Cultural Marxism – the failed experiment

**endcm** · 09-01-2012, 07:06 PM

Cultural Marxism – the failed experiment

By [Withheld]
(A concerned member of the public & voter in all elections)

“There is no such thing as entitlement
without obligation.” Margaret Thatcher

“We need to worry about our borders here at home, not worry about the borders around the world, and the border between Syria and Iraq - that doesn't have anything to do with our national security, we have to deal with our own national security.” U.S. Republican Congressman Ron Paul

“Government is not the solution to our problems;
government is the problem.” Ronald Regan

Contents

1. Version Control 3
2. Readership 3
3. Purpose of this document 3
4. Executive Summary 4
5. The Dangers of Political Correctness (Cultural Marxism) 4
6. Politically Correct Red tape 7
7. Political Centre 7
8. Welfare 8
9. Immigration 9
10. Asylum Seekers 10
11. Prioritisation of the nation state 11
12. Size of Government 11
13. Trade & Economic growth 12
14. Public Debt 13
15. Lack of concern for the economic fundamentals 15
16. Central Banks 16
17. Conclusion 17

1. Version Control

Title: “Banned” – My Political Mini-Treatise
Author: By [Withheld] (a concerned member of the public & voter in all elections, I am using the alias [Withheld] to prevent myself from being prejudiced for free speech)
Version: 1.2 (Final)
Initial date: 27Dec11
Last updated: 05Jan12

2. Readership

I have written this document because I would like to see these ideas become a reality and I hope that at least some of them will be thought about and discussed. This document will be distributed to the following; British political parties & pressure groups:

Conservative Party
Liberal Democrats
Labour Party
Scottish National Party
Plaid Cymru - Party of Wales
Green Party
UK Independence Party
British National Party
The Taxpayers Alliance

3. Purpose of this document

My understanding is that the fundamental aims of government are to achieve the following:

- Peace
- Prosperity
- Law & Order
- Protect Culture & Traditions
- To provide essential services
- To Serve the People

There is currently a large amount of discontent in Britain and a large number of people would argue that the State is not optimally achieving these aims.

4. Executive Summary

• Political Correctness (Cultural Marxism) has taken us to a position where we are no longer masters of our own destiny but governed by a set of illogical rules and people feel that they cannot say what they really think without being prejudiced against
• Politically correct red tape is making British business uncompetitive
• Mass immigration is not good for the country as it is an economic cost and results in the erosion of British culture
• The asylum seeking system is a revolving door disaster
• The centre of politics seems to have fallen out of the floor and everything is left-wing
• The welfare state is a disaster which has resulted in low quality benefits immigration, displacing of local workers by foreign price competitor workers resulting in local workers going on to claim benefits. Whole areas which used to build ships and contain industry are now derelict welfare districts.
• The size of government at about 60% of the economy is unsustainable
• The British economic fundamentals and trade figures are poor
• To compensate for the poor economic fundamentals, the Bank of England (like other Western central banks) engages in monetary trickery like the creation of debt and new money which will eventually result in total collapse.
• Britain was a successful country until cultural Marxism took hold and the State should be rolled back to pre 1960’s thinking.

5. The Dangers of Political Correctness (Cultural Marxism)

In 1848 Karl Marx released the Communist Manifesto, and a number of years later his philosophies of equality were embraced in law in the Soviet Union which revolted in favour of Marxism, and these philosophies were more subtly adopted into the thinking and politics of Western nations. In the 1930’s, both Stalin and Hitler perfected the language rules of political correctness. People literally risked their lives when they spoke.

In the late 19th century the ideas of feminism swept through Britain calling for gender equality, and this was later followed by demands for wealth equality (through the welfare state), the “classless society”, racial equality, age equality, sexual equality etc.

In the early 1990’s, when our media adopted the new language rules called “political correctness,” rule violators risked their jobs and suffered the media’s wrath. A synthesis of the Marxist equality ideas and political correctness have become known as “cultural Marxism”. Patrick Buchanan explained the ideology behind these rules, “Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism, a regime to punish dissent and to stigmatize social heresy as the Inquisition punished religious heresy. Its trademark is intolerance.” cultural Marxism is a relative trend of our times as opposed to a universal truth, yet it is banded about as if it is a universal truth and critics are deposed as one would be if one broke a sacred code.

