Political motivation vs. political reality, a study of British politics.
The quotation of Oscar Wilde, “the British and Americans are two people separated by a common language.“ Is in the forefront of my thoughts as I write this, what I hope to be a guide to understanding British politics, for both the Brits and the Americans.
When one reads the broad selection of commentary in the British Newspapers, especially the flagship papers for the intelligentsia on the right and the left, which are the Telegraph and the Guardian respectively, an American, used to the less disparate comments of our political scene on the west side of the pond, sometimes thinks he has made a wrong turn and is visiting the tower of Babel, (or the inside of a mad house.)
This article will attempt to sort out all the players, and explain their various motivations, so that hopefully both of our peoples will understand the system, and the many times bizarre way it functions.
American observers of our domestic political scene in the various big city political machines, state capitals, and that strange place inside the Washington Beltway insiders here call Sodom on the Potomac, at least those of us observers who have lost our juvenile faith that one of the two political Parties is intrinsically better than the other, have little trouble penetrating the rhetoric, and Identifying the groups of players, their actual agendas and loyalties. The basic words in US politics are paymasters, and core constituency groups. If You know who the players are in these groups for a specific politician, you can predict with astounding accuracy the political positions he or she will take on any specific issue. Conversely the actual voting record, on specific facets of any piece of legislation, or the behind the scenes advocacy for various doctrines, gives a glimpse of the politicians actual controlling forces, which of course no politicians reveals in his or her public pronouncements.
If this sound too Machiavellian, to be true, then I submit to the reader that he better get out his copy of “The Prince” and read it. And this time pay attention.
American and British political systems differ, because American and British people differ in their self perceptions and their outlook on the world. The irony is that American Society, which is much more diverse in origin, is also much less fragmented in political opinion, which in turn is one of the reasons this nation has operated for so long under a two party system , when the British system has now three “mainstream” Parties, two large minor parties, three regional Parties, and a slew of small minor Parties.
No understanding of the complexity of the British system is possible without first understanding the underlying motivations of the various classes of Brits who make up the modern UK. The first thing Americans and British need to understand about the British is that they are a people who as a nation were once predominant on the world stage and cannot quite come to terms with the second class status the UK now has, as a no longer determinant body in world affairs. Since this is written for both Americans and British I must explain to my American readers that, with the last sentence, I have just shot an arrow through my British cousins hearts, metaphorically speaking.
Most Americans who are concerned primarily with things in this nation, do not realize the tremendous sway and primary effect the British empire has had for the last three hundred years, over the affairs of the entire world. In the Latter half of the twentieth Century, America has been dominant, but even that dominance has largely served to complete the work of establishing the Anglo Saxon culture as preeminent in the world, and that preeminence is largely the work of Great Britain.
So now when the British, who have contributed so much, look at their nation, shorn of its political dominance of the English speaking world, even shorn of its industrial base by voracious international capitalists, are unable to cope with this loss of majesty, they seek substitutes, and their individual rationalizations about their choices form the basis of their political attachments.
With the caveat that any categorization involves inherent simplification of complexities and thus reduction in accuracy, I will lay out the basic political groupings amongst the various British classes and some of the whys and wherefores of these
Since these people, financially speaking, are at the top of the heap, we first need to discuss the Conservative Party, the Tories, and their various groupings of political supporters. The most important thing to understand about the Tories is no matter what they say their leadership follows the dictates of the international Banksters without the slightest deviation. They are Europhiles not because these Brits love continentals, they do not. They cordially hate the French , Patronize the Germans, and hold the Italians in contempt. But they are financial pragmatists first and foremost and they believe to a man, that their bread is baked in Zurich and buttered in Strasbourg. The international Banksters have created this Kluge, this European monster, as the next Roman empire and the for the top Brits, it is their new ego toy, predestined to continue the world dominance they have enjoyed for the last three centuries. Furthermore, it is the British banking families who are amongst those at the top of the heap, and a whole bunch of Tories, who butter their own bread in the City of London (translated into American, work for the banks) pin their hopes upon the success of that confederation, which they believe is predestined to replace America as the new financial powerhouse of the world.
The top Tories aren’t the only Brits who have cast their fate on this shiny new vision. There are legions of hangers on throughout the social spectrum who have also cast their fate with the success of this brave new world. These include what we in America would call upper Middle class Brits, college educated and for the most part professionally employed, or at least with well remunerated “white collar” employment in the capitalist sector, mostly in large firms. They have their salaries, their suburban houses and their easy lifestyles. They want to appear urbane and sophisticated, and even if they do not really buy into the whole “multicultural” shtick, they can sure fake it well enough. These people represent the core Tory voter. All in all, the Tory voters are the easiest to understand and if they had a universal motto it would be ” don’t rock the boat”.
