“…Hush, don’t speak. When you spit your venom, keep it shut I hate it. When you hiss, and preach, about your new messiah ’cause your theories catch fire. I can’t find your silver lining. I don’t mean to judge. But when you read your speech, it’s tiring. Enough is enough…
The United Kingdom continues to accumulate feelings of frustration. In the face of trends set out for all to see, the 2015 General Election took the pollsters by surprise.
Most commentators pursue a compartmentalised analysis, which invariably dooms them to picking away at issues forever. This review seeks to turn things up by delivering a proper understanding of recent events, after which you will never have to vote (apathetically) again.
This Election review presents five underlying stories that all pundits have overlooked – related to a maddened Queen, Boris’ return, UKIP’s real contribution, fragile financial markets, and Papal supervision.
There was a technical outcome that counts more than any other; the Conservative Party gained a majority of five seats.
This election was many things. In some cases it was a study of dumb luck, but importantly it is a snapshot of the unfolding shift of power moving away from those whose pride hangs on centralised authority.
For anyone who was involved on the ground level, or in punditry, there were many eye-catching anomalies in the results – plus some glaring problems with the voting process – ranging from voter registration issues, voting spillages, and even claims of postal-vote rigging in the constituency of Bradford West.
If any of the votes were at all rigged, then the system has set itself to govern unilaterally without the need to appease the egos of more than one party. But if the votes were properly counted, then the people have leant tacit consent for a continuation of the status quo.
Some would claim that the Conservative majority will embolden them. I would beg to differ. On the face of it, nothing has changed regarding the day-to-day Commons script. Indeed, although the Conservatives no longer need to reach for their Liberal Democrat crutch, in the House of Lords, Labour and the Lib Dems combined have more representatives than the Conservatives, thus the two can still filibuster and vote against legislation pertaining to all things other than the country’s finances.
In the chamber of the House of Lords, the remaining old guard knows how to work the floor, much like judges know how to work a courtroom. There are some particular rules and appointments made in the name of (dubious) expertise (eg Alan Sugar) that have caused a swell of ineffectual delegates who will never know how to play the (specific language) game.
Hence, the retirement incentives introduced in recent years to aging Lords and met with reluctance, and an ongoing drought of retirements. We’re unlikely to see business in the House of Lords change much.
For reference, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) have two peers, not including the hereditary peer Christopher Monckton – who no longer sits in the chamber. Meanwhile, the SNP haven’t a single representative in the Lords.
Members of the House of Lords will never bask in the same glare of public approval that Members of Parliament do. ..It’s a queer curiosity to see winning MPs celebrating on stage in the act of surprise in front of cameras, having already been informed of the count result behind the curtains..
I suppose we should feel happy for the elected, for they have sought to hear the voice of our polled opinion and we have given it to them. The period between election announcement through to the day of swearing allegiance to the Queen is an elongated moment during which their thirst for external approval can be quenched.
At this election, the pollsters stole the show. Their forecasts were wide of the mark. Maybe due to incompetence; or, reflecting the complaints of vote irregularities; or maybe that when it came down to it, voters changed their conviction – is this a scornful thing?
As the exit polls were presented and subsequently supported by the results, a casual observer witnessed media at its obvious worst. For hours on end, the media’s forlorn ‘experts’ loaded the unfolding narrative with their shock. In this reflection of immaturity, media let slip an excellent opportunity to interpret what these election affirmations, trends, and individual messages all meant.
In England, we have a glut of political journalists who have long forgotten the premise of their profession’s function. On election night, one could scarcely see the message for the messengers. Much like other staid professions, political journalists have lost any sense of professional pride, and in its place – as if to goad – self-congratulate each other and assist in offering themselves a chance to try out the latest cliché bedded in shallow reflection. Staid is okay when referring to sipping a Port in the Carlton Club where the carpet exudes the aroma of boiled cabbage, but staid is not alright when there are politicians to be held accountable – which is, supposedly, the duty of journalists.
The likes of Nick Robinson and Andrew Marr looked past it. It’s no wonder the general public feel distanced and struggle to engage with politics when the communications bridge is so weak. It’s a shame that the majority of information and interpretation that voters receive derives from entitled, salary-enticed pundits. Maybe this has long been the case; even always been so? But it has never been more apparent. Nor has the opportunity for an opportunist to rise through the channel of public illiteracy so gaping.
There were several components to the national picture: the Conservative Party had run the show for five years, and, without wavering, employed a simple, doctrinal one-line message throughout their campaign. It sat in-line with a commonly held perception that things hadn’t been so bad under their watch; the Liberal Democrats struggled to find their voice; the SNP were campaigning on the back of the Scottish independence referendum, aspiring to snatch some seats; meanwhile, Labour seemed to be polling well, and many assumed that in spite of their reluctance to admit it, they would form a coalition government with the SNP; and, in spite of the laughable discrimination shown by every media outlet against UKIP, the individuality of Nigel Farage was gaining traction and support across the board.
The trend leading to the election was that there was no trend. The polls were unchanged, tying the Conservatives and Labour. Radio debates centred around the potential viability of a minority government. Which begged the question: if the only parties with a clear message – differentiating from the incumbent government – were UKIP and the SNP, why would the electorate vote for a Labour twist? This seemed to be the elephant in the room question the mainstream media weren’t asking.
The opinion poll was elevated to king – cart before the horse. It is remarkable to think that journalists have come to rely upon opinion polls so much.
Since when have elections, reporting, and election strategies, become so contrived? When did service to communities stop being a privilege? When the ability to serve was still revered, and an individual’s version of spoken truth was enough to carry sentiment?
Is there a way we can remedy this aspect of politics, specifically the way it is reported?
Currently, there isn’t a platform for the journalistic standard to be compared against, because there is a stylistic monopoly.
In ’11, I was involved with a project codenamed ‘Wakonda.’ It proposed a news aggregation platform where monetised funds would be distributed to authors of articles most read and respected by readers – readers who got personalised feeds according to a profiling mechanism (not a million miles from Spotify’s first principle but more sophisticated).
Hence, an independent journalist operating in Palestine could be reimbursed handsomely for incisive reporting, while a writer at the Telegraph (for example) might be exposed for generated ‘no added value’ within the sphere of news consumption. In a word, the Wakonda proposal would democratise news reporting.
Wakonda would reward quality and perceptiveness, and keep journalists embedded in tanker institutions on their toes. Why did we mothball the project? Because Google threatened to steamroll any such proposal with their equivalent… We didn’t think it would take so long for Google to deploy their ‘threat.’ I suppose they are keeping their powder dry for they too have an interest in holding the corporatised media ship steady.
I share this example to illustrate that there exist innumerable ways in which to improve the standard of journalism. Journalism is a profession in dire straits, along with economics and archaeology…and, and, and…
Cameron has presided in the office of prime minister for five years and is undistinguished. He faced Ed Miliband, a boy who’s lacking a day’s maturity since his student activist days. And Clegg – who will cease to be mentioned in political commentaries – was only ever a meager caricature of Cameron.
