Following the EU Referendum we have, today, had the publication of the Chilcot Report and there can no longer be any doubt in anyone's mind that, as I have been repeatedly telling you on this blog, the British are governed by some of the most appalling and incompetent politicians on the planet. Both these foreign policy disasters have revealed the British political elite to be a gang of lying psychopaths. The two most crucial foreign policy decisions since the Second World War were both decided by a catalogue of lies to satisfy the vanity and personal ambitions of sociopathic egomaniacs. At least we have had the satisfaction of hopefully witnessing the destruction of The Spider's political career as he abandoned ship with the horrific realisation of what he has done. The Spider's capitulation confirms my estimation of his character and the emptiness of his intellect. As I say about the British elite, spineless, completely devoid of dignity or shame. I am reminded of Plutarch's description of Alcibiades whom he describes as a paragon of unprincipled viciousness; cruel, deceitful, prepared to say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear, and to adopt whatever character he thinks will win the approval of the masses. As Plutarch tells us, "He could change more abruptly than a chameleon". Unfortunately for this poor sorry nation, that can be applied to many of the personnel at the top of the British political elite. As to why the British public keep putting their faith in such revolting people it is because there is no real choice. As I tried to explain in another post, decency and intelligence have been quite deliberately excluded from British politics and our politicians are characterised by various stages of braindead. Except of course for Scotland, which thankfully has alternatives that even effect the Scottish branches of the two pigsty parties, both of whom supported Remaining in the EU.
We actually have a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party, and therefore a potential Prime Minister, Andrea Leadsom, being described by civil servants who had to work with her as 'monomaniacal' and the worst minister they had ever seen. It is almost unknown for British civil servants to comment on their ministers, so it must be bad when this happens. They commented how everything that happened was blamed on the EU by this political disaster of an MP. The latest abomination emanating from this government is a refusal by the Home Secretary who is the hot favourite to succeed The Camoron as Prime Minister, to guarantee the security of EU nationals who live and work in the UK to remain here after we leave the EU. This is just under 3 million people being threatened with deportation. Over 1 in 5 of the employees in our NHS, which is already dangerously understaffed, are EU nationals. However, I bet that none of those being considered as undesirable immigrants are the EU nationals who play in the English Premier League. I doubt if they include The Garbage's German wife, or the other EU nationals who are the spouses of inhabitants of the pigsty. The Scottish First Minister has sought a guarantee for the security of EU nationals living in Scotland and was refused. Both Cornwall and Wales survive because of EU funding, but voted to leave the EU knowing that a post-EU British government cannot, and will not, replace that funding. All of the financial warnings that were ignored during the campaign are beginning to manifest already, and you wonder why I tell you that this country is going both increasingly insane and increasingly fascist. I remind you, the Westminster pigsty is the decision-making forum of the 5th richest country on earth that refused sanctuary to 3,000 parentless immigrant children. These people are all, of course, good Christians, good Muslims and good Jews, who parade their piety and wear their faiths like a badge. It is so comforting that our leaders are all religiously committed to good works and charity whatever their respective faiths.
The good news is that we are losing The Spider, The Great Garbage and The Camoron, who have all taken fright at the horror they have unleashed and scuttled off leaving behind chaos and disintegration. They will not be missed, that is a certainty. The rats have definitely deserted the sinking ship, although I must apologise for likening these disgusting creatures to our rodent population whose natures are far more decent than our politicians, because one of the most striking outcomes of the EU referendum is how far the British have moved to the right encouraged by and goaded into open hatred of foreigners by our political class and the abominations of the Daily Mail and Daily Express. As you are probably aware there has been a release of the most graphic racism, encouraged by the demonization of immigrants and foreigners in general. Every single leave voter I have seen interviewed has cited immigration as the reason they voted leave. The residents of the pigsty who are laughingly called our representatives are the people who enjoyed a society with full employment, free education at all levels, adequate and decent housing for all, free health care, decent welfare benefits, full-time employment contracts and a catalogue of employment rights and protections, and are the same people determined to deny all of that to our children and grandchildren. Now that we are leaving the EU and the rights and benefits that are protected by the EU, we will see the full force of what Naomi Klein called 'The Shock Doctrine' unleashed on an unsuspecting British population. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Wednesday, 6 July 2016
Friday, 1 July 2016
How would Adam Smith have voted in the referendum?
A friend reproached me for my support for Remain. I thought you were a fan of Adam Smith, he said, who, he assured me would most assuredly have been a fervent Brexiteer as he would have opposed the closed shop of the EU and its regulatory and bureaucratic structures. I emailed him the following.
"The love of our own nation often disposes us to view, with the most malignant jealousy and envy, the prosperity and aggrandisement of any other neighbouring nation. Independent and neighbouring nations, having no common superior to decide their disputes, all live in continual dread and suspicion of one another. Each sovereign, expecting little justice from his neighbours, is disposed to treat them with as little as he expects from them. The regard for the laws of nations, or for those rules which independent states profess or pretend to think themselves bound to observe in their dealing with one another, is often little more than mere pretence and profession. From the smallest interest, upon the slightest provocation, we see those rules every day, either evaded or directly violated without shame or remorse. Each nation foresees, or imagines it foresees, its own subjugation in the increasing power and aggrandisement of any of its neighbours; and the mean principle of national prejudice is often founded upon the noble one of the love of our own country. The sentence with which the elder Cato is said to have concluded every speech which he made in the senate, whatever might be the subject, “It is my opinion likewise that Carthage ought to be destroyed” was the natural expression of the savage patriotism of a strong but coarse mind, enraged almost to madness against a foreign nation from which has own had suffered so much. The more humane sentence with which Scipio Nasica is said to have concluded all his speeches “It is my opinion likewise that Carthage ought not to be destroyed” was the liberal expression of a more enlarged and enlightened mind, who felt no aversion to the prosperity even of an old enemy, when reduced to a state which could no longer be formidable to Rome. France and England may each of them have some reason to dread the increase of the naval and military power of the other; but for either of them to envy the internal happiness and prosperity of the other, the cultivation of its lands, the advancements of its manufactures, the increase of its commerce, the security and number of its ports and harbours, its proficiency in all the liberal arts and sciences, is surely beneath the dignity of two such great nations. These are all improvements of the world we live in. Mankind are benefited, human nature is ennobled by them. In such improvements each nation ought, not only to endeavour itself to excel, but from the love of mankind, to promote, instead of obstructing the excellence of its neighbours. These are all proper objects of national emulation, not of national prejudice or envy".
