Book Review of Hitler’s Secret by Rory Clements

This is a spy thriller, set in late 1941 when Germany seemed to be winning WW2, even as Japan joined it. However, Rory Clements quietly creates a contrast between everyday life in Britain, where there is some hardship and quite a lot of danger, but if you’ve got your ration coupons you get your fair share of the necessities of life -even a Christmas lunch- and NAZI Germany, where the necessities of life are in short supply and those in privileged positions (invariably as a consequence of their standing with the NAZI Party and powerful factions within it) have considerably more than their fair share and those people who don’t know anyone in power are already suffering, even as Germany seems to be militarily triumphant. Clements does not labour the point, but he does provide the inquiring millennial reader with the information they need to understand how the apparently all-powerful NAZIs came to lose the war: they did not, at any stage, look after the people upon whose shoulders their wartime economy depended. The economy failed, as it had done for the Confederacy in the American Civil War, for essentially the same reasons: slave labour from the occupied countries was indeed employed, but even treatment of the native German non-slaves was only superficially better under the NAZIs.

(A warning here for Britain in 2020: if we continue to tolerate ever-increasing levels of modern slavery, we will not prosper and we will not deserve to. Look at the Confederacy and NAZI Germany for a moment!)

That is the background of the book, the foreground highlights the other defining vice of National Socialist Germany’s political elite, which was factionalism and endless plotting and scheming. Hitler actually accepted and even welcomed that his ministers would scheme against each other: he saw this as the politics of the wolf-pack, where the fittest wolves would rise to the top. This may work for wolves and hyenas but in human affairs it has a uniform tendency to select the worst humans possible for the leadership. What defines a successful human is NOT what defines a successful wolf, but even wolves have a caring side. The NAZIs (and some other more current national creeds with socialist characteristics ) had an ideological aversion to caring.

NAZI ministers in this tale range from Todt (intelligent and likeable, even impressive, but still in charge of the slave labour system), through Goring (vain and scheming) to Borman (utterly despicable.) It’s all about self-gratification and self-interest. In the forest of treachery and danger which they create, an innocent and vulnerable person has to survive.

This is a thriller in the sense that shocks and plot twists keep coming at the reader, and if the book has a major flaw, it is that this begins to feel a bit relentless at times.

One minor flaw is that a small German naval vessel is referred to, by German characters as an “E-boat” (a generic allied term for any form of combat-capable enemy launch or speedboat, including Italian ones.) For the record, what is being referred to is an “S-boot” and the Royal Navy used this term when those reporting a sighting could identify it as such, because one had to react to an S-boot somewhat differently from a larger but slower R-boot intended for roles such as escort or minelaying rather than attack.

A more significant error is that the hero, a sort of deniable field agent working for both MI6 and the nearest thing the Americans had to an equivalent in 1941, is not only told that key information comes from “BP” or Bletchley Park, but he already knows that this is involves codebreaking! No field agent was told about Bletchley Park in any way, and nobody who had somehow found out would have been sent into occupied territory, let alone sent there on a desperate mission with a significant risk of capture.

In general, though, this is a good novel.

Hitler’s Secret by Rory Clements  is published by Zaffre.

Available from:

Waterstones

Amazon.co.uk

Review of A Long Petal of the Sea by Isabel Allende

This is a novel, based on real events and some of the characters, including the poet Pablo Neruda and the dictators Franco and Pincochet are, of course, real historical figures. This sort of book is less common in Anglo-Saxon literary circles than elsewhere, but in the classical Roman era pretty well all “histories” were like this, because Roman scholars and gentlemen, such as Tacitus, had a contempt for “mere facts” and expected something that would tell them what historical characters thought and felt and why they did the things which made history.

