Blue Revolution Archive 28.04.16 to 28.06.16

All Faiths page 6

28.04.16 Celebs, Jnr Doctors, and the ‘underclasss’. All different but all united in one belief; its all about them!

Celebrities, those ubiquitous individuals who before mass communication would have had the status accorded to the manager of the local picture house or the dance hall now straddle the internet peddling themselves as gurus on every subject from politics to health and well being. The interesting thing about “Slebs” or we suppose “performers” of all kinds is that in terms of a Blue Revolution they have carved out a little niche puling in cash from those who can ill afford to waste it. Bankers get hammered but no one looks at the amount of wealth that the poor manufacture and which ends up in the hands of the celebrities who grace the pages of gossip magazines.

Modern Celebrities are numerous and their wealth is grossly disproportionate to their worth. In both economic and social terms the legacy they leave is of little real value but they seem to get wealthy irrespective of this. This process of poor people (via earnings, borrowings and welfare) creating a largely valueless class of “Slebs” is the result of a system that we call “Debtamorphosis”. The mechanism is complex but essentially promoters, commercial TV companies, the internet and newspapers promote these “Slebs” and then advertisers get involved so that a past worthwhile exemplar of good pro social values like a sports personality evolves into a showperson demonstrating personal excess, worth below value and tackiness. The arrogance of these people is what drives their own self promotion and makes them notable and deserving, for them, of more self promotion.

The lofty left-wing luvvie may look down their nose at the Katie Price end of the “Sleb” market but the fact that it is Public Broadcasters  and Cinema production companies plus glossy magazines managing the promotion  process does take the tackiness out of the “debtamorphosis” for them. They are more gilded but non the less still of much lower value than their worth what ever they may think. It doesn’t matter though because being on the telly and rich and famous is all about them; we just pay to keep them there.

Doctors too have displayed a worrying lack of personal awareness in respect of the wealth they believe they are entitled to. Ideologically the west is sick morally and economically, thus in terms of social justice there seems little case for paying public workers too much tax and gov’t borrowing. Doctors parade around TV studios demonstrating emotions ranging from simple pleading to passive aggression to classic “God complex” narcissism. These well paid and more importantly well respected public employees are making people  suffer in pain and putting them at risk of harm in their morally bankrupt campaign to avoid loosing the cachet of earning more money on a Saturday. Again with the Government replacing the Gossip or the Glossy magazine the taxpaying poor and middle earners  have to pick up the tab for a profession that hasn’t really done what it says on the tin  since the 1970’s. But of course the strike is all about them rather than the tax paying patient; we just pay to keep them in work and happy.

Finally the underclass. The victims of the “system”. A system that allows fornication on an industrial scale with the all to obvious by product of welfare sired fatherless babies. Sex has become an entitlement that can no longer just be the pleasure enjoyed by people who have embarked on responsible mature and socially  valuable course of action; making a public commitment to each other. The multiple fathers with a community “harem”  of “baby mothers” are simply a drain on western economies as are the baby mothers them selves. The limited social value delivered by these people is propped up by a drained and depleted economy and of course the lifestyle they enjoy is dependent for its survival on welfare. Welfare of course can’t be made to work against the narcissistic interests of large numbers of this this particular group…….because welfare is after all….. all about them. We just pay to keep them happy and sha****g.

03.05.16 We are all angry now. Or at least dissatisfied. Why? And what is the solution if it isn’t going to be religious or ideological regression.

The public in the western world slides “left” or “right” depending on whether they identify the problems that affect them or make them insecure as being caused by foreigners (right) or bankers and the “system” (left). Outside the west the faith nations become more intransigent about the important role of their faith in civil and political society. These political and religious regressions are caused by a suspicion about the effects of other cultures and ideologies on the community that  sees itself under threat; be it the US or Saudi Arabia. Some cultures try to export their “faith” through a combination of persuasion and soft power. Others try through force.

The world of “Secular Westernism” is economically  indebted and socially insecure and this trickles down to populations who either directly experience the indebtedness and insecurity or are trapped in welfare the new “Opium of the people”. Government borrowing to pay welfare, to protect their populations  from the realities of personal debt and insecurity (and to maintain consumption, the modern proxy for an economy) is at best a short term but unaffordable strategy. The system will collapse under the weight of its contradictions; namely the sheer unaffordability of the state taking more and more of the social and economic strain.

With “debtamorphosis” the economic winners are only winning at the expense of the indebted masses (all property is debt!) and unfortunately welfare arrangements whilst reinforcing dependence on the state also encourage divorce and other social ills that require a state response. This is unfortunately a phenomenon most marked amongst the less well educated and less economically versatile. Karl Marx would not have recognised “justice” in the welfare system of Britain and much of Europe, he would probably have thought recipients were some kind of under financed aristocracy living idly off the value created by others. He would have been half right. However what keeps public sector workers and the welfare dependent in money isn’t value; as we have said many times, it’s debt!

In the non westernised countries the fear of this contagion spreading and undermining society by undermining social norms is getting acute. Women are being systematically repressed to “protect” them and society from secular westernism’s at best amoral influence. It can be seen in the UK and Europe within largely Islamic communities. A return to strict religious norms; gender specific, male in origin and based on submission to God. The fear the western nations have is due to the limit on personal rights that go with this religious conservatism.

So peeping over the parapet we have a socially liberal but largely economically and socially bankrupt western world being held together by bureaucracies like the EU and the US federal Government. These organisations are blind as to how to manage the social decay their debt burdened societies have created. However they fear simple “faith based solutions as these curtail liberty and freedom which drives the debt based market economies.

On the other hand there are the oil rich Islamic nations together with fundamentalist tribal economies see this western world as promoting vice and social insecurity. Both of course are right. The west is bankrupt and has through retreating from Christian morality allowed its nations to become both free and immoral.  The secular left however are right too that tribal and repressive religious regimes are unlikely to deliver freedom and democracy or protect the rights of others in the way secular westernism can.

So what is the solution. Well here at a Blue revolution we take the view that the only things that matter are human relationships and these have to be based on Capitalisms legacy a model of “justice” based on Contract, Choice and Consent. Based on the three C’s, relationships between people their governments and the means by which those relationships freely entered into, drive the economy, will preserve rights and promote the production of social and economic value.

Therefore  we say there will be no great technological advances emanating from tribal or feudal Islamic countries any time soon; unless it is a weapon of course. But unless the west stops sponsoring greed and stupidity the legacy of Capitalism in negating the abuses of tribalism and feudalism through the promotion of Contract, Choice and Consent our progress will be wasted.

We will leave you to fill in the gaps!!

07.05.16 Sadiq Khan the most powrful Muslim in the western world. Can he help to build an accord between Islam and the West. We hope so.

We had no view about the outcome of the London Mayoral election. Let the people decide! We believe that when presented with the facts the people know best. Unlike the bureaucratic left who see the people as needing visionaries and a vanguard to lead them, we believe the people should be trusted; the problem is we are not trusted enough.

However in respect of the London election we think the choice is cautiously the correct one. Mr Khan seems to be a modern liberal with progressive instincts who identifies himself with a simple faith based culture in the form of Islam. Mr Knan needs to use his power and influence to achieve some radical outcomes for the faith he rightly promotes if nothing else to start its slow reformation.

He needs to begin by asking some very basic questions of his western liberal friends and those closer to his faith. For the reader these are the Blue Revolution secular western/Islamic  accord questions that not only need to be asked, but also need a progressive answer and solution.

