by John Ward
Bland consensus is a bad thing. But utilitarian consensus would be vastly preferable to the opposing armed camps of ideological nonsense we see before us today.
I do not consider myself to be a progressive. In the eyes of progressives, that statement renders me a scumfascistbigotracisthardrighter. Which kind of goes to show that not many progressives know (let alone think about) what progress is.
I do not consider the word ‘progressive’ to be anything other than retrogressive thinking. It is arrogant, totalitarian, and on the same level of fascist incoherence as ‘politically correct’. The assumption of all those who favour such terms is they know what’s best….and anyone who argues is [insert insult of choice here].
Etymologically, it is hard to argue with that observation. And yet, it has been the most defining feature of the infantile foot-stamping that has gone on in Britain from disgruntled Remainers since 2016.
What happened in the referendum on the EU is that the pc progressive smuggies assumed their side – being ‘correct’, naturally – would win at a canter. Well, they lost. This hasn’t in any way forced them to reappraise their thinking – why would it? – and so the sole ‘interpretation’ they give of the outcome is that it’s invalid. Because (variously) young people didn’t turn up, old people are racist, Leaver propaganda lied, Leavers are pig-ignorant and thus didn’t know what they were voting for, we weren’t ready, it was all a ghastly mistake – and I overslept, so we must have a Second Referendum.
When I was at University, that was the sort of polemic guff Trots gave out to what Lenin called The Useful Idiots. Fifty years on, it’s the “rainbow” of “democratic” reasons for a “People’s” vote.
This is progress?
I spent some time pointing out the flaws in the EU’s open borders policy on Facebook this morning. Two guys I’ve known for thirty years commented on it. The first called it “anti-immigration stuff” which was a disappointment. The second wrote as follows:
‘…there is a predominantly xenophobic, tending to racist, thrust to the majority of leave commentary today and there has been for decades….’
Despite me cramming my post with illustrative stats, the above was it. Pure, 100% triple-distilled fact-free liberal chic ideology.
“I mean c’mon,” you can almost hear the bloke say, “this is settled science, right? You believe the Earth is flat too? Huh? Huh?”
Settled science. Another classic ‘liberal’ open-minded viewpoint….and as always, paired with a moronic parallel that invites the leap: ‘you don’t agree? Flat Earther’.
Back to 2016 again: “See how an English Nationalist killed an MP? Farage is a murderer”.
[For those interested in such obscure derivations, this ‘leap’ thing was invented by Richard Nixon’s inner circle of spin advisors sourrounding Haldemann and Ehrlichman around 1970. In their time, they called it ‘framing’ – a disturbingly apt nomenclature for baseless accusation. So, for example, the TV liberal chat host Dick Cavett was labelled "Anti Vietnam War = Communist”.]
Here’s some more New Labour Leftlib ”analysis” from the Baron Adonis:
Bear in mind that this chap was once a very senior adviser to Tony Blair – another soi-disant expert on the same planet as John Birt. Today, he leads the charge for a Second Referendum.
And let’s face it, if there’s one thing the Leftlibs can’t get enough of, it’s “experts”.
This is not just another Brexit post. It’s not even the greatest use of inverted commas in the history of blogging. It’s just that Brexit happens to be the best example around of a wider point: the use of inverted linguistics to disguise anti-democratic élitism.
In the twentieth century, up until the early 1940s most liberal democrats could agree on the Goodies v Baddies issue: Stalin, Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini were the guys in the black hats, and the Roosevelt Republic plus the Churchill Empire were wearing hats of white only slightly discoloured by too much rinse-and-repeat washing.
Today, we have a whole new generation of totalitarians, but they have become incredibly adept at disguising the nature of their headgear: fifty shades of grey is more applicable than black v white. And this is why they are so much more of a pernicious threat than Nazi Germany or the USSR ever were. For the potential resistance to these insouciant control freaks is hindered by the fact that there is a 50/50 split in almost every nation State about what ‘side’ they’re on.
Again using contemporary examples, here are some people, States and organisations delivered at random:
Jean-Claude Juncker, Venezuela, Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, the Pentagon, the US Democratic Party, Jeremy Corbyn, Les Gilets Jaunes, Nigel Farage, Emmanuel Macron, the US Federal Reserve, Theresa May, the ERG, Italy, Basshar Assad, Hillary Clinton, Syria, Boris Johnson, Michel Barnier, the UK’s DWP, and Santander Bank.
There is absolutely no consensus on the Black v White nature of any of them, for the simple reason that they are all flawed. No more heroes any more.
My definition of progress remains the same as it’s been now for twenty-five years: the development and fruition of policies that lead to the greatest fulfillment and contentment of the greatest majority of humans on Earth with minimal damage to the Planet and its food chain.
This contains within it the rejection of ideological goals that ignore empirical data and changing needs, the desire to put varietal life-form survival above profit, and the giving back of control over their lives to as many humans as possible.
I’m not interested in those who think the ends justify the means – if that makes millions of people unhappy, and important species more prone to doom. Such is not progress, it is rigid ideological process.
Ideologies and intolerant religions based on everything from denialist cultural constructs and obscene personal wealth to neolithic birth control methods are simply in the way.
I remain a supporter of radical utilitarian policies driven by reality, creativity and bravery – not status quo cowardice, tribal belief systems and little or no understanding of social anthropology.