On the opposition bench there is the occasional politician who understoods some of the nuances of parliament and also have the ear of resource decision makers. One such person is Ed Balls – a graduate of Oxford and Harvard.
Ed Ball’s brother, Andrew, is the chief investment officer of PIMCO – the world’s largest fixed income investment firm, which manages $1.6 trillion (the equivalent of 7 months UK Gross Production). Ed Balls has also been a regular attendee at the self-selecting Bilderberg meetings – whose security measures make prime ministerial arrangements seem meek in comparison. Somewhat embarrassingly, Balls struggled to pass security at last year’s conference (click image below).
Perhaps his Copenhagen stumble was an omen for what was to come. To my surprise, Ed Balls lost his seat and was displaced in what has been dubbed a ‘Portillo moment.’ With a Labour party now in disarray, Balls would have been the obvious candidate to claim leadership. Incidentally, my money (actual money) was on Balls to win the ’10 leadership contest.
So, with Ed Balls exiting stage left, it seems that his wife, Yvette Cooper, is set to take on the challenge. Coincidentally, Cooper is also a Harvard and Oxford graduate and attended Balliol. Former PM Herbert Asquith once described fellow Balliol ‘men’ as possessing “the tranquil consciousness of an effortless superiority.” Notably, Balliol has produced two other PMs – Macmillan and Heath.
A further Balliol graduate, with whom I have experience interning, is Boris Johnson. I got the impression that this election was not quite what he expected either.
In spite of comparable education and ambition as Cameron, before the ’10 election, he forsook a senior cabinet role (possibly foreign secretary) to reign over his own jurisdiction. At the time, it seemed like a huge risk because the Mayoral elections were precariously unpredictable – and he had to work for it, campaigning day and night.
So why is Boris back in parliament now? Why has he taken on a dual role as Mayor and MP? And why is he not in Cameron’s cabinet? …And why has he been introducing himself to the US?
Since mid-’14 I’ve claimed that David Cameron’s days as PM are numbered. To the surprise of many, before the election he stated that he won’t be standing for a third term as PM (assuming he would make a second). An admission that underscored my assertion.
David Cameron seems to have always been arrogantly complacent. In the run-up to the ’10 election, I saw his thirst for premiership dwindle. He was a regular speaker at a Conservative event called City Circle, where he addressed City workers on a platform of doing what was right for the ‘economy’ and insinuating that he would do what was right by them.
The final speech at a City Circle reception, immediately before the ’10 election, was so lackluster it was almost insulting. I’m not claiming that this crowd deserved a politician’s unbridled attention, but I did sense that at that point Cameron thought he had it in the bag – who would have thought otherwise, especially with the ’08 crisis still emblazoned on people’s awareness and an angry Mr Brown sulking in no. 10.
Cameron has done a lot to soften his image since those times. It’s difficult to forget the stories of how poorly he treated his aides – throwing his briefing papers over his shoulder only to be picked up off of the floor by them, for example. The brazenness of him and boy-George was much more apparent in their early days as party leaders.
As we all know, Cameron missed the ’10 open goal and was forced to turn to a number of Liberal Democrat MPs, not least the insufferable Vince Cable (the Adrian Chiles of frontline politics, and champion of A-level-level economics). What an embarrassment. It put many Conservative noses out of joint, especially those who had to make way for Lib Dem ministerial appointments.
It’s true that many backbenchers don’t like Cameron, and not because of his policy direction but because of the way he carries himself in private. A man – or so word has it – with even less grace than Brown. Maybe means can amplify meanness. ..May time’s reflections soften him.
Then came the Scottish Referendum. In simple terms, Cameron slept walked into the constitutional event, and, superficially at least, was bailed out by his chief premiership foe, Gordon Brown.
We will never know how legitimate the final referendum count was. Given the scale of SNP vote in this general election, Scottish independence might have been what was cast. The result was never going to go Salmond’s way – and perhaps he didn’t deserve it because he knew full well that without a secession from the EU as well, in practice Scotland would not have been any more independent than it currently is.
Behind the scenes, the lengths and efforts the civil service had to go to ensure the ‘right’ outcome was considerable! This caused Cameron to be frowned upon further. Then, with incomprehensible audacity, Cameron let it be known that the Queen – in whose Edinburgh castle resides the Stone of Scone – “purred” at the referendum result. It was audacious because the Queen is his sponsor!
Question marks were already being raised when he did precious little to build an energetic case for a ‘no’ vote.
Let’s be clear; ultimately the monarchy would refuse the secession of Scotland from the UK. Anyone who thinks otherwise, I implore you to study history. Trace the line of the Kingdom of Great Britain as far back as the Lost Tribes of Israel and you will begin to see the England, Scotland and Irish picture, and be stunned by what it means to be Welsh!
Besides which, Buckingham Palace can scarcely contain its fury at so many child abuse stories being aired in the past year. Stories that incriminate Prince Charles’ ‘marriage counsellor,’ Sir Jimmy Savile. The Palace can’t be impressed with how Cameron is dealing with it all. And why hard-nosed Theresa May has been assigned the job of stonewalling all compromising investigations. Her reward? Who knows. But most frontbenchers seems to have a price.
What would Prince Philip have to say? Well, if he thought it was consequential, his most reasonable question would be, “Does Scottish Independence mean reform of land ownership? Aristocrat estates and trusts privately own at least 35% of Scotland. And that’s before the Monarch’s statutory claim. Oh, didn’t you know? Yes, council tax used to be called ‘feudal aid.’ And the spiritual heir to James VI & I, exalted by the knowledge of what happened in the Herod’s Temple, is the Duke of Kent. Any significant decision regarding Scotland’s destiny will never hinge on a referendum.
So if Cameron’s out, who’s in?
Last year William Hague, former Conservative Leader, and Foreign Secretary, was moved into a holding role as Leader of the House of Commons. It was at this point that he announced he would be stepping away from Parliament at the election.
It was Hague who was primed to lead the Conservatives into this election if it had been deemed necessary – based on experiential qualification.
His special situations candidacy is ironic because it was Hague who was charged to cover-up peadophile claims linked to Ted Heath, and former Thatcher aides (including those associated with 40 care homes in North Wales) in the 80s. Subsequently, having made his way to MP, he was specifically appointed Secretary of State for Wales at the time of the Wrexham abuses inquiry.
I’m not surprised to hear that Hague’s retirement acquisition is a mid-Wales mansion. Again, most frontbenchers seem to have a price.
The one time I met Hague was beside the opposition bench dispatch box in the House of Commons – he was giving a constituent a tour.
So somehow, mainly by dumb luck and keeping his gob shut between rabbiting ‘Long term economic plan’ (Zzz), this month Cameron sealed a small majority election victory. There are many scenarios in which a calamitous constitutional, political, or economic event might compromise his leadership. At which point, Boris, having already associated himself with the stoicism of Churchill by drafting a book, will seek to step keenly into the breach. With whose support, that waits to be seen.
You might see why Cameron is out of favour and out of power. I will reflect on this – and the repercussions that are manifesting already – later.
