It is been a week now since Tony Blair made his Oscar winning speech at an Open Britain event on the 17th of February, calling on the country to rise up and block Brexit. The speech itself held no surprises for me although I had not realised my contempt for the man had much further to go. My disdain for the man aside I have had a few days to reflect on what is happening here.
The elite media – the BBC in particular gave Mr Blair an unchallenged platform for the entire day, not a single journalist managed to ask a single question as to why he has the right to undermine democracy in this country. Given the way the BBC and the rest of the elite media operate this was fairly predictable but what is disturbing is that few journalists seem to understand this is why millions of ordinary people like me no longer trust them.
Tony Blair referred to patriotism in his speech “How hideously, in this debate, is the mantle of patriotism abused. We do not argue for Britain in Europe because we are citizens of nowhere”. Subsequently I have noticed a worrying shift in the mood music from the elite media. Remain seem to be very keen to introduce the term patriotic as an adjective for what they seek to achieve. Now throughout the campaign I deliberately avoided playing the patriotism card, I felt that if we went down that route very shortly the term traitor would come up. For the sake of brevity I believe in my country and my people and see no need for them to be ruled by a foreign unelected power, I would argue that means I could be described as a patriot. Remain really should have a deep and meaningful about this narrative, giving away sovereignty and our taxes to foreign agents takes a huge leap of mental gymnastics to be described as patriotism. Is the end game to portray Brexiteers as traitors? For real? Good luck with that one.
My deeper concern is the steady drumbeat that is starting to portray pensioners as the new hate figures in the gallery of deplorables for the elite media and the Remain campaign. This is nasty stuff and needs to be stamped out before it gains traction. It has all the hallmarks of the poison peddled by Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandelson (Tony Blair’s chums). How this one works is to sow a seed in the minds of the young and so called Liberals that it is bigoted old people that took us out of the EU. Well a couple of points here, these bigoted people resisted both fascism and then communism to keep our country free. As for the young, well about 30% of young people wanted to leave the EU. The difference being these 30% of young people bothered to vote. Last of all, blindingly obvious that it is, we all become pensioners one day, so let’s not go there eh?
Returning to Mr Blair’s speech, the unchallenged narrative being pushed is that people are allowed to change their mind and there should be a second vote. This is of course disingenuous. For those of us that decided years ago that the EU was corrupt and anti democratic we were never given a vote on the EU constitution – dressed up as the Lisbon treaty, this despite being promised a referendum by all three main parties. So we sat there, denied our voice because for many of us that hold more left of centre views voting for UKIP was not really an option.
Yet finally a mainstream party – the Conservatives, offered us a real choice, a meaningful vote, an in out referendum. So I held my nose, I voted Tory solely as a vehicle to secure the more meaningful vote. Somehow I doubt I was alone in this and it may well explain the Conservative victory in the General election (I guess Labour being pants also helped).
Now I introduce this point for a reason, you see Brexit can be overturned, of course it can, but it should be done so democratically. So for all of you demanding a second referendum I would say this, vote for a party that promises to hold a referendum on re-joining the EU in the next general election. Get a mandate for what you seek instead of what you are doing at the moment which is to subvert democracy and my rights as a taxpayer and citizen to have my voice heard for a change.
If you are unwilling to do this can you at least stop calling yourself Liberal or Progressive? You see there are other terms that better describe you.
I was born in London, within the sound of the Bow Bells which makes me a Cockney. When I was young my parents moved to Hertfordshire and the delights of Hemel Hempstead, right in the heart of the Green Belt.
Like most working class kids in the town my parents did not have much money but my childhood was a happy one. One of the real pleasures of growing up in Hemel was the freedom I had and the sense of space all around me. When I got bored with terrorising my neighbours I caught fish, hunted rabbits, climbed trees and generally made a nuisance of myself. During the summer holidays I would love to set off with friends on epic bike rides exploring the countryside.
It is of course easy to look back on all of this and be overly sentimental, yet when you experience nature like this you are also aware of the harshness of the natural environment, I understood it was better to kill an injured animal than leave it suffer, so I learned to dispatch wildlife quickly and cleanly, taking no pleasure in this but feeling no remorse either.
