If you are up to your neck in shark infested waters and you comment unfavourably on your chances of getting out alive you are a realist and not a pessimist. We have a well-grounded belief that if the Blue Revolution’s views are popularised and gain some traction the western world will genuinely demonstrate the “progressive” evolution boasted about by the barmy left wing. The left wing, however, have no basis for their belief in social Progress other than it makes them feel nice when they think about it.
The problem for the traditional left, that collection of well-intentioned muddle heads who promote progress at State level whilst presiding over the growth of ignorance and squalor at the social level, is that their version of progress lacks economic fundamentals. It is thus simply utopian wishful thinking bankrolled by debt and state expenditure. The model deployed by the kleptocrats of the free market is based on debt underpinned by inflated asset values. The left doesn’t seem to even have this flawed model to deliver their “progress”.
We put it on record that the western hegemony will end and without a revolutionary overhaul of the State and its responsibilities and the public and their responsibilities too, the existing state, banking and political structures when they collapse will take our rights and freedoms with them. To us, it almost feels as though the elites are planning for this eventuality and so they have created places like Dubai as bolt holes.
The reality is of course that the nature of the revolutionary overhaul is as obvious to us as the tensions and contradictions within the western system itself. Basically, there is too much debt, too much planet wasting consumption, too much inequality based on wealth management as opposed to value creation (the old capitalist way!). This new western model feeds a free market that marketizes, well whatever. It globalises human activity into poor and productive or poor and redundant depending on what the elite can get away with paying. In the west, the redundant become an underclass whose function all too quickly becomes to consume and reproduce with little real hope of escaping this entrapping lifestyle.
The revolutionary change promoted by us will involve extending democracy to a much wider group of actual legislators, such as our legislative college or peoples chamber. The identification of contract and consent as the basis for all adult human relationships….(no good if you want to promote a brand of feudalism like the Saudi’s or North Koreas), and finally a State which puts the needs of the people before the needs of certain elite groups of the people as is the case now. This final point will require a small state that regulates and doesn’t control and a cheap system of civil law which deals with most disputes apart for serious injurious criminality.
We thus have two visions of the west in the 22nd century. One is our optimistic view of an economy where everyone creates modest amounts of social and economic value and shares it around and the other our up to our neck in shark filled waters view which is that the elite will bask in the sunshine of Dubai whilst controlling the rest of us remotely via a mean gruel of welfare and autocracy. The type; Saudi, Chinese or North Korean is too early to determine and of course, the rights of one-half of the population will be affected to a greater extent than the other. It’s what happens when you return to primitivism.
One of Blue Revolutions projects was (is) a TV ideas company called ISMOLOGY. We proposed a show similar to “Eden” some four years ago which took people from the stone age to phone age and in doing so tried to capture the “moral progress” that occurred as we gained mastery over our environment. Most fundamental to this progress are women’s rights. Channel 4’s “Eden” seems to confirm our view that when economies go wrong it is women’s rights that go to the wall first. Margaret Atwood made the same point in “The Handmaids Tale”. For an economy to have a progressive future it has to be grounded in an activity that creates real distributable value and is not simply some kind of equity release scheme operated on a global scale by a political and financial elite.
Economics needs explaining to ordinary people who even under old economic paradigms struggled to understand where wealth came from. The reason we believe that a new economic instruction manual is necessary is that the “new economics” is dependent on financial services and financial services rely on asset value to underpin their activities. As we saw with the 2007/8 crash if those assets suddenly reveal themselves to be worthless then we are going to be in very big trouble again.
But what of Mr Carney, the high priest of the “Reminers” suddenly getting all optimistic about post-Brexit Britain. To us, his optimism highlights the continuity that will be necessary post Brexit and which the EU won’t be able to dismantle. How so? Well, Britain is not a fabulously rich country we have too much debt to be wealthy in the traditional sense of the term, however, we are to the world’s investors a fabulously well-endowed country with property and land holdings worth about sixty trillion dollars.
Now assuming that the Tories don’t skewer free movement and upset the housing and land asset inflation apple cart Britain will continue to prosper financially post-Brexit. The worlds investment dosh will still flow here! The problem for the Tories is that it was the issue of migration that was the prime reason for the working classes to vote Brexit, and we hoped that post-Brexit immigration would be curtailed (by the loss of welfare entitlements) so as to take the inflationary pressure out of the housing and land asset bubble and perhaps re balance the economy by encouraging other sectors.