What Pablo Neruda did to make history was charter a ship, the Winnipeg, to take a couple of thousand refugees of the Spanish Civil War, many Catalans and Basques, from France, where they had been neglected as maliciously as only the French authorities knew how, to Chile, where it seemed as if they might face an uncertain future. While the refugees’ arrival was still anticipated, the various factions of Chile’s divided society projected their own prejudices and expectations on the refugees, but when they arrived they were welcomed and seen for what they were, after which most of them made themselves part of Chile. Neruda’s genius contributed to this integration in a subtle but effective way: he may have selected the refugees more widely than the Chilean president had instructed him to do, but each one was told that they were being allowed into Chile for whatever skill it was that they had, so they all arrived with the idea of making a fresh start with that skill and making a life for themselves. They fled from Spain into France to get away from Franco and probable murder, were treated astonishingly badly in their country of first refuge, but Neruda transformed what started as a second desperate flight into something more positive.

This book shows you this through the eyes of many well-drawn fictional characters, which gives a fair impression of the Spanish Civil war -the author doesn’t allow the reader to think that only Franco’s forces committed atrocities and it is clear that no democracy could really have supported the nun-killing Republicans. The international figures who did intervene in the Spanish Civil War were Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, none of whom held the slightest concern for any Spanish person on either side or the future of Spain. It was all a courtship dance, sacrificing Spanish lives so that Hitler and Stalin could come to terms and form the unholy alliance of dictators which conquered Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway (and almost Finland), Holland, Belgium, France and Greece before it all broke down and Hitler tried to conquer Russia.

That isn’t part of the story, though, because when the refugees reached Chile, they left Europe and its agonies behind them and the dramas become those of families rather than nations, until Pinochet comes to power in Chile and the refugees have to flee Chile and make a new life for themselves elsewhere in South America until it is safe to return, first to Spain on Franco’s death, and then to Chile, their true home.

Why I requested and read this book:

I have always been interested in the Spanish Civil War, because as a schoolboy my father saw six slightly older boys from his school off on a train from London to France, where they would cross the border into Spain and volunteer to fight for the Republican militias. He would see just one of them again. He did not go with them, because of his step-father, a rare survivor from what the Kaiser called, in 1914 “a contemptible little army” who made a stand against a German advance that was rolling up Belgium and France, at a place called Mons. My step-grandfather, a trained and experienced professional soldier with medals going back to 1911, properly equipped and with the might of the British Empire behind him, found stopping the Imperial German Army in its tracks to be somewhat problematic. He knew that the untrained boys going to Spain, with no equipment beyond the walking boots they had been told to purchase and no support from the majority of the British public, had scant chance of survival, let alone success. Having no time whatsoever for symbolic acts of suicide, he convinced my father not to go to Spain, but to wait until Hitler did something to unite the British public against him (something he had very skillfully avoided doing at that point in time) and then something EFFECTIVE might be done. My step-grandfather held effectiveness in greater esteem than heroism and my father was sternly directed on a trajectory towards doing the most effective thing he possibly could, even if it held no opportunity for fame and glory.

A Long Petal of the Sea is published by Bloomsbury Publishing.

Available from:

Waterstones

Amazon.co.uk

Emilie Dubois

Copyright Emilie Dubois

This is a young woman who has completed a doctorate in biology at a university in Quebec, but has been refused permission to settle there because she wrote part of her thesis in English, so that she could publish it in a scientific journal.

She was born and bred in France, so this exclusion has nothing to do with any inability to speak or write in French, the language of Bureaucratic Heaven. What disqualifies her is her demonstrable ability to convey complex scientific concepts in English, rather than any discernible inability to do so in French. This is racism over the most tenuous of associations. By doing what is customary in scientific circles and writing her paper in English, Dr Dubois exploded a fondly-held belief of the anglophobes that English is a barbarian tongue, unsuited to the communication of any intellectual or civilised concept.

If the authorities in Quebec have a crumb of rationality behind their prohibition, it may be that they are trying to save Quebec from any repeat of the settlement there of the celebrated firearms designer, Sir Charles Ross, who was a bit of a rough diamond by all accounts. Being a proud, even a touch arrogant, Scotsman, Sir Charles did not have an English bone in his body, but that's not the sort of detail that haters actually care about. No, Dr Dubois used a barbarian tongue and she must be cast out, for the linguistic purity of Quebec.

