All posts by Van Rants

About Van Rants

This is a blog by a white van man working in South West England. It consists of a written record of the thoughts, ideas, and irritations which run through my head on long drives. Driving a van gives me peace and quiet for long stretches, especially on night runs up and down the M5, and it is into the silence that my mind runs to fury at the political madness taking over this country. This blog is about sharing these frustrations, as well as other amateur and political ideas which enter my head - it would be interesting to find out what other people think about the runaway thought-trains! It is also a blog which will hopefully dispell some steroeotypes - there will be no 'White Van Rants" against the sort of groups the tabloid press continues to attack, victimise and vilify. This White Van Man supports immigration and refugees (I work side-by-side with immigrants every day and, unlike some others in my profession, I am not actually afraid of competition!), progressive politics, public transport being in public hands, properly funding the NHS, eu membership and all the things the far-right newspapers tell me I should oppose!

Project Broadside – a union between everyone, from Socialist to Moderate Conservative, against Nationalism

Project Broadside

Project Broadside is a vision, an idea to unite people from across the political spectrum in resistance to a growing and terrifying threat which is rising in this country.  This land is being corrupted by a poisonous and hateful rhetoric, brought on by the rise of ukip,  a political party which, whether you voted Brexit or Remain, has been the source of more fear, anger, and division than any other.

The ‘United’ Kingdom Independence Party is responsible for more division in these isles than any other force in its history.  Their narrative has set the young and old against each other, Scotland and Northern Ireland against Wales and England, the cities against the countryside, the native against the ‘immigrant’.  No-one has done more to divide this country than the party which claims unity.  Project Broadside means a coalition between Green, Lib-Dem, Labour, Plaid, SNP and moderate conservatives against the poisoning of the narrative in this language by a right wing press and politics which seeks to divide us and weaken the common man through mutual hostility.

Nationalism, bordering on fascism is beginning to rear its ugly head in this land.  We see a hatred stoked daily by a divisive and polluting press pushing the kind of narratives openly endorsed by the far-right.  Recently, we have seen this press become so obsessed with insular, closed-minded nationalism, that when a tiny number of orphaned refugee children seek to re-join with their families in Britain, the headline writers demand ‘medical checks’ to determine their age, even when this has already been effectively and rigorously verified.

There is a truly nasty narrative being pushed onto the British people, and, against our nature, we are slowly starting to succumb, slowly starting to accept the lies.  The idea that any form of compassion, any form of solidarity or altruism is evidence of mental deficiency or weakness.  Day in, day out, there is a background hum, stoked by ukip and the tory-right of selfishness, mean-spiritedness and cold-heartedness which is not natural to or healthy for our individual collective psyche.

To counter this, Project Broadside calls for a truce, a period of unity between factions which are frequently at odds, an alliance like the one seen between Labour and Conservative which stood up both to the Third Reich abroad and Mosley’s fascists at home.  These factions need to recognise that, although they may have fundamental disagreements about the best route into the future, and may view each other’s political outlooks as fundamentally flawed, the divisive and threatening rhetoric brought on by the rise of the far right poses a much greater threat to the integrity and stability of these isles.

Project Broadside proposes a very wide coalition against this danger.  A full spectrum laying-down of arms from everyone from anarchist to conservative, communist to liberal, trade unionist to progressive to socialist to free-market businessman – Nationalism and fascism threaten us all more than we threaten each other – we have more in common, than that which divides us.  Nationalism and its big brother fascism are an enemy to liberal and conservative alike, to capitalist, communist and socialist, to young and old, to country, town and city.

Project Broadside emphasises its temporary nature.  The idea of an Anarcho-Syndicalist and a Conservative uniting in anything other than emergency scenarios is impossible.  We can – and must – go back to our old disagreements once this threat is countered, once the sort of braying fiends who comment on articles of children dying on boats in the Mediterranean with a ‘lol’ and a smiley emoji, are kicked back down into the gutter where they belong.

We must come together as one people to extract this cancer.  We may disagree with each other passionately the rest of the time, but what threatens Britain right now is more than disagreement about details, it is a fundamental threat to our core values, being imposed upon us by big money, stealth, deception and lies.

This means Blairites working with Corbynistas, because the alternative is worse than both.  It involves Liberals and moderate conservatives working together, because now is not the time for division between those who would oppose fascism

It involves people from all political walks who would consider themselves patriotic, rather than nationalistic, uniting.   We must all now take a look in the mirror and recognise the ugly head which has been reared in recent years, personified in Theresa May’s harshly nationalist speeches.

We need a progressive union, and that needs to include progressive conservatives.

We call upon liberal democrats who see the horror of nationalism rising

We call on the labour left and the labour centre to cease fighting – now is not the time

We call upon liberal antifascists and militant antifascists to recognise that there can be no room for divisions – antifascism is a multi-pronged fork; all approaches are valid provided they do not deliberately stymie other approaches.

We also call upon those brexiters who have seen a vote which they intended only as a rebellion against a political union, being hijacked by the bigoted and hateful.

This is Project Broadside, and it is the only way to save our country.   A full union of moderate conservatives, socialists, business leaders, capitalists, communists, liberals, democrats, anarchists, remainers and brexiters.  Conservative, Labour, Lib-Dem, Green, SNP, Plaid, SDLP – everyone needs to recognise that, for a short while, we must forget about our smaller differences and focus on the true threat – Nationalism is toxic to all of us;

  • Nationalism/fascism is anti-conservative, because the values of hard work, enterprise, family life, and community cohesion which conservatives value are superseded by the demands of sacrifice for the nation-state and a hatred of foreigners. Many of the hard-working immigrant families targeted by ukip’s narrative would consider themselves conservative.
  • Nationalism/fascism is anti-liberal because it demands conformity and has no respect for individual uniqueness.
  • Nationalism/fascism is anti-socialist because it does not recognise union rights or the rights of anyone not born in one place and obedient to one leader
  • Nationalism/fascism is anti-capitalist because it infringes on the rights of employer and employee to enter into a free contract with one another, and to trade goods freely, without the interference of the state at the borders.
  • Nationalism/fascism is anti-progressive because it takes the conservative narrative of ‘traditional values’ and twists it into a hatred of the modern, rather than a love of the traditional. There can be no progress whilst fascism is dragging us back to an animal state.

