An overview of opinions and observations for the month.
Thursday, 30 June 2016
Wednesday, 29 June 2016
Globalist Cabal
You will likely dismiss this information or call me a conspiracy theorist... nevertheless I've been busy digging into global politics and the theories surrounding an oligopoly that control the world.
The world is run by globalists, this much is apparent; a handful of untouchable facist families who through their positions of power and finance dominate the globe with exclusive invitation only elites that form internationalist supergroups such as the Trilateral Commission (of which David Rockefeller was the principal founder) and convene within The Bilderberg Group, to essentially macro managing the entire globe.
Examples of these globalist families are:
- The Rothschilds - founded The Federal Reserve.
- The Rockefellers - founded the Standard Oil Company.
- The Morgans - owners of the Largest Private Gold Vault
- The Du Ponts - biggest supplier of Gunpowder, Explosives, Plutonium and GMO Seeds
An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy. From a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, 43,060 TNCs were identified and the share ownerships linking them. When researchers further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies. Less than 1% of the companies were able to control 40% of the entire network; most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.
The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP Amoco and Chevron Texaco); in tandem with Deutsche Bank, BNP, Barclays and other European old money behemoths. According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation.
One important repository for the wealth of the global oligarchy that owns these bank holding companies is US Trust Corporation – founded in 1853 and now owned by Bank of America. A recent US Trust Corporate Director and Honorary Trustee was Walter Rothschild. Other directors included Daniel Davison of JP Morgan Chase, Richard Tucker of Exxon Mobil, Daniel Roberts of Citigroup and Marshall Schwartz of Morgan Stanley.
When we see false flag operations, often against weaker countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria under the guise of a global terrorist threat, it is often actually manipulation, smoke and mirrors to allow the seizure of resources and ultimately profit from oil.
- Iraq - considered the world's fifth-largest proven oil reserves
- Afghanistan - The Caspian Sea region has potentially the world's largest oil reserves; the problem is piping it out. Afghanistan occupies a strategic position between the Caspian and the markets of the Indian subcontinent and east Asia. It's prime territory for building pipelines.
- Libya - the largest oil reserves in Africa and among the ten largest globally
- Syria - to ensure the Kirkuk-Banias oil pipeline that runs from Kirkuk in Northern Iraq, to the Syrian town of Banias, on the Mediterranean Sea between Turkey and Lebanon will be restored to profitable status. Ever since US forces inadvertently destroyed it in 2003, most of the pipeline has been shut down. Syria has at least 2.5 billion barrels of oil in its fields, making it the next largest Middle Eastern oil producer after Iraq. After ten unproductive years, the oil companies dependent on the Kirkuk-Banias pipeline’s output are eager to get the pipeline operational again. The tension over the Syrian oil situation is certainly being felt by wealthy investors in the markets, who are thus dictating US foreign policy.
The mass population aren't ready or prepared to accept the facts for what they are; the global economy is controlled by a handful of families who can manipulate and influence the entire system; when countries refuse to bend to their whim and surrender control, the families fund the wars to destroy them and then seize power and economic prosperity from it, and they control the media spin to manipulate public perception to condone it. The families are the puppet masters who run the world under the illusion it's for our benefit, whilst extorting gross amounts of wealth and power from the millions of dead bodies left in their wake.
This is the truth, believe it or not.
"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." - David Rockefeller, 2003 Memoirs
Tuesday, 28 June 2016
Fuck Off John Oliver
The irony of John Oliver openly mocking England tradition and culture, whilst deluded unpatriotic Bremainers cheer him on.
Beside going off on a tangent slagging off UKIP with one candidate scapegoated over a comment about a Sri Lankan not being British enough to be in Parliament, a representative for a district council in Kent saying "I have problems with negros", and Kerry Smith saying "chinky" in reference to a Chinese person. This does not represent the manifesto or view of all UKIP supporters. In much the same way that Prime Minister Cameron himself (note, not a lesser representative) labelling Afghanistan and Nigeria as "fantastically corrupt" in conversation with The Queen in any way means the view is unanimous between all Tory voters.