It seems clear to us this is not going to happen. Carney’s optimism is a symptom of that. Britain will continue to rely on the Kleptocracy to fund the levers of state and pay for the publicsectocracy and the workless army of the welfare and healthcare dependent citizens who are on the books of the state.
As economic determinists, we believe so much flows from this economic model which is assumed to be permanent. Take away the slosh of money washing around in this model and what you have left is nothing. With this nothing will disappear all the rights and freedoms we enjoy now. Even Jeremy Corbyn won’t be able to borrow himself out of that situation there will be little of real value to borrow against.
The good news is it is a while off yet, but with the Western worlds house built on sand rather than rock, the end it is coming!
We will develop this later but it is about a few simple things; social and economic value and how it is created, controlled and allocated. It not difficult stoopid!
The issues of culture, cultural convergence and cultural relativism have to be understood or debated with common reference points. If not, confusion reigns as arguments are held which have common terms which unfortunately mean different things to different groups or cultures. It is essential that in the twenty-first century and particularly in the post capitalist, western post industrial period we gain some narrative which has a widely agreed objectivity so we can ensure that we don’t sacrifice our hard grafted for western liberty on the gilded altar of a neurotic moral relativism. Because this is going on now, unchallenged and utterly misunderstood. Simply look at the different ways “equality” is used around the world, particularly in relation to women’s rights.
If we deal with the world’s non-western cultures, and we won’t specify them but let’s just say they are the ones that discriminate on what we have come to know in the west as “improper” grounds, we find there is a lot of inhumane behaviour much of it state sanctioned, much of it a throw back to the primitivism that it was Capitalism’s destiny to sweep away. We have come to overlook this by adopting the stance of the moral relativist. Adopting this approach FGM is no different to a Boob job or a western contract based marriage no different from polygamy. They are legitimate or illegitimate versions of the same things. When there is a clash, for example, the death penalty for “sorcery” we turn a blind eye…..we have no narrative either to understand this or challenge it so we ignore it and the pathetic plight of those condemned by it.
The West has lost its moral leadership cowed by shrill claims of moral imperialism. The reason we have lost our humanitarian voice (except when talking to ourselves) is that we have lost touch with what makes and shapes morality….and that is economics transforming often barbaric holy books. It doesn’t matter whether it is tribal economics or advanced post industrial debt dependent consumer economics, economics shapes our moral parameters.
Because most “liberals” don’t understand the role of economics in moral behaviour they can’t create a narrative which helps us understand the traditional culture’s hatred of behaviour like homosexuality nor our western tendency to promote it. We can’t look traditional people in the eye whether here or in their country of origin and ask them whether they understand why they think our culture is immoral, or what it is about our culture they are most appalled by. We just don’t go there perhaps because we can’t face having our nieve belief that everything in the world is fine and “liberal” challenged by the opinions of “disadvantaged” ethnic groups who will shout “post colonial” at us if we challenge their moral perspective.
The only way to avoid being accused of racism or equally to avoid turning a blind eye to abuse of minority lifestyles in “traditional” cultures is to have a grounded narrative. A narrative upon which a debate can be found which avoids stereo types, or a mere race and ethnicity based slanging match but which draws out safe debate with people who harbour prejudicial views from whatever cultural origin including western culture. The basis for this narrative has to be economics as this is not only relevant territory for a healthy debate it is safe territory, at least it should be in the 21st century. Later we will examine how this relationship between economics and culture works. As we said above it is about value both social and economic. Is it as Marx suggested the riddle of history solved!
For too many decades now the west has failed to grasp that it’s unique offering to the world was its capitalist system. Loved and reviled in equal measure, those who loved it loved the wealth it conferred through its capacity to deliver massive volumes of economic value or profit. Those who hated it hated it because this economic value was created according to the left by “stealing” value from the workers. This “capitalist” system, the ability by risk taking capitalists to mix land, labour and capital to create profit was in terminal decline at the outbreak of WWII and was extinct we believe by the 1980’s.