Why is it the common perception that Islam is preoccupied with gender stereotyping and hung up about sexuality? How can this be addressed by Mr Khan to make the public perception of Islam less of a rub with secular western liberalism and thus become more progressive as a faith?

Why is the common perception that authority in Islam comes from God but via men in authority; either religious leaders or male heads of households? How can Mr Khan offer a more progressive interpretation of authority within Islam that looks modern and less discriminating against women.

How can Mr Khan help the secular west to identify its problems as largely due to a diet of debt which props up a consumer culture that promotes “immoral behaviour” whilst hiding the truth of the wests economic weakness and vulnerability?

Mr Khan can use his high profile office and become a visionary for Westio-Islamic cooperation and understanding. Or he will slide into paralysis not knowing which side of the moral divide to safely locate himself. He was elected yesterday. We await with his first 100 days with interest and anticipation and we hope this post helps.

07.05.16 Debtamorphosis in action. Turning Student debt misery into jobs for the university class of liberal left academics. How ‘just’ is that?

Someone on the British television news today was speaking about how EU migrants put money into the British economy by paying their taxes. The assumption was that somewhere there was a pool of actual value from which the nations wage bill is paid. Actual value is national income based on food production, manufacturing and the extractive industries. Exports bring in wealth when the importing countries also have value with which they pay for their imports. The point is these can’t be debt based economies.

Now this situation doesn’t really exist in the west any more. Migrants like the indigenous population have their wages either paid or subsidised by the government. The government in turn does not have access to real economic value it is forced by the legacy of the post war welfare settlement to make good economic shortcomings by putting the economy into debt. House prise inflation opens up opportunities for homeowners to borrow too. All this borrowing funds consumption and leaves the Government believing that it is in receipt of taxation based on value rather than taxation based on government and individual debt. The recipients of the debt based expenditure become wealthy and this process we call debtamorphosis. Debtamorphosis is the mechanism by which the public sector workers and certain businesses in the service and consumer sector  create personal wealth out of other peoples debt. There is no better example of this than student loans.

From the moment the new labour government started to fetishize higher education and expanded the sector beyond what could realistically be afforded by the government, students began to gain first hand experience of the debtamorphosis mechanism. Students borrow thousands of pounds to buy an often pointless degree whilst paying the salaries of lecturers and academics. These academics are recipients of the debt of the students in the same way that those who borrow against their home to pay for popular consumables create retail millionaires. The government doesn’t take the debt directly from the indebted but it skims the debt from the recipients of the debt based wealth in the form of taxation.

The phrase we have coined as a corruption of Karl Marx’s “all property is theft” is “all property is debt”. This is the reality of western economies.  Having wealth in the economy based on debt and welfare unfortunately leads to social and economic decline. The answer is not more debt but  considerably less debt and if this makes the economy appear to shrink, this is as much an illusion as the economies apparent growth. With debt based wealth driving economic growth the economy isn’t really growing it just appears to be so. Are you paying attention George?

10.05.16 Spies, bankers, politicians and military types all support the EU. Why? Because they are all bureaucrats and it is a bureaucracy.

This isn’t going to be a lengthy post; there isn’t much more to say. The world needs less, not more bureaucracy. For countries to grow in understanding and peace relationships between people, communities and nations need to be based on simple principles. We say relationships should be based on Contract Choice and Consent, upon which freedom and democracy will eventually evolve even in the most resistant environments.

Bureaucracy like the EU is an interference with this process of evolutionary human development; but lots of people are well paid to be bureaucrats (the publicsectocracy as we call them) and need to do the bidding of the establishments who pay their wages. So when called upon to enter the fray by say the British Prime Minister or Chancellor they do so willingly, even though they know that what their organisations do will still be done because the public rather than the bureaucracy will demand from them “business as usual”.

10.05.16 For decades secular westernism was an ideology in search of a personality, Blair, Clinton etc. Now we have Trump, Saunders and Corbyn et al will there be a change of tack.

Ok lets look at this question; it is a little more complex than it first appears. Secular Westernism is the name we at a Blue revolution have given to what has become the prevailing western ideology. It therefore contrasts with other ideologies such as communism and Islamism. Whilst it is an ideology based on some good stuff; freedom, equality, democracy it has, possibly as a result of empowering people who can then make mistakes, gained a reputation for some high value negatives such as economic decline and high levels of social decay, characterised by debt funded consumerism, decline of collective moral behaviour i.e. divorce, illegitimate births, idleness, etc.

Now it would be stupid to argue that some people don’t do well in a secular western society. Businesses that cater for consumers, banks that offer debt and public sector employees who don’t directly assist people but manage those who do could all be classed as the winners along with those who exist on the froth of the system such as celebrities and personalities, footballers, pop idols and models and those in the media up to and including “top thesps”.

The secular western culture evolved in the 1980’s as a response to declining competitiveness amongst mature western economies such as Europe and the US. In the west heavy industry, like ship building was going elsewhere and coal mining was no longer commercially viable in a global market. The response was to look at how the economic paradigm could be re configured to ensure longer term viability of the free market and the continued accumulation of wealth by the few. These people suck the body liquor off the corpse of the western economy; Ad men and those pandering to consumerism for example.

A reconfiguration was achieved in two ways. Firstly workers within an economy had to shift away from the notion of production as the main economic and wealth creating function and embrace consumption and the public sector as the main economic activities. Secondly to finance the consumption the publics tolerance of debt  (both their own and government) had to increase, and student debt is one manifestation of this process. The final element of this process and the one that toxified the whole system was the opening up of the Chinese proletariat to the production of western goods.

Mrs Thatcher is often credited with being the architect on the European side of the pond at least, of this change from production to consumption as the main economic preoccupation. In the US it was good old Ronnie Regan. Both of these leaders had no real grasp of the economic and moral outcomes of this combination of changes. However the short term benefits were apparent to anyone who understood the wealth creating opportunities within the new economic paradigm. Thatcher and Regan were therefore the cheerleaders of the birth of Secular Westernism. They were two people who saw wealth creation for the few rather than value creation for the many as the new purpose of the western economy.

Were they really blind to the need for real economic growth to come through the production of social and economic value? Who knows….who cares!

Anyway it was the beginning of the new western paradigm. No longer based on Christian moral  values of self discipline, self restraint, hard work, the family and so on and so forth. This new paradigm, debt based and with “freedom” at its empty heart created a number of offspring  which continue to protect and finance the paradigm, offspring such as un sustainable stock and house price inflation, a crazy “art” market, zero interest rates, and National Lotteries. In essence we have had the Banking crisis….a secular western phenomenon, social decay, a secular western phenomenon, consumerism,  a secular western phenomenon, debt based wealth creating millionaires, a secular western phenomenon,  and the hostility from “faith cultures” a secular western phenomenon. Secular westernism whilst having some good bits is not wholesome enough to avoid all these shortcomings.

To maintain this model it needed a new cheerleader after the “housewife” Thatcher and her US consort Regan had left office. In the UK at least there was an interregnum with John Major. A decent working class man who understood “real economics” as anyone south of the middle class does. (It is a pity he lets his post war, lower middle class anxieties persuade him of the virtue of the EU…however he is a good man). The John Major phenomenon…Gray…peas on a knife, shirt in underpants provided  a simple but effective caricature to the new elite of someone who wasn’t “secular western” or at least not secular western enough. These people were chippy, privately educated wealth and fame hungry elites into who’s fold emerged the cheerleaders of the late 1990’s and 2000’s. In the UK Tony Blair and in the US “shagger” Clintstone.

