Blue Revolution Archive 30.06.16 to 30.08.16

All faiths Page 5

30.06.16 The Luvvies, the England football team and Sir Phillip Green; all products of “debtamorphosis”. Not much justice in that. V3

The England football team; millionaires to a man, the luvvies who cried buckets over Brexit and who are also millionaires and Sir Philip Green another millionaire have one striking characteristic in common; they owe their wealth to other peoples debt. The mechanism is straight forward enough. In the west we don’t produce enough actual value to support ourselves, so we have to borrow. This maintains what “Keynsians” refer to as “aggregate demand”. Aggregate demand in a closed market system should be value based and would generate jobs and production which should kick-start economic recovery.

However in an economic  system such as there is in the west where there are “impediments” to the functioning of this type of market strategy for growth namely, profit by outsourcing production to China, little by way of savings and huge corporations and collusive governments, aggregate demand is maintained via debt. As a result there are routes through which certain groups can prosper and who can turn the low income  and indebtedness of others into huge wealth for themselves. This money flows to luvvies and footballers and retailers who fail to grasp the basic injustice that their bounteous wealth is due to ordinary people either taking out debt or via taxes helping to pay government debt.

If a just system was applied, then people would not be in debt but would take the modest amount of surplus value at their disposal (in classical terms this is called “wages”) and they would allocate it to football or entertainment (or both). A properly functioning market would ensure that the footballer or luvvie was never able to acquire huge wealth as competition would preclude this. In the west however we have the TV companies, football Premier Leagues and Corporations who game the system and facilitate the elevation of certain individuals, applying to them a price which is excessive and requires money to be extracted in larger and larger amounts from poorer and poorer people. This might be justified on the basis of protecting the brand.

The debtmeisters of the banking system also feed this debt monster so they to can “profit” from this valueless wealth too. The need for the economic system to maintain “aggregate demand” forces more and more people into debt, including governments. It also crystallises inequality and disadvantage. It makes too many frivolous people very wealthy and either like luvvies very sanctimonious or footballers very rich and gaudy. The luvvies complain about a system that they simultaneously love to hate but which puts  vast amounts of valueless wealth into their too often over stuffed pockets. The footballers don’t pretend to understand the process but enjoy the fruits of this market malfunctioning. Who can blame them!!

We at a Blue Revolution don’t do “Red” revolutions, namely building up the size of the state to enable it to take money off people only to give it back to other people. We believe in making the market work haed to avoid the excessive build up of debt based wealth by people who’s wealth is well above their ability to create value. To put this right “aggregate demand” has to be re evaluated in importance and we have to accept economic shrinkage before creating real economic growth. We also have to look at “market function” and re engineer it so it does not create these “one person monopolies”.

03.07.16 The fear of poverty drives our opposition to austerity. However the poverty we have in the west is moral not financial. Are these in any way connected?

In simple terms the answer to this question is yes of course moral contexts drive economic levers. In a  pre agricultural tribal society certain actions were taken to prevent “immoral” behaviour, genital mutilation, tribal “rights” etc. As we progressed as a species we began to loosen the preventative practices and to exact punishments instead. The amount of value mankind was capable of crating in post agricultural tribes suggested that some amount of freedom was possible but transgression was dealt with swiftly. In some “modern” economies there is still some element of this moral or existential neurosis which is reflected in death penalties, amputations and torture. The US attitude to guns and punishment is very “fearful frontier-man” a form of tribalism. Saudi Arabia……enough said.

In the west a form of market based morality has emerged; anything you want as long as you pay for it! Due to the intersession of the state the elements of this immorality which within a tribal society would have threatened the very existence of the tribe are not only mitigated by government policy but become positively rewarded. The problem is that the challenges that would have emerged in a tribal society such as adultery, illegitimate births, one person acquiring too much value (theft then just reward now!)  and which would have resulted in swift death or exclusion have no consequences now; but the long terms effects are just as existential. If anything this is another good reason to exit the EU as its long term moral course is definitely exaggerating inequality and promoting immorality on a continental scale. All of this is promoted by technocrats, bureaucrats and the anxious Remainers  as “progressive” which of course it is not.

The immorality that infects the west spawns a loathing for the mechanisms of the state and society that creates or is seen to create the immorality. Particularly problematic if you are a North African migrant living in a Paris ghetto and observing the “culture” around you from your vantage point of welfare subsidized rage.  Fathers alone and childless, mothers who’s children are reared by “strangers”; the unspoken abuse inherent within such arrangements, the loss of grandparents as feuding goes on and on, loneliness, and substance abuse. Welfare babies on an industrial scale. We turn away from confronting this moral poverty at our long term cost.

The need for the west to deal with this moral reality “humanely” seems to us to be the cause of the anti austerity sentiments and the  movement that promotes it. Anti austerity is not exactly pro moral poverty; however it won’t be possible to deal with moral poverty unless we reframe the argument in favour of austerity and moral renewal.

Now who has the confidence to go there?

NB we do not include homosexual relationships or transgender issues in our moral critique. In modern societies as opposed to tribal ones, all individuals have to make economically sustainable moral choices and sexuality has no relevance. This contrasts with having casual welfare babies and being economically encouraged to do so.

04.07.16 Global trade is stagnant and the EU is part of the problem. There is untapped value out there in places like Africa and free trade will unlock it

Britain is the most networked country on the planet. The views of experts from the EU and other places like the US about Brexit only served to make us at a Blue Revolution feel that Britain needed to be put in its place by a bolshie global elite. Not for them the liberating effects of free trade but the continuation of established arrangements that promoted the big bureaucrats and the big businesses. This is yesterdays economic model. The future belongs to the quick witted and the enterprising not to those who desire a “rigged” operating environment which favours the cautious over the brave. If the world our children and grandchildren live in is to preserve peace and to respect the rights of others then we have to send trade into places currently wrecked by war. The development of trade relationships which are as far as possible symmetrical but complex as opposed to one sided and simplistic (selling arms for example to oil rich despots) should unleash the productive capacity of nations currently viewed as “failed”.

The wests past “progressive” march to war is a failed methodology for dealing with hard to reach and influence places; trade should be, as it always has been, viewed as a proxy for war and the United Kingdom is better places than most to lead the world in a revival of trade and real growth based on Contract, Choice and Consent. With  this as Britains post Brexit strategic plan not only will Britain benefit but so will the rest of the world and unlike the anxious attached of the “Remain” camp our children and children’s children will be safer and freer to be who they want to be in a newly un-trading  world which is currently hostile to them, us, and all that isn’t “traditional” as defined by the late 7th century.

06.07.16 Britain’s Labour Party; can a Blue Revolution assist the non reds inside Jeremy’s bed?

The guys and Gals at a Blue Revolution can’t help but smile at the mess the British Labour party is in. Whilst the Blue in Blue Revolution has little to do with the Conservative Party the contrast between the Conservative Party and Labour Party is stark. The Conservatives have straight forward, empathetic and humane politicians from different racial backgrounds, most “progressive” and articulate (one or two exceptions noted however) and they are about to elect their second female leader. Then their is the Labour Party with its shameful need for an enquiry into anti-Semitism, its treatment of Muslim women and its incoherent ideology of anti this whilst being pro that. With its internal squabbles Labour is an object lesson in how not to seek power and present as competent to lead. And of course there is Tony Blair and whatever shakes out of Chilcot today. Old Labour, New Labour, hard to decide which is worse.

So what advice would we at a Blue Revolution give to the more sane and rational presumably “New Labour” types in the Corbyn party? Well there are some options: stay put and hope the left and Momentum loose their, well, momentum. Secondly decamp from the “Corbyn Party” and start a “New Labour” Party. The problem with this approach is that it certain that many such MP’s will loose out to hard left candidates at the next General Election in 2020. Another approach could be to decamp to another party before they start to identify their own candidates for 2020. The issue here is that the success of this strategy will depend on who was the runner up in 2015. If a moderate Labour candidate won against a Lib Dem or a Tory it may be possible to hold the seat if standing next time as a Lib Dem or a Tory.

However given the complexity of British politics and the complex political landscape it will probably be the case that the latter two options will be right for some Labour MP’s and simply hanging in to be de selected will be right for the others, whilst hoping the momentum of Momentum declines.