In the outside world, it is important that scientists be able to convey their ideas to other scientists, and English is now the preferred medium for doing this. Yes, centuries ago it was done in French, if not Latin, but centuries ago isn't now. My English teacher* and lifelong friend, the late Alan G. Myers, once told me that he had been asked to translate a long, complicated and important-looking physics paper into English, by a female Russian scientist who was much impressed by his translations of Avante Garde poetry and classic Russian literature. Alan's knowledge of physics extended as far as being able to connect the bare ends of the power cable for the school's video recorder to a British Standard electrical outlet using matchsticks, and knowing that in cold countries you kept your rifle bolt inside your clothing so that you'd be able to shoot polar bears when the need arose. 

Willing to do anything to please a lady, he decided to have a stab at the important-looking paper and his translation was gratefully received by the female Russian scientist, but he was deeply worried because although he'd rendered the document into English, he barely understood a word of his own translation. The paper duly won a major international physics prize, leaving Alan secretly worried that his ignorance of physics might have somehow created an impressive but bogus new scientific concept which was winning prizes because nobody on the prize committee was able to understand it. I persuaded him that this was a bit of a long shot and he should stop worrying. So, although an inability to author a scientific paper in English can be rectified by a distinguished translator, it saves a lot of needless worry if you can write the thing in English yourself and be understood to say what you actually mean.

Dr Dubois might actually find it easier and more agreeable to settle in Britain than in Quebec, Brexit or no, because the belief that Brexit means that all British people are bigoted racist barbarians is simply a symptom of the widely-held creed amongst the European elite, that there can never be anything wrong with bureaucracy, so no rational person would want to leave a multi-national community dedicated to the celebration of bureaucracy in all its forms. If anything illustrates the dangers and limitations of bureaucracy, it is the treatment of Dr Dubois by the Quebec government.

A presentable young woman with a research degree, let alone a doctorate, in Biology or almost any other scientific discipline, would have to try very hard indeed to get thrown out of the United Kingdom, and if she settled here instead of where she clearly isn't wanted by those in power, would be an ideal role model for a young female relative of mine who wants to study molecular biology. 

* When I told Alan that I was writing novels with a view to publication, he assumed a worried frown and henceforth informed his peers that he had taught me English as a foreign language from the native Swahili. This was an understandable precaution, but I do not speak Swahili in fact, although I have relatives who do. 

Book Review of: The Memory Wood by Sam Lloyd

At first when you read this book, it seems as if Sam Lloyd has started off in the same place as John Fowles did with “The Collector”. But he goes in a different direction and through a different set of dangers to arrive in a different nightmare. This makes for a gripping read, if a disturbing one.

Fowles was inspired to write “The Collector” when he connected his literary studies, which revealed that a “girl being held captive in a cellar” was a common folk tale all over Europe, with a real case post WW2, where a boy had kept a girl captive in an air-raid shelter. He realised that this was not a myth, “urban” or otherwise, but something that really happened, quite widely and perhaps quite often. Since The Collector was published in 1963, there has been a steady stream of real-life cases bearing out Fowles’ observation, but not all of them have involved a psychotic individual culprit. Some, from Australia and latterly the Netherlands, seem to involve sub-cultures; some family-based or family-sized, others somewhat larger; cults if you like. You get a long way into The Memory Wood before you realise that it is about a sub-culture which in turn revolves around an individual and by the time you know which of the characters this actually is, you’ve almost reached the end. This book grips you, not just to thrill and entertain, but to teach you that sub-cultures can be at least as dangerous as the “lone psycho” that our popular culture leads us to fear more.

Along the way you also learn that lost souls will go where they are led, until something or someone intervenes and they go towards the light, sometimes with the very last of their strength.

Matthew K. Spencer 2^nd of November 2019.

The Memory Wood is published by Random House. 

Available from:

Waterstones

Amazon.co.uk

Two Foxes with Immunity to the Hounds

Two little predictions about the Jeffrey Epstein scandal:

Firstly, lawyers and journalists will now pursue Prince Andrew till the day he dies, and it's very likely that he will eventually go the way of his late sister in law.

Secondly, neither of the two "very famous prime ministers" involved in the scandal will be seriously troubled and they will be left to continue to attempt to return to office, either as Prime Minister of a small Middle-Eastern democracy, or as a Brexit-slaying Titan of Euro politics, clearly destined for much higher glory than the mere premiership of a mere country.

