Blue Revolution Archive 01. 09.16 to 18.10.16

All Faiths page 4

01.09.16The BMA the NHS the FA the EU the Human Rights industry, Corporations, Banks and Government lead us all a very merry dance V2

We have looked at the Establishment and we have concluded it is relatively small, the movers and shakers are the same as they have been for centuries. They are the power holders, politicians mainly, but operating with an agenda, and  in an environment which differs depending on the economic realities they have both created and promote. In post-Blair Britain, the “free market” characterised by naked greed was used to create a debt-based  environment which promoted and paid for a corrosive form of  socialism that has left Britain massively indebted to the banks and racked with social and economic problems such as family breakdown, health and social care crises. The huge wage differentials in the UK giving the lie to any pretence the aim was to try to reduce inequality rather than make certain “friends” of the Blair establishment rich.

In the US the people call Hilary Clinton a “crook”. She is the stateside version of the Blair economic phenomenon, except in the US they have the constitution which allows such comments to be expressed openly. They probably can’t say why she is a “crook”, she probably isn’t a “Crook” in the accepted sense of the term but she has done well on the debt of the nation and the American people. In the western economic model it’s OK to make money like this………but to us at a Blue Revolution this is the heart of the problem no it’s not OK to skim the economy and its people to very generously line the pockets of the few whilst using some tax from debt based wealth and some government borrowing to pay welfare to the amoral “underclass”.

The lawyers, particularly that brand of left wing sanctimonious bureaucratic parasite that feeds off the processing errors of poorly paid “operational” public servants (but is happy to proclaim Blair free of any misfeasance for “war-related atrocities”) are also recipients, but generous recipients of government spending this time.

In too many respects the “feelings” Americans have  about Clinton reflect the “feelings” most Britains have about Blair and lawyer Mrs Blair. But here he has created an industry to look after his interests and the interests of the Establishment and its hangers on like our Human Rights lawyers, other friendly publicsectorcrats, and oh Phillip Green et al.

So what of the FA the NHS and the BMA. Well, these latter two represent the top of the Public Sector employees, crown princes and princesses of the publicsectocracy. Like big media organisations, they create a monopoly for certain public sector roles and thereby they can drive up wages by bullying the government and patients. The media organisations  play a similar conjuring trick with football. A man who can kick a ball gets paid more in a week than some people earn in a lifetime. The money comes from media companies who hold the sports viewng public over a financial barrel.

So what is the Blue Revolutionary answer; well we find it hard to come up with one. The mischief could be corrected if there was a model of payment for services (medical payments, footballers wages, being a celebrity etc) which better reflects the public’s actual willingness to pay for the medical intervention, football match and celebrity. Authors and musicians are a good example of how to some extent the market works…until TV and Film Corporations start their wage distorting and inflating activities.

How improvement is achieved we don’t fully know but we are honest about that. It requires a shift at every social level and perhaps it needs people to “collectivise” their viewing (Sharing TV and on-line) and stop getting into debt to go to the football. The role of the Government in medicine makes it difficult to imagine how this particular barrel can be got over. One option would be to give “Health vouchers” to people but that would require a fifty-year programme of getting people once again to take responsibility for their health. Being unhealthy has been too easy for too long!

03.09.16 Selective education, bias and middle class angst; how to square the circle. V2

As anyone who reads this blog will know we have a particular take on economics and social evolution and so don’t subscribe to the usual “lefty” causes of equality…….blah blah blah. The reality is we are not born the same and we are not going to die the same. However, it is important for the health of any society that it allows its citizens to achieve what they are capable of achieving, to promote the collective good. This is not achieved by promoting the corrosive values of greed or the laughably inept strategy of government meddling or social engineering apropos Blair et al.

Society is a little like a kettle on a trivet, with each leg of the trivet being one of Capitalism’s legacy values of Contract, Choice, and Consent. The Kettle can happily bubble away with the minimum of fuss as long as someone is topping it up with water and ensuring the trivet is strong enough to hold the kettle. Destabilise the trivet and the kettle like society will tip.

So when we explore the issue of selective education of which we tend to agree is a good thing, we need to ensure that it is delivered in a way which allows as many people as possible to feel that they have enjoyed the same levels of Contract, Choice, and Consent as everyone else. We don’t want our trivet to tip over and spill the contents of the kettle because only some people can realistically consent to selection and then choose a grammar school based upon irrelevant factors related to a child’s ability such as class, rurality, nationality, or any other bogus criteria.

We have at a Blue Revolution some people who have experience in the field of  education and they will tell anyone who is interested that whilst selection to identify academic ability is good, the eleven plus is bad. The eleven plus identifies children who have parents have schooled them in passing the eleven plus. Whether it is verbal or non-verbal reasoning tests, a child can quickly learn to spot the pattern and very soon can be proficient in “the  test”. Middle-class parents can also afford to buy the practice papers and can coach their children to ensure that they stand a better chance of passing the eleven plus than children who have parents unable to purchase the papers or indeed understand the point of them.The result of “coaching is that academic children miss out to those who can “pass the test” and grammar schools have too many children who would have benefitted prom a less pressurise non-grammar school  education.

So from a Blue Revolution and as usual based on discussion and we believe common sense a cheap solution to the complex problem of making the selection of children at 11 to 13 fairer and less class determined.

Firstly any test has to be based on actual arithmetic and the technical knowledge of skills in literacy. The days when tests such a non-verbal reasoning tests were considered to indicate anything of relevance to learning should by now be long gone.  A simple benchmark could be used such as spelling age and skills based around the manipulation of numbers or the times-tables. This simple methodology could test children up to A level standard at the age of between 11 and 13 and for those who had clear proficiency well above the average, a selective education will almost certainly be appropriate. The benefits of this model are threefold.

  1. It will be understood by all parents of whatever ability themselves. Most people know what maths involves even if they can’t do it. So testing will not be based on obscurities that only the privileged can get access to. It will also mean that mums and dads from poorer backgrounds will know what is measured during selection and may be able to access grandparents or neighbours to help upskill and encourage their children.
  2. It doesn’t require “coaching” any child can as the author Julie Birchill once; did sit in the library on their own practicing the skills necessary to get through the 11 to 13 plus.
  3. it doesn’t have to be complicated and can be delivered in a large hall with the questions given verbally. To add a further dimension simple questions based on a modern foreign language could be introduced as could a short essay.

All in all, we feel that or 11 to 13 test would lay down a benchmark for the child to evidence aptitude. The exam could be done at any time between the ages of 11 and 13 and builds on actual skills learn in the preceding years at school and at home but more importantly allows the child to us the skills measured to develop their aptitude in core curriculum subjects.

Children who pass these exams will be known to their peers, and the parents of their peers, as children who had love, stability, and encouragement from birth to the day they passed the test…….if indeed with all that they actually pass it.

05.09.16 Global disapproval for Brexit and a perplexing lack of vision from the Brexiteers. Are they loosing their bottle?

Well, who knows what is going in the world of the Brexit office. Lofty  aspiration is not only appropriate it is essential when one is attempting to sway the world towards trade and away from national self-interest and the ever-present possibility of war. The EU which quite wrongly sees itself as an agent of long-term peace and prosperity is also wrongly seen by the world’s biggest economies as a body with whom they can do business. Again in theoretical terms of volume of people represented and thus simplicity yes the EU looks a good bet; but what is the chance of any one country negotiating a deal with the EU which satisfies all 27 countries of the EU. We believe that President Obama’s optimism is rather misplaced.

What is less in doubt, is the  vexed question of the UK’s access to the single market upon which it is reasonable to assume businesses based in the UK rely. This unfettered access is very important and would be a loss to the UK if it were not part of a renegotiated settlement. The problem for the Department of Brexit is that by continuing the claim that Brexit was solely about migration it has kept this, the most unedifying aspect of Brexit  in the public domain, and therefore a part of the UK EU negotiation.

