Blue Revolution Archive 21.10.16 to 10.12.16

All Faiths Page 3

21.10.16 The political elite and their hangers on plus the underclass; two groups who are well beyond their sell by date.

If observing mankind’s evolution from the swamp to highly evolved but immoral and indebted teaches us anything it is that at almost every step of the way one small group is exploiting a much larger one. Whether it is the unacknowledged exploitation of women by men in tribal culture or a feudal system furnished with value by serfs or slaves history to date teaches us that we are only slowly falteringly or in Donald Trump’s case groping our way towards more enlightened times. The enlightenment is within eye and earshot but still not achievable yet. But Why?

As economic determinists, we believe that to fully realise a progressive evolutionary shift we need to understand where exploitation lays in the current economic  system. We have, we hope explained that there are groups of influential people out there happily manufacturing industries that allow them to line their own pockets with government cash much of this government cash is debt based and paid for by the worker. The most significant of these groups are the  ambulance chasing lawyers pursuing minor public sector and health workers plus soldiers for “compensation”.  Alleged wrongdoing is the context for litigation. The compensation is the self-justifying pretext for court action but the much more important subtext are the legal costs!

The law-makers being lawyers is a breach of the separation of powers but one that the lawyers, that generally quite process observant group are quite happy to overlook. There is also the fact that the  law is expected to pay well so lawmakers are paid well too. Lawyer as policy and lawmakers is one reason that the interests of blue collar workers have been overlooked for too long. Our needs are secondary to the needs of the State to protect its officers, members, and hangers-on and keep the whole process hidden by a veil of legal legitimacy . This explains the left alliances (Greens, Lib Dems and Labour Party in the UK’s obsession with staying in the EU). It is only very remotely about trade it is really about maintaining the EU political system for the benefit of the Junkers and Tusks and the UK’s “left-wing” hangers on and duff politicians . For their “class” to survive the EU has to  survive. This makes what the UK did in voting out as cutting edge revolutionary as anywhere in the word for many, many decades; possibly even centuries. Well done. The Blue Collar revolution starts from here. The three millennia of rule by one elite after another will start to change from here on in.

However, there is one element of UK domestic policy  which we believe is exploitative and which also supports the State’s overall aim of maintaining control for its elites which justifies well-paid state employment at the highest level. And that is the subsidisation and growth of the underclass. This shameless bit of social engineering has cast millions of lives into a mire of hopelessness resulting for males in drug, alcohol and crime and women into premature motherhood before that are emotionally equipped to look after themselves let alone a small defenceless child.  The advantage of this horribly broken system is that it allows the left wing parties to talk the language of caring whilst promoting a system which keeps workers paying and the state receiving and the underclass locked into a moral and economic “double lock” that allows them little chance of escape. The underclass feeds the State monster, directly through the need to manage them via government  jobs and government departments such as the Justice department and indirectly by encouraging workers from abroad to migrate to do low skilled work, thus pleasing the EU overlords. Migration puts pressure on the housing market so housebuilders do Ok as does the Government via taxes on building and sale.

We believe the Blue Collar revolution, the proper worker’s revolution needs to tackle the problem of the exploitation of the worker’s root (the underclass) and branch (the elite)

23.10.16 Contract, Choice and Consent; a Blue Revolution’s global “trideology” for the rest of the 21st and the 22nd century and beyond.

The “ideology” of the EU and we have recently concluded the “ideology” of “New Labour” (RIP) are similar in one specific respect; they are both premised on the belief that social justice can be delivered by a theological or ideological “socialist” state. Free movement of people, whole swathes of people, the very young, the very old and the disabled moved around the continent to access better welfare, education and health all on the “ticket” of often a single “worker”.  This is the inception of the  dream of the EU social and economic engineers; a continent united in one single belief system and one single market. However it is about 200 years too premature and on this basis, it will break before it can be made to work. The analogy we would use is that the EU theologians are trying to transplant an old established Oak tree rather than cultivate a sapling and take their time over it. They are killing the tree.

There are lots wrong with the EU….its currency trapping weak economies into an unsustainable economic model, the free movement of people  stoking up resentment for reasons obvious to anyone other than the elite. The over inflation of economies within the Customs Area of the EU luring the illiterate and the morally immature from North Africa. The consequences of “hubristic humanitarianism” on vulnerable EU communities and women.

So what is to be done. Well, we believe that to unite the world to encourage growth, trade and reduce the risk of war we need to promote a set of ideas that have obvious moral appeal and to a wide and culturally diverse world, and hence we have distilled “Marxism” and produced a spirit of freedom captured in Contract, Choice and Consent, our “trideology”. These three rights are drawn from Capitalism and are a legacy of that economic model conferring rights that under feudalism were denied to too many people……in fact denied to all peoples.

The EU needs to realise that its policy of self-promotion is denying countries that need to develop a modern morality the opportunity to do so it is doing this by discouraging the cleansing of relationships associated with free trade. The EU is not a safe pair of hands and neither is the rest of the self-regarding and the self-promoted western world…and that includes the ideological “left” who see wealth rather than rights as the main objective of their “socialism”. Grow up guys!

28.10.16 Saint Tone, a Patron Saint of the EU theocracy offers us advice on Brexit. He like they simply don’t get it!

The theocrats of the EU have dispatched one of their big guns to patronise and plead on behalf of the EU elite. On the UK’s BBC radio 4 morning show, Tony Blair dished up the usual meal of warmed up “third-way” leftovers and a defence of the EU status quo which confirmed the self-regarding, paranoid and delusional view of economics, politics and society that characterises much of the Remain side of debate.

Clearly, the British people didn’t know what they were doing in voting for Brexit and don’t know what they are doing in continuing to support Brexit. The implications are that much misery will befall them and they will have to rely on their elites to sort out the ensuing Brexit mess. It could not occur to Blair because he is incapable of self-criticism that the politically mature and independently minded British might be prepared to endure short-term problems in some economic areas such as lower house prices and increased inflation as a bi-product of gaining proper democratic accountability and a reduction in the power of the technocrats and the elite. Of course, it is arguable that much of what is going on in the economy is simply a correction ofter years of EU economic engineering. The British economy needs to start living in the real world; the world of risk, value, price and profit and loss. It needs to leave the safe haven of the Alice in Wonderland economics of Tusk, Junker, Schultz…..oh and Blair. This is a world where the Elite game the economy to meet the economic, political and sociological needs of the elite themselves and use the economic levers of mass migration, Quantitative Easing and low-interest rates to create artificial short term “confidence” and thereby maintain aggregate demand across a range of EU strategic sectors. Of course, the beneficiaries of this “economic model” are the elite who fob the masses off with cheap debt and a morally ambiguous liberal social policy.  All of this combines to create a long-term toxic blend of expectations and entitlements that the European economy can only hope to deliver in the short to medium term and will fail to deliver in the long term. They will fail because society will falter with too little collective social responsibility and economies will buckle under the strain of debt, ageing populations, mass migration and an absence of proper global competition keeping business sharp.

What Blair et don’t understand because they are beneficiaries of the existing system is that economic value and progressive social values are longer being delivered by Western leaders in the western world. The British public have grasped this ahead of the rest of the EU and are the first to demand something is done about it; Brexit!

29.10.16 If it were not for the ability to store value or transform debt into wealth would we be able to reveal and then solve the “puzzle of history”!

It was Karl Marx who said: “communism is the puzzle of history solved”. However, we have had almost one hundred years to become familiar with “communism” and it really hasn’t “solved”anything. The same goes for “socialism”; grand theories that eventually draw power to the state and thereby undermine society and an individual’s ability to fulfil their “species-essence”. So if everyone from Lenin to Corbyn has got it wrong what does “getting it right” look like. We consider whether the real workers Blue revolution solves history’s final  puzzle, thereby bringing about the fabled “End of History”.

Well firstly whether it is Communism or Socialism the actual application of the principles of both have been poorly interpreted. In the case of “socialism”, the State has shown a great reluctance to diminish its power and control and  indeed under Blair in the UK and others around the world “the State” and its army of technocrats has grown as the power of western Capitalism has diminished. With Capitalism now unable to generate sufficient value to  feed the workers the arms and legs of the state have stepped in to manage the operating environment of whatever bits of the productive and job-creating economy still remain active in the west. This is essentially managing the environment of the “free market” and ensuring that the real liquidity of the free market namely “confidence” is maintained. This has differed within the various parts of “the west”, but we would claim it is fair to say that the EU’s expansion  was a stitch up by socialist technocrats intended to mitigate the effects of capitalism’s drift to cheaper areas of the world, and to ensure they and their class had a job for life. We call these people the “publicsectocracy”; they are the aristocracy of the “socialist system”.

Has this socialist experiment of state management of the economic environment worked? Well, we would say yes and no. A state takes a lot of money to manage an economy and maintain the politics and social policy which rests upon it. In the UK there has been a programme of social policies since the end of WWII which could be described as progressive and the welfare state; a 19th-century idea now bloated and malfunctioning, was great in its time. Brexit proves however that overall model fails the public’s “sniff test”. Too much debt, too many pointless ” infrastructure projects”, too much immigration to fill up the city centres whilst the indigenous populations flee to the newly built out of town estates, family collapse and re-configuration driving housing demand along with the growing realisation that a worker’s right to a home will play second fiddle to the housing industry, lawyers and government, a government like all governments that needs tax revenue. Immigration, gaming the housing market in favour of builders, and the demand from family breakdown, all justifies what we call the mythology of the manufactured housing shortage. As if all that were not enough there is a moral decline as the free market “marketises” everything base including genitalia and sexual behaviour. What used to titillate older men, sooth the lonely and make schoolboys snigger is now part of the mainstream economy; it has to be, there isn’t as much of a  real “value creating” economy left!

So overall, socialism has, like the political elite and the underclass it’s two great demographic creations, been around too long. Its army of highly paid functionaries and lawyers has  become like the aristocrats of the old feudal system, unwilling or unable to see how they stand in the way of progress. So what of Communism?

Communism has never existed anywhere on the planet. The revolutions of the past were industrial revolutions orchestrated by the state which gave rise to rapid increases in the value the economy could create and thus gave a legitimacy to the claim higher living standards were due to “communism” as people became better off. This increase in value based wealth happened in the west under actual Capitalism.  Some “Communist” or rather state capitalist societies like post-revolutionary Russia have finally settled back to become more  “socialist” in character, rather more along western lines. This seems to us to be because socialism was or is what “communism” in Russia really was namely State control of the economic environment rather than by for and of the people!  So in terms of solving the riddle of history,  hmmm mmmm. More work to do.

02.11.16 Trump and the White House yes or no? We endorse diversity so why shouldn’t a man with a personality disorder become President.

As revolutionaries, we accept that whilst revolutions in the 21st century should not be blood letting they might be gut wrenching. And so it will be with a Trump Presidency. Trump is clearly a man with one if not two personality disorders the most obvious being narcissism but with a bit of borderline thrown in too and perhaps some……..no we will stick to two. Anyway, we were debating Trump the other day and discussing the aftermath of a Trump win. It was suggested that the CIA might do him in, which whilst always possible in trigger-happy America seems unlikely.

The man is a revolutionary in that he has persuaded the sad, delusional and ill-informed that he stands up for them. Corbyn says the same thing in the United Kingdom and has attracted a similar constituency. However,  whereas Corbyn’s natural supporters are the neurotic waifs and strays of the democratic process, Trump’s people are the gun toting and paranoid. His people hate the establishment, code word for the Clintons, as much as they fear the lawless underclass. They are sad and emotionally abandoned people though just like the lawless underclass they fear so much. As true apostles of the principles of diversity we at a Blue Revolution, however, fear no one including a President Trump; gut-wrenching as that prospect might be. Even a man with his obvious emotional shortcomings can be president in the 21st century; the US constitution almost shouts that at you as you pop out of the womb on US soil. But why do we think this way?

Well Trump’s election as President will lead to a whole lot of soul searching as the US considers the implications of electing such an odd character to the highest office in the land, and what such a result will say to the world about the brash, money obsessed and shallow state of the American electorate as engineered, just like the UK’s not quite so lawless underclass, by a greedy and self-interested political elite.  But that elite is the alternative.

We only had one word of caution about the election of President Trump and that was he has executive control of the codes to launch a nuclear attack. Apparently, these codes  can be deployed without challenge  by special advisers or military chiefs being used at the President’s discretion, causing a nuclear conflagration in fifteen minuted (four minutes to launch!).

However  as we have concluded that in a just world even someone as mad as Trump can be President, it doesn’t mean his special needs don’t deserve some special treatment. Therefore we recommend the appointment of the Presidential psychiatric team, who can quickly step in and deal with  the US’s first President with “Special needs” and section him if required. Thus avoiding WWIII becomes a matter of his capacity for office rather than the failings of the US constitution. As our old friend Karl Marx said: “from each according to his ability to each according to his special needs”. With that proviso, we Blue Revolutionaries give a cautious thumbs up to President Trump.

With apologies to Karl Marx.

03.11.16 Sharia courts in the UK! Is this really a problem? We consider the issue.

Sharia courts in the UK are accused of discriminating against women. Well, we consider the issue. Imagine a type of world where a person took responsibility for the decisions they make and were held to account. One might conclude that this is like the contract based western world where you agree to any arrangements you subject yourself to be it an employment contract or a personal loan. However when money is involved the T’s and C’s are usually rigidly enforced not so when the issue is about relationships. In the context of relationships, family life or the mundane humdrum stuff there is no direction or guidance in the west just a government willing to pick up the tab for people’s mistakes. People marry and divorce having children they can’t afford, conduct illicit relationships out of narcissism or a desire to hurt a no longer desired partner. A Sharia court only discriminates against people who have made informed decisions they now want to change. The critical question is; was the decision they made to start with, based on Contract, Choice and Consent?

Well, the answer to this is quite simple. If the issue that is taken to the Sharia court was entered into willingly and there is no suggestion of abuse or coercion then the matter of the Sharia court is one of ensuring that people behave responsibly. We could do with a kind of Sharia court within the secular western world so we can start to tackle the blight of the irresponsible underclass.

05.11.16  Uk’s High Court interferes with “Brexit”. The strategic wing of the publicsectocracy opens up the battlefield for the disrupting tactics of the “Remoaners”. Is this how the establishment works?

A Government Minister resigns and oh he is a lawyer. The High Court whilst resisting the urge to comment on “Brexit” none the less make it utterly problematic to negotiate without the interference of MP’s many of whom are pro remain and lawyers. Add to that the “yesterday’s men and women” in the House of Lords and you can see the UK has a major “democratic deficit”. The Lawyer who resigned did so we imagine so he could throw the full weight of his “Publicsectocratic” mind behind the Remain campaign in Parliament. Of course with a full battalion of Political lawyers the battle to frustrate Brexit will be much easier than winning the public over to the cause of remaining in the EU with its bloated army of technocrats and wafflers.

We said it here that the Establishment are largely comprised of politicised lawyers. It seems that we were more right on that that the evidence at the time suggested; we have some more compelling evidence now. The separation of powers, undermined by Blair and his army of subversive lawyers still holds the nation to ransom. And we can see where the counter-revolutionaries are on all sides of the House of Commons. Democracy in crisis: “hell yeah” the country is run by lawyers, not politicians!