If that is not an argument for a community of nations such as the EU, for tolerance and a celebration of diversity, and a thorough rejection of the narrow minded sectarian, exclusive campaign that was victorious last week then I don't know what it is. Adam Smith was a moral philosopher who turned his genius to an analysis of the human behaviour we call economic. His economics was a quite different species of intellectual achievement from the fraudulent insult that passes for economics in the modern world, presented to us by a parcel of rogues who demean the very essence of the discipline of economics, and yes, I am speaking about the great and the good from our most distinguished so-called seats of learning. I remind you what I have said before, we live in a world where we treat people who may be well schooled as if they were well educated. The pigsty is full of such creatures. With respect to the leave campaign, I asked my friend to consider the following and contemplate who Smith's observations here might refer to.
"Amidst the turbulence and disorder of faction, a certain spirit of system is apt to mix itself with that public spirit which is founded upon the love of humanity, upon a real fellow feeling with the inconveniences and distresses to which some of our fellow-citizens may be exposed. This spirit of system commonly takes the direction of that more gentle public spirit; always animates it and often inflames it even to the madness of fanaticism. The leaders of the discontented party seldom fail to hold out some plausible plan of reformation which, they pretend, will not only remove the inconveniencies and relieve the distresses immediately complained of, but will prevent, in all time coming, any return of the like inconveniencies and distresses. They often propose, upon this account, to new-model the constitution, and to alter, in some of its most essential parts, that system of government under which the subjects of a great empire have enjoyed, perhaps, peace, security, and even glory, during the course of several centuries together. The great body of the party are commonly intoxicated with the imaginary beauty of this of this ideal system, of which they have no experience, but which has been represented to them in all the most dazzling colours in which the eloquence of their leaders could paint it. Those leaders themselves, though they originally may have meant nothing but their own aggrandisement, become many of them in time the dupes of their own sophistry, and are as eager for this great reformation as the weakest and foolishest of their followers. Even though the leaders should have preserved their own heads, as indeed they commonly do, free from this fanaticism, yet they dare not always disappoint the expectations of their followers; but are often obliged, though contrary to their principle and their conscience, to act as if they were under the common delusion".
If you want a reason why The Spider had a change of heart, you would do well to consider Smith's reflections here. Perhaps he is genuinely ashamed of his promotion of this common delusion. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
"The love of our own nation often disposes us to view, with the most malignant jealousy and envy, the prosperity and aggrandisement of any other neighbouring nation. Independent and neighbouring nations, having no common superior to decide their disputes, all live in continual dread and suspicion of one another. Each sovereign, expecting little justice from his neighbours, is disposed to treat them with as little as he expects from them. The regard for the laws of nations, or for those rules which independent states profess or pretend to think themselves bound to observe in their dealing with one another, is often little more than mere pretence and profession. From the smallest interest, upon the slightest provocation, we see those rules every day, either evaded or directly violated without shame or remorse. Each nation foresees, or imagines it foresees, its own subjugation in the increasing power and aggrandisement of any of its neighbours; and the mean principle of national prejudice is often founded upon the noble one of the love of our own country. The sentence with which the elder Cato is said to have concluded every speech which he made in the senate, whatever might be the subject, “It is my opinion likewise that Carthage ought to be destroyed” was the natural expression of the savage patriotism of a strong but coarse mind, enraged almost to madness against a foreign nation from which has own had suffered so much. The more humane sentence with which Scipio Nasica is said to have concluded all his speeches “It is my opinion likewise that Carthage ought not to be destroyed” was the liberal expression of a more enlarged and enlightened mind, who felt no aversion to the prosperity even of an old enemy, when reduced to a state which could no longer be formidable to Rome. France and England may each of them have some reason to dread the increase of the naval and military power of the other; but for either of them to envy the internal happiness and prosperity of the other, the cultivation of its lands, the advancements of its manufactures, the increase of its commerce, the security and number of its ports and harbours, its proficiency in all the liberal arts and sciences, is surely beneath the dignity of two such great nations. These are all improvements of the world we live in. Mankind are benefited, human nature is ennobled by them. In such improvements each nation ought, not only to endeavour itself to excel, but from the love of mankind, to promote, instead of obstructing the excellence of its neighbours. These are all proper objects of national emulation, not of national prejudice or envy".
If that is not an argument for a community of nations such as the EU, for tolerance and a celebration of diversity, and a thorough rejection of the narrow minded sectarian, exclusive campaign that was victorious last week then I don't know what it is. Adam Smith was a moral philosopher who turned his genius to an analysis of the human behaviour we call economic. His economics was a quite different species of intellectual achievement from the fraudulent insult that passes for economics in the modern world, presented to us by a parcel of rogues who demean the very essence of the discipline of economics, and yes, I am speaking about the great and the good from our most distinguished so-called seats of learning. I remind you what I have said before, we live in a world where we treat people who may be well schooled as if they were well educated. The pigsty is full of such creatures. With respect to the leave campaign, I asked my friend to consider the following and contemplate who Smith's observations here might refer to.
"Amidst the turbulence and disorder of faction, a certain spirit of system is apt to mix itself with that public spirit which is founded upon the love of humanity, upon a real fellow feeling with the inconveniences and distresses to which some of our fellow-citizens may be exposed. This spirit of system commonly takes the direction of that more gentle public spirit; always animates it and often inflames it even to the madness of fanaticism. The leaders of the discontented party seldom fail to hold out some plausible plan of reformation which, they pretend, will not only remove the inconveniencies and relieve the distresses immediately complained of, but will prevent, in all time coming, any return of the like inconveniencies and distresses. They often propose, upon this account, to new-model the constitution, and to alter, in some of its most essential parts, that system of government under which the subjects of a great empire have enjoyed, perhaps, peace, security, and even glory, during the course of several centuries together. The great body of the party are commonly intoxicated with the imaginary beauty of this of this ideal system, of which they have no experience, but which has been represented to them in all the most dazzling colours in which the eloquence of their leaders could paint it. Those leaders themselves, though they originally may have meant nothing but their own aggrandisement, become many of them in time the dupes of their own sophistry, and are as eager for this great reformation as the weakest and foolishest of their followers. Even though the leaders should have preserved their own heads, as indeed they commonly do, free from this fanaticism, yet they dare not always disappoint the expectations of their followers; but are often obliged, though contrary to their principle and their conscience, to act as if they were under the common delusion".
