would have to bribe, intimidate and control every man and woman on Earth. Not just a few hand picked political puppets.
They would have no way of knowing which of us would be randomly selected by lot to judge the laws they want to bend in their favour. A great measure of their power would evaporate.
Their ability to form policy and create legislation would be confined solely to those we agree to. If we didn’t we would annul them. Political corruption would become practically pointless.
No nation state could unilaterally decide to launch war, nor any crazed leader decide to attack their own people. If they did the people could convene a Grand Jury and rid themselves, not only of the idiot government or lunatic tyrant that did it, but also every order follower who thought they could get away with harming others because someone else told them to do it.
In fact, government itself would serve little purpose other than to administrate the decisions of the people who would live freely under the Rule of Law, operating all of their business under lawful contract.
The last thing the parasite class ever want to see is an end to their preferred system called “representative democracy.” Yet, if we so chose, we could insist that our customs and rights be upheld and install a much better system. A system where the people are the sovereign power, via the Rule of Law.
This system is called democracy.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
One of the arguments I heard over and over again after the referendum resulted in our decision to leave the European Union was that it was undemocratic because we have a parliamentary democracy. The people making this “argument” were apparently incapable of seeing it as anything other than axiomatic.
Quite.
An excellent article Mr. Davis although I must admit I cannot agree with your conclusion, that the starting premise that democracy in its ideal form is still the best form of governance.
Thanks Jackson. What do you suggest?
Plato proposed in his ideal republic an epistocracy, a form of caring oligarchy, chosen or groomed by merit of their ability to govern. It took them over a century to condition us the masses into believing the “un-democracy experiment” really isn’t working, maybe it will take just as long that to educate us that there are people far better at governing than “(kinda) elected” officials most of whom don’t have a clue and most definitely don’t care about those they rule.
I think epistocracy (thanks for that – new to me) is a double edged sword. I can see the potential benefit, however is the suggested Great Reset “technocracy” not a proposed epistocracy? Similarly Sortition is proposed to “fix” our broken “un-democracy” (thanks again – like it). That too is equally flawed:
Sorting Sortition: – https://iaindavis.com/sorting-sortition/
The problem with all these systems is that they devolve “authority” to some body or group. Allowing them to make decisions “on our behalf.” I suggest any such system will inevitably be corrupted because they all facilitate the centralisation of power.
In my view, the only solution that will work is one where we do not devolve our authority (individual sovereignty) to anyone. The Stateless, voluntary society, based upon the Rule of Law, would be such a system. The Agora would work and would remove the possibility of sustained political corruption.
Sortition presumes randomly selected governors will act fairly, and in unison, so in doubts, be relied to agree on referendum vote. The problems sets in if the governors are asked to decide on issue requiring more than a yes or no referendum, like in guiding a country out of Covid, or charting a 5-year plan, accountability or a leader is ultimately needed to be accountable, thus the Dolly Step that it becomes a republic, a leader supported by a happenstance of oligarchs, yet again.
Touché on your last points, corruption is so rampart in all “democratic” countries however they are deliberately unreported by the media, or rebranded into acceptable components of conduct – like the taxcode-evasion trust charities and super-pac “donation” in America. The beauty of all the so called un-democracies we have is that they bank on this immutable truth of human nature in all of the politicians – that they have and will predictably watch out for their own best interests at the end of the day, hence their dys-governance gravitates towards self-reward and corruption of one form or another, without fail, at the peril of their electorates. They can be bought, and expected to be bought, in all forms of “democracies” we have had.
Power must not devolved to the extent that no single arms of the government or groups of politicians can function, and be expected to work in unison or in equilibrium, when the conductor starts a symphony of decision making. We the masses have been indoctrinated in believing that in theory they should work, and in reality, they actually do like clockwork.
I think one fundamental point is missing. The social soul, the social core of any consequential political revolution. So it must deal with and overcome the form of labour and property. Their power relies, I agree, in our consent, but it is founded by the private property and a hierarchical control over labour (presently, wage labour). There is a Marx text that brilliantly discuss those complexes (social/economic and political) and their articulation in the social struggle for emancipation. It is the “Critical Notes on the Article:’The King of Prussia and Social Reform. By a Prussian’.
It is an amazing text.
Thanks for the recommendation Samuel. I’ll take a look. Personally, as a voluntarist, socialism itself no longer appeals to me. However, I agree the issue of the ownership of the means of production is problematic and is a core element of the problems we now face.