Capitalism however shaped the British nation and the British nation shaped the world or much of it. The capitalist system needed and got a legal contractual foundation free of corruption, it required consent and it required the right to make choices. The Corn Laws were and early battle by capitalists against state vested interests as perhaps Brexit for Brexiteers is today.
the contract, choice and consent basis that capitalism needed to thrive eventually took on what is called a “social character”. It moved from being merely legal or economic to being the bedrock of what is now the welfare system with its obligation to distribute wealth, as well as becoming the basis of the “free market”.
Everyone in the west has freedom in enormous quantities, born of a capitalist system generations of westerners have grown up with and fought to preserve. We cannot imagine our freedom being under threat. But it is. It is because to accept it, you have to understand it and its origins in capitalism. Something the “stoopid” European and British “left wing” don’t get.
In the UK in Europe, Australia, Canada and America we have brought large numbers of people into our country who have no heritage of choice, consent and contract. When there is no consent in the west a crime is committed but in many cultures that escaped the furnace of 18th to 20th-century capitalism, consent is either a decadent idea or an utter irrelevance. These cultures know where consent is allowed to be practised and where it is not. Like wise with contract and choice. You cannot consent or choose to be Gay for example.
The final issue is about value. Before you can stop any culture practising discrimination against minority “lifestyles” that culture needs to produce sufficient “economic value” to survive changes to the way society is organised. A simple, primitive culture, namely one that does not create much economic value (pumping it out of the ground and selling it doesn’t count) will punish those perceived to be undermining the social and economic system. Thus gay people or those women who fail to observe a pre determined social role will be punished.
We hope this makes sense and readers can understand that capitalism liberated us and should not be condemned. We also hope the left wing will understand that by continuing their war on capitalism (even though it no longer really exists) they are waging a war on contract, choice and consent and playing into the hands of the primitive cultures for whom our freedoms are a theological and sociological abomination and our moral relativism is our Achilles heel.
The final point to ponder is this; we no longer create value in the west either social or economic, we create wealth…money. how long will our culture last therefore irrespective of the forces railed against it?
The best description of culture and one which gives an unintended nod to our view that economics underpinning it comes from the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. We were critical of the Liberal Elite and their stupidity in not really understanding why in modern Britain we have people with a temperament and opinions which cut across the freedom and humanity we have created in the west over the last five hundred years but which we are now quickly undermining.
In the Parekh report culture is described as “The habits of mind, the intellectual-reflexes and the professional sensibilities which are historically ingrained and typical of the behaviour of a particular group of people…the unconscious understanding and assumptions concerning politics, social life and justice”.
This report seems to understand the right things and offered the hope that there would be a greater understanding of why for example anti Semitism exists in the Labour Party or why certain groups take a biblical view of adultery as a “crime”. However, it didn’t deliver what it promised. The reason seems simple to us. Firstly it has no idea where culture comes from. We at Blue Revolution know culture comes from the economic realities of life all over the planet and at various historical periods. And secondly, the report seems to have enshrined within it a belief that moral relativism and liberal bureaucracy are somehow vectors for change amongst various immigrant communities. We have seen that in too many situations this integration just hasn’t happened.
The reasons are simple. Traditional values hark back to an area (Pakistan for example)or an era (7th century Arabia) where rigid values around gender etc helped to preserve society. In the modern free market not only is there no need for rigidity around what is acceptable behaviour for men and women and what is not but the free market itself throws up many moral challenges to people of all faiths and many of no faith.
The solution to the problem of lack of integration and tolerance of western values is therefore very simple. Accept that western culture is in many ways appalling and also acknowledge why some people of faith harbour intolerant views about the legitimate behaviour of others……and don’t shy away from the debate!
The liberal elite; those custodians of our two party state and binary Parliamentary system have come in for a rough time recently. It’s been one disaster after another with the most recent being the inability of most of them to call the recent General Election result. The binary two party system with its fetishizing of adversarial politics has started to fail because it is reliant on promoting tribal self-interest underpinned by a docile and obliging population encouraged to see the benefits of buying into the benign state idea but only as long as the “State” works for them. The British Broadcasting Corporation colludes shamelessly with the political party elites and far from swerving allegations of “bias” actively promote bias against new entrants to the political system. They are allowed to do this by the absence of law preventing it, we presume to encourage “strong” government.