07.11.16 What happens when a “virtuous circle” consisting of establishment action to tackle the effects of economic decline goes wrong. You the workers pay to keep them in well paid work!

The trouble with the State getting too involved in things is that its chief box-wallahs find it difficult to put aside the levers of the state when the economy, perhaps due to an over-zealous enthusiasm to intervene fails to help the economy. They believe their intervention helps because it might have helped once when there was a less globalised operating environment for the world’s economies and you could spend value in a largely closed society and could feed your population internally. However, since then the world has opened up and jobs have gone elsewhere and people move about. There is still more of the world to open up too so things could only get worse for the blue collar workers. Unless dear revolutionaries we do something very creative.

Firstly we need to look at what the “establishment” is up to. They are creating a State that provides the well-remunerated government and legal establishment employment that they and their “enlightened” and entitled class feel they deserve. The colonisation of the legislature by the legal establishment is part of this process. Knowing little about the people in the Blue Collar demographic the legal establishment and politicians of a certain stripe warmly virtue signal themselves by wrapping the idle and promiscuous in a welfare system that keeps them in ignorance, poverty, both spiritual and material, and idleness. It requires the actual grafters to pay for this and then pay for the army of well-paid box-wallahs who extract tax to pay for this wasteful system and of course, their 100k salaries too.

What happens in this situation is that the workers become the victims of the “virtuous” State and we end up with the workers paying for a system that promotes the very values the workers detest but which critically keeps the establishment in work. The outcome at this elementary stage in the revolution is Brexit and possibly Trump. In the UK Theresa May may slowly let the steam out of the blue collar pressure cooker and get us out of the clutches of the rich tax gobbling and entitled EU waffler. If this doesn’t happen then things can only get a little tense and a Blue Revolution may be superseded by a more bloody red one.

So what is the answer; well why not make training Britain’s young in proper practical skills easier for the talented tradesman and women of the UK, whilst making it less attractive to employ “off the shelf” workers from Eastern Europe. This doesn’t have to be abusive, simply a shift in focus away from bogus degrees and the student debt that supports “lefty” academics. We only have about a decade left to do this because we still have talented and skilled people left to do the training. This approach will embed workers values rather than the values which demand that the tax payers job is to support the “left” elite.

Secondly and more importantly open up Britain to the intellectual talent of the Indian sub-Continent and beyond as we hope Mrs May is trying to do. So rather than replace young trainee brickies with Eastern European brickies we can replace the overpaid and entitled elite with a more modest cleverer and moral group of intellectuals from elsewhere in the English-speaking world…..Come on let’s give the establishment elite a taste of their own medicine, at least until Grammar schools deliver our own competitive working class elite. Let’s replace some of our public School elite with skilled and talented migrants. What’s good for Britain is good for the world! It’s been like that since the 18th century!

09.11.16 Well well Trump won. No real surprise there we supported him too! But to avoid a real mess he has to deliver. We offer some advice!

The Trump challenge is to deliver to the constituency of the white working and middle classes who feel that the last three decades have been about undermining their economic status by exporting their jobs; then expecting them to burden themselves with debt to keep each other in work whilst the political elite skims off a little for themselves through the taxation on the debt based profits. In many ways, Trump is a challenge to the “Publicsectocracy” he is not part of the political elite, although we would argue that, in reality, he is a beneficiary of what we call debtamorphosis. His empire has a value a fraction of what it is claimed it is worth a fact he needs to accept, but it has the “worth” it has, because of debt based asset price inflation.

However, there are some words of caution. His spending programme will indebt the USA to an extent greater than Clinton. However where they would spend the money on education and keeping the candle of the liberal establishment a light he will build things and invest in blue collar work but the outcome will not in a globalised world generate the endogenous growth envisaged. The Money will simply flood abroad.

In the end, however, Trump’s biggest challenge will be to deliver to the constituency who elected him. A constituency who will expect a quick fix for their alienation and low wages. His context is a country of mass ignorance, of sad embittered people who feel angry; scarily he needs to meet the needs of these people. He has thankfully done on behalf of the public what was needed in respect of the elite. We need less of the expert and the elite and certainly, they need less pay. However, only half of what a Blue Revolution wanted is knocking the elite. Having achieved this he has also to deliver work, wages and the American dream to the alienated masses. Donald, you are like a dog chasing a fast moving car…….however you are the dog who has caught up and has the car clamped between its jaws, what are you going to do with it.

12.11.16 To the left leaning liberal elite “Populism” becomes fascism. Their hostility however is simply  a fear that the “blue Collar” masses will challenge their now faltering social and economic model

The word populism isn’t used to explain Clinton winning the “popular vote” but it has been antagonisingly used to explain the upsurge in the “deplorable” vote. Somehow people voting on mass for Clinton is seen as demonstrably different from people voting on mass for Trump. This Trump Blue Revolution is seen as appalling and frightening in equal measure but for us, the worst case scenario would have been the return of Clinton voted for by the smug self-satisfied the brainwashed and downright mislead. The vast majority of Clinton supporters are brainwashed into thinking the Clinton’s “socioeconomic” model has a sustainable future, will deliver for ordinary Americans and will lead to more social justice. On all counts, we disagree emphatically. More of the same debamorphosis, funnelling tax and debt based revenue into the pockets of the elite with the overspill generously handed out to the poor as a form of virtue signalling and all delivered on an industrial scale. The mob of hucksters in the upper reaches of the US political system can’t believe that they have finally been rumbled. Clinton is probably no criminal unless ensuring you do nicely from the tax payer and public sector and big business is a criminal rather than a moral offence.

One small additional point we wish to emphasise is that the populism on both sides of the Trump Clinton divide is very much due to Constituency marketing. The Clinton’s went for the economically illiterate but socially aware young, the lower ranks of the publicsectocracy and the wealthy but guilty (similar to the UK’s Champagne socialists) whilst the Trump campaign went for the exact opposite. Both camps, however, miss the essential point about the tensions between their campaigns. People want to see change; the politicians gave them meat they could recognise from their polarised vantage points which achieved the result of getting Trump elected and the popular vote going to Clinton. However, most ordinary Americans (and Brits) are divided on the basis of criteria which is perhaps intended to miss their common interests.

What are these common interests? The real issues that were lost in the polarisation of an angry and vexatious campaign and which clearly need sorting out if a true Blue Revolution is to energise more than about half the population. Regrettably so far only the half who are angry about knowing they have lost out, rather than those who have been seduced by the rhetoric and do not yet know they are actually losing out as well…..they just don’t know it yet. So who are those who are suffering from an “unknown known”? We go in search of the lost constituency of working class voters.

The most obvious group are the students. Rightly fed a diet of socially progressive ideals; tolerance to difference etc but at the same time led to believe that these progressive ideas is political as opposed to economic. The free market demands “diversity” let us be honest the marketisation of sex is driven by economics, not politics. We don’t see Hilary Clinton saying “market your genitals”. No, it is a product of economics as so is Gay Marriage, Gay rights, transgendered rights and free movement. Capitalism’s Contract Choice and Consent. To see this as purely political and therefore Clinton’s unique selling point is stupid. Trump may have appealed to blue collar workers and “red necks” but we are certain he has no negative views on most of the above.

Students are particularly vulnerable to liberal bull-shit. They get indebted to keep left liberals in well renumerated “academic” work. Work that is unwilling to stray into “sociological” areas that have been vacated by “lefties” since most of the numbers show they are totally wrong about everything social; immigration, big government, family life, religion, contract choice and consent no less. If students thought about their student debt and stopped obsessing about rights, they might see that the biggest threat to their long-term future is the liberal left.

The next big constituency is the low ranking members of the Publicsectocracy. These people think that their wages terms and conditions are safeguarded by the state. They are not. The bottom of the public sector is not protected by the top echelons of the state. The top echelons look after themselves first and the tactical end of things end up penalised and privatised. The issues that the top publicsectorcrats cite to the lower order as reasons to be “progressive” are economic rather than political, see above. Yet the economics they promote militate against the lower orders. Most notably unemployment due to immigration, high house prices due to immigration. This con trick that progressive politics is all down to the liberal left is rubbish. People want freedom, contract choice and consent and the liberal left offer the expensive, privileged and inefficient state and then more of the same. Ordinary people should see Trump and Brexit as not about restricting the freedom to be yourself but as liberating people economically from the power of the state; the Brexiteers and Trump supporters should be joined by a young constituency of people who share progressive values and yet see that currently, the power of the State can only deliver debt and unemployment for those who are not part of the elite i.e. 99.7 % of us.

16.11.16 The dislocation of the State from the people is a symptom of an age old process of evolution. However this time it is the “liberal” state that is thwarting progress!

Donald Trump, Brexit and the “populism” in Europe and elsewhere is likely to erupt all over the liberal elite. Or as we prefer to call them the illiberal elite. We have been scratching our heads trying to offer a practical application to illustrate why the old ways of doing things are resistant to change whilst the public knows that the western social and economic model fails the “sniff test” and needs to evolve. We had a rather interesting paper sent through to us which we think can illustrate the contradictions between the state and the people and it is concerned with the British criminal justice system. Reading it some people might have to rise above their impulsive anger but if one clears one’s mind of prejudice and tries to actively avoid making too many pre-judgements and assumptions it does open up a fertile area for debate which we think contributes a lot to understanding why the west is in the mess it is in with its general public knowing something is wrong but perhaps not why.

So here goes. The criminal justice system has many characteristics which have been carried over from the medieval period. The Judge dispensing justice on behalf of the monarch reflects the systems feudal origins. In the US with no monarch, the term “the people” is used but it is not clear to what extent the interests of the “people” are really considered within the US system. In the UK the be-wigged Judge elevated and enrobed was historically intended to install fear, the aim being to emphasise the awesome power of the state in a visible way intended to intimidate an illiterate “mob”. The point is clear the state needed to emphasise its power and it’s “objectivity” as it dealt with the condemned, intent on breaking them physically and mentally before their eventual and very public destruction.

Back in those days, the State was the name given to the business of exercising powerful vested interests; the King, the aristocracy and those in lower capacities who relied on the state’s largesse. In constant fear of the mob, justice had to be brutal. Whilst by modern standards this might seem appalling, the system was “just” as if there were a revolution the system that would replace the state would be no less and possibly even more brutal than that overthrown. This was the era of retribution and deterrence. It was an unforgiving system and perhaps reflects the west’s naivety in getting embroiled in regime change in the Middle East!

Between the 18th and the early part of the 20th-century things were transforming, as merchants and then industrialists became the vested interests determining the nature of the then modern state. The criminal justice system began to reflect these changes eventually losing some of the brutality as more “industrial” and “scientific” methods were introduced. However whilst the criminal justice system overall might have evolved (with penal policy introducing concepts of reform and then rehabilitation) the courts remained the visible pinnacle of state power, the power over life and death for what was still seen as a largely unpredictable and illiterate mob.

Even the low crime rate which preceded the first world war was insufficient to shift the notion that the State was under constant threat from a revolutionary mob. There were of course threats, but being realistic they were not existential threats to the nation-state. The state, unwilling to change how it presented itself to the masses, continued to offer an awesome spectacle in court, of bewigged and robed judges and officials dispensing the power of the state with the intent of breaking the miscreant and sending a clear warning to others. Whilst reform and rehabilitation were entering the criminal justice process driven by reformers who were able to distribute capitalism’s wealth benignly, the operation of the courts remained resolutely medieval in character, and so it is today. However, today we don’t have an illiterate ‘mob’ and who exactly are the vested interests shaping the nature of the State and it’s institutions of power and authority such as the courts?

Well, ‘capitalism’ has given way to the ‘free market’ which unlike capitalism, is an utterly amoral system easily ‘gamed’ by anyone with the money and ability to work out how to best fulfil their own selfish financial interests. Capitalism had its faults, but on the plus side, it created unprecedented amounts of wealth sufficient to reform society and lifted people out of poverty into work and in so doing conferred rights like contract choice and consent. The people who benefited the most were those who previously had been enslaved and powerless, the human property of the feudal state.

The ‘free market’ however has only one significant legacy. The legacy of debt pursuing immoral behaviour. Whilst people are now free thanks to capitalism they are also indebted. An indebted, as oppose to illiterate ‘mob’. Whilst still possessing and dispensing power the state like the individual consumer is reliant on debt to enable it to pay for its institutions of power and authority. There is no longer productive western ‘capitalism’ funding benign developments in the capitalist systems interests.

The courts, community sentences and prisons come in for critical evaluation within this debt reliant economic context. The courts and prisons are for most people the most visible manifestations of state power, however, they punish the same group of individuals who fund them; the indebted ‘mob’
better known as the general public. This is why the system fails the public’s ‘sniff test’. The public is feeding the system with wrongdoers and the public is funding the system with taxpayers money, the only people who benefit from the modern criminal justice system are those whose salaries are paid for by it. Can this contradiction be resolved?

So in summary, we have an economic system which is dependent on debt and a state which relies on mass indebtedness with it’s associated immorality to pay for its institutions of power and authority. As for the criminal justice system, it punishes the same group of people who pay for it through their debt and taxation. Those unfortunate enough to find themselves managed by the criminal justice system are those who are the weakest in this perverse debt based economic model; their behaviour being shaped either by indebtedness or the conspicuous lack of public morality. They are the victims of this immoral system and they are punished by it too.

The Courts

The British criminal and civil justice systems act as though the early 21st century is the same as the mid-nineteenth century, with the full power of capitalism’s productivity driving the engine of economic and social growth at home and within the empire. Thus the justice system reflects the fact that it believes it is operating in the name of a vested interest and that this vested interest has a different set of demands and expectations from the public, a public from whom they are artificially differentiated. The old tactics of be-wigging, robes, titles and elevation continue to reflect this differentiation, just as it always has done. These practices are a direct link back to the days of the feudal system and thus are at odds with what people actually feel about themselves and their “he who pays the piper calls the tune” relationship to the state and its institutions and powers. Whilst the public are not perceived as a revolutionary mob when they enter the court system, they are treated like one and yet….. it is the public who are in reality now the ‘vested interest’ who pay for this system and the army of staffers and officers who run it.

The criminal justice system works on a “just deserts” model. So much punishment, for so much crime! However, there is something wrong with a system that costs the general public billions of pounds, promotes tax indebtedness and operated in a society which exposes the most vulnerable to a corrosive lack of collective morality (divorce, children being raised by the state, widespread sexual freedom or rather an absence of sexual restraint; the commoditization of everything including people).The state and therefore the courts should be representing the interests of the people but in absence of the public being viewed as a legitimate vested interest, the state acts to represent its own interests and in so doing separates its self from the will of the people. We would argue that this is what lies behind the failure of western governments to garner more than 50% public support. This is why ‘the system’ fails the publics ‘sniff test’.

If the power of the courts were to be used to reflect the vested interests of the general public who unlike big business actually pay their taxes, then the public would we think demand that a number of things should change. We would guess that there would be demand for the legal profession to be reformed and the roles duplicative roles of Queens Counsel, Junior Barristers and Solicitors modified to create a simple career structure. Justice could be affordable for the workers as of course, it should be.

