Blue Revolution Archive 12.12.16 to 14.02.17

Blue Revolution Archive Page 2

12.12.16 A crisis in UK social care and Kids being identified as “failing” at three. Are these issues linked?

We generally discuss the policies promoted within the western world in economic terms. But of course, there are very serious social consequences to these economic policies. The western world needs to ensure aggregate demand is maintained to ensure economic “growth” can manage the debt and pension liabilities it’s ageing population, ill and welfare dependent, require. In total, there are Billions of pounds worth of social liabilities associated with hundreds of thousands of people.

In the absence of a developed economy creating real economic value, rather than relying on debt as the Uk has been for the last forty years, the long term prognosis looks very dire indeed. The whole situation is made worse by the fact that no western economy is likely to start turning out real value unless it is re-engineered along with and the markets which service it. These markets include the welfare, education and labour markets. All these markets are expensive to run being largely functions of and therefore paid for by the State on behalf of the public. Carry on the way we are going and the country (not just the State) will be bankrupt in about fifteen years time.

So how do these markets affect the two issues above? In the modern economy with progressive legislation, the need for the government to manipulate certain “desirable” social outcomes shouldn’t really be necessary. Indeed the government should be on the look out for any contra-indications i.e. things that might be going wrong. Typically the world of work should allow people to choose what they want to do rather than having the State manipulating them into doing what the State thinks they should be doing. In this respect, there have been a number of shifts towards policies which on the face of it look progressive but in fact have discouraged responsible and economically sane behaviours.

The Tax credit has affected the labour market driving part time workers into the workforce whilst the cost of supporting their family in borne by the State. The knock on effect is that there is an increase in under-employed workers, working twenty hours, whilst the social needs of the community are met by the State and its health and welfare sectors. The part-time workers would be better employed working in their communities and families as happened in the past; looking after mum and dad and the kids rather than doing shelf stacking at a supermarket. A shift towards remaining in the home could be met with howls from the feminist lobby, however, rights are not embedded in society if the state has to pay top dollar to maintain them. This is particularly relevant when it is national debt paying for all of it. Of course, it contradicts current “progressive” left thinking. The “progressive” left see welfare as in important part of the British economy which just underscores how delusional they all are. Welfare is necessary but please it really can’t be seen as part of the “real economy” whatever that is, if it is funded from national debt.

Similarly, young people may be in education until eighteen but whilst this does suggest they may be deferring parenthood for a couple of years, it increases expectations and renders them unwilling to undertake menial work. This is the mischief that “free movement of people” is intended to solve. It is a government-engineered and tax payer funded problem which costs the government and therefore taxpayer money to solve. Nice work!. The minimum wage was introduced as a means of ensuring that migration didn’t destroy wage levels. Perversely with no migration and no minimum wage, wages would go up the only pressure bearing down would be young people entering the workforce.

Finally in respect of the single mums. A single mum struggling to bring kids up alone is not giving their child the best “first three years”. Additionally detached from older relatives they all too often contribute too little to their child and community. Children and particularly infants need a lot of time and parenthood is demanding. We know one of us was a single dad. Again welfare engineers the “single mum” taking women out of the workforce full time but supporting them to struggle on their own or in part-time work with too little time to help those in the community who may need their help.

Today there is no need to gender any of the above. A single mum could just as well be a single dad. The person at home could be male or female. Th point is and using the widest definition of social need (kids to the elderly) social care is not a just a government problem……it is a social one also!

06.12.16 How safe is the world for people who are ordinary, powerless and or poor? V2

For the table top revolutionaries here at a Blue Revolution the big question is how safe are we in a world where the west is morally and financially bankrupt and the bits that work or seem to work are at the top of the social pile. The higher up the social ladder you are the more stable your life and the greater are the opportunities you can provide for your children. If you are at the bottom of the pile you probably have a life which whilst not at all identical in the type of uncertainty you would have experienced in the past, none the less you have fear and uncertainty to deal with often on a daily basis.

Fear and uncertainty for those at the bottom who burdened by debt, are benefitting those at the top, many of whom are the State its officers and officials, present and retired. The State has become a self-regarding and self-perpetuating behemoth. It seems to us that the State claims to speak in the name of the people, but serves its own ends and interests using the people as its justification. Welfare, health and Justice being examples but it could include the military too.

The left wing liberal State wails about a lack of social mobility and the widening wealth gap, but look below the surface and we can see that the State pays its top people or allows publicly funded top people to be paid indirectly from general taxation, multiples of what the British Prime Minister is paid. Please Don’t even get us started on the differentials between them and us.

Those who benefit financially like all too many left leaning liberals, send their children to schools which confer privilege, whilst bemoaning a lack of opportunity for the poor. The working and lower middle classes need stable families (no uncertainty “gamed” by excessive welfare) and Grammar schools to assist them to enter the upper reaches of the establishment. From there they will start to dismantle the interests of the liberal elite starting with excessive wages at the top. No wonder the liberal elite does not want to support the ambitions of the blue collar workers.

So to answer the question above let us address the issue of how safe we ordinary people are with a liberal elite running our State on their own behalf. Well obviously not very safe, from our vantage point at least. They have spent the last fifty years looking after themselves at our expense. The EU question is more about them than us, and whilst they may have brainwashed a lot of under 25’s we grey-beards can see that the EU is their project not ours. And so is so much more besides.

We don’t think that the liberal elite is out to get us, us being right wing working people. Far from it, they are not out to get us or do anything other than maintaining a status quo which works for them and is funded by us. Hence their pathetic “Remain” campaign in the UK. However, this “doing very little” lets the more energetic, aggressive and ideological, drive an agenda even a subversive agenda, which could be very much against our long-term interests. These people and this agenda could be Islamist or fascist. If you don’t accept this analysis from where did ISIS suddenly arrive. They were not beamed down from space! Someone knew and no one really cared.

The world is basically feudal with Saudi Arabia at one end, a fully formed feudal system which Henry the VIII would have recognised, China in the middle and the serially feudal democratic “western hegemonies” at the other end. Why do we think our society is feudal even the US? Because we just elect a handful of people to rule us every now and again. As Germany found in 1933 the election bit can be set aside, now and again, as required by any crisis that the economy throws up.

The western liberal elite has no moral guts or gumption, they flip flop around their precious “Diversity” agenda as a proxy for doing something about the sexism and racism and homophobia inherent in religions that have not been cleansed of their prejudicial nonsense by capitalism. They think that as they, the liberal elite, currently hold power and see themselves as “progressive”, we are all Ok, long term. Of course, this is partly because they have lined their kids up (Blairs, Kinnocks, and all the others) to take over our from them so our interests must be safe!!!

Our interests are not safe, can’t be safe with these people. The State is an almost exclusive club and is run by one basically liberal elite class. This class can be easily replaced if the wrong type of revolution takes place. A thick, lazy, underclass and a disengaged working class engineered by the elite to be docile, will put up no resistance when the atavism of other ideologies starts to bang on the door of our pathetic liberal elite. At that point the rights we enjoy (women’s, gay, trans, children’s, religious etc) and they pretend to protect will go, and a modern techno brutality will replace western liberalism. It is the working and lower middle classes which will suffer. The liberal elite will simply look at us, see us as too much trouble and begin to dismantle “our” State in the name of their new best friends and their State: whoever they are. And dismantle us with it.

Oh and just for good measure, we at a Blue Revolution don’t think the Trump-Putin alliance is a problem. Fear of it is just another example of the lack of moral guts which has become the hallmark of the “liberal elite”. Trump might be odd but he is unlikely to patronise the poor….he might cut welfare or something but may, as a result, energise the poor to use their skills to bring the US economy back to life. We have a lot more in common with the Russians and Chinese but it is Saudi Arabia which is our ally and we have nothing in common with them! Go figure!

The real enemy is the liberal elite our own enemy within.

15.12.16 The West’s attitude to Assad and Russia’s success in Syria reflects the fag end of America’s dick waggling imperialism. With Trump, America might lead a coalition of cooperation and trade. America can then put its dick away!!