Once these two “great guys” came along the paradigm was crystallised so that in later years Bush and his debt based wars and Brown and his UK banking crisis were mere interruptions to the programme of debt based economic “growth” all at the cost of government financed social and economic decline.

After Blair and Brown we got Cameron and Wizard Osborne of the emerald city of debt. These people are the new “personalities” who the brokers and cheerleaders of Secular Westernism promote. The public instinctively knows the paradigm is broke; even Russell Brand knows it but they don’t know why and therefore don’t have an answer.

So to go back to the original question; do we think that the cheerleaders of Secular Westernism need to change tack in the face of growing public disapproval of another Clinton in the U.S. or Osborne as leader of Britain’s Tories The new kids on the block are Corbyn, Trump, Saunders and  the toddlers of anti-austerity?

We are sorry to say the answer is no there is no need to change tack. The Secular Western paradigm has nothing to worry about, these people are the new “personalities”. Secular westernism has two interconnected but distinct sides; the economic and the social. Whilst the Clintons and Osborn emphasise the advantage of debt in creating “growth” the left and the toddlers of anti austerity emphasise the advantages of debt in solving social problems like unemployment which they believe is caused by “capitalism”, both call it “investment” rather than waste…..which is what it is.

Both sides are doing little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic of the western economy. We know it and think you should know it too.

19.05.16 Ideas are easily made toxic when not exposed to challenge. Trade is an effective conduit for challenge.

No Narrative exists

19.05.16 The Queens speech is about prison reform. How will this help in a country of economic and moral confusion.?

Giving Governor’s more power over their jails seems to be the current big idea for cutting crime. We have some occasional contributors who know a little bit about this subject so we have sought views. The first view seems to be that whilst this will or rather may reduce costs it is unlikely to reduce crime. Maybe the government knows this maybe it is a kind of virtue signalling where the government claims to have lofty ideals but in reality knows that getting Governors to take the financial responsibility for jails means the costs can be forced down. Externalising the responsibility so to speak.

The general consensus seems to be that crime is like the sociologists might say “social in character” however it is not really due to “structural inequalities” as they are unlikely also to say. Today the people who commit crime are neither starving or disempowered; to some extent they are the same as too many others who are not involved in crime; welfare dependent, with a wide range of expectations like housing, consuming goods, free health care, and the right to have children at someone else’s expense. And therein lies the problem.

The fundamental relationship in society is that between parents and their children has been fractured by moral decline and the essential social responsibility for financing the children ones has, has been undermined by welfare. This scenario sets up the perfect conditions for a life of irresponsibility, and crime is an elemental part of these irresponsible lifestyles. In many if not all faith cultures, including the pre secular West, sexual behaviour is linked to maturity and taking on the responsibility for a wife and children.

Whilst we may take slight exception to the suggestion that a man takes responsibility for a wife (this is the 21st century after all), the idea that two mature people have children in a fully considered relationship is sensible. They should also accept the constraints of a committed relationship and work together to provide the financial and social stability children need to grow up as stable responsible people.

With this kind of stable and loving background children are capable of growing beyond the social and financial level in society achieved by their parents. If this social and financial background is low waged but loving and secure; it should make no difference to social success. The main difference between the middle and upper classes and the rest of society is not education, it is responsible parenting. The prisons how have to extend parenting to people who have come to adulthood not as mature adults but as damaged and malfunctioning childlike men and women. No Governor can correct this long term undermining of an individuals social and economic opportunity, and if they could, it would cost a fortune.

Our thanks go to Lord John Bird for inspiring some of this content.

  1. 5.16 There are bloody revolutions, Red revolutions and  Ideological revolutions and now we have a Blue Revolution. But why blue? V4 

Someone asked one of us recently “why a Blue revolution”. The answer is easy and perhaps we should have shared it before. A Blue revolution is a Blue Collar…. Blue print…. to help save the people of the Blue planet from social and economic catastrophe. It is essentially a moral revolution and blue is the colour of morality too.  No guns, no shouting, no politicians, no angst, or vested interest. Just a new perspective.

We are concerned with justice in the economic and social sense and see injustice in places that the prevailing orthodoxy sees only justification for the status quo. High salaries for the socially and economically unproductive public sector executive for example.

So whilst we see some element of “structuralism” in the problems the world faces, we at a Blue Revolution also recognise that we all have to become active moral agents again, as we were in the past, before technology and welfare freed  us in the west from the ball ache of making actual moral choices.

Thanks to morals giving way to this Western ideology (secular westernism we call it) we have become objectified and objectifying consumers; fed a diet of banalities, and rubbish (both food and “stuff”) financed by debt of one sort or another and for too many, a “welfare” which has become devoid of promoting self respect or social responsibility. Fat people on welfare clogging up the British NHS with lifestyle diseases caused by choices only a morally bankrupt nation would encourage.

We don’t expect many takers for our revolution……at least not until the prevailing ideology has collapsed under the all too obvious weight of its flaws, fault lines and contradictions, and something else is sought that is not authoritarian or proto Islamic  in character. Both are pretenders to the secular West’s throne.

In support of our position that the prevailing ideology is clinging on for dear life, we need do no more than to cite the  UK governments attempts to get a Remain result in the EU referendum. To us their desperate approach illustrates just how close the EU is to its final death throws. The UK governments position is less of ringing endorsement of the EU and  more a rather sad eulogy of its past achievements. Switch off the life support someone please!

24.05.16 The proposal for a gold backed currency for Africa prompted the destruction of Libya. Hmmm but in a sort of James Bond world it kind of makes sense!

No we have no idea either!!

However we doubt even the most idiotic African despot would trust his gold to the good old Libyan Colonel. Western tax havens and London property are much better investments and free of the worry that some North African rival might run off with them.

31.05.16 The British Conservative Government seems obsessed with “social mobility”; given the privilege of the PM and Chancellor it is perhaps no surprise. However we at a Blue Revolution examine the great social engineering fiasco that is Post War British education. V4

It all began as most things have in the UK, just after the Second World war. A nearly broken Britain had, with the determination of every social class up to and including the monarchy, united in common cause, and with the friends of Empire had seen off the fascists or as we prefer to call them techno feudalists, of the Nazi regime.

United in victory the 1945 Socialist Government won a resounding mandate and set about introducing a socialist programme of reform which saw the birth of the state pension, the National Health Service, Nationalisation of the “means of production” and the introduction of a progressive education system which saw the creation of the “tripartite” selection of children at age 11; the eleven plus. The war had shown that the public schools could not turn out enough men of the “right sort” to lead the front line war effort, so use was made of the men from the various British County Grammar schools. These men were in all three services and were often Sergeant Pilots when in the RAF. Whilst they were denied the Officers Mess, they had the technical know how and “non academic skills”to help take the air war to the enemy.

After the war it seemed only fair and just that the old class divides were confined to history and the war effort made the need for this even more urgent. As a result of the introduction of the socialist programme, the Grammar schools delivered academic children into the Universities including Oxbridge. These more academic children began in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s to find their way, as you would expect, into the junior ranks of government and the establishment.

The second “arm” of the tripartite model were the technical schools; intended to take the students with an inclination for  technical skills into educational pathways that may have led to engineering or chemistry degrees. Finally the rest were offered the “Secondary Modern”. A benign system for those who for various reasons “failed” the other two’s entry criteria.