Three Petitions on Hong Kong

This article deals with two Parliamentary Petitions on the UK's Parliamentary Website and one independent petition, apparently on a bespoke platform, which is described, with a link, towards the bottom of this article. The two Parliamentary Petitions differ in their prescriptions for action and although both are arguable and valid, it would be logically consistent for an individual to sign only one of them. The blog author makes no recommendation, but for the reader's information he decided to sign the first one described here. The most likely outcome is that both of these petitions will eventually pass the ten thousand signature threshold to compel a response from the UK government, but only one or the other will go the distance and attain the one hundred thousand signature threshold that would make it eligible for a Parliamentary debate. It is impossible at the time of writing to say which of the two petitions this will be. 

(It is worth noting that in calling for joint action with the EU, the second petition is exposing itself to a probable veto from the Greek Government and other EU member states which are financially heavily indebted to the PRC and have coincidentally vetoed previous EU proposals for taking action against the PRC.)

First Parliamentary Petition:

Voice opposition to the amendments of the Hong Kong Fugitive Offenders Ordinance 

The Hong Kong Government has proposed a bill to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, which will allow the Government to extradite fugitive offenders to countries or regions without Extradition Agreements with Hong Kong, including the rest of the People’s Republic of China.

The Bill will remove the legislature’s power to scruntise extradition arrangements, thereby centralising the decision-making to the executives. The controversial Bill would also allow the authorities in the People’s Republic of China to arrest people in Hong Kong, or even confiscate their properties by issuing Extradition Requests to the Hong Kong Government.

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/263408

Second Parliamentary Petition:

Hong Kong Extradition law: Pressure China with economic sanctions

Upon signing the Sino-British treaty the united kingdom gave itself a legal and moral obligation to act when china breaks agreements signed in the treaty. Currently China is clearly interfering in HK government's decisions to dilute Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy with this new extradition law. 

By seeking joint economic sanctions with the EU and the US, the UK can pressure Chinese and Hong Kong governments into revoking this bill which, as can be seen by 15% of the region's population protesting against the bill, the people of Hong Kong do not want and are fearful of as China strengthens its ever tightening grip on Hong Kong and completely obliterates its obligations to maintain a high degree of autonomy in the region which was laid out in the Sino-British declaration in 1997.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/264610

British Citizens and United Kingdom residents can click the above links to sign either Parliamentary petition.

It is not a requirement that UK residents signing these petitions be citizens or on the electoral roll for Parliamentary elections. However, any resident entitled to sign either of the above petitions is probably also entitled to be on the electoral roll for some local elections. See link to begin to exercise this right.

The Parliamentary Website is strict about what use can be made of the details you give it, and if you give your details (name, email and postcode) to sign a petition, that is all they can be used for. They might be checked against whatever IP you use to prevent spamming or flaming of the website by hostile persons, but it's extremely unlikely that the details will be abused.

Extended Reasoning:

The 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong is just one of a myriad international treaties, trade agreements, investment agreements and mineral-extraction agreements that the People's Republic of China has signed with various international partners, with a recent focus on developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and even those parts of the EU currently in economic crisis. Many of these documents are not really to the benefit of ordinary citizens in the co-signatory countries even when the PRC is keeping to the letter of the agreement it has signed. (The political elite seem to be happy in nearly every case, however. Except in Botswana, which did not sign anything!)

The 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong was designed, from the British point of view, primarily to benefit the citizens of Hong Kong, or at least minimise the harm done to them by the (treaty-mandated) handover of Hong Kong back to Chinese rule. The British Government signed this declaration with Communist China (the PRC) in order to honour the treaty it had signed with Imperial China in 1898.

If the PRC is allowed to break, and then get away with breaking, the Joint Declaration, this will have an immediate impact on citizens of Hong Kong, of whom there are currently about 7.4 million. However, with a precedent set for the PRC's Communist leadership to break, or even just bend, the vast number of equivalent agreements they have signed elsewhere, the long-term negative consequences would be felt, directly, by a significant proportion of the world's population and, given the preponderance of agreements concerning natural resources and their exploitation, there could well be environmental and climatic consequences that impact on the entire global population.

