FOUR IDEOLOGIES & A FUNERAL FOR LIBERTY: WHY A DARK FUTURE FACES THE RESISTANCE

The relevance of PMQs and Twitter – either to each other or the future of our species – may not at first sight be obvious. In this extended post, The Slog argues that the real problem is divided opposition to the greatest global danger; and the evasive dishonesty of ideological defensiveness is a catalyst for the growth of that problem.

Whenever I watch Prime Minister’s Questions (which is very rarely these days) I find myself increasingly convinced that it’s a sort of diabolical cross between the Yes/No interlude and Twitter.
For those readers not over 65, I should explain that the Yes/No interlude was part of  a 1950s game show, Take Your Pick, hosted by a ghastly man called Michael Miles. Each week the contestants would have to avoid saying either yes or no for 60 seconds, while being asked rapid-fire questions by Miles. Very few managed it.
Today, most people under 30 would fail by virtue of yesbutnobut, or the increasingly prevalent Yesno. Millions more would pass easily by saying Dunno. Most people in public life beyond show business, however, would be the perfect contestant in that they rarely if ever say either yes or no about anything.
On the whole, politicians never answer any questions at all, let alone with yes or no; and that tendency has now moved on to the increasing cesspit of mania and denial formerly known as Twitter. Let me illustrate by example.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
At the start of today’s PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn asked David Cameron three separate questions about the recent floods, all requiring a simple answer to a simple question about previous investment cuts in flood defences and bridge repairs. Each of the PM’s replies could be sequentially categorised as follows:
patriotism – ignoring – evading – hiding – statistics – ignoring – insulting –  joking – complicating – reverse questioning – answering another question – point-scoring – patriotism – strong economy – insulting – sitting down.
In short, failure to answer any single element of the questions directed at him in any way whatsoever.
Sometimes, under pressure – when the profile of the question is too high for the runaround deceit – a Minister will have a pre-agreed lie to hand. Once emitted, the lie is then defended with constant repetition – as, for example, about the Newscorp Boxing Day lunch, the misuse of power by Jeremy Hunt during the BSkyB bid, the number of hours being worked in the economy, the average household take-home pay since 2008, and the repayment of Britain’s national debt. So one can précis the process like this:
Ignore   Evade   joke   stats   insult   lie   repetition

The two things missing are a straight answer and logic. The element added is that of putting the questioner in the wrong on another topic. It’s a foolproof system if you’re a bigot either trying to defend the indefensible or hide the illogic of your argument – and it is now in almost universal use on Twitter. The difference – and this is really where the trouble starts with the Jack Dorsey Jitterbug – is when the followers of the person with whom one’s trying to have a debate decide to wade in; however, the MO of the process has the same three absences – Yes, No, and a straight answer – as per in the Take Your PM’s Questions fusion.

 

Second example. Yesterday I came across a Libyan Muslim lady who tweeted, I thought disingenuously, that she wished to express ‘sympathy for Sikhs attacked as a result of Islamophobia’.

The Sikhs were attacked thanks to American ignorance and racism, not Islamaphobia – a term of which I’m always wary, because it represents one of the standard weapons of the Islamic apologist. So I asked politely whether she could explain why she had used the word Islamaphobia.

The usual innocently obtuse and diversionary questions came back, and within two tweets I was being asked what my solution was to the fellow-travelling thing. So I said ‘not my place, I’m not a Muslim’ and I got

‘OK then, tweet me when you have an idea’

Now you see, I’ve been branded the ignoramous, so the blame bounces back to me. And so it continued….andonandonandon. Then a follower chipped in to say ‘well then, do you blame Christianity for this that and etc etc’ – to which I responded ‘Yes I do’….even though the premise of two wrongs making a right is an infantile level of reasoning. She didn’t seem to know what to do with that.

Finally, Miss Libya returned on high camel to tell me I was ‘so rude’, and that she had tried hard to answer all my questions but nothing satisfied me. At which juncture, a further disciple blundered in to call me ‘a querulous troll’, and this in turn got retweeted by two further kneejerks.

In this exchange, the outcome is very similar to the PMQs strategy –

Ignore   Evade   joke     insult   lie

  • and had I not called a halt here we would’ve moved on to repetition.

°°°°°°°°°°°°

There are various points I’m making about these two very different media forms, and I will try to summarise them now…before moving on to the macro ramifications.

 

  1. Neither PMQs nor Twitter are (at least 90% of the time) in any way real-life debates – they are propaganda output designed to frustrate the emergence of an objective truth and thus protect a controlling ideology.
  2. Objective Truth is of course a difficult cove to lasso, but the closer one gets to it, the more one gets stable consensus.
  3. By contrast, PMQs and Twitter are the contemporary equivalents of 1930s Soviet show trials, in which the aim is not to gather evidence, but to frustrate, anger and then divide those they see as The Enemy…but most definitely not allies in a mission to improve the human condition.

