Y Repwblic
Conversations with Wales' Republicans : Poblachiaethwyr - Repwbligwyr - Gweriniaethwyr

Declining Democracy by Refusing Registration ?
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Ymgyrchoedd - Campaigns
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 am    Post subject: Declining Democracy by Refusing Registration ? Reply with quote

I'm thinking here that before I go to bed I ought to put down a note somewhere as to what might be counted by many as the weirdest sort of campaign - except that those who know Republicanism will recognise a variety of the policy called Abstentionism.

The inexorable logic of most Pure Republicanisms in taking the criticism of Democratic Republicanism to extremes is to refuse to participate in Democratic political systems at all, to refuse to accept the argument that they can be reformed if only enough people participated actively in Democratic processes.

From the viewpoint of Pure Republicanism, the arbitrariness of Pure Democracy is like a sausage machine which minces up each and every coherent political argument and destroys their meaningfulness by reducing them solely to considerations of popularity not correctness. As a result every Democratic party looks the same and tastes the same and like sausages everywhere the ingredients to be found in them are definitely suspect : mostly not as claimed.

Therefore from the Pure Republican point of view, in locating the sovereignty of the state in ' the Crown in Parliament ' ( which basically amounts to being in the Prime Minister,) the United Kingdom is to be counted as a Pure Demon-cracy which contaminates and corrupts everything which comes into contact with it. The Palace of Westminster is to be viewed in terms of it being akin to John Milton's ' Pandemonium,' but without it ever having been a ' Paradise Lost.'

It might sound rather lame to refuse to vote, but the credibility of the United Kingdom's political system depends upon the appearance that people are endorsing it by participating in it. But as fewer and fewer people vote - for whatever reasons - then governments of the United Kingdom have more and more difficulty claiming that they have derived their political authority and right to exercise the power of sovereignty from any democratic mandate.

Probably very unlikely, but if enough people deliberately protested against the political system of the United Kingdom by ostentatiously not voting it could finally and utterly destroy its credibility - even if it did not actually directly change the political system it might embarrass Democrats to the point where ... well ... no, that is not going to happen - is it ? Pure Democrats are utterly shameless and Democratic Republicans are past-masters of sincereity !


The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 is changing the way in which votes are going to be registered and cast in various ballots. Each individual will now become responsible for registering to vote instead of the ' head of the household ' being culpable as it has been for over a hundred years.

Individual Electoral Registration will be introduced in the summer of 2014, which provides for enough time to consider advocating a planned mass boycott of electoral registration which will for the first time be an individual positive and therefore meaningful choice of protest, unlike spoiling ballot papers ever is.

There is a whole world of difference between resolute Abstentionism and spoiling ballot papers because the latter continues to endorse the political system whilst mounting a protest from within it. On the other hand the problem with protesting by Abstentionism is in making any absence obvious.

Lots of people fail to register to vote and whilst electoral registration officers are supposed to go around enforcing the law and making them register or pay up to a £1000 fine or ' Civil Penalty ' that is rarely done. But it seems to me that perhaps the main purpose of introducing this individual voter registration is to maximise the number of fines which can be collected by using the new " automatic data matching process " to identify and locate those who have not registered to vote. Thus the Demon-crats are coercing people into appearing to continue to endorse and support the political system of the United Kingdom, creating the appearance of a democratic mandate which does not in fact exist.


Now this to me seems to be potentially very much like the " Poll Tax " fiasco when we witnessed the Conservative and Unionist Party introduce Soviet-style mass trials where the prosecuting counsels simply announced " Is there anybody here whose surname begins with L ? " expecting to damn another thousand or so who had failed to pay the £8 surcharge to pay it and also court fees, costs, bailiff's fees etc besides ... you can guess the fury that erupted on the bench when I answered this call and gave the confused counsel ' L ' - the poor silky chap had to have it explained to him by me that when entering court rooms one has to provide evidence to support such allegations ; the bench were not amused and insisted that I was guilty and that no evidence was required to prove that or disprove it and anyway they certainly weren't going to disrupt the day's proceedings and miss their early lunch and make their court room look untidy by actually holding a proper trial in it ... fortunately there was a lawyer in the room in the person of the clerk of the court who patiently explained to the other five lawyers present that I was right ( but as you might expect the council's lawyers then made a point of making me pay, which they succeeded in doing some eighteen months later and being poor I could not bring the matter back to court without bankruptcy.)

Now what I thought in terms of with voter registration is the necessity of making the act of refusing to participate visible which seems to me to require the person intending to refuse to vote to register to vote in the first place and then collectively a large body of people publicly applying to be removed from the register, so that their numbers can be counted and made visible. I think that this would avoid complicating such a protest with any refusal to provide information to an Electoral Registration Officer which is a criminal offence. ( Why ? ) It is pointless wasting everybody's time and resources and compromising a good political argument by protesting against something by ostentatiously breaking laws in an unnecessay way - even if they are unjust ones.


As I remember it there are proper mechanisms for the Electoral Officers to enable the correcting of the Electoral Register - somewhere in the above two acts I guess, which ought to be good reading for those who wish to be involved in Democratic politics but who rarely know anything about how elections are supposed to be conducted ... perhaps this bit ?


Given that so many people do not bother to vote anyway and do so without penalty, this may seem to be an ineffectual sort of protest - but consider it from the point of view of the way that Democracy is conducted : if British Democracy is the best thing since French Republicanism's sliced head, why does the United Kingdom threaten those who do not register to vote for it with a fines up to £1000 ? Well it might well be to do with previous campaigns for Abstentionism which is particularly associated with Irish Nationalists ... of course all of the most awkward Irish were transported to Australia where their descendents are still being fined $170 if they refuse to vote which of course therefore many refuse to do on principle, whereas others spoil their ballot papers or elect comedians like Ricky Muir of the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party who became a senator.


The fact is that whichever party you vote for they are by definition supporters of the United Kingdom's political system : Plaid Cymru has been as deeply shaped by its encounter with British Democracy as any other party, it simply can not be any other way because in order to succeed in the political system of the United Kingdom any and all political parties must adapt to it and adopt it in order to work within it. Therefore the challenge is to resolutely refuse to participate in the political system of the United Kingdom and yet to campaign successfully from outside of it. Pure Republicanisms offer methods of how politics can be conducted without becoming involved in and compromised by Democratic methods.

Now at the present moment this thread arose out of an email which I sent to a Minister in Westminster, but the idea has been in my head and many others for many years ... but given the change of laws, and several apply, somebody who likes this idea and wants to pick it up and run with it should study those laws first and understand the underlying plan of protest as described above, which seeks to exploit and apply those very same laws in an unexpected and contrary way. It is important in this sort of protest to not confuse the issue contended by creating others which obscure it with a cloud of arguments eg. by claiming that Abstentionism is an expression of support for other concerns as well - which will only result in most of the people who might participate in such a protest declining to do so : it has to be made into a clear-cut single-issue campaign.

Last edited by dai on Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:12 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2013 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


.... In 1919, Sinn Féin Members of Parliament (MPs) elected in 1918 to the Parliament of the United Kingdom refused to sit in that body and instead constituted themselves as the first Dáil, which was claimed to be the legitimate parliament of the Irish Republic. One strand within Republicanism, in remaining loyal to this pre-Partition Irish Republic, denies the legitimacy of both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Other parties reached accommodation with the southern state but not Northern Ireland. Some groups have boycotted elections within either jurisdiction; others have been abstentionist; others abstained from some bodies but not others. Abstentionism has often been a divisive issue within Republicanism. ...

.... In 1970, at its Ard Fheis (annual conference), Sinn Féin split again on the issue of whether or not to reverse its long-standing policy of refusing to take seats in Dáil Éireann. The split created two parties calling themselves "Sinn Féin". The anti-abstentionist party was known as "Official" Sinn Féin. It changed its name to "Sinn Féin the Workers Party" (SFWP) and won a seat in the Dáil in the general election of 1981, which it took. The following year it dropped "Sinn Féin" from its name to become "The Workers' Party". The abstentionist party was initially referred to as "Provisional" Sinn Féin, but after 1982 it was known simply as "Sinn Féin"; it continued to abstain from taking seats won in all institutions. ....

.... In 1986 Sinn Féin split, as in 1970, over whether to take seats in Dáil Éireann. The larger group led by Gerry Adams abandoned abstentionism, while Republican Sinn Féin (RSF), led by Ruairí Ó Brádaigh retained it. Sinn Féin's first sitting Teachta Dála was Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin in Cavan–Monaghan in 1997. RSF has retained the policy of abstentionism from both Dáil Éireann and the Northern Ireland Assembly. RSF has not in fact contested elections for Dáil Éireann or Westminster. It is not a registered party in Northern Ireland, but members have contested the Assembly elections as independents. ....


Abstentionist politics in Ireland go much further back than Sinn Fein and of course whilst the Irish sacred cow has been much celebrated there have been other examples right back into Ancient Greece etc What has always struck me was the vanity of the way these competing Irish parties each promised to abstain if people elected them - talk about the ... think it through : only one candidate can be elected and thence abstain so all other votes cast for an abstention tend to be disegarded. It is like cancelling each other out for no good purpose : if nobody is going to take their seat if elected then you do not need any candidates or parties - you just need to make it obvious how many people are protesting by voting for an Abstention. The candidate put up for election might be deliberately contemptuous like a tailor's dummy or a football, but the best way to express contempt for the political system is to boycott it - indeed ' boycott ' is a term invented in Ireland to describe shunning something.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2013 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The idea greatly amuses me that the laws of the United Kingdom actually say to its subjects " sign up to this political system or we will fine you £1000 " - you could hardly imagine such a law outside of some Risibly Right Royal Ruritanian Realm - could you ? It has an air of the fantastical-magical about it, as if Terry Pratchett's Lord Vetinari had perfectly precisely planned it in The Oblong Office. You almost expect Cut-Me-Own-Throat-Clegg to burst in with a tray of sausages all shaped like policies followed by Cut-Your-Own-Throat-Cameron sauntering in with a bag of buns and a lot of sauce to completely disguise the disgusting flavour of the porkie pies which he made earlier, not to mention those ones who hate all the spies ... and who keep moving the goal posts too ...

... in past reminiscences about the fantastical-magical future of Y Repwblic yng Nghymru I have wondered about many things ... imagined rather too much ... this businesses of strategies of abstentionism bemuses me : the most positive idea to me seems to be to stand outside polling stations and ask people to go in and sign for their ballot paper then to walk out of the polling station with it and put it into a special ballot box for abstainers so that abstainers can be clearly publicly counted instead of having their ballots passed off as spoilt or lost etc. The problem with that strategy is that - as I understand it - nobody in the United Kingdom actually possesses a vote but rather they are entitled to decide how to cast a vote : all of the votes belong to the Crown in Parliament, so walking out of the polling station with a ballot paper amounts to the theft of Crown Property and collecting them in a box to count them is receiving stolen goods.

Naturally we have to undestand things from the perspective of the supporters of the United Kingdom here in Wales : if a drunken peer of the realm accidently kills some plebwyr whilst they are insolently using a pedestrian crossing in front of the importantly speeding vehicle, that is a merely minor misdemeanour to be dealt with by using a fine and applying a valedictory judicial speech of apology from the bench - whereas arguing that people should protest against the United Kingdom by not voting and then collecting and counting their ballot papers instead of urging people to merely spoil them is a treasonous and villainous and enormous crime and since those treacherous Australians now celebrate the descendents of such political criminals in their midst we should go out and conquer some proper new colonies with some obedient natives in order to have somewhere to put such Republican trash - or take back Calais and send them home to their precious guillotines and ...

... Hang on a second - what do you mean " Calais properly belongs to the Welsh not the English ? Caled is the ancient Brythonic name underlying the Latin name Caletum ? That is why Caesar seized it to control the trade with and launch his attack upon what he called Britannia ? " Well let's deal with the whole " Republicanism in Wales " problem that way then - " bunch of foreigners " is what " Welsh " means - let's send them all back home to France then where they came from in the first place !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


From: David B Lawrence
Sent: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 8:17
Subject: Declining Democracy by Refusing Registration ?


I am curious as to what people make of that idea ... a discussion piece maybe ... free to whover wants it ... !

Subject: Re: Declining Democracy by Refusing Registration ?
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 06:23:14 -0400

Dave do you mind me putting this part out there to get some reaction?

The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 is changing the way in which votes are going to be registered and cast in various ballots. Each individual will now become responsible for registering to vote instead of the ' head of the household ' being culpable as it has been for over a hundred years.

Individual Electoral Registration will be introduced in the summer of 2014, which provides for enough time to consider advocating a planned mass boycott of electoral registration which will for the first time be an individual positive and therefore meaningful choice of protest, unlike spoiling ballot papers ever is.