If you want a reason why The Spider had a change of heart, you would do well to consider Smith's reflections here. Perhaps he is genuinely ashamed of his promotion of this common delusion. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Wednesday, 29 June 2016
The rejection of Europe is the rejection of a pluralist society
My wife asked me why Scotland appears to be so different from England politically? That's an excellent question and my answer here will be necessarily superficial as this is a huge question for which I can only give a summary. The first difference is cultural. Scotland has a cultural history that is rooted in the clan system, thus, Scotland has a more tribal history than England, which I argue helps to explain why Scotland is culturally more socially and community minded and has not been so deeply poisoned by the dominant individualism. This tribalism is not manifest in Scotland today as no-one in Scotland is at all affected by their historical clan roots and their only connection is their name. However, the Scots still identify with that system culturally through our national symbols that we exploit through tourism, tartan, bagpipes, haggis (which almost no-one ever eats), kilts (which almost no-one ever wears), and a clan system we barely identify with but exploit when it suits us. As a result, Scots have an identity that is recognisable throughout the world that the English do not share. In addition, most Scots identify as British, but importantly, and this is another historical legacy, as European. As a result, Scotland is a genuinely multi-cultural society, made even greater by the rich variety that has been embraced by successful immigration, rather than by a rejection.
I consider it a truism that the more identities that people share the freer they are. People who adopt a singular or a set of limited identities are far less free that a person who adopts a pluralist outlook. That is why pluralist societies are far more attractive and freer than totalitarian. A slave for example, or a prisoner, have only one identity. People who are very religious and adopt that badge as their defining identity are not free in the sense that they become a self-imposed limited personality. As a result, a very religious person may be Scots but may well identity themselves by their religion first and actually reject their Scottishness because of the demands of their religion. In other words they become alienated from their social reality in a form of self-imposed slavery. They consciously reject their multiple identities and become hostile to the society that threatens their exclusivity, paradoxically, the society whose pluralism encourages their diversity in the first place. Far too many people exploit the pluralism of our society and seek to impose their form of exclusiveness. Whilst society respects their difference, they refuse to respect the pluralism and tolerance afforded them.
However, it is not only the religious who impose exclusiveness. I have been writing to you about how this was the political model that Thatcher imposed on British society, with the result that we have developed a political system whose entry to the top demands that you are white, predominantly male, privately educated and a product of the Oxbridge system. You must also be rich, but most importantly, subscribe to the dominant political and economic doctrines of neoliberalism. In other words, as Thatcher repeatedly stated, you must be 'one of us'. As a result, British society is becoming more and more dominated by groups of people who reject pluralism and multiple identities. The most obvious rejection in modern times is their European identity and a retreat into an Englishness which is hostile to others.
The European referendum was decided by whole areas of England and Wales that represent the poorest and most working class areas of the country. These are the areas where, as the Bible tells us, "where there is no vision the people perish". These are the areas of large-scale unemployment and poverty, caused, not by immigration, but by the rapacity and greed of the British elite and the doctrines of free market economics. Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx identified the human being as a worker, a labourer and producer. That is the principal identity that Mark labelled a human being's 'species being' and is the defining identity that far too many people in this country have been quite deliberately deprived of by deliberate pigsty policies of mass unemployment. As you become alienated from your species being you also become alienated from society and from your fellow human beings. You are progressively stripped of your essential identities, those identities that are the essence of the human species, and comprise your social self. You are reduced to an atomised individual with no meaningful social loyalties. That is the end result of the Thatcher agenda for far too many people and it was quite deliberate. You become selfish as you have no other option, and you become hostile to others. Add in unscrupulous politicians relentlessly blaming those others for your plight, providing you with a scapegoat you can vent you wrath at and blame for a situation that you really cannot understand, and you have the answer as to why Britain voted to leave the EU. The Scots have a different vision, we have other options and a legacy of a rejection of the Thatcherite agenda. The Tories were well warned of the consequences of Thatcher's hatred of the Scots and her insistence on using Scotland as a laboratory for her free market experiment. So, whilst the English were charmed and persuaded by the Spider and his hideous henchmen, they made little impact on that most intelligent and civilised part of Britain. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
I consider it a truism that the more identities that people share the freer they are. People who adopt a singular or a set of limited identities are far less free that a person who adopts a pluralist outlook. That is why pluralist societies are far more attractive and freer than totalitarian. A slave for example, or a prisoner, have only one identity. People who are very religious and adopt that badge as their defining identity are not free in the sense that they become a self-imposed limited personality. As a result, a very religious person may be Scots but may well identity themselves by their religion first and actually reject their Scottishness because of the demands of their religion. In other words they become alienated from their social reality in a form of self-imposed slavery. They consciously reject their multiple identities and become hostile to the society that threatens their exclusivity, paradoxically, the society whose pluralism encourages their diversity in the first place. Far too many people exploit the pluralism of our society and seek to impose their form of exclusiveness. Whilst society respects their difference, they refuse to respect the pluralism and tolerance afforded them.
However, it is not only the religious who impose exclusiveness. I have been writing to you about how this was the political model that Thatcher imposed on British society, with the result that we have developed a political system whose entry to the top demands that you are white, predominantly male, privately educated and a product of the Oxbridge system. You must also be rich, but most importantly, subscribe to the dominant political and economic doctrines of neoliberalism. In other words, as Thatcher repeatedly stated, you must be 'one of us'. As a result, British society is becoming more and more dominated by groups of people who reject pluralism and multiple identities. The most obvious rejection in modern times is their European identity and a retreat into an Englishness which is hostile to others.
The European referendum was decided by whole areas of England and Wales that represent the poorest and most working class areas of the country. These are the areas where, as the Bible tells us, "where there is no vision the people perish". These are the areas of large-scale unemployment and poverty, caused, not by immigration, but by the rapacity and greed of the British elite and the doctrines of free market economics. Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx identified the human being as a worker, a labourer and producer. That is the principal identity that Mark labelled a human being's 'species being' and is the defining identity that far too many people in this country have been quite deliberately deprived of by deliberate pigsty policies of mass unemployment. As you become alienated from your species being you also become alienated from society and from your fellow human beings. You are progressively stripped of your essential identities, those identities that are the essence of the human species, and comprise your social self. You are reduced to an atomised individual with no meaningful social loyalties. That is the end result of the Thatcher agenda for far too many people and it was quite deliberate. You become selfish as you have no other option, and you become hostile to others. Add in unscrupulous politicians relentlessly blaming those others for your plight, providing you with a scapegoat you can vent you wrath at and blame for a situation that you really cannot understand, and you have the answer as to why Britain voted to leave the EU. The Scots have a different vision, we have other options and a legacy of a rejection of the Thatcherite agenda. The Tories were well warned of the consequences of Thatcher's hatred of the Scots and her insistence on using Scotland as a laboratory for her free market experiment. So, whilst the English were charmed and persuaded by the Spider and his hideous henchmen, they made little impact on that most intelligent and civilised part of Britain. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Monday, 27 June 2016
Welcome to the dark side; England post Brexit.
