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.
It is so sad that up to 100 people have been engulfed in fire.
The community affected is poor multiracial and multicultural and so has no voice. The council’s response betrays the typical reaction of a bureaucracy being defensive and camouflaging responsibility until stories have been straightened out. The lack of emotion from politicians suggests that they have finally mastered “disassociation” the psychological condition which renders ordinary people unworthy of concern or empathy. This is precisely the issue we at Blue Revolution have noted over the last seven years or so.
Politicians unavoidably represent the interests of their party and themselves. The party all too often reflects the interests of a lobby and special interest groups. The parliamentary system provides a framework for this disassociative process. Binary politics makes everyone prone to denounce opposition and makes every politician defensive and quick to condemn others or be condemned. This type of politics works when the binary system reflects the interests of two equally powerful interests groups but those interests (landowners, capitalist, or industrialised workers) no longer exist and whilst the system tries to reflect the needs of ordinary people, ordinary people are now too diverse so it can’t.
Binary politics can’t deal with the complexity of the North Kensington community, it really does not and cannot connect with most of that community with its racial, cultural and class and age-related diverse dimensions. The tower block had been renovated but there was disquiet about the quality of the work by residents. Where were the champions standing up for the ordinary people? There were no champions, experts and politicians seem to have been unconcerned about the safety of the tower block and as for our old friend the judiciary is concerned, well who could afford to get them involved. It is the time the politicians stopped propping up their 18th century legal and political systems and an array of other expensive old institutions and started to listen to and empower ordinary people. Only then will people feel heard and safe and behave like active participants in the features of their lives that most affect them. This is the antidote to an obvious growing public anger.
It is so hard to explain the real nature of the conflict between Islam and the Western world as the liberal sensibilities of the elite render the issue too fraught with potential allegations of discrimination. Any critical comment about Islam is thus stifled to the point where western values are set aside in a desperate attempt to avoid perceptions of racism. When criminals use Islam to justify their criminality be it terrorism or sexual abuse of children the only acceptable response for the brainwashed western liberal is “it is nothing to do with Islam”. But of course it is and at the same time, it doesn’t have to be. We have seen the effects of the liberal establishment ignoring abuse because of fear of being labelled Islamaphobic and whilst it is pathetic the costs to the vulnerable are real. So we will explain our position again.
Firstly the Koran is a book that prescribes a lifestyle which is at best hostile to some western behaviours, for example, homosexuality and sexual freedom for women and at worst is brutal in its treatment of transgressors. But the Old Testament and certain parts of the New Testament suggest that the Bible has pretty much the same values. So like a loaded gun, the books themselves are neutral. They both contain authority and prescribe and proscribe behaviours. What makes the books, like the loaded gun, dangerous is the mind of the person who uses the book or wields the gun.
In the case of the West, the mindset of the European and those countries that were influenced by the West experienced firstly enlightened thinking in the 16th and 17th century and then capitalism and finally industrialisation. These phenomenal changes took received wisdom and put it into a historical dustbin. The idea began that people had economic rights, the right to contract to choose and consent which eventually took on a social character and arising from this we have liberal and freethinking democratic people who can put the tenets of their faith into a liberal framework. This framework recognises the rights of others. The tension with Islam is that too many observant Muslims can’t do this or won’t do it, believing that people have obligations to behave as willed by God. Thus women, Jewish people and Gay people have rights or perhaps no rights that are prescribed and may be not of their choosing.
The issue of terrorism, therefore, is not just about criminal acts of terror, it has to be put into a broader theological context. The question all people of faith should be asked is this, “are you personally able to accept the right of others to have a lifestyle that they want to have, be that a Gay lifestyle or to be sexually liberated as a woman or to believe in a faith other than your faith”. A question like this should be asked of all people who profess faith and hold public office (not just Tim Farron) to confirm that the liberating effects of Western culture has left its imprint on them and they are not colluding with or encouraging discrimination of any kind and perhaps inadvertently fueling crime in the name of religion.
It was undoubtedly the young, the mums and the returnicks from UKIP who collectively swung the vote for Labour and did for the Tories. The Tories and we mean the whole Parliamentary party have no-one to blame but themselves. Rather than have a charismatic male or female leader, the other charismatic males and one female agreed to have Theresa May lead them, thus avoiding a contest for leadership involving another ego driven charismatic. They knew her and rather than have say, Boris Johnson, or Andria Leadsome, they turned a blind eye to Theresa Mays obvious campaign failings and now they are paying the price, and so potentially is the country.
