Blue Revolution Archive 14.02.17 to 24.05.17
Blue Revolution Archive Page 1
14.02.17 Riots in British Jails and a crisis in criminal justice. The cause might be the madness of the Blair years and the focus on “self-esteem” and judicial process.
To solve the crisis in prisons we need a root and branch reform of the system, and that means clearing out the remote and frankly baffled politicians and tame the money grubbing lawyers who shame the system. It will never be properly “humane” and protect the people who pay for the system (us!) unless this lot have been cleared out or at least severely re-configured. However, who might actually be to Blame? unlike our usual perspective on such matters (ok we are lying!), we blame Blair. Here’s why!
Tony “things can only get better” Blair managed to achieve a landslide victory in 1997 by basically exaggerating the capacity of the state to deliver “social justice”. This was something that the by then hated “Tories” under John Major, had increasingly recognised as undeliverable. Something it pretty much still is!
Blair’s David Ikeesque “third way” was delivered at both a social level, for example, ramping up expenditure on social work interventions to “tackle the causes of poverty” and raise the “self-esteem” of the poor through a pointless “gifted and talented programme” and cash handouts for booze, sorry for tertiary education. The hip and right on New Labour government also encouraged “relationships” between economically inactive teenagers and the system still does. In addition, poverty was not identified as due to poor decision making and thus placed at an individual’s door but blamed on all sorts of things which were on the whole largely “lifestyle choices” for the reckless or just plain stupid.
At a structural level, the new Blair establishment extended the power of the courts in the form of the human rights lobby and created a politicised legal system, based on a strict legal process which is always costly when a QC costs £600 per hour!!However within its criminal Courts there was no reform, the old sanction of imprisonment for all “serious” offences still held sway as the deterrence of last resort. Of course, the lawyers were at the vanguard of the humanising of this 18th-century system as Human Rights Act litigation was Blair’s way of improving things rather than changing things in any meaningful way. Work for Mrs Blair?
This was naivety in extremis. On the one hand blaming the “system” for poverty, crime and unemployment whilst making prison the States’ (or rather taxpayers) preferred sanction of choice for the incorrigible and irredeemable offender. This is such a breathtakingly stupid combination that this “Blair” generation of offender’s “self-esteem” overflowing as they strut about smashing up prisons assaulting staff and demanding their “human rights” see no need to reform, none of it is their fault.
This sorry mess is overseen by an army of lawyers who are only too happy to oblige with litigation because it is all at the expense of everyone except the “litigant” or of course the “state” that ushered this system into being (remember that the State and the people are not the same thing…yet!!). The solution is not as Liz “rabbit in headlights” Truss suggests, more of the same! But we have offered a solution before and we will offer it again!
Firstly, we need to move away from the toxicity of current welfare and put an end to the mythology put about by the virtuous left that being poor can somehow be blamed on the state. The state on behalf of the people can help by encouraging responsible parenting (for example making parents responsible for their offspring beyond the age of 18) as well as discouraging, by financial and social means, the workless and feckless underclass from having children they can’t support. This is not social engineering which is soul destroying it is life-affirming, particularly for the children of people who properly contract together to have children and don’t see the responsibility for paying for them coming from the taxpayer via the state.
The me, me, me-ism of the modern parent must stop. The creation of an entitled “Blairite” underclass, from the remnants of the second generation and now all too often work-less, industrial working class, has to stop. These are the rioting “toddlers” of the criminal justice system, or the single mums struggling to cope with their child men either in prison or if at home, pestering them for sex and a male identity. These “Blairs-men” are the cause of so much crime and unhappiness.
Secondly, the criminal justice system needs to come to terms with the fact that it no longer represents the interests of the Crown or the Capitalist system. Neither really exist in any meaningful form, hence the Corbynista’s demand for the abolition of both betrays both a breath-taking arrogance and total ignorance of what constitutes the modern economy. The modern economy is debt and consumption dependent and the people who drive the economy and pay the wages of the state’s workers are ordinary people with their debt-based spending and tax payments. So, if you agree that this is the case and the offender’s punishments are both paid for by the people and they the offenders, are on the whole “of the people” (few capitalists or aristo’s in prison) what sort of Criminal justice system would the “people” want?
Well to answer this one must avoid asking the “industrialists” of the criminal justice system namely the top managers, contractors, Judges and lawyers and ask the people. With little prompting, most people want effective deterrence and punishment with the accent on “prevention of further offending and harm”.
Prevention of further offending in a system which is gamed to encourage further offending is almost impossible. Parents suffer as their wayward children veer off course and into a system which warehouses them often only briefly before spitting them back out again. Prison is such a weak deterrence it becomes a home from home, less harsh than a spell of national Service as some of us know all too well.
The answer is to slightly reconfigure the “system” so that the tier of the court is not determined by the alleged seriousness of the offence but by the likely severity of the sentence thus getting away from the “Just Deserts” model enshrined in our still feudal legal system. In our model, the severity of the sentence is determined by the risk of further offending (custody for those “dangerous or incorrigible offenders) but punishment can be carried out in the community by way of modern technology for those unlikely to re-offend, and that is very many.
How many people would not view house arrest, tracking, tagging, removal of driving licence, passport, exclusion from places and fines as punishment? Also, the reason we don’t pay for our own punishment today is that the “system” was set up when the system represented the interests of the rich, and the system’s “customers” were poor and wretched and destitute and therefore had no money or assets. That has all changed and now we could expect Rolf Harris or Jeffrey Archer to pay a considerable sum (short of making them destitute) for the punishment they receive. The state, on the taxpayer’s behalf, could put a charge on their house!
Now the obstacles to this system are systemic and in our opinion, the issue of public perception which is used to maintain the status quo (basically the Daily Mail stirring up the “mob” (on behalf of the establishment) into a vengeful fury) needs to be called to order. The systemic problem is a legal buy-in. Within this more cost-effective system, the vast majority of wrongdoers will be effectively punished in the community and could be dealt with in the lower courts with any “breach” of their punishment sent to the higher court for lengthy custody. Wrongdoers at every level will know they are being punished and it will hurt to a greater or lesser extent. This will leave the system able to deal with the army of “Blairs-men” who fight, riot and like Blair argue, blame and incite rebellion and for whom reform, rehabilitation and resettlement are probably not possible….the damage was done almost at birth.