Post-referendum, the emphasis should have shifted to sovereignty  and world free trade neither of which were possible within the EU and allied to these two mischiefs we have the pointlessness of the EU parliament and much of its non-trade related commission. These latter institutions have strayed too far from the politics of  global free trade and now having taken world free trade about as far as they are capable of taking it; have turned their attention to “social and political” integration. This is the mischief at the heart of the EU and it is a mischief that The UK was first to identify and act to deal with. Much was stirred into the debate on both sides which presented Brexit as about borders and immigration and to some extent it is. However, as economic and material determinists we at a Blue Revolution accept that a fundamental principle of free trade should (wherever possible) involve a degree of free movement of workers. Please note we refer to “free movement” of  “Workers”. Workers are factors of production they are “economic” in character. “People” are part of a political process; an EU inspired unification process which few if any countries in the EU really want.  Indeed if the EU  elites want unification like the UK elites seem to want (Blair et al) one can assume with some certainty that their citizens don’t or won’t.

So where does this leave the Brexit Department? Well, firstly we believe that  there needs to be a restatement that Britain both wants to remain as part of the free market and that more importantly, it understands the nature of the EU project and rejects its federalist and integrationist agenda and all the flummery that goes with it (commissions, courts, parliaments etc). Britain needs to explain that controlling immigration is not just  about setting up an expensive buraucracy (points based system) and border control but about identifying the obstacles to getting British people into British jobs and getting qualified people from overseas (all countries not just EU) into vacancies to ensure the economy continues to operate effectively. On this basis, as we have always said, the problem is about welfare and the distorting effects of welfare on the labour market, both the UK and EU labour markets. Put simply get British people back to work and, more importantly,  don’t accept the concept of  free movement of people by offering welfare to EU workers and their families, simply

Put simply get British people back to work via welfare reform and, more importantly,  don’t accept the concept of  free movement of people. Free movement of workers is as far as any country needs to go to fulfil its free trade treaty obligations.   By offering welfare to EU workers and their families, rather than simply work to those migrants the UK simply encourages a level of free movement which creates the pressures that trigger public dissatisfaction. Firms should be licensed to manage the process of recruiting workers on the basis that they benefit from migration and should bear the cost and take the responsibility for them whilst they are here.

We still pay welfare to EU migrant workers. This should stop as part of an initial Brexit broadside to assuage public impatience and if it delivers a reduction in net migration we can review how far we need to go implementing a policy that could in theory ratchet right up to full border control. The world needs a model for the movement of workers in a globalised world. Britain needs to trial one!

10.09.16 A Blue Revolution is a Moral revival; with a sensible approach to Grammar schools now on the agenda; where next?

It is amazing how the “happy clappy left” unwittingly become the foot soldiers of the elite by arguing that somehow grammar schools promote social division. Social division is a social reality and it is only members of the utopian Corbyn supporters club who think that children’s differences in ability, aptitude, drive, determination and areas of  personal interest be those interests reading, maths, cars, Star Wars or simply having fun on social media can be corrected by social engineering.  These are the differences that determine outcomes at every level of society.  The lazy businessman reliant on post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory will wait until the banks or governments generate demand through debt rather than getting out and developing new markets. His company will fail in the face of hungry foreign competition. He will have failed the business 11+.

However in the case of children it is absolutely wrong that the child who approaches a sensible test of ability (based on real stuff; reading, writing spelling, times tables, etc. rather than “intelligence tests” which test skill at doing tests as we have said before) should be disadvantaged by their class, their location, the ideology of their school or indeed the quality of their parenting.

At a Blue Revolution we are not really interventionists believing that social and economic value should be created by human activity and that even if “unemployed” in the economic sense, the pro-social citizen will be aware that they have an indirect economic role by being socially active creating a stable community within which  the economically active can operate. We are interdependent if you will. If Mrs Thatcher had not said “there is no such thing as society” but had said instead “there is no such thing as government engineered society, there are simply individuals who are inter-dependent on each other”, she would not have become the left’s bogeywoman. The Blue Revolution may not have slid backwards by three decades under the social svengali and economic illiterate Tony Blair.

It is, therefore, clear to us that society has a role in creating opportunities for children, opportunities to get a demanding education which demands more from them than the average comprehensive education would. Some children and we agree only a small number thrive on this pressure. Who are these children…….well currently they are the children of the better off; or the less well off but from loving families; and therein lies the problem. The children who will have the social “foundation” to do well is also small. Most children are now products of insecure relationships, family breakdown, or indeed welfare babies “bred” for the access they give to the welfare system. The “system” does not identify these “families” our guess is for fear of exposing a social  moral crisis.

So whilst we have finally got “grammars” talked about again  as a way of meeting the needs of ordinary hard working academically enthusiastic children, we have a legacy of social decline which undermines the opportunities for children born into socially unfavourable environments. The “happy clappy left”are right about that. The answer, however, is not to throw money at the parents, it is to access the social value currently locked into  the community.

So to make the whole life experience of children better and to increase the chances of becoming “Top People” in the public sector as well as a new “Beatles” or world-class lawyers and engineers we need to stop the moral decline at the bottom of society and reverse the trend for children to be brought up or brought into the world for reasons other than “love”.

Whilst this sounds as utopian as a Corbyn economic five-year plan it would be possible if we started to see government promoting social health and started to stir the army of decent people who have become economically marginal but who can promote the kind of values children need if they are to achieve their full social and economic potential. We are talking about grandparents, neighbours, volunteers, and if necessary foster parents. At the lower end of the social hierarchy, the capacity of parents needs to be evaluated and their capacity to offer children a range of life chances assessed. If the parent is (like too many) anti-social, incompetent of simply a welfare womb for hire by a predatory “shagger” then the community needs to step in and the child fostered by one of an army of newly recruited foster carers.

Childen are not just there to be fed and watered and the child care system should not be limited to making sure children won’t come to physical harm. We have enough economically marginal people who have solid values who should be called upon to help the government fight the war against long-term social and moral decline. We need an army of paid foster carers now.

14.09.16 Post neo-classical endogenous growth theory; the riddle of the west revealed. Or at least debtamorphosis explained. V3

Post neo-classical endogenous growth theory; the riddle of western economies revealed. Or at least debtamorphosis explained. We were reminded of this comical if somewhat pretentious bit of 1980’s phraseology a couple of weeks ago when someone was quoting Gordon Brown and his laughable “end of boom and bust” claim in the early days of optimism following the landslide election of New Labour in 1997. We understand neo-classical economics to be essentially  what came to be known as Keynesianism. Keynesianism was a 20th-century interventionist economic theory which was  intended to stimulate or engineer economic growth during periods of economic recession. In the hands of a prudent government saving in good times and spending in bad times and within a closed economy where the extra spent stayed in the economy and didn’t flow abroad, it would stimulate growth. It would, of course, have to be spent in a skilled environment, no point in trying to stimulate growth in an economy with no capacity to grow.

Post-neo-classical endogenous growth theory then must be a re-engineering of Keynesianism but must owe something to the old theory.  In essence, the similarity is the spending to stimulate the necessary growth. The problem is that in the absence of investment money saved, the money spent has to be borrowed. This makes the model very different from its neo-classical forebears. However, to make the model credible it had to use re-engineered terms like using “investment” for “borrowing and spending”. Economic growth became a function of “consumer confidence”. The whole model was intended to ensure aggregate demand was maintained as this was seen as the key to securing economic growth. Still with us?

Ok, alongside the new model  there was a need to skill up the workforce; hence the “education,education, education” claim by Tony Blair. The model, therefore, had spending, investment, and the need to invest in people to stimulate economic growth. To evolve the model into a post neo-classical form  and achieve the endogenous element for growth a whole new set of institutions and language was developed to add credibility to the model. There was “Investors in People”, the “European Excellence Model” called the Excrement Model by one of our wags.  There was an emphasis on “value added” as though adding wage costs to a product’s sale price  was the same as adding real value. The fact that government could  tax more wages as “value added” created more wage earners processing various parts of the production or retail process, was  a misunderstanding about what economic “value” really is. Economic value is not the same as price.

The model was fatally flawed. It only looked as though it was capable of delivering long-term endogenous growth without the need for  continual government investment or as it is better understood; spending, but it could not do this. The model was complex, supported by diversity, training, and education (including student debt) and therefore had  debt as the only basis for the growth and borrowing to maintain consumption as a substitute for proper economic investment.

Ultimately the growth required was on the whole debt based and remains implacably so today. Private debt supporting consumption is also a feature of the post neo-classical model. It doesn’t matter who’s debt it is, it will create the appearance of growth through confidence and by maintaining aggregate demand, at least in the short term.