Unfortunately, they are naive to think this is the right way of doing politics in the 21st century. In a socially engineered pluralist and diverse nation shoehorning opinion into two camps creates the very environment for apathy and the slogan politics so loved of the hard left and far right. It leaves most people feeling angry and un represented but no one from moderate left or right will challenge it or the right of public bodies like the BBC to promote it with their lazy “reductive polarities” masquerading as debate. It won’t be challenged because huge party political bureaucracies will decline and with their decline will decline opportunities for lobbying, promoting vested interests and the maintenance of the self-interest of politicians themselves. Just like UKIP has declined so would the Labour Party and Tories if the paradigm was to be broken, as of course, it should be. It is clearly time for a change.
So that is the nieve bit. The belief by the elite that the Westminster or Washington political machine an essentially 18th-century systems still work for the benefit of the many, not the few. Of course, it works after a fashion, but only for them! The many find themselves paying for the few and that few includes Corbyn’s Labour party. So what about stupidity?
Well, having created a diverse cultural community which in some social and economic contexts has worked against the interests of the indigenous working classes and moreover having done it within a collapsing or indeed collapsed capitalist system, the liberal elite has allowed a new type of business environment to develop, the post industrial “free market”. This new business model relies on indebtedness to create wealthy people via mass consumption by poorer people plus bogus state investment like HS2, mass housing, welfare etc. The state itself, of course, spends billions on maintaining its own army of £100K+ consumers both employed and retired. All This government spending or waste is of course paid for by tax payers and their children’s children. The economics are bad enough but the morality which goes with this system blows a great big hole in any notion of moral convergence towards a liberal moral consensus. It promotes the sale of immorality as a fashion accessory. However, to avoid the calamity of moral conflict, moral relativism comes to the rescue for the liberal elite. They thus ignore people with appalling moral ideas that would if heard offend them, they simply don’t ask the questions.
In the world of the “stupid” liberal elite, no one considers the implications of a planet gobbling free market commodifying everything for consumption including families, relationships, even peoples genitalia on porn channels is marketed aggressively. TV shows like “Love Island” or “Naked Attraction” become a good recruitment film for domestic ISIS sympathisers. As abroad ISIS struggle to maintain their “rubble” age culture they see that we in the west are morally no better than them. But they would satisfy themselves that there is religiously sanctioned male authority underpinning their abuse, as opposed to the moral free for all that reflects our low moral “free market” standards. They recognise the extent of the excrement of western civilisation in a way we can’t and rather than see our Shakespeare and Mozart as reference points for Western culture they see only our “shame” and they, of course, believe they have the answer to our shame and sinfulness.
To the stupid liberal elite, all this is Ok. People can be free to waste their hard borrowed money on consumer tatt whilst the elite cream off our debt as income and lord it over the increasingly impoverished masses. The stupid elite doesn’t see that the middle, lower middle and working classes are in decline as more of them through indebtedness and paying for education and “care” morph imperceptibly into the new pauper class, the now fabled underclass. The underclass is a horrible term for a class created by the political elite from industrial and agricultural workers who had their jobs exported and class consciousness undermined. Debt and the immorality funded by debt, plus the underclass funded by welfare offends many who are religious or observant. Drunk feral women for example, or drunk feral men not only outrage public decency they are a rallying point for the demand for a new strict moral framework that advocates sanctions which are not only pre industrial they are almost pre Biblical. But the stupid elite doesn’t see that. They turn a blind eye and keep on forking out taxpayers cash to maintain demand and GDP.
The state of western culture may explain the casual way a few second and third generation immigrants of perhaps Pakistani or North African descent in 21st century Britain will refer to stonings and amputations as a way of tackling these essentially “moral” social problems. To the Elite the underclass is a class in need of health care and welfare to the intolerant religious bigot they are an irrelevant social nuisance, a nuisance to be controlled or eradicated. When confronted by the reality of their underclass the liberal elite quickly move on. No Tim Farron type interrogations of the Muslim faithful from them. It might prove them to have been at best nieve and at worst stupid, creating their “diversity” and then tolerating sexual and racial discrimination within that diversity and finally giving up any notion they understand the social and political environment they have created.
