Log in
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 |
The United Kingdom has used governor generals to control their commonwealth countries.
In 1975 the governor general of Australia John Kerr dismissed the elected prime minister gough whitlam. Conspiracy theories say he worked for the cia but it's a proven fact he worked for the UK.
In 2008 Canada had a parliamentary dispute, the Bloc Quebecois political party joined with the liberal party and the New Democratic Party to form a coalition that would give them majority power. This could have possibly led to Quebec being allowed sovereignty and their own country which they've long wanted. The commonwealth did not want that so the Governor General of Canada, Michaelle Jean, progated parliament which meant there are new elections. The Liberal party was bribed to leave the coalition.
Governors General are also called the Commander in Chief since they know the king is really commander in chief but they represent him.
Is the president of the USA really a governor general and independence is phony?
I do think our democracy is fake, they let politicians play in a sandbox and change things that don't matter like abortion rights etc but if anything of importance is challenged they step in. Things like seceding from the country. We know UK supported Abe Lincoln and the union. Vermont has tried to secede and got sabotaged. We have blue States now trying to be pro illegal immigrant and the fed govt is stepping in. What if we just let blue states secede and be woke if they want? I suspect if decentralization happened they'd regain sanity.
My theory is democracy is fake if you can't secede and you're actually part of an empire.
It's very cool that Lindon LaRouche found his way here.
All jokes aside, I agree with you that secession needs to be possible. I think it's odd that the US doesn't consider secession valid when the basis of it's own authority is that it is, and that the will of the people is the sumpreme soverignty, and that includes the ability to form governments independent of the ones they currently associate with.
But it was a common view that people did have a right to secede up until after the civil war. The claim is that the civil war settled that debate. But the civil war technically wasn't started over secession. It was started by secession followed by an attempt to take a military base. If there is anything the civil war established, by force, it is that if you secede, the original government still owns all it's properties.
I also think that seccession as a stanadard could make the world a more peaceful place. There is no point in fighting wars for strategic territory if the population can simply vote themselves back. So territory wars are over. It also ends historic land disputes. What era of time had the correct borders? Everyone can idealize different times and you have infinite compitition to "set things right" the way they originally were. But if existing populations can vote on the shape of borders then that is a moot point. The last benefit of democratic borders is it makes the regime serve the people. Regimes, whether that is one central figure or a beurarchy like the US has, wants power and control. But if they way they do that makes people reset borders to be in greener pastures this incentivizes a citizen as the customer model better than republic democracy does on its own. In a republic democracy the beurarchy can just ride out figurehead after figurehead with no loss to what they care about. If people can take land with them then this is like customers taking money with them in a consumer business.
The whole world is served better by letting people disolve ties with one power, associate with another, or make their own. But because that would add real accountability to power, no state power is going to agree with that premise. Even though for the US it's baked into its own claim to authority.
One more thing to add. The formation of new countries was common and frequent until after World War II. Once the Cold War kicked in and nuke were involved, everyone wanted stability over the rights of people to develop new governments. Think about it. There are 193 countries. The US is 249 years old. The US also happens to be one of the oldest continuous governments on the planet. Besides the British everyone else has changed their form of government at some point (so a new government entity), or ceased to exist for a little bit because of war. So that's a new country at least every 1.2 years. And those are just the ones that exist now. Many have come and gone in that time. Forming countries, or more narrowly governments, isn't supposed to be rare. However, it's frightening to those who want to maintain power, so they attempt to make the topic taboo. Which could lead us down another tangent on why public education is a mistake.
I think larouche was right about some things, wrong about a lot, mainly wanted to make money, but the govt went after him so hard just because of this particular topic. Because of this topic being one of the most off limits things to discuss in public. Today you have a lot of influencers, YouTubers etc but they don't talk about this.
We have central Banks and that's the main problem. You're not really allowed to be anti federal reserve either. Then you're antisemitic etc. buzzwords that shut down talk of reform.
I like to decentralize things but then say if we have 50 countries here instead of 50 states in one federal govt, they wouldn't have a strong military and we'd be invaded by a strong country like Russia or China. The dream, maybe unrealistic, would be that all countries in the world are decentralized, break up big countries just like breaking up monopolies, it'd be like actual real capitalism and democracy all over the world. That's similar to liberals wanting a one world socialist govt so there'd be no capitalists to sabotage it. It'd be the opposite but the ideal. We'll never have that perfect ideal but how about we just make the world more decentralized as opposed to the current March to centralization. Not perfect but better. Maybe impossible.