So, who will object to these proposals? Well judges might find that too many “serious” offenders are sentenced by lower courts, Barristers will have less work in higher courts, people in the form of the Daily Mail will be horrified if “serious” offenders plead guilty in lower courts because they are able to be sentenced and to maintain a home or job, albeit under very strict and restrictive conditions. Politicians scared to lead the debate will cow tow to the Feudal lobby of lawyers and maintain the status quo. And of course, any closure of prisons will have the unions up in arms demanding a regular but manageable through-put of offenders who can be warehoused and who’s life they can effectively destroy. Oh but all this is not paid for by any of them ….it’s paid for by us!
18.02.17 There is no stopping the elite from advancing the cause of Remain. The reason is jobs for themselves not the global values they pretend are under threat from Brexit.
It doesn’t matter whether it is Blair or his elite Blairs-men (as opposed to welfare dependent Blairs-men) such as Osborn, Clegg or Cameron. They are all completely incapable of gaining the kind of insight that the thinking, as opposed to feeling, Brexiteers have about the decision the country made last year to leave the EU. The reason is quite simple. The EU and its agencies and outposts of empire provide jobs for the kind of people the Blair’s and other elites hobnob with on a regular basis. There are thousands of well-remunerated jobs in a whole range of impressive but often largely irrelevant departments in the EU. These allow this self-defined and self-perpetuating elite to enjoy a good lifestyle at the public’s expense. It is really ****** outrageous! Pardon our French.
However, the belief that the elite are needed to govern us is the bitter irony at the heart of the whole EU fiasco. They are the last people who should govern. They really think that we ordinary people are too stupid, greedy and selfish to manage the economy and play our part in society without having them to guide us and steer us towards their definition of a new Jerusalem. However, if we look at the facts of the case, we see that a revolution is required and that the people who are abusive are not “the people” but the elite. Without getting too boring about it let us just consider two examples.
How many people are exploited by the local plumber, baker, electrician, factory worker, or the person who works in a supermarket? We would hazard none. How many people are exploited by a Customs Union which locks the EU out of trade deals with countries that are crying out to share wealth and values which are shamefully locked into the EU with its cosy gravy train? We would argue millions and too many young males, with no work at home, migrate to the EU where the money is, and with cultural incompatibilities ever present become something of a hazard. So, we have an EU elite patronising Europe’s workers ignoring the concerns of the working class and whilst barely able to articulate that the problem of migration is one of trade policy, their trade policy, confining numerous countries to starvation and poverty. Britain with Brexit will strive to correct this.
The second example of how the elite should go away and engage is some serious soul searching relates to our old friend “Tone”. “Tone” goes to appalling regimes all over the world talking about we suspect anodyne globalised waffle and gets paid thousands of pounds. Now there lies the problem for the world’s exploited working people. All the countries he visits will be exploiting or abusing workers, many are feudal or tribal systems where human rights are essentially conferred by rank as was the case in the UK six hundred years ago. So here we have “progressive” Blair and his ilk taking money that has been exploitatively appropriated from oppressed people by a foreign elite who are still operating a social system based on coercion, power and control. Blair should be asked: “who has been exploited so you can have so much money?” The truthful answer should be “just about everyone!”
Should we trust our own elite…..you must be ******* joking! Pardon our French!
18.02.17 Mrs May is sorting out Domestic Abuse and we applaud that, but the issue of the damaged co-dependent couple risks turning the problem into another “industry” for the state.
Domestic abuse is horrendous and a throwback to primitive relationships based on power and control. In the 21st century, the power doesn’t always rest with the male, as we rightly promote and expect equality between the genders thus women are quite capable of exercising wholly unacceptable power over males. Domestic abuse does, however, affect more women than men
In our usual way, we will take a slightly oblique view of the problem. For us, the problem has its origins social expectations, and these have changed over the last sixty years.
In the past males and females had roles prescribed for them by a society which only recognised the reproductive role ascribed by a person’s gender. Wider economic considerations for women were largely ignored. Marriage was about sex and reproduction. Marriage was based on “social expectations” and perhaps even “lust”. This resulted in too many people feeling pressured into marriage. Once married, a form of social entrapment ensured too many lives were blighted by misery and unhappiness. The Divorce Act’s slowly made liberation from these sad arrangements possible. All well and good.
By the 1980’s marriage became a contract that was not really worth the paper it was written on. We refer to marriage as an “illiterate’s contract” as it was made verbally, usually in church, and was upheld by society rather than enforced in law. It lacked the proper terms a real contract would contain just vague promises.
from the 1980’s onwards marriages came and went, and families reconstituted and often reconstituted again. The basis for the abuse within the marriage shifted from frustration caused by a feeling of entrapment to a feeling that marriage was being undermined and social expectations were being toyed with. Men in particular, felt divorce marginalised them as women became more liberated.
Within the marriage “industry” this is pretty much how it goes today. A big ceremony then expensive divorce. Marriage is a wholly inadequate “contract” upon which to base decisions about bearing, raising and safely nurturing children. The law says adults should put the children first but marriage breakdown and immature behaviour by parents suggest that this is just not happening in all too many cases.
Having said that Marriage based partnerships are not where the domestic abuse is most prevalent today partly because there are more cost and formalities involved in getting married and a “stigma” about “bad divorce”. Also, many people have voted with their feet and save themselves the grief and tensions of divorce by not getting married in the first place.
Modern domestic abuse (DA) still happens in marriage but it has spread into numerous other relationships. The single mum on welfare with her boyfriend is the most vulnerable of the new victims of domestic abuse. Their vulnerability a result of the psychological weakness within families occurring over the last 30 years and rendering many family’s incapable of bringing up grounded children, mature and self-confident enough to become the next generation of parents. This is particularly problematic for boys who with access to pornography are having their expectations of girls defined by sex, whilst too many girls encouraged by welfare, define themselves not by their economic capability but by their reproductive capacity.
Unlike the 1950’s the non-marriage family today often lacks the father of the child. The state has taken this father role away from too many men, having created the single, unemployable and too often criminal young male (Blairs-men as we call them) who fathers and then walks away from responsibility. However, he often doesn’t go away for long; he is usually back the next time he wants sex and exercises a proprietorial control over the mother of his children. Some women to avoid this territorial behaviour or because they are simply “a shag” will have children by multiple fathers. The mutual insecurity triggers abuse and too often violence. These women, as well as the mothers of these child-men, are the most common victims of modern domestic abuse.
