Blue Revolution Archive Page 7
07.02 16 The US and Russia are too big but its too late.
Big is Beautiful or so the saying goes. However whilst from mankind’s early beginnings the birth pains of civilisation have been characterised by economic growth through conquest and the acquisition of economic value by force, the achievement of peace through ever larger and larger areas of dominion by one nation or set of values over another will have a natural peaceful end point within the next two hundred years.
Once all societies and empires understand the importance of adopting a means of production which maximises the amount of value created for the benefit of all people so more natural as opposed to economic groups will begin to re assert themselves. In this sense Scottish nationalism is an example, there are many others all over Europe.
To be a Nation as opposed to a rag tag and bob tail bunch of bloodthirsty psychopaths who steal value created by others and more often than not waste or destroy it, you need to be able to run an economy that produces its own value and allocates it with general consent. The alternative is to be either ISIS a failed state or the Mafia.
This process is basically what happened with the British Empire. It was successful at establishing an economic model that moved countries from tribalism to a form of feudalism under autocratic British control using Capitalism as the means of production. It was a small step from that to a vanguard of leaders envisaging the possibility of independence by using the model of capitalist industrial production (more often than not nationalised) to secure the wealth necessary to support the nation. All Capitalist and post industrial countries rely on Contract, Choice and Consent at every social and economic level. This is what protects their people and allows them to safely trade with others who share the same or nearly the same values. It is why women have been liberated over the last hundred years and other “lifestyles” have started to be accepted. Some faiths find it easier to fit in with this economic model than others but to succeed economically all nations will have to adapt and the west will have to tackle the absurdity of what we call secular westernism; basically taking the market system too far.
Once this point of shared social and economic values is reached there is nothing illogical about wanting to consolidate to a smaller independent identity (Scottish, Welsh Basque, Kurd or even English etc). The critical thing is not the national identity, it is the ability to recognise the values of Contract, Choice and Consent and therfore the ability of the economy to sustain it’s people. Contract, Choice and Consent protect people from each other and from government they also provide a framework for enabling individuals, communities and countries to grow their own social and economic value.
If there is one failure of the west in its response to everything it has or has not achieved in the Middle East it is that at no time did any one stop to think…..How ready are these countries to begin a life of social and economic independence free of the yoke of Saddam…. (substitute your own Middle east despot)?
The reality closer to home is that neither Europe nor in the US the “states” need the level of overarching “federal”control to which they are subject. With the basics principles of society and economics shared so widely (Contract, Choice and Consent) people should be allowed to go out and produce social and economic value unimpeded by big government. People are frustrated with western Governments; perhaps the surplus of government and the shortage of opportunities explains why.
08.02.16 From Dagenham in the 1660’s to Dewsbury today ‘Socialisms’ appalling legacy of its treatment of women goes on.
Some time over Christmas we seem to remember a very uplifting interview with Malala Yousafzai and another young female who was utterly inspirational. Both had experienced untold setbacks largely due to their gender (Malala being victim of an attempted assassination by some dustbowl fanatics let us not forget) both wanted to make a massive contribution to society through education (we think it was medicine but both were clearly articulate so it could have been politics).
The next item on the news programme was a depressing piece about British drunks at Christmas. Girls with no clothes on rolling around drunk, fighting and vomiting. The “pride” of British manhood similarly divested of dignity rolling around too. Its a good job the prospect of total war is now unlikely as with modern British youth as our front line we would be ………..well you know what we mean.
Now we make this juxtaposition to emphasise that in our experience at a blue revolution we can have nothing but total admiration for Muslim girls and women. When they take a job on be it work or childcare they do it well and uncomplainingly. These people who could offer so much to Britain, improving our way of life, are according to a group of them who represent Muslim women in the Labour Party, being systematically discriminated against. Its as though Britain (or perhaps the Labour Party) were some dusty outpost somewhere where women are seen and not heard. The response to this from Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party is to emphasise the fantastic treatment women receive from Labour.
Well we have explored this issue of Labour’s treatment of women before and concluded that whilst in government the Labour Party “gamed” the welfare system to encourage single parenthood amongst the most vulnerable. As far as we at a blue revolution are concerned this is “ideologically” odd. Women, like men, are essentially factors of economic production or consumption these days, at least that is how socialists are supposed to see it; “workers” rather than biological agents of traditional reproduction, subsidized by the government on behalf of the free market, as opposed to paid for by the free market itself which can no longer afford to do it.
The Labour party view of women seems to be that they are pre destined to reproduce, so welfare must of course be available. This opinion does not apply to middle class Labour women who’s job it is to support their less articulate “sisters” by protecting welfare. Whereas the “lower social orders” are subsidized simply to reproduce in a moral vacuum it seems the Muslim female Labour Party activist has to overcome not just the pressure to marry and to reproduce but prejudice within her own community discouraging her involvement in politics. A good question at the next round of University Muslim Society presentations on “women in Islam” would be……can a woman be a Labour Party local councillor?
Too many Muslim men it seems don’t appreciate mature women with sensible opinions who may wish to offer a sound view about life in Britain today. Too many Muslim men it seems would prefer women, legs spread on the top shelf on their newsagents (have you noticed how many newsagents run by Muslim men sell top shelf porn?) or stuck at home listening to outbursts from sons fathers and brothers about the drunken promiscuousness of western women. With more Muslim men being imprisoned today in Britain (08/02/16) for abusing vulnerable teenagers, the pathetic Labour party should stand four square behind Muslim women and not go into the usual confused neurotic cultural meltdown that servs the interests of women’s liberty very poorly indeed.
“Socialism” and the Trades Unions have an appalling record of standing up to women’s rights. In the 1960’s in Dagenham, women’s wages were kept low with the connivance of the Trades Unions to allow the Ford motor company to increase men’s wages. When the equal pay act came in Ford closed manufacturing plants and laid people off because production was unaffordable.
Today Muslim women are being marginalised by a powerful clique of males in the Labour party (male Muslim Councillors and activists predominantly) who would prefer them to put up and shut up, and again just like in the 1960’s it is with the connivance of the male left. Where is the new Barbara Castle to sort these pathetic men out. And that includes you Jez!
11.02.16 Working at weekends. Is that really what the Drs strike is all about.
It seems odd that with the deal on offer the Doctors are so unhappy. Perhaps it is just that for some Public Sector workers in general and Junior Doctors in particular “Saturday and Sunday remain special”. Is this a “class” issue; after all beyond a certain point in the social hierarchy working weekends without serious compensation is seen as a sign of being low down the social strata (Mc job territory). Or is it the inevitable result of doctors being the most meritocratic of professional groups (possibly only tipped by RAF fighter pilots).
Or is it as we would argue both of the above, combined with the fact that just as Mines and the miners were the Barons of 1980’s industrial conflicts the NHS provides a similar “battleground” today and the Junior Doctors are at the willing “vanguard” of the fight. Knights and Dames of the bash the Tories and their austerity campaign.
This campaign is however an example of how the “Publicsectocracy” * either uses or expects the Government to maintain generous standards of employment and pay levels in the Public sector. Standards which would be considered unprofitable, or unaffordable in the private sector. We know the NHS is excellent and it is cheaper then health care elsewhere, but if the ultimate employers i.e. the public want a 7 day a week NHS, they are entitled to have it as long as standards of care are maintained.
The whole argument is lost or won on who pays for the service and what do they want from it (the contract is with the public). It is almost the Google tax deal in reverse i.e. this is how much I will do and when I will do it and that is how much you will have to pay!!!
At many levels in the Uk public sector and beyond we see the largely unconscious but ultimately autocratic impulse of privileged public sector employee groups (from EU technocrats to local council Chief Execs) trying to preserve their positions at the expense of the taxpayer and or service user or front line worker. Why no one has spotted this contradiction in the system and why the debate continues along the lines of 1980’s industrial relations namely the government bashing a “vulnerable yet valuable” group of public sector workers, is baffling. In Marxian terms if the junior Doctors “raised their consciousness” they would see the real story beneath their own very well articulated propaganda.
The NHS and Junior Doctors issue is therfore really an argument between taxpayers, service users and a largely well paid, well educated and privileged group of public sector workers. The Government is simply trying to deliver what the public rather than the public sector actually want.