06.07.16 After Chilcot: Why not crowd fund a case of non targeted misfeasance in a public office against Blair. Or has the time it has taken to publish the report rendered action “out of time”. V2

Well why not have a look into it. A war criminal he may not strictly speaking be, but a misfeasor he might just be. And he has the wealth to  enable him to pay damages to those for whom his war has caused the greatest financial and emotional damage. The Chilcot decision swerves the necessary criticism which may turbo charge a allegation such as a claim of Blair ill motivation or lying. However he was reckless, exaggerated the case for war and had an obvious awareness of the weakness of the case advanced for embarking on war. These issues are the meat and drink of non targeted misfeasance. Once the lawyers for the families have picked over Chilcot it will be interesting to see if they agree with us.

09.07.16 The post Brexit landscape cries out for a Capability Brown but how revolutionary dare they be?

We have explored the issue of the long term decline of the west caused by “secular westernism” and the culture of confidence based “free market” economics managed through a Bureaucratic system of government manipulation that has as its aim and intent maintaining “aggregate demand”. Aggregate demand is the blood that runs through the veins of the modern “free market” and along with the commodification of everything gives secular westernism its unique if alienating immoral culture. Western Christian values don’t really get a look in when every one wants to be a Rock (or porn) star.

Brexit gives the UK an opportunity to help kick start the world economy and get the meta values of Contract Choice and Consent embedded in the world beyond the West. However some of the post election Brexiteers seem to have adopted a position of viewing post Brexit as an opportunity to spend money saved from Europe on their pet projects within the UK and this of course involves welfare. However it is welfare that needs drastic reform and whilst this cannot in the name of humanity involve overnight change there has to be a shift back towards giving Britain’s adults the right to make decisions and to take responsibility for adult activity like reproduction and health. This has to involve decisions like how fat to get and how many children to have. These two totemic issues sum up more than any other the problem faced by a government with a Bexit windfall.

Any money saved from renegotiation cannot be wasted on the economically unproductive and their numerous welfare offspring. Welfare has infantilised too many people and continues to do so. The dysfunctional cycle of prison, welfare, babies, next lot of prison has to be broken and broken humanely. But broken it must be. Like wise the instinct to set wage levels at a level higher than is currently the case needs to be reviewed. Minimum wages and welfare policy create the context for irresponsible behaviour. Wage levels for the poorest in the UK should increase simply by limiting welfare for migrants and preventing the flow of too many unskilled workers. There doesn’t have to be a minimum wage level in the long term if the labour market is re engineered properly. This was a Blair idea to ensure that with mass EU migration wage levels didn’t hit the floor. Which without a statutory minimum they would have done.

Wage levels like much else should ideally be set by the market and not  government. Wage levels should enable an individual to pay for a roof over their head, put food on the table and allow some recreation and consideration of whether the personal economic forecast would suggest children should be brought into the world. The ability to make informed decisions in respect of marriage and children is something that needs to repatriated to Britain’s adult population. Currently the decision doesn’t have to be made, as welfare and the minimum wage  effectively take choice away. Hence our high divorce rate and number of “single parent” households living not on wages but benefits.

So our Blue Revolution “Capability Brown” should start by replanting the post war bedding plants some strong perennials that can at minimal cost to the taxpayer grow strong and survive in the new competitive global context. We don’t expect people in the rest of the world to be as morally undermined as we have become in respect of health and fertility here in the west. Their competitive edge is born by hard work and sound moral choices with low levels of government subsidy for politically expensive but socially undesirable behaviour. We quite rightly have to compete in a world where our “soft landing social context” is the biggest cost to government and therefore to our competitiveness in world markets. The adults out there will not fear this future but the other half of the country probably will.

13.07.16 Theresa May promises a bit of a Blue Revolution. But how far will she go to re engineer the society and economy left by Blair and co?

Tony and Gordon handed on a wonky bit of  economic engineering to Dave and George. We all know it as the British economy. To the casual observer it looks like it works. Money seems to come in and money seems to go out, stuff gets done. It has a deficit which the government is dealing with, whilst the newly “confident” consumer picks up the slack and keeps aggregate demand at a level that appears to keep the wheels on the economic bus. Government seems to be doing Ok so people start to borrow.

There is one very important factor about modern Britain however. It is debt dependent. This debt based economic model was gifted to the 2010 – 2015 coalition government by Labour and was in effect a Blair/Brown model for taking peoples debt and turning it into personal wealth for a bunch of rich cronies of whom New Labour were notoriously “casual”.

This is the stinking core of the Blair model and it can be seen in all its naked glory as the “Blair rich project” trundles along as Blair himself mews platitudes of self justification about his role in destroying Iraq and the lives of British servicemen and women and their families.

The legacy of Blair in the UK is nowhere near on par with what he has done elsewhere in the world. However the damage is noteworthy. Open boarders and a tax credit system that turbo charged migration, a welfare and economic system that  promotes personal”wealth” at the expense of “social value”; generating entitlement. This economic model has created three “classes” of people all of whom Mrs May should identify and begin slowly to diminish in size. The US has a similar classes but different solutions would be needed.

Firstly the “debt masters” or “plastic capitalists” who like the ghastly Lord Peter M of New Labour fame seek out wealth and the wealthy, acquiring wealth which in a debt model is always at someone else’s expense, a process we call debtamorphosis. There are many problems with this because essentially the model depends on debt, mass migration, escalating stock and house prices, welfare and a tolerance for general moral decline.

The government provide wealth to the poor in the form of benefits, and the poor buy over priced cheaply manufactured rubbish  and in doing so the government’s debt quickly acquires the status of wealth for the “plastic capitalists” (Sir Phil Green anyone). It also provides tax revenue for the government.

As we have said before many very wealthy people succumb to the belief their wealth is value based rather than debt based. In doing so they are simply in denial. However the role of a Government with Blue Revolutionary credentials is to raise the public’s consciousness about this. The real Capitalist created value and then nicked it off the worker. The plastic capitalist simply takes other people debt as their income via consumer spending. Arguably an even more immoral system.

Sir Phillip Green is a millionaire because he could work the market to get other people to borrow so he could become rich. Boardrooms with employees on the Board might help control “Fat Cats” like Green but overturning the structures and expectations that require debt to contribute to aggregate demand has to be a twenty year government project.

In doing this the economy will appear to shrink but it is a necessary shrinkage. Necessary before we start to grow economic value and not simply personal wealth. The army of plastic “Capitalists” who without real capital, use the free market to extract peoples debt for personal gain has to be tackled. Mrs May needs to recognise these so called “fat cats” for what they are; parasites on the poor.

After debt dependent “Fat Cats” come the legion of public sector “Fat Cats”. The “Publicsectocracy” as we call them are one of two “synthetic” engineered classes (the other being the underclass). Basically “synthetic” classes are those which have no actual link to the working of the REAL economy. They are engineered simply by government spending recklessly.

The economy creates government money via taxation, this money is augmented by debt and this is paid to Public sector “fat cats” (those on 100K +) in the form of wages. The creation of  public sector fat cats comes from a fundamental misunderstanding about who controls the fruits of the real economy; such as those fruits are these days.

The Publicsectocracy sees the fruits of the economy and the debt created by government as theirs to spend on themselves whilst trying to achieve socially desirable outcomes. The reason that most public sector “fat cats” don’t reform the top end of the public sector is simple; why should they. A Chief Constable in every county! now with a Police and Crime Commissioner in every county just adds up to needless cost to the taxpayer but a great income for those in these posts. This is replicated in every Government and Local Government office throughout the public sector. How do we pay for them all?

Mrs May needs to recognise the self promoting power of the publicsectocracy. Change needs to come in both scale and salary of those at the top. No one public sector worker should earn more than the Prime Minister. We call the process of culling these top wages “rescaling” the Public Sector. Here is a paradox…in every department of the public sector social value is contributed be it policing, providing housing, working with prisoners, or abused children or maintaining a local park. The maximum social value is added at the bottom of the organisation but as the “value added” goes down (as one goes up the hierarchy) wages go up. The top executives are essentially over paid figureheads who are paid to take a responsibility for delivery of a service they can’t and don’t have the skills to deliver themselves. The publicsectocracy needs to be brought to heel and that includes the top lawyers, Judges and medics. Let them go abroad if they want to!

Finally the most ulnerable group who need massive reform. They are are again “synthetic” in that this class, like the publicsectocracy, is created not by the economy but by government policy. They are the underclass. This class of the unemployable, the misfits, the intemperate, and stupid add so little to the positive experience of daily life as to be seen as a burden on society by everyone except the hard left who with characteristic ignorance confuse them with the “working class”. The underclass are interesting as a “synthetic” class (much more interesting than the “publicsectocracy” as they don’t even maintain the pretence of wanting to add social or even economic value to society. Karl Marx would have found this class baffling, living on the value created by others, like an aristocracy but ignorant and uncouth.