Liberals put forward their views, and if these views are not accepted, or not accepted at the pace that they would hope for, liberals feel that they need to force people to accept their ideas. Lobby groups were formed and laws were brought about to force people to conform to the wishes of the liberals.
Like Marxism, liberalism introduced it’s “year zero” (somewhere around the 1960’s), before which history was all evil. Eventually the whole country became involved in a “doublespeak” which they did not understand and where other people, the “diversity police” created the rules. Eventually an equality orthodoxy formed, and most people found this to be increasingly complicated and changing. Most people had their own views and often a conflicting set of views which they presented which were in accordance with the orthodoxy.

In the workplace people found themselves being accused of prejudicial behaviours especially racism for all kinds of reasons. For example, person “A” lightly asks, person “B”, a Chinese person what he thinks of something related to Christmas and he replies that he does not know because he is Chinese. Person “A” is then pulled up for being insensitive because the person is Chinese. Person “A” then relays to another colleague that person “B” is Chinese. Person “A” is then accused of racism because he is relating to the person, or relating some other matter to the fact that person “B’s” race is Chinese. This could lead to person “A” losing their job, and potentially their livelihood. Companies have employed “Diversity officers” to send people who contradict the current view to training courses, and ultimately to remove people who cannot or will not comply.

We are constantly concerned about whether terminology used is in line with the current state of political correctness. When Jade Goody referred to Shilpa Shetty as "Shilpa Poppadom” accusations of racism surfaced. If someone were to refer to a white middle middle-class man as a “silly sandwich” no one would bat an eyelid. It would have been white middle class liberals who raised the spectre of racism in this case, as per most cases.
A highly dishonest liberal consensus formed whereby one could openly criticise men for example but not women, or one could criticise the white race, but not the black race, England but not Nigeria etc. If a study showed that for example there was a higher instance of crime among a minority group, the liberal “intelligentsia” would claim that the study is of no use. One could say something that was entirely true and accurate and still be labelled and prejudiced against by the liberals. “Perception is reality” say people desperate to fit into the Zeitgeist for their own survival. This phrase is used as if it has an air of sophistication, but what it really says is that have lost touch with the truth.

The Liberal thought process which claims to be against all forms of prejudice is itself highly prejudiced against opponents of the liberal ideology. In George Orwell’s book 1984, Winston fights what for he believes the truth is. Under interrogating, he tells the interrogator that two plus two will always be four, however under torture he says that two plus two will be whatever the State says it is. In the West we do not use torture, but to take away a person’s ability to earn a living is simply torture in slow motion. This is potentially far more soul-destroying that the forms of physical torture which we in the West condemn.
Orwell defined the concept of “thought crimes” and in this age, one can be imprisoned in various countries for certain views about the Holocaust, and recently France passed a law which allows imprisonment for people who “deny the genocide of up to 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1918.”
As Muslim Clerics are allowed to say things that White Christians are not allowed to say, the liberals proclaim that we are a “multicultural state”. “We don’t live in the dark ages, people have rights now”. I don’t recall a referendum on immigration, nor a referendum for equality. I am not aware that the concept of equality is part of the universal laws, yet the liberals proclaim it as if it is. The same liberals that state that we are a “multicultural state” would not go to Saudi Arabia and proclaim that they too will be a multi-cultural state and must cater equally for all cultures and religions. The same liberal would think that this was against the rights of the Saudi’s yet the liberals seek to deny European countries these rights and they have effectively proclaimed that European countries have no distinct race or culture by saying that we are “multicultural”.

As the United States is leading the curve in terms of “Cultural Marxism” I will use several examples from the United States. In the United States the “Politically correct” terms for various races became Hispanic-American, Chinese-American, African-American, Native-American, etc. There was a time when America saw itself as “one nation under God” with one language and one set of values, but this longer is it united by one language and one culture.

The notion of the “common good” has become replaced by the notion of “progressivism”, a term that refers to entitlements for the disadvantaged, but also includes big bailouts for our megacorporations.

In American, government and private organisations have caused outrage by ignoring Christmas and declaring the new greeting “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”. The logic is that by celebrating Christmas, society could isolate minority groups. While American airports and shopping malls remove Christmas, airports and shopping malls in the Far East, which are not even Christian countries display some of the largest Christmas displays I have ever seen. As per usual, the logic that Christmas might offend comes from white liberals. I once received an email from the human resources department of an American company for which I once worked announcing that “Happy Holidays” cards should be sent out instead of Christmas cards. When I enquired as to why this should be the case, the response I got seemed very surprised that such a question would even be posed. My logic would dictate that if someone were to come to a Christian country and be offended by Christmas, then that person should leave.

