Even Will Self has a soft spot for David Icke now

I cannot quite get my head around the transformation of David Icke into a kind of apparently harmless cult leader - who even provoked kind words from the acid tongued Will Self.

I've written about conspiracy before - it's Icke stock and trade mixed in with more mainstream peace and love bollocks from what I can make out.

But its depressing nonetheless - he's another 'I have the answers' merchant where it is absolutely clear he has none. For the establishment, it must be viscerally thrilling to see people they made unemployed spend their last few quid on seeing David fucking Icke.

Self makes a good point though  - it is ridiculous to poo poo such people and dismiss them as dumb. They are no more ridiculous - really - than those numpties who turn up at party conference.

But Self seems to find solace in Icke's tour de force attacks on democracy and its clear non-existent state in our benevolent neo liberal dictatorship.

Fair enough - but the odd thing is that Self still believed in democracy enough to vote Liberal Democrat!

I have written before about conspiracies. They are a form of devil worship, where the central force on Earth is magical and all controlling but essentially hates us.

But such theories promote vegetation not agitation.  The conspiracy theorist is like Mulder from the X files, yearning for truth while really desperately hoping that he never finds it so he can stay wrapped in a decidely consumerist bubble of Apple products, movies, junk food and drugs.

The Establishment exposed by the Hillsborough disaster

Too often, we seek scapegoats when bad things happen. But Hillsborough, over the years, has provided ample evidence of just what level of despicable behaviour elites and authorities are capable of, even in democracy.

The disaster was waiting to happen. History is already recasting the 1980s as a period of class war which then ushered in a dramatic elite counter attack in which power shifted into the economy and pygmy politicians coalesced around it like soap scum.

I have never believed that striking is much of a useful tactic unless you hold the cards like Tube workers. The miners message wasn't about jobs, it was a rightful, prolonged scream about our descent into powerlessness.

The police was virtually a paramilitary arm of Government at the time. So their dreadful behaviour cannot be considered surprising in that context.

One thing considered less is the role of health and safety. How could anyone have considered it safe to put up fencing in a football ground? Perhaps it is 'easy to say now' and no doubt that is what the politicians will cling to.

Of course fans still went to games and you'd expect no less. But there must have been regular moments when crushes were spied but general disregard eclipsed any alarm.

The Taylor report brought all seater stadia but, perhaps subconsciously, it was really trying to deal with the same problem.

How do we deal with the 'animal class', these contorted faces who fight and spit and frown outwith the correct context?

Before we locked them in - all seater stadia effectively locked many out, particularly the decent fans who realised they could not justify the costs.

For all the hatred focussed on the police and The Sun, it seems the Football Association have been largely forgotten.

Their role in this makes Fifa look like pristine angels. More evidence that football should rid itself of every establishment figure and instead be run by fan trusts.

And has everything changed? The build up to the Liverpool Manchester United game seems to be focussing almost entirely on whether the fans will respect the occasion.

A few idiots inevitably won't - and so the legacy of Hillsborough will be more vilification of football supporters.

Julian Assange: Savaged by the Moralist Left

The strange adventures of Julian Assange have peculiarly affected the Left of British politics – which feels like it is heading toward a convulsing, blood-spitting and undignified death.

It is worth briefly looking at the intervention of MP George Galloway, who suggested that having sex with a woman while she sleeps is tantamount to rudeness rather than criminal behaviour.

Galloway was quickly berated as an apologist for rape or similar – accusations bordering on the defamatory.

I'd never even considered the issue before. But my first question was why Galloway could not just be 'wrong'.  Why does a misguided viewpoint immediately impute that a person is in fact permissive of a terrible crime?

Also, given the paucity of debate on sexual conduct (well, serious debate) is it inconceivable that some men and women might actually agree with the point.

Certainly, I have the strong suspicion that if anyone did they would be unlikely to voice such a view in public.

Finally, it is also worth pointing out that under the current terms of the law men – quite rightly – can also be victims of rape. Therefore, men have every right to assert what they consider to be a criminal violation of the body.

Left wing feminists, whose constituency lies mainly in the media which has to give its content away for free, are, in the main, driving and controlling this debate.

Their aggression towards Galloway – and also Julian Assange – betrays a wider agenda of the metropolitan Left that fails to understand that morality and behavioural issues cannot be understood in isolation from abstract processes and philosophy.

Rape, hate speech and  environmentalism are among the issues this Moralist Left love to pursue – whilst international peace, human rights and the criminal behaviour of the West take a back seat.

This Left claim to be principalled in comparison to the Blairites.

Yet they've made the same error. Putting 'pragmatic' issues ahead of so called abstract, they too buy into the Blairite conceit of what works or, more accurately, letting the tail wag the dog.

And this is disastrous – as how can one lecture on morality if one's taxes destroy woman and children whilst also paying for torture.