What do you reckon the SNP’s reaction to all of this would be? In the first instance, their result in this election was sensational. In Local Government, they hold 33% of seats; the same proportion in European parliament seats. They hold 50% of the seats in the Scottish Parliament, and of the 59 Scottish seats available in the House of Commons they secured 95%!
The Japanese have a word that means ‘spirit of a name.’ Alex Salmond is an innately Scottish name that could easily conjure imagery of Salmon fishing on Loch Morar, Faskally or Tay. While Nicola Sturgeon provokes imagery of that bromidic fish found in the deep Eurasian sea – a fish known to be among the most primitive of all bony fish.
Where there was an element of romance in what Salmond embodied, there is a heavy dose of Kinnock-esque opportunism in Sturgeon. We will see just how long she maintains pressure on Trident after BAE announces their retaining and reinvestment of the Govan shipyard, which resides within her MSP constituency boundaries. Is this well-dressed fish so out of her depth that the government (via BAE) already have the hook to reel her in? I think so. Has Sturgeon been neutralised within a fortnight, reduced to a ghost who will speak in mendacity? Only time will tell.
The SNP is an adolescent party – the fact that their newly elected MPs took selfies at the government’s dispatch box before any other business, speaks volumes.
UKIP is an adolescent party too. Which begs the question, how is this system of government applicable in an age where we have enough information to decisively make our own decisions, whether it is schooling or health?
I heard a Labour spokesman claiming that the SNP support was an ‘externalisation.’ It was a poorly chosen verb. Isn’t voting for a representative, by definition, externalisation? Perhaps what the spokesman was trying to say was that the wave of support for the SNP was a comprehensive symptom of disenfranchisement?
Let’s take the 20-year-old student who beat the shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander to the seat in Paisley and Renfrewshire South. No matter how composed and good her prospects, hers were not votes for constituency representation. They were the lashing-out of a constituency that feels ignored.
Unfortunately for all those who voted for them, the notion that the SNP will be the ‘opposition’ and hold the Conservatives accountable is a false premise. There’s an implied check and balance within the structure of government but frankly, the Conservatives can do what they like for the time being – and they will.
What’s at hand is not how we change electoral details but how we change the scenery altogether. It asks us to re-think government responsibility – and raises a first principle point: if we think that we deserve representation, we must first demonstrate a degree of responsibility ourselves. For only in recognising responsibility can we hope to excel in a fast changing environment that is conducive to life and not just survival.
Why shouldn’t politics be personalised; why shouldn’t the best of a politician be there for people to see and take encouragement from? In so doing, they would not have to waste energy defending themselves.
So many appraisals of public-facing individuals are undertaken based upon archetypes associated with their role. They have had to be archetypal appraisals because we have forgotten how to discern individual credibility, ability, and even likability.
The political class has sterilised the astute, threatening to discredit them by using the weaponised pejorative ‘political correctness’ to slander plausibility. Such subversions have caused us to be uncritical of the individuals whose decisions are cast indelibly on each citizen’s life.
Discerning a politician’s character is as vital as their one line policy commitments because it’s the only way of anticipating their capacity and most likely approach in dealing with situations that fall outside the remit of think-tank scripted plans.
Cameron, for example, who is criticised within his own ranks as austere, has endeavoured to create the image of a rounded persona, but inside his unresolved nature persists. If Cameron were a more resolved individual, he would be lifted to incisiveness, rather than occupying the realm of indistinctness.
Strength of character was posed to Labour deputy leadership challengers during a special recording of Question Time in ’07. ‘Deputy leader’ was a nice tag, it was put to them, but whoever the title belonged to would have next to no influence over Brown – who had ten years pent-up ambition desperate to exert itself stubbornly and not by committee.
The Labour candidates shuffled uneasily and spent most of the remainder of the programme vying and bickering, in so doing showing no leadership presence.
Blair is the only politician whose presence genuinely took me aback – such was the energetic power of his aura. It is not to be underestimated, and not to be misinterpreted either. Indeed, there is a huge degree of compassion that one must extend to a man who has allowed himself to be occupied by such an array of malevolent intentions.
In my lecture last summer I referred to the likes of Blair and stated “Where there is no accountability, there cannot be consent. The time for those who have stood by, while we were played off against each other, to head to the door is nearing.”
Labour was poor during this recent campaign. It makes me wonder why the likes of Russell Brand massacred his contrived reputation by aligning with Miliband. They looked like a right pair of fools. Let’s not forget that Brand nicked the rEVOLution branding for the cover of his politicised book from the campaign of libertarian Ron Paul – perhaps Brand spotted the logo while he was chasing Perry’s tail? …The foe of authenticity is imitation, so maybe he’s best taking off his prayer beads and getting back on the comedy circuit.
Labour has represented socialism in the eye of many. We now live in a state of faux-capitalism that serves deeply entrenched interests and is causing a bifurcation of social ranks – where a form of neo-serfdom, forewarned by Hayek, is laid out in front of us. One might argue that the socialist agenda has run its course.
There would be those who would argue against such an assertion. Again, I would suggest that it’s essential to look to the person, to the very heart of any individual that we listen to, whether they be politicians or the authors of concepts whose ideologies give façade and momentum to public policy.
This is not an ad hominem against Marx. It’s well documented that the man socialists revere was a destructive person, with no demonstrative interpersonal morals. In spite of his ‘scientific socialism’, he was a fevered apocalyptic poet, fascinated with suicide and tragic pacts with the devil, writing, amongst other things, that “we are the apes of a cold god…I shall howl gigantic curses against mankind.”
Marx, of course, wrote about finance and capital throughout his adult life but only knew two people who worked in industrial processes. One was his uncle, who founded the company that is now Philips electronics – Marx consulted him, once.
So what line of thinking can we seek confidence in? Not one of vindicating prejudices, that’s for sure. But instead a line of thinking that is investigative and willing to explore.
If politics is not challenged at its root, it will not be changed at all.
Of all recent party leaders, Nigel Farage has been the most original. Farage is not the most astute, not the most intelligent, nor the most charismatic politician, but he is the most sincere. Over the years – facing the gnashing, gingivitis riddled teeth of European bureaucracy – Farage has trained his persona to be strong enough to repeatedly call out corrupted characters that would steamroll Europe with subversive policies.
Farage respects his mandate and respects the right to speak his version of the truth. He has been the unambiguous leader of a party that quadrupled its popular vote, gaining (as near as makes no difference) 4 million votes this election – and the leader who was the single-handed face of the party claiming the third biggest majority.
Somewhat unexpectedly, he did not win the parliamentary seat he stood for – one of the anomalies I hinted at the beginning of this article. Many constituencies ran local elections alongside the general election, and the local council results invariably matched the colour of the elected MP. But not in Thanet South, where UKIP carried the council in a landslide, but Farage lost out (?) On the ground, there were murmurings of unguarded ballot boxes, and of ‘bumbling’ officials. Some have been said that the count was a farce.
