Will the old-guard Parties try to re-establish “integration with the EU” by the back door? What future is there for UKIP? What “Renaissance” awaits Britain with Brexit, and who are the backdoor technocrats that want to hold us back?
We are starting to hear more of the concept of “technocrats” and “technocracy”. In actual fact, this subterfuge has been long used by established elites, allowing new Laws onto the Statute Books not discussed by Parliament, which were Directives from the EU Commission, discussed behind closed doors by unelected appointed representatives such as Lord Hill – who recently resigned – along with making the gargantuan length of documents totally unreadable, full of technical gobbledegook, confusing legalistic terminology and the language of “Social Change”. Blair’s ‘frenzied law making’ saw a new offence created (mainly cascaded down from the EU) for every day spent in office, 54% more per year than Mrs Thatcher.
What was it all for?
The elites do this because, naturally, they consider themselves to be superior to the Common Man; they are “experts” in every kind of statistic and forecast. And didn’t we hear the endless refrain of the “Remain” campaign, seemingly saying: ‘you do not not know anything, listen to the “experts” who are all saying that it would be a disaster to be self-governing…’?
So, what is “Technocracy” and who are these (usually government-appointed) “experts”? According to the Dictionary of Philosophical Language, technocracy is ‘the political condition in which the real power belongs to (unelected political “expert”) technicians called “technocrats”.’
I have already written about how the origins of the subterfuge of collectivist globalism and its casual imposition on the West by cleverly-written and engineered speeches from the top, presupposing the “benefits” of more and more of the same creeping takeover by these same elites, is something that the stupid mass of ordinary people are ‘simply not well-educated enough to understand’. But since we, the common people, along with our cousins in Europe and elsewhere, struggling with crippling debts, spiralling unemployment, massive social unrest due to the deliberately and artificially accelerated rate of social destabilisation do not benefit, then who does?
Who are these beneficiaries linked to the technocrats in unelected positions of power?
A good example of a technocrat is Viviane Reding, vice-president of the European Commission, who said in 2014 that the British debate about Europe was so ‘distorted’ that people could not make an ‘informed decision’ about whether or not to stay in the EU. Britons are too ignorant about Europe to vote in a referendum on the subject, she claimed. Of course, she had not spoken to any ordinary British people, but she’s an “expert”, so she “just knows” – and this allows her and those like her to state that the decision to leave is not “legitimate”.
Often the legalistic aspect of such thinking is the reason given for ‘bypassing the plebs’ – as if we and other countries did not already have working and adaptable systems of law-making that make the Pluralism, which we have seen failing so badly, so disastrously problematic.
The very term ‘technocracy’ has its origins in the 1920s, and this is where the problem begins and ends. With rapid industrialization, the economic crisis and the Great Depression of the 1920s, there was an opportunity for propagandists and profiteers to “change society”. The writers of the time were all considering the new ‘rational’ society, a Utopia based on ‘scientific principles’. The same concept has deep roots in idealistic central European Romanticism and in Western history back to the French revolution. These Romantic ideas led to the abuses of National Socialism and Communism, both of which were called “democratic”, both of which were devised for the “general good” by elites.
In Britain, we had undergone the utopian nightmare scenario two hundred years previously. Our own Act of Settlement 1688 protected the common people from the anarchism and tyranny that spread over Europe in the 18th Century following the French Revolution. Our freedoms and Common Law practices had been the envy of the rest of Europe for this very reason, from the “Philosophes” onwards. Thomas Hobbes famously asked what it should be like to be an individual endowed with rights able to resist the monolith of State power and find a free world. Amazingly, after 400 years, we are still wondering.
Within a “technocracy” such as the EU, leadership skills are selected by bureaucratic or meritocratic processes “based on knowledge and performance, rather than democratic procedures.” This elitist trend found an ally in unscrupulous Capitalism as well as in revolutionary socialism and Fascism. One of the recurring features of the concept of “technocracy”, appallingly, is the critique of the common man and the national electorate, or the small businessman, as venal, incompetent and subject to private interests operating in a manner “contrary to the interests of society”.
In other words, the EU globalist elites (also, in many instances, those at the UN who sit in committees, “cascading” new regulations to the lower levels of their feudal governance scheme, to decide our future) do not believe we have the knowledge or skills or ability to make wise choices democratically. Because they consider us “incompetent and venal”, they presume to tell us what is best for us. Didn’t we hear the same refrain on the lips of the President of the USA?
This is at the basis of all corporative globalist thinking. They consider themselves the new feudal masters, “barons of rationality” building an “empire of logic”, where we are the slaves and serfs, too stupid to know what is good for us. The fact that it is they who are often venal, incompetent and worse (mentioning no names, but several, still trying to find ways of winning back influence to the elitist club and plan, through the backdoor, spring to mind), always seems to pass them by…
They create a myth of “collective decision-making” in order to dictate what is politically correct and to stamp out opposition “not by insurrectionary tactics, but to supersede them by disregard… in all sorts of ways (the technocrats) will be influencing and controlling the apparatus of the ostensible governments” (HG Wells, in 1939 )
So this idea, which began in the 1920s and 30s and was the foundation of both Nazism and Communism, caused the death of millions. And the “Third Way” elites, with their often avuncular smiles, dismissals of the human suffering caused in the name of “progress” (‘it comes with the job’), are still trying to foist these lies onto an unsuspecting world!
I would argue that such ideas need to be stopped and the law-making power returned to the electorate before the ghastly errors of the 1930s seen in the Stalinist purges and fascist takeovers, are repeated. Alarmist? That’s what they said in the 1930s too.
Because these “slow change” methods favoured by the Fabians and cultural Marxists are designed to operate under the radar of normal political activity, and to “replace by disregard” all the fought-for and laboured-for rights of the Common Man under the protection of the Monarch and the re-electable Parliament – the “checks and balances” that Walter Bagehot wrote of – we have been fooled into equating “progress” and “forward-thinking” with mere collectivist thinking; “choice” with ideology; “equality” with power over others. It is the difference between slavish adherence to doctrinaire “observances” of “Directives”, and the path of self-hood, freedom and growth. It is all the drip-drip-drip propaganda, the “bread and circuses for the masses” of self-interested groups.
People are asking “what future for UKIP” – surely one answer to that is in providing the forum for ideas, forward-thinking philosophies that expose the mistakes of all the other parties, that have been so misled since the 1930s, filling the void in ideas that gets occupied, by default, in our schools and universities by globalist/collectivist technocrats, and stimulating a new Renaissance in these ancient lands, so long the home of freedom?
I cannot see that the other parties at this time – albeit with interesting sounds coming from Andrea Leadsom – even remotely understand what such a Renaissance might mean….