The Moralist Left demand Assange faces these charges, as if their opponents are disagreeing. But even the ranting Galloway has not actually said Assange should be exempt from the rule of law.

For this group, Assange represents a narrative – and a legitimate one – about men not taking responsibility for oppressive and criminal sexual behaviour.

This group are far less interested in the profound and simple question here: can Julian Assange receive a fair trial?

And it is not the first time that we witness such a moment. The utterly despicable killers of Stephen Lawrence were prosecuted only after illiberal vandalism to British law allowed that the same defendant can be tried twice for the same offence.

Once again, moral hysteria over racism trumped concerns about 'boring' legal processes which, in the round, will in fact have a devastating effect on ethnic minorities.

The Assange case is not solely about rape but also about processes and whether you think things like the treatment of Bradley Manning and illegal extradition arrangements between Sweden and the USA pollute legal processes.

The Moralist Left are being disingenuous. Scan Google even among the most vocal supporters of Assange you simply will not find any person advocating the suspension of the rule of law.

The big question is why have the Moralist Left pursued this false agenda. Is it the consequence of a decadent petty bourgeuois worldview which subordinates international phenomena?

This is a moment of history – the West's debasement of humanitarian behaviour heralds a new divisive moment.

The West is no longer the arbiter of moral behaviour or the source of good practice.

It is not a cause for celebration as it suggests a future in which we all become less free and more persecuted, with those seeking to illicit the truth bouncing like pinballs between corrupt democracies.

London 2012: Welcome to the right kind of patriotism

Some further observations from the Olympics.

The Left's embrace of patriotism knows no bounds. The stench that emerges from the hypocrisy seems to tend toward the view that this is the 'right sort of patriotism'.

This is a patriotism in which the working class are largely a long way off, watching the action on a TV at best.

What horror. I think I preferred demented, mouth foaming passion compared to liberally approved patriotism. At least it's honest. It represents this particular behaviour pattern's true goal more clearly. That goal being ecclesiastical loyalty in times of strife.

Yet in this state approved patriotism pervades myths and perversions which the Left should oppose.

We are again urged to consider that Britain's place in the world remains great. This seems to be the primary concern of fans watching the Games – it rides supreme over the intricacies and narratives of the individual sports themselves.

The vast influx of taxpayers money to support this achievement is ignored.

The Designer Left wants a forced-fun, diet-emotion society.

It cannot deal with the gnarling madness of football's xenophobia. But it's alternative appears to be this detached, socially cleansed world of 'leisuretainment' exemplified by the Olympics and to some extent the Barclays Premier League.

Good patriotism is not going to eradicate borders, war or the dark art of using the national interest to terrify domestic populations.  In those polite, flag-waving crowds at say Wimbledon lies an apathy and conservatism that will need another 100 financial crises to stir in angst.

The Olympics is a nightmarish sight into modern liberalism. Empty faces waving flags, detached from what's in front of them unless prompted by big screens or 'kisscams'.

In this world, watching sport is not much different to going shopping.

Sport at its greatest – and its darkest – has a religious character. It asks us to submit ourselves to something greater.  The resultant consequence is both good and bad, spectacle and horror.

In contrast, the Olympics is an atmosphere sculpted entirely out of corporate interests. It is a big logo Disneyland. And yet the Left who criticise those sponsors, celebrate the space – the dead space – that has held our gaze on compulsory television for two weeks.

 Final thought

Apparently the Olympic athletes are all brilliant role models in comparison to those horrible footballers. It is becoming clear that in the cultural landscape, footballers are now symbolic indicators of the working class we have come to hate.

The Olympics is now in a mire of wholesale cheating across a range of sports. Leading athletes have been involved across nationalities.

And despite the privilege, we have the nerve to compare them with footballers, who are basically young and exploited testosterone machines often left to wander in the Garden of Eden unsheperded.

Despite that fact, most footballers do not commit crimes and their worst 'sin' is nothing more than adultery, bad taste or materialism.

Football is a deeply representative word when used by liberals, it is a trojan horse to attack a cohort who liberals have come to hate because of their refusal to vote or live in under the terms of PC modernity.

Time to ask what is the point of a Leftist hawk?

The question one has to keep asking is that is it impossible, from a moral philosophy perspective, to support 'people's revolutions' as long as the US are not involved.

It certainly seems like a straightforward, black-and-white position.

But actually, there is some cognitive dissonance. By supporting 'people's revolt' we heavily imply that we support the process of violence to overthrow dictatorship.

And guess what – that is exactly what America did in Iraq.  Can one say for certain, that if there had been a popular revolution in Iraq that the country would look much different than it does now?

There is the pragmatic side too. Is it realistic to expect rebels in a civil war not to take weapons from a whole range of sources?

Is it a reasonable position to support a war until such time as those attempting overthrow fire weapons made from a country one does not support?