Oliver should also be ashamed for the way he plays on the death of Jo Cox in a disgusting manner to tarnish UKIP by somehow implying association means you condone or dismiss her tragic death. This was a vile attempt at leveraging the death of a much loved MP as ammunition to distance yourself from the Leave campaign.
Let's get into the actual arguments.
1) Financial Contributions; Oliver quotes Boris Johnson saying about £350 million a week that we have no control of going to the EU. Ignoring the rebate (which I'll return to in a moment) the actual figure was £342.3 million a week in 2015 which isn't a huge misreprentation. The rebate/investments become irrelevant in the argument that we have immediate access to essentially £350 million a week outside of the EU. The rebate is not applicable until the following year depending on projections, investments and returns meaning at the point of contribution, yes, we do pay in the £342 million per week.
The EU has been in financial decline excessively since the UK joined back in 1973 becoming economically stagnant and static. Since 1980 the share of world output accounted for by the EU has almost halved from 30% to 16.5%. The financial model is fast becoming redundant in the global climate, and the benefit of remaining associated with a plummeting economic bloc binds our wrists from independent trade agreements that could be struck with faster growing economies and sentences us to a slow death alongside the rest of the member states.
2) Onerous Regulations; admittedly the 109 Pillow Regulations was a poor attempt by Brexit the Movie at illustrating and highlighting the overbearing bureaucracy of the EU. Nevertheless, there is currently 19,639 acts of EU legislation in force. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/browse/directories/legislation.html). This is excessively overkill. There was at one point genuinely a regulation ((EC) No. 2257/94) specifically for just bananas that laid out extensive provisions such as minimum length, thickness, degree of curvature, firmness, colour etc for a banana to qualify for sale. This level of red tape and regulation creates unneccesary issues for start ups and small business' allowing multinational big business to leverage unfair competitor advantage. There are over 1,400 regulations pertaining solely to Fisheries (CFP), which have served to destroy the entire UK fishing industry. Look it up, I'm not just making it up for the sake of argument. (http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6092/the_eu_s_betrayal_of_britain_s_fishing_industry)
3) The fact that Obama, China, Japan, India, and the EU want you to stay in... and some irrelevant skit of an Austrian politician with a poem. I fail to see how "these other countries want you to stay in the EU" justifies a selling point in a political argument? Without context of reasoning, it's an moot point and completely obsolete even mentioning it.
4) HM Treasury, BoE, IMF, OECD, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, pwc, Oxford Economics, Centre For Economic Performance all "predict" a negative affect on GBP. Let me open with the argument that the financial security of the UK is a tetchy subject for a disenfranchised working class. The economic divide, the disparity of power evident in class warfare; Brexiters are not xenophobes or racists, we are simply fatigued of being at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder within a failing economy. The upper echelons grossly misjudged the extent of unrest among the working class who break their backs to afford the upper class an affluent life of luxury and excess. Had they known the degree of disdain, the Referendum would never have been on the table. I sincerely believe the economic inequality resulted in the hedging of an EU departure; not racism as so many Bremainers rush to accuse. In a population of 65 million in the UK, the poorest 10% have an average original income of £3,738... the richest 10% have an average original income of £102,366... and the 0.1% at the very top have an average original income of £941,582. (https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk). For the working class, our concerns are simple; a breadline existence has resulted in a bleak and one dimensional perspective. We care for little, content in the knowledge we will never achieve the high ranking economic status of the elite, however we nevertheless yearn a basic standard of living in comparison to that of our peers. I appreciate (and do not take for granted) that our standard of living far supersedes that of the third world, but when compared to that of the elite, we know we are being exploited. We feel violated, belittled, taken advantage of as economic slaves, breaking our backs for scraps from the metaphorical table. The economy could be saved if the elites want it to be; but regardless of being in the EU or not, and the strength of the GBP - the lower bracket are losing either way so it's not a great concern to us.
