Sunday, 3 April 2011

The Misnomer Of Extremist Politics - Part Two



KerPlunk: Pull out the straws and cause a collapse of marbles.


During the last article, I tried to convey a 'different take' on what confines and comprises debate, how this process of limitation is able to be carried out - and how even 'normal' discourse and wholly natural behaviour can be portrayed as a fringe and extremist 'evil' if it strays from the restrictive confines of the "middle ground". 

I finished the article by asking people to consider the proposition that what has been happening to this country (and the various tangles we have got ourselves into) have not necessarily been accidental - but  something born from a deep extremist ideology, something that has been projected into all aspects of  our society and manipulated into being the mainstream narrative.

I will go into that side of things in a bit more depth later, but in the meantime, on an every day level, why not consider for a moment the political discourse carried out between mainstream politicians (and the mainstream media which supplies the spectator vehicle).

This usually takes the course of  saying that (for example) the recently governing Labour administration was "incompetent", 'misgoverned' or had been neglectful of this or that issue. If the Conservatives had been in power for as long as Labour just has been, then it would be the same game in reverse.

Labour, answering back, would seek to promote their justifications for their previous policies and when it comes to it being demonstratively shown that what has actually turned out as a result of their time in office has become a very problematic state of affairs indeed, then they will say that they had "made mistakes".

You can easily sit there at the breakfast table munching on your cornflakes, agreeing with the television news spokesman that Gordon Brown had 'made mistakes' with the economy and regulation, or that various home secretaries and immigration ministers have just acted out poor judgement and let things get out of hand as a result. It is so easy for the public to be sucked into this charade. It is so easy to understand, so easy to believe.

Yet this is not strictly true. This notion of mere mismanagement implies that "but for its administrative and technical failings, it would all have otherwise  gone well".

It implies that the government are on our side, playing for our team and for our interests. Nationalists do not believe either of these things to be true. They were not accidents, they are not our friends, they are not on our side. They are the enemies of the indigenous British people, if not consciously, then by their deeds.



This is especially true of Labour, both past and present.

Despite the spin that Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and their assorted rag bag of chums sought to put on everything they did, their Government had quite sinister and extreme motives from the start. They wanted to put into place the remaining pieces required to further their world vision - and follow on from their predecessors who were in previous Labour stints of governance.

To give just one example of somebody from a previous Labour era, let's take Roy Jenkins. Roy was a one man wrecking ball who seemed to be intent on following the aims and ambitions of cultural Marxism, critical theory, and so on and so forth.

Despite him looking like a school teacher (or a doddering weatherman),  he was comparatively an "extremist" politician, a true radical of the "left". He had an ambition far above his electorate's wishes and desires - and sought to make sure they happened.

Whilst being a Labour party backbencher in the late 1950s, Jenkins wrote a tract entitled "Is Britain Civilised?". In this piece, amongst other things, he attacked Britain's "archaic" laws on censorship, homosexuality, divorce and abortion, etc, as well as arguing for the abolition of capital punishment and changes to the country's "Victorian" criminal justice system. Lancashire, where I am based, was a test bed for a lot of the reforms in the Police.

Although Roy's "progressive" views on these kinds of social reforms were still in the minority within the Labour party (which at that time was still morally and socially conservative, like the British National Party), by 1964, when Labour eventually regained power, much had changed.

Led by Jenkins and his old Oxford friend Tony Crosland, a group of middle-class, mainly Oxbridge-educated "intellectuals" had risen to prominence in the party and, for these "modernisers", the main aim was the social, (rather than the economic), transformation of Britain.

Although their views also had little support among the British public at large, this group was able to push through its liberalising agenda when Jenkins became Home Secretary in 1965 - whether the wider population liked it or not.

This process and strategy is the one which was directly instructed by the school of Frankfurt and those writings by extreme left intellectuals who were intent on overthrowing traditional western civilisation.

The Labour party, ever since, has continued to set about a political game of "KerPlunk", removing what little remained of the foundations of our country and its structure, so that they could allow further things to pass through the net later, whilst we lost our collective marbles.

They kept pulling out those straws, in full knowledge of what is likely to happen as a result of doing so. They followed policies deliberately that enabled it to pursue its own political agenda.

Labour had increasingly ditched the ideals and wishes of the electorate (ie, wider society) to seek their own interests - and as a result had become a deeply politically motivated government looking for a whole new form of socialism. This included internationalism, globalism, "group rights", so on and so forth, which altered the direction of the classic (and somewhat patriotic and nationalistic) liberalism of the traditional "left" in Britain.

Via a double barrel of creeping change and more overt entry-ism, many Labour party movers and shakers were (and still are) rooted in Communist Party affiliations, Trotskyism, Fabian Society affiliations, links to DEMOS, Common Purpose, Runnymede Trust, Socialist Workers Party, UAF, London School of Economics and so on and so forth.

These are vehicles of "extreme" politically underscored positions with an end goal agenda like any other fundamental  ideology - which in the case of  some of these groups listed (when taken to their ultimate conclusions) are much more extreme, much more brutal, much more sinister, oppressive and bloodstained in body-count than 'National Socialism" ever was.

(Some could perhaps consider this "Nazi" benchmark bogeyman of politics rather strange, considering the comparative scale of communist brutality and body-counts that seem to go unchallenged and unmentioned). 