The logic of this is that if we are not already citizens of the PRC, we are all Hong-Kongers!

Illustrative Links:

This link is to a video presented by a South African who has lived (and married) in the PRC, and describes, briefly given the extent of the subject matter, the impact which the PRC's agreements with African countries are having, across the continent and not just in his home country. If this is what is happening now, what is going to happen when the PRC knows, for sure, that it can get away with breaking the agreements that it has signed?

Perhaps the most galling of the problems which the video presents, is the total abandonment of their own children in Africa by Chinese guest workers. Because the PRC is a Communist country, these workers will have grown up in an educational system which seeks to eliminate ideas of traditional morality as opposed to the "new morality" desired by Karl Marx. People from Hong Kong have not yet had their traditional morality brainwashed out of them and they might one day teach their mainland brethren those values, which would not allow this kind of thing! Provided, of course, that China does not in the meantime impose the mainland's educational system and values on Hong Kong. 

(If anything, this video plays down the environmental damage occasioned by logging: it has been alleged elsewhere that after the trees are felled and carried away, the topsoil is also scraped off the bedrock and exported to China. The presenter is visibly distressed to publish even the material he does, because he loves the Chinese people, but not the actions they are being led into.) 

The second link is to a video interview with a prominent opponent of the Ortega regime in Nicaragua (he's not claiming to lead anything really. He just says his piece, and it's pretty coherent too.) His principle complaint is that legislation to enable a "Nicaragua Canal" to rival the Panama Canal, was at a constitutional rather than an administrative level and effectively sought to put the entire proposed canal zone outside the jurisdiction of all of Nicaragua's existing environmental and property laws, perhaps even its criminal laws too. This comes close to making the canal zone part of the PRC. If the PRC were one day to treat its agreement with the Ortega government the same way it is currently trying to treat the Joint Declaration on Hong Kong, "comes close" would turn into the actual reality of a large slice of land, of necessity bisecting South from North America, becoming de-facto Chinese territory. 

(It is also a feature of several development agreements that the PRC has signed in Asia, that zones within the co-signatory country become de-facto Chinese territory. The new Malaysian government is kicking against this, some other governments are not.)

The PRC's strategy for world domination (and People's Liberation Army officers have published academic papers plainly describing it as such) consists of using innumerable small deals, agreements, obscure clauses in contracts and so on, to get governments and companies the world over dancing to the tune of the Chinese Communist Party. We do not have to respond to this with "trade wars", let alone "military confrontation", because these are just the buzz-words which agents and supporters of the PRC will use to try and stop the world from doing anything.

For further information on the PRC's strategy for domination, see Professor Clive Hamilton's book, "Silent Invasion" which is reviewed elsewhere on this blog.

What we have to do, is not dance to the PRC's tune! How we don't dance to their tune will have to evolve and be shaped by all the new ways in which they try and make us dance to their tune. Because simple refusal to dance to their tune strikes at the very core of their strategy and by-passes the defences they have built against the approach currently being taken by President Trump.

Another petition on the same subject:

This is a link to a petition "Stand With HK". Which is worthy (worth a read for the background information, too) and which the blog author has signed. However, because it was created by a Hong Kong resident, it is not and cannot be a Parliamentary Petition and this means that the UK Government is not obliged to pay it any attention, even if it garners many signatures. In addition, because it is on a non-government platform it is potentially vulnerable to being shut down, and its results may simply never get published if the account holders on that platform are detained. Which those persons themselves acknowledge to be a real possibility.

If either Parliamentary Petition gets 10,000 signatures, the UK Government has to provide and publish a response, and if it gets 100,000 signatures, an independent Parliamentary Committee will consider it for a debate in the House of Commons. The only normal reason for refusal is if a similar debate has been held already or is pending, in which case: job done! But extra signatures add extra force, regardless of Commons debates. Once published, a Parliamentary Petition is all but impossible to extinguish from the public record and the public domain, which may be very important in this instance.

NB: Quote from the second parliamentary petition: "which was laid out in the Sino-British declaration in 1997." The Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong was signed on the 19th of December 1984 and came into effect in 1997.

What Lies Behind the Brexit Party's Success?

