The fake spectrum

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.


The Appointed Campaigns Were Not Clear About The Single Market

Independent Britain

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

There are no Populists – just people that oppose Liberal Extremists



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.

After Exit

Independent Britain

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