Monday, May 21, 2007

[frustration part 1] the common man

I'm a common man. Whether or not Guthrum the Old considers himself as such, and I think he does, he was moved to post this:

I want my political leaders to be statesmen/women, to have substance, gravitas and a commitment to Liberty, Democracy and an end to ingrained privilege. Not to rely on the smoke and mirrors of stunt and spin, for the sake of power itself.

Men and women with vision are thin on the ground at present.

A new alignment is needed. It has taken since 1934 for the SNP to catch the mood of Scotland, I cannot afford seventy three years for a change in the rot that is Westminster.

A Bill of Rights Now, A written Constitution Now and an English Parliament Now.

One can feel the frustration behind this outburst of a moderate man exasperated and yet, even in this will be disagreement amongst us about the SNP, the Bill of Rights and so on.

The essential and dismaying problem is that this quite legitimate cry for substance and gravitas does not take into account realpolitik. Blair, Brown and Cameron are in the driving seat and none impress. There's good reason.

For a long time, Britain's leaders have been groomed by interests within Europe and not just in Britain:

Former U.S. president Bill Clinton spoke at a Bilderberg conference a year before his election victory, as did British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Former prime ministers Paul Martin, Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau also made Bilderberg appearances.

The current chairman, Belgian politician and businessman Etienne Davignon, says the steering committee that organizes the annual get-togethers is excellent at spotting talent.

Is it any wonder Blair is so Europhile, given those who groomed these Scots to run Britain:

"Brown is not passionate about Europe, but because of it, he will be able to get further in Brussels than someone so outwardly messianic about it like Blair," said Hugo Brady of the Centre for European Reform

Like people in key positions in education where if you're not a PC leftist you don't get in, Canada's, the U.S.'s and Britain's education has gone down the gurgler and with it, society:

...the catastrophe that has been visited upon children by moral relativism at home, and multiculturalism in the schools. Two books published just recently, were written by former '60s radicals, pushed right by the terrible plight of kids, and (spare me the invective from the union hate mail tree) by the sheer backwards idiocy that informs the teachers' unions. The Epidemic: the Rot of American Culture, Absentee and Permissive Parenting, and the Resultant Plague of Joyless, Selfish Children did not hail from some right-wing think-tank; it is written by Robert Shaw, a psychiatrist who practices in Berkeley, Calif...

And so on - good article, by the way. And in the same way, if you're not of a certain ilk re Europe, you don't get the top job either. Cameron is Euro-sceptic. Oh really?

His change of position, confirmed by a spokesman for William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, has infuriated Tory Right-wingers who voted for Mr Cameron to lead the party because of his strong Eurosceptic campaign.

The truth is that no leader who looks likely to get near the reins of power is going to cross certain elements in Europe, whatever froth and bubble they are currently uttering. Only the weak and malleable get in. They're rubber men [and women].

It has always been so, this malaise, before the strong man cometh. Buchanan and the era of the weak, compromising president pre-Lincoln, The Weimar Republic, Chirac and the malaise of France and currently Britain - it's no accident. It's the game plan of very nasty people in the corridors of power.

The people clamour, like Guthrum the Old, for a return to "decency". There is no decency here. Cameron has no answer - he is more of the same. So who's being groomed in the wings? The post neoclassical endogenous growth theoretical Ed Balls? David Milliband? Some sort of Obama Barak? I'd love to see the Bilderbergers' last guest list.

But why? For what to do this to society?" 1984 gives part of the answer and Ephesians 6:12 gives the rest.

5 comments:

  1. Talking of a new alignment is futile- All those in politics occupy an increasingly narrow frame of reference with regards to ideas. There is no right-left, just differing strategies of management.

    Pariamentary democrascy is fast losing it's ability to provide true reprsentative goverment that actually serves the public good.

    The only truly new alignment is between those who work within the parameters of the system, and those who seek to establish true emocratic debate outside it.

    I think I know what side of that alignment you came down on, James.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm starting to worry, Crushed, that I can't live in any society. We should all just take our best girl and head off to a Pacific island somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No so much common, as.....lesser spotted.

    Re alignment can cover a multitude of approaches. I was interested that you mentioned the Bilderburg Club. This Club can only operate when there is a single class of political animal to trawl through. (possibly why I can see so little difference between right and left these days) To belong to the club you have to be 'one of us' or the other phrase I have heard 'sound'. No doubt the fops at the Courts of Charles I,Nicholas II or Louis XVI were all insiders, but it did not stop them being swept away in a revolutionary tide caused the patient common man losing any further forebearance.
    The only practical re alignment is democratic power returning the local sphere. Parish pump politics are relevant,inclusive ,passionate and raw. Central Government should be the place for national debate on defence,alliances etc not whether we should be compelled to have slop buckets.
    This is the only way to break the cabal of 'insiders' being groomed by groups such as Bilderburg.

    ReplyDelete
  4. James, what are you doing with the 2nd best? Just asking, no particular reason.

    I'm starting to think the same way. Only problem is there is nowhere else really to go.

    We might just have to wait it out. Stock up and wait for the coming holocaust.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have one simple question I always ask regarding every issue of public interest, from the lowliest local authority policy to our masters in Europe: where does the money go? Or more specifically, follow the money trail.

    In Europe money comes in from national governments. It goes partly into the pockets of Eurocrats. If Eurocrats expand their powers, they need more money and more Eurocrats. This is a good thing: their jobs become more interesting and their career opportunities increase. Therefore, Europe will _always_ seek to increase the size of the bureaucracy, the size of the EU membership and the amount that it taxes. Would you honestly do it differently yourself?

    Every company that's ever existed has tried to increase its size and market share. But companies are (usually) dependent on selling things to people who have no obligation to buy. Therefore, if they can't increase the value of their product, they can't increase their size, and of course they will shrink if their market does. No such constraints exist for the EU.

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.