Now it is important to be clear the underclass or not the unemployed or disabled. The disabled and unemployed however may have members of the underclass within their ranks. The underclass like all proper classes have a set of values which define them. In the case of the underclass it is idleness, ignorance and a propensity to artificially move up Maslow’s hierarchy at someone else’s expense. This is the class that spawns the Jihadi both here and on the continent. This is the class that has welfare babies creating women who are not workers but wards of the state. These people reproduce but produce no value either social or economic.

Social value is the key to the future. If Mrs May can get the “publicsectocracy” on the back foot then more socially useful work can be transferred to the community. Unemployed people can make a positive social contribution by caring for others and promoting positive social health. Proper communities bringing kids up properly and looking after their old and infirm.  In doing this the two synthetic classes will be put under existential threat and in 100 years from now that will be a cause of great celebration. Trust us!!

19.07.16 America and its “gun culture”. Can we at a Blue Revolution offer some advice?

America. A strange yet familiar culture to those of us in the Anglo sphere. Strange even to many Americans. Until a few years ago it electrocuted its murderers, mainly black. America drove infeasibly naff cars, to feed its working classes, again mainly black, it created a working class diet based on corn syrup and fat. It spent its government money not on welfare but on arms and warfare. It created the post capitalist “free market” which, with bankers and assorted hangers on, turned an economic system based on value to one based on wealth; and wealth flows so easily to the unscrupulous, whereas value is so much more difficult to create.

America had its origins in a combination of Puritanism and survivalism. An odd combination given that Puritanism is inherently conservative and survival depends on a ruthless pragmatism. The Puritanism defined the economic culture. The ruthless pragmatism would have been applied on a continental scale to preserve the Puritanism. Hence Article two “the right to bear arms”. Every man, and we are sure many women, were part of a culturally homogeneous militia albeit one that was not racially equal.

If we look at what differentiates the UK from the US, it is that the UK’s existential crisis spanned hundreds of years, hundreds of years ago. Also the UK had a feudal system which was based on “natural authority” which prevented “Citizen militias”.

The industrial scale manufacture of  weapons came at a time when the UK population had little need to protect its culture and land mass; it was safe and well embedded. However mass production of weapons occurred at a time when America did need to protect its self and its culture and every man was therefore part of a grand militia with a right to bear arms. All within a nascent democracy giving further legitimacy to mass gun ownership.

The need to widely disseminate arms was paramount in the USA’s past. The need to preserve culture and protect land from an existential threat has however diminished over time. The US is unassailable to external force now. The risk comes not from without but from within. The culture of freely available arms, and the urge to protect this culture has unsurprisingly in the absence of a shared set of universal values become degraded to the point where every lifestyle difference of approach can be categorised in the minds of too many as an existential threat. Not an existential threat to the nation but to the individual….unfortunately in too many cases the armed individual.

The secular western culture of “we make it up as you go along” has stripped America of its shared values and widely available guns have made the streets essentially a cultural and economic battleground. Within this context the government too is seen as an existential threat to too many Americans. As a result they are shooting each other. And worse the police have become identified with the “state” shooting the nations black  minorities. The whole thing  is likely to go up in flames.

So the advice. The NRA are seriously misguided if they think that American gun ownership is protecting a shared Anglo Saxon Culture. Gun ownership isn’t protecting anything and never will again. The NRA needs to stop promoting gun ownership as though there was still something universal to protect by some kind of culturally and racially homogenous militia.

The State and particularly the Federal Government is no more or less legitimate to many Americans than their own cultural opinions or preferences  be they racial religious or secular. So the state should stop arming those who deal with the public as though the armed public servant is protecting a vulnerable political system. Arms should be removed from public display by public officers. The public and the Government should perceive themselves as having equal power, as in a democracy they should have.

Finally the possession of weapons should be seen as a public health issue and those who feel the need to arm themselves  for reasons other than Sport or agriculture should be seen as people who have a vulnerability that cannot and should not  be compensated for by firepower.

19.07.16 Clinton and Trump. On the face of it both very different, but in reality Trump is only different because he is a big mouth

I think someone has written about the western economic paradigm on the a Blue Revolution website a little while ago. The theme was that nothing will change much in the secular western world because western politicians are enthralled by the need to create “wealth” by all and any means possible.  All this whilst ignoring difficult places where there is untapped value, mainly dangerous countries with underdeveloped social and political systems.

The secular western world has become dependent on wealth as opposed to value creation at every social level. Whether the worker is public sector or working in the private sector, having high personal aggregate demand is essential to maintain lifestyles of choice. The government fearful of loosing votes indulges the public’s appetite for money and uses the upward volatility of property and stock  values to generate debt based  wealth. This is combined with government borrowing and welfare spending  keeps the economic show on the road.

In the U.S. it is little different but not significantly so. Clinton is a government debt master or mistress; someone who is prepared to borrow and spend to maintain aggregate demand in the misguided belief that this is good for the economy. This policy can be toyed with because interest rates are low….too low to worry about. Likewise people borrow too and pump this leveraged liquidity into the consumer economy. The debt masters in the U.K. stretch back to Brown and Blair and their heirs apparent Cameron and the financial wizard Osborn. This secular western paradigm is dangerous in the long term. But Trump is different right?

Well Trump talks about “The American Dream”. The American dream was essentially Christian culture using the transformative power of Capitalism to drive out, through sheer productive capacity, the benign tribalism of the indigenous Indians. The “American dream” was a phase of history that took under productive land and people a created a dynamic culture based on Contract, Choice and Consent.

Trump talks about this “dream”but has little idea of what underpins it and therefore out of ignorance transforms what he believes it is, ie making money, into a showy form of prejudice against “non Americans”. To a pouting infant like Trump the American dream is simply being proud of America and being cash rich. The American’s lap it up and who can blame them. However Trump is a property man. A Debt Master himself. Property is the engine of the debt based western economy. So whilst Trump talks up America, his economic model (if indeed he can actually articulate such a thing) is simply to use higher property and stock values to leverage debt into the consumer economy. Osborne did it in the UK. The formula is simple. Talk up the economy to create “consumer confidence” sit back and wait for the personal leveraging to start and then add government borrowing too. The house price and stock inflation keeps the illusion going that there are reasons to be confident.

In the UK Osborn’s case his total hysteria about Brexit highlighted just how dependent his model was on confidence based debt. Trump will adopt the same strategy; because he has no idea what he is doing. With Clinton you will get a considered policy of government borrowing and spending on welfare or “investment” with the cost borne by the poor taxpayer and the consequence a bigger state. With Trump the newly confident poor will borrow their own money for their own spending as Trump and his consumer “free marketers” laugh all the way to the bank.

What unites these two “Presidential” candidates is their morally bankrupt and socially corrosive debt based economic model. What makes them different is Trump has a big mouth.

19.07.16 When will the liberal elite, particularly the left wing liberal elite, realise that “Education, Education,Education” won’t tackle Islam’s core values…….. and why should it. V2

There is something very frustrating about listening to the left wing trying to square the many circles that the real world throws up when the real world contrasts itself with the limitless naivety of their social hand wringing and economically illiterate perspectives. They don’t get confused themselves of course,  they can mouth political platitudes like seasoned pro’s. They just confuse, frustrate and bore everyone else. Nothing illustrates their brain exploding confusion more than the interface between their liberal views and their promotion of minority values…..all minority views even regressive ones, particularly if the view can be linked to an anti capitalist ideology such as Islamism.

Whether the “left winger” or as Marx would have called them “vulgar socialists” are hard left or from the social democratic wing they can’t accept that simple Islam is an intractable creed that has a number of illiberal characteristics such as it is essentially obsessed with sexuality and gender roles, and is based on male authority and submission to God. If the Church of England promoted a set of ideas like this it would be the butt of jokes on every broadcast media from the BBC to Channel 4. The poor sod who expressed the belief that being Gay might not be a lifestyle choice supported by scripture would be demolished personally and probably professionally by the left wing media.

In the case of the the left wing however they don’t understand Islamisms power of inter generational cultural purity and its contrast with what the devout see as the cultural slop of secular western culture with its obsessions on err………….well gender, sexuality and an enforced  submission to the notion of equality and freedom at all cost.