So you see, there is no ideology as damaging to such a diverse selection of others as that proposed by nationalism and fascism!

Project Broadside, thus, aims to unite the whole spectrum from the left to the centre to the centre-right.   Britain is better than this, more humane than the narratives coming from ukip, through the tory right, into Theresa May’s speeches.

Nationalism is inherently anti-worker.

I think that there is actually much intuitive, aesthetic, and compassionate agreement between the lib-dems and Labour, both the centre and left of Labour.  A pro-business lib-dem may never vote for anything they consider far-left, but this is not what uniting these different factions is about.  It is about recognising and uniting against the hate which has hijacked Brexit, lib-dems may consider far left philosophies dangerous, but, at this moment in time, it is not the far left which threatens us.  Unite against the far-right, neutralise it, then go back to the old disagreements.

The most intuitive part of the Project Broadside is the progressive alliance, a cessation of hostility between Labour, lib-dem, green, SNP, and Plaid.  Whatever differences these groups have ever had, whatever bad blood you may feel for one or more of them, the threat rising in the UK from the far right is worse than anything else.

People may dislike Labour because of PFI in the NHS, but what’s worse is the empowerment of people who believe we should have religious purity tests on the border.

People may not like the lib-dems because of tuition fees, but a collapsing economy due to inwards-looking nationalism is worse.  There are legitimate grievances between Labour, Lib-Dem and Green voters, and we must return to these disagreements once the nationalist threat is countered.  But for now, the Progressive Alliance MUST come about.  The greater challenge, but one which must be met, is to include into this alliance the moderate, liberal conservative.

Project Broadside put into practice simply means voting for the strongest progressive candidate in our area out of the Lib-dems, Green, Labour or SNP or Plaid or, if you are a moderate conservative, writing to your conservative candidate to let them know that your vote is no longer taken for granted – that of they fall to the divisive rhetoric of ukip, then they no longer truly represent you.

I now realise I am asking capitlaists and socialists to join hands, free marketers, businessmen and trade unionists to unite, employers and employees to join as one to fight this danger.  Because you see, though I identify in some ways as a socialist with a small s, I know that fascism is as detrimental to true capitalism as it is to everything else.

A true capitalist believes the best man should get the job, a nationalist believes the closest man should get the job – and industry, enterprise, and entrepreneurship suffer as the feckless and lazy are given preference over the industrious and smart, just because they were born in a certain area.  Competition is stifled, and profits stagnate as a result.

Historically, the times when all sides join together, when we strike down the divisions of the extremes, we succeed and prosper.  After ww2, capitalism and socialism worked together to usher in a new dawn, a new boost in living conditions and opportunity.  Britain flourishes when we proceed as one along the middle way.  The far right, if they continue to influence our politics, if they continue their stealthy journey into the heart of the Tory party, will see this land wither.

Capitalism, when left to go stagnant, may contain the seeds and soil of fascism, but fresh capitalism, capitalism without unfair inherited advantage and cartels and corporate complacency, is as opposed to fascism as all the other ideologies.

To conservatives, Project Broadside asks you to look at the ideology being peddled by ukip, the so-called conservative press, and certain sections of the Tory party and ask yourselves – does this really represent my values?  I may not consider myself a conservative, but I hope I am right in my understanding that conservatism is about the value of family, the self-respect gained by hard work and self-sufficiency, the idea of a stable community, and the advantages which can be gained through enterprise?

Another group which must be part of Project Broadside are Brexiteers.

First and foremost, I will lay my cards on the table; I voted Remain.  However, I respect the result but argue that Brexit does not mean the country has to become some kind of ultra-fascist police state.  We can make Brexit work without resorting to the divisive and dangerous politics of the far right.

The question on the ballot paper was not “Shall we ‘send them back’”.  It was not “Shall we end immigration”, it was “shall Britain Remain part of the EU, or Leave the EU” – what form this eventually takes was never voted on.  Norway and Switzerland have free movement, but are not in the EU.  If just 1/30 Brexit voters changed their vote if they realised it would unleash the kind of ultra-nationalist maniacs which have begun to hijack their cause, then the result would have gone the other way.

Brexiteers may have voted as they did for any number of non-racist and even non-nationalist reasons – the political influence of Brussels, the cost, questions of sovereignty or democracy or over-regulation.  They may also have been ‘lexiteers’, who voted against what they see as a capitalist and corporate union.     These people may be horrified to see the sorts of influences which have now hijacked their vote.  Even if you voted Brexit out of concerns over immigration, the sorts of extreme far right ideas concerning ‘vetting’, ‘quotas’ and ‘lists’ and ‘medical checks’ of immigrants (even including legal immigrants!) may strike you as more extreme than you would ever have been willing to endorse, as must some of the more extreme rhetoric seen from ukip, the right wing press, and the comments boards.

I say to anyone who voted Brexit – we can still leave the EU without descending into the kind of fearful, hateful, divisive nationalist dogma coming from the conservative right wing – from blukip.  You may have voted to leave the EU because you saw it as undemocratic – this does not mean you signed up to have entirely legal foreign born workers put onto ‘a list’.  You may have not wanted a corporate or socialist union trampling on your sovereignty – but you never expected the government to enact the kind of horrific, 1984 style ‘rat out your friends, neighbours and co-workers’ rhetoric present in May’s speech.