Recently a person called Emma West had an outburst on a tram in Croydon with respect to immigration. She told the other people on the tram in very non-polite terms that they were not British and that they should go back to their own countries and for this she was imprisoned (The police claim Ms. West was jailed for her own safety!). Ms. West was subjected to mass immigration without consultation and the places she knew and grew up in changed beyond recognition with respect to cultures, traditions, religions and languages, yet because this process of thinking is outside of the scope of the “politically correct” machine, Ms. West’s perspective was not considered. The liberal who will be pushing for jail time for Ms. West, will not live in an area flooded with immigration from the Third World. The liberal will live in a “posh” area and discuss their equality rhetoric at dinner parties, and fill in subscriptions to send money to children in Africa.

The Emma West incident happened around the same time that a Muslin girl gang attacked a passenger while allegedly screamed ‘kill the white slag’ and the gang were spare jail. In the similar way that the political and judicial establishment were blinded by the ideas murderous regime of Nazi Germany, in Britain they are today blinded by the ideals of ultra-liberalism.

Critics of right wing minded people argue that before “Cultural Marxism” certain groups of people were victimised, and that therefore these views condone the victimisation of people. These views do not condone victimisation of any type, but simply ask for a removal of the “politically correct” framework and legislation that has been put into place. A crime is a crime regardless of who commits it, and a criminal justice does not need “Cultural Marxism” to punish crimes.
The United Kingdom now has an equality and diversity industry which consists of tens of thousands of players in government departments, diversity departments of public and private organisations, consulting firms, lecturers etc. These individuals, department and organisations obviously have a vested interest to keep “Cultural Marxism” alive from an organisational perspective. Many of these players are themselves from ethic minorities and have loyalties to their own minority group and possibly minority groups in general.

The terms Fascism and racism are often used in a way that is very economical with the truth for example with ideas such a retaining British culture so that Cultural Marxism can label and discredit it’s opponents. To compare someone who want Britain to retain it’s culture and traditions to a madman who gassed millions of people is utterly absurd. Because of the way that cultural Marxism discredits British patriots as fascists, patriots should be very careful with the language they use as no not fall into this trap.

Diane Abbott, the Labour Shadow Health Minister is also the head of the UAF (United Against Fascism). She recently Tweeted that ''White people love playing 'divide & rule'". Of course the usual political party apologies followed, however this indicates that there is a minority agenda in play, and the situation displays a double standard with what is allowed by ethic British people and minority groups.

I do not blame Diane Abbott for her comment or her views and of course the media attention that this comment received is due to Cultural Marxism. Naturally human beings operate with self interest, however we need to question whether this is in the national interest. What needs to be highlighted is that the real question is whether we want groups from other nations, who clearly have loyalties to other nations, often speak if foreign tongues to take active roles in furthering an agenda to facilitate the economic rewards for their time in the United Kingdom, and to facilitate the immigration of their friends and relatives, many of whom wish to come to Britain for economic reasons, the wholesale importation of “the village” from far away nations, the network of money transfer services to send money home etc. While this may not be the case on every occasion, it would be foolish to say that this is never the case.

This document is not written to put down any category of person or race and the writer believes that all people of this world are valid and have good and bad. This document is intended to argue that society has taken equality to it’s logical extreme. The politically correct system has spun out of control and collectively we are no longer masters of our own destiny. We cannot stop mass-immigration, false asylum seekers, the welfare culture , or reign in State spending out of fear of appearing prejudiced, elitist or right wing.

6. Politically Correct Red tape

Most politically correct ideas have become counterproductive to the state. For example there is no logical reason why a woman should not be employed if she can do the job, but creating employment regulations means red tape for companies. It means that some people may be employed when they are not the best person for the job, and internationally it lowers competitiveness. In a world where we are increasing competing with countries where the salaries are much lower than our own, having politically correct red-tape will simply accelerate the rate at which industry and jobs move to the East where they do not have politically correct red-tape.

7. Political Centre

Today society is so left wing, that to be “right wing” actually means to be left wing. There was a time when to be right wing meant that one adopted an “Adam Smith” approach which was to say that the free market brings about prosperity and that society should rely on the free market. Marx put forward left wing ideas like State schools, hospitals, welfare. If one examines Karl Marx’s “10 Pillars of Communism”, one will note that at least 8 out of 10 of these commandments have been adopted in Britain. If a person says that he wants 40% total tax instead of 60%, and a government spending reduction, national debt reduction, benefits reduction etc. one could be called right wing, while still being Marxist under the definition laid out by Karl Marx. The centre of politics has fallen out of the floor. Everyone is left wing. What is urgently needed is to regroup, rebalance and re-centre towards the right.

