Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the voting booth

Picture British politics (since the early 20th century) like the production of a movie. The electorate is the audience watching the finished product. The unbreakable rule is that the viewers of the film cannot affect its outcome – as one might well imagine; a film is a progression of pre-made images passively imbibed. The story of the film, from start to finish, reflects the desires of those making it, although the audience is under a dreadful delusion that it can alter the direction of the plot during intermissions. This power of influence is a lie told to them to keep them interested in the film, because the audience is free to leave the cinema at any time and go elsewhere to be “entertained”. Indeed, this is what happened in 1979 – and we’ll return to this momentarily. Suffice to say, when people write of Thatcher as the breaker of the post-war consensus, they probably don’t fully understand what it is that they are expressing†.

The goal of British Government for over a hundred years has been to socialise and collectivise the British people so that rather than being free individuals, they are in every aspect of their lives controlled, and so that they become capital in itself rather than capital owners. This is in accordance with the Masonic Great Work – and the antique ideal for the political organisation of humanity from whence it derives – where a technocratic class confers upon itself the right to rule because of its defiance of “destiny” (having discovered its own god-hood), and where, therefore, it is the duty of the masses to succumb to being ruled as a natural consequence of its slavery to “fate”. “Wings over the World” was the name used by HG Wells for a world-wide administration by Anglo-technocracy – and his fomenting for socialised Britain before and during the Second World War is something that has been written of before at FBEL.

Take the NHS as an indicator of a collectivised country: introduced pretty much immediately after World War II, of course. Britons have been brain washed to believe it is wonderful; it is far from it. The NHS is a shop where the keeper takes as much money as the customer has in his wallet, and then decides what the customer can buy, and sells something that isn’t of the same value. There is no power of the purse with the NHS. The NHS is for population control, and for social management. It is an extreme instrument of Statism, and there should be no place for it in a free country. Disbanding the NHS would be a major reversal in the cause of liberalism. However, there is no faction in the British political party system that wants to get rid of the NHS. This is indicative of the continuity of the “film-maker’s” agenda.

Until UKIP (now infiltrated to death), there was no major faction in the British political party system that wanted – as official policy – to terminate the UK’s EU membership; the EU, of course, was and is supranational government as a stepping stone to Anglo-globalism. In this sense, UKIP was an expression of the continuance of the liberal reversal (of Toryism/socialism) that broke out in 1979 – which is discussed in a fuller way in the FBEL article, Reflections on a by-election: another charlatan claims to represent the people, this time of Lewisham East.

In 1979, Britons got up from their seats and went to another cinema to watch a different film. Subsequently, the British Government (which is not a reference to the party in office, but the Establishment and class that rules – the State without the country, the people and their sovereignty) had to hastily reshoot parts of its movie to be shown intercut with footage that had been due to air in its pre-1979 theatre. The intention was to create a seamless journey back to that storyline destination originally desired. Remember the term “LibLabCon”, and how the three main parties were considered so close as to not allow for the insertion of a cigarette paper between them? So, in 2016, the cinema emptied again: Brexit, and ever since, the cutting-room floor of British Government has been littered with clippings to tell a story of Article 50 drama, and afterwards semi-marriage with the EU in spite of the repulsion to it. Naturally, Britons will leave the cinema again – but will they have finally learned the lesson never again to sit down to watch the British Government’s movie?

A particularly useful example for imagining the processes involved in the production of the “film” that is British politics is the 1970’s blockbuster, Jaws, because of the composite nature of the main feature, a synthetic shark, to affect an overall illusion of a living animal. Moreover, Spielberg is undoubtedly, and always has been (in the opinion of the author) in the business of film-making not to create art, but to psychologically manipulate the audience (and so he represents a development of the CIA-driven post-modernist art – about which an article is due here at FBEL). Jaws was a prime example of an attempt to shock large amounts of people through mass media in the spirit of Orson Welles’ radio version War of the Worlds, and if the reader cared to find them, there are plenty of articles on line about the comprehensive trauma that the film caused. Moreover, one can read several accounts of his engagement with the making of the movie, and never suspect that Spielberg at any time cared about it as a piece of art. Indeed, we can suspect (and with Spielberg’s involvement, be pretty confident), with the film rights being secured even before the novel by Benchley had been published, that the Jaws project was always about shock testing the American public.