The seeds of recent success for the new Brexit Party were sown, not merely before it was founded, but before "Brexit" even entered the heads of the electorate as a possibility -which they grasped eagerly because "business as usual" was by then deeply unsatisfactory to many.

During John Major's tenure as Conservative Prime Minister, astute observers began to write "this is a Conservative government that won't conserve ANYTHING!" Many Tory voters were disquieted, especially by the strident insistence (which has never since died away) that mass development of the countryside was not only necessary but highly desirable and that it was somehow perverse and even wicked to object to even the most heavy-handed application of bulldozers to things which symbolise everything that most Tory voters hold dear. Many of them continued to not only vote Tory, but even to raise money and campaign for the Tories, because they couldn't understand why or how the Party they had been bought up to believe in, had become intent on destroying so many things which they loved. Others voted for Tony Blair, under the delusion that a "first couple" whose female half was reputed to "hate grass" (as well as cats) was going to be better.

By the time Tony Blair had run his course, the Cameron government was denouncing loyal Tory voters, fundraisers and canvassers as "NIMBYs" and "Turnip Taliban." This wasn't friendly banter, it was an expression of complete contempt, for the Tory Party's core supporters and everything they loved. Sooner or later, insufferable arrogance, contempt and disdain got through even to people whose families had been loyal Conservatives for generations. Then, Mr Cameron launched, not only a referendum on something that mattered more than anything else to himself and all those like him, but a grossly excessive and totally-one-sided blitz of propaganda and bullying making it clear what result he wanted. Loyal Tories thought about it very carefully and voted to do to Cameron what he had done and was proposing to do to the countryside and social institutions that they loved.

Meanwhile, Tony Blair had turned a Labour Party of peacelovers (not the same connotation as "pacifists") into the party of war. Not just one war, but several. He had also turned the Labour Party of the working man into a party which despised everything the working man held dear and labelled most of it as "bigotry" to be stamped out of its supporters by a largely-middle class leadership cadre. Working class Labour supporters reacted, initially, with the same sort of bewildered denial and desperate hope that all this would pass, as their Tory counterparts had done. Then, especially when several Labour councils were found to have given a free pass to child-rapists in Labour's working class heartlands as part of the crusade against bigotry, they became no less angry than the Tory supporters. Possibly just a tad more angry if anything.

Theresa May promised to deliver the Brexit that disaffected Tory and Labour supporters had voted for, but failed to even try to negotiate a free trade deal that might have mollified them and allowed Brexit to happen -and the Conservative Party's Central Office and most of its MPs did not slacken in their opposition to Brexit and shamelessly conspired with the opposition parties to thwart the democratic mandate.

And that's not all! Under Jeremy Corbyn, lifelong Labour Party members whose grandfathers had fought Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts in the streets to keep fascist thugs out of Jewish neighbourhoods, started to hear, in modernised slang, Mosley's hatred being spouted at Labour Party meetings. Chants of "Zio!" whenever someone believed to be Jewish tried to speak, or even entered the meeting room. Complaints of anti-semitism and outright harassment ignored or dealt with in a derisory manner. Labour became the stridently anti-racist party that hates Jews.

Then came Nigel Farage and the Brexit Party. The Conservative Party leaders who want to build the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (a sort of racially-integrated Soweto for the workers who won't be able to live in London but will have to travel daily to work there) and the HS2 railway upon England's green and pleasant land, and the middle-class Labour Party leaders who play at being Lenin or Stalin and who have alienated any working class person who actually works, immediately made it clear that they regarded Nigel Farage as their worst nightmare. And all the people they had systematically alienated between them, voted for him at the first chance they got .

If Mr Farage wishes to keep their support, however, he must recognise that the Lisbon and Maastricht treaties are not the only totems of the political elite that the people are fed up with: they do not want the hugely expensive and destructive HS2 and the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (and its Expressway) either. They don't want to see hard working Jews hounded, or herded, out of the country. They do not want to see cemeteries vandalised. They do not want drugs pushers and paedophiles to be given a free run at their children. They want Brexit, yes, but only as step one in getting their country back from the elite who have stolen it from them. Mr Farage needs to be here for the long-haul, not just till Halloween or even Christmas.