8. Welfare

Margaret Thatcher said “There is no such thing as entitlement without obligation”. When the Head of the Bank of China visited Britain recently, he commented that the biggest problem with the West is welfare.

We live in a State where a section of the population are grown adults are paid by the State to do nothing. There is an expectation that the State is there to provide a living. This section of society have become devoid of all responsibility because society has allowed this. In the Council blocks up and down the country, rubbish is thrown out of windows because the council will collect it, and crime is carried out day and night. A section of society has not had to take on any responsibility for their own lives, let alone responsibility for others because the welfare State has allowed this. Gun crime and knife crime have become commonplace because the benefits underclass have developed their own structure of business given the spare time they have as they don’t attend jobs.

Liberals and modern Marxists will argue that welfare is essential to provide for people without jobs, however I would argue that the purpose of the State is not to provide a living for people. That is their own responsibility. The result of the “Welfare State” is a diminished workforce and certain sub-cultures which are morally and spiritually corrupt. It is sad to see large areas of the country that were once building ships or manufacturing goods, laying idle on benefits, magnifying the financial problems of the State. The Liberal Marxist philosophy on the Welfare State boils down to this; it is against someone Human Right’s to make them work for a living.
During a conversation with a Liberal MP about the Welfare State, I put forward my view that the benefits system is creating a sick and idle society. The response was that should not prejudice those who are less fortunate given that I have not gone without in my life.

While the Concervative Party is trying to address the issue of the Welfare State with the “Universal Tax Credit” (UTC) which aims to ensure that a person is relatively better off working than claiming benefits , I do not think that it goes far enough. I think most reasonable people would agree that this is a big improvement from the legacy system whereby many people were better off on benefits relative to working because a large number of people would calculate the personal utility difference between the options of working or claiming benefits and chose the option which returns the optimal balance between effort and return.
However, I believe that there is a large section of society who would not make a utility based decision such as I have described above for various reasons. I can think of a number of examples of this which may include general apathy, lack of education or skills, a “hippy” tendency or believe that one does not want to participate in the “system”, alcohol or drug addiction, the use of criminal actions to fund a lifestyle with benefits in addition. Furthermore I think there is another structural issue with the UTC.

While the UTC caters for the relative position between working and not working, the absolute position can still be a problem. The UTC could still result in a situation where working people are subsidised by the state to live a lifestyle that they (and the state) cannot afford, for example the person earning £600 living in Islington who gets £2,000 per month Housing Benefit (I believe that this is called mandatory overspending). I think that the UTC is a step in the right direction, however tougher measures would have to be enacted to balance the State’s books.

9. Immigration

There are possibly millions of illegal immigrants in the country, huge numbers false asylum seekers (who eventually get deported by the state) getting benefits and saying in hotels in Earls Court, London while their claims are considered, and after they are deported, after which they try again. With thousands of fake papers and identities, fake colleges to provide paperwork, Romanian women begging with babies in central London, Nigerian financial fraud syndicates in Britain. When the border control departments do spot checks at Stratford station, London they routinely pull up dozens of illegals who are arrested, then released because the detention facilities are filled to the limit. After being released the illegals “abscond” and assume new identities.

I say that anyone who says that Britain does not have a problem with immigration is either extremely uninformed, deluded or lives in an ideological bubble having been brainwashed by the left and “cultural Marxism”.

Nick Griffin of the British National Party said in BBC’s question time "I say that Churchill would belong in the British National Party because no other party would have him for what he said in the early days on mass immigration into this country, or the fact that 'they're only coming for our benefit system'.”
In Whitechapel, East London today we see mostly Asian people buying food and Saris from market stalls, temples and mosques. There is hardly an ethic British person to be seen. When I first went there I remember thinking that it was similar to Mumbai. It seems to me that the British people are silently unimpressed except for the BNP supporters who are branded racists.

U.S. Republican Congressman Ron Paul says that “We need to worry about our borders here at home, not worry about the borders around the world, and the border between Syria and Iraq - that doesn't have anything to do with our national security, we have to deal with our own national security.” and he is also branded a “crack-pot”. Liberalism has become quite a corrupt art with little regard for truth and blind faith of cultural Marxism.