The depth of these differences cannot be overcome by promoting a process of re education as left wing liberals think. This is patronising and has the effect of reminding the devout people of the Islamic faith that western culture is not one that provides the certainty and clarity of lifestyle that their simple expectations require. Education, education education or E3 is unlikely to heal the wounds between Islam and the west.

So why won’t E3 work? well people who “learn” do so because they have common reference points. The women who fought for the vote in the 19oo’s understood Choice and Consent because their husbands enjoyed it and to some extent they encountered it too. They simply wanted more of it. When you take a person who believes in male authority and has a family that believes the same and it is believed intergenerationally, it is unlikely to change because some well meaning left winger tells them there is a different way…..a way no more than 50 years old and not based on the Koran but on a creed of free market consumerism which not only allows but encourages all kinds of frightful personal behaviour.

If we want to stop being targeted by Islamists we need to first define the decent values we want to promote and change the delinquent behaviours that alienate us from people of faith….all faiths…….. and none.

28.07.19 Is the role of Housing the same under”Capitalism” as it is in the secular western “free market”…we examine the issue.

Housing and “Capitalism”! Isn’t “Capitalism” the same as the “free market” and if not why not?

Does this differentiation apply outside the UK and US?

The housing sector is a very politicized sector with builders being driven by shareholder value whilst the many social housing providers are largely influenced by the demands of “social justice” and the left wing requirement to build homes at any cost as a way of demonstrating a commitment to the poor. Not the economy…but the poor. This “any cost” includes food security and the greenbelt. Private landlords seem to occupy everywhere from a shadowy world of rogue landlords to the high end rental sector. The small private operator clearly didn’t impress George Osborn so he legislated against the sector that has flexibility across a range of tenures, costs and locations. Regulation yes undermining the sector nowe believe.

So what is the answer to our complicated question? Well in classical economics and indeed Marxism the housing sector reflected at various levels (class levels) the amount of economic value that was secured by the various classes. So at the lower end the small tenement was squalid and cheap and reflected the fact that the “free” to contract proletarian was paid a meagre share of the value created by him. The rest of the value was  appropriated by the capitalist who employed him. His low wage could only pay for a poor quality home so the Christian reformers began to develop decent homes; some linked to employment (Cadbury, Rowntree) others just decent homes (Peabody). The mechanism was clearly redistributive undermining how the capitalist market place (the precursor of the free market) would operate to undermine the interests of the weaker worker against the Capitalist. Evenn if some Capitalists like Cadbury willingly redistributed some of their wealth via decent homes for workers.

Within the model above there was however real economic “value”. The economy was value based, profitable and so the redistribution of this value constituted a cost to the capitalist. Now if wages went up (not flat lined by migration) the homes got better and more plentiful. The market operated well with a modest amount of “engineering”from the pioneers of “social housing”. They led the way in decent homes standards.

After  1945 and in the UK with the welfare state altering the economy, things began to change and to compensate for western economic decline within the “Capitalist” model, the “free market” on both sides of the Atlantic evolved,  shifting the housing market from being a function of the labour market to being a major constituent of the actual economy itself (remember the 2008 crash).

This reliance on housing being a major component of the so called “real economy”seems to us to be why Wizard Osborn wanted to “create” a vibrant private sector housing market with numerous owner occupiers. Via the process we call debtamorphosis the worker became the slave of the debt masters of the “free market”. Poor people fleeced by a government led drive to get them into debt……including housing debt. No where is this better illustrated than student debt.

“So”……as they say too often today; what should we be doing about all this. Firstly the economy might appear to grow with owner occupation as a sizeable proportion of the housing market, but it is just an illusion based on debt. Within an open economy “debt” doesn’t do what it does in a closed economy….it doesn’t drive value it drives consumption. The housing market undermines the real economy, in our view it creates an  asymmetrical economy where people are housed in the wrong place and locked into housing they rely on to supplement their income. It also  encourages social and  community decline. And let us not forget it is all debt based.

The solution is to recognise that housing is and always should be a function of the economy, not a driver of the economy as it is now. So via public housing projects house people in decent homes that are a social asset which  are never bastardised to become the financial prop for an enfeebled and misfiring “free market” economy. There will always be a private sector housing market but to stop it being used to support aggregate demand in the wider economy it needs to be counter balanced with  a social housing market which actually houses the workers and can move them to where they are needed. Revolutionary indeed!

Finally is this debt based housing model the same outside the UK and US ? It depends on the economy’s exposure to “owner occupation” and that is determined by how much debt is needed within the economy to support “aggregate demand”and how willing the government is to expose the workers to debt in a desperate bid to “grow” the economy via their home ownership.

 29.07.16 How popular would a blue collar revolution be if it peddled back from a world of debt based immorality and, well……debt. And how could it be done?

We hope we have covered what a “Blue Revolution” might look like in the various posts we have made over the last 18 months. We hope anyone reading our posts will get a sense of what we believe and why. If not we are going to try to spend the next six months creating a “Manifesto” for “Blue Revolutionary change”. We are not politicians and don’t want to be. We are interested in ecology, business and economics, politics,  psychology and society….in short we are interested in planet earth and its people.

However we believe that just as George Osborn and David Cameron were seduced into adopting the theology of “secular westernism” (the promotion and extension of a debt based, “free market” first developed as Reganomics and Thatcherism but then turbo charged by the slippery Clinton, Blair, Bush Troika) so many of us are benign fellow travellers.

Too many of us buy into this “theology” of “secular westernism”, laughably the only opposition until recently came from the rather stupid “left wing” who neither understand the nature of the current system (i.e. their solution more debt please to “cure” austerity, oh a bit more government too just to add to the sense of achieving some kind of historical destiny for the masses).

In the US Trump and Clinton are both  “secular westerners” but one is an intelligent woman the other an oaf. In the UK Theresa May could be the first to challenge the secular western theology with her more “blue collar” cabinet; but it is early days. We believe destiny is knocking on the front door but most people and most politicians are still answering the back door.

What we are encouraged to believe about our culture, we believe, is all total nonsense, whether it is “Remain” as in the EU or “austerity” is class war, or “our way of life” delivers “justice” freedom, democracy and opportunity, or diversity is a benign cultural relativism as opposed to bone headed idiocy fuelling violence in the absence of any form of unifying philosophy based on economics.

It seems to us only a Blue Revolution’s collection contributing “workers” can “raise consciousness” in a truly Marxist sense. Hopefully more people will realise that saving the planet, saving our lives and liberties and yes saving the whale, is all down to people adopting the mindset of “A Blue Revolutionary”.

With a Blue Revolution there is no club to join, no badge to wear and no “revolutionary vanguard” so beloved of the hard and implacable left; just things to think about, reflect upon and try and assimilate into our own lives based on how each of us experiences our life in the early 21st century.

As with all Manifesto’s we will look at various themes. The next one will be “Tackling Debt”. Chapter 1.

04.08.16 The problem of debt and how our collective love of consumption makes us all the puppets of the global debt meisters V3

This is the key to all the western world’s ills. It is something which enslaves us, sets generation against generation makes relationships either fragile of immoral and turns the wheels of “debtamorphosis”; a western banking and governmental process which turns indebtedness into wealth for those who are lucky enough to be the card sharks of the “free market”. These people along with the bankers and the Barons of the publicsectocracy do very nicely at the expense of the poor, the young and the general taxpayer. How has this happened?

Well if you imagine a see saw 200 years long with a man with a stove pipe hat on one end of the see saw and he has his end on the ground we can call this end “value” and the other end “debt”. We can imagine that as we move from one end of the two hundred year long see saw to the other the balance shifts between “value” and “debt”. After two hundred years the man in the stove piped hat is replaced by a public servant who has his wages paid by government debt.

Along with the publicsectocracy we have the mass ranks of debt masters who either create debt or who benefit from debt. The super profits of the supermarkets, the corporations and banks all rely on debt, inflating domestic aggregate demand. It is aggregate demand which keeps profits up, people in a trance like state buying “stuff”, oh, and tax for governments keen to get re elected. Keeping this process going requires a couple of things; it requires increasing asset values (like housing and stock values) as this becomes the basis of lending against the debt.

All this is what passes as economic value but of course as 2008 showed us… isn’t  economic value at all, it is government and societies debt. The whole process is utterly without foundation but economists still talk as though it is somehow “real”. The rubbish spoken by Mark Carney and George Osborne and some economists at the BBC (some have now left thankfully) is simply rehearsing a language based on an economic and social orthodoxy which has no actual value underpinning it.

in many ways is like making up a language which doesn’t apply to the real world. Or at least changes the meaning of the words. It is a world of borrowing being “investment”, tax no longer being “value” wealth similarly, and debt being the basis for wealth and taxation. The whole system is based on “consumer confidence” in otherwords the whole thing is based on the public’s confidence the system will  perpetuate itself. It is  kept “real” simply on  the basis of this “consumer confidence”; the confidence to borrow, and spend and tax and spend.

