They've got it all wrong

Having studied politics at A level (along with sociology, which continued as part of my degree), I am fairly familiar with the general world systems, and have never before seen the culmination of what can best be described as a 'world mafia' now running as much as is possible, while no one except the most politically aware have the slightest clue. A few of the signs are clear- paying off failed banks with taxpayer's money is immoral, and based on a form of fascism, state corporatism, where the state is run for and by big business. So firstly it is clear (as these policies are common now across the entire western world) banks are free to lend and then collect the remainder of the losses from the state without question, while the economies go into a recession.

This is then followed by governments also going into the red, and as only the government and banks pay base rate, in the UK at least forcing interest rates down close to zero to cover themselves in paying them back elsewhere. None of us benefit, as even mortgage holders will lose the benefits when they sell up as it's forced prices up, both of housing as the interest paid falls the actual prices will rise to compensate, and all other commodities as low interest rates debase currency so the money goes into gold, food and everything else we need to live. So the low interest rates also stoke inflation, as well as costing new and other house buyers more unless they trade down, which very few would. As there are twice as many UK savers as borrowers then the people lose directly, as the savers subsidise the banks and governments, and the fact a small sector of home owners gain from low rates is entirely incidental and won't gain overall unless they don't trade up.

This is the economic foundation of the 2010s, understood very clearly by the few who know economics, and not at all by the general public who see what's on the surface and nothing more, so 'low interest rates' equates to them as low prices, even though it does exactly the opposite, as most things do in life. Being unable to look below the surface and the obvious means governments, who all can, will exploit it to its limits, and even when people are suffering they don't know why. This even has a technical name, a cacocracy, government by the worst. Keynesian economics, running at a huge deficit in order to stimulate a flat economy, is an experimental system used on and off for a century or so, and arguably never worked. Seeing the expansion of the money supply through quantitative easing people call it 'Keynesian' as they see money being borrowed in huge amounts, but Keynes used this money to create jobs by investing in building projects directly, thus running the country like a new business and taking the chance the new work will eventually turn a profit. Not a penny of QE has gone to the people, most has been bought back by the Bank of England with the rest going to the banks to recapitalise them. As base rates are so low they can gamble with huge sums of money overnight and as long as they make more than the amount they pay in interest (being so small) they make more bonuses for themselves, we see none of it.

The next issue, in Europe at least and technically the rest of the world behind the scenes, is the gradual drift away from national democracy via the growing powers of the EU. Before then we had a manifesto we voted for, and a few international treaties, and although many if not most promises were serially broken at least the mistakes and opportunities to address those mistakes were our own affair. We have no opportunity to vote for EU policies however, as our Euro MP vote is not for the legislators but the second chamber, who debate laws almost entirely made by the small group of unelected commissioners, who produce their laws mainly in private with absolutely no accountability besides the small chances of revision by MPs should they disagree in large enough numbers. But that being the exception the rule is laws are made by unelected outsiders and operate across a growing number of countries. Add to that the economic of the Eurozone, which have managed to sacrifice one poor country after another to maintain the mission, forcing willing victims to retain an economic shackle of loss of sovereignty over their own currency, so rather than leave and set the currency to the ideal national rate, they are stuck at the standard rate and lose their easiest opportunity for growth. Of course it's their choice, as none of them have to stay in, but because of the point I just made few people understand the connection between their problems and their membership despite it actually having reached a point where it's almost impossible to miss. But it's still happening regardless and demonstrates the politicians are in it for themselves at the expense of anyone who needs to be sacrificed, whether willingly or not.

Political correctness has done more to restrict freedom of speech than anything else, albeit with slightly lesser penalties than under Mao or Stalin, footballers are still being stripped of their entire careers for allegdly racist comments which are at the high end of the entire gamut of banned words and opinions. In fact the alteration of opinions to be treated as facts, where if you are against immigration or classify certain crimes by the dominant race who commit them (as the police must) you are racist (even if you are black), if you are against gay marriage you are homophobic and if you support Israel you support apartheid.

It's one thing banning neutral and technical words like spastic, cripple, backward and retarded, which just get replaced by new insults ad infinitum, but upping the game to ban opposing opinions is a totalitarianism of the worst sort, the thought police. We have our state opinion and if you disagree you're an enemy of the state. Looking at the alternatives, of course besides the obvious clash of cultures which is more a matter of social preference than anything more, the space required for open door immigration can never expand to fit, the schools and medical services can't provide the standards required without finding more professional staff, and the sewage system can't be increased quickly enough either. Let alone the road and rail system every morning when thousands more people go to work. Britain has the highest population density in Europe already but the same applies anywhere once enough people arrive there. If you study criminology you are not just allowed to racially profile, but it is obligatory, as you need to understand the relationship between different groups and their actions. It's not anyone else's fault if black people prefer using knives to coshes or broken bottles, as that's basically what they've brought with them from the ghettoes of the poor West Indies. Of course if you went to Kenya or Senegal the crime figures would probably be quite different, so it's not even because the perpetrators are primarily black, but from the lowest of the social groups where that sort of behaviour is fairly standard.

But when in history have opinions been demonised, outside the worst rogue states anyway? It may only be a temporary reaction to the almost total freedom of the 70s, when anything went and although no offence was often meant very little was originally taken either. Then the left wing intelligentsia from north London, centred around the people's republics of Haringey and Camden, got together and decided such behaviour was patronising and divisive, and as well as encouraging such up and coming politicians as Tony Blair to successfully send London back to a scene more associated with a third world capital by forcing unlimited random immigration from every poverty stricken corner of the earth, together with Muslim hate preachers and gun toting yardies, raising the gun and knife deaths from maybe one a year to one a week or so, plus the often home grown suicide bombers.