Policies which deliberately lead to the destruction of an ethnic group, in whole or in part, are defined as genocide by the United Nations. The UK Government recognizes ethnic groups worldwide, and recognizes their right to preserve their people and cultures in their homeland for other countries, yet any such sentiment applied to the United Kingdom is classed as racist bigotry.

In former times the UK government has allowed a moderate amount of immigration and the immigrants were able to integrate into the community. In recent times, since New Labour took office in 1997, mass immigration largely from the Third World was allowed, and this took place entirely without the consultation of the people. Some areas like East London and Croydon because populated with a majority of immigrants, and people who were born there noticed that they were surrounded by cultures, traditions, religions and languages that they did not understand. If the people born in those areas complain, then they are branded as racists.
Now “the village” from other nations has set itself up in the United Kingdom, fathers are telling sons that they are Indian, Bangladeshi or Pakistani. I remember once when I was stupid enough to turn up at Heathrow Terminal 4 for a flight to India without a Visa, I was referred to British Airways ticket sales. The lady I saw said that this frequently happens with younger members of Britain’s Indian community who are going to India to get married. They have been told that they are Indian and therefore are surprised that they should need a Visa to visit India given that they are officially British. Of course the tendency for these pockets of other nations to want to remain pockets of other nations means that marriage to nationals from those nations is common.

I can see little benefit that this mass immigration has for the country. It annoys the British people and brings with it a large degree of crime. In fact the UK police are aware that a significant amount of financial fraud is committed by Nigerians in Britain. When we travel on the underground in central London we encounter Romanian women carrying babies begging.

If a Westerner goes to New Delhi, India or Marrakesh, Morocco or many parts of the Third World, the first thing that the Westerner will notice is the poverty. Often a number of people will approach the Westerner on the street to beg money or sell home made items to. I do not blame the immigrants themselves for wanting to migrate to Britain. It could be highly likely that the reader or the writer of this document would do the same in the same circumstances. One must blame the successive British governments for making this possible, and especially the last Labour government for making this possible on the scale that it did.
The majority of immigrants either claim benefits or perform low paid jobs. The propensity for foreigners to desire a job at the minimum wage in Britain coupled with Britain’s immigration policy and it’s benefits system is a recipe for disaster. This situation effectively means that a British person who could do a low paid job, is instead paid for by the State to do nothing, and therefore the State imports another person to perform the role. Some have argued that importing labour has economic benefits e.g. paying tax, however given the level of state subsidies and provision of services, it is difficult to rationalise how the importation of a person earning say £200 per week and paying tax, however potentially consuming many times that amount in terms of benefits and public services can be an economic benefit to the country. (This is in addition to the fact that a proportion of the £200 per week gets electronically transferred overseas by telegraphic money transfer services like Western Union.) Surely any rational person ought to say that the State should force low paid British people to work rather than maintain them on benefits and import cheap labour.

Laws were passed to protect people from discrimination e.g. Employment legislation which says that for example an employer cannot discriminate between a black person and a white person. New immigrants tend to get low paid jobs because naturally British people will want to offer the best jobs to British people, however because of the laws that exist employees of companies could never openly say that they would favour a local candidate than say an African immigrant, because they could be accused of racial discrimination. This situation is that it is politically unacceptable to say that British jobs should go to British people first is absurd. British jobs must be first and foremost for British people, not Polish people, African people or Indian people. Most of the countries in this world would never permit absurdity and nonsense on such a scale as to claim that one cannot say that local jobs to go local people.

I once stated my views on immigration to a Liberal Party MP and I asked what the benefit was for the State to have someone who was a goat herder in Africa one week claiming benefits in the UK. She stated that it brings with it variety for example in food. Switzerland is a country which is very keen to protect it’s traditions and it’s heritage. The dominant political party between 1990 and 2011 was the Swiss Anti-Immigration People’s Party. Not many people would call the Swiss racist for trying to protect their culture, yet in the UK we marginalise those who call for this, and often the people doing the marginalising agree with the view but feel that they cannot present it due to political correctness.

It seems only fair that the government should consult the population in Britain before allowing more immigration, and it seems that due to the fact that a massive amount of people have entered the country in the last 20 years, those who are not bringing economic benefits to the country should be deported. The obsession with Human Rights should be reserved for exceptional cases and ordinarily abandoned in favour of “common sense”.