This debt makes people crave “things” rather than relationships. Everything becomes tradable and this too feeds the free market debt monster. With wealth the consumers main driver rather than social and economic value one family  can a morally become two families, two families need two TV’s and the money tied up in the owner occupied family home becomes cashable to sweeten the divorce and provide some much needed aggregate demand  to drive further consumption; oh and there is a need for an extra house just to help the house builder and the governments coffers too.

The winners are the rich and the publicsectocracy. The losers are the poor and the planet. We said that a Blue Revolution helps to save the whale…well debt is how the current system undermines the planet by driving unsustainable consumption and therefore its damages ecological structures and environments. This includes our living environment both social and economic.

The solution to this monster will be time consuming (no pun intended)….well the see saw is two hundred years long; but we can start to shuffle towards the pivot if we firstly accept that we are not living in a world of value but debt and anti austerity is really about more debt.

Rather than thinking that government taxation is taking real value off real capitalists who in the past would have “misappropriated” it from the workers; the capitalist no longer really exist and neither does the value capitalists used to create……at least not in the west. Today we have debtmasters and the wealthy who together manipulate the leavers of the markets to ensure that as much of the debt we and governments create ends up in the hands of the government elite and the wealthy bankers and business persons like the fat peasant Phil Green.

Marx would have failed to understand this system, he was a classical economist at heart…….so it is odd that the left still hold to the old socialist methods of tackling the problem namely tax and spend. The British left are publicsectorcrats before they are representatives of the workers. Hence the reason they are f****d. More of this later when we consider “Labour isn’t working because “socialism” no longer works; we explain why”………as a service to Corbyn and Smith.

10.08.16 Why do the left in the UK think their every utterance is “progressive” when in most regards the opposite is actually the case? We consider Grammar schools. 

Here at a Blue revolution we are a mixed bag, some “passed” the 11+ and some “failed”. Some never took it!  As we have said before therein lies the problem with promoting selective education. It is seen as better and fairer not to have been tested than to have failed. However, we take a “progressive” view which we believe puts the solid old left ideas about selection into the 20th-century dustbin.

Firstly the promoters of selection need to stop presenting the 11+ as some kind of test of intelligence and see it more like a psychometric test; a test of aptitude for a certain way of learning. The fact it is seen to be based on intelligence creates for the virtue warriors of the left the obvious link with elitism assisting those who are advantaged by their class.

If the test was rigorous,  based on maths, and spelling (technical skills)  and taken at the age of 13 on an opt-in basis it would be less a stigma not to be identified as non-academic”. The 11 plus is obscure and alienates the very people it should be motivating. It does this by being unrelated to the real world of academic study. It was intended to do this to keep those passing it as exclusive or elite as possible. But in doing this it excludes the children of the workers.

It would become by a child’s thirteenth birthday relevant for a small group of children (school or parental referred) within any county or group of counties who maintain a school fully state funded for this very skilled group of young students. If the bar was set high it would escape the claim that the levels of aptitude within the top to middle of the selected sector and non-selected are too similar to justify grammar school selection. The state would bear the cost of such schools where the “students with aptitude” numbers justified it.

The second issue is that of class. The old left talk as though a local bank manager, self-employed plumber, the owner of an electricians business or a doctor are upper class. They are not; they are working and earning a living; the fact that they are not part of the left wings new constituency of choice; the underclass, does not make them part of the hated bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie were capitalists not workers regardless of how well paid those workers might be. By keeping the children of ordinary people away from a grammar school education means there is an open goal for the public schools to snaffle the better-paid jobs and stop social mobility in its tracks.

Finally something “socialist” from the Blue Revolutionaries. Life is about acceptance and not about chips on shoulders. For every John Prescott, there are people without chips on their shoulders who went on to achieve a position in life they were happy with. Lord Prescott is an exemplar of how failing the 11+ isn’t life destroying. However, it will lead to many young people taking the view that they would rather lorry drive or hair dress and save themselves the cost of a university education before errr…….lorry driving or hairdressing.

Whilst the original reason we believe the grammar schools were scrapped was because public schools were being undermined and the old establishment felt threatened so the bogus claim of “equality for all” was used to preserve privilege for those able to pay for a private education so the current  obsession with making all children “academic” even when they are not is we believe about preserving  the “academic left” in “their” places of learning. In both cases, children are used ideologically and it is the “masses” and their children who suffer.

One final point is about cooperation. No one is an island and there is, in these less “class” obsessed times,  more desire to work collaboratively to achieve team and group goals rather than being a battle of class against class. This class war is a 20th-century phenomenon wonderfully captured in the labour relations film comedies of the post-war era . So for every person who is highly academic (and the economy doesn’t need that many of these highly academic types) there will be an army of people upon whom these academic types will come to depend.

The next post will look at the “household” as one limb of the western world’s slow recovery.

NB less class obsessed of course unless you are a left winger for whom class is an issue of existential relevance as well as self-preservation

13.08.16 Labour isn’t working because “socialism” no longer works. If you still don’t understand why, read on…..V5

Unfortunately, we have to start with Tony Blair and his cronies who believed that there was nothing wrong with getting “filthy rich”. Again unfortunately, Blair and Bill Clinton’s “third way” was a means by which the workers were exploited in a different way from the “misappropriation” of value to maximize profits under the old largely defunct “capitalist” system. The currency of modern “wealth” is debt not old fashioned value. In classical terms and Marxism, value is different from both profit and price and therefore wealth. We don’t need to concern ourselves with these distinctions here.

The capitalist system started to collapse in the west about eighty years ago being replaced by what we at a Blue Revolution call “secular westernism”; the amoral evolution of the “free market”. Secular westernism is even more immoral than “capitalism” as it requires the worker to be a provider of debt to maintain aggregate demand, with the government as the borrower of last resort using its debt and taxation for the same basic purpose.

The government also has the job of maintaining “consumer confidence”. This is simply the belief that borrowing and spending can continue into the future and therefore people will continue in jobs and be able to borrow and spend. personal borrowing also includes the most damaging form of indebtedness; student debt.

The Cameron Government’s fear of a drop in consumer confidence was clearly in evidence during the “Brexit” referendum with the Wizard of Osborn becoming more and more shrill as the prospect of Brexit became a possibility. For Osborn Brexit would have a damaging effect on “Consumer Confidence”. The fact the EU and the secular western economies globally, are utterly without sound economic foundations was either not recognised or ignored. “Confidence” was all and is all that matters.

As long as secular westernism continues to strive to create “confidence” based debt, which becomes, debt based wealth for the publicsectorcrats (the upper reaches of the Public Sector)  and the other winners of the “free market”, everyone should be “happy”.

So from Thatcher to Osborn (Son’s of Thatcher to Heirs to Blair) the debt-reliant economic system was created and has evolved. With the systems  ability to maintain debt and “consumer Confidence” we all continue to spend and borrow. The process creates immoral behaviour; on a structural level by Banks and at a personal level by people having for example children they could never hope to raise without government subsidy, or cashing in housing equity to pay for divorce. The role of the family is diminished as  government steps in, to paper over the social cracks created by a bankrupt “real economy”.

Socialism’s most dangerous tactic is to promote the idea that the government and its bureaucracy is a substitute for a properly functioning social and economic system. The legacy when failure comes will be to “progress us” back to the dark ages and woe betide a range of currently legitimate lifestyle choices when that happens. Gay people, feminists, and a plethora of others who have rights to contract choose and consent to lifestyles choices now,  will be unprotected when the state will to too broke to protect them in the future even if ….and it’s a big if, it wanted to. This war of attrition on Contract Choice and Consent is being rehearsed in Europe by the bum fluff sporting disciples of ISIS. Contract Choice and Consent is what they hate…….as do strident socialists. Corbyn in particular is reckless with the three C’s particularly around women’s rights and the rights of the Jewish minority in his party. The reason is, these people think they understand socialism and how it has to be delivered; but to understand socialism you MUST properly  understand Capitalism and how it evolved….and they want to smash capitalism not see it evolve as it must.

