KopTalk


Quick Links: View All | Latest News | Liverpool FC Forum | Off Topic Forum | KopTalk Members | Help



Page 1 of 29 1 2 3 28 29 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#628451 - 20/10/19 02:00 PM The real origins of Brexit by Russell Taylor
Pickles Offline
Under 23 Player

Registered: 23/12/15
Posts: 4203
Well worth a read...

The real origins of Brexit

It's not that long ago we seemed to be cruising serenely towards a particular future. The pieces were in place, the scene was set, even if a little fine-tuning was needed. The arrangement seems obvious now to those not too invested to notice: we were, and still are, in the grip of a professional elite who expect a decisive say in how the country is run, and in how its people should think, behave and be treated, without ever having their own sovereignty or supremacy challenged, and despite bringing very little to the table in terms of talent or achievement. At one point we seemed destined for more of the same, but Brexit was a vote for a change of direction.

What's curious is how all this came to pass on the watch of supposedly egalitarian governments, in an evermore progressive culture. What were the ideological underpinnings of a development that saw well-heeled nonentities accumulating ever more wealth and prestige, while contributing precious little to the national good?

It can, in fact, be traced to the socio-political assumptions of the post-Thatcherite 1990s, when a new, more compassionate form of liberal-left politics took hold. The basic set-up was thus: the working classes were cast in the role of childlike victims, providing feel-good fodder for members of the educated middle class, whose social concern and support for state remedies established their moral superiority, and provided them with plentiful jobs dedicated to the care and tutelage of the helpless masses - jobs that ordained them as society's rightful leaders, while being sufficiently free of accountability to satisfy their sense of entitlement.

Even those not in cushy public sector jobs benefited from the culture that blossomed around them - one in which credentialed people were well-rewarded and insulated against the whim of their inferiors, even (or especially) if they didn't create anything of value. Whereas blue collar trades were increasingly seen as gauche and retrograde, professions that utilised certified planners and pontificators assumed an air of sophistication. Before long, even businesses were overloaded with backroom meddlers cooking up problems to solve, enforcing government regulations and mimicking its paternalistic attitudes. The country was soon awash with ambitious mediocrities, enforcing compliance, ensuring diversity, drawing up guidelines, and doing other such 'work' that added sweet F.A. to the bottom line.

The creative sector benefited, too, from the notion that the brightest and the best shouldn't be subject to the vagaries of the free market or the vulgarity of popular demand. If an artist considered his work worthy of an audience, then funding would be provided whether that audience existed or not. It was a similar story for experts in any field ostensibly concerned with the disadvantaged. Money and power would be transferred their way, without the consent of the paying public.

This wasn't just the most agreeable arrangement for the benign dictatorship of technocrats, intellectuals and luvvies, it was the righteous and proper one. The work they did was, in their eyes, the only means of serving the greater good, making their success and their immunity to interference something as virtuous as it was necessary. They were not, as they appeared to outsiders, a new aristocracy full of arrogant self-regard, but latter-day saints making the country a better place. They were like the man with a hammer who sees every problem as a nail, and considered their own interests indivisible from those of the country as a whole. They deserved to waft through comfortable lives, largely unaffected by the policies they supported, disconnected from the people they patronised, because they held the right credentials and the proper opinions.

They claimed a belief in left-wing politics, of course - not so much the power-to-the-people stuff, but the idea of a ruling class, managing society with the help of favoured groups, whether in the public sector or the higher echelons of business. They attached themselves to any cause, from environmentalism to fighting obesity, for which more government could be recommended as a cure - for these causes highlighted the danger of too much freedom among the rabble, advanced the case for more power to the elite, and helped burnish their halos. The policies they recommended rarely queered their own pitch, so they could afford to overlook their consequences, and demand support of them as a basic requirement of human decency - knowing, perhaps, that the less privileged would fall short of their lofty standards.

Anyone who identified with the ruling class and parroted its beliefs could feel a part of it. They could enjoy a vicarious sense of power each time it upbraided the little people, and feel generous whenever it bestowed a gift on them at the taxpayer's expense. Each time they guffawed at on-message comedians and approved of establishment-friendly art (oh so edgy and rebellious), they congratulated themselves for having escaped the herd and its reactionary ways, even if this didn't put them among our brave new world's philosopher-kings.

It's no surprise that this phenomenon coincided with a sharp increase in the number of people going to university. After the Blair government sold a degree - any degree - as a golden pass to a better life, the number of graduates skyrocketed, and many emerged from university believing themselves members of an exclusive club, who should be exempt from the cut, thrust and toil endured by mere mortals. Such people were naturally receptive to a social structure that mirrored this assumption, and found a debt-fuelled economy and a bloated public sector on-hand offering all the makework jobs their egos could hope for.

This entire, rotten state of affairs was underwritten by the productive members of society - those maligned and supposedly obsolescent folk who still made a living by meeting people's freely-expressed needs. No one on the gravy train particularly cared that the spread of their own kind would eventually kill their golden goose. Nor did they imagine the productive would one day revolt against the people sucking them dry and telling them how to live. But that's what happened.