While I think many people are proud and pleased to see Mr. Cameron standing up for Britain’s interests in the European Union, the disappointment of the cultural invasion of Britain overshadows this. In my view, the UK government is failing to protect British culture and traditions.

10. Asylum Seekers

Human Rights may have started out as a worthwhile ambition, but it has become a big stain on the nation. The Asylum seeking gravy train is a complete disaster. A whole industry has sprung up around it involving Visa document agents, lawyers, information services. The vast majority of Asylum claimants are false, and the vast majority are denied Asylum by the State. The Asylum laws are exploited en-mass by economic migrants who often knowingly use a revolving door process of entering the country, claiming benefits and getting accommodation while their claim Asylum claim is processed, then once their Claim is rejected and they are deported, at the British taxpayers expense, they return to file a new claim, lose their documents, or have some children in Britain in which case they are allowed to stay. Some Claimants say that they are 16 years old, and while they may appear middle-aged, the rules and regulation require immigration officials to put them into care in this country while the situation is investigated, and of course the claimant will escape from care.

I would suggest that Britain needs to address this serious issue with serious measures. Surely it is time that Britain removed the “service front-end” for Asylum seekers. Britain should formally end the Asylum programme and deport all claimants being processed and their families regardless of the age they claim to be or whether they have children. Perhaps an Ad Hoc process of allowing Asylum Claimants to meet with an official at British Embassies overseas should be adopted, however having a “service front-end” for Asylum just encourages false claimants to exploit the service.

11. Prioritisation of the nation state

“Cultural Marxism” has ensured that we do not care about our country any more. In a work Diversity seminar if someone was to suggest that jobs should be given to local British people as a priority, that person would receive shocked and surprised looks. If a person were to ask what the benefit is of having a person who herds goats in Africa one week, claiming benefits in Victoria, Central London the next week, while to ask this question is obviously required and the answer to that question is absurdly obvious, “Cultural Marxism” has managed to invert reality to the point where such the question is regarded as absurd. The result is the lowest possible prioritisation of our nation.

A certain number of people in the West have a degree of contempt for the West (one could use the term self-hating Westerners). Their logic is that the West has used the resources of third world nations. I have come across a number of individuals who would not be concerned if the West was to fall, and in fact some would perceive this as a benefit especially it brought benefits to the Third World. Other people are simply communists and “Cultural Marxism” is a way that they can express communism within the framework of a modern Western nation. My statement is this; we should not let people with these agendas bring about the end of our nation as we know it.

12. Size of Government

Income tax was introduced Income tax was announced in 1798 in Britain at a rate of 0.5% to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic wars. A working person nowadays can pay 60% of 70% of their total income in tax when one adds up the hundreds of taxes that exist. The tax system is so large and obese and requires armies of tax inspectors to make sure that everyone is paying their correct share of the hundreds of taxies. It then requires armies of private accountants & tax consultants to help members of the public and companies to comply with the tax system. In fact the keepers of the tax system today probably form a larger organisation than the government of 1798. The State has become so large that some people are unable to distinguish the real economy from government organisations.

Ronald Regan said “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.” In Britain, at the end of the last election where Labour lost to a Conservative-Liberal alliance, the country was in a state where the State sector accounted for about 60% of the economy. Much of this sector is filled with State “mandarins” who command how large fruits should be or debate on fuel types of emissions. When the State is so large, this means that the productive economy is relatively small. When people argue against government cuts, increased benefits or when people try to hang onto government jobs for as long as possible, the country seems to have forgotten that the only value base in the country is the productive economy i.e. business that turns raw material into product, distribute products or provide services and the government sector is an overhead. If we have increased overheads, together we have less, and if we increase them further, eventually we have nothing except bankruptcy.

With the Marxist ideas that have propagated in the State comes a populist view that we should use the State to further equality and redistribute wealth, however many of the people do not realise that an enlarged State will not achieve more prosperity for them this way. In fact by asking for a larger State to further equality and redistribute wealth, some people are simply expanding the shackles which stunt productivity and this will rob them of future riches. An enlarged state will reduce the people’s individual wealth.

My view is that the State should be reduced and only the critical functions like law & order, health care and education should be retained.

13. Trade & Economic growth

While we refer to countries like Singapore, China and Hong King as “dragon economies”, in Britain the dragon has “left the building” a long time ago.
In Britain, the Eurozone and the U.S. economic growth is something of the past. These days we struggle to get 1% and returns are often negative. I recently sat in a taxi in Singapore and listened to a news bulletin where the 1 year growth figure for each industrial sector was announced. The figures for each sector were between 5% and 8%, and they referred to 5% as a disappointing figure.