Nice way of summing up seventy years of American international policy! However ever since the 1940’s we have been forced to conclude that Russia was our sworn enemy and as a result, we have wasted between all western nations trillions of dollars “defending” ourselves from this largely illusory bogeyman. As with the EU trade would have been a better method of bringing a long-term peace than MAD…..for those too young to know, this stood for mutually assured destruction. In other words, if you kill me with your big dick I’ll kill you with mine!

Having hinted we are unilateralists it is necessary to clarify that we are not. We do not see Russia or China as an existential threat, they are in fact no more delinquent than we are but are delinquent in different ways (theft of intellectual property, doping athletes, limits to freedom of speech). Trade will bring us together (as independent nations) better than treaties and agreements unless they are a trade agreement. We need to maintain a nuclear deterrent because whilst Russia and China won’t nuke us there are plenty of nuclear powers and pretenders to the nuclear thrones who would love to blast the west and themselves into eternity.

19.12.16 In the 1950’s and 1960’s the grammar schooled working class were an executive in waiting. That’s why the elite have engineered our indebtedness or our sad dependence on them as an underclass. A Blue Revolution is needed.


Nice way of summing up seventy years of American international policy! However ever since the 1940’s we have been forced to conclude that Russia was our sworn enemy and as a result, we have wasted between all western nations trillions of dollars “defending” ourselves from this largely illusory bogeyman. As with the EU trade would have been a better method of bringing a long-term peace than MAD…..for those too young to know, this stood for mutually assured destruction. In other words, if you kill me with your big dick I’ll kill you with mine!

Having hinted we are unilateralists it is necessary to clarify that we are not. We do not see Russia or China as an existential threat, they are in fact no more delinquent than we are but are delinquent in different ways (theft of intellectual property, doping athletes, limits to freedom of speech). Trade will bring us together (as independent nations) better than treaties and agreements unless they are a trade agreement. We need to maintain a nuclear deterrent because whilst Russia and China won’t nuke us there are plenty of nuclear powers and pretenders to the nuclear thrones who would love to blast the west and themselves into eternity.

Let’s us be honest the aristocracy has no power today and that is absolutely right. The aristocracy was stripping value from the peasants for centuries until first the merchants and then the techno merchants of the industrial revolution slowly undermined their power and wealth until with the democracy of the consumer economy we finally saw off the last vestiges of their power. We left their wealth intact. We don’t begrudge them their wealth; it was legitimately appropriated by the standards of the day.

the capitalists drove an unusual agenda promoting able people regardless of rank. But this was also the era of clogs to clogs capitalism, where grandad built up the business, the son maintained it and the grandson wasted the legacy. When left to natural ability alone they were in many cases incapable of transferring talent between the generations. Capitalism had failure built into it and quite right too. Life has failure built into it!

Will Romeo Beckham have the talent to be an international footballer like his dad?……probably not! But no shame in that; that’s life. Will he benefit from his father’s wealth, probably yes. Is this fair…yes and no. Will the wealth last more than two generations…probably not.

So the aristocrats lost out to the capitalists the capitalists have however had the most ignominious loss as they have lost out to the state itself. Capitalism once value generating has gone and been replaced by the all-consuming State. A State funded by but not operated in the interests of the people. unlike the heydey of capitalism when the state needed capitalists money; when capitalists took control of the essentially feudal state and made it work for them, the state is now an entity set apart from the people, empowered by the weakness of capital and driven to expand its influence due to the public’s corrosive appetite for consumption. It, the “State” is returning to its feudal roots buoyed by its own self-importance.

The state is now using its power to protect itself and promote its self-interest via our public and private debt and taxation. The whole system works for a political and financial elite many of whom rely on the stupidity and debt of the general public to maintain their position. The cull on grammars ensures that no one is going to challenge this system. It came too close to it in the 1960’s so it ain’t going to happen again anytime soon. It is going to be as difficult to shift the publicsectocracy as it was to undermine the power of the aristocracy centuries ago. But it was done eventually by ordinary talented people; dissenters, merchants and capitalists and latterly traditional socialists who saw the harm unregulated power could do.

We can look at some examples of this beginning with criminal justice in the UK. The Criminal Justice System is a relic of the feudal past an unyielding system unable to give way to change. It has always reflected the values of the day, values promoted by the state, but in the face of progress has managed to retain its feudal appearance, wigs, gowns etc as the State it represented has morphed, matured and grown up with economic progress, it remained a farcical pantomime dame.

The law is expensive and serves the needs of the lawyers to an extent we believe is wholly at odds with the needs of the people. Take civil justice and the costs ratchet up into hundreds of thousands of pounds. The public win or loose, see lawyers getting fat on the debt and misery of the public. Should “justice” break the bank?…of course not. No society can function without an accessible Justice System. That is why in the West civil justice doesn’t really deliver affordable justice to the public and the maturity of civil society is correspondingly undermined. If Justice becomes expensive or under-funded then the lawyers move on and leave a moral vacuum to be filled by immoral legislation, just as they have done with divorce.

You can see where they go; they go to where the State will still fund them. Lawyer-legislators pave the way with lucrative earning opportunities such as Human Rights, but they will foray into other obscure stuff too stuff like misfeasance or misconduct. As long as the state lawyer cum legislators continue to make and then determine what laws are funded at the state’s expense, lawyers will get rich….rich and entitled to more.

The underclass provides a veritable swamp of criminal and immoral behaviour which also provides lucrative feeding opportunities for herds of lawyers. The public with their broken homes and imprisoned or drug addicted children watch as these parasites walk off with fortunes as the elderly rot in care homes or are abandoned and lonely. The breakdown of Civil Society might be bad for the masses but it is excellent news for the lawyers and an army of well remunerated senior managers in the “lucrative” State sector as well as leaders of “commissioned” services like social care for the elderly. A Blue Revolution would tip the balance back towards the people and away from our self-selecting masters by de-scaling their salaries, or simply making them redundant. Whlst it won’t be a bloody revolution it will be the slaughter of the excessive salary and the made up job!

27.12.16 As we end 2016 we believe that in the last 18 months we have explored the roots of the west’s terminal moral and economic decline. We sign off 2016 and herald 2017 as the year of solutions.

Happy new year to all our readers. We hope that a Blue Revolution 2016 has been both entertaining and challenging. Next year the really scary stuff starts. What exactly can you do to put the west back on its horse and once again start leading the world in a much needed moral renaissance?

The areas we will cover will include correcting the economic fundamentals of the misfiring western economy, the western education system, criminal justice and why it doesn’t work, democracy and the west’s democratic deficit, welfare, taxation, human rights and how we should both understand but not accept the causes of culturally defended abuses of basic human rights, and on what basis we

can construct a framework of rights which has a buy-in from around the globe….. oh and probably more on the EU (unfortunately!) But we will start 2017 with our analysis of “post-truth” politics.

01.01.17 Post truth politics: the elite’s last desperate bit to undermine populism with their version of thought crime!

Who would have thought that people who have been manipulating the public’s views on everything from who is our friend and who is our enemy all the way down to what we should think about moral issues such as abortion, debt or single parenthood should begin to undermine populism with the laughable claim that populism has all been the result of “post factual politics” or “post-truth” politics.

The sad reality of the situation is that “post-truth” politics has been going on since the end of World war II. It was initially underhand and was used to protect the interests of the predominantly American political and military hegemony. This included maintaining the idea that Russia was the world’s greatest bogey-man along with a number of other minor bogeymen, such as Castro or Saddam Hussain. Post-truth politics came out from the cold and went mainstream during the years of the Blair/Clinton/Bush administrations. Clintons claim not to have has sex with Monica Lewinsky and the Blair years with their “dodgy dossier” and countless other lapses and oversights which have landed the UK in the soup in Iraq and with the whole EU situation arose from an unwillingness, to be frank with the public.

