Manufactured Consent and the murder of Sir David Amess

I get little joy to inform you that the Tories are once again needing to be destroyed.

We were warned by Peter Hitchens multiple times.

First voted in to remove Gordon Brown

Despite being Tony Blair in a blue rag, David Cameron continued to gain public support after years of extreme constitutional overhauls from the radicals in Blairs government that had left the UK resembling nothing like it’s ideological history.

In 2015, the Tory's had their first majority in 20 years with a promise of a simple “in-or-out” referendum on the European Union question after failing to secure a new settlement from the Union.

Despite still being a wet rag, Cameron followed through with his promise of putting the question to the public. This didn’t happen because Cameron was some outstanding politician, his record of funnelling his wealth into third countries to avoid tax can speak to that point. Cameron operated on pure party politics, UKIP was starting to win over traditional Conservative voters.

Shock to everyone but the public themselves, the vote brings a Leave result. Parliament was instructed by the voters to leave the European Union.

Full disclaimer, as a true millennial — small c — conservative, I voted to keep the system the same. Despite this, I hold no animus towards my fellow countrymen for their decision.

Cameron quickly resigned following the news as he noted, he could not do what he had been instructed to do.

Theresa May takes a lot of blame form the more cynical of my cohorts for what happened following. However, I think this maybe a judgement to quickly rendered.

May, whilst being unable to reach a satisfactory settlement with the Union did follow through with fight against a hostile Parliament. Her greatest fault is being the opposite of her mantra, strong and stable.

Which leads us to the current premiership, Boris Johnson. A man who has taken power because a hostile Parliament was attempting to dismantle something it had vowed to do on technicalities. Something the rest of our systems (like the courts) find contemptuous. A premiership delivered, not because the Tory’s have been great for the UK, but because the other parties have been so horrendous.

To act in good faith, I must congratulate him for not screwing up the election, and presenting himself, and the other Tory members purely as ‘Getting Brexit done’, stroke of genius, likely not his work.

Everything else has been a total disaster.

Covid-19 has been an exercise in following handlers guidance and the violation of “Advisors advise, and Ministers deicide”.

In a striking violation of constitutional norms we see Boris trying to import more Americanisms into the UK. No one in the UK votes on the basis of having a first lady. What happened to keep private and public separated Boris?

Never have I witnessed a public death become so quickly opportunistically positioned than under this current Parliament.

Internet anonymity is a new function of society. With everything forever achieved, the merging of the public and the private. How can one who vehemently defends his families privacy rights even consider such a measure?

When one does not have the ability to partake regularly in lackadaisical conversations and instead must use the internet to find debates worth having, the default anonymity of the internet allows for hard conversations to take place.

The censorship of the internet is an immoral action and is completely disconnected from the death this Parliamentarians are trying to use to manufacture the consent it needs.

But there are two glaring issues:

• The action did not take place online, nor was it preceded by any harassment online.
• The radicalisation content that was reportedly online was not posted under any pseudonym anonymity.

Both of these statements rule out the internet and its anonymity from cause or effect.

So why?

One could postulate that this is something that has been wanted for multiple years, call for by other Parliamentary Parties, and you’d be correct.

It appears to me that this can only be described as opportunism.

The response does not even follow the action. Imagine a car blew up on a motorway because Jaguar designed a faulty engine, and Parliament responded with absolute alcohol prohibition.

What level of disgust should you feel that the Conservative party would not only take an opportunity to change the order of this country, to make calling someone a mean word more illegal online? I’m not entirely sure. However, I can tell you that them taking an opportunity from one of their own dying at the hands of something entirely disconnected only demonstrates the level of contempt that you should feel towards this party.

Not only are they the same party as the others — as David Cameron famously said, “There’s hardly a cigarette paper between us” — they pretend to operate in the interest of the people who are proud to be British. They are no more deserving of your support than Labour before them.

Internet anonymity is a functional piece of living in an online age. The idea of Parliament having the idea that it can regulate feelings, experiences, and emotions is something that is repugnant to me.

If we’re at the stage of our evolution where we can just regulate mean people out of the world, I must ask, are we degrading ourselves and limiting the roundness of the people we are developing?

Would you even want to live in a world where you couldn’t say “man, fuck that guy”?

In the end, the Conservatives must be destroyed and replaced with a new party. Their effort to manufacture some level of consent for their harms bill need to be ignored. Our constitutional settlement must be recovered.