So where does our economic critique of socialism come in. Well in the old days “socialists” recognised the “capitalist” was rendering the environment toxic with pollution and the workers lives poor, uncertain  and unhealthy via low wages. The Socialist’s mission was to take the surplus value “stolen” from workers ( the capitalist’s profit) by the capitalists, and to redistribute it. In doing so rendering the environment cleaner and with welfare safer and less uncertain. This simple idea is very complex because it is prefaced on the basis that “capitalism” should and does deliver “value” and therefore there is only immorality in the Capitalist keeping the lions share of the value as profit. It also assumes there is no immorality in the socialist taking and redistributing the value.

So far so good…Eventually the Keys of the Capitalist machine (Contract, Choice and Consent, Land Labour and Capital)  are enjoyed by the workers. By then via collaboration. The liberated and now unexploited workers continue to deliver value both social and economic and also by this time the “state has withered away” and the system is wholly collectivist. This is social collectivism as well as economic but without the government mediating.  The last bit is a bit fanciful….even Marx struggled to define this period with no state and total collectivism. The period of no state is centuries away. However the “socialist” bit we can visualise as we have created it already. And there in lies the explanation of why socialism no longer works.

The current economy (with government costs a large burden and clearly not in any way a withered state) is now reliant on workers “Debt” not workers mis-appropriated “value”. This is not an economy that governments can morally intervene with to redistribute….because what are they redistributing  exactly?

Governments thrive off the GDP figures which a debt based economy still obsesses about (ask yourself why construction and housing are so important to the health of our current economy). Any attempt to correct the injustice of “capitalism’s past exploitation of the workers” has no relevance today as there is no value to liberate, but any diminution in debt will damage GDP the confidence so craved by the chancellor and bankers . The debt machine must stop…….and this is seen as a bad thing!

If you are still with us you will recognise that the exploitation the government covertly supports is no longer by capitalist bosses taking workers surplus value, but is the exploitation is by the financial sector and state itself, encouraging the indebtedness of the government itself in tandem with the debt of the individual. Debt is morally the worst kind of exploitation if it isn’t to encourage part of a functioning mixed economy underpinning a stable and morally sustainable society.

Basically the Anti Austerity brigade, Corbyn, Smith and the more bamboozled Tories still believe that when Governments fund themselves through tax they are legitimately re appropriating “Workers Value” on behalf of the workers, rather than doing as they unfortunately are doing, encouraging the workers to support the free market via debt based consumption, thus creating an army of the “filthy rich” so loved by Blair. This overzelous public spending is therfore debt that ends up being spent by the Government on running Government and on the pensions and welfare system containing unproductive people. It undermines not only the economy but society as well. The idea that there is anything “social” about socialism paid for by debt is laughable. But we can’t let people starve so we have to re engineer the system and do it slowly and sustainably.

So what do we at a Blue Revolution think the future should look like? Here are a few ideas. Ask yourself how “socialist is it”:

Clean water and air, safe homes (Private and public, owner occupied and rental), safe places to work, a reduction in “stuff” manufactured for the sake of profit based on debt (also good for the environment, less production means less emissions). A smaller state. Operational workers (in health etc) paid decently, but a massive rescaling of salaries for the people who are paid at the top to deliver nothing at the bottom. Reform of higher education to end the “jobs for Guardian readers” hegemony in higher education. A welfare system that recognises that welfare is a government transfer of cost for the unproductive individual i.e. from the worker to the non worker and theretofore lacks “natural justice” and often encourages immorality. A recognition that debt as a means of delivering wealth to sustain consumption is doomed to fail with devastating consequences when it does fail….and it will.

Reducing demand reduces stress on eco systems and the environment as well as requiring a shift towards a more sustainable economic model. This Blue economic model does not contain the myth that the government is doing good by playing God but by making the public dependent on welfare and debt it is undermining long term social survival of the positive legacy of capitalism (Contract, Choice and Consent) and also undermining its own legitimacy.

The challenge is; how do we achieve change? Well, we need to stop seeing “Socialism” as the answer for a start.

If you still don’t understand it… are either in thrall to the western secular paradigm or you are yet to have your consciences raised.

18.8.16 The white boys under perform and we still have to tackle a lack of cultural integration; Blue Revolution explains why we have not improved things…..yet. V4

Anyone who was working in the British public sector in the “Blair years” will have been exposed to an attempted brainwashing with “diversity” training. The aim was benign enough; we are all the same really. However, the model was feeble in that it didn’t empower people to challenge discrimination unless it was premised on the power imbalance between black and white. There was, therefore, an unintended boost given to those cultural simplicities that promote a range of discriminations; against women in particular but also against Jews and those of different sexualities.  In Britain and within the EU people could not find it in themselves to challenge a range of actual behaviours which  reflect this discrimination. A silence was believed to be the best ploy.

How wrong that was and unfortunately still is. Diversity was intended to promote the idea that we are all the same underneath our skin and culture, however, it overstressed the difference in a morally confused environment of hand-wringing and embarrassment. So far so bad.

At a Blue Revolution we believe the reason for this was our old friend the confused and morally ambiguous “western liberal culture”. This is a culture which in its economic manifestation promotes consumerism and debt (secular westernism) and therefore offers no unimpeded economic infrastructure demanding  the creation of value via  an economically literate, self-aware and motivated workforce. Its  moral ambiguity which promotes pornography and a general disregard for the lives of vulnerable people, also allows people to become economically inactive and welfare dependent. What this means for society is that with no strong moral principles people slide to the lowest possible social and economic level.

The white working class find themselves in casual promiscuous relationships with the bonus of welfare babies for the girls, with the boys enjoying the toxicity of casual sex which too often becomes a preoccupation overtaking the need to earn a living. The welfare model also allows families to maintain relationships along traditional lines. The number of men of Pakistani descent  driving taxis suggests that in work welfare keeps family income at a level which allows wives to remain within a traditional family structure.

As we have seen with the Labour party’s lamentable treatment of Asian women in places like Dewsbury there is little opportunity for women when the local culture still harbours the view that man has dominion over women. It also doesn’t help that western culture is  sexually preoccupied……which it is. So with this asymmetry and a “diversity culture” of “don’t ask don’t tell” within a free market culture, there is nothing driving integration. Integration if it is going to happen needs an economic foundation. Whilst Capitalism couldn’t have offered “diversity” preferring conformity (the standardised “worker”), it did offer Contract Choice and Consent which is now under threat from diversity. Perverse but true.

In the pre-secular western world of “capitalism” the workers would have had to work, wages would be the only source of income and with no welfare “top ups” babies would have rightly been a financial liability for hopefully loving parents, not financial asset for the sexually reckless Within a family all of working age would have to be at work. A lack of financial security would have resulted in a levelling of rights for all. The Contract, Choice and Consent (three C’s) would have been  the basis for all relationships, women, school leavers, wives, husbands, fathers and mothers. It was capitalism’s potential to underpin real integration and equality with choice and consent at least in a non-wealth sense.

So what is the solution? Well, here at a Blue Revolution we believe in the three C’s but don’t believe these rights can be exercised in a community motivated by debt and made fat on welfare. We believe that the economy needs to properly re-balance so that families are responsible for children up to and beyond the age of 60…..yes sixty. The “child” is no longer a homogenous “factor of production” destined for “the Pit” factory or to raise a family. This is because the social, psychological and economic environment  is too complex. However, work and the social nature of people has to be promoted within a new framework which reflects the reality of a “Post-Capitalist”economy. This has to have a basis in the real economy to avoid being a sort of Corbyn utopianism. Let us take an extreme example.

If a child has Aspergers or autism they are diagnosed and then essentially pushed out of the working environment which is still geared for the 40-hour week worker. The same applies to the ex-offender. The opportunity to manage their lives based on a possible combination of co-operation from family and community plus employment arranged on a flexible basis is not really an option. The welfare environment  does not currently reflect the desire of many people to genuinely “promote diversity”. A Diversity agenda without some kind of economic model underpinning it is just utopianism or as we call it “waffle”. Because it is just a waffle no one takes it seriously, so after twenty years of brainwashing we have no significant integration, white boys underperform, there is little cultural integration. The disabled find it hard to enter the work place and the mentally ill are sidelined by the economy but can get counselling. Offenders become a breeding nuisance.