There are people who voted Brexit who would be horrified to associate themselves with the kind of ultra-nationalist ghouls who comment on news articles about drowning refugee children with a ‘laughing’ emoji, who hear of a human being dying under a lorry and respond with “shame it was only one – lol!”

Brexiters have as much a part to play in Project Broadside as anyone else, it is the Brextremists we must unite against.

Advertisements

Conspiracy Theorist ‘uncharacteristically trusting’ towards Russia

A man who is consistently suspicious about the motives of all states, corporations and institutions has revealed that the normal rules of power, influence and ‘big-government’ weirdly don’t apply to Russia.

Alt-right shitwhistle Wayne Hayes confirmed the immutable innocence and transparency of any agency or individual east of the Baltics;

“It may seem a crazy coincidence that everyone in a position of power in Russia has entirely pure and noble intentions, and everyone in a position of power in the West is an evil, manipulative plotter, but that’s just what ‘they’ want you to think. . .and by ‘they’, I mean everyone except Russia.

“Agree with me or you are a sheep”

“Western society is just a sham democracy” he confirmed “Nothing more than system of collaboration and cronyism between big government and powerful corporations, who use a tightly controlled media to brainwash the majority of the population, crush all dissent, piece together a narrative which favours the powerful, and create a society of massive wealth inequality.

“Which is nothing like Russia at all.”

America is a large country obsessed with control over petrochemicals on the world stage via shadowy collaborations between the deep state and big corporations. . . But whoever could imagine such a ridiculous notion as a Russian oil oligarch or company with close ties of corruption to their country’s government?!

There is a secret network of corrupt despots who control governments, corporations, the weather, the tides, solar radiation and the earth’s magnetic field, and who use a variety of dark alien technologies to influence every aspect of everyone’s lives for their own nefarious schemes – except in Russia, where total freedom exists.

You’d think that a gigantic country with a proven track record in espionage and an array of well-funded agencies set up exclusively to carry out covert operations, might occasionally plot against people, but that’s just the typical thinking of an illuminati-brainwashed sheep.

British governments, German governments, Israeli governments, American governments, all of them are run according solely to the secret agendas of a small band of elitist cronies at the top. . . Russia, despite also being a massive country, is somehow immune to these apparently inviolable tendencies of the wealthy and corrupt, and is run entirely according to the pure visions of infalliably altruistic saints, who only want access to immense power and wealth in order to be nice to people.

Vladimir Putin is an utterly humble man without a single agenda other than the good of the Russian people – he shuns self-promotion and would never rely on a toadying and sycophantic media to achieve his ends – the only reason every single Russian newspaper outlet unquestioningly supports his every move is because he is so undoubtedly, flawlessly, honest, decent and open!

What possible threat could Europe ever face from a monolithic, one-party, expansionist Russia?  Even if such an entity existed, I fail to see what it could possibly gain from using subterfuge to fracture and divide Europe – when has Russia ever spied on the West, or used devious means to exert influence over Mainland Europe?  You’re living in cloud-cuckoo land!

“The Kremlin involved in espionage inside other nations?  Yeah, sounds real likely – who needs the tin foil hat now, you maniac!?”

Governments always control their citizens except in Russia.  Massive corporations always seek to exploit the poor except in Russia.  Large secretive agencies in the hands of powerful elites always set out to divide and conspire except in Russia.

As John Acton said: “Power corrupts except in Russia, and absolute power corrupts absolutely except in Russia.”

The Modern Western Conservative Hypocrite

The Modern Western Conservative:

“I believe the government should have an army of pen-pushing, meddling bureaucrats, to administer nanny-state micro-management of our immigration policy.

I believe the government should back these pen-pushers up with hundreds of thousands of state border guards.

I believe that central government, using tick-list ‘points based systems’, reams of red-tape, and mountains of paperwork, should decide which workers are needed and, thus, allowed entry into the country, rather than the market.

I believe the government should enforce religious purity tests at the border.

I believe the government should be able to force a free enterprise to employ the most local, rather than the most talented, workers.

I believe the government, rather than individuals, should have ultimate say on who can enter an area – even if that area is owned by an apparently free citizen.  If an individual who freely owns their own property wants to invite a refugee onto that property, I believe the state should interfere and tell them ‘no’, if the government says their paperwork isn’t correct.

I believe the government should have the ultimate control over life via the death penalty

I believe the government should control which drugs we are allowed to consume

I believe the government should control who can marry whom

I believe the government should have ultimate control over every woman’s womb

I believe the government should have nuclear weapons

I believe the government should build more prisons to incarcerate ever higher percentages of the population

I believe the government should have more cops to defend the status quo

I believe the government should spend more on the military to expand the range of this status quo.

I believe we need more government Stormtroopers to crush people’s legitimate right to protest.

I want government regulations to control gender and sexuality rights

Oh, and by the way. . .

 

I passionately believe in small government!”

 

The modern conservative is a complete contradiction – they claim to be ‘small government’, yet are also fiercely nationalist.  But there can be no country without government!  Practically the only thing an anarcho-capitalist and an anarcho-syndicalist will agree on is ‘no borders’!  Before country, there was only clan, before government, there were only elders – ‘The nation’ is simply the geographical boundaries of the state!  To be against big government but in favour of nationalism is like saying “I am against driving, but in favour of cars”!

 

A nationalist is simply what a hypocritical free-market capitalist becomes when he is out-competed by a foreign agent.  He may have spent his entire life lauding the ideals of competition, dog-eat-dog capitalism and an ideology of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. . . but the moment he becomes lazy, corpulent and complacent, and thus gets out-competed by industrious foreigners, he runs to a government (he claims to wish was smaller), asking for border controls, points-based systems of entry, tariffs, and every other act of unfair state-sponsored advantage to be thrown his way.