5) Reduce immigration; when citing a poster as "nazi propaganda" you need to differentiate between migrants and refugees, something I'm not getting into here. If you want a good trade deal with EU, you need to abide by their rules, meaning it's not worth it to leave as free movement of people will persist etc. No. The UKIP and Brexit stance is not to entertain such an approach to the EU. "In April 2016 the value of exports (EU and Non-EU) increased to £25 billion, and imports (EU and Non-EU) increased to £41 billion, compared with last month. Consequently the UK is a net importer this month, with imports exceeding exports by £16.0 billion." (https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/OTS.aspx). We purchase more than we sell in a global market. We do not need the EU to be our sole buyer, and we can purchase what we get from the EU from elsewhere in the world if they are forcing free movement of people as part and parcel of the deal.
Ironically as a Brexit supporter, I note Oliver didn't even touch on TTIP in the arguments presented. The common collective knowledge of TTIP is admittedly not much, and that alone makes those aware of it very nervous and suspicious. The low hanging fruit of economic benefits does little to sway the public opinion of those on a breadline existence, notably less so in favour of reducing and watering down regulation and quality assurance such as food safety law, environmental rules and banking regulations. Reducing EU standards to match those of the US already sits unfavourably with those of us aware of the reduced standards in the States; combine this with rumours of ISDS provisions allowing US corporations being able to sue democratic Governments in private courts over loss of profits (effectively resulting in multinational and foreign corporations influencing law and policy) alongside rampant privatisation and the prospect of US corporations owning and controlling vital UK public services such as transport, education, water and health. TTIP by definition is toxic, providing a small financial contribution in order to ultimately leverage open the EU to be deconstructed and sold off to the USA.
So yeah. I eagerly await your rebuttals.
Beside going off on a tangent slagging off UKIP with one candidate scapegoated over a comment about a Sri Lankan not being British enough to be in Parliament, a representative for a district council in Kent saying "I have problems with negros", and Kerry Smith saying "chinky" in reference to a Chinese person. This does not represent the manifesto or view of all UKIP supporters. In much the same way that Prime Minister Cameron himself (note, not a lesser representative) labelling Afghanistan and Nigeria as "fantastically corrupt" in conversation with The Queen in any way means the view is unanimous between all Tory voters.
Oliver should also be ashamed for the way he plays on the death of Jo Cox in a disgusting manner to tarnish UKIP by somehow implying association means you condone or dismiss her tragic death. This was a vile attempt at leveraging the death of a much loved MP as ammunition to distance yourself from the Leave campaign.
Let's get into the actual arguments.
1) Financial Contributions; Oliver quotes Boris Johnson saying about £350 million a week that we have no control of going to the EU. Ignoring the rebate (which I'll return to in a moment) the actual figure was £342.3 million a week in 2015 which isn't a huge misreprentation. The rebate/investments become irrelevant in the argument that we have immediate access to essentially £350 million a week outside of the EU. The rebate is not applicable until the following year depending on projections, investments and returns meaning at the point of contribution, yes, we do pay in the £342 million per week.
The EU has been in financial decline excessively since the UK joined back in 1973 becoming economically stagnant and static. Since 1980 the share of world output accounted for by the EU has almost halved from 30% to 16.5%. The financial model is fast becoming redundant in the global climate, and the benefit of remaining associated with a plummeting economic bloc binds our wrists from independent trade agreements that could be struck with faster growing economies and sentences us to a slow death alongside the rest of the member states.
2) Onerous Regulations; admittedly the 109 Pillow Regulations was a poor attempt by Brexit the Movie at illustrating and highlighting the overbearing bureaucracy of the EU. Nevertheless, there is currently 19,639 acts of EU legislation in force. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/browse/directories/legislation.html). This is excessively overkill. There was at one point genuinely a regulation ((EC) No. 2257/94) specifically for just bananas that laid out extensive provisions such as minimum length, thickness, degree of curvature, firmness, colour etc for a banana to qualify for sale. This level of red tape and regulation creates unneccesary issues for start ups and small business' allowing multinational big business to leverage unfair competitor advantage. There are over 1,400 regulations pertaining solely to Fisheries (CFP), which have served to destroy the entire UK fishing industry. Look it up, I'm not just making it up for the sake of argument. (http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6092/the_eu_s_betrayal_of_britain_s_fishing_industry)
3) The fact that Obama, China, Japan, India, and the EU want you to stay in... and some irrelevant skit of an Austrian politician with a poem. I fail to see how "these other countries want you to stay in the EU" justifies a selling point in a political argument? Without context of reasoning, it's an moot point and completely obsolete even mentioning it.