To the politician’s the answer will be of course be a lot more prison for DA offenders and more agencies working together to protect victims. The problem is that the males and females locked into these dysfunctional relationships can’t really escape them. The women are trapped by motherhood both in terms of having the father(s) of her child/children to deal with as well as abuse from their lost angry Blairs-men sons. The reality is that these sad and co-dependent people have none of the psychological strength to leave flawed relationships and this confines them to a life of misery and the taxpayer to a lot of expense.
The Blue Revolution solution is to get real about the causes of the problem, welfare and family breakdown, and to ensure that marriage stops being an illiterates contract and becomes a properly entered into a contract which spells out marital and parental obligations before children are born or at least very shortly after their birth. This applies to all parents and DNA will prove parenthood if necessary, to ensure responsibility isn’t shirked. In this sense, the romance might suffer but everyone involved should have a better idea what is involved when you create a legal contract and bring children into the world.
No one is forced to have children and too many people who do should not. The answer is to recognise choice and consent in the decision to have children (stop infantilising working class girls by assuming they lack the capacity to make an informed choice about pregnancy) and then make the decision to have children a legal contract between the parents, wider family and where necessary and only where necessary the state. This should increase responsible behaviour, make people and families accountable for their children and grandchildren and get the state largely out of a system where it simply “games” in favour of the least capable parents.
20.02.17 People don’t understand economic determinism. However, it explains not only why “progressive” social change takes place but also why things don’t happen. V2
Economic determinism, little referred to and little understood. In simple terms, it is the process by which an economy creates economic value (in western culture that means how it makes money) and how this affects the social arrangements. Thus, the economy affects issues like people’s rights and freedoms and to what extent they are determined by gender, rank or class.
If you read some of our earlier post’s they go into more detail however it is enough to say that the means of economic production sets the template for social arrangements and individual rights. What can or cannot be done socially is determined by what freedoms the means of production or the real economy allows.
Capitalism freed people from tribal and feudal bondage. The capitalist means of creating wealth conferred rights on people, rights such as contract, choice and consent upon which is constructed freedom and democracy.
The rights capitalism conferred were limited at first, as only the rich could enjoy them but eventually, these rights have been conferred on everyone. Whilst few will identify it as a legacy of Capitalism gender equality and the equality of sexualities is down to capitalism.
Campaigning has been important as no one would have allowed “gay marriage” or gender realignment without an active campaign demanding these rights but the social and economic context was permission giving, rather than hostile or even hateful. The question for us all is why?
Sorry but there is too much red wine in this post. Sack the political economist as we want to hear from our tame politician about Stoke and Copeland.
25.02.17 Stoke and Copeland…..lessons for Labour, but the death rattle for Ukip.
Stoke and Copeland were fascinating results and we could and really should have tried to predict the result so predictable it turned out to be. The lessons from these results fall into three.
1) UKIP are finished as a political force and the working people who voted for them will start to drift away from them in future elections. As their votes are now “mobile” there is everything to play for.
2) The Conservatives can and are picking up working people’s votes and Theresa May is very persuasive as a kind of people’s champion. Hence, they won Copeland. The Theresa effect could, in theory, continue for a long time to come, not just because of the state of the other parties but because she seems to be offering a kind of Blue Revolution lite. Theresa May is navigating the choppy waters of 21st-century politics and economics with more skill than the opposition.
3) The intervention by David Miliband completely misses the point. Yes, Labour is a mess, but let us at a Blue Revolution offer them some objective analysis rather than Miliband’s “if you had voted for me as leader none of this would have happened” political narcissism. Labour’s two factions are in deep trouble. The Blairites first. The main problem for the Blairites is that the brand is toxic, associated with illegal war and a culture of selfish indifference to the concerns of real people coupled with a grotesque obsession with getting rich, hence their love of Remain and the EU. Thus, the simpering, well-intentioned but essentially careerist Blairites are about as appealing to the general voter as an evening hearing about a neighbour’s recent holiday. The party workers or activists don’t like anything about Blairism and are prepared to dump the whole sorry “third way” mumbo jumbo and move back a decade or five. And that is their problem.
The general voter understands that politics has moved on in the 21st century and they understand that a party which is reconfiguring itself to appeal to a no longer in existence industrial working class is slowly going to disappear. Whether it is being politically savvy or just the right person at the right time this explains Theresa Mays success. She appeals to the modern working class…..namely everyone except the overpaid and the political elite. The Labour party can still count on support from some but by no means all members of the “industrialised” public and pseudo public sector, like lawyers, but as activists go that is about it.
The Labour party under Corbyn also has the approval of the now unemployed second generation ex-industrial workers who account for much of disrespectfully described underclass. However, whilst this is a growing constituency the reality is that they are inactive politically and tend not to vote.
So, to the Labour Party, we say, stop blaming Corbyn. The only people who give a damn about the old labour movement support him even though he represents a near non-existent political constituency. Perversely it is the Conservatives who offer a listening ear to the working class of 21st century Britain not the Europhile Blairites with their sanctimonious and patronising political elitism. To the Blairites, we say “join the Conservatives” (if they will have you) and to the Corbynites, we say “come and join us…if you dare”.
Oh, just one final point if you should ever read this Jez please sack Emily Thornberry….according to our psychologist she represents no one, but herself.
02.03.17 “Housing Crisis” or simply too much of the wrong provision in the wrong place and it costs too much!
Housing is in crisis, so we are told. Yet the evidence of an actual “crisis” seems to be missing. If you look at who is housed, then most people who are working are housed and usually housed comfortably. If they want a home, there are homes out there ready for occupation. There are three-quarters of a million empty homes.
In the inner cities, landlords buy up homes and make them available for students and migrants. This, primes and sustains the market for new builds on the outskirts of towns. These are purchased by the new middle class of public servants and working couples who can move up and out of the town and city centres. As this market has evolved built on migrant workers and student indebtedness, so house price inflation becomes endemic. In the end house price inflation switches from being social negative to an economic positive becoming a means of driving other markets including the general consumer market via secured borrowing.
