Everyone agrees that the EU Referendum has changed the face of politics in Britain but what has changed? The media has been asking why people voted Leave but the really big change is that people were prepared to vote "Remain". Why did people vote Remain?
The answer is simple: a large number of people did not care whether or not they were governed by a government in the UK. The EU inserts and replaces a layer of government. That layer of government is operated from elsewhere and Remain voters were happy with this idea.
This is strange because when we look around the world there are some truly appalling governments so why do people feel safe to be governed from elsewhere and why would they think this is a good idea? The answer to this question is also simple: there are now large numbers of people who are mobile and feel safe because they can move on to a safe place. The evidence that those who voted Remain are members of this new, mobile class is clear from how people actually voted because students and those with high social class and education were Remain voters. Ask anyone who voted Remain - they nearly all talk about travel, opportunity and feeling that there should be one world of opportunity for themselves. The reason that many Remain voters became strangely upset after the Referendum is that they felt that something had been taken away from them personally. This is why Remain voters are so puzzled at the outcome of the referendum and can only construe that someone must have persuaded the Leave voters that there was more money on offer for voting Leave ("Brexit Lies").
Leave voters were just ordinary folk, those who lacked mobility and were committed to local schools, local services, local friends and employment. They desired a government that attended directly to them and their needs, they voted for self government.
The huge division that appeared in British society was between those who could float off to some other place and those who were settled. It was a division between "Floateurs" and Settlers. (Floateur is pronounced "Floater" but avoids the scatological connotation).
The Remain media campaign focussed on polarising the debate into Racists vs Anti-Racists by labelling the desire for self government as racist. This led to many of the Floateurs supporting Remain because they wanted to be seen as non-racist rather than because they were pro-EU. This has been demonstrated in studies of how Remain voters labelled Leave voters:
Remain voters simply dismissing the possibility that Leave supporters may have had other valid concerns. Re-check the "Why Leave Voters Voted Leave" graphic above if you just thought "of course it was racism".
The Floateur/Settler divide appears to be a new division but in all truth it is simply the old division between the upper and lower classes. Being upper class has always meant that you were mobile. You could look at the squalid habitations of the lower classes and feel safe in your ability to go elsewhere. That this division has morphed into Floateurs and Settlers is a natural result of higher education because young Settlers are indoctrinated that their education will make them mobile and those for whom this happens become adult Floateurs.
The mental business of being a Floateur is not easy. It is obvious that Floating off to feather your own nest appears selfish so a new morality had to be invented to relieve this dissonance between the idea of a "good person" and the apparent selfishness of Floating. How can we make it more moral to be a "citizen of the world" than to be a real citizen, a person who cares for a community and locality? Fortunately the Media are almost 100% Floateurs so have spent the past 30 years creating a "moral highground" to justify floating.
The new morality centres around migration. Migration defines Floating so is the natural starting point for a Floateur morality. It is not just the wealthy, qualified and educated who are Floateurs, the new morality maintains that, given the chance, anyone will Float and anyone should have that right. This moral foundation is a "win win" idea for Floateurs, not only does it justify their intentions but when large numbers of people are transferred elsewhere they are accommodated by Settlers. Floateurs do not need to suffer the consequences of their morality. Even better, when Settlers complain about the effects of migration the Floateurs can declare that they are immoral and hence the Floateur can abandon any sense of obligation to locality, anyone who cares for a locality or local community is a "chav", a Nationalist, a fascist and otherwise a generally reprehensible moron. Of course, eventually, most poor migrants will join the Settlers and it is only in the transitional period that they create the resentments amongst Settlers that allow Floaters to claim moral supremacy.
This new "morality" leaves the Settlers confused. The Media is entirely Floateur and so feeds the new morality to the population as if it is the Centre Ground of politics yet the Settlers, when they talk to each other, find that it is not the common opinion at all.