When the coin betrays him, he runs to the flag and, eventually, vice-versa.  The Nationalist-switch-Capitalist is a weakling who, despite singing the praises of competition, only really wants a competition when it is rigged in his favour.  But neither coin nor flag truly care for him, and only the weak and insecure – those with a small sense of individual worth – require either.  The truly strong require neither flag nor coin, the truly free reject both systems of control.

Globalisation is better than Nationalism

Both the far left and right level accusations at ‘globalisation’ – that it destroys communities, ravages resources, pollutes, corrupts, oppresses, disadvantages, fosters inequality and infringes on individual liberty.  I am no flag waving champion of elitist globalisation, by any means.  It can easily be argued that, at times, globalisation should be answerable for some of these crimes. . .

. . . The problem for the ‘patriot’, is that every accusation leveled at globalisation, every crime attributed to it, is committed ten times worse by nationalism!

Nationalism destroys communities by co-opting their material and human resources for the wider benefit of national aristocracies, ten times more than any global body

Nationalism is inherently statist, centralist, and authoritarian – sometimes globalisation is too, but with nationalism, it is a guarantee.  It is possible to imagine a global network federal unions, consisting of non-coerced and co-operative communities across the entire globe.  However, it is not possible to imagine nationalist establishments and hegemonies freely ceding power to breakaway districts, as has recently been demonstrated in regions as diverse as Catalonia, Kurdistan, and Scotland.

Whereas the UK wants to impede my movement with border guards and passport checks, the EU wants to give me an extra freedom – the freedom to travel without statist interference.

And finally, we address individual liberty.  In the past, almost every country on the planet has instigated some form of conscription – whereby the individual is obliged to sacrifice his very life for the country.  The image presented is a romantic one, with songs and solemn trombones for the dead.  The reality is the needless slaughter of our sons to protect the aristocrat’s land and power base.

Imagine the positive, cosmopolitan, multi-cultural, liberal and outward-looking metropolis. . . Now see the oppression applied when parochial, rural conservatives demand a war, and vote for conscription – the nation now oppresses the youth of the cities, forcing them to become cannon fodder for campaigns with which they fundamentally disagree.

And on the flip-side, imagine the dozens of village communities obliterated because the nation demands a trunk road or power plant – roads and power plants these villages neither asked for, nor will use.  Time and time again we see the nation crushing the needs of local rural and urban community for ‘the greater good’.

Globalisation, even viewed through the leftist/rightist vehemently anti-globalist spectrum, is still a million times better than nationalism

 

Globalisation = Every individual on the planet under a single governmental structure

Nationalism = Every individual on the planet under hundreds of mutually hostile and perpetually warring governmental structures, each able to justify the utter subjugation of their citizen’s rights due to the presence of opposing governmental structures.

 

An individual is not ‘free’ under either system, but they are much less likely to be subjected to violence under the first, as proven by the march to war of the *nations* of America, Britain, and France, against the warnings of the *globalists* in the EU and UN

 

Every charge leveled at ‘globalisation’ is committed ten times worse by individual nations.  Think about the Iraq war – one of the greatest travesties of justice and ridiculously idiotic military blunders in history.  A decision which has plunged the entire region into disorder and created a refugee crisis in the process.  Who pushed for it?  The *nations* of the USA, Britain, and France – against the specific wishes and insistence of such ‘globalists’ as the EU and UN!

Almost every crime that ‘globalisation’ gets accused of (especially warmongering and corporatism) is actually the end result of the actions of individual nations such as America, or the corporations thereof – often against the expressed wishes of those bodies which purport to be globalist!

In every real sense, it could be said that Nations actually realise the terrible crimes attributed to ’globalisation’ far, far more often than openly globalist bodies.  In every real sense, nationalists are actually worse globalists than the globalists themselves!

How many wars has the EU gone to. . . ever?  How many has the US & UK gone to this century alone?

 

Natural scales

Community, family, individualism are scales which a human being can naturally bond with and emotionally connect to on a direct level.  Each operates on an immediate, physical scale (your family members share your home, the people of your community walk in the same places as you – all are close and directly experienced), allowing them each to constitute a genuine, immediate, felt experience.  You can see and hear your neighbour, spouse, child, friends first hand.  You can explore alone, walking through the mountains with just your self, your senses, and your environment.

In a different but similar way, it is natural to view all of humanity as one connected entity.  You could fly to the other side of the world and still know what a laugh was, still dance, still match a smile with a smile and still answer the pleading in any child’s eyes, still shake your fellow man’s hand.

Community, family, individualism are real, natural human experiences because of their immediacy, their locality, their personal, felt experience.
A common human bond across the entire globe is natural because human means of interaction are universal, global, intuitive. . .

. . . until they are corrupted by nationhood.

Nationhood is unnatural.  I can look over the horizon, past my village, my city, past rolling hills and be made to imagine that somewhere, over there, lies an imaginary line in the sand, on one side of which, the people are my countrymen, my allies, and on the other side of which, they are foreigners – potential enemies.  This line in the sand has no reflection on either my real, lived, experience of community, nor my universal identity as a human being.  In many places across the world, the idea of nationhood is so alien, so blurred, so (ironically) foreign, that people don’t even know where the line is – even in a place as divided as Ireland, there are places where the border between ‘North’ and ‘Republic’ runs straight through a farmer’s land, cleaving it in two.  Neither the farmer, nor anyone else, could trace a line through his field showing where this line is – it has no meaning, no purpose, no bearing on the local community’s life (thanks to open borders), though rest assured , that the moment a policeman, politician, or inspector wanted to use this line to enforce authority, it would become very real

Local Community = natural

Universal Humanity – even globalisation = natural

Nationalism = an artificial, counterintuitive, unnatural means of dividing authority.  A meaningless invention

Nationalism, in a day-to-day sense, and even more so during times of war, demands sacrifices from the individual, the family, and the community on an almost unimaginable scale.  Common human unity does not.