Take away family breakdown, student debt and migrants and the market would go flat and then house prices would begin to fall. This would be good news for buyers and perhaps with a bit of negative equity for the current winners, ordinary working people, even shop workers might be able to afford to buy their own inner city or town centre property. A Blue Revolution would burst the housing bubble and get some sanity back into a market that is gamed by governments, landlords and the financial sector but denies poorer working people the chance to own their own home.
The current housing market is not adversely affected by a lack of supply but by high prices and a lack of affordable finance due to wages being too low to pay for the inflated house prices. It is simply not true that there are not enough homes. There are not enough affordable homes but building on green field and destroying the countryside will not solve the problem. It will not make houses more affordable. To solve the problem first understand it and then have the guts to tackle it comprehensively. That may mean improving family resilience, getting student numbers down, closing some academic institutions, and reducing inward migration via welfare reform. All now possible post-Brexit.
Just like “Remain” itself there are vested interests at work to preserve the housing status quo. Whilst change is often unwelcomed it must not be avoided, we the working class need it if we are not to be further economically marginalised by being squeezed out of yet another market. The state claims to be able to address and fund markets in health, education, social care and housing for the low paid. They can’t and should not pretend they can. The days of state hyperbole needs to stop, and markets need to be made to work for the poor.
05.03.17 We rip up the planet so some can get super-rich and the rest of us can buy “stuff” but what is the endgame and really what’s the point?
It doesn’t matter what problem the planet is facing, there is going to be some link to the behaviour of humans. Humans are the planet’s biggest threat and the biggest threat to harmonious human survival remains humans.
If the only way we can as a world “get on together” today, is to rape the planet of resources, we all have a long-term problem we are all currently very keen to ignore.
We at a Blue Revolution explore a possible “end game” for this destructive system. A sort of secular-westernism meets various types of mediaeval tribalism at a point when the planet can no longer sustain the current model for resourcing global peace. It does not look pretty but we offer a Blue Revolutionary alternative.
The western world is, whether we like it or not, slipping back into a form of market sustained feudalism. There are very rich and very rich people in the west who have got rich either by taking advantage of taxpayers via government spending or who have got rich by working the so-called free market. Basically, they are rich because poorer people have paid out for them to be rich. These rich people have no idea that their wealth is a form of theft or perhaps more pertinently, acquired by a form of deception. We at a Blue Revolution, unlike our Red counterparts, don’t see “the state” as part of the solution. The State is part of the problem.
With western billionaires basically acquiring the proceeds of the debt of others as their personal wealth, debt all too often acquired by the masses to purchase unnecessary “stuff”, the plant struggles with a surfeit of demand for resources. After the west add in the rest of the world who exploit their repressed people. The despots of the second and third world raid the earth’s resources for their personal wealth. Thus we have come to a point where the poor old planet is being stripped bare by the masses to meet the needs of rich people who either through political repression (China, Africa and Middle-East) or economic deception (the West) are getting “stinking rich”.
The end point for this is an economic and social collapse, perhaps better known as war. Let’s be honest who wants to change how we live our lives in the West to save the planet and our global stability in the long term. Because everyone sees this as a government responsibility and governments don’t want to “upset their regimes” or lose elections the climate conferences come up with nothing except fine words. We are ambivalent about man’s responsibility for climate change but the need to reduce production and consumption would be reflected in a reduction in carbon emissions. The problem is that the rules of economic determinism dictate that if it isn’t going to work economically within the existing growth paradigm, it isn’t going to happen at all. And so, it doesn’t.
The reason we should reduce aggregate demand, thus changing the paradigm, is because it is bad for the planet to consume so much and with ballooning middle classes in China and elsewhere, projected consumption is unsustainable. Debt is the way the foolish west tries to keep up with emerging economies, given the West’s relative loss of purchasing power within this growth-based system.
So how do you change a paradigm that everyone has, or everyone wants, and no one seems willing to change?
Well to start with the west needs to lead a Blue Revolution, a revolution based on maintaining high levels of equality as well as lower levels of growth. In the UK we could start by hacking back at the class based public sector, reducing differentials in pay and giving no public servant more pay than the Prime Minister. This establishes the principle that equality is more important than wealth acquisition on very much a personal level. We would also get rid of any structure which simply creates well-paid tax-payer funded jobs such as much of the higher education sector.
Secondly, we would make the relationship between people and the state “contractual” based on choice and consent. No unconditional anything. There would be obligations and responsibilities as well as the rights enshrined in Contract, Choice and Consent to drive responsible as opposed to childlike behaviour. This would start to reduce idleness and welfare dependence and put families back at the heart of the nation. The left wing will scream that this undermines the rights of the poor, but that is because they don’t understand Marxism.
Finally, we would look at creating a welfare system based on social value. We would move away from a two thousand-year-old paradigm of wealth only being generated economically, to a system where social capital was valued too, maybe a form of national social service. Taken together these three approaches to economics should start to shift the paradigm into a more sustainable form fit for the future.
06.03.17 If you are “living the dream” you are probably part of the nightmare!
Just a quick one as we have covered the themes of wealth being linked to debt-based exploitation, but this sums it up well. Living the dream probably means that someone is either in debt or has been persuaded to part with cash that has its origins in government debt. It also means that the planet is being stressed by too much unnecessary western consumption, just as China and India et al wish to join the “living the dream” hegemony. “I am living the dream” begs the question, who’s dream is it really and is it not simply a long-term debt-based nightmare for someone packaged as your short-term dream.
07.03.17 “let my daughter work” a mother’s plea on behalf of her disabled daughter. What is the Blue Revolutionary response?
Someone popped in and left a copy of “The Spectator” dated 4th March 2017 with us and asked us to consider an article by Rosa Monkton which was about her daughter Domenica who has a disability and the obstacles Domenica faced in the job market. We will carefully consider the issues and be back, however, we will be applying our revolutionary principles so won’t come back with a “third-way fudge”.
In primitive hand to mouth societies, the disabled were either stillborn or were taken away and buried alive. The reason is exactly the same reason that windows are abused in primitive societies or in even more primitive societies female infanticide is justified. It is because those groups are groups who contribute less economic and social value than they consume in resources. So in a primitive society, they are denied the right to fulfil their “species-essence” they are denied the right to life. Barbaric and it still goes on!