In Britain we consume increasing amounts of Chinese product and do not match our imports with exports. Year by year we develop increasing current account deficits with China for this reason and effectively we are borrowing from the Chinese ad infinitum to buy their own products. Because of the welfare state, it has become uneconomic for manufacturing industry to exist in the UK because relative levels of pay required to hire staff compared to benefits, would greatly exceed the levels of pay in Eastern countries. Removing the welfare state would be a giant leap to revive the manufacturing sector in Britain which would have a massive impact on government spending, national economic output, and would turn trade deficits into trade surpluses.

While the Thatcherite conservative vision was to create a service based economy, I think we have seen with hindsight that the nation cannot survive without a significant manufacturing sector, and given that areas which used to manufacture are now welfare districts, a phasing out of the welfare system would be required to allow manufacturing firms to set up and compete.

We see British politicians travel to China to strike export deals worth billions, and this is a good signal in recognition of the problem, however an entire change of the fundamentals of the nation will be required to resolve the problem.

14. Public Debt

The level of public debt in the Western world is in my view unsustainable. In the U.S. the level of public debt is $13Tn which is about $60,000 per capita. The U.S. State debt seems to be rising exponentially currently at the rate of about $1Tn per year. In the Eurozone the financial sector debt currently equates to around 220% of the monetary unions annual economic output. The United Kingdom is not currently in the kind of deep water that the U.S. or Eurozone is experiencing, but with government spending £150Bn higher than government income, and the government only making small cuts which equate to around £20Bn per year, the United Kingdom is heading in the wrong direction and it is only a matter of time before it catches up. When a country is faced with exponentially increasing debt, there are only 2 possible outcomes; 1. a severe change in policy or 2. Financial bankruptcy of the state.

When the central banks announce their “plan” to tackle the debt crisis which is usually to simply create more debt, people, businesses and markets seem to be comforted. What is worrying is the perception that ever increasing debts is normal and acceptable. This is the view put forward by financial commentators because they do not want to “talk down the markets”. (Ironically the stock markets seem to act in a perverse way when faced with lack of monetary confidence. With moderate lack of monetary confidence they seem to fall by 10 – 50% and with extreme lack of monetary confidence as seen in Zimbabwe, they seem to rise in accordance with the inflationary price levels of goods. One could argue that there should not be a “U” shape in this curve).
I scanned any references to national debt in the Weekend Financial Times of 24th December 2011 and I found 2 references which were upbeat about debt, which stated that the ECB had caused increased confidence by creating “new money” to refinance bank debt.

I found 3 references to public debt that were negative. One of these references came from a University professor, another from Ron Paul, a U.S. Senator who is regarded as a “crackpot” (however I believe that he is simply being honest in the face of a consensus of dishonesty), and the third reference from Britain’s chief Rabbi.

The fact that financial commentary seems to be upbeat about the prospect of going further into debt to plaster the wounds of debt, and that only people outside of the political or financial arenas state that going further into debt to solve debt problems is just unsustainable seems to be consistent with the consensus view not to admit the problem.

It seems that governments, including Britain’s have become specialists in keeping sinking ships floating by borrowing money or taking money from things that work and pushing this money into things that don’t work. Welfare benefits and bank bail-outs are an example of this. This type of action is unsustainable because the sinking ships will eventually sink the country.

15. Lack of concern for the economic fundamentals

It seems that rather than be concerned with the poor fundamentals at play in our country i.e. rising welfare population, trade deficits, public spending deficits, lack of economic growth we are more concerned with issues which relate to equality and political correctness. For example preventing racism, controlling carbon dioxide emissions and installing solar panels in Africa. Anger at immigration stems from the fact that Britain has allowed mass immigration without consultation of the public and culturally changed the landscape in certain areas. There does not seem to be a reasonable explanation for the amount of discussion, conferences, policy decisions etc. regarding carbon dioxide which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, which we all breathe out, and for which there is no scientific consensus on it’s relation to global warming, when in fact global warming itself does not currently exist as we are experiencing global cooling. With regards to solar panels in Africa, a set could power a small radio, but not an electric train network.

The West and it’s politicians seems to have become specialists in creating new problems and brushing over the fact that the fundamentals are just not there.

