It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


British Rule of America? The Proof is in the Politics!

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 07:58 PM
I believe I have located some possible answers to a few of the recent Topics as well as a few of the 'on going' topics here on ATS. Here they are in an Ordered List.

All of what is written in the following examples, (1a, 2a, etc.), are taken from a site which is about British Politics, Past & Present. What each of these topics illustrate is how the History of America has been changed peice by peice. Together all these individual theories collectively support each other and point out what was/is the most likely cause. While reading each example you should notice that they fit Present Day America Exactly, although they are in fact about British Politics. All links are at the end of the post.

1.) Why is 'Democracy' or 'Democratic' the key word being used in Politics?? (ie: Spreading Democracy in Iraq, America no longer viewed as a Republic, etc.)

1a.) We are constantly told that we live in a democracy and that our political system is "democratic" and that nations that do not match these standards are classed as "undemocratic". D Robertson, writing in 1986, stated that :
"Democracy is the most valued and also the vaguest of political terms in the modern world."

Because of the realities of Direct Democracy, few nations use it. Some states in New England, USA, do use it at a local level but the number of people involved is manageable.
The voters in a Representative Democracy, in stark comparison to Direct Democracy, pass on the responsibility of participating in law making to an Official who, if successful within, could be re-elected by that constituency at the next general election.

2.) What is the meaning of 'Rights vs. Priviledges' 'Citizen vs. Sovereign' and why there is a difference in 'America Now vs. Then' with regards to 'Civil/Equal/Human/etc. Rights'??

2a.) Natural Rights - Part of the American Declaration of Independence states : "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...". Only an individual could volunteer to give up these rights - no-one else could forcibly limit them. Such beliefs put a strict limit on the ability of those in power to curtail these rights. Natural rights were seen as consisting of: equal rights, government by consent, individual personal liberty, responsible government, limited government .

Human Rights - These rights are not always maintained, they set a benchmark by which all political systems can be measured.

Civil Rights - A written or codified constitution effectively sets out the rights citizens have and they are legally guaranteed. Also called Legal Rights.

Citizenship - Citizenship is a concept whereby a citizen is an individual who is fully recognised by a state as being a member of that state. Citizenship, which is a legal concept, grants individuals who have some sort of legal status within a state, certain rights, and they are expected to perform certain duties:
"the citizen should be understood in the first instance not as a type of person…but as a position in the set of formal relationships defined by democratic sovereignty" (Donald, 1996).
A good citizen: obeys the law, pays taxes, respects those who have been handed authority by the people. The balance between these rights and duties varies from state to state and from time to time.

Sovereign - One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit. Self-governing; independent

3.) Why are so many members of Government giving Resignations regardless of their party membership or position either 'For or Against' the current Administration??(I'm just begining to look into this as a Theory.)
(Answered together with #4.)
4.) Why Kerry and the Democratic Party made no attempt at questioning this election results & quickly concented to the Victory of Bush, even with claims of Voter Fraud, Tampered Machines, etc.??(I'm just begining to look into this as a Theory.)

3a. & 4a.) The Rules of The Cabinet of British Politics
- All Cabinet members are referred to as Right Honorable. (Taken from the Organization of American States website

The Honourable George W. Bush - President
His Excellency John Maisto - Ambassador, Permanent Representative

- Each minister is head of a branch of government for which he/she is responsible. Within that branch, he/she is advised by senior civil servants...and can be seen as part of the executive of government.

- If things go badly in that department, a number of things could happen:
a.) You could be sacked (but this might call into question the Prime Minister’s aptitude for appointing ministers in the first place.)
b.) You could be part of a Cabinet reshuffle
c.) You could resign
d.) You could sit out any problems and wait for them to blow over or be surpassed by another issue in another department.

- A resignation speech in the House (a convention for departing ministers) usually states that they are putting the party above their own personal beliefs and that any errors made by that minister were not deliberate or an attempt to deceive Parliament. (The same excuse that is Always used.)

- As a unit, the Cabinet is expected to give public support to government policy even if privately they did not support that policy – this is known as collective responsibility. (IMO, this is why Chaney avoids Gay/Lesbian issues if possible and/or is forced to support Bush's view.)

- The Cabinet is expected to defend policy on television and radio, in newspapers and in their constituencies. (IMO, making freedom of speech/expression useless for them and Media/News based on spreading Lies & Opinion equally along with Truth & Facts!)

- If a party loses an election, it will confirm the right of the victorious party to exercise power. It will not deny its right to govern.

- If the nation is threatened with a national crisis, traditional political rivalry is suspended and all parties work together in the interest of national unity. (Except here it's called National Security.)

The point behind me posting this here is not to explain Democracy, Answer who is Wrong or Right in Politics, or to state 100% fact that this is the Real way things are. However, this could explain the reason behind Political Agendas, who is Publicizing it and Using it repeatedly in speeches, motives behind military actions, and so on. That reason, IMO, is to remove any consideration toward other forms of Government but more specifically to be Aligned with the Real Leaders of America who are actually 'The British Parliment'. Perhaps my theory is way off, but then again, maybe it's right on the mark. You each can decide for yourselves. All I ask is that you atleast look into the possiblities before you decide.