 

The four most dangerous controlling ideologies in the World today, I would argue, are Tiny Elite neoliberalism, Big State socialist correctionism, Islam and Superstate-funded Globalist colonialism. (The best reason I can give for wanting out of the EU is that it’s the only entity of any size that manages to squeeze in every one of those threats to personal liberty).

 

But as I’ve written on numerous occasions, the very act of attacking these four tribes instantly evokes quadraphonic bile, and excommunication from their temples. I don’t mind this personally – anyone who cannot discern the dangers to freedom in, respectively, fascism, political correctness, state-sponsored religion and monopolism needs help: the last thing I want is to be caught up in that. However – and this is by far my main concern here – I think it is primarily globalist colonialism that drives the other three….and, in two cases at least, also divides any opposition they may have to it.

 

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

 

Once you start to study closely where the power is – and I’ve been at that game now for six years online and on the ground – it is with globalist manufacturing and services – that is, multinational makers, banking movers, and media moguls. They buy the legislators, blackmail the political executives, sway mass opinion, bankroll the Parties, employ billions of citizens, break the law, pervert the police and put pressure on the judiciary.

Without this group, radical expansionist Islam would be but a tiny schism among worshippers of Allah. What brought them onto the world scene as a threat was the duplicitous and infinite obsession of US-dominated globalism with control of energy resources, and in some cases money given directly to nutcases in order to make them the enemies of America’s enemies. What makes Islamism an internally destructive entity is its religious schisms going back centuries, and largely unresolved…and the US has played on this, but ionically grown ‘the whole’.

In turn, what fanned the flames of an Israel-hatred and broader anti-Semitism was the unquestioning support of Washington for Tel Aviv’s situation. As it happens, I support it too – virulent anti-Semitism is a given throughout much of the Middle East, and I loathe the envious and obscene nature of most of it. But the fact is that while Israel needs protection from radical Islam, the help it gets from the US compounds the problem….being driven by as it is colonialist global business which is often Jewish-controlled. Although many take me to task for saying this, a lot of Islamism is ineluctably linked to Arab nationalism.

This traditional ‘IS’ wing of socialism in general, and liberal self-styled progressivism, wade in on the side of ‘the Arabs’ (itself a silly generalisation) because they see them as gallant opponents of US exploitation. In recent years this has reached Animal Farm proportions of fanciful bigotry, along the lines of ‘Arab good, Israel bad’. The fact that, in terms of democracy, stability, sheer hard work and scientific advance, Israel makes a mockery of this model makes no difference: once again, blind ideology is in play.

That blindness forces the socialist/progressive axis and its feminist wing to confront the reality of cultural antithesis between Islamic misogynists on the one hand and shrill misandry on the other. Their answer to this is to park the Elephant in the upstairs boxroom, and pretend it isn’t there…..excreting through the living-room ceiling.

Finally, the neoliberal social model is right behind the globalist free-market fantasy, but there are complications. First, the immediate social effect is pauperisation of the poor and the immigrant….this is demonstrable fuel for the radicalisation of Islamic youth, both in the French banlieu and the British sink Estate. And second, being largely so-called ‘Right-wingers’, those behind free markets also tend to be nationalist….which makes them anti-Superstate.

Viewed in the British context, the line-up now looks like this:

Conservatives – Friedmanite, anti-socialist, pro-globalist, split on Superstate membership

UKip – Nationalist, anti-socialist, virulently anti-SuperState membership

Labour – Split between mixed-economy socialists and harder-Left growing opposition to social effects of neoliberalism, largely pro-SuperState

Liberal Democrat – almost extinct, all over the place

Scottish National Party – anti-Westminster, pro-SuperState, pro-Socialist/social justice but anti Scottish Labour

 

This is the bottom line: all of these have internal contradictions, but all of them are tribes following an ideology. They literally repel each other most of the time. They are all fractured and controlled by globalist colonialism because it alone is genuinely united by one undivided ideology: domination through material greed.

 

To repeat a point I’ve made many times: the dominant ideology wins because everyone in it has the same interest – in every sense of the word. It isn’t an active conspiracy, and never was….rather, it is a homogenous psychographic of those with one goal – MORE. It has no real philosophy – it just borrows them to suit its goal – whether it be Ted Levitt or Milton Friedman is completely irrelevant.

All the other players – political Parties, religious sects, supranationalists and so on – squabble within themselves and between themselves about strategy, means, tactics and ends. That’s why – as long as they conform to (and wallow in) ridiculous rituals like Twitter and PMQs, they do not stand a snowball in Hell’s chance of stopping the dominant ideology.