I now live in London but my love of nature has never left me and at weekends if we get time my wife and I head off into the countryside to go exploring. I am not a religious person but I find that something deeply spiritual in me is awakened when I am close to nature once more. There is just something about being in an ancient forest that connects me to something grander and more meaningful than my comfortable life in London.
I believe one of the reasons for the growing disconnect between the people that live in cities and the people that live in the country is their lack of contact with nature. Nature is many things, tough and beautiful are two attributes but you can be certain of one thing, nature is no liberal, nature has no time for frivolity. I think that without exposure to nature our thinking becomes more and more at odds with reality. We lose our grounding and our ability to understand our true character.
So given the importance of nature to our general well being I was quite disturbed to hear the BBC running various pieces this weekend over the need to build on the Green Belt. Where the BBC is concerned I have a deep suspicion when they start a new narrative without any obvious connection to a current news story. The fact that most of the speakers arguing for the need to build on Green Belt land were barely challenged tells me that the BBC et al are in the process of preparing us for some done deal to concrete over the last remaining parts of countryside in the South East of England.
Not once did I hear any speak out that this perceived need to do this is a direct consequence of social policy. Mass immigration being the obvious one, adding three million people to the population of a small island in the space of a decade would bring obvious pressures. Less well considered is the neo Liberal social policies that attack the family as the basic building block of society, reducing us to individuals. A society made up of individuals requires more housing, an already overcrowded island adding millions of people adds even further pressure on our countryside.
So where are the people who should be resisting this? Our Green Party? Nope don’t look for any common sense from that quarter; they have all bought into the same insane no borders dogma of the Globalists. The book Soylent Green was intended as a warning, not a manifesto commitment from the Green Party.
On a daily basis I see the pressure nature is under, urban foxes are a common visitor from nature in my neighbourhood (especially on recycling day). I spend a lot of time in Spain, you never see a fox – even in the countryside, this tells me that foxes don’t want to live with us but in Britain they have no choice, we have concreted over so much of the environment they have nowhere else to go.
All of us that care about nature must make a stand now, we must protect our Green Belt, we must protect nature. We must all say loud and clear that enough is enough, our population needs to shrink not increase and we will not build on a single inch of our Green Belt. So stop believing this fake narrative from the BBC and the rest of the elite media, our sanity as human beings depends on it.
Left wing and right wing were terms that gradually came into use after the French revolution of 1789. Members of the National Assembly divided into two groups, monarchists to the right, supporters of the revolution to the left. The National Assembly was replaced in 1791 but the divisions continued with the moderates from both wings choosing to sit in the centre. The French made various attempts to break up the groupings and suspend party groups without success.
Left and right were not terms used to describe political ideology until later in the nineteenth century when left wing became associated with the ‘reds’ and right wing with conservatives.
In Britain the term left wing and right wing passed in to common use around the time of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). In Britain today left wing is generally associated with the Labour party and right wing with the Conservative party, other parties are viewed as belonging to one of the wings with the Liberal Democrats forming the centre.
This view of politics that started after the French revolution now seems to be hard wired into our thinking; political commentators are compelled to classify any movement along this spectrum. Any attempt at representing the working class that does not fall under the Labour party seems almost immediately labelled ‘extreme’, extreme left such the Socialist Workers and extreme right in the case of the British National Party (the BNP). I make the observation here that it is possible to avoid being labelled as extreme if you instead use the prefix of Scottish or Welsh before the word nationalist rather than the word British, apparently because this is ‘civic nationalism’ (whatever that means).
Our elite media would have you think that people who voted to leave the EU are however guilty of nativism or populism. You see we all get labels, some get nice ones and some get nasty ones, to get a nice label you have to sit within a very narrow part of the spectrum. Our political class and the elite media reinforce this mind set by allocating needless adjectives like extreme or far or controversial to anyone who does not conform to their world view of what is liberal. Yet it is all baloney when you think about. There are just people and different people think different ways and that is all there is to it.