There is a whole world of difference between resolute Abstentionism and spoiling ballot papers because the latter continues to endorse the political system whilst mounting a protest from within it. On the other hand the problem with protesting by Abstentionism is in making any absence obvious.

Lots of people fail to register to vote and whilst electoral registration officers are supposed to go around enforcing the law and making them register or pay up to a £1000 fine or ' Civil Penalty ' that is rarely done. But it seems to me that perhaps the main purpose of introducing this individual voter registration is to maximise the number of fines which can be collected by using the new " automatic data matching process " to identify and locate those who have not registered to vote. Thus the Demon-crats are coercing people into appearing to continue to endorse and support the political system of the United Kingdom, creating the appearance of a democratic mandate which does not in fact exist

Subject: RE: Declining Democracy by Refusing Registration ?
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:28:23 +0000

Dear XXXX,

no I don't mind - but be so kind as to provide this link to the topic thread so that people can see the context please.

http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?p=1858#1858 - somebody else may see how to make it work as a protest

Subject: FW: Declining Democracy by Refusing Registration ?
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 23:36:58 +0000

Dear XXXX,

I want to pass this following piece on to three others, I have removed your email address but left your comments below.

I thought that I might add a few comments on the sorts of parallels which I see in the situation - the obvious one is that if we grubby little Welsh peasants don't bow and curtsey to our betters the Marcher Lords of Cardiff Bay then we will not only get the legal equivalent of a punch into our insolent little mouths for not paying our proper respects to the political system which has been handed down to the Welsh Assembly from the Crown in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but we may then also be fined up to a £1000 each if we continue to choose to refuse as Republicans to dutifully volunteer to be subjects of the Imperial and Britannic Crowns of the United Kingdom and submit ourselves to this modern version of feudal serfdom - because we do not wish to lend it any further legitimacy let alone enthusiastically endorse it by voting for those party-political Demon-crats who support their lords and masters in exchange for their own opportunity to compete to serve them ... if only they can just be allowed to win an election, they will do anything for them. The Republican crime is of course - shock ! - horror ! - " Not Believing in Democracy " - at least not in the United Kingdom's version in which the political parties' role in either government or opposition is to manage the people as an economic asset - " Demon-cracy."

The issue of being fined for non-conformity of belief is of course an old one in Republicanism in Wales : it is not just that Wales ceased by and large to be a separate political entity because England had turned Protestant and therefore Wales had to be made non-Catholic which the Welsh resisted for 150 years until they then figured out that " non-Catholic " didn't necessarily mean " Church of England " and so they slipped through the legal loopholes and all became Methodists ... it is also that whilst non-conformity of belief is supposedly tolerated is actually taken to be an excuse for the licence to punish political heretics like Republicans - and whilst the United Kingdom doesn't claim to punish religious people for their beliefs it has no difficulty in casually imagining that it is entirely legitimate to punish political people for their beliefs. The United Kingdom more or less systematically demonises those it considers to be deviants and without ever getting its hands dirty it encourages the mob to focus its frustrations with the failings of the political system onto minority groups, which as often as not are those protesting against the political system. Those that control the political system which has evolved into the United Kingdom has been using this terrorist technique for centuries, and figured out in the middle of the nineteenth century exactly how it could create the appearance of a democratic reform in its political system whilst still using it for this self-same purpose of terrorising those communities which protested against what the United Kingdom was doing to them.

In Demon-cracy politicians demonise minorities in order to save themselves by sacrificing others to keep the Mob at Bay.

To put it another way, isn't Wales just a niche in the British side chapel of the United Kingdom of Hell of High Wadders - ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_or_high_water_clause ( A " Hell or High Water Clause " creates a contract which can not be cancelled, wherein the parties liable have to fulfill the contract even if they were not the original party to it and do not agree to the terms of the agreement which will be enforced anyway, regardless of any difficulties they may encounter : this is how generations of the same family were drawn into debt-slavery by having to pay off the debts of their ancestors, who as weak parties were drawn into contractual relationships controlled by strong parties who could thus ruin them this way. This is one of the reasons why bankruptcy laws came to exist - which are now used just to avoid debts not slavery - and why we might wonder whether or not Wales should just be declared bankrupt, so that future generations are not enslaved : but then again, we did not want to buy Trident and nor do we want to be paying Chinese nuclear companies for the next five thousand years to build Hinckley Point C and then have them mothball it, leaving it unused - surely ?. )

Anyway, to go back to some historical examples of using fines, imprisonments, tortures and executions in order to coerce non-believers to publicly support views they don't hold and agree to submit to those in power and pretend to be pleased about debt-enslaving future generations to un-accountable trans-global inter-galactic genetically-mutilating corporations ... in other words each time that we sign up for the Electoral Register we renew the " Hell or High Water Clause " which ties future generations into the debt-slavery being created by the political system of the United Kingdom.


The political objective of what are now known as the Laws in Wales Acts of 1535/6 and 1542/3 was to ensure that Wales did not provide a deep water port with a sympathetic Catholic populace for any invading Spanish or French Catholic army. The imposition of Protestantism was not therefore at first very rigorous, after all Henry VIII wasn't really that concerned about religion but about having a male heir, who then turned out to be much more of a Protestant - or so the powerful Protestant minders of the under-age king Edward VI told him. Well ... what was this royal version of " Protestantism " all about then ? Not to do with religion as commonly thought of today : the English " Reformation " began with Henry VIII declaring that everybody else in the whole of the rest of Kingdom of England were guilty of ' Praemunire ' for obeying God and the Papacy as a higher power than himself who was much closer to God ( because his fairies told him so ... ? ) Some courtiers did of course try to point out that only the week before the king had accepted the title " Defender of the Faith " for telling everybody to obey the Pope in his best selling book " The Defence of the Seven Sacraments." Immediately after perceiving their mistake and by way of contrition they went on to praise " Greensleeves " which had been at No 1 in the pop-madrigals chart ever since he had first publicly insisted that he had indeed written it and then forthwith just to prove it he had with magnificent regalityness broken the harpsicord over Thomas More's head. The whole kingdom then all then hastily agreed that they were indeed guilty of Praemunire, and that they obviously owed Henry VIII a £100,000 Civil Penalty for not having correctly signed up to his Electoral Register and having foolishly preferred inter-nationalism and the rule of law. After a bit of argy-bargy about the schedule of payments, the king then only agreed to be a tyrant upon condition of the payment of the full sum within five years and of everybody agreeing to be regularly robbed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_of_the_Clergy

This novel first attempt at privatising a national industry in which criminality in general had been the responsibility of the aristocracy had some unexpected benefits when Henry VIII decided to do away with all of that inefficient welfare state nonsense involving monks and hospitals and schools and other handouts for the shiftless poor who only caught plagues on purpose in order to have a day off and many of the workshy volunteered to die just in order to avoid work, or if they did not do so they could at least be hanged back then rather than allow them to hang around and create a housing shortage. It was all going rather well but then when Henry VIII died it turned out that Edward VI actually believed in Protestantism and then everything began to get a bit serious e.g. it became much more difficult to make money out of Protestantism - so everybody was very relieved when he died and his elder Catholic sister took the throne, but only for a short while because she turned out to be very serious about religion too ... by the time that Elizabeth survived to sit on the throne everybody who really mattered just wanted a nice quiet life robbing poor people and foreigners - couldn't it be enough that so long as the peasants were made to go to church and thereby agree to be robbed and killed themselves and to rob and kill foreigners when told to do so nobody need say much more about religion ? Elizabeth agreed and Parliament proclaimed :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1558 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kitchin

The fact that they had at first been been Catholics and then Protestants and then even more Protestant and then even more Catholic and then more Protestant again ... confused everybody first of all in England and then in Wales so we ought to be proud that the only person who really finally understood this and moved seamlessly from one contradiction to the next was the Bishop of Llandaf, Anthony Kitchin who was skilled in ecclesiastical arguments. To help those who did not possess the subtle understandings of the Bishop of Llandaf, Elizabeth accepted the advice of all of her most learned and wealthy counsellors and imposed a 12 pence fine for non-attendance upon those who had got utterly fed up with all of this confusion and did not want to go to church any more ... not going to church was of course like refusing to watch BBC television, not putting money in the offertery plate was like refusing to pay your television licence : utterly irresponsible and subversive to boot because you might be preferring to watch religious services being conducted in some foreign langage and inevitably these would be advertising the wrong sort of religion such a presently broadcast by Vatican TV ... and besides the lazy people who liked a bit of mumbo-jumbo and hocus-pocus there were those who purposefully refused to go to church - who were more or less like those who choose to be ' Un-Numbered ' or ' Di-Rhifio ' in our modern times, who refuse to be bar-coded and made to conform to others' demands as if they have been made into the property of the state and of those who control it and the rest of society by the modern mechanism of debt-slavery : those who in the sixteenth century refused to have their names inscribed in the Parish Register and their inheritors who refuse to record their names in the Electoral Register.

{ NOTE THAT I HAVE HERE REPEATED MY SPELLING AND GRAMMAR MISTAKES FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT'S SAKE - MY MEDIEVAL WELSH AGAIN : ' DI-RHIFIO ' ... I think that that is most probably ought to be simply ' di-rif ' = ' without number ' or perhaps ' di-rifedi ' = ' numberless ' ... ? ... although di-rifo seems to me to carry the nice conotation of ' de-numbering ' ... }

Then as now it is difficult to know how many ' Di-Rhifio ' or ' Un-Numbered ' there were, now as then they are persecuted.

I know somebody who went ' Di-Rhifio ' about twenty five years ago and I really can not recommend going the whole hog : he hated the United Kingdom so completely that he would have nothing to do with it and ceased to exist as far as they are concerned although he has never left Wales. As far as he can contrive it he pays no taxes to the United Kingdom and accepts no benefits from it - not even medical care, so he lost all of his teeth a long time ago ( he pulled some of them himself ! ) Presumeably his National Insurance and National Health identities still exist but he can no longer have any entitlement to welfare benefits let alone a pension even if he chooses to use them. As far as I know he lives by working cash in hand and by relying upon the help and kindnesses of others as his form of social security, which I find scary. He is certainly not a welfare scrounger because he refuses to have anything to do with the United Kingdom, full stop, and certainly not because he is a Nationalist or even a Republican or anything so intellectual but because he just hates the United Kingdom - this visceral dislike doesn't apparently extend as far as the other countries which he has also lived in.

I am not thinking about something so paranoid as entirely disappearing from view and going ' Di-Rhifio ' because that in itself means you are not showing up to make the political argument, which is akin to claiming that law breaking speaks for itself and therefore is political and requires no further explanation : Republicanism requires the rule of law, so all good laws must be upheld and all bad laws overthrown and both of these are matters of public duty - and have to be argued for. So to organise a campaign protesting against being made to endorse the political system upon pain of a £1000 ' Civil Penalty ' by the use of mass-refusal to sign up to the Electoral Register, at least to get rid of the fine for non-compliance, you need to make a demonstration of accepting that part of the law which is good and then of refusing that part of the law which is bad, and furthermore making it obvious that what is happening is an organised disciplined protest not merely the random impulses of a few isolated individuals. Such a campaign requires explicit objectives simply explained by convincing arguments by articulate succinct thinkers ... uh ... I do not think that my ramblings qualify other than for floating the idea.

David B. Lawrence
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 229

PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Best thing since sliced head is the only useful thing in this screed.

You gotta vote. Remember Magna Charta. Did she die in vain

More people vote for Big Bruvver than for Parliament and the evil Tory Government is mightier than ever.

Spoilt Ballot and refusing to register are exactly the same kind of protest. If 1k people do either, nobody cares, if 1M people do it, it might be noticed.

Sinn Fein is the exact opposite of your proposal. Refusing to stand is the opposite of refusing to sit. Your version is just lying down.

1920 ish, Sinn Fein stood for election, won many seats, refused to swear the Royal Oath, but they didn’t just sulk. They assembled in Dublin, announced they were the Irish Parliament and eventually took sovereignty over most of Ireland. For good or ill, they achieved MOST of their original plan.

How will your plan achieve anything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for coffee and comment this morning Daf, you are my bestish friend.

I know that this seems mad and contrary to most but a line has to be drawn between those who continue to bleat on about being Democrats, and thus continue to support the political system of the United Kingdom in the hope of persuading the proprietors to agree to reform it, and those Republicans who need to refuse to support it any more because of the harm that it is doing. Republican Resistance has now become an absolute moral and ethical imperative of the sort that centuries ago led people into martyrdom.

There are of course many varieties of opinion upon exactly how to reform the political system which is wrecking not only Wales but also England, Scotland and Northern Ireland too - with so many varieties of its methodical madness - but it is now an incontrovertable fact that those who supposedly so sincerely promised us merely a few trivial reforms of their political system in exchange for our votes at the last general election have broken all of their promises to us again, as Democrats are wont to do.