So why shouldn't everyone Float? The simple fact is, when Students and young adults, who will become Settlers later, are removed, only 20 or 30% of the population of the UK can easily float. The rest of the population have local obligations, immobile or disabled relatives, children in state schools, local friends and even a simple attachment to the landscape and place that prevent them from freely moving.
Floating is also unsustainable without Settlers, it is about moving from place to place where Settlers have created good government. It depends upon refuges, such as the UK, that provide a place of escape and safety. A Floateur can work in Austria or Turkey and feel safe even when there is a risk of an extreme right wing government because they can always go home. The Floateurs, as "citizens of the world" are citizens of nowhere but can only exist because somewhere is kept nice for them.
The reason that Westminster and other Western governments are losing the confidence of the people is that they are usually run by Floateurs and regard the Media Centre Ground as the real centre ground. They do not represent the people.
The EU is an attempted coup by the Floateurs in Europe, it is dedicated to detaching government from locality so that an upper class and their corporations can run government for themselves without being tied to the immobile masses. The British have rejected this new form of government and are now faced with what on earth to do with such a dominant class as the Floateurs.
The central point of the Referendum is that although Floateurs are not necessarily bad for the economy they are largely unsuitable for government. The attempted coup by the Floateurs represented by the steady merger into the EU shows how they can get out of hand and start moving from global trade to global government to serve themselves. Floating may be a basis for a lifestyle but it must never be a basis for government.
Floateur Politics and Economics
Floateurs favour Education, not as a tool for increasing the prosperity and cohesion of a locality but as a means for "escaping from poverty". Education allows Floateurs to leave behind the poor and oppressed.
Floateurs prefer macroeconomic to microeconomic measures. Indeed they see microeconomics as favouring a locality over others. Microeconomic potential is removed from localities by Floateurs by insisting that Business taxes, education and training, housing budgets, planning decisions, NHS facilities etc. are ultimately central functions.
Having opted for macroeconomics as the only economic tool the Floateur can see no difference whether this is administered from Brussels or New York. Visions of what the cities and countryside and their people in a given location might become are considered to be outside politics and economics.
Floateur solutions:
The solution to ghettoes? Escape for individuals through education rather than good management of communities.
The solution to labour shortage? Import workers rather than increase productivity.
The solution to universal benefits? Contributory welfare rather than solidarity amongst the People.
The solution to unemployment? Foreign Direct Investment rather than fostering local industry.
The solution to poor NHS management? Import staff from abroad rather than retaining staff in UK.
The solution to terrorism? Bomb the Middle East rather than policing borders and finding a solution to mutual trust between UK communities.
The solution to global insecurity? Extend the power of the West rather than working towards a real solution for the external relations between nations.
The solution to global warming? Global government to emulate megastates such as the China or USA rather than global cooperation.
All these "solutions" spring from the selfish desire of the Floateur to float around the world in places that have been made safe for their lifestyle as corporate employees, academics, journalists etc.
The Scots and Londoners
A special feature of this referendum is that a large part of the Remain vote was in Scotland. Without the Scots the Leave vote would have been overwhelming:
In a sense the Scots are an entire nation that wants to float. Paradoxically the Scots voted Remain because they want independence. Some desire independence from the UK but know that it will be a bumpy ride and others want an insurance policy against independence. The EEC provided hand outs to small nations that get into trouble and many Scots voted Remain to obtain this extra security. Not many Scots appreciated that the Eurozone is on an inevitable path towards full union, having already completed Stage 1, so Scotland would end up governed by the Eurozone. The broadcast media has been treating the Remain vote in Scotland as part of their Internationalist desire for Remain but the truth is very different - Remain is split between Scots Nationalists and London Internationalists. London, like Scotland, also has a high percentage of people who do not identify as British but in this case the guarantee of mobility is all important.