As we have said in many previous posts, endogenous debt all too easily becomes wealth for those who are either able to game the market with cheaply manufactured but expensively sold products or who are paid by the state. We call this process debtamorphosis. It is an unintended consequence of the post-neoclassical model.

Whilst irresponsible debt and unjustified wealth are two consequence of the model there are we believe other consequences more appalling and these may not be easily identified as being linked to the failure of the west’s post neo-classical endogenous growth model. These appalling consequences include the myriad wars prosecuted or supported by the west in places like the middle east. When endogenous growth models fail to deliver proper growth then the value necessary for growth has to be unlocked from places where there is value but it is  locked into an unsophisticated, low skill and possibly tribal or working class communities. Mass immigration into the working class areas in the west unlocks economic value as does war in poorer countries.

Unlocking “value” rather than Oil is probably what was behind the Bush and Blair wars. The industrial scale “human rights” business and a myriad of busineness opportunities to nation build were identified; in the west human rights deliver too many human wrongs and overseas the EU becomes calcified as the middle east far from being an opportunity for exogenous growth for the western economies with the help of ISIS the US and Russia, turns itself into the world’s biggest car less car park.

Sad but we believe true.

19.09.16 The people who support Corbyn “feel” there is something wrong with Britain, but don’t know what it is. Corbyn seems to speak to the confused and ill informed but what is wrong with Britain and is Corbyn the answer?

Jeremy Corbyn has been around for decades playing the rebel by naively joining forces with any “anti-capitalist” who happened to be in Islington perhaps  plotting hatred and destruction of Israel or promoting a mutilating blend of Islamism and misogyny. No worry though no one took Jeremy  very seriously…..he isn’t very bright…no really he didn’t even complete his degree at North London Poly. Jeremy is a middle-class boy who has landed a middle-class job (being an MP) for a complex constituency  where you had to be able to square numerous circles. Equality for gays and support for Islamists anyone. Only a wittering old fool could pull this off because no one really expected him to be able to square circles but as long as he was nice to people (except the hated Tories) he could muddle along happily enough.

When the Labour Party was seeking a new leader, therefore, Jeremy was the Parliamentary party’s “lefty” of choice for  the candidate slate; a bit simple, not too sophisticated, nice but dim and steeped in lefty eccentricities (beard, vest, sandals, making jam etc) and unlikely to win.

However, the brooding of the masses which had built up since Tony Blair stole the heart of the Labour party had been recently vented with a right wing shift from right wing labour supporters to Ukip.  The honest but naive Guardian reading middle and working class “lefty” meanwhile, as opposed to “old Labour” supporter, who went to Ukip, saw in Jeremy a representative  who stood for “intellectual” left wing stuff. For example anti “capitalism”, and anti “greedy” bankers, equality, fairness, good jobs, anti-austerity, the NHS, immigration, the public sector, “caring”, arms around the world etc. Jeremy was a one-man repository for the angst of the 21st century “intellectual” lefty. Even though his ideas are whimsical and incoherent it doesn’t matter because he is nice and “can be trusted” etc. His ability to avoid any kind of scrutiny is not so much down to a mastery of  politics as simply a long-held view of himself as ” everyone’s friend”. Whilst this is true it betrays a total lack of moral integrity and principle.

So can Jeremy or the Momentum heavies that use him to smooth their path to power sort out Britain. Well of course not. Britain is desperate to abandon the kind of post-war state-controlled moral and economic socialism that makes everyone but an erstwhile “Guardian” reader feel queasy and mentally and emotionally interfered with. But all the political parties seem to reflect this post-war paradigm to a greater or lesser extent and strangely Jeremy is seen as an antidote to it which he of course, isn’t. Far from it!

The problem for Britain is that in too many of its important institutions it is essentially feudal,  based on rigid hierarchy, command and control, power and authority.  Modern socialism with its sanctimonious tentacles in Parliament and the Courts (particularly the disgrace of the human rights “industry”), the Civil Service, Health Service, police and legal professions is not going to abandon this hierarchical post-war pseudo-feudalism anytime soon. Jobs, status and pay at our expense depend on it and Jeremy will simply empower it and expand it as the actual economy for what it is currently worth struggles to borrow to pay for it all.

With the free market economy badly in need or reform and too reliant on debt and the public sector funded by debt; Jeremy is part of the problem and not part of the cure. If he started to look at the legal profession its costs and activities, the judiciary and the stupid cost of British “justice” the financially unsustainable and humanly wasteful criminal justice system, and the way the public sector (including sainted NHS) strips value from the economy whilst promoting debt and immorality he may begin to speak the language of revolution. As it is he is just another embarrassing 20th century left wing wind bag the like of which we the blue collar working and entrepreneurial masses have been trying to politely ignore for years.

Up the revolution….the Blue Revolution.

20.09.16 Following on from the recent posts on economics and society; how can we tell things are out of kilter?

We have examined post neo-classical endogenous growth theory and how in the absence of a closed economy mass inward migration and perhaps even war is utilised as a way of freeing up stored value locked into houses and communities within Western economies and beyond their various shores. This combined with debt fuels the “western economic model”. It is an economic paradigm which has like all previous paradigms got failure built into its DNA. As Karl Marx said, all paradigms or “epochs” sow the seeds of their own destruction. But it takes an extra era to cleanse society of the last threads of the periods that came before them. In simple terms to rid society of Feudalism in its many lingering manifestations,  particularly in politics and law, it will take a paradigm that goes beyond capitalism or socialism. Socialism is a model of society which cannot rid itself of power-based hierarchy, authority and inequality because socialism requires these to order society in its theoretical image. The power of courts to pretend they deliver “human rights” rather than relying on humans respecting rights without the cost of the court is just one element of the “socialist” elitist process. And of course, socialism relies on the power of the state to deliver its  other key ambitions, “equality”, “diversity” and “opportunity” the reality of which achieves all too often a shift from one sort of inequality to another; greater sexual equality replaced by a widening of economic and geographical inequality.

In the case of the current “socialist” or “mixed economic” paradigm the concepts born in the firmament of early capitalism; Contract, Choice and Consent are the seeds that threaten the socialist model’s long-term survival. The problem for the blue collar workers poised as they should be to take control of the levers of state power via the ballot box is that there are amassed forces of  obstruction building up. These massed forces are without exception the “Barrons” of the public sector, and particularly the lawyer politician and the court. They don’t want a society and polity based on contract choice and consent as it would undermine the power of the state and its institutions to “govern” the masses in the way the masses “need” to be governed. And of course this at the financial expense of the masses themselves.  In the absence of income from new economic value, the masses bankroll the socialist society with their personal debt and they are similarly burdened  with paying taxes to pay government debt and government wages. Who really consents to do that? Yet it is the socialist who wants to ignore the will of the people over British Brexit and to burden the poor with more debt as the stuff shirted lawyers, civil servants and politicians grow fat on the debt of blue collar workers. This is the contradiction that Marx, had he been here, would have recognised. But you have us in the absence of Marx.

With relationships based on the decent values of capitalism namely contract, choice and consent (as distinct from the reality of early capitalism still with the corrupting blood of the feudal system pumping through its early elitist veins) the public can begin to develop new political institutions (similar to the Brexit vote). This process based on a moral free market economy will realign power to ensure that in the future the decent instincts of the  public, uncorrupted by social alienation and the  power of the state, and with a meaningful contract with those that govern them, will lead to a growing sense of social harmony. This isn’t utopianism as it has economic materialism at its core. We will explore this idea further, because how do you govern without the governing gaining a sense of power over the governed . If you understand the nature of a Blue Revolution, economic determinism and the power of Contract Choice and Consent the problem is less insoluble than it at first appears.

22.09.16 Some billionaires become schemeingly political to preserve their wealth whilst others give the wealth away. Guess which is the Blue Revolutionary?

There is something sickening about Donald trump; and please don’t think it is because he is a populist, we have no concerns about such people in a healthy democracy, indeed they add colour and texture to a process which for too many people is “long in the tooth” and boring, namely democracy. Like Brexit in the UK, it takes something scary and heterodox to excite people and as the UK has found the consequences are benign in the short to medium term and like a journey, if you set off in the right direction in in the short to medium term the long term the risks of deviating slightly on the journey are at worst minimal.