It is utterly pointless to continue to vote for the ' The Man And All Of His Parties ' when each and every party which is electable is merely competing to bribe us for our votes out of an amoral arbitrariness calculated to obtain the opportunity to govern the United Kingdom on behalf of its proprietors with a percentage allowed in return for themselves and their associates. This is a political system predicated upon the premise that Democracy is the pursuit of self interest, and indeed it is : that is why it wrecks society.

But this is not about campaigning to compel any of the Democrats to keep their promises about political reform which they made in their manifestos. There is something more fundamental to Welsh Political Society at stake : this new electoral registration act is a modern politicised version of the medieval religious law of heresy because it demands that we must either subscribe to their political system or submit to being fined, distrained or imprisoned.

Personally I feel compelled resist such an exceptionally dangerous political precedent.

You asked me if I have a plan : well I am following the strategy outlined above, which means that I hedged my bets as usual and registered my right to vote in order to make a positive demonstration of my being a law-abiding bum-sucking serf as usual - so that this will then underline the point of my demanding that my name is to be removed from their people register. Thanks for coffee and comment this morning Daf, you are my bestish friend.

I know that this seems mad and contrary to most but a line has to be drawn between those who continue to bleat on about being Democrats, and thus continue to support the political system of the United Kingdom in the hope of persuading the proprietors to reform it, and those Republicans who need to refuse to support it any more because of the harm that it is doing. Republican Resistance has now become an absolute moral and ethical imperative of the sort that centuries ago led people to martyrdom.

There are of course many varieties of opinion upon exactly how to reform the political system which is wrecking not only Wales but also England, Scotland and Northern Ireland too - with so many varieties of its methodical madness - but it is now an incontrovertable fact that those who supposedly so sincerely promised us merely a few trivial reforms of their political system in exchange for our votes at the last general election have broken all of their promises to us again, as Democrats are wont to do.

It is utterly pointless to continue to vote for the ' The Man And All Of His Parties ' when each and every party which is electable is merely competing to bribe us for our votes out of an amoral arbitrariness calculated to obtain the opportunity to govern the United Kingdom on behalf of its proprietors with a percentage allowed in return for themselves and their associates. This is a political system predicated upon the premise that Democracy is the pursuit of self interest, and indeed it is : that is why it wrecks society.

But this is not about campaigning to compel any of the Democrats to keep their promises about political reform which they made in their manifestos. There is something more fundamental to Welsh Political Society at stake : this new electoral registration act is a modern politicised version of the medieval religious law of heresy because it demands that we must either subscribe to their political system or submit to being fined, distrained or imprisoned.

Personally I feel compelled resist such an exceptionally dangerous political precedent.

After that I would really like to get the house out of their property register too, because the fact that the Electoral Registration officers are continuing to sell both my name and my address after they made a mistake years ago which they refuse to correct really offends me : these things belong to me - I am my self : I am not the property of the United Kingdom Co. Ltd.

This all sounds potentially rather grand doesn't it ?

This is a sort of suck-it-and-see campaign which hinges upon arguing over conflicting laws and is thus suitable for a lone individual to undertake, although to be honest it would of course be much better to choke the magistrates' courts with red faced Electoral Registration Officers. Today being the day of the publication of the finished Register of Electors ( March 10th 2014 ) I rang them up to introduce myself and explain the nature of the protest that I propose. They said that they would get back to me ...

... the guy that I spoke to was politely puzzled I think. I know that they are all in fear for their jobs in Cardiff City County Council and in all likelyhood the Electoral Registration Officers feel the most secure because after all the politicians are not going to sack them are they, I mean who could ever think of politics being conducted without people voting, of no Demockery ?

You will note I hope that this was a campaign launched this morning with nothing more than a telephone call : the art of conversation is the heart of politics. There were no press releases, no leaflets, no demonstrations, no rallies, no balloons, no flags, no t-shirts, no speeches, no celebrity guests, no streamers, no junkets, no lobbyists, no fireworks - not yet - not even any free tin badges : nothing but a couple of facts and a good argument.

" Heh ! Ciudadanos ! Camaradas ! No necesitamos ningún insignias que son apestosos ! "

But I told him that I was a Republican anyway, explaining to the Electoral Registration Officer that this was going to be both a private and a public protest : how else can these things be when even my existance as a political and religious dissenter is held to be a crime in the eyes of those for whom my person and my property might be turned into their cash ?

Oh ! Sod this nonsense they preach about us all having to be conscripted into their precious Demockery - let us all have a plethora of politicos ... a really big tent full of all kinds of colours of all sizes of piñata ! ( WPS ! )


( Reflecting upon this at the end I thought to myself " What a - " no, sorry ! - " Perhaps I do indeed deserve to be awarded a tin-tin badge for this one ? " - how about giving me a Republican OBE : " Ordinary Bloke's Enterprise ." )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suppose that I really ought to have started this campaign with some kind of a speech like the Democrats do ... with some sort of a catchy refrain like " doo da doo da dai " ... but I am feeling a trifle lazy today, so I will just borrow one which was made earlier by one or other of those speakers from one or other of the Double Cross Parties. Of course, since he was an actor and only arguing for Democracy he never actually meant a word of this - he only wanted people to vote for him - but the sentiments are nice never the less :


Of course this speech was made in that period when the " XX " was more honestly and clearly displayed on people's hearts and sleeves and tin badges, whereas originally it used to be much more subtly displayed, from 1st April 1606 to - 1st January 1701, thuswise :

You will understand the reasoning therefore in denoting all of those parties which subscribe to the political system which this represents as the " Double Cross Parties " who will continue to prop up the political system which has shaped them all and will continue to protect those communities of interest which support them all and will provide them with access to the means to get themselves elected. Access to the means to get elected is being granted upon the condition that these Double Cross Parties serve these communities of interest once they have got into government by conning the electorate out of their votes with their false manifesto promises. ' Those ' communities of interest in the United Kingdom are literally the descendants of the aristocratic communities who no longer have any need for the House of Lords to control their interests because their focus of power has now shifted into the global corporations which have effectively placed themselves beyond the control of any national government.

The situation now basically stands exactly how it stood after the Glorious Revolution - in other words, it stands still : the aristocracy still have their imperial interests and the monarchy within the United Kingdom provides the military means to protect these, whether their means to wealth is vested in land or assets or technology or credit. Note that Republicans do not confuse the Royal Family with the monarchy - the former are to be pitied for the destruction of their lives for the purposes of the monarchy, the monarchy is to be hated for having destroyed so many more lives through violence - and the aristocracy are destroying lives every minute of every day through the pointless pursuit of profit for the sake of it, obtaining credit for mere numbers on balance sheets through activities which destroy the material things of real value - and leaving the necessary work of real value to society undone unless it is made profitable for them.

The major threat to Welsh Political Society is that of the Double Cross Parties allowing the corporations to court them to take over the functions for them of the state in Wales. This is their present project, to sell the idea to the Democrats that the corporations are so much more efficient than the state that they can deliver better services for less money - and still show a profit ! Voters are apparently are as delighted as can be and like excitable turkeys they are all now looking forward to this Christmas all year round having been told all about what fun there is to be had in such festivities. All four of the Double Cross Parties are enthusing over this because whichever one of them gets elected the politicians in Y Senedd will no longer have to take any responsibility for their actions : it will in future always be somebody else's fault, which is more or less any Democrat's wet dream.

What is more, the more substantially elected members of the Double Cross Parties are being promised even more than they were ever promised under the old political system which has now quite faded away for lack of open bribery. They need no longer feel embarrassed any more by having to negotiate for a seat in the House of Lords which has any way long since ceased to be the prestigious board room of UK plc. They can now get a much better job just as soon as the electorate have discovered their faults - by applying to join the boards of at least several friendly corporations of course, having acquired exactly that experience that gives them the expertise to advise their new shareholders upon how to deal with those dopey taxpayers whom they have entrapped for their masters in these copper-bottomed contractual deals which will deliver nothing but steadily rising profits for the corporations and steadily declining services for their serfs.

Now the law that I am protesting about does not punish those who decline to vote for the Double Cross Parties because the whole point of Double Cross Democracy is that the political game is fixed, the result is the same wherever, however and whenever you place you vote. Even if you understand this and have chosen to decline to exercise your right to vote for this Double Cross Party or that Double Cross Party, you are still supporting this crooked political system if you are still registering to vote. These Double Cross Parties are using the same strategies that any other two-bit hustlers do, standing around on street corners and enthusing about their game to entice the gullible into it. The outcome is well understood to the initiated : the people who accept their invitation will find it difficult to leave their game until all of these new found friends confirm that their marks have become too poor to pay taxes at which point - in Wales at least - their victims will be shunned. Those who have become addicted to the Double Cross Partys' political system are clearly willing to sell their own children into slavery in order to get their next fix of this Demockery.

As soon as the United Kingdom's Monarchist Mafia recognises that some one is successfully dealing in Demoracy in their locale, and that their long established local dealers are losing out to them, they naturally step forward to offer the new dealers their protection. In the period of the Georgian Mafia, voting was of course seen as it was : a danger to public morality, a plague to be stamped out - but of course by the end of the era of the Victorian Mafia voting had become quite fashionable and was even being allowed by acts of parliament to happen between consenting male adults because of course there was a lot of it going on in there already, modeled upon the political practices pioneered in the House of Lords whose members had brought it in there from several notorious public schools. Eventually it was agreed that the use of voting was also to be permitted to poor people, even women, provided that it was to became a source of further revenue for the Monarchist Mafia. It has to be noted therefore that Demockery has been designed to be just as addictive as a remedy for the unhappiness of poor people as cigarettes and alcohol are, which are great revenue-spinners and thus its great success as a political system relies very heavily upon its utter ineffectuality in remedying any of our political problems : Democracy is the problem not the solution - fighting fire with fire may be a fine metaphor, but it is a stupid principle to apply in politics.

The solution is still the same as it has been for centuries - Republicanism is the remedy for the conflaguration being caused in Wales due to the conjunction of Democracy, Aristocracy, Monarchy and Hierarchy. You fight such fires with the cool calm waters of the rationalities and reasonings which are to be found in the most celebrated of all bodies of political literature and which constitutes the most important of and most extensively tested of all political theories : Republican - which as a political conviction is often taken in Wales to be some kind of a criminal conviction and therefore is coyly commonly referred to here merely as " Common Sense."

There are of course many of us who want a political system which functions other than like a rusty Austin A99* left propped up on bricks merely for sentimentality's sake : like the car, its namesake belongs in the scrap yard - and no, I am not convinced that there are any useful spare parts to be saved from it : I know because I am a middle-aged man whose house, yard, basement and loft are full of such useful things. When my Dad died my Mum thought of halving the cost of her outgoings afterwards by hiring a skip in order to bury him in with everything in it, but other people protested too much about this for various reasons e.g. all of us being expected to travel to the funeral hanging on to the sides of it, our chapel not having a landfill licence, and-and-and - surely Mum couldn't be throwing away this - or that - or those !!! Normally I would be an advocate of an evolutionary approach to politics, especially to the development of laws, but hell - it is what has evolved that is worrying me : I can not even think of a metaphor ... no, honestly I can not today ... maybe tomorrow ?

*I know that you are all too young to be able to really get this Austin A99 gag, but you are after all reading these glorious scribbles of mine on the interwebby googly thingy - aren't you ? While you are about it you might also not be bothered to look for Morris the Miner's utterly decrepit CF99 which has been offered for sale for fifteen years now, and still nobody is willing to buy it.[/code]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Ouch ... I thought that I might find a nice folksy version, somebody sitting on a porch somewhere with a canjo in what used to be Wales - circa 2114 AD - who has forgotten what the words of this were all about, for whom politics is but an old wives' tale and Demoncracy just something to scare the children into bed with ... but then of course they all feel safe now that the Truly Imperial Monarchy has been restored by the descendants of Richard Branson the original Virgin Queen ... of course they never actually get to ever go to the Imperial Palace to see real royalty like that, being Welsh they could never afford the fare to the moon let alone back again ... but not to worry they are all given free radiation suits every fortnight or sooner if their plastic limbs ever start to melt again ... they are so glad to be living in what they have always been assured is the finest republic which money can buy - and its free ! After all that is the meaning of freedom isn't it, not having to ever pay for things ? ... Hell, that isn't even funny : this is much better -


Oh my Darlings ! Oh my Darlings !
Oh Compatriots of Mine !
You are lost and gone forever -
If you're scared to face a fine !


In republics laws do rule us -
Giving justice that's just fine !
We don't want these legalisms
Of a Democratic kind !

We must fight them - not by voting !
We must show them that they're wrong !
We must never join our names to
Their Democratic throng !