Incidentally, in the ’10 election Farage campaigned against Berk-ow in Buckingham, and was lucky to have escaped with his embodiment having suffered a plane crash. In the 2015 election, Bercow’s constituency counted 1,300 (!) spoilt ballot papers.
In spite of all these inconsistencies, Farage marches on with a degree of subservience. Perhaps he recognises that you must be in the game to play it. And his willingness to play must be commended. His resolve in holding the European parliament somewhat to account, over all these years, could not have been mustered by many professions and even fewer politicians.
What is quite apparent, to me at least, is that a referendum vote concerning UK membership of the EU will not be a simple in or out vote. And without Farage in the House of Commons, the likelihood of such a plain vote is weakened further still. The chances of this referendum occurring at all are probably less likely than the newspapers would have us believe. Be assured, even if the vote is binary and the outcome to Farage’s tune, the leech will cling on all the harder.
Concerning the general election, I believe UKIP failed itself. As an aspirational party, its manifesto needed to be far more developed, better argued, and water-tight – it wasn’t. There are only a handful of serious UKIP politicians within its ranks. I wonder how many of those were sat down, pouring over the manifesto days at a time? I didn’t see the residue of Daniel Hannan’s intellect in the manifesto, for instance. The manifesto wasn’t incisive enough and didn’t imply exhaustive consideration as to how policy recalibrations would be undertaken – i.e. making it so precise that there would be no need for interpretation.
UKIP also suffered from the breadth of constituency candidates it entered. Yes, only by being represented in the vote were they able to demonstrate their nationwide support, but it came at a cost. At times, some of their lower calibre candidates compromised the message of the UKIP campaign. There is a case to be made that if UKIP had concentrated on high calibre candidates and strong personalities, they would have gained seats.
And yet, the swings toward UKIP were breathtaking. They scored 118 second place finishes. This demonstrates the resilience of their truth in the face of mainstream media dismissal. What if those 118 second place candidates, assuming their belief in their party, had concentrated their resourcefulness into a dozen seats? Ten parliamentary-standard members working on each target seat with a vision to pierce the Commons bubble.
Perhaps UKIP’s appeal would never have reached a critical mass because they had been pulled down to one issue – immigration. A topic whose primary opponent is the paralysis of political correctness, and holds the rational mind hostage. Indeed, there’s just one last hate speech to be dealt with by the kleptocrats, truth. Maybe UKIP ought to have reminded the UK of its arguments for distancing itself from the EU, for it is under these arguments that they have sailed to political notoriety.
If there is a person courageous enough to assess the relationship of politics and sustainable truth, that person might claim that the rhetoric of representing the working class, small businesses, NHS etc is redundant and only the lack of all else sustains it.
Now ought to be the time for truth. Truth that goes to the core of the faceless state, behind which so much malevolence had been hidden. A malevolence that imposes itself in unseen emotions but is exacerbated by the tricks of state interventions. And in our agony, we ask for even more intervention, and the immediate stimulus quickly runs its course, and the grip of the unseen tightens.
Let’s take the Home Secretary for instance. In her role, she has overseen the stalling of investigations into child abuse cases linked to Leon Brittan (in whose private office Nick Clegg worked for a time) and other forner public-facing politicians. Politicians are quick to point out inconsistencies and waste etc. But what about the immediate trauma they cause onto others, directly or in their denial of just investigation.
As I have said before, one can judge an administrator’s mindset by the tone of their dealings, by how they treat those around them, and how they treat those who have been made vulnerable because of an innocence brutally taken away from them. Some conduits would fall so low as to disrespect themselves and destroy the vibrancy of the helpless, how could we expect the deeds of those who defend these conduits to be anything but egotistical?
And justice? Well, the government’s recently created Ministry of Justice is headed by the Lord Chancellor (who is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the prime minister) – and to be given to Michael Gove. Based upon this appointment, we can expect a widening disparity of justice. Gove is a Hague-esque personality if less presentable. Gove will take on the Lord Chancellor role once held by Thomas More, a memory rekindled by the dramatic adaptation Wolf Hall where Mark Rylance plays More. I would sooner have Mark Rylance – a modest but acutely ‘living’ man – appointed justice secretary than the gash Gove.
There is a psychological enigma that stems from the middle ages – that the common man is willing to bleed his potential so long as there is an explanation, any explanation whatsoever – even if not true or accurate. So long as a personality delivers the lie. The personalisation of a lie somehow makes it tolerable.
This is what it is to be enfranchised. In the fifteenth century, men with a certain amount of land were allowed to vote for a representative. They were obliged to provide evidence of their holdings, and their identity would also be catalogued alongside their date of birth.
Women’s suffrage is much talked about, but has all the consequence of the votes that went before (ie not as much as perceived). The primary outcomes were the catalogue, gauging consensus to know how to manage it, and enjoyed by anyone who’d leverage people’s misplaced confidence in their ‘right to be ignored.’
God’s nature means that a little part of our individuality is represented in every other person in the world. Hence, our instinct is to trust. We trust unless we are told to be untrusting – typically instructed by the state, or sometimes our peers. This associated trust impregnates our minds more effectively when projected into our homes, where a person is most relaxed.
The television is characterised by its one-way communication. Anything viewed on television cannot be informed by the counter-participation of a viewer; hence, the potential of the broadcasted message is totalitarian.
Perhaps this is why Theresa May’s plans to introduce ‘counter-extremism powers’ that ‘vet’ British broadcasters’ programmes before transmission. An idea that the culture secretary, Sajid Javid, described as a threat to freedom of speech because it would mean that the watchdog would become a censor (just as we see in countries of media oppression). Let’s see how long he’s able to be as forthright, especially if he’s offered a promotion.
Characters like Theresa May are only singled out because they allow themselves to be. She is but an archetype of a kind of politician any sane individual would not wish to be represented by, much less meet – which I did, once, thirteen years ago.
The year previous to Michael Howard introducing me to her at a Christmas reception at the party’s former offices on Smith Square, I’d suggested to Iain Duncan Smith that her leopard-print shoes were distracting commentators from his effort in the Commons. Coincidentally, the following week the chief whip issued a PMQ’s dress-code – she was not happy.
May, who is sharper than IDS, definitely belongs to a destructive breed of politician. It’s not only her hairdo that she has in common with the Clockwork Orange droogs.
Let’s remember, on the one hand she’s putting pressure on police numbers, and the other ramping up domestic surveillance tech. All the while she can’t define what an extremist is when presenting her counter-terrorism bills. What exactly does she mean when by (her strategy is to) “combat people seeking to divide us?”
In Paris, there are plans for 7,000 troops to patrol the streets permanently following the Charlie Hebdo Shooting. What is the experiential cost of the 7,000 troops? Nevermind the cost of anxiety imposed on a population of 2.2m. How does this human liability sit on the emotional balance sheet of this ancient City? If one considered those costs, one might realise there’s no logic, no rational, no realism, no idealism, and only subversion of potentials.
The same might be pointed out by the government’s intention to pull out of the International Bill of Human Rights. Great, so if the government has decided that it wants to create its own bill and renationalise the judicial supremacy, perhaps it can illustrate the inherent weakness of the UN bill so that other countries can learn and benefit in kind. And perhaps let’s pull out of other less meaningful accords, too?