4) HM Treasury, BoE, IMF, OECD, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, pwc, Oxford Economics, Centre For Economic Performance all "predict" a negative affect on GBP. Let me open with the argument that the financial security of the UK is a tetchy subject for a disenfranchised working class. The economic divide, the disparity of power evident in class warfare; Brexiters are not xenophobes or racists, we are simply fatigued of being at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder within a failing economy. The upper echelons grossly misjudged the extent of unrest among the working class who break their backs to afford the upper class an affluent life of luxury and excess. Had they known the degree of disdain, the Referendum would never have been on the table. I sincerely believe the economic inequality resulted in the hedging of an EU departure; not racism as so many Bremainers rush to accuse. In a population of 65 million in the UK, the poorest 10% have an average original income of £3,738... the richest 10% have an average original income of £102,366... and the 0.1% at the very top have an average original income of £941,582. (https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk). For the working class, our concerns are simple; a breadline existence has resulted in a bleak and one dimensional perspective. We care for little, content in the knowledge we will never achieve the high ranking economic status of the elite, however we nevertheless yearn a basic standard of living in comparison to that of our peers. I appreciate (and do not take for granted) that our standard of living far supersedes that of the third world, but when compared to that of the elite, we know we are being exploited. We feel violated, belittled, taken advantage of as economic slaves, breaking our backs for scraps from the metaphorical table. The economy could be saved if the elites want it to be; but regardless of being in the EU or not, and the strength of the GBP - the lower bracket are losing either way so it's not a great concern to us.
5) Reduce immigration; when citing a poster as "nazi propaganda" you need to differentiate between migrants and refugees, something I'm not getting into here. If you want a good trade deal with EU, you need to abide by their rules, meaning it's not worth it to leave as free movement of people will persist etc. No. The UKIP and Brexit stance is not to entertain such an approach to the EU. "In April 2016 the value of exports (EU and Non-EU) increased to £25 billion, and imports (EU and Non-EU) increased to £41 billion, compared with last month. Consequently the UK is a net importer this month, with imports exceeding exports by £16.0 billion." (https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/OTS.aspx). We purchase more than we sell in a global market. We do not need the EU to be our sole buyer, and we can purchase what we get from the EU from elsewhere in the world if they are forcing free movement of people as part and parcel of the deal.
Ironically as a Brexit supporter, I note Oliver didn't even touch on TTIP in the arguments presented. The common collective knowledge of TTIP is admittedly not much, and that alone makes those aware of it very nervous and suspicious. The low hanging fruit of economic benefits does little to sway the public opinion of those on a breadline existence, notably less so in favour of reducing and watering down regulation and quality assurance such as food safety law, environmental rules and banking regulations. Reducing EU standards to match those of the US already sits unfavourably with those of us aware of the reduced standards in the States; combine this with rumours of ISDS provisions allowing US corporations being able to sue democratic Governments in private courts over loss of profits (effectively resulting in multinational and foreign corporations influencing law and policy) alongside rampant privatisation and the prospect of US corporations owning and controlling vital UK public services such as transport, education, water and health. TTIP by definition is toxic, providing a small financial contribution in order to ultimately leverage open the EU to be deconstructed and sold off to the USA.
So yeah. I eagerly await your rebuttals.
Monday, 27 June 2016
Why I Favoured Brexit
It has become natural for the Bremainers to speak in bitter tongues of xenophobia and racism scorning the EU Referendum, rejecting any claims of logic for a structured debate around the reasoning for 17.4 million voters to opt to depart from the European Union. I am one of those 17.4 million and I intend to educate the ignorant.
