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

New Dawn Fades

theresa-may

Theresa may but she may not.  Her penchant for wearing heels is appropriate given how good she is at dragging them.  Since the referendum we have now had Six Months and Sweet FA.  Theresa desperately wants to be Maggie, but doesn’t have the electoral mandate; and she can’t be Maggie, because Maggie only stayed in power by convincing just enough people in the constituencies where it mattered, to vote Tory and share the spoils of purchasing the stolen goods that constituted our national infrastructure.  The family silver has been sold and now the cupboard is bare, our ‘sterling’ currency being anything but that, its market value based only on what investment return can be gained from it (next to bugger all with interest rates so pitifully low).  Under Tory then Labour then Tory we have had a ‘brick’ standard for our economy over the past few decades.  Little wonder then that for a large minority of voters in Britain, the EU is either better or no worse; and as the EU has ruled against Theresa’s Snoopers’ Charter, they have a valid point.

Many of these ‘Remainers’ believe that the EU needs to be reformed and that this is still achievable.  Their intentions may be sincere, but not a single one of them can elaborate how this reform can come about, given the EU’s track record of ignoring any attempts to do so and its contempt for any referendum result which goes against the deterministic European Project to create a continental superstate.  Theresa is, like Maggie was, a ‘Remainer’ at heart.  A true Tory, a whore to big business and its desires for anything that will reduce the costs of labour.  (It was Maggie after all who signed the Single European Act to encourage mass migration to drive down labour costs).  Theresa talks a lot of tough guff about immigration but without any sincerity.  Her track record as Home Secretary, by making cuts to the UK Border Agency, shows that she is anything but sincere on the matter.  Theresa realises that ‘Brexit’ is the only chance that she will ever have to make her mark on the world as a Leader.  With Hillary out of the way and Angela on the skids, Theresa could become the most powerful female Head of Government in the world; and a genuine ‘Brexit’, a clean break, would mean no more subordination to the EU.  But she won’t go that far, she is still trying for a fudge which will please no-one.

I made my departure, my ‘Leave’ vote, as I recognise that the EU has got beyond the point where it can be reformed, not something which I would have thought a decade and a half ago.  But to me, ‘Brexit’ is only worth having if it leads to greater reforms of the United Kingdom, such as it is, possibly away from being a Kingdom or Queendom.  An unelected Head of State, an unelected Upper Chamber (Lords rather than Commissioners) and the lack of a written constitution are issues which genuine progressives should be addressing, instead of clinging to the EU.  We Britons cannot change the EU, we are outsiders and always have been.  The EU will not adopt the common sense solution to its lack of moral authority, of a demerger into a Common Market for the trade in goods and services and nothing more than that.  So we must Leave the EU and build a better Britain, better than the Tories can ever offer us and take back the infrastructure which they plundered from us.  All this sounds very Old Labour, but that is what I am deep down.  The Tories’ procrastination over ‘Brexit’ is because only a minority of them genuinely support it, so the majority are hoping that the longer they can drag it out (with the backing of fraudulent ‘progressives’), the more fed up ‘Leave’ voters will become and say fuck it, why bother?

Finally, one should try to be optimistic and wish good tidings at this time of year; and in keeping with that, the journalist whom I mentioned in an earlier post on this blog must be expecting a single malt from Santa, so merry is he.  However, I cannot share his merriment.  The contrived ‘migrant crisis’ and the terrorist attacks that have come in its wake do not bode well for a peaceful New Year, as both will continue indefinitely.  The globalist enterprise known as the so-called British Broadcasting Corporation, the voice of the political establishment, will accuse those who voted ‘Leave’ of turning their backs on Europe, hence being on the same side as the so-called Islamic State.  Just wait.

