The UK’s Most Radical Revolutionaries are in Government

by Stewart Cowan
The UK’s Most Radical Revolutionaries are in Government

I look forward to reading Frank Davis’s blog every morning. Yesterday, he wrote that while the mainstream media paint UKIP as the revolutionaries, it’s actually the so-called mainstream parties who are,

After all, with a few exceptions, the political class is now fully signed up to merging the UK into Europe. After 1000 years or more of being a nation-state, it’s all going to be replaced with membership of the brand new European Union. And this is an extremely radical departure. It’s nothing short of a revolution. And it wasn’t being seriously contemplated just 40 years ago, when the EU was still the European Economic Community.

Same with global warming/climate change. The political class has signed up for all that as well, with all the mainstream parties vying to be more green than each other. Yet 20 years ago nobody believed that the climate was warming at all. So that’s another extremely radical departure.

And then there’s the smoking ban. The political class supports that too. None of the mainstream parties is even hinting at any change in that. Instead they’re pressing on with more bans – e.g. in cars. And yet not 10 years ago, nobody imagined that it would soon be impossible to sit in a pub and drink a pint of beer and smoke a cigarette. I certainly couldn’t. So that’s yet another extremely radical departure.

And there’s more. There’s large scale immigration, unthinkable 60 or 70 years ago. And now gay marriage, unthinkable 20 years ago.

In the past, radicals used to be in minority protest groups on the fringes of society. But now the radicals are all in government. So in Europe there’s Manuel Barroso, a one-time Maoist. And Catherine Ashton, a one-time CND activist. And there are lots more of them with similar histories.

I suppose that, for people of a radical or ‘progressive’ mentality, it all looks like great stuff. But not everybody is a radical or a ‘progressive’, particularly if the actual ‘progress’ doesn’t seem to be any sort of real progress at all.

‘Progressive’ simply means that changes are desired, but naturally, socialists pretend or genuinely believe that these changes are positive ones, but history is showing the ‘progressive’ agenda is highly destructive.

I commented that Cameron, Clegg and Milipede should have hats with red stars on them. The big question is why? The ones at the top know what the Agenda is about and the ordinary constituency MP tends to be a compliant drone (I’ve met a few) who cannot discuss matters with you one man to another, but spews out doctrine parrot-fashion, like they’re on Question Time.

The only sensible answers I ever got from a politician was from Ian Paisley just a few years ago – I think he was an MP, MEP and MLA at the time, as well as being a (religious) minister! I asked him after a church meeting (I’m not a member of his church, but I used to go to the local branch occasionally and one day he was there to install the new minister) what he thought of manmade climate change and he went into one (as he’s famous for). “It’s a load of complete nonsense….”

Apart from that outburst, he was relaxed and spoke freely. You could tell he is his own man and not the usual political clone.

What do ‘they’ have on Cameron to make him so *radical*? Do they pay him vast sums in brown envelopes or more likely, did they set him up as a paedophile years ago so they could use him as a bigger puppet even than Blair? Just what makes these people prepared to do so much damage to their own country and people. Take the recent flooding in Somerset, for example. largely avoidable, were it not for our membership of the EU.

Take any number of things. The overtaxing and waste. The bans and control. The cultural subversion.

Obama, I see as a once hopeless chav/spiv, bereft of values, who was crafted to become the irresistible destroyer of the USA.

The Common Purpose operatives and fake charity astroturfers obviously have their agendas. The former want a Marxist-Leninist country and the latter are unhealthily obsessed with what other people do and so want to control them.

CONTROL is the operative word in all of this.

Exile them to the outdoors (Deborah Arnott of ASH) or tax them until they can’t feed themselves. Subvert their country so there won’t be enough people to rise up to defend their values. Destroy religion and introduce moral relativity, so people have trouble working out what’s right and wrong anyway, so they just do what the telly tells them and take their cues from their heroes, be they rockers, rappers, sports ‘stars’ or (haha) politicians.

But the really stupid ones will always believe the BBC and Guardian, etc. that UKIP are racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic etc.