The other predominant political Party is Labour, the Party which to American pragmatic eyes is a collection of the oddest bedfellows he has ever seen or expected to see in the western world . This Labour Party is actually Nu LABOUR and it was formed when Tony Blair forced the stodgy old communists in the old labor party to, at least publically, abandon their Marxist Ideas about the government forcible redistribution of wealth. The current supporting electorate of this party is a mixture the old left who are smart enough to see that the Red fringes In the Socialist workers Party will never achieve political power, and the old working class drones ( “my father voted Labour and His father before him and I will always vote Labour,”) and the immigrant ethnic blocks who believe that only the Labour party will assure their protected status. The Old left pragmatists with their Frankfort school ethics and their anti-religious views who run the Labour Party, also favor the EU because its policy of cultural genocide matches their own. You cannot preach to them on the financial consequences of grabbing a tiger by the tail for the more venal of them are more than satisfied to milk a leftist bureaucrat rich social system for the myriads of well paid sinecures it provides, and the idealists hate the Tories too much to ever change the way they vote no matter how degrading their lifestyle becomes.
The swing voters those who bounce between Tories and Labour are ill educated in real politik but are pragmatically concerned primarily with their own economic situation. They are usually swayed by the opposition party whenever the government Party is in power in an economic recession. That is why currently the Labour Party has almost no chance of winning the next election, which by British law, must be called by May 2010.
The third establishment Party, which might be called “Tory lite” is the Lib Dems. Politically they position themselves somewhere between the Conservative and Labour, which in practice means they really do not stand for anything. The ten percent of the nation that votes for them are somehow convinced that they are the enlightened ones, capitalist without being mean towards the labouring man and concerned about societies social problem without proposing anything that will actually cost them much money. Politically correct; their voters come from upscale semi urban areas that have no problems with the cultural issues of the ethnic ghettoes.
Going to the regional parties one comes in order of influence to the Scottish National Party It is what it says and advocates essentially a poetical split between Scotland and the rest of the UK. It campaigns for sovereignty but its leadership has no problem with the complete surrender of sovereignty to the EU. It has no economic policies, no plans to protect Scottish culture or to attempt to revitalize Scottish industry, thus it is second, even in Scotland, to the Labour Party. Outside Scotland it does not exist.
Next we have Plaid Cyrmu in Wales, a party whose name means Welsh national but whose support is largely gathered from the Moslem community in Wales which it courts assiduously. It managed to get one of the three MEP seats in Wales and has control of a few councils but otherwise has no influence, or presence anywhere else.
The third sectarian nationalist party is once again in northern Ireland and is the well know IRA political wing, Sinn Fein. Hard core communist and anti British in policy , it represents the ethnic Catholics in northern Ireland but just as the other two, has no support or relevance anywhere else.
Now we come to the large minority Parties first and foremost, the most important the British National Party. This party is the true opposition in the UK to the destruction of British sovereignty in that creation of the international Banksters which is the European Union. This is the only genuinely populist political Party in Great Britain and as such is the only viable threat to the European federalist oligarchy. Consequently it is the most reviled party by the establishment and it press. They never cease to castigate the party and its membership, knowing full well if it takes power most of the criminal collaborators in the British establishment face exposure, ruin, and in many cases long terms of imprisonment.
Since the political establishment that controls the three main parties has staked all on becoming part of the European Bureaucracy, They must stop the BNP at all costs. This creates somewhat of a problem, for the British people who know the truth about the BNP and what it really represents, are its staunch defenders, and the establishment has largely failed in its attempt to demonize the party, thus to enable brutal repressive measures that the vast majority of the British public, no matter which party they support, will not countenance, and would in fact be political suicide for any party to attempt. So the leadership of the BNP cannot be removed or physically attacked like the nationalist party in Hungary, Jobbick, has been by the security police, and the extreme violence provoking attacks by the Communist UAF has generated little but disgust from Brits of all political stripes at the way the police allow them to get away with all sorts of political violence, during so called “peaceful demonstrations”.
The failure of the establishment to demonize the BNP has only failed in working class areas, however.
