Monday, 14 August 2017

Muddle in the Middle

Following on from my previous post, after a few interesting days…

One of the inevitable effects of so-called 'centrist' parties is that they are, in effect, opposing everyone else, both Left and Right. I suspect that a realisation of this is what might have deterred Arron Banks from launching his own rumoured centrist party. He must have sussed out, surely, that he'd be not only be in actuality but also publicly perceived as 'against everyone' and his efforts would thus be dismissed as negative and as being irrelevant to tackling any actual issues. One cannot (in general) fight a war on two fronts – especially when one's opponents have only a singly 'enemy' (the Left or the Right) each.

This is always going to be the problem with such parties or movements – not that the idea is without merit, but in the real world it cannot work. This is why even mainstream parties that wish (or even need) to do well in the 'middle ground' still pitch themselves as centre-left or centre-right. There is a good reason for it, you see.

James Chapman's proposed new party – provisionally to be called either the Democrats, the UK Democrats, or the New Democrats – has been tweeting for the past three days; and if one were to look through their several hundred tweets already (including many re-tweets of others' contributions) as I have done to some extent, one would find a very strange mix, with some home-brew threads that really seem off-the-wall.

I encountered one such thread about the devil and the law, which is frankly impenetrable and gives the impression (probably incorrectly) of a drug-fuelled mini-rant. It certainly doesn't make any sense that I can deduce. Meanwhile, their 'anti everyone' stance in other tweets and commentary elsewhere produces a very muddled and unclear policy outlook.

As I mentioned before, even their proposed form of name is in complete contrast to their actual policy placement, as their primary goal is to overturn a democratic decision in favour of their own preference. This is the referendum result that was a vote to leave the European Union.

Okay, so it is currently the annual 'silly season' where just about anything can happen – and this seems to be this year's biggest contribution toward maintaining that perennial reputation. For all I know, this might be just be a parody, and will be declared as such any day now. If not, though…

I suspect this will end up like Veritas, Respect and the other non Union-driven fringe parties such as the English Democrats – and where UKIP currently seems to be heading as well (just as I predicted several years ago and ever since) as a dead end that will no doubt have a flurry of publicity, and will then vegetate and slowly die.

It might not; but I can't see it going anywhere, as there is no sense or positive purpose in it.

Saturday, 12 August 2017

All Roads Lead to the Centre

Something that I have been discussing in semi-private for several years now (some of it is publicly visible on Twitter) is the prospect of yet another political party here in Britain, in reaction to all the (both perceived and actual) polarisation of the existing parties that many are seeing as 'extremism', or at least a tendency in such a direction.

Remembering my predictions about where Labour in particular were heading ever since Ed[ward] Miliband then became their leader, and the consequent (promoted by some) rise of UKIP as the only remaining way for the broader Left to undermine the potentially huge Conservative success that they could see lasting for decades, it was clear that the public perception of the then (and current) political scene as becoming ever more divided and divisive was near-enough certain to expand greatly within a very few years.

That has now happened, exactly as a small number of us in the commentariat expected, and an even smaller number (I'd guess) publicly stated as their opinion.

Thus it is no surprise that the idea of what is claimed would be a new 'centre-left' party has been mooted for a while, and now there are actual moves being made to bring it into reality. It is an easy concept to sell to the public and, to a cautious extent, the big media.

There have been several of such proposals in recent years, including (inevitably) a specifically Labour break-away party for all those moderates (if such a beast exists) who have been and are being ousted from re-standing at the next election by Momentum, and those ousted folk's supporters. Now, just this past week, we have had James Chapman (a.k.a. Chappers) proposing in effect a coalition of those from all parties and political persuasions (or none) who are opposed to the UK leaving the European Union – which is to be a big policy feature of this new party.

In the ultimately irony, going against a democratic decision that the British people have already made – and which has strengthened in terms of leaving the EU via what some are mischievously calling a 'hard Brexit' – they are thinking of calling themselves 'The Democrats'. I suppose that is at least consistent with what already exists on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean: a party called 'Democrats' that is anything but.

Thus we know from the outset that it is a deception, and no doubt will become as malign a political force as those other 'Democrats' once the brand has been established, initially seemingly benign and well-intentioned but soon shifting gears to where it is probably even now planned to ultimately sit in the political panorama.

It has been noted that the two main founders of this new party have shifted their own positions to further their own careers. Now, I don't have any fine details on their personal histories, but anyone who feels so inclined (I don't, this time) can easily check – especially on Brexit.

Meanwhile, we do of course still have the Liberal Democrats, who fit into this exact slot: centre-left, anti-Brexit. Why create a new party when one such already exists? Not that it is exactly doing well – but that tells me that any party with that approach will now lose out, so it is hardly worth creating a near-copycat new one. It isn't as if the Lib Dems are as toxic a brand as they once were because of their coalition with the Conservatives in government earlier this decade: that is now essentially history. Indeed, their pluses (such as they are) significantly outweigh their negatives.

A new party comes into the arena as an unknown, and it takes many years to establish themselves, especially if they do not even have established elected members as its founders. The public simply will not trust them, although I'd expect an initial 'honeymoon' period that will give a misleading indication of popularity.

If this new party goes ahead, especially with its proposed somewhat pretentious title, I'd expect it to face a real test once it has to put out a real election manifesto and then defend that to the public, including via the media. We have already witnessed how unforgiving that process can be, and I cannot see the new venture becoming any more than, say, another Respect or Veritas, though not in quite the same form as those always were 'cult of personality' pseudo-parties.

