The LibLabCon: reclad socialism, and an inevitable death trap

Grenfell Tower went up in smoke today (with no sign of any 9/11 pancake physics either). Built in 1974, it was recently reclad in a new façade, and apparently residents got letters telling them that their refurbished front doors would let them sit out a fire in the tower for 30 minutes before they would be rescued by the fire brigade – no need to evacuate! Yes, seriously; from a 2014 Grenfell Tower regeneration newsletter (according to Wikipedia):

Emergency fire arrangements
Our longstanding ‘stay put’ policy stays in force until you are told otherwise. This means that (unless there is a fire in your flat or in the hallway outside your flat) you should stay inside your flat. This is because Grenfell was designed according to rigorous fire safety standards. Also, the new front doors for each flat can withstand a fire for up to 30 minutes, which gives plenty of time for the fire brigade to arrive.

While the author is very sorry about the loss of life, and so doesn’t mean to make light of the event, the building is an appropriate symbol in our current political climate. Any 60s or 70s high rise apartment block is inevitably an emblem for the socialist utopia – which always means dystopia. Grenfell was lately refurbished – like socialism has been, and we’ll discuss the ways it has been in a moment – and it was a death trap not least, it appears, because of diktat by self-appointed technocrats who always think they know better.

The British Establishment has historically had a problem because, since the 19th century, it has always been trying to institute what we now call socialism (and we’ll get to a fuller explanation of that assertion momentarily) but it hasn’t been easy to sell it to everyone – the further back we go, the harder it would have been. And so it has had to institute socialism through a fake left/right paradigm whereby one side aspiring to take governmental office pretended to be anti, the other pro – because to be most effective, there had to be a discernible difference between wings so that the camps on either side had something to react and identify against. When the pro-side got into office, whey-hey! The National Health Service, nationalised utilities and transport systems, local councils instead of city and town corporations – all that sort of thing. When the anti side got into office… it just implemented a bit more socialism‡ anyway.

Now, by the 90s, the model had worn out in a dramatic way, and so the pro-socialism side pretended to be anti-socialism, and with this no-great feat of magic (which fooled the dumb masses regardless – please note, the author never once voted for Blair & Brown’s Labour) the British Establishment fully instituted a Culturally Marxist Britain after the 1997 election. Well, there was yet more to do, and people had grown sick of the political paradigm where all the parties looked and did much the same thing – the LibLabCon – and so now, to bring things up to date, the British Establishment proudly present to you Jeremy Corbyn; a man who brings cheer to some red-flag waving hearts by being an “old school socialist” – as if it somehow fetches up favourably against Tony Blair’s socialism – or John Major’s socialism – or Margaret Thatcher’s socialism (yes, even her). But there is no big deal about Corbyn, or any difference in the end: one is Nineteen Eighty Four, and any of the others is Brave New World. Cut it up and analyse it all you like – basically it boils down to a reclad Grenfell Tower; glitzy on the outside, old bitten-up workers-paradise concrete underneath. Both the Tories and Labour are internationalist socialists. The Tories pretend not to be, and Labour pretends that it has nothing to do with globalism – when it has got everything to do with globalism.

There is an ambition, and it’s been held dear by a tiny group of individuals for a long time – it’s older than Plato and his Republic – whereby one small class rules all the other people, not for the benefit of the State, as per the Noble Lie, but for the benefit of the few (see Bill Cooper’s Mystery Babylon series for a schooling). Socialism is just a name for this centuries-old plan: it is just the latest iteration, and never are the British electorate more mocked when Labour tells them to vote “for the many, not the few”. But it’s not just the Labour Party. The Tories are also statists (in that the State is for the benefit of a few), they too are about impoverishing people to keep them unable to challenge the status quo. Now, of course, Labourites will contest this idea of similitude between their party and the Tories, and point out how the lovely Labour Party gives hand outs so that people aren’t impoverished. No. The British Government has created a large, and never satiated welfare class – but it knows that it cannot make this blackhole never ending: it has to have boundaries. And so, currently, under the Tory-dominated parliament (as under the previous LibCon one), the Government is displacing one set of people from the juiciest teats of the welfare state and bringing in foreigners as recipients (who the government can get a slightly better return on). There’s no austerity – welfare is just being redistributed (socialists are meant to be all for this, aren’t they?). So back to the point, the large tax guzzling welfare state (which nearly everyone is dependent on – see the NHS) is there so that money can be stolen off wage earners in taxes (in fact, currently tax just pays off the debt). The people who are given handouts aren’t ever given enough to prosper, the people who have money taken don’t retain enough to prosper (meaning creating further wealth in any meaningful way). Everyone is poor.

The exact opposite is to have many rich individuals, and many more reasonably well-off who give charitably to the needy according to a moral code that hasn’t deliberately been eviscerated by the State, and by the same moral code do not withhold wealth unnecessarily (profit hoarding).  The needy will be folk unable to work, because where there is no deliberate suppression of an economy, where there is no forced scarcity, and where there is no cronyism (if it is morally unacceptable), then everybody who wanted it and was able would be in some work or other – usually their own business. But, because of the ancient desire of the gold class (Plato’s ruling elite†), there hasn’t been anything approaching this model since the 18th/19th century where it gave the little man power, and he could start calling himself Mister – which got right up the nose of those who thought they should be the only ones with titles. Make no mistake, this model is not what we might call proper “conservatism” that we could imagine should be the real opposite to socialism. The King and Church Tories were against liberalism – for that is what it is – from the very start. Conservatism is for the conservation of the system that benefits the gold class. No, this is real liberalism – and the party one would most closely identify with it in the current scheme of things is UKIP (although they too have to pander to the British people’s conditioned love of welfare). And so it comes to this: whenever Labour or the Tories go into an election, it doesn’t matter what is in their manifestos because British State only has one goal. Keep the real liberals out, run the State for the benefit of a few.

Of course, the EU is the State on a bigger scale – a step towards truly global rule by an international elite. In 2017, and if people looked closely enough, Labour and the Tories both pretty much let it be known what they were going to do regarding Brexit in manifestos and white papers – which was deliver what the British Establishment has coined a “soft Brexit” – or no Brexit; in other words for the UK to be in the EU in all but name – to have no independent development outside of a global programme (as explained extensively in many articles that appeared on this site in the last year). This site also particularly warned of the Tories, and so no-one who voted for them, instead of the real solution, can complain now that May is ploughing ahead with a “Remainer” cabinet. It also has to be said that the author sorely underestimated the legions of the short-plank army (i.e. as thick as two of them) by assuming that no one needed to be warned about Labour – who of course would have to misrepresent their stand on Brexit by making the right obfuscatory sounds. Labour would have been annihilated in the 2017 election if it had stood on a platform representing its real views on Britain and the EU, and had been unequivocal about them. Instead, we had an umbrella promise of Brexit, but on closer inspection, you would have seen that Labour has been even more overt in promises about maintaining EU-derived rights (and all that they entail – the reader of this site should be well informed on these by now) than the Tories had. Unfortunately, the short-plank brigade always have one eye on Strictly Come Dancing, and the other on football (a Victorian invention to assist in the bringing about of impoverishment), and even when these things are pointed out, there doesn’t seem to be any capacity to process them into thoughts about the consequences of a vote cast. See Election 2017: the day of the dumb for more.

† Socrates’ plan was generally meant to see people from the iron and bronze classes promoted into the gold class, but it’s pretty clear in the details how the elite would become protected.

‡ Corporate-cronyism amounts to the same thing.