Why you should punish Labour on May 5

Ahead of local elections on May 5, there is a chance that many in Labour heartlands could commit folly and forgetfulness, to vote for that complacent party and miss their chance to punish it.

The Conservatives don't have much to offer deprived areas of the country, especially as they are contributing to a cost of living crisis, so voting for them is hardly an appropriate suggestion. However, Labour is in many ways the enemy of such regions in a more direct way. The current Labour leadership has demonstrated continuous contempt and condescension towards many working class people in England.

Keir's Biden-Kamala Ticket for Britain?

Far from being the party of working people, Labour is now simply the party of college liberalism, trying to base itself wholly on the Democratic Party in the US.

Keir Starmer is essentially presenting himself as Britain's Joe Biden, with nothing to offer other than not having the messy haircut of the eccentric current PM.

Party of snakes and ingrates?

The Labour Party has no concern for local communities, preferring to impale the land with whatever standard the party's national leadership told it to bear, even if it means destroying your home and berating you for being there. This much is evident from their lack of consideration for preserving local greenbelt land, as the party answers much more to its donors than local communities. They would rather see construction zones and their sponsors' logos everywhere, than happy constituents. In the process, Labour councillors prefer to insult people rather than to stand up for them when it comes to this issue.

Labour's current leaders are the ones who have the greatest determination to re-join the European Union, as the party and its leader Keir Starmer are still filled with frustration and hatred towards their own English base who voted for Brexit in 2016.

You may be forgetful enough to vote for Labour this time, but Labour leaders will never forgive you if you voted for Brexit. If you should cast your vote for them now, Labour's scum leadership will only see you as some half-witted enemy they managed to trick. These ingrates, even after receiving your vote, will only cite such a vote to berate you and prove that their narrow interests have some democratic mandate because they successfully tricked you.

Far from representing the people or standing up for the people, the Labour Party's primary goal is to cajole people into agreeing with the leaders of the Labour Party. Those leaders in turn have goals that are informed by their donors. The party is unmoved by yearnings of local communities or even by any kind of decency, which is why they have none. Their ideas originate elsewhere, aloof, in Labour Party offices, and their job is to foist them on you.

Give the Greens a go

It would be wiser to turn over a new leaf. It would be a good idea to go, at least temporarily, to an alternative. The Greens are a particularly attractive one, maintaining a number of policies that are to the left of Labour, and they emphasise localism.

One valid complaint may be that parties like the Greens are inexperienced with governance, and that only Labour can deliver. However, simply voting for people who have pre-existing governing experience over and over again is no different than backing the incumbent and refusing to participate in a democracy. In addition, a Labour Party pushed into crisis by increasing competition from the Greens would eventually see major defections to the latter, which would transfer the necessary governing experience to the Greens. It would also pressure Labour back to a more sensible course, and sensitivity to the people's wishes.

Get new posts by email:

Powered by

Read More »

Is the word "globalism" useful?

In a past article, it seems I violated one of my own rules by referring to what I called globalists. Why use a term that is seen as a dog whistle to the far right, or to the followers of fringe conservative radio shows (probably in America)?

Well, that's not what it is, really. Words come into use, and we may use them somewhat differently. But, if we should succeed in explaining ourselves properly and eloquently when making our case, it matters not.

Globalism-localism

The answer is that there are many terms referring to them same thing, and this one seems to be in increasing use, which makes it likely that someone will search for it online. One can speak of elites, or of internationalists, or of international capitalists, or of corporate interests. Such terms, when used in an accusatory way, are really referring to a class of people, an economic or social core, similar to but not the same as the beneficiaries in a global core-periphery relationship.

The "global" people are a core, the beneficiaries of global relationships in a global social network, whereas the "local" are the periphery in some way, the ones whom the perceived transnational elite are concerned with managing or benefiting from. All talk of whether you are good enough, or useful enough, or ought to behave in this or that way, is typical of a certain class of people to whom we are here referring. They assume that the world's population is somehow theirs to manage, and that this should be done according to their values, which is in stark contrast to those who believe their local cultures or national interests come first.

If you have a leader who, in trying to convince the people of their vision, becomes condescending about the attitudes and sensibilities of their people, and appeals to some sort of global reality or global change rather than the national or local realities, they may be a globalist. As such, it makes sense to speak of globalism and localism as the counterparts to core and periphery or to the bourgeoisie and proletariat, and this binary may be more helpful to any discussion of politics than the old binary of "left" and "right". Such a new distinction helps to explain the diversity of conflict and protest worldwide in a way that left and right do not.