People who can’t do forty hours per week but get trapped on welfare are pushed out of the workplace. society is about as un”diverse” as it is possible to get whilst being just about able to claim it is “striving for diversity”. Yet the economy is flexible enough to offer some solutions. The answer is not simple but change is possible. We should not expect the government to  determine the standards by which we live our economic and social lives. That creeping nationalisation of our lives via welfare, nieve diversity agendas, a criminal justice system that scoops people out of society,  undermines all of us as individuals, families, households and communities. The government, of course, has got a role, but to comply with our three C’s it has to be more complex than delivering welfare on demand which as we have seen diminishes equality, opportunity and diminishes standards for white working class boys and Asian women. The welfare trap needs slowing down whilst people are expected to support themselves with the support of their family in the first instance. Of course, the left will claim this is socially divisive rather than socially liberating. But with people taken out of the economy by “welfare” socialism has no plan for integration other than more welfare.

As usual, the well-intentioned hand wringers make the problems of life for ordinary people worse by trying to get them to conform to a standard model of social existence in a consumer obsessed welfare reliant and debt dependent early 21st century, rather than letting our diverse economy shape a diverse society unimpeded.

24.08.16 Many people think they know who is in the much derided “establishment” ….but unless you view it from a Blue Revolutionary perspective you are unlikely to see your friends amongst its ranks or indeed yourself ! V2

Owen Jones has had a go, and with his outriders and others seemed to see almost everyone in well connected Britain falling into the establishment; except himself of course. However, the litmus test for “who is in and out” of the establishment was Brexit. There are those who are not Jones like “out-riders”, but are lower ranking “establishment figures”; those who like a modern day overlord support the power of the establishment because they gain from its patronage and protection.

Before embarking on our Blue Revolutionary analysis we want to make it clear that whilst the monarchy provides some of the trappings of rank for the establishment; titles, gongs etc the monarchy its self is not “establishment” at least not in Blue Revolutionary terms. This difference in opinion casts our Blue Revolution as very different from our rather eccentric, very earnest Red Revolutionary student activist cousins. For us the presence of the monarch is of little consequence to the way power is acquired, passed on and used in 21st century Great Britain.  We also dismiss the “fourth” estate……perhaps with the exception of some elements of the Broadcast media as “establishment”. For us, the terms establishment and anti-establishment are about as relevant today  as they would have been during and after the English Civil war. The terms could only be applied in any meaningful sense by outsiders, and just like then, today there are very few of them around. Most of us think we are one thing when perhaps we might actually be the other. How so?

All periods have those who have negotiated their way close to the top. The top is determined by two things; the way value is created and who it is distributed to. Those negotiating their way to the top are identified by how much of the wealth from the top they have been able to acquire for themselves. In feudal times the king distributed wealth, or the ability to gain wealth to favoured noblemen. In capitalist times exploitation was mediated by wages. Workers free to contract in a system   designed to enable the capitalist to appropriate value from the workers who create it, by paying a wage much lower than the value created by the worker.

There is nothing immoral about this system as it is based on “consent” but the skill of the capitalist (entrepreneurialism) is rewarded more than the workers who create his profit. The king and his court, the lower ranking barons are the “establishment” in feudalism. The Sheriff is a minor functionary but still his position is made possible by the role he plays in the feudal state.

Within capitalism, the establishment still had to endure the presence of the old establishment (lords and the monarchy) but over time, the contractual choice based relationships in capitalism moved the old establishment away from the centre of power. The new establishment was capitalist and the branches of State such as law, the Church, education and parliament became infused with the values of this new capitalist establishment. With Contract, Choice and Consent at the core of the capitalist system liberty became a right if not exactly an achievable right. The workers were “exploited” in Marxist terms their rights were real but irrelevant due to the poverty too many of the workers experienced.

The capitalist establishment was unwilling to look at this issue of poverty and charities set themselves up to protect the vulnerable. Protecting young women in service from exploitation for example. Into the establishment, therefore emerged radicals. These people knew how the system worked and could see that it was unfair. The capitalist system allowed rights but for the poor, women and the disabled the rights to contract, choose and consent was limited by the lack of wealth these marginal groups had at their disposal.

Eventually, the “radicals”won the day and by 1945 the majority Labour government was able to deliver more contract, choice and consent, backed up by a fairer “distribution of wealth”. This was probably the finest hour for socialism. It needed “investment” in a bureaucracy to deliver the desired social and economic outcomes. However, the social and economic outcomes became a disease which slowly undermined the economy culminating in the winter of discontent in the 1970’s and high levels of moral decay as people gave up personal responsibility to the government. This period was the point at which the “new establishment”; the post-Capitalist establishment began to assert itself. It had an agenda to promote; itself, public sector services are based on the values the new establishment  believes should be widely understood by the people.

However, the values it promoted were ultimately found to be of benefit to them only. The Banking crisis was not delivered just  by banks but by banks on behalf of the government. Government reliant on financial services to create debt which becomes the basis for economic confidence and “growth” via consumption. With too much debt and an “economy” based on consumption the social fabric of society disintegrates and the state has to step in, crime goes up and the state steps in. We call this theun-virtuall circle.  It is all paid for by debt….the nonsense of debt being “investment” is something only socialists still believe. Debt is a burden on the public but it keeps the new establishment in place. It protects the publicsectocracy. The publicsectocracy and the banks dance a very involved tango which sees the government depending on the central banks who maintain confidence to gain greater and greater levels of indebtedness thus keeping consumption levels up. Whilst they are low ranking the universities provide establishment “cheerleaders” and lots of indebted students pay to become cheerleaders too.

So who are the new establishment; well the Remain group in the Brexit debate contain many of them; people who would prioritise bloated European bureaucracy and “progressive” EU  law ahead of dealing with the indebtedness of the British economy are part of the establishment. They believe in their own jobs and euro jobs not the success of an independent British economy. The bankers are the money men of the new establishment and part of the new establishment itself. However, they are not the top of the tree. At the bottom of the establishment tree are public sector workers on 100K plus (Chief constables, top Civil Servants etc), “progressive left” often unionised public sector workers are the new establishments “drones” (in the bee sense!), actors who have a simpering view of the “poor” but can’t see that their wealth is illegitimate as their wages are determined by “corporations” not “consumers” but like everything else their fees or wages based on debt.

The top of the new establishment is tree are driven by strong but often misplaced values and a sanctimonious belief that the British people are uninformed, bigoted, and stupid. Britain needs educating to promote the correct values. The top people read the “Guardian” and are able to use law to square many of their political circles. They acquire power from the state and the law, which they use directly or indirectly to deliver laws which protect their interests. This all too often means “protecting” people but also institutions.  The Courts are part of the new establishment, delivering via the Human Rights Act case outcomes which promote the interests of the new establishment their allies and apologists. Politics, law and medicine are three pillars of the “new establishment”, however,  if there is one group who can rally be said to “top off” the ” new establishment it is …….

……….ladies and gentlemen, liberal lawyers and in particular those who are also politicians. Politicians are still top of the power tree. These politician lawyers use the law to manipulate the state and promote their own self-interest and the interests of their fellow travellers. This explains the relationship between the banks, the rich and New Labour and Cameron Tories. The new establishment is however under threat from an even newer emerging blue-collar establishment; the political representatives of the people; Nigel Farage, Theresa May, Liam Fox, David Davis and Boris Johnson  politicians who the people are able to trust in the main (at least for now) as they so obviously have no links to “the new establishment”.  Corbyn, Saunders and Trump gain support for being anti-establishment but only Saunders really is a political outsider, the other two……..Enough said.

The “old new establishment” The “heirs to Blair and Blair himself  are a risk to Contract, Choice and Consent and are a risk to the British people because they don’t like what British people believe and see the views of the British people as a threat to their “progressive values”. Their values simply promote their interests. If Contract Choice and Consent don’t deliver their view of progress, like a Remain outcome…then ignore the outcome. Democracy indeed!  more like a Platonic rule by Guardians….Cheri and Tony, Bill and Hilary anyone……No thought not.

With Brexit the old new establishment has had its nose rubbed in it and for most of us, it looks and feels great. Now it is time for the people, the masses,  who generate social and economic value to drive politicians away from their obsession with creating wealth for the few within a “progressive” administrative culture that traps people in poverty, undermines real equality and promotes perhaps unintentionally “immoral outcomes”. All people need to start to think about how they can create economic and social value for the many…….a blue revolution.

25.08.16 A Clinton or Trump Presidency is an opportunity for Britain post Brexit.

Trump offers comic stupidity and  has his wall sending his message to a largely politically illiterate but rightly angry constituency of blue collar workers. Clinton offers dull conformity with the prevailing orthodoxy of debtamorphosis. This requires the workers to accept government and personal indebtedness to keep the levers and buttons of the state and economy turning. The purpose; to  enable the state to continue employing well-heeled Oxbridge or Ivy league graduates from a certain class background to “run” things.  All this  whilst pretending it is really all about  maintaining aggregate demand and “consumer confidence”.