We can perhaps safely presume that Jaws as a shock test is one explanation of the film that would never be posited at any of the symposiums that have been held to discuss its meaning (but on this topic, an article the author discovered, Jaws as Socio-Economic Parable, provides an excellent starting point for such a discussion, and also neatly complements the theme of this FBEL article).

Shock testing has been written of hereabouts before (specifically, here): in brief it is causing a stark and immediate alteration in consumer behaviour, and understanding certain economic ramifications. Being able to perceive this about the film, we can then understand why Spielberg has always been so disappointed with what was supposed to be the star of the show: the synthetic shark. The dynamic between characters was something that had to be developed to disguise the central failure – and, indeed, it was the casting (some of it accidental – Robert Shaw was not even Spielberg’s second choice for the part of Quint) of some pretty fine actors, whose improvisations became incorporated into the script during production, that turned what was supposed to be a B-movie-style creature-featuring shocker into something more memorable.

To create the illusion of a real life shark, the Jaws production team used a number of models, which included a left-to-right shark, and a right-to-left shark. Naturally, being indicated is the direction of travel as per how a cinema audience would see the animal. However, while the face of the model appeared to be a side-on view of a large predatory fish, the back of each was open, presumably to allow access to control working parts (or just to provide locomotion). The point is, the desired affect would not have been achieved if the left-to-right shark was used to film a right-to-left sequence; in fact, it wouldn’t happen because to do so, and see men in diving gear pushing a prop through the water, would shatter the central illusion, and the mechanic for causing the viewer’s psychological investment in the project.

So now consider the British Government and its apparent left and right wings. Any inter-faction contention that happens in British politics is not happening in this illusory plane populated by the political party, but in the dimension of the controlling hands: i.e. the different Masonic bodies – there are more than one can initially imagine (as a useful Wikipedia entry explains).

Government policy – the legislation it enacts to realise its vision – is always neutral in terms of political party separations, because it comes from one place, and is for the purpose of one outcome. The divisions that the electorate sees in terms of party separations only exist in their own minds suggested to them by the narrative of combative partisan politics. To create an illusion that legislation is created from standpoints of vastly varying and contrary political idealism, and also in reaction to the same belonging to the other side, the Government uses an equivalent to the two parts of the shark employed by the makers of Jaws: the Labour and the Conservative parties. Both are actually aspects of Toryism (with its historical opponent, real Liberalism, having been expelled from ballot-box politics) – as has been explained hereabouts before (see article linked to above).

At any time, the British Government has one of the two parties in power so as to institute its agenda most credibly. For a long time now, the Conservatives have represented a middle and corporate class that prospers from socialism; the Labour party represents an under-class who are dependent on Government, and a strata of working (mostly for the Government) and middle class (Government manager level) that also depends on socialism for its welfare, but also to “punish” those (as far as they believe it happens) who are financially more successful than they are (an expression of the superficial class-war ideology they are inculcated into). Both parties maintain the rule of the same aristocratic/corporate/political elite that can never be challenged. (Incidentally, in these days, there is no political party that represents an aspiring class of people who want to compete outside the socialist confines that guarantee the status quo for those benefitting by it).

At any time, the party in office institutes policy that on the surface looks to benefit its client group – otherwise the back of the “film-prop” would show if the wrong faction behaved discordantly against expectation. For the sake of appearing to be in office by popular consent, there is also a certain amount of stealing the other party’s clothes: this creates the appearance of the attainment of office by appealing to wider support. In terms of the lengths that must be gone to, it demonstrates that, for British Government, having the correct side of the “shark” showing to maintain the mass delusion is absolutely crucial. And all the while a particular party is to remain in office, the other, which will therefore be in opposition, is demonised to dissuade the electorate from voting for it (although the Government can always cheat if there is any real chance of this happening). If, on the other hand, the opposition needs to be brought into office, it is the incumbent party that suffers the very rough treatment of the organised corporate-media, and suffered to be made to look incompetent and plain nasty to the thoroughly deceived voter. The reader is invited to think of a time when there wasn’t a change of party in office when the incumbent wasn’t in disarray.

As things have been standing so far in 2018, the persistent trouble that Corbyn’s Labour finds itself in indicates that it isn’t yet to become the next party in office. However, we can see signs that, even so, there is a possibility of a red victory, because Labour has been doing some of that clothes-stealing mentioned above. The big unknown is Brexit, or rather that the British Government doesn’t seem to understand what it will do about reaction to the Article 50 surrender by the Conservatives (predicted here at FBEL before the 2017 election – search for Fake Brexit). In any case, the Labour party has announced plans to create what appears to be capital ownership for the workers of big private companies. Of course, as well as being an appeal to the imagined “right”, the plan can also be sold (and criticised) as taxation for creating public sector funding. There will be more on this subject in an article to follow where the real intention of Labour’s proposal is exposed: the introduction of dividend payout as a substitution for wages, and the continuing failure to deal with income stagnation caused by EU immigration, which is a deliberately engineered situation.