In primitive society, social value is essentially delivered by the female however where it is possible to do so “social value” can by synthesised in the form of the enforced compliance of the rules through brutality (it still goes on now in that ******** Saudi Arabia). So in such societies, you need fewer old women, therefore fewer girls and no people with a disability.
Now the idiot left will have completely missed the point that Capitalism and Christianity accorded all of these groups a dignity which not only showed them compassion but also the ability to create and sustain social and economic value. A capitalist would pay an exploitation wage based on a person’s productivity. In effect, anyone could be a proletarian if a capitalist could exploit them, including the disabled.
In a Christian influenced society which has pushed beyond feudalism, everyone has a social and an economic value. Rose in “Upstairs Downstairs” (cultural reference alert) was a simple girl who washed up. She added social value to the crew downstairs and added, by playing her part in the household, to the economic value of the household overall. The Marxian would not miss the point that much of the household income was based on some form of exploitation or another, but the principle that all have a social and economic role can’t be ignored even by the modern liberal left.
The liberal left, however that group is defined, do not recognise the need for people to make any kind of social or economic contribution. They rely on the lazy disabled to be the voice of the disabled and shriek if anyone suggests that people in wheelchairs can actually, and should actually work rather than be “cared for”. The hated Blair tried to tackle this issue but having no base values (unlike a Blue Revolution) caved into the lazy lobby of the disabled left. The Tories are petrified of tackling the issue as the BBC and the Labour party will simply refresh their “nasty party” slogan for them. The Tories could counter it by calling Labour the Stupid party
In addition to leveraging the disabled out of work, the left has allowed a lazy army of second and third generation unemployed industrial workers to become not so much a “reserve army of labour”, as a reserve army of socially dependent idlers. This sums up the problem for our mother and daughter. The left likes idleness because it is sort of edgy “post-capitalist” and non-exploitative “caring” if you like. But of course, this is all bollocks. Being excluded and unable to fulfil any kind of species essence is exploitation of the most rank kind.
The left’s “system” does not want to see disabled people having to make mature work related choices based on their own assessment of their ability to contribute social or economic value. The secret of the left’s “progressive politics” is that a system paying to keep people idle is as far as they are concerned exploiting the hated capitalist, which of course is about one hundred years out of date. “Managing” the disabled also creates a caring army of state-funded workers so what is not to like if you are a liberal and left wing?
Well in a world influenced by a Blue Revolution where we have broadly to contribute either social or economic value based on the concepts of contract, choice and consent Domenica should with her mother’s support find a way of choosing a job. This will involve contracting to employment which balances out her ability to create social and economic value with her unique needs. This may involve her choosing to opt out of the minimum wage. We are no longer a hand to mouth tribal economy so her talents can be utilised! It is not only her responsibility to contribute to society it is societies responsibility to ensure it happens wherever it can.
Thank God or thank social progress (Capitalism) for the fact we no longer kill our disabled children but there is no justice in inflicting on them some kind of state-funded living death.
Oh, and we don’t agree that the government should increase the NI contributions of the self-employed. The self-employed are not some kind of bourgeoisie thy are the foot soldiers of the Blue Revolution. Cut the cost of the class-based state by sacking “top people”. The self-employed are the kind of employers who would be happy to negotiate a reasonable wage for Domenica if they were allowed to do so.
10.03.17 Grammars, why do the teaching profession hate the very idea?
The simple answer is we really don’t know, but it doesn’t matter what the teachers think it is clearly an issue that strikes at the heart of the teaching profession; if it didn’t they wouldn’t care. When something strikes at the heart of an ideology or profession it is usually met with hostility and derision. Just like Sir John Major and Blair as a result of Brexit, experiencing the kind of existential crisis inflicted on blue collar workers all over the western world, so teachers seem to be having some kind of existential angst about grammars.
Now grammar schools are schools and teachers teach in schools, so it is not a full-on existential crisis. We at Blue Revolution could argue that some children with the self-discipline and academic aptitude could be better taught at home remotely in “virtual grammars”; now that is existential for teachers. But that is not being promoted by the UK government. Now we believe the teaching profession has been able to excuse poor results in schools by relying on the poor quality of the students. Grammars will encourage and stream out of comps a mixture of young academic children including those who want to excel and this might highlight just how poor the rest of the children are. Take the academic kids out of the comp and those children that are left will not deliver the results the teachers need to promote their profession. It will be clear teaching is not what drives academic or any other ability it is the stuff the left wing deny has relevance such as stable families, good parenting, love and kindness….only some of it in the armoury of the teaching profession but everything the liberal left has undermined and is now in denial about.
Now we understand that academic failure is not really due to teachers it is due to society producing kids who lack the aptitude, self-discipline and interest in learning and this is a long-term challenge for the state (no not state. The country and its people. Ed)which we believe only a Blue Revolution can correct. Kids failing to achieve in comps, however, is not a reason to abandon the idea of grammars. Our only observation about selection is that selection must not be based on a quiz or some obscure test of intelligence, it must be based on spelling, and maths with a little bit of modern foreign languages to identify the children who are marginal or where there is over subscription and too many passes.
Teachers need to get over themselves and support grammars and accept the limits of their involvement with the children they teach. They are not and never have been the cause of poor academic performance. The Government too needs to change tack and stop seeing teachers as the cure for the army of under-performing, fertile, angry and idle young people “welfare” has created over the last twenty years or so.
12.03.17 There are no utopias unless you are lucky enough for “the system” to create one for you. How does that happen ?
Utopia. Thomas More’s ideal society which saw simplicity and eschewing wealth as the hallmarks of the good society. In such a world people would avoid wealth and the “utopia” was an internal one. It existed in the heads of the people. This is not the “Utopia” of the world post-socialism…, particularly Blair’s post third-way socialism. Socialism might have been a necessary phase in human evolution but it leaves a legacy of money grubbing utopianism enshrined in organisations like the EU.
There are many ways to create Utopia for yourself, it has to involve money of course, but whilst we can look at Blair’s personal Utopia we can look at some Utopias the seeds of which were sown in the period after the landslide win of the New Labour in 1997.