What quickly happened was the technical schools were viewed as a form of failure, as Britain, steeped in the traditions of the Public School had grown used to “success” and privilege coming via a diet of Latin and the Classics. The three school system became a two school system and this is where we and particularly some of our “old boys” think it gets interesting.

The Secondary Moderns achieved the objective of providing a range of post school opportunities which included the full range of jobs at the lower end of the economic scale; factory work, shop work, soldiers below officer rank, and clerks and managers in lower ranks etc. The routes into higher occupations were not closed to these people, but were perhaps achieved at a later date when their financial or academic interests had altered sufficiently.

The interesting stuff we believe happened in the Grammar schools however. As has been captured in numerous post war “classic” novels the Grammar schools delivered on their “progressive” agenda and had managed to get working class people into the ranks of Government and the Civil Service, the military, and the city. We could go on but in essence the “establishment” was opened up to people from the lower social ranks.  Was this a good or bad thing? Well like all things it depends on your vantage point. If you were offering a top flight education in the Public School (Eton, Harrow, Westminster Greshams etc) it was bad news.

An academic child (then described as “bright”) could get to the top without the payment of high school fees and the top fee paying schools were feeling the pinch. The “old” establishment was concerned, and an unscripted conspiracy began to emerge to save them. Grammar schools made “failures” of children at the age of 11, or so it was claimed.

The essential point here is that Grammar schools were not being presented as a threat to fee paying schools but as somehow underscoring disadvantage to working and lower middle class children in a way that the fee paying schools had never been identified as having done; at least not overtly. The “old establishment” proposed with the usual connivance of the liberal left, the abolition of them and their replacement with “comprehensives”.

The slow re engineering of British class privilege was once again under way following the “Red Revolution” of the post war Labour Government which sought, but failed to stop it. Comprehensives gained additional traction during Britain’s numerous financial crises of the 1970’s; basically they were cheaper than a local authority running two separate schools.

Comprehensive education has gone on to dull social mobility by reverting to the mean. Academies are a good attempt to address decline but they will merely stall it; not reverse it. Averaging out the highs and lows of academic attainment and reverting to an often artificial “standard” simply reflects the average rather than the exceptional.

Whilst in academic terms there may be some convergence between good comp or Academy and the fee paying sector, the simple truth is that the “non academic” standards are miles apart. Confidence, resilience, stability and emotional maturity are not academic subjects and so are not “taught”. However there is a greater chance of acquiring them in the fee paying sector with parents who have themselves the non academic skills to pas onto their children. Welfare and the decline of the family in “average Britain” has done nothing to promote and everything to undermine social mobility. It is not simply about exam grades.

Since the 1970’s the social and economic decline in the UK has continued and the education system has, like social work and health, been expected to take over obligations once the normal expectations of good parents; whilst having to deliver academic “results”.  In the New Labour years of Smoke and Mirrors, expectations in education were reduced to suggest progress was being made, grade inflation!

New Labour’s “investment” in people and “Education, Education Education” was a saddening failure for Britain and the now rejuvenated fee paying schools began to re colonise the silos of power like politics, the Military and the Civil Service and Law as well as making new incursions into well remunerated areas of the cultural environment such as Art and Acting.

So bringing things bang up to date, making young people declare their fee paying school “advantage” or “disadvantage” at interviews will not promote social mobility except at the cost of high standards…….sorry but it’s true…We wish it wasn’t but it is.  The only way to improve the situation from here on is to repeal the law which prevents academic selection and allow it probably at 13 for some Academies. Alternatively some children to be afforded the privilege of a state supported private education.

The other plank of the proposed policy to not stop decline but to reverse it is to concentrate on reversing the sociological factors which undermine the “non academic skills” such as confidence and resilience. This requires a hard and brave look at the rights of parents who too easily have affairs and divorce whilst wrangling over “access” and Parental responsibility.

There will always be elites but as long as the elites have some sociological experience of being from a loving secure yet average background the maintenance of class privilege  will eventually decline. This is the Blue Revolution …….the red one failed miserably let’s not forget.

NB It has been pointed out by one wag that the policy to abandon selective education coincided with the Profumo affair. With Stephen Ward the establishment interloper and his bevvy of lower class women bringing too much of the junior NCO culture into the Officers Mess. The upper Classes had always frolicked but there were rules.  The messaging was clear then, and in certain professions notably the upper echelons of the legal profession it is clear now, it’s not education that matters it’s class and that’s as much about the “non academic skills” as it is family background.  In 1940 the Sergeant pilots and Officers may not have had family uniting them, but they had the same non academic skills. Not unreasonably for many the closer educational achievement  and “non academic skills” are related the better. The workers had better start catching up rather than the Government embarking on another “re engineering” catastrophe to bring the privileged down. The Second World war showed it can be done, so lets do it.

01.06.16 With an eye on social mobility The Government looks seriously at the right issue but does it understand the Cost of Kindness and the Price of Punishment; and more significantly, do we?

Three hundred years ago and more no one went to prison as a punishment. Prison was where they were held before being punished by flogging or death. Those were brutal times. However the punishments were harsh because there was a need to maintain social order between the classes and the genders, not for no reason was killing ones husband described as petty treason. Punishment has always been about maintaining social order on behalf of the prevailing social and economic elite for example  feudalism  and male authority. It was all about retribution with a hefty dose of deterrence. It was public and brutal.

By the 1950’s in Britain prison itself became the punishment. Loss of liberty.  It was also the period when punishment was identified as being about four things. retribution and  deterrence were still there but now there was reform and rehabilitation. The psychologists had entered the market for government jobs and were advising that it was possible to retrain people to be “pro social”. An echo of  “A Clockwork Orange”.

The need to punish was as we have said above to ensure the survival of the prevailing social order. Killing violent husbands could and would not be tolerated and therefore a warning had to go out to all women that to do such a thing would be dealt with publicly and humiliatingly. To not avenge in this way would undermine the elevated status of the male hegemonic structures and undermine social order which still saw control and ownership of resources as being the preserve of the male. As late as the 1930’s a woman would share the gallows with her lover if the lover had killed her husband, whether the woman was involved in the murder or not. The message had to go out !

Whilst from the vantage point of the modern world it now seems unjust, back in the pre war era the punishment model  was coherent and made sense. Retribution and deterrence as a role for prison was a vision shared at every social level

In the 1950’s the number of women in the prison system was low and the non criminal but “immoral” behaviours associated with reproductive control and marriage were also low, although growing in frequency. This eventually gave rise to the various divorce and abortion Acts of Parliament which whilst protecting individuals hid social problems rather than dealing with the causes of them. A legacy of which we have to confront today in family breakdown and then family reconfiguring plus single parenthood leading to social disadvantage. Its odd to think that in the Secular West millions of people mainly men  are in families with someone elses children

The loosening of social bonds which has been going on since the 1950’s causes much anxiety with people demanding punitive action to re establish the social order which to many seems to be undermined as every year passes; yet prisons are full and we are told crime is down. Prison is clearly not achieving its now four stated aims of deterrence, retribution, reform and rehabilitation. We now pay for a punishment system that does little more that warehouse prisoners at massive cost to the taxpayer. Prison no longer deters, punishes, reforms or rehabilitates and all for £2000 per week, per prisoner. So what has gone wrong?

