House of Representatives
The UK prides itself on being a democracy. It's not really and is a pseudo-democracy, but that is another story! The idea behind a democracy is that it is shaped by the will of the majority. This is true in the case of a true-democracy but the UK has what is known as a representative-democracy in which an elected body make the decisions and shape the country's future. The people exercise their right to vote every 4 or 5 years for who they would like to represent them but the people never make policy decisions.
A nation such as the UK has a population of 68 million people with around two-thirds eligible to vote and yet governed by 650 in the House of Commons and other parliaments. 68 million people governed by a few thousand politicians and behind the scenes civil servants setting the agenda. As a result, people may belief the UK adheres to the will of the people, the will of the majority but in reality it is far from the case. UK policy is controlled by the will of the minority.
If you think I'm taking rubbish then think about how you would bring back hanging for the worst class of crimes such as sexual crimes against children. Let's say you held an online survey of the entire population and 95% voted to bring back capital punishment for such offenders. What then? I'd be surprised if you'd be able to find 1 [just 1] MP in the House of Commons who would fight your cause and that of the nation's will. Why is that when capital punishment is the will of the majority? Because the people as a whole are permitted to participate in the illusion of democracy via periodic votes but are not permitted to be involved in setting policy. I agree they can influence it from time to time, but they will never sit down and write out policy for themselves. There always exists a middle-layer to do that for the people.
In modern day British politics the 23rd of June 2016 Brexit referendum proved to be a turning point. As we all know, the Brexit vote was whether the UK was to remain or exit the EU Fascist Block. But let's not get bogged down into whether it was right or wrong but focus on the result of the vote. The majority of voters voted to exit the EU. This wasn't a General Election to elect or boot out the representatives but a people's referendum. The representatives were bypassed and had no say in the decision, or so we thought at the time of the referendum vote.
Directly after the 23rd of June 2016 vote I would have liked to have gathered all 650 MPs into the House of Commons and made the simple request:
"All those that believe 100% in the vote of the people raise your right hand"
We would not have seen a show of 650 hands. Why was that? They trust the vote of the people to elect them but not to make their own decisions? They agree 100% with the voting result [provided they win] at General Elections but not referendums? This is why the June 2016 Brexit referendum was a seminal moment in British politics because it exposed the lie that is "the will of the people".
Personally, I wish such a raising of hands for the will of the people had been conducted but I am not sufficiently naive to believe that such a show of democracy would ever take place in the House of Commons, because it has nothing to with democracy. It is pure theatre to keep the masses amused as the puppets perform pulled by strings controlled by the Parliament puppet master.
What the UK and entire world then witnessed unfold between June 2016 [Brexit referendum] and January 2020 [Brexit made law] was an absolute farce of non-democracy. Three and a half years of MPs and a rotten and corrupt political system doing its best to undermine a vote by the people. It truly was a period in which many [the majority who voted] struggled to stop their jaws drooping in disbelief at what they saw unfolding. One of the things to emerge was the "Stop Brexit" Remoaners.
I have previously discussed the anti-democratics in the article The Anti-Democractics, but to help refresh your memory have inserted a couple of key images below.
Steve Bray who shouted out "Stop Brexit" outside the House of Commons for 847 days.
Nicola Sturgeon proudly standing in front of an SNP bus with the unmissable text "Stop Brexit"
Still to this day, 4 years on, I look at the above photographs in total disbelief. Yes, images that people such as myself have well and truly saved on my cloud drive as a record of just the kind of irrationals and delusionals the British people are up against. Why Steve Bray and Nicola Sturgeon didn't don hats and signs saying "Stop Democracy" I still don't understand. As I describe in the The Anti-Democratics article, why don't we ever see people after a General Election wearing a hat or riding round in a coach with the words "Stop General Election Result"? Before the 2016 Brexit vote and even today if you saw a person arguing to stop the result of a General Election you'd think they were clinically insane, but when it came to Brexit it all suddenly became acceptable. Ah, but acceptable for a few but not for the majority. Acceptable for the minority.
The "Stop Brexit" lot became known as the Remoaners, and it was a very fitting term for this minority bunch of moaners. People such as Ac Grayling - Professor of Philosophy no less. A man who has written books on democracy and still argues that Brexit was not the will of the majority. I discuss the man at length in the article AC Grayling versus Brexit, in which he wrote the article entitled "Brexit: Enough is Enough" back in 2017 and seriously attempted to argue that there was never was a mandate for Brexit. Grayling was the quintessential Remoaner and a man that was so blinded by his own personal opinion refused to see the true state of affairs. A man that till the day he dies will work to "Stop Brexit".