* Those public servants in a position of privilege and control over those who pay them, namely taxpayers. A weak government is their best friend
18.02.16 Are the white female child victims of Muslim grooming gangs victims of two flawed cultures or just one?
Sarah Vine in the Daily Mail writes about the latest batch of men of Pakistani origin sentenced to up to 20 years in custody for raping a 13 year old vulnerable white girl in a Northern British town (Daily Mail 12 Feb 16). Any one who has met men like this knows that too many (not all by any means) carry an arrogance and sense of gender and cultural superiority which is only matched by their embarrassing lack of intelligence and education.
For these men the girl who was their victim was like too many other young white northern women, worthless. She wasn’t born to be sexually active at a young age, and therefore vulnerable to appalling abuse. This girl may not have been too intelligent or well educated she may have had a number of health and mental health issues and was, to coin an all too common phrase today; a vulnerable person. Little to look forward to in life, but worst of all she was a female with no moral worth. Islam reveres women and mothers in particular; note the men’s entreaty to their mothers. However women and indeed men who are who are put on a pedestal generally come to harm when they fall from the pedestal. It is worse when such beliefs are embedded culturally.
We have spoken about certain beliefs within Islam and how these beliefs relate to women; often described as “the role of women in Islam”. The higher the pedestal the harder the fall. So we have a uber masculine culture fuelled with a belief that men are able to prey on women and girls who are simultaneously both desired and repellent. Such is the contradiction inherent in sexual desire when it is borne of lust not love.
The ideology of masculine entitlement coupled to the culture of blaming the fallen female (even if she is a vulnerable child) meets the scourge of what we call secular westerism. The culture of secular westernism defines people by what they have be it money, looks, status or any one of a number of shallow inhuman characteristics.
Secular westernism breaks up families, causes people to procreate with little regard for their offspring, promotes governments to paper over societal cracks with “agencies”to make up for social deficits all paid for by borrowing and spending recklessly. It is a culture that has unrestrained freedom at its core but it lacks the kind of safe moral dimension which creates opportunities and protects freedoms and by doing this protects people. Into this culture our vulnerable northern females are born; the prey to be predated on by the entitled hateful masculine predetor.
The crisis in Keighley in Yorkshire is a crisis of two cultures both capable of much good but both perverted by the reality of secularism in the UK. It is sad that these young girls were not brought up to see their role as economic as well as social. Were not brought up to see that sex is not a tradable commodity, that sex does not deliver “love” but is a behaviour that outside of loving relationships is simply a proxy for hate and abuse. The west needs to examine secular westernism and whether it is from a faith based perspective or even Darwinism to see its contradictions. Any society which creates such low self regard in its young and makes them vulnerable to predators is not a society that has any real chance of successful long term survival. Trying to make good the damage done to the young with health provision is no solution, in fact it reflects the chronic nature of the problem. Unless we turn things around we are going to end up in a bad place. Just wait and see.
22.02.16 Now we have an EU deal how Millennium proof and Internationalist is it?
The problem with “the human condition” is that we always think our existential period is limited to the one we are living in now. Consequently we tend to try to hard and preserve the status quo. People in the past did not have out technology or ability to be almost universally literate in the west and therefore were not able to look back and think forward and reflect on mistakes of the past and how they can be avoided in the future.
The ideology of the world needs to be forged around trade and we in the UK have so much to gain as does the rest of the world from the Uk leaving the EU and re joining the rest of the world in free and productive commerce. Africa, China India and the Middle East would be better off with a critical friend like an independent UK. Shaping values via trade with a contractual equivalence lost within the EU behemoth. We need to seed, weed and feed the world and Africa has to be helped to provide the worlds food value as the west in particular stops producing affordable food and continues to manufacture debt based wealth. In a world like this contractual arrangements around food production need to be understood by those with enough land to continue to produce food in sufficient quantities to feed the world.
The issue of the UK in the EU is relevant here; Europe is too complex to negotiate deals with individual African nations. There too many vested interests in the farming sector. The EU is very big government spanning numerous countries and cultural and economic expectations. The EU is doubly burdened by being governed by an army of bureaucrats, a collection of well remunerated people who, look every bit the feudal overlord, whilst around them chaos waste and squander reigns. As we at a Blue Revolution call them, the “Publicsectocracy”. They promote the status quo in a quickly changing world. Their survival depends on the status quo and the rest of the continent including the UK suffers for it but ultimately everyone else in the world suffers too.
Under the umbrella of the EU individual members have welfare policies which combined with open boarder policy or free movement and this combined with the western powers naïve adventures in North Africa and the Middle East mean that at the political and personal level life looks pretty chaotic. A combination of entitlement, expectation plus cultural arrogance and misunderstanding make toxic the effects of economic and refugee migration.
To cope with Europes uncertainty the EU promotes a regressive model for the future. With Chaos regressive models always seem to gain traction. Fascism in the Middle East (Libya, Iraq etc.) and North Africa (Egypt) slides back towards tribalism, Socialism or the “mixed economies” of Europe consolidate into the EU a form of techno feudalism as a counterweight to the fears of …..well almost everything. Russia has its new Czar and America has a Trump, all playing the various regressive cards of discrimination, blame and sabre rattling . The world looks slow, protectionist and regressive but the EU is part of the problem, not part of the solution.. The EU might seem like the answer but it is we are sorry to say simply a reassuring placebo that is swallowed out of fear and anxiety
So the point has been made here that the consolidation of EU is a natural response to a number of fears of a political and economic nature (mature economies and societies running out of steam, running out of new ideas, protecting the status of the publicsectocracy, advanced societies which are starting to corrode socially). Far from solving these problems the EU has created at vast expense its bureaucracy to manage Europe’s decline.
The Blue revolution is at its core about three things….Contract, Choice and Consent as the basis for freedom and moral responsibility. As any dust bowl Islamist what he thinks about consent and choice and you will see how they underpin only free societies and free economies.
So to is it with welfare, Contract underpinning welfare based economic or social effort…The notions of Contract, Choice and Consent, are the gift that we in the “free market” west have inherited from capitalism and with some slight cultural modifications including some necessary softening with “socialism” after the last world war in the UK (necessary then but not so much now), Contract Choice and Consent has allowed the world to speak together with the language of trade and commerce thus escaping tribalism, feudalism, Imperialism, discrimination and oppression.
The concepts of Contract Choice and Consent protects everyone. If the relationship between governments and their people is also based on them diverse individuals within diverse countries can trade and contract safely be they male, female, disabled, able bodied, gay, straight, or fluid gender, Hindu, Christian, or Jew, Muslim, me or you.
If the EU were a “safe” place to be, the Uk should be able to re negotiate its contract with the consent of the EU itself; leave safe in the knowledge that the relationship it has with Europe would not be adversely affected by the Uk’s Brexit out of spite or stupidity. Can anyone really see that anything about the EU is in our sense , consensual, contractual and based on real choice.
A Blue Revolution has a long way to go over many decades to create the global ideology based on Contract, Choice and Consent which will deliver trade, equality and opportunity, but the process has to start with the slow and well managed detaching of the UK from the EU and the development of Contract, Choice and Consent and the moral basis for all communities, countries and individuals.
It follows that if other nations want to renegotiate the contract with the EU they should be able to (that’s a Blue Revolution!) Should the rest of Europe want to default to a trading only status and open upto the rest of the world so as to continue to spread the word that internationalism and millenium proofing does not come from an EU or any other “State” bureaucracy, but comes from a trading world based not on corruption, coercion and compulsion but on Contract, Choice and Consent….Vive la real internationalist revolution. Isn’t that something the left used to say years ago before they became the state..
23.02.16 ‘Socialisms’ dark secret. It has at its heart intolerance and discrimination. What chance has individulit got with Big socialism?
News from Oxford University that supposed bastion of tolerance and open debate which reveals how the freedoms we have taken for granted to speak easy and openly on any one of a range of topics is being undermined by “ideological academe”. The Ideology isn’t based on anything as wholesome as freedom and choice but on socialism influenced by a large dollop of Islamism and its fanatical hatred of the state of Israel.
