Latest from UKIP Daily

Thoughts on UKIP and Ideology

UKIP is in the middle of a fight for its soul between being an uncontroversial libertarian party or being tough on terrorism and barbarity with the risk of being a pariah to many. The bias in this article is toward proudly being a pariah.

There are dangers to civil society that have to be faced, which the two parties, sitting on the see-saw of power, are not likely to tackle because these are divisive issues. UKIP Daily readers are familiar with these issues, but just to recap:

  • Terrorism and barbaric practices that have been ignored or spoken about with euphemisms and deflections.
  • Ideological insanity such as multiple genders, child abuse through transgenderism summarised as postmodernist-Marxism. (Also known asCultuaral-Marxism, PC, social justice etc).
  • The failure to escape the EU.

What is likely to happen if those three areas became the major targets of UKIP policy? Firstly, howls of outrage from the media and insults in the street by ideologues and those who believe the media. But, look at what happened when a barely known Canadian Professor of psychology stood up against their postmodernist-Marxist Government…

Hundreds of thousands of viewers on YouTube reacted to Professor Jordan Peterson with support and messages of goodwill when he stood up to the Canadian government by objecting to being forced to use personal pronouns.His research funding was refused for the first time in his career. He turned to Crowdfunding and is now receiving $600,000 a year from around the world; that is from 4,800 patrons donating an average of $135 a year each. They are giving this money just to resist postmodernist-Marxism.

He is lauded as a hero for standing up against postmodernist-Marxism and is using some of this money to build a website to expose postmodernist courses.There is the more recent example of an engineer at Google, James Damore, being sacked for saying that you can’t question ideology at Google. He has been lambasted by the mainstream media and interviewed with great affection by the anti-ideology YouTube channels; he obtained 12,000 new followers on Twitter within 12 hours.

There is the more recent example of an engineer at Google, James Damore, being sacked for saying that you can’t question ideology at Google. He has been lambasted by the mainstream media and interviewed with great affection by the anti-ideology YouTube channels; he obtained 12,000 new followers on Twitter within 12 hours.

What would happen to UKIP with a strong stance on Sharia and on postmodernist-Marxism? How many tens of thousands would flock to the party or just sign-up for £2 a month or even as much as £100 a year as in the case of Jordan Peterson? There are likely millions of people who would be delighted by such a scenario, and other millions who would be apoplectic.

Taking such stands is radical, dangerous, and wonderful: It would be reviled with the false labels of ‘xenophobic, racist, and bigoted’  just like when arguing for the referendum, plus ‘fascist’ or maybe even ‘literally Hitler’.

We have to deal with the problem of terrorism and the existence of practices we find barbaric or unlawful, which are ignored so as not to offend the community which practices them.

We also have to tackle postmodernist-Marxism, because in this ideology there is no such thing as good and bad, or better and worse social practices; everything is just a point of view. This makes it impossible to seriously discuss social issues.

The ideologues believe that presenting a case, giving evidence and persuading the other side to your point of view, all these traditional ways to settle disputes or prove facts, are nothing more than a trick done by the powerful to the weak. Therefore they shout down, misrepresent and insult any serious argument.

They believe that free speech itself is just a trick used by ‘Nazis’ to befuddle, confuse, and defraud the poor oppressed non-whites or women or other randomly favoured groups seen by the ideologues as ‘oppressed’. This is the root of why it is so hard to talk seriously about any subject that involves culture, race or sex.

The ideology has been exposed and excoriated by many including the aforesaid Professor Jordan Peterson and Professor Gad Saad; both of whom detailed the insanity in videos on YouTube and in presentations to the Canadian Parliament. Being a party that declares itself opposed to postmodernist ideology would be international news.

Completing Brexit is surely uncontroversial within UKIP. The need to deal with all things PC is frequently addressed in UKIPDaily. And, of course, dealing with terrorism and barbarity. These are all very much in line with the views taken by some of the candidates for leadership of the Party.