It has allowed Jeremy Corbyn to go all virtue signalling and economically illiterate on electors and they have lapped it up. However, the politics of Jeremy Corbyn are half-baked, and in his case half understood, ideas plucked from the Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) combined with a desire to survive fractious and sometimes dangerous hard left Islington politics by ‘sort of’ agreeing with every nut job on the left wing, but over a “nice cup of tea”.
Jeremy Corbyn is an ideological lightweight but can ‘work’ a crowd. This is particularly so if the crowd is made up of people with a feeling of entitlement to ‘state’ money. He is a kind of old, grey Arianna Grande of politics. People love to be seen supporting him and he has done the Labour party proud, as you can sense from the amount of ejaculate issuing forth from the now grateful Blairites. However whilst Corbyn may have learnt how to survive Islington politics, when the Borough was (and may still be) home to the headquarters of an array of global militants and ‘people’s armies’, all hell bent on suppressing women, killing Jewish people, blowing people up, his style of politics hides the reality that these people have moved mainstream into the Labour Party. Just look at the threats and trolling!
Jeremy Corbyn’s style of politics hides the reality from people because the pacifist he was and is, would cause him to listen to them ‘non-judgmentally’ and in a spirit of agreement and thus he would not be able to disagree, possibly out of fear. The fact that people like this have moved into the mainstream Labour Party and yet are invisible to the Mumsnet voter who only sees Blairism with a cuddly old fuddy-duddy face promising them money for poor people, is truly frightening.
Corbyn’s handlers present him as a harmless old geezer with a bunch of Blairites as a party. This is not what the Corbyn Labour party is about. It has a mainstream party membership generally confused about their identity but with a Marxist-Leninist establishment steering the Corbyn bandwagon to victory. It is so desperate for members it doesn’t know who is a member or what they believe.
Labour Party core values have been disposed of in the Bureaucratic proto Marxist-Leninist hell-hole that is Corbyn’s Labour. “Of course, we will talk to men who beat women and exclude them from local councils, and support gender segregation”. “Yes, of course, we will talk to violent thugs who hate the West and its values, we don’t like capitalism either”! Yes, of course, we will talk to those who would persecute or even kill Gay people or Jewish people, or suppress assertive females, but please please let’s do it over a nice cup of tea”! You could make this stuff up but you don’t need to.
We would like to thank the 283 voters who voted for me at the recent general election. The 2017 election was the start of a political journey which I hope will over time lead to greater levels of real democracy in Britain and so protect the interests of ordinary people from the power of the party system and binary, Punch and Judy, parliamentary model.
Please have a look at our website www.ABlueRevolution.org and please remember that we welcome new members who can join us on what we hope will be an exciting and productive journey towards a more democratic and fairer political system, please read our manifesto. We know that our proposals will better reflect the expectations of the ordinary worker and tax payer. We are here to represent you and if you feel like us we would love you to join us too.
Disappointing though a return to the 1970’s is, it was clearly on the cards for both main parties Labour with their offer to the young of jam tomorrow and the Tories with their third attempt at project fear. Both managed to attract voters back from smaller parties and maintain the political hegemony. It was like the Heath and Wilson years. Labour with a more appealing cream tea as opposed to the Conservatives threats of Marxism today under Labour. Labour clearly got the youth vote and the vote of those who have been getting the brunt of the Tories ‘austerity’ measures. Austerity it really wasn’t it just didn’t feel very generous and so fed into Labour’s instinct for manufacturing class war even when the only real classes there are these days are the working class and those on welfare.
So we have a depleted Tory party in the HoC and a resurgent Labour party. However, from the perspective of a Blue Revolution, it is all just another attempt to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic rather than spot the financial iceberg and steer the ship away from it. The main parties can only offer palliative care to the British economy and society because A) they don’t trust the public to assist them with the task of sorting the problems out and B) the institutions of the state which make so many people very rich will resist reform at all costs. For example, why should we pay for a refurb of Parliament? Turn it into a museum and open a new ‘virtual’ parliament in Milton Keynes based on our legislative college (see manifesto). In a globalised labour market that is exactly what a private company would do. It is what parliamentarians have allowed to happen to our industry and in doing so have created the second and third generation ex-industrial unemployed or as too many of them call them, the underclass. A group that class war Corbyn has seemingly begun to target for their votes.
The real tragedy of this election is that we will be encouraged to think someone both knows what the hell is going on and knows how to fix it, when in fact no really does and no one, apart from us, really cares.
