An END to the Left, Centre, Right Governments

Governments currently argue and tussle over being socialist, liberal, or right-wing.

• Labour in Britain is currently in the hands of former members of the Communist Party of Great Britain, led by Harriet Harman and her partner, courtesy of Gordon Brown.

• The so called liberals are a wishy-washy bunch of soft hearted do gooders who would give away everything as long as they got a pat on the head in return.

• The right in Britain and Europe are pulling towards the past when order was the norm and everyone knew their place.

In the various parliaments of the West the left pulls in one direction and the right in the opposite direction—with the people in the middle. Frankly, this is no way to run a government. The continual seesaw is destructive and merely allows infiltrators to take advantage of the unsettled situation. The Muslim invasion being the latest. This has been the case since the end of the eighteenth century, until the present. Its tearing Europe and the other Western nations apart.

The encyclopaedia definition of a technocracy is muddled and biased. It quotes disreputable individuals like Howard Scott and Alexander Bogdanov as proponents of technocracy, yet one was a simple engineer and the other biased by socialist ethics.

Lets return to basics. Technocracy is derived from the Greek words τέχνη, tekhne meaning skill and κράτος, kratos meaning power, as in governance, or rule. Neither Scott nor Bogdanov had the skill or subjectivity to propose an impartial technocracy.

By a technocracy, I mean that the head of government has a minimum of an MBA to lead the administration, and I ask you, which government President or Prime Minister has a Masters in Administration? None! No wonder most governments are corrupt and incompetent.

• I expect the head of the government’s Economic Department to be an impartial lead Professor of Economics in the country.

• I would expect the Health Department to have a leading Professor of Medicine at its head, not some dim witted politician.

• I would expect the Agricultural Department to be run by an impartial leading Professor of Agriculture, not by a politician.

That’s what I mean by technocrats—impartial experts in their chosen field dedicated to running their department with a maximum of efficiency on behalf of society. This would be a true Altruism. In the next hundreds of years, this is going to be inevitable. You can’t have amateurs playing at politics and administration.

Currently, in the name of democracy, any illiterate dogma pushing lout can enter Parliament and cause utter chaos with their narrow minded agendas.

The loud mouthed lefties and right wing merchants should have to sit an entrance exam to get into parliament—which would preclude uneducated left wing Union louts from entering government.

The educated right, who use their millions and pay their way into Parliament to further their ambitions for a Knighthood or to further enrich themselves, thrusting themselves onto the stage—should be vetted by a committee of eminent psychologists to determine their suitability for such high office.

And here I would question the motives of the most vociferous country that insists on defining the word ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom.’ I would hardly call the US a democracy—maybe a plutocracy if I was generous. Otherwise a political Mafia. That tends to be the case for most of the so-called Western democracies. Politicians grasping for expenses, hiking up their salaries, nepotism, cronyisms, and the like—these are synonymous with Politicians. They are there in politics to help themselves at the taxpayers’ expense. What kind of government is that? If one was kind—it could be described as dysfunctional.

Look at the Gerhard Schröders, George W Bushes, the Silvio Berlusconis, the Gordon Browns, the Le Pens, the Blairs, the Reagans, and a host of other ungifted harbingers of the political system who have aspired to rule, and failed.

It threw up a loud mouthed corporal in the German army, it gave us a Georgian monk; both murdered countless of millions in the name of dogma and government. Even the silly lefty French now think Napoleon is something to be proud of, rather than be ashamed of.

In a technocratic government there could be no lobbyists, no NGOs, no Quangos, no loopy minority agendas, and NO silly political LAWS.