2026-02-07
One may argue about how "democracy" died, but assuredly the Epstein revelations will be one of the many stilletos found between the ribs.
Purists will rightly retort "define 'democracy'!", but I use the term to refer to the western "democratic" tradition exemplified by our own "mother of parliaments" in Westminster. The USA has its own bicameral legislature within a federation of states, which to our eyes is equally (if perhaps rather more obviously) corrupted.
Just as a fish is said to rot from the head, so a "democracy" rots from its pinnacle of centralised power, the government. Humanity is an imperfect creation, the government is (supposedly) human, therefore the government is corruptible, and subject to the iron law of computing and life itself - "if it can happen, it will".
It did, and it just got found out for all to see.
Ridiculous, preposterous, outrageous, yes, all of these - but since when did these characterisations either individually or collectively prevent corruption?
You need more proof?
This site has been presenting proof for some time - Martin Geddes has been documenting his own investigations of the Justice system and how it's operation has become performative rather than legally based.
And Ian Clayton of Ethical Approach UK has been similarly documenting the illegal/unlawful nature of Operation Talla whereby UK Police refused to investigate reports of harms resulting from a medical intervention that would supposedly protect us from the novel Covid19 virus, an intervention rolled out world-wide under the auspices of the United Nations' WHO in apparent defiance of the internationally accepted Nuremberg Codes.
Our political party system allows the major parties to control both candidate selection and the way that their MPs once elected must vote. If these parties all choose to support external powers (WEF, UN, WHO, EU the list goes on) then what choice do they offer our electors? It doesn't take much imagination to suppose that this support of 'external powers' may be enforced by illegitimate or indeed unlawful means, such as blackmail.
Even if we disregard the possibility of corruption -
"When a single centre governs everything, mistakes scale nationally, failures compound and responsibility diffuses. Distance protects authority from consequence"
Ian Clayton's logical conclusion (which this site shares and has advocated previously) is that central top-down "representative" government has had its day, has been found wanting, and must be replaced by a bottom-up structure where power is exercised under the control of the people.
"Government of the people, by the people and for the people".
Just one problem - are "we the people" yet ready and willing to play our part?
Is there any alternative?
We could be in for a big dose of learning by doing!