The problem was almost entirely deliberately created, and in a way the attempts to quash criticism, in fact any mention at all of the vast increase in violent crime by both many of the newer black immigrants and some from other backwaters such as Romania (who currently have no rights to be here legally at all but are) and a criminal level of growing overcrowding on public transport, hospitals, surgeries and the like, where they were never built for such large numbers. No other countries previously had inclusive immigration policies, and very few still do, so a tiny island already stuffed with more people per square mile than many others of an equivalent size being deliberately inundated by the poorest and least educated from wherever they chose to come from, legally by claiming asylum or illegally, knowing few are ever sent back once they arrive, should be the last place to allow it. And as such the only way to maintain both the existing disaster and the increasing one ahead is to shut down all discussion of it, with even a Tory prime minister shouting down the opponents with childish insults. So the Tories have nailed their colours to the flag as well, ie no change whoever gets in, the ultimate end of democracy when every party does the same whoever is voted for. That's not by chance either, as they aren't independent any longer as the UN and associated individuals from Rockefeller's Bilderberg Group and Club of Rome decide what policies the west will carry out, and the rest are minor details we get to vote for. You can read many of their ideas elsewhere and that will confirm pretty much what I've said, as they want the world to look how they choose, and only by voting in a party not run by them can we escape the clutches.

Of course many people believe in a world government, but it would need a way of reflecting the wishes of all the citizens equally, and interests, which are bound to conflict. Why in practice this would be an improvement would probably only be discovered in reality, which I would expect to reflect the power of the strongest countries at the expense of the others, exactly like the EU is today. But the more remote the parliament is from the people the less the chance of it being accountable. Bear in mind politicians are public servants who work for us, something often forgotten, when they do things to enrich themselves at our expense they have become mafia. Unless people realise it, and the reasons why, they will continue to create the illusion the loses and restrictions are inevitable and not their fault while in fact they are openly stealing our money and rights. Only information can redeem this situation, understanding how many of these are entirely deliberate and avoidable and why, and what they can do to restore democracy.

Finally I will explain the difference between political choices, where there is no right answer but a decision of allocation of limited resources based purely on personal preference, and something which is entirely wrong if only people were aware of it. Working through these I would begin with currency debasement, which can be clearly shown to favour the establishment at the expense of the majority of the people, rich and poor as the rich lose even more from reduced returns on their investment while the commodity inflation hurts the poor the most. The Euro hurts the poor primarily as they are not able to compete with the better off countries, borrow far more than they can afford as they can (reflecting that of the individuals), and then go broke trying to pay it back. And then when there's a method to raise their economy they are discouraged/persuaded/lied to to stop them doing so. I agree it is entirely their choice to all remain in the Euro, but on propaganda they are little equipped to challenge. Next the policies of the Rockefeller camp, including managed population reduction (yes, exactly like the concentration camps), forced economic redistribution (as in mugging), restrictions on energy (power cuts and rationing) and freedom of speech and movement. Pretty much everything we all fought against in the last war and thought we'd avoided.

But while there was little international support for any of Hitler's policies we have almost no opposition to Rockefeller's, although they are almost the same. Of course Hitler had no need to cover up his wishes as he was working locally mainly to those who agreed with him already, as only the Jews would die while the others would gain as a result, as well as expanding their lebensraum. Nowadays not only with the internet but the memory of the previous war it's not so easy to impose such levels of totalitarianism outside the third world, so they need the combination of inventing problems which need such measures to avoid them, such as terrorism and global warming, and lies which say theft is giving. What can be better than forcing your interest rates down to almost zero when so many people pay off mortgages? The fact the liquid cash circulating (as opposed to capital which is held by the banks and not added to the economy) is reduced as more people have less to spend, shrinking the economy for all, and the house prices automatically inflate in response to lower interest rates, ultimately costing people the same either when buying or selling, means hardly anyone not paying base rate (ie no one outside banks and government) can benefit really, plus the huge inflationary effect on commodities in response to lower currency returns.

So if I asked the simple questions with no reference to policies, would you want inflation, restrictions on speech beyond hate speech and opinions, huge rises in energy prices, unelected politicians working from abroad, massive overcrowding, interacting with large swathes of the population who don't speak your language or understand your culture or you theirs, less and less control over your home politics as they have handed their powers elsewhere, and subtle ways to kill off the poor, old and weak as they are seen as a drain on society (check the Liverpool Care Pathway among others) or by raising energy prices so high they will die of hypothermia (3,000 a year in Britain currently, a million estimated in the last 30 years).

I doubt many people would knowingly vote for a single one of these policies, although the left do love their diverse multiculturalism (maybe until they get home and complain to their families how long they had to wait at the doctors while the person in front held the queue up as no one could understand what they were saying) I'd guess most will get bored of it sooner or later once it actually reaches their suburbs. Add that to a country where there are no more spaces on the roads and houses are being flattened to build soviet style flats to house everyone new arriving and it changes from a mad mixture of random people to a hellhole. Had you simply found a way to encourage the natives to have ten children and cause the rise themselves it would be little better, but it would at least have saved on translators and allowed everyone to mix freely rather than separate into their own small groups wherever they reside as that's what everyone does naturally.

If today's politicians offered their true plans openly, and as a choice rather than an obligation due to past causes only the mad and bad would vote for them, but dress them up as a combination of a one world utopia and a painful remedy to an economic disaster and they get a landslide, for the identical results.