If the UK government’s desire to withdraw from the Human Rights bill is sincere, it might be because it has caught wind of Saudi Arabia’s intention to lead the Human Rights Council. If they get the chair, it will only undermine the credibility of institutional protection of human rights.
Besides, it seems we need the most protection from the state anyway. And it is only a matter of time before the government asks for more protection from protesters.
I mocked his brother, David, for suggesting that Russia could join the EU. David Miliband’s proposal seemed preposterous, but now I have a slightly higher political opinion of him. He at least saw that there was a choice for Russia – as much as they were a long way down the road in formatting relationships with China, Kazakhstan, India etc. The EU’s brand of centralised socialism was too much for the Soviet Putin.
Going into next year, we’re likely to witness more event-driven changes than ever before. And I’ve been telling clients; we are seeing ‘peak London.’
In spite of their destructiveness (Ed, May et al), the system in which they move appeases them. Because of what they don’t share, more than what they say?
Once the elections are complete, a leader who believes he/ she can muster the support of the majority of the House must seek approval from the ruling monarch before a government can be assembled. This approval is a requirement, and not just a cute bow. That is why going to the polls is just that. It is a polling of sentiment, not a binding covenant.
The general election is a process that makes the monarch’s ‘prime minister’ easier to choose. A person selected directly by the monarch would make the people feel as disenfranchised as they are. But legitimacy comes from Queen (/King). That’s why the elections are called ‘going to the polls.’ Polling is the means of gauging sentiment. The latin root of suffrage is suffragium, meaning: to lend support.
It is the case that some people’s approval is worth more than others, and in the specific case of the election, the Queen’s support is worth more than 35 millions vote.
In Russia (for instance) you have Putin as presidential head of state, and Medvedev is his prime minister. In the UK, we have the Queen as supreme ruler (state and church), Cameron is her prime minister and Welby her arch-bishop.
On election night, Peter Mandelson understood the constitutional implications of what was unfolding better than the other panelists, especially the journalists. His correct assertion was that anyone could approach the Queen to form a government so long as she believes he can lead the House of Common(er)s.
A while ago, a Daily Mail reporter said: “Now…if you can’t get a job as a pianist in a brothel, you become a royal reporter.” By saying so he revealed the ruler’s editorial masterstroke – the monarchy, and specifically their relationship with government, would never be adequately represented in the media.
Thereby, millions have a reduced notion of the monarchs involvement in the country’s most crucial decision making; and allows the masses (via plausible deniability) to conceive a joyous ideal of what the royal family is and flock to the Mall like loyal servants from time to time.
This has been a masterstroke of the highest order. The monarchy’s ‘limited executive authority’ means that the ‘people’ can create rules to govern themselves, while the most critical decision (not least constitutional) will always be penned or vetoed by the supreme ruler. Royal Assent is the mechanism by which the British monarchy maintains rule over Commonwealth nations. It’s brilliant in its absoluteness.
In the world there are only three places with ‘elected’ monarchies, one is the Holy See, where the office of the head of state was preserved with similar means of misdirection. For a long period, the Holy Roman emperor ran ‘primes inter pares’ (first among equals) with the Roman Catholic monarch – who ruled Supreme after the last Holy Roman emperor (Francis II) was run aground by Napoleon (Catholic) in 1806. After that Francis II founded the Austrian Empire, as Francis I. The Holy Roman Empire stemmed from the Byzantine Empire, which derived from the Roman Empire.
Something remarkable happened in this 2015 general election.
As I have mentioned, I was surprised at the turnout. That the eligible voters turned out in comparable numbers as last time, and the time before, and the time before that. They would only do so because they thought that their opinion would count toward the governance of the country.
And yet, the biggest story was that in spite of voting, the opposition to the government – historically deemed to sit across the floor of the commons – is now found outside the House of Commons. In spite of four million votes, the United Kingdom Independence Party has but one representative in the chamber. Four million votes. One member in the parliament of 650.
Whether or not voters realise it, the energy of four million people’s choice – choice informed by a lifetime of experience and emotion – resides outside the House of Commons. It is the most discrediting outcome for our system of government possible. And impossible to shy away from, and that is why I expect it to be belittled. Even the willing vote has their energy deflected.
Herein lies Farage’s ironic weakness, subservience to the voting system. How do we know, the gentleman doth protest too little.
Farage is a an outspoken monarchist. He has made a concerted effort to alert the people of the encroachment of the EU (a symptom of one man wanting to control another), but incapable of developing the dialogue so that it finds relevance in every individual whose sovereignty is hindered by in a thousand other ways besides Brussels. Metric marauder, Derek Norman and the former UKIP staffer Tony Bennett, have had more success in asserting British cultural identity in courts than almost anyone else, including Farage.
I am not claiming that it is for Farage to alert the people to ideological frauds – if the truth were to be found in a name alone, then that immense privilege would be attributable to the ‘Liberal Democrats.’ What I am saying is that Farage would feel less exhausted if he knew the scale of just why he will forever be banging his head against a wall.
The administration is run by the processional Whitehall machine. Think tanks generate the policies, and powers are determined by counsel. So really all that’s left on the table is narcissistic presentation – step up Bercow, you know you want to.
It is ‘traditional’ for the elected Speaker of the House to be dragged against his will to his chair. As is the case of almost all of the traditions, we have forgotten why. At one time, the chosen Speaker got dragged from the benches and into the chair because of their reluctance to take on an uncomfortable responsibility. Today a gnome, weathered by insecurity, imitates the walk of speakers who had gravitas and presence.
Why does familiarity matter? Because people make it matter. Those who consume newspapers, news programmes and who would care to have an opinion on politics, policy and government are projecting their thoughts, their confidence, their future hope and expectations of representation on a body that cannot carry the flame – what’s more, this body doesn’t seek to.
It is a hideous sight to behold; when people seem to choose what party they like in the same way they would a pair of trainers, Adidas, Nike or Reebok. And again we arrive at our familiar charge; politics is perception, not performance. While debate is reduced to relative performance, votes will be cast on the impression of durability. The Tories have demonstrated their monopoly on durability over the centuries, but the past isn’t a sure indication of the future.
I sympathise with the public who don’t know how to navigate through the corridors of politics, just as I do the gleeful MPs .
Last month I heard that the Palace of Westminster is due for a £5bn redevelopment to treat rotting walls.
Perhaps Douglas Carswell’s refusal to take £650k pa public funding on behalf of UKIP demonstrates a willingness to be true to the values parliamentarians ought to stands for – even if it is at the cost of upsetting UKIP staffers, who now have to leave unfunded jobs. Individuals, who ought to have better contributed to their party’s election strategy?
In the summer of ’07 I met Douglas Carswell and found him to be a man with integrity and some vision. Subsequently, I paid attention to his Commons performances, and he seemed to be a true outspoken backbencher and refused to turn a blind eye to hypocrisy. This has been demonstrated by his recent funding stand and further illustrated by a proposal he made to reform banking legislation (which you can see by clicking on the image below).