18 thoughts on “FOUR IDEOLOGIES & A FUNERAL FOR LIBERTY: WHY A DARK FUTURE FACES THE RESISTANCE

  1. ‘Domination through material greed’? Ah, yes, that will be Tony Blair, and confusingly, the heir to Blair, one Gordon Brown , who set up the tax credit systems, to legalise the something for nothing society, which Dave, the self proclaimed ‘heir to Blair’ has left in place.

    Like

  2. I had the misfortune to endure PMQs today and nothing is improving. I would simply ask this of people, do you think it is acceptable for Cameron to simply chide, obfuscate and deflect any critique of his programme?

    If I as a professional am expected to account for my actions on the public record I certainly wouldn’t keep my job for long if I played Cameron’s game.

    Like

  3. I’ll refer my learned friend to a reply I gave in 1963

    It might be fun if Corbyn stood at PMQs and asked Cameldung one question only and left – “Are you going to answer any questions today” Cameldung can then go on at length about the history of determinism and then we can all go home. The system stinks, we all know it stinks but these little fellows would be lost without it. You cannot rationalise with these people …. which means you have to beat them up – it’s all we have left.

    Like

  4. People are the same as they ever were but the form and mechanisms of he modern business corporation which are mimicked by government agencies, NGO’s, and the executive branches of government, along with modern communications have made herding them far easier. The herders never had it so easy.

    I’ll pass on if the list of ideologies are actually ideologies but the wanting more thing is spot on. While the herders are very successful on the whole they are more and more engaged in idiotic pursuits and this is leading to ever larger groups leaving the herd. Most just resign but a few take up challenging the herders but their methods end up being anarchism. The most aggressive among them are simply those who want to be the new herders.

    Well this boring and senseless taxonomy probably doesn’t make much sense but the point is the center is not going to hold.

    Like

  5. Absolutely. Our democracy has become a sham, where the elites win every time through a rigged and corrupt system. Cameron isn’t a national leader but merely a PR man for the real rulers, in charge of keeping the media in line and conning the public into thinking that foreign wars and privatisation are in their interests, and that anyone who opposes those policies is an extremist.
    I never thought I’d say this but I think our only hope now is a Corbyn-led Labour government.

    Like

  6. I am afraid that there are no four or any kind of ideologies to talk about. Actually there is a void, an emptiness because neoliberals, socialists, neoconservatives and other fruitcakes in the block are not ideologies. They are simply as you say material greed. Only a very small portion of humanity is driven by ideology. But don’t misjudge the power of religion either as faith, or as tradition. Also don’t misplace nationalism as a power behind state-run ideology. Both religion and nationalism are driving Asia and Africa to the edge of their capacity to survive. As for the West it has nothing but a paranoia of domination and power in the midst of its decadence and corruption. But this doesn’t mean that the West is out, or irrelevant. The world is poised to take over its place and the struggle for this replacement may end to the lower common denominator, a small nuclear encounter with our death wish.

    Like

  7. While I cannot tell if you are a libertarian or a librarian, JW, I’d like to tease you with an observation on the current quest for POTUS, if you don’t mind. After Obama’s tears, I reckon the contest will fracture along gender lines and the ripples out from there will expand and wreak destruction elsewhere. If (when, more like) there is another shooting atrocity before November, Obama needs only to crack red-hot angry because he can do no more to keep guns away from crazies. Hillary, OTOH, will be compelled to buy into the arguments. Although a proven grandma, she cannot resort to public weeping as a motivating response. Neither will she be able to concoct a usable recipe of legislation with which to campaign. So, she cannot move the balance point toward reason, on that, but will be tempted, and tried, to crack hardy on foreign matters. Hillary will, then, be at great risk of over-reach. She may, as a true supranationalist, shape up a promise to sink the Belgrano. All in the interests of world peace, of course.

    Like

  8. “Once you start to examine closely where the power is…” I agree entirely with this JW, but I think you miss a major power behind the throne. There is a fifth ideology that is doing at least as much damage to the world. That of Zionism. I realise that you acknowledge that the U.S. has demonstrated “unquestioning support for Tel Aviv’s situation”, but I would question whether it is this support in itself that has fanned the flames of antisemitism. I would suggest that most of the reasoned opposition to Israel is rooted in the actions of Israel itself. The apartheid-like and supremacist policies promoted by Talmudic settler groups and Likud zealots such as Netanyahu are apparent to any honest observer. When combined with the deliberate false equation Jew=Zionist=Israel and the pernicious canard anti-Zionist=antisemite, legitimate criticism of appalling behaviour on the part of Israel is deliberately morphed into antisemitism, and can often lead to a failure to discriminate between an ideology and a ethnicity/religion.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/holocaust-survivor-israeli-minister-labeling-criticism-israel-anti-semitic-trick.html

    BTW in terms of arabic anti-semitism, before the Zionist movement arrived, Jews lived peacefully in many Arabic countries. Indeed, although not arabian, there is a thriving Jewish community in Iran whose members have repeatedly refused offers of relocation to Israel.