Hierarchies dub us heretics !
Monarchies use violence !
Aristos bribe and cheat us !
Democrats want compliance !

We must stand once more against them !
Every party must be shunned -
We can't cast one vote against them
In a system where we're banned !

One in five of every Cymro -
One in five of each Cymraes !
Claim to be Republicans -
Yet we're acting all like mice !

Let's remember what the vote's for -
It's to give ourselves a chance :
It's to change the world we live in -
Not continue in this dance !

Now the law's changed not for better :
If we don't agree to dance -
Democrats will make us pay fines
If we differ from their stance !

Now refusing to agree to
Ever vote for them again
Means attachments on your income
And jail if you complain !

New powers in their pockets
Let them rifle through your bin
And bank accounts and phone bills
'Til they know where you have been !

If it happens that you are dead -
That won't worry them a bit !
They don't need your actual signature
To record you as a Brit.

If you vote in this election
You must first become enslaved
To chickanery and Demockery
And will not emerge unscathed.

They want you to vote for them :
They don't care if you do not vote -
But if you do not register
Your support they can not quote !

[ I WAS OFTEN STRUGGLING THERE TO FIT THE RYTHMS & it's such an easy tune too !

- e.g. " They don't care if you ( cast a vote - ) ( don't vote - ) " ]



http://hogness.users.sonic.net/chickanery/ - http://chickanery.wordpress.com/ - i.e. my pun implies that Democracy as a political system is akin to farming and that it not only turns people into chickens but actually fattens them up ready to be slaughtered in its wars ... ' farming ' is also an old political slang word ...

[ JUST TO INSERT A NOTE TO EXPLAIN THAT - ' farming ' was not originally a slang word : a ' farm ' was originally a landed estate whose rents and profits were used to support the activities of an official appointed by the crown - the individual official could never get to own the crown's estate he could personally benefited from any rents paid and dues owed to him by the peasants on it. Hence rich people competed to offer the king inducements in order to be appointed by him to an office - then they paid other poorer people to do the office job for them - and went off to greet their new peasants with a friendly shakedown before they managed to hide anything not actually nailed down, and took a crow bar with them too. ]

... for handing out lucrative opportunities to those who in return will owe you their loyalties - or promising to if you haven't actually been elected yet : farming is a form of corruption which is akin to nepotism, and it used to be the way in which the United Kingdom was quite openly run before the modern Civil Service was set up because of the Northcote - Trevelyan Report of 1854, which in itself was a response to the rather limited form of Republican agitation against corruption called Chartism. Here is the official Civil Service account of their origins ... they are still proudly doing this, only now all prospective candidates have to take examinations in order to prove that their laziness and incompetence is the consequence of intelligence and intentionality not apathy and accident ...


""" Before the Civil Service was reformed in the 1850s, Departments of State (some of which were centuries old) recruited their staff mainly through political or aristocratic patronage rather than by merit, had a poor reputation and no unity of purpose. Dickens’ Circumlocution Office would have been instantly recognisable to any citizen who had had dealings with government officials.

“There was a case in our offices (Board of Audit) in which a gentleman was appointed who really could neither read nor write, he was almost an idiot, and there was the greatest possible difficulty in getting him out of the office.” - Parliamentary Report on the Civil Service, 1860

“I have known many instances of individuals boldly stating that they were not put into the service by their patrons to work…. The most feeble sons in families which have been so fortunate as to obtain an appointment, yes and others too, either mentally or physically incapacitated, enter the Service.” - Civil Service Papers published by the British Government, 1855 """

... surely you do all know the real meaning of " chicanery " - surely ? - If you still don't understand why I might associate chickanery with demockery then read the following if you have time -


" ... the original phrase, as first written by Dwight Eisenhower’s speechwriters, was military-industrial-congressional complex. Ike edited it down to military-industrial for fear of offending Congress. ... it seems the “antiwar” Democrats are in deeper than the Republicans. As one news report puts it:

“The study found that more Republicans than Democrats hold stock in defense companies, but that the Democrats who are invested had significantly more money at stake. In 2006, for example, Democrats held at least $3.7 million in military-related investments, compared to Republican investments of $577,500.”

If you wondered why the Democrats keep voting to fund a war they ostensibly oppose – well, now you know at least part of the reason. ... "


[ Images linked from www.pvponline.com : a dry cartoon strip by Scott R Kurtz - but I haven't a clue where he is on the globe ... thankyou ? ]






Since there will be a weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth all over Wales at the thought of my compatriots losing their hard won ' Democracy ' and people may just zoom in here to gawp in amazement at this little ditty written by some wretch who calls himself a Republican and terrifies them so he must be a terrorist ... I'll just put a little historical note down here about Republicanism : it was born in a time of vicious warfare and its central pre-occupation is with the rule of law in order to obtain peace through justice.

Now since the Welsh have been force-fed a version of Republicanism that was turned upon its head for political purposes during the Napoleonic War, let me just set it back the right way up with a little chat about what Democracy actually is because in all likelyhood you have been told by the BBC and taught in school that the United Kingdom is a Democracy - it isn't. The clue is in the word ' Kingdom ' - rather obvious really, isn't it ? It is a monarchy - and you can tell that it is a monarchy because it pursues its political aims through violence, which is a key feature of what a monarchy looks like, so don't let anybody else try to tell you otherwise. The United Kingdom ever has and ever will live by violently terrorising weaker states, and therefore in Republicanism it qualifies for the classification " terrorist state."

Now Republicanism has become almost incoherent as a political theory but that in a sense is the sheer pleasure of it for people like me : it truly amounts to a mountain of political literature which centres upon the disciplines of meta-ideology but which started with something more or less only the size of a molehill : the medieval political theory of " The Four Estates " is buried inside of it, and if you can grasp this simple theory then you will be able to understand the basic idea, which leads to the fact that Republicanism and Democracy are not the same thing. The first thing to note about Democracy is that there are competing theories of what it ought to be and Republicans regard these all to be ' ideologies ' which means that they are considered to all be defective : Communism, Socialism & Anarchism on " The Left " are basically all forms of religion whereas Conservativism, Fascism and Liberalism on " The Right " are basically all forms of secularism. They are all in conflict with each other and therefore are bound to cause wars, and indeed Democracy is often considered by Republicans to be merely a form of civil war which in the first instance uses ballots instead of bullets.

In contrast, Republicanism is claimed to be " The Politics of Love " because it reconciles these warring ideologies and in bringing peace to society it diverts their destructive activities into the constructive use of society's resources instead of deploying them to mutually destroy each other in the chronic state of civil war known as ' stasis ' which is the opposite of ' revolution ' which requires a chronic state of peace. For centuries Republicans have claimed to be the only politicos able to do this because their political theories are Meta-Ideological i.e. that they can explain how to reconcile these warring ideologies by fitting them into a bigger picture. They were saying this even before anybody had thought of the words ' ideology ' and ' meta-ideology ' - and Republicanism has been a very long lived political theory because it basically works, if imperfectly : ' Meta-Ideology ' is ' The Holy Grail of Republicanism ' and has been much argued over and abused.

In the course of its history Republicanism has also been seized upon and used to justify the crimes of those who have gained coercive control over their societies e.g. the Tudors used it to lay the foundations of the present United Kingdom, and historically there have been many ' crowned republics ' which puzzle those who think that the word ' Republic ' means ' a Democracy.' In practice what the word ' Republic ' actually means depends upon who is using it e.g. in terms of Republican political theory the USA is a monarchy and yet it calls itself a ' Republic ' - and indeed it may once have been one, but that is also a matter of dispute in Republicanism along with whether the USA has indeed ever experienced any periods when it really was a Democracy.

Republicanism therefore is not about any particular kind of a state, still less is it about any violent criminal conspiracies designed to seize control of states, but rather it is a political theory whose central pre-occupation is with the rule of law : in fact this is in Pure Republicanisms about the absolute rule of law, to the point where literally everything has to be subject to the rule of law and so even the authority of the state has to be derived from the rule of law and not the other way round - because Republicanisms locate their sovereignties in the rule of laws which must either produce peace in society through the promotion of justice or not be counted as sovereign at all because they are against The ' Interest of the Public '- The ' Res Publica ' from which ' Republicanism ' gets its name. This can cause all sorts of problems in practice when the law is based upon an inflexible set of ideas claimed to be a meta-ideology, but it is still a lot better than in Democracy where the laws are made in an arbitrary way to the point of randomness because the people making them are so inconsistent.

It was during the three 18c revolutions which kicked off the modern idea that " A Republic is a Democracy " that there was a novel departure in Republicanism which both appalled and intrigued contemporary 18c political philosophers. In the Corsican Revolution it seemed to be working out until the United Kingdom lent a hand in the crushing of that first democratic republic. The Americans were partly inspired by the Corsicans but went on to succeed largely because of the economics to be found in their colonies rather than because of their having military successes and almost in spite of their having some very clever politicians. In contrast to those it was economic failure not economic success that gave birth to the French Revolution that started so well but then like the American Revolution was subjected to many military attacks by the opportunist United Kingdom which eventually succeeded in putting an end to it although it failed in its war aims of stealing a lot of the profitable French Caribean sugar plantations.

What emerged out of these three revolutions were variations upon a single theoretical theme : that Republicanism and Democracy can provide mutual checks and balances for each other's dangerous extremes, and that whilst this may have been working well in the Corsican Revolution under Paoli it did not work in that island under the control of the French Revolutionaries who were ardent Democrats. The Americans never had a revolution as such because they were already well practised in their methods of government by 1776 and so their main difficulty politically seems to have been only in designing their new seals because of the difficulty of devising a ' Democratic ' symbolism, that and also their wearing down the British Army until it gave up and surrendered. As to whether American ' democracy ' ever got beyond their proud resolutions is debatable : they do have a lot of voting, but the descendents of the aristocrats of the United Kingdom, who had many poor Yankees die for their right not to pay taxes, still now own vast swathes of the American colonies.

The USA was from the very beginning an Aristocratic society of money-grabbing and ostentatious consumption, and later after the American Civil War the re-founded Republican Party found the boots of their naturalised native aristocrats on its neck and it has now grown comfortable with that situation : the debts incurred and incurred again until in 1961 these led to President Eisenhower protesting about the ' the military-industrial complex ' but being an American and therefore not a Republican he found it inconceivable to think that the threat to his nation was that of a Monarchy. The USA is now effectively a colony of a corporate community of interest whose actual location is unknown : thus the fate of Jefferson's " Democratic Republicanism " as a triumph of youthful optimism over elderly Republicanism's Realism.

The French Revolution produced what I term " Republican Democracy " which is not a term of my invention but is associated with the European Republican tradition to which Republicanism in Wales is slanted towards for historical reasons to do with our weird connections with ' The Enlightenment ' - and please note that in Republicanism in Wales the term ' Yr Eglurhad ' is the proper translation of the French ' L' Éclaircissement ' - it is not that ugly academic word ' Goleuedigaeth ' which is a translation from the English word : think of the lightening ' flash ' of Republicanism in Wales in comparison to that industriously revolutional burning of one Watt of Republicanism in England ... ' eglur ' in Welsh is the same as ' éclair ' in French but neither are the same as ' eclair ' in English [ which is a sticky bun with a ' flash ' of sticky white stuff in it - and that is definitely not the same sticky white stuff that I ejaculate about all over the place elsewhere.]

Um ... oh yeah - the Republicans in France had the same problems as the Republicans in Wales : they were dealing with an oppressed and backward, poverty stricken nation suffering from mass unemployment and living upon handouts. These ignorant peasants were all hungry for change but utterly ignorant of politics and so they were willing to believe anything that the Democrats promised them and also happy to agree that if they did not get what they wanted then the Republicans were all to blame. Of course they all looked forward to those far-too-clever-and-smugly-intellectual-bastards being put on trial for not ever respecting their priests and journalists, nor looking up to those who had money and land and might just give a peasant a job if he grovelled nicely. A job such as being willing to go out and kill people for king and country or whatever it was they were now living in which oppressed peasants just the same as the old political system did in the good old days when ... just out of slight interest, you do know that the first to die en-masse beneath the guillotine were the Republicans in France ? You were told otherwise ? I wonder why ?

Did a Democrat tell you that ? Fancy that ... did they tell you this ... ?

The Revolution in France began very peaceably, the King said he was happy with it and the Queen offered everybody a slice of cake and then things began to go wrong because the Democrats wanted everything at once because they had made everybody who had voted for them all sorts of promises in order to get elected. The Democrats argued that they had a piece of paper now which said that they could do anything they voted for and the Republicans tried to explain to them that nobody in France had any experience of governing themselves and that they ought to explain to the peasants that they had not simply all been promoted into the Aristocracy to get their turn at oppressing people, they had to learn how to be nice to everyone if they were not to end up oppressing each other. " Fuck off ! " said the Democrats in their best French and it all began to go to hell in a handcart from thereon in. The Republicans were most upset and decided that they needed some advice from some nicer people from a nicer nation, and so they wrote a letter to the very nice Republicans in Wales who said that they knew a very nice man who would come and help them to write up a very nice Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen in order to help the nicest Republicans in France to be able to be able to nicely understand how really nice Real Republicanism really is.