So what of Trump? Well, Trump is a Billionaire and as such preens and promotes himself as though his ideas have a value and magnificence they would not have if the mythical “Joe the plumber” was coming out with them.  It is a combination of his vacuous ideas and his wealth that makes us a little queasy. We feel the same way when a “Sleb” or rock star starts to promote ideas which are clearly daft if you happen to be receiving them in the land of the ordinary person. Sting, Russell Brand, and a bevvy of entitled wealthy people who want to diminish the lives of ordinary people often by persuading them that it is in their best interests to be exploited by commercial interests, or “marketing” as it is better known. This is a bit Like ISIS offering “dust bowl “Islamism to stressed communities in North Africa; stoning adulterers seems like a way of establishing authority…until it is your sister or daughter who is off to have her face and head pummelled to an unrecognisable jelly by a bunch of teenage boys lead by a perverted and psychotic older man. Ok that analogy  is a bit over the top!

So the concept of ideas being given greater validity by virtue of who is saying them is something we at a Blue Revolution feel needs to be urgently challenged. Trump falls squarely into this category.

However, there is another objection. The “Billionaire Class”, and they are a class unique among the established classes have their wealth as a result of an all too complex social and economic matrix. The Koch brothers in the |US and we guess “Sir” Phillip Green in the Uk probably wish there was a war on the poor and welfare the dependent. If you like a massive reduction is taxation to allow them to hold on to more of their wealth. What they fail to grasp and the billionaires like Mr and Mrs Mark Zuckerberg and Mr and Mrs Bill Gates grasp is that their wealth is a payment from others to them and only by dint of the free market being “gamed”by governments and vested interests are they billionaires at all. A market that was not mediated or engineered by power and vested interests would not allow the creation of people with such vast wealth and the wealthy have an obligation to recognise that simple fact.

People would not choose to make Phillip Green   a  billionaire, it happens because the free market has made it possible. We don’t agree with destroying the free market it reflects even in an unregulated form Contract, Choice and Consent and these precious gems need preserving at all cost. We are not naive Red Revolutionaries. Mark Zuckerberg seems to understand all this too and has the modesty to recognise that the wealth he has belongs as much to those who have granted it to him as it does to himself. Hence his desire to give it back not through posturing and preening in a narcissistic demonstration of self-love (or loathing?) but through good deeds. That is a Blue Revolutionary mind at work at the top of the income scale as we toil away in living rooms, studio flats and workshops at the other end.

23.09.16 As all revolutionaries know, revolution should be evolutionary. So who are the enemy of the Blue Revolution?

As any school person knows the march of social progress is, or should be, based on a society moving beyond the constraints of the existing social system and evolving some new structures whilst slowly teasing themselves away from what properly belongs in the past. In modern Britain, for example, we have a major problem. We have the feudal “legal system”; bewigged narcissists, too  many of whom remain”public school” have insulated themselves and protected their elevated social status from any form of social movement which is likely to undermine their elevated social, economic and political position. A sort of “Crown Immunity”. They are the enemies of the “blue Revolution”. More a threat than the Corbyn 1970’s Socialists.

We try not to name names in  a Blue Revolution blog (even though some of us do!) but you only have to look at the legal “brains” behind the “Third way”; the Islington Blairite neo socialists to see they were all Blair and Mrs. Blair’s frequent dinner guests. Newly amongst their number Amal Clooney who whilst doing good works standing up for real victims also dabbles in the post neoclassical nonsence of “human rights”.

Blair’s posh chums  shamefully remain loyal to their “useful idiot”, even to the point of getting him off the hook of war crimes allegations, whilst the same bewigged monsters pursue the honest “Tommy Atkins”; thrown into Blairs “post-neoclassical endogenous….blah ..blah” …PFI war of western reconstruction.  Yet being poor, stressed and shot at the ordinary soldier unlike Blair is accused of being  guilty of lucrative “human rights” abuses and other “crimes”, according to the Blairite army of lawyers anyway. These parasitic people also make money from the lower ranking “public sector” worker, customs officers, prison and police officers, probation officers, social workers. Why do they do it; because it is their system and they can!!

If they wear a wig, hang around British courts and describe themselves as “human rights” lawyers……..they are the parasitic enemy of the Blue Revolution.  The enemy of the people. We don’t shoot them or smash up their power bases…we use democracy to stop their activities; we simply stop paying them legal aid……or we will! Are we angry?  Yes.

We can’t progress beyond “state socialism” however “progressive” the whimpering lefty liberal tells us it is, without clipping the wings of the politico-legal establishment. Reform of the legal system, the army of Judges, barrister, QC’s, solicitors, paralegals, legal executives many paid to needle and antagonise ordinary people in pursuit of their own personal profit and self-aggrandizement and all in the name of the state whom they often serve as politicians too.  What the “progressives” don’t get is that “progress” means the end of the “state” as we understand it now. It must become little more than a light touch regulator up holding through a simplified legal and political system the Contract, Choice, and Consent which underpins all civilised societies, with power being devolved to the people.

25.09.16 If we consider Blair and his legacy why didn’t the “third way” become the “Blue Revolution” thirty years ago?

Some of us are old enough to remember the landslide New Labour victory of 1997. As Blue Revolutionaries we consider whether the Blair “third way” was a nascent “Blue Revolution” blown off course by global circumstances or whether it was a nieve effort to combine the Public, Private and Charitable sectors in an attempt to re-define a collapsing “capitalist ” system as it morphed into a “consumer based” free market system.

It is an article of our faith that the Capitalism drove so much positive change around the globe. It started the process of greater equality for race, gender and culture. It provided the financial pump priming for the health service and a wave of nationalised industries. All brought into existence by a British post-war socialist government. At the same time, the now derided “grammars”  were propelling working class boys and girls into the “establishment”. Unfortunately,  this working class success resulted in the manipulation of the well-intentioned working class “entryists” into the establishment by the self-interested “old establishment” threatened by real working class success. This brings to an end Grammars thus denying two generations of working class  children the opportunity to shape the world for their parents and siblings. They were forced to give way to Blair, Cameron and Clegg. Public school to a man.

Whilst the British Tory Party popularised the “evil eyes” of Blair in 1997 it was really out of a sense that he was going to slide back to socialism nothing to do with his third way or the perverted version we ended up with. It was never likely that Blair would flip flop back to socialism.  Blair was a free marketeer and was comfortable with people being stinking rich. The legacy of Blair is the destruction of Iraq and the Jeremy Corbyn phenomenon. Socialist, Blair certainly was not.

So to the point. A Blue Revolution respects the rights of the individual and supports the rights of everyone based very simply on Contract, Choice and Consent. Blair, by contrast, grinned  his way into our lives offering “diversity”, a load of sociological woo which set the differences between people ahead of the similarities. “Diversity thus ignored the cultural brutality of denying people and particularly women choice and consent. These simple fundamentals were denied many many migrants. This was because the Blair elite as white liberals turned away from any kind of moral or ideological conflict with cultures that owed their principles to an age when social and economic contributions were gender or caste based. The human rights “industry” upholds rights for too many people, usually men, who don’t believe in rights, particularly gay, women’s or children’s rights. Great work guys; and we pay for this.

So the meta-principle of the  third way was morally ambiguous. It was secular western but without a moral core defining rights within a moral framework. We could “free trade” and as long as it was legal it was moral. The minorities, of course, reverted back to their own cultural certainties horrified by Blair’s moral ambiguities. He is  morally ambiguous as a person too!

So this moral ambiguity led to free trade within the economy becoming perverted by personal interest and greed. Like Blair the third promoted the powerful. The government sector was able to manipulate state spending to ensure that the project rewarded those who were seen as the champions of the third way, the business which made profit as jobs were exported to China, Government employees seen as the theocracy of the third way and of course the legal political elite for whom the laws of Human Rights and the EU became a playground for making huge amounts of tax payers money. This is pretty much the governmental and legal context of the “third way”. The social context was Gordon Brown’s welfare reforms which like the “free market” was a consumer facing welfare model. Welfare  like the government and legal contexts above was all about maintaining aggregate demand to fulfil the objectives of the post-neoclassical endogenous growth model. This model as we have said before can’t work as spending does not “multiply” investment it simply multiplies consumption with profit and investment being off-shored due to globalisation.