Firstly we now have a society which is more equal than at any time in the past; and yet…..and yet, we still cling on to old views about past social arrangements and their iniquities. For example women can now, unlike any time before  the 1960’s and 1970’s control their fertility. There is little if any shame in divorce and men and women are equal enough so that no longer is the woman dependent financially on the man and the man is no longer socially dependent on the woman for housekeeping, child rearing etc. Each has the capacity to control fertility, manage their lives sociologically and financially and be responsible and informed citizens, Contracting, Choosing and Consenting in their best interests and more significantly in the best interests of society at large. But too many are not doing so and are producing children in ill considered unions with too much fear and uncertainty. Children for whom as adults, life is a reckless game of chance with prison a structured  place of safety; a reward rather than a punishment.

The welfare model based on “Victorian” social reforming Christian values, does not assume that women have personal control and responsibility, it is still inherent in the system that women are “victims” of male lust and stupidity and so welfare i.e. the tax payer, has to step in and in a “non judgemental”  way support the woman who has babies outside of a planned and coherent family structure. The “rutting” male is also off the hook, having no financial responsibility for the offspring he has sired.

The whole welfare system is no longer “just” as it is no longer working in the interests of the whole community. Poor single workers are paying taxes to allow the immature, sexually reckless and self indulgent to have babies at the communities expense. There is no Contract, Choice and Consent in the arrangement any more (as there was in the days of marriage); simply a moments drunken passion or a “friend with benefits” arrangement lumbering the community with a baby probably no one really wants. Horrifyingly many end up aborted, but the numbers here also highlight how many must go to term as financial and too often social “wards” of the state. In the rush for sexual excitement  the lack of informed choice  between “adults” also gives rise to high levels of domestic violence.

A Blue Revolution is about encouraging and defining a new “hegemony”; one that promotes class  and gender equality and responsible choice about lifestyle etc. However the ease with which people give into impulse means that too many of us have not really developed mature adults mind-sets  but are living like adults with childlike levels of personal responsibility and entitlement. The prisons are full of “child people”…… Prisoner is the wrong word.

The welfare systems role in “gaming” undesirable social outcomes is not in societies long term interests. It would be perfectly coherent to have a massive drop in the indigenous birth rate and then have immigration to top up the birth rate as long as underpinning the arrangement was some kind of coherent “family” unit and the expectation that children were supported lovingly by parents who were in work and not wholly the responsibility of  the state and taxpayer. Contract Choice and Consent between people and the community within which they live, is the desired outcome of a Blue Revolution.

So what has all this got to do with the price of punishment and the cost of kindness. Well prison is expensive and achieves none of it past and more resent stated outcomes to deter punish etc. Welfare is kind and “non judgemental” but like prison achieves none of its stated outcomes, in the case of welfare  to protect the vulnerable and prevent harm. Too many children come into the world as afterthoughts and too many are not afforded a loving home with loving people.  There must be a moral revival, a Blue revolution that reflects the social and pharmacological changes that allow women and men to plan parenthood, and an acknowledgement that prison is simply a place to keep the anti social out of the way rather than somewhere that something useful takes place. Rehabilitation is a social function not a penal one!

The alternative is a society where prison and welfare create an expensive feedback loop that eventually undermines every bit of positive economic and sociological progress to date.

06.06.16 The Economics of leaving the EU from the “economic illiterates” of a Blue Revolution……a final perspective…honestly….final! V5

The Economics of Remain and Leave are being partially explained but there is too much spin and misinformation on the part of both sides. We try and give a shamelessly un-impartial but we hope more considered perspective.

Firstly the claim that the British economy will shrink if we leave the EU. The answer to this one is a clear, yes in the short term. If you reduce the number of migrants coming here a number of “inflating” factors will be reduced. Firstly “pressure on public services” will reduce, saving the taxpayer money on health, housing, criminal justice etc. The level of integration between the “government economy” (debt to you and me)  and the “real economy” is so enmeshed that when the government spending drops, the economy shrinks. Building up the “real trading economy” will correct any shrinkage caused by the government reducing its immigration related spending.

Even an armchair economist would see this reduction in spending by government as a good thing in the long term. Government spending is not the “real economy”. There is so much government spending we can’t even locate the “real economy” any more.

Secondly a major proxy for the “real economy” is house price inflation. Building new houses for “middle class flight” to the “burbs” is apparently good for the economy….well according to Wizard Ozborne. House price inflation means that middle class, middle aged people can spend, spend, spend on consumer goods ….ignoring the needs of their children who are as a result priced out of the housing market. They keep up aggregate demand. House prices also allow builders to make profits that are  taxed, and this is generally seen as good for “growth” or good for government spending. The poor old countryside too pays the price here providing green field sites for builders.

What factors under pin house price inflation….well immigration for one thing (in the absence of “real economic growth”). Immigration also feeds the private sector rental market and drives up rents. The upward pressure on rents prices out British workers, but for the wizard Ozborne that is less important than the housing market creating disposable wealth for spending by the “comfortably off”. Cut back on immigration therefore and demand for housing reduces, reduce building and stop concreting over the country side and the economy will “appear” to shrink. Housing might be more affordable for blue collar and younger workers so it can’t be all bad news.

Third issue, wages. We have a minimum wage. We need this. However it is not enough to buy a house or even rent one. It was introduced by “New Labour” precisely because it knew that with a policy of open boarders the reality of “downward pressure” on wages would have put British workers on the streets and on starvation wages. The tax credit system was an additional measure to protect the British low waged…however no one factored “free movement” into the equasion, a situation which has made the whole system unaffordable. But like house price inflation, the combination of taxpaying British and migrant workers, British workers on “out of work welfare” and British and migrants on “in work benefits” does feed the impression that the “real economy” is growing. Reduce welfare and the economy will “appear” to shrink. But that is like shrinking a debt by spending less; you look poorer but the reality is you are getting your house in order.

If we cut levels of migration it will stall the workforces race to the minimum wage and we may find wages rates growing…..cutting taxpayers support to low waged workers and lowering the “tax credit subsidy” big business gets from the taxpayer by government paying workers tax credits.

Fourthly the free movement issue. The remain people confuse…we are sure deliberately…the notion of “free movement of people” with “free movement of labour”. Under the current proposals free movement of people means anyone can come here from the EU with granny and the kids and no one can stop them. The unemployable, offenders, mentally ill can come along with those who are able to take a useful place in the labour market. We don’t really need more of the EU’s needy and vulnerable or dangerous. Taking away all welfare will return us easily to “free movement of labour”; we can’t imagine anyone will object to this, even the EU. All the British young who fear loss of opportunity to travel will still be able to travel to Europe to work. In a real Marxian sense not all people are “factors of production”; only workers require  free movement in this free market closed bordered quasi socialist republic of the EU. Nobody needs the free movement of people

Fifthly the productivity of Britain is not going up, it is stagnant. The reason in economic terms is that cheap labour means there is no incentive for business to invest in technology to boost productivity. The minimum wage prolongs this process and low skill migration means we are unlikely to see productivity increase significantly over time. Minimum wage labour and migration stalls any increase in productivity and therefore undermines long term growth and prosperity.

Finally a comment on Cameron’s claim we are leaving the single market if we leave the EU. This is totally spurious. We must not swallow the line by the Remain people who are claiming that Britain leaving will EU will  result in the EU abandoning all interest in its original objective; peace through trade, including trade with the UK. The idea that we would be abusively cut out of the “free trade area” like an abused and rejected spouse is utter rubbish. We at a Blue revolution believe we may have to suck up some limited “free movement of workers” as described above, but the idea we will be frozen out of the “single market” is ridiculous.

