Featured

The Silence of the Fems

This month some adult male economic migrants, claiming to be ‘refugee children’, but who are neither, have been allowed to settle in the UK, having fled the ‘repression’ of France, a secular democracy.  If any of these ‘refugees’ were fleeing persecution then they could have claimed political asylum in France, or whichever European country or countries that they used to gain access to France.  Largely thanks to Angela Merkel’s policy of inviting anyone into the European Union – with her grandstanding as ‘Leader of Europe’ – in order to provide German businesses with an unlimited supply of cheap disposable labour, over the past year numerous women have fallen victim to sexual assaults by such migrants.

In so far as feminists have tackled this issue, they have descended into whataboutery, either squealing ‘racist’ at anyone who condemns the rapists, or blaming our ‘decadent’ culture for encouraging them; the excuse, feeble that it is, being that the migrants don’t understand that when a woman is dressed ‘immodestly’, ie showing more than her face, she is not encouraging their attention.  The truth is that these migrants are possessed with a sense of entitlement, which is not just materialistic but sexual; that is why so many rapes have been carried out by them.

Men of similar cultural background to these migrants, but who have spent their whole lives in the developed ‘decadent’ societies of Western Europe should know better; many however claim that they don’t.  These men are not necessarily Muslim by upbringing but their backgrounds are in those pre-industrial cultures where a girl is considered to be sexually mature when she reaches puberty, whence she must become fully covered to avoid the attention of men; and where she will be married off at an early age to become the possession of a man.

In Britain, there have been several cases of ‘grooming’ gangs of Pakistani and / or Somali background targeting underage girls, treating them as ‘white meat’ to be raped and traded.  The most infamous of these cases was in Rotherham and media attention outside of Britain on this issue has tended to focus on the post-industrial towns of Northern England.  But it is more widespread than this and it may surprise people outside Britain, that Oxford, that famous university city, has also become infamously associated with this ‘culture’ of rape.

In Oxford, a ‘grooming’ gang of Pakistani and Somali men raped more than three hundred girls who were in the care of Oxfordshire County Council’s Social Services Department.  This was finally uncovered by the Operation Bullfinch investigation.  A more recent report details that these offences went on as far back as 1999.  It is a difficult issue to approach without the risk of being accused of ‘virtue signalling’, something which two well-known feminists with Oxford connections have made a career out of, though they have avoided the subject mentioned above.  As I am a native of Oxfordshire then I am going to tackle it, ‘virtue signalling’ or not.

The first of these feminists is actress Emma Watson, who was educated at two Oxford private schools, the Dragon School and Headington School, before going to on to Oxford University (something which very few pupils from local state schools do).   Her privileged background is far removed from that of the rape victims failed by Social Services.  Earlier this year Emma Watson was challenged to spend a week with the migrants, for whom she campaigns, to prove how safe it would be for a young woman to do so.  Not surprisingly she has yet to take up the offer.

The second of the two is Caroline Lucas (pictured above), the Green Party’s one and only Member of Parliament (for Brighton Pavilion, about a hundred miles from Oxford).  Caroline Lucas is one of the most prominent members of Britain’s Feminist Establishment, which she reinforced by her support for the No More Page 3 campaign to stop the sexual objectification, as she would see it, of young women by the evil Dirty Digger (Rupert Murdoch) to sell his smutty gossip rag (The Sun).  That the women who pose for such pictures do so of their own volition is presumably because they have been brainwashed by the patriarchy and are therefore unable to think for themselves.  It is a matter of conjecture whether such pictures influence men who due to their cultural backgrounds already believe that any woman or girl dressed ‘immodestly’ (ie showing more than her face) is a ‘slut’, or whether an 18 year-old dressed in nothing more than a pair of bikini bottoms will influence such men to rape a 13-year old.  Their cultural backgrounds mean that such men are conditioned to believe that when a girl reaches puberty she is sexually mature and sexually available to them.