Secondly, the notion of Just Deserts fails spectacularly when it is both the public who pay for the just deserts and yet provide the cannon fodder for the “just deserts” system. In reality, who really has their interests served when an 80-year-old sex offender is sent to prison for 8 years at a cost to the taxpayer of three thousand pounds per week? If they understood the system, the public would not demand “Just Deserts” as defined by the state system, they would demand “Justice” and that would mean an affordable “no more harm” approach to sentencing and punishment. More liberal and progressive perhaps than state-sponsored liberal elite!

A thirty-foot prison wall is not always necessary to deliver “Just Deserts” or prevent “no more harm”, likewise, some cases serially re-offend and just deserts lets them continue re-offending by passing short meaningless custodial sentences. It fails the “sniff test”. This just deserts model does, however, deliver incomes and salaries to a vast array of state workers. thankfully we believe there is not too much reform required. However, the impact of the two changes described above would be catastrophic for the people who currently act “legitimately” as the only vested interest currently recognised within the system; namely the vested interest of the politicians, officials and lawyers of the state.

Community Sentences

These owe their existence to a belief at the turn of the capitalist 20th century, that people were not only capable of reform, but they wanted to reform. Back then the culture of the western world was simple, protestant and monogamous. There was, therefore, a simple template against which all could be measured. Capitalism needed sober healthy hard working workers so invested in criminal justice believing that personal reform was not only desirable but also possible. Thus the long march towards the current array of community sentences was started. Today there are numerous interventions and initiatives all paid for by the general public who often feel the efforts to reform are a waste of money and simply create more opportunities to re-offend. Again failing the “sniff test”. The just deserts concept militates against the public’s safety and Queens Peace by keeping the low seriousness, nuisance individuals out of custody. If the criminal justice system was invested with the public’s interest as it was of the capitalists, it would demand that community punishments should be better targetted to those who would genuinely benefit from them. They would not be available for those who due to weakness, stupidity or narcissism feel no need to improve their self-management and reduce the risk they pose to others. For this group, prison is probably the answer.

Prison

We began by looking at the aims of sentencing as it has evolved over the last hundred years: retribution, deterrence and more recently reform and rehabilitation have come to define the role of prison and punishment within a just deserts model. The problem, however, is that prison and punishment do not deliver deterrence, reform or rehabilitation. Prison does not deter or rehabilitate, it is a home from home for too many damaged and inadequate victims of the free market. Men and women who stumble from one social and emotional crisis to the next. The lack of any collective morality permits the system to get away with exercising little if any real influence as they lock people up for a month sometimes a week at a time.

To overcome some of these obvious shortcomings just deserts needs to reflect the vested interests of the general public as oppose to the vested interests of the system itself. Those who can be in the community and be made safe should be in the community and made safe, even if it appears to offend the principle of just deserts. After all, just deserts was in the past paid for by a productive capitalist economy. With the now largely broken free market economy and indebted public paying for the system, justice needs to be redefined to make it affordable, effective and defensible.

So bringing these threads together, the answer seems to us be some reform of the whole system of justice. Prisons should be used to house those serial offenders and dangerous people who are incapable of managing in the community, irrespective of just deserts, whilst others could gain their just deserts in the community. Just deserts in this latter sense would be delivered by a combination of tracking, tagging, monitoring, curfews, exclusions, loss of passport, driving licence etc; a very punishing regime indeed fulfilling just-deserts at very little cost to the indebted taxpayer.

So what is the point of all this? Well, in summary, the Criminal Justice System like all state institutions no longer represents an elite who are responsible for paying for it. The wealth held by rich individuals today is not created by productive “capitalist” type activity it is generally debt based and in addition the wealthy are first in the queue for tax avoidance. So with no wealthy elite paying for the state and getting influence as a result, the state which comprises politicians and lawyers serve their own political and legal interests. The state does not serve the people who pay for it; namely, the blue collar workers and this is why we believe we are getting the Brexit and Trump phenomenon. The disconnect comes from the public not getting the influence they deserve as they are seen by the state elite as merely the people who pay to keep the state serving itself!!! Reversing this is the stuff of a Blue Revolution.

21.11.16 When there is a global crisis what makes “Tone” think the ordinary man and woman will value his “contribution” particularly to something like Brexit? Sometimes we ask the obvious questions.

Boring !

22.11.16 Why are the liberal elite, “elite”? Because they are the top end of the State of course.

We have explored the anatomy of the western world’s anomie and we believe that the existence of this goes some way to explaining the success of the populism of Trump and Brexit campaigns. We have enlarged on this theme and we have argued that unlike the past when the “state” promoted the vested interests of powerful economic interests it shies away from reflecting the interests of the public who pay for it and prefers instead to concern itself with ts own interests. Hence we have welfare that has gone mad, a belief that the twin blights of a housing shortage and homelessness are the sole responsibility of government to cure and that correcting every illness from body dysmorphia and infertility to gender realignment and obesity is the responsibility of the state to fund. This creeping over-reliance on the state keeps the liberal elite in well-paid occupations and enjoying “career progression” whilst directing the thoughts of those responsible for paying for it towards the virtuousness of their benevolence. This is socialism. Socialism is expensive and ultimately by the state adopting a passive response towards “mission creep” the public pay for a system that is both expensive and inefficient. Socialism is essentially the “state” doing stuff it wants to do and with no actual contract with the state the public pick up the tab whether they want to or not.

The power to guide the activities of the state is what the liberal “elite” are for. We the ordinary person in the street have no say over the state and what it gets up to. So as our last contributor but one suggested we have a criminal Justice System which obsessed with “just deserts” and with prison as the ultimate penalty, regularly exposes the public to the horror of urban crime whilst “manageable” risks end up languishing behind a wall at a cost of thousands per week. The public would want justice and this means protection from harm, not retribution or deterrence those feudal ideas that belong to hell holes like Saudi Arabia.

As it is with criminal justice so it is with health and housing. People have become ignorant of the fact that a country has to pay its way and thus the combination of welfare induced social and moral decay (all too evident in too many parts of the western world), naive post-war expectations and health and housing stock asymmetries combine to ensure that the root cause of problems is refashioned to ensure the creeping role of the state is maintained. It is all too evident to us that a good measure of a country’s moral, social and economic health is to gauge how many “middle class” people are in the pay of the state. In the Uk for example if you discounted the state workers above tactical and operational grades there would be a very small “middle class” indeed.

Would a small middle class be a bad thing or a good thing? Well, the state provides the influential well-paid work for the liberal elite and without the state doing what it does many would be out of work. On the other hand, the public is paying a lot for their state and would be better off with some shrinkage. It is of course, possible to conceive of a state that through the proper contracting arrangement with the public could offer real policy choice and government by consent thus avoiding the “Trump effect”. This rather than the liberal elite’s view that it illiberal not to have an ever encroaching “benign” and informed state to help and guide when needed.

Just like the debt-laden free market which games the economic system to ensure that it looks after its interests (corporations, banks and markets in the main) so the state and its elite, our state and “our” elite does what it believes is right for us, whilst we the tax payers pay for their pleasure whilst impotently standing by and watching them **** it up.

25.11.16 Ok Blair, Clagg et al are clearly “counter revolutionary”. What should be the response of a peaceful revolution ?

We opted not to examine Blair’s offer to assist Britain with Brexit on the basis that the question of his motive was too obvious to require addressing. Blair is a narcissistic and delusional god complex nut case in the mould of David Ike. However, bonkers or not, he draws in a number of others, all fellow travellers amongst the liberal elite who seem to be scheming to derail Brexit. The view of these people is that the British public are too stupid to know what is best for them and that we need to be guided like children by our masters and betters.

The problem with the Blair model as we point out incessantly, is that it is a continuation of the socialist triumph of the state over the individual. This model, necessary after the last war in Europe has over reached and now finances an immoral system which in any period including this one is utterly unaffordable and unsustainable in the long term. However, it is a business model that makes the senior officers of the state and business people who can game the free market very wealthy. This is the EU model and Blair and co do very nicely thank you. The problem, which isn’t being discussed is that this model will eventually collapse under the weight of its unsustainable contradictions. What are these contradictions? Well, public debt is engorged by mass migration, but that translates as a positive figure in the minds of the “Remain” crew making us the “fifth largest economy in the world”. We borrow and spend and it makes our economy look healthy just like with the compulsive borrower and gambler all this stops eventually. Within an economy mass migration is a bit like a drug ; it forces the government to spend money and spending on migration like spending money on drugs makes the economy feel good and look good…. short term. But long term it has to stop often as a result of some kind of paralysis caused by the simple unaffordability of the model.

Housing inflation feels good to those with houses but locks people out of the housing market; both as tenants and owner occupiers. Migration probably creates the largest push factor on housing (along with divorce) particularly inner city housing; driving up rent values and creating an out of town demand for “new build”. So Brexit might reduce the pressure on housing and the loss of government spending and a reduction in housing inflation will translate into a slowing economy. However long term this is sustainable and is indeed beneficial. The same goes for the devaluation of the pound. We are once again getting a sense of the British economy based on real economics not the distorting filter of Euronomics!

Wage levels are in the short term going to be driven to the minimum wage by continuing immigration. Restrict migration to only those economic elites we need in the economy (as opposed to political elites that we need fewer of) and we will probably see wages rising at the lower wage levels. Wage levels being stagnant isn’t due to Brexit it is because we remain within the EU. Out of the EU and with a global approach to recruiting the brightest and best, our economy will benefit from global talent at the top whilst our flexible private housing market and welfare reform deliver British workers to British working class jobs at the delivery end of the economy.

Why would Blair and co want to avoid this obvious good news story? Well as part of the EU elite Blair and co have a perverse attachment to a government model that offers people like them (and their families) well paid but essentially pointless jobs managing the people of a continent. The people of the EU are getting wise to the fact that these elite Euro jobs are largely irrelevant whilst working class jobs are under threat from migration and over regulation. But more importantly their taxes and debt pay for a system that looks sustainable in the short term but that will eventually collapse taking them down whilst the elite takes their “earnings” paid by workers taxes and move to Dubi or similar.

If Blair and Co loved Britain as much as they loved Brussels they would applaud Brexit and the life-affirming opportunities it gives Britain to escape the debt-burdened incoherence of the EU. Leaving the EU (hard or soft) will help other nations develop a sustainable economy that through trade brings the chance of greater peace across the planet. It will help Britain recover from the consequences of its numerous recessions and help it begin to repay its indebtedness. Free trade is the DNA of European and world peace but regrettably for Britain and us at a Blue Revolution the EU seem intent on preventing Britain from having free trade within the EU customs area. Denial of free trade is a serious weapon the EU and their elites want to use against Britain. Blair and Co working in our interests? No, as usual, just their own!

28.11.16 The trouble for girls is clear and simple; it’s the amoral free market stoopid!

Is the western world a safe place for girls? It seems such an unnecessary question given that in Iran a girl can’t sing in public and in Saudi Arabia being female is almost a crime. We don’t need to look at Egypt or Somalia to register that in these countries being female is a risk to your reproductive health. So in the West, we would assume girls have never had it so good.

The West’s progress has ensured that the laws on marriage allow easy divorce, that girls can have jobs in every field of work, that the horror of pregnancy outside of marriage is mitigated by welfare and there is abortion on demand. With the consequences of this package of 20th-century reforms, girls should have a bright and aspirational future. However, the general opinion seems to be; girls in the West are unhappy and this is reflected in low self-esteem, self-harm and suicide.

A recent British documentary highlighted the challenges for an Afghan girl as she fought to avoid being sold as a bride (to provide money for her brother) and her fight to be free to achieve her musical ambitions. She was throughout very philosophical; even when told by her grandmother she could be sold to an eighty-year-old. As a young Western girl, you might conclude OMG!

However, OMG hardly captures the reality. Too many western girls behave with a level of self-loathing that would be understandable if they were being sold to an eighty-year-old. But why? Well we believe that girls in the West have lost part of one gender identity as full-time mothers and gained another partial identity as workers whilst being sold two myths; one is that the “free market” delivers happiness via mass consumption and that the tendency to objectify themselves and therefore others is due to them personally rather than a process encouraged by the free market to maximise consumption. This latter point is reflected in attempts to get girls to “get real” about themselves. The girls need to “get real” about the “free market”!!

The free market is a means of making money. Unlike in the past when making money was about creating jobs today the jobs are in China or India. This has elevated consumption above production as the main economic preoccupation. Consumption doesn’t require a working class it simply requires consumers and a means of creating enough wealth to provide the means of consumption (as opposed to the means of production). This wealth can be engineered by governments in the form of welfare spending or it can be “liberated” from increased asset values like house price increases. Whilst men and women are cast in the role of consumer (consumer having replaced subject or citizen) it seems to us that being a woman has added complication in that personal consumption can be increased by dint of one’s attractiveness or ability to be relaxed about getting pregnant whilst dependent upon state benefits.

In the past the two roles women could take advantage of were separated by marriage. Worker prior to marriage and mother thereafter. Today they are blended but the blending is simply intended to maximise the woman’s consumer capacity, so loyalty to others disappears for them as well as for men. For both males and females being with the rich man and marrying the beautiful woman is the corrosive aspiration downloaded into everyone at birth. In the case of men low wages exclude them from the mass consumer club, for women, average looks have the same effect. (an attractive woman can “trade up”) For both, debt can, in the short-term increase ones “consumption coefficient” but for women, the conflict between the two roles is mediated if not indeed manipulated by government policy, in particular, welfare. The problem for girls is that being conflicted around serious life choices is dispiriting, depressing and confusing and eventually it is too easy to default to having children; wanted or not!! thereby opting out of the world of work or being compromised with a work life balance that puts work before children.

Finally, for too many men the alternative to being successful is suicide; physically removing themselves from the gene pool….often having sired a couple of children. The most recent figure show that suicide is the highest cause of death for men between twenty and thirty-four. For others, crime is another “alternative” career that creates a consumer capability.

The free market is not wholly a force for good it has the capacity to corrupt and distort peoples expectations, turning love, loyalty and duty into different forms of greed. The public feel this on both sides of the Atlantic but possibly don’t understand where the feeling comes from. However, the “free market” loving political elite neither feel nor understand the problems with this inhuman and corroding system and are therefore shocked when the public reject them because they won’t reform, modify or control this system.

02.12.16 The Blue Revolution has some challenges which the “liberal elite” might find uncomfortable. Let us examine one!

The experts have just concluded that advice and education is a waste of time when it comes to controlling alcohol misuse and pricing policy is more effective. In this world of “rational expectations” does this help us to understand how best to create a nonreligious morality fit for the 21st century?