It turned out the working classes were not content to play the victim. They didn't want to be cared for, or instructed how to act and think; they wanted to shift for themselves. Nor did they see their designated enemies - the lower middle-class and traditional conservatives - as the greatest threat to their wellbeing. Their allegiance to old-fashioned institutions like family and nation, and their lack of fealty to the ruling elite, irked the latter, so they turned on them. If these ingrates refused to be grist to the elitist mill, they had no value. Worse, they were traitors to the revolution.

With the grounds for their faux compassion removed, the ruling classes learned to despise their treacherous countrymen, whose values and loyalties represented a social order that disrespected their right to rule. British culture and identity became tainted in their eyes, as a rejection of their own sense of entitlement and their monopoly on wisdom and virtue. By extension, the exotic, the foreign, the 'other' were romanticised simply for sitting apart from the traditional social order, and because fear of all things different was a characteristic of the Little Englander straw-man our self-styled betters liked to define themselves against.

Through all this, two lumbering, socialistic behemoths served as lodestars for the ruling class. The first was the NHS, an institution for which the argument in favour of top-down control seemed to have been settled, in which accountability was all but nonexistent, which embodied the elite's something-for-nothing entitlement, and stood as proof of their munificence and righteousness. The second was the EU, the enforcement of whose rules offered them influence and jobs, which existed as a monument to undemocratic power, and represented a cosmopolitan otherness that distinguished its supporters from those benighted Brits back home.

As the disloyalty of the masses and the petit-bourgeoisie became evident, the ruling classes took Bertolt Brecht's advice and decided to appoint a new people - one sufficiently alien to their own culture that its very presence would undermine it and blunt its stubborn attachment to self-determination. One, too, whose estrangement from the mainstream could be repurposed into a state of perpetual victimhood that could only be remedied by the intervention of the anointed and the suppression of the lower classes.

In fact, it wasn't just one people that was chosen, but a coalition of marginalised groups, defined by their race, religion, gender and sexuality. Immigrants were shipped in wholesale and encouraged to cling to the beliefs of their homelands - all the better to cause friction, create grounds for their victim status, and dilute our own hated culture. All minorities, whether foreign-born or homegrown, were told dark tales about a bigoted population hellbent on oppressing them. Women, meanwhile, were fed the story of the patriarchy: a misogynist plot that conspires to keep them down. In every case, the plight of the victim was presented as proof of the evil men do when they are left to their own devices.

During the years leading up to this change of tack, the ruling class had completed its march through the institutions, ensuring that whenever anyone turned on a TV, opened a newspaper or interacted with a public body, they would find a favourable impression of the establishment and its narrative, and a dim view of naysayers. Given this, and because establishment types had little meaningful contact with regular folk, they truly believed their opinions and their preeminence were the stuff of common sense - an assumption that only made their eventual rejection that much more shocking.

When the EU referendum took place, members of the ruling class knew this wasn't just a vote for or against membership, but for or against their own supremacy. They were convinced of a Remain victory, because everyone they knew wanted to preserve things as they were, and understood that the alternative would turn back the clock to a time when status and success were awarded via the whim of less refined people: an unthinkable prospect.

When defeat came, the elitists struggled to conceal what they thought of the traitorous masses. By hindering their prospects of a gilded existence, the proles had also rejected the elitists' holier-and-smarter-than-thou self-image. It followed, then, that these Brexiters were ignorant bigots, making their victory a blow against decency and good sense. Even their best attempts to avoid such accusations portrayed the electorate as idiots, who'd been duped into voting against their own interests. Condescension abounded.

In attempting to foil Brexit, the ruling class has been trying to get its hegemony back on track. Its increasing 'wokeness' is its way of delegitimising public opinion. Intersectionality - the cornerstone of progressive dogma - places more value on the wishes of designated victims than on those of the majority, and the leaders of progressive culture reserve the right to define victimhood as they see fit, perpetuating a narrative that identifies themselves as our only hope of a better tomorrow.

Because mainstream media is now the PR wing of the establishment, it decides which stories to publish and which to sit on (when it's not simply lying, that is) thereby preserving the narrative and encouraging people to its way of thinking. MPs, being predominantly Remainer elitists, reframe their attempts to spoil Brexit as a blow against tyranny. Anyone who questions their motives or policies is portrayed as a bigot, a xenophobe, a fascist. Free speech has been reinterpreted as a licence for hate. Democracy itself has been recast as the right of politicians to follow their own consciences rather than the instructions of the electorate.

