Saturday, 9 May 2015

The UK General Election: The Left wins twice

Every election has a bad result, of course, since the process is bad - so that even if the result happened to be good, then because it had been reached in a bad way the outcome would do harm.

The striking thing about this UK general election was that it was wildly un-predicted, surprised everybody. That fact ought to be pondered. How can an election surprise everybody (as elections so often do)?

If an election leads to a grossly un-predicted outcome, what does that tell us about the validity of the election?

How would we ever know that the election was valid, when the results are grossly surprising to everybody?


The answer is that the election result is pre-defined as valid - and as soon as the result was clear, the pundits explained what the election meant, why it was 'inevitable' (whereas 12 hours earlier they could not explain). 

All the while the obvious and true explanation is ignored; that the election was unpredictable because it is the mathematical outcome of an arbitrary and extremely complex multiplicity of factors - the total vote being massively subdivided by constituency and party, then variously summed, and each person's vote de facto weighted differently by size of constituency, size of majority, number of parties, tactical voting etc.

Another factor affecting the election is ever-increasing amounts of dishonesty, more with each cycle; but varying by location. In elections, as with all of UK official life, bureaucratic systems have been incrementally changed to make cheating easier.

Why? It is consistent with us being encouraged to lie compulsorily and habitually - for the harm of our souls. (Ultimately, the Left is about destruction of The Good.) Also, at any time, officials can temporarily pretend to be honest and then get rid of anybody they don't like, on the grounds that the victim has indeed (like everybody) been corrupt.


With elections we buy a pig in a poke - we go through an extraordinary rigmarole of casting votes which are collected and counted in inconsistent groupings, dividing the votes variably by constituencies and parties, adding them and adding the results of these additions by other and different subdivisions... and in the end we are supposed to regard the outcome of this weird mathematical exercise as morally-binding, and indeed as a mandate for the winning party!

In effect, we have the results of a lottery being accorded moral force - but not a pure lottery; instead a lottery with so many biases and so much unmeasured and unquantifiable cheating and bribery and fixing going-on, that it lacks even the mathematical purity of a genuine lottery.

A lottery, then, that is non-random - the unpredictable, quasi-random outcome of multiply interacting non-linear biases...


What deep, incalulable harm it does to each of us, to have such a rigmarole placed at the centre of national life and regarded as sacred!

My guess is that such a gross violation of responsibility and decency as this last election, is regarded by the forces of darkness as a vital, underpinning factor in the long-term strategy for erosion of plain morality; and its replacement with the ever-purer insanity of Leftist political correctness.

Because, whoever specifically is deemed the 'winner' of any modern election, the outcome is pre-ordained in that all participants are advocates of Leftist political correctness. All modern mainstream politics is extremely Leftist by world historical standards.

So, the UK General Election was therefore a non-random lottery between politically correct Leftist alternatives.


With each general election the Left wins twice:

1. The Left always wins the election, because the election is between flavours of Leftism.

2. The fact and process of the election is itself a Leftist victory - a victory against responsibility, common sense and personal experience.



Valkea said...

At the present we Westerners generally have near zero impact on policy:

In Finland the situation has moved to a slightly better direction, when conservative True Finns, immigration criticizers and the second largest party, are now in government. Swedens soft totalitarian leftists are now beleagured from all sides by immigration criticizers, in Finland, in Denmark and in Norway. Their fears could be seen in their desperate attempts to influence Finnish elections and government formation together with Finnish liberal media, which all failed. Thank you God, that we Finns are so stubborn. Now the Swedish media tries to bury the matter in anxious silence. Sweden is drowning fast under a huge immigration, and it wants others to drown with her. It is more reassuring to drown with others, to become a failed violence-ridden third world state together.

Still, I dont have any illusions about politics or its results. Ultimately people have to change, or this is a small temporary sticking plaster over a gaping amputation wound.

ajb said...

"as soon as the result was clear, the pundits explained what the election meant"

These post hoc explanations of market behaviour are almost always untestable. You see it every day with the stock market and commentary on it.

There is often an attempt to anthropomorphize political markets, as if a given market had intentions or a unified conscious self.

Bruce Charlton said...