There is alleged bias and there is real bias. The room packed with a certain type of voter is an extreme version of alleged bias the subtly of the nuanced comment a milder and harder to support version of alleged bias. The policy of basing local constituency hustings on who is likely to form a government or the number of candidates a party is fielding nationally is real bias at a constituency level where the law rightly accepts all candidates are of equal merit. This is why the Post Office has to deliver one leaflet free of charge for all candidates and the democratic services team of the local council treats all candidates with equal respect…even independent ones. But this level of objectivity seems not to apply to the BBC where it is blatant and at constituency level, we think illegal bias. You simply can’t as a publicly funded body decide who to air and who not to! But the BBC does and when challenged at production team level the response can be patronising and disheartening.
Everyone accepts the political ‘system is rigged’ but until we stood in this election it was not clear how aspects of that ‘rigging’ worked. One way it happens is that broadcasters and the media try and shoehorn diverse opinions into a creaky binary 18th-century political system complete with big binary parties of left and right and an electoral system, the first past the post system, that benefits binary politics. The ‘mother of all parliaments’ has given birth to systems like this all over the western world. No wonder from Trump to Corbyn the claim is made that the system fails the people. In the Anglo-Saxon sphere the, parliamentary system is a major contributor to the people’s democratic deficit. Here in the Uk, the BBC contributes too, by gaming their coverage in favour of the main parties and locking out new entrants to politics at constituency level. Add to this the Lobbying by Unions, big business and a picture emerge of a system which was not designed to work in the public’s interest but in the interest of the state and its wealthy supporters. The problem is that unlike in the 18th century where the ordinary person was illiterate had no vote and did not pay taxes now the people have all three! The system needs to change. This election more than any other is likely to see two party politics reinstated and that is bad for democracy and public anger.
Reform of the system is needed but in the case of the BBC this is not just Bias it is in our view an illegal rigging of the system and is one reason why we need a Blue Revolution.
The ‘State’ should read our post on 24th May for a few ideas and hints about how it can sensitively ‘grow that pair’ and stand up for British values and human rights when it deals with the misogynistic, cruel and discriminating, flogging, stoning and head chopping Saidi Arabians
The world is a messy place these days, methods of ordering society which Karl Marx himself would have called primitive are promoted by the West namely, Saudi Arabia whilst the neurotic adherence to faith which in Marx’s view was put asunder in the 18th century by the growth of capitalism stalks the streets of London and Manchester inflicting death and mayhem on innocent people exercising their long fought for rights to relax and enjoy themselves as individuals free of control by others. This, of course, is precisely what the neurotic Islamists want to destroy. They want to control people by gender, virtue, sexuality, tribe, ethnicity, cast, religion and denomination. There really is no limit to the bubbling primitivism of these groups and their wish to control us and our way of life. It is as though they think the Reformation in the West and what sprang from it namely capitalism and industrialisation should not have happened. This, of course, is also the problem for the British left.
Capitalism did happen and whilst it exploited the worker financially, creating the proletarian, from the bonded serf, it also created economic freedoms which were necessary for capitalism to function. These legal freedoms eventually took on a social character and explain why we have a generally tolerant, democratic and freedom loving mentality. We sum these freedoms up as Contract, Choice and Consent. They have gone from being almost exclusively the rights for the bourgeoisie to trade to being legal rights that we can all enjoy. Now the British left seems to fail to grasp that there are two sides to the capitalist system, its freedoms and its exploitation.To be just you have to be able to work out how to protect freedom whilst tackling what is still seen by them as exploitation. The British left, however, seems oblivious to this binary capitalist character and thus seem willing to ally themselves with those who hate capitalism or the modern variant the ‘free market’ and hate the freedoms it has created too. In fact, sometimes the leaders of the left seem to be so unsure of their Marx that they think it is Ok to criticise what they call capitalist exploitation with violent language or violent struggle, whilst promising as part of their revolution a mean clunking form of parliamentary redistributive socialism. Corbyn seems like a nice guy but the British hard left rank and file now looks and sounds ugly and turns a blind eye to the kind of discrimination that has no place in a once capitalist now free post-industrial society, namely misogyny and antisemitism.
As Marxists, the British hard left are very poor disciples. They are basically Leninists, advocates of bureaucratic central control and state ownership with the freedoms created by capitalism put asunder in the name of a state managed utopian New Jerusalem. To socialists of this stripe, the state itself is everything and the people nothing. These ‘vulgar’ ideas belong somewhere between 1917 and 1973 but please not now we have too much to loose.