Nationhood = arbitrary, artificial, imaginary

What is a nation?  An entirely arbitrary concept – a gentleman’s agreement between a worldwide network of local landed aristocrats, over how best to geographically distribute control over serfs.   People invest such emotion and energy and identity in their sense of nationality, but the nation itself is little more than a means of divvying up control, treaties drawn up between lords and lines arbitrarily scrawled on maps.   It is a form of servitude, but worse than mere submission – it is a form of servitude which has managed to emotionally manipulate those it enslaves – through songs, celebrities, flags and newspapers – into passionately defending their own enslavement, loving it, holding it dear, prepared to die for it.

Nationhood is an unnatural and arbitrary concept, a construct of elites indoctrinated from a young age in order to wean a populace who will happily volunteer their sons and daughters to die for nothing more than a flag designed by rich, safe men.  All this faith, emotional investment and pride we put into these arbitrary, artificial, invented and shifting allegiances serves no purpose other than to cement the power of local aristocrats, to make their populations not only willing to sacrifice their own and their family’s lives to protect people who care nothing for them, but to do so with a tear of ‘patriotic’ pride in their eye.  Nations divided neighbor from neighbor, causing poor man to fight poor man at the behest of rich men who are probably good friends, but who have had a little falling out over a patch of mineral-rich land or, worse, simply want to distract their relative serfs.

In the EU, outside of the EU

The EU grants me additional freedoms – to travel, work, buy and sell – whereas the individual nations concerned would happily restrict these freedoms.  My immediate, lived experience of the EU is something which has made my ability to travel in, and work across, the continent, easier. . . whereas my real, lived experience of the UK in this respect is one of queues, scanners, long waits, surly guards, passport control, demands to see my papers, and the ever-present threat of the ‘rubber glove of the border cop’.

Every charge levelled against Europe – poverty, inequality, unemployment etc. – occurs ten times worse outside it.

Just look at some of the places immediately outside the EU’s borders; Belarus – Europe’s last dictatorship.  Russia – a one party pseudo-democracy of disappeared journalists, massive poverty, oil oligarch cronyism, prescriptive, authoritarian conservatism and border wars.  Albania, people smuggling capital of the world.  The former states of Yugoslavia, riddled with unmarked graves and land mines.  War-torn Ukraine and war-mongering Turkey.

Even places outside the EU but within the EEC, such as Switzerland, stand out as the criminal class’s money-laundering capital of the world, whose economic foundations rest almost entirely on the laurels of nazi gold and tax avoidance.  Norway, I grant, may be an exception, but their version of ‘outside the EU’, is much more inclusive than the typical rabid Brexiteer’s vision of closed borders, closed trade, and statist-micromanagement of economy, population, and Labour.

 

EU directives

Think about the ‘oppression’ and ‘undemocratic’ charges levelled at the EU.  How does an EU directive come into existence?

It is proposed by someone who holds an unelected position, but who was appointed by someone elected – exactly as in the UK.

The detail is mapped out by unelected civil servants – exactly as in the UK.

It is then voted on by a parliament who are elected – except the EU parliament is elected by proportional representation, much more directly democratic than the UK’s FPTP.

However, even if it is now voted for, before it can have any bearing on British law, it must be written into British statute books – an act which the EU has no power to enforce.  This is why you can still see tobacco advertising in various places across the EU – though there may be EU directives against this, there is nothing the EU can do to compel their member states to obey.

Lastly, there comes enforcement.  Even if an EU directive is proposed, finalised, voted for and written into the statute books, the only agent who will actually enforce obedience to it, is the nation!  There are no EU cops, no EU inspectors.  No EU guards, investigators, officers, soldiers or operatives who can walk into a country and arrest a citizen thereof against its nations wishes.  Any ‘oppression’ attributable to a hypothetical EU law will be entirely executed by the nation’s authorities.

Globalisation is by no means perfect.  Globalisation has crimes to answer for.  Globalist bodies have made mistakes and realised oppression.  But their record pales into insignificance when compared to the record of almost any individual nation. . . and there’s 200 of those.

Localism is natural, humanism is natural.  Only nationalism is unnatural, a phony ‘middle ground’ used by aristocrats to control serfs – its bloody history of incessant war is evidence enough.  There have been 0 wars within the EU since its inception, but the *nations* within it, against the expressed wishes of the EU, are still warring – and the nation which is warring the most is the one which wants out

The Central Right-Wing Obsession – Other People’s Genitals!

There is nothing more fascinating to the right winger (be they daily mail/express/sun journalist, their ‘alt-right’ echo-stooges Sheitfart, Info-bores etc., or the religious prescriptivism of right-wing jihadist groups) than the contents of, and activities in, other people’s underwear.

Be it concerning gender identity, sexuality, abortion or even simply the ‘celebrity’s bits’ on the Daily Mail sidebar of shame – there is nothing which so inflames the conservative interest, nothing which so arouses their voyeuristic, invasive, authoritarian ardour, more than the decisions another person makes concerning their own genitals.

They all  fixate myopically on other people’s abortion, trans rights, gay pride and lgbt freedoms – these are areas in which people refuse to ‘do what they’re told’ with their own private parts.  For an ideology which so claims to support the freedoms of the individual against the demands of the collective, the right sure is obsessed with ensuring another person’s personal decisions regarding their own body be forced to conform to wider collective norms.

I have absolutely zero interest what goes on in a conservative bedroom, if indeed anything does.  Liberals never try to ban straight marriage.  Lefties never try to scupper cis rights.  Progressives never try to convince conservatives they should have an abortion.  For an ideology which so loudly proclaims to be ‘small government’, the modern rightist seems to be obsessed with the idea of state interference in the activities of non-conformist genitals!

The root cause, of course, can be summed up in three words regarding a right-winger’s own sense of gender and sexuality – insecurity, inadequacy, and fear.