The problem for the US UK and European elites is that populism is not caused by recent post-truth politics (dismal though it is) it is a direct result of the much earlier post-truth politicians telling the public stuff that the public either didn’t believe or came to recognise were exaggerations or lies. Blair and the Clintons are the master practitioners of these dark arts. They, not the Brexiteers or Donald Trump have created populism and we are grateful to them for their efforts. It is inevitable that the state would eventually overreach itself and have its legitimacy called into question resulting in its eventual diminution and final occupation by the people. However thanks to the hubris of Clinton and the Blairs the process may have been speeded up somewhat.

The response of the elite is to treat the public like thought criminals. What will be next, removal of our right to vote!

03.01.17 The left wing elite “all sound and fury but signifying nothing”

If you have ever had the pleasure of being “caught out” by a left-wing liberal, particularly one who is in receipt of an income courtesy of the state, an MP, for example, you would be struck by the passion and fury or as we would argue faux moral outrage. It doesn’t matter whether it is a reference to the contradictions within feminism or promoting Brexit the outrage is often disproportionate to the value of the point being made. This disproportionate response reflects the lack of depth associated with the left’s argument.

The liberal left wing and like them those luvvies who have a conscience significantly smaller than their ego but who have been told by their agents or the liberal media about the value of believing in “fairness”, “justice” “equality” will always promote the left cause. They believe the left have a monopoly on universal human values! They promote the left’s causes because they feel that someone must do something but it won’t be them, they will use their “profile” to raise the issue so that the state can spend money sorting out the issue for them. This process has been referred to as virtue signalling.

The problem for the liberal left is that the people who actually try and solve the problem whatever it is, poverty, ignorance social failure are those who actually create it. The state itself. They try and solve it using massive amounts of taxpayers money but succeed only in promoting themselves and their cause at the expense of the taxpaying public and encouraging the slow relentless decline of collective moral behaviour.

There are two problems with the left-wing status quo and its continued existence under the Conservative government in the UK. One is that the people will never get the state off their back until they stop playing the state’s moral social and economic degeneration game, for example, running up personal debt as the west’s social values go into reverse. the second problem is that the whole of the state legal, political and economic elite perpetuates the problem. Just look at left wing lawyers. They present themselves as champions of the oppressed individual who is abused by the state, but they largely forget as they quaff expensive wine that it is the state that pays them from legal aid and this is drawn from taxation, levied on the debt-laden taxpayer.

It is like a perverse protection racket where human rights and anti-state “liberal left” lawyers, act on behalf of the individual to protect them from the racketeering state, but in doing so take money indirectly from those they are trying to protect, taxpayers; without realising or more likely not caring that they are simply adding to the people’s burden of exploitation. They are the conduit that turns the person wronged by the state against the people who have to pay for the case and all for their personal profit. John Bon Jovi, Springsteen, Eddie Izzard et al and the left establishment and the west’s elite lawyers all sound and fury signifying nothing.

05.01.17 Without its Christian anchor western Capitalism has morphed into a free market of no value and manufactured wealth. We offer a global solution!

The world can’t undo capitalism even though some of the left would like to. The morality underpinning capitalism was Christianity. Protestant Christianity offered a code of behaviour based on personal moral restraint. Combined with the workings of labour and capital this moral restraint created value in unprecedented volumes which transformed the world.

With the exception of a few malcontents who fail to understand the social progress ushered in by the capitalist economic revolution, most agree that capitalism was not immoral. Unfair perhaps, but not immoral. On this latter point, even Karl Marx agreed.

Socialism in Britain after World War two sought to correct capitalism’s unfairness and at the same time much more of the world opened up to the productive capacity unleashed by the capitalist model, (even when under the control of the command and control states of Russia and China).

It was this combination socialism at home and capitalism abroad which helped evolve the western capitalist model in the west, sheering off the self-restraint required by Christianity as competition became wide-ranging and expectations of western workers too high. Financial engineering was the west’s salvation delivering the now fetishised “free market”.

The experience of social and moral decline, combined with a free market which has no restraining forces (commodifying everything in effect) has delivered a world of debt and greed and unnatural extremes of wealth. The holy grail of “trickle down” economics will not happen largely because of the free market. Unlike capitalism, the free market is not a system based on moral relationships but on financial ones. A bit like the internet!!

The relationship between capitalist and worker was as much moral as economic. The capitalist employed the worker and paid him/her wages, both were interdependent. The whole system encouraged both respect and self-reliance for self and others. The political left wing in Europe has undermined this morality and replaced it with a morality based on state intervention and tax payers cash whilst financial engineering as delivered the final moral blow. This has left the western hegemony devoid of moral content.

Much of the world has never enjoyed the moral relationship enjoyed by Christian capitalism. This is reflected in too many parts of the world in relationships between people who have no power to challenge their modern feudal overlords. There has never been a capitalist revolution in these countries many oppressive regimes of which are propped up with wealth from natural resources like oil. No need to garner the respect of a working class there. Just keep whatever passes as a working class in their place.

The problem with the western hegemony is, however, most starkly seen in the appalling state of relationships between the sexes. In many respects, the “free market” is taking relationships between the sexes back to a pre-capitalist age where men were able to assume an uncontracted dominion over women and as a result, the state now has to intervene to protect some woman from men. Domestic abuse, sexual violence, pornography and child abuse are all phenomenon that, whilst they have always been present, are now becoming a western epidemic. Of course, this abuse goes on in Somalia, Niger, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia etc, but as we have suggested these countries have never had a culture based on Contract, Choice and Consent; the west’s Christian and Capitalist foundations.

So with Christianity now weakened to the point of irrelevance in the west, cultures with no tradition of Christianity or Capitalism are becoming pre-eminent and Christian values in he west are giving way pre-capitalist relations This is happening between the sexes, classes, races and nationalities even in the west (relations based on compulsion, coercion and control underpinned by suspicion). The world has a major problem. What could possibly be the answer?

To try and answer this we need to look at what we can learn from the evolution of humanity. Firstly every epoch leaves a trail of characteristics some good and some not so good. We need to look at what capitalism has left behind now it is on its way to long-term oblivion leaving the vestiges of some good things which are obscured by the smoke and mirrors of the corrupted free market (the free market is not bad, just the western corrupted one based on government spending and financial engineering)

The story of humankind journey begins at the point at which we ceased to be mere beasts of the field. When we evolved a “species-essence” distinct from the animals. The characteristics of man’s “species-essence” is to consciously cooperate to ensure the species survival. The positive characteristic of this era was that most enjoyed the spoils of the cooperative effort equally. There was little in the way of hierarchy or selfishness. The negative side was that with rare exceptions there was a yawning gulf between the status of men and women. The origins of objectification were born during this phase of mankind’s existence, the original, original sin was born! And so it survives today as objectification in a very much weakened but none the less corrosive form in the west.

The feudal system created hierarchy and conferred power by rank. This is against mankind’s species-essence which is essentially cooperative. Capitalism moved the rank structure from a model based on birthright to one based on the acquisition of production value and the exploitation of those who created the value, the workers.

However notwithstanding exploitation capitalism’s positive legacy was to free people from feudal bondage. With capitalism’s Christian underpinnings, rights to contract, make free choices and consent to an action involving them, people gained theoretical if not actual, useable rights. This process of contract choice and consent has driven mankind forward, increasing productive capacity and providing a light touch moral framework that all participants accepted as the best means of progressing and ordering society. The problem is that socialism in the hands of the state has been forced to correct capitalism’s less desirable side effects….essentially the class system and the exploitation of workers. Because capitalism was incapable of doing it for itself the state has taken a sledgehammer to crack a walnut!

Now however the work of the state is largely done in the UK and Europe (not so the US) and so we could see a revival of social relations based on the concepts of contract choice and consent with the corresponding uplift in moral behaviour.The state can then begin to shed some of the responsibilities it has acquired but can no longer afford and can start to hand powers to a population now far less exploited and more willing and able to play its part within the body of the state itself.