Educating a Special Class
The heart of the British Floateurs originates in the UK education system. Private schools in the UK only educate 6.5% of children but spending money on a private education seems to pay dividends. In the UK Cabinet Office publication: Fair access to professional careers: a progress report, it points out that:
Top Civil Servants: “27% were educated at an independent school. Over one-third (37%) had attended a grammar school and 18% had been to a state comprehensive school.
Justices of Appeal: of the 38 Justices of Appeal, 26 attended private schools, eight attended grammar schools, just two attended state comprehensive schools and two were schooled overseas.
43% of barristers attended a fee-paying secondary school, with almost a third going on to study at Oxbridge.
Journalists: of the country’s top journalists, 54% were privately educated, with a third graduating from Oxbridge.
privately educated MPs comprised 30% of the total in 1997 but after the 2010 election now comprise 35%, with just 13 private schools providing 10% of all MPs.
62% of all members of the House of Lords were privately educated, with 43% of the total having attended just 12 private schools.”
More generally:
One third of the British olympic team were educated at private schools.
One third of students educated in private schools got straight As at A level compared with one in ten pupils educated in the state sector.
“A new survey into the heritage of modern musical acts has found that 60 per cent of acts in the charts today – attended public school [ie:private school] – compared to just one per cent two decades ago.” Daily Mail
“The study found that the comprehensives producing the most
high-flyers – with six people each – are Haverstock School, attended by
Labour leader Ed Miliband and his brother, former foreign secretary
David Miliband, and Holland Park School, which was attended by former
environment minister Hilary Benn. Both are in London.”
The Milibands pose as ordinary, state educated boys….but their parents chose the best comprehensives in Britain for their kids.
Labour Party Floateurs
Perhaps the worst problem in British politics is that the socialists changed to "Post-Marxism" at the end of the last century. Clever socialist philosophers such as Jaques Derrida realised that society was going to split into these two classes and that this change would put society into a revolutionary tension. These philosophers devised an entire political philosophy, Postmarxism, around the mobility of peoples. Unfortunately this means that the Floateurs have captured the British Labour Party. (See Poststructuralism-Postmodernism-Postmarxism). As a result there are two types of Floateur - those who see a future in public sector employment abroad so need the EU and eventual global government (the Postmarxists) and those who like Floating for the money (the Centre/Tory Floateur).
Written 7/05/17
The answer is simple: a large number of people did not care whether or not they were governed by a government in the UK. The EU inserts and replaces a layer of government. That layer of government is operated from elsewhere and Remain voters were happy with this idea.
This is strange because when we look around the world there are some truly appalling governments so why do people feel safe to be governed from elsewhere and why would they think this is a good idea? The answer to this question is also simple: there are now large numbers of people who are mobile and feel safe because they can move on to a safe place. The evidence that those who voted Remain are members of this new, mobile class is clear from how people actually voted because students and those with high social class and education were Remain voters. Ask anyone who voted Remain - they nearly all talk about travel, opportunity and feeling that there should be one world of opportunity for themselves. The reason that many Remain voters became strangely upset after the Referendum is that they felt that something had been taken away from them personally. This is why Remain voters are so puzzled at the outcome of the referendum and can only construe that someone must have persuaded the Leave voters that there was more money on offer for voting Leave ("Brexit Lies").
Leave voters were just ordinary folk, those who lacked mobility and were committed to local schools, local services, local friends and employment. They desired a government that attended directly to them and their needs, they voted for self government.
The huge division that appeared in British society was between those who could float off to some other place and those who were settled. It was a division between "Floateurs" and Settlers. (Floateur is pronounced "Floater" but avoids the scatological connotation).
The Remain media campaign focussed on polarising the debate into Racists vs Anti-Racists by labelling the desire for self government as racist. This led to many of the Floateurs supporting Remain because they wanted to be seen as non-racist rather than because they were pro-EU. This has been demonstrated in studies of how Remain voters labelled Leave voters:
The Floateur/Settler divide appears to be a new division but in all truth it is simply the old division between the upper and lower classes. Being upper class has always meant that you were mobile. You could look at the squalid habitations of the lower classes and feel safe in your ability to go elsewhere. That this division has morphed into Floateurs and Settlers is a natural result of higher education because young Settlers are indoctrinated that their education will make them mobile and those for whom this happens become adult Floateurs.