We fear for our future here at a Blue Revolution; We fear for it because we have government on a scale too large to connect with real lives to balance out rights and responsibilities, we have a publicsectocracy fighting to preserve rank and privilege like our UK Junior Doctors, and EU technocrats and we have universities that have “safe spaces” where it is not possible to speak openly about certain subjects whilst at the same time fanatical views about the destruction of the state of Israel are promoted.
Oxford is where the sexual politics of the transgendered community mix with the politics of sexuality, socialism and Islamism. This happy coalition of the red and the green is both frightening and perverse united only in respect of the anti Jewish sentiments expressed by both groups. Once the useful idiots of gender politics and the socialists get the Islamists their much sought after platform and influence they will have served their purpose and there will be little mercy shown. The safe places will become sanctuaries where only “sharia” will be spoken in hushed reverential tones. Exclusion and discrimination will be introduced and in the dying days of socialism and free market economics (with all its senseless immorality) mankind will once again allow itself to slide too far backwards to protect the basic rights of all citizens e.g. Jewish, gay and transgendered people.
We have a chance to do something about this as we can read the past and plan the future and we must preserve freedom of expression by championing contract choice and consent for all in the face of Islamism’s gentle but unrelenting onslaught. Remember if you mix red and green you end up, up to your neck,…….. in the brown stuff.
27.02.16 The Chinese and US want to keep us in Frau Merkel’s harem. They would wouldn’t they.
It is no surprise that the Premier league’s top two teams the US and China want to thwart the ambition of the number five team and its aspiration for greater global influence based on its’s historic trading networks and high levels of global integrity. This position held by few if any other countries is based on hundreds of years of trading along side countries on all continents, many have through Britain’s commercial imperialism, adopted the Capitalist model and have evolved into free market economies. As a result they slowly reflect in many instances the liberalising social trends that follow this economic evolution.
Great Britain has tempered the excesses of the free market with its post war socialism. Whilst it still has to deal with the distorting effects of untargeted welfare, the rise in the power of its public sector, and tackle the effects of secular westernism, a particular bugbear of we at Blue Revolution; Britain is leagues ahead of the US, China and the EU in terms of its economic and social evolution. As a result Britain can act as a guide, mentor, trading partner and friend to countries searching in earnest to develop proper market economies of their own. Many of these are of course part of her Commonwealth many more are the under developed food producers that world population growth can’t do without.
Britains truly international role can only be re ignited with it abandoning the EU and its bureaucratic self promoting and reactionary elite, thereby re establishing for herself a place within the world economy in her own as opposed to the EU’s right.
Tempting as Frau Merkel’s harem might appear, there is no dignity in being pleasantly seduced whilst having ones grapes peeled by a eunuch. Most of us would prefer to go out there into the world and continue to follow Britain’s historical destiny for trade and social evolution. This process was unforgivably disrupted by two self defeating European wars for which the EU was seen as a twentieth century solution but which is now simply part of wider Europe’s twenty first century problem.
03.03.16 Islam’s long overdue appraisal. And some stretch objectives.
Ah…..come in Mr Islam. My names Earth…Planet Earth. I’ve been asked to undertake an appraisal on your work with us over the last thousand years or so. I understand you might be a little apprehensive but please, please, be assured this whole appraisal process is intended to be of assistance to you and the work you will I hope continue to do here at Planet Earth. As I’m sure you know we will be looking back at your contribution to Planet Earth to help establish your performance expectations for the…….lets say next century or so.
Now then a quick look at your performance over the appraisal period. I have been made aware that in the beginning you were hitting almost every target set for you…….not easy with so much challenge, but I am led to believe you brought a lot of stability to our business of creating new human life and using our Planet Earth resources to provide the value to support them socially and economically….And more interestingly you did this in many parts of my business world not blessed by an abundance of rainfall and fertility.
I’m told that our Chairman said in the early days you spotted the need to impose a set of harsh social rules which put an end to life’s uncertainties, tribal squabbling, and war and therefore made the most of the agricultural opportunities on offer here on Planet Earth. The Chairman commented that his plan to open up the human mind to “consciousness”, quite some time before you joined the company, was something of a gamble, but in many parts of the planet in the past and now, it has delivered incredible results, many of them down to your early intervention. So well done for that.
Whilst the total chaos quickly subsided after your early intervention and men began to amass value, the need to exact harsh punishments to ensure the continuity of the social order controlling that value has not really moved with the times has it? In fact the way that your strategy crystallised various repressive regimes and frankly nasty cultural practices should be an embarrassment to you…..but something tells me it’s not.
I’m sorry Mr Islam but stoning and beheading was unnecessary three hundred years ago….but today it is quite frankly an outrage and a perverse part of any strategy for building a just and fair society. It will be an issue we will return to with your appraisal objectives.
Why do I want you to change it, you ask me why I want to change I? ….well for a start you strategic approach creates a perverse set of confusing and oppressive expectations on women, whilst removing the power balance the Chairman wanted you to aspire to for both sexes. It gives men an irresponsible sense of entitlement and authority over women. Men… your men I mean, seem locked into a sort of adolescence and your women are long suffering and invisible. The Chairman is clear this needs to change.
Yes I know that Mr Christian’s department is total anarchy…Yes I know its like Sodom and Gomorrah and I will certainly be taking that up with him and that rudderless and immoral department he heads or rather doesn’t, the one the Chairman and I call secular westernism….but this is your appraisal Mr Islam not his….
Mr Islam please put your sword away…..I won’t appreciate it if I have to ask you again. Are you clear on that Mr Islam, and please stop accusing me of victimising you. I know you are a good Muslim…..No please don’t take this appraisal as a personal criticism of you. No no I’m not victimising you, please calm down. Put your sword away please ….it is, if you would let me finish, an observation about your strategy. I’m suggesting you perhaps have not kept up with the modern demands of Planet Earth having failed to accept modern ways of creating and preserving social and economic value, and that is of concern. Lets have a two year breather and pick this up after a class of water and some down time.
Two years later the appraisal continues.
Right now you have calmed down lets us look at some other areas, economics for example. here at Planet earth we provide our departmental heads with the flexibility to deploy the companies resources in ways which are beneficial to our peoples; the Chairman and I have been disappointed for millennia by the way that you departmental heads and those below you in middle management have shall we say appropriated or more accurately misappropriated the Planet Earth resources or held back the capacity of the wider human family to benefit from equality and fairness.
I can cite some examples; oil for example. This valuable Planet Earth resource was available to all but seems to have been stolen by one of your middle management teams and has been used to simply support the kind of brutal management approach that I have referred to above and which is in modern terms outrageous. Public beheadings do not motivate staff Mr Islam, they strike fear into our business partners stifle the growth of the human family and destroy freedom, initiative and innovation all three fail. As I say we need to have innovation and your team do not do enough of it I’m afraid.
What was that what about Islamic State. Mr Islam if there really is a place for you in this company I can’t see based on the performance of the lamentable output of your R and D team. The return to the tribal anarchy that we had hoped you would deal with eight hundred years ago has returned on your watch. Mr Islam R and D stands for Research and Development not Repression and Destruction. What you and your small team of R and D adolescents are doing is quite simply shameful to Planet Earth.
I and the Chairman are rather surprised you and your wider management team are not doing enough to challenge members of this rogue department for which I am afraid we hold you wholly responsible. They fail to innovate and fail to do anything with the Planet Earth Resources they have stolen aside from destroy them and along with that starve Planet Earth People. We want to see progress Mr Islam; your record on providing stability isn’t at all bad your ability to do it without causing fear and hatred through brutality and repression is I’m sad to say lamentable. I hope you are not putting your hand back on your sword again……No …Good. Lets move on then.
So far we have undertaken a “Helicopter analysis” of the last few centuries and brought things up to the present day. Now we need to go forward with some stretch objectives.
Firstly some positives: you have managed to retain the concept of the family as a basic social unit. This is commendable particularly given Mr Christians team’s obsession with destroying it. However we need to see change in the following areas
- you need to stop promoting aggression and intolerance of others. The Chairman has been clear; he created religious diversity; you have no right to destroy it.
- You need to reduce the number of cultural practices which undermine the status of women.