I have seen literally dozens of ordinary people interviewed in our media who voted to leave the EU in both England and Wales and every one of them, without exception, gave as their reason immigration. As they all say, I'm not a racist, but....! Well, I'm sorry England and Wales, but you have been exposed for harbouring a deep seated and vindictive racism that was just waiting for an outlet. In the pigsty today, at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Camoron had to pledge several times to combat the outright threats and intimidation that foreigners have been subjected to, openly on our streets in broad daylight. People have had literature posted through their letterboxes telling them to f..k off back home where they came from. Modern Britain is a disgrace and I shall no longer call myself British as it is a shame and a badge of dishonour. I watched an interview with a young man in Ebbw Vale in Wales who passionately voted leave because of immigration. When he was asked what immigration there had been in his part of Wales and how it had affected it he was speechless as there had been none. This is the type of country we have become, where our politicians are shameless liars and our electorate are happy to collude with such lies and scapegoat people whom they must know are innocent of what they are being accused of. This referendum was conducted on purely emotional grounds with no regard to facts or honesty. The electorate were targeted on what we call their affective interests, their emotions, and all reason and logic was abandoned in favour of raw hatred and prejudice. I was reminded of the warnings of Sigmund Freud when he told us that
"Students of human nature and philosophers have long taught us that we are mistaken in regarding our intelligence as an independent force and in overlooking its dependence on emotional life. Our intellect, they teach us, can function reliably only when it is removed from the influences of strong emotional impulses; otherwise it behaves merely as an instrument of the will and delivers the inference which the will requires. Thus, in their view, logical arguments are impotent against affective interests, and that is why disputes backed by reasons…produce so few victories in the conflict with interests. Psycho-analytic experience has, if possible, further confirmed this statement. It can show every day that the shrewdest people will all of a sudden behave without insight, like imbeciles, as soon as the necessary insight is confronted by an emotional resistance, but that they will completely regain their understanding once that resistance has been overcome".
Sigmund Freud, Thoughts for the Times on War and Death (1915)
The British public has indeed behaved without insight, like imbeciles, rendering logic and reason impotent and delivering the inference that the collective will of far too many of the British people required .
My criticisms of the leave campaign have been substantiated by events as they are now openly admitting that they did not mean what they told the public. One of the principal themes of their campaign was that the EU free movement of people was the fundamental cause of uncontrolled immigration. They are now telling us that they wish to continue accessing the single European market after we leave the EU and that will mean signing up to an agreement that allows for the continuation of the free movement of people, and so, they will not be able to effectively control immigration, the core pledge of their campaign. They are admitting that they did not mean it when they told us that they would pledge the £350 million per week savings they would make by leaving to the NHS with Britain's Eichmann telling us on national television that their promises were simply ' a series of possibilities'. These promises were plastered all over the country on posters, on the literature they posted through people doors, and on all of the transport they utilised during the campaign, and you wonder why I refer to Westminster as a pigsty and tell you that we have some of the most appalling politicians imaginable? The gang of scoundrels who made up the leadership of the leave campaign are indeed quite probably psychotic as their conduct, lies, and lack of shame is quite breathtaking.
But, as I have told you before, sequences carry with them consequences. The two most prominent newspapers in Scotland, the Daily Record and the Herald, both of whom campaigned strongly for a No vote in the Scottish referendum have come out in support of independence following this most disreputable and mendacious campaign. In addition, prominent anti-independence people such as JK Rowling and the Labour ex-First Minister Henry McLeish have stated that they are now going to support it. In addition, the Scottish papers are full of people writing to say that they have changed and that they have made a mistake by supporting the leave campaign. If the Scottish Labour Party, who are engaged in their usual dithering and vacillation do the only thing that will save them as a viable force and come out in favour of an independent Scotland, then independence will become a certainty. Scottish Labour will have to do something positive in order to survive because if you are watching events in this sorry nation you will see that the British Labour Party is in the process of committing ritual seppuku. The United Kingdom is finished. As Nicola Sturgeon told the nation, the United Kingdom that the Scottish people voted to remain with in 2014 no longer exists. Britain is in a serious political crisis of its own making and the denizens of the pigsty really have not grasped this fact, they are really so out of touch in their own little elite bubble. But if it is bad just now, wait until all those working class voters in the North of England, the North East and Wales waken up to the fact that they have been duped and betrayed. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
"Students of human nature and philosophers have long taught us that we are mistaken in regarding our intelligence as an independent force and in overlooking its dependence on emotional life. Our intellect, they teach us, can function reliably only when it is removed from the influences of strong emotional impulses; otherwise it behaves merely as an instrument of the will and delivers the inference which the will requires. Thus, in their view, logical arguments are impotent against affective interests, and that is why disputes backed by reasons…produce so few victories in the conflict with interests. Psycho-analytic experience has, if possible, further confirmed this statement. It can show every day that the shrewdest people will all of a sudden behave without insight, like imbeciles, as soon as the necessary insight is confronted by an emotional resistance, but that they will completely regain their understanding once that resistance has been overcome".
Sigmund Freud, Thoughts for the Times on War and Death (1915)
The British public has indeed behaved without insight, like imbeciles, rendering logic and reason impotent and delivering the inference that the collective will of far too many of the British people required .
My criticisms of the leave campaign have been substantiated by events as they are now openly admitting that they did not mean what they told the public. One of the principal themes of their campaign was that the EU free movement of people was the fundamental cause of uncontrolled immigration. They are now telling us that they wish to continue accessing the single European market after we leave the EU and that will mean signing up to an agreement that allows for the continuation of the free movement of people, and so, they will not be able to effectively control immigration, the core pledge of their campaign. They are admitting that they did not mean it when they told us that they would pledge the £350 million per week savings they would make by leaving to the NHS with Britain's Eichmann telling us on national television that their promises were simply ' a series of possibilities'. These promises were plastered all over the country on posters, on the literature they posted through people doors, and on all of the transport they utilised during the campaign, and you wonder why I refer to Westminster as a pigsty and tell you that we have some of the most appalling politicians imaginable? The gang of scoundrels who made up the leadership of the leave campaign are indeed quite probably psychotic as their conduct, lies, and lack of shame is quite breathtaking.
