The European dream got hijacked by knobheads

How do we, the people, create one that doesn't?

The European Dream got hijacked by knobheads. How do we, the people, create one that doesn’t?

by UKR Columnist Jon Davy

Right, so it is starting to look like the EU is gonna break up. Not a moment too soon, as the whole thing looked to be headed in the general direction of some sort of totalitarian abyss.

This will be good news for people all across Europe who value their independence, their national cultures, mores and customs, their right to govern their own affairs and decide among themselves how their country is going to be run, who lives in it and so on. And their right not to be mucked about and mismanaged by clueless foreign loons. If we are going to be mismanaged by clueless loons, it is our inalienable right to be mismanaged by home-grown ones.

I may or may not agree with everything the people of, say, Spain decide but as far as I’m concerned it is their right to make their own decisions, express and live by them just as it is the right of others to have, express and put forward differing or even contrary ideas.

Personally I have a lot of faith in people. Stop buggering them about, lying to them, messing with their heads, propagandising threats and generally getting them fearful angry or upset and they tend to make pretty sane decisions. It is only when you get people upset, afraid or mad at someone or something or trying to base reason upon false information that they don’t always make the most rational, pro-survival choices.

In other words, in a calm, safe and non-threatening environment, people are all right; when the environment isn’t calm, they tend to react instead of reason. Hence, the effort of the globalist psychos (among others) to propagandise fear, promote or provoke conflict and make the environment as turbulent, threatening and un-calm as possible because then people can be push-buttoned into reactions they might not otherwise make and support utterly nutty programs like rounding up all the Jews, supporting the carpet-bombing of Baghdad, deifying cheap politicians and so on.

So what we need is to get all this turbulence out of the environment and bring in some ruddy calm. Then the people will use reason and come up with sensible solutions to the problems of survival.

Anyway, in the interests of hopefully coming up with a sensible solution to European peace, harmony, brotherhood and co-action towards survival goals, here’s an idea.

First principle: the idea of European peace, cooperation and friendship is a good one. So how about this:

We leave the EU if we haven’t already.

As other countries leave the EU we form an alliance with them – essentially a new but differently assembled and driven replacement for the failed Empire. The alliance is based on friendship, agreeing not to bash each other’s brains out, helping one another and defending one another should the need arise.

Such an agreement does not require any centralised bureaucracy, centralised powers or any of that nonsense. Simple agreements to cooperate only turn into complex centralised gravy trains (sorry, I mean bureaucracies) when there are vested interests (power/money) who drive them in that direction.

It is simply an agreement between free nations that they will be nice to each other and being nice does not require becoming anyone’s dominion or province, or any other ruddy thing.

This is free nations coming together in a cooperative alliance and working as PARTNERS.

It can be cemented by a treaty that says, in so many words; we, the people of blahblah, hereby agree to be friendly with  the people of wherever.

Part of the agreement is a recognition that no government may sign any agreement that binds its people to it forever and that any such a treaty must be reviewed, say, every five years and voted upon by the people in a referendum. That way we can put an end to some bozo in government signing some daft treaty that creates problems for every future generation of the country.

We draw up a Code of Conduct for Governments. This is a new idea all by itself, I think. We have codes of conduct and standards of behaviour for people but we really, really need to have one for governments as well. The behaviour of many governments, by any rational decent standards, is often a total disgrace.  If a person behaved the way many a government behaves, we’d lock the bastard up sand throw away the key!

This operates as a sort of moral code by which each government abides. It would, for example, include precepts such as (see above) not signing treaties that are binding in perpetuity upon people who are not even born let alone never voted on it.

The Code would also include common sense precepts such as NO arbitrary arrest or incarceration of ANYONE for ANY reason without a fair, impartial hearing in a court of law and then only based upon criminal ACTIONS that cause harm (murder, rape, arson etc etc) and NOT expressing an opinion, being a bit weird and so forth.

The code would also require that each partner abide by all the precepts in full of the UN Declaration of human right as this is a very sane and necessary document. This is actually a survival point for governments; governments that work for and are on the side of their people tend to live longer and more happily.

Any government that does not wish to abide by this code would be simply excluded from the partnership, club or whatever you want to call it as not meeting the ethical requirements for membership. If the people of that country later appoint a government that WILL abide by the Code, then the country becomes qualified.

The code would also include precepts such as requiring that NO PERSON of that country be above the country’s laws and that just laws that prohibit murder, fraud, reckless endangerment, child abuse, poisoning people et., MUST be APPLIED TO ALL WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOUR. No more chief executives of big corporations that kill people with harmful chemicals hiding behind a corporate identity and getting away with it, no more Tony Blairs getting lots of people killed by waging a war based on bare-faced lies, no more psychiatrists brain-damaging kids with electric shocks and drugs.

Each member of the new partnership (and this would be part of the code of conduct for governments) would be required to ISSUE ITS OWN MONEY and GET IT INTO CIRCULATION BY SPENDING IT ON SERVICES AND FACILITIES THAT HELP THE PEOPLE and NEVER NEVER NEVER lend it into circulation. This would require also a phasing out of the current system where banking institutions create a nation’s money out of nothing, then get it into circulation by lending it to people, industry and government AT INTEREST. The reason for this is that no nation can be fully free and in full control of its own affairs UNLESS it creates and circulates its own means of exchange. While banking cartels and their oligarchs can control the supply of a nation’s money, of lending, of turning on and off the tap of money supply, that nation cannot control its own economic and other affairs and cannot be fully free and independent. As one of the Rothschild bankster criminals once said, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws” – or words to that effect. This point is absolutely crucial, a reform that is vital to freedom and independence and for the provision to the people of a free and vibrant economy not hamstrung by a completely stupid money system.

So, you get the idea?

Here you have a Europe, potentially, of sovereign, self-governing nations that cooperate with one another in a spirit of friendship whilst each maintains control of its own destiny. The governments are bound by voluntary agreement and a moral code that operates as a simple guide to their conduct and against which the people can easily gauge how much their government has strayed from a benign path. None of it requires a bureaucracy or even a “Parliament”. Maybe just a meeting or council of prime ministers who get together once a month to coordinate and vote in or out members of the partnership. And this Council of Prime Ministers does not make laws or change laws. The making or changing of laws remains the province of the elected parliament of each country.

But when you start to look it over, the thing that becomes evident is that government does not have to be complex. Neither is there, in a calm environment, a massive amount for governments to do except provide practical services for the people (you know, roads and so forth so people can go about their business without falling down ruddy great potholes.)

A lot of wise government involves giving criminals a hard time (REAL criminals like murderers, drug pushers, warmongers and so on) whilst getting out of everybody else’s way.

As my friend, Steve Cook, once said, there’s a natural law of governance that goes something like: the degree of complexity is directly proportional to the degree of skulduggery.

Of course, there is also a difference of opinion amongst people about what government is supposed to be and do.

Is it supposed to be a ruler, where to rule is basically telling people what to do – (or else!)?

Or is it supposed to provide service for the people, the smooth management of their affairs so they can go about their business in a safe environment unimpeded by knobheads?

We have the power to choose. Which works best for the people in terms of their long-term survival and their ability to flourish and prosper?

Personally, I choose the latter.

So here endeth today’s Wild Idea.

About Steve Cook 309 Articles
Director, UK Reloaded
Contact: Website

1 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Wild Idea Number Three – Toms Blog on Life

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*