You might think that Caroline Lucas would be willing to tackle this issue.  You might think that, not least because she started her political career on Oxfordshire County Council; so the ‘multicultural’ / ‘bohemian’ part of Oxford where the rapes took place is familiar to her (as it is to me, but I’m not a politician, let alone a feminist one).  Also, the Green Party supports the globalist agenda of unrestricted immigration, environmentally unsustainable though it is, so it deliberately turns a blind eye to the subordination of women and girls by an immigrant culture.  Caroline Lucas is not personally responsible for the failings of Oxfordshire County Council.  She had already left to get on the gravy train to Brussels before 1999, so it was no wonder she cried after the referendum result in June, but her silence is telling.  If she had an ounce of integrity she would address the issue of the cultural disposition of men from Pakistani and / or Somali backgrounds for raping underage girls; but she won’t.

Footnote

A note about the ‘No More Page 3’ campaign is that feminists as a rule do not object to female nudity in the media, rather they object to the context, the working-class ‘white van man’ target audience.  If a woman appears naked in an arty-farty foreign language film or an elitist art house magazine targeted at a bourgeois audience, then that is ‘empowering’.  Ditto with all the narcissistic selfie queens that the internet has spawned; and with the idiotic ‘slutwalkers’, who never march through an area where women are expected, for cultural reasons, to be always fully covered.  Go figure.

Compilation Album

Music, football, travel, literature, food and philosophical musings, some pages not on the blog as such, you can find them linked on the right.  Some are works in progress, some are new stuff complete and some are old posts recycled.  A bit of politics, but hopefully not too much as there are already too much in the blog.  Like the gentleman below, I’m sure that I’ll get accused of having a set of values which are full of contradictions.

Anyway, I’m taking a break from blogging for a while as due to work commitments, I don’t really have the time to update this regularly.

The Fake Ecologists

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett speaks during at Remain in the EU campaign event at the Oval cricket ground in London
Green Party leader Natalie Bennett speaks during at Remain in the EU campaign event at the Oval cricket ground in London, Britain, June 6, 2016. REUTERS/Dylan Martinez

The fake ecologists cling to a contrived ‘European’ identity which has been forged through large-scale international economic migration.  This is environmentally unsustainable, all the more so given that it has been facilitated by budget air travel.  The fake ecologists also believe that it is acceptable for an already highly populated and under-resourced country to become increasingly so, because the fake ecologists ignore the increased demands on those resources by ever-increasing immigration-driven population growth; with the need to provide additional housing leading to urban expansion into what is left of our green and pleasant land.  The fake ecologists ignore that the country had achieved an ecological balance with birth rates having fallen in line with increased longevity.

In my old blog, which you can find linked on the right, is a brief chronology and context as to how the Ecology Party was rebranded as the Green Party and subsequently lost its way.  However there was a political trend which developed two decades ago that I omitted from this synopsis, as at first it didn’t seem relevant.  This trend was of the main political parties abandoning what principles they still had in favour of a focus-group driven approach, Labour’s aspiringly middle-class ‘Mondeo Man’ and ‘Worcester Woman’ – did they ever get married? – being the first such targets.  To retain its inner city core vote Labour, rebranded by Blair as ‘New Labour’, also set out a divide-and-conquer policy of multi-culti identity politics, with the greater number of minority groups one can claim to be part of, the more brownie points one can attain.

Over the past decade, lgbtqwerty identity politics have been added and the Green Party, latecomers to the focus-group game, have adopted these, with brownie points, or greenie points, for claiming any ridiculous gender identity based on ‘feelings’ rather than genetics.  To be lesbian, gay or bisexual, all lifestyle choices, apparently isn’t enough nowadays.  By pandering to any ridiculous claim of gender identity, the Green Party is not merely discrediting itself, but by association, the environmental issues which it claims to stand for, alienating the majority of the population in the process.