I’m considering getting a place in the middle of nowhere and living off-grid. It’ll probably be the only way to survive: to eat and heat. And as far away from officialdom as possible. And as far away from hordes of people who will raid your garden/smallholding!

Because you can tell what’s going to happen in the future by looking at what the fake charities and unelected government advisors are advocating. Take “Forum for the Future”:

More of that sustainability = depopulation and total control grid. Here’s one of their ‘scenario’ videos about life in 2040. You’ll get an electric bike if you’re fortunate enough and meat on your birthday. You’ll be allocated a profession. If you own a car you’ll be forced to share it on journeys to work. Those who don’t comply will live in ghettos.

It’s already been planned – and more that they dare not yet divulge. It’ll happen. Watch the video. It’s the future.



  • A reasonable analysis. The extreme is in the “centre ground”.

    With regard to the EEC/EU, the promoters of the project knew from the beginning how it was intended to develop into a singe European superstate/super government. Lord Kilmuir had given an outline in the early Sixties and the Foreign Office in a more detailed document in 1971 which also said there was a duty on HMG and all political parties not to tell people about it.
    FCO 30/1048 “….there would be a major responsibility on HM Government and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular policies to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community”

  • A Keynesian Progressive and a Marxist are both BAD things – but they are NOT the same thing.

    I am sometimes accused of blurring the difference, but I try not to.

    For example Mr Barack Obama has a Marxist background (this is simply a fact of his life history and Mr David Cameron does NOT have a Marxist background.

    Mr Cameron (and Mr Osborne) look to Keynes for their economics and to “New Liberals” such as T. H. Green for their political philosophy. Just as they were taught to do so at Oxford. There regard the European Union as broadly in line with their Progressive political philosophy – and they are correct to do so.

    This is bad (very bad), but it is not the same as Marxism.

    As for the European Union – the exact level of influence of “Progressives” (or “New Liberals”), Social Democrats and Marxists (and there are a few Marxists – although one should be careful to remember that people can change their opinions – it is NOT the case that “once a Marxist always a Marxist”) should be carefully examined – not blurred into each other.

    “Common Purpose” does exist – and it also must be carefully examined.

    However, any article or post that implies that someone like David Cameron is a Marxist or is a tool of Marxists is likely to do more harm than good.

    It is likely to do more harm than good because such an article or post is making a claim that is not true – and this untrue (false) claim will be used to DISCREDIT the rest of the argument.

    The standard sort of response will be………

    “This person says that David Cameron is a tool of the Communists and should have a red star on his cap, this person is anti E.U. – THEREFORE all foes of the E.U. are tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists”.

    The “therefore” is false (utterly false) – but it shows how damaging such articles or posts can be.

  • Paul,

    I sketched a number of different ideologies which have contributed to the EU project in a short article entitled “Strands of Evil” which appeared both in the Protestant British Church Newspaper and the Roman Catholic traditionalist monthly “Christian Order”.

    One can spend a great deal of time doing this sort of thing. For everyday purposes, I think that the biblical method of discerning false prophets is probably the best – “By their fruits shall ye know them”.



  • Paul – it doesn’t really matter what label you put on them, the operative word is control. Some people (such as ourselves I’m sure) just want to live their lives; others (for reasons I cannot fathom) want to tell others how to live theirs. These are the forces behind the smoking ban, Common Purpose, the EU, Climate Change (formerly known as Global Warming), Health & Safety, the classification of Racism as the worst crime known to man, the homosexual agenda, multiculturalism, Islamification, etc etc, blimey, the list goes on and on doesn’t it.
    I’m sure David Cameron very much enjoys being Prime Minister, and will adapt his views as necessary to keep the job, as have all previous Conservative leaders except one (and look what happened to her!). As Groucho Marx once said – “These are my principles, and if you don’t like them …I have others”.

  • Hugo is does matter what label one pins on them.

    If, for example, one says that David Cameron is a Marxist (or a tool of Marxists) and should have a Red Star on his cap – one is going to get DISCREDITED, and all the TRUE things one says in the same article get DISCREDITED also.
    Using the correct label is important.

