I wonder how many votes the SNP lost over this fiasco

Seems to me that e-voting machines are an integral part of a conditioning process, whereby we end up passively trading democracy and freedom for corporate fascism. In other words, democracy will be disgraced incrementally at the national and local level by being dealt such a succession of mortal blows that no-one cares when it's finally hauled off into the history books.

Have the Brits banned exit polls like the Americans yet? You can bet we will soon enough - especially in light of the EU's plans for a beefed up role for it's president. Just watch our national democratic process get trashed these next few years.

You know what I find most incredible? Currently the votes are counted by volunteers, ie for free (more or less). They're not perfect and they have been known to cheat, but at least rogue individuals can be held directly responsible for their actions once in a while. On the other hand, this new "efficient" system, complete with its 44% ballot rejection rate(!) is probably not free and no-one can be held accountable. Given that, you'd think the electorate would begin to wonder why it's there at all and put two and two together, but as usual in this most apathetic of countries almost no-one seems to give a damn.

As a fellow of the industry Cypher, you must have been as amazed as I when you read that in the US elections the e-voting laptop USB ports were often left unrestricted? Also the "Access for Dummies" approach to the security of the databases. Secure laptop operating systems are just not built that way. It's obvious the whole scam is designed to render the whole electoral system (even) more susceptible to cheating folks - and make you pay through the nose for the privilege. Plain and simple; no doubt about it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - BRITS NEED TO WAKE UP!

I'm sorry to say that almost nothing surprises me anymore - and it's my belief that the Diebold machines were designed to be hacked / tampered with from the start. After deciding to "secure" the machines and introduce keys, Diebold very helpfully released pictures of the keys on their website, and the key design is so simple that you can successfully reproduce them at home.

The whole thing is a farce from start to finish, and my guess is that people are being conditioned into accepting that democracy is only an illusion.

Couldn't agree more - once that's achieved they'll dispense with it altogether. (I reckon the offer to Paddy Ashown was in line with this too)

BRITS NEED TO WAKE UP!

Hi Entropiate,

Coud you please expand a little on what you said about Paddy Ashdown? I'm afraid that years of ignoring the TV & newspapers, from before I got into checking out conspiracies, have left some rather bald spots in my knowledge.

BTW - I think I see a perfect forum signature for you

Well, given that we are looking ahead at an hypothetical situation which won't now happen I can only speculate in my response; but let's first take a look at the government GB has inherited.


As of now GB has a workable majority in Parliament. At the very latest he'll need to hold a general election by May 2010, so he has three years, and probably more like two to do his thing. Now he could approach this in two ways; either he will aim to win the next election, or he will start from the working assumption that he's got this one shot at goal before David Cameron takes over the helm at some point after Spring 2009. I think the latter is more likely given the underlying economic trend towards higher interest rates over the next few years.


He's backing off it just now, but you can bet DC will jump right in there with the old tax cuts mantra once the repossessions start kicking in. No doubt they'll play the race card in an indirect way too like they always do. Not DC himself of course, but one of the other weasels-in-a-blue-tie. Nope, I just can't see GB winning an election against Posh Boy, but who knows? And in any case, it'll make little difference in the final analysis in these days of strictly marginal political debate.


So back to the next two years. GB's recent CBI speech, to take one example, demonstrates his eagerness to implement the globalist agenda, which means that he will continue to push ID cards, road pricing, carbon tax, fingerprinting in schools and a range of other costs and infringements into our civil liberties yet to be defined. How hard he pushes before the next election depends on the opinion polls over the next six months. That's very hard to predict. Much depends on the economy, the activities of terrorists (both real and imagined), the effectiveness of the climate change propaganda and the associative success of the forthcoming "bringing the troops home" spectacle*. If he looks secure at Christmas he might tread lightly to try and win the next election, but if his party continues to slide we can expect to see his globalist credentials come to the fore in the lifetime of this government. Again, I foresee the latter. (I think if he had forced Blair to leave 12 months ago he would have called a snap election, but it's too late now).

So what does Paddy Ashdown have to do with all this? Several things, especially in a context where both major parties have become virtual copies of each other in terms of their position on most things that people care about.

In 2005 the Lib Dems attracted 22.6% of the popular vote (IIRC), which represented a good turnout for them. At present, their outlook as a political force remains uncertain. True, the electoral system continues to discriminate against them as it has always done since the arrival of the Labour Party and the creation of the "new" left/right dialectic (socialism/conservatism), but from another perspective, they could be on the threshold of a huge resurgence. While it's always dangerous to apply political theory to real world situations I'd argue that traditional "liberal" values are most at odds with the values underpinning the NWO - to the extent that the NWO represents bureaucracy and regulation, unbridled corporate power, e-voting, oppressive surveillance, a bought and paid for media, a war economy and the exploitation of fear; which I believe it does. That liberalism and globalism implies a fundamental clash of ideologies is I feel inevitable. So much so, in fact, that in a perfect world I would expect to see the Lib Dems form a government within 5 years if only to provide some respite from the other two. Unfortunately however, most people are too ignorant politically and the Lib-Dems are too institutionalised, incoherent and inconspicuous to make it happen even if they weren't. I'm not even sure the Lib-Dems are liberals at all. In fact, I am expecting them to lose seats at the next election, rather than gain. So instead, we are going to see increasing disaffection and dissatisfaction with our politicians and political system as it continues to fail to respond to the public will and as it passes more and more completely useless legislation (of both home-grown and imported variety). We gave the fake right 18 years and so far we've given the fake left ten. Sooner or later, we're going to realise it doesn't make any difference.

