Wednesday, 16 March 2011

Nothing like the 'blind' writing about the 'blind'

The Talking Clock links to a post on Conservative Home by Andrew Lilico on the subject of when should a Conservative support a revolution? - and states that:
"The "Arab spring" revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, and elsewhere have been mainly welcomed by Conservatives."
Lilico continues:
"Revolution might be justified if rulers engage in religious oppression.......They might be justified if rulers oppress their citizens or otherwise act sufficiently against their interests.  They might be justified if rulers violate previous promises they have made."
To turn Lilico's ideas from abroad and focusing them at home, when the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties are all of one mind; are all equally guilty of violating previous promises, Lilico suggests that the people of our nation might be justified in revolution? Might? Might? To damn right they are justified - there is no 'might' involved. It should also be noted that Lilico writes of 'rulers' - well in our democracy those holding office in government are most definitely not our 'rulers', they are supposed to be our servants! If it is accepted that our politicians are 'rulers', Lilico maintains that for a revolution to occur then the rulers must have done something serious and specific to justify revolution. Too damn right Lilico; they have ensured that we are no longer a truly self-governing nation - a decision taken without the express permission of those they state they serve, compounded by their subsequent refusal to even publicly debate this matter; and they have changed our society through what may be termed 'social engineering' - two perfectly good reasons for a revolution. What is also amazing is that Lilico - and the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians - cannot see what will most definitely happen when it is under their very noses.

Lilico is correct, in quoting Burke, that:
"chaotic revolution will very often (perhaps typically) make things worse than seeking incremental change."
a matter to which I referred to in this post,however it is my belief that we have almost reached a 'tipping-point' and unless a change of direction by our politicians - and incremental is not sufficient, it must surely be 'immediate and total' - a chaotic revolution is what will happen.

Lilico ends his article with the words:
"Revolution can be justified.  But Conservatives should be slow and reluctant to embrace it."
Because the political parties basically control the media and the media's journalists - resulting in balanced reporting not being possible, revolution at this present time will most surely happen - and the biggest mistake that the Conservative Party could make would be to be slow and reluctant to embrace it!

On that last point, if the Conservative Party wish to become once again relevant in British politics, they could do no worse than elect a new Leader - one with (a) a spine; (b) a belief in his/her own nation and its people; (c) a belief in principle and honour and (d) a desire that any person who wishes to be, or become, a Conservative MP is also of like characteristics!


TomTom said...

The nature of revolution is that it is not apparent to those it overthrows nor is it heralded simply because it is the straw that broke the camel's back that is what ignites the pyre.

It will be something quite banal, seemingly unimportant, perhaps even tangential to the main complaint....which is why the journalists and poli9ticians and bankers are dancing on the edge of the volcano.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

TT: Accepted and agreed! But, you know, any excuse to hang the bastards.........

Edward Spalton said...

In preparation for any foreign intervention, there must be clearly identified goodies to support and baddies to defeat. I was astonished at how easily the media were manipulated concerning former Yugoslavia.

Readers might care to guess which Balkan leaders said or wrote the following.

A."Genocide is a natural phenomenon, It is not only commended but commanded by the Almighty ..for the maintenance and spreading of the One True Faith".

B. "Protect brotherhood and unity...Nationalism always means isolation from others, being locked in a closed circle and stopping growth...Emerge from the state of hatred, intolerance and mistrust"

C."There can be no peace or coexistence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic institutions. The Islamic movement must and can take power as soon as it is morally strong enough - not only to destroy the non-Islamic power but to build a new Islamic one".

They are

A. Franjo Tudjman, leader of Croatia, supported by the West - especially by the German secret service.

B. Slobodan Milosevic - the all-purpose necessary baddy and alleged butcher of the Balkans.

C. Alia Isetbegovic, leader of Bosnia, supported by the West and eulogised at his funeral by Paddy Ashdown as father of his people.

There are likely to be leaders of both types amongst those opposing Gadaffi. We will only know what our managed media choose to tell us about them