I am an educated Eurosceptic, one who is attuned to the antimedia and the necessity to peer behind the veil of mainstream biased media. I have become hyper-vigilant of the rife manipulation and coercion that dominate the political stage. In a country where the media convergence is at an all time high, oligopolists act in the interests of the corporate funders, namely the financial beneficiaries of a blatantly undemocratic bait and switch.
The entire of UK mainstream media is owned by six entities; these consist of Rupert Murdoch, Richard Desmond, Alexander Lebedev, Trinity Mirror, DMGT, and the Guardian Media Group. If you consume only mainstream media, you limit your knowledge and accept a skewed perception of the world around you. It is my firm belief that the majority of Bremainers fit the demographic of those most susceptible to the smokescreen of mainstream media; gullible, naive... able to manipulate.
Something is wrong in this world; we all feel it, and we feel unanimously powerless to correct it. The economic divide, the disparity of power evident in class warfare; Brexiters are not xenophobes or racists, we are simply fatigued of being at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder within a failing economy. The upper echelons grossly misjudged the extent of unrest among the working class who break their backs to afford the upper class an affluent life of luxury and excess. Had they known the degree of disdain, the Referendum would never have been on the table.
Admittedly, immigration likely played a part, but not for the cited reasons. Immigration exacerbates a stressed economy, whilst the rich sit in their elegant splendor, the population spirals and the public sector remains underfunded and grossly maligned with the growing demands. I sincerely believe the economic inequality resulted in the hedging of an EU departure; not racism as so many Bremainers rush to accuse. In a population of 65 million in the UK, the poorest 10% have an average original income of £3,738... the richest 10% have an average original income of £102,366... and the 0.1% at the very top have an average original income of £941,582. (https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk)
For the working class, our concerns are simple; a breadline existence has resulted in a bleak and one dimensional perspective. We care for little, content in the knowledge we will never achieve the high ranking economic status of the elite, however we nevertheless yearn a basic standard of living in comparison to that of our peers. I appreciate (and do not take for granted) that our standard of living far supersedes that of the third world, but when compared to that of the elite, we know we are being exploited. We feel violated, belittled, taken advantage of as economic slaves, breaking our backs for scraps from the metaphorical table.
Education, and I refer to actual applicable education, not curriculum that is irrelevant in the real world of employment, should not be an unaffordable luxury. It should not require a lifetime of unrepayable debt to acquire a decent education in a first world country; the tuition fees demanded for a degree have tripled recently, indicating a blatant disregard for the necessity of a valuable education. An influx of "skilled and educated immigrants" further compounds the issue of employment when it is not feasible for the working class to get an education when the establishment knowingly hold them back. Even schools have felt the burden with children unable to acquire places in their favoured option resulting in failing institutions nationwide which are then downgraded to academies, publicly funded independent substitutes exempt from the national curriculum leading to inconsistent and unbalanced education.
Housing, and the availability of suitable accommodation. The cost of housing and the increasing population of the country go hand in hand. Supply and demand is basic principle; if housing does not increase in direct proportion to population expansion, what few houses are available become unaffordable for the majority. It becomes a cut-throat, dog eat dog battle to acquire suitable housing. It is also common public interpretation that immigrants are favoured where accomodation is available. Again, xenophobia can be blamed, but the root of the problem lies with the absence of expansion of the housing sector by the upper tier writing the cheques.
Healthcare and the NHS, the obvious bone of contention in the debate. I'll skip the he-say-she-say regarding a £350 million per week cash injection following Brexit and instead focus on the crux of the issue. It is no secret that the NHS has been falling to pieces with cost reduction targets that directly impact the level of care received by those most dependent on it. Extrapolated data from 35 NHS service providers forecast a £2.3 billion deficit in the fund by the close of the year. An underfunded and overworked healthcare system is further compounded by the increasing population; basic logic, the more people you need to provide for, the more funding you need to maintain a median level of service. Desperate measures such as privatisation have further harmed the public perception of the crisis.
