So, when writin…

So, when writing a constitution I am writing it making a few assumptions, one is that the people are a virtuous, Christian people. This will impact on many things, one being that I don’t have a marriage clause, because in a healthy society, no one seriously considers that sodomites could wed each other, another is that I would not have women voting in this theoretical Federation, women’s suffrage has caused too much trouble and most women, are not interested in politics anyway. I did include a clause in Article II prohibiting women from voting, but was not sure if I should include it.

The preamble is the most iffy bit I think, I suppose each preamble will be different according to who writes it and among which people are having it written for them. I like the first Article, it lays down, much more clearly then say the American constitution, what is and is not allowed, the right to life specifically prohibits abortion, so that no harpy can claim she has the right to kill her child. The slavery clause also prohibits usury, this would be quite important in years to come, when banking interests are attempting, once again, to re-enslave the people, this would mean no credit cards with 20% APR, no Wonga.Com charging over 2000% interest on a short-term loan etc…

The Section IX is a lot more strict on government or enforcement agencies then is now the case in America or anywhere else I can think! It not only ensures someones house papers and effects can’t be searched without warrant, it makes the intercepting of communication, the hacking of their computers or a search of the person, something they would need a warrant for as well. Remember, this is for a theoretical situation, where we don’t have any immigrants, they all left and went home, so very little crime, a virtuous and Christian people etc, etc…

No faffing about with the right to keep and bear arms, not sure about Section XI, it is something I like the sound of, but it could be construed to allow sodomites to have their little ghettos where they hang out rainbow flags and felate each other on street corners! But it could also be used by Amish types, so I am minded to keep it! Any thoughts?

Section XVI, the reason I single out Senators as different, is because I would be attempting to establish a new aristocracy, or something approaching it.

Not sure about Article II, Section I, I want something that prohibits hordes of foreigners from trampling our lands, but, am not sure exactly how to word it!

Section II, I think with all the porn in the world, we need a censor, not someone censoring politics or blogs, but someone censoring vile images, which, are not speech!

And, most importantly, in Section III, the prohibition of political parties, this is essential. Even if this was the only thing I could actually accomplish, I would be happy if this was to pass. Political parties divide our peoples, it makes people stupid, they argue with someone they should be allying with, all because of some stupid personality or some idiotic policy, health care or pensions or some other irrelevancy. The worst thing about political parties, is that good people will say, ‘I shall vote conservative and they will stop immigration’, when they won’t, in fact they speed it up!!! Whilst lefties say, ‘I will vote Labour for peace and justice’ and they get Serbia, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq! Not exactly getting what you voted for is it? So political parties will be abolished, people can vote, but they shall vote for the man, instead of the party!

The General Assembly, I suppose you could call it whatever you want, a parliament, a congress, a council, but I think this is an improvement on what we have now, it allows for election to the House of Delegates, but the Senate is in effect a life appointment, each Senator can appoint a successor, most I imagine would appoint a son, but they don’t have to, if they have a feckless son, they might appoint a nephew or brother or even a friend. But just in case the appointed successor is not up to it, the rest of the Senators have a say in who gets to succeed, so that the truly feckless can be kept out, again, I am assuming that we are dealing with virtuous people here! The Delegates are elected in much the same way that the American Senate used to be elected, by the states/cantons, in the American constitution, the legislatures had the rights to elect a Senator, in my constitution, the state or canton will decide for itself, so it could be the legislature electing the delegates or it could be that they are elected by a popular vote, it will be up to the constituent member of the Federation.

The composition of the Senate and Delegates, restrains ‘democracy’ without abolishing it, it is not mob rule, but it does allow for some popular influence.

Another thing I like, it the option of a referendum on possibly every Act of the Assembly, this is used in Switzerland to keep their politicians in check, it is something they hate, but must put up with, and so it would be in my theoretical Federation.

The war powers of this Federation are retrained, and unless they have been invaded or attacked, they must seek a declaration of war from the General Assembly and must have a referendum on this, with each voter who approves war, signing himself up to fight. In this theoretical Federation, voting is public, not secret, people should not be ashamed of how they vote. Secrecy was a good idea when it was introduced, but it has passed its usefulness, especially in a virtuous polity. So we would know how people vote, and so could have internet voting, but with open voting everyones voting record could be accessed, this would keep voting fraud down and we could see who voted themselves into the army.

Also a special war tax would be imposed on everyone, this would ensure only a truly popular war could be fought for any length of time. No more Iraqs or Afghanistans or Serbias or Somalias or Vietnams! Unless people don’t mind the tax, and volunteering to fight!

Section XI has one of the most important clauses, and that is;‘No tax shall be laid on incomes, capital gains, inheritances, property or gifts of an individual or family’ This ensures that no government can pile tax upon tax, ones income profits, inheritance, property and gifts belong to one, not the government, and with this, they shall be powerless to take your money. I specifically make this about individuals and families, so that corporations, can still be taxed.

