That’s the thing with the EU: there is no holding back when it comes to expressing how clever they are, and how utterly stupid you are. It’s not enough to have doubts about one’s proposals; no; the proposals have to be annihilated. And then the proposers have to be told (just in case there’s any room for doubt) that none of the proposals are worth a tinker’s cuss. None of them. Not one. Up to but not including one.

The congruence of EU rejections and Owen Jones tweets probably goes a long way to explaining why Jones the Flounce is so keen for us to stay in the EU. For he talks their language of crush, smash, humiliate and annihilate without the slightest trace of a foreign accent. And on a scale of 1 to 10, they each score minus 78 when it comes to tolerant and positive flexibility.

Hence my involuntary laugh-out-loud response over breakfast to Owen’s tweet yesterday morning:

Well quite, duckie: if you work almost exclusively for The Guardian, that is precisely what you’re going to find. The Groupthink about, for example

• The EU promotes peace
• The Greeks had it coming anyway
• EU leavers are racist Little Englanders
• The EU Army is a UKIP fantasy
• Abuse of Islamics must be smashed
• Viktor Orban is a fascist
• Without the EU we will starve.

___________________________________________

There is a faultline in Western society in 2018. It is partly an update of the old Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative tedium, but there is a real difference now: the tectonic push-and-pull is largely devoid of economics as an integral part of the whole, for the debate is about species social behaviour on a range of subjects….up to but not including the harsh realities of life if you’re poor in a neoliberal economy.

The two sides I would call the Unnaturals and the Anthrophiles. The two terms are almost interchangeable with, respectively, Progressive and Empiricist, but the first two I prefer because they make an important point more clearly: the divide is between those who believe in the ubiquity of normality regardless of the consequences and those who have an instinctive or learned grasp of social anthropology and the human psyche. 

The bizarre thing (at first sight) is that, intuitively, one would expect the first group to be more tolerant, and the second to be more restrictive and censorious. During much of the 19th and 20th centuries in fact, I suspect that was the case. In 2018, I think it is the other way round. My gut feel is that this merely reflects the ‘Establishment’ status of the Unnaturals in the 21st century, and their intrinsic desire to drag everyone else into line….the politically correct line.

Fundamentally, Unnaturals are those hopelessly out of touch with what ordinary people think and feel, and how human beings interreact. Doing a roll call of the members of this regiment makes the whole concept initially convoluted – but then clearer the more you think about it: the European Commission, radical feminists, North Korea, senior policemen, bourses, sexual orientation activists, Corbynist Labour, Neoliberal Tory, military intelligence, academics, diplomats, Royalty, globalist business, banking, show business, professional footballers, media proprietors, well-heeled inhabitants of capital cities…. generally, those for whom life would be empty without an ideology to excuse the pumping of their ego satisfactions to an engorged level

In stark contrast, Anthrophiles cannot be tribally enumerated in the same way. All I can say about them is that they exist (in my experience) in two different levels: active proponents of trial and error as the best way to improve life; and passive, often silent common sense that is only ever seen in the ballot box.

Far from seeking the comfort blanket of belief systems, active anthrophiles relish the study of new discoveries, enjoy pushing the boundaries of all art forms, are fascinated by what makes people tick, love to experience different cultures, and embrace the philosophy of having a fulfilling life without treading on other people’s windpipes. They challenge the received wisdom of almost everything. Their archetypes are the business, artistic, literary, sporting and technological entrepreneurs.

Passive anthrophiles are what many people would describe as solid, grounded, reliable, trustworthy and often very quiet people who observe the madness around them, but keep their counsel about it to themselves. When I worked as a focus group researcher as a young man, such group members had to be coaxed through body language to join in the discussion, but the little they had to say was always worth listening to. They are not to be confused with the Silent Majority, who more often than not prove to be, on examination, bigots: classic Unnaturals who talk about “the natural order of things” – and spookily, always put themselves at the top end of the Order. The natural order they describe is not reflected at all among primates in the wild, by the way.

Because many of them are by definition narcissistic, Unnaturals grab far more than their fair share of media headlines.  A classic example is the celebrity feminism that at times seems almost to rule American society today. There’s a great example of this at the moment in relation to the Equal Pay obsession.

Sarah Jessica Parker, Jane Fonda, Natalie Portman and other actresses wrote a letter to the governor of New York Andrew Cuomo, demanding he raise the wages of waitresses who, they claim, earn under the minimum wage. It insisted that ‘relying on tips creates a more permissive work environment where customers feel entitled to abuse women in exchange for service’. The Hollywood gals pointed out how ‘until we got our big breaks, we were waitresses, too, and we intend to make a lot of productive noise around this!’.

Note the insistence, the threat, and the general ‘throw your weight about’ tone of all this, including the “we were poor once, so we know” condescension. But these women were selected by men they now denounce as sexual abusers: they are unelected, but demand to be heard – like Jennifer Lawrence and her risible “taking a year off to fix our democracy” drivel of last month.

Now read this, the Anthrophile reply of the waitresses fighting for a living wage, whom (I suspect) care not a fig for gender politics:

‘To the celebrity women who recently criticised the full-service restaurant industry, from over 500 women and men who work in it: Thank you for your concern. But we don’t need your help, and we’re not asking to be saved. You’ve been misled that we earn less than minimum wage, and that we’re somehow helpless victims of sexual harassment. We respect your profession, and now it’s time for you to respect ours.’

Or put another way, “fuck off”.

____________________________________________________

You will be unsurprised to learn that I am – with laudable exceptions that deserve to be recognised – very much in favour of a socio-political movement based on Anthrophilia.

I’m all for feminine equality that recognises the importance of rearing children (if they want them) that will be radiators in society, not a drain on it.