The other focus-group which the Green Party has now targeted is that of ‘Millennial Remainers’; those who are too young to remember how the European Economic Community, the ‘Common Market’, which most British people supported with certain reservations, transmogrified into the European Union.  Essentially what the Green Party is doing is targeting another minority interest group, albeit larger than the one in the paragraph mentioned above, in the hope that this group can form its electoral base in certain cities.  Those running the Green Party are not so stupid as to indulge in ageism, but by targeting the ‘Youth for Europe’ demographic, they are hoping that these voters will not change their outlook as they grow older, so that the Green Party can keep itself at the core of the political project for a supranational European superstate.

To return to the original paragraph, this ‘Millennial Remainer’ group has grown up in the era of budget air travel, taking for granted the availability of cheap flights to and from Continental Europe, without which their ‘European’ identity would not have developed.  They have also grown up in the era of the internet and its gizmos, none of which are manufactured in Britain.  They have grown up entirely with imported consumables and are too young to remember how the world was before then.  OK, so it is not their fault, but as a demographic group they are the least likely to want Britain to be independent, hence self-sufficient and sustainable as much as it possibly can be.

Lest I seem ageist, I am not going to claim that my generation – born in the latter half of the 1960’s – is perfect.  Far from it, plenty of us have taken advantage of budget air travel and cheap consumables made abroad, not least in the latter case because British manufacturing industry was already well in decline by the time we came of age.  The most environmentally sustainable generation of all is that at least a decade older than mine, the ‘grey’ vote, who grew up in an era before rampant consumerism and who have never taken for granted cheap holidays abroad.  This is the generation that most strongly supports British independence and with it the need to in-source industry and in a global economy, to try to regain what self-sufficiency we can.   This generation is also the most socially conservative in its values (including the working-class core of the Old Labour vote).  A genuine Ecology Party, which is precisely what the Green Party has ceased to be, would learn from that generation the true value of sustainability, so it certainly would not support a political project peddling a contrived ‘European’ identity, forged by environmental unsustainability.

Francoscepticism

Naomi Klein’s ‘anti-globalisation’ polemic No Logo, first published in 2000, makes no mention of the European Union (EU), which is odd on the face of it as the twelve-starred EU ‘flag’ is as much of a corporate logo as any discussed in the book.  Perhaps, from her Canadian home, she didn’t even think about it.  The only indirect reference to the EU is a photograph showing French farmers protesting about cuts to farm subsidies by throwing bags of corn gluten and chicken feed into the Seine during a protest in November 1992; this is shown above a photograph of G-8 leaders posing for the official ‘family’ photo in Cologne in June 1999.  If the juxtaposition is supposed to represent the farmers protesting against globalisation then it shows how little Klein understands, or at least at the time understood, about the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

The CAP pre-dates the transformation of the European Economic Community (EEC) into the European Union and was used as a means of integrating the agricultural economies of the member states in preparation for eventual political union.  France has always received the largest individual slice of the CAP cake and French livestock farmers are renowned for their militancy in opposing cuts to their subsidies and/or low prices for their goods.  The real reason that subsidies could be cut, but rarely are, is more meat being produced than will ever be eaten, as farmers have been subsidised to breed too many animals. This oversupply in meat production results in low prices. But the farmers want to have it both ways, to breed too many animals and to be paid a high price for their carrion.

In all areas of agriculture, heavily subsidised European farmers – the French in particular – are able to undercut African farmers, destroying the livelihoods of the latter and keeping their countries in a state of post-colonial dependency on Europe; the real reason for the continued poverty of African countries.  Concomitant with this, the EU imposes stringent import duties on agricultural products from outside the EU.  This is a distinctly French economic model, of which former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the friend of post-colonial African dictators, would be proud: a policy of protectionism at home whilst preaching ‘free trade’ elsewhere.