Yet Labour were able to operate and implement their extremist aims and objectives without any real scrutiny being paid towards their deep seated leanings that underpinned their policies. It is no secret any more that some individuals within Labour were in cooperation with the USSR and even acting as double agents and spies for the purposes of bringing about (and aiding and abetting) communism.

Don't believe me? See here for just one example reported in the mainstream media.

Upon examination of what has happened since, I think it would be naive to not understand that the actions and practices employed are those directly lifted out of the writings and suggestions of the Frankfurt School, and that those people who they were ideologically aligning themselves with throughout the "cultural revolution" were cut from the same cloth.

However, we are often generally forgetful of what ties the party had, and how the public have come to simply take them on 'face value' instead. In the view of the average 'non-political' voter, I do not believe that Labour are really associated with Communism. People are pretty clueless about these things, especially those with no political interest at all. I know I was, and in some ways I still am!

After the "long march through the institutions" they (and their viewpoints) are presented as "mainstream" and nobody really comprehends anything different than Labour just being another choice of policy ideas on the ballot paper. I believe this lulls people into a false sense of security about them not being manipulated and subjected to extremist ambitions.

I would argue that Tony Blair, for example, was an 'extremist' politician, somebody who pushed through a radical transformation of this country.

He managed to achieve much of this without really explaining what he was doing (he was an affiliate of the Fabians society 'wolf in sheeps clothing', after all!). By doing so, he left the traditional Conservatives utterly in the dust when it came to understanding what the Labour Party was actually up to.

(Either that, or the Conservatives were virtually complicit throughout the whole New Labour era - and seeing that many of the concepts and approaches of the Conservative party (and people behind the instalment of the David Cameron) come from those same people who were behind Labour, it is quite believable that they were generally implicit!)

Mr Blair's speech from the Labour Party Conference in 1999 was actually quite revealing and should have indicated some clues as to where things may have been going.  

Admittedly, I am going to be selective here with the following extracts, but bear in mind that no government official is ever going to explicitly go for the jugular and ram home their actual agenda in one bite. Their real zeal is going to be peppered around here and there instead, worked in, framed carefully.

Mr Blair certainly peppered his speech with various sound bites that I would suggest shone a light upon his real agenda.

In it, he spoke of wanting to "sweep away conservatism", "disturb the natural order of things", "lay the foundations of a new Britain".

He spoke of progressive politics and "the forces of change driving the future", of things which "don't stop at national boundaries", "don't respect tradition", "wait for no-one and no nation" and are "universal" in their nature.

He desired to undertake a "historic mission to liberate Britain" from those "old class divisions, old structures, old prejudices, old ways of working and doing things which will not do in this world of change".

He wanted a mission with the Labour Party acting to "be the progressive force that defeats the forces of conservatism".

He proclaimed that "the 21st century will not be about the battle between capitalism and socialism but between the forces of progress and the forces of conservatism" - by which he meant 'small c' conservatism:  "not just in the Conservative party but within us, within our nation".

He spoke of this conservatism comprising of "old prejudices, where foreign means bad, where multiculturalism is not something to celebrate, but a left wing conspiracy to destroy their way of life", and where there are "old elites, old establishments which have run our professions and our country too long".

I believe that the selected quotes, albeit cherry picked, show an extreme zeal to enforce a wholly different kind of country upon the nation.

I suppose that it may equally be seen as quite mild to some other people reading this, but given the background and context of the desires, I think this is pretty fundamental stuff, the kind of stuff which transforms civilisation itself when manifested into power and genuine action.

That was his aim and ambition, and he carried it out - just like Roy Jenkins pushed things through in the 1960's. Roy Jenkins, by the way, was actually an advisor to Anthony Blair, which may explain a lot. 

Mr Blair's 'utopian' New Labour politics succeeded in radically transforming the very nature of our society, from social attitudes, the ethnic make up of the nation, to the way it even thinks and operates, and penultimately removed its sovereignty.

At times, I wondered just how much destructiveness they would sow in the rush before they were thrown out of office. They certainly managed quite a lot, and left the Conservatives to carry the can of mopping up some of their economics, something which always seems to happen and something which the same old cat-fight between "left" and "right" never seems to escape from.

Labour will continue to blame the Tories "slash and burn", pleasing their own electoral base whilst once again associating Conservatives with "tough times". Yet the Conservatives are far from innocent in all this, they are the "tag team" of our demise. They are just as embedded into selling us down the river as Labour, only for differing reasons.

The transformation of this country itself has been "extreme", especially given such a small time frame.

Labour, in my view, has certainly been an extremist party by its actions, driven by unrepentant fanaticism to see their desires come to pass.

They did not care what happened to ordinary people, especially the white working class who were once their sole support base.

They implanted situations which were wholly damaging to their interests,  damaging to their families and their communities' well being - whilst informing them that it was supposed to be good for them. They generally had to agree and go along with it all, or else they were extremists.

Whether it be social reforms or immigration, they betrayed those people and betrayed this nation. They knew exactly what they were doing and despite reality showing that their visions were failing and often unwanted, they were extreme enough to push "change" through regardless, and at whatever the cost.

In the next part of this series, I will aim to point out some of the things that have happened to Britain as a result of these policies and desires.



No comments:

Post a Comment