 

Often, the ‘loud and proud’ conservative, whilst dictating to everyone else how pure and traditional and righteous they should be, usually have a string of ex-wives, affairs, kids out of wedlock and, especially with the Eton lot, would have enjoyed a youth more debauched and intoxicated than most.  Of all the people I know, the people who most actively live the conservative ideal – the ones with stable jobs, family values and a faithful attitude towards their life partner – are the ones who identify as liberal, whereas the ones who identify as conservative are lecherous, unfaithful, absent drunks.

The Mainstream media and the ‘alt’ right – 2 cheeks of the same behind

The MSM and the ‘alt’ right

Exactly the same message, just expressed through different means (memes?!)  Funded by the same billionaires, with the same ‘divide the poor, working and middle class’ message.

 

The rightwards shift of conspiracist manipulation

Around 2008, strangely enough, the conspiracy blogs, almost as one, began to shift to the right, as if all controlled by a single unseen player…  Gone were the days, when it was the outspoken, quirky, greeny-lefty-hippy who scanned the skies with paranoid eyes.  Now ‘conspiracism’ was becoming the sole preserve of the authoritarian right – which is a hard line to sell – the authoritarian as ‘alt’?!

Suddenly, this ‘alt’ media started to become paranoically anti refugee, anti migration, anti eu, petrified about almost non existent socialism, even more petrified about even more non-existent communism, anti lefty, anti liberal and pro nationalist . . . exactly like fox news, the sun, the daily mail, the star, the express, the telegraph.

That right, this ‘alt’ media was, all of a sudden, parroting exactly the same lines as the mainstream – way to ‘stick it to the establishment’, guys, nice ‘challenging the msm narrative’ . . . by agreeing with them entirely!  “Yeah, but we spread an identical message through underground blogs and cartoon frogs – that makes us ‘radical’”

Just look at the change in narrative from arch conspiracist Alex Jones in the last 10 years;

Infowars 2002

911 was an inside job!  This is not a terrorist attack, it is a false flag operation designed to make us afraid, as a pretext for growing the power of the police state!  Those who would surrender a little liberty in exchange for security deserve, and shall receive, neither!  They are using fear to try and take our human rights!  Fight for your civil liberties!  Fuck all government!

Infowars 2016

Ermagherd the Jihadis are coming!  Be afraid, be very afraid, there are terrorists everywhere!  We need the police and the state to protect us!  Religious purity checks at the borders, more cops to round up illegals, an army of bureaucrats to make sure everyone has ze correct papers.  We need to ignore whiney liberals and their obsession with human rights – sacrifice basic civil liberties because we are in so much danger!  Fear, fear, fear, and God bless the Trump government!

 

If either the msm, or a conspiracy blog, is making you fearful, the chances are that they are trying to subvert your critical reasoning facilities.  Ask yourself why they would be trying to do this.

 

 

 

The indoctrination by the mainstream media and its ‘alt’ echo, away from solidarity and towards paranoid, inwards-looking selfishness, manifests in unnatural, out-of-character outbursts in otherwise reasonable or decent seeming individuals.  I have seen it in people who buy the hate-press or follow alt-right conspiracy blogs.  They will talk decently, friendly, interact with their peers – even immigrant peers, on a human-to-human basis, but will express views totally at odds with their nature, in terms of the websites they view and the ideas they spread.

I know a guy who hugs a Muslim work colleague in greeting. . . but also supports trump’s travel ban, also spouts verbatim the nonsense of the daily mail?   This got me thinking – How can there be such a jarring difference between how the man is as a person – decent, friendly and warm, and his support for utterly abhorrent political philosophies?  I realised these people – adherents of the ‘alt’ right and daily Express, are not evil, they are afflicted – they have been deliberately driven by the MSM on one side (representing the mainstream), and the conspiracist (representing the ‘alternative’) on the other, into an unnatural lack of solidarity in their politics. . . an abandonment of a natural human trait which leaves them unhappy, paranoid, and bitter.  Under the banner of free speech, we have allowed the billionaire psychopaths who run our media to corrupt the kind minds of our people towards fear, suspicion, and hatred.

The ‘alt right’ is clearly the actions of an elite, astroturf ‘rebellion’ to pursue the same goals, promote the same message, from two different angles.  The mainstream, conformist member of society is manipulated by a constant stream of bile from the newsstands into fear, whilst those with a more rebellious edge are manipulated by a gradually ‘rightening’ conspiracist media towards identical narratives.

People have allowed an edge of their mind to be corrupted by unnatural narratives – a cultural and journalistic avalanche of division which eventually overrides all the natural kinship which humans should be able to feel towards one another.  When the front pages of our newspapers scream at us, every day, that accepting 2000 orphan child refugees from a war we helped start is beyond the capacities of the world’s 5th largest economy – that they are happy for thousands of innocent men, women and children to drown in the Mediterranean escaping bands of terrorists we armed, taking advantage of an area we destabilised, because ‘fuck off, we’re full’ (we’re not).

They fear some of them might be terrorists – therefore all should drown – legitimising collective punishment in a way which would never apply to any other scenario – are all cars to be banned because some of them end up running people over?  No, so why should an automobile have more rights than a human being from Syria?  Screen refugees, of course check them, but don’t deny them sanctuary entirely!

MSM (Mail, Express, Sun, Star, Telegraph, Fox news)      ‘Alt’ Right’ (Infowars, Breitbart)

Anti refugee                                                                                      Anti refugee

Anti EU                                                                                                 Anti EU

Anti migration                                                                                   Anti migration

Anti Muslim                                                                                        Anti Muslim

Fearful of socialism                                                                          fearful of socialism

Paranoid about communism                                                   Paranoid about communism

Claim to be against ‘big government’…                       Claim to be against ‘big government’…

…But support big government border controls                    But support big government border controls

Fiercely nationalist                                                                          Fiercely nationalist

Tells you what to think…                                                               Tells you what to think…

…using emotional language                                                         …using emotional language

And shouting                                                                                     And shouting

Hazy on detail                                                                                    Hazy on detail

Anti union                                                                                           Anti union

Claims to be ‘anti establishment’                                            Claims to be ‘anti establishment’

Yet is funded by billionaires                                                         Yet is funded by billionaires

Anyone who disagrees is a ‘traitor’                                    Anyone who disagrees  is a ‘traitor’

Uses fear of terrorism to manipulate                              Uses fear of terrorism to manipulate

Anti liberal                                                                                          Anti liberal

Anti protester                                                                                   Anti protester

Use anti big-business language                                                  Use anti big business language

+ satan!