But what was "Stop Brexit" and the Remoaners all about? Remember that they were the minority and yet had a louder voice than the silent majority. This vocal minority refused to acknowledge the will of the people and tirelessly believed they were right. This is called losers consent and is an integral part of the democratic system. Without it, the democratic system collapses because what is the point if the minority refuse to accept the will of the majority? If losers consent is to be ignored or abolished then you might as well do away with voting and revert to a system along the lines of royal governance or a communist dictatorship. And interestingly, that is in fact subconsciously what the Remoaners were arguing for without probably realising it.
When the Scottish Parliament referendum was held in 1997, where were all the Moaners arguing against the decision? There weren't any because losers consent kicked in and those that perceived had lost the vote kept stum. But with the Brexit referendum, millions of Remoaners believed they had a case to argue. Something changed in the British political system post-Brexit referendum when the minority believed they were right and that their voice should be heard and more so than the majority. By allowing the minority to dictate the agenda between June 2016 and January 2020, the UK government set a very dangerous precedent. Some would argue they were simply allowing the democratic process to flex its muscles but that's not what it was about but instead allowing the minority to carry out a coup on the majority. A time when the minority were trying to overrule the majority and reverse a decision and set the agenda.
The key to understanding the minority rule behind Brexit was first that if the June 2016 Brexit vote had gone the other way then you would never have heard a dicky bird from the likes of Steve Bray, AC Grayling, the SNP and others. They would have got what "they" wanted and wouldn't have questioned the democratic process. But they didn't get what "they" wanted and so believed they were justified in challenging the decision in numerous ways but primarily in calling for a 2nd referendum. And if the 2nd referendum had gone "their" way would they have kept quiet? Of course they would. But what if there had been a 2nd referendum and they had lost a second time, what then? A 3rd referendum, a 4th referendum, ..., an nth referendum? And the need for an nth referendum reveals the flaw in their logic that even after the 17th Brexit referendum there would be people like AC Grayling arguing for an 18th referendum.
Try and think of another instance in modern day politics when the vocal minority shouted so loud. I can't remember one in my lifetime. Without doubt, the three and a half year period between June 2016 and January 2020 changed not only British politics but the mood of the British people. It was a moment when people started to look differently at their neighbours as they came to understand that they were surrounded by anti-democratics.
LGBTQ+ - The Mathematical Symbol Group
The proportion of the UK population aged 16 years and over identifying as heterosexual was 95% in 2018. All the other groups formed less than 5% (1/20th) of the population. However, if you believed everything the mathematical symbol group told you you'd believe everyone in the UK was non-heterosexual. However they wing-it they are a very small minority group of British society.
If you are unfamiliar with the Channel 4 TV show First Dates, it consists of couples meeting at a blind date in a restaurant and trying to get to know each over dinner. It's a heap of shit, but that's the format. Based on the above statistics for every 20 couples we'd expect 1 to be non-heterosexual, and yet when you watch several episodes of the show it's as though every episode must contain a non-heterosexual couple. Why is that? Explain that to me because I don't get it. I agree with being inclusive and in doing so out of every 20 episodes we'd expect 1 to have a non-heterosexual couple, but why does almost every episode have to have a non-heterosexual couple? Now, that is not homo-phobic but hetero-phobic. How can that be adhering to equality? The people behind this series force-feeding such a biased agenda down people's throats have a real problem, and their problem is that the majority sees through their screwy agenda and switch off.
When the symbol group make up 5% of society why does every single child at State school have to be taught their way of living? I am heterosexual and DO NOT want to know about the joys of anal sex or lesbian sex with fingers, strap-ons and goodness knows what. I don't want to speak for the 95% heterosexual community but my guess is that neither are a large percentage of them interested in what is to members of the heterosexual group a sickness and perverted sexual behaviour. Why do 11 year old children need to taught about anal sex between men and one man inserting his erect penis into the anal passage of another man, that is inserting an object into an orifice that Nature evolved over billions of years for one sole purpose and one purpose only and that is to empty one's bowels. This is bad enough for heterosexual adults to imagine but for 11 year old children it beggars belief. Again, I don't want to speak for children of the 21st century but I'm glad my 11 year old mind was kept free from such stuff. I was 11 years old for fuck-sake and was interested in being a child and going fishing and kicking a football around and not being sexualised at such a young age by a minority groups's sexual behaviour.
Incidentally, while on the subject of teaching about the sexual practices of groups to school children I'm a great believer in a full and rounded education. Not for a moment do I subscribe to such teachings but if a government is to force such on young minds then tell them everything - the good and bad. Tell the young kids about Gay Bowel Syndrome (GBS). Teach them about the wonders of fecal incontinence. Educate the little wonders about sexually transmitted diseases amongst the homosexual community such as HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, chlamydia and gonorrhea of the rectum from anal sex, ... Teach the kids that shit. Don't take my word it, swat up on the advice of a medical expert. Use the basis of his notes for appending to the State curriculum.