The mental business of being a Floateur is not easy. It is obvious that Floating off to feather your own nest appears selfish so a new morality had to be invented to relieve this dissonance between the idea of a "good person" and the apparent selfishness of Floating. How can we make it more moral to be a "citizen of the world" than to be a real citizen, a person who cares for a community and locality? Fortunately the Media are almost 100% Floateurs so have spent the past 30 years creating a "moral highground" to justify floating.
The new morality centres around migration. Migration defines Floating so is the natural starting point for a Floateur morality. It is not just the wealthy, qualified and educated who are Floateurs, the new morality maintains that, given the chance, anyone will Float and anyone should have that right. This moral foundation is a "win win" idea for Floateurs, not only does it justify their intentions but when large numbers of people are transferred elsewhere they are accommodated by Settlers. Floateurs do not need to suffer the consequences of their morality. Even better, when Settlers complain about the effects of migration the Floateurs can declare that they are immoral and hence the Floateur can abandon any sense of obligation to locality, anyone who cares for a locality or local community is a "chav", a Nationalist, a fascist and otherwise a generally reprehensible moron. Of course, eventually, most poor migrants will join the Settlers and it is only in the transitional period that they create the resentments amongst Settlers that allow Floaters to claim moral supremacy.
This new "morality" leaves the Settlers confused. The Media is entirely Floateur and so feeds the new morality to the population as if it is the Centre Ground of politics yet the Settlers, when they talk to each other, find that it is not the common opinion at all.
So why shouldn't everyone Float? The simple fact is, when Students and young adults, who will become Settlers later, are removed, only 20 or 30% of the population of the UK can easily float. The rest of the population have local obligations, immobile or disabled relatives, children in state schools, local friends and even a simple attachment to the landscape and place that prevent them from freely moving.
Floating is also unsustainable without Settlers, it is about moving from place to place where Settlers have created good government. It depends upon refuges, such as the UK, that provide a place of escape and safety. A Floateur can work in Austria or Turkey and feel safe even when there is a risk of an extreme right wing government because they can always go home. The Floateurs, as "citizens of the world" are citizens of nowhere but can only exist because somewhere is kept nice for them.
The reason that Westminster and other Western governments are losing the confidence of the people is that they are usually run by Floateurs and regard the Media Centre Ground as the real centre ground. They do not represent the people.
The EU is an attempted coup by the Floateurs in Europe, it is dedicated to detaching government from locality so that an upper class and their corporations can run government for themselves without being tied to the immobile masses. The British have rejected this new form of government and are now faced with what on earth to do with such a dominant class as the Floateurs.
The central point of the Referendum is that although Floateurs are not necessarily bad for the economy they are largely unsuitable for government. The attempted coup by the Floateurs represented by the steady merger into the EU shows how they can get out of hand and start moving from global trade to global government to serve themselves. Floating may be a basis for a lifestyle but it must never be a basis for government.
Floateur Politics and Economics
Floateurs favour Education, not as a tool for increasing the prosperity and cohesion of a locality but as a means for "escaping from poverty". Education allows Floateurs to leave behind the poor and oppressed.
Floateurs prefer macroeconomic to microeconomic measures. Indeed they see microeconomics as favouring a locality over others. Microeconomic potential is removed from localities by Floateurs by insisting that Business taxes, education and training, housing budgets, planning decisions, NHS facilities etc. are ultimately central functions.
Having opted for macroeconomics as the only economic tool the Floateur can see no difference whether this is administered from Brussels or New York. Visions of what the cities and countryside and their people in a given location might become are considered to be outside politics and economics.