The government is also prohibited from creating a national debt, this is one of the central powers that modern states have, and it is one mine, shall not have.

I’m not a fan of copyright or patent laws, it seems the super rich use this to squeeze more money out of the poor for no reason other than they had something developed in their labs fifty years ago. I don’t really think that is right! Also, I hate Hollywood, anything that hits their pockets has got to be good!

And so onto Article V, instead of a president, I have a council of nine, kinda like the Venetian one, but without the Doge! The office of president, along with the Supreme Court seem to me, to be the greatest weaknesses in the current American system, between them they dominate that country, which they should not do. My system would lessen the possibilities of a Lincoln or a Roosevelt or a Tony Blair or an Obama, with more than one leader, it diffuses power and could contain a danger like those above. Although at least six of the nine Consuls would have to agree on everything, they could pardon or honour anyone they wish.

Another important one, is the Supreme Court, the Judges have terms, so can’t be as almighty as the American version!

And another office I would introduce is the Tribune of the people, a council of five tribunes, elected by lot, so that possibly anyone could serve in this position for a ten-year term, I don’t prohibit further terms, because the likelihood of being chosen twice by lot is highly unlikely! They  would have power to appeal to the Assembly and the Consulate, they could investigate government, they could make a fuss and embarrass people, they could bring issues to trial and make recommendations for legislation, not all-powerful, but a good speed bump for those greedy for power.

In describing the Cantons and their powers, it states unequivocally that each can leave the Federation at any time and for any reason, with this and the fact that the army is the militias of the cantons, one would hope that no American civil war situation could arise. Each canton could have its own sort of government, monarchial, direct democracy, representative etc…And most importantly, each Canton may restrict immigration into their cantons, no automatic right of abode. This could be a great firewall against any future mass migrations, as only some cantons, one would hope, are stupid enough to allow immigrants into their cantons, most others could insulate themselves from this, with this power.

Overall, there is little democracy in this, which I think is only good, the Tribune is there by lottery to stand up for peoples rights and against power, the courts are elected by the Assembly, but only for one term, the Senators are appointed, but only with the concurrence of the other Senators, the delegates are elected, but they are representative only of a state or canton, not a constituency, but they are influential in who they elect, the Consuls and the Judges as well as confirming the appointments made by the Consuls.

It seems a well-balanced constitution, but if there is anything you think needs alteration or revision, leave a comment!

Smallness Works

Well, it seems to help.

I believe that a part of our problems, whether they be economic, social or cultural stem from the prison that is the modern-day nation-state, where once we had a small and distant government rule over a small and lightly populated(by todays standards) polity, we now have a large and increasingly belligerent state, attempting to rule over millions, tens of millions and sometimes hundreds of millions of people, resulting in misrule, tyranny and increasing impoverishment.

It is a simplistic argument, I know, but hear me out. Is it at all possible that a ‘democracy’ like the United States can actually represent the will of 310 million people, in an area the size of Europe? Each representative in the Congress represents on average about half a million people, I’m not sure about you, but I don’t think it is even possible to meet half a million people in one lifetime, and even if it were, could anyone remember very many of them? Can an elected representative in the American Congress actually represent 500,000, as they would wish to be represented?

The senators, represent the states, so, the Alaskan senators, will represent about 600,000, a large number, the Californian senators will represent 35 million people. Now even if you think that there may be a possibility, however unlikely, that a representative can actually represent half a million people, can anyone, in their right mind say that someone can accurately represent 35 millions?

What about a world government? Some people seem keen on that, how many representatives would we have to a world Congress or Parliament or Assembly or whatever it might be called? One thousand? That would mean each representative would represent about seven million people, so we could increase the representatives to ten thousand, then what? Well we could all be represented, but how efficient would such an assembly be? Could there be a possibility of companies, pressure groups and others buying votes? Could it mean an ineffectual, pointless debating chamber that would quickly be overtaken in importance by the bureaucracy?

The European Union is an attempt to make things big, about 400 million people jammed together to form one state, well they are trying. The European Parliament is famous for its irrelevance, there are 736 MEPs(Members of the European Parliament) and there will be 750 MEPs at the next European elections, due to the expanding EU. Britain has 73 MEPs, Germany 99, Malta 5, France 74, Ireland 13.

Now, if for some reason, every MEP from Ireland, Malta and Britain voted against something which they believed would be harmful to them, say, banning English, they would be outvoted and their votes would mean nothing. In a world parliament, if every white nation joined together to prevent, lets say, compulsory compensation to third world states for colonialism, imperialism, apartheid, slavery and racism, what do you think the result would be?