So before closing this rather tedious analysis can we explain the differences between the Blue Revolution and the third way. Well yes. A Blue Revolution is not morally ambiguous. It has at its core an absolute commitment to Contract, Choice and Consent. Whilst people or cultures may choose to overlook these principles a government imbued with a Blue Revolution upholds them and only “trades” with other countries who observe them. There can be no freedom if you have no right to consent. Having said that the myth that welfare creates real choice is another piece of nonsense. British working class girls conflicted with too many choices which are “gamed” by welfare are some of the unhappiest in the world. They are expected to work but also encouraged to have babies by the welfare system. These are often babies they don’t want with “men” they don’t want. It isn’t just working class boys who are “failed” by the system. This time, though it’s the welfare as opposed to the education system. Both modern creations of the “third way”.

The Blue Revolution does not buy into the idea that “consumption” is a good in itself if it simply provides debt based wealth to government employees (via taxation) and “businessmen” who manufacture tat and sell at a ramped up prices to “consumers”. The market-based economy is built on a false belief that growth can be engineered by debt. This myth benefits the wealthy the lawyers and the  politicians. It pays for and promotes a global elite and underpins the “hegemony” that is upheld via the Courts the “human rights industry” and the EU. To start to change this “hegemony” we had to leave the EU. European blue collar workers will thank the British for their radicalism.

Finally, we don’t believe that people are born equal or can ever achieve equality. However, the elite has created a system which promotes their interests and allows the creation of Phillip Green’s and others. This is reflected in schooling which allows a private sector to flourish and provide jobs in the elite occupations whilst the rest are given a “standard” education in the public sector. To maintain this in the existing system, the selection where it exists is by puzzles and not by encouraging practical skills like spelling and maths. We believe in grammars but also want to get away from selection by puzzle and select by a child’s ability to spell and do maths. This will scare the “elite” as anyone can learn to spell and do times tables and fractions. Coaching  to complete puzzles, the gaming of the system to benefit the elite, will end.

The third way abolished grammars, abolished morality, promoted debt and debt based wealth, created an elite of lawyers and politicians who ran Britain and Europe in their own image. This model, as Marx suggested, needs to be negated. Is the champion of the Blue collar worker Mrs May up to the job?

01.10.16 Corbyn’s 21st Century Socialism has only one small problem; there is no role for “socialism” in a place where there is no social or economic value, namely the 21st Century. .  But why?

Jeremy Corbyn a kindly old fool who shifts between the startled and absent look of someone out of his depth to the aggressive sloganising student in total control of his loquaciousness, even though to most sane people he is talking absolute rubbish. Well intentioned in a Gordon Brown sort of way but rubbish none the less.

But how can we be so sure that socialism has no place in the 21st century? Well, it is very simple really and it comes down to social and economic value. In the heyday of socialism, Britain and the area called the  EU were capable of producing both social and economic value. By modern standards, social value is terribly unfashionable; mums at home and dads out at work, low levels of divorce and a genuine love of family and concern for neighbours. It is possible to imagine a 21st-century version of the above but entitlement and welfare sort of pervert the aspiration. High levels of social value reduce the cost of government. This ensures that when economic value is created it isn’t wasted on a public sector coping with a  misfiring society due to social unrest, poor public health, high crime, broken families, loneliness……and so on and so forth. Unfortunately, Corbyn and the collection of vulnerable, damaged, misguided and downright dangerous people who currently form the Labour Party’s membership are precisely the people who represent the people from these backgrounds. People for whom a socialist government is a solution to their social unrest or unhappiness as it will resource them and more importantly employ them. Who amongst the socialists, therefore, really wants to see a return to social value.

The situation with economic value is even more perverse as we don’t produce any real economic value at all. The “rich” are politicians, lawyers and those who rather than taking tax revenue to make themselves rich, simply rip off the government or rip off the debt-burdened consumer. Socialism in “classical”   terms takes surplus value off capitalists and spend it on the people. Today the “capitalist” doesn’t really exist, the business man or woman is dependent upon the  debt of others or the debt of the government. We call this debtamorphosis. But when everything is based on debt there is no value for  Corbyn and his army of “friends” to acquire. It’s just more debt for the rest of us Jez. Hardly the solution to the problems of the 21st century unless of course, you are stupid or selfish enough to shift the responsibility to those so far unborn who will live in the 22nd century. However, by that time the under-class will be in control and there will be no Contract, Choice and Consent just control coercion and compulsion. If the futures red the future is …….well decide for yourselves, but we believe the Blue Revolution is the only way to save our values, our society, our economy, and our planet!!

05.10.16 Is Theresa May a Blue Revolutionary? Possibly a bit in some ways but Dave and Co certainly were not. What’s the difference?

Apart from the obvious and disastrous re-engineering of the British financial and housing economics in the style of Blair and Co; a lazy (and ultimately it would have been a doomed) attempt to create growth through the private sector and personal borrowing. All this primed on the basis of Government borrowing engendering the economic confidence necessary for everyone to borrow and keep borrowing. We hope TM understands this is a dangerous model but one that  the EU and the west in general is, like a drug addict on heroin, unwilling to abandon.  TM also seems to have established some blue collar credentials and seems destined in time to needle the old Blairite establishment of lawyers, and senior public sector boxwallahs. All of the course handsomely remunerated at the public’s expense; or rather at the expense of the public’s debt.

Where Blair and Dave and Co however really demonstrate they are part of the dying elite as opposed to the emerging elite of mass political influence or a Blue Revolution as we like to describe it, is in respect of “justice” and in particular that portion of the notion of “justice” which involves the foot soldiers of the declining elite; lawyers. Lawyers like process. They like the process more than outcomes. It doesn’t really matter to a lawyer, and the more senior, the less bothered they are, what happens at the end of a case. Something will happen and lawyers will claim a hefty fee.

Now Dave sponsored the Saudi Arabian’s as members of some UN human rights quango. It’s the sort of daft stuff Blair at his most deluded would have been capable of doing.We do understand that you have to do work with grubby regimes out of mutual self-interest, but sponsoring them and almost conferring a “human rights” compliant status on them…..well how does that work? It works however because the Saudi’s have “cleaned up their act” and have developed a “human rights compliant process” which would make the lawyers at Doughty Street or Matrix proud. What the Saudi’s do is stone and behead for “crimes” such as “Harlotry” or Adultery, or murder and having put the defendant through a “human rights compliant process” behead them in public.

Now this process model is seeing all sorts of ordinary people processed in Britain. Of course, British people would not expect to suffer a humiliating death but the modern legal system is all about the process, not the outcome so dangling on the end of a rope is not incompatible with a “humane process” and it’s us the blue collared workers and the unprivileged who may one day find an army of public school educated lawyers more than  happy to process us humanely to the gallows. More likely of course if witless Corbyn’s lynch mob take control.

Our legal friends have created a publicly funded monster that consumes our debt but all too often leaves us, as it did four hundred years ago;speechless.

07.10.16 Corbyn has more in common with his rebels than he thinks. Is Keir Starmer the “Higgs boson” at the heart of 21st Century “socialism”?

We are no friends of reactionary movements; those that out of either stupidity or self-interest hold back progress. Unfortunately, by witlessly promoting the interests of the well healed public sector “supremos”, lawyers and sundry hangers-on, the Labour Party is not as progressive as it would like us to believe it is. In fact, it is not “progressive” at all. It also has poor progressive credentials  because of its economically and socially illiterate belief that “poor people” remain morally infantile due to lack of welfare from “Tories” or lack of correct political conditioning. However this infantilism is not generally seen as due to either their  diet of sanctimonious amoral welfarism or indeed their  manipulation by big business all too keen to flog them rubbish in exchange for their welfare and debt based income. But if viewed by the left as infantile it justifies for both left and right wings an army of welfare experts and a legal system which can simultaneously punish, educate  and “protect”. What can be more infantilizing than that!  Carry on breeding!