If mentioning the CAP appears to be going off at a tangent to the subject of France specifically, then think about how the attitudes of French farmers reflect that of the French political and economic elite, who are happy to use ‘Anglo-Saxon’ methods when it suits them, Électricité de France (EdF) being a prime example of French protectionism at home, whilst exploiting free trade abroad.  EdF owns all of Britain’s nuclear power stations, so these are again ‘nationalised’, it is just that they are owned by a different nation.  As with globalisation, so with the EU, the French establishment are happy to flout the regulations (border controls, budget deficit in relation to GDP for Eurozone membership), when it suits them, but protest about other countries doing likewise.

Returning to the subject of farmers, another good example of French hypocrisy was that of José Bové (pictured above), a celebrity in the ‘anti-globalisation’ movement, who became famous for demolishing a McDonald’s outlet in 1999 and being imprisoned for it a few years later.  (Although Klein’s book mentions the McLibel trial in London, it omits any mention of Bové’s protest).  His protest wasn’t for environmental, let alone vegan, reasons.  Rather, it was against US import tariffs on Roquefort cheese, i.e. against the US taking a leaf out of the French book, practicing protectionism at home, whilst preaching ‘free trade’ elsewhere.  Bové is now an MEP, a corporate ‘Green’, ensuring that the subsidy taps keep on flowing.

Why I am rambling on about all this, is because these French attitudes appear to have been forgotten by the mainstream media and numerous bloggers when dealing with the forthcoming French presidential election, where personality politics have taken over.

le-pen-440x269

French cultural protectionism has long-been directed against the English-speaking world, even when the French themselves are happy to exploit ‘Anglo-Saxon’ economic methods when it suits them.  So whilst Marine Le Pen may be championed as an outsider, the only woman in the race, her support amongst the Anglospheric Alt-Right (the Breitbart crowd) may well work against her.  Aligning herself with the loose cannon in the White House may go down well with the Trumpkins, but is unlikely to do so with the French domestic electorate.  On the basis of mine enemy’s enemy is my friend, many British opponents of the EU are hoping that she will win to hasten the EU’s demise.  I am sceptical that first of all she will win and even if she does that France will leave the EU, because French Eurosceptism is based, not on a weak sense of European identity (as British Euroscepticism is), but on a strong one.  To put it bluntly, the French are happy to be European as long as they are in charge, or they think that they are.  It was the French, after all, who twice vetoed British membership of the EEC.

Prior to German reunification, France was an equal partner to West Germany in the EEC and as far as their respective capital cities were concerned, the Bundesdorf of Bonn could never compete with Paris.  However, since German reunification, followed by European Monetary Union and with it the dominance of the German economy, France has become a junior partner.  My other scepticism on France leaving the EU is precisely why I rambled on so much about the CAP, as whilst Marine Le Pen’s views may appeal to some rural conservatives, she will have a very hard job in convincing French farmers to give up the CAP privileges that they have become so accustomed to.  If she were to be elected and commit to take France out of the EU, I think that it may well be that militant farmers would bring her down; and there would be nothing whatsoever that the Trumpkin Alt-Right could do about it.

Reference

No Logo – Naomi Klein, Harper Collins / Flamingo, 2000; first paperback edition, 2001, photograph referred to above on p 438.  I purchased and read the paperback edition in early 2002.  Before typing all the above, I had a skim through it again and was surprised to find no reference to the EU, other than that photograph.

 

Major Failure

john-major-spitting-image

‘Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.  With Major Major it had been all three’, so wrote Joseph Heller in Catch-22.  Major Major was a decent looking man who ‘floundered bewilderingly from one embarrassing catastrophe to another’.  Major’s major achievements if they can be so termed were Black Wednesday, when George Soros got one over on the government that he led, by initiating a run on the pound; and the privatisation of Britain’s creaking Victorian rail network and the trains that ran on it.  The companies which run these have together received more taxpayer subsidy per annum than British Rail did, with profits being creamed off by Richard Branson and his ilk.  The network itself was temporarily renationalised and one of the franchises may soon go the same way.

