Society's self-regarding, self-congratulatory elites that continually emphasise their status with luxury beliefs, will become more authoritarian as living standards fail to improve. The state will try and inhibit expressions of dissent (over immigration and the dilution of British culture through multiculturalism} by increased regulation and lawfare. Requiring police to pursue 'legal but harmful' behaviour online is the latest example no matter that it was a disaster in Scotland.
If there was an economic boom then the population woud ignore the elites more; if the justice system was not broken, if fair and equal treatment was actually a reality then the police would not be overwhelmed by policing thought and its expression as happened in Scotland and will happen in England and Wales.
Technology such as facial recognition, the forthcoming digital currency and monitoring of social media permit increased surveillance and may work for a while to keep the lid on increasing disatisfaction with Britian turning into a failed state. A Chinese social credit system seems inevitable in the longer term.
Meanwhile, demographic projection suggests Britain will be a muslim majority country by 2070. Plenty of time to study the hadiths as we will need knoweldge of them to argue a case in the sharia courts that will replace over a thousand years of English common law.
I just wish, when looking for where to emigrate to, that Hungarian or Polish were easier to learn.
David Starkey is optimistic about Britain's ability to integrate immigrants, as long as Brits can rediscover, and take pride in, their historical achievements. Which I suppose is where a book like your latest comes in, Frank. Though I haven't read it yet.
I myself am Australian and living in Australia, though brought up in England, and I am astonished by the greatness of Australia's colonial past; a past the radical progressives are trying to kill. Keith Windschuttle has been leading the charge in the history wars here; along with world class historian, Geoffrey Blainey.
I've been fighting since 2014 (Scottish Referendum) then 2015 election for UKIP then 2016 Referendum (Ward Captain for Brexit pounding the streets) then the Brexit Party and a number of rallies (Together, anti-ULEZ etc etc) and supporter and donor to Big Brother Watch, New Culture Forum, History Reclaimed, the Freedom Association, Reform UK, Free Speech Union) - basically anyone and anything that has a part in the resistance.
As a pensioner there are limits to what I can do, but I will continue to fight back I can assure you - until my last breath.
The problem was summed up as far back as 1851 when Arthur Schopenhauer noted that "The majority of men...are not capable of thinking, but only believing, and ...are not accessible to reason, but only to authority" as we saw amply demonstrated by the election of Starmer as PM. Given the vanguardism of Labour I am, after a decade of thwarted hope, entitle to a little despondency!
As usually, great points! Good idea to provide a history of populism. Of course, as long as the technocratic and media elites are those who define, or rather, redefine language, populism is seen as "far right" and negative. But there is a populism of the left also, which is never defined as such. After all, what is "diversity, equity and inclusion" if not populism? Isn't populist to claim that everybody should have the same outcome?
Not sure if you are right - - the values 'diversity, equity and inclusion' are invented by the technocratic elite and not by the public. There is an honourable left wing version of populism -eg the old American populist party and the wobblies
Yes, you are right that these values are entirely the invention of the technocratic elite. I think we are using the concept of "populism" in different ways. As a sociologist, you use it in its historical, socio-political meaning. I used it in its literal meaning. We have different backgrounds--I am a writer of fiction and a literary critic, and so I often look at the meaning of words as a writer and a "specialist" in language. I take the word "populist" to refer to those who claim that they care about the welfare of the people. DEI makes such a claim--but it is, of course, a false claim.
Society's self-regarding, self-congratulatory elites that continually emphasise their status with luxury beliefs, will become more authoritarian as living standards fail to improve. The state will try and inhibit expressions of dissent (over immigration and the dilution of British culture through multiculturalism} by increased regulation and lawfare. Requiring police to pursue 'legal but harmful' behaviour online is the latest example no matter that it was a disaster in Scotland.
If there was an economic boom then the population woud ignore the elites more; if the justice system was not broken, if fair and equal treatment was actually a reality then the police would not be overwhelmed by policing thought and its expression as happened in Scotland and will happen in England and Wales.
Technology such as facial recognition, the forthcoming digital currency and monitoring of social media permit increased surveillance and may work for a while to keep the lid on increasing disatisfaction with Britian turning into a failed state. A Chinese social credit system seems inevitable in the longer term.
Meanwhile, demographic projection suggests Britain will be a muslim majority country by 2070. Plenty of time to study the hadiths as we will need knoweldge of them to argue a case in the sharia courts that will replace over a thousand years of English common law.
I just wish, when looking for where to emigrate to, that Hungarian or Polish were easier to learn.
Don't get too fatalistic - get angry - if we fight back things can turn around.
David Starkey is optimistic about Britain's ability to integrate immigrants, as long as Brits can rediscover, and take pride in, their historical achievements. Which I suppose is where a book like your latest comes in, Frank. Though I haven't read it yet.
I myself am Australian and living in Australia, though brought up in England, and I am astonished by the greatness of Australia's colonial past; a past the radical progressives are trying to kill. Keith Windschuttle has been leading the charge in the history wars here; along with world class historian, Geoffrey Blainey.
Fair point. Not too fatalistic but ...
I've been fighting since 2014 (Scottish Referendum) then 2015 election for UKIP then 2016 Referendum (Ward Captain for Brexit pounding the streets) then the Brexit Party and a number of rallies (Together, anti-ULEZ etc etc) and supporter and donor to Big Brother Watch, New Culture Forum, History Reclaimed, the Freedom Association, Reform UK, Free Speech Union) - basically anyone and anything that has a part in the resistance.
As a pensioner there are limits to what I can do, but I will continue to fight back I can assure you - until my last breath.
The problem was summed up as far back as 1851 when Arthur Schopenhauer noted that "The majority of men...are not capable of thinking, but only believing, and ...are not accessible to reason, but only to authority" as we saw amply demonstrated by the election of Starmer as PM. Given the vanguardism of Labour I am, after a decade of thwarted hope, entitle to a little despondency!
As usually, great points! Good idea to provide a history of populism. Of course, as long as the technocratic and media elites are those who define, or rather, redefine language, populism is seen as "far right" and negative. But there is a populism of the left also, which is never defined as such. After all, what is "diversity, equity and inclusion" if not populism? Isn't populist to claim that everybody should have the same outcome?
Not sure if you are right - - the values 'diversity, equity and inclusion' are invented by the technocratic elite and not by the public. There is an honourable left wing version of populism -eg the old American populist party and the wobblies
Yes, you are right that these values are entirely the invention of the technocratic elite. I think we are using the concept of "populism" in different ways. As a sociologist, you use it in its historical, socio-political meaning. I used it in its literal meaning. We have different backgrounds--I am a writer of fiction and a literary critic, and so I often look at the meaning of words as a writer and a "specialist" in language. I take the word "populist" to refer to those who claim that they care about the welfare of the people. DEI makes such a claim--but it is, of course, a false claim.