The first Utopia we will consider is the lawyers “Utopia” created by the Human Rights Act and which in the hands of oh so clever “human rights” lawyers can transform tax payers cash into personal fortunes whilst little gain is made by society at large. The lawyer’s and Judges talk of “proportionality” and “necessity” unless of course, it relates to money grubbing opportunities for themselves. From squaddies to prison staff from social workers to police officers it is now possible thanks to lawyers to find oneself in the madness of a Kafkaesque legal pantomime. Lawyers can trap you with “ill motivation” but then if you miss something and someone is harmed you can be accused of “denying their human rights”. The lawyers have nailed this with their ruling today that victims of poor police investigations have had their human rights violated, and yet the police officer who gets it wrong the other way and is seen as overzealous is embroiled in litigation by the lawyers too. Lawyers have thanks to Blair created their own utopia. The world for them is one of irresponsible money making, waffle and highfalutin and very lucrative legal nonsense. This shameful lawyers utopia needs to be brought to and end. The public will end the bullying of rank and file public sector staff by a bewigged swaggering cabal of mercenaries. We the British public know what they are up to and we will in time bring their collusion and indifference to real suffering to an end. You have been advised.
The second “Utopia” is the one occupied by the liberal elite and the top end of the public sector class system. Marx as we often state referred to species essence. Maslow refined this to “self-actualization”. The Proletarian could not self-actualise playing their small part in the capitalist’s production machine and the petit bourgeoisie had to act in the interests of the Capitalist masters. Not much self-actualising in that.
However today the petit bourgeoisie (unique in that there is no longer a proper bourgeoisie) among whom are the Civil Servants, Chief Executives, heads of quango’s and politicians, can self-actualize by managing the British public or their rank and file staff. Just like painting or self-expression through performance art, these people thrive by organising and engineering our lives in a way which we, the tax paying public, resent.
We resent it because it clearly makes them so happy and smug doing it and of course it is without real responsibility (We still carry that, see above). This activity adds little of value to our lives whilst we have to pay them for their pleasure via our taxes or compliance with their “policies”. Until we bring this class to heel and make them act on our behalf they will continue to destroy our lives, society and our economy whilst maintaining their own lucrative little utopia.
14.03.17 A bit Utopian the last post or so some people think… but only for some. Any other utopians out there and who isn’t living the utopian dream?
The last post highlighted two winners of the British publicsectocracy, lawyers and the liberal elite. However, it was pointed out that there must be others so ignoring the elites of the NHS and others we regularly refer to we will consider those at the bottom of the social pile and those in the middle. Firstly we don’t want to penalise the poor or those on benefits. The problem they face shouldn’t be financial they are moral. The utopia the elites have created for the unemployed, “out of workers” is corrosive to the aspirations of the whole country. Welfare in the form of benefits within the existing framework be they generous final salary government pensions or unemployment benefits are good for no one.
In the case of the former group the pensioners, they have a lifestyle which has benefitted from the gentle inflation of the economy and the expansion of the public sector which occurred after the second world war. They are able to travel abroad, have retired early and had a lifestyle unencumbered by in many cases any kind of multi-generational caring as this has been “industrialised” by the state. They have benefits too all paid for by the British struggling to keep the state afloat “working classes”. The state needs to look after this group as they vote….unlike our next “utopians” the idle second and third generation ex-industrial and agricultural workers. This group it is fair to say have been created by mighty global forces which have either given their work to the Chinese or in the case of the others their jobs have been done more flexibly by an army of migrants on zero hour contracts.
These changes have led this benighted group to find comfort in the only activity the state is prepared to celebrate unquestioningly with tax payers cash…having babies (and all that is pleasurable about the process of making them). The state likes “industrialising” things and childcare outside of committed relationships has grown to support an army of state employees too many of whom operate at the level of our “public sector elite”.
So who are the losers of the system, and what about the Sir Philip Greens of this world. Well, Sir Phil does not create his own “utopia” unlike the others above he can, and his type often do, crash and burn. For the moment the others above have a system which keeps their positions fairly guaranteed and each depends upon the other groups to maintain their position. The single parents need the state and the state needs to keep an army of workers to protect them and lawyers to uphold their human, welfare and reproductive rights. The pensioners too need the state and state need them as they vote.
So who is left, who are the people looking in on this feudal liike system of state remunerated utopians? From political or legal overlord to unemployed single parent the requirement to work for average wages is all to often avoided by status or illness. So the people who service this utopia are the ordinary workers and taxpayers those who can’t or morally won’t avoid work and have to do it for a modest return.
The nonutopian’s are therefore the self-employed the low waged and the public sector “tactical” or “operational” staff. These are the people who seem to end up in court for some trumped up “human rights” infringement. Of all the non-utopians the ones we feel the most sympathy for are the tactical public sector staff. They have to deal with the utopians, including the lawyers and their “letters before claim” and their basically spurious legal cases. They have to be insulted and abused by self-centred management who glide around public sector HQ’s on 100+k salaries taking no responsibility for anything but demanding KPI’s are hit or there will be cuts. And more importantly, they have to deal with Britain’s appalling, entitled and strangely angry general public, oh and their kids.
To the police officers, nurses, teachers, social workers, traffic wardens, jobcentre staff, soldiers etc as well as the shop and factory workers and the self-employed we salute you. If anyone has to be “given a break” it is you. The state needs massive cost cutting so it needs to come from the places where there is the most “fat”. It needs to come from the utopians. Challenging the utopians is not a threat to liberal democracy…….it is an expression of liberal democracy.
16.03.17 OMG Post truth Campbell tries to stir up anxiety and counter revolution over Bexit. W
Alastair Campbell that supporter of the dodgy dossier and the war in Iraq….all pre, post-truth “post-truth”? has now decided to support the venerable Lord Heseltine on the subject of Remain. As you would expect it is all gloom and doom, young graduates fearful for their future, delusional proles lied to by post-truth Tory scum and “kippers” all a scheming and a manipulating and it will all of course end in disaster. We agree it will all end in disaster, a disaster for the ranks of the EU superannuated Remainers and their kith and kin. The so-called “Brextreamists” among us should be proud.
The Brextreamists have had the foresight and the vision to recognise that the EU was simply a gravy train for Tone, Campbell, Heseltine and ranks of other elites from all sides of the political spectrum hobnobbing with elites from all over the globe and their kith and kin. We don’t want to “bang on about Europe” but whilst there may be some “adjustment” as we leave the soporific EU and once again become a fully grown up member of the world community assisting the world with our global trade links, the world community will gain productively, democratically and economically from Brexit.