+ aliens!

+ ghosts!

Both have the message that “None of our problems are our responsibility.  We are only failing because someone is plotting against us, someone foreign.”

The ‘alt’ right also adds an obsession with Jewish elites.  Soros, Rothschilds, etc., but utterly unconcerned when trump or other non-jewish elites try to screw over the rest of us by (as in the case of Trump) not paying his workers and reneging on his debts.

 

^ This is what happens when a conformist conservative tries to be ‘alt’!

 

From the mainstream, we start seeing newspaper headlines which read less like statements of objective fact and more like unhinged emotional outbursts and/or commands (how is “Silence the traitors” or “Crush the saboteurs” a headline, a piece of information, rather than an outburst which sounds like the megalomaniacal rantings of a demented roman emperor?!

We see words like ‘traitor’, ‘enemy’ and ‘scum’ thrown around before even the most basic outline of what the story is has been presented.  They tell you what to feel, THEN they fill in the gaps with  bullshit half-truths and selective pseudo-facts.  This is designed to change minds, rather than inform them.

What is true for a newspaper is true for a politician is true for an ‘alt’ right conspiracy blog – You can be certain that if someone is shouting at you (either the msm using block capital, single-word emotive headlines, or Alex Jones literally shouting at you!) then they will be on shaky rational ground – shouting is a way of sonically bullying your opponent into not questioning their ideas, it is a vocal threat used to defend the irrational.

Call me naïve, but IMHO, in order for a website to refer to itself as ‘alternative’, it really ought to have a message which is noticeably different from the mainstream.  Given that over half of our mainstream press is pro-brexit, you’d think the ‘alt’ would be pro-remain?!

Conspiracism, failure, and irresponsibility

The idea that ‘powerful forces are plotting against you’ is the battle-cry of someone who has failed in life, but is too weaselly to accept responsibility for his own failings.  “The liberals are plotting against white people” the ‘alt’ right conspiracist will cry, apparently unable to explain why the leader and deputy leader of every single British political party is white!  How come these white people have been able to succeed in a world ‘rigged against them’ when you, pisshead Dave from the dog n duck, are a failure?!

The conspiracist loser actually makes the perfect proto-fascist.  Once you come to believe the world is plotting against you, any means to combat this becomes justified in your warped world-view.  Conspiracism is perfect for the weak and failures because, not only does it allow them to say “oh yes, I would be totally successful. . .  were the government and other powerful forces not conspiring against me!”. . . but they also get to call other people – often much more successful and knowledgeable people, ‘sheep’ because they don’t see the plots!

It is truly embarrassing to see these failures, often unemployed or at least in boring, unsatisfying jobs, proudly proclaiming “Behold, how clever I am!  Only I have the ‘critical thinking’, ‘clear vision’ and ‘free mind’ to believe everything Alex Jones shouts at me!  I can see what these silly sheep cannot because I am so smart, so enlightened, so much a free thinker (that I unquestioningly believe everything ‘alternative’ news sites tell me without a single smidgen of peer-reviewed proof!).

This makes me much, much cleverer than the unthinking, blinkered professors of immunology, doctors of medicine, phd climatologists and oncologists with 20 years’ experience who think they know better than me – do they not know I am the almighty Dave-with-a-youtube-account-and-a-persecution-complex?!”

It such cringeworthy arrogance.  Like some 4 year old baselessly asserting their intellectual superiority to their parents!

 

You can pretty much guarantee that whoever gets the majority of the anger of the right-wing msm and the better funded conspiracy sites are not the real perpetrators.  The true perpetrators have power, and would never permit genuine dissenters calling them out so readily.  Have any of these unthinking followers of conspiracy sites stopped to ask themselves (as an example) why, if the EU were so undemocratic and possesses the power and influence to usurp our sovereignty, they permitted us to have a referendum in the first place, and then ask why, if they are so powerful – part of a worldwide network which can topple governments, control corporations, influence the weather and manipulate every man woman and child with mind control rays or whatever – they did not simply rig the result?!  If there is some secret worldwide plot to micro-manipulate and control every aspect of our lives and worldwide politics, it is obviously not doing a good enough job to pose any real threat if it cannot even rig a single referendum!

The narrative of both the alt right and the mainstream right wing press is “The only reason you have failed is because the world is conspiring against people like you.” when, by and large, the world is actually rigged in their favour.  Both are ideologies for those unwilling to take responsibility for their own failings.

Why no outrage over right wing safe spaces?

Lately, we have been hearing a lot from the mainstream press and their faux-radical echoes the ‘alt’ right, on the dangers of ‘safe spaces’.  We hear how such places are dangerous restrictions on free speech, that lefties are being censorious, or behaving like ‘snowflakes’, insulating themselves from opposing viewpoints.

What you almost never hear a word of, is the thousands upon thousands of right-wing safe spaces and conservative censorship zones which exist up and down the country.

Most of the time, when the right complain about ‘censorship’, what has actually occurred is that they have said something – freely – and someone else has – freely – expressed their objections to their statement.  So someone called you a bigot or a racist?  Suck it up!  It’s their freedom of speech to do so!  Stop being such a triggered little snowflake.  Challenging your views is not the same as censoring them.  The swastika snowflakes are the worst, one minute, they complain about how liberals get too easily offended over small issues, the next, they are crying that “Waah, the new Ghostbusters film is all girls!  Star Wars is promoting white genocide!  Doctor Who is a lady.  Feminists made my videogames all fluffy!”