Since the turn of the 20th century, there has been a slow relentless decline in moral behaviour. It has been met by an ever expanding system of welfare that the public sector elites view quite wrongly as “progressive”. How such a word can be used to justify a policy which undermines moral choices is hard to comprehend. Here at a Blue Revolution, we believe in Contract, Choice, and Consent and take the view that adults should be capable of navigating their lives within this moral framework with some limited scope for state support in the short term as necessary for individuals who fall on hard times. However with a western society grown fat and lazy on welfare and state largess something needs to be done to re-engineer society back to a place where adults are fully competent moral agents and not the beneficiaries of an undermining culture of state money and a sanctimonious moral relativism. The contract, Choice, and Consent should be all that is required to underpin a truly moral society. We are going to look at Contract, Choice, and Consent in relation to procreation.

At the time of the birth of Britain’s welfare state, society was moral to the point where too many personal choices were deemed immoral and in some cases like homosexuality illegal. This was both a dark age and an age of peculiar enlightenment. Christianity left a legacy of marriage by consent and those mature enough to understand the awesome obligations associated with marriage went on to provide loving stable and productive homes for themselves and their children. The element of choice and consent is there and the marriage ceremony itself is an “illiterates contract”. The persecution of gays and lesbians was and remains immoral. A person sexuality has no relevance to their social or economic productivity.

Unfortunately, society changed, in some ways for the better but not in all ways. Something commonplace during the war but which lay dormant after the war began to filter into society and that was “sexual abandon”, a bi-product of war which became “sexual liberation” in the 1960’s. Sexual liberation was heralded by the “shagging” community as a way of marking themselves out from the more buttoned up or as they would argue repressed community. The sex scandals of the present age have their origins in this “sexual liberation”. It was and still is a predators charter.

Sexual liberation is bad enough when the consequences are hurt feelings, personal disgust, and divorce, but it significantly worse when a child is produced either because of “sexual liberation” or a child is caught in the middle of “sexually liberated parent(s).

So having exposed what we consider to be the problem; what do we see as the solution? Well, it can’t be more of the same, state money to subsidise wanton stupidity. No, if we have to consider the financial consequences of millions of selfish “liberated” life choices we might take the view that this liberation has to stop. to avoid behaving like some prig or moral dinosaur such as we find in dust bowl Islamic societies like Saudi Arabia we need to protect individual choices and respect an adult’s moral agency. Contract, Choice and Consent does this. But what of those who fail to behave like adults, the children of the age of sexual liberation for whom Contract, Choice and Consent are irrelevant concepts.

Well, this is where we at a Blue Revolution become a little more draconian; because a society based on Contract Choice and Consent has to have a way of encouraging compliance with responsible behaviour and disincentivize morally poor behaviour. This is done by having a national policy of DNA registration. A pregnancy is no longer an act of one sided selfishness with the more vulnerable gender picking up the moral pieces and the social disapproval. The process should be based on consent and choice and a contract between the parents to support the child. In the absence of this being negotiated by free mature moral agents, the state should step in and force the parents, confirmed via DNA to support their offspring. If education doesn’t work for alcohol misuse why would we assume it would work for reckless procreation.

The “liberal elite” will argue that registering DNA is an infringement of human rights. That is because there is money to be made from the social and moral chaos upon which the state thrives. However just as all our rights are now contingent on fair play to all of us taxpayers, particularly now that the wealthy corporations have decided that tax avoidance is a moral imperative, knowing who has sired whom and therefore who should pay is essential to help re-motivate people towards improved moral behaviour. We would argue that this change will be a bitter pill for the underclass to swallow, but it will we guarantee….note guarantee, improve the lives and expectations of boys and girls, put promiscuity into retreat and place children as the pinnacle of a safe and coherent union between parents who have thought about children ahead of a promiscuous lifestyle. No punishing the fornicators, no sex education explaining what to do with your “farm parts” just a lesson in contract choice and consent and the consequences of having unprotected sex on your bank balance and future happiness and prosperity. Here at Blue Revolution, we consider that as sexual intercourse releases powerful hormones it is a bit like a drug. So let’s tackle its worst social aspects in the manner of substance misuse. Let’s treat it like a dangerous substance!

04.12.16 What is wrong with “Remainers”? Their love of the State doesn’t stop with the EU that’s what!

The Lib Dems are claiming to have made a come back with electoral success based they say on a campaign which was largely anti Brexit. It is not clear to us why the sort of people who live in Richmond would be 70% in favour of “remain”. However, there are other “affluent” constituencies which also have a similar profile so perhaps it is about being affluent. Here at a Blue Revolution, we are well enough educated, and global in outlook but not affluent so unlike the affluent we can’t accept the idea of an expensive government over running our lives or accept the idea of rule by superstate.

In the twenty-first century, the superstate is essentially an arrangement which sees the little bit of non-debt backed value created by workers being consumed by the state, for the ultimate benefit of the state. The welfare, health and human rights industries to name but three are basically the use of ordinary people’s lives and tax revenues to justify extraordinary wages for the states army of workers. Perhaps Richmond is full of well-paid state workers (£100K+) and bankers who either don’t have to worry about business profitability as they are Civil Servants or think that flogging debt to almost bankrupt European’s contributes to sustainable long-term progress.

The problem these affluent people face is their inability to accept there is a democratic deficit in staying in the EU. Whilst getting out might look complicated…. the problem is no one gave the tax paying public the option of opting into the superstate, it was a choice made for us by the elite. So now with all the soft fascism the elite can muster (even in the UK’s Private Eye and the Lib Dems pro-EU posturing amongst others) we need to resist the elites continued pleading for us to stick with their grand plan. We also need to resist the ideas of a left alliance of Greens and the Lib Dems who think Labour will help them salvage what for Brexiteers is the nightmare of remaining. This as we said, is a scenario that the public didn’t vote for and did actually vote against.

In reality and with the power of technology the State needs to wither away (a bit….or a lot ) but holding on to control and power runs against the interests of the ordinary people who want less of the State and its cost, not more. With idiots like the putative left alliance having a tantrum all over the place about everything, the prospect of the state continuing to strut it’s wholly tax gobbling and all too often self-serving and pointless stuff, is certain. Brexit starts the process of change.

07.12.16 We are the people, the people are not the State. The State should be the servant of the people but with an elite in charge the State is our master!

We have commented on the relationship between the people and the State in various posts over the last few months and particularly as we worked our way towards Brexit. Concepts like “vested interests” “the establishment” only have meaning when the State and the people do not share common values. We believe that under the economic system that was known as Capitalism the State operated in the interests of the Capitalist class. Upholding “capitalist values”. These reinforced inequality in wages and flowing from that limited the rights of the workers to enjoy the full freedoms afforded by Contract, Choice and Consent. This went as far as creating a lifestyle limited environment of poor health, ignorance and low expectations.

The post-war era accelerated the process of turning the capitalist system around. it achieved this by putting the State centre stage, no longer operating on behalf of the vested interests of the Capitalist system which many viewed as the cause of World War II. Post war the State became the operator of big businesses, welfare protected the workers and the Grammar Schools elevated the children of “workers” into the establishment. It was like the children’s books of the day presented it; a rosy era for the working class. Those of us who remember this period remember a time when people were generally happy responsible and the state seemed to work for the people.

The post-war period was not all good news, however. “The People” were all too often represented by a labour movement hell bent on destroying a system that had really ceased to exist in the west BY THE 1970’S. British firms were being turned into commissioning bodies manufacturing abroad. The horror of the capitalist system was now largely inflicted on the proletariat of China, Korea, Vietnam etc. The left wing put the final nails in the coffin of what remained of the British manufacturing and extractive industries because of their blinkered ideological ignorance they viewed “Industry” as capitalist, so it was necessary to destroy industry and the jobs that went with it.

The challenge is this; what do you do when your capitalist system is collapsing around your ears. When not- withstanding its many flaws it no longer delivers the value and wealth necessary to support consumption by an increasingly entitled population. Well, you recognise that “globalisation” has a different way of delivering wealth and you try and game it to your advantage. This is what the people see as the problem with the current system. It is also why the traditional “left” have no answers. The state manages wealth and much of this wealth is generated by the debt and tax of workers. Unable to countenance any suggestion of a return to “capitalism” the left just promotes the same Tax and spend model to maintain demand and consumer satisfaction.

The problem is that by replacing vast swathes of the economy (if you don’t believe this take any British county or city and work out how many people work for its biggest employers; the NHS, Schools, County and District councils plus the odd prison or MOD Base etc) the government is trapped into maintaining itself first and foremost, and then it looks to supporting the rest of the economic system. This is the mechanism by which the state becomes the master of the people. Protecting the States interests is the main purpose of the state and its army of pointless 100K+ “Senior Leaders”. The people get in the way of this “nice little earner” hence the hissy fits from Statists like Britains Nick Clegg and an assortment of the State elites in parliaments (EU, Westminster, Scottish, Welsh, NI Assembly) and their supporting administrations; “Civil Servants” and Courts.

So what is the solution? Well to coin a phrase the workers need to raise their consciousness. Not like some long haired student Marxist bamboozled by the complex nature of Marxism who believes that the State is the answer to the inequalities of the world, but by realising that the State keeps a lot of people on great salaries doing very little that matters to ordinary people and these State people are the elite who work the system to their long-term advantage. A sort of perpetuating of disadvantage by pretending or virtue signalling that they are doing the opposite.

The modern economy has so much government in it that it can be easily characterised as a system operated by the State that takes workers debt and tax and turns it into salaries for its self-selecting elite. People like Nick Clegg, Keir Starmer, the Kinnocks, Blairs, the Judges of the higher courts and an army of people who do stuff in our name but not with our consent!!

07.12 16 An Industrial strategy needs a policy on  debt and pensions. These are yesterday’s challenge tomorrow!

An industrial strategy needs to cover a number of issues in the now globalised world. We think that dwarfing energy prices and other global uncertainties are the problems of debt and pensions. How did we get here? The modern free market is not capitalism. Capitalism requires the accumulation of capital. This was appropriated from workers in the form of the profits made by underpaying the workers. In a capitalist system, this capital became the basis for future investment, economic growth and of course future exploitation of workers.

As we argue the capitalist system had its faults but it was the progenitor of what we now have come to recognise as the modern world. It reflected the troika of Contract, Choice and Consent which underpins freedom and democracy and it demanded of those subject to its discipline a responsible way of life that required people to take care of themselves and their families and to have regard for their communities. They had to work out how to manage the wages borne of the exploitation by the capitalist. With the combination of Contract, Choice and Consent and the responsible worker looking to protect their families the fundamental building blocks of freedom and democracy became well established by the 1930’s. They endured the war and after the war, the government looked at the exploitation of an exhausted nation and intervened. They intervened to rebuild the economy and to minimise the levels of the wage exploitation by capitalists. The government never assumed that the qualities self-discipline hard wired into people by the capitalist system would not endure with a more interventionist government programme. They assumed that with welfare and pensions, health and education the future for working people was bright. It was until the beginning of the 1960’s.

In the 1960’s the capitalist system largely morphed into the modern free market. This is an immoral system. It has no context of responsible behaviour underpinning it. It encourages irresponsible social and economic behaviour. The post-war legacy of welfare became the means by which the free market managed to rid itself of any responsibility for the social and economic decline of the nation whilst relying on the welfare system to maintain wages and pensions. Sending work abroad and bringing migrants here allows the price of labour to decline whilst sending the manufacturing industry abroad allows free market profits to remain high. Paying for it all with debt and taxation allows consumer demand to be kept up benefitting the svengalis of the free market, people like Sir Philip Green. This is an almighty mess!

Pensions in the public sector, health care costs and a whole host of other inflating expenditures is bringing the national finances under unbearable strain. We need to start making a profit as a nation and relying on the “free market” with its urge to make money at the taxpayer’s expense really is not going to make Britain a leading industrial nation.

10.12.16 The elite and their experts are still intent on confusing the public about the reality of Brexit and the “old world order”. But why? We look to the Uk for answers.

In the UK it is claimed Brexit means Brexit. Well that is like saying Justice means Justice; it means very little but unintentionally for Mrs May it sends a mixed message to those voters who Mr and Mrs Clegg and their NBF’s, the Blairs, Keir Starmer et al view as too stupid to understand the complex issues associated with the UK departing the EU; namely most of the British people both Brexiteers and Remainers.

The elites look down on the British people in a way that was inconceivable in the past; this is whether the people agree with them or not. Is it amongst other things our ability to load our sentences with actual often difficult meaning rather than speak articulately and yet simultaneously say nothing? it is our ability to live lives with none of the “status” craved by D-list “Slebs” and the elite in the places that warehouse them like the Big Brother House, BBC, EU and Westminster? or is it even more elemental?

The reason for their disdain, and if you don’t know what we mean watch Emily Thornberry MP, is the fact that we are no longer essential “factors of production” within the British economy. Factors of production that have to be “heard”, respected and won over to maintain capitalism’s promise of creating social and economic value and tax revenue for the State. We “the people” are now just a means by which the government can manipulate the economy to maintain aggregate demand through tax, debt and welfare and thus secure for a little longer the free market merry-go-round that keeps them in their positions of rank and privilege and allows some people who game the system to get rich. This maintains the pretence that the economic system is “just” and laden with opportunity for all. The modern Economic System delivers little by way of social and economic “justice”. We call it “secular wWesternism” as it delivers unhappiness, misery and destruction of the planet (no not the myth of solely man-made global warming stoopid) on an industrial scale.

As usual with a Blue Revolution, there is a lot in the above. Let us identify some examples. Global warming is the global issue most promoted by the elite. It helps to take the public’s eye of the “secular western” ball. The problem with the world economy is that with debt as the basis for economic prosperity there needs to be a ravenous “growth” to repay debt, replenish pensions and maintain stock and property prices. This requires an attack on our beloved planet like no other, over-population, deforestation and the volume of extraction, pollution and species annihilation, and yet whilst the elite talk of progress i.e. economic success reducing poverty and global conflict etc, we say yes, but at what price! Can it be done in a more planet-friendly way?

To tackle this head on the “elites” would need to scale back their own activities and recalibrate the world economy to something more sustainable and for them scary too; something measurable and achievable, co-operation and non-conflict based. Unwilling to change the nature of the western hegemony they promote “man-made global warming”; and Kyoto, the secular western elite’s impotent proxy for actually doing something to save the planet. Oh and the so called “Greens” buy into this rot too, along with the “storm troopers” of the elite……the academic “expert”.

To save the planet we would need to cut the birth rate through women’s education and employment, restrain the gender obsessions upon which too much of the free market is built and which across all demographics promotes reckless single parenthood. We must establish some global and universal values; we offer contract, choice and consent and we must stop the free market merry-go-round of “growth at all costs” and then more growth. This means moving away from a debt based economic model with the state as ringmaster to one based on achieving high levels of non-debt-based social and economic value by for example opening up Africa to agri-trade whilst restraining population movements by encouraging sustainable, non-growth obsessed economies in countries that currently export people rather than productivity.

On the Uk domestic front, the elites won’t tell you that the British economy is so dependent on migration that it actually needs “free movement of people” i.e. the movement to the UK of whole families. We have argued that “free movement of workers” is “just” and fair. However, it is unlikely to deliver the crippling levels of migration that the state needs to inflate the housing, property, stock and welfare markets which just so happen to contribute to the UK’s economic “growth”.

There is growth out there Jim but not as we know it, and as Brexit showed, not as we like it.