Org. of American States -

British Politics - T.O.C -

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 12:03 AM
Well, I guess nobody finds my Theory worthy of comment. Neither an Agreement nor Disagreement at all means what exactly, other than the fact that my theories are only topics of interest/debate to me and me only?

Which now brings me to the point I now have to make, which is a sad thing IMO:
"Every time I read posts here at ATS I find multiple examples of People who have no knowledge of the topics of which they are fighting about, or more specifically, they habitually use words and concepts that they do not even understand. I guess they just enjoy the sensation of their lips flapping while others listen in hopes that someone will finally give them all the answers to their problems. The problem however isn't that people 'Have Real Problems' nor is it that they 'Need Real Answers'. The problem is that they do not even understand the Questions being asked let alone the Answers they are given!

People continue to argue over their Civil Rights being taken away, or someones Human Rights being infringed upon, or even worse is the debate over the Right to Marry (Gay or Otherwise), or the Right to Whatever Trivial Personal Complaint They Have About Society. Well, the reason such things go on and on without being solved is cause they don't even know what they're talking about!!!!

If they understood that any so called Rights that are Determined as Legal/Illegal based on Customs of the Society, or Permitted/Denied by Authority other than each individual, were actually PRIVILEDGES & NOT RIGHTS then perhaps they might come to some conclusion. To prevent people from understanding what is said, (or even what they are saying themselves), all it takes apparently is that you use words and phrases that people think they know, but which are actually 'Concepts which they do not fully understand'.

Concepts like:
'Freedom', 'Liberty', 'Equallity', 'Truth', 'Justice', 'Fairness', 'Right & Wrong', etc...(Argumentum ad nauseam - Prolonged Repetition of a false statement until it is accepted as True') Or how about, 'Liberalism', 'Republican', 'Righteous', 'Holly', 'Honorable'...and the list goes on to 'Infinity'. What most people fail to understand is that Concepts like these have been Discussed even before the 'Words' were made up to Represent them. As we are all becoming aware of, Representation of a Thing is NOT the Thing Itself and will always fail to Define it Correctly.

In other words, the reason everything is out of Control is because the majority of the Human Race as Individuals Lack Self Control. So at some point in history, someone else simply 'Took Charge' over what others couldn't (or wouldn't) handle themselves. The way to take it back, starts by understanding the "Illusion of Reality based on Concepts."
Good Luck People!! I Hope the Sheeple will 'Get It' while there are still a few others left to 'Enjoy It' with, whenever that may be!!

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 03:31 AM

Originally posted by mOjOm

Perhaps my theory is way off, but then again, maybe it's right on the mark. You each can decide for yourselves. All I ask is that you atleast look into the possiblities before you decide.

I believe its quite the opposite, im a Brit and from where im standing it doesn't look like it. I think it's more the United Stats controls britain almost 100%. I accept possibly the backbones of our two great nations are similar

Small Example:

Theres a millitary air base not far from here. A US Base.
They often do training exercises involving F-18's (mostly)
But ive also heard A-10's, seen commanches and chinooks fly very close to my home.

Currently the US say jump, we say how high.
But you never know maybe your right, it's a pretty big topic. I suggest a starting point is researching anglo-american relations from the time of george washington up untill roosovelt. Pretty interesting theory but let me quote someone sorry can't remeber who said it
: "Two great nations seperated by a common language". It's true.


[edit on 17-11-2004 by Vorta]

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Vorta
I believe its quite the opposite, im a Brit and from where im standing it doesn't look like it. I think it's more the United Stats controls britain almost 100%. I accept possibly the backbones of our two great nations are similar
[edit on 17-11-2004 by Vorta]

Well, ya know we may both be right partially. Upon giving my theory some more thought it occured to me that what we may be seeing as either Them running Us or Us running Them, may actually be two different perspectives of some Control Elsewhere which is Running Both Us & Them. Who that control is however could be difficult to nail down.

For example, according to this site:

The UK has a constitutional monarchy – not an absolute monarchy. This means that the monarchy is apolitical and impartial. The work that it does in politics is largely symbolic. The work of the monarch within the remit of the royal prerogative is seen as being on behalf of elected ministers.

Walter Bagehot described the monarchy as being “symbolic and ceremonial” but with little actual power. In the C21st this is even more true.

“The Queen reigns but does not rule”.

Here in the U.S. we started at the other side of the spectrum. Soveriegn States, natural Rights and so forth, but are now something of a mut ranging from Federal Republic to Representative Democracy to Constitutional Union or something along those lines. Recently it seems we may actually become even crazier like the United States of North America or Ameri-Cana-Mexica or something?!?!?

The point though is that although starting from different Foundations we both find ourselves at the Location in a Political Nightmare. Most of which I think can be answered by the phrase "Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely". Regardless of that however, the Strategy used by the Controller is Identical and is now one that is being Systematically Spread around the Globe in 'Crusade-like Fasion' only now the term is 'Internationalism or Globalism' or some other '-ism' type of thing.

How about that for another possibility???

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:37 AM
On the other hand if we turn back the clock 100 years the center of the world was London and coal made it go round... NOW its Washington and oil. When you look at it its not a huge shift in power. Both are havens to english speaking freemasons, and some say the real policy decisions are still being made in exclusive London Gentlemens clubs...

Either way the age old rule still counts: If you can see the guy its NOT him pulling the strings...

new topics

top topics

log in