Beyond left and right

Left and right have ceased to be very useful things that one can actually use in an analysis of a political conflict. Left simply refers to the publications, organisations and celebrities that label themselves as the left, and it is otherwise unidentifiable. Whatever they say is left-wing. In practice, the professed left may be aligned with corporate interests or capitalism, or it may be against them, as there is no real clear commitment to anything by those who use this label. The same applies to the right.

A 2020 study showed that political partisanship causes "cognitive inflexibility". I am sure it was found that when people are not allowed to see labels, names, logos, and faces, or to know who is talking (is it Biden or Trump?), they accidentally place their political allegiances all over the place and keep changing sides. In contrast, one can actually sort statements and rhetoric (not necessarily individuals or organisations) into the globalist and localist categories quite effortlessly, which makes these terms more meaningful when it comes to actually thinking about ideas and policies. Simply, is the candidate defending the people as they are and the idea that we should let them be, or is the candidate demanding they conform to some global, universal ideology or agenda?

On globalist conspiracies

A term is as useful as people can make it. This one, "globalism", is often applied in an annoying way. It tends to just be used by conspiracy theorists without any accompanying explanation ever being given, other than yet more conspiracy theories usually particular to whoever is rambling and not even common to the next user of the word.

The downside to using the term is simply the sheer volume of nonsensical or conspiracist discourse on the internet using the term "globalist", which could be an argument against using the term. Is it wise to get people into using a word that, when searched online, sends people into a pit of dissonance and gibberish and makes them less likely to understand reality? Perhaps not, but one can write in a clear way that continuously injects real meaning into the terms we use, which helps break the monopoly of those who want to talk rubbish.

When used as I have presented it here, "globalism" has a very simple, distilled meaning. It refers to no conspiracy, and yet it does not necessarily contradict those who have the conspiracy theorist mindset either.

Read More »

Globalist condescension and localist resistance in Belize

Belize is a thrall of the United Kingdom and the United States, which comes at a price to the interests of the local people. We will see local interests disregarded and the government avoiding strong action to protect them.

The anti-colonial People's United Party (PUP) ruling Belize is acquiescent, presiding over a country caught in the slavery of dependencia, being only a source of cheap exports to colonial masters and a paradise to foreign exploiters.

Eco-imperialism

There has long been sufficient cause to suspect that patronising, moralising Western-led approaches to ecology and the environment would produce new tensions along the familiar lines of class and nation. There is no doubt that such a trend was already in motion. Too many an environmentalist simply assumes that the indigenous people are inherently on their side, and that the only conflict is with the proponents of some polluting industry. This simplistic view is false.

Eco-imperialists may be as much, nay perhaps more, of a long-term hindrance to the independence and dignity of colonised people than polluting industrialists.

We see this tension illustrated in the protest over the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's quickly cancelled visit to the village of Indian Creek, addressed in the last post. That originated in the royal-backed global conservation organisation Flora and Fauna International barring villagers from subsisting on their own land.

Globalist-localist tension

Despite the environmentalist slogan to "think globally, act locally", there is an inherent conflict between these two. The international elite primarily think globally, and they purposefully obfuscate or dismiss the interests of the locals in almost every case. The local is always subordinate to the global, for them, and even the formulation of the above slogan reveals this - the global comes before the local.

It is perhaps a sense of the above problem that accounts for why the pejorative "globalist" has come into increased use by those who reject what they see as an international elite. Most of us will not think global and act local but think local and act either local or global, depending on what we can do. Whether or not noble ends can be achieved in a globalist sense should depend entirely on the consent of the local people, not on the fiat of preachy and condescending globetrotting elites.

The silencing of the local

There is a pejorative for those who put their local interests first, too: "NIMBY" (Not In My Back Yard). This term is typical of modern liberal expression, with its willingness to assault, denigrate, and try to eliminate the people and their sensibilities rather than seeking to represent or placate them.

Arrogant liberalism in its present form is directly contributing to an emerging eco-imperialism, by creating a sense of moral certitude and impunity that gives rise to the inconsiderate actions of organisations like the prestigious FFI. For all the talk of decolonisation in the US and the UK, the victims of colonial injustice, such as those villagers in Indian Creek, are still marginalised and it is almost impossible for us to hear their voices. A prejudiced Western-centric megaphone is now the sum of the international media, and it cares nothing for reality, only for perception.

Read More »