- You need to find ways of ensuring your department produces real social and economic value through real social and economic activity; rather than simply pumping value out of the ground and wasting it.
- Finally you need to work towards embedding Contract, Choice and Consent into your department. If you can do this you will be well on the way to achieving the previous three Objectives.
Thank you for your time and in put Mr Islam we can review these in 2150.
07.03.16 The publicsectocracy is the beating heart at the centre of western democracy. In who’s name do they speak?
The rise of the Publicsectocracy and its self interested exploitation of ordinary people is an issue of huge relevance to every ordinary citizen in the west and is particularly relevant for those considering the future of the EU. Socialism as it manifests itself in western societies post war economics has moved beyond leavening the more severe effects of Capitalism (from pollution to starvation for example) and beyond engaging in wealth redistributive economics (Nationalisation, fiscal and welfare intervention). Like all economic paradigms from Tribalism to Capitalism the prevailing public sector model works in the interests of the new public sector elite.
For any Socialists out there this will seem odd. How can the senior public sector workers operate in their own interests. Surely they operate in the interests of the public. Isn’t that what Jeremy Corbyn is always on about; Boss bashing whilst lionising the public sector be they Doctors, Teachers, Nurses, left wing city and town hall bosses etc.
Before we go on, we want to make it clear that we absolutely support all public sector workers at every level and profession. This is not about hitting the public sector per se but about exploring how the public sector promotes the new elite paradigm which promotes its own interests. Just like the Capitalist who was unaware of his “exploitation” of workers so the new elite is unaware of its exploitation of consumers and taxpayers….but this doesn’t make them bad people. Capitalists were not on the whole “bad people” just people working in a system that worked to their advantage.
In the case of the west it is its the public sector ruling elite who benefit from the new “free market model” and this at the expense of workers, small businesses and taxpayers. So we at a Blue Revolution ask; in who’s interest do they serve, be they senior UK civil servants, EU technocrats, the US political elite, establishment politicians, lawyers, Judges, Public Broadcasters, or Doctors? Well their own interest of course!
There is absolutely no doubt that the capitalist system circa 1900 and before needed reform. From slum dwellings, to dirty water and air the working men and women who had created the economic value subsequently acquired by the capitalist ruling elite were oppressed; in classically Marxian terms “exploited”.
The post war reforms in Britain after world war one and two began the process introducing socialism and began to shift the centre of economic gravity from the “bosses” to the “workers”. The process of developing a welfare state plus nationalisation enlarged a group of state employed workers who had at all times prior to the turn of the 20th century, owed their living to the taxes paid by the wealthy, a wealthy who in turn had exploited the workers to acquire the wealth from which the taxes were paid.
Underpinning the employment of this group who at the top consisted of top civil servants and Judges right down to police constables or nurses was the idea that they operated within the paradigm of the ruling elite and were there to promote that paradigm. So for example law was about property, health was about getting the worker back to work, and the military was about pursuing global economic ambition.
This process was weakened after the second world war to the point where by the mid 1970’s the workers could bring companies and governments to their knees. The concept of the “elite” and with it their paradigm began to shift. Away from the “capitalists” the paradigm moved from the production of economic value by the application of “capitalist” concepts such as economic production based on value, price and profit, to the consumption of wealth via wages, debt and welfare. As the production of actual economic value declined (much of the value was by mid 2000’s produced in China) the west had to create a new “post industrial” paradigm. This was Christened the Clinton/Blair “third way”. Essentially the confidence to live and spend beyond our means.
This is essentially what we still have now, even after the banking crisis; a mature economic model based on consumption. the “elite” are those who can consume the most. Consumption of wealth has little to do with the production of value. No one is creating enough value to pay for our social structures of which the public sector is now the larges element.
So when we asked in who’s interests do the “publicsectocracy” operate, it is in their own interest. They are not acting on behalf of any other elite…there is no other elite. Bankers promote debt, people get into debt, governments borrow and spend money and the ordinary “workers” acquire a small part of the debt as wages as or welfare and then spend it on consumption.
The publicsectocracy get a good chunk of this debt paid to them in super salaries by governments who take the money from workers in taxes. However what do the ordinary people get for their taxation.
Lawyers limit justice by not reducing their fees, Doctors demand more money whilst we all get fat, Judges let terrorists “remain”, MP’s vote themselves pay rises, and the EU f****s up just about everything, and the whole merry-go-round of uber consumption does another debt funded rotation.
No one cares, no one is meeting the moral, economic or social needs of ordinary people, the moral nightmare of being “ordinary” goes on(Just watch “Grimsby”) as people borrow more just to keep up.
However whilst this elite “moral paradigm” is undermining the moral landscape of the ordinary person, it is not guilty of promoting the needs of any other elite. s we have said above they are promoting the interests of themselves, the the new public sector elite…… devoid of any moral substance other than to consume, for them life remains grand and will continue to as long as the debt can be re scheduled.
10.03.16 The EU makes money available to stimulate growth. How legitimate is his morally and are they just financing consumption?
We have previously referred to the toxicity of the publicsectocracy’s iron grip on the economy (although definition of the term Publicsectocracy is still evolving given this is a newly minted term).
We at a Blue Revolution argue that if you can’t see the corrosive effects of the QE, tax, borrow and spend approach to economics as practiced by the consumption hungry western economies, then you probably have far too much faith in the ability of governments and central banks to stimulate real growth via “production”.
The reality is that the new money borrowed and spent simply gets used to stimulate immediate consumption with no descernable long term benefit to the economy through increased domestic production. This applies even with “capital projects”. The model is flawed, it can’t really work and if it does “appear to work” it is really just smoke and mirrors.
The debt, to fund spending approach to “growth”, which fails and fails again, is promoted due to both the economic illiteracy of politicians, as well as the insatiable demand by “the public” to “consume” on a very personal level.
Politicians are happy to play thick…so they can go on stimulating consumption to make people happy and willing to vote for them. The public sector elite facilitate, collude, promote and fund this flawed economic model in the hope that at sometime in the future the model will really work; Guys it won’t. The alternative to this is hard and could go badly wrong for example allowing the rich to hoard wealth. These risks can be dealt with however by limiting the amount of wealth floating around looking for a rich persons bank account in which to settle. Remember not only is all property debt but their wealth (the wealthy that is like Trump) owe their wealth to your debt.
It is therefore not more consumption which western economies need ( most people are better understood as “consumers” rather than citizens these days and you can measure this by their girth). Economies need producers and in particular producers of food, energy and products with high value. Economies need food production and leading edge products …not easily done in a Europe full up with people and with insufficient land to feed its large and gorging population and with educational standards in freefall. Using free market economics to deliver food for the world via multi nation collaboration (as opposed to EU restrictions) is clearly and self evidently the key to success for all. There are other advantages too. A plurality in food production and multi national collaboration reduces the “risk” to food supply.
Going further still as economic determinists we argue economics and morality are linked. So many global economic problems could be overcome if the world was able to go further promoting productive land use with land currently controlled by the mad men of ISIS and their Boko Harem colleagues, as well as land under used due to restrictive trading practices. Economics could do a lot to neutralise the fanatics, if economics and actual production drove economic value and based on them social values of Contract, Choice and Consent. As we see too often dust bowl Islamism is stifling free economics and rendering too much of the African continent a war zone, therefore the problem is that free market Economics are being stifled by religious fanatics and this is prevented the evolution of modern social values.
In the west the problem is different but still linked to economics. In the west it is the perverse outcomes of free market economy that is driving anger and apathy; alienation in classical Marxian terms (i.e. divorce, loneliness, drug misuse and unemployment).
In the west it is not religious fanatics and their wars, but the moral framework that free market economics delivers, that adds to the west’s difficulties and drives government policy. In the west what happens is that debt and spending drive consumption and this is the economic “context” upon which western values and morality are based. This is the context that drives expectation, entitlement, hatred and greed in equal measure. It fuels the migrant crisis too.
Whilst the economics of the 21st century West are clearly “shonky”, for us economic determinists at a Blue Revolution the real problem with “shonky” economics is that it eventually translates into ” shonky social values and poor public morality”. This works on the basis of an almost iron law of socio economics which we can illustrate with a simple history lesson spanning five or more thousand years.