Now you might say " But Dai - there is nothing there about David Williams being the draughtsman of one of the most famous documents in all of the world's political history ! " In return I might point out that ( a ) he is Welsh ( b ) he was a Republican in Wales ( c ) he gave up putting the finishing touches to it in order to hurry to London carrying with him an offer of peace from the French Republic to the United Kingdom. The latter's history books ofcourse fail to mention that the Aristocrats quickly hurried to the Monarchists to point out that there was no profit in peace but that the Bank of England would flourish in wartime and that they would be able to pay off all of the debts which they incurred with the piles of money that they would make by stealing the French sugar plantations ... so they declared war on the French Republic but attacked its Caribbean colonies - and ran straight into the Republicans in Haiti who had just been liberated from slavery and were not about to agree to patriotically embrace it again for the sake of another king and somebody else's country. The United Kingdom was utterly murderously savage to the poor Haitians and they are still poverty-stricken to this day : yet their third world society is Democratic and our first world society in the United Kingdom is not - and this is not just a consequence of the Revolution in Haiti because that was crushed most effectively by all of the first world countries involved. It is to do with economics not voting : unequal societies where a significant proportion of the populace are dependent upon others are by definition not Democratic - the critical social factors are inequality and dependency not poverty nor lack of any opportunities to vote. The USA has a lot of voting but it is not a Democracy in terms of Republican political theory because of the social inequality and consequent welfare dependency there which is the result of the disintegration of real communities and the rise of compensatory individualistic ideologies, most typically of the many cheapjack versions of dis-organised and unaccountable pseudo-religious cults which are now deeply encroaching upon American Political Society without challenge.


Now in order to keep this note as promished - littlish - I had better jump to some conclusions. Republicanism in Wales or indeed anwhere else does not advocate violence because it is opposed to " Ultra-isms " i.e. it draws a boundary around the core of society, around those people who spend their time doing politics in a constructive manner by collecting facts and making arguments : the art of conversation is the heart of politics, not voting. Voting is a method of decision making favoured by Democrats because they object to entering into any kinds of conversations with open minds because then they would end up disclosing the only fact they know : that they have nothing in their minds whatsoever besides those lame reasonings, which you and I can easily recognise as excuses, and those arbitrary statements which they make upon impulse, mostly when trying to please others who might vote for them, whose only factual content consists of the emotions which prompted them, usually neurotic ones if not actually psychotic. Voting precludes the discussions vital for good decision making, which is why Democrats govern their peoples, or rather their states, so badly ... as we are experiencing in Wales since the advent of " Y Senedd."

Now Republicanism in Wales is supposed to be the remedy for this brand of Demockery as practised by the United Kingdom but thanks to the history books as written and used by the opponents of political reform in order to keep propping up their corrupt and corrupting political system we are cut off from the political history of Republicanism in Wales which has featured prominently in otherwise inexplicable historical events. Historians in general are ignorant of Republicanism in Wales and so they dismiss the Welsh as merely eccentric, odd or ignorant : I am none of these, I just happen to have five centuries of the remaining fragments of Republicanism in Wales crammed into my head but I am not academically gifted enough to make any of this look properly respectable in the eyes of the educated - nor do I want to : I reject their lurid Demoncrafty which lays claim to being " The Rule of the People " yet is designed to exclude all of " The People " altogether from involvement in political debate by the process of taking the very little bit of political power which they do have away from them by conning them into the idea that " Democracy means Voting " - no, it doesn't : or at least it certainly never did in Republicanism in Wales.

Without going into the whole theory, which isn't actually that difficult to understand, Republicans regarded themselves as ' Pacificators ' at the centre of society : this was not the same as being a ' Pacifist ' which is an idea which properly belongs to ' Modern Republicanism ' which began circa 1850. The Republicans in Wales saw themselves as playing off the warring antagonists within a society by arguing for alliances which defeated the bids for total power which any one community of interest might be making. The most famous of such occasions was that of " The Peaceable Army " upon which Charles I having been given a large sum of money, owed to him out of their feudal allegiance, then ordered the Welsh Army to march into England. With absolutely straight faces the Welsh then explained to the king that he had mustered the Welsh Army under a ' posse comitatus ' which meant that in order to move them he must get this order endorsed in order for it to be legal - endorsed by his enemies in Parliament. This incident involving such a delicate concern for the rule of law reflects the way in which Republicans in Wales worked their politics as ' Pacificators.'

The same strategy was still being used long after the French Revolution : although the open discussion of the emerging Modern Republicanism involving the ideologies that we now take to be ' politics ' was being suppressed, Republicanism in Wales was thriving and its ideas were being used in new ways. In particular the new industrial Aristocracy, now considered to be the bogey-men of the nineteenth century because of the domination in the latter part of the twentieth century by Socialism, were played off against the Hierarchy i.e. the Church of England in Wales. These were the people who protected Iolo Morgannwg and Dr William Price from the authorities and who tried to save Dic Penderyn from being hanged as an example by them. These were the people who provided the material means to promote the Gorsedd and the Eisteddfod and they not only protected the Neo-Druidic societies promoting a secularised religion which undermined the moral authority of chapels - they were shadowing the Chartists who were marching into churches en masse, hoping to reap their votes if they won them and launch some member of their family upon a political career to challenge the way that the remnants of the feudal aristocracy were avoiding taxes in the United Kingdom whilst often profiting from their commercial interests throughout the empire.

Some people regard this sort of behaviour as simply an attempt to balance the contending forces in society, that Republicans in Wales threw their weight successively behind The United Britons, the Political Unions, the Chartists, the Suffragists, the Brotherhood, the Radicals, the Nationalists etc until one man one vote was finally won in 1949. But that conveniently closes off the history of Republicanism in Wales c1900 - but it did not stop there, nor did it suddenly spring back into life in 1949 with the Welsh Republican Movement's brand of Nationalism. The first half of the twentieth century sees my favourite bit of Republicanism in Wales and why I make this point of calling it that in contra-distinction to Welsh Republicanism : these are the two halves of one whole, different aspects of the same thing. Republicanism is essentially Cosmopolitan : that is why people often coyly refer to themselves as " Citizens and Citizennes of the World."

If Republicans in Wales could have their way, then these ancient feudal states based upon geography, because the medieval Aristocracies and Monarchies sought to control an economic base which was essentially agricultural, would disappear in favour of a dense fabric of interwoven legal jurisdictions which would create a single world community but without any global government. The rule of law pertains to protecting people from non-consenting relationships and many of our relationships are now across the boundaries of the geographic states : they are not only useless for the purposes of practical jurisdiction but also the de facto situation is that the nature of the rule of law is changing because relationships are changing. I enthuse about this, but Republicanism in Wales ought to pour cold hard objective reasoning out upon these developments : such events are neither good nor bad in Republican political analysis, they are examined in order to determine their causes and effects.

The idea behind the Cosmopolitan ideal was to bond people together in so many different relationships that war became impossible to contemplate, that by getting rid of the nation state, and by not replacing it with either a world state or any kind of global governments, there could be no centre of economic power for anybody to seize nor any possibility of their using legalisms to build up any such economic power base for others to contend for in any way. The coercion of others to consent to relationships which the object to would not cease of course, but the right to free legal redress is the remedy for this - but that remedy of course demands the end of the rule of the English Law in Wales : whilst we ought to keep any laws which are good, then equally we need to throw out any laws which are bad. We need to insist upon the Republican principle that in creating just laws we are indeed describing the only legitimate form of sovereignty that there is, which does not reside in any persons but only in the justice to be found in the relationships that are conducted between us : the laws consist of nothing more than our common sense of justice, by which we consent to live together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_(pamphlet) - remember this ?

I do not consent to live by any law that has been agreed by however many people solely to punish those who do not subscribe to their own beliefs whatever those are - I would refuse to accept such a law even if those beliefs were my very own : good laws restore peace to society and bad laws wage war upon society - and this is a bad law, in fact it is no law at all because it contains no justice whatsoever. Defying this is for me a moral and ethical imperative : such laws as this took centuries to remove from the statute book - and look ! - back again, and once instituted whilst all of their provisions seem reasonable, they need only be progressively changed by increments from these first professed beliefs in order to persuade those moronically misinformed majorities to vote for them lest all of those poor starving penguins in the African jungle lose all of their welfare payments because of those damned heretical Republicans who are obviously intending to be criminals so let's help them along by hanging them, we are - really - only doing them a kindness, really - deary ... I SAID WE ARE ONLY DOING THEM A KINDNESS REALLY DEARY ... and ... oh ... really ? ... Um ... I .... did she ? ... would you ? ... LOOK !!! - JUST SIGN HERE !!! ... ... ... oh ... ... ... What do you mean, I killed her ? ... ... ... Well we can't lose yet another one ! ... >sigh< ... Where did she drop the pen then ?... ... ... Well I'm not signing it - I signed the last one ! ... ... ... Well, can't you ... can't you just use your left hand ? ... ... ... NO ! I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO - EVERYBODY'S REFUSING !!! ... ... ... Oh - stop snivelling, all we need is two more : that will be enough to make one vote for each candidate and then we can use the extra one for the candidate who will get the majority. ... ... ... Phew ... ... ... Who do you want to see win ? ... ... ... Gosh, how time flies ... ... ... Is it really their turn again already ?


To be honest whilst I personally absolutely need to do something about this, I'm dreading others wanting me to lead them off somewhere to their political salvations : I am honestly feeling much happier with myself at the moment just sitting here all alone in my hole ... Oh hell, no I'm not ... I just want to be alone ...


YES : FAR TOO LONG - I KNOW, I KNOW ... surely I am just fretting about it a bit, but the necessary logic of the legal argument is surely inescapable for anyone possessed of any common sense and surely decency - and the English Law has surely been around for centuries in Wales, surely dispensing its wisdom and justice - surely ? And surely we now live in an enlightened age of reason and and rationality and and scientific progress ... surely ? Perhaps I should opt for trial by jury ?



I have decided to dip back into the above to just try to clarify a couple of points - huh !

What lends the appearance of an alliance but in fact is the difference between the Nationalists ( " Welsh Republicans " - the green, red and white trilliw ) and the Internationalists ( " Republicans in Wales " - the red, white and green trilliw ) is in our respective attitudes towards dismantling the United Kingdom.

The Nationalists want to break off their very own medieval fief of Wales from England, creating two separate nation-states after the existing model of the United Kingdom i.e. politically they are right wing and extremists as conventionally understood. They are standing on the margins of Welsh Political Society and are allied to " the black faction " which consists of a mere handful of people who celebrate the Ultraists of the 1950s - 1990s whom they fondly imagine to have been freedom fighters. There are and ever were more or less only five or six in " the black faction " and their public advocates denounce the rest of us as " bradwyr " - " traitors " - for not following their lead. These people can be regarded as Pure Democrats : they are extremely willful and ready to contemplate the use of violence, and I regard them as the mirror-image of the much bigger " black faction " that we have to contend with - the United Kingdom. Members of " the black faction " would in turn most probably argue back to me that it is the behaviour of the United Kingdom which summoned them into being in the first place.

Fortunately most Welsh people who describe themselves as ' Republicans ' are very ordinary sorts who occasionally write those very angry letters which end up in the bin because they are intelligent enough and sociable enough to think of something more constructive to do with their time than writing to Democrats. Now think this through : five or six people have held back five or six hundred thousand of these other people in Wales from forming any kinds of conventional Democratic-Republican or unconventional Republican-Democratic parties for over sixty years. Those who are calling this conscientiously constructive twenty percent of the Welsh nation who have continually described themselves during that period of sixty years as ' Republicans ' ( whether they know what it means or not ) by the appelation " bradwyr " are to me like a handful of fleas who are denouncing the elephant upon which they stand and who are sucking the lifeblood from as a " parasite."

There isn't even just one such elephant but two whole herds of them, each containing elephants of every colour of the political spectrum : there are Republican Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, Liberals, Fascists ( yes - we do have a few, but they just don't like to be called this any more : they prefer names like ' political consultants ' or ' managerial advisors ' ) and Conservative Republicans in Wales who are all very knowleagable about their own brands of Democratic Republicanism and Republican Democracy in Wales - but they are all very quiet about these privately held beliefs because of the ... you know ... the ' R ' word ... yet one of the best books ever published on the Conservative variety of Republicanism in Wales was - H W J Edwards' " Sons of the Romans: The Tory as Nationalist." - Conservative Republicans are indeed often the best educated of the lot : they will not only quote Cicero at you without even a trace of a Welsh accent but they will be doing it in the original Latin too !