Countering the two ideologies would be as radical as, and more dangerous than, the original aim of the Party and I believe will be greeted with cheers of relief and howls of outrage.

What’s your opinion of these three elements being part of a UKIP manifesto?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

26 Comments on Thoughts on UKIP and Ideology

  1. Just as a matter of interest.
    Re:Personal Pronouns and Prof.Paterson`s REVOLT
    Has there been any official statement from UKIP (Silent HO?)?
    Has there been any statement from Nigel?
    Has there been any statement from the British Government or opposition?

  2. There are three candidates who present themselves very well. One is a champion of democracy. One is virtuous and will uphold the law and thus our culture and hard fought freedoms. One is an expert of the media and has plans that could give us independence of the MSM. UKIP should stand for Democracy, Independence and Freedom. A tripartite leadership of these three would destroy the antiquated corrupt politics. Truth is our weapon. used cleverly the revolution of peoples minds will be won. Have you ever asked Joe Bloggs what he thinks about postmoderism Marxibm, forget it, it’s boring and old hat. A new era is on the way, a mind revolution, make it happen with information.

  3. Sadly there are a lot of people out there who are completely oblivious to the ‘truth’ of what is happening; having been kept ‘distracted’ by a constant stream of propaganda being forced fed to them by the mainstream media, and by being ‘entertained’ by the drivel on the telly, mostly through ‘reality’ TV shows.

    There are also, I believe, a number of people who are sceptical of the mainstream media, and have an inkling of what is going on, but daren’t speak out, for fear of being branded a ‘racist’, or even ‘extremist’, and are probably feeling there is no one, politically, who they can turn to. They probably don’t vote, “what’s the point, they’re all the same anyway”, and these are the people that UKIP needs to appeal to.

    You’ll never win over those who have been brainwashed by the liberal-left, but there is a silent majority that is privately seething, and ready to boil over at any point. I think that UKIP needs to find a way to get to these people, and make their voices heard.

  4. Apparently Hanns Johst wrote on the 8th July 1890 the line
    “When I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun”
    I had always been led to believe it was Herman Goering, but I am not going to argue with Wikipedia.
    I started to read this article and found it was to be a discussion on ideology, which seeing as I have always thought it indicated a static state of mind or opinion on any subject and not capable of change, I certainly don`t feel I start from a position of being a libertarian because I don`t know or understand what it is. When I joined UKIP in 2009, I first began see the word, so looked it up on the internet and found that it encompassed two completely opposing derivations. So I have always treated UKIP`s association with it with a grain of salt.
    So when I came, in the script, to the words “Personal Pronouns”, never having heard of a kerfuffle at Prof. level before, I looked it up. I was bombarded with Grammar that I have never seen before in fact there was a table
    headed Person, Subjective Case, Objective Case, Possessive Case possessive adjective, Possessive Case Absolute Possessive Pronouns..
    It wasn`t stated which of the above cases the Professor had been objecting to, but to choose even one of them would have been beyond me.
    But, apparently this chap had been able to round up actual subscriptions from similar wierdo`s through cloud funding IMPRESSED me.
    Liberas, you are on to something, anything to get funding and bodies behind UKIP.
    If telling the (inconvenient) truth about ideologies is radical – go for it, shame the devil, that`s what UKIP have supposed to be doing for years
    Yeah we got the brickbats, sneers and enmity, but we took on the EU, All the legacy political parties, the MSM,the Establishment, both global and national.
    But it was the grass roots that won the Referendum.
    My only worry is that I don`t think the majority of the present grass roots has a clue about the ramifications of the legal case against the implicit evils of Islam and by extension its eventual establishment of a Caliphate.
    nor do they understand the true effects of the country being “Full up” and the continued swamping of all our services by massed immigration, nor the lassitude of our government in actually making practical and financial provision for these extra people.
    Yes Governments (and the Opposition all still united against the people) are there to be harried, but it`s not a lot of use if the downtrodden and unconsidered people are not united with a narrative they can call their “Ideology”
    So if the culture of the Grass Roots is to prevail, get out those weapons and to the barricades!
    We had a “Bloodless revolution” on June 23rd 2016 – let`s have another one and make Great Britain GREAT AGAIN

    • The ‘personal pronoun’ dispute in Canada.