Business and retaining our own corporate infrastructure. It is no secret that the EU funds the relocation of UK business' to the continent (Cadbury, Ford Transit, Jaguar Land Rover, Peugeot, Dyson, Marks and Spencer, Hornby, Gilette, Indesit, Boots, Mini to list a few). The result of this asset stripping is removal of employment opportunities to other countries, and the removal of economic contributions to the UK. Scottish Power is owned by Iberdrola, a Spanish company. Our fishing industry is now non-existent due to the EU, and even farmers are being paid to not produce food. The EU is not good for our business'.
Employment and a stable economy naturally deserve a voice in the debate, however for a disenfranchised working class who feel so dismissed and undervalued, with less job prospects and a minimal amount of money in their pockets, this is not a great concern. When you work a full time job and still struggle to cover your household bills, never mind enjoy a little luxury as compensation, it becomes difficult to generate fear around the prospect of economic uncertainty. Economic concerns only affect those with actual tangible assets and money, and the majority of Brexiters do not fit that demographic profile.
Beyond the above arguments, for those Brexiters actually aware of politics, it is abundantly clear that the EU is an undemocratic, expensive and failing political system. With reform clearly off the table, as Juncker chastised "the British policy makers and British voters have to know that there will not be any kind of renegotiation [...] we have concluded a deal with the Prime Minister, he got the maximum he could receive, we gave the maximum we could give" it became abundantly clear that it was make or break for the UK.
There is nothing democratic about a system where our total representation is around 9% of a board who are outvoted more than half the time on legislation that directly affects our everyday life. In Britain it is parties and Governments that make decisions and propose laws, whereas in the EU the only people who can propose laws are the unelected. We have no control over an institution which just obliges an elected Government to pass various regulations telling us how we should lead our lives.
The EU has been in financial decline excessively since the UK joined back in 1973 becoming economically stagnant and static. Since 1980 the share of world output accounted for by the EU has almost halved from 30% to 16.5%. The financial model is fast becoming redundant in the global climate, and the benefit of remaining associated with a plummeting economic bloc binds our wrists from independent trade agreements that could be struck with faster growing economies and sentences us to a slow death alongside the rest of the member states.
And finally, the impending doom of TTIP added icing to an already volatile cake. The common collective knowledge of TTIP is admittedly not much, and that alone makes those aware of it very nervous and suspicious. The low hanging fruit of economic benefits does little to sway the public opinion of those on a breadline existence, notably less so in favour of reducing and watering down regulation and quality assurance such as food safety law, environmental rules and banking regulations. Reducing EU standards to match those of the US already sits unfavourably with those of us aware of the reduced standards in the States; combine this with rumours of ISDS provisions allowing US corporations being able to sue democratic Governments in private courts over loss of profits (effectively resulting in multinational and foreign corporations influencing law and policy) alongside rampant privatisation and the prospect of US corporations owning and controlling vital UK public services such as transport, education, water and health. TTIP by definition is toxic, providing a small financial contribution in order to ultimately leverage open the EU to be deconstructed and sold off to the USA.
Perhaps for some the Brexit vote was a middle finger to the establishment, a chance to rebel for a cause, for others it may have been fuelled by racism and xenophobia, but for others the underlying message is that we are tired of being taken for granted in an undemocratic, economically faltering union that serves to keep the working class suppressed whilst the elite further prosper. It is however also my belief that we live in a country where they would not allow us to leave the EU if it meant the entire national economy would totally collapse, your money would become worthless, or your living conditions would deteriorate to the point of poverty. We are a resilient country and in preparation of the Referendum there would have been sufficient measures introduced for the Brexit outcome to ensure the continued forward movement of the country. There will be volatility, but any prolonged negative financial impact would force me to question whether it's not the elite artificially manipulating it to punish the UK for daring to challenge it's authoritarian reign.
I stand by my decision to vote for Brexit, and I'm sure the majority of the 17.4 million who originally agreed with me remain firmly in my corner. Opposition strengthens our resolve.