The EU was and is about economics, trade and peace. Trading to build a common understanding and a common market. Unfortunately the EU sprouted a Commission, a Parliament and a Court; all in our view unnecessary. The EU needs Britain to become a beacon of world trade beyond Europe, to encourage global peace through global trade, particularly with English speaking African nations. The EU will not destroy the next British “Industrial and social Revolution”, but even with Brexit we will, we believe, have to compromise a little but at least with Brexit it will be a fair and open negotiation rather than an EU instruction.

It must be remembered that Britain has opted out of any further consolidation of the EU as a single political union. Free movement of people reflects the desire to achieve unitary political status. Free movement of workers reflects the desire to be part of a single market.

08.06.16 We have been asked; if the expensive Criminal Justice System doesn’t deliver punishment, deterrence, reform or rehabilitation what do we think should be done? V2

In our previous post on this complex subject we suggested that the Criminal Justice System was no longer delivering any of the objectives it has been expected to deliver over the last thousand years. Yet it remains an expensive part of governments expenditure; expenditure which the government spends on behalf of the people. Western criminal justice and welfare are good examples of how secular westernism is undermining its crowning achievements of freedom, democracy, equality and human rights.

The tabloid press engage in moral outrage and indignation, demanding more and more prison for any number of crimes. Some of this is of course justified. Yet is there really any justice when the imprisonment for example provides a better life for young men than the amoral chaotic and emotionally turbulent and uncertain life outside the prison walls. We thought it was time we looked at this subject from the perspective of a Blue Revolution. Thank you to those who prompted us to do so because crime is a scourge on society and seems to us to affect most acutely the very people the government and society must protect, namely those who have less protection derived from their income, status and occupation and most importantly their location.

In our more philosophical post on the subject of prison and welfare we looked at the price of punishment and the cost of kindness and concluded that a combination of generous welfare and prisons that offered little in the way of reform were expensive and morally ambiguous. This gave rise to a confusing situation which had the capacity to generate a feedback loop of more people entering both systems and staying there alternating between the two. The victims of crime the very people who should expect the states protection, the vulnerable young and elderly from the very same poor and morally ambiguous communities.

Now some, depending on ones “ideological perspective” might feel a sense of outrage at the term “morally ambiguous communities”. Isn’t this reinforcing prejudice against the poor? Well yes and no. As economic determinists we would argue that there is nothing particularly “moral” about a lot of what has “evolved” (devolved might be a better word!) in the last seventy years or so in the west. Dependence on welfare, a belief that children are a way of accessing welfare, fatherless children in stressed or psychologically damaged “families” with parents who’s coping mechanism isn’t to work hard together and provide to rise out of the ghetto but to “psychologically disassociate”. This leads too often to adults and young people seeking comfort in drugs, drink or promiscuous sexual activity this is morally ambiguous. The urge for society to be kind, conflicting with the urge to condemn. Moral ambiguity!

In general for too many men crime is the surrogate economy (just as welfare babies are in general a surrogate economy for too many women)  and too many of these men become either neighbourhood “feudal Barons” or  community “tribal warlords” with all that such systems inflict on those caught up in them. Extreme violence being only part of it. The broad aspiration to succeed only finding expression in how much you can trade in drugs, stolen goods, women, guns etc. Within our communities in the west this is too frequent a scenario. Prison for the leaders is a disruption, for the low ranks…the crime proletariat shall we say, prison is a break.

So from the economic determinists of A Blue Revolution some thoughts on how we might reform this expensive self defeating yet self promoting system. If you are wedded to a belief that the state is wholly responsible for the lot of the individual….you are a socialist…. you might wish to look away.

Firstly no society that has ever thrived, spends more on those trying to undermine it’s values than t does on those upholding them. So we have a prison system that costs per prisoner more than the fees of Eaton to achieve nothing. That needs to stop.

Secondly child birth is not and should not be “morally ambiguous”. No society that wants to survive can have people running around fathering children with women (girls too!) giving birth to welfare babies. Children should be societies investment in the future but too many end up being societies liability.

Now in simple societies such children would be killed at birth or as adults killed for crimes social or moral. We do not advocate that. Such barbarism has no place in the 21st century. We also accept that there will always be cases of welfare children deliberately born to access benefits even if such behaviour was proscribed. Understanding of the motivation, be it anti social or borne of loneliness, rather than outright condemnation should be shown in such cases. However men and women have the power to control fertility so there needs to be a limit to societies empathy

So how then can we “re engineer” the “system” to stop these problems evolving in the first place and to make the system cost effective and morally coherent in the future.

A recent case in the US of a male who received a six month sentence for sexual assault illustrates the point quite nicely for us. Here we have behaviour by this male which was simply disgusting. The world will know the details. He received a six month prison sentence because he was well connected and a successful athlete. Again moral ambiguity exists on both sides of the argument. The female has been viewed by some as contributory and therefore the male has had his culpability mitigated so his character and background serve to reduce perceptions of his risk. Understandably feminists and others want the judge who leniently sentenced him sacked .

There is talk of “cultural sexism” at work and it still being rife in the west. To the feminists we say “cultural sexism” is rife everywhere; from its most extreme in Saudi Arabia where being a woman is almost a crime to the US and Britain where sex is too often seen simply another “product” men can buy from women. Some men fail to read the signals properly or simply don’t care; they just consume a woman like they consume a can of beer.

This is a woeful reflection of the morally impoverished state of the modern human condition; reverting in too many instances to man re establishing his primitive dominion over women, either with cash or simply taking advantage of  a woman’s vulnerability or availability. Pornography, promiscuity, adultery, illegitimacy are not things to be cruelly condemned with violence, this isn’t the seventh century, but they reflect in too many ways this primitive domination by men of women or in fewer cases in the modern west women’s cruelty towards men….sorry but we did suggest some of you may wish to look away. But what can be done to engineer a moral revival?

Firstly prison and justice. The public want protection rather than retribution…only tabloids talk of retribution in the form of long prison sentences because they, like socialists, don’t recognise that it is the public who pay for it. You can’t be protected from people who have never offended so you have to use a conviction as a marker for potential future harm. A prison sentence should then be deployed that reflects the harm caused and the potential for harm in the event of the offence happened again. As the psychologists say “the best way of predicting future behaviour…is to look at past behaviour”.

So our American sexual abuser should not have been sentenced on who he was, but on what he did. Two to five years might have been more in line with his risk. However this is the bit that makes our view controversial….he may be able to persuade the professionals who manage is risk during his two to five years that he is safe to be in the community and so with some liaison with the victim and some safeguards being put in place he could be released after six months. Unlikely but in our view theoretically possible.

Safeguards could include tracking, tagging, loss of licence to drive, passport or residence in a certain place, with parents say, plus supervision. This does not breach “human rights” as he would ordinarily be in prison. This brings the cost of punishment down whilst ensuring the victim and as importantly the public is protected. The cost of most of this shifts to the individual and the family of the offender and not as is wholly counter to  social “evolution”; the public.

Other advantages are that there could be expectations that the offender secures work or accommodation, undertakes treatment etc. if they fail to do so they are already on a prison sentence so they simply get put back in prison.