      Canada has an extremely ideological government imposing some of the most bizarre laws.

      They have written into law that being born male does not mean that you are likely to grow up as a man.

      They regard those two things as independent of each other. They have passed a motion which tells people that if someone who is obviously a man wants you to call them ‘she’ or if they want to be called ‘they’ or they want to be called ‘zirself’ (or any of dozens of other new made up pronouns) you have to call them by that phrase. If you are regarded as wilfully refusing to do so you can be fined (and jailed if you refuse to pay)

      Prof Jordan Peterson said that the law contradicts science (and common knowledge) that almost all baby boys grow up to be men, to live as men, and the vast majority are attracted to women. (The Government says all of that is untrue).

      He also refuses to be forced by law to use made up words. He points out that we use pronouns precisely to avoid having to know everyone by name, and the new rules mean learning dozens of silly new words and being constantly concerned that a slip could get you arrested.

      Students from the postmodernist-Marxist classes (gender studies, social justice studies) mobbed his classes and chanted “Transphobic piece of shit” at him.

      So that is the story. Here is Prof Jordan B Peterson talking about postmodernism

      https://youtu.be/Cf2nqmQIfxc

      • See my reply to Panmelia.
        Another word beginning with Z I can think of is “zits” Does that adequately describe the Canadian Govt. and their cronies.
        “excrescences bubbling up on the surface of humanity”
        Hey! is that a personal pronoun? or just an adjective?

    • “My only worry is that I don`t think the majority of the present grass roots has a clue about the ramifications of the legal case against the implicit evils of Islam and by extension its eventual establishment of a Caliphate.”

      Please elucidate. Has there been such a legal case?
      Or do you anticipate one?

    • Roger,
      Personal pronouns are just substitute words for people’s names. Compare:
      ‘David asked David’s wife, Jill, if Jill wanted to go on David’s works outing, and Jill said Jill would as long as David went to Jill’s company do.’
      With: ‘David asked his wife, Jill, if she wanted to go on his works outing, and she said she would as long as he went to her company do.’

      You can see from that example how important personal pronouns are!

      If you google Prof Jordan Peterson, you will see that his employers were trying to bully him into using ridiculous ‘gender-neutral’ pronouns such as ‘ze’ and ‘zir’ when interacting with transgender people. That’s because they
      insisted on rejecting masculine pronouns (he, his, him) and feminine pronouns (she, her). Prof. Peterson refused and protested, so the university he works for cut up rough.
      What it boils down to is that a tiny minority of trouble-making egotists who can’t decide whether they are Arthur or Martha want to fundamentally alter the ancient English language for their own satisfaction.

      The people who crowd-funded the Prof. when his funding was cut off are not the ‘weirdos’; they’re the ones trying to support free speech and the preservation of the language while fighting PC that becomes more insane by the day. Canada is legislating for ‘gender-fluidity’. Our own government has been making noises about recognising this as well, so they need to be closely observed – like patients in a ward for the mentally ill.

      • Thanks Pam now I get it – I think
        Jack might have said
        “Jack and Jill went up a hill to get a pail of water”
        he should have said
        “We went up a hill to get a pail of water, I fell down and did my head in and Jill came tumbling down after, laughing her silly head off”
        Yes, I was off target (deliberately?) with the personal noun (?) “weirdos”, it was obviously the Canadian Government et al
        To be quite honest I was a bit playing “The daft laddie” (don`t always have to try very hard), but seriously I had not heard the words “Personal Pronouns” before and I had no idea from the text to what the Professor was referring………and, reference to the net did not improve the situation.
        Must have been something missing from my education (GCE English Lang 1951)
        Latin and Greek Nominative, Vocative, Accusative, Generative,
        Dative, Ablative etc. Future, perfect, pluperfect
        Amo Amas Amat Amamus Amative Amant
        Luo Lueis Luei Eluomen Eluo Elussi
        If this personal pronoun business is part of culture – I shall have to run for my firearm.