The people there know the local BNP as “good honest blokes” ” not scum like the ‘toffs’ call them” and the only reason why they haven’t kicked the Labour party entirely out of white working class areas is their sense that they can’t go along with the BNP’s all white British ideal. In fact, the only people who hate the BNP are divided not politically but socially, because, and this is something Americans do not understand, Brits have an ingrained “class consciousness” that forms their basic outlook and is much more important to many of them than their common British Nationality. Quite simply put, the Middle class (translated into American white collar college educated well spoken) actually despises the undereducated mostly underpaid working class. And the working class similarly does not like the toffs. And though you find members o f the Middle class both in the Tories and in Labour, you almost never find the hard core white working class in the industrial areas, supporting the Tories, no matter what Labour has done to them.
So the Propaganda painting the BNP as uncouth lower class goons has done its job amongst the more dim witted of the middle class who unashamedly parrot the lies the establishment tells about it. The fact that Griffin has a law degree from Cambridge evokes tirades of denial that he is intelligent and competent , these people cannot disturb their fantasy that somehow they are mentally superior to Griffin, when quite obviously they are not.
The minions of the media not only cater to this self deception of the common herd of somewhat thick Tories, they do everything in their power to keep these conceited know nothings in their state of denial, and not being able to shut Griffin out of the media entirely, when they do get him on, go to fantastic lengths to keep him on the defensive about the ethnic policy of the BNP, and not allow him to get into an open discussion of the political policy of the ruling elite.
For indeed the underlying struggle the raison de Terre of the political class is to support the financial oligarchy in its never ending game for more power and wealth. The super rich Brahmins have for some time define the political struggle as to keep the world from being submerged in a tide of egalitarianism. To have to give up their bloated life styles even for a well appointed house in suburbia, to be submerged in a rising tide of endlessly breeding humanity. This is their ultimate nightmare and they will go to any lengths to prevent its happening even to a genocidal ”limited” nuclear war. Having no faith in a God or the prospect of the next life, they do whatever they perceive as necessary to cling to their position of privilege in this one.
To accomplish this they have to perpetually manipulate their underlings, the functionaries of the ruling classes, the business and political leaders, to carry out their policies. the bribes are rendered hierarchically, in form and amount sufficient to assure the compliance of each component of the infrastructure, and penalties for those who don’t ”go along to get along” are delivered as well.
Of course this knowledge of how the system really operates is the political equivalent of the religious states of enlightenment teasingly proffered as the goal to practitioners of some oriental religions. It is the only real contribution of Karl Marx, the knowledge that there are some at the top of the pyramid whose only goal is power and their version of ”lebensraum” that requires, in their view, a significant downward adjustment in the world’s population. The only thing worse in fact that than the knowledge that it is these people who run the world, and will ,no matter what we do, continue to exercise a disproportionate influence in how it is run, is the Marxist nightmare of the regimented masses forever toiling in a dreary society of bureaucratically enforced godless proletarian “equality”. That may not be the dream of the die hard Communists, but demonstrably and invariably, it is the result of Communism.
The member of the BNP understand, just as their forefathers, the historic British yeoman who were subjugated by their Norman overlords understood , that an oligarchy is going to be with us perpetually, but it is up to the people to limit the power and rapacity of those classes who have no self limiting mechanism. This is not done by attempting to enforce the Communist concept of almost absolute social and financial parity, but by ensuring that these lions of commerce and industry do not aggrandize their wealth by monopolistic control of all material engines of wealth, which leaves the common people struggling in a perpetual tightening downward spiral of an economic and social straightjacket. The accomplishment of this the regulation of the rapacity of societies wealthy, while not stifling our star performers, is an art, rather than a set of cut and dried rules, as changing times and conditions requires constant change in the rules.
However, certain basic principles abide. The first is concentrations of power are dangerous, and any concentration higher than the nation state extremely dangerous, hence alliances and treaties should be of necessity for the good of the people, temporary in nature, to be renegotiated when the disadvantages of such outweigh their advantages. The second principle is a corollary to the first, power within the nation must be divided and devolved to the lowest levels possible.
The BNP hierarchy all understand these principles thoroughly. In fact, the restricted nature of the voting membership has enabled the BNP to largely limit its leaders to those whose life experience has enabled them to agree to these concepts. This is necessary for nothing is so essential to a relatively small party, beset on all sides by enemies, than unity of basic purpose. Those who can’t see that they are fighting the entire power structure of the EU, and agree to work together, are of necessity removed from positions where they can damage the party, or if they are too rebellious, from the Party entirely. For the BNP to do otherwise at this stage would be suicidal.
This is not a complete explanation of the BNP but it is sufficient so that serious minded people can see that the British National Party is worth the time and energy to investigate, and, if they find things as I have stated, support. Most Brits agree with many of the concepts of limited interchange with Europe that does not impede the national sovereignty of the UK and a limit to the international bankers rapacity that has caused the current financial crisis . The only reason they do not flock to the BNP are, as previously stated, the perception of it as a low brow low class mob. However many of them can no longer support the current Lib Lab Con EU project.