On both pragmatic and logical grounds, it does not appear to add up.

Taking the example further, what if the United Nations supplied weapons in sealed boxes? Potentially such boxes could be placed in the hands of all pro democracy fighters across the world and that would be OK.

These are all the moral quandaries which those who support Syria face. They swear blindly that somehow violence is different when 'the people' are doing it of their own volition.

Yet in Iraq, the 'people' were equally desperate to overthrow the despicable Saddam. Yet the anti-war left position is that it would be wrong to help  these people because it may create a regime which we disapprove of.

What was that about western imperialist arrogance?

It is important to make clear that I do not criticise the people of Syria in what are clearly horrendous circumstances.

But supporting a civil war is deeply irresponsible – and absolutely clearly sets you on the road to the Kissenger doctrine, the export of violence in the name of democracy.

Why did the Left embrace Danny Boyle's Olympic opening ceremony?

Multi national junk food sponsorship...missiles...local communities ignored...but hey look over there, someone's got some cool lights!

That pretty much sums up my reaction to the opening ceremony for London 2012.

Yet, the left, who have been rightly tweeting critically in the lead up to the Games, were sickeningly on message when Danny Boyle's big night began. By the end, the man, who is basically Seb Coe's Leni Riefenstahl, was a socialist hero.

To answer why, one must first understand that liberals no longer see mainstream culture as largely an adjunct of elite power. In fact, bathing in these communal garden spectacles are a way for the urban elites to prove they are not disconnected. As long as they are PC.

So it came as no surprise that Danny Boyle's post pub Friday night TV theme went down a storm.

Olympic ceremonies are supposed to be boring – Britain may be one of the few vainglorious countries to host a sporting event and dedicate its entire opening to showcase a new way of claiming superiority.

The message was: we were once imperialists telling you what to do, now we are liberals telling you what to do.

This attitude manifested itself during the previous Euro 2012 when the liberal elites wrongly claimed that there was a serious problem with racism in eastern Europe.  My reaction to that: what a bunch of smug racist bastards we are these days.

When will liberals learn that PC tokenism has failed miserably to unify the people?

Nationalism is something the left should be highly wary of – especially statist nationalism.

This horrendous Blarite spectacle though sparked irrational outpourings of pride. The Left, it seems , is all for propaganda as long as it is the right sort of propaganda.   

The only way to beat racism is not empty tokenism but to actually empty flags and borders of real meaning and encourage people to be proud of things they do themselves.

Britishness defined as tolerance and the NHS is no more true than a Britain represented by Shakespeare and Churchill.

There is no 'truth' – national identity is an entirely contested concept and states should stay well out of trying to define it for their own ends.

The Left chose to enjoy the opening ceremony as its own spectacle, as if somehow it was fine to just quickly forget the tidal waves of wrongness which these Games have brought to our shores.

It is that crisis of confidence again, that overwheening need to avoid  heresay at a time of acute national emotion. Such weak and hapless liberalism may as well not exist. Tony Blair, I suspect, would approve.

Syria and the discredited Left

It seems that the Designer Lefties who bestride Twitter with their vast followings don't much like being challenged.

To a man, they have all adopted the convenient position of supporting Syrian insurrection but opposing western intervention.

When a few people found this line rather confusing, they resorted to the sort of boarding school cackle you'd expect from Telegraph bloggers.

The first point to make is that the Syrian people live in dismal poverty and fear. I could never criticise people taking up arms in such circumstances.

But I would not want to disingenuously cheer lead either. Even for a re tweet.

The trouble with the pro rebel position is that if one embraces violent overthrow, it then becomes almost bizarre to insist that the West stays out.

Why? Because the best way to win a civil war is to get help from your neighbours and friends to outmuscle the enemy. Will militias on the ground care where the weapons come from?

Imagine if the struggle becomes protracted. Can you imagine trying to argue to a US hawk that violent overthrow is OK but the West cannot interfere in it?

Of course, even if the US did not interfere that by no means ensures that major powers will not interfere anyway in the ensuing transitional phase.

Put simply violent and unstable transition in Syria creates a potential opportunity for meddling powers.

And what of this war itself? Who decided that civil war was the right response and will they actually help the ordinary people?

A husband may have a vote but not a wife. And there is no guranteee that he will have any more money or opportunity.

These are not questions that the Designer Lefties want to answer.

We can also but wonder at the kinds of torture and retribution which this violence will unleash.

If Tony Blair can be held responsible for the consequences of Iraq then the innocent life lost in this Syrian war can be squarely attributed to those who romanticise revolution from comfortable beds.

We complain about neocons 'deciding' the fate of Iraq without consulting its people. But it may be that the Syrian revolutionary groups have done something similar.

But the Desginer Lefties are not bothered - they're too busy with revolutionary posturing on Twitter.