So who better to unite the “Blair” left and their handwringing  “third way” mumbo jumbo with the lynch mob of the hard left and visceral haters of the “Tories” than a Blair  supremo and promoter of all things “public law” and “public sector”; the legal establishment hero and lover of bureaucracy Keir Starmer. This man believes that bureaucracy is alway going to be in the hands of people like him, all politically correct and a necessary bulwark against the “Blue Revolutionary” mob (Brexiteers!). Both the “third-wayers” and the hard left have one or two things in common; a love of nieve diversity programmes, mass immigration and the socialism of the EU perhaps, but absolutely, without doubt, the belief that they must be  part of a publicly funded “vanguard” of politically and legislatively intelligent people who like Plato’s philosopher kings are equipped and therefore entitled to rule over the workers. The problem is that the workers  have little time for either camp and are becoming increasingly frustrated by both listening to them  and more importantly paying for them. Hence Keir’s timely bit of entryism; to protect the interests of the Islingtonian champagne socialists from the hated Tories and the class warriors of labour who might be morally confused by them.  He is the left’s Higgs boson discovered in the particle collider of the fractious and chaotic labour movement.

09.10.16 An anatomy of the West’s anomie; can we live without our “false gods”? V2

We will spare any experts a definition of Anomie and will leave the general reader to get out a decent dictionary of psychology for a definition and move onto a look at what the causes of anomie are in the modern western world. We see the  world  heading in the wrong direction as a result of governments ignoring their responsibility for promoting the social problems that bedevil their populations. At the same time, they watch the decline of civilisation in some parts of this world as for example in North Africa. In other parts of the world regimes consolidate  their particular definition of “civilisation” by encouraging a return to a bigoted form of orthodoxy such as we are seeing in parts of “Christian” Africa, the parts of the Middle East which are not war zones and of course the exemplar of religious populism Putin’s Russia.

What these places are doing, which they can do, due to the existence of a latent or not so latent faith-based morality is re-booting it to protect their communities from imploding in the face of global stressors such as poverty, collapsing oil prices, and the encroaching corruption of what we at a Blue Revolution call secular westernism. The western response has been to basically offer as an alternative to this faith-based reaction an offer of cheap debt, bureaucracy and  post neo-classical blah blah blah. The “debt” model has the benefit of having an immediate attractiveness, more money, more intervention, and until 2007/8 a seemingly permanent stability. However, let us consider the practical and emotional consequences of each model; to be mischievous we can call them the faith and debt models.

In the faith model, people return to bogeyman prejudice against Gays, Jews and anyone else who isn’t culturally incorporated. However, just as in pockets of the US where this is going on at Trump rallies for example (Tumpism is a perverted form of Christianity), people feel good and able to blame someone else for their or their countries woes but there is nothing progressive in store for them. They are being conned of course. Just as Hitler’s working class held out for a Volkswagen if they flogged themselves to death in the run up to World War two, so these duped people around the planet are going to get little if anything from Trump, Putin, or the adoption of brutal Islamic theology. They may, however, be happier than their blue collar equivalents elsewhere (if there is a blue collar equivalent!) and in particular their equivalents in Britain and the EU.

Amongst certain groups, anomie is  prevalent on the continent more so than in the UK. We have examined it comprehensively in the past but it is fair to say that the policy of ghettoising and  culturally isolating a migrant population creates a sub-culture who experience a unique anomie they react to it by trying to “purify” the host culture probably out of anger and frustration. By contrast, the British first, second and third and fourth generation migrants are the least likely to suffer anomie; at least by the standards of the indigenous population or indeed populations in the EU, because in the UK they have “in work welfare” supporting them in low waged work (taxi driving, food preparation, warehouse and shop work) but more significantly they have political and social acceptance underpinning their stable family units shored up by a simple, usually Islamic faith. In this respect, they are a valuable asset to Britain which our continental cousins simply cannot culturally or sociologically replicate. As for the white Europeans the indigenous population simply have to look on, neutered by politicians who just like the British left operate with  a superior moral framework which views ordinary people’s concerns as small-minded, parochial and bigoted; in other words worth simply ignoring.

So what of the white British indigenous population  and their  anomie? Well white Britain and the US working class like much of the working class in the EU have a particular problem with Anomie. It is evidenced by a disillusionment with mainstream politicians. Working class people are sick of the monochrome lives they have been forced to lead by a political elite who are remote from them and who have no interests in their lives or the economics and social realities which shapes their lives, most notably their debt and insecurity. This causes social decay and crime which the elite “manage” with an army of state operatives.

But what is the economic reality which must for us, (we are economic determinists after all) underpin this anomie? Well, firstly the “old socialist” system was based on post-war Government intervening to promote the interests of the blue collar worker. In the Uk, a range of post-war policy making (except abolishing grammar schools) was seen within this social and economic context as “progressive”. Welfare and nationalisations, the NHS and extending educational provision were all good things done by government and paid for by the surplus value misappropriated by capitalists who without the intercession of the government would have kept the wealth for themselves. The death duties levied on the rich after the war helped pay for these progressive policies.

However, this golden era of post-war political consensus has given way to a metastasizing culture of welfare promoting procreation and idleness, human rights devoid of relevance, and an abandonment of personal responsibility as post-war governments sucked up via well-intentioned policies, much of the social morality which both defined and restricted people’s social expectations. It has left the mass of people feeling abandoned by “society” and for too many people the only body that can be blamed for this anomie is the government. This is because for too many people the government is what embodies society, social problems are the responsibility of the government as the concept of society has become largely meaningless. The rich lawyer pursues the squaddie whilst the elderly lose their  council services. This is the inherent contradiction of “socialism”; it unavoidably diminishes society and replaces society with government intervention. As the blue collar  workers and their offspring stare anomie in the eye, the whole panoply of the state emerges triumphant along with its army of  highly paid “leaders”, lawyers and hangers-on.

However, this is not the whole story. British politicians have only just realised anomie exists. This is because politicians have an innate tendency to engage in confirmation bias (to see what they want to see i.e. how respected their views are), and because of  the unexpected rise in the Uk of Nigel Farage and Ukip in the last four years, plus the slow relentless decline of the civil engineers of anomie; New Labour. Corbyn is an emotional reaction to anomie but he isn’t part of the solution he remains part of the problem. He is a man of the state! If you don’t believe us listen to him.

So what is an economic determinists explanation of all this? What makes our critique “coherent” whilst  modern politicians offer a diet of muddle, misunderstanding, utopianism, or all three? Well, this is going to sound like a repeat of stuff we have already said previously. However, we will say it again. The state takes money from the workers and encourages their indebtedness whilst it simultaneously undermines society by promoting unsustainable lives of worthless ignorance. It does this by removing too many real moral choices, choices that make people feel alive as moral agents. As a result of our anomie, we have made ourselves happy with an array of false gods such as consumption, celebrity, sex, money and self-promotion. All this gives rise to pregnant unhappy girls, boys drifting into promiscuity and crime, women being victimised by predatory men whilst men shorn of responsible fatherhood drift into drinking and suicide. The government has been forced to take responsibility for this moral crisis  but its solution is to extend the reach of the state further, creating either universal “rights” to lifestyles which the state has decided the taxpaying workers have to pay for (single teenage parenthood, unemployment through obesity), or new “crimes” to control deteriorating moral behaviour (coercion or stalking). The workers have to  pay for the army of state workers and lawyers who maintain this alienating hegemony we have no choice. We would describe this as the publicsectocracy using debtamorphosis to maintain the alienating power of the state which itself maintains and promotes the people’s anomie. Our analysis is grounded in sound economics and is not “utopian” because western culture is first and foremost economically bankrupt and this precedes its moral bankruptcy.

For us the critical questions are these; do the public know what they are feeling is  anomie and what is their appetite to abandon their false gods of consumption, sex and self-interest? Moreover what is the government’s appetite to reign in its army of publicsectorcrats and re-build real social morals even if it slows or even chokes off increasing consumer demand and the expansion of the power of the state.

11.10.16 Having consolidated, the “remainers” and our friend Sir Keir are clearly intent on derailing “Brexit”

We have argued before that the “real” establishment are the lawyers. Lawyers in politics wield more power and have access to structures, a vocabulary and vested interests which can only promote the state funding of law and the extension of the state. This is to ensure the state’s moral and legal hegemony and protect it from the interests of the mob. Unfortunately when it is time for society to move on this reactionary group act as self-interested counter-revolutionaries. Whether it is Clinton in the US or the Blairs and their entourage of supporters in the Barristers Chambers of Islington, the progress of Britain, the EU and the world generally is not going to be promoted one jot by these men and women who like the Sheriffs and overlords of the fifteenth century owe their living to the patronage of the state.