22 Tower Street Boston Lincolnshire PE218RX
02 June 2017
British Broadcasting Corporation
Dear Sir or Madam
General Election 2017
As a candidate standing in the Boston and Skegness constituency I was disappointed at the treatment I received by your BBC Radio Lincolnshire and Radio 5 Live teams. As a result, I wish to formally complain and challenge what seems to be BBC policy adversely affecting the contribution small parties make to Britain’s increasingly rich political tapestry.
Firstly, I was not accorded a place on the panel of the BBC Radio Lincolnshire husting programme. When I enquired I was told that this was because the party Blue Revolution did not have a national profile. I made the point that it was a local BBC radio station and that as the only ‘other’ candidate and a local person with political experience people might wish to hear my views. Of the six candidates at the election, I was the only one excluded. I was informed it was the executive decision of the Producer from which he was not prepared to depart. I am aware other ‘Independent’ candidates were also excluded from debates in other constituencies in Lincolnshire. I was however interviewed for a recorded piece which I am told will be broadcast during the debate. The programme was postponed to Tuesday 6th May due to the terrible events in Manchester. I was not informed it was going ahead I had been told it had been cancelled, not postponed.
My second complaint relates to the Radio 5Live Marginal Mystery Tour which was broadcast from Skegness on 31st May. I found out about this by chance and was disappointed that once again I had not been invited as a local politician with expertise on issues linked to migration and community engagement. It was interesting to note that the UKIP candidate sent a stand in and did not attend in person.
As I was canvassing in Skegness that day I attended the venue and spoke to a helpful young production assistant called Jim who made a few calls and eventually I spoke with a more senior member of BBC staff by phone. I was informed that BBC policy excluded me as it is again based on a national party profile. Having decided to resume canvassing I was then called again by Jim who said that they would broadcast a few of minutes of me at around about 12.35. I was in the end given about a minute or so prior to which I had to endure some comic turn by a BBC presenter who implied (please note implied) that I was some ‘numpty’ (his words) who wanted to talk about politics rather than eat ice cream on the beach. The brief interview went well, albeit Blue Revolution being identified with parties like the ‘Fancy Dress party’ I felt was a bit unnecessary. It also seemed to me that the interview was cut short for no obvious reason. The ‘comic turn’ was unnecessary if time was a factor.
The points I want the BBC to consider are these. Britain is in danger of having a political system which fails to reflect the diversity of the British population and in its attempt to shoehorn all opinion into ‘established party’ categories the BBC leaves the electorate feeling increasingly alienated and angry. This is precisely why we set up our party Blue Revolution. We believe that the parliamentary system institutionalises two-party politics to such an extent it effectively excludes others. In so doing it reflects the adversarial and increasingly undemocratic nature of politics.
In the 21st century, the parliamentary system is becoming incapable of reflecting diverse British views at a level close to the government. Big party and current parliamentary systems effectively lock out of politics different perspectives or new opinion among a wide range of voter. The BBC in the opinion of our Party colluded with this in your treatment of me. The experience of UKIP disappearing locally confirms that the two-party hegemony prevails in an age when it really should not. We are no longer a mono-cultural, monoracial and essentially a two-class based country.
Furthermore, a constituency election is a race, not a war and therefore there is no justification for publicly funded bodies like the BBC taking sides. Blue Revolution is a serious party with a serious purpose and it is for the electorate to decide on the merits of the message who should win that ‘local’ race, not the BBC. In addition to paying my broadcast licence fee we as a party paid my £500.00 deposit to confirm I am not a frivolous candidate, that is all the BBC needed to consider
Finally, it is hard enough for a small party to fund and pay for a full one leaflet campaign which comes in at about £1000.00. In addition, there are the costs associated with starting the party in the first place. The situation is more precarious for small parties when the £500 deposit will almost certainly be lost by not gaining the 5% of the vote necessary for its return. The BBC has a critical role here. No one expects a small party to win in what is clearly a rigged two-party system, however by denying local publicity, the BBC makes the loss of the deposit more likely and therefore the future of small parties very precarious. This is something which in our opinion is not good for democracy. The BBC should champion small parties not treat them like an embarrassment to be patronised.
Please, can you consider the points above and let me have a response to my complaints. Please, could you also confirm whether you intend to put the issues I have highlighted before the BBC Executive Team and what the outcome of their deliberation was? Do they feel a review of the policy is necessary?