Even democrats should be able to see this, democracy can’t, and won’t work as the state or nation becomes too large, the only form of government which works in a large nation or state is dictatorship, or at least authoritarian government. China is run by one party, Russia is a managed democracy, India is a corrupt democracy, Brazil is another corrupt democracy.

These places work, after a fashion, but they are not in any sense ‘democratic’ and nor should they be, democracy would cause chaos and lead to wholesale looting of one group or region, to placate the violent anger of another.

America is the odd one out, it resembles a managed democracy at the federal level, but at the local level can actually be very free, towns, townships and counties which are rural and white tend to be ably governed, even small states like Vermont, New Hampshire, North Dakota and other mid western and Rocky Mountain states seem to get along fine. It is when we look at the large states where problems arise, California, New York, Florida and Texas. Texas seems well run(I’m an outsider) but the diversity being allowed will kill that place too.

Small polities on the other hand seem more likely to be wealthier, healthier, happier and freer than the teeming empires of diversity and crime.

The first examples are the ones above, the small American states, they are reputedly some of the best places to live in the world. And then we have some small places in Europe;

The bailiwick of Sark, is about two square miles, it has its own government, and is very lightly taxed, no diversity(I’m sure someone will try to cure that soon), a pleasant landscape, and plenty of sea views. No poverty, no crime and no cars! only 600 people live here and their parliament, the Chief Pleas, has thirty members, meaning each person, not voter, each man woman and child has one member for every twenty of them. Now, is it possible to get to know your twenty electors? I think there is, and if three or four tell you how strongly they feel about something, do you think the representative will take notice?

Sark

The other Channel Islands are also small, rich, happy and free, Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney all have their own assemblies, elected by a few thousand people, who know each other and so can actually have an effect on their votes, and who can call them afterwards to have a cross word if necessary. None of them are in the EU, all have low taxes and good public services.

The Isle of Man is another good example of a successful small country, although it has a somewhat larger population then Sark, at 85,000 and is about 500 square miles. But it is small enough to be run well, for its own people. It has, the Manx say, the oldest parliament in the world, the Tynwald, which has 24 members, meaning that they represent about 3,500 people apiece. A massive electorate when compared to their Sark counterparts, but still a wee bit less than the half million that each American representative has. It still seems likely that each member of the House of Keys(the lower house in the Tynwald) will know a good part of his electorate, or at least be available to all of them, if they so wish. Man is rich, lightly taxed and again not in the EU. They also have a wonderful custom, where each year on Tynwald Day, they read aloud all the laws passed by their assembly over the last twelve months, in English and Manx. I imagine this may give the members pause for thought when a long and boring piece of legislation is passed, knowing they will have to stand at Tynwald hill and listen to it being read out out twice!

A Part of Man

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another interesting place is the Principality of Liechtenstein, it is a small place, that makes Switzerland look big. It is about 60 square miles and has 35,000 people. It is ruled by a prince whose family have held this fief for over 400 years, the people are rich and lightly taxed, the public services work, the streets are clean and it is not in the EU! Surprise surprise! This little place has had no experience of war since Napoleon and was the only place in Europe to give asylum to 500 Russian nationalists who fought against the Soviet Union in the Second World War, whilst larger more powerful states like the US and Britain happily handed over hundreds of thousands of poor souls who disappeared in Siberia.

Liechtenstein

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

San Marino, the worlds oldest republic, is a tiny little place in Italy with only 24,000 people, it is independent, and has been since St Marius established his monastery on Mont Titano in 301AD, it is not part of the EU, is rich, happy and free. It has no national debt, unlike neighbouring Italy, and has no ‘diversity’ to talk of. It is lightly taxed and has a constitution that can be traced back over 400 years.

San Marino

We have all heard of Monaco, another rich, free place ruled by a prince, and Andorra? A Co-Principality between Spain and France, which is also rich and free.

Gibraltar, a British colony on the south Spanish coast. Iceland a large country, but with a small population, only about 300,000. Luxembourg, the Faeroes and the Swiss Cantons, some of which are not much bigger than Liechtenstein.

Gibraltar

All of these places have something in common, they are all small, all have small homogenous populations, all are wealthy, all have contented populations, all of them are well-governed and lightly taxed, all of them are free. Even the principalities, even here the people are freer then many of us who live in big ‘democratic’ states, which exposes the lie about monarchies being old-fashioned totalitarian states. Iceland was able to reject enslavement to the IMF due to its small size. A few thousand people converged on their parliament, which is about as big as a normal house, and threatened to burn it down if the parliament passed the act which would have enslaved them. This forced the government to put the issue to referendum which resulted in its rejection. Man, Sark, Alderney, Jersey and Guernsey are not completely independent, but this means very little in any real sense, they rule themselves for the most part, foreign policy and coinage being the only things they don’t have, and for small places like this, foreign policy doesn’t really mean all that much anyway. Politics in these places is extremely local, people don’t go into politics to make their fortune, or to lord it over anyone else, as who would be impressed that you are a member of the Chief Pleas or Colonial Assembly of Gibraltar?(Well I would, I would be fascinated) People don’t go into these assemblies to conquer the world, or change the world, only to have a say in how the local school is run, or to oppose licence changes for pubs, or to campaign for a road to be repaved. these are boring, irrelevant things to the entire world, except for the tiny corner where it does matter. In short, those who lust after power, leave these places for pastures new, leaving these little pieces of well-governed earth, to remain the same. Perhaps the most tory of places?