The point is, the globalist model is fundamentally in conflict with what remains of the British way of life too and the great levelling out of the peasantry across the globe is going to hurt, frustrate and anger our citizens very much (I sense that MOD Flashmobs press release lurking in the wings again as I think about this!). Potentially at least, increasing disaffection could work very much in favour of the Lib Dems should they choose to dust off the cobwebs. I don't think they will, at least not yet, but that's another matter.

To try to get to the point, the invitation to PA was to become Northern Ireland Secretary. On the surface this was a reasonable suggestion. Home or Foreign Secretary would have been more suitable for a man of his stature IMO, (I've always had time for PA) but I guess GB's henchmen bagged those cherries a while back in any case. Clearly PA would have been a good choice for NI Secretary too though: after all, here was a man who had attracted international respect for his mediation in Bosnia. To appoint him to a cabinet role would also have helped define GB's premiership as reasonable and cooperative at the outset, which in turn would have helped as the going gets harder and harder for GB over the coming months. But that wasn't the whole story.

You see, Northern Ireland is further along with the police state than the rest of the UK. Some aspects of it have been around so long that many have known nothing else. So there's old Paddy, with his ideological commitment to freedom stuck horse-trading in our very own police-state proving ground and bound by cabinet responsibility; at the very time when people like him might finally be motivated enough to unite and make a stand for the liberty of the individual. In other words, in the coming parliamentary rows over successive erosions individual freedom, PA would have been neutered. At the same time, by putting PA back in the public eye, GB would have served to dilute and detract from the not inconsiderable presence of Sir Menzies Campbell; leader of the Lib-Dems.


Why is all this important? Well maybe it isn't (in fact, I wish I hadn't made the original statement at all now that I've realised how hard it is to defend it!), but I can't help feeling that this was a very telling move on GB's part. PA had nothing to gain by accepting GB's offer except for another bite of fame and a further mention in the footnotes of history - and yet his party had everything to lose. That PA declined GB's offer is to his credit, but I expected nothing less. On the other hand, that GB asked PA in the first place demonstrates the side of GB's personality that I fear will come define the next two years. It's about ego and it might be unpleasant.

All this of course is notwithstanding the the fact that Sir Menzies Campbell had already stated previously that members of his party would not serve in a Brown cabinet. On those grounds alone it would have been very divisive for PA to have accepted GB's offer. In retrospect, the whole thing was very badly thought out and I'm surprised GB didn't get JR to bite the arms off anyone who dared to report it.

Reading that back I'm not entirely sure it answers the question you posed but essentially I'm saying that I think the illusion of democracy will be apparent to everyone before long. No democracy can maintain credibility in a soviet-style state and yet the pressures are there for all to see at the global, European and national level simultaneously.


* Apologies if anyone is upset by my reference to our troops, but I used to be one, so please understand that I appreciate how real this is for those of you who are currently involved, directly or indirectly. I'm simply suggesting that our politicians will milk the "occasion" of the homecoming for all it's worth, like they always do: like Dubya Busch did on the aircraft carrier for his American audience.

Excellent post and assessment, Entropiate, and thank you for going into such detail, I found this very helpful indeed. It's long been my belief that our only hope is to get out of the traditional 2-party system - I was very interested and involved in the Liberal campaign in my late teens, albeit briefly, before gravitating towards the Scottish Nationalists.

Although I still took most things at face-value back then, I did have a vague understanding that the Conservative / Labour 2-party system only went round in ever-decreasing circles, and that a complete break from that was our best hope.

I must admit that I missed the news that Paddy Ashdown was offered the position of Northern Ireland Secretary - a very unusual turn of events, on the face of it. On further reflection, I can only wholeheartedly agree that this was a most cynical attempt to neuter any further threat from the Liberals - and my feeling is that this is in no small part influenced by the SNP's rise to ascendancy in Scotland, Labour's traditional stronghold.

Gordon Brown is most certainly a staunch NWO advocate, and I believe much less susceptible to influence by frivolous matters of "popularity" than Tony Blair - who always seemed so pathetically desperate to be liked. However, I don't imagine that Brown cares one way or another what people think of him as long as he gets his way, and accordingly, I fear Gordon Brown far more than I ever did Blair. We'll see an ever more rapid rate of change with Brown's hand on the helm, I suspect, and that he has already charted a dark course from which he's unlikely to deviate. Again, I completely agree with your assessment that he is most likely to push through as much as possible before holding the next election - as things presently stand, I can't imagine that Labour would be returned to power.

Hopefully the illusion of democracy will become more apparent to people, although I must note that Brown's first week in the driver's seat bears all the hallmarks that he may rely even more heavily on the "terrorism" card. Cynically, I note that Scotland has, for the first time, been affected by this, and wonder if Gordon Brown intends to act out the part of "strong government" in the face of adversity, in order to try to undermine Salmond's very moderate approach.

In accordance with the ancient Chinese curse, one thing is for certain: we live in interesting times.