If we look elsewhere in the world, we can see that there are still too many places that have a society based on tribal culture the most notable and “advanced” being Saudi Arabia, and others which are essentially feudal, Syria and North Africa being examples. We can look at the world and see what stage of humanity any culture is essentially defined by and therefore how divisive or exploitative it is.

We can and should also wonder about a future with capitalism running out of steam and Christianity in a weakened condition. What can be done to progress the world and her cultures towards a more enlighted place? Creating a progressive and hopefully in time just and cooperative global identity, a reflection of mankind’s universal species essence.

The answer to all of us at a Blue Revolution is to get the world and her people to accept that whatever one might think about Capitalism past, and where it still holds sway, present, the legacy of contract, choice and consent has helped liberate people from tyranny and abuse.

The western world weakened and indebted should champion the rights of all peoples in the world by demanding that every adult of whatever race or gender should be accorded the right to contract, choose and consent and that any culture that denies these rights is somehow failing to respect people’s species essence and is, therefore, to various degrees discriminatory, oppressive, cruel or barbaric. We should shame both our friends and our enemies and use the legacy of capitalism to champion the rights of women, children, the poor and dispossessed and set them on the path to freedom and democracy.

09.01.17 How close to achieving her goal of making Britain work for everyone is Theresa May? We apply a Blue Revolutionary rinse to her proposals! V2

This post was going to be about generation “snowflake” and what might have caused many of the youth of today to be so weak, over-sensitive and passive aggressive. It was going to explore the origins of this phenomenon and arrive at an explanation for it. However in the UK Theresa May has given a speech which covers the same turf, albeit from a slightly different angle.

We believe that generation “snowflake” is the product of Blairism and what might now be called the generation “state” namely their parents. Blair, Brown, Starmer and the other theologians of the British “third way” created a self-defined benign form of intervention which consolidated the power of the state at the sharp end of social and economic engineering. There remain many losers some in their 50’s but many more did very well too. This generation “state” is the younger generation of the post-war “baby boomers” the under 60’s, those who voted for Blair and have benefitted from “Blairism”, the debt, welfare and public sector expansion of the naughties.

As a result of Blairism, a class of parents was created who became reliant on a combination of “third-way” debt based state generosity, and who learnt to absorb high levels of personal debt. In exchange for this “affluence”, these people had to suck up identity politics and accept a loose moral culture which encouraged adolescence well into middle age. A generation “state” was created for whom personal responsibility was undermined by a so-called benign state. This “benign” system has forged an even more damaged generation, the psychologically broken snowflakes. It has also led to the elderly; the older baby boomers (and older still) being abandoned on an industrial scale by a now almost broke state funded care system. And still the left wing, the vulnerable and the delusional call out to the state for help. To them we say….”don’t you get it”. “The state can’t help, the best it can do is spend more money and still things will only get worse”.

Physical and mental distress caused by Blairs “things can only get better” hubris. Where is his nemesis?!

As we have suggested the middle and working class parents of the Blair era had in addition to state subsidised multiple “reconstituted families”, debt-fuelled affluence which could be paid off from further debt rescheduling on the back of inflating house prices. Their offspring, living in this unstable and for them, an unachievable la-la land, became insecure and sometimes deeply disturbed and needy. As a result many lack the kind of personal resilience which makes for a strong and effective society and although “bright” they reject criticism and challenge so socially, economically and morally undermined do they feel. This cultural phenomenon has been transformed into no platforming and “safe spaces”. Undermining free speech one of the pillars of democracy.

Theis parents, generation “state” are a complicated demographic and in many ways are a natural Blue Revolutionary constituency; Euro-sceptic, hard working, skilled. However unlike a normal Blue Revolution constituency collectively they have benefitted from inflated house prices and low-interest rates. Many have retired early with good public sector pensions and they can afford new cars and holidays.

What causes the problem is that they have failed to contextualise their success and to understand the differential reality their “snowflake” offspring have experienced since their birth in early to mid-1990’s. This failure of generation “state” to understand the basis of their good fortune alienates one generation from another. The two most significant and active political generations, young adults and their parents don’t “get” each other! The people Mrs May needs to appeal to are in reality are the young adults, they are the “JAM’s” they have lost out to their parents big time. they are the ones for whom she spoke about “seeing other people getting on ……etc”.

The generation “state” demographic have enjoyed a series of governments who have engineered their continued financial success, but at a massive cost to their socially and economically vulnerable offspring. Whether it is Quantitative Easing, the financial deficit, housing policy (inflating private housing and not building public housing), low-interest rates, abolishing retirement ages, creating student loans, zero hours contracts, abolishing vocational training in the 1990’s or maintaining top public sector salaries, it is all conspiring to ensure that the new young adults (some now working parents) feel that they are failures in contrast to their “successful” parents. The young voted remain because they believed the EU bureaucracy was there to help them. Unlike the “Tories and Westminster” who seem to them only to represent the interests of their parents.

The confusion as seen by us at a Blue Revolution is that it was Blair’s generation “State” who were forced to suck up “third-way” and EU lunacy such as diversity and identity politics, free movement of people, political convergence in Europe etc as the compromise they had to make for the Blair state’s largess. However, it is they who twenty years later, flush with full-time jobs, housing and pensions, divorce and adultery, have abandoned this socially engineered economic lunacy (hence Brexit). These largely well-heeled parents have given a thumb down to the over-engineered and ultimately flawed Euro and third-way solutions to the UK’s domestic social and economic issues. But not until after they have done, and continue to do, quite well from them!

Perversely it is the young who continue to believe that they would have benefitted from remaining in the EU. They have also swallowed the whole free movement, political convergence, “identity politics” mumbo jumbo, hook line and sinker. Perhaps it’s a case of “if you say something often enough eventually people believe it”; particularly if you start saying it when they are children.

Sadly for us, we believe they have got the issues the wrong way around. They should, like their parents, accept and support Brexit but hold their parent’s generation to account for the lamentable state of their lives as well as the poor state of the real economy, housing and the job’s market. Inter-generational generosity and understanding and support is needed. A kind of truth and reconciliation between the generations!

The mental health crisis Mrs May is determined to tackle is a product of all that has gone wrong in the lives of the “snowflakes” over the last twenty years or so, mostly thanks to Blair and his naive “third way”; all that has gone wrong in the British economy and gone wrong in the EU……But sadly it’s going to take the next generation (the current 5-10 year-olds and a Blue Revolution to boot) to put it right.

11.01.17 Anatomy of the economically engineered elite; or how people get stinking  rich and how should a Blue Revolutionary react.

We all know how the bankers get rich, flogging “financial products” to people who all too often can’t afford them or don’t need them. The governments collude by manufacturing a housing crisis driving up private house building on the back of engineered social and moral decline (divorce and family breakdown) and “free movement of people”. We have explored the links between growth and housing in a previous blog so won’t go over it again here. However, a new house needs filling with stuff and this stuff is too often bought on credit so the bankers win this way too. The stuff that oils the wheels of this modern commerce is “confidence”. An economy based on confidence and debt certainly makes the planet sweat….as well as those of us unlucky enough to understand how it works only after it has broken us.

Another way the bankers and their hangers-on get rich is by the western world’s Quantitative Easing. In this simple scenario, Britain becomes a haven for foreign and British cash swilling around the world looking for a home (otherwise called an investment) and the banker’s trouser more cash. Others benefit too, like artists who can flog for millions of pounds an empty bed and some dirty knickers calling it “art”.

The creation of wealth owned by an array of celebrities, luvvies, sports personalities and retailers needs to be understood too because along with bankers these people are earning far more than is good for them….and us. But how does this work? Then we can move onto our old friends the “publicsectocracy”.