All this positivity rather than like the EU elites, taking full economic advantage of the fellow elites of the oil, mineral and gem rich feudal states of the African continent and Middle-East whilst between them casting the poor of the African, Middle East and Asian continents into poverty and starvation by refusing to trade properly with them.
Campbell and his ilk need to be put into the dustbin of history. Bring on the revolution!
19.03.07 When a Judge is roundly attacked for commenting critically on drunk young women we ask: what drives third wave feminism?
First wave feminists demanded rights, second-wave feminists demanded equality, and third wave feminists demand whatever they damn well like, and they expect to get it too! So, what drives feminism?
From an economic determinist position, it seems fairly clear to us that few have bothered to look critically at feminism and what drives the modern feminist agenda. This is probably for good reason, as one often comes out on the wrong side of the argument, particularly when the discussions are held online. Many people that dare speak out often endure abuse and allegations of misogyny, even when the protagonist is a woman!
We explain the correlation between the progress of the economy and decline of social values by examining what has driven the march of feminism over the last three hundred years. In the period before capitalism, the state would have had no acceptance of women demanding rights of any sort – the hierarchy of the church and state meant that men, as well as women, had limited scope to exercise freedom and choice. During this period, contract and consent began to influence economic behaviour and social activities. Once the concepts of contract choice and consent had entered the economic world these principles were soon demanded by a growing number of excluded members of society – so that they too may benefit from these three then radical but linked principles – principles upon which the bourgeoisie ran the economy and set its social principles.
Once contract, choice and consent were out of the economic bag so to speak, it would have been naive not to have expected demand for their extension to other economic groups. It thus began with the early 19th century Reform Acts which conferred the right for working men to vote. It was also fairly obvious that with working men getting the vote, middle and upper middle-class women would demand it too. The Pankhurst family and the Suffragettes were the trailblazers for first wave feminism – they were not interested in equality at this point, but they were demanding the same rights as men, and specifically the right to help choose the government so it was a government of consent for women too.
With the rise of socialism and the growing discontent of the “capitalist class”, the movement towards “equality” was well under way through “socialism”. Firstly for men – this was the rise of the “them and us” industrial relations of the factory, mine and yard. This phase culminated, after the second world war, with so-called “public ownership” of the means of production; railways, steel works, car manufacturing companies and many other industries. These industries were gradually gobbled up by the state. The whole concept of equality between the workers and the capitalist was then established, as theoretically the workers and the people now owned these industries. However, women were still paid less than men in these industries. The reality was that there continued to be inequality, the boardroom and the shop floor were and to some extent still are, worlds apart.
Back to feminism. The feminists at this point had to challenge the many inequalities of the factory floor. Women in work during this era had to endure the inequality of pay which saw many skilled women, in many cases, receiving lower pay than an unskilled man. The women of the Dagenham factory in the late 1960’s for example saw the Unions and Bosses essentially “stitch” the female workers up, by increasing male wages by freezing female wages! Second wave feminists had their work cut out -just like their first wave sisters. The male working class were clearly of little help to the second wave sisterhood. In the end, the women won, but not before correcting wage level imbalances between men and women, resulted in the closure of plants. Once women had wage equality it was indisputable that employment equality would naturally follow, leading to women holding positions such as Bishops, airline pilots, surgeons etc, and rightly so.
So far so good, but for feminism, it didn’t stop there. From this point evolved an opportunity for a third wave feminism to develop its distinctive character. The birth of third wave feminism seems to have its origins in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s – which for economic determinists coincides with the final collapse of western capitalism – Western capitalism then mutated into the “free market”. Now, the free market is just about as unhinged as anything can get; it is debt based relying on the over inflation of certain markets (property, art and stock markets for example) and is totally unsustainable in the long term for both individual countries and the planet at large.
However, what it has done is turn subject and citizen into “consumer” and this is where the third wave feminist enters the story. The third wave is, like its first and second wave, simply a product of the economic system and the opportunities the system does or doesn’t create. The third wave thus reflects the “free markets” desire to commodify everything for consumption including men, women and sex. The basis for the “free market” is not what you can produce (social or economic value) but what you can consume. Thus a scantily clad drunk young woman is exercising her right in the free market to consume as she likes and to maximise her power of consumption perhaps by attracting an equally drunk mate?
It also reflects the fact that women – particularly young attractive women have become self-objectifying “products” available to be consumed. However, this process is turned into “girl power” by the theologians of the third wave, unless of course, the consumer is unwelcome. In this situation it becomes sinister. But this is a bit like a trades person saying “why have you asked me to fix your car…I might call myself a mechanic, look like a mechanic, talk like a mechanic but in your case, I am not a mechanic. It might be better if one didn’t offer the services of a mechanic in the first place!
In any other phase of history, the lack of good public behaviour would be an issue of public concern (as it still is for male drunkenness) but as the Judge found in a recent widely publicised case, when it comes to a third wave feminist commenting on a “sister” maximising her opportunities to consume by whatever means at her disposal, no one, not even a retiring female judge is allowed to disagree with this behaviour!
The problem for the Judge here is that she can really only criticise or be seen to criticise. A grounded set of principles like Blue Revolution’s Contract, Choice and Consent would clearly highlight the recklessness associated with public drunkenness. When drunk you can’t choose, or consent, and indeed contracting is out of the question…by law in fact. So, when a drunk of whatever gender gets themselves into serious trouble it should be seen as a failure of due diligence on their part. The community, the police, and the courts are forced to pick up the pieces of this reckless type of behaviour. These processes don’t come cheap for the taxpayer either! It is our view that people of whatever gender when criticised for being drunk in public should not be defended. The whole issue is about mature responsible behaviour, not feminism.
06.04.17 Why Ken Livingstone represents the danger at the heart of the British left wing
Some years ago we commented on the danger of the new resurgent British left wing as it grew in strength under the leadership of the “useful idiot” Jeremy Corbyn. When we say “left” we don’t mean the Blairites who are, like Blair himself, just sanctimonious Tories, we mean the ragtag and bobtail collection of people who support “minority causes” with violent enthusiasm. Many of these minority causes from race to class would clash if anyone was interested in opening the whole sorry mess up to some kind of scrutiny. However, the left fall silent and the centre right like the teacher with a kipper stapled under their chair really does not understand where the smell is coming from. Let us help!