Lawyers more than businessmen and women represent the interests of the past. They always have done, but whereas “the capitalist” model could be accommodated by our bewigged lawyers and  judiciary; because the capitalists became increasing wealthy and therefore able to pay for law which reflected their interests, the legal class now must fight or rather manipulate the government and  legislature in parliament to preserve their particular brand of professional self-interest. Lucky for them there are lots of lawyers in Parliament.  The reason is quite clear to us; the state sector with its army of committee members, employees, processes, policies and hangers-on have replaced the capitalist “business” hegemony with a governmental one. It is a command and control structure albeit fairly benign thus hard to overthrow in revolutionary terms, ideal, therefore for lawyers who like process. This hegemonic structure is not just British it is replicated across the west and just like during the trauma of past revolutions the power brokers within this hegemony whilst claiming “progressive” values are essentially conservative in character. Just like an alcoholic who “can’t see a problem with another one” our legal establishment can’t see the inherent  injustice in their own socialist state model. It is coherent and self-contained within its own terms of reference, however, it shamefully reflects the interests of this public sector governing class and not the interests of the  people who’re paying wages, debt, and limited life chances pay for it.

So with Britains Blue Collar revolution catching these “elite” people out by demanding a change in the way Britain is governed and an uncoupling from the lactating sow of the EU, they have been forced to consolidate. We can see now that these reactionaries self-promoting and  counter-revolutionary values fly in the face of the democratic instincts and decent values of the British people. Sir Keir Starmer is probably at the vanguard of the forces of the status quo brought in by the witless Corbyn to take on the “hated Tories”. We see with Clegg, Milliband and others the anti-democratic instincts of the British socialist establishment taking human form. All will claim moral superiority and a patronising disregard for the will of the people and all are like the battling Cavaliers  fighting against the natural flow of history; the Blue Revolution. If only our media and other opinion formers could see these people the way we do. If they did, perhaps they would start to see the current economic ups and downs  as the birth pains of a new genuinely progressive global economic and social landscape and then they might stop catastrophising this important process of change.

Predicting the near future we anticipate that Project fear will re-emerge and  “project unconstitutional government” will be developed probably by Starmer. But ultimately the world of the elite politician undermining the lives of the workers with a diet of immorality funded by debt and promoted and protected by law will we hope start to end once we leave the EU.  Oh and we think Her Majesty the Queen is probably with us on all of this!

12.10.16 Capitalism in crisis? Capitalism no longer exists but the “free market” certainly isn’t totally free or an open market!

We get bored trying to explain why we no longer have “capitalism”but still the media pundits and of course the “left” insist on using a term which had probably lost all its relevance by 1950. In the UK the programme of nationalisations and the bankruptcy of heavy industry after the war rendered any notion of “capitalists” stalking the economy exploiting workers by paying them a pittance and then “stealing”  the value they created with the sweat of their brow and the toil of their hands frankly ridiculous. However the left need to persuade their misguided sad and deluded followers that such monsters still exist. Socialism is you see essentially parasitic on “Capitalism” and so Corbyn needs to promote its existence. Without “capitalism” there is no socialism. And that, as they say, is the left wings problem. Of course, the Blairites and the legal and intellectual socialists know the class war is over but they can’t accept the end of the post-war socialist experiment. This is because their wages and status as members of the publicsectocracy rely on a docile “working class” over whom they administer a debt based state funded welfare benevolence. Don’t they all look smug when they talk about how benign they are?

The problem for the “left” and “right” wings of the Labour party in the UK or the Democrats in the US, however,  is that the traditional relationships within the economy which funded government spending in the past is no longer able to fund government spending today. So as we have argued previously the economy has become debt based with “confidence” being the currency that loosens up borrowing and spending to maintain aggregate demand. The Bank of England and the last UK government were both obsessed with “consumer confidence” that is because the current economic model is based on it.

The immorality in this model and where the right wing  socialist is probably more knowingly  immoral than their thick left-wing counterpart is that they are intent on preserving a system that pays them well out of working class people’s debt and taxes.  This model undermines society in general.  It does this by preventing a cheap public collective morality re-establishing itself; people leave too many things to the state. It also promotes the power of the  state; a system of laws, rules and regulations which are less and less able to deliver care, support, responsibility and common sense, but which encourages debt, divorce, illegitimate children, promiscuity, declining mental and emotional health, crime and social alienation.

The rules of the state’s model prevent any collective action or in reality “choice”as when the state comes in the front door, contract, choice and consent leave by the back window. The reasons are complex but essentially the public sector  model  like the old capitalist one is always struggling to preserve itself in the face of demands to change (progressive change!). This translates into the obstruction of social progress. The “socialists” brought the “capitalists” to heel but who brings the “socialist public sector  model” to heel now? This is highly relevant  when the state is so large, so indebted and with social obligations and pensions outstripping the ability to fund them. Mrs May possibly? Corbyn, or Milliband or the Lib Dems; no chance. These left wing parties are essentially counter- revolutionary. They wish to preserve the awesome power of the state even in the face of the impossibility of this being achieved without collective pain on a national scale.

So with no real capitalism, people’s debt being won and lost by governments or free marketeers as though it is winnings in a casino game; what is to become of a western society that is slowly being alienated to the point of bloody revolution? Unless of course the media elite, academics, lawyers and politicians of the centre wake-up and smell the Blue Revolutionary coffee, things don’t look very good to us.

However, the situation could be improved with little upheaval. Intergenerational affection needs to be valued again; people who have “value” such as their own home should share it with the young. The State is failing to deliver on too many fronts. Having taken on “social care” it offers costly indifference. People should have to “choose” to have children not simply be subsidised to have them by a state that doesn’t understand that the real “cost” of children is emotional not financial. The public is prevented from realising they are the biggest threat to the NHS by politicians who dishonestly trade insults which ignore the appalling health of the nation.

In addition to the “social value” described above the whole modern economy of renting, platforming, zero hours contracts needs to be tackled and tackled hard; not colluded with so  as to exclude people from operating fairly in these “free markets”. The law is being used to exclude small operators from the free market, increase inequality and increase  the interests of “big market players”. We are only just starting to research the modern economic marketplace, but if we had more social value underpinning people’s lives (and less government) the modern free market may not be that scary and it is flexible enough to ensure everyone can find a place within it.

16.10.16 Contract, Choice and Consent the jewels of the western world: how safe are they with Corbyn’s Socialism? V2

The west has progressed through many social and economic phases and has now gone beyond capitalism a phase which created revolutionary ideas such as workers right to Contract, Choose and Consent. However, post-capitalism is now at a point where it has experienced the elevation and consolidation of the power of the State. Whether in the US or the UK some politicians represent the progress of this now timed out model; these politicians and hangers on are the “Publicsectocracy” . The original intention of the state’s involvement in the economy was quite rightly to “tame” the self-interested capitalists; who were indifferent to the suffering of the “free to contract” workers for whom in reality there was little freedom.

Where a country was in the grip of an early social and economic model (tribalism, feudalism) the process of colonisation created initially in theory, but then moving into practice the widespread rights associated with capitalism; Contract, Choice and Consent. Capitalism was needed to enable these countries to trade. Capitalism increased the productive capacity of the colonised countries too, reducing starvation and uncertainty. Uncertainty and starvation are the characteristics of earlier social and economic models.

This legacy, the legacy of capitalism, meant that by the 20th-century women had rights previously denied them, discrimination went from being not merely distasteful but wholly unacceptable. Eventually, homosexuality became legal as countries started to recognise the implications of capitalism’s legacy; namely that people were factors of production free to contract,  having rights that were based on  Contract Choice and Consent to maximise productive capacity. These economic rights transcend social prejudice. It is the legacy of early social reformers and much later, western socialism that these capitalist economic and social rights were made widely available to ordinary workers.