Apols to “The Firm”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All Faiths Page 3

21.10.16 The political elite and their hangers on plus the underclass; two groups who are well beyond their sell by date.

If observing mankind’s evolution from the swamp to highly evolved but immoral and indebted teaches us anything it is that at almost every step of the way one small group is exploiting a much larger one. Whether it is the unacknowledged exploitation of women by men in tribal culture or a feudal system furnished with value by serfs or slaves history to date teaches us that we are only slowly falteringly or in Donald Trump’s case groping our way towards more enlightened times. The enlightenment is within eye and earshot but still not achievable yet. But Why?

As economic determinists, we believe that to fully realise a progressive evolutionary shift we need to understand where exploitation lays in the current economic  system. We have, we hope explained that there are groups of influential people out there happily manufacturing industries that allow them to line their own pockets with government cash much of this government cash is debt based and paid for by the worker. The most significant of these groups are the  ambulance chasing lawyers pursuing minor public sector and health workers plus soldiers for “compensation”.  Alleged wrongdoing is the context for litigation. The compensation is the self-justifying pretext for court action but the much more important subtext are the legal costs!

The law-makers being lawyers is a breach of the separation of powers but one that the lawyers, that generally quite process observant group are quite happy to overlook. There is also the fact that the  law is expected to pay well so lawmakers are paid well too. Lawyer as policy and lawmakers is one reason that the interests of blue collar workers have been overlooked for too long. Our needs are secondary to the needs of the State to protect its officers, members, and hangers-on and keep the whole process hidden by a veil of legal legitimacy . This explains the left alliances (Greens, Lib Dems and Labour Party in the UK’s obsession with staying in the EU). It is only very remotely about trade it is really about maintaining the EU political system for the benefit of the Junkers and Tusks and the UK’s “left-wing” hangers on and duff politicians . For their “class” to survive the EU has to  survive. This makes what the UK did in voting out as cutting edge revolutionary as anywhere in the word for many, many decades; possibly even centuries. Well done. The Blue Collar revolution starts from here. The three millennia of rule by one elite after another will start to change from here on in.

However, there is one element of UK domestic policy  which we believe is exploitative and which also supports the State’s overall aim of maintaining control for its elites which justifies well-paid state employment at the highest level. And that is the subsidisation and growth of the underclass. This shameless bit of social engineering has cast millions of lives into a mire of hopelessness resulting for males in drug, alcohol and crime and women into premature motherhood before that are emotionally equipped to look after themselves let alone a small defenceless child.  The advantage of this horribly broken system is that it allows the left wing parties to talk the language of caring whilst promoting a system which keeps workers paying and the state receiving and the underclass locked into a moral and economic “double lock” that allows them little chance of escape. The underclass feeds the State monster, directly through the need to manage them via government  jobs and government departments such as the Justice department and indirectly by encouraging workers from abroad to migrate to do low skilled work, thus pleasing the EU overlords. Migration puts pressure on the housing market so housebuilders do Ok as does the Government via taxes on building and sale.

We believe the Blue Collar revolution, the proper worker’s revolution needs to tackle the problem of the exploitation of the worker’s root (the underclass) and branch (the elite)

23.10.16 Contract, Choice and Consent; a Blue Revolution’s global “trideology” for the rest of the 21st and the 22nd century and beyond.

The “ideology” of the EU and we have recently concluded the “ideology” of “New Labour” (RIP) are similar in one specific respect; they are both premised on the belief that social justice can be delivered by a theological or ideological “socialist” state. Free movement of people, whole swathes of people, the very young, the very old and the disabled moved around the continent to access better welfare, education and health all on the “ticket” of often a single “worker”.  This is the inception of the  dream of the EU social and economic engineers; a continent united in one single belief system and one single market. However it is about 200 years too premature and on this basis, it will break before it can be made to work. The analogy we would use is that the EU theologians are trying to transplant an old established Oak tree rather than cultivate a sapling and take their time over it. They are killing the tree.

There are lots wrong with the EU….its currency trapping weak economies into an unsustainable economic model, the free movement of people  stoking up resentment for reasons obvious to anyone other than the elite. The over inflation of economies within the Customs Area of the EU luring the illiterate and the morally immature from North Africa. The consequences of “hubristic humanitarianism” on vulnerable EU communities and women.

So what is to be done. Well, we believe that to unite the world to encourage growth, trade and reduce the risk of war we need to promote a set of ideas that have obvious moral appeal and to a wide and culturally diverse world, and hence we have distilled “Marxism” and produced a spirit of freedom captured in Contract, Choice and Consent, our “trideology”. These three rights are drawn from Capitalism and are a legacy of that economic model conferring rights that under feudalism were denied to too many people……in fact denied to all peoples.

The EU needs to realise that its policy of self-promotion is denying countries that need to develop a modern morality the opportunity to do so it is doing this by discouraging the cleansing of relationships associated with free trade. The EU is not a safe pair of hands and neither is the rest of the self-regarding and the self-promoted western world…and that includes the ideological “left” who see wealth rather than rights as the main objective of their “socialism”. Grow up guys!

28.10.16 Saint Tone, a Patron Saint of the EU theocracy offers us advice on Brexit. He like they simply don’t get it!

The theocrats of the EU have dispatched one of their big guns to patronise and plead on behalf of the EU elite. On the UK’s BBC radio 4 morning show, Tony Blair dished up the usual meal of warmed up “third-way” leftovers and a defence of the EU status quo which confirmed the self-regarding, paranoid and delusional view of economics, politics and society that characterises much of the Remain side of debate.

Clearly, the British people didn’t know what they were doing in voting for Brexit and don’t know what they are doing in continuing to support Brexit. The implications are that much misery will befall them and they will have to rely on their elites to sort out the ensuing Brexit mess. It could not occur to Blair because he is incapable of self-criticism that the politically mature and independently minded British might be prepared to endure short-term problems in some economic areas such as lower house prices and increased inflation as a bi-product of gaining proper democratic accountability and a reduction in the power of the technocrats and the elite. Of course, it is arguable that much of what is going on in the economy is simply a correction ofter years of EU economic engineering. The British economy needs to start living in the real world; the world of risk, value, price and profit and loss. It needs to leave the safe haven of the Alice in Wonderland economics of Tusk, Junker, Schultz…..oh and Blair. This is a world where the Elite game the economy to meet the economic, political and sociological needs of the elite themselves and use the economic levers of mass migration, Quantitative Easing and low-interest rates to create artificial short term “confidence” and thereby maintain aggregate demand across a range of EU strategic sectors. Of course, the beneficiaries of this “economic model” are the elite who fob the masses off with cheap debt and a morally ambiguous liberal social policy.  All of this combines to create a long-term toxic blend of expectations and entitlements that the European economy can only hope to deliver in the short to medium term and will fail to deliver in the long term. They will fail because society will falter with too little collective social responsibility and economies will buckle under the strain of debt, ageing populations, mass migration and an absence of proper global competition keeping business sharp.

What Blair et don’t understand because they are beneficiaries of the existing system is that economic value and progressive social values are longer being delivered by Western leaders in the western world. The British public have grasped this ahead of the rest of the EU and are the first to demand something is done about it; Brexit!

29.10.16 If it were not for the ability to store value or transform debt into wealth would we be able to reveal and then solve the “puzzle of history”!

It was Karl Marx who said: “communism is the puzzle of history solved”. However, we have had almost one hundred years to become familiar with “communism” and it really hasn’t “solved”anything. The same goes for “socialism”; grand theories that eventually draw power to the state and thereby undermine society and an individual’s ability to fulfil their “species-essence”. So if everyone from Lenin to Corbyn has got it wrong what does “getting it right” look like. We consider whether the real workers Blue revolution solves history’s final  puzzle, thereby bringing about the fabled “End of History”.

Well firstly whether it is Communism or Socialism the actual application of the principles of both have been poorly interpreted. In the case of “socialism”, the State has shown a great reluctance to diminish its power and control and  indeed under Blair in the UK and others around the world “the State” and its army of technocrats has grown as the power of western Capitalism has diminished. With Capitalism now unable to generate sufficient value to  feed the workers the arms and legs of the state have stepped in to manage the operating environment of whatever bits of the productive and job-creating economy still remain active in the west. This is essentially managing the environment of the “free market” and ensuring that the real liquidity of the free market namely “confidence” is maintained. This has differed within the various parts of “the west”, but we would claim it is fair to say that the EU’s expansion  was a stitch up by socialist technocrats intended to mitigate the effects of capitalism’s drift to cheaper areas of the world, and to ensure they and their class had a job for life. We call these people the “publicsectocracy”; they are the aristocracy of the “socialist system”.

Has this socialist experiment of state management of the economic environment worked? Well, we would say yes and no. A state takes a lot of money to manage an economy and maintain the politics and social policy which rests upon it. In the UK there has been a programme of social policies since the end of WWII which could be described as progressive and the welfare state; a 19th-century idea now bloated and malfunctioning, was great in its time. Brexit proves however that overall model fails the public’s “sniff test”. Too much debt, too many pointless ” infrastructure projects”, too much immigration to fill up the city centres whilst the indigenous populations flee to the newly built out of town estates, family collapse and re-configuration driving housing demand along with the growing realisation that a worker’s right to a home will play second fiddle to the housing industry, lawyers and government, a government like all governments that needs tax revenue. Immigration, gaming the housing market in favour of builders, and the demand from family breakdown, all justifies what we call the mythology of the manufactured housing shortage. As if all that were not enough there is a moral decline as the free market “marketises” everything base including genitalia and sexual behaviour. What used to titillate older men, sooth the lonely and make schoolboys snigger is now part of the mainstream economy; it has to be, there isn’t as much of a  real “value creating” economy left!

So overall, socialism has, like the political elite and the underclass it’s two great demographic creations, been around too long. Its army of highly paid functionaries and lawyers has  become like the aristocrats of the old feudal system, unwilling or unable to see how they stand in the way of progress. So what of Communism?

Communism has never existed anywhere on the planet. The revolutions of the past were industrial revolutions orchestrated by the state which gave rise to rapid increases in the value the economy could create and thus gave a legitimacy to the claim higher living standards were due to “communism” as people became better off. This increase in value based wealth happened in the west under actual Capitalism.  Some “Communist” or rather state capitalist societies like post-revolutionary Russia have finally settled back to become more  “socialist” in character, rather more along western lines. This seems to us to be because socialism was or is what “communism” in Russia really was namely State control of the economic environment rather than by for and of the people!  So in terms of solving the riddle of history,  hmmm mmmm. More work to do.

02.11.16 Trump and the White House yes or no? We endorse diversity so why shouldn’t a man with a personality disorder become President.

As revolutionaries, we accept that whilst revolutions in the 21st century should not be blood letting they might be gut wrenching. And so it will be with a Trump Presidency. Trump is clearly a man with one if not two personality disorders the most obvious being narcissism but with a bit of borderline thrown in too and perhaps some……..no we will stick to two. Anyway, we were debating Trump the other day and discussing the aftermath of a Trump win. It was suggested that the CIA might do him in, which whilst always possible in trigger-happy America seems unlikely.

The man is a revolutionary in that he has persuaded the sad, delusional and ill-informed that he stands up for them. Corbyn says the same thing in the United Kingdom and has attracted a similar constituency. However,  whereas Corbyn’s natural supporters are the neurotic waifs and strays of the democratic process, Trump’s people are the gun toting and paranoid. His people hate the establishment, code word for the Clintons, as much as they fear the lawless underclass. They are sad and emotionally abandoned people though just like the lawless underclass they fear so much. As true apostles of the principles of diversity we at a Blue Revolution, however, fear no one including a President Trump; gut-wrenching as that prospect might be. Even a man with his obvious emotional shortcomings can be president in the 21st century; the US constitution almost shouts that at you as you pop out of the womb on US soil. But why do we think this way?

Well Trump’s election as President will lead to a whole lot of soul searching as the US considers the implications of electing such an odd character to the highest office in the land, and what such a result will say to the world about the brash, money obsessed and shallow state of the American electorate as engineered, just like the UK’s not quite so lawless underclass, by a greedy and self-interested political elite.  But that elite is the alternative.

We only had one word of caution about the election of President Trump and that was he has executive control of the codes to launch a nuclear attack. Apparently, these codes  can be deployed without challenge  by special advisers or military chiefs being used at the President’s discretion, causing a nuclear conflagration in fifteen minuted (four minutes to launch!).

However  as we have concluded that in a just world even someone as mad as Trump can be President, it doesn’t mean his special needs don’t deserve some special treatment. Therefore we recommend the appointment of the Presidential psychiatric team, who can quickly step in and deal with  the US’s first President with “Special needs” and section him if required. Thus avoiding WWIII becomes a matter of his capacity for office rather than the failings of the US constitution. As our old friend Karl Marx said: “from each according to his ability to each according to his special needs”. With that proviso, we Blue Revolutionaries give a cautious thumbs up to President Trump.

With apologies to Karl Marx.

03.11.16 Sharia courts in the UK! Is this really a problem? We consider the issue.

Sharia courts in the UK are accused of discriminating against women. Well, we consider the issue. Imagine a type of world where a person took responsibility for the decisions they make and were held to account. One might conclude that this is like the contract based western world where you agree to any arrangements you subject yourself to be it an employment contract or a personal loan. However when money is involved the T’s and C’s are usually rigidly enforced not so when the issue is about relationships. In the context of relationships, family life or the mundane humdrum stuff there is no direction or guidance in the west just a government willing to pick up the tab for people’s mistakes. People marry and divorce having children they can’t afford, conduct illicit relationships out of narcissism or a desire to hurt a no longer desired partner. A Sharia court only discriminates against people who have made informed decisions they now want to change. The critical question is; was the decision they made to start with, based on Contract, Choice and Consent?

Well, the answer to this is quite simple. If the issue that is taken to the Sharia court was entered into willingly and there is no suggestion of abuse or coercion then the matter of the Sharia court is one of ensuring that people behave responsibly. We could do with a kind of Sharia court within the secular western world so we can start to tackle the blight of the irresponsible underclass.

05.11.16  Uk’s High Court interferes with “Brexit”. The strategic wing of the publicsectocracy opens up the battlefield for the disrupting tactics of the “Remoaners”. Is this how the establishment works?

A Government Minister resigns and oh he is a lawyer. The High Court whilst resisting the urge to comment on “Brexit” none the less make it utterly problematic to negotiate without the interference of MP’s many of whom are pro remain and lawyers. Add to that the “yesterday’s men and women” in the House of Lords and you can see the UK has a major “democratic deficit”. The Lawyer who resigned did so we imagine so he could throw the full weight of his “Publicsectocratic” mind behind the Remain campaign in Parliament. Of course with a full battalion of Political lawyers the battle to frustrate Brexit will be much easier than winning the public over to the cause of remaining in the EU with its bloated army of technocrats and wafflers.

We said it here that the Establishment are largely comprised of politicised lawyers. It seems that we were more right on that that the evidence at the time suggested; we have some more compelling evidence now. The separation of powers, undermined by Blair and his army of subversive lawyers still holds the nation to ransom. And we can see where the counter-revolutionaries are on all sides of the House of Commons. Democracy in crisis: “hell yeah” the country is run by lawyers, not politicians!