Res Publica : A Journal of Moral, Legal and Social Philosophy [ Yes - our Democrats decided to no longer fund this internationally respected academic journal and so it has apparently been lost to Wales altogether due to their prejudiced attitudes towards those who differ from them.]


Res Publica : Postgraduate Essay Prize 2013 [ Now gone : a quite prestigious international political essay competition which was first offered to the World from Wales : perhaps our dull Democrats don't want to have any Republican critics around them and so are driving them overseas ? ]


Personally I believe that the most farcically hypocritical aspect of this painfully ridiculous and infantile situation is the fact that the very same politicians who denounce us as potential criminals to - well, let us face it, a politically illiterate electorate - are also simultaneously funding the politics and philosophy departments of our universities to teach Republicanism to undergraduates as part of their standard courses. Provided of course that these academics always impress upon their students that they are never to mention the ' R ' word outside of their class rooms. I believe that the internationally respected magazine " Res Publica " was begun by Welsh academics who received a public grant for it. Its cover's blue, white and green tricolour scheme was derived from Iolo Morgannwg's three orders of the Gorsedd which were then used for the triband carried by the Welsh Chartists who marched into Newport in 1839 and whose sun was later replaced with a star by the popular lecturer De Morgan to create his National Republican Brotherhood's triband in the 1870s. This kind of publicly instituted schizophrenia which our politicians practice in order to accommodate popular prejudices first manufactured in the 1790s is simply a national disgrace : these Democrats are robbing everybody in Wales of a significant part of their national culture's political heritage. When I tell not only Republicans but anybody politically minded in other countries about this situation I am met with utter disbelief - " In Wales you can not even hold a meeting to talk about Republicanism in public without being treated as potential criminals ? What do they do to your public librarians there ? "

" Well, this is Wales : our politicians are very proud to purchase such books for public libraries upon the understanding that this is for the purposes of window-dressing Wales to the World as an educated nation." " Oh - so yours is a Democratic political system after all : our politicians do that too, and their offices and coffee tables are strewn with each others' books ! " " What - all signed kiss-kiss to the politico who reviewed it but never read it ? " " A review by one of ours declared on the dust jacket that his co-politico's book was the greatest single contribution to political theory since Cicero's." " Gosh - really ? What was it about ? " " Goldfish." " Wow ... they don't get out much, ... do they ? " " No - not at all really, nor do any of their goldfish either." " Ha ! - Yeah - but, surely ... they must ... er ... you know ... um ... change their ... erm ... you know - sometimes ? " " No, but that doesn't seem to matter too much to them : apparently they are all rather fond of just going around and around in circles, all day long and all night long, just for the sake of admiring their own tales."

Now if I could just return to my fish-eyed view of the other end of the spectrum beliefs - that little white elephant which stands out on its own without even any fleas for company : Pure Republicanism, shorn of any of its historical compromises with Democracy, Aristocracy, Monarchy or Hierarchy - none of whom ever wanted to keep it longer than they needed it in order to get into power by using it to kick the others out of power. It is after all a " white " elephant and they are always remarkably expensive to keep because once you have got one in the house you are supposed to welcome everyone in, make them a nice cup of tea - just as they happen to like it, and provide them with something more than sympathy - but not too much, and not too little, because you only have so much in the house and you are supposed to contrive to share everything out equally. As the keeper of the peace you have to handle all of those tricky legal situations which they keep on bringing to you and - oh ! - if only everybody could just believe in the same things, then there would be none of these unending arguments : these idiots are going to drive you mad enough to to to kill kill kill kill - if you bribe them ... then they might go away - but then they might come back for more : oh, sod it : let's put it to a vote ! ...

... " Phew - thank-the-gods-that-I-don't-believe-in-but-have-faith-in : they agreed to allow me believe that it was indeed a good thing to do : for me to kill the white elephant if only I agreed to pay them enough money for them to vote for it ... I still do not understand why they had to have so many votes upon the matter though ... at least the damn thing has gone and I can take a walk in the garden without those un-nerving little eyes forever watching my and her big ears listening to what I say - and that annoying little trunk of Res Publica's which I would find suddenly going through my pockets or her big feet treading on my toes ... peace atla-a-a-a-argh-h-h-h-h-uh-!!!! " " I'M SORRY YOUR HIGHNESS, BUT MINE IS NOT TO RAISIN WHY : LONG LIVE THE SULTANA !!! " ... You see the thing about Pure Republicanism is that you can not just sit at home and have people bring their problems to you or you will be targeted by all of those seeking to coerce you by various means. The real work of politics involves getting out there and visiting your neighbours and proactively investigating the margins of society where the minorities - and even lone individuals - are being exposed to any newly impinging events. This is where all of the information is to be got upon the real currant issues in any society and if these are not attended to then they will become the basis for all of the political cutting edges that will then be applied to you.

Oh yeah ... the Internationalists or ' Republicans in Wales ' may appear to share the Nationalists' desire to break up the United Kingdom, but we do not want to create two separate nation-states after the model of the United Kingdom : we do not confuse imperialist ambitions like the aspiration for " The Thirty Two County Republic of Ireland " with politics which is about human relationships not real estate. We don't want to break off a piece of our very own geography in order to plant a flag on it : we want to create political systems which are based upon the realities of human relationships. These are political systems which are to be determined by the rule of law not by the control of territory : it is pretty pointless having absolute control over every square inch of your home turf but to be unable to leave your precious home pitch in order to retrieve your ball. It is absolutely pathetic to be seen standing around all of the time with your hands in your pockets because you are too shy or proud to ask the people over the fence as to whether they might not give you your ball back. Of course if your ball did indeed flatten their prize pumpkin there is bound to be some hard bargaining involved because that bag of satsumas which you sat on in the changing room is not going to be regarded as adequate compensation.

The thing about these sorts of sports metaphors is that whilst they are good for depicting Pure Democrats they are not good for depicting Pure Republicans. One of those perennial truths is that the sorts of people who either like to play or watch healthy outdoor team sports, to all wear the same uniform all together and to assemble all together in order to invade some foreign country for the purpose of complaining about their beer, these are all going to be either Pure Democrats or Impure Cardiffians. Whereas in contrast those sorts of people who like to either create great works of art or to criticise the pathetically amateurish artistic pretensions of their friends, and who all resort to charity shops in order to pointedly ignore everything on the bookshelves which, let us face it, really ought to be better stocked with a better selection of indecently proper books ... well these shy wilting violets nearly always turn out to be Pure Republicans with impure thoughts about Cardiffians.

You have to understand that the black faction just want a dead-level playing field with a line drawn across the middle upon which they are going to do their best to prevent any forward English players from ever crossing ( and they will refuse to change ends too at half-time.) But long before they ever arrive to start their game the white faction are planning to dig up their whole field of play in order to create exotic allotments and exciting oudoor art installations, to which everybody in Wales and the World will be invited to visit either in person or through video-cam-web-gulf-lincs. You can only imagine what this will do for the cause of law and order and peace in Wales and the World, because fortunately for the white faction there is believed to be in between us and the black faction something of the order of in between five hundred and six hundred thousand other colours which have been mixed up from differing proportions of Republicanism and Democracy.

Colours which my ex has always declared will never come out all together and successfully re-mixed back through the Newtonian prism of Meta-Ideology to be reconstituted into a shining white whole, but to be reconstituted as some other unspecified colour which she says will require esspecial optical brighteners in order to remove them from ' Y Faner Wen.'

Last edited by dai on Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:12 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I haven't forgotten this, I'm thinking about it - thoughts about it were spilling out here - another thread which will end up broken for lack of time :

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I am still thinking about it ... but not writing about it here - but there :


Well I got my poll card sent to me a couple of days or so ago for the 22nd May, so I guess that I ought to get on with this and write to the Electoral Registration officers with something snappy, and also I had better write this pronto and snappy too ... toommoorroowwooooooooooo ... maybe ... definitely ... perhaps ...

I'm honestly not sure why I'm stuck.

Yay ... we broke the 900 ' members ' barrier on the 8th April 2014 ... may be that there is a God after all : S'mae Susie J !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 20 Dec 2013
Posts: 18
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2014 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Abstaining is only effective if, by abstaining, you're partaking in an alternate government. The Irish during the 20's were elected and abstained, but in turn gave their support to their own representative government (the Dail)that functionally took the place of the other.

People will go for whoever shows the most promise of fulfilling their needs. If they're unhappy with the current system, give them another they can appeal to that has its worth proven in action. It is doubtful anyone will risk 1000£ out of pure principle, but a congress, with local councils to support it would give them a concrete incentive. So far they've been stuck with "follow us" or "vote for us" groups.

Lawrence of arabia said that to succeed you need 2 percent active and 98 percent passively sympathetic, if welsh republicans got together a working plan for an alternate republican gov't, I think people would fall in behind them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2014 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mmm ... well if I know my compatriots they are much worse than sheep : you can herd sheep and they only come in two colours and speak in one shared language ! ... and I don't think that that is quite what happened in Ireland, Sinn Fein won a landslide election but not by people abstaining which came later. The point of this is not strictly abstention but trying to find a way to actively vote against the political system : there is no positive alternative to put to people which they can agree upon, but more than half of everybody can agree that the political system is bust - and that we are all angry to find that all of those Democracy parties to whom we gave our votes upon the promise that they would clean up their act have openly scoffed at us as fools for doing so. To be a " Democrat " in the United Kingdom is to believe in shoring up the present political system, whereas I am arguing that the Common Sense of The People is to be deeply affronted by their behavior and to instinctively be " Republican " in surely disagreeing with these " Democratic " arguments that it is in The Public Interest for " Democrats " to go unpunished for crimes that " Democrats " insist upon sending The People to jail for : FOR THOSE IN THE USA WHO HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWING WHAT IS HAPPENING IN WESTMINSTER - THIS HAS INVOLVED MULTIPLE CASES OF : theft, misrepresentation, collusion, fraud, corruption, bribery, perjury etc and more serious allegations of intimidation, harassment and assault of both sexual and non-sexual sorts - all hushed up by all of those Democrats involved for the sake of preserving the outward appearance and therefore reputation of the their " Democracy " - ! - and how do the politicians of the United Kingdom manage to do this and so contrive to look like any other normal political system ? By insisting that the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom is to be located in " The Crown in Parliament " and therefore they are all above this silly trivial thing which those - dishonest - vicious - criminal ! - Republicans ! - have been arguing for this past 365 years - The Rule of Law.


As to why I have gone no further at present, I am not sure why : earlier this week marked one year to the first fixed-date UK general election which is a good time frame from within which to plan something ; even better would have been to have been confronting the political system this week or next and making out the case for our place in Europe because it is our only source of human rights legislation, and upon that I would be heavily relying in making out my case for not being conscripted to support the political system of the United Kingdom and its politicians' Democratic ambitions to get rid of even what little UK human rights legislation there is.

Talk about a writer's block : I have a scribbler's barricade and I don't even know why when otherwise I am writing freely about all sorts of other stuff ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( Well, it is sort of relevant and I AM suffering from scribbler's barricade - yet people expect to be entertained and they all want something to stick in their Fakebooks - huh ! - the middle-aged people of today ... )

Subject: The Public Philosopher : Republicanism in Wales V Democracy in the United Kingdom
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 11:05:51 +0000

Dear Friends,

if you have the time may I ask you to listen to the first episode of Series 3 of THE PUBLIC PHILOSOPHER - not because of Michael Sandel - but because of the audience : think about how this level of thoughtful public debate is not happening in the United Kingdom - The People of the United Kingdom are simply educated from an early age in how not to be a citizen.

Whilst various people imagine that Republicanisms are about either the Nationalist project of a separated Welsh state or the Internationalist project of dismantling all nation-states, in order to create various kinds of Cosmopolitan global political systems, it is I think fundamentally about this kind of moral and ethical debate - and how woefully lacking it is in the United Kingdom. Creating this debate must be the fundamental political objective of Republicanism, because without it there is no politics at all. Whilst it can be facilitated by the political system this kind of moral and ethical debate can not be created by any constitutional means, nor despite the efforts of those who control the United Kingdom and who design and manipulate its political system in order to suppress any such moral and ethical debate and prevent any such criticism of themselves which it produces can they ever end it - and thus they can never end Republicanism either, because whatever other names it has been called by, this is what the political activity of " Republicanism " actually is.