The bill Carswell proposed was one that would give depositors ownership over their bank deposits – believe it or not, that’s currently not the case. Hence, the multifaceted appeal of BitCoin. The need for ownership was highlighted in autumn ’08. It seems to me that ’08 was a primer for a day of reckoning. Carswell is a man who is versed in monetary implications and the mechanics of capital flows, and hence an asset in the Commons, especially after a prolonged election campaign where no systemic recalibration was discussed.
In the UK, where the taxpayer is regulated to lassitude, we hear that Cameron will seize illegal workers’ wages (so that they can claim benefits?) – I wonder how many hundreds of individuals will be embroiled in the scouting, identification, policing, and judiciary of this plan? We can assume that the money markets (the king of the ‘standard of living’ castle) are regulated similarly? No.
I mentioned earlier that Andrew Balls (Ed’s brother) is global chief investment officer of Pimco ($1.6tr AUM). Pimco manages both sovereign and corporate bonds. The total value of the corporate bond market it $7.7tr (or 3x UK GDP). So how many employees do you reckon the US’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have monitoring the corporate bond market? Give it your wildest guess…go on. It matters because Cameron would employ hundreds to enforce the seizure of illegal workers’ wages.
The SEC has half an employee looking over the corporate bond market i.e. one person spends half their time on it. Could there be a more potent example of misplaced priorities? The government is horrendous at regulating, but if it must, at least it should regulate that which underpins the framework in which its citizens pour their energy – money and money markets. Governments should do so without stuffing banks with idiotic compliance officers that drive out market-making talent.
Who invests in corporate bonds? Real money does (e.g. pension funds). If I say ‘real market,’ you might think that there are other markets that are not real money. Well, the hypothecation of markets that real money invest in are called derivatives. Derivatives are not regulated, because:
1) They are the vehicle by which investments banks have generated most of their profits since the merger of merchant and commercial banks – initiated by Thatcher and Reagan and subsequently stoked by Clinton and Blair who poured a container-load of petrol on the fire (abolition of Glass-Steagall).
2) Derivatives have complex counter-party interdependence, and so they are impossible to value in isolation, let alone in bundles.
3) Derivatives dwarf the size of bond markets.
4) Many bundles of multi-trillion derivatives now sit off balance sheet on countries’ inventory books, thanks to the shift of ‘bad assets’ off private balance sheets post-Lehman. The industry didn’t bear Lehman’s derivative exposure because it would have been too big for them to absorb. Indeed, it was so bad that it was split between nations (UK, Germany, US…), which has subsequently bound these countries into supporting Zero Interest Rate Policies (Zirp) across the board. The countries that have a normal base interest rate are the few that didn’t buy into this time bomb, notably Russia.
Governments and central banks have been forced to decree policies that inverted every fundamental law of economics so that they might generate enough cash flow for the operations of banks to continue, and to service their short term maturities (ie paying back the principal on a loan). If the nations didn’t, large sections of business and society would face their insolvency by being driven to illiquidity and go bankrupt. Let’s remember that bankruptcy is not the destruction of wealth; only the transfer of it.
When I see junior public-sector staff on the streets with tacky boards, and slogan printed t-shirts protesting at ‘austerity,’ I have to turn away. Their disgruntledness is akin to a fisherman’s apprentice demanding a raise while the boat’s captain is wondering where all the fish have gone, only to realise they’ve been sucked back in the undercurrent of a cataclysmic tsunami.
In the meantime, you can thank derivatives for your £30 per month iPhone with technology inconceivable a generation ago; thank derivatives for allowing the monetary base inflation that rubbed off on your house so that you could remortgage and visit awe-inspiring Orlando (lol), or prune the furnishings of your home to perfection. Thank derivatives for an Audi estate that does 0-60 in 3.7 sec (Testarossa sprinted in 5.3sec) bought on finance with only a £12k deposit.
These are all impressive trinkets, and the inviting froth of a disempowering magic trick that has truncated all future economic prosperity into a twenty-year time window – scarcely enough time to think of what we would like. The liability imposed by the derivatives web is monumental and can only be interpreted with hope if you relate to an idea of bifurcating spiritual realms. Otherwise, what’s left is undigestible.
We are unlikely to bask in a deflationary recalibration. I believe that the systemic weight will be so all-encompassing that liabilities will be recalibrated into a new form of currency. This systemic risk is a contributing factor driving domestic surveillance and the militarisation of the police. What May is spearheading was initiated under the Blair regime.
In the wake of the 2015 election, the chair of the police federation, Steve White, admitted that this is the end of policing by consent.
The guys you saw celebrating at the declaration results, and who you see in your newspapers poncing, have little to do with the greater mechanics of what’s unfolding. Their plausible deniability allows for great moves to be committed; one of the greatest humane crimes (defrauding human labour) has unfurled with no opposition. It is staggering!
So you see, even if Douglas had passed his bill enforcing depositor ownership of money, it would have been but a drop in the ocean. Do you see how detached politics is from the mechanisms that govern reality?
The value of money has been flogged, flogged, and flogged post-08. Zirp, unsterilised quantitative easing, and the low velocity of money have allowed the Conservative government to sleepwalk through the last five years. Zirp represents the abandonment of economic fundamentals – and has removed capital formation incentives, bank capitalisation, and authentic price discovery. It has also amputated people’s respect for money.
It is said that a corruptor of anything is where the money is. So what happens when money loses value and loses respect? If something is unvalued, it won’t be protected. Has politics lost intrinsic value and respect, too? If it has, then the shift of power beyond the walls of Westminster might be as I suggest – and that is why the propaganda is barefaced.
Is the people’s power submissive like Farage? After all, to corrupt a system of people, all you have to do is overload it. What goes on without our explicit consent is blinding. Distressing situations are always without closure. Just as vulgar poetry has no closure, so it is with institutional personalities who morph into predatory, parasitic and aggressive figures; sympathetic to corrupting the kernel of all beingness.
We might not stop to recognise it, but where there is a willingness for death, suffering, and decay, there is the Distortion. Few will recognise just what a nightmare this world is, and there is a majority that will ignore or side with it. For the remaining, life is uncomfortable but not disempowering. Straining to the point of letting go will involve a crisis of existential angst for a truth-seeker, but this episode is usually indicative of a resurrection.
My local MP is an outspoken backbencher who is set apart from others for revering the kernel of life, conception. Above is an image of me (white shirt) applauding her in ’08 – meanwhile the Oxford University Conservative Association table could only muster misogynistic jeers.
Nadine Dorries retained her seat in this election with a 15k majority. And although she was the standout candidate in the constituency I didn’t vote for her. I did not vote in the election at all.
You might assume I didn’t vote because of a reluctance to energise a compromised electoral system further or that it was my disdain for the least substantive national campaigning I have seen – where politicians repeatedly underestimated the public.