I am all for legalisation and acceptance of harmless sexual orientation, but I am opposed to the idea of glorifying it.

I am sympathetic to those human beings unlucky enough to be born with a hormonal mix that makes them doubt their given gender. But demands for endless toilet choices are simply the dictatorship of the exhibitionist.

I adore and embrace a Europe of cultural variety, and I reject the idea that a mass invasion by one cultural tribe will have no deleterious effect on social stability.

Supranational states may massage the egos of Chinese communists, ex KGB officers, American MIC illuminati, and Brussels sprouts with delusions of imperial grandeur, but they will never bring empowered liberty to the sovereign Citizen.

I like the idea of citizen and institutional involvement in the financing of job-creating capitalism. I deplore the élite directionalising of bourses to the advantage of the rich, and at the expense of infrastructural investment.

I remain a proponent of the Separation of Powers in free societies. I fear the politicisation of the police, the judiciary, the media and the education of our kids in the West.

I doubt that Donald Trump has any real depth. However, the surreal nepotism of the North Korean use of Kim Jong Un and his ancestors to legitimise a communist régime makes the US electoral system look like a model of functionality by comparison.

I do enjoy the quality of football on display in the European Champions’ League and the English Premiership, but the behaviour of the game’s professionals is as unacceptable as the “sugar daddy” business model that pays them £50,000 a week.

_____________________________________________________

What the triumph of the Unnatural has caused (helped extensively by pc comprehensive education and brainless Left definitions of “equality”) is first, to enable the promotion of mediocre people to positions of power, via “affirmative action” and fear of Race/Gender tribunals; and second, to allow élites to put out spurious “explanations” of why they have done something – in the near certainty that the Unnaturally dumbed-down, unquestioning electorate will nod, agree and then get on with their lives.

The Skripal-to-Syria saga is a classic example of State narratives that blame others and excuse themselves, based on rationales that make no sense in terms of motives, subsequent findings and contradictory expert opinion. The UK narrative from the off has involved obvious hype, lies, distraction and superficially based assertion…yet it is equally obvious that the Unnaturals of both Left and Right (around 20% of the British population) not only accept the ludicrous claims, they endorse them fiercely, seeking to shoot down those who query the nonsense as ‘useful idiots’, ‘traitors’ and ‘unpatriotic’.

Another example has come to light in relation to Skripal over the last 48 hours, following the emergency OPCW summit to discuss (behind closed doors) the more contradictory findings to be explained away. The Russian delegation pointed out that their Swiss lab (an accredited OPCW member) had found BZ nerve agent in the sample, suggesting manufacture in a Western lab, not a Russian factory.

The OPCW said it was standard procedure to test the competence of labs seeking accreditation by deliberately adding other elements to samples to see if they spot them. This seems to be true, but the Russian request to know whether this laboratory was undergoing such an accreditation test has been met with a subtle mélange of evasion, followed by silence.

On a matter of such world importance, it does strike one as spectacularly potty that the OPCW would choose a lab whose trustworthiness and competence wasn’t already clearly established. It seems more likely that the OPCW needed a convenient lie to explain away the BZ. And the suspicious silence that followed is equally damning.

IABATO – It’s all Bollocks and that’s Official…..but the Unnaturals don’t see it. And the Establishment media don’t print it. (The only reason we know any of this is that the RF gave a press conference to allege what had happened).

Then we have the Syrian strikes themselves, about which Trump, Nikki Haley, NATO, Johnson and May have all gone on the record to affirm that the sole objective of the mission was to take out Assad’s apparent collection of very nasty and wicked chemical weapons. I, hundreds of other bloggers and thousands of thread commenters have asked the obvious question: if you bombed a nerve agent factory, wouldn’t that cause a massive regional catastrophe thanks to all the chemicals being, um, released into the atmosphere?

As it happens, unclear but compelling evidence is now starting to emerge that, of the 103 missiles fired, 70 were targeted at the airfields and command centres that have been giving the anti-Assad rebels a pasting for the last six months. And so again, doubt is cast on the Allied ‘rationale’ for the attack.

People like me join the dots and think, ‘Well, yes, the US wants continued chtheyaos in Syria, because a stable Syria backed to the hilt by Putin gives Moscow a very clear advantage when it comes to cutting off Western access to fossil fuel energy. So they bombed Assad’s Arab Army – as they were doing throughout 2013 – to give McCain’s half-witted Islamists a decent chance of pushing back against the Syrian government.’

Because you see, thinking that makes sense based on history, strategy, motive and evidence. But the Unnaturals don’t do any of that.

_____________________________________________________________________

The problem is, while the devious élites and confirmed Unnaturals are less than a quarter of the electorate, they have over 90% of the power as things are currently configured: they own the Party organisations, the City, the trade unions, the voting system, the money, the capital, the Exchequer, the armed forces, the police and the media.

Now pressure could be applied by the 80% to backbenchers via their constituency organisations. So just as she evaded them to get acclaimed as leader, May chose to ignore the opinion polls, not recall Parliament….and go off to bomb Syria anyway – quoting the bare bones of a largely unwritten constitution to “explain” her actions.

These were, of course, undertaken on the basis of urgency and the purely compassionate desire to save Syrian lives…..said world infamous serial liar and corrupt cover-up artiste Boris Johnson. Oh per-leeeze.

The short conclusion is that all of us who want power genuinely to be given back to the People face a long haul. Getting rid of the Westminster duopoly and Whitehall sociopaths in a peaceful manner looks less and less likely with every year that passes.

A good start would be a proper PR voting system, followed by a radical rebuilding of quality, open-minded education, and then topped off with the dilution of proprietorial media power.

Hmm. Ah well, enjoy the weekend. Annoy the neighbours: do something natural. You know it makes sense.

---