Next welfare solutions. Welfare needs to be tapered so that you can only have one child at the governments expense, this is called structuring expectations. There should be no expectation that the government pays for any more. The grown ups amongst you will also realise that “the government” is simply a proxy for the people and the moral ambiguity we spoke of comes as a result of the government taking a different view of things from the people and trying to impose it on them, like expensive welfare and prison.

People do not want to see children born to parents who can offer no long term economic or social support and who are destined to produce children who become the communities liabilities rather than social or economic assets in the form of good citizens or workers. We also need to ensure that we address the sexualising of society. Women (and some men) are not objects for consumption but it doesn’t help when society encourages them to see themselves precisely like that.

There are previous posts covering some of these complex issues. We could go on but this is a starter for ten.

14.06.16 The “Publicsectocracy” one sizable obstacle to “the Blue Revolution”. A class at peace but only with itself! V1

“Chumocracy” or Quango-ocracy the world is beginning to understand that there is a class of people in the west who have established themselves in positions of power and influence and no different from the feudal overlords of the past they have done this at the expense of the public. In many respects these people be they Health Chief Executives or Executive Head teachers, Judges, Generals or EU technocrats  expect to receive salaries in excess of £100,000 per annum but in return they add very little discernible value to the society or community they serve. The reason being they are “figureheads” rather than operational staff such as actual health care professionals, soldiers, or teachers. We at a Blue Revolution want to explore the rise and rise of the “publicsectocracy” and why we need to review their existence, particularly as we move hopefully towards “Brexit”.

These “publicsectorcrats” are very expensive to maintain as a class of people. The numbers are significant and with on costs and pensions they take a sizeable sum of money out of the public purse. A purse that has to borrow at huge expense to the poor and young to pay for them. As economic determinists we understand the rise of the publicsectocracy. But also recognise that unlike capitalist who in the past appropriated “value” from workers ……having a right to some but not all of the value they appropriated; the publicsectorcrat has little if any legitimate right to the wealth they consume.

They like most modern sociological phenomenon the “Publicsectocracy” have their origin in an era long since past. In the feudal system the king identified himself has having a divine right to take whatever wealth he could acquire from those who created it. The aristocracy were there to ensure that the flow of wealth moved from the bottom to the top of society. The peasants toiled for little if any reward and were “bonded” or enslaved to their overlord. This is a system that was negated by the emergence of capitalism which was more overt in the way the process worked because there was no obvious legitimising ideology  to support the appropriation of value by capitalists other than they owned and controlled the factors of production, which  included “labour”. Karl Marx claimed that religion was the “Opium of the people” however it did not legitimise anyone being at the bottom of society in the way perhaps Catholicism and Feudalism worked together to make society rigid and un-dynamic and justify the status quo.

Whilst the poor under capitalism could not enjoy “Contract, Choice and Consent” the concepts applied to them as much as to the rich. This is why the feudal system ended; it declined in power as society matured within the liberating framework of law based on Contract, Choice and Consent. Or as we at a Blue Revolution know them the three C’s

We have said this before but as society evolves we must hang on to this Capitalist legacy of Contract, Choice and Consent as it is the one element of the past that in a dialectical way must be preserved in the future. It protects vulnerable groups from abuse and this includes women, gays, differently gendered as well as faith groups and minorities. There is no substitute for the freedom afforded by the three C’s.

However as society progressed through Capitalism getting richer and richer and spreading the wealth generating capacity of Capitalism around the world, its flaws and contradictions became more and more exposed; notably how the poor could not take advantage of the three C’s poverty precluded it.

So to overcome these contradictions governments stepped in to extend the practical ability of the poor to benefit from the fruits of Capitalisms freedoms. At its most extreme in Western Europe was Britain’s post war Labour government. To mount this “just” war on what became Capitalisms tendency to behave like a feudal system (calcifying wealth into the hands of a declining number of capitalists and excluding workers from the freedoms accorded to them by the three C’s) governments needed an army of bureaucrats who would manage the process of engineering social change.

These people “the public sector” were initially the recipients of payment drawn from  the value produced by the capitalist system, but as now, soon came to see themselves as an essential part of a  system that needed to be preserved whatever the cost. As western society became more and more dependent upon debt and Capitalism lost its value generating edge, so debt supported the publicsectocracy…by now like the feudal overlord and the uber capitalist who, rather than creating actual social and economic value simply turn personal and public debt into personal wealth; both are part of an intractable system that cries out for reform.

Both the secular western market system and the Publicsectocracy are wrongly  seen as essential to the future well being of society and must be preserved at all costs. However both keep society enslaved  just as surely but less “legitimately” than the economic eras that preceded them. We will leave it to you to work out why….but the incompetence of the EU goes some way to explaining our point.”

20.06.16 British MP gunned down by a “crazy”. The solution; more respect in  politics. Is this the real cause and the only solution?

In the eighteenth century one MP was told….”Sir you will either die on the end of a rope or die of the pox”. His reply; “That Sir depends upon whether I embrace your principles………..Or your mistress”. Politics has never been a nice business and was probably a lot nastier in the past than it is now. We at a Blue Revolution think something is wrong but we are not sure it is “politeness” or indeed respect.

To the economic determinists at a Blue Revolution the explanation might be a little more complicated and a little less easy for the “political and analytical” classes to accept.


More later…

22.06.16 Final Plea to the British progressive “intellectual left”; vote Brexit tomorrow!

We have tried to explain the reasons why the EU is an unnecessary bureaucratic waste of a continents resources and we hope we have made our point. But if not some final comments. The EU is essentially a twentieth century solution (bureaucratic socialism) to a nineteenth/twentieth century problem (continental scale war and Capitalisms failure to re distribute wealth “fairly”).

It has however through trading only within its boarders effectively locked out the rest of the world from this peace through trade redistributive process and indeed has fostered war beyond its comfortable boarders whilst also fermenting tensions within them as it’s “mission creep” sought to create a superstate where one was not needed. Wanted is not the same as needed!

By allowing free movement of people as opposed to workers, its technocrats  have allowed people unfamiliar with the democratic impulse (borne of work and enterprise) to wander free within its boarders and without the psychological conditions necessary to understand “freedom”; we call these conditions  a belief in Contract Choice and Consent, these people now ghettoised on the continent threaten the very foundation of the free, democratic, life affirming system that protects all lifestyles we accept in the west.

The EU needs reform……it will never reform as it is not in its interests to do so. If you believe in people’s right to be free, self determining down to the level of the individual, you have a moral obligation to vote “Leave” on the 23rd.

We will explore this more after tomorrow when we will know the outcome of “independence day”.

24.06.16 Well done to Britain; a more mature reationship with the EU beckons and bonus, we re enter the world.

There is nothing to fear from the result today. It is the best thing to happen to Europe since the the end of the Second World War. Europe needs to be liberated from the centralised control of the EU. The EU has become a post war model of bureaucratic socialism the intention to centrally “force” trade on an all too often warring Europe. The fact the “remainers” couldn’t sell the EU to the British public shows better than anything else its limited value.

War is no longer a risk within Europe due to trade peace and understanding. With Brexit the EU needs to recognise that the role of the old EEC achieved along with NATO a long term and now sustainable peace in Europe through trade. The EU was undoing that work going beyond trade and turning peace through trade into a Franco-German vanity project; the political bureaucratic and expansionist EU.