But, as I have told you before, sequences carry with them consequences. The two most prominent newspapers in Scotland, the Daily Record and the Herald, both of whom campaigned strongly for a No vote in the Scottish referendum have come out in support of independence following this most disreputable and mendacious campaign. In addition, prominent anti-independence people such as JK Rowling and the Labour ex-First Minister Henry McLeish have stated that they are now going to support it. In addition, the Scottish papers are full of people writing to say that they have changed and that they have made a mistake by supporting the leave campaign. If the Scottish Labour Party, who are engaged in their usual dithering and vacillation do the only thing that will save them as a viable force and come out in favour of an independent Scotland, then independence will become a certainty. Scottish Labour will have to do something positive in order to survive because if you are watching events in this sorry nation you will see that the British Labour Party is in the process of committing ritual seppuku. The United Kingdom is finished. As Nicola Sturgeon told the nation, the United Kingdom that the Scottish people voted to remain with in 2014 no longer exists. Britain is in a serious political crisis of its own making and the denizens of the pigsty really have not grasped this fact, they are really so out of touch in their own little elite bubble. But if it is bad just now, wait until all those working class voters in the North of England, the North East and Wales waken up to the fact that they have been duped and betrayed. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Saturday, 25 June 2016
Our first priority must be to reform the voting system
I do not need to tell you that British politics is in serious crisis, a crisis that has been brewing since Thatcher first took office. There are many reasons for this, but one of the principal culprits is Britain's first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system which is unsustainable and is seriously damaging the social cohesion of the state. The principal effect of FPTP on the political culture of the United Kingdom is what we call ‘the two party system’ which I argue, is a fundamental cause of the increasing erosion of social cohesion in the United Kingdom and has resulted in alienating the public from the political process and political participation, and that no meaningful solution to our problems are possible until FPTP has been replaced. Electoral systems are not simply mechanisms for electing people to public office. They have a more profound impact than that. They impact on a nation’s culture and help to shape the political structure of the state. In addition they impact on people’s everyday lives as they are responsible for the make-up of the parliament and other decision-making forums in a state, and affect policy formation and implementation. They shape the nature and composition of Parliament, local government, the European Parliament, the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies etc. and therefore impact on the decisions themselves.
As early as 2006, an influential group of academics produced what is known as The Power Report that made many observations about the British political system and stated that Britain was suffering from what they termed a ‘democratic malaise’. The Commission also stated that there was
‘a well-ingrained popular view across the country that our political institutions and their politicians are failing, untrustworthy, and disconnected from the great mass of the British people.’ And that
"The British party system is based on the dominance of two parties constructed around the pursuit of the interests and ideological leanings of the two dominant classes that existed during the industrial era" in which "even Members of Parliament have little say because all the decisions are made by a handful of people at the centre and then driven through the system. Politics and government are increasingly slipping back into the hands of privileged elites as if democracy has run out of steam.”
We must always be aware when we are operating within the context of modern British politics, that in the absence of a written constitution and a judiciary with the power of legislative review and veto, the British people invest an enormous amount of trust in their parliamentary institutions. Elections in the UK are therefore votes of confidence, not just in the parties, but in the system itself. Should a government betray the trust of the electorate, there are no constitutional mechanisms outside of the next election to remove such a government. Another purpose of election in Britain is therefore an affirmation of the elected Parliament by the British people as a safeguard of their securities and rights and in the elected representatives as the watchmen of the people over the executive. Should the parties betray that confidence and trust, then the party system, and the entire political system itself is in danger of losing the confidence and trust of the people, and that, I am arguing is the real cause of the catastrophic vote to leave the EU on Thursday.
I have written before how the UK has a set of some of the most appalling politicians imaginable. This is the result of how FPTP has entrenched a two party system that has consolidated a very powerful centralisation of power and removed the process of accountability. This has in turn bestowed significant political privilege onto the political elite within the two main parties that has institutionalised a form of hereditary government within the UK. What do I mean by this? To pursue a meaningful political career in British politics, one must, almost by necessity, attach one’s future to one of the two main parties. Regardless of your ideological position, or your political preferences on policy matters, if you wish to have a successful political career at almost any level of British politics, then membership of, and loyalty to, one of the two major parties in Britain is essential. Of course some individuals pursue long careers in another party, but they are few. This produces the situation where many candidates for election are standing for a constituency on a party ticket quite simply in order to be elected as an MP, not necessarily because they believe in that particular style of politics. They are political careerists whose loyalty and focus is not to the people who elected them, but to the party to whom they owe their nomination. This is because the motivation of such people to being elected is not to any particular programme, constituency, cause, ideological commitment, or any of the standard explanations why people seek to enter politics; it is simply to get a job as an MP, preferably a job for life in a safe party seat. In most constituencies, the combination of FPTP and the party system almost guarantees the successful candidate a job for life, regardless of the performance of the elected MP once in office. This happens because FPTP has produced an electoral system whereby people vote for parties as opposed to persons. Thus, to succeed in British politics, at all levels, not just at Westminster, you need neither be competent, hardworking, nor know anything about politics. You simply have to belong to the right party and people will continue to vote for you even if they have never heard of you
This is the opposite of a meritocracy. If the British get a competent Prime Minister and a competent government, that is largely by accident. If they get a competent constituency MP or local councillor etc, then that is almost wholly by accident. They get what the party is prepared to give them. As a result, the MP and councillor etc become dependent on, and answerable to, their party. They very quickly become detached from the people who elect them, and become submerged into the world of party politics. British politicians, especially at Westminster, have, because of the effect of FPTP, become almost wholly detached from the British people. One of the most visible signs of Westminster's irrelevance is that this system has produced a parliament that is almost wholly unrepresentative, a parliament that has been almost totally purged of real working people with a spread of talents and skills that reflect the wider society. In the UK we have a government that is almost wholly staffed by millionaires. Thus, whilst the British political system is not hereditary in the sense of family, it is most certainly hereditary in the sense of class, education and particularly economic and social outlook. Thatcher defined this process as: only those who were considered ‘one of us’ would be considered suitable for success in her political system. Now, it can be argued that not all of this elite share the same economic and social background, but regardless of background, if one fails to subscribe to the dominant ideology of this ruling elite, then they will most certainly be excluded from it. If you don’t become ‘one of us’ you don’t succeed and Mad Tony actually took Thatcher’s ‘one of us’ philosophy to a level that would have been ridiculous were it not so serious. The party that was founded by manual labour to represent manual labour, had, by the 2010 election, almost cleansed itself of manual labouring influence and representation, and they still cannot seem to understand why they have been deserted by their traditional supporters in the millions.