    People like David Cameron and George Osborne are Keynesians in their economics (although they make free market noises in order to appease what is left of the Conservative Party membership) and “New Liberals” (T. H. Green and co) in their political philosophy. Just as they were taught to be at school and university (and they were good students).

    To confuse them with Marxists is a mistake.

    Remember if someone REALLY DOES have a Marxist background I do not shrink from pointing it out.

    Since 2008 I have been mocked (sometimes viciously) for pointing out the Marxist background of Mr Obama, yet I have stuck to my guns – because it is the truth.

    It is not the truth in the case of Mr Cameron. Bad as he is, he is a different sort of thing.

    • ” a different sort of bad” might be a more telling expression.

  • Yes Edward – “a different sort of bad” would have been better (my apologies).

    I am also glad that you say that you show care in outlining the different political positions in your own articles.

  • But Paul, can you easily categorise all these various groups and sub-groups? What I am trying to say is that I just cannot fathom what motivates them. I suppose there is a kind of logic to following the philosophy of, say, Marx, except I don’t see how anybody can sensibly argue that one man’s philosophy is right about everything and therefore everyone else is wrong. But what about the politician who is approached by, say, the manufacturer of a new type of speed camera, and the manufacturer says to the politician ‘If you mandate these things everywhere you can save 20,000 lives a year’ or whatever, that will appeal to the ‘do-gooder’ instinct in many politicians’ minds, especially the more naïve types. How do classify such people? The Russians called the ‘jurodivye’ or ‘useful idiots, but who is pulling the strings? There is so much weird stuff going on in this country today that nothing makes any sense any more.

    To get back to the original article rather than my ramblings, twenty years ago I would have said this was the ramblings of a loony conspiracy theorist. I got involved in politics (UKIP) after Maastricht in 1992, and since then I’ve learned that the deeper you dig, the more you never get to the bottom of things (re-arrange the above into a grammatical sentence if you wish).

    I recently helped a young girl fill in an application to join the fire service. The process was utterly bizarre – you had to describe various scenarios in which you had, for example, come to the assistance of someone from an ethnic minority who was being bullied, or followed an instruction from your workplace superior even when that instruction made no sense whatever. You could see what they were up to – they wanted people whose beliefs already leaned the right way and who could be easily brainwashed – it had the fingerprints of Common Purpose all over it. Nothing relevant to putting out fires of course. I don’t know about you, but if my house is ablaze I don’t give a fig if the man extinguishing the flames is a BNP member with a swastika tattooed on his neck.

    Everything in this country is now politicised. How do you label this kind of weirdness?

  • For reference: Strands of Evil by Edward Spalton.

    I have no comment to make on it, because I haven’t yet read it.

    • Julie near Chicago

      I was interested to read it, so thanks for posting the URL.

  • Paul-

    I agree, this labelling thing is important. That’s why I’ve been known to bore for England on other motivations (such as the Progressives’ development from evangelical “crusaders” of the 19th century). Each of these histories is important in gaining an understanding.

    Just throwing words around like “marxist” in situations where they are inappropriate does indeed discredit us; we look like nuts. There is plenty of actual marxism about after all. For instance, in my own interest in the Feminist movement, I can point to vast tracts of marxism based writing and ideology. But calling David Cameron a marxist, for instance, is no help at all.

  • Hugo-

    Why does such a process make you think of Common Purpose? So far as I can tell, they’re just a consultancy group running seminars for easy government money. We’re awash in such people. It doesn’t mean they’re a secret society.

    The best model for all this, I argue, is to understand that the driving force of our society is moralism, and has been- with a mild withering during the post-war period- since Victorian times. We are in a second Victorian Era at the moment, so it is very intense. And the characteristic of such a moralist society is that it is more interested in character and adherence to moral ideals than pragmatism. So, what matters in a fire fighter is not whether they can put out fires and carry injured persons, but their moral character. Hence, the application form.