Thus " Y Repwblic " is entirely independent of any constitutional arrangements, and the creation of any kind of state which bears the name " republic " is an extremely doubtful if albeit noble aspiration. The presence or absence of any Republican movement and the test of the " Republic in Wales " is more or less the presence or absence of this debate. The public debate which defines the Republic is not only absent from Wales but it is being actively campaigned against by Democrats in Wales who think that the purpose of their engaging in any debate is to tell other people what to think. Democrats in Wales not only try to manipulate our public discourses in order to make others think like themselves and vote for themselves, and are not only incapable of listening to others and learning from them, not only deaf to criticism and therefore defiant of any correction to their behaviour - but Democrats in Wales are actively seeking to destroy the moral and ethical discourses within our society which is the only possible foundation for the Republic in Wales.

Here then is the distinction that I am drawing between those who support the political system of the United Kingdom and who loudly proclaim themselves to be Democrats in Wales and who denounce those who oppose this political system for a whole variety of reasons but nearly always because we have a deep moral and ethical concerns about the harm which it is doing, that the way in which the United Kingdom conducts its affairs in general is not in " The Public Interest." These " Republicans in Wales " may indeed not own the word " Republican " because of the associations that have been given to it by centuries of propoganda against those who opposed the political system of the United Kingdom, but we are still conducting the same arguments against it as those who bore the name " Republican " centuries ago and notably we are still doing so in the same peaceable ways, although due to the propaganda few people know this to be the case.

But Republicans are not to be confused with Nationalists : Plaid Cymru is a Democratic party which has been shaped by and supports the political system of the United Kingdom because it benefits from it and therefore it can not profit from any moral and ethical debate about the " Res Publica." Nor can the Labour and Cooperative Party, the Liberal Democrat Party or the Conservative and Unionist Party : these are all sectarian extremist organisations which by mutual consensus have divided our society against itself in order to wage war with ballots not bullets against each other in order to pursue the private interests of those communities of interest which provide them with the means to be elected. In other words, Democrats in Wales are literally waging war against The People in Wales and indeed have joined themselves as allies to those Democrats in England who are waging war against The People in England. In the words of Yr Ardystiad, " All Nations are born of One People - All Laws are born of One Justice - All Freedoms are born of One Peace " - and so there is only One Republic - Indivisible, Invisible, Invincible - and One Republicanism which is thus held in common between Republicans in Wales, Republicans in England, Republicans in Scotland and Republicans in Ireland and the World ... OK ?

They used to refer to themselves as the " United Republicans " because they once recognised what they had in common.

What really united the Republicans in the United Kingdom c1800 was their differences - because they were tolerant of each other, whereas the politicians of the United Kingdom were extremely intolerant and hanging people for disagreeing with them - even for something as trivial as singing a song or cracking a joke. You think that those days of intolerance will never return ? They are already here : all four Democratic Parties in Wales have endorsed the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 which has introduced the Civil Penalty of up to £1000 ( or imprisonment for non-payment ) for refusing to endorse their political system. As Republicans in Wales knew before the 2010 election, after which every Democrat elected broke their promises to deal with the criminality in Westminster, you can not seriously expect crooks to police themselves : so why be surprised that every one of those Democrats in Westminster have now been pleased to help themselves by passing a law designed to criminalise and punish those who are concerned to serve and protect the Public Interest ( i.e. Republicans ) by advocating reform of the very political system which not only enables Democrats to cover up their crimes but is indeed designed to keep them in power ? Everybody must now vote Democrat or be punished.



Now I know that you all think that I am being a little over-sensitive about this, that they will just come and knock on my door and have a polite word and perhaps sort something out the day before the court hearing but ... no, I think that some fundamental change has occurred : the Civil Penalty is not being imposed for not performing a duty any more, it is being used to punish those who object to being registered for whatever reason - there is no allowance for any objection, and it is not clear as to whether a person can even object on religious grounds ( as a good little Quaker like me ought to ! ) To challenge it on political grounds seems even more hopeless, but I think that this law is so un-just it must be just defied.

David B. Lawrence,




Morality and the State

Series 3 Episode 1 of 3
Duration: 44 minutes
First broadcast: Tuesday 13 May 2014

Should governments try to influence private morality? Michael Sandel, The Public Philosopher, is back with a new series. In this first programme he is at the University of Utrecht in The Netherlands, one of the world's most permissive countries. It has liberal laws on prostitution, cannabis and euthanasia. Professor Sandel leads a discussion about the role of the state in shaping and policing our moral values.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 11:59 pm    Post subject: Colin Ward : The Case Against Voting Reply with quote

( I am going to write to them honest, I was going to do it yesterday ... and the day before that to ... I have almost cleared my desk and dug out all of those scraps from my pockets and ... )

... meanwhile, I enjoyed a little architecting within the security of my own home ... the unfortunate truth about the 1970's is that if you can remember them then it means that you were in fact there ...

Subject: Colin Ward : The Case Against Voting
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 23:47:43 +0000

Dear People,

gosh ... it has been so long, living in a city which holds the built environment in such contempt, I forgot all about him.


There you are : Colin Ward - " dangerous anarchist " - that sort of person which inspired me to want be an architect ...

HIS OBITUARY IN A DANGEROUSLY LEFT WING RAG - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7535946/Colin-Ward.html

& IN A DANGEROUSLY RIGHT WING RAG - http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/22/colin-ward-obituary

& IN THAT ONCE CRYPTO-REPUBLICAN RAG - http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/boyd-tonkin-the-good-life-of-a-gentle-anarchist-1903818.html


http://theanarchistlibrary.org/authors/Colin_Ward.html - in which you will find his own sort of argument against voting -


David B. Lawrence
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2014 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MMM ... I was definitely not on the ball was I ? Finished on 13 / 05 / 14 - only TEN people signed it.


removing fines for refusing to sign onto the electoral roll

Responsible department: Cabinet Office

We the people are governed by consent, and yet there is no lawful means of removing our consent to be governed. Refusal to sign the electoral roll carries a £1,000 fine, and yet, many of us consider this an act of civil disobedience that should not carry such a penalty. The council and central government still know who we all are for purposes of Council Tax, and the Benefits Offices / National Health Service / other government agencies all have our details on file.

Therefore, the undersigned feel that not wanting to participate in the so-called "democratic process" should NOT incur a £1,000 fine just for dissenting to the system in its entirety, and we ask that the fines for not signing onto the Electoral Roll should be rescinded and removed.


I wonder what else is around - plenty, I assure you - but I will leave you to google for them. Of those of us ( not me incidentally ) who have resisted before the usual story is one of not filling in the form, being visited and refusing to give a name then being told their name and threatened with a court case at which point most people - due to not having a clue how to defend themselves and not having the money for lawyers etc because the English Law is not about getting justice but possessing money ( the main point really of that jibe about ' property ' being nine tenths of the English Law ) - capitulate. I do not want to, win or lose : the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 is a bad law which must be contested as a matter of principle. Given that in Wales I am living in a legal-political system which is entirely unprincipled because it is governed by Democrats, that probably means that I will lose ... > sigh <




The Government has stated that 35 million voters will be transferred to the new system automatically as their identity can verified using the Department of Work and Pensions database. The remainder will be required to prove their identity in order to remain on the electoral register.


A spokesman for the Electoral Reform Society, an independent NGO, expressed some reservations: "You're potentially looking at registration rates in the 50% region. It will make some problems worse.".One recent study has also suggested that it will lead to a decline in electoral registration, unless other measures are put in place to offset these reductions.



Power to amend or abolish the annual canvass

(1)The Minister may by order make provision for the purposes of assisting registration officers in Great Britain to ascertain—

(a)the names and addresses of persons who are not registered in a register but who are entitled to be registered;

(b)those persons who are registered in a register but who are not entitled to be registered.

(2)The Minister may by order—

(a)modify section 9D of the Representation of the People Act 1983 or any other provision relating to a canvass under that section;

(b)abolish the duty to conduct a canvass under that section.

(3)If the duty to conduct a canvass is abolished, the provision that may be made under subsection (1) includes provision reinstating the duty.

(4)An order under this section may create offences punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(5)An order under this section may confer power to make subordinate legislation and, if it does so, must provide—

(a)that the subordinate legislation is to be made by statutory instrument, and

(b)that the instrument may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.


Superficially that may sound unlikely, but this apparently creates the powers to decide who is on the register which therefore de facto creates the power to decide whom to exclude from it. As it stands, most of the people failing to register are poor people and therefore the demographic of the electorate of the United Kingdom is already skewed - so theoretically the introduction of powers to just hoover up names willy-nilly from wherever they can be found could be considered to rectify that.




Of course, the most certain way of getting off the Electoral Register as a Registration Resister is to court prosecution and refuse to pay the fine - then they will throw you into prison and by their own rules they have to take you off the Electoral Register : that is how inconsistent the laws are in a Democracy - in a Republican political system this kind of stupid self-contradiction could not happen because of having a proper constitution.

( Albeit that we would insist upon prisoners not being so excluded from the rest of society that they do not even have a vote. That is of course if they CONSENTED to be on the Electoral Register - whereas given the way that things are going in the United Kingdom people will not only be punished for declining to register to vote but also for not voting - and then for not voting for the right sort of people ... the whole problem with any sort of Democracy is that you can only elect turkeys and they are the last kind of birds to be willing to vote for a White Republican Christmas ... lest they get stuffed ? )

MMM ... so let me now talk turkey to those gobblers in Parliament then ... not that it will make a blind bit of difference, but this is for my idle political entertainment. How might anybody begin to defend themselves in a court of English Law ?


While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states. For this reason, the Universal Declaration is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations. In addition, many international lawyers[23] believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law[24] and is a powerful tool in applying diplomatic and moral pressure to governments that violate any of its articles. The 1968 United Nations International Conference on Human Rights advised that the Declaration "constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community" to all persons. ... The Declaration has served as the foundation for two binding UN human rights covenants: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The principles of the Declaration are elaborated in international treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and many more. The Declaration continues to be widely cited by governments, academics, advocates, and constitutional courts, and by individuals who appeal to its principles for the protection of their recognised human rights.

MMM ... sounds good ... but despite the United Kingdom endorsing it decades ago it can I yet cite it in a court of English Law ?


International human rights instruments in British law

The Human Rights Act was passed in 1998 in order to 'give further effect' to the European Convention in British law. Under the Act public authorities in this country are now required to act in a way that respects people’s rights under the Convention, and people can now rely on their Convention rights in legal proceedings.

This is not the case with the other international human rights instruments that the United Kingdom has ratified. While people can refer to these in proceedings before the British courts, the courts will not directly apply them. They may still have some effect for two reasons:

Where there is some ambiguity as to what the law requires, the courts will assume that the law should be interpreted in a way that complies with the United Kingdom’s international obligations ;

In interpreting the rights under the European Convention the courts here, but more particularly the European Court of Human Rights, will have regard to other international human rights instruments.

MMM ... so, what that means in the English Law is that if the United Kingdom has not specifically denied you your human rights then the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom may grant them to you, but de facto if the Democrats in Parliament do not like that decision then they can simply pass a law to overide the judgement and exclude anybody from claiming those human rights in those treaties which for the sake of appearances they pretended to endorse ... how on earth can they be so dishonest ? Because they are Democrats : in a Republican political system there would be an independent judiciary with the passive power to refuse to make statutory laws which contradicted any pre-existing laws, the most important of those pre-existing laws being a written Constitution containing the Rights of the Citizenry. Whilst there is talk of ' Human Rights ' in the United Kingdom, the Democrats in Parliament hold themselves to be above the rule of law because they claim that the sovereignty in their political system is located in the ' Crown in Parliament ' therefore there can be no such thing as ' rights ' of any sort because even if a judge in a court of English Law - even the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - had the courage to do justice those in both Houses of Parliament would blow raspberries at him and sing " Ya-Boo-Sucks - this is a Demonocracy and we can do as we please because we have propped up the Electoral Register with corpses and have excluded from it all of those who have objected to our concealing the criminal behaviour of those fraudsters, embezzlers and child-molesters among us ( on the basis that our party whips needed their votes in the chamber to prop up our parties ) and it is within ourselves - not within any justice to be found in the laws that we might make - that the sovereignty of the United Kingdom is to be found ! "

In other words, you can only really argue for ' Human Rights ' in a Republican political system : they actually can not exist under the English Law.



If you compare the documentation of the two of these you will find that the Democrats in the United Kingdom having endorsed the former deliberately omitted from it Section I : Articles 1, 13, 15 and apparently most of the Protocols from the latter.

Want to try to guess why ?



The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.


Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.


In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.

No derogation from Article 2, except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under this provision.

Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures which it has taken and the reasons therefor. It shall also inform the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe when such measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the Convention are again being fully executed.



1. Enforcement of certain Rights and Freedoms not included in Section I of the Convention

The Governments signatory hereto, being Members of the Council of Europe,

Being resolved to take steps to ensure the collective enforcement of certain rights and freedoms other than those already included in Section I of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed at Rome on 4th November, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Convention'),

Have agreed as follows:


Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.


No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religions and philosophical convictions.


The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.

