If there was an agreement for an election, it wasn’t on Monday … or more likely the lying deceptive, dishonest, anti-democrats of Labour reneged.
Scum Politicians
All our politicians are lying scum. Some blatantly lied when they promised to take us out the eUnion, others lied by saying they’re for democracy.
- Lib Democrat – for democracy, except when to lose.
- SNP – for the right for self determination to leave the Union, except when it’s the hated English voting to leave the (e)Union.
- Labour – just lies. They lied about taking us out the EU, and the no-deal blocker was just a “backstop” to stop us leaving if they couldn’t stop it any other way.
- Tory – only supporting leaving the EU, because they know they will never get to power again as most of their supporters will be voting UKIP/Brexit party.
When the election seemed imminent I joined the Tories, but apparently that was a mistake. They clearly could have talked out the brexit blocker bill, but did not. I had assumed that there must have been a deal which would led to us leaving the neo-Nazi EU, but apparently not.
I’m sick to death waiting for our politicians to fulfil their promise for us to leave the EU. We NEVER should have been in the EU in the first place and we were only in it because of the lies of the politicians and media like the Biased Corp.
To add insult to injury, there is now unequivocal proof (link) that no link between CO2 and climate can be claimed, because the climate models have been proven to miss vital physics and the result is that their actual accuracy is no better than +/-15C in 100 years. There is no credibility to the climate scam which has already cost each of us £1000s and is set to cost each of us tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Politicians are scum!
The Revolution Cometh
Academia has fallen flat on its face, the media have fallen flat on their face and the politicians likewise. Those who once controlled our society, now lack all credibility. It therefore is extremely likely – even inevitable – that new sources of credibility will take over.
That is easy to predict, but what is less easy is the timing and even more difficult the form. At least with the timing we can draw some historical analogies.
Communist revolutions started around 1870, probably reached a peak 1910-50 and then faded. The precursor to this was the introduction in 1830, of the first penny press newspaper. Penny press papers cost about one-sixth the price of other newspapers and appealed to a wider audience.
The response to this falling newspaper price and the growing interest of poorer groups in politics is shown by the fact that in the early 19th century, there were 52 London papers and over 100 other titles. The British government response to the more poorer people getting an interest in politics was that in 1802, and 1815 the tax on newspapers was increased to three pence and then four pence.In retrospect the thinking is clear: newspapers and politics should be the preserve of the rich.
For understandable reasons, because this dramatically increased the price between 1831 and 1835 hundreds of untaxed newspapers made their appearance. And for understandable reasons, the political tone of most of them was fiercely revolutionary.
Today, the larger newspapers would be calling the smaller “fake news”, or even “bloggers” for failing to abide by the (rich) establishment line. Today that same establishment is now reeling at the changes brought about by the internet and is again actively trying to repress the “fiercely revolutionary” tone of the new media. The similarities are obvious.
Karl Marx wrote his in/famous Communist Manifesto in 1848, 15 years after the surge of revolutionary newspapers. This shows that the effect of revolutionary news media can be dramatic within a few decades. However, the first “communist” revolutions did not occur for 20 years and the Russian revolution was 70 years later. This also shows that the effect can be delayed considerably.
In truth, revolutions may be reported as one-off events, but in practice they are the accumulation of small changes which build tension resulting in a few large and sudden changes.
Arguably, in some ways, the internet has had a more profound affect than these early newspapers, totally undermining the previous technology and the establishment who used it to gain control over us. But perhaps being able to afford even one newspaper was far more revolutionary than a media that merely lets us read many alternative sources?
But what is certain, is that the internet will compress the timescale of the next revolution. We are already starting to see the facture lines forming along which it is likely to develop. The fault lines are now active, the only question is how long will it take the the social pressure to grow before there is a catastrophic realignment of thought that necessitates serious action amounting to a revolution.
Brexit is clearly one of those fault lines – the establishment being at fault, and the general populace sick to the teeth with their lies and anti-democratic behaviour. And, unless Brexit is sorted out (in favour of the people), it won’t be long before we start to see the stirrings of revolution in the UK. In retrospect, that fault line started before the internet revolution, but the internet gave the ordinary people their voice by which to force the referendum. But as we have seen, forcing a referendum and leaving the EU are two very different things. Some of the delay has been legitimate, in retrospect, most was not. But the establishment can and does fob off the populace for years before resentment grows and revolutionary thought develops.
The internet has already given us the Arab Spring, Trump and the Brexit vote. In a historical sense, these are only the warm up act.
The world is now split between two opposing ideologies: Groupthink (aka Socialism) and individualism/ diversity of views.
Every fascist/communist/censorist despot from Hitler (National Socialist) to Mao, from the climate cult to Isis, from Google to Goering, have been at the extreme end on the spectrum of Groupthink. Groupthing is a non-rational viewpoint, that says the group is right irrespective of the evidence or the arguments against it.
Individualism, diversity or views, freedom of expression, are beliefs “common” to those who share nothing in common except a respect for other people and their right to peacefully express their views and an expectation that decisions are made on a rational basis or if not, by majority vote of the population (not the elite).
As such individualism values high quality information sources, whilst groupthink hates them. For the aim of the groupthinkers is to merely indoctrinate the masses to their way of thinking.
Conclusion
The world is heading away from groupthink ideologies like socialism and toward individualism. And, my best guess is that within the next 10 to 50 years, we are likely to see a “earthquake” in politics amounting to a wholesale revolution of our society. Or … it could be that the groupthinkers win … because nothing is certain except that there will be a revolution.