I didn’t vote because I felt let down. Here was a woman who tried to stand up to Cameron, who I have seen first-hand to be a no-nonsense kind of woman, and who I have walked alongside. But when I visited her website, I read that she had defeated the plans for an incinerator in the constituency. Naturally, this was positive news, but when I went to look for news stories related to her ‘triumph,’ I found that her claim was a play on words and at best she had stalled the programme. What’s more, there are plans for a gas power station next to the incinerator site.
Maybe the statement on her website was submitted by a Constituency agent lacking poise? Either way, the spin was dishonest. And, given the strength of her constituency support, unnecessary. So how could I vote for Nadine? Even her voting in the last parliamentary cycle betrayed the guiding principles that she once held dear.
We do not have to agree with everyone on values and principles. But one’s values do determine what we strive for. To arrive at values, we must consider, discern and recognise. And hence if we are to ask this of politicians, we must demonstrate and hold this point of perspective ourselves.
It might be stating the obvious, but politicians have little to be falsely modest about. I believe that Cameron and Conservative Campaign HQ can be embarrassed by their complacent tone. Watching the indulgent smugness of Cameron after the election was like seeing a dog lick its genitals.
Two minutes on a mobile phone is enough to entrain a brain for two hours. I would suggest that two days of election rhetoric is enough to entrain a populous for two months. I believe that the Conservatives can do what they like for two months and be without reproach – especially while Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are rudderless.
Students will always have their student debt to remember Nick Clegg by. But one service that the Liberal Democrats did do us was to oppose the Communications and Data Bill (‘snooper charter’). The Lib Dems refused to back it in the last parliament, and we can assume that the Conservatives will push it through when current legislation expires next year.
I wonder if the period to the end of July-15 is the timeframe Cameron has to earn any deferred payments still scheduled to be redeemed after his premiership. He had two weeks in which to ask the Queen to form a government, and he asked her on VE day. There is no denying that Cameron is in a rush – suggesting that he’s worried that his executive power is going to be revoked.
In an era where Obama has obliterated all executive order records, Cameron is now off to the races. He and Osborne have appointed the luckiest pre-IPO Goldman Sachs partner there was, Jim O’Neill, to head a newly created ‘Commercial Secretary at the Treasury’ post. His remit is to turn ‘the north into a powerhouse.’ Of course, this is a ploy.
In recent times, O’Neill made the claim that we have seen lower growth because of chronic underinvestment – highlighting that he’s an academic at best. If he was real, he’d acknowledge Zirp’s detrimental effects on all legitimate investment, and be challenging the government whose role is not to reallocate capital.
So what has O’Neil been asked to smokescreen on behalf of Cameron and Osborne? Fracking, of course!
Within a week of the election, the fracking application process has been cut from 6 to 2 weeks. Fracking companies are reapplying across northern provinces – right where O’Neill has been charged toto ‘re-industrialise.’
This will be the legacy of Cameron, a politically hollow man who’s gladly accepted the label of being a ‘compassionate liberal.’ It is a rouse. The contemporary interpretation of liberalism is the inversion of its original meaning. Today extreme liberalism means catching up with Sweden, whose government want to use taxes to repatriate Islamic State fighters, integrate them into their population with the benefit of tax aid. How well do Sweden’s combat veterans get treated, you might ask. Well, they don’t even get offered jobs.
Where is the freewill? Freewill is the basis of Liberalism. Where is the permission to seize property (money) to be used in order to force individuals of high conviction to return from dessert territories and be integrated with Volvo-driving blondes of an alpine state?
The extreme liberalism story doesn’t stop there. Sweden wants to offer psychological help to Islamic State soldiers to help them overcome their trauma. If only these do-gooders had a glimpse into the karmic wheel of God’s ultimate design, or recognised that between lives your actions are laid bare before your higher-self which recognises the imposition and pain you’ve caused. Ultimately we judge our actions and punish ourselves consciously or not.
* Remember * Who * You * Are *
Sod Hollyoaks, turn away from the BBC, stop drinking aspartame-laced pop and stuffing your faces with Great British Bake Off-style cup cakes and get real!
This is not Dostoyevsky realism. This is the realism that can only be integrated and absolved by light. You will face the trials of cognitive dissonance and existential angst, but these are nothing compared to a purgatory without end.
When you see life, your subconscious kicks in and you’ll sense that governments have been infiltrated with those carrying mental disorders. You see, they do not wish to limit your potential so that they can reign in an abundant wealth. They seek to limit your potential because they cannot bear to see others rise-up to the life-challenge of responsibility and realise their potential – this is the hardest task for it involves accepting your weakness and having the humility to once again receive a love that you long ago rejected and in doing so have reason to respect yourself.
So why does the framed photograph of a valium addict adorn the mantelpieces of country piles throughout the land? How does a traumatised vessel seduce the influential? Or does he? Is he told to swing from the chandelier of power?
Boy George is about to oversee the implementation of a financial transactions tax – the means by which the precariously positioned (i.e. endemically insolvent) UK financial system will fold in on itself. It is a system that places the ordinary depositor so low on its list of priorities that it charges them to deposit money. Indeed, while there is Zirp, banks lose money in servicing their depositor base, which made it all the more difficult for Douglas Carswell to get any momentum behind his failed bill.
So how have banks made their money? By speculating in complexity. And when they do – when liabilities mature, and the cash runs out – they turn to the State to nationalise financial instruments so toxic that even leading industry experts can’t untangle and appropriate accounting values. The rationale for such lack of valuations is that there is no longer a need for accounting standards since the model of our economy is to expand the monetary base at a rate faster than the ‘growth’ numbers. The technical name for this arrangement is Ponzi scheme.
What’s more, since ’09, the Western financial industry has been reporting business results based upon ‘model accounting’ rather than ‘mark-to-market,’ which was the standard for decades before. In so doing, accounting standard has prolonged the day of reckoning. That is to say, banks can claim to have assets valued at whatever level they deem, whether or not that price can be realised in the open market.
The open market, what a quaint notion. Today more than 90pc of all trades are algorithmic. Trading volumes are at historic lows, and volatility has been too. Star traders are leaving investment banks for the lack of stimulation and (relative) remuneration. And what awaits us next might be politicians making cash illegal to ‘end boom and bust.’ This will be the ultimate enslavement and will make the root chakra-shackling fear imposed by debt seem blissful.
At the very top, I said that there was a technical outcome of the 2015 election that counted more than all others, that the Conservatives won a majority. They gained a majority even though 76% of voting age Britons didn’t vote for Conservative representation. Within that 76%, there will be a range of convictions. Within the 24% that did there will be a range of convictions.
Somewhere in this spectrum will be a substantial portion of voters who feel scandalised by all political leadership on offer. There are those who say that election processes themselves can’t change fast enough. I have even heard an argument outlining the merits of crowdfunded candidates.
The case I’d make is that this 2015 general election produced a result that’s a symptom of broader phenomena. It has indicated, unequivocally, that this system of representation is done. That its energetic charter is finished. The people who don’t already will soon have every reason to know that they’re disenfranchised and in being so, see that they can only remove their support from the system.