In simple terms, the inflationary pressures that normally increase prices when money is available in abundance (it might not feel like it is but trust me there is a lot of money around) doesn’t work because global low wage levels and low-interest rates ensure that prices don’t get hiked due to higher production costs for the stuff we buy. In this world of money filtering into the system from government debt plus our own “confidence based borrowing” people like Sir Philip Green can sell us stuff that costs him a fraction of what you have paid him to buy it. This foreign manufacturing and low-interest profit bonus is then neatly engineered to avoid tax in the UK. We might as well tip our personal debt and taxpayer’s money straight into the pockets of the Sir Philip Greens of the world. We use him as an example but it isn’t difficult to identify other rich people who get super wealthy from these “Disneyland” economics.

other stuff that is financially engineered (apart from tax, debt and borrowing) are house prices and stocks and shares this is because house price inflation maintains the public’s appetite for, and ability to secure debt, and stocks and shares form the basis of most pensions…..a very worrying reality indeed.

That covers retail millionaires. However they are not the only people who get super rich (by which we mean rich beyond their actual economic or even moral worth), the next category and we do love these people because they are special….. are the celebrities, actors, TV presenters and sports stars. Their road to fame and for us more significantly, wealth is a different route to that of the retail giants above. these people are wealthy because someone thinks “they are worth it”. Ahhhh, love them!

In the old days and if you have watched the film “a bugs life” you will remember a wandering band of “entertainers”. This motley crowd of bugs and insects travelled from place to place entertaining communities. The life was precarious and the wages largely determined by the popularity of the group.

This description is similar to entertainers from the middle ages right through to the age of mass entertainment. You were worth what the public (or a patron) thought you were worth and that was reflected in how much they were prepared to pay to see you; buy your sheet music or gramophone record. I hope you would agree with us that there is a symmetry to this. The composer might get richer than the pianist in the local pub but it was a reflection of how many copies of sheet music they could sell that made them rich. Each purchase was a small part of a consumer’s income, but was affordable and added value to the consumer’s life through the pleasure of consuming the composer’s music.

Unfortunately, there came a point when organisations like the BBC, ITV and now Amazon and others cease to be a mere conduit through which a “performer” offers their “talent” to a platform (Records, sheet music publishing, TV, RADIO, Internet) to entice people to buy, and became the mechanism via which the organisation tries to calculate a performers “popularity” and therefore their price. The organisation (the BBC or ITV, Fox, or Amazon) determines this price, a price the consumer has to pay for a Performer whether they like them or not. The consumer no longer really has an active role in the process.

We can hear voices crying out “but what is the alternative”. Well it isn’t going to be easy but one crude way would be for organisations like Broadcasters the FA and FIFA to set limits on wages and these must be realistic, accepted across “platforms” and whilst recognising talent these wages should not be so excessive that it penalises the consumer. In our “Bugs Life” example the consumer was king……not the performer!

An alternative might be to evolve some interactive functionality to enable popularity to be properly gauged so that performers are paid wages or fees based on their value to consumers as determined by the consumers themselves. The BBC could try this with BBC 3 for example. A sort of payment by results.

If you think about authors you get a better idea about what we are trying to achieve. An author writes a book. A publisher likes it and publishes it. This is like the BBC liking a performer and broadcasting them. However, the Publisher does not buy the book the public does and the wealth the author gets is directly linked to the number of books sold. We at a Blue Revolution have some people who have published….and no millionaires yet! With the broadcaster it is as though they say….”we will buy the books and make a disinterested readership pay because we can….they pay a licence fee”. So things need to change to make this economy in “talent” work for consumers and not just the “celebrities” they consume.

Finally and possibly the most obscene of the stinking rich we come to our old enemy the “publicsectocracy”. These are the publicly funded and waged members of the public sector elite who have engineered their wages so far beyond what they are actually worth it’s almost a national embarrassment….not just a national disgrace. The newspapers occasionally refer to them and do a great naming and shaming exercise however nothing changes. The reason nothing changes is because the whole mechanism of government, state and the Public Sector works on the basis that wages equal talent. In government, state and the public sector, it is usually the opposite.

The slippery wage aspirational and entitled public sector “Chief” finds a safe and uncritical haven in the public sector. They can talk themselves and their “peers” up so that it becomes an established fact that to get the right person (like them) a particularly high wage must be paid. Often, however, they simply recycle themselves getting paid more and more as they incompetently perform in their job but competently climb the greasy pole of top public sector remuneration.

Some organisations with the biggest budgets and their hands on the nations “balls” tend to rip the public off more than others. So in our rough rank order of theft by their “top people” from the working class tax payer we have ; the NHS, the Universities, “School Academy heads”, The Judiciary and QC’s, the Mandarin Civil Servants, the military and finally the chief execs of everything from local authorities to Housing Associations and Charities.

To put this right is relatively easy….the Government on behalf of the general public abandons bogus performance targets (the means by which these crooks get away with it) and freezes their wages. In addition, retire the many redundant people at the top and don’t replace them, and finally when posts become vacant offer a wage no higher than that of the Prime Minister. There will be takers, probably those who genuinely care about the organisation for whom they work and more importantly care about the people they serve and not the wages they get paid.

Oh and finally whilst not in the league of the super rich or the Publicsectorcrats, the Trades Unions Barons need a special mention. The workers should demand that they should loose their wages in line with the wages lost by striking workers, and there should be a ballot on how much they are paid.

Jeremy Corbyn’s jumped on this bandwagon recently with his typical student activist response to this problem. His solution is to cap wages and we presume he means private sector wages too. Apart from the public sector and his own wages as an MP which should be capped, this is Socialism at it’s worst. The private sector market in wages needs to be re-engineered so that the consumer has a far more accurate and active role in determining the level of wages for those they consume as performers and the rest of the wages market (finance, business etc) needs to subject itself to reform too. However, not at the point of wages and remuneration being fixed by the government but at the point where the consumer or the worker gets respectively either locked out of their role in the market or are exploited by their bosses. That fat bloke from Sports Direct springs to mind with this latter point.

19.01.17 Bankers! Good or Bad?

From the money lenders of Biblical times to the bankers of the Capitalist era Bankers have excited different emotions. The Jewish money lenders of the middle ages were persecuted when the feudal overlords, stricken just like the EU with a sclerotic economy failed to repay their debts and were, along with their families murdered, often horribly.

Talking to radicals and “revolutionaries” on the left and right it is their lazy assumption that there is a Jewish conspiracy undermining the world and operating through the banking sector, controlled by powerful Jewish families. Being Blue revolutionaries we take the more sensible view that the bankers are like politicians driven by the desire to make money and the “system” has been engineered to deliver a now largely valueless profit. Not engineered by Jews but by politicians.

It is not a Jewish conspiracy but a banker/political collusion to deliver what both believe to be a ” positive social and economic good” otherwise known to politicians of a gullible stripe as economic “growth” and to the bankers, profit which translates into personal bonuses.

We as consumers, along with the politicians who liberalise the system, buy into the Alice in Wonderland guff. But let us be honest if you are a short-lived political gadfly, desperate to look competent and a banker tells you that they can magic up growth you are likely to be persuaded. This “growth” is preferential to even a short-term period of “economic stagnation” even if eventually “real growth started to re-establish itself. We only have to look at how the doom mongers would prefer decline post-Brexit. Economic decline is the post-Brexit narrative of choice for the elite, such is the power of stagnation or decline to manipulate opinion. However, as we have said before this banking manufactured “growth” is simply debt sometimes backed by property often backed by “consumer confidence”. The money going into the economy props up a service sector that needs money from any source to provide the jobs and the profitability the economy and the politicians need. Conspiracy no, bankers bad…..well no. Collusion …..well yes bankers good…..err no.

Bankers are simply the dung beetles of the modern free market, rolling up debt to make a profit. When we had real capitalism (and that era also had its problems) the banker incentivised effort and efficiency and thus drove economic activity and productivity. Rather than speculating and creating a kind of Oz-like “growth”, it would be better for people to borrow to invest in an actual productive activity otherwise known as “hard work” and for banks to only lend to those who wanted to drive growth by their hard work. Until the banking “emperor” is shown to have no clothes we will all go on borrowing and spending, the more extreme of us convincing ourselves that it really is all the fault of bankers and Jews and has nothing to do with us.