Tribal societies are heavily coded and gender based. Values or social justice is differential and often delivered depending on age, gender and tribal position. In feudal systems the rank structure is reinforced by arrangements for power and succession. Whilst power is wielded by males, the females associated with those males have rank too. The day to day morality is determined by the ruling group and reinforces a moral code which maintains the status quo. Faith is used to reinforce the “natural order”. The rules are there to be followed and any deviation is met with a violent response (Britain c1400 to 1700, Saudi Arabia now).
Capitalism changes the rules again. The application of uncompromising morality weakens progressively as capitalism matures and a shift occurs towards abstract concepts like Consent, Choice and Contract with rules backing up these arrangements. The rules of course support the ruling group by this time the owners of capital. Contract, Choice and Consent might have useful social application (marriage for example) but to get rich using them you need to acquire wealth and then the system allowed you to grow it by exploiting “contracted workers”.
Socialism changes the rules again. the value created by capitalists is taken by the government (no choice or contract and consent here). The value is re distributed down society. In theory at least there is no injustice or problem with this as Capitalism needs some regulation. Even Adam Smith the father of economics recognised the need for regulation to prevent men of capital exploiting workers and consumers.
However the story of the positive link between economics and morals goes off the rails at this point. The British socialist post war settlement was never “updated” so the redistribution of wealth eventually stopped being a net and became a trap. It created entitlement by welfare recipients and to manage the system, a burgeoning public sector offering higher wages than on offer in the private sector was created.
State involvement also fossilised the hierarchical character of the public sector with its army of “leaders” and “Strategic managers” “Chief Executives” and “commissioners” all too aware that abandoning the model or even laving the EU might bring to an end the government gravy train.
This model of crystallised government involvement in the economy has coincided with another more damaging change and that is the growth of the “consumer economy”. As we said above people are consumers and with the decline of “capitalists” who create value based wealth coupled with governments under an obligation to provide public sector jobs and welfare to support consumption, we have created a toxic amoral mix of debt based money and an absence of any real meaning in life other than ” what and how much of it can I consume”.
This consumption based on debt model ends up being a competitive struggle to acquire as much debt based wealth as possible. The winners can consume as much as possible, and if they need to be consumed to get more wealth for example by making themselves available sexually, as long as it takes place based on Contract, Choice and Consent it should be Ok. A look at any high street at 3am on a Saturday or Sunday morning and one can explain the high rate of illegitimate birth. To be used morally, Contract, Choice and Consent needs a moral framework. The free market isn’t it and only Islam seem to want a fight. Islamism however doesn’t recognise Consent let alone contract or Choice.
So when you get economics based only on debt you get a culture based only on consumption. This turns people from factors of production to units of consumption. Once consumption becomes the only thing that matters, people will do almost anything to enhance their ability to consume, morals go out of the window unless the whole model can be re focussed around creating value not just consuming debt.
Incidentally speaking of debt based income and where the free market lets it end up, the luvvies have been on the march recently; Jude Law and Emma Thompson giving us epsilon level consumers some moral advice about migration from the superior vsntge point of their alpha level consumption.
Well here is a lesson in Blue Revolutionary economics; you Sir and Madam should in a just society receive only what the people who produce value can spare after they have supported their own and their communities basic needs. Your income should be residual spending by workers who commission your services for “entertainment”. However, consumerisms reliance on turning debt into wealth turns this natural order on its head. Thespians now acquire large amounts of income generated by debt and therefore your income is not residual value in which you would probably get a modest living but is debt via which you, like many others, gain quite a lot. That would make you a parasite in any other economic and moral regime. In this one you are a debt predator like footballers, Z listers and general slebs. Check your advantage…it may not last forever.
15.03.16 Apart from avoiding the 7 deadly sins what else must one do to live a just life?
Living the life of a Blue Revolutionary is probably the only way that over the next 100 years we will avoid a number of repeating problems such as international conflict, human rights abuses, red and or Islamic revolutions and the resulting economic and social stagnation that will almost certainly result.
Blue Revolution is also the way of life that if widely adopted by people of all faiths and none will stand between the twin challenges to future human evolution; total free market consumerization of everything or the alternative the growth of intolerance and blame leading to rules and restrictions. This is our Armageddon.
In the consumerization corner we have modern free market advocates including big companies and governments. Allied to them (a little like the people who support the “in campaign” for the EU) we have the people who see their own personal consumption, or the prospect of being consumed as a person (sexually or emotionally) for personal gain and who see this as morally acceptable. This results in Chaos. This is where social fabric gets undermined by widespread moral decay caused by too much “free market” and not enough social value. In this scenario governments get overwhelmed by the demands of their consumption hungry electorate. In Britain the “left wing” capture this point of view better than the right. The public sector becomes the publicsectocracy and tries to substitute morals with rules, the elderly are looked after by “carers” not family, pornography drives human sexuality, children combined with welfare are both causes and the result of the universal consumer ethos. Loneliness, depression and substance misuse both increase and drive more money into the hands of the publicsectocracy who create jobs and consumption but offer mere palliatives as a solution to this existential crisis.
Ideologically within this developing context the EU over reaches itself and rather than individual countries failing (and getting the support from other more successful nations) the whole continent fails collectively resulting in total crisis.
In the Intolerance and blame corner we have a number of competing ideologies but the one that will emerge pre eminently will be Islam. In its Saudi form it will survive and possibly evolve into an appealing if rigid form of faith based totalitarianism (like it is now) but the context will be to allow survival of humankind within its context of social and economic breakdown. The Saudi’s and Islamists in general see the future as their empire and correctly identify the secular west as orchestrating its own demise by its failure to submit to the will of God.
The next most likely challenger to the rise of a coherent Sharia based Islamism is socialism. This however is a socialism of low tolerance and “collective” submission to the will of “the people” or rather the government as the people. This socialism will be a little like the Islamism we have described and like emerging Islamism we see the emerging themes of this form of socialism; “no platforming”, attacking historical facts with warped modern sensitivities, undermining the wealth creators and creating a “loyal” client state of submissive Public sector workers and welfare recipients. Plus of course the bullying of women in politics and education.
So we have our Armageddon, a clash of free market economics turning everyone into consumers or the consumed, supported by debt, and the alternative; a morally uptight and repressive ideology of Islamism or a weird form of socialism which will be devoid of the liberating concepts of Contract, Choice and Consent. This clash could be called a clash of civilisations but of course neither has much to offer modern “civilisation”. To avoid the clash and the triumph of one of these two regrettable scenarios, we need to become Blue Revolutionaries; people who limit their own consumption and reproduction and are happy to deliver high levels of social and economic value with empathy resilience and enthusiasm. Not too many of us around regrettably.
18.03.16 Every week a further undermining of progressive values by Islamists and their left wing fools and fellow travellers.
When we were children many of us would have enjoyed the dot to dot picture. An opportunity to learn simple numeracy as well as have fun trying to identify the emerging picture. It has become a common phrase in the English idiom that to understand something we “join up the dots” or if we are confused or can’t work something out we are accused of not having ” joined up the dots properly”.
This latter phrase sums up the situation with the so called “liberal” left who’s muddled commitment to “liberal” values sometimes extends as far as supporting ideas and policies which reflect a narrow minded view of society and in particular primitive ideas about gender inequality.
We have written about this before. On that occasion some Labour MP’s had gone to some gender segregated event and were happy to be well…. segregated. We made the point that a progressive perspective would surely be to see good relations between people as about more than whether one has a uterus and another testicles. Once again another British place of “learning” has allowed a segregated event, this time the LSE and the female Student Union representative felt “safe” behind the curtain with the women.
When will the left wing in the Uk learn that by caving in to these regressive and discriminatory ideas they are simply encouraging the marginalising of women from politics, academe and the work place. The slow insidious promotion of these “values” will imperceptibly shape perspectives on women, on Jews and on many, many others. By encouraging the notion that such ideas are acceptable these ill informed left wingers are making the concept of “traditional cultural practices” (sometimes this involves chopping bits off people, mainly boys but particularly harmful for girls) tolerable. Eventually many male students will be emboldened by a notion of their “natural” superiority, supported by their prominence as the “culturally superior” gender.