The blog author has a novel out, available via Amazon, Smashwords and its affiliates, as both an E-book and a Paperback.

Let's Take The Road NOT Leading to Harrowdown Hill

Image Daily Telegraph

As we face the possible demise of Brexit at the hands of Britain's established political parties, it is only natural that some, like Nigel Farage, want to start a new political party that actually exists to do the will of the British people, and that others with different motives, such as Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, wish to start new political parties of their own, to ensure that the will of the British people never again gets so close to fulfillment as it did with Brexit, before the political establishment managed to run it off the road with the wholehearted cooperation of the civil service and key figures in all the main parties. 

Working from the simple premise that it didn't want what the public wanted, the Establishment proceeded to spend two years redefining the meaning of "Brexit" until it meant something different, something that people were no longer sure they wanted, because every single aspect of it had been sabotaged with deliberate malice. At no point was there ever really a chance that any of the existing major parties would behave honestly, because that isn't in their nature. The existing major parties cater, in some "wing" or other, for just about every possible ideology, but they all have exactly the same character, which denies the British people good government by ensuring that every decision is shaped by prejudice and the rejection of objective evidence and informed debate. Given that the major parties are ostensibly bound by different prejudices, the outcome is quite remarkably uniformly poor.

For any new, honestly-conceived party to do better, requires an understanding of what is wrong with all the existing parties, and for that we need to go back in time sixteen years, to when countless lives, rather than masonic principles, were at stake. We need to go back to the decisions which culminated in Britain's leading microbiologist lying dead on Harrowdown Hill and a war, a WAR, being started on entirely false premises because any objective evidence had been willfully and systematically excluded from the decision-making process. Because the subsequent public inquiry into this prominent decision concluded that, regardless of whether that particular decision was wrong or not, the manner in which it was taken was exactly typical of all decisions taken by the Blair government -and, by extension, the slavishly copycat Cameron Government. If the decision to go to war with Iraq was flawed, so was every other Blair/Cameron decision, from education policy to fish quotas, because objective evidence, alternative views and even the evaluation of possible alternative courses of action, were never considered, even if they weren't always expunged from the record with the absolute ruthlessness shown to David Kelly and his evidence. ("An Inconvenient Death: How The Establishment Covered Up The David Kelly Affair" by Miles Goslet covers this in detail and with a closer attention to the truth than any other published account so far.)

Proponents of ideological parties always claim to be suspicious of non-ideological or "populist" parties, but then, they would say that, wouldn't they? The fact is that ideology, from whatever part of the political spectrum, is always a barrier to sound decision-making because it provides a basis for taking decisions other than an objective look at objective evidence! Suppose, for a moment, that you had a much-loved cat who was feeling poorly, and when you took him to the vet you were told: "never mind the obvious evidence that Budge has worms: I became a vet to rid the world of feline dementia because that's what I firmly believe cats suffer from and I shall be putting Budge down immediately to end his suffering!" Any vet with views like that would be struck off immediately, if not sectioned under the mental health act, but this is what most politicians are like most of the time and their ideological beliefs usually do trump the evidence in front of them. And that's before we even consider the role of corruption in bad decision-making, which may have been a somewhat greater factor in the Blair/Cameron governments than in Mrs May's or Mr Brown's governments.

An important part of this is that, undeniably, the ideological parties have to know what and where the objective evidence is, so that they can avoid having anything to do with it. So there's a powerful element of doublethink: to react to David Kelly with the vicious fury that they did, Anthony Blair and Alistair Campbell had to know that he was basically right, or they could have dealt with any threat he posed to them simply by showing that he was mistaken. The number of other people, challenging Blair's claims and decisions only to find themselves the target of a wide-ranging media smear campaign, is really quite large and illustrates that Blair and Campbell knew quite well what the damaging truths were, which they had to suppress. One cannot exactly say that they always knew they were doing the wrong thing, though, because of their power of self-delusion, but one can say that they had probably encountered all the evidence that they were doing the wrong thing, even if the encounter was only ever on the way to the office shredder.