        • Roger, you’ve certainly got it! And your knowledge of Latin grammar shows that you probably know the grammar of a foreign language better than your own. This isn’t unusual with native English speakers who learn it from babyhood without knowing a personal pronoun from a noun.
          Foreigners learning English often know much more about English grammar than native speakers because they have to study it in a more formal, structured way rather than learning it informally.
          To be honest, I learned most of my English grammar when I had to teach EFL – English as a Foreign Language.

      • Panmelia, you certainly spelled it out to Roger and helped me understand as well. It seems to me that the Canadians have voted in a government that gives insanity a bad name and we seem to be daily travelling further down the same road. If this country ever needed a radical and strong UKIP, IMO it is now.

        Great article Liberas

  5. It’s quite possible to tackle the most serious clashes between foreign religious and cultural difference and our own. Terrorism, in all it’s forms can be dealt with too. PC can be attacked and of course the battle to ensure we get proper Brexit remains ongoing. It’s not a matter of being a party regarded as extreme or of being “mainstream”, we don’t have to “choose”.
    It is however necessary to be a threat to the existing joint political monopoly and we won’t do that by sounding like the BNP or similar organisations. Electors just won’t vote for that sort of thing, it will not be taken seriously. We are British, not French, German or anyone else. Genghis Kahn is not at Calais waiting for a favourable wind ( or lorry). First control the borders , expel criminals and actively encourage integration. The rest will follow without turning ourselves into the nasty party.

    • “Terrorism, in all it’s forms can be dealt with too.”
      How do you suggest it is dealt with?

      Terrible as terrorism is for those directly affected, it is not the major issue. The numbers killed and injured is fewer than in road accidents, and society overall manages to cope with that.

      The most deadly threat is demographic. Every single person will be affected. In terms of numbers affected it is some four orders of magnitude worse. It is not as dramatic though.

      • We have security services that do remarkably well, simply ensuring that the existing laws of the land are enforced properly and equally will do much to root out the extramists.
        The rest is down to education and integration. There is much talk in here about the threat of being outnumbered by followers of Islam, though there are several sects of that religion and they
        don’t agree on many things. I suspect that in recent years there have been more migrants from Eastern European Christian nations than any other group. Few of them are extremists but we do little to help them integrate. Get the borders controlled. Get rid of people who pose a genuine threat. It’s not rocket science.

    • I would not want to be part of a nasty party either.

      My personal main interest out of those three things is postmodernist-Marxism. I believe this is a home grown threat to civil society, an actual evil that needs to be exposed, ridiculed and quarantined.

      The universities seem to have been dominated by it for some decades, I am told that they indoctrinate students in it, they teach the white students a form of self-loathing and they teach non-whites a sense of resentment, they want to remove books and works of art by old white Europeans and replace them with works chosen by race, they have influenced policing and legislation such that ‘claimed feelings’ are regarded as proof of a crime having been committed. (In some jurisdictions stating a provable truth is not a defence against prosecution of a hate speech crime)

      Last year I was helping in research for a book by a Canadian Professor of English who told me that her University appoints academic staff on sex and race, paying little attention to achievements or qualifications.

      These are all postmodernist-Marxism and my main interest as a thing to be against.

  6. An excellent article, thankyou.

    There are two battles currently happening: within UKIP to try to determine the future direction, and externally against the destroyers of western civilisation.