So what of the modern left wing and particularly Corbyism and what if anything relevant is going on in the US? Well having said that the driving home of capitalism’s “troika” of rights was the legacy of social reformers and mid 20th-century socialists, should we be celebrating the rise of Corbyn, Momentum and his army of avid and loyal supporters? Sadly we at a Blue Revolution think not. Corbyn is first and foremost a man of the state. Like many of his avid followers he has a superficial grasp of economics and in particular Marxist economics and therefore believes that the state can promote progress. In this, he is no different from the Lib Dem’s and Tim Farron, and Blairites such as Keir Starmer. However, whereas these “progressive” politicians are simply misguided because they naively believe in the power of the state to do good, Corbyn sees the state as in instrument of settling on the UK domestic front  a now non-existent class war and globally he supports the pre-eminence of any ant-western ideology. These anti-western ideologies remain unreformed by capitalism’s legacy of Contract, Choice and Consent so are at their core cruel, discriminatory (against gays and women, people of the wrong tribe or faith). Unfortunately, these anti-western ideologies are mainly tribal and totalitarian (in Marxian terms totalitarian is basically feudal) so the  prejudices which they promote thanks to capitalism’s legacy, the west has become “grown up about”.

Now, this capitalism we refer to no longer exists; it did its best work three or more hundred years ago. Social reformers refined its more brutal bi-products and we now enjoy its legacy. However, the change needed to reform capitalism, required the intervention of the state. The state and its army of politicians, lawyers and hangers-on; the publicsectocracy, have, like the Clintons in the US and the Blairites and Cameroons in the UK failed to recognise that the job is largely done and it is they now who use the state to serve their own interests. They should return more power to the people, reassured that Contract, Choice and Consent are now embedded in British and western culture and are only compromised by immigration from cultures which do not share or even understand these basic cultural values.

However whilst the benign publicsectocracy, clings on to the ideology of the state as core to people’s lives thus making people pay for the privilege of having them in charge, in the case of Corbyn and his lynch mob there is no benign misunderstanding; the state is there to acquire power, hold power and pursue an ideology that provides a safe haven for beliefs that last saw the light of day in the west before the advent of capitalism. In other words, Corbyn, Seamus Milne and John McDonnell have more in common with Presidents Putin and Assad, various torturers and head choppers  than they do with the vast majority of decent British democrats and workers, who whilst frustrated by what the public sector has become don’t want to return to a feudal system with the state and its apparatus in charge bullying them, taxing them and possibly killing them in the name of preserving Corbyn’s compromised and contaminated “internationalist” ideology.

16.10.16 We have had a meeting and we want to know; what is the Corbynite “left” up to?  Here are our ideas.

It is very easy to take the Corbyn left at face value. Native grassroots socialists and gullible journalists swallow the democratic and egalitarian agenda hook, line and sinker! However, some things have made our largely crusty bunch of proto-Marxians question the motives of the elite champagne socialists who are pretenders to the Conservatives as a government in waiting.  What do the “left” really think about Blue Collar Britain and are we, the Blue Collar Britons, safe in their hands? We think not.

We have said in many earlier posts that socialism is the inevitable intervention of the state within the workings of the capitalist system. A system which liberated people from the enslavement of feudalism but which gave advantages to the capitalists who exploited the worker. Trades Unions and the Labour movement were necessary counterweights to the awesome power of the capitalist system. To its eternal credit the combination of liberal Christion faith and liberal economics drove levels productive capacity which before capitalism could never have been imagined. Feeding continents! Technological innovation, equality, democracy and freedom all followed in the wake of the capitalist revolution. The first Bue Revolution. The socialist negation of the raw capitalist system was, without a doubt, necessary. However, the socialist system was a transitional phase not a phase to be embedded and promoted to advantage a new class of the elite. The problem with Corbyn’s Labour party is that whilst he may be a well-intentioned witless lightweight, the people around him including Milne and Chakrabarti are well into the idea of using their elite position to personally advantage themselves with little regard to the people who pay for their pre-eminence; namely us, the workers! They take advantage of the education that is available to the elite because they are the elite. Socialism’s dirty secret is that it has spawned an elite even worse than the old money class-based elite. The new elite look down their nose at people who don’t have their values, but not those who don’t have their wealth or education. They like the underclass; it’s how they justify their caring credentials, caring as long as they get well paid to “care”. Oh and the proles fall into line when expected to do so.

So we see references to Brexiters being “thick” we hear “Tories” being reviled as the left camouflage their own advantage and attempts to consolidate it  by picking on what they see as the money elite (bad) as opposed to their ideological AND money elite (good). Of course, all this social advantage is paid for by the taxpayer and borrower. It is this which makes “Lady” Chakrabarti, Milne and so many others on every spectrum of the left more immoral than even the worst Tory grandee.

Finally a point about education. Chakrabarti sends her kid to a posh school. What this does is enable this kid to get access to other privileged young people, but more importantly it confers the language and confidence of inclusion into the elite; something Labour….Socialist Labour, wish  to deny to those who pay them; again us! We get comprehensive and no Grammars so they consolidate via private education.  Why would anyone support this bunch of frauds, what we need is a Blue Revolution, not a red one!

17.10.16 The use of the divorce metaphor is apt for Brexit. The UK is the abused female spouse who wants to get out but who is going to get a “bit of fist” first..

The phrase a “bit of fist” refers to the old  practice in the midlands counties of the UK of beating a wife who is believed to be disloyal, dishonouring or disobedient. It is the behaviour of the brute and in some communities still goes on even today. However, the Brexit debacle highlights the trend of remainers to give Britain a good hiding or at least threaten it, and in the case of the EU to actually to have the power to deliver the punishment.

We all find this deeply disturbing. There is no justification for locking anyone into a dysfunctional relationship. This “arranged marriage” was probably doomed to fail as the elites of the EU carved up a deal to make the project “work”. The UK got banking and finance, Germany got manufacturing industry and the French got agriculture. All preserved by a cosy arrangement that has ultimately denied Africa agricultural development and has locked all 28 countries into an unholy alliance or “customs area” as it is euphemistically called buying stuff the Germans make, paid for by British arranged finance and all fed or perhaps “watered” by the French. The world suffers because the EU has decided it wants to do well by trading with itself

Of course, the eventual failure is guaranteed…ten…fifteen years from now this deeply flawed continental business model will collapse under what Marx called the weight of its inherent contradictions. Basically, the debt to value ratio almost guarantees the collapse of the whole system. And of course, immigration and welfare can’t be ignored either. Ony a fool would want to be married to this oaf of a business model.

So when Remainers are bleating on about Brexit  they need to think about global  trade and in particular the role of global trade healing the world and bringing peace by  spreading a business model based on Contract, Choice and Consent to places in the world that are familiar only with  coercion, control and corruption. Remainers are shamelessly counter-revolutionary and just like the arranged marriage that fails we all need to move on and remain friends rather than dishing out a “bit of fist”.

18.10.16 1 Billion pounds wasted on “troubled families”! Well who would have thought that would happen? But the question is; does social justice have to involve social and economic waste?

Social and economic justice are two sides of the same coin. But in public-sector controlled Britain does  the  solution to asymmetrical economic advantage have to involve government naivety and a wasted budget of £1Bn. We look at “social and economic justice”. They are very connected but have been separated for “political” reasons for too long.

“Justice” isn’t just about crime and punishment indeed this association comes some way behind the justice of economic advantage and disadvantage. Unfortunately for people today the government and their public school, classically educated advisers have no clue as to how their lofty social positions both underscore economic disadvantage but also their ideas offend the working person’s notion of justice in its broadest sense.

You may ask; how so? Well firstly the advisors are well educated and as a result well paid within the comforting security of the public sector. A security that the rest of us don’t enjoy but, and here is the rub, we pay for. They can scan the social environment from their detached social and economic positions simultaneously being both “kept” by the state but also tasked to critique the lives of others “kept” by the state. The difference is the wealth or asymmetrical nature of the wealth between the assessed and the assessors. This probably explains the preoccupation with money as the key to solving the “troubled families” issue. Giving people who waste money on drink and drugs, tattoos etc more money and stuff, doesn’t seem like much of a well……….good call. Only a well educated isolated and remote group could come up with the idea that money, that root of all evil, could solve this intergenerational, complex  yet seemingly intractable problem. It is a problem that affects immigration, social and political opportunity for the poor, and ultimately getting the right people into the influential jobs, regardless of background. It really isn’t the case that only the posh, well-educated or wealthy should determine social policy.

We have said it before we need an army of foster carers to promote the interests of the offspring of  the poor in the face of the patronising incompetence of the well educated wealthy public sector elite as reflected in the “troubled families initiative”. 1 Bn should do it but only if spent in the right way and not the “troubled families”way.