Major’s major failure was in not permitting a referendum on British membership of the European Union, the treaty for which he signed 25 years ago to the day.  I was 25 years old at the time, so I am part of the generation – resented by those who were in their infancy, in gestation or yet to be conceived back then – who waited nearly half a lifetime for a vote on this.  As I have typed on previous blog posts, I don’t know which way I would have voted had a referendum been held then, so I am not going to condemn those felt the same way last year.  However, it should be obvious that the longer a referendum was deferred the more likely a ‘Leave’ outcome would become, if only because voters of my generation would want to kick the political establishment (which the Green Party recently joined through its pro-EU stance), for denying them a say for so long.

But yet it didn’t have to be that way.  Back in 1992 there was no inkling that the EU would expand east of the former Iron Curtain (save for the former DDR) and if the eastern boundary of the EU had been permanently defined as Stettin to Trieste then a fully integrated Western European Union may have gained popular support in Britain, because there would have been no large scale economic migration from east of that boundary; and Britain would have been in a union with countries with which it shares a common cultural, genealogical and linguistic heritage; but not with those which it doesn’t.  Germans, who inhabit the geographical and political centre of Europe, need to grasp this.

To put it bluntly, ‘Eurosceptism’ has always been the default position in Britain, because Britain’s geographical separation from Continental Europe has always been a psychological one.  Where ‘Europe’ in a political sense extends no further east than Germany and Italy – with Sweden also accepted as ‘Western’ – most British people are willing to accept that as a political partnership.  What we now have is a political ‘Europe’ that is unrecognisable both in a geographical and political sense from the one which my generation was brought up with.

europe-or-bust

Cognitive Dissonance

On 5th February 2015, Marine Le Pen gave a speech to Oxford University’s debating chamber, the Oxford Union, on the matter of ‘Islamic ideology being to blame for Western Society’s ills’.  Outside there were more than two-hundred protestors (see picture below) according to the BBC, many of these from ‘United Against Fascism’ (UAF) who use the distinctly fascist tactic of trying to censor their opponents, rather than attempting to defeat their opponents’ arguments in debate.  These ‘anti-fascists’ fit into the category of Regressive Left, a term attributed to Maajid Nawaz, who is attempting to secularise Islam so that it can be compatible with Western Society.  He would have been a good opponent in the debating chamber to Marine Le Pen, had he been invited.

marine-le-pen-demo

The first political demonstration that I ever saw was back in 1980 or thereabouts, in Oxford.  Some Iranian students had set themselves up at the corner of Queen Street and St Ebbe’s with a banner entitled ‘Transition of a Dictator’, showing cartoon illustrations of the Shah gradually changing into Ayatollah Khomeini.  It was a piece of satire which would certainly have cost them their lives back in Iran.  Although the term ‘Regressive Left’ didn’t exist back then the common tactic for people of that ilk was to try and ‘No Platform …’ those who disagreed with them.  Also, at the time, because Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan were being financed by the USA to fight a proxy war against the Soviet Union, no-one on the political left allied themselves with Islam or tried to defend Islam.

Those protesting against Marine Le Pen were guilty of cognitive dissonance, trying to censor someone who was speaking against Islam, rather than challenging her views as to which aspects of Islam merit criticism; particularly where this relates to men who have been brought up in an Islamic culture and their attitudes towards women and girls from outside that culture.  One would think that so-called ‘anti-fascists’ would realise this, but to date they have remained silent about the ‘grooming’ gangs, Oxford having one of the worst of them, as exposed by the Operation Bullfinch investigation which I detailed in a previous blog post.  If these protestors had an ounce of intelligence between them, they would realise firstly that censorship campaigns usually backfire; and secondly that Marine Le Pen’s family-oriented conservative views (and even more so those of her niece Marion, who is now an Alt-Right pin-up) may well appeal to Muslims, who dislike the ‘decadence’ of living in a secular society.  This is an electoral inconsistency that Marine Le Pen has and which the Regressive Left are simply too stupid to exploit.