07.11.16 What happens when a “virtuous circle” consisting of establishment action to tackle the effects of economic decline goes wrong. You the workers pay to keep them in well paid work!

The trouble with the State getting too involved in things is that its chief box-wallahs find it difficult to put aside the levers of the state when the economy, perhaps due to an over-zealous enthusiasm to intervene fails to help the economy. They believe their intervention helps because it might have helped once when there was a less globalised operating environment for the world’s economies and you could spend value in a largely closed society and could feed your population internally. However, since then the world has opened up and jobs have gone elsewhere and people move about. There is still more of the world to open up too so things could only get worse for the blue collar workers. Unless dear revolutionaries we do something very creative.

Firstly we need to look at what the “establishment” is up to. They are creating a State that provides the well-remunerated government and legal establishment employment that they and their “enlightened” and entitled class feel they deserve. The colonisation of the legislature by the legal establishment is part of this process. Knowing little about the people in the Blue Collar demographic the legal establishment and politicians of a certain stripe warmly virtue signal themselves by wrapping the idle and promiscuous in a welfare system that keeps them in ignorance, poverty, both spiritual and material, and idleness. It requires the actual grafters to pay for this and then pay for the army of well-paid box-wallahs who extract tax to pay for this wasteful system and of course, their 100k salaries too.

What happens in this situation is that the workers become the victims of the “virtuous” State and we end up with the workers paying for a system that promotes the very values the workers detest but which critically keeps the establishment in work. The outcome at this elementary stage in the revolution is Brexit and possibly Trump. In the UK Theresa May may slowly let the steam out of the blue collar pressure cooker and get us out of the clutches of the rich tax gobbling and entitled EU waffler. If this doesn’t happen then things can only get a little tense and a Blue Revolution may be superseded by a more bloody red one.

So what is the answer; well why not make training Britain’s young in proper practical skills easier for the talented tradesman and women of the UK, whilst making it less attractive to employ “off the shelf” workers from Eastern Europe. This doesn’t have to be abusive, simply a shift in focus away from bogus degrees and the student debt that supports “lefty” academics. We only have about a decade left to do this because we still have talented and skilled people left to do the training. This approach will embed workers values rather than the values which demand that the tax payers job is to support the “left” elite.

Secondly and more importantly open up Britain to the intellectual talent of the Indian sub-Continent and beyond as we hope Mrs May is trying to do. So rather than replace young trainee brickies with Eastern European brickies we can replace the overpaid and entitled elite with a more modest cleverer and moral group of intellectuals from elsewhere in the English-speaking world…..Come on let’s give the establishment elite a taste of their own medicine, at least until Grammar schools deliver our own competitive working class elite. Let’s replace some of our public School elite with skilled and talented migrants. What’s good for Britain is good for the world! It’s been like that since the 18th century!

09.11.16 Well well Trump won. No real surprise there we supported him too! But to avoid a real mess he has to deliver. We offer some advice!

The Trump challenge is to deliver to the constituency of the white working and middle classes who feel that the last three decades have been about undermining their economic status by exporting their jobs; then expecting them to burden themselves with debt to keep each other in work whilst the political elite skims off a little for themselves through the taxation on the debt based profits. In many ways, Trump is a challenge to the “Publicsectocracy” he is not part of the political elite, although we would argue that, in reality, he is a beneficiary of what we call debtamorphosis. His empire has a value a fraction of what it is claimed it is worth a fact he needs to accept, but it has the “worth” it has, because of debt based asset price inflation.

However, there are some words of caution. His spending programme will indebt the USA to an extent greater than Clinton. However where they would spend the money on education and keeping the candle of the liberal establishment a light he will build things and invest in blue collar work but the outcome will not in a globalised world generate the endogenous growth envisaged. The Money will simply flood abroad.

In the end, however, Trump’s biggest challenge will be to deliver to the constituency who elected him. A constituency who will expect a quick fix for their alienation and low wages. His context is a country of mass ignorance, of sad embittered people who feel angry; scarily he needs to meet the needs of these people. He has thankfully done on behalf of the public what was needed in respect of the elite. We need less of the expert and the elite and certainly, they need less pay. However, only half of what a Blue Revolution wanted is knocking the elite. Having achieved this he has also to deliver work, wages and the American dream to the alienated masses. Donald, you are like a dog chasing a fast moving car…….however you are the dog who has caught up and has the car clamped between its jaws, what are you going to do with it.

12.11.16 To the left leaning liberal elite “Populism” becomes fascism. Their hostility however is simply  a fear that the “blue Collar” masses will challenge their now faltering social and economic model

The word populism isn’t used to explain Clinton winning the “popular vote” but it has been antagonisingly used to explain the upsurge in the “deplorable” vote. Somehow people voting on mass for Clinton is seen as demonstrably different from people voting on mass for Trump. This Trump Blue Revolution is seen as appalling and frightening in equal measure but for us, the worst case scenario would have been the return of Clinton voted for by the smug self-satisfied the brainwashed and downright mislead. The vast majority of Clinton supporters are brainwashed into thinking the Clinton’s “socioeconomic” model has a sustainable future, will deliver for ordinary Americans and will lead to more social justice. On all counts, we disagree emphatically. More of the same debamorphosis, funnelling tax and debt based revenue into the pockets of the elite with the overspill generously handed out to the poor as a form of virtue signalling and all delivered on an industrial scale. The mob of hucksters in the upper reaches of the US political system can’t believe that they have finally been rumbled. Clinton is probably no criminal unless ensuring you do nicely from the tax payer and public sector and big business is a criminal rather than a moral offence.

One small additional point we wish to emphasise is that the populism on both sides of the Trump Clinton divide is very much due to Constituency marketing. The Clinton’s went for the economically illiterate but socially aware young, the lower ranks of the publicsectocracy and the wealthy but guilty (similar to the UK’s Champagne socialists) whilst the Trump campaign went for the exact opposite. Both camps, however, miss the essential point about the tensions between their campaigns. People want to see change; the politicians gave them meat they could recognise from their polarised vantage points which achieved the result of getting Trump elected and the popular vote going to Clinton. However, most ordinary Americans (and Brits) are divided on the basis of criteria which is perhaps intended to miss their common interests.

What are these common interests? The real issues that were lost in the polarisation of an angry and vexatious campaign and which clearly need sorting out if a true Blue Revolution is to energise more than about half the population. Regrettably so far only the half who are angry about knowing they have lost out, rather than those who have been seduced by the rhetoric and do not yet know they are actually losing out as well…..they just don’t know it yet. So who are those who are suffering from an “unknown known”? We go in search of the lost constituency of working class voters.

The most obvious group are the students. Rightly fed a diet of socially progressive ideals; tolerance to difference etc but at the same time led to believe that these progressive ideas is political as opposed to economic. The free market demands “diversity” let us be honest the marketisation of sex is driven by economics, not politics. We don’t see Hilary Clinton saying “market your genitals”. No, it is a product of economics as so is Gay Marriage, Gay rights, transgendered rights and free movement. Capitalism’s Contract Choice and Consent. To see this as purely political and therefore Clinton’s unique selling point is stupid. Trump may have appealed to blue collar workers and “red necks” but we are certain he has no negative views on most of the above.

Students are particularly vulnerable to liberal bull-shit. They get indebted to keep left liberals in well renumerated “academic” work. Work that is unwilling to stray into “sociological” areas that have been vacated by “lefties” since most of the numbers show they are totally wrong about everything social; immigration, big government, family life, religion, contract choice and consent no less. If students thought about their student debt and stopped obsessing about rights, they might see that the biggest threat to their long-term future is the liberal left.

The next big constituency is the low ranking members of the Publicsectocracy. These people think that their wages terms and conditions are safeguarded by the state. They are not. The bottom of the public sector is not protected by the top echelons of the state. The top echelons look after themselves first and the tactical end of things end up penalised and privatised. The issues that the top publicsectorcrats cite to the lower order as reasons to be “progressive” are economic rather than political, see above. Yet the economics they promote militate against the lower orders. Most notably unemployment due to immigration, high house prices due to immigration. This con trick that progressive politics is all down to the liberal left is rubbish. People want freedom, contract choice and consent and the liberal left offer the expensive, privileged and inefficient state and then more of the same. Ordinary people should see Trump and Brexit as not about restricting the freedom to be yourself but as liberating people economically from the power of the state; the Brexiteers and Trump supporters should be joined by a young constituency of people who share progressive values and yet see that currently, the power of the State can only deliver debt and unemployment for those who are not part of the elite i.e. 99.7 % of us.

16.11.16 The dislocation of the State from the people is a symptom of an age old process of evolution. However this time it is the “liberal” state that is thwarting progress!

Donald Trump, Brexit and the “populism” in Europe and elsewhere is likely to erupt all over the liberal elite. Or as we prefer to call them the illiberal elite. We have been scratching our heads trying to offer a practical application to illustrate why the old ways of doing things are resistant to change whilst the public knows that the western social and economic model fails the “sniff test” and needs to evolve. We had a rather interesting paper sent through to us which we think can illustrate the contradictions between the state and the people and it is concerned with the British criminal justice system. Reading it some people might have to rise above their impulsive anger but if one clears one’s mind of prejudice and tries to actively avoid making too many pre-judgements and assumptions it does open up a fertile area for debate which we think contributes a lot to understanding why the west is in the mess it is in with its general public knowing something is wrong but perhaps not why.

So here goes. The criminal justice system has many characteristics which have been carried over from the medieval period. The Judge dispensing justice on behalf of the monarch reflects the systems feudal origins. In the US with no monarch, the term “the people” is used but it is not clear to what extent the interests of the “people” are really considered within the US system. In the UK the be-wigged Judge elevated and enrobed was historically intended to install fear, the aim being to emphasise the awesome power of the state in a visible way intended to intimidate an illiterate “mob”. The point is clear the state needed to emphasise its power and it’s “objectivity” as it dealt with the condemned, intent on breaking them physically and mentally before their eventual and very public destruction.

Back in those days, the State was the name given to the business of exercising powerful vested interests; the King, the aristocracy and those in lower capacities who relied on the state’s largesse. In constant fear of the mob, justice had to be brutal. Whilst by modern standards this might seem appalling, the system was “just” as if there were a revolution the system that would replace the state would be no less and possibly even more brutal than that overthrown. This was the era of retribution and deterrence. It was an unforgiving system and perhaps reflects the west’s naivety in getting embroiled in regime change in the Middle East!

Between the 18th and the early part of the 20th-century things were transforming, as merchants and then industrialists became the vested interests determining the nature of the then modern state. The criminal justice system began to reflect these changes eventually losing some of the brutality as more “industrial” and “scientific” methods were introduced. However whilst the criminal justice system overall might have evolved (with penal policy introducing concepts of reform and then rehabilitation) the courts remained the visible pinnacle of state power, the power over life and death for what was still seen as a largely unpredictable and illiterate mob.

Even the low crime rate which preceded the first world war was insufficient to shift the notion that the State was under constant threat from a revolutionary mob. There were of course threats, but being realistic they were not existential threats to the nation-state. The state, unwilling to change how it presented itself to the masses, continued to offer an awesome spectacle in court, of bewigged and robed judges and officials dispensing the power of the state with the intent of breaking the miscreant and sending a clear warning to others. Whilst reform and rehabilitation were entering the criminal justice process driven by reformers who were able to distribute capitalism’s wealth benignly, the operation of the courts remained resolutely medieval in character, and so it is today. However, today we don’t have an illiterate ‘mob’ and who exactly are the vested interests shaping the nature of the State and it’s institutions of power and authority such as the courts?

Well, ‘capitalism’ has given way to the ‘free market’ which unlike capitalism, is an utterly amoral system easily ‘gamed’ by anyone with the money and ability to work out how to best fulfil their own selfish financial interests. Capitalism had its faults, but on the plus side, it created unprecedented amounts of wealth sufficient to reform society and lifted people out of poverty into work and in so doing conferred rights like contract choice and consent. The people who benefited the most were those who previously had been enslaved and powerless, the human property of the feudal state.

The ‘free market’ however has only one significant legacy. The legacy of debt pursuing immoral behaviour. Whilst people are now free thanks to capitalism they are also indebted. An indebted, as oppose to illiterate ‘mob’. Whilst still possessing and dispensing power the state like the individual consumer is reliant on debt to enable it to pay for its institutions of power and authority. There is no longer productive western ‘capitalism’ funding benign developments in the capitalist systems interests.

The courts, community sentences and prisons come in for critical evaluation within this debt reliant economic context. The courts and prisons are for most people the most visible manifestations of state power, however, they punish the same group of individuals who fund them; the indebted ‘mob’
better known as the general public. This is why the system fails the public’s ‘sniff test’. The public is feeding the system with wrongdoers and the public is funding the system with taxpayers money, the only people who benefit from the modern criminal justice system are those whose salaries are paid for by it. Can this contradiction be resolved?

So in summary, we have an economic system which is dependent on debt and a state which relies on mass indebtedness with it’s associated immorality to pay for its institutions of power and authority. As for the criminal justice system, it punishes the same group of people who pay for it through their debt and taxation. Those unfortunate enough to find themselves managed by the criminal justice system are those who are the weakest in this perverse debt based economic model; their behaviour being shaped either by indebtedness or the conspicuous lack of public morality. They are the victims of this immoral system and they are punished by it too.

The Courts

The British criminal and civil justice systems act as though the early 21st century is the same as the mid-nineteenth century, with the full power of capitalism’s productivity driving the engine of economic and social growth at home and within the empire. Thus the justice system reflects the fact that it believes it is operating in the name of a vested interest and that this vested interest has a different set of demands and expectations from the public, a public from whom they are artificially differentiated. The old tactics of be-wigging, robes, titles and elevation continue to reflect this differentiation, just as it always has done. These practices are a direct link back to the days of the feudal system and thus are at odds with what people actually feel about themselves and their “he who pays the piper calls the tune” relationship to the state and its institutions and powers. Whilst the public are not perceived as a revolutionary mob when they enter the court system, they are treated like one and yet….. it is the public who are in reality now the ‘vested interest’ who pay for this system and the army of staffers and officers who run it.

The criminal justice system works on a “just deserts” model. So much punishment, for so much crime! However, there is something wrong with a system that costs the general public billions of pounds, promotes tax indebtedness and operated in a society which exposes the most vulnerable to a corrosive lack of collective morality (divorce, children being raised by the state, widespread sexual freedom or rather an absence of sexual restraint; the commoditization of everything including people).The state and therefore the courts should be representing the interests of the people but in absence of the public being viewed as a legitimate vested interest, the state acts to represent its own interests and in so doing separates its self from the will of the people. We would argue that this is what lies behind the failure of western governments to garner more than 50% public support. This is why ‘the system’ fails the publics ‘sniff test’.

If the power of the courts were to be used to reflect the vested interests of the general public who unlike big business actually pay their taxes, then the public would we think demand that a number of things should change. We would guess that there would be demand for the legal profession to be reformed and the roles duplicative roles of Queens Counsel, Junior Barristers and Solicitors modified to create a simple career structure. Justice could be affordable for the workers as of course, it should be.