Viva Britannia, may we prosper.
I am an educated Eurosceptic, one who is attuned to the antimedia and the necessity to peer behind the veil of mainstream biased media. I have become hyper-vigilant of the rife manipulation and coercion that dominate the political stage. In a country where the media convergence is at an all time high, oligopolists act in the interests of the corporate funders, namely the financial beneficiaries of a blatantly undemocratic bait and switch.
The entire of UK mainstream media is owned by six entities; these consist of Rupert Murdoch, Richard Desmond, Alexander Lebedev, Trinity Mirror, DMGT, and the Guardian Media Group. If you consume only mainstream media, you limit your knowledge and accept a skewed perception of the world around you. It is my firm belief that the majority of Bremainers fit the demographic of those most susceptible to the smokescreen of mainstream media; gullible, naive... able to manipulate.
Something is wrong in this world; we all feel it, and we feel unanimously powerless to correct it. The economic divide, the disparity of power evident in class warfare; Brexiters are not xenophobes or racists, we are simply fatigued of being at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder within a failing economy. The upper echelons grossly misjudged the extent of unrest among the working class who break their backs to afford the upper class an affluent life of luxury and excess. Had they known the degree of disdain, the Referendum would never have been on the table.
Admittedly, immigration likely played a part, but not for the cited reasons. Immigration exacerbates a stressed economy, whilst the rich sit in their elegant splendor, the population spirals and the public sector remains underfunded and grossly maligned with the growing demands. I sincerely believe the economic inequality resulted in the hedging of an EU departure; not racism as so many Bremainers rush to accuse. In a population of 65 million in the UK, the poorest 10% have an average original income of £3,738... the richest 10% have an average original income of £102,366... and the 0.1% at the very top have an average original income of £941,582. (https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk)
For the working class, our concerns are simple; a breadline existence has resulted in a bleak and one dimensional perspective. We care for little, content in the knowledge we will never achieve the high ranking economic status of the elite, however we nevertheless yearn a basic standard of living in comparison to that of our peers. I appreciate (and do not take for granted) that our standard of living far supersedes that of the third world, but when compared to that of the elite, we know we are being exploited. We feel violated, belittled, taken advantage of as economic slaves, breaking our backs for scraps from the metaphorical table.
Education, and I refer to actual applicable education, not curriculum that is irrelevant in the real world of employment, should not be an unaffordable luxury. It should not require a lifetime of unrepayable debt to acquire a decent education in a first world country; the tuition fees demanded for a degree have tripled recently, indicating a blatant disregard for the necessity of a valuable education. An influx of "skilled and educated immigrants" further compounds the issue of employment when it is not feasible for the working class to get an education when the establishment knowingly hold them back. Even schools have felt the burden with children unable to acquire places in their favoured option resulting in failing institutions nationwide which are then downgraded to academies, publicly funded independent substitutes exempt from the national curriculum leading to inconsistent and unbalanced education.
Housing, and the availability of suitable accommodation. The cost of housing and the increasing population of the country go hand in hand. Supply and demand is basic principle; if housing does not increase in direct proportion to population expansion, what few houses are available become unaffordable for the majority. It becomes a cut-throat, dog eat dog battle to acquire suitable housing. It is also common public interpretation that immigrants are favoured where accomodation is available. Again, xenophobia can be blamed, but the root of the problem lies with the absence of expansion of the housing sector by the upper tier writing the cheques.
Healthcare and the NHS, the obvious bone of contention in the debate. I'll skip the he-say-she-say regarding a £350 million per week cash injection following Brexit and instead focus on the crux of the issue. It is no secret that the NHS has been falling to pieces with cost reduction targets that directly impact the level of care received by those most dependent on it. Extrapolated data from 35 NHS service providers forecast a £2.3 billion deficit in the fund by the close of the year. An underfunded and overworked healthcare system is further compounded by the increasing population; basic logic, the more people you need to provide for, the more funding you need to maintain a median level of service. Desperate measures such as privatisation have further harmed the public perception of the crisis.
