What is Faragism, I hear you ask? Well, we’re all aware of Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP. And, upon UKIP’s massive victories in the local elections in May 2013 (grabbing 23-25% of the overall vote), the lefties and Tories have been beside themselves with hatred for Farage and libertarianism. Therefore, I have tried to popularize the term “Faragism”, which evokes the desire for an alternative to the self-absorbed “big three” politicians (Clegg, Cameron, Milliband).

Faragism also involves freedom of speech and thought, completely contradicting the “politically correct” society in which we live in today. But, most of all, Faragism represents responsibility, and thus the opportunity to make your own choices (i.e. shall I have a fag, or not?). This is because Farage believes in free will, rather than being controlled by the likes of bureaucrats, who rule our lives.

Farage poses a huge threat to the reigning politicians of apathy, yet control. Of course, they know this. But, why is Farage so undesirable? Basically, he threatens the power of LibLabCon, who, in my view, run a sort of “cartel” – none of the three like to threaten each other’s power too much, and thus distribute power between them. They blend into one party. However, let us examine the true motives of the parties with regards to Faragism.

Firstly, a trend of “Goldsteinism”. For those familiar with Orwell’s “1984”, you will know that Goldstein was The Party’s greatest enemy – In fact, Goldstein was improvised by the Party and used by them to portray Big Brother as the “saviour of the people” from Goldstein. Goldstein, in an oppressive society, proposed freedom of speech, but is hated, and depicted as stupid yet dangerous. The Party use him to justify their actions (i.e. installing tele-screens to protect people from Goldstein’s spies).

Before you ask, no, I am not suggesting that Farage is a figure created by LibLabCon. Farage is used by the LibLabCons as the “greatest enemy” – you see, if LibLabCon consolidate their power and divide it amongst themselves, they will be able to turn against Farage and present themselves as the alternative to him, as he has been portrayed badly by them – they play Farage at his own game. Farage is presented as the greatest threat to the masses: they create fear amongst the masses, giving LibLabCon opportunity to “protect” the nation from Farage; to take total control of the masses.

LibLabCon need a justification in order to do this, and they are desperate to use Farage as their justification. Generally, the Labour party use fear to control the masses, and allow the people to think of themselves as “vulnerable” and in need of leadership – this quality they find in the Labour party. And, as the masses gain what they perceive as safety from the Labour government, Labour gains control.

However, Labour realise there is a general trend throughout history of the middle classes desiring to overthrow the upper classes, who are in control, and, upon doing this successfully, the middle class revolutionaries assume the previous upper class position of power. History, in itself, shows us a repeat of the middle classes yearning to replace the upper class authoritarians, and the cycle repeats.

In order to prevent this, Labour encourages the detachment of the “upper class powers”, who are in control, and create an intangible political class, as we can see happening now. This political class becomes so intangible it is no longer deemed as a class, but rather, an almost omnipotent power, from a different world. The Labour politicians, such as Ed Milliband, present themselves as being there for the working man, but only indulge in these class divides so that they can win the masses.

The matter of fact is that the politicians think themselves so above these classes that classes are no longer relevant. The political classes dispense with the pretence of pursuing justice for everyone – this appears to feature equality and liberty.

Other parties such as the Conservatives realise the power they may lose if the middle classes overthrow them, and as a result, become somewhat left-wing, following in Labour’s footsteps. Labour then proceed to destroy education (i.e. closure of many grammar schools) to prevent any middle/working classes from “climbing the ladder”, and eventually the middle and working classes become a mere proletariat class of “haves and have-nots”, this being the materialistic term that people use, in preference to political awareness.

As George Orwell noted, as long as the proletariat classes are given materialistic and hedonistic pleasures such as sex, clothing, and most of all, gambling, they remained without political thought and led by The Party, but without being awoken to this fact, and thus unable to rebel. The Labour Party therefore encourages teenage pregnancy, unemployment and laziness throughout the country, creating a proletariat that is reliant on the welfare state. This, ultimately, gives Labour power.

This trend of Goldsteinism is most prominent in the extensive BBC coverage of UKIP and Farage – most lefties were baffled as to why UKIP got so much coverage, some even complained. However, the BBC give Farage continuous coverage due to the fact that this angers the masses, who oppose Farage for reasons they are not sure of, and the BBC and socialists alike feed on this natural opposition of Farage and provide many people with clichés which they can use to form an opinion on Farage, i.e. he’s a racist. However, when asked to provide evidence as to why they believe this, the opposition cannot answer, and usually use phrases regurgitated from socialist media, “he’s controversial and is ultimately a racist”.

So where does Goldsteinism and Labour’s desire for power cross? Well, Farage awakens the masses, despite the BBC trying to prevent this – the masses then realise the conveyor belt of politicians being produced, who are now so out of touch with society that they don’t realize what is happening, and rebel against it. As a result, the LibLabCon come together and all oppose Farage…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email