Let us not overlook the fact that to Islamists women don’t have to attend the mosque because a woman gets her moral instruction from her husband. The upshot of these views as we see in the North Eastern towns in the UK are that women will be insulted, humiliated and silenced out of public view and public life.
The “liberal” left’s lack of a narrative to deal with this, for them confusing situation, is rather simplistically because of the insidious way the arguments in support of regressive practices are presented as emanating from a “victimised” Islamic culture. Oh and a little more controversially, many of the people promoting these silly ideas are brown in colour. Not fat white, easy to hate men, but brown men who dress “culturally” and don’t like fat white men either.
The problem for the Labour party, the LSE Student Union, and every other left wing useful idiot, is that many of these men don’t like Contract, Choice and Consent, freedom and democracy…..particularly when it is women who feel empowered by them. It is really time the British left got the cultural dot to dot book out and started to join up the dots properly this time!!
Remember next time you are invited to an “Islamic” do, just ask if is segregated and if it is, politely decline with the words….men (women) have nothing to fear from me this is the 21st century after all.
28.03.16 Brexiteers should have vision and hope but fear is ‘winning’ the debate.
The problem with Britain’s EU debate is that it is becoming like most political debates emotional in character. It seems to us anoraks at a Blue Revolution that people’s capacity to think has been dulled yet people’s ability to “feel” or “empathise” has become over developed. This explains a number of oddities like the so called “intellectual left” overlooking regressive Islamic values and showing solidarity with people who look “repressed” or “under represented”…..sometimes groups should be “under represented” because they talk s**t. Lesson for the left here.
Anyway back to the main point. As we have lost our capacity to think we have lost our ability to have a personal vision. So we wait around for leaders to have vision for us into which we can then tap assuming the vision feels right for us. We don’t thin about which political party will create the basis for us to achieve our personal vision. This explains the support for Danald Trump in the US and Jez Corbyn in the UK. In both cases there is little intellectual merit in their positions but they hit the visual cortext of the intellectually impaired and offer a feel good vision. The problem is both visions are intellectually incoherent. Exploring this is for another day.
In respect of the UK’s EU debate the same problem applies; the whole debate gets swept up into emotion. We have spoken about the EU before and identified ourselves as “Brexiteers” on the basis that big bureaucracy is bad not just for Britain’s economy but for the continent of Europe too. However we want to explore this “Brexiteer” position from a few we hope thoughtful angles which avoid end of the earth scenarios. So far the UK Governments position has the emotional heft but is fear based and neither visionary or realistic. The Big Bureaucracy case is a bit bogus. Britain being part of something with real clout.
The story of why the dinosaurs died out is relevant to this aspect of the EU debate. From childhood we remember that with a brain the size of a walnut and the body the size of a bus there was a lot of body to manage with very little brain. When a catastrophe took place the dinosaurs waddled a few steps into crisis and finally extinction. The EU is like the dinosaur; it is big and cumbersome with little brain to co ordinate a survival strategy for its huge body so it waddles into crisis by trying to preserve it’s huge cumbersome body. Smaller mammals survived, they had less body to support, and were nimble and quick to exit a crisis environment. Imagine if Schengen was no longer about free movement of people but the free movement of workers; the various more nimble components of Europe (Nation States) would have adapted independently to nip off the migrant crisis.
This immigration crisis is a wholly created EU crisis (ignoring Blair and Bush’s Iraq war) and there is too little “brain” to deal with it. The EU therefore reverts to various types of emotional response to the crisis, from the usual faux sympathy with migrants, to denial about the all too predictable cultural problems that arise when you combine people from a liberal culture with males from a gender obsessed culture based on power and male authority. Duh…..didn’t see those problems coming. Better just deny it’s a problem.
The other bit of emotional claptrap is Europe is safe within the EU. The migrant crisis which is as much cultural as economic is highly unlikely to prevent the growth of hostilities on the continent. People don’t like being patronised by a technocratic elite as they see their children’s progressive values undermined by culture’s that want to restrict opportunities for women and offer only hatred for gays, Jews, Christians etc.
We see the west has big cultural problems mainly socially engineered by well intended but self defeating welfare policy, but the response to these problems is not Islamic unless you have reached some kind of “critical density” and it is the only show in town. It will not be many decades before the Caliphate of Belgium will be a threat to the progressive values of Europe and the EU will not be a solution…..its cumbersome bureaucracy will be a big part of the problem.
The idea that drove the EU was post war stability…..the second world war…..not the wars in Syria, Iraq, Libya and so on and so forth. These wars……unconventional, immoral and frankly disgusting are likely to create an existential context for Europe within which our lumbering EU will have no capacity to offer solutions or to even in the long term survive. However it will have lumbered around long enough to undermine the survival instincts of the nations of which it is comprised and undermined their populations hard won progressive values.
Finally the other forlorn claim is economic attrition if the UK exits the EU. This is really the most specious claim of all. Britain was a great manufacturing and trading nation, now we run an economy based on house building, debt and consumer spending. We have become over confident as a nation about spending beyond our means. A rather tragic position shared by the EU. If we want a culture based on values which are driven by an economy based on the progressive concepts of Contract, Choice and Consent (as opposed to corruption, collusion and compulsion) then getting out of the EU will be a liberating experience and will allow the UK to re build its real economic manufacturing base (steel anyone), correct its reliance on welfare and debt, and to trade as friends within Europe and the rest of the world rather than as a member of an exclusive but ultimately unsustainable clique.
There will be no crisis if the UK leaves the EU just a gentle glide back to social and economic sanity will follow. No need to get scared.
04.04.16 All property is debt. Consumerism, the lack of an industrial policy in UK and the 1980’s economic ‘revolution’ explained.
Gosh how can so many disparate things can be linked? The fact that the word has finally woken up to the Generals and Field Marshalls of the publicsectocacy and their ploy of turning other peoples personal and government debt into their own personal wealth is great news. It has been going on unrecognised for years. At least now it is “pubic knowledge”.
Public service, followed by a feeling of having done some good, is no longer enough in a world where money is easy to create and for those in the know it is easy to get more of it to enhance ones value or status as a “consumer”. The most immoral part of this amoral system is that these tax evading people were denying their free, humane liberal societies the tax income necessary to remain humane free and liberal. It is almost treason in a world where we are only ever a step away from Corruption, Coercion and Compulsion.
The people who get the wealth are no longer the people who create the value (like it was in old fashioned “Capitalism”). Today all property is debt. The people who create the personal debt are also forced to service government debt through taxes (lets call them poor people). Therefore they get spun twice. Getting into debt themselves to buy their way into “consumption” and paying tax to service the debts incurred by the government.
To maintain levels of consumption (and therefore the support the economy) governments pay for the public sector on behalf of the tax paying public whether it is via health, defence, welfare, law etc. In the US the accent is on Defence in the UK it is on health. Each has its fair share of public sector “fat cats” generally doing a well paid job very badly.
The public sector is in our view generally no longer adding “social value” but its role is to keep the “economy” ticking over. Its costs are too high and the balance sheet therefore tips towards it being an ineffective way of dealing with the social challenges that confront the west be those challenges moral breakdown, obesity, stupidity, economic failure or what ever.
The Public sector and its leaders; the publicsectocracy, be they Civil Servants, Publicly funded Senior Administrators or politicians do however fulfil an important role; they consume a lot. In the west, consuming stuff is the smoke and mirrors of the modern economy. George Osborne can really play the Wizard of Oz, pulling leavers and pressing buttons to turn personal debt (including personal debt on new housing built on green field sites) into Government tax income and then into public spending and then consumption, with some kind of multiplier determined, on the basis of ” economic confidence”. How long this charade can go on? We estimate no too much longer but probably beyond the next British General Election and post a Clinton/Trump Presidency. And then what?
The other effect of this reliance on consumption is that people stop being citizens with responsibilities and obligations (e.g. as parents or productive workers); they become “consumers” and therefore take little interest in how something evolves (even their own children) as their only interest is how stuff is consumed.
If consumption is the purpose of the economy as it appears to us to be today, a government needs to do only two things; ensure there is enough money in circulation to enable consumption to take place (Gov’t wages, tax credits, welfare) and ensure that what is consumed is produced cheaply. This is done by exporting the value creating part of the manufacturing process to places like Vietnam, Korea and China.