The British government will now consider the future and how to forge a mature relationship with hopefully a mature EU. This must retain free movement of labour within the EU and abandon the lunacy of free movement of people (no welfare for “workers” unless they become British). Secondly we will need to try to negotiate to retain a seat on the European Council and we should pay for the privilege. This is where we had some limited influence. Finally we leave the European Parliament and cease to be subject to the rulings of the European Court of Justice. It sounds simple but essentially ignoring the technical details that is “job done”.

We need a relationship that reflects the old EEC ambitions this is what Britain instinctively wants. They instinctively don’t want to be paying for an EU public sector elite of high powered (and highly paid) Bureaucrats who line their own pockets whist undermining trade, profitability, and diversity with their silly Parliament and Court.

25.06.16 In the wake of Brexit do Britain’s “Blair” generation need the psychiatrists couch? We consider the country’s youth and their collective mental health V3

Here at a Blue Revolution we were not at all surprised that Brexit succeeded and indeed some of us considered the win only marginal rather than outstanding. It was the blue collar vote, invisible to the pollsters, that won it. People tired of seeing their wages pushed to the state minimum by waves of immigration.

Brexit’s win foreshadows a new period of exciting opportunity for Britain as it re enters the global economy on its own terms having parked itself for too long in the malfunctioning EU. An EU of debt laden mature but declining states propping each other up whilst promoting policies which effectively undermine the ability of a nation state, any nation state, to prosper.

How did the EU get away with this and how close did we come to being locked into this failing arrangement. To make the EU legitimate the psychology of the individual nation state had to be “engineered” so that  the aims of the EU have to become the aims of the individual within the nation state. Blair was the man who set out to promote this agenda, the discredited “diversity” agenda, with his personal narcissistic goal of becoming the EU president. In Britain like much of the EU the project was frighteningly successful.

So whilst the rest of Europe works out what it means for them now Britain has voted out; what do the young British Blair generation themselves make of the decision. They were clearly the foot soldiers of the Remain project. Firstly there must be some anxiety as young Britain has had to endure two kinds of psychological abuse. The abuse of the passive aggressive partner claiming as so many do “you are nothing without me”….”If it weren’t for me you would have no friends/money/ status on the world stage”, or “I’ll kill myself if you leave”.

If this wasn’t bad enough; and those who have been with a “Bunny Boiler” will recognise the scenario’s above; Britain also went in for some traditional self harm; Armageddon, World War three and “punishment budgets” and economic impending post Brexit crisis.

At the personal level this has left too many young people baffled, angry and confused.  The young as always seem to be the most badly affected. This “Blair” generation of young entitled people have been raised in a moral kindergarten to  expect “consumption” as the high point of their existence and “Brexit” has been presented as a threat to personal consumption. Not only that, it has been identified with restrictions on travel and opportunity to work abroad.

The reality of course is that there will be more not less travel as Britain re configures its international trade with an approach that opens up the whole world to opportunities to travel and not limit it to the mono cultural and racially homogenous EU. The Blair generation with their “iffy” GCSE’s in geography really don’t understand the difference between a continental land mass made up of nation states and a vain bureaucracy complete with bogus parliament and court of justice plus assorted “experts”. In confusing a passive aggressive bureaucracy with a continent of nations, young people fail to see the real  limits to international travel and trade imposed by protectionism within the EU “family” with its enmeshed and unhealthy interdependence.

Thanks to a diet of pious “diversity” this inability to see the reality of what is going on is a kind of cognitive dissonance and causes the young to misunderstand the world around them and misread their role within that world. They get petulant and start to shout ill informed slogans like “don’t take me out of Europe” “Not in my name” or they view the bureaucratic socialism of the EU as “progressive”. Other manifestations are the habit of “no platforming” speakers with generally traditional appetites for debate whilst happily segregating themselves along gender lines whilst listening in awe to a load of twenty first century theological hogwash dished up as “cultural diversity”.

We at a Blue Revolution take the view that this referendum had to happen when it did and no later than 2018, so full thanks should go to Dave Cameron for his courage in holding it. If it hadn’t happened when it did  by 2018 the people who by dint of their age predate the “Blairification” of the masses would be insufficient in number to swing the referendum to Brexit.

The young now have an opportunity thanks to Brexit to get excited about trade deals with the countries of six habitable continents as oppose to just one and to look forward to seeing the whole world as it really is in all its awesome wonder, full of potential trade and travel opportunity and yes dangerousness. By overcoming the dissonance caused by the “Blairification” of public education, they will be able to avoid seeing the world from the perspective of a risk averse, manipulative  and self regarding European elite, who to a majority of the British voter have been shown up to be “Kings with no clothes”. Sorry guys but the project is over, your game is up… least in the UK.

28.06.16 Blinking into a new dawn; have the Brexiteer’s lost their direction? V2

The sky hasn’t fallen in and hopefully now that we have sent a seismic shockwave through the EU world war three might be staved off for a century or so. The stock market has done what it will always do when confronted with a bit of “uncertainty” to undermine “confidence” it has swung around a bit as of course has the pound. However the reality is much of this was within normal parameters and whilst the seismic shock may have upset the EU grandees it has done little to derail the markets; which tells us all a lot. However what does Brexit actually mean and how can the UK help the EU smooth its exit.

Firstly there is a need for a theoretical model to offer some strategic guidance and shape the form of the debate. We at a Blue Revolution offer some suggestions based on a our sound theoretical model of Economic Determinism informed by a free market consumerist economy, which we want to see change.

Without a doubt trade must continue; this is the EU’s reason to be  it is what the EU has contributed to bringing peace in Europe (along with NATO as the military wing of the EU). The main concession is around workers movement, which will be barely understood by the workers of Britain. British workers however need to understand that free movement of workers is not the same as free movement of people.

With free movement of people you don’t actually need a job to come to the UK. But if you come to the UK you can bring the kids and the partner, you can even bring mum and dad to look after the kids whilst the worker is at work. All of this is subsidised by the “in work” benefit system. Unemployment with kids is also problematic and gives access to “out of work” benefits. So workers should not be incentivised to bring them unless their wages are high enough to pay for them.

Therefore workers as a factor of production can and should be able to travel freely, people (including the ill and lame), kids and the elderly who are not factors of production, can’t.  Really that old EEC principle needs to be enshrined in EU law as France or Poland might start to question this “principle”. It is lunacy to promote free movement of people.

Secondly some of the institutions of the EU have some merit….but some not much. The Council of Europe is a must. We cannot walk away from this institution and must pay to stay. It will put us at the table for important discussions about security, crime, economics, trade. The Council of Europe is an important institution and like the Commonwealth brings consenting nation’s together.

Secondly, and this makes some of our “revolutionaries” feel a little queasy, the EU Commission probably needs some UK funding and some  “Commissioners” or representatives from the UK. EU trade and industrial standards are needed by the UK to compete with the EU and its member states. This will need paying for. It would be wrong to avoid influence here.

However the EU Parliament and its army of millionaire MEP’s should not be something the UK pays for; We believe it is an institution which adds little value to Europe and along with the Parliament can go those Commissioners who the UK feels are irrelevant to its long term economic prospects. No longer subject to EU law the European Court of Justice is unnecessary for Britain too.

With free movement of workers and no welfare accelerating the free movement of people and with no silly EU elections to the European “Parliament” the obvious manifestations and irritations of the EU will have gone. There may be a price to pay to get the best deal; it may be we have to pay 15% of the EU budget for a few years, until we get VFM and pay for what we get and they sort out their efficiencies. However we will need to accept that we can’t stop paying straight away……but in 10 years time it will all be “history”.