The other thing about ‘safe spaces’ is how unwilling right-wing snowflakes are to recognise their own – nobody ever mentions how it works the other way round;

Imagine the most ‘patriotic’, pro-brexit pub – flags of st George, union flags, patriotic bunting on every surface – go and tell them they have to host a speech from a Europhile MEP, or else they are being ‘censorious’. . . or perhaps the local conservative or country club should be told they must host an event paying tribute to the trade union movement, or else they are ‘shutting down debate’.  University, pub, country club – all are private institutions funded by their patrons – why is it only the liberal/left space which must be pressurised into using its own resources to give extra voice to groups whose outlook fundamentally clashes with the majority of their patrons?

Why is it that universities and left/liberal-leaning organisations are obliged to fund a platform for people their members disagree with, while there is no reverse obligation?

Why must a given institution be labelled ‘censorious’, and accused of ‘restricting free speech’ or ‘shutting down debate’ by refusing to host their enemies, when there is no way in hell a right wing safe space will ever open its doors to contrary viewpoints.

Is it a conservative club’s duty to freely loan its speakers, stage and space to a series of speeches by trade union activists?  No.  Is the flag-waving, pro-brexit pub obliged to not only host, but guarantee the safety of, a Remain campaign group?  No!  Are churches, mosques and synagogues to be ordered to make their buildings available to gay pride events?  No!

Why are ‘safe spaces’ not a problem when the right creates them?  ‘Flaggy’ pub = nationalist safe space.  Golf club = capitalist safe space.  Church = prude/homophobe safe space.  Conservative club = conservative safe space (indeed, you have to take an oath not to challenge ‘conservative views’ to even visit most of them – disobey, and you will be forcefully evicted, or the police called).

Surely individual institutions have the obligation to consider the sensitivities of their paying patrons?  9 grand membership fee a year for most uk universities – does that buy you no say in the scheduling at all?!

Somehow, we have reached the stage where it is received wisdom that right-wingers can enjoy the safe spaces provided by thousands upon thousands of pubs, golf clubs, country clubs, churches and conservative clubs up and down the country, but when ‘the left’ or liberals want to do the same, they are ‘shutting down free speech’.

Go into a rough-n-ready, nationalist pub and it is widely accepted that if you started criticising the United Kingdom, to all and sundry, you’d probably get a kicking – and you’d be blamed for being stupid – for voicing obviously contrary views within a safe space!

I cannot simply walk into a church, shove the vicar from the pulpit, then use his mike and his speakers to preach about the joys of promiscuous sex and debauchery – why?  Because the majority of attendees would wish their safe space to be protected – the elderly, conservative flock would be offended, and would want to be insulated from contrary views, to simply enjoy one area where they can be themselves and freely express their opinions among like-minded individuals without fear of being contradicted.

Run through that sentence again and ask yourself how this is any different to the safe spaces in some universities – it isn’t!  Again, it is an example of something which it is taken as read that right wingers are entitled to, but if the left request the same, they are to be insulted and derided.

Pub, club, church, university – all are exclusive institutes funded by their members – why is it only left and centre safe spaces which are singled out for criticism?

Again, along with media bias and open-carry, we see ‘safe spaces’ as another example of something which is fine. . . . until a liberal/lefty/young person demands it!

These pubs, clubs, and conservative clubs ‘no platform’ whoever they want because (to put it kindly) they are entitled to a safe space where they can feel secure freely expressing their beliefs. . . Challenge the dominant paradigm in a conservative club or religious institution, and you will be asked to leave, and if you refuse, the police will be called.  Do the same in certain pubs and you are liable for a beating.

To put it less kindly, however – in the right’s own terms – it is because the patrons of these pubs and clubs are mollycoddled, over-sensitive, censorious little snowflakes, who need somewhere they can feel safe insulating themselves from contrary viewpoints, afraid of ideas which run counter to their own!

But safe spaces in universities?  How can they be justified?  Well, for a start,  we’ve actually paid for our university placements (unlike our ‘something-for-nothing’ parent’s generation!) – we got saddled with 40 grand of debt to keep these institutions going – I think we get a say in who visits the universities we’ve paid for!

But then comes the argument “Ah, but universities are places of learning, where a variety of viewpoints should be heard”. . . Not strictly true – it would be more accurate to say that a university is a place where a variety of outlooks are dispassionately and unbiasedly explained by an educated reader, where bare facts are explained without favour. . . something any professional lecturer would do, regardless of their opinions.

A university teaching a history degree has the duty to explain the rise of the third reich in dispassionate, purely factual terms – if they got a member of neo-nazi group Combat 18 to do so, it would in fact be the opposite of neutral, bipartisan and educational!  A duty to inform does not mean any tom, dick and harry has the right to use a stage, speakers and venue paid for by members who do not support their views.

‘No platforming’ does not mean saying a person cannot speak, it means saying a person cannot speak within the confines, and using the resources, of a privately funded institution whose members do not want them to.  Do I have to open my front door to ukip and allow them to preach their bile across my town using my balcony?  No!  Can I go to the conservative party conference and demand a placement on the bill, even though I openly come to criticise everything their party stands for?  No!

Restricting free speech = Putting gaffer tape over someone’s mouth.

No platforming = Not paying for a megaphone and handing it to your enemies!

What recent trends have shown us is that right-wingers will fiercely and violently defend their own safe spaces, whilst also demanding access to centrist and leftist safe spaces under the banner of ‘free speech’.

“Safe spaces” – yet another example of something which is considered absolutely fine when the middle-aged or right wing do it, but if a young person, ‘liberal’ or ‘lefty’ demands the same, they are being “over-entitled” or “Censorious”