I am not a political scientist so I cannot really say whether the terms right wing and left wing ever made any actual sense but I would argue the notion of left wing and right wing is no longer useful. Indeed I would go further, the whole concept of ideology needs to be dispensed with. I feel like screaming every time I hear the phrase left (or right) wing intellectual, I mean, really? Someone incapable of defining his or herself is an intellectual?
If I examine my own beliefs I am anti death penalty but unsettled by abortion, a mild Republican that likes the monarchy. I would ban private medical care and private education but I would lower taxes for the real job creators. I care deeply about the environment but I despair of a Green Party that persists with frivolous social policies when hard nosed arguments need to be made i.e. there are too many human beings and we need to reduce our population over the coming century – but no we get policies on three adult families.
About a decade ago I realised that there is no political party that represents my views, if you really think about there is not one that represents yours, I doubt even the hardest bitten party activist is completely sold on every policy in a private conversation. Yet we persist on voting for parties that do not represent our views because we allow ourselves to be convinced by ideology. Party based politics is in my view divisive and corrosive, the need for money to fund the party machine means donors are able to exert influence over Parliament – I cannot believe that someone gives a political party £50,000 without wanting something. For a while I used to ponder as to why more effort has not been made to control how political parties raise money. Over the years I am increasingly convinced that this is because the rich and powerful want it this way. They want a system that allows them to buy our politicians. This does not make for a healthy democracy.
What is worse is that two of our main parties are able to control most of the funding, Labour with their built in tithe from the Trades Unions and the Conservatives with their links with big business and wealthy donors, this puts all the other parties at a disadvantage.
So what is my suggestion? Well in the short term a very simple change. Political parties sole source of income should be from their members i.e. the membership fees. There should be no other source, not from donations, not from fund raising and not even more innocent activities like selling merchandise such as tee shirts since any mechanism that allows parties to raise funds from external sources will inevitably become corrupted.
In the long term I think we need to stop voting for political parties and instead vote for people that will go to Parliament and do their best for their constituency, people that are free of party whips and donors interests. People that go to Parliament with no fixed views on the world but instead make the best decisions they can based on what is believed to be true at the time. People that are free from dogma and ideology.
Once our Parliament is made up of politicians like this democracy can progress. The word democracy comes from the Greek works demos meaning common people and kratos meaning power. People power. A democracy for the 21st century would be about real people power, a system where independent politicians framed legislation and the people voted by direct democracy to grant them the mandate to carry it out.
The coming century will see technology alter the way we live and work quite radically, we have to accept this. If we are to manage this change successfully it is difficult to see how we can adapt and evolve whilst still looking backwards to 18th Century ideas of how politics, democracy and leadership should work.
On her recent Question Time appearance, Labour MP, Gisela Stuart, insisted that “both sides said a vote to leave would mean leaving the Single Market”. This oft-repeated assertion is, however, deserving of more scrutiny than it has so far received.
First of all, I would be interested to know what Mrs Stuart means by “both sides”. She may mean the “leave” and “remain” campaigns granted “lead campaign” status by the Electoral Commission. Should that be the case, it is important to note that the appointed campaigns were not the only groups or individuals involved in the referendum campaign. That is important.
Neither does either campaign group have any authority to make policy for the UK. As Vote Leave Campaign Manager, Dominic Cummings, wrote on his blog, shortly after the Tory election victory:
“A Government trying to leave the EU obviously needs an exit plan. The SNP needed an exit…
View original post 774 more words
The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.
― Ayn Rand
One of the themes from my blogs is the way that our language is used to control and condition us. I have written before how the elite media like to use needless adjectives like extreme or controversial when describing a person or a political movement. They could of course just use the word, they don’t because they are not trying to report the news, they are actively manipulating you.
The masterpiece in all of this, the crowning achievement is to condition you into believing that our current political class is somehow Liberal. Variations on this conditioning are the use of the terms like mainstream or centrist. These are terms we find re-assuring, by sub consciously accepting this we allow the notion of the other to be introduced, that is anyone not in this Liberal club is extreme left, far right – or the latest term ‘populist’.