& Protocol 13 Article 1 - I believe ( several not in on that website ? ) http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/187.htm

Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances

The member States of the Council of Europe signatory hereto,

Convinced that everyone’s right to life is a basic value in a democratic society and that the abolition of the death penalty is essential for the protection of this right and for the full recognition of the inherent dignity of all human beings;

Wishing to strengthen the protection of the right to life guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention");

Noting that Protocol No. 6 to the Convention, concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty, signed at Strasbourg on 28 April 1983, does not exclude the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war;

Being resolved to take the final step in order to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances,

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1 – Abolition of the death penalty

The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.





Ah ! The good old days, when a pauper could sue a prince and still have enough change left out of his Legal Aid to stand all of his witnesses a pint and packet of pork pratchings each ... but unfortunately those days all ended on the 11th December 1282 when after centuries of struggle the rule of law was finally finished off in Wales : even now, over seven hundred years later, we have still have not recovered the same status before the English Law that our ancestors once had as free men - and women - before the Welsh Law. Even now, in the twenty first century when in every other miserably little tinpot bankrupt country in Europe there are men and women - and even farm animals - who can assert their dignity before their own little Ruritanian Laws and hold their governments to account before the rest of Europe, we in Wales are still the property of those who still live beyond the rule of law within their heavily defended walls in Westminster and thus we still have to live in fear of those original bandits' descendants' most recent employees - our Democrats in Wales. It is very nearly enough to make almost anybody into some sort of a Republican.

MMM ... I need to think about the legal aspects a while longer ... but my parting thoughts over yet another coffee and yet another cigarette are about the origins of this supposed Parliamentary Privilege which as I understand it was only formulated by Bagehot & Co as the ' Crown in Parliament ' notion late in the nineteenth centiury, partly in order to deal with ' The Irish Question.' Up from the murky depths of my filthy imagination has floated a vague recollection that it was originally to do with the Commoners displeasing some King or Queen of England and deciding that it might not be a good idea to criticise them in front of their aristocratic friends who seemed to have an enormous number of swords and cross-bows at their disposal to put their points across with. So they ostensibly suddenly all became very religious and nipped over the palace yard to pray for their lives in the chapel of Saint Stephen where they had the benefit of sanctuary upon condition that they did not bring any edged weapons capable of killing anybody in with them, maces being excepted because the clergy were still allowed to stoutly defend their faith back in those days with a good solid club - hence the symbol of authority in the House of Commons which then continued thereafter to meet in that place, and by ancient tradition - and quite a good one - still begins the day's work work with a prayer : is Saint Stephen still officially a consecrated chapel ?

Note who infamously violated that subsisting privilege of sanctuary when he sent his troops into what was certainly still Saint Stephen's chapel when that man of pretended piety suppressed the United Republic of Great Britain and Ireland with the words " I say that you are no parliament - take away that fool's bauble ( the mace ) " or something like that ... he was no Republican because he re-instituted the monarchy - in fact the rise and rise of Oliver Cromwell and those around him who then benefited from his seizure of political power by the subversion of the Republic is more or less an object lesson in what the nature of monarchy really is.

Nice speech though ...


It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place,
which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.

Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.

Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?

Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.

Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.

I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.

Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2014 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Having oscillated between a dozen lines and a dozen pages for ages ... well, not quite what I envisaged - and I crushed the letter head to print this out.

Post Script - the following morning I found the first half of the letter to be replaced by this image : now if there is something offensive about any image published on Repwblic, which gives somebody cause for complaint, then in the first instance you should post your complaint both in the topic thread and send a message to the poster to draw their attention to it. This is a ' republic of letters ' and opinions should be argued out not censored.


Last edited by dai on Mon May 26, 2014 4:42 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 166

PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2014 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the matter of making complaints about postings on Repwblic, since we understand that adult behaviour may be something of a challenge for some, the general rule is that of adult conversation in a social context : people are not expected to be experts in anything but to write in an entertaining way. As in adult life everywhere outside of Democratic parties, the only thing which we do not excuse is deliberately harming others.

Repwblic is a ' republic of letters ' and therefore we are rarely going to be subjected to accusations of literature : this is for the purposes of self expression with a slant towards our politics, to portray the way in which Republicans in Wales talk to each other about our political sensibilities.

Yes -we occasionally swear, make lewd remarks and insult each other : we also apologise, seek to soothe the hurt feelings of others and we even sometimes rise to the occasion and make an intelligent political argument. It is not correct behaviour in Republicanism to censor how other people feel and think because understanding others is the basis of our politics and so we are not Democrats - we do not form parties and wage war on others.

As a matter of protecting " Y Repwblic " it may prove necessary to remove dubiously evidenced material that might lead to " informe.com " wanting to censor " Y Repwblic." We prefer however to censor ourselves and that is why the person in charge of the administration of the board has the power to remove offensive etc material to " Quarantine " where the right of the writer to free-speech is balanced against the right of the reader to be cautioned as to what they might encounter there. By Republican ADULT standards our writers on " Y Repwblic " are reasonably well behaved - yet Democrats still complain - and we don't even bother with any formal rules.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

... AND GOLLY GOSH - with lashings of ginger beer - what did the Big Bible Church introduce to us as the topic for conversation on polling day 2014 ?

The necessity and inevitability of having to introduce COMPULSORY VOTING in order to prop up their masters' choices - by fining and imprisoning those who disagree the political system or at least can not be bothered to participate in such a obviously non-political exercise !

( apparently the following day ( 23/05/14 ) The Daily Politics programme is not yet available on iplayer - presumably awaiting its editorial ? )


Tonight’s YouGov voting intention poll for the Sun newspaper gives UK figures of Labour & Cooperative 34%, Conservative & Unionist 34%, United Kingdom Independence Party 14% and Liberal Democrats 9% - but a friend of mine told me that the Green Party also polled more than the Liberal Democrats ... yesterday's voting intention poll was United Kingdom Independence Party 27%, Labour & Cooperative 26%, Conservative & Unionist 22%, Green Party 10%, Liberal Democrats 9%, Others 7%.

And the best cartoon of the day ? http://redfellow.wordpress.com/category/lib-dems/

A pity that the Americans have a party that is just " The Democratic Party " http://marianamsalgado.blogspot.co.uk/2012_04_01_archive.html

Ah - no ! - They most certainly do understand what I am talking about - http://sinkers.org/stage/?m=201110 - mmm - given that this isn't a friend of mine I hope that he understands that I am providing him with advertising in exchange for quoting this link - no images actually copied !

http://sinkers.org/stage/?p=988 - the artist is ( Cornish ? ) Mike Flugennock

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of the more interesting aspects of the European election 2014 is not so much that the Democratic Parties are having difficulty dealing with the rise of UKIP and explaining it away, but that in being presented for the first time in years with a whole series of arguments that are actually political they do not know have anybody actually political elected capable of making an argument.

So the Democrats in Wales and other places of whatever claimed political persuasion but always of none save to get themselves elected are now once more showing the true colour of their under-garments : they are all black ! - or it most certainly appears to be the case that they are subtly inciting property destruction and potentially violence against UKIP.



" The Eurosceptic party’s election campaign billboards have really angered their opponents. ...

SWANSEA - http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2014-04-30/defaced-ukip-poster-will-greet-nigel-farage-in-swansea/ - http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/ukip-poster-swansea-vandalised-ahead-7052842 -

" ... The original poster shows a construction worker with: "EU policy at work: British workers are hit hard by unlimited cheap labour", but the reworked poster has: "Blaming immigrants just lets your boss off the hook". And where the original poster urges people to vote UKIP on 22nd May, the defaced poster says: "Demand better pay and conditions. Look after each other and join a trade union" ... "


BIRMINGHAM - http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/former-klf-star-bill-drummond-7093079 - UKIP complained of " MINDLESS VANDALISM " - http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/whats-on/arts-culture-news/bill-drummond-birmingham-ukip-poster-7084059 - to quote some of Bill Drummnd's statements about this -

" Over these past weeks working across Birmingham I have often been asked if what I do is political art. My usual answer is ‘I do not know if it is art let alone political art.’

And when people ask me about my own political leanings, I will usually sidestep the issue by quoting my good friend Zodiac Mindwarp: “I have a right wing, I have a left wing, I am an angel.” [ IN WHICH HE APPEARS TO ACTUALLY BE MISQUOTING THE REPUBLICAN IDEAL ]

But mostly I’m for politics that are about ideas. Ideas that are fluid and evolving. What I’m against is politics based on tribalism, be that class, religion or nationalism. And I’m obviously against politics based on dynasty or personalities. [ SO HE IS THINKING LIKE A REPUBLICAN ] "


PLYMOUTH - http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Protesters-deface-UKIP-campaign-billboard/story-21013558-detail/story.html - http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/UKIP-poster-near-Plymouth-vandalised-racists-tag/story-21063483-detail/story.html

" This one was spotted in Pennycomequick. The corner has been torn off to reveal a section of a poster for the Theatre Royal show 'Lord of the Flies', making it look like the word 'Lies'. ... Elsewhere posters have been defaced in Newcastle, Gateshead, Vauxhall, Kent and Liverpool. ... / .... Another poster for UKIP has been vandalised in South East Cornwall. ... Plymouth UKIP chairman David Salmon said: “It’s disgraceful. Totally totally undemocratic. Total moronic idiots." ... UKIP has been forced to suspend it freepost address after people sent them torn up UKIP leaflets, bricks, rubbish, blood and faeces as well as a copy of Dostoyevsky's The Idiot with Nigel Farage's face stuck to the front. ... " [ A LOVELY TOUCH THAT - SENDING DEMONCRATS THEIR OWN JUNK MANIFESTOS BACK WRAPPED AROUND A HOUSE-BRICK WHOSE POSTAGE COSTS THEM ... HOW MUCH ??? ... I MUST REMEMBER THAT ONE !!! ]


That I guess is enough to record the flavour of it : this campaign of inciting property damage against UKIP may have resulted in spontaneous activity but clearly those who have been slinging mud it them are happy for it to happen - truly Democratic behaviour, on the same level as Adolf Hitler's ... who arguably came to power using the same tactics as UKIP - so we have to guess that they must have to admit that they found something worthwhile to learn from in Europe ?

Actually some of these images turning up are wonderful ... but as a past master of the art of defacing posters I must lament the lack of poetry ... you know how to locate the address of an image on somebody's website by selecting it and right-clicking it and then taking the address from the code etc ? On Google you can simply ask for the address once you select it - want to practice that now on these ?






Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sat May 24, 2014 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Apparently I have been volunteered by the South Wales Anarchists to introduce a discussion about this in Newport on Monday night 26-05-14 as part of an evening in their Chartist event : ironical - my peacefully arguing for the right not to vote 175 years after they took to arms to literally fight for the right to vote in the wake of that hypocritical fiasco which followed 1832, which was itself a consequence of the Democrats literally fighting for La Charte in the 1830 French Revolution under the leadership of the unhappy leader " Miserable Les " - ?

( Try to remember that the red flag at this time was still Republican - not Socialist nor Communist nor Anarchist - when Miserable Les was waving it.)


After his pathetically miserable and wretched death Les then became so popular as a martyred dead person that every president, monarch, pope and Democrat wanted to associate themselves with him and he re-enacted it frequently - and even endorsed by our very own beloved Majesties !


Well I guess that miserable poverty of others is entertaining for some ... but the point of the story of Les Miserables is of course that originally Les became Miserable because he was deliberately abused and was being consumed by a hatred which was destroying him as a person until he was finally offered a small act of kindness instead of being treated as an annoying object of charity : he was redeemed by brotherly love - as is symbolised by co-sanguinity of mankind in the red flag ( just in case you thought that it actually meant ' war.' )

Note how the opportumity to vote in the United Kingdom is being portrayed as a gracious concession bestowed by Democrats, and how we the ungrateful children of fatherly wife-beaters, thieves and paedophiles of Democracy in the United Kingdom ought therefore accept it or be fined or imprisoned or hanged or ... this is surely how the bandits of the bandit states think : that they can not even bestow a ' gift 'but that they do so at gunpoint : now doesn't it strike you as odd that any of us have to be forced to accept such a very very very very good thing as Demockery ?

Any chance perhaps then that this Democracy in the United Kingdom is not as good as our Democrats in Wales are claiming it to be ? No possibility at then that the concepts of ' Democracy ' and ' Kingdom ' are indeed contradictory - that there is indeed still a feudal state underneath the appearance of all of these problems which if only we had even more Democracy would be solved ? Surely it is Democrats and Democracy itself which are the problem, as evidenced right the way across the western world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Ymgyrchoedd - Campaigns All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

© 2007-2008 Informe.com. Get Free Forum Hosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
PurplePearl_C 1.02 Theme was programmed by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum
Images were made by DEVPPL Flash Games