Secondly, the notion of Just Deserts fails spectacularly when it is both the public who pay for the just deserts and yet provide the cannon fodder for the “just deserts” system. In reality, who really has their interests served when an 80-year-old sex offender is sent to prison for 8 years at a cost to the taxpayer of three thousand pounds per week? If they understood the system, the public would not demand “Just Deserts” as defined by the state system, they would demand “Justice” and that would mean an affordable “no more harm” approach to sentencing and punishment. More liberal and progressive perhaps than state-sponsored liberal elite!

A thirty-foot prison wall is not always necessary to deliver “Just Deserts” or prevent “no more harm”, likewise, some cases serially re-offend and just deserts lets them continue re-offending by passing short meaningless custodial sentences. It fails the “sniff test”. This just deserts model does, however, deliver incomes and salaries to a vast array of state workers. thankfully we believe there is not too much reform required. However, the impact of the two changes described above would be catastrophic for the people who currently act “legitimately” as the only vested interest currently recognised within the system; namely the vested interest of the politicians, officials and lawyers of the state.

Community Sentences

These owe their existence to a belief at the turn of the capitalist 20th century, that people were not only capable of reform, but they wanted to reform. Back then the culture of the western world was simple, protestant and monogamous. There was, therefore, a simple template against which all could be measured. Capitalism needed sober healthy hard working workers so invested in criminal justice believing that personal reform was not only desirable but also possible. Thus the long march towards the current array of community sentences was started. Today there are numerous interventions and initiatives all paid for by the general public who often feel the efforts to reform are a waste of money and simply create more opportunities to re-offend. Again failing the “sniff test”. The just deserts concept militates against the public’s safety and Queens Peace by keeping the low seriousness, nuisance individuals out of custody. If the criminal justice system was invested with the public’s interest as it was of the capitalists, it would demand that community punishments should be better targetted to those who would genuinely benefit from them. They would not be available for those who due to weakness, stupidity or narcissism feel no need to improve their self-management and reduce the risk they pose to others. For this group, prison is probably the answer.

Prison

We began by looking at the aims of sentencing as it has evolved over the last hundred years: retribution, deterrence and more recently reform and rehabilitation have come to define the role of prison and punishment within a just deserts model. The problem, however, is that prison and punishment do not deliver deterrence, reform or rehabilitation. Prison does not deter or rehabilitate, it is a home from home for too many damaged and inadequate victims of the free market. Men and women who stumble from one social and emotional crisis to the next. The lack of any collective morality permits the system to get away with exercising little if any real influence as they lock people up for a month sometimes a week at a time.

To overcome some of these obvious shortcomings just deserts needs to reflect the vested interests of the general public as oppose to the vested interests of the system itself. Those who can be in the community and be made safe should be in the community and made safe, even if it appears to offend the principle of just deserts. After all, just deserts was in the past paid for by a productive capitalist economy. With the now largely broken free market economy and indebted public paying for the system, justice needs to be redefined to make it affordable, effective and defensible.

So bringing these threads together, the answer seems to us be some reform of the whole system of justice. Prisons should be used to house those serial offenders and dangerous people who are incapable of managing in the community, irrespective of just deserts, whilst others could gain their just deserts in the community. Just deserts in this latter sense would be delivered by a combination of tracking, tagging, monitoring, curfews, exclusions, loss of passport, driving licence etc; a very punishing regime indeed fulfilling just-deserts at very little cost to the indebted taxpayer.

So what is the point of all this? Well, in summary, the Criminal Justice System like all state institutions no longer represents an elite who are responsible for paying for it. The wealth held by rich individuals today is not created by productive “capitalist” type activity it is generally debt based and in addition the wealthy are first in the queue for tax avoidance. So with no wealthy elite paying for the state and getting influence as a result, the state which comprises politicians and lawyers serve their own political and legal interests. The state does not serve the people who pay for it; namely, the blue collar workers and this is why we believe we are getting the Brexit and Trump phenomenon. The disconnect comes from the public not getting the influence they deserve as they are seen by the state elite as merely the people who pay to keep the state serving itself!!! Reversing this is the stuff of a Blue Revolution.

21.11.16 When there is a global crisis what makes “Tone” think the ordinary man and woman will value his “contribution” particularly to something like Brexit? Sometimes we ask the obvious questions.

Boring !

22.11.16 Why are the liberal elite, “elite”? Because they are the top end of the State of course.

We have explored the anatomy of the western world’s anomie and we believe that the existence of this goes some way to explaining the success of the populism of Trump and Brexit campaigns. We have enlarged on this theme and we have argued that unlike the past when the “state” promoted the vested interests of powerful economic interests it shies away from reflecting the interests of the public who pay for it and prefers instead to concern itself with ts own interests. Hence we have welfare that has gone mad, a belief that the twin blights of a housing shortage and homelessness are the sole responsibility of government to cure and that correcting every illness from body dysmorphia and infertility to gender realignment and obesity is the responsibility of the state to fund. This creeping over-reliance on the state keeps the liberal elite in well-paid occupations and enjoying “career progression” whilst directing the thoughts of those responsible for paying for it towards the virtuousness of their benevolence. This is socialism. Socialism is expensive and ultimately by the state adopting a passive response towards “mission creep” the public pay for a system that is both expensive and inefficient. Socialism is essentially the “state” doing stuff it wants to do and with no actual contract with the state the public pick up the tab whether they want to or not.

The power to guide the activities of the state is what the liberal “elite” are for. We the ordinary person in the street have no say over the state and what it gets up to. So as our last contributor but one suggested we have a criminal Justice System which obsessed with “just deserts” and with prison as the ultimate penalty, regularly exposes the public to the horror of urban crime whilst “manageable” risks end up languishing behind a wall at a cost of thousands per week. The public would want justice and this means protection from harm, not retribution or deterrence those feudal ideas that belong to hell holes like Saudi Arabia.

As it is with criminal justice so it is with health and housing. People have become ignorant of the fact that a country has to pay its way and thus the combination of welfare induced social and moral decay (all too evident in too many parts of the western world), naive post-war expectations and health and housing stock asymmetries combine to ensure that the root cause of problems is refashioned to ensure the creeping role of the state is maintained. It is all too evident to us that a good measure of a country’s moral, social and economic health is to gauge how many “middle class” people are in the pay of the state. In the Uk for example if you discounted the state workers above tactical and operational grades there would be a very small “middle class” indeed.

Would a small middle class be a bad thing or a good thing? Well, the state provides the influential well-paid work for the liberal elite and without the state doing what it does many would be out of work. On the other hand, the public is paying a lot for their state and would be better off with some shrinkage. It is of course, possible to conceive of a state that through the proper contracting arrangement with the public could offer real policy choice and government by consent thus avoiding the “Trump effect”. This rather than the liberal elite’s view that it illiberal not to have an ever encroaching “benign” and informed state to help and guide when needed.

Just like the debt-laden free market which games the economic system to ensure that it looks after its interests (corporations, banks and markets in the main) so the state and its elite, our state and “our” elite does what it believes is right for us, whilst we the tax payers pay for their pleasure whilst impotently standing by and watching them **** it up.

25.11.16 Ok Blair, Clagg et al are clearly “counter revolutionary”. What should be the response of a peaceful revolution ?

We opted not to examine Blair’s offer to assist Britain with Brexit on the basis that the question of his motive was too obvious to require addressing. Blair is a narcissistic and delusional god complex nut case in the mould of David Ike. However, bonkers or not, he draws in a number of others, all fellow travellers amongst the liberal elite who seem to be scheming to derail Brexit. The view of these people is that the British public are too stupid to know what is best for them and that we need to be guided like children by our masters and betters.

The problem with the Blair model as we point out incessantly, is that it is a continuation of the socialist triumph of the state over the individual. This model, necessary after the last war in Europe has over reached and now finances an immoral system which in any period including this one is utterly unaffordable and unsustainable in the long term. However, it is a business model that makes the senior officers of the state and business people who can game the free market very wealthy. This is the EU model and Blair and co do very nicely thank you. The problem, which isn’t being discussed is that this model will eventually collapse under the weight of its unsustainable contradictions. What are these contradictions? Well, public debt is engorged by mass migration, but that translates as a positive figure in the minds of the “Remain” crew making us the “fifth largest economy in the world”. We borrow and spend and it makes our economy look healthy just like with the compulsive borrower and gambler all this stops eventually. Within an economy mass migration is a bit like a drug ; it forces the government to spend money and spending on migration like spending money on drugs makes the economy feel good and look good…. short term. But long term it has to stop often as a result of some kind of paralysis caused by the simple unaffordability of the model.

Housing inflation feels good to those with houses but locks people out of the housing market; both as tenants and owner occupiers. Migration probably creates the largest push factor on housing (along with divorce) particularly inner city housing; driving up rent values and creating an out of town demand for “new build”. So Brexit might reduce the pressure on housing and the loss of government spending and a reduction in housing inflation will translate into a slowing economy. However long term this is sustainable and is indeed beneficial. The same goes for the devaluation of the pound. We are once again getting a sense of the British economy based on real economics not the distorting filter of Euronomics!

Wage levels are in the short term going to be driven to the minimum wage by continuing immigration. Restrict migration to only those economic elites we need in the economy (as opposed to political elites that we need fewer of) and we will probably see wages rising at the lower wage levels. Wage levels being stagnant isn’t due to Brexit it is because we remain within the EU. Out of the EU and with a global approach to recruiting the brightest and best, our economy will benefit from global talent at the top whilst our flexible private housing market and welfare reform deliver British workers to British working class jobs at the delivery end of the economy.

Why would Blair and co want to avoid this obvious good news story? Well as part of the EU elite Blair and co have a perverse attachment to a government model that offers people like them (and their families) well paid but essentially pointless jobs managing the people of a continent. The people of the EU are getting wise to the fact that these elite Euro jobs are largely irrelevant whilst working class jobs are under threat from migration and over regulation. But more importantly their taxes and debt pay for a system that looks sustainable in the short term but that will eventually collapse taking them down whilst the elite takes their “earnings” paid by workers taxes and move to Dubi or similar.

If Blair and Co loved Britain as much as they loved Brussels they would applaud Brexit and the life-affirming opportunities it gives Britain to escape the debt-burdened incoherence of the EU. Leaving the EU (hard or soft) will help other nations develop a sustainable economy that through trade brings the chance of greater peace across the planet. It will help Britain recover from the consequences of its numerous recessions and help it begin to repay its indebtedness. Free trade is the DNA of European and world peace but regrettably for Britain and us at a Blue Revolution the EU seem intent on preventing Britain from having free trade within the EU customs area. Denial of free trade is a serious weapon the EU and their elites want to use against Britain. Blair and Co working in our interests? No, as usual, just their own!

28.11.16 The trouble for girls is clear and simple; it’s the amoral free market stoopid!

Is the western world a safe place for girls? It seems such an unnecessary question given that in Iran a girl can’t sing in public and in Saudi Arabia being female is almost a crime. We don’t need to look at Egypt or Somalia to register that in these countries being female is a risk to your reproductive health. So in the West, we would assume girls have never had it so good.

The West’s progress has ensured that the laws on marriage allow easy divorce, that girls can have jobs in every field of work, that the horror of pregnancy outside of marriage is mitigated by welfare and there is abortion on demand. With the consequences of this package of 20th-century reforms, girls should have a bright and aspirational future. However, the general opinion seems to be; girls in the West are unhappy and this is reflected in low self-esteem, self-harm and suicide.

A recent British documentary highlighted the challenges for an Afghan girl as she fought to avoid being sold as a bride (to provide money for her brother) and her fight to be free to achieve her musical ambitions. She was throughout very philosophical; even when told by her grandmother she could be sold to an eighty-year-old. As a young Western girl, you might conclude OMG!

However, OMG hardly captures the reality. Too many western girls behave with a level of self-loathing that would be understandable if they were being sold to an eighty-year-old. But why? Well we believe that girls in the West have lost part of one gender identity as full-time mothers and gained another partial identity as workers whilst being sold two myths; one is that the “free market” delivers happiness via mass consumption and that the tendency to objectify themselves and therefore others is due to them personally rather than a process encouraged by the free market to maximise consumption. This latter point is reflected in attempts to get girls to “get real” about themselves. The girls need to “get real” about the “free market”!!

The free market is a means of making money. Unlike in the past when making money was about creating jobs today the jobs are in China or India. This has elevated consumption above production as the main economic preoccupation. Consumption doesn’t require a working class it simply requires consumers and a means of creating enough wealth to provide the means of consumption (as opposed to the means of production). This wealth can be engineered by governments in the form of welfare spending or it can be “liberated” from increased asset values like house price increases. Whilst men and women are cast in the role of consumer (consumer having replaced subject or citizen) it seems to us that being a woman has added complication in that personal consumption can be increased by dint of one’s attractiveness or ability to be relaxed about getting pregnant whilst dependent upon state benefits.

In the past the two roles women could take advantage of were separated by marriage. Worker prior to marriage and mother thereafter. Today they are blended but the blending is simply intended to maximise the woman’s consumer capacity, so loyalty to others disappears for them as well as for men. For both males and females being with the rich man and marrying the beautiful woman is the corrosive aspiration downloaded into everyone at birth. In the case of men low wages exclude them from the mass consumer club, for women, average looks have the same effect. (an attractive woman can “trade up”) For both, debt can, in the short-term increase ones “consumption coefficient” but for women, the conflict between the two roles is mediated if not indeed manipulated by government policy, in particular, welfare. The problem for girls is that being conflicted around serious life choices is dispiriting, depressing and confusing and eventually it is too easy to default to having children; wanted or not!! thereby opting out of the world of work or being compromised with a work life balance that puts work before children.

Finally, for too many men the alternative to being successful is suicide; physically removing themselves from the gene pool….often having sired a couple of children. The most recent figure show that suicide is the highest cause of death for men between twenty and thirty-four. For others, crime is another “alternative” career that creates a consumer capability.

The free market is not wholly a force for good it has the capacity to corrupt and distort peoples expectations, turning love, loyalty and duty into different forms of greed. The public feel this on both sides of the Atlantic but possibly don’t understand where the feeling comes from. However, the “free market” loving political elite neither feel nor understand the problems with this inhuman and corroding system and are therefore shocked when the public reject them because they won’t reform, modify or control this system.

02.12.16 The Blue Revolution has some challenges which the “liberal elite” might find uncomfortable. Let us examine one!

The experts have just concluded that advice and education is a waste of time when it comes to controlling alcohol misuse and pricing policy is more effective. In this world of “rational expectations” does this help us to understand how best to create a nonreligious morality fit for the 21st century?