So what am I saying? Well, small government is good government. And perhaps if we are to focus on politics, we should focus on the small? Although I despise ‘democracy’ as a sham, as it is in large states like Britain and America, on a small, local scale, representative government, as opposed to democracy is a good thing. If you could go and get yourself elected to a parish council, or a town council, you could have an effect. You could oppose foolish spending, you could oppose some silly declaration or propose a good and worthwhile thing. Immigration can’t be stopped at the national level yet, perhaps we could make illegal immigrants uncomfortable at the local level by denying a business licence, you don’t have to say why, or you could oppose it on environmental grounds!

I have read that the future will be one of small states, city states and the like, I don’t know if it is true, but I do think it would be a good thing. The large, centralised, bureaucratic states of the last century are failing. They have lost their legitimacy and are about to go bust, they no longer look out for their people, they only look out for their own financial futures. Too many in government, such as that worm Tony Blair and Nickolas Sarkozy, used the power of their states to wage cowardly wars against third world nations, partly, I’m sure because it massaged their egos. A Tony Blair as a member of the Chief Pleas or House of Keys would be of no danger to the world, or even to a country, even if he managed to convince the assembly to import millions of immigrants, the other parts of the country would be ok.

So let us get elected to our small local councils, lets start positioning ourselves to be the leaders of  the remnants of these failed nation-states, I predict that this is where and how we begin to take back what has been so unjustly taken from us and ours.

The Beauty of Europe

Sometimes, I need to see the beauty of that which I wish to preserve, that which needs to be preserved. If all the suburbs, tower blocks, skyscrapers, ‘modern’, concrete slabs were to be demolished, we would still have Europe, we could still seek its past through the little towns, villages and cities that would remain. If the types of places bellow were to be demolished and forgotten, then we would be closer to cutting whatever links us to our once glorious past.

Remember, these are only buildings, only towns, only brick and wood and mortar, but, they have become more than that, they are a mystical connection between us and our fathers.

Colmar

Colmar

Cracow

Stein am Rhein

Siena

Brugge

Mont St Michel

Kaysersberg

Kaysersberg

Switzerland goes in the right direction

It seems that there are some in Europe who are sensible enough to resist the Islamisation of their homes!

‘GENEVA (AP) — Swiss nationalists are forcing a popular vote on whether to ban the construction of Muslim minarets — a proposal that, if approved, could clash with Switzerland’s constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion.’

I don’t know how what is basically a planning issue can be described as preventing ‘freedom of religion’, but in reality, when people originally talked and wrote of ‘freedom of religion’, what they meant was freedom to choose ones version of Christianity, Not the freedom to worship an Arabian devil, or some weird elephant with lots of arms, or some blue woman with six breasts!

‘This is not the first time the People’s Party has ignited a provocative campaign.

Recently it embarked on an anti-immigrant initiative, complete with posters showing a black sheep being kicked off a Swiss flag and dark hands grabbing at a pile of Swiss passports. But voters last month overwhelmingly rejected the party’s proposal to make it harder for foreigners to gain citizenship.’

I like the way the Volkspartie thinks, this is what Ireland needs!

‘More than 310,000 of Switzerland’s 7.5 million people are Muslims, according to the Federal Statistical Office.’

That’s even worse then us!

‘In Cologne, Germany, plans to expand the city’s Ditib Mosque and complete it with dome and two 177-foot-tall minarets have triggered an outcry from right-wing groups and the city’s Roman Catholic archbishop.’

I like the way the AP is subtly smearing the opponents of the new massive mosque by calling them ‘right wing’, a great way to dismiss what someone says without having to consider what they are saying!

‘Switzerland’s unique system of grass-roots democracy allows political hard-liners to take the issue further than in other European countries, where constitutional courts or governments have blocked moves against mosques and minarets. Any Swiss citizen who collects 100,000 signatures within 18 months can put an initiative to a nationwide vote.’

I must say, Switzerland is probably one of best republics in the world, certainly the most well run!

It seems that this issue is Europe wide, even worldwide, Muslims are causing trouble in Australia, Canada, those United States, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Britain, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden, etc….

Why?

Why are our elites allowing this?

Why do they not stop it?

What is wrong with them??

Is this planned?

Is it something that our elites want us to suffer under?

It makes me angry to think about it!!

Source