JOHN PRESCOTT - MAN OF THE MOB

“The fact is he's happy to keep drawing the salary, and do bugger all for
it. He's a another who highlights all that is wrong in our system, where self
aggrandisement and self seeking individuals seem content to tell the rest of us
what to do, but don't seam too keen on doing it themselves.”
Richard Havers

"In all social systems, there must be a class to do the menial duties,
to perform the drudgery of life. Such a class you must have or you would not
have that other class which leads to progress, civilization and refinement...It
constitutes the very mudsills of society and of political government..."
James H. Hammond, American Senator, 1885.

“Is it possible to extend a higher civilization to the lower classes
without debasing its standards and diluting its quality to the vanishing point?
Is not every civilization bound to decay as soon as it begins to penetrate the
masses?” Michael Rostovtzeff, Russian historian.

In the peculiar cross-cultural amalgamation that is post-modern Britain, it was perhaps
asking a lot of a man to be as comfortable deliberating on a point of procedure
in the Houses of Parliament, as he would have been leading factory workers to
strike in the capacity of a shop-steward. But the real paradox lies in the fact
that when the deputy prime minister invited his staff out onto the lawns of his
official Buckinghamshire country retreat to play a game of crocket, he missed an
essential point. The first thing he failed to understand was the ethos of the
game itself. Which is specifically designed to be as remote as possible from the
lower end of the social spectrum, so that at the higher end, the patrician
country squires of whom Prescott so obviously disapproved, should be able, at
their leisure, to discuss the fate of nations and become confidants even of
kings themselves.

Thus the English nation lost her soul. A people long haunted by a sense
of being ensnared, flung their reckless proletarian defiance at the tyrant
class. Or, to put it differently, they freed and revitalised precisely those
atavistic instincts whose moderation and restraint had been the work of a
thousand years of domestication. And so the necessary ideology was supplied. For
this was to bury the old England, together with its civilization as it existed
to date. That is to say, once prosperity took over, the cultural tradition of a
working man’s pride showed extremely little resistance to corruption by the
values at whose service it had been placed. Populist sentiment would not keep
pace with more ‘titular’ ambitions. Pride of social status was not the value the
working man choose to preserve. Class distinction was increasingly substituted
by admiration for wealth alone. And this sordid moral bankruptcy of the
proletarian leadership is a fundamental characteristic of the social revolution
of the twentieth century. Nor is it any good pretending that the concept of
social hierarchy, as a rise in status and standard, does not now tend to
manifest itself in the more affluent social position of a class of money-makers
or what is perhaps best defined as an aristocracy of wealth.

Join the rich to avoid being screwed!

So there is the paradox: ‘Mob above, mob below!’ Then comes the
practical argument, for the basic issue remains as it has been defined all
along: “Where I found a living creature, there I found the will to power; and
even in the will of the servant I found the will to be master.”

Nietzsche