@V- I'm afraid these are just eddies in the Leftward stream - not a change in the direction of flow. And indeed, as I keep saying, there would need first to be a Christian revival for a genuine reversal of Leftism (these 'secular Right' movements are actually just Leftist variants, as was National Socialism or Mussolini's Fascism). It would be very obvious indeed if a Christian revival happened. So when the direction does reverse (which may not come until a long way on the other side of an horrific collapse) it will be unmistakable.

Heaviside said...

Since you identify National Socialism as secular and not pagan, I would be curious to hear your opinion on occult and esoteric traditions, a topic which has been conspicuously absent. You have said that the religions, in general, represent themselves and their benefits honestly, even if they aren't accurate about what other religions offer, is the same true of esoteric belief systems?

Bruce Charlton said...

@H - Do you mean things like Freemasonry, Rosicrucians? What else?

JP said...

What would a Christian revival mean for politics? Would Christians not vote? If not, how would national leaders be chosen?

Bruce Charlton said...

@JP - Who knows? That lies on the other side of a divide across which the imagination cannot reach; and need not concern us.

Suffice it to say that there are many far-more-effective, that is to say effective-at-all, ways of influencing politics than voting between a few flavours of Leftist parties.

Leo said...

“the pundits explained what the election meant, why it was 'inevitable' (whereas 12 hours earlier they could not explain).”

Yes, the pundits always have an explanation not only for why something happened, but also for why it was inevitable. The stock market may go up and down on a given day, but the commentators are always ready with a “why,” even though their explanation is as speculative as the price of a stock. As Tevye put it in Fiddler on the Roof, “when you’re rich they think you really know!”

I was listening to the BBC as the first results came in with commentators speculating that if the exit poll was only slightly off, Labour could form the next government. Such speculation did serve to keep the audience listening as opposed to catching a good night’s sleep.

As for the lottery, consider "La loterĂ­a en Babilonia." (

Yet Britain is still well enough governed that I would prefer living there to living in a number of other countries. There is still positive social capital that has not been dissipated. It is worth considering how that capital was built up and how it might be preserved or increased.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Leo - I think we already know enough about how British social capital was built, to know that it is being rapidly spent and not renewed.

And indeed, it is being actively and purposefully destroyed by many of the rulers.

So, although England (in particular) has the longest history of social stability of any place in the whole world; unless current attitudes and practices change (and as yet there is no sign of change - because such change would need to be preceded by Christian revival) it is just a question of time before the way of life collapses - probably driven by the rapidity of demographic replacement caused and aided by moral paralysis/ inversion.

Heaviside said...

Yes, Rosicrucianism, Hermeticism, alchemy, Neo-Platonism, Gnosticism, Pythagoreanism, Esoteric Buddhism, Anthroposophy, Ariosophy, Behemenism, etc.

Bruce Charlton said...

@H - "religions, in general, represent themselves and their benefits honestly, even if they aren't accurate about what other religions offer, is the same true of esoteric belief systems? "

That's a very astute question!

My overall opinion is that the esoteric framing of Christianity is mistaken, since it is a universal religion, and Christ made it clear that the faith should be understandable by children and simple people, and that being 'saved' did NOT involve prolonged study or practice, but was a matter of moments, a single act of choice.

On the other hand, I am not hostile to esoteric traditions as such, since they seem to be of significant value to some people, and there seem to be plenty of individuals who appear to benefit (or at least are not harmed) by them.

But are they honest about what they offer? On the whole, so far as I know, the traditions with significant numbers that have lasted more than a couple of generations seem to be honest. For example, their focus is often on theosis rather than salvation - which seems to be correct; and they 'promise' that theosis can lead to divine, godlike (god with a small 'g') status - which is also accurate.

So, I suppose I am broadly sympathetic - although of course they can be corrupted, just as the non-esoteric Christian traditions have mostly been corrupted (by secular Leftism).

Of course, I am talking here about esoteric Christianity (and only from an incomplete and rather shallow knowledge base) - the other esoteric traditions - such as neo-paganism, seem to offer only what they could plausibly deliver: not Heaven, but at most some version of Paradise, or 'powers' or hedonic satisfactions in this world. These traditions could be partly good, or mostly evil in effect - depending on their emphasis and degree of corruption.