16. Central Banks

My understanding is that Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve System. For the Eurozone this would mean abolishing the ECB (European Central Bank) and probably the Euro, and for Britain this would mean abolishing the Bank of England as we know it. Before 1910 in the U.S. and 1930 in the UK, money was backed by gold. This meant that the amount of money in circulation was limited in supply by the amount of gold held by governments or banks issuing currency. The breakout of the “gold standard” into the “central banking model” meant that the supply of money was no longer restricted and the government could fire up the printing presses whenever new money was needed. The justification for having central banks was to prevent high street banks from going bankrupt which was considered to be against the public interest, by providing a source of liquidity. For example if a bank had good assets in terms of securitised loans but only a small amount of cash at hand, and there was a “run on the bank”, the bank could look to the central bank for a loan to tie it over. It was also argued that creating new money enabled the financing of trade which expended the economy.

Ironically, while the “paper money” systems were introduced to create stability in the banking system through providing a source of liquidity, in actual fact the expansion of the money supply created a large degree of leverage in the financial system which encouraged large scale financial speculation. This leads to investment bubbles and the ‘boom and bust’ cycle which brings about more financial instability than ever before and even suicides. Many years ago there were a number of people calling for a return to “sound banking”. Today, all of this information is in the archives and one would be hard pressed to find anyone who even knows what “sound banking” is.
Ron Paul argues that the central banking model and the ability to “create money out of thin air” represents a significant threat. For this reason when the sub-prime banking crisis was being discussed, Ron Paul said that the “entire system is sub-prime”. The ability to create money out of thin air acts as a temptation to governments and politicians to spend money that does not exist, and pass the debt forward, and Ron Paul argues that the creation of money results in inflation which is a form of legalised theft from the people similar to King Henry VIII’s debasing of the gold coins.

Ron Paul advocates a phased rollback to the gold standard. Opponents of a rollback to the gold standard say that there is not enough gold to back the money used by the 7 billion people in the world today. I would say that this view shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economics as natural relative pricing would occur. To put it another way, let’s say that we wanted a limited amount of currency and that this currency was to be related to a material that we will call material X. Let’s say that we only had 5 cubic centimetres of material X in existence in total and this was to back currency. Each currency unit could be related to 0.00000001 cubic centimetres of material X. It would be of no consequence how much material X was required to back each currency unit, nor would it be of any consequences whether material was X, Y or Z except for the fact that the supply of the money and commodity backing the money was limited.

The Bank of England is increasingly being used to compensate for the fact that the fundamentals are just not there given the way we are operating. In a tiger economy like Singapore or Hong Kong, the free market rules, however in England we have monetarist policy to price up and down interest rates to move the economy. More recently we coined the term Quantitative Easing which means the creation of new money used to buy government securities from the markets with promise to buy back the newly created “promises to pay”, or in common terms printing more money. This is with the aim of “stimulating the economy”.

17. Conclusion

The U.S. is technically bankrupt (except for it’s ability to create even more money). The Eurozone monetary system looms on the verge of extinction. Britain is still viable but heading in the wrong direction. It seems that the Western world is heading for collapse because it has organised it in an unsustainable way. The West has grasped a meaning of sustainability in terms of “green issues” but not in terms of the way it is organised itself and therefore a reorganisation is long overdue. If the average person were to become more financially aware it would benefit the state because politicians would have a mandate to make sound spending decisions.
Before Marxism, political correctness, mass immigration and monetary illusions entered the frame, we did not need to stimulate the economy because we had a very strong economy, and my conclusion is that if the West is to survive, at least a certain number of the mechanisms and fundamentals of the state should be rolled back to a stage prior to 1960.

While the rules were put in place by the politicians, the ultimate cause of this situation is us the people as we allowed this to happen. As British people surely we need to ask ourselves whether we want to live in a country where our freedoms are curtailed by a Marxist system, and whether we want to live in a declining nation, or whether we want to save our nation from the spiral of decline which we are now experiencing.

In these times we find ourselves in a situation where most of us see what is happening but we have chosen to cover our eyes and pretend that the nightmare does not exist. Acknowledging the nightmare can tear us from our comfort zone, lose our jobs, or worse split us from our families. Most of us have chosen to ignore the big picture and safeguard our own lives. I say that now is the time to start speaking, first to those closest to us and then to friends. We created the nightmare. The nightmare has taken hold, and now when we create a different reality, that reality will eventually take hold.
Let us prevent the collapse of Britain, and the collapse of the Western world.