Labour have not been alone in recent likewise policy announcement: the Conservatives are proposing a major investment to build more social housing, and as such would appear to be clothes-stealing by expanding welfare capacity. Nevertheless, the plan can also be attacked as a handout of tax-payer monies to Tory pals in corporate construction companies; this would be the par for the course appreciation of the policy that the public are meant to receive clearly. Of course, there is something else going on at the heart of the issue: Tory social housing has to be an effort to mitigate the continued welfare provision failure caused by EU immigration.

So, what do we see in each case? Each party looks to implement policy which serves its client base, but also can be interpreted as an appeal across the spectrum to explain any election victory that would be dependent on poached support from the other side. That being said, both parties are overtly doling out more socialism. Additionally, hidden in the activity, but apparent because of its running like a filthy yellow streak through the middle, is the common policy of British Government irrespective of the party: the survival of EU immigration.

It was mentioned in a paragraph above that Jaws could be seen as a socio-economic parable – and the author thinks that this would be the route to explore in terms of meaning of the film after first defining the shark as an embodiment of socialism. The shark feeds on the weak at first – women and children.  Then it eats the capital owning working class who go to kill it. Of the three main characters, Quint is also capital owning working class; he gets eaten. Brody represents the middle class – but he is of a particular subset: the government official. It is Brody who comes to terms with the shark. Hooper is the aristocracy, who uses technology to improve his chances of survival; thus he is able to escape from shark, eventually swim in the same waters without falling prey as Brody takes on the burden of subduing the beast (yes, the book is different to the film, but the latter appears to be so much more interesting). The ship of state is the capital belonging to the working class. Socialism tears it apart, leaving the government official and the aristocrat to float to land, borne by the sea (which is an age old symbol for the masses), by a makeshift raft of their own construction.

The shark, then, is an emanation from the masses to create conditions conducive for the ongoing survival of Government. Jaws, in that case, is the old Masonic restating of the alchemical order out of chaos; the burning off of the vulgar to attain the pure. It was a promise to the “Georgian” capitalists – still very much clinging on in the USA at that time – that socialism was about to come to their prosperous resorts, and damage their livelihoods. And what was promised has come to pass, so that not only in the UK is socialism the only offer on choice at the polling booth – just as you might have thought it was safe to go back in.

† The liberal reaction of 79 was not ideal; in the ensuing years, for instance, some much better arrangement should have been found for the continuation of British heavy industry (which was denuded to create weakness ahead of eventual EU membership). Many Britons, because of their conditioning, just cannot hold an idea of how capitalism – which they hatefully associate with Thatcher – should operate as a natural mechanism of wealth distribution. The author happened to come across the following as he was reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon (from Chapter Two):

Such refinements, under the odious name of luxury, have been severely arraigned by the moralists of every age; and it might perhaps be more conducive to the virtue, as well as happiness, of mankind, if all possessed the necessaries, and none of the superfluities, of life. But in the present imperfect condition of society, luxury, though it may proceed from vice or folly, seems to be the only means that can correct the unequal distribution of property. The diligent mechanic, and the skilful artist, who have obtained no share in the division of the earth, receive a voluntary tax from the possessors of land; and the latter are prompted, by a sense of interest, to improve those estates, with whose produce they may purchase additional pleasures.

This is the idea that powered Georgian England: many capital owners in such diverse industries as musical instrument making to brewing were patronised by the rich, and increasingly the middling, and therefore by their own “trading” class: the process of wider betterment is called gentrification, and it is about closing income disparity and improving quality of life for as many people as possible.

On the contrary, socialism is setting expectation according to the lowest common denominator, and creating equality of poverty. Anti-capitalists don’t understand that profit-creaming (which has been deployed in the effort to create the collectivised society) is simply an abuse of capital ownership, not an automatic trait of capitalism; it is symptomatic of the vice, meanness (this was covered before at FBEL).

The reaction to this “crony-capitalism” in so many maleducated Britons (who won’t be told otherwise) is to blindly support the very same socialisation by a different capital-monopoliser: the communist Government.