Within the old walls of a palace positioned along the Thames, men who would envisage masquerading in stoicism rummage their reserves of archetypal nostalgia before deploying belated efforts to instill ‘reforms.’ “Steady as she goes” is their mantra. They second-guess their spoken words because they believe trustworthiness is based on the superficial. And yet they’re serving roles in this time of ineluctable importance.
It is time that we realise all wars ever waged – whether on countries or on citizens – can be reduced to a single idea: that people should be controlled. It’s the great lie.
Wars perpetrated by governments are beyond count, and can only be differentiated by their relative severity; for all disputes are a war on man’s potential – the oppressive overtones encroach from foreign policy through to our kitchen tables, and the moods we carry.
Sections of the electorate might plead ignorance and hopelessness in equal measure because this is the reaction of fearfulness. A person in fear has little faith in themselves, or else their faith would dissolve the fear. If one hasn’t the faith in themselves, why would they have faith in a peer? Herein lies the trick. The trick’s ally is the show (i.e. media projection), its crafted imagery, and the backdrop of grandeur. Our fear displaces the faith we’re handed at birth. This faith is first the responsibility of the parents and then the maturing individual.
Too often, if the parents haven’t already done so, the individual will throw their faith (in themselves) in the direction of the most conceited and disingenuous administrators of limitation (i.e. government). Hope is a binder, where it is placed there it will attach. In knowing this, one must be careful where they put their faith. If you put your confidence in a politician, get to know them. Do all you can to ensure that they deserve your precious trust. You might find that you best represent your life-inspiring faith.
Lest we forget that the governments (we elected) have created the particular toxic condition in which the Islamic State has flourished in decadent anger. And the Islamic State is the foodstuff of a fear that will cause a further infringement of beautiful possibilities within our own country. Perhaps this dynamic hasn’t been apparent, and that is partly due to a broken media system. Media ought to be there to help us integrate information, but it is sadly letting us down.
There are aspects of truth everywhere. We should be encouraged to gather these glints of truth, and know that truth complements truth. Truth captures and captivates your attention in longevity. In the first instance, truth can be uncomfortable, and this discomfort takes energy to process – in these cases, it can be treated akin to training. But you will be willing to train, for the feats it will allow you to achieve will be prolific and expansive. Most importantly, truth captures your imagination because imagination charges with emotion and emotion gets things done!
This is why our emotions have been used against us, why our emotions are distracted by design. It is why our emotions are laid ineffective while subplots scheme. When our emotional body is clear, then the intellect will be put in its rightful place (subservient to the heart) and in being there distill what is unfolding around, and what our tacit political consent is associating with.
At the moment, the UK’s relationship with the US is tense because the UK decided to be one of the founder signatories of China’s AIIB bank, which is a financial institution designed to operate in a post-dollar reserve currency world.
I mentioned great monarchies that stem from long ago. Did you know that besides the spiritual seat of the Vatican, and the financial seat of the City of London, there is a third seat which represents military prowess — Washington DC. And that in Washington DC there is Capitol Hill, named after the Roman Empire’s seat of government — Capitoline Hill. Caesar officiated upon the Senate ‘up on the hill.’
Did you know that the Roman Catholic Pope Francis (direct office lineage of the Holy Roman Emperor) will address Congress (i.e. the House of Representatives and the Senate) on the 24th September 2015 on Capitol Hill?
Pope Francis will be completing a circle back to Emperor Francis II in a ceremony designed by the occult dominion of religion, finance, and military, to declare their vision of New Jer-Usa-Lem.
No man can be resigned to defeatism because in being so inclined, they are quite directly resigned (don’t confuse resigned with reconciled) to leaving an embittered world behind for their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. What kind of man would wish that?
And yet, in our resistance of defeatism, we lack an ideology of actionable faith. We toil in the undistilled ideology of maintaining big government, which continues rolling over large contracts with civil engineering, pharmaceutical, and arms & surveillance companies – and teasing the public with insulting partial truths and instilling a sense of choicelessness. Our streets decay instep with our uncritical minds as the broader world is changing at a phenomenal pace.
Value yourself. Do not be goaded by distraction posing as liberalism. Distill truth – you will know truth because it doesn’t need rhetoric to buffet its elevation because it complements itself. The old sphere is fighting the new. One will pass through the other because the coming age wishes to renew.
Some of my youth was spent with the current ‘golden generation’ of senior Conservative politicians. It was an experience I invited and was inviting. Perhaps I learnt something of these characters, but it took me a great deal more to appreciate the nuances of institutional cooperation.
I affirm that a conscious interpretation of the world amounts to ‘spiritual’ interpretation. It is how the unseen becomes seen. By re-engaging sensitivities, one will not overindulge in distraction and begin to put right what is wrong.
Our intellects have adopted many bad habits. One is a position that society needs a big government to direct every move. The premise of this fallacy is that without the faceless state, there would be ‘chaos.’ I beg to differ.
‘Self-organising chaos’ is the way nature governs itself. It abides by the rhythmical cycles and can’t impose itself more than the balance of harmony permits; otherwise it would destroy the eco-system supporting it. If the ability to express empathy on an individual basis is removed (because of impoverishment, fear, and embitterment), then regimes of self-certified control will destroy the ecosystem – you.
We are at the point of choosing pulverisation or regeneration.
Be mindful. Let’s not confuse ‘self-organising chaos’ with the irresponsible, reckless and destructive louts who selfishly labeled themselves anarchist in the ’70s. And let’s not confuse ‘self-organising chaos’ with tyranny, for tyranny is the self-aware distortion that pushes us further away from our original state of authentic individual identity.
Chaos is a cousin of freedom, and freedom respects individual decision. Hence, if a person does wrong to a group, that person will face the consequence of ostracism. This is a basic example but look at it the other way. If a person does something good, they will earn respect. In so doing, their opportunity to develop empathic intelligence will be stimulated. Our empathetic intelligence is pretty much flat-lining instep with politicians.
This is directly related to the between truth and lies. Currently, it’s not so much of a struggle, because lies are overruling all. One might say it’s because the government hasn’t provided us with what Thomas Aquinas called the raison d’être of government: the opportunity for contemplation. Instead, the state grows at the expense of those it claims to serve, and those citizens, us, are embroiled in its web.
Here we find the inherent problem with all political parties – a lack of coherent ideology. An ideology is a vision. But much like perfection, ideology is an elusive destination.
However, ideology inspires, supports; it galvanises, and it is the trust which guarantees an experientially rich life journey.
There a great Bedfordian called John Bunyan who remarked:
“You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.”
Consider, dream, and act. Our enacted reality can only be that which you allow yourself to conceive. I understand that for an individual embroiled in the web, a dream is an imagining difficult to hold onto because while we live alongside one another, an individual’s dream cannot manifest instantly, for it would impose on another’s. This is what is called a ‘spiritual’ journey.
For those denial addicts who choose not to create a beautiful dream, please feel free to take this grommet out of your ear and…
…La la, la la la la la na na na na na
La la na na, la la la la la na na na na na
La la na na, la la la la la na na na na na
La la na na, la la la la la na na na na na…”