And that brings us nicely to evil. Is any of this, as the lawyers would say, done with intent. Well, much of it is, unfortunately. The liberal elite will avoid any “narrative” that would question the legitimacy of the Saudi’s to buy our weapons whilst promoting with their savage technological feudal system; stonings, crucifixions and beheadings. They also know that it is the poor and increasingly the middle classes who are getting into debt either by themselves or with the connivance of the state. We have seen wars and financial crises but one thing is always clear, once debt is monetized in the hands of the wealthy it becomes their passport to a new life, a life in a sunny part of the world where morality might be strict, and far away from “Love Island” and the workless underclass but where wealth buys privilege for those who can behave themselves and can afford it. Think Blair et al.
Within our western culture, the elite is slowly bankrupting us, undermining our values with welfare and a lack of proper economically valuable employment or valuable social employment, destroying our planet and creating a political environment that could herald a return to discrimination, hatred and fear via polararised debate. When it happens, when the western hegemony collapses, the rich and their elites will abandon us to what ever fate befalls our once hardworking, decent and tolerant culture. Nieve stupid or evil? Probably all three.
The western world has morphed from a capitalist hegemony into a so-called free market. The transition began after World War two and culminated we believe in the final collapse of capitalism in the 1980’s. The legacy of the West’s capitalist past remains its economic and legal vestiges of contract, choice and consent which whilst granting freedoms also, underpin the growth through debt obsessed ‘free market, the new hegemony of the free world. This debt based free market is the basis for the West’s managed decline. A sad declining world where we are not alienated from our human essence by the capitalist means of production, that went east decades ago, but by our personal obsessions be they consumption, sex or dreams of celebrity. Whilst this is alienation, Marx would have recognised few of the symptoms and none of the cause.
Young people on the continent riot with flags that proclaim “we are fucking angry”. But we don’t really understand what they are angry about. They seem troubled by what they call Capitalism but whilst now gone this system gave them the free market, freedom and democracy and the right to be a woman and equal to a man or gay or transgendered and free. Arguably the West’s hegemonic structures such as the IMF, governments and banking system etc ensure that there is a ready supply of largely valueless wealth to slosh around the globe ensuring that the decline of the West will be almost imperceptible to the naked eye so no need to panic and riot.
The bankers and the elite will, of course, take a generous slice of this valueless debt based wealth and will ensure their survival in some middle eastern kingdom once the global system finally forecloses on the western world’s largesse. At that point, it will be time to riot but it will be too late all the freedoms the rioting youth currently enjoy will be gone and a morality which is coherent with crisis and shortages and anger will replace them, something like fascism or Sharia perhaps.
The rioting youth need to understand that the basic factors that underpin our so called western values are economic not just social of theological. The engine of the economy drives values which over time take on a social character and become’culture’. Once the economic fundamentals are gone, in our case capitalism has gone and the free market is bankrupt and will be going so, the rights and freedoms those systems offer will go too. Unless we seek to understand where they come from and preserve them.
It is no good rioting when you have freedom and your belly is full and you are the beneficiary of a system you claim to hate, a system which puts the individual in the west above the rest. Change the system peacefully or as Marx would have said ‘raise your consciousness’ and don’t wait too long to do it. You might end up rioting for your life or find yourself being treated like a woman or man as defined by someone else.
So if the Islamic paradigm is twisting in the wind all over the middle east, (except in Saudi where money keeps it going) and the West is facing nemesis for its debt based hubris what will a new paradigm look like. Well, quite simply we should live a life of modesty and self-restraint largely unimpeded by an expensive state or exploitation by one group over another. There must be a recognition nay celebration that in post-capitalist times our capitalist legacy has given us freedoms no other culture has had or currently enjoys to the extent we do, and that to preserve our freedoms we must preserve capitalism’s core values and not out of greed or stupidity seek to destroy them.
In the Uk, the Grenfell Tower tragedy has illustrated numerous flaws in our democracy and the tendency of the elites to straighten out the story ahead of the enquiry. The problem with Grenfell is that the actual residents were somewhere down the pecking order when decisions were being made about their block. The experts made decisions that have resulted in a bleak but safe 197o’s tower block being turned into a slightly less bleak death trap. Now is not the time for emotion. But emotion seems to be the order of the day served up by an emotionally promiscuous media.