Since the turn of the 20th century, there has been a slow relentless decline in moral behaviour. It has been met by an ever expanding system of welfare that the public sector elites view quite wrongly as “progressive”. How such a word can be used to justify a policy which undermines moral choices is hard to comprehend. Here at a Blue Revolution, we believe in Contract, Choice, and Consent and take the view that adults should be capable of navigating their lives within this moral framework with some limited scope for state support in the short term as necessary for individuals who fall on hard times. However with a western society grown fat and lazy on welfare and state largess something needs to be done to re-engineer society back to a place where adults are fully competent moral agents and not the beneficiaries of an undermining culture of state money and a sanctimonious moral relativism. The contract, Choice, and Consent should be all that is required to underpin a truly moral society. We are going to look at Contract, Choice, and Consent in relation to procreation.

At the time of the birth of Britain’s welfare state, society was moral to the point where too many personal choices were deemed immoral and in some cases like homosexuality illegal. This was both a dark age and an age of peculiar enlightenment. Christianity left a legacy of marriage by consent and those mature enough to understand the awesome obligations associated with marriage went on to provide loving stable and productive homes for themselves and their children. The element of choice and consent is there and the marriage ceremony itself is an “illiterates contract”. The persecution of gays and lesbians was and remains immoral. A person sexuality has no relevance to their social or economic productivity.

Unfortunately, society changed, in some ways for the better but not in all ways. Something commonplace during the war but which lay dormant after the war began to filter into society and that was “sexual abandon”, a bi-product of war which became “sexual liberation” in the 1960’s. Sexual liberation was heralded by the “shagging” community as a way of marking themselves out from the more buttoned up or as they would argue repressed community. The sex scandals of the present age have their origins in this “sexual liberation”. It was and still is a predators charter.

Sexual liberation is bad enough when the consequences are hurt feelings, personal disgust, and divorce, but it significantly worse when a child is produced either because of “sexual liberation” or a child is caught in the middle of “sexually liberated parent(s).

So having exposed what we consider to be the problem; what do we see as the solution? Well, it can’t be more of the same, state money to subsidise wanton stupidity. No, if we have to consider the financial consequences of millions of selfish “liberated” life choices we might take the view that this liberation has to stop. to avoid behaving like some prig or moral dinosaur such as we find in dust bowl Islamic societies like Saudi Arabia we need to protect individual choices and respect an adult’s moral agency. Contract, Choice and Consent does this. But what of those who fail to behave like adults, the children of the age of sexual liberation for whom Contract, Choice and Consent are irrelevant concepts.

Well, this is where we at a Blue Revolution become a little more draconian; because a society based on Contract Choice and Consent has to have a way of encouraging compliance with responsible behaviour and disincentivize morally poor behaviour. This is done by having a national policy of DNA registration. A pregnancy is no longer an act of one sided selfishness with the more vulnerable gender picking up the moral pieces and the social disapproval. The process should be based on consent and choice and a contract between the parents to support the child. In the absence of this being negotiated by free mature moral agents, the state should step in and force the parents, confirmed via DNA to support their offspring. If education doesn’t work for alcohol misuse why would we assume it would work for reckless procreation.

The “liberal elite” will argue that registering DNA is an infringement of human rights. That is because there is money to be made from the social and moral chaos upon which the state thrives. However just as all our rights are now contingent on fair play to all of us taxpayers, particularly now that the wealthy corporations have decided that tax avoidance is a moral imperative, knowing who has sired whom and therefore who should pay is essential to help re-motivate people towards improved moral behaviour. We would argue that this change will be a bitter pill for the underclass to swallow, but it will we guarantee….note guarantee, improve the lives and expectations of boys and girls, put promiscuity into retreat and place children as the pinnacle of a safe and coherent union between parents who have thought about children ahead of a promiscuous lifestyle. No punishing the fornicators, no sex education explaining what to do with your “farm parts” just a lesson in contract choice and consent and the consequences of having unprotected sex on your bank balance and future happiness and prosperity. Here at Blue Revolution, we consider that as sexual intercourse releases powerful hormones it is a bit like a drug. So let’s tackle its worst social aspects in the manner of substance misuse. Let’s treat it like a dangerous substance!

04.12.16 What is wrong with “Remainers”? Their love of the State doesn’t stop with the EU that’s what!

The Lib Dems are claiming to have made a come back with electoral success based they say on a campaign which was largely anti Brexit. It is not clear to us why the sort of people who live in Richmond would be 70% in favour of “remain”. However, there are other “affluent” constituencies which also have a similar profile so perhaps it is about being affluent. Here at a Blue Revolution, we are well enough educated, and global in outlook but not affluent so unlike the affluent we can’t accept the idea of an expensive government over running our lives or accept the idea of rule by superstate.

In the twenty-first century, the superstate is essentially an arrangement which sees the little bit of non-debt backed value created by workers being consumed by the state, for the ultimate benefit of the state. The welfare, health and human rights industries to name but three are basically the use of ordinary people’s lives and tax revenues to justify extraordinary wages for the states army of workers. Perhaps Richmond is full of well-paid state workers (£100K+) and bankers who either don’t have to worry about business profitability as they are Civil Servants or think that flogging debt to almost bankrupt European’s contributes to sustainable long-term progress.

The problem these affluent people face is their inability to accept there is a democratic deficit in staying in the EU. Whilst getting out might look complicated…. the problem is no one gave the tax paying public the option of opting into the superstate, it was a choice made for us by the elite. So now with all the soft fascism the elite can muster (even in the UK’s Private Eye and the Lib Dems pro-EU posturing amongst others) we need to resist the elites continued pleading for us to stick with their grand plan. We also need to resist the ideas of a left alliance of Greens and the Lib Dems who think Labour will help them salvage what for Brexiteers is the nightmare of remaining. This as we said, is a scenario that the public didn’t vote for and did actually vote against.

In reality and with the power of technology the State needs to wither away (a bit….or a lot ) but holding on to control and power runs against the interests of the ordinary people who want less of the State and its cost, not more. With idiots like the putative left alliance having a tantrum all over the place about everything, the prospect of the state continuing to strut it’s wholly tax gobbling and all too often self-serving and pointless stuff, is certain. Brexit starts the process of change.

07.12.16 We are the people, the people are not the State. The State should be the servant of the people but with an elite in charge the State is our master!

We have commented on the relationship between the people and the State in various posts over the last few months and particularly as we worked our way towards Brexit. Concepts like “vested interests” “the establishment” only have meaning when the State and the people do not share common values. We believe that under the economic system that was known as Capitalism the State operated in the interests of the Capitalist class. Upholding “capitalist values”. These reinforced inequality in wages and flowing from that limited the rights of the workers to enjoy the full freedoms afforded by Contract, Choice and Consent. This went as far as creating a lifestyle limited environment of poor health, ignorance and low expectations.

The post-war era accelerated the process of turning the capitalist system around. it achieved this by putting the State centre stage, no longer operating on behalf of the vested interests of the Capitalist system which many viewed as the cause of World War II. Post war the State became the operator of big businesses, welfare protected the workers and the Grammar Schools elevated the children of “workers” into the establishment. It was like the children’s books of the day presented it; a rosy era for the working class. Those of us who remember this period remember a time when people were generally happy responsible and the state seemed to work for the people.

The post-war period was not all good news, however. “The People” were all too often represented by a labour movement hell bent on destroying a system that had really ceased to exist in the west BY THE 1970’S. British firms were being turned into commissioning bodies manufacturing abroad. The horror of the capitalist system was now largely inflicted on the proletariat of China, Korea, Vietnam etc. The left wing put the final nails in the coffin of what remained of the British manufacturing and extractive industries because of their blinkered ideological ignorance they viewed “Industry” as capitalist, so it was necessary to destroy industry and the jobs that went with it.

The challenge is this; what do you do when your capitalist system is collapsing around your ears. When not- withstanding its many flaws it no longer delivers the value and wealth necessary to support consumption by an increasingly entitled population. Well, you recognise that “globalisation” has a different way of delivering wealth and you try and game it to your advantage. This is what the people see as the problem with the current system. It is also why the traditional “left” have no answers. The state manages wealth and much of this wealth is generated by the debt and tax of workers. Unable to countenance any suggestion of a return to “capitalism” the left just promotes the same Tax and spend model to maintain demand and consumer satisfaction.

The problem is that by replacing vast swathes of the economy (if you don’t believe this take any British county or city and work out how many people work for its biggest employers; the NHS, Schools, County and District councils plus the odd prison or MOD Base etc) the government is trapped into maintaining itself first and foremost, and then it looks to supporting the rest of the economic system. This is the mechanism by which the state becomes the master of the people. Protecting the States interests is the main purpose of the state and its army of pointless 100K+ “Senior Leaders”. The people get in the way of this “nice little earner” hence the hissy fits from Statists like Britains Nick Clegg and an assortment of the State elites in parliaments (EU, Westminster, Scottish, Welsh, NI Assembly) and their supporting administrations; “Civil Servants” and Courts.

So what is the solution? Well to coin a phrase the workers need to raise their consciousness. Not like some long haired student Marxist bamboozled by the complex nature of Marxism who believes that the State is the answer to the inequalities of the world, but by realising that the State keeps a lot of people on great salaries doing very little that matters to ordinary people and these State people are the elite who work the system to their long-term advantage. A sort of perpetuating of disadvantage by pretending or virtue signalling that they are doing the opposite.

The modern economy has so much government in it that it can be easily characterised as a system operated by the State that takes workers debt and tax and turns it into salaries for its self-selecting elite. People like Nick Clegg, Keir Starmer, the Kinnocks, Blairs, the Judges of the higher courts and an army of people who do stuff in our name but not with our consent!!

07.12 16 An Industrial strategy needs a policy on  debt and pensions. These are yesterday’s challenge tomorrow!

An industrial strategy needs to cover a number of issues in the now globalised world. We think that dwarfing energy prices and other global uncertainties are the problems of debt and pensions. How did we get here? The modern free market is not capitalism. Capitalism requires the accumulation of capital. This was appropriated from workers in the form of the profits made by underpaying the workers. In a capitalist system, this capital became the basis for future investment, economic growth and of course future exploitation of workers.

As we argue the capitalist system had its faults but it was the progenitor of what we now have come to recognise as the modern world. It reflected the troika of Contract, Choice and Consent which underpins freedom and democracy and it demanded of those subject to its discipline a responsible way of life that required people to take care of themselves and their families and to have regard for their communities. They had to work out how to manage the wages borne of the exploitation by the capitalist. With the combination of Contract, Choice and Consent and the responsible worker looking to protect their families the fundamental building blocks of freedom and democracy became well established by the 1930’s. They endured the war and after the war, the government looked at the exploitation of an exhausted nation and intervened. They intervened to rebuild the economy and to minimise the levels of the wage exploitation by capitalists. The government never assumed that the qualities self-discipline hard wired into people by the capitalist system would not endure with a more interventionist government programme. They assumed that with welfare and pensions, health and education the future for working people was bright. It was until the beginning of the 1960’s.

In the 1960’s the capitalist system largely morphed into the modern free market. This is an immoral system. It has no context of responsible behaviour underpinning it. It encourages irresponsible social and economic behaviour. The post-war legacy of welfare became the means by which the free market managed to rid itself of any responsibility for the social and economic decline of the nation whilst relying on the welfare system to maintain wages and pensions. Sending work abroad and bringing migrants here allows the price of labour to decline whilst sending the manufacturing industry abroad allows free market profits to remain high. Paying for it all with debt and taxation allows consumer demand to be kept up benefitting the svengalis of the free market, people like Sir Philip Green. This is an almighty mess!

Pensions in the public sector, health care costs and a whole host of other inflating expenditures is bringing the national finances under unbearable strain. We need to start making a profit as a nation and relying on the “free market” with its urge to make money at the taxpayer’s expense really is not going to make Britain a leading industrial nation.

10.12.16 The elite and their experts are still intent on confusing the public about the reality of Brexit and the “old world order”. But why? We look to the Uk for answers.

In the UK it is claimed Brexit means Brexit. Well that is like saying Justice means Justice; it means very little but unintentionally for Mrs May it sends a mixed message to those voters who Mr and Mrs Clegg and their NBF’s, the Blairs, Keir Starmer et al view as too stupid to understand the complex issues associated with the UK departing the EU; namely most of the British people both Brexiteers and Remainers.

The elites look down on the British people in a way that was inconceivable in the past; this is whether the people agree with them or not. Is it amongst other things our ability to load our sentences with actual often difficult meaning rather than speak articulately and yet simultaneously say nothing? it is our ability to live lives with none of the “status” craved by D-list “Slebs” and the elite in the places that warehouse them like the Big Brother House, BBC, EU and Westminster? or is it even more elemental?

The reason for their disdain, and if you don’t know what we mean watch Emily Thornberry MP, is the fact that we are no longer essential “factors of production” within the British economy. Factors of production that have to be “heard”, respected and won over to maintain capitalism’s promise of creating social and economic value and tax revenue for the State. We “the people” are now just a means by which the government can manipulate the economy to maintain aggregate demand through tax, debt and welfare and thus secure for a little longer the free market merry-go-round that keeps them in their positions of rank and privilege and allows some people who game the system to get rich. This maintains the pretence that the economic system is “just” and laden with opportunity for all. The modern Economic System delivers little by way of social and economic “justice”. We call it “secular wWesternism” as it delivers unhappiness, misery and destruction of the planet (no not the myth of solely man-made global warming stoopid) on an industrial scale.

As usual with a Blue Revolution, there is a lot in the above. Let us identify some examples. Global warming is the global issue most promoted by the elite. It helps to take the public’s eye of the “secular western” ball. The problem with the world economy is that with debt as the basis for economic prosperity there needs to be a ravenous “growth” to repay debt, replenish pensions and maintain stock and property prices. This requires an attack on our beloved planet like no other, over-population, deforestation and the volume of extraction, pollution and species annihilation, and yet whilst the elite talk of progress i.e. economic success reducing poverty and global conflict etc, we say yes, but at what price! Can it be done in a more planet-friendly way?

To tackle this head on the “elites” would need to scale back their own activities and recalibrate the world economy to something more sustainable and for them scary too; something measurable and achievable, co-operation and non-conflict based. Unwilling to change the nature of the western hegemony they promote “man-made global warming”; and Kyoto, the secular western elite’s impotent proxy for actually doing something to save the planet. Oh and the so called “Greens” buy into this rot too, along with the “storm troopers” of the elite……the academic “expert”.

To save the planet we would need to cut the birth rate through women’s education and employment, restrain the gender obsessions upon which too much of the free market is built and which across all demographics promotes reckless single parenthood. We must establish some global and universal values; we offer contract, choice and consent and we must stop the free market merry-go-round of “growth at all costs” and then more growth. This means moving away from a debt based economic model with the state as ringmaster to one based on achieving high levels of non-debt-based social and economic value by for example opening up Africa to agri-trade whilst restraining population movements by encouraging sustainable, non-growth obsessed economies in countries that currently export people rather than productivity.

On the Uk domestic front, the elites won’t tell you that the British economy is so dependent on migration that it actually needs “free movement of people” i.e. the movement to the UK of whole families. We have argued that “free movement of workers” is “just” and fair. However, it is unlikely to deliver the crippling levels of migration that the state needs to inflate the housing, property, stock and welfare markets which just so happen to contribute to the UK’s economic “growth”.

There is growth out there Jim but not as we know it, and as Brexit showed, not as we like it.

Apols to “The Firm”.