    All that has happened is that in this second run around the Victorian block, the list of moral failings has been somewhat modified, and considerably expanded, to include new sins like racism and sexism. But it is basically a process of identifying and isolating/removing sinners from society. Think of it as a missionary process. We are the natives, being reformed by the upper class in their pith helmets.

  • Sorry, forgot to say-

    The New Model Moral Code having been derived from various sources but particularly Post-Marxist theory. To be over-simplistic, the missionaries threw away the Bible and replaced it with a copy of Gramsci’s Prison Diaries. But much of the evangelical protestant value system remains, notably in Feminism’s hysterical anti-sexualism, and general puritanism evident in the various temperance campaigns (smoking, drink, drugs, tasty food, etc).

  • Ian – as you know the religion thing is complex.

    Some forms of Protestantism proved vulnerable into being mutated into the Social Gospel. But some forms of Protestantism proved to be far less vulnerable to statism – even in the area of social policy.

    Roman Catholics used to point fingers at Protestant statism in modern times (forgetting Catholic “Social Teaching” from Leo XIII onwards and the interest in Corporatism in the early 20th century – real Corporatism, not the nonsense that Hollywood and the “libertarian” left fret about).

    However, then the Roman Catholic Church imploded in the 1960s (Vatican II) and is now so massively influenced by “Liberation Theology” economics (to the very top with Pope Francis) and now one hears far less laughter from the Catholic side (and I express no pleasure at that – I share their sadness at the consequences of Vatican II in everything from art and music to economics).

    Still – full disclosure, I am a semi Pelagian heretic (like Wesley) so my comments on the mainstream of (Augustian ) Christianity must be treated with caution.

  • Hugo – no it is not easy Especially as New Liberals in the universities have sometimes been influenced (often without even knowing it) by Marxist concepts.

    However, it (carefully distinguishing different groups) has to be done.

    Otherwise (as Ian points out) one ends up confusing people like Mr Cameron with Marxists – and (quite rightly) getting dismissed.

  • By the way I forgot about “Common Purpose”.

    Actually it is rather nasty Ian – believe me.

    By the way – I do like the cat icon.

    I do not know why – but I like cats.

    It is like the Roman Empire.

    By all libertarian logic I should detest Rome – but I have always had a emotional liking for it, at least till the time of Diocletian.

    Then (after Diocletian) Rome just is not Rome any more – the taxes become crushing, the population turned into hereditary CASTES, the state controlling X, Y, Z.

    But it is just the look of things – yes I am that petty.

    People prostrating themselves before a ruler in an absurd costume – that is not a Roman Emperor, that is a Persian Despot.

  • I think most societies have some merit. Some don’t, but most have something likeable about them. Even a despotism might have some nice art, or something.

    It’s debatable whether Diocletian did anything other than be honest that Rome had already become an oriental despotism by his time. Perhaps it was better to be honest, than tell lies about “first among equals” and so on. Of course, his economic policy and bureaucratic bloat was catastrophic, but then it always is. Just about the only part we hadn’t seen in Britain by 1970 was compulsory inheritance of trades. Prices and incomes policy, we did that :oD

  • Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue – if people are pretending to be decent it puts a bit of restraint on what they do (compared to if they openly embrace tyranny). “That would look bad” is not much of a limit – but it is better than nothing.

    Edward Heath – as Diocletian?

    Well Mr Heath did admire Mao (I remember him defending the memory of the largest scale mass murderer in human history – as late as 1989, when Mr Heath was busy defending the murders of protestors in Peking “sometimes difficult things need to be done – back when my friend Mao was alive…..”).

    If one is looking for a leader of the Conservative Party who was influenced by Marxism (or, more likely, was just plain demented) – look no further than Edward Heath.

    One of my first memories is my father celebrating the victory in the 1970 election – by 1972 he understood that it had not been a victory at all.

  • It annoys me when establishment historians give Diocletian the credit for “rescuing Rome from the crises of the third century” – what he (and those like him) actually did was to undermine the foundations of the Roman economic life, thus reducing the capacity of civilisation to recover from setbacks.

  • Pingback: Recreating WW2 | Frank Davis

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s