As a substitute for real value, post industrial economies rely on the concept of “value added” to generate economic value……but this is a poor substitute for actually making a product combining land, labour and capital plus “risk” and then competitively selling it to people who have real value of their own with which to trade…..oh but that sounds too much like a proper economic model, and not enough like the “Alice in Wonder-la-la-land” that passes for a western economy today.
Basically “Value Added” involves importing a product maybe “designed in the UK or US” and selling it. There is some “value”……but not a lot. However someone might get rich doing enough of it and then off shoring their tax arrangements as well.
So when did all this Alice in la la land economics actually start. In our opinion it started under Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan. The concept of supply side economics plus the rather more laissez faire economic model which was the hall mark of those who saw controlling the money supply and trading freely as essential to good economic stewardship, came along just as the Chinese were by the contrivance of a “Communist ” government providing the largest proletarian army to western manufacturers in the history of economics.
The result was that western bankers came into their own selling cheap money to people who could not afford to borrow it, but in doing so enabling confidence based consumption to become the new “economic base”, whilst the productive part of economies shrank and public sectors and welfare expanded to maintain levels of consumption. Moral changes followed too with divorce and welfare babies becoming products of the consumer economy.
In the consumption obsessed British economy there is a British Tory government that can’t articulate what the problem is, for example with British Steel, or what the solution for the steel industry might be. Unfortunately since the 1980’s we have had governments who have no concept of how making stuff needs a strategy (free of the EU of course) and can also recognise that making stuff really isn’t just about jobs that can be replaced with a job at a supermarket. Making stuff, or growing stuff or pumping or cutting it out of the ground is about the health, intelligence and resilience and future of the whole nation. The real Thatcher legacy (and it is no fault of hers) is that in the west today, being “self made” does not have to involve stuff being made here or taxes paid here, but thanks to debt it can and is consumed here.
There is only so long that any country can continue to rely on, what we call, the worlds debt reliant economic “froth”.
05.04.16 Contract, choice and consent the essentials for freedom and democracy Vs corruption (control), coercion and compulsion. Over coming the latter with the former is the wests big challenge.
We are going to do a full piece on “family life” and consider in particular the recent revelations about the attitudes of UK Muslims as published in a recent “Sunday Times” survey which confirms pretty much all we have been saying for 12 months or more. However by way of assistance to the “elite” who have slow marched us all into this situation with pop up Caliphates and Sharia within various communities we offer the first of a few suggestions by way of solutions. One of our contributors has attended a workshop on “communities” hosted by the Department of Communities and Local Government, however most of the suggestions made were it seems ignored; such is the power of the lower ranks of the Publicsectocracy!
When communities with different cultural influences speak about feeling British they are not necessarily thinking about HM the Queen, David Cameron and his “British Values”; they are probably not thinking about warm beer and widows cycling to a church in every village, they might not be thinking about the NHS. Evidence suggests that they are probably grateful that they can be “culturally different” and be safe, but they would easily make things collectively unsafe for others without knowing they were doing it, simply by being dogmatic about certain “sensitive” issues that offend them. This is the challenge for the concerned liberal; how do we preserve freedom for all in a culture of converging intolerances .
Like the British left wing who confusingly support Islamists (Islamist are not necessarily terrorists or criminals), the reasons that those with a different cultural influence support British values are potentially muddled and ill understood by them. Support for these “British”values is based on a general feeling that on a personal level seems “right” as opposed to wrong. This is even though an objective analysis would indicate it is naïve, ill informed and dangerous to “support” British values in a intolerant or self interestedly way.
The “British” identity in many who are culturally influenced out side Europe is less significant than many well intentioned liberals would like to imagine. Like “Human Rights” “British values” are narrowly defined and are used to promote behaviours that are at heart intolerant and hostile to others whilst at the same time self serving and self promoting. As we are only just beginning to realise with Islam.
So how to we address this issue of “British values” (still undefined) being used to promote intolerant values? Well for a start we can define not just “British” values but values that should win the support of all who wish to preserve freedom based on democracy and he rule of law. Because we have no basis for defining “values” we tend to end up talking about concepts such as “fairness”, “equality” “fair play” “freedom”. All these are laudable terms but mean nothing in reality and can be easily dismissed as waffle by those who wish to dismiss them when say describing inequality for example in the case of women. Equality is easy to dismiss, shorn of the concept of equal before god in Christianity there is no real equality here on earth. So if women and men are not equal so what. The same goes for “fair play”…. it is a nonsense term.
What is needed therefore are terms which avoid defining status or position or which try to create the illusion of fairness. This isn’t going to happen on earth anytime soon. However we need terms which define relationships between people affording respect and authority in equal measure. How these concepts deliver a distribution of the worlds resources is for politicians but people need to safe with easily understood concepts. Therefore we at a Blue Revolution have come up with Consent, Choice and Contract as the values that need to be promoted if the westen worlds legacy is to be preserved. These terms which are unashamedly Capitalist in character underpin the progressive values that people in the west recognise and which have resulted in the freedom and democracy taken for granted today. However as we retreat from Contract, Choice and Consent as they are seen as not delivering “fairness” the world becomes more familiar with Corruption, Compulsion, and Coercion. These terms are seen from the Corruption in FIFA to the Coercion of women in British universities being segregated at Muslim Student events, to the lack of consent around forced marriage and modern day slavery.
If the west wants to create some clear blue water between progressive and regressive values western societies needs to recognise that before the west created the value that enabled democracy and freedom to be afforded for all, it created the environment where feudal corruption was driven out by Contract, Choice and Consent. The issue about how the value created by capitalism is or rather was allocated is for politicians and socialism has had a role here. But in these austere times the baby of the three C’s seems likely to be thrown out with the baby of “it’s so unfair or we are offended.
So in answer to the question above for a Blue Revolution this is the critical challenge for the free world. However people of all faiths might be persuaded that Contract, Choice and Consent are concepts worth endorsing if Corruption, Coercion and Compulsion are the alternatives.
12.04.16 The decline in the quality of western life and the Islamist challenge to that decline. How should the western world and western worker respond.
We have commented previously that Islamism (perhaps in common with many fundamentalist faiths) is obsessed with gender difference, male authority and submission to the will of God. This is a series of preoccupations which have shaped the way the west and the Islamic world interact and explains some of the problems such as Cologne and regrettably some of the more extreme horrors of Islamism such as terrorist attacks.
The secular western world (secular westernism) is of course quick to point out that the west cannot be blamed for the Islamic worlds hatred of “our way of life”. However is this really a fully defensible position? Whilst nothing can ever justify the criminality of terrorism the hatred of the western world is a little more explicable. The west has committed a number of crimes against evolution which to anyone with a ridged and simplistic faith based mentality looks like incompetence of a glaringly self destructive stripe. The lack of structure within the family, the lack of public morality (immodesty and too little self restraint), the lack of submission to goals other than personal ones, and finally the reliance on debt and its transformation into wealth for the elite of the publicsectocracy (the taxpayer funded elites like politicians and technocrats) and big business.
The roots of anti-Semitism lie in the perception that turning debt into wealth is a singularly Jewish conspiracy. It is not; it is just how the system works for the rich and the powerful within the public and other elite sectors of the world.
This incompetent but “gamed”system which benefits the few at the expense of the many, fortifies the Islamists view that the west is a decadent “spent force” with no grass roots appeal. The up swell of general anger and dissatisfaction amongst the wests welfare recipients and poorly educated, many from homes blighted by secular westernism (divorce, drug abuse, poverty, debt and so on and so forth) adds additional credence to the Islamists view. Islamists see that in time these western economic “strugglers” will provide an army of the disaffected, manufactured by a bankrupt system, and for whom no government debt funded intervention is likely to solve their problem. Only a return to “faith” and in particular “Sharia” will solve their existential crisis.
The reason for the western worlds failure to deal with the problem of decline is that welfare funded by government debt doesn’t solve problems it creates them. people see their lives lacking the meaning and purpose that comes from creating real social and economic value; under secular westernism people simply exist to consume. The consumer is the means of achieving a governments economic “growth” but it is growth based on rendering human experience pointless, a little like that of being a pet..