The UK political system rewards parties. As a result, individual candidates are relatively unimportant in terms of party success. The party selects the leader and the party hierarchy. In return, the leader surrounds him/herself with favourites and people who only agree with him/her. They owe their career to a successful leader and leadership policies. This leadership therefore becomes the natural focus, particularly for the media, and supposedly intelligent people who advance within the party system become craven apologists for leaders and their policies and will happily lie through their teeth on the party’s behalf. The sociologist Max Weber argued that modern democratic states encourage what he terms ‘Caesarism.’ This happens because in countries with universal suffrage, political leaders are deemed to require charismatic qualities that will appeal to the majority of the electorate. As a result, regardless of the ability or quality of a modern politician, they will have great difficulty reaching the top positions in the political structures if they fail to display charismatic leadership. Caesarism therefore presents a genuine threat to the democratic process. It encourages the increasing centralisation of power and decision-making in the leadership and his/her immediate chosen circle, it threatens to corrupt the leadership itself by inflating their sense of importance whilst diminishing others, and it has the effect of elevating the executive at the expense of the legislature. All those tendencies are very evident in modern Britain, and the democratic institutions and structures that are supposed to counter caesarist tendencies in our society are failing us and not working. Principal amongst those failures are an effective and accountable Parliament and an efficient electoral system. This post has become far too long and I thank you if you have read this far. This topic is obviously huge and I have only really given you an introduction. But Britain will never be able to offer meaningful solutions until we reform its politics and that will have to start with the electoral system. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
As early as 2006, an influential group of academics produced what is known as The Power Report that made many observations about the British political system and stated that Britain was suffering from what they termed a ‘democratic malaise’. The Commission also stated that there was
‘a well-ingrained popular view across the country that our political institutions and their politicians are failing, untrustworthy, and disconnected from the great mass of the British people.’ And that
"The British party system is based on the dominance of two parties constructed around the pursuit of the interests and ideological leanings of the two dominant classes that existed during the industrial era" in which "even Members of Parliament have little say because all the decisions are made by a handful of people at the centre and then driven through the system. Politics and government are increasingly slipping back into the hands of privileged elites as if democracy has run out of steam.”
We must always be aware when we are operating within the context of modern British politics, that in the absence of a written constitution and a judiciary with the power of legislative review and veto, the British people invest an enormous amount of trust in their parliamentary institutions. Elections in the UK are therefore votes of confidence, not just in the parties, but in the system itself. Should a government betray the trust of the electorate, there are no constitutional mechanisms outside of the next election to remove such a government. Another purpose of election in Britain is therefore an affirmation of the elected Parliament by the British people as a safeguard of their securities and rights and in the elected representatives as the watchmen of the people over the executive. Should the parties betray that confidence and trust, then the party system, and the entire political system itself is in danger of losing the confidence and trust of the people, and that, I am arguing is the real cause of the catastrophic vote to leave the EU on Thursday.
I have written before how the UK has a set of some of the most appalling politicians imaginable. This is the result of how FPTP has entrenched a two party system that has consolidated a very powerful centralisation of power and removed the process of accountability. This has in turn bestowed significant political privilege onto the political elite within the two main parties that has institutionalised a form of hereditary government within the UK. What do I mean by this? To pursue a meaningful political career in British politics, one must, almost by necessity, attach one’s future to one of the two main parties. Regardless of your ideological position, or your political preferences on policy matters, if you wish to have a successful political career at almost any level of British politics, then membership of, and loyalty to, one of the two major parties in Britain is essential. Of course some individuals pursue long careers in another party, but they are few. This produces the situation where many candidates for election are standing for a constituency on a party ticket quite simply in order to be elected as an MP, not necessarily because they believe in that particular style of politics. They are political careerists whose loyalty and focus is not to the people who elected them, but to the party to whom they owe their nomination. This is because the motivation of such people to being elected is not to any particular programme, constituency, cause, ideological commitment, or any of the standard explanations why people seek to enter politics; it is simply to get a job as an MP, preferably a job for life in a safe party seat. In most constituencies, the combination of FPTP and the party system almost guarantees the successful candidate a job for life, regardless of the performance of the elected MP once in office. This happens because FPTP has produced an electoral system whereby people vote for parties as opposed to persons. Thus, to succeed in British politics, at all levels, not just at Westminster, you need neither be competent, hardworking, nor know anything about politics. You simply have to belong to the right party and people will continue to vote for you even if they have never heard of you
This is the opposite of a meritocracy. If the British get a competent Prime Minister and a competent government, that is largely by accident. If they get a competent constituency MP or local councillor etc, then that is almost wholly by accident. They get what the party is prepared to give them. As a result, the MP and councillor etc become dependent on, and answerable to, their party. They very quickly become detached from the people who elect them, and become submerged into the world of party politics. British politicians, especially at Westminster, have, because of the effect of FPTP, become almost wholly detached from the British people. One of the most visible signs of Westminster's irrelevance is that this system has produced a parliament that is almost wholly unrepresentative, a parliament that has been almost totally purged of real working people with a spread of talents and skills that reflect the wider society. In the UK we have a government that is almost wholly staffed by millionaires. Thus, whilst the British political system is not hereditary in the sense of family, it is most certainly hereditary in the sense of class, education and particularly economic and social outlook. Thatcher defined this process as: only those who were considered ‘one of us’ would be considered suitable for success in her political system. Now, it can be argued that not all of this elite share the same economic and social background, but regardless of background, if one fails to subscribe to the dominant ideology of this ruling elite, then they will most certainly be excluded from it. If you don’t become ‘one of us’ you don’t succeed and Mad Tony actually took Thatcher’s ‘one of us’ philosophy to a level that would have been ridiculous were it not so serious. The party that was founded by manual labour to represent manual labour, had, by the 2010 election, almost cleansed itself of manual labouring influence and representation, and they still cannot seem to understand why they have been deserted by their traditional supporters in the millions.