20.01.17 The “Blue Revolution’s” analysis of that “great” Trump Speech!

We have a number of our own narcissists who, like all narcissists, want to be proven right. So we have unleashed the collective power of the Blue Revolution to both analyse the Trump Speech and to predict his likely success. The reason? So we can sit back in a year’s time and say, at least to anyone reading this, that “we told you so”.

Firstly a declaration of interest; we supported Trump prior to the election and like Brexit felt that the alternative was too dire to contemplate. The prospect of an administration headed up by a Clinton with their politics of identity, politically correct waffle, and alienating class-based politics was taking the West nowhere good. Post Truth politics is the stock in trade of this group. They have prioritised their wealth and that of their class at any cost, to the detriment of millions of Americans. Now we have heard Trump’s 16-minute speech, which was basically a response to the hegemonic culture of the elite, what do we think?

Trump sounds a bit light Blue RevolutionrY as he speaks with a transparent language heavy with meaning and lacking any flourish or nuance. He speaks to the constituency who have, as adults, been fired from “rust belt” industries as work went to China and who have seen their children promised education as a means of entering the establishment, whilst the elite close ranks to keep them out. Even in the U.S. a class culture excludes those who lack the …..well whatever it is!

Why the working class youth riot against Trump is not clear, perhaps they think that the Democratic party and its love in with bankers, millionaire business, political administrators, and their supposed liberal social policies will enhance their opportunities in life. In Marxian terms, they need their consciousness raising. The elite liberal state is undermining them, but unbeknown to them, they have been socially engineered to remain in a political stupor of liberal identity politics. The UK nearly became a cropper with this too in the Blair years. What worries us Blue Revolutionaries is that the rule of the liberal elite runs counter to the interests of the working classes. But too many of the working classes have been rendered incapable of recognising it, and can Trump do anything about it?

What we heard when Trump was speaking was a man who has a simple business vision for an economy which has grown too complex as the world has impeded on it, through it and around it. We will come to economics later, however, some of Trumps promises will be in theory at least easier to deliver than others.

Shifting U.S. diplomacy away from the obsession with global intervention should be easy, but the Hawks in the GOP may not wish to see the corresponding reduction in military spending. Likewise, the idea of no longer demonising the Russians can only be positive but again the U.S. military machine has been geared up to operate on reductive polarities…since the end of WWII it has been a case of identifying the latest enemy, can Trump stop this pathological obsession.

The famous “wall” (“my wall, it’s a great wall, the best wall”) may possibly not happen either, the idea is a bit inflammatory and just like the hush-hush reality that the British economy has become over-dependent on migration (for all sorts of economic reasons), so it isn’t clear to us, to what extent the U.S. economy is the same. A wall may perversely be an adverse development for the U.S.

Finally the pledge to effectively re-engineer the American working class using neo classical economics. This is a wholesale re-engineering of a class that has been forced into poverty and ignorance by decades of activity by the liberal elite. The unemployment, low wages, ignorance, loss of real Blue Collar work, the slide into divorce and debt has left a legacy of lawlessness and drug misuse that, as we have said previously, makes parts of western cities and particularly some U.S. cities look like microcosmic feudal fiefdoms. The reality for too many people is that these places are not safe spaces they are cruel depraved neighbourhoods where women and the vulnerable are abused and there are none of the freedoms associated with liberalism. The liberal elite has pulled out!

We believe this forgotten legacy of the liberal elite is too complicated for President Trump. Whilst he can talk about it, we can’t see how he can really do anything to change it. The causes are too complex to overturn in a generation whether it is the economy or society, and then there is the fact that his whole approach seems to be cast by him as Trump the billionaire patrician doing stuff for the poor. We at Blue Revolution take the view that the poor need to do stuff for themselves….and that includes getting into real politics. We can’t see Trump achieving that. Reclaim the streets with Trump’s assistance would be a better argument. As for the economics…well we take the view that any form of neo-classical economics unless deployed within a wealthy (not debt laden) closed economy achieves exactly the opposite of what Trump wants; it feeds the global markets and makes a hand-full of people very rich.

So in summary Trump offers an analysis of the consequences for America of the liberal elite’s sixty years in power. However, he goes little further than offering an analysis of the problems created by this power and its effects on America’s poor. He offers no actual programme of change. We didn’t hear any practical solutions. His analysis is also limited by the political, social and financial parameters associated with the hegemony he is so enthusiastic to criticise. For example, he says he will give power back to working class Americans….how exactly and did they ever have “power”! It took an eccentric using the language of Main Street to become president, but he is a billionaire!

Finally Trump seems to us to have made an elemental business error; he has over promised and is almost certainly going to under-deliver. Perhaps being “Mr President” was his goal….not really sorting out America for the benefit of anyone but himself and his rich family. This would fit his psychological profile, at least according to some of us! We suspect that in four years time Trump will hear his own famous words delivered back to him by the American people…”You’re fired!

Do we think the Blue Collar U.S. blue collar workers will be liberated by Trump? No, we don’t, but he is still a better bet than Clinton.

21.01.17 The anxious foot soldiers of the illiberal elite take to the streets post Trump. What they really fear is a vision of a world post the Clinton’s V2

This as a brief post as we have been shocked by the riots in the U.S. and the demonstrations in Europe over Trump. The anxious footsoldiers of the illiberal elite clearly believe that Trump represents a shamelessly divisive and discriminatory perspective and will roll back decades of progress in respect of social integration and sexual equality. This is of course, as far as we are concerned, rubbish. The reason is that the U.S. is a democracy with a constitution that makes it impossible for Trump to deliver an agenda based on hatred or discrimination. He may send some reproductive rights back to the individual States but that is pretty much as far as he could go.

What the foot soldiers of the illiberal elite are protesting about is that Clinton didn’t have an argument at the U.S. election and therefore lost. She and the elite demonstrated an absence of a so-called “liberal ideology” that takes America beyond the Clinton, Bush, Obama status quo. A status quo which has sucked up to amongst others the Saudi’s with their heroic record of women’s rights whilst turning on others no better but certainly no worse.

The foot soldiers of the elite don’t know who to blame for the mess America (and the EU)) is in. The wealth inequality, the celebrity culture, the banking crisis, social and moral decay etc. The foot soldiers can’t possibly blame themselves or the liberal elite who have helped them gain their individual personal identity and employed them in the government sector. All this whilst giving the blue collar workers the order of the boot as their jobs were exported abroad.

So they will blame Trump for…. well-being Trump, a seventy-year-old locker room jock with wandering hands, bad hair, cringeworthy chat up lines, and a self-important turn of phrase. In the overall scheme of things Trump probably comes in well ahead of Obama and Bush in the sexual preoccupation stakes……but well behind “old man” Clinton, the shaggers shagger.

As we posted yesterday Trump will, of course, be his own undoing. Which is sad. But it is unlikely to be a sexual impropriety that does for him.

22.01.17 To understand “populism” where are the Anthropologists when you need them? Keeping schtum so as not to offend their academic masters. We step in to help

With all the wailing and gnashing of teeth going on around the world particularly among the “right on” classes and the elite we must ask the question; what exactly is “populism” and should we fear it or be inspired by it?

If we look at the rough history of populism it has overall been a force for good. Or so we think. If it hadn’t been for populism, we would probably never have shuffled any further than a few miles from the warmth of our fire and security of our cave. Populism back then would have been as seismic a shift as giving a driving licence and the full franchise to a Saudi woman today. Tribal society thrives on simple certainties.

However, leaving the cave and fire via what was probably a popular uprising, whilst risky developed our brain and our capacity for more complex social and economic systems. And so it probably is with populism today.

The similarities between leaving the certainties of our past system don’t end with the “movement”, uprising or revolution, however. What comes next is critical as populism the “feeling” is probably more powerful that the “knowledge” about where we are going. In this respect, we believe Brexit has greater certainty than the Trump revolution. In America, people voted Trump as he presented himself as a beacon of positive change. However, no one really knows what the change is he proposes, except to make America great again whatever that means in a post-World War II globalised world.

