This places undue importance on voting and Prime Ministers, but politics isn't about that stuff. Politics is fundamentally about one question: What is the proper role of government?
And then ensuring that this answer is properly communicated to the public.
Today, our political commentators describe one brand of big-government leftists as "liberals," and then turn around and describe another brand of big-government leftists as "illiberal right-wing populists." It doesn't make any sense. All of our mainstream movements are big-government and left-wing. The correct term for this is authoritarianism.
Given that this is the only model being advocated to the public, and therefore the only model people are voting for, what exactly is Keir Starmer supposed to do? What can any politician do? What can elections or constitutions achieve if everyone wants the government involved in everything? Under current conditions, these mechanisms serve no purpose.
To change the rules of the game would be to actually have political commentators who understand that the sole role of government is to protect individual rights, which means strictly restricting the state to the courts, the police, and the armed forces. In other words, they need to start advocating for actual liberal political ideals.
Only then will things like voting, term limits, and constitutions serve a purpose. And that purpose is simple: to keep big-government advocates (AKA authoritarians) out of politics entirely.
Think of how different the current situation in the UK might have been if the state had realized importing hundreds of thousands of third world Muslims might not be too popular with the citizens.
I'm going to have to disagree with this article on the basis of calling Tommy Robinson a "right wing agitator" because I'm not sure ANYONE who calls Tommy an agitator really understands what's happening in the world.
Tommy Robinson represents EVERY SINGLE PERSON who lives in the 5, Western Democratic, anglophone countries.
The 'democratic' governing bodies in these countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK and Australia) have failed their citizens by pushing (ie undemocratically FORCING) through policies that have utterly ruined the bedrock of the culture in each respective country, created unlivable economic conditions, housing shortages, lots of infighting causing the rise of racism where little racism used to exist and then trying to pretend they weren't doing these things is what caused Starmer's downfall.
The same happened to Australia's PM and Canada's PM. The same happened in Italy and is happening in Germany.
People are fed up with the globalist agendas, open borders, failed policies etc. The only options they have left are rebellion and revolution.
The real question is who are these people actually answering to?
Because it certainly isn't their citizens, who want the opposite of what these people are pushing.
If only Keir Starmer hadn't run out of ideas after trying nothing.
This places undue importance on voting and Prime Ministers, but politics isn't about that stuff. Politics is fundamentally about one question: What is the proper role of government?
And then ensuring that this answer is properly communicated to the public.
Today, our political commentators describe one brand of big-government leftists as "liberals," and then turn around and describe another brand of big-government leftists as "illiberal right-wing populists." It doesn't make any sense. All of our mainstream movements are big-government and left-wing. The correct term for this is authoritarianism.
Given that this is the only model being advocated to the public, and therefore the only model people are voting for, what exactly is Keir Starmer supposed to do? What can any politician do? What can elections or constitutions achieve if everyone wants the government involved in everything? Under current conditions, these mechanisms serve no purpose.
To change the rules of the game would be to actually have political commentators who understand that the sole role of government is to protect individual rights, which means strictly restricting the state to the courts, the police, and the armed forces. In other words, they need to start advocating for actual liberal political ideals.
Only then will things like voting, term limits, and constitutions serve a purpose. And that purpose is simple: to keep big-government advocates (AKA authoritarians) out of politics entirely.
Thanks for reading and for the reply, Peter!
Thanks for indulging my critical comments :)
Think of how different the current situation in the UK might have been if the state had realized importing hundreds of thousands of third world Muslims might not be too popular with the citizens.
I'm going to have to disagree with this article on the basis of calling Tommy Robinson a "right wing agitator" because I'm not sure ANYONE who calls Tommy an agitator really understands what's happening in the world.
Tommy Robinson represents EVERY SINGLE PERSON who lives in the 5, Western Democratic, anglophone countries.
The 'democratic' governing bodies in these countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK and Australia) have failed their citizens by pushing (ie undemocratically FORCING) through policies that have utterly ruined the bedrock of the culture in each respective country, created unlivable economic conditions, housing shortages, lots of infighting causing the rise of racism where little racism used to exist and then trying to pretend they weren't doing these things is what caused Starmer's downfall.
The same happened to Australia's PM and Canada's PM. The same happened in Italy and is happening in Germany.
People are fed up with the globalist agendas, open borders, failed policies etc. The only options they have left are rebellion and revolution.
The real question is who are these people actually answering to?
Because it certainly isn't their citizens, who want the opposite of what these people are pushing.