We warned that the Jewish community, women and the whole identity lobby were not safe within Labour. Ken Livingstone provides us with the perfect opportunity to explain why and also why any liberally minded hard left campaigner should support the Blue Revolution. Ken as we will recall suggested that Hitler was a Zionist because Hitler wanted the State of Israel. This is on the face of it a banal observation, lazy and ill-informed, but it speaks to a constituency of the hard left who would gain strength from this assertion, particularly those with Palestinian sympathies.
However what is wrong with Ken’s comment is that it betrays his total failure to understand the concepts of choice and consent in western culture. Like Hitler, Ken and much of the hard left does not recognise the rights of individuals to Contract, Choose and Consent. Go to any “hard left” rally and you will hear the language of force, control and coercion, just like Hitler would have used to get Jewish citizens into his “State of Israel” as described by Ken.
The left wing behaves as though capitalism had never bestowed vital liberal rights on to people before its predictable collapse into the unpredictable and ridiculously unsustainable “free market”. So what we have with the hard left is an enthusiasm for ignoring the liberal benefits of capitalism as they adopt an almost feudal authoritarianism over individuals.
With people like Ken and his collection of useful idiots like Jez, women, gays, Jewish people, in fact, all of us should worry about our rights, including human rights under a hard left government….because without a respect for Contract, Choice and Consent they really don’t understand “rights” at all, and like Ken they don’t seem to want to.
21.May 17 The Saudi paradox and the west’s dilemma V2
Saudi Arabia is a paradox. A wholly 21st-century country which practices a form of orthodox Islam that would not be out of place in the 10th century. The differences between then and now are obviously technological as opposed to theological. Rights are limited, women have few at all to speak of. Cruel and humiliating death is meted out for a range of crimes most westerners practice on a regular basis. So what do we make of the west’s dalliance with the Saudis’ and how should it play out over time?
Well firstly understand the nature of the Saudi culture and why it is so repressive. It is what we have called ‘dustbowl Islam’ a strict form of Islam which in earlier times was necessary to keep society safe and coherent. However, this form of Islam is repressive and without the ability to fund its museum piece culture from oil revenues, Saudi culture would have been forced to reform. Nowhere on the planet has Islam become so conservative and even Iran knows that evolution is necessary for survival. So the first point about Saudi is that oil reserves preserve an antiquated culture that without oil would be extinct.
The second thing to understand about Saudi and all oppressive cultures is that they have generally not gone through a process of industrial revolution. Industrialisation needs to be based on contract, choice and consent or it doesn’t work and this is all upheld by the rule of civil law. Saudi does not recognise the universal right to contract, choice and consent like many oppressive regimes your gender, rank and title determines your rights or your oppression. This is what makes them different to us and makes them uphold their culture aggressively using their oil money. They don’t understand the concept of universal rights for women, the gay community etc people for whom the rights demanded by capitalism have been extended over the last two hundred years. It would be a good idea for the west to at least acknowledge that their ally is culturally centuries behind being liberal in any modern post-capitalist sense.
Finally, once we can understand the origins and accept the limits of Saudi culture we should consider the double helix of Saudi cooperation in tackling extremism. A ruling elite who are essentially ripping off the people with the connivance of the infidel and indulging in non-Islamic behaviour be that playboy behaviour in London or contracting for arms with the west are not in the true sense of the term orthodox Muslim, regardless of how many mosques they build in the west. So the culture the Saudi regime upholds on a social level they also undermine on a political and economic level. They help the west defeat ISIS but inspire ISIS too. The west will continue to sell the Saudi Arabians arms and will ignore human rights abuses but should publicly in the west at least be clear exactly why Saudi is as it is, and why, because of that we have to tolerate their illiberal behaviour. This is necessary because when the oil runs out the Saudi regime collapses the only thing left to export will be the culture and it won’t be sold to us it may well be inflicted on us if you get our meaning. Better to start to question it now rather than be seen to endorse it.
We are also posting on ABlueRevolution.org
24.05.17 In the wake of the Manchester tragedy the issue of “Islam” re surfaces again. How should we proceed?
Islam is a faith which has not been through a reformation as we are told on a regular basis. The suggestion is that when this happens it will be cleansed of all it’s more abhorrent characteristics such as prejudice against non-believers and discrimination against women and gays etc. However, this reformation is unlikely to happen on a scale that reflects the task needed. The reason for this is simple industrialisation has been and gone. The Christian reformation was a movement which demanded that individuals could progress economically with God’s blessing rather than sitting around at whatever position in the feudal or catholic hierarchy they were placed. The process was as much economic as it was theological. Eventually, the capitalist juggernaut caught everyone in its slipstream and transformation of society was imposed on everyone. To make capitalism work the law needed to move into managing commercial relationships and so Contract, Choice and Consent became the three legs upon which the system worked, upheld by parliament and the courts.
Now the Islamic “reformation” will not happen on this scale. The reformation for all faiths and none has been and gone. But reformation will happen within the minds of individuals who are able to make their way in western society and appreciate the positive effects of Contract, Choice and Consent on society at large. Contract, Choice and Consent are the legacy of the reformation and its capitalisation during the industrial revolution. The rights people have today are owed to them, first by capitalism and then by politicians extending them to more and more groups. This goes right up to recent gay marriage legislation and designing your own sexual identity.
Now it will become commonplace to hear that the perpetrator of an ‘Islamist’ inspired atrocity is ‘troubled’ ‘failed’ or ‘dropped out’. Because these individuals won’t have been caught in the western world’s aftermath of the reformation juggernaut. Culturally they are different. They will firstly not accept Contract Choice and Consent for people in general and will identify themselves as different from those of us who do accept Contract, Choice and Consent as the basis of a free society. These people are going to be with us for a long time. Islamism is a creed practised with the blessing of the West in Sudi Arabia and which was little understood by those prosecuting instability agendas across the Middle East.
So we have to brace ourselves for more threats to our safety. However if we understand that Islamism is hostile to rights and in particular the rights for all, women, men, gay people, people of all faiths and none to choose their own lifestyle based on Contract, Choice and Consent at least as a society we can be better equipped to spot those who might be more of a risk from those who are absorbing and accepting some of the rights as laid down hundreds of years ago by our reformation and the birth of capitalism. It should also inform us about how we understand the cultures of the Middle East so we are promoting trade rather than dependency and migration.