The UK political system rewards parties. As a result, individual candidates are relatively unimportant in terms of party success. The party selects the leader and the party hierarchy. In return, the leader surrounds him/herself with favourites and people who only agree with him/her. They owe their career to a successful leader and leadership policies. This leadership therefore becomes the natural focus, particularly for the media, and supposedly intelligent people who advance within the party system become craven apologists for leaders and their policies and will happily lie through their teeth on the party’s behalf. The sociologist Max Weber argued that modern democratic states encourage what he terms ‘Caesarism.’ This happens because in countries with universal suffrage, political leaders are deemed to require charismatic qualities that will appeal to the majority of the electorate. As a result, regardless of the ability or quality of a modern politician, they will have great difficulty reaching the top positions in the political structures if they fail to display charismatic leadership. Caesarism therefore presents a genuine threat to the democratic process. It encourages the increasing centralisation of power and decision-making in the leadership and his/her immediate chosen circle, it threatens to corrupt the leadership itself by inflating their sense of importance whilst diminishing others, and it has the effect of elevating the executive at the expense of the legislature. All those tendencies are very evident in modern Britain, and the democratic institutions and structures that are supposed to counter caesarist tendencies in our society are failing us and not working. Principal amongst those failures are an effective and accountable Parliament and an efficient electoral system. This post has become far too long and I thank you if you have read this far. This topic is obviously huge and I have only really given you an introduction. But Britain will never be able to offer meaningful solutions until we reform its politics and that will have to start with the electoral system. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
We're out and the future is definitely not what it used to be!
Well it's happened, and the bookies got it so wrong. I told you last week that I was coming to the conclusion that Britain would vote to leave the EU, but could not really believe that the bookies could be so wrong, but such is the division and volatility of politics in this sorry country today that it is almost impossible to predict what will happen next. What is of great concern is how the English working classes have swung very sharply right, because make no mistake, the entire leave campaign was about immigration and a xenophobia which was utilised as a scapegoat for the hardships imposed by the government's ferocious austerity. The other great concern is how this campaign, like the Scottish referendum was won on a farrago of lies. The morning after the Scottish referendum the British government immediately went back on its word and betrayed the Scots. Already the out campaign leaders are going back on their word and showing that they were prepared to lie through their teeth to get the result they wanted. That does not bode well for the future because one of the main themes of this campaign has been the shocking lack of trust between the public and the pigsty and already the people they put their trust in in this referendum are betraying them. One of the great themes of the referendum that was on all of the posters and plastered on the buses they utilised for transporting the great and the good was a promise to invest £320 million pounds a week that we send to Europe in the health service after we leave. They have immediately denied that today, and it is not going to happen. Britain is now going to be governed by the biggest gang of liars, scoundrels and charlatans imaginable, but also by the most right-wing neoliberal government in our history. The British have just delivered a catastrophic vote and will have to live with the consequences, but we in Scotland don't and won't. I have no hesitation in saying that this decision will give new meaning to the concept of a Pyrrhic victory. The other major consequence of this vote is that it could have profound consequences for Northern Ireland and its fragile peace.
Another serious consequence concerns the future of the Labour Party as they have been decisively rejected by their own traditional supporters. Already a vote of no confidence has been lodged by Labour MPs against their leader Jeremy Corbyn whose conduct during the campaign was quite disgraceful for a major party leader as he was almost invisible and failed to speak at any of the major debates. Significantly, we had Donald Trump in Scotland today to open his new project in Turnberry telling us that Brexit was fantastic. That tells you all you need to know about leaving the EU. We are truly facing the possibility of a fascist British state as the joy within all the far right European parties has been unconfined and that is who the leavers are identifying with.
As the Scots are far more intelligent and civilised than the rest of the UK, they voted en bloc to remain in the EU, with not one electoral district voting out. The Scots voted 62/38 to remain in contrast to the rest of the UK with England voting 53/47. Only Northern Ireland voted to remain. In England I pay homage to the noble people of Liverpool who voted remain and who I hope will be made honorary Scots. The Scottish people were persistently warned during their own referendum that the only way to ensure continued membership of the EU was to reject independence and vote to remain within the UK. That was clearly a lie as we now find ourselves being forced out of the EU against our will and the Scots now have no doubts left that everything the pigsty tells us is a lie and are now becoming clearly disgusted with everything Westminster stands for. We have had a parade of leading politicians in Scotland who campaigned strongly for an in vote in 2014 telling us how they have now changed and are prepared to support independence. The Scottish government are already laying the groundwork for another referendum on independence and are in talks with the EU to see if there is a way that Scotland can remain within the EU despite what the English and Welsh have just done. On that matter, it is astonishing that the Welsh have voted Brexit as Wales survives on EU funding. I will end by simply asking people what on earth can they expect under Prime Minister Boris the Spider. The man is a clown and a pathological liar and will only hasten the breakup of the UK. I will keep you informed to the best of my ability. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Another serious consequence concerns the future of the Labour Party as they have been decisively rejected by their own traditional supporters. Already a vote of no confidence has been lodged by Labour MPs against their leader Jeremy Corbyn whose conduct during the campaign was quite disgraceful for a major party leader as he was almost invisible and failed to speak at any of the major debates. Significantly, we had Donald Trump in Scotland today to open his new project in Turnberry telling us that Brexit was fantastic. That tells you all you need to know about leaving the EU. We are truly facing the possibility of a fascist British state as the joy within all the far right European parties has been unconfined and that is who the leavers are identifying with.
As the Scots are far more intelligent and civilised than the rest of the UK, they voted en bloc to remain in the EU, with not one electoral district voting out. The Scots voted 62/38 to remain in contrast to the rest of the UK with England voting 53/47. Only Northern Ireland voted to remain. In England I pay homage to the noble people of Liverpool who voted remain and who I hope will be made honorary Scots. The Scottish people were persistently warned during their own referendum that the only way to ensure continued membership of the EU was to reject independence and vote to remain within the UK. That was clearly a lie as we now find ourselves being forced out of the EU against our will and the Scots now have no doubts left that everything the pigsty tells us is a lie and are now becoming clearly disgusted with everything Westminster stands for. We have had a parade of leading politicians in Scotland who campaigned strongly for an in vote in 2014 telling us how they have now changed and are prepared to support independence. The Scottish government are already laying the groundwork for another referendum on independence and are in talks with the EU to see if there is a way that Scotland can remain within the EU despite what the English and Welsh have just done. On that matter, it is astonishing that the Welsh have voted Brexit as Wales survives on EU funding. I will end by simply asking people what on earth can they expect under Prime Minister Boris the Spider. The man is a clown and a pathological liar and will only hasten the breakup of the UK. I will keep you informed to the best of my ability. You have been warned
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Tuesday, 21 June 2016
Britain, where is the decency and sanity?