The Judge who has been identified to head up the Public Enquiry is described as too remote from the victims to be fair and impartial. What the victims want is someone who can emote about the tragedy. Senior Judges leap to the Judge’s defence. The problem here is that the demand for an emotional reaction is as problematic in 21st century Britain as posh Judges being seen as remote because they are posh. With the establishment and their 18th-century institutions unable to adapt so that ordinary people can prosper among them, one-half of the regrettable binary which seems to unite the muddle-headed supporters of the left is emotion. Emotion versus rationality. The ’emotional’ is the key to Corbyn’s success and it explains not only the Tories failure but also how Corbyn can unite Mumsnet, students, hard middle and soft left, public sector workers and luvvies.
The emotional and rationality binary is just another dispiriting binary in modern 21ct century Britain. A binary that includes political left and right as well as Leave and Remain on Brexit, Islamophobia and the observant Muslims fear of secular western culture and it’s corrosive values particularly on issues such as family life and debt based economics. Until we tackle our binary culture and the institutions which support it including the party system, Parliament and Courts we will see emotion moving centre stage and Corbyn’s left with it. Our enlightenment values which triggered our Capitalism and industrialisation and modern cultural identity are in retreat and with them, our rights and freedoms will start to disappear too. In some cities and in some communities for women and Gay people they have gone already.
The western world has progressed from tribalism through to the current “free market” which is an evolved form of capitalism. Capitalism, of course, required the creation of economic value. This economic value is essentially the profit after labour and other costs have been deducted from the sale price. Economic value is necessary whether one is a fan of capitalism or one is a Marxist. For fans of capitalism, the economic value is ‘rightly’ owned by the capitalist making him or her very rich. For the Marxist, the economic value is ‘stolen’ by the capitalist and is rightly the property of the workers. This is where the Marxist axiom “all property is theft” comes from.
The process of capitalism required as we have said before the development of the legal concepts of contract, choice and consent. Over two hundred years or more these legal concepts have taken on a ‘social character’ and are widely understood in the western world to underpin all social rights, equalities and freedoms including women’s rights, rights to ones sexuality and our different types of democracy. However, within the context of capitalism whether one agrees with the way value is distributed or not our freedoms were underpinned by a moral system that created value via production of goods for sale. This productive context has been replaced with the largely amoral ‘free market’ which sells product but doesn’t produce it.
So here is the crux of the problem. The western world has become dependent not on production to create value but by debt to create consumption. The whole thing is geared through various markets which drive the industrialisation of activities from marriage to education to pornography. Some people get very rich as actual production goes on in low wage economies whilst indigenous workers get low wages or welfare for servicing the ‘consumption economy’.
With debt driving consumption and consumption driving the free market the planet is put under increasing strain. There is no balance to this system. Debt based money is easy to come by as the price of assets like housing underpin the debt which then drives the consumption. It will fail again and spectacularly. That is the number one reason why many non-western countries dislike our western culture. They can see it is unsustainable.
Reason number two that there is a widespread dislike of the western world is that the ‘free market’ turns everyone into a tradable commodity. No longer an employee within an economic context based on work and production but a consumer to either consume or be consumed or both. This disassociation makes people lose their humanity and engage in activities that would in any more traditional society be seen as shameful, illegal or immodest.
We used the phrase ‘secularphobia’ to describe the fear of western culture by more traditional people of faith. This secular phobia is really a fear of the free market and its drive to expand consumption with debt. If we don’t find a way to stop the relentless drive for debt based growth our culture of freedom based on contract, choice and consent will end with the inevitable collapse of the free market. With that collapse will end the economic necessity for contract choice and consent will also end and we could find those who perhaps find our culture has no appeal will have the last laugh. What will happen to our western values then. We and we mean the vast majority of middle class, lower middle and working class people could end up being pauperised with a new political elite acting as overlord in a system that owes more to feudalism than democracy. A bit like China today!