Make no mistake, the roots of this situation run deeper than the 2016 referendum, but its causes will never be addressed unless we get the Brexit we demanded and deserve.

by Russell Taylor - Saturday, 14 September 2019

Top

#628457 - 20/10/19 02:46 PM Re: The real origins of Brexit by Russell Taylor [Re: Pickles]
lumba Offline
Liverpool Legend

Registered: 19/03/09
Posts: 22904
Loc: Destination unknown
Great,another brexit thread.
_________________________
That job interview was going so well until I realized I was fukked up on acid in the middle of a cornfield naked and talking to a scarecrow.

Top

#628467 - 21/10/19 07:29 AM Re: The real origins of Brexit by Russell Taylor [Re: lumba]
EnergisedReds Online   content
Liverpool Legend

Registered: 10/01/10
Posts: 20582
Originally Posted By lumba
Great,another brexit thread.


Especially when I don't think anybody will read that long piece of crap

Top

#628471 - 21/10/19 04:01 PM Re: The real origins of Brexit by Russell Taylor [Re: EnergisedReds]
Stanley Park Offline
Liverpool Legend

Registered: 21/10/09
Posts: 26387
Loc: Not the EU
Credit to him for extensive research and writing all that
_________________________
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY

Top

#628472 - 21/10/19 04:05 PM Re: The real origins of Brexit by Russell Taylor [Re: Pickles]
wilkij1975 Offline
Liverpool Legend

Registered: 26/06/09
Posts: 21793
Loc: Northamptonshire
Cut and paste Stan.


Edited by wilkij1975 (21/10/19 04:05 PM)

Top

#628473 - 21/10/19 04:17 PM Re: The real origins of Brexit by Russell Taylor [Re: Pickles]
Pickles Offline
Under 23 Player

Registered: 23/12/15
Posts: 4203
I did credit the author in the title thread and at the bottom of the post along with the date.

I believe there's a LOT of truth in that post by Russell Taylor and is happening/ed across the pond too.

Top

#628476 - 21/10/19 04:42 PM Re: The real origins of Brexit by Russell Taylor [Re: Stanley Park]
EnergisedReds Online   content
Liverpool Legend

Registered: 10/01/10
Posts: 20582
Originally Posted By Stanley Park
Credit to him for extensive research and writing all that


I am sure you haven't read it all as the author is not Pickles...or maybe it is in the real world, Rusell Taylor is pickles grin


Edited by EnergisedReds (21/10/19 04:43 PM)

Top

#628477 - 21/10/19 04:43 PM Re: The real origins of Brexit by Russell Taylor [Re: wilkij1975]
Stanley Park Offline
Liverpool Legend

Registered: 21/10/09
Posts: 26387
Loc: Not the EU
Originally Posted By wilkij1975
Cut and paste Stan.


Noooooooo your kidding
_________________________
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY

Top

#628481 - 21/10/19 05:02 PM Re: The real origins of Brexit by Russell Taylor [Re: EnergisedReds]
Pickles Offline
Under 23 Player

Registered: 23/12/15
Posts: 4203
Originally Posted By EnergisedReds
Originally Posted By Stanley Park
Credit to him for extensive research and writing all that


I am sure you haven't read it all as the author is not Pickles...or maybe it is in the real world, Rusell Taylor is pickles grin


I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed!

Top

#628484 - 21/10/19 06:01 PM Re: The real origins of Brexit by Russell Taylor [Re: Pickles]
Stanley Park Offline
Liverpool Legend

Registered: 21/10/09
Posts: 26387
Loc: Not the EU
I skim read the article there is a lot of truth in it albeit I have not read it all. People wanted to leave the EU way before 2016 really after Maastricht the rot set in. Remember in the 2015 UKIP polled 4 million votes they would be lucky to get 4 votes today as brexit has happened politically if not actually
_________________________
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY

Top

Page 1 of 29 1 2 3 28 29 >

Moderator:  KopTalk Team 
Shout Box


Advertisements

Liverpool FC Discussion
Moronic punditry after the City game...
by EnergisedReds
Today at 02:33 AM
Leeds United takeover
by AccaBoosty
Today at 01:20 AM
Leicester now Liverpool's biggest PL threat?
by van Gogh
Yesterday at 10:25 PM
ASTON VILLA V LIVERPOOL LEAGUE CUP DATE CONFIRMED
by redordead13
Yesterday at 10:02 PM
Would you like to see Timo Werner at Liverpool?
by ecnirp98
Yesterday at 07:13 PM

General Discussion
The real origins of Brexit by Russell Taylor
by EMP
Yesterday at 10:20 PM
Who would you vote for in the next UK General Election?
by EnergisedReds
07/11/19 03:24 PM
Music thread! (now epic)
by lumba
01/11/19 08:47 PM
Extinction Rebellion
by EnergisedReds
20/10/19 12:36 PM
The looming catastrophe for Republic of Ireland
by EnergisedReds
20/10/19 04:31 AM

Top Posters (30 Days)
EnergisedReds 173
wilkij1975 140
Stanley Park 102
EMP 87
Markhutch1 46
Pickles 38
ecnirp98 37
Shaggydog 37
lumba 35
van Gogh 28