Floateur solutions:
The solution to ghettoes? Escape for individuals through education rather than good management of communities.
The solution to labour shortage? Import workers rather than increase productivity.
The solution to universal benefits? Contributory welfare rather than solidarity amongst the People.
The solution to unemployment? Foreign Direct Investment rather than fostering local industry.
The solution to poor NHS management? Import staff from abroad rather than retaining staff in UK.
The solution to terrorism? Bomb the Middle East rather than policing borders and finding a solution to mutual trust between UK communities.
The solution to global insecurity? Extend the power of the West rather than working towards a real solution for the external relations between nations.
The solution to global warming? Global government to emulate megastates such as the China or USA rather than global cooperation.
All these "solutions" spring from the selfish desire of the Floateur to float around the world in places that have been made safe for their lifestyle as corporate employees, academics, journalists etc.
The Scots and Londoners
A special feature of this referendum is that a large part of the Remain vote was in Scotland. Without the Scots the Leave vote would have been overwhelming:
In a sense the Scots are an entire nation that wants to float. Paradoxically the Scots voted Remain because they want independence. Some desire independence from the UK but know that it will be a bumpy ride and others want an insurance policy against independence. The EEC provided hand outs to small nations that get into trouble and many Scots voted Remain to obtain this extra security. Not many Scots appreciated that the Eurozone is on an inevitable path towards full union, having already completed Stage 1, so Scotland would end up governed by the Eurozone. The broadcast media has been treating the Remain vote in Scotland as part of their Internationalist desire for Remain but the truth is very different - Remain is split between Scots Nationalists and London Internationalists. London, like Scotland, also has a high percentage of people who do not identify as British but in this case the guarantee of mobility is all important.
Educating a Special Class
The heart of the British Floateurs originates in the UK education system. Private schools in the UK only educate 6.5% of children but spending money on a private education seems to pay dividends. In the UK Cabinet Office publication: Fair access to professional careers: a progress report, it points out that:
Top Civil Servants: “27% were educated at an independent school. Over one-third (37%) had attended a grammar school and 18% had been to a state comprehensive school.
Justices of Appeal: of the 38 Justices of Appeal, 26 attended private schools, eight attended grammar schools, just two attended state comprehensive schools and two were schooled overseas.
Journalists: of the country’s top journalists, 54% were privately educated, with a third graduating from Oxbridge.
privately educated MPs comprised 30% of the total in 1997 but after the 2010 election now comprise 35%, with just 13 private schools providing 10% of all MPs.
62% of all members of the House of Lords were privately educated, with 43% of the total having attended just 12 private schools.”
More generally:
One third of the British olympic team were educated at private schools.
One third of students educated in private schools got straight As at A level compared with one in ten pupils educated in the state sector.
“A new survey into the heritage of modern musical acts has found that 60 per cent of acts in the charts today – attended public school [ie:private school] – compared to just one per cent two decades ago.” Daily Mail
This picture of dominance by an elite group of schools is also
worse than it appears because a handful of comprehensive schools and
grammar schools are actually providing the State Sector input to top
jobs. In a study of elite jobs by The Sutton Trust:
The Milibands pose as ordinary, state educated boys….but their parents chose the best comprehensives in Britain for their kids.
Labour Party Floateurs
Perhaps the worst problem in British politics is that the socialists changed to "Post-Marxism" at the end of the last century. Clever socialist philosophers such as Jaques Derrida realised that society was going to split into these two classes and that this change would put society into a revolutionary tension. These philosophers devised an entire political philosophy, Postmarxism, around the mobility of peoples. Unfortunately this means that the Floateurs have captured the British Labour Party. (See Poststructuralism-Postmodernism-Postmarxism). As a result there are two types of Floateur - those who see a future in public sector employment abroad so need the EU and eventual global government (the Postmarxists) and those who like Floating for the money (the Centre/Tory Floateur).
Written 7/05/17
Comments