Why do school children have to be taught about changing their sex? Again, it is (or used to be) such a minority group that few would consider changing their sexual classification but now everyone has to be educated in such ways. Why is that? Why is this small minority group laying down an agenda for the majority? As with the dangers of non-heterosexual sex, if you are going to educate young minds about such then provide them with a rounded and full knowledge. Also, teach them about the dangers of sex reassignment, the dangers of hormone therapy and that once you've had either a penis or breasts surgically removed there is no going back.
How did the minority symbol group managed to force through a replacement of the sex of a male and female with gender? I understand why, but the how is a whole different discussion. This would be viewed by many as inclusive but to many and the majority it is viewed as nothing more than a form of Newspeak in trying to muddy the water of male and female and the inescapable fact of the biological definition of male and female. We see what they are doing in replacing "sex" by "gender". However, it is an irrefutable fact that you can wear a wig, false tits and a bra, take all the hormones you like every day of your life and go to the extent of having perfectly healthy organs surgically removed but at the end of the day your X/Y chromosomes will always remain the same until the day you die. I'm sure there are those right now working at re-programming a person's X/Y chromosomes but until they fuck up that next level of genetics then a person's X/Y chromosomes remain unaltered throughout life. Such statements are not trans-phobic but instead factual statements. If you choose not to like them then tough shit. JK Rowling has been called all sorts and labelled bullshit like a TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) and "an aggressive biological essentialist" for stating such facts of life, but's that's what they are - facts. You might not like facts but are there immutable.
June 2020 witnessed the BLM/Antifa marxist/communist anti-establishment anarchists raise their ugly heads in the UK following the death of George Floyd thousands of miles away in the US. It didn't take them long before they got down to their real agenda of trying to eradicate the British establishment by tearing down Edward Colston's statue in Bristol.
BLM - the Great Unwashed mob illegally tearing down Edward Colston's statue and seen pushing it into the Bristol docks.
There's lot of things I don't like in life - literally thousands - but I don't go out breaking the law to try and change them. There are procedures and there exists a thing called the law. If you believe you can just go round vandalising whatever you consider a valid target then you are a seriously confused individual. Some people would try and argue the case they petitioned to have this and that removed and no one listened to them - well, all I can say is tough shit! That is still no justification to break the law. And if you can't handle the law and think it's wrong and can't be arsed learning law and finding a legal avenue to argue and present your case then go and live in a cave with the slugs and woodlice because that's how the world works.
What fascinated both myself and numerous people around the UK was what little enthusiasm UKGov displayed for putting a stop to the BLM mob. They were and still are a small violent and highly vocal minority but at the end of the day a small piss-poor minority. When did such a small group start dictating the agenda for the majority? Still, as of August 2020 [3 months after Colston's statue was torn down] there was not 1 reported instance in the mainstream press of a single conviction and sentencing of the BLM mob that were responsible for £1,000s worth of damage to Colston's statue and surrounding area. That fact alone reflects badly on UKGov if it adheres to democracy and the will of the people. By not acting swiftly and firmly, UKGov actually encouraged this small minority and by not being seen to have taken action in the form of punishment are guilty of not subscribing to one of the cornerstones of the legal system that not only must justice be done but that it must also be seen to be done.
In the 2011 Census the ethnicity in the UK was White (87%), Asian (7%), Black (3%), Mixed (2%), and others. I accept that Black lives matter, just as much as White lives matter and just as much as an Eskimo or an Aborigine but when did the 3% set the agenda for the other 97%. That's not how a democracy works. When did all 10 British television programmes have to have Blacks in all programmes and with 50% Black actors and presenters? That is not equality relative to the demographic makeup of the UK, and enforcing such by such a small minority group is in fact nothing more than racial discrimination. Who would expect to watch Chinese or Japanese TV and expect to see 50% Whites in all programmes? Only a delusional person. Who thinks government, the arts or education in Nigeria is full of 50% Whites? Who are this minority Black group calling the shots? I'm all for equal rights but that is very different from equality.
There is a real danger permeating through society, and not just British society but through all Western liberal societies. When did the House of Commons representatives of the people that elected them start overruling a people's vote? When did losers of a referendum or an election start calling the shots? When did a minority group of sexual behaviour what many and the majority perceive as sexually perverted start driving legislation? And when did small ethnic groups such as Blacks in the UK and Whites in Chinese start demanding inequality with respect to there group size? Minority groups should always know their place in a society - they might not like being the minority but that's how complex societies are formed.