The problem is that in any democracy is that those appointed soon develop a superiority complex and start with cresting special privileges in addition to their salaries for their commitment. Unfortunately they don’t take oaths of office or the very constitutions of the people seriously and the look for ways to undermine the constitutions for their own ends. The oath is simply a means to an end. It is the reason that the severest restrictions must be placed on governments to keep them on a tight leash. It is most sad when the citizens who put a Government in power then have the very same Government, they put in power allowing taking away the citizens’ rights by creating a law of legal plunder. Governments use legal plunder to in an attempt to make laws appear to be respectable. We see soon after being elected, governments simply stop being responsive to the people, but become very responsive to the elites. This is what is happening everywhere. Its the bureaucrats that need to be prevented from enacting their own laws too. That is where the rot is most evident.
I entirely agree John. For me the solution is not a different government (more of the same) but no government. Something, I will be exploring more in the coming weeks.
Hi Iain,
I have been following your articles since the start of the pseudopandemic, and think you are absolutely right in your analysis. Could we perhaps be in touch by e-mail, and I can send you some documents resulting from my researches, which you might be able to post or publicise more widely? I just read your article on the vaccine as salvation. Well, to my mind the best case scenario is that the vaccine is (like the ordinary flu vaccine) just medically useless. Worse case scenario, it is likely to kill a very large proportion of the world’s population – though whether deliberately or inadvertently is not yet clear. Worst case scenario, as well as killing off most of the world’s population it also includes some kind of digital tracer or nanochip which will make the individual totally subject to external control and surveillance. I just hope there are enough people who have understood this, and who will refuse to comply if vaccination becomes mandatory, as it probably will. We must refuse to be vaccinated. We must refuse to be tested. Civil disobedience is the only possible response. People should be told that since the passing of the Coronavirus Emergency Powers Act we have been living in a totalitarian tyranny. This is 1930s Germany, but on a global scale.
By all means John. I’ve just sent you an email.
Coming very late to the party here, but hopefully you will still see it:
Iain, do you think people should bother to vote, given that our representative democracy is fairly meaningless, especially since March 2020?
As far as national politics is concerned, I know that I am far from the only one who thinks that none of the parties represents anything remotely that I believe in. Some candidates are slightly less bad than others, but that’s about as far as it goes.
In local politics, I think one can make a difference, and even today, people are inclined to vote for individuals, and less so the party. Even so, local politics can be corrupted, especially in areas like planning.
On the other hand, just not voting seems a bit pathetic. Turning up and marking your paper “none of the above” is, I suppose, one way of registering a protest.
Best wishes,
Mike
Thanks Mike. I have been looking at this kind of information for many years. I was very politically motivated when I was younger and, in many ways, I still am, but I am now an anarchist and do not agree with voting for political parties as a matter of principle. Nor do I even believe that political authority exists.
However, If we want to make a political difference it is far more likely at the local level. Standing as or supporting independent parliamentary candidates for national elections is preferable. Any involvement in party politics is a complete waste of time in my view.
I do understand the view of some that the most powerful politician at the local level is the chairman or women of the local party association not the local MP. Once an MP is elected they are subject to the whips and are effectively beyond the reach of the electorate.
However, the local party association chair still has influence over them. Potentially they could recall them. So if influence over MP’s is something you seek then perhaps it is the party association chair you should focus upon. Try to convince them of your argument if you believe in party politics.
I no longer do and suggest a different approach: – https://iaindavis.com/inalienable-rights/
I agree with what you say here. I think the first step to changing this is the ban political parties. They are the power base that politicians use and all they do is create disagreement about the correct policies. We must keep the first past the post system but change it to ensure that nobody can be elected unless they get more than 50% of the registered votes. I also think the monarchy must go because they give credibility to the politicians. The fact that the monarch is apparently politically neutral just means supporting any nonsense put infront of them. How can a democracy have a Head of State who has no opinion?
Personally I would do away with all forms of government, but I agree a more acceptable step would be an elected parliament of independent candidates. A minimum 50% for FTP at the constituency level would also be good, although it may take several rounds of voting to get there, if you have say 10 candidates. I don’t think we need a monarch but I think we do need a constitutional arrangement with the Crown as an institution. This Coronation is effectively a renewal of a contract between the people and the state that ensures parliament is subservient to the will of the people. I explore this in more depth here: – https://iaindavis.com/the-british-constitution-deception-part-1/