There will be some who say that as long as your ideology is mildly right of centre, then you cannot actually go wrong. Yes you can: you can try to impose a system of local government finance that deliberately takes no notice whatsoever of any household's ability to pay, leading to widespread fury and violent protests on the streets. If you are "centre of centre" like President Macron, you can feel moved to tax the rural poor in order to improve the urban environment with subsidised public transport at no cost whatsoever to the urban elite loudly demanding a low traffic, low pollution environment, leading to widespread fury and very violent protests on the streets. If you are left of centre, like President Xi, you can go wrong by rounding up hundreds of thousands of innocent people and working them to death in labour camps, save for the select few whose organs you can sell to desperate transplant patients, leading to a grim silence because nobody then dares to complain about anything. Ideology seems able to supply a catastrophically wrong answer to pretty well every question. Problems (and opportunities!) are addressed by the sprinkling of ideological fairy-dust, and it makes no difference to the real-world effectiveness of this process if the fairy dust comes from right, left or centre ideology.

According to Cyril Ramaphosa, the president of South Africa, corruption is the root of everything wrong with the economy in South Africa and most other places to boot. He's very nearly right, but corruption is such a blight mainly because ideological parties are inherently incapable of addressing it effectively, here is how the different ideologies fail:

Right-wing parties see corruption entirely as a function of "big government", to which the fairy-dust solution is to simply and dogmatically make the government smaller. They tend to not recognise the possibility of corruption in private enterprise! Unfortunately, corrupt public employees are invariably better at keeping their jobs during a "rationalisation" than honest ones, due in part to their willingness to tell monstrous lies, and to them the contraction of government is merely a golden opportunity to get shot of all the whistle-blowers and more passive honest employees, whom the corrupt will always see as a lurking threat. The net result is the same amount of corruption concentrated (and more secure) in a much smaller government, which consequently performs almost no useful function at all.

Left-wing parties see corruption entirely as a function of class enemies and the fairy-dust solution is the passing of numerous anti-corruption laws and the construction of powerful state institutions dedicated to the destruction of the class enemies, which may include Jews and usually will also include Christians and quite often Muslims: Daoists if the party is very left wing indeed. The "anti-corruption" institutions will inevitably end up processing significant assets from the class enemies who are destroyed and, helped by the reign of terror the same institutions impose, this provides an ideal breeding ground for corruption to grow and flourish as never before.

The ideology of Centre Parties tends to be written around the personal agenda of the leader: becoming the first and greatest head of the world's first superstate in Anthony Blair's case and becoming the first and greatest head of the world's first superstate in the case of Immanuel Macron. (Oh dear, how will they ever work that one out peacefully!) Since the most efficient way to further personal agendas of the global domination variety is to cultivate vested interests very widely and harness them to the cause, the Centrist fairy-dust solution to corruption is to ring round all the known vested interests, seeing who they would trust (and pay for) to investigate themselves for corruption and appoint an anti-corruption commission from the resulting shortlist.

The only way to actually deal with corruption is to reach an objective understanding of what corruption consists of and who is doing it and take, rational and persistent measures to deny the culprits opportunities to receive improper advantages and to determinedly prosecute only those against whom genuine evidence can be obtained from competent, well-resourced investigation. This is very boring -no fairy dust!- and it requires effort, determination and patience as well as objectivity, but it is the only course that stands the least chance of working.

The only viable way to deal with any problem is to analyse it objectively and construct a solution that specifically addresses that problem, without trying to lazily apply ideological generalisations aka fairy dust. 

Decisions have to be taken fairly and on the basis of the available evidence and not a select subset of that evidence. Dissenting voices must be heard, not drowned out by an orchestra, whether that orchestra is the majority view or that of a powerful minority. Evidence must be sought from a variety of sources and not solely those trusted to only forward evidence supportive of one's ideological prejudices or personal agenda. Fairness and propriety must not be seen as vices!

Bullying must not be seen as strength, let alone "cool". 

The blog author has recently published, on Amazon, a novel "The Lord of Billionaires' Row" in both Kindle E-book and paperback formats. The relevant author's pages are Amazon.com:

link

and 

Amazon.co.uk

link

A Smashwords edition is now available in multiple E-book formats from this link