Let us just take a few issues. A lack of cultural integration, a debt based economy, an inefficient state sector that is barely democratic, a legal system too elite, remote and expensive for most to access, a political system designed to promote the interests of groups in binary opposition, a criminal justice system that still sees imprisonment as the ultimate sanction irrespective of whether the criminal is a danger to the public, a housing bubble that feeds the economy with debt and services the financial sector whilst relying on immigration and family breakdown to fuel the demand for more housing. A student demographic who can anticipate a form of pauperism as they progress asset-less and debt-burdened into the mid 21st century. We could go on but it is too depressing.
What is needed is a revolution but not the big state oppression promised to the youth by Corbyn. His brand of socialism will not offer the young what they want, freedom, equality and opportunity but more state indebtedness, a lack of freedom in the economy and a perverse array of special pleading that will capture and sustain inequality within Labours various client groups. This is as we have said before largely gender inequality but could conceivably be anti-Semitic or homophobic so large and weird is Labours “big tent”.
The problem for the Tories is that Labours rubbish revolution is the only one in town and whilst he is moving backwards at least Corbyn is moving. The Tories, by contrast, have lost the optimism and vision that saw many of them, quite rightly lead the Brexit campaign on the basis of a global role for Britain in a world crying out for a new form of efficient values based 21s century leadership in a western world full of creaking and expensive post-war bureaucracies, just like the EU run by elites on behalf of elites.
The problems we have highlighted at the top of this post will not go away and those problems will get worse. Labour offers jam tomorrow but at a huge cost to future generations and as we have said there is too much weirdness making a prediction of what Britain might look like under a Labour government impossible to predict. It is possible that Corbyn will become the heir to Blair and we will have a return to the middle ground. But whether it is the middle ground from the Tories or Corbyn or 1970’s socialism from Corbyn, neither are the revolution Britain, the EU and the rest of the western world needs. We need a Blue Revolution to save us from ourselves save us from those who hate us and to save the planet. for more read ABlueRevolution.com.
Complicated but we sensitively pick our way through the issues. But no holds barred. The western world and Islam have totally differing values and expectations and there is no point in pretending otherwise. The western world, shaped by the Enlightenment and then the slow relentless march of progress from feudalism through capitalism to the debt funded and amoral “free market” contrasts with a faith still in many ways wedded to traditional notions of gender, tribe and caste. The “free market” is the response to the collapse of capitalism. It maintains the capitalist systems ability to create wealth and concentrate it into a few lucky hands but it extends the commodification of the proletarian as having only his labour to sell allowing anyone to sell anything about themselves, free of moral restrictions and constraints. The wealth generated by the free market is, unlike its capitalist forerunner, largely debt derived. This makes the free market doubly amoral and utterly dependent on government and taxpayer to maintain it.
This system we call secular western-ism. It is a western hegemonic structure that is promoted by corporations, banks and governments and leads to behaviour that in any other time or place would be seen as utterly intolerable. Whilst in the West we go on carousing and living on a diet of self-interest and greed in places like Saudi Arabia people loose their lives for living like we do in the west unless of course, they are well-connected. This is particularly true for women as in Islam the basic differences are not “class” but gender. Moral relativism fails women as it does not evaluate culture on any moral basis but accepts moral equivalence. However, for us, “class” is more significant than gender and class-based social progress underpins our progress and determines the freedoms we enjoy male or female gay straight or whatever.
Whilst the observant Muslim quietly practices their faith they promote through their devotions and their dress a social structure that has no link to the class based evolution of western culture. The treatment of women in Islam (which is theological in character) represents a period which has not experienced the evolution of women’s rights from male chattel to proletarian in her own right and hence to her liberation from male oppression as a man’s equal in the labour market (whatever the morally relative feminists of the left might argue). This reality affects perceptions and gives rise to what is called “Islamophobia”. Ask any person who has not been schooled in Western liberal guilt what they think of Muslims and all too many will express hostile opinions. For ordinary people particularly women the differences cannot be ignored or argued away with platitudes. The differences are raw and frighten the Western person who has no experience of cultures that practice overt culturally determined control which is gender, or sexuality based.
So what we have is a clash of phobias. Islamophobia versus Secularphobia. The latter being the observant Muslim’s fear of us. And fear our culture they should in its amoral form just as we should fear them their observance of a way of life unreformed by the Enlightenment and capitalism.