With two days to go till the referendum the momentum appears to be swinging back to Remain according to the latest betting with the Remain betting getting tighter at 1/4 again and Leave going out to 3/1. With the opinion polls indicating a very tight race with a one or two point lead for Remain, the betting is indicating a minimum 60/40 vote to Remain with the average forecast at 63% for Remain. So, one of them is getting it wrong. I am beginning to think that the bookies are probably correct, but not quite accurate, as the odds suggest an 80% vote for Remain but that is not going to happen, and the 60/40 prediction is much more plausible. There has been a definite change in tone in the campaign since last week's tragedy with the leading Tory Brexiters desperately trying to distance themselves from Nigel Garbage. It tells you something when people like Gove and Boris the Spider are registering their disgust and disapproval of the language and tactics of The Great Garbage. Gove told us on national television that UKIP's latest poster campaign 'made him shudder', and yesterday we had the prominent Tory peer, Baroness Warsi, abandoning the Leave campaign and joining Remain because of the 'hate and xenophobia' of the leavers. However, this is definitely a case of rats deserting a sinking ship as those leading Tories are every bit as culpable for stoking up the fear and paranoia about immigrants and foreigners as The Great Garbage, but they have realised that they are now tainted by their racism and xenophobia and are in danger of being unable to escape it, so like all good members of the pigsty they are acting with total self-interest now (not that they ever do anything else). As far as this forum is concerned they will never be allowed to escape their racism and xenophobia, and there is indeed a definite scent of good news because Gove has been hinting that if the vote is for Remain he will pick up his ball, leave the field and withdraw from the government. We can only live in hope.
As I have repeatedly said over the past few weeks, all of this turmoil, hate and racist opportunism is the lasting legacy of the Blessed Margaret. It is the result of the cult of individualism she so assiduously fostered, the denial of human social nature, her insistence that no-one had any responsibility for others, the irrational hatred of the state and her 'no such thing as society' nonsense. Her ideological aim was a society of selfish atomised individuals, good Samaritans in reverse gear. She was very successful. All those cultural weapons she so skilfully utilised were designed to rid society of obstacles to the unfettered free market she so idolised and to begin the process of dismantling the institutions that Britain had erected to produce a fair and equable society as far as it was possible. Thatcher began the process of gradual enslavement of the working class in Britain and was ferociously exclusionist in that anyone who failed to share her ideology or who was not prepared to submit to her elitist class based structural vision would be allowed any part in the social and political life of the nation. She spent her premiership systematically excluding such people from any meaningful participation in the Conservative Party. When this was successfully completed she extended that principle into public life and determined to control appointments and policies throughout the entire fabric of the state system. This was then adopted by Mad Tony who did exactly the same thing within the Labour Party with the result that, by the time Mad Tony left office there was no talent of any substance left in either of the two major parties and why we are now saddled with incompetents like the Camoron and Osborne. Both Thatcher and Mad Tony ruthlessly marginalised anyone with a speck of brains who might be seen as a challenge to their domination, or who might point out such obvious things like there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That is why even the best brains in today's Westminster pigsty barely reach the level of mediocrity and why this referendum campaign has descended into such filth. These people have no substance, no gravitas, and no discernable intellect. Above all, they have no dignity. The exception is the intake of minor party candidates at the last election such as the Greens and the SNP. A British politician today has less credibility than a car salesman and is universally distrusted and widely loathed. I mean, in what form of intelligent polity could a man such as Boris the Spider ever gain prominence let alone national office? The important point about all this is that those same personnel all widely applauded what Thatcher and Mad Tony did because they benefited from their cringing acquiescence and subservience, and are now paying the price; the universal contempt of the electorate.
There will be no real hope for Britain, even with a vote to Remain, until we begin the process of seriously dismantling the Thatcher legacy and rebuilding an ethical society based on the concept of the human being as a social animal whose individualism is recognised as a reflection of his/her milieu, of his/her socialisation, that is, a recognition that each individual is firstly a social being. This will necessitate a complete rejection of free market neoliberalism and the poison of individualism. The recovery of a decent and sane society, represented by sane and decent people, must start with a philosophical and ideological rejection of the dominant ideas that are destroying decency and sanity. I am not confident that can be achieved, but will continue to try. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
As I have repeatedly said over the past few weeks, all of this turmoil, hate and racist opportunism is the lasting legacy of the Blessed Margaret. It is the result of the cult of individualism she so assiduously fostered, the denial of human social nature, her insistence that no-one had any responsibility for others, the irrational hatred of the state and her 'no such thing as society' nonsense. Her ideological aim was a society of selfish atomised individuals, good Samaritans in reverse gear. She was very successful. All those cultural weapons she so skilfully utilised were designed to rid society of obstacles to the unfettered free market she so idolised and to begin the process of dismantling the institutions that Britain had erected to produce a fair and equable society as far as it was possible. Thatcher began the process of gradual enslavement of the working class in Britain and was ferociously exclusionist in that anyone who failed to share her ideology or who was not prepared to submit to her elitist class based structural vision would be allowed any part in the social and political life of the nation. She spent her premiership systematically excluding such people from any meaningful participation in the Conservative Party. When this was successfully completed she extended that principle into public life and determined to control appointments and policies throughout the entire fabric of the state system. This was then adopted by Mad Tony who did exactly the same thing within the Labour Party with the result that, by the time Mad Tony left office there was no talent of any substance left in either of the two major parties and why we are now saddled with incompetents like the Camoron and Osborne. Both Thatcher and Mad Tony ruthlessly marginalised anyone with a speck of brains who might be seen as a challenge to their domination, or who might point out such obvious things like there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That is why even the best brains in today's Westminster pigsty barely reach the level of mediocrity and why this referendum campaign has descended into such filth. These people have no substance, no gravitas, and no discernable intellect. Above all, they have no dignity. The exception is the intake of minor party candidates at the last election such as the Greens and the SNP. A British politician today has less credibility than a car salesman and is universally distrusted and widely loathed. I mean, in what form of intelligent polity could a man such as Boris the Spider ever gain prominence let alone national office? The important point about all this is that those same personnel all widely applauded what Thatcher and Mad Tony did because they benefited from their cringing acquiescence and subservience, and are now paying the price; the universal contempt of the electorate.
There will be no real hope for Britain, even with a vote to Remain, until we begin the process of seriously dismantling the Thatcher legacy and rebuilding an ethical society based on the concept of the human being as a social animal whose individualism is recognised as a reflection of his/her milieu, of his/her socialisation, that is, a recognition that each individual is firstly a social being. This will necessitate a complete rejection of free market neoliberalism and the poison of individualism. The recovery of a decent and sane society, represented by sane and decent people, must start with a philosophical and ideological rejection of the dominant ideas that are destroying decency and sanity. I am not confident that can be achieved, but will continue to try. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)