‘Hegemony’ is a funny word. It’s meaning is not clear. In my mind, I have always had the idea that ‘hegemony’ means ‘coming together under the same general vision while having differences in detail’. For example, Big Tobacco Companies might differ in all sorts of ways, especially when it comes down to competing with each other, but when it comes down to facing up to anti-tobacco zealots, they present a ‘hegemony’ to the world. They are united as regards their attitude to tobacco control.
Here is a link:
The Con/Lab/Lib hegemony of which I speak is not a question of policies. It is a question of control.
I am not sure of the truth of what I am about to say, but I seem to remember a time when local constituency panels chose the person who would stand for election, and that this system was common to all the three major parties. Of course, that was before communicating was so easy. Potential candidates for election as MPs applied to the local association and were interviewed. The choice of candidate depended upon the views of the members of the panel. But who chose the members of the panel?
Most constituencies had a ‘Tory club’, a ‘Labour Club’ and a ‘Liberal Club’. Although these clubs were mostly boozers, they housed the committees of the local constituency parties.
At some point not an awful long time ago, the power to choose the local candidate was taken away from the local parties and centralised in the party’s central office. If the main purpose of the local constituency party was to choose the candidate, for what purpose did that local constituency party continue to exist once that power was taken away? Is it any wonder that individual membership of these parties has drifted down and down?
But the worst thing has been the effect on the quality of candidates. Rather than having to satisfy the needs of the local community, they are now only interested in ‘grand designs’, like the EU project and ensuring that it succeeds, and smoking bans to improve the health ‘of the nation’. Before very long, the Tory/Labour/Libdem parties will become ‘virtual’ parties, existing only on the airwaves and on TV. Individual, real, physical members will not be required. Corporations will fund the parties and thus control the parties. The EU will decide what party gets what funding. In fact, that is already the case to some extent.
There seems to be a general principle – the older any particular organisation becomes, the more corrupt it becomes. I use the word ‘corrupt’ not only to mean financially. I mean also ideologically. Even really, really respected organisations succumb eventually. Read Frank Davis’s post about the Royal Society:
It seems to be the case that any association eventually gets taken over by Zealots, and that, as often as not, the Zealots are sociopaths and/or psychopaths. For some weird reason, they seem to push and push and push, whereas ordinary decent people give and take. A perfect example is the general smoking ban. The original Bill presented to Parliament had exceptions which were reasonable (or rather, better than nothing), which were that private members clubs and wet-led pubs would be allowed to decide for themselves. Those exemptions were removed, but only because a few sociopaths/psychopaths engineered it. The really important question is: “Why do sensible, ordinary, intelligent MPs fall for the hype, again and again?” The only answer is that they are not ‘sensible, ordinary, intelligent MPs’ – they are parachuted in activists of one sort or another.
Is there an answer?
Probably not, unless these political parties fall apart and are replaced by non-centralised local units. Such units would have to be self-sufficient. They would have to reinvent themselves as THE REAL Conservative Party, and THE REAL Labour Party, and THE REAL Liberal Party. Would that not be fun?
But, more than anything, these parties must separate themselves, and be active against, organisations such as COMMON PURPOSE. Such organisations are totalitarian and fascist. They demand obedience.
As a good catholic boy (lapsed), I still accept the basics of the Christian faith. Where I depart from dogma is in the idea that it is possible to consider God as a big old man with a beard. I hold that it is not possible for us to comprehend the nature of such an all-powerful, eternal being. We should not pretend to be able to do so. All that we know is that we have an instinctive, inherent, understanding of right and wrong, of love and hate, of greed and generosity, of truth and lies, of kindness and selfishness, of openness and secrecy.
There are people that I detest, but I do not hate them. Is that splitting hairs? I don’t think so. I detest Arnott and co because they lie and persecute us, but I do not hate them. If I really, really hated them I would want to squash them. That is not what I want. I want to sideline them and render them impotent. They are, to me, anti-Christs, lacking in empathy. It is right that they should be described as Nazis since they demand obedience and subservience, and if they do not receive that obedience and subservience, they punish people, and they punish them severely. Witness the huge fines which were imposed upon any publican who dared to ignore the order to impose and enforce the smoking ban. Some were even imprisoned.
It is clear beyond doubt that political parties were not the originators of the fierce persecution of smokers and publicans. Other people did that. Who were they? Why was it that the thousands of publicans did not close ranks and support the couple of fellow publicans who chose to defy the Zealots? WHY DID THEY NOT MARCH AND DEMONSTRATE OUTSIDE AND INSIDE THE COURTS?
I think that ‘compliance’ can be elevated to a state of ‘saintliness’. Weird, is it not, that saintliness has almost always been associated with ‘non-compliance’ in the past? Today, any one who stops smoking using patches and gums is a ‘saint’, but if a person stops smoking by using an ecig, he is an apostate. He is an apostate because he ‘did not believe in the true path of patches and gums’, but, instead, pleased himself and succumbed to the pleasure of ecigs.
Sometimes I think that we smokers should stop being visible. We should deny. I am due to go to the dentist shortly. I think that I might write down that I do not smoke any more. Erm… Nah!! I could not do that! Better to increase the amount of cigs I smoke. Up it from 50 a day to 60 a day. What does it matter?
But it is still possible to ‘disappear’. No one who buys fags from white-van-man wants to advertise that fact, and no one who buys contraband fags advertises that fact, and no one who buys ‘unbranded’ tobacco advertises that fact.
But what is of the greatest importance is that freedom depends upon non-compliance.
Enough for tonight, but would it not be wonderful if people shouted, “NO, I WILL NOT COMPLY!” Zealots are fond of using the word ‘WE’, as in “WE are very concerned…..” Bugger off!! “I” am not in the least concerned. Who cares that “YOU (plural)” are concerned? Who gives a shit about your ‘concern’?
Arnott (and others) are adept at claiming to speak for multitudes. She says “We” again and again. It has taken a long time for Forest and others to catch up. There is no “We”. There is only “I”.
There seems to be little doubt that the Con/Lab/Lib hegemony has collapsed. However, it is sad that the alternative seems to be even more persecution, totalitarianism and fascism.
A revolution is required. Not leased because Cameron et al permit the cash holding, which are not great, of ordinary people to be rendered worthless through inflation, which transfers that ‘wealth’ to others.
That is a paramount scandal.