This pointlessness funded by debt however makes governments happy and some of the elite very rich. Faith (morality) has, as we have said before, tended to reinforce the means of economic production and reinforce the social norms that underpin that production. In a world of little purpose and a swamp of debt-based consumption, morality still follows the economy and we see the results all around us. Loneliness, divorce, mental illness, illegitimacy, promiscuity, pornography we could go on. This is the secular western context that Islamism sees as so ripe for destruction. The problem for the west is that unless we change our new reality (by blue revolutionary means) the Islamists are on the money; secular westernism cannot survive and it is open season on what if anything will replace it. Oh but the EU is not the solution!!
To nudge the west away from its sub conscious but self-destructive urge we need to re engage western people in the business of creating social and economic value; Brexit for the UK, getting people back into value producing social and economic activity and breaking the cycle of your debt becoming someone else’s wealth. With this all based on contract, choice and consent supporting freedom and democracy there will be no fertile context within which Islamisn, Fascism, or any other ism can find a welcome.
20.04.16 Wizard Osborn’s US Munchkins and the yellow brick road of debt based growth in the EU.
It is nice to know that when one wants to get some credible advice the British electorate can rely on the Munchkins of the US treasury. Men who have pumped liquidity into the worlds financial system to stave off its collapse, a collapse caused by the unsustainable growth of private liquidity brought about by the sale by banks of personal debt to people who could not afford to re pay it.
This handful of “experts” who like Osborne have identified “growth” as the sacred cow of modern economics have failed to appreciate how “growth” without value is toxic, poisoning the body of the economy; distorting wage and labour markets and inflating stock and property prices and shifting debt obligations to governments and therefore the poorer taxpayers. Growth has to be real and not simply an engineered illusion that leaves most people worse off whilst the publicsectocracy and big business get richer at everyone else’s expense. One of our graduate economists calls this process of debt turned into to public sector or business wealth; “debtamorphosis”. We like it but don’t know if it is original.
The idea that bringing this fanciful “growth” illusion to an end could possibly damage the British economy is utter rubbish. The EU like the US is dog knotted to this idea that growth at any cost is justified; even if irresponsible borrowing is the stimulus for this growth. We need value based growth by trading where the value is i.e. outside the EU.
The uncertainty that frightens Osborne and his Munchkins and the loss of growth that may result from Brexit is, in outcome terms at least, nothing compared to the predictable long term consequence of the UK’s obligations to the EU forcing it to borrow and spend to maintain consumption and the illusion of growth. Immigration is one mechanism via which government borrowing gets translated into spending or “investment” and thereby stimulates “growth”.
Osborne is honest that by staying in the EU by 2030 there will be another three million more migrants in the UK. The real economy will not be able to address the needs of these people unless governments spend and borrow to cope. Like people who sell farm land for housing for personal profit, by borrowing to spend to cope with migration the government puts their own short term need for re election and to suck up to rich EU friends, before the needs of the debt burdened British people who pick up the tab for the borrowing.
a Blue Revolution recognises that Munchkins with daft ideas can contribute little to sorting out the UK’s, the EU’s of event US’s financial problems and the social problems that arise therefrom. So please spare us anymore Munchkin speak whether it is from Ford Motors, Treasury Munchkins or even Obama himself. As the Bible says “don’t take the splinter out of my eye until you have taken the plank out of your own”.
21.04.16 Saving the waring barbarian world from itslf. Peace through trade and contract, choice and consent and not welfare and bureaucracy.
This was blank
22.04.16 Obama and the EU. He mentions the war but gives away the fact he doesn’t ‘get’ it. Or maybe he does!
Just a brief comment from us as there won’t be much that has not already been said about President Obama’s visit, but always wishing to make the oblique or obscure observation a Blue Revolution can’t be silent on the fact that President Obama (who we respect for not being a war mongering psychopath) has simply missed the point on the EU….or so it appears.
By mentioning the war he gives away his reference point as “the past”. He might just as well have said the special relationship and his right to speak on all matters UK goes back to the spanking the UK received at the hands of the US in the 18th century. The post Second World War era was about building bureaucracies out of necessity to create resilience and foster peace. However the aim of the bureaucrat or publicsectorcrat as we now call them, has stopped being that laudable aim (because we have gone beyond the need for it within the west) , and it has become to preserve the bureaucracy at all costs. This is a useless arrangement for the challenges of C21st and C22nd century.
The world needs to stop wasting value on pointless organisations that are not based on informed Contracted arrangements, widespread Choice and Consent from the citizens e.g. the EU (but not like the much more ethical Commonwealth, UN, WTO and NATO). Indeed Obamas comments about the US treatment of the UK if it leaves the EU, is not informed by fair play but compulsion and coercion. Really fair? Really modern and progressive?
President Obama uses the words of confrontation and disrespect to Britain and its independently and truly internationalist people to try and achieve an outcome he and his financial and political elite wish to see imposed on us, irrespective of what British people feel is good for Britain.
Perhaps President Obama’s and his replacement’s real challenge is that as we have said before the US is too big, too diverse and broke and perhaps there are worrying stirrings of a sort of revolution in the US, a bit of geo political disaggregation within the States you might say, power to the state or groups of states and away from the fed. Whether it happens or not is not our issue but no one should try and silence or game the discussion over here.
25.04.16 With horror from both the ‘in crowd’ and the Brexiteers we mke our final comment on the referendum.
We believe that Britain needs to create relationships with countries that trade globally in” value” and have “values” underpinning their society that promote the social stability necessary to ensure the “state” doesn’t bureaucratize too far and therefore undermine the efforts of the economy to create real value .
Countries with growing economies aWe feel we have said a lot about the referendum and have nailed our colours to the mast as full on “Brexiteers”. s well as the stagnant can benefit from trading with Britain as Britain can benefit from them, food security for us, ethical services for them. All of this would be premised on a trading relationship based on Contract, Choice and Consent; This is the DNA of all “free societies”.
We think that the EU is a bureaucracy that was set up to achieve peace amongs previously warring nation states within Europe. However since the 1970’s the whole concept of the “nation state” has been undermined by mass movements of people. Many of these people who share a wide range of views are not necessarily progressing the interests of women and others such as minorities.
The EU promotes the idea of mass immigration because in the absence of actual economic value being created via production of food, mining of resources and manufactured goods the next best way of providing what looks like value but is really little more than wealth is to create a debt culture. The debt culture supports welfare and on a national level allows poor EU countries to buy German cars until they are broken economies. Student debt and creates millionaires who using the process of “debtamorphosis” translate other peoples debt into their personal wealth. The beneficiaries are the publicsector tax paid fat cats, as well as the business people, footballers and actors who seem to be able to acquire wealth well beyond their actual worth. This debt based economic model enshrined within the EU and the UK needs to shift gear.
The debt dependent model will eventually collapse under the weight of its contradictions; most notably the fact it costs too much to run a malfunctioning multi ethnic society with an economy that produces too little real social and economic value.
It is true that migrants boost the economy but in our view the mechanism is complex and probably based on a mix of earnings, debt, welfare and rent plus house prices going up in the buy to let sector. Migrants also keep the unemployed on welfare. Taken together this probably “grows” the economy but it is not growth that means a lot in real economic terms. For politicians debt has the feel good effect of delaying the problem of economic weakness for another day or another election whilst being largely the public and the taxpayers problem.
The debt culture as we see with mass retail keeps pointless jobs open to….. far to many pointless workers. To change the model overnight would be cataclysmic but leaving it as it is, in world of stagnating trade between big continental players locking others out would be the western worlds longest suicide note, akin to drinking ones self to death.
So before we move finally on to other topics, leaving the EU is the right thing to do…it puts a nimble Britain in charge of its own destiny. It allows Britain to use its international contacts to spread the values of Contract, Choice and Consent supporting freedom and democracy to places in the world who need to trade and to come on board with this culture that promotes the values that will secure the future of humankind.
A Bureaucracy might feel like it is a protective blanket but in the world of the 21st century it simply gets in the way of progress, fairness, transparency, and trade.
Now lets talk about other things.