Business and retaining our own corporate infrastructure. It is no secret that the EU funds the relocation of UK business' to the continent (Cadbury, Ford Transit, Jaguar Land Rover, Peugeot, Dyson, Marks and Spencer, Hornby, Gilette, Indesit, Boots, Mini to list a few). The result of this asset stripping is removal of employment opportunities to other countries, and the removal of economic contributions to the UK. Scottish Power is owned by Iberdrola, a Spanish company. Our fishing industry is now non-existent due to the EU, and even farmers are being paid to not produce food. The EU is not good for our business'.
Employment and a stable economy naturally deserve a voice in the debate, however for a disenfranchised working class who feel so dismissed and undervalued, with less job prospects and a minimal amount of money in their pockets, this is not a great concern. When you work a full time job and still struggle to cover your household bills, never mind enjoy a little luxury as compensation, it becomes difficult to generate fear around the prospect of economic uncertainty. Economic concerns only affect those with actual tangible assets and money, and the majority of Brexiters do not fit that demographic profile.
Beyond the above arguments, for those Brexiters actually aware of politics, it is abundantly clear that the EU is an undemocratic, expensive and failing political system. With reform clearly off the table, as Juncker chastised "the British policy makers and British voters have to know that there will not be any kind of renegotiation [...] we have concluded a deal with the Prime Minister, he got the maximum he could receive, we gave the maximum we could give" it became abundantly clear that it was make or break for the UK.
There is nothing democratic about a system where our total representation is around 9% of a board who are outvoted more than half the time on legislation that directly affects our everyday life. In Britain it is parties and Governments that make decisions and propose laws, whereas in the EU the only people who can propose laws are the unelected. We have no control over an institution which just obliges an elected Government to pass various regulations telling us how we should lead our lives.
The EU has been in financial decline excessively since the UK joined back in 1973 becoming economically stagnant and static. Since 1980 the share of world output accounted for by the EU has almost halved from 30% to 16.5%. The financial model is fast becoming redundant in the global climate, and the benefit of remaining associated with a plummeting economic bloc binds our wrists from independent trade agreements that could be struck with faster growing economies and sentences us to a slow death alongside the rest of the member states.
And finally, the impending doom of TTIP added icing to an already volatile cake. The common collective knowledge of TTIP is admittedly not much, and that alone makes those aware of it very nervous and suspicious. The low hanging fruit of economic benefits does little to sway the public opinion of those on a breadline existence, notably less so in favour of reducing and watering down regulation and quality assurance such as food safety law, environmental rules and banking regulations. Reducing EU standards to match those of the US already sits unfavourably with those of us aware of the reduced standards in the States; combine this with rumours of ISDS provisions allowing US corporations being able to sue democratic Governments in private courts over loss of profits (effectively resulting in multinational and foreign corporations influencing law and policy) alongside rampant privatisation and the prospect of US corporations owning and controlling vital UK public services such as transport, education, water and health. TTIP by definition is toxic, providing a small financial contribution in order to ultimately leverage open the EU to be deconstructed and sold off to the USA.
Perhaps for some the Brexit vote was a middle finger to the establishment, a chance to rebel for a cause, for others it may have been fuelled by racism and xenophobia, but for others the underlying message is that we are tired of being taken for granted in an undemocratic, economically faltering union that serves to keep the working class suppressed whilst the elite further prosper. It is however also my belief that we live in a country where they would not allow us to leave the EU if it meant the entire national economy would totally collapse, your money would become worthless, or your living conditions would deteriorate to the point of poverty. We are a resilient country and in preparation of the Referendum there would have been sufficient measures introduced for the Brexit outcome to ensure the continued forward movement of the country. There will be volatility, but any prolonged negative financial impact would force me to question whether it's not the elite artificially manipulating it to punish the UK for daring to challenge it's authoritarian reign.
I stand by my decision to vote for Brexit, and I'm sure the majority of the 17.4 million who originally agreed with me remain firmly in my corner. Opposition strengthens our resolve.
Viva Britannia, may we prosper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)