So let us consider what our Liberal politicians have achieved for the UK over the past two decades. With no mandate they have ignored Magna Carta and signed away powers and sovereignty to foreign entities.
No party had a mandate from the people to sign the EU constitution (the Lisbon Treaty) – even though each of them promised the people a referendum.
We have seen endless wars embarked upon for questionable reasons, hundreds of our own servicemen and servicewomen killed or maimed as a consequence and untold numbers of innocent civilians killed as a consequence with entire nations shattered in bloody sectarian conflict.
In plain sight we have watched the biggest robbery of all time as the wealth and treasure of the working tax payer was transferred to the banks – their debts transferred to us, a debt that will take a lifetime to pay off, a debt where we pay more in interest per year than we spend on defence. Our elite media passing this off to us as some evil necessity and that we had no choice. We did have a choice; we could have left them in their own mess to find the money, I doubt if push came to shove the banks would have too much of a troubled conscious shaking down all of those off shore accounts no one knows about.
Mass immigration would never have been accepted if it had been in a party manifesto – but they did it anyway. Thus breaking up stable working class communities, pushing down their wages and forcing them to live alongside people that wish them great harm, silencing them with dreadful names if they spoke out, mocking their coarse language and simple vocabulary from the comfort of their Metropolitan Liberal Silos.
We hear great things from Liberals about how they are committed to a greener future as more and more of our countryside is concreted over to make room for more and more people. The result of this is that our carbon emissions increase (pollution if you prefer) and flora and fauna has less space to thrive. Soylent Green was not intended as guide book for Liberals, it was meant as a warning.
As a white male with a working class upbringing I not only feel our political class hates me it seems it never misses an opportunity to insult me. I find myself increasingly identified by Liberals as some sort of enemy. The vitriol from the Metropolitan elite in response to the result to the EU referendum is not a reaction, far from it, their mask has dropped. They don’t suddenly think the white working class are knuckle dragging troglodytes because we voted to leave the EU, this is how they have always seen us, we are beneath them, we are the proles, the plebs, we are Untermensch.
The trouble with this is that if Liberals have made me their enemy then they leave me no choice but to play that role, I never asked for this fight and I do not understand why they hate me so. I don’t hate them, I don’t hate anyone or anything but I am not going to sit back and do nothing.
So here I am, I am indeed their enemy as are millions of others that they have managed to alienate, millions who are gradually learning how to co-ordinate, how to organise and how to fight back because this is our homeland and we have nowhere else to go.
So you tell me who are the extremists here? It is not ordinary people like me my Liberal friends.
It is you.
The Liberal extremists.
Sir Ivan Rogers has resigned. I am surprised by the certainty of those who variously want to tell us that this is either fantastic news or a disaster. I am sure that I do not know.
His resigning letter is worth reading though. I would draw your attention to the following sentence.
“We do not yet know what the Government will set as negotiating objectives for the UK’s relationship with the EU after exit.”
There are several reasons why this sentence is interesting, most of which are liable to be missed by the usual suspects because they are not yet thinking in that direction.
While the idea of transitional arrangements has been at least partially acknowledged, there is not yet any clarity regarding the form those arrangements could or should take. The obvious choice, given the infeasibility of finding agreement on new forms for product certification, market surveillance and dispute…
View original post 430 more words
Do we wish to be a self-confident, self-governing, free trading nation-state which looks out to the rest of the world as Britain or do we wish to remain subordinate to a supranational EU government which passes decisions over our heads and excludes the people from the democratic process? That really would be a retreat from the world.
The EU is ultimately about one thing. Power. Who has power and in whose interests is that power exercised? The same is true of this referendum.
Will we the people return power to democratic institutions which are accountable to us and therefore capable of reform? Or will we assent to politicians who want to empower the EU to keep power away from the people?
During the course of this referendum, the Prime Minister, most of his ministers and a majority of the MPs in Parliament have set themselves up in opposition to the…
View original post 351 more words