For these people, essentially Tories who are smart enough not to try riding tigers, the Party of choice is the one created by dissenting Tories. That party is UKIP. or spelled out the United Kingdom Independence Party. The 2009 European elections revealed that on the issue of the EU their support was stronger than Labour. In fact the only reason the Tories beat them in the number of supporters, was because David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party, held out as a lure, something he hoped he would never have to keep, a promise of a public referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
However smart they are about not riding the tiger, and thereby not marching to the tune of the Banksters, UKIP is really a Party made up of fools. They think they can force the Conservative Party to adopt their position on Europe when all most all the financial backers of the Tories are controlled by the banks.
The laisee faire attitude of the UKIP party leaders cannot let them see the truth. Either the government controls the banks, or the bankers control the government. There are no power vacuums in politics. If you won’t ride the tiger because you know you will be eventually killed by it, you better get the whip and the gun and cage it or you will end up as lunch anyway. The idea that you can stand aloof, a personal island of political principles in a sea of change, without taking on in full battle those who hold opposing principles is absurd.
Anyway in practice it seems the anti EU principles of the UKIP leadership may be mere posturing, no matter what the rank and file believe. In Barking, old Labour territory that the UKIP Toffs cannot possibly win, they are following the same destructive plan they tried in Barking and Dagenham in 2007, when they put up opposition candidates to oppose the BNP slate that swept the electorate and has now become the official opposition on the local council. They are planning to oppose Nick Griffins’ run against Margaret Hodge by putting up a candidate to act as spoiler and siphon anti EU votes from the BNP. Since in practice it is going to take all the UKIP seats they can win in the south of England, plus all the seats the BNP can wrest from Labour in the industrial areas, to force a coalition government on the Tories, their action is unjustifiable. It is beyond foolish to sabotage your allies.
However making foolish stands on alleged principles without attempting to discover the nature scope, organization, and power of the established structure you are opposing, is another quirky facet of the some British people. There are a myriad of small parties, of which, the logic of their go it alone stance, and even of their principles, makes most of their cadre and even supporters belong in the mentally ill category. To put it bluntly, denial is not a river in Africa, it is the mental state of about eight or nine percent of the British electorate, who support political parties like the Greens, the English Democrats, NO2 EU, or the Socialist Workers Party, Most of these do not even have a logically coherent platform, in terms of real politik. None of them stand the chance of a snowball in a furnace, when it comes to taking power or affecting policy.
Successful politics is a matter of joining the Party that most closely follows your views, then working together with the membership to make it successful in elections. Being divisive Insisting on your views prevailing when you are in the minority, and forming secret cliques against the leadership of that Party when you don’t get your way, is the type of behavior children engage in and is by definition mentally aberrant behavior in an adult. If you are not a child and you oppose a certain stance of the Party you are in, you have two choices, One is to keep your opposition to that aspect of Party policy to internal party circles, stating your position to the membership but willingly and publically supporting the majority position. If the principle is so basic, so important to you that you cannot stop supporting it, you must Publically stand against the leadership , then resign from that party and try to find a group of like minded people. And, this is a reality check. If you find a policy or principle that, in your mind, is so overwhelmingly important, but you cannot convince a sufficient number of people to also support this principle, it is most probable that the flaw is not in all those that oppose, but in the idea that you are trying to sell to them.
Anyway, politics is the art of the possible, and if you don’t have the vast wealth of the Banksters, the possible is defined by your support base for your ideas, and the allies you can garner. It takes strong principles and hard work, openness and honesty and the willingness to engage in free discussion with others, as well as a knowledge of how the system works, to achieve a political system that will make your nation and community a decent place to live. It is a constant struggle where each generation does its part in the battle for freedom and decency, not something that can be won once and for all for all time. Finally it is a vital struggle for honorable men and women cannot placidly coexist with corruption and evil. It is in our nature to fight it, and if we do not, then something good dies within us.
By American Nationalist
There are few times in high level politics when the people involved show that they are really incompetent to hold the positions they have. In America we have been treated to eight years of a stooge so inept he kept muffing his lines until finally his handlers had him saying nothing that was not completely scripted. But that was a first in the history of the Presidency
UKIP’s London Chairman Paul Wiffen took great delight in telling me that I was lying about everything in the last article, I must have just made it all up off the top of my head.
UKIP insiders are claiming that political chameleon Winston Mckenzie is putting himself forward as the candidate to take on Nick Griffin for the Barking parliamentary seat.
Recent Comments