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…
We’ll I began at the beginning and when at the end I wasn’t sure whether I was any more enlightened that I was a minute or so earlier. It seems to me to be a disjointed commentary on the general nature of human society and I’m not sure there is a point, unless it’s that traditional incumbents of Parliament don’t want more competition.
That’s certainly true, also unsurprising.
I’m also not sure about the use of indefinable and slang terms such as lefties. What exactly is a lefty? Is it perhaps someone who supports the concept of a free health service or, free education for all? It certainly isn’t helpful for a new party to fit into these emotionally charged descriptions because government responsibility, in reality, pervades both spectrums. It’s inconsistent for Rosalie to (rightly) criticises the unsupported use of the ‘racist’ word (also indefinable) yet persists with other similarly hazy concepts like left and right; in a political context of course.
UKIP will succeed on ‘big’ policy. Not much else that a government has to do would be too different whichever party was in power so it’s the big things that count and that will make a difference to voting motivations. We have two of those already, leaving the EU and Immigration, both of which have majority support. Our main problem is that of interrupting voting momentum and causing a change..Only big policy will do this.
Please don’t reduce Nigel to an ‘ism’ – I don’t think he’d like it! Nigel Farage is a real, charming, charismatic human being who loves his country, as all Ukippers do. Your parallels with 1984 have some mileage, but not even LibLabCon have become so dehumanised as to want power for the sake of it and ready to step endlessly on everyone’s face to maintain it. That role is the EU’s! Better not dismiss the ‘proletariat’ either, or portray them as mindless consumers of ‘bread and circuses’. Many people don’t know much about politics, but they know what they like and don’t like – and they don’t like what’s happening in this country today. They’re waking up to the fact that the root cause is the EU. UKIP needs to keep on shouting and they’ll hear us.
I dont think you quite understood what I was trying to convey. Of course Nigel Farage is real, and certainly a charismatic being. That’s the point of the article and why he is feared so.
As for “dismissing the proletariat”, I am pretty much part of the proletariat.
Rosalie, I do understand your article and find it an interesting critique.
I just don’t like ‘isms’; there are too many already and dehumanise the followers I believe, by replacing their critical faculties with ideology. For example, the word ‘proletariat’ is a term that comes from Marxism; that is why I enclosed it in inverted commas in my first reply. I, too, am of working-class origin, if defining yourself by class is a useful categorisation. I prefer definition by nationality: therefore I am English and, in a wider sense, British – a natural Ukipper.
Btw, it’s a long time since I read ‘1984’, but I don’t think I ever believed in the reality of ‘Goldstein’; I suspected he was a construct promoted by Big Brother et al in order to give people a little hope and act as a safety valve for their pent up anguish and yearning for freedom.
Goldstein = the bogus EU Parliament?
Wonderful appearance on QT! Agreed with every word you said. Beeching was a state-sponsored vandal.
Pamela, this young lady is one of our rising stars. She was on BBCQT last night in St Austell, starting at 12:55 on http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03glqpy/Question_Time_31_10_2013/. Difficult to believe she’s just 16 and already has a well-developed political skill.
And when are we going to see an article from you on UKIP Daily, Pamela?
I’ve sent my article! Remains to be seen if it’s used – tricky subject.
It’s remarkable that Rosalie is 16 and writing an article such as this.
Excellent analysis, thanks.
So many poeple get bogged down in the window dressing and are unable to see what is really happening.
You’ve picked up on some basic truths in this piece, more please.
Orwell’s 1984 , is a stark warning of what is to come. Some say we are already there with CCTV on every corner and the freedom of the Press is being curtailed with this new Charter they will control what you see in the Media. The plebian masses are blind to what’s happening, so long as they’re glued to their iPod and materialist worldly things, they’re blind and the UKIP party trying to amend this state of affairs with the EU is impotent to do anything, watch and shout.
Nigel Farage or Faragm is breaking through in some places and he’s everywhere on the internet, but we need to get the message out there to tell the people what they’ve lost already for being a member of this insidious organisation,and what we will do. For example, the Democracy deficit and the ability to make our laws. Every Domestic law our parliament passes, can be and often is overridden by EU laws. Parliament at Westminster has no power, except to remove us from tyrranny, by applying article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. Only UKIP will do this. Vote UKIP in 2014 and 2015.
This is the case that lost us independence in law making. A Spanish fishing fleet in 1988 were Quota-hopping, by registering their boats in the UK for entitlement to UK quotas. We tried to oppose this by making a Quota hopping law 1988, but the Spanish fishing company fought us in the High Court and won. It set a president where our laws are now redundant, if one exists already in the EEC/EU.
Queen v Factortame 19 June 1990
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61989CJ0213:EN:HTML
Rosalie Ward , yes, keep at it !
You might find the origins of the Federal Reserve, all on you tube , of interest as well
Great stuff. Orwell’s1984 is an apt warning. He predicted so much that has in some ways already come true: desktop computers, surveillance, police state, the underclass and the 3 perpetual waring regions.Today’s Europe is shaping up quite well to be an exemplar. Consign them to Room 101! .