The Age of Consent

On 7th February 1992 John Major signed the Treaty of European Union, having refused to allow a public referendum on the issue.  If he’d had an ounce of integrity as Prime Minister then one would have been held at least a few months earlier; but then it was his predecessor Margaret Thatcher who signed the Single European Act on 19th February 1986 and Edward Heath, her predecessor as Tory Leader who signed the Treaty of Accession to the European Economic Community on 22nd January 1972.  Neither of them was willing to allow a referendum.  The record of the Conservative Party is of the continual erosion of British sovereignty, whilst wrapping themselves in the Union Flag and selling off our national infrastructure cut-price.

I was not of voting age back in 1972; but by 1986 I was and had a referendum been offered on either the Single European Act or the Treaty of European Union I don’t now how I would have voted, which is why I feel that it is unfair to condemn the millennials who didn’t know which way to vote in this year’s referendum (though I have no sympathy for those who protested at the result).  I was unaware back in 1992 that the Tories’ property-driven boom and bust was caused not only by the deregulation of ‘The City’ leading to a credit boom, but by Nigel Lawson’s fixation on keeping the pound within the European Exchange Rate Mechanism; hence Lawson refused to raise the Bank of England base rate when it needed to be and allowed a housing bubble to develop.  George Soros knew better with consequences which have become well-known.

I remember reading various ‘Europe of the Regions’ guff back in 1992 about which I was and still am sceptical because these ‘regions’ are inventions dreamed up by the Eurocracy; examples being that Oxfordshire (where I am from), the neighbouring county of Warwickshire (where I live) and two neighbouring counties, Gloucestershire and Northamptonshire fall within four different ‘Euro-regions’ by the partition of England.  Scotland and Wales are not partitioned as such by the Eurocrats.  Given the that EU back then consisted of only twelve members, all Western European (bar the economic basket case that is Greece), then I might well have voted in favour of the EU.  I really don’t know.  I couldn’t get motivated by listening to those Tories who opposed it when their own leaders had imposed it on Britain.

For me, ‘Eurosceptism’ is a more recent thing than it is among other people whose politics deep down are also Old Labour.  Probably up until a decade ago I used to support the principle of a ‘European Union’, but as it has continued to expand, it is trying to bind together countries with no common culture, history or economic interest, as well as no common language; and the huge economic disparities between the former Soviet Bloc and the developed economies of Western Europe have led to economically and environmentally unsustainable levels of migration.  It is a when and how, rather then if, the whole shebang falls apart.  Britain could be ahead of the game by getting out before it implodes.

Why I have entitled this ‘The Age of Consent’ is with reference to those millennials, including many who didn’t bother to vote, protesting that older generations should not be allowed a say; or that some ‘weighting’ should be placed on votes based on life expectancy.  The arrogance of these millennials is breathtaking.  Most weren’t even of voting age when Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty on 13th December 2007, having refused to offer a public referendum.  These millennials genuinely believe that they are more important then the millions of people older then themselves who were continually denied a vote on all the significant changes to the European Project since the one and only referendum held on the ‘Common Market’ on 5th June 1975.

These millennials may think that the older generations have now denied them to chance to live and work in other countries, which allegedly have a better standard of living and quality of life.  But they need to ask themselves why exactly does Britain have such a high level of inward migration if those other EU countries are better off.  They need to examine how this high level of immigration has led to slumlords buying up what ought to be the cheap first-time buyer properties; they need to examine the levels of youth unemployment in the Eurozone; they need to examine how the Single European Market has allowed unscrupulous employers to get away with zero-hours contracts.  Mostly they need to upskill themselves with a STEM degree not a useless one; and they need to stop sulking.

In 1968 many students protested against the Establishment before later joining it.  In 2016, a lesser number of students, but with an inflated sense of their own self-importance, protested in favour of the Establishment, showing themselves to be useful tools to all those corporate globalists who would like to see democracy eradicated and living standards continually eroded through the mass migration of labour.  What kind of ‘Brexit’ we get is yet to be decided owing to the lack of the government’s having a clear plan on the issue.  It could be a ‘Brexit’ in name only, but even if that is all it is, the referendum result still represents a rejection of the European Project as it stands; and at the risk of stating the obvious, yes I voted Leave.