Postscript

For any native or former resident of Oxford reading this, the Iranian students had their banner under the covered area where Don Miller’s Hot Bread Kitchen was located at the back.  Their banner was opposite where the buses went along Queen Street and therefore visible to a lot of people.

There are other issues with regard to Marine Le Pen’s election campaign, re globalisation and French protectionism, which I may well deal with in a future blog post.

Since I first drafted this post, the Oxford Mail has reported that, there have not surprisingly been anti-Trump protests in Oxford, though they hardly represent the city’s population as a whole.  The protestors have remained quiet about this issue though, as always.

Back to the Future

Travel along the A45 as it cuts through the western suburbs of Coventry and you’ll see a Jaguar car dealership.  This is located on the site of the former Matrix Churchill factory, which manufactured machine tools that were sold with the knowledge of Britain’s Tory government led by John Major, to the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein.  It was one of the contributory factors that led to the downfall of Major’s government.  At the time that the Tories lost the 1997 general election, the former factory was derelict with the site being used for paintball games and car boot sales; appropriate I thought at the time: pretend warfare and dodgy dealing.

As John Pilger detailed in Hidden Agendas, the armaments industry was one of the few British industrial successes during the 1980’s at a time when other manufacturing industries were in decline.  Its support depended on access to government; and the government convincing the electorate, via compliant media, that it was necessary for ‘competitiveness’, ‘prosperity’ and so on.  Attached was with the usual caveat that if ‘we’, the British, didn’t sell these armaments to various repugnant regimes around the world that the French would do so instead; which is true and will continue to be regardless of whom the French elect as president, but it is a morally vacant excuse nonetheless.

During her visit last week to the loose cannon in the White House, Theresa May stated that Britain and the US will never again invade sovereign foreign countries; something which sounds too good to be true, particularly with May claiming to speak on behalf of the US.  But such invasions are unpopular because of the number of flag-draped coffins that end up being brought home, usually of young men from areas where there are little other career opportunities besides joining the army.  The ideal for such wars is to do them by proxy, as the US did using the Islamic Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, with some sterling assistance from our own British SAS.

may-erdogan

With that in mind and the need to develop trade deals, with or without Brexit, Theresa May met Turkey’s Islamist president to agree an armaments deal.  This is perfect as Turkey being a member of NATO can fulfill by proxy the belligerence of any British government policy in the Middle East and BAE Systems benefits from the contracts.  So Theresa may be turning into Maggie after all.  However we just have to conveniently overlook Erdogan’s human rights record, related to which is his wish to eradicate secularism in favour of Islam.  Theresa should have worn a patriotic headscarf for the occasion.  Be warned what will come from this.  Besides the morally repugnant arms deal in itself, prepare for the Tories to clamp down on criticism of Erdogan, his government and Islam in general.  Also, be aware that post-Brexit, employers will seek to acquire cheap disposable migrant labour from Turkey rather than Poland.

On a domestic political level, May has made her first serious foreign policy mistake, for which she should be electorally punished, but won’t be due to the uselessness of the parliamentary opposition.  Her claim that Turkey is one of the UK’s ‘oldest friends’ is fantastical to say the least.  A century ago Turkey was allied to Germany and T. E. Lawrence led an Arab army to drive the Ottoman Turks out of Palestine, the legacy of which is one of the root causes of the enduring conflict there.  More recently the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, a Commonwealth country with British military bases, in 1974 was hardly the act of a friendly nation, even though the Greek / Turkish division was exacerbated by British rule, which kept the communities divided.