    I realise that there is a danger that you will write off this comment as ‘wider antisemitism’, but the facts would suggest that Zionist Likudists wield enormous influence not only in the U.S., but also in both the U.K. and France. A quick survey of the key decision-makers in the PNAC group, those that had a stranglehold on U.S. and thus N.A.T.O. foreign policy would reveal a common thread. A large majority are Jewish Zionists and several are dual U.S./Israeli citizens. Indeed, it is said that when GWB asked his father “Who are the Neocons?”, George Senior replied “In a word, Israel.”

    The power of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Friends of Israel is acknowledged, and CRIF wields considerable influence in France. As Gilad Atzmon has repeatedly observed, “Jewish power is the capacity to control and limit the discussion of Jewish power. This facilitates the silencing of all discussion of the ‘Israel lobby’.

    I do not disagree with the majority of the above post, but much as your discussion of significant lobby groups in Washington omitted AIPAC, I believe Zionism is an ideology that has at least as much to answer for as Islam, especially as devotees of Zionism are objectively far more powerful in the West than radical muslims.

    Personally I revile supremacist Zionism, Wahhabism and all fundamentalisms, but there are certainly different standards applied to the honest discussion of the behaviour of their adherents.

    Like

  9. We are constantly being betrayed to a larger and larger extent by the incumbent elite imbeciles.Try not to feed the many headed tax monster – we have to starve the beast before it devours us. Vocal and written opposition is simply ignored.

    Like

  10. As the pm says ”we can afford this because we have a strong economy”…..
    errmm…perhaps we have a big overdraft …..which gets bigger every month.
    Taxpayers are not getting fair value from the people that manage their countries in the eu or the UK. We are being royally screwed.

    Like

  11. This year will mark the beginning of the problem of governments NEVER paying off debt. Instead, they roll it and add to it year after year. Well, 2016 will mark an outrageous roll as the equivalent of nearly half of the USA’s national debt has to be refunded. Major economies need to raise about $7.1 trillion U.S. dollars to refinance debt. Germany alone has around €203 billion euros of new debt that it has to sell, which is a considerable challenge in view of the fragile global economy.
    Then there will be a Sovereign default – but who and when?
    Afterwards, the hyperinflation begins and at lightning speed.

    Like

  12. “Personally I revile supremacist Zionism, Wahhabism and all fundamentalisms, but there are certainly different standards applied to the honest discussion of the behaviour of their adherents.”

    Very few here will have lived peacefully under non-militant Islam I did, just before the Khobar Towers spelt the end of the American Raj and led to 9/11. I think one has to separate Islam from wahhabism which is an ideology not a faith, as bad as Nasser’s attempt at Arab nationalism, and also Saddam Hussein’s old ways (he was no charmer despite what we think of what America did in ’03). Under Saudi nonsense where everything was forbidden we developed an entire subculture free from London influence. Home brew culture – not only beer but theatre, rock bands, folk evenings, nature trips. Their propaganda was so lousy that we were free to do what we wanted. We were truly free of the Matrix back in the West where everyone as Goethe thinks “we are free”.

    Like

  13. I have long defined politics as “The art of replying to a question without answering it”: never has that definition been more apt.

    Like

  14. The whole point of PMQs is to disenchant anyone who actually wants to engage constructively in politics and to provide some mid-week entertainment for the yobbish voters who haven’t been to a football ground for 24 – 48hrs and so need to watch some needling instead of snorting coke. It amazes me to say this, but a very large number of people actually think PMQs is the best bit of politics. I tend to think they must see it as the theatrical version of ‘The Sun’……..

    Like

  15. Westminster government has failed. Western democracy under the current system is failing on so many levels…..job opportunity, earning potential, fiscal control and management, unpayable debt huge wealth disparity.
    Why would anyone want to join that club??
    It seems that all debate is on the terms of those who’s system clearly doesn’t work….ie if you complain, the implication is that you are not trying hard enough….
    The rise of Isis is not about religion its a result of 2 things. Despite what it proclaims democracy no longer provides sufficient voice or opportunity for its subjects. There is no justification for the extremes in wealth and levels of poverty that currently exist. Of course if you have nothing and no opportunity for improvement no one can be surprised that people will look for alternatives….and of course have nothing to lose by resorting to desparate measures

    Like

  16. Watch this and it’ll all make sense…. Roger Scruton is spot on with this. THIS is the enemy within that we are dealing with. 40 years of universities becoming virtual madrassas for this bullshit have wreaked absolute havoc with European culture. This must be fought on every level or we are doomed as a culture.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s