In this sense, America has taken the same kind of “punt” that Germany took in 1933 or Russia in 1917. However, Trump is not a dictator nor could ever become one in the U.S. His election was, however, a lunge into a kind of uncertainty because the old ways were no longer working for the masses. The masses have left the fire and cave provided by the “liberal elite”; Hillary Clinton only managing to persuade those who ate at her table to remain faithful to her tribal cause. What is scary is that is over half the popular vote.

So populism can be very dangerous, very dangerous indeed as Russia and German in the early 20th century confirm; but in strong resilient democracies like Britain and the U.S., it is clearly time for populism to kick start the march to a better future, Even if with Trump that future is for the time being a bit unclear and sketched on the back of a fag packet.

29.01.17 Do the baby boomers really “get” their responsibility for the current mess the young are in, and why don’t the young revolt.

If you are young and by young we mean under 30 you may ask yourself why the world is such a mess and why there is for you uncertainty at every social level, an uncertainty that exists irrespective of social class or wealth. We commented back in our early posts that uncertainty and contingency were the characteristics which defined mankind’s earliest iterations.

Since the dawn of man, nervously blinking out of the pre-historic darkness trying to make sense of their consciousness and therefore their mortality, their fear and poverty, the human drive has been to improve their “lot”. The faith and cultures that mankind created were an attempt, all-to-often-short-term and bloody and self-defeating, to improve their tribal or national situation. The only justification for this brutality coming in the modern age by those who can see the benefits of social and economic progress over time.

Others however doggedly hold on to the idea that this progress (for example granting rights where they previously didn’t exist, putting an end to slavery) came at too high a cultural cost, namely that tribal or feudal systems were undermined.

This argument is of course, specious as there is no “culture” when a tribe is starving and the prospects of extinction are physical rather than merely cultural. Or alternatively, your “culture” renders disagreement with authority a capital offence. So to the ill-informed “youth” and the army of culturally confused “lefties and liberals”, we say stop idealising simple or brutal systems and imagine what it was, or in Saudi Arabia, is like, living under one of these systems.Particularly if you are female.

However, while we don’t sympathise with the young on their view that global economic progress is bad, we do take a rather more negative view about their parents and grandparents responsibility for the personal challenges, uncertainties and the “social and economic sump” into which too many young people have been dumped.

This responsibility for the mess of the modern world is down to the “post-war liberal elite” and its aiders and abetters the army of “baby boomers”, the youngest of whom are now in their mid 40’s. This is something which the young don’t seem to recognise. It is something they seem unwilling to acknowledge. We want to know why!

Of course, this “denial” by the young is like everything else in the west in part “engineered” by the liberal left elite who have the most to loose from a sudden awakening by the western world’s young that the progress of previous generations whilst bloody and incompetent was at least an attempt to create a better world for them. Contrast this with our present situation which is intended to be a consolidation for the middle-aged, middle class rather than progress for the young and poor. The poor came through for the seemingly well-meaning but totally bonkers Trump, the young stuck with Clinton. Why?

We believe with the western world today and its culture of “Secularwesternism” it is the first time in modern history that an older generation is determined to look after itself at the expense of its young and indeed the whole planet. But why are the young so impervious to this reality and what might be the consequences for liberal culture once the elite has destroyed it with their greed, hubris and stupidity?

It really is not fair to be too critical of the young. They have been fed a line since the mid-1990’s that the education system has been engineered for them. The abolition of Grammars has created opportunities, the emphasis on higher education has “raised the bar” along with access via student loans. Finally demanding education from employers for employees aged 16 to 18 has closed any gaps and skills shortages. Add to this the ridiculous “gifted and talented” programme of the early 2000’s and an emphasis by the millennial Blair government that it was cool to be young, cool to snog, cool to “get off with each other”.

The millennium decade was a period when “right on” adults tried to define a great future for the cool Britannia generation. This generation has come to maturity with a lot of mind shaping having gone most of it almost subliminally. Their thoughts then find expression in the one thought at a time Facebook post.

As far as we are concerned the reality is very different. The abolition of Grammars has denied the most academic working class children a chance to enter the establishment via the top universities. The proliferation of higher education courses paid for by student debt has kept academics in work whilst young people get often useless qualifications gaining no ability to think beyond a kind of cultural “group think”.

The conversion to “academic” courses from the impossible to arrange apprenticeships in the 2000’s resulted in young people becoming unskilled to do anything, hence immigration to fill the skills gap.

The parents, unaware of the left’s agenda encouraged their children’s indebtedness; “S/he’s the first to go to university” was a proud refrain in working class homes up and down the country.

We have described this as a bit of a left wing stitch up of the young. Maybe it was deliberate; an attempt to keep the left’s most loyal foot soldiers, the humanities academics in work. Maybe it was simple incompetence like much of “new Labour” policy.

So to address the question above; why don’t the young complain about the baby boomers outrageous snatch on their future. The simple answer is because they can’t. They can no more think in these terms with sufficient sophistication to argue their case than they can step outside of the group think of “identity politics” or tear themselves away from the narcissism of Facebook. We have a new feudal system called a “publicsectocracy” if you will, and the young are unfortunately its serfs.

Some young people might be able to see the need to join us at a Blue Revolution. Most will simply fail to see that there is a problem.

And finally what will be left when the elite have destroyed liberalism. Well, the elite are lining their own kids up to replace them at the top of the cultural and political pile, as there is little real talent or appetite for power further down. This almost feudal arrangement will be benign until the ignorance and aggression of the poor render the elite impatient to consolidate what has become their “dirty secret”; that they don’t like, trust or respect the people they are, for them unfortunately, still being paid to serve…….us!

09.02.17 Gender fluidity a gift from Daddy! What does this actually mean to the girl or boy involved?

A popular British ‘Marxist’ comedian has indicated that he would like his newborn daughter to have none of the pressure associated with the whole business of gender…that whole business of each of us having different “farm parts” determined by our gender.

But isn’t the real issue not the difference between a male and female person’s “farm parts” but what they do with them. If you simply talk about gender as being “fluid” you will encourage confusion, uncertainty and distress. A child has a right to know what it is not, so as it matures it is capable of deciding who it is. Can you imagine the confusion a child will face when asking “daddy what sex” am I and our “right on daddy” says “I don’t know and I don’t care….you can be either or neither it is up to you”.

However, even if you rely on a lazy analysis of past and current social norms then you have an argument which has some validity and social value. You can with this approach ascribe a gender to your child but then say “whilst girls usually wear pink and like kittens and boys wear blue and play conkers (cultural reference alert) it doesn’t have to be like that”.

Being the kind of guys and gals we are, we would like to add a further dimension to this perplexing gender debate. A Marxian perspective if you like. Gender is only really relevant in the modern economy for one reason and that is that it determines the type of consumption which typically can be targetted at you. Consumption patterns are something you can change. A simple choice anyone can make to buy or not buy on the basis of gender-related marketing.

Unfortunately, there are legacy issues linked to gender which remain more significant than mere gender-related consumption, these relate to biology but are combined with essentially tribal social values and still affect male and female roles today.

Gender is still used by many to determine their primitive biological roles and “priorities”. In the past, there was no choice about the role of impregnator or impregnated. These reproductive gender roles are today choices and, take place within a modern gender fluid western society.

Western society has many flaws, but it has strengths as well. Aside from gender-related consumption choices, reproduction has become a legitimate “choice” for western women and couples. However, in the west, too many reproductive choices are actually a massive welfare liability, which is why tribes strictly control reproduction. The word liability applies because in the west far too many reproductive decisions fail to take account of the need to raise children. Too few take our primitive roles seriously anymore and the taxpayer picks up the tag for children who no one really wants to raise, gendered or otherwise. Contrast this with third world economies where gender is taken very seriously and upon which different rights and social roles apply to men and women.