One final and very important issue is that 43 years on from joining the EEC, Britain needs to repair its relationships with Australia and New Zealand, whose populations felt rightly aggrieved at the time that Britain had betrayed them by joining a trading organisation which imposed import tariffs on their goods.  In Pilger’s book he devotes a chapter to Anzac Day, which is symbolically important for all Australians and New Zealanders, as it commemorates when more than a thousand of their young men landed on the Gallipoli peninsula to be cut-down by Turks dug into the cliff-face.  We know who our oldest allies are and it certainly isn’t the Turks.  If our oldest allies feel betrayed once more they are certainly entitled to.  There is only one way back from this, May should resign or be got rid of and the arms deal with Turkey should be scrapped, but neither will happen.

Reference:

Arming the World, from Hidden Agendas, pp 115 – 152, Vintage 1998 (paperback edition 1999).  Anzac Day, pp 249 – 280, from the same book.

Footnote to First Paragraph:

Coincidentally, John Butcher, the Tory MP in whose Coventry South West constituency the factory was situated – and who had worked for the Department of Trade, hence must have had some knowledge of Matrix Churchill’s business – lost his job when the constituency was abolished, the Tories effectively gerrymandering themselves out of a parliamentary seat.

Kippers for Brexit

113550697_farage_trump-large_trans_nvbqzqnjv4bqeo_i_u9apj8ruoebjoaht0k9u7hhrjvuo-zlengruma

Could we have Kippers for Brexit, Mommy dear, Mommy dear?  So what is the point of the United Kingdom Independence Party?  To preserve one political union to the exclusion of another; and it appears in the case of Farage, the ‘Brexit Leader’ according to Fox News, to be the Donald’s favourite pet Limey, whilst Nige revels in the flattery.  Farage is UKIP and UKIP is Farage, a man who would be happy to jump ship and bugger off to the USA for good.  Trump’s aide Wilbur Ross has at least come clean that for the USA, its own interests come before the so-called ‘special relationship’.  So far, there has been no comment from the Trumpkin Alt-Right gobshites in Twitterland about this.  I am not in the least surprised by Ross’ comments or the Alt-Right’s silence.  As for UKIP, I have no time for them, I am British, not ‘UK-ish’; the sooner Britain becomes a republic the better.  I am no doubt in a minority in the latter view, but the assumption that voting ‘Leave’ makes one a lover of the monarchy or the rest of the British establishment needs to be put to rest.

It should be clear by now that ‘Leave’ voters have been played and betrayed by the political establishment, which includes the former commodities broker from ‘The City’ pictured above; and what is worse is that the vast majority of us are old enough to have sensed all along that this would happen.  The stereotypical ‘Leaver’ is working-class, in the true working sense of the word, politically Labour-inclined but socially conservative; white, middle-aged (forty-something or fifty-something) and male; heteronormative, cis-gender, to use the language of the diversity brigade.  We are the people whose work and taxes are the mainstay of the economy, whilst we are held in contempt by pundits and luvvies in the mainstream media, who caricature us as ‘xenophobes’ when most of us are nothing of the sort, being well-travelled within our own country – for employment as well as leisure – and abroad.  Amongst this peer group, irrespective of profession or vocation, whether employed or self-employed, it is clear that we have all been fools.

So what now?  I am annoyed at myself, less for having voted ‘Leave’ than for having bothered to vote at all and having deluded myself that for the first time in my life my vote actually mattered.  I was foolish enough to fall for groupthink laced with hope and belief.  I am not going to rebel and I doubt that any of my peer group will either.  Angry white middle-aged men don’t, do they?  What exactly could they (we) do?  Nothing, except disengage completely from the political process knowing as we have always known, that most politicians are liars, thieves, charlatans or worse.  We’ll carry on working, paying our taxes, trying to save for a pension; and for those with children, trying to secure their future.  And that really will be it.  Politicians will continue to play platitudes, the wheels will carry on turning and nothing will change.  Except that we are now heading for a long period of economic uncertainty, with a clueless and divided government running, or not as is more appropriate, the country, which is drifting on the currents like a rudderless ship.