So was UKIP under Farage, of course – but that party was being bigged-up by those who saw it as the only way to stop the Conservatives after the obviously useless Ed Miliband became Labour leader. There will be no such incentive for those manipulators to support or promote the new venture.

It will probably die or be absorbed into one of the fringe parties after a few years, much as Veritas merged with the English Democrats some months ago. Near-enough no-one will miss it…

Wednesday, 5 July 2017

Licence to Sin

My previous post here looked at one area where some people are apparently now 'authorised' to commit the kind of violence they had been doing for years already. The main point, though, was the seeming legitimisation of the violence.

Now we have let that sink in during the days since I posted that, it is perhaps a good time to look at the broader picture. Ultimately, it is the Satanic agenda that embraces and encourages sin of various kinds – including deception, polygamy, theft, child abuse and violence in general.

This in itself is absolute proof that there is nothing of God or of righteousness in those political, religious or secretive movements (the three 'legs' of the devil's support tripod that I have mentioned before) that 'authorise' any of those things, let alone practise them. God hates sin, and certainly doesn't seek to encourage or condone it. Thus these, where sin is embedded at their core, cannot be of God and never have been.

Although it is often hidden out of public gaze, and camouflaged by nice-sounding passages that can be quoted to give the organisation (or whatever) an acceptable public face, the reality is always there, lurking beneath the surface – or suddenly exploding into our consciousness.

Often the participants don't realise what they are getting themselves into – such as secret society initiation rituals where the initiate doesn't know what vows he is going to make until he has to repeat what is read out to him. Those of the Freemasons are quite horrific, for example – though their officials try to make out that it isn't 'literal'. Of course it is: otherwise the wording would have been changed, obviously. Interestingly, Jack the Ripper applied Masonic punishments to his victims; though no-one outside the Brotherhood knew their origin back then.

Always one finds harming and other sins allowed, even encouraged and sometimes enforced, with all the Satanic 'tripod legs'. Thus we can fairly easily determine which parts of our society are under the devil's full control. I do realise that there are some grey areas, and much misinformation around besides, but most people with a reasonably functioning brain should be able to sort the wheat from the chaff – apart from those with their own warped agenda, which also usually turns out to be Satanic only they don't often realise that fact. That, though, is another story…

Friday, 30 June 2017

Licensed Violence

The removal of the 'non-violence' rule by the Corbyn/Labour-supporting Momentum political movement is just the (predictable) next stage in what I have long thought was their always-intended move toward totalitarianism.

Students of twentieth-century history will be aware of the route taken in various other countries toward 'socialist revolution' and its eventual destination, and will no doubt spot the parallels. Those readers who have been following my writings here and elsewhere will also be aware that I have been expecting all of this – and worse to come – for quite a few years now, long preceding the advent of Momentum. They are just the vehicle: the plan has been there all along.

Indeed, I am surprised it took them this long to become sufficiently bold and confident that they felt they could now make this change to their rules: they no longer need the veneer of apparent respectability, as their support is large enough and solid enough. Not that the rule would ever stopped them anyway, one might surmise from media reports and other factors, but I can well imagine that they had to at least appear to be a peaceful movement while they were still building up their numbers.

Now the gloves can come off formally: they have effectively licensed violence.

The exact timing of this rule change is significant, though, inasmuch as it almost immediately precedes their next 'street action' which I gather is planned for this coming weekend – so expect an upping of the ante on this occasion. I am anticipating the most severe rioting we have seen in this country for many a year, unless the police have devised (and can implement) a clever enough strategy to be able to nip it all in the bud on the day.

From here on in it all escalates in the now near-desperate effort to foment sufficient civil unrest to achieve the next steps along the road to ultimate totalitarianism here in Britain: civil war and the introduction of martial law in order to subdue and control the population.

Monday, 12 June 2017

Pinch Point

With reports that one of the big reasons – perhaps the biggest – why last week's election was called at all was because the EU's Jean-Claude Juncker told PM Theresa May that her then (small) inherited majority wouldn't serve her well enough when it came to the 'pinch points' in the Brexit negotiations, we are starting to see some of the bigger picture.

In particular, a somewhat squeezed Mrs May, trying to do the best job for Britain, while undoubtedly not trusting Juncker (who would?) nevertheless must have felt that it was better to go for it than to leave things be. At the very least, it wouldn't let the EU negotiators be able to claim that our Prime Minister hadn't had the guts to try.

This and many other behind-the-scenes activities are what I have to try to discover and take into account when making my own predictions and formulating my own approaches to all the reasonably probable outcomes and consequences of what is happening out there in the political world.

As some 'old hands' here already know, my own (admittedly modest) influence is done mostly invisibly, and primarily through extending public knowledge of what the players are really up to, via a complex network of channels and other structures.

In practice, it is like a hysteresis loop, with the effect somewhat lagging behind whatever I (and no doubt others) do, and out of phase with it for a while. Steering a boat, especially at close quarters with another vessel, feels a little like it as well. Nonetheless it is the best anyone can do while respecting the population's right to self-determination – which I always do.

Most people eventually grow up politically, which is why the majority of the older generation end up no longer conned by the Left's false promises and attempted bribes, and tend toward the political Right in their leanings. Over time, the wiser heads die off, though, and the newly-indoctrinated – so mostly Left-leaning – youths reach voting age, so the whole learning cycle begins again.

Thus this is a never-ending scenario, and we all have to use our brains more effectively if we are to become a better and stronger nation in the near future. One vital aspect of that in the current time-frame is to get out of the EU completely, regardless of the outcome of last Thursday's election, and that is something we can still do.