This flawed model is going to tip the western economies over the edge sometime around 2025. But by then Clinton, the likely presidential winner, will be out of office with a pile of debt based wealth in her personal bank account and chaos on America and Europe’s streets. Having paid its debtamorphosis to the wealthy, they will walk away and leave the chaos to the poor. The “progressive” left consensus will have endowed the Blairs and Clintons with unfathomable wealth as we all struggle to survive in a society of little or no social or economic value. Gosh it sounds horrifying but the west is beyond  the thin end of the wedge; just look at the state of family life (social value) and the reliance on debt as the real productive economy declines is significance.

Clintons adherence to this “progressive” model in the US is almost certain. This “progressive” economic model is or was the model that underpinned the EU and with the UK sensibly getting out there is an opportunity for an alternative model to be offered and the trickery of the current model to be exposed. With Osborn and Cameron no longer in office, Theresa May can look at scaling back debt, expose the con trick of debtamorphosis inherent within “anti-austerity ” claptrap of the “left” and its fans and beneficiaries. She can rebalance the British economy in favour of production instead of debt, get unskilled work back in the hands of unskilled British workers, whilst at the same time promote a fair but selective education system which will hopefully get the children of blue collar and lower managerial workers into the establishment where the expectations of  ordinary people will become better understood.

Allied to these domestic changes, the possibility exists for Britain to offer a social and economic model to the world as with Clinton and Trump there is an absence of global leadership and a lack of a new but realistic global vision. We can aspire to create a world that can trade widely on the basis  Contract, Choice, and Consent. With scaled back welfare underpinning the economic model we can incentivise work, free movement can be liberalised to those who want to come and work , taxes can be reduced and what is left of the social fabric of the country used to rebuild family life as the state is no substitute for the family and community. The world needs a moral revolution and Britain is well placed to lead the way.

28.08.16 The point about HS2 is that no one can really remember the point. We offer some guidance for those who want it.

HS2 belongs to an age oh about ten years ago when “major infrastructure projects” were seen as the salvation of the economy by New Labour. There were two basic reasons; they were seen as a good in themselves in the case of HS2 trimming twenty minutes off a journey time to London, but most importantly they were seen as a way of pumping money into the economy via wages and the purchase of raw materials. This is neo-Keynesianism and of course, it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because the world economy is open and thus money is not really “invested” it is borrowed and “spent” on vanity projects like HS2 and the wages paid contribute to immediate consumption. Much of this  consumption is often “off- shored” or spent on foreign goods and holidays. And it is of course raised from the indebtedness of the British people. So it won’t have the “multiplier” effect it would have had in post-war Britain when there were limits on how much currency you could take out of the country.

Given the fact that the contractors moreover are often not British the advantages to the economy are limited to the final outcome of the infrastructure project itself. In the case of HS2 this will be to draw people to London by train with a saving of twenty minutes and a subsidised cost for that twenty minutes saving of goodness knows how much. The government will have ratcheted up debt and the money spent will achieve little more than maintaining immediate consumption for those undertaking the job of building HS2.

It fails the economic necessity over cost and long-term economic impact test. Basically, we think it is a waste of money.

30.08.16 The legacy of the Blair years the “third way” a combination of  socialism and greed. Lets look at who has their snout in the trough.

Socialism, as we have explained before, is a product of advanced capitalism. The capitalist system offers important rights to all people ( we summarise them as Contract, Choice and  Consent), however, only the capitalist and the wealth remnants of the feudal age, the aristocracy, enjoyed them to their full extent. Socialism was the result. It was a grass-roots movement by workers and more progressive bourgeoisie to deal with the  of the imbalances within capitalism. Many 19th century capitalists were benign but the system created insecurity and uncertainty for workers. It was not a benign system. However much to the fury of modern “progressives” it worked. It created value, social and economic and it put bread on the table for the vast majority of western workers. It was the value capitalism created that formed the basis for socialism’s initial programme of reform and redistribution. In the UK this happened after the last war. In the US and over the same time-scale it was a martial plan; “welfare” for taking up arms on behalf of the state and going into foreign theatres of war. The governments in both countries began to acquire the nation’s productive value to pursue its political objectives.

In Britain, the lack of aspiration  following on from the lack of Contract, Choice and Consent was an early target of the new socialist government. Mistakes on the way included wrongly ascribing fostering inequality to the Grammar schools, undermining the stability of the family with welfare, and driving enterprise and industry out of the country whilst promoting the acquisition of wealth which is devoid of actual value. We call this debtamorphosis; the process by which government or a consumer’s debt becomes  someone’s wealth.

By the early 1990’s the “yellow brick road” of wealth acquisition was beguiling governments and those who would aspire to be wealthy. Businesses were manufacturing abroad and selling here at prices that got the consumer into debt but made the “business man” very rich. Shopping Centres or Malls were springing up and work was becoming minimum wage and unskilled. This wealth was important to Governments as they have spending commitments and needed to tax it. However, it was also important for the wealthy to overlook the debt based origins of their wealth, and try and avoid paying tax on it. It is staggering to think that you make more profit selling something than you make producing it. But that is the nature of the global economy. This system was largely created by the free marketeers of the Thatcher-Regan era. However, we don’t believe the full implications of this system were fully understood.

This wealth created by the economy was important to Governments as they have spending commitments and needed to tax it. However, it was also important for the wealthy to overlook the debt based origins of their wealth, and try and avoid paying tax on it. It is staggering to think that you make more profit selling something than you make producing it. But that is the nature of the global economy. This system was largely created by the free marketeers of the Thatcher-Regan era. However, we don’t believe the full implications of this system were fully understood.

As we said there was a drift into low wage employment, value creating  jobs were disappearing in favour of service jobs, but along with the value creating jobs mainly in manufacturing, “organised labour” was being pushed out too. Life for workers was getting uncertain again. But the workers themselves didn’t help. The 1970’s confirmed that when bosses and workers stop thinking about the product and go into battle over wages the economy and individuals suffer. For a Blue Revolution, the greatest tragedy was the appalling industrial relations of the 1970’s and the pointless battles between workers and bosses that destroyed the economy. Had the workers known that manufacturing could be outsourced to China would they have been so stupid and to destroy their jobs and industries. If they known their jobs would be replaced by jobs dependent on debt, would they have been so keen to see their industries collapse; had the government realised that people were getting rich…..stupidly rich, creating nothing much at all…selling sort of cheap “stuff”, would they have tolerated this Alice in wonderland world and, more importantly, would they have relied on it for tax revenue to pay for their social and economic vanity projects.

Well, of course they would, because by the late 1990’s Blair and co saw the money this model was delivering into the economy and were “casual” about people being rich because they had no idea how the money was created. Their economic illiteracy, however, was compounded by an old socialist agenda of wealth redistribution, and a desire to “socially engineer”a better society. Any student of Karl Marx would have known that social progress was a function of the economy, and regulated capitalism had done a reasonable job to date ( we accept not perfect) providing freedom based on work rather than race, gender or any other “improper” basis to use current parlance. However, to Blair and Co, the wealth of tycoons like Phillip Green was real, based on real value, had solid origins not sweat shop origins, and along with what tax could be extracted from his fawning tycoon fan base  Blair could, along with government borrowing,  create the ideal “third way” socialist society. Socialism relying on greed….the origins of secular westernism.

Anyway, the dissonance between the aspirations of the blue collar workers and the Blair elite has become more exposed as the smoke and mirrors basis for the economy has been exposed for the fraud it really is. Politicians who should represent people representing corporations. Politicians who should be creating the conditions for business, protecting corporations ahead of struggling workers and small businesses. A social agenda which, inspired by the EU wrapped small and medium business up in red tape whilst protecting corporations by subsidising workers wages. The rich men of Blair and Cameron’re economy were little more than card sharks skimming the politicians for all they could get away with. The moral decline goes hand in hand with this economic madness.

The final part of the process, of course, is the law. Blair and his gullibility did not only expose the economy to risk but by buying into the idea that business was good but public bodies were in need of scrutiny and were inherently bad he engineered the rise of the human rights industry. We all understand human rights, public bodies can’t hit you, steal from you or otherwise abuse you, but we have gone beyond the actual law into an Alice in wonderland law, a law which as Marx would attest reflects the fundamentals of the Alice in Wonderland economy. Nice work Tone!