Cretins (n) – and related matters

The word ‘cretin’,  plural ‘Cretins’; used as a noun, means a person of subnormal intelligence.

While the  term is often applied to our politicians, it must be accepted that to describe our politicians as ‘cretins’ is a misuse of the word as to have achieved the positions in politics that they have, they most definitely are not cretins. To have, as a section of our society, first created – and subsequently honed – a system of democracy within which they are able to set their own rules of behaviour and system of working while maintain that said system of democracy is representative in expressing the views of those they are meant to represent, requires not only forethought but also a degree of guile – which again, logic dictates, means they are not of subnormal intelligence.

  If therefore we accept our politicians are people of above average education and, at the same time, not of subnormal intelligence, one has to ask just why they appear not to understand ‘matters EU’ and, in particular, what exactly comprises the Single Market, a Customs Union, free movement of people, ‘taking back control’ and the origin of legislation; to name but a few. Debates in Parliament on these subjects have produced statements that can only be described as utter rubbish, prompting some MPs to sit, nodding – they would like us to believe, sagely – in agreement. If they know very little, or indeed nothing on such matters, is it too much to ask that they ‘do the research’ so that they do not look the fools they currently are – plus, at the same time, giving confidence to those whose future is in their hands. Politicians should remember that it would earn them many kudos if they admitted they knew not, rather than spreading falsehoods.

(For the benefit of my readers I provide links on the subjects mentioned above to various Monographs’ produced by Richard AE North; namely Monographs 1, 12, 13,15 and 16. If readers have not read these, please do).

To be fair, it is necessary to point out that politicians are but human beings; and that there is not one human being that is infallible; although they would have us, the electorate, believe otherwise. As a result of evolution the  human being has developed the power to think; and that is the one thing that has elevated us above any of the other species on our planet. This then begs the question that if the brains of our politicians have not developed on a par with the rest of us, just why are they where they are? We should be wary of those who who pretend to know it all, claim their way is the best way; and are willing to force their way on the rest of us.

In this country today we face many dangers, but the greatest danger we face comes from within, due to the ‘hold’ over us (the electorate) that representative democracy affords our politicians.

While a growing number of the electorate are becoming aware that our politicians are ‘swanning around in the dark’ where membership of the European Union and Brexit is concerned, they also know that it is pointless attempting to contact their Member of Parliament to complain as they will only be ‘fobbed off’ or, even worse, ignored (As I discovered to my personal cost).

Another aspect of the dangers from within that troubles this blog is the way in which the society of our nation has been changed without our direct consent. Since Tony Blair ‘threw open’ the doors to our country, undoubtedly for electoral gain, the indigenous population appear to have been relegated to ‘immigrant’ status, thus elevating the immigrant population to an indigenous status –  supposedly in the name of equality.

In fact just about every thing is ‘done in our name’ on the basis, ‘according to Bill Cash‘  – that having had a choice between ‘dictators’ we have then decided which political party is to ‘rule us’. If we are considered ‘free people’, pray tell: how is it that our system of democracy allows a section of our society to rule us and thus decide how we are to lead our lives.

In a recent comment on this article, the Director of The Harrogate Agenda stated: that the only way our agenda will come about is when a majority of existing MPs buy into our demands and this will only happened when enough people force them to adopt them. Competing with established parties will not do the trick…….As you know THA is not asking MPs to vote for their own demise only to agree that the system needs a complete overhaul. THA must be ready and waiting when the people awake from their slumber and decide they want the political change we are offering and then only vote in MPs who support our demands.

To take that statement as it stands, a number of points arise:

  • The idea of waiting for MPs to ‘buy the demands of THA’ is but ‘pie in the sky” – along with the idea that sufficient of the electorate would so demand.
  • THA is asking MPs to vote for their own demise; it is suggesting to them that they cede the power they have usurped under representative democracy.
  • Bearing in mid that the electorate have been conditioned, over decades, that the state will ‘provide for them’, the chances that they will awake from their induced slumber must be a tad slight.

I would contend that the people are ‘happy with the status quo’, an enforced happiness resulting from their reliance upon the state; as a result of which they have ‘lost’ the need and ability to think for themselves.

A  previous comment, on the same article and from the same commentator, stated: One of your repeated points, about our lack of progress, is to mention the rapid raise of certain political parties in Europe but as you should well appreciate THA is not and never will be a political party which so often rise and fall over time. UKIP is a classic example of this.

(As an aside, I find the comment about Ukip a tad misplaced. It was Ukip – and the pressure they exerted, coupled with the defections to that party by the electorate – that undoubtedly forced the then Prime Minister, David  Cameron, to promise the referendum eventually held in 2016).

In respect of the penultimate paragraph it is suggested that therein lies the problem wherein THA has not gained ‘traction’. Who is ‘The State’ if not the political parties that control ‘The State’? It has occurred to me that, invariably, the only method to fight fire is with fire; whereby the electorate may be awakened from their slumber’?

If ‘fire is to be fought with fire’ then perhaps what is needed is a new political party, one standing on the principles of direct democracy, in order to wake the electorate from their slumber. Candidates for such a party could stand under the existing ‘labels’ of political parties (ie, left, centre, right); as currently happens in Switzerland.

It may then follow that existing politicians then jump on the ‘bandwagon’, at which point the ‘new’ party  supporters’- having woken from their ‘slumbers’ – then discern those that wish to serve as against those that wish to further their careers.

What is not to like?

This article is intended to promote debate; consequently the ‘floor is yours’ dear reader.

What say you?







2 thoughts on “Cretins (n) – and related matters

  1. …cut Westminster out, thay aint fit for purpose and if they got their dirty paws on THA they’d ‘own it’ which seems to destroy the whole point, unfortunately the ” director ” of said project, plus his buddy in Bradford, think this is the correct course of action

Comments are closed.