So gender fluidity in a gender-ambivalent and reproductively amoral society is unnecessary. No one has to buy what is ascribed to their gender nor behave in the traditional way expected of their gender, and sire or carry and bear babies unless they want to. If they do thoughtlessly the responsibility will ultimately fall to the taxpayer.
The issue, therefore, isn’t what gender you are or are not, but what you do with your gender or you don’t do with it. Please, someone, tell daddy.

09.02.17 Following on from “populism” and the rise of a people’s agenda we ask, why can’t the left and the liberal elite compete with populism?

It must be something to do with the march of history. The people are better placed than the experts to ensure the survival of their culture. The elite and the left united it seems to us in one simple belief that they should guide the masses towards a future defined and shaped by them; with their preoccupations and concerns the focal point for the policies that supposedly steer the interests of the masses. This creates a roughly 50:50 split between the people (the masses) and the combined establishment.

The problem is that the masses; that unpredictable and often violently revolutionary mob no longer see the link between the values of the left or the elite and their own basic needs, considerations and concerns. We believe that this has a lot to do with the fact that the left and the liberal elite have something that the masses can no longer enjoy and that is personal security. The left are too prone to lionise the role of the state as some kind of paternalistic protector of the masses, whilst the liberal elite are more than happy to engineer an economic “success” which casts jobs into off-shore oblivion whilst replacing real jobs with state non-jobs and an education system which metastases stupidity at every level below that of the elite itself.

We thus see the masses trapped between a “benign” authoritarianism which taxes and spends to preserve itself whilst destroying creativity, industry and ambition or as an alternative, a liberal “third way culture” which promotes “free market” principles which offer zero hours contracts, an economy dependent on the toxicity of debt, plus any one of a number of means of maintaining the aggregate demand, the means by which the elites measure their political success. It doesn’t matter to them if the state apparatus has over-reached itself and this has resulted in abandoned elderly, poor education, student debt and a squandering of the planet’s resources.

For both the left and the elite the world’s poor are migrating because they are locked out of growth at home be it North Africa or Asia, but as long as they the elite can see “growth” at home they fudge the issue; none more so than the EU.

Populism then in our opinion could be much greater than the roughly 50:50 split so far identified. As long as the next “revolution” is predicated on the principles of Contract, Choice and Concent and this supports democracy and freedom giving rise to a fairness in the distribution of power and wealth, we can’t see either the liberal elite of the left having much to offer. The evidence for this seems to be starting to take hold with Clinton’s lukewarm support in the US and Corbyn’s in the UK. We just need to light the Blue touchpaper and stand back.

11.02.17 The London and south east effect and the myth of its transferability.

If you lived in London in the 1950’s or early 1960’s you would not recognise the place today. Of course, some landmarks will prevail for centuries but the rest of the city morphs and changes year in and year out. Where the small towns of the north remain stable or in a sort of genteel decline the big three English cities evolve, and the really big daddy of the process is London.

Since 1960 London and the other two big English cities (Birmingham and Manchester) have lost huge manufacturing and other big industries and these have been replaced by the high-tech and service industries, we describe as “the real economy” today. It is this economic change which has changed the character of the big cities. With the decline of an “industrial” working class and an imperceptible shift from production to debt backed consumption as the basis of the cities regional economy, the world has been knocking on the cities doors.

We believe that the what has altered the city economy has been the success of globalisation. Globalisation has created “global” industries which require a global workforce which is mobile and able to adapt to changes in climate and culture. Around this phenomenon has sprung up the global citizen, the character that is so beloved of the liberal elite and in the Uk those who wish to remain within the EU.

However, globalisation may benefit I.T. Banking and other high skill sectors which push beyond the UK for a workforce a kind of petit-bourgeois workforce, but to service, this phenomenon of a global petit-bourgeois workforce the unskilled are also required and none are more adaptable than the global proletariat. They come to the UK and share houses and live a life far removed from their lives at home wherever they come from (eastern Europe, East Africa or the Philippines). They fit into the city-state because they have none of the pre-occupations and hang-ups that in the UK our own “proletariat” have been conditioned to obsess about. These include health care for the deliberately unhealthy, welfare and perhaps a two or three bedroom home provided for them, and paid for by the state, so they can bring up their fatherless/motherless child in an isolated and lonely comfort their limited economic worth could not possibly pay for. There is even an unwillingness to move from a declining location to secure employment in another more prosperous location leaving the way wide open for the global proletariat to step in.

The wider British economy, is therefore made to contort itself with state (taxpayer?) debt so it can provide health, welfare and meet regional housing expectations based on a model that exists only in the provinces with their old and all too often under-employable second generation ex-industrial workforce. This model has since the 1960’s been largely abandoned by the city-state as a result of global conditions.

So is this “city-state” model transferable? In short, we believe not. To accommodate the needs of the provinces the economic expectations need to become more realistic. It is not possible to create a local economy based on the city-state model without unnecessary mass housing and an economic infrastructure that not only provides services but provides jobs and accommodation relevant to the needs of the individual worker. The provinces are not like a city-state, they can’t provide the well-paid jobs that create the trickle down economy. They would simply become areas with over-stretched social resources (schools, health etc) which remain highly dependent on “top up” welfare for a migrant population that can neither be effectively housed or effectively employed.

The answer is to stop welfare for all new migrants and get the provinces working again. It sounds like an unappealing solution but trust us if engineered properly it will transform Britain without trying to make Grimsby, Greater London.

14.02 17 First version The Blue Revolution Manifesto

The world goes through revolutionary upheavals every hundred years or so and semi-revolutions every half century. The last one in the UK was in 1997 when Tony Blair acquired the mandate to secure the state’s total moral and social dominion over its people. In the U.S. Clinton achieved the same thing. The whole “third way” was based on the idea that the intellectual elite knew better that the public what was good for them. To avoid this process of change being merely “utopian” i.e. just aspirational froth, the left wing liberal elite knew that there would have to be some underpinning economic model that could funnel funds into the projects that would save the people from themselves and deliver Blair and Clinton’s New Jerusalem. They believed it would work.

The economic model chosen was one where Government spending would be deployed to boost economic growth and thisin turn it was believed would empower people to achieve their potential. The era of naïve economics and identity politics was born, to a fanfare of “things can only get better” by D:Ream.

The public were in part seduced by this model. Blair seemed like a nice guy – and who could argue that in the UK public expenditure was there to be spent on health, welfare, and achieving via every public-sector outlet, the vision of a multi-coloured kaleidoscopic Great Britain; a Britain shorn of reactionary forces like national pride, belief in the family, and personal responsibility. Who needs that stuff when the state is there to go beyond intervening from the cradle to the grave and can now usefully occupy itself interfering with the public’s mind too? These old ideas thought the new left would be consigned to the dustbin of history, just as surely as bonded serfdom and illiteracy had been.

The only problem was that the economics didn’t really stack up if you knew what was really going on. So along with the Financial Crisis of 2007/8 the other consequences of this utterly naïve model have been expanding wealth inequality and the inability of the state to make good its 1997 promises (regardless of who is in power) and a growing burden on the taxpayers of the present and future to pay to keep this whole shambolic system in existence.
This misfiring model is what we at a Blue Revolution call the Secular Western hegemony or more simply “secular westernism”. This secular western model is well established and will need a new revolution to shift it. Not a Red Revolution because Red Revolutions are, like the Red Revolutions in China and Russia or indeed the UK after World War II, effectively a triumph of the state over the individual, albeit with an initially benign intention.

A revolution will be needed because just like the aristocrats in the past, the modern big winners of the state system, the politicians, bureaucrats, charity chiefs, and third sector organisations, the publicsectocracy as we call them, won’t want to give up the power, status and wealth that goes with their elevated positions. They also will not want to re-order the economy to reduce the super-rich who benchmark “top” wages and provide funding and sponsorship for elite causes including politics.

If you believe that today government, democracy, welfare, international relations and basic rights don’t pass the sniff test, you may be feeling the initial stirrings of becoming a Blue Revolutionary. So Please read on.
Blue Revolution
December 31st 2016

The rest has been removed for hard copy publication.