    We face an existential threat. We must have the will to win, or else just accept that our children and grandchildren will be condemned to a life of dhimmitude. Probably most of the public share, or would share this concern, however there is a constant dulling of the senses, with so many distractions. UKIP must somehow cut through those distractions, and convey a clear message: Islam has declared itself to be our enemy whether we like it or not. It seeks to destroy our way of life, and all that we hold dear and all that our parents fought for.

    The Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative parties have allowed Islam to strengthen. They are part of the problem, and have no moral authority to solve it.

    Assuming that UKIP does take on the challenge, what must be done? We really have very little time before we reach the point of no return.

    http://www.ukipdaily.com/uks-demographic-transition-islamic-state/

    There is not much chance that UKIP will form a government in this short time, so it must focus upon exerting influence within other parties. There must be many Conservative MPs who would share these concerns, but who have been browbeaten by Cameron and May. They must be encouraged to be bold.

    Labour – feminism and LGBT rights – how does that fit with Islam? There is much scope for disrupting Labour.

    Interesting times. In a way fun too. I enjoy causing confusion to the deluded virtue signalers!

  7. My opinion is ‘Yes, Yes and Yes’.
    On your 3rd point:
    We have seen with Brexit that the elitist, undemocratic view can be overcome. The struggle is ongoing, but close watch is being kept and even decent (misled) people who voted Remain, but respect democracy and the Leave vote are onside for Brexit happening. The indecent, undemocratic Remainers have lost the argument.
    On your 1st point, I believe the tide is turning and a mass feeling of disgust toward encroaching islam and its barbaric practices is growing. Also, anger toward politicians who insult our intelligence by ignoring or denying that real problems and dangers exist.
    Your 2nd point is the most problematic: most people have not heard of cultural marxism, post-modern marxism or social marxism, so these terms might not mean much. But they do know about Political Correctness and the ridiculous distortion of common sense involved. That stuff and nonsense in Canada about gender-neutral ‘ze’ and ‘zir’ must never, never be allowed here! Making up words and forcing people to use them is pure 1984.

    UKIP can be the party to challenge the cowardly mainstream parties on all these issues – if we get the right leader.

    • I take your point and accept that it may always be important to explain it and mention – sometimes know as political correctness.

      Part of the reason I use it is because ‘political correctness’ although well known, sounds like something trivial, more a matter of manners than the threat to civil society that I believe we are facing.

      Also, the base of the problem is the mix of the philosophy of postmodernism and the ideology of Marxism. Understanding postmodernism is important because it makes clear some of the otherwise impossible to comprehend lunacy.

  8. Well said, something forthright for a change.

  9. Thank you, Liberas, for asking this question! My thoughts are that if we do just as you suggest we will not only be doing the right, but the only thing we should be doing for Britain, this wonderful country of ours. We must at least attempt to defend our country, and it goes without saying, it’s values, so hard fought for by those before us – we owe it to them to pick up the flag.

    It is notable how all those who have taken to MSM and the airwaves are, in spite of their obvious contempt of those ‘far-right, racist, Nazi extremists whose hard work and sacrifice put them into the positions they hold, not willing to give up the ‘nice little earners’ they receive from representing the Party whose members they despise!
    The most vocal they have been about anything is related to how disgusted they are – but not disgusted enough to refuse that monthly cheque and the pension that presumably follows. We should ignore them completely – they’re in it for the money.

    If we want to be radical, we need by definition to chose someone who doesn’t toe the Party line – has never toed the Party line, is inspirational and unbending in the face of criticism. They also need to be able to robustly defend their stance and be on top of their subject – that was where Nuttall fell down – he wanted to face both ways and was terrified of MSM criticism – whereas, our next Leader should relish it – if you’re getting flak you’re right on target.

    Lastly, can we look the British people in the eye if we don’t give them at least the opportunity to vote for change – the dismantling of Britain has been foisted upon us all – we have never, except in the referendum, had a chance to say ‘no’! And look what happened there!

  10. There seem to be two repeated paragraphs.

    His research funding was refused for the first time in his career…

    and

    There is the more recent example of an engineer at Google….

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*