Sunday, 19 June 2011

There isn't any "Right"

"I'm not going to pontificate and tell you to execute your government at dawn, but it wouldn't be a bad idea."
John Lydon
"To the extent that a society limits its government to policing functions which curb the individuals who engage in aggressive and criminal actions, and conducts its economic affairs on the basis of free and willing exchange, to that extent domestic peace prevails. When a society departs from this norm, its governing class begins, in effect, to make war upon the rest of the nation. A situation is created in which everyone is victimized by everyone else under the fiction of each living at the expense of all."
Edmund A. Opitz

 Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph, writes that Westminster's dirty little secret is the Right is right, then promptly demolishes her own argument. Writing that the dirtly little secret is in fact a Big Secret -  and one she calls the conspiracy that dare not speak its name and is one shared by all members of the political class who are not halfwits or ideological zombies - meaning that those sharing the secret can only number about half a dozen or so - but hey ho, there I go digressing again........

Daley maintains that everybody knows and has known for some time what needs to be done, but that nobody has been prepared to publicly say it and also asks why politicians do not talk to the public in an honest way. She then points out that if the politicians run away from doing that which needs to be done they will never be able to make real progress towards a more dynamic and fair society. Allied to Daley's piece we also have the usual weekly Sunday 'inept rubbish' written by Matthew d'Ancona which at first sight is unrelated, but most definitely is.

Daley makes the childish mistake in attempting to maintain there still exists a Left, Centre and Right when in fact it has been obvious for some time - especially with the accession of Cameron to the leadership of his party, coupled with the formation of the Coalition - that the Left had joined forces with what purported to be the Right in order to form a centre-left government. This can be evidenced by NuLabour (Blair) praising BluLabour (Cameron) and vice-versa. Once can discount MiliE and his Balls as both their heads are stuck so far up the socialist rear orifice that there exists not a "travelling light" with a long enough lead to reach that far.

Another lesson Daley needs to learn, as with politicians, is that there cannot be a fair society. Some are born to greatness (of which none presently are alive) and the remainder, the majority, are not. She also needs to acknowledge that whilst the political class remain in the "halfwit and ideological" section of our society the country is doomed forever to remain a ping-pong ball forever a captive of the political elite's shenanigans.

Turning to Matthew d'Ancona, he writes about the the Milis and their sibling rivalry yet fails to mention that whatever the outcome, nothing would in reality change within the Labour Party, nor the country. What hell difference would it make whether 'D' overcame 'E' when both are of like mind with Cameron and Clegg in the desire to acknowledge and accept subservience to the European Union? What difference would it make to devolvement of power to the people (localism) when none of them truly believe in such? Why would they believe in diminishing the power they hold and which they have usurped over time by returning it to the people, thus making themselves worthless to those they are supposed to serve?

In this context I unashamedly reproduce part of a comment made by Edward Spalton on an earlier post, one which encapsulates our problem succinctly:
"The main political parties have ceased to be representative of genuine interests - such as labourers, business, the landed gentry or whatever. Their memberships are in steep decline and they have become marketing brands, essentially selling the same product - principally their own entitlement to office, along with slavish subjection to the EU and other supranational projects which provide vastly increased career prospects for the compliant - but concealed behind vacuous marketing slogans - "Things can only get better  ",  "A future fair for all  ",  "In Europe but not run by Europe  ",  "The Big Society  " etc. The political class, steeped in PC Frankfurt Marxism so deeply at university that even the Conservative party is a willing dupe for many of its doctrines , picks  "team players  " as candidates for its largely indistinguishable party platforms.

In 1971 the small beginnings of the present system of parliamentary perks, expenses, pensions etc was created. One MP saw that the more parliament came to be seen as a salaried, professional career, the greater would be the power of the gatekeepers - the party selectors. This would change the relationship between an MP and his party and of Parliament to the government to the advantage of party and government. He said that the reason for paying MPs was only to ensure that men of ability but no money could serve their country in Parliament - no more than that. We are living with the consequences of the change from that idea to the careerist model to this day. 
 The prescient MP was Enoch Powell."
(Where Powell is concerned, when he spoke it becomes even more obvious that it was not just the subject of immigration to which we were deaf.)

Because the political class and the MSM continue, with their blinkered and self-preserving zeal, along this path of democratised dictatorship and in which to speak of nationalism is quickly portrayed by that same political class and MSM as racism; where that political class condone and assist the European Union in the destruction of nation states in order to create a new European state of one mind, one thought and which is a course of action about which the MSM dare not speak its name; where that same political class would have its masters conditioned in thought word and deed; where, come general elections the only choice the people have is which set of slave-masters to serve under because any other voice is supressed by the political elite's public relations organisation - aka the MSM - then there is only one method by which the people can be set free.

Revolution anyone?


TomTom said...

The worst part about Britain is its class aspect. There are certain people who go to certain schools and travel on well-greased tracks into institutional positions elevated above those who have to make their own way in the world. This class aspect has geographical limitations and is not national.

I have my Island Theory. On an island there is usually a port where the communications are centred, the airports, media, finance. At the other side of the island things are much more barren and it is like being a subject population under Occupation.

I do not think the current Nomenklatura know how they play on the other side of the island and why 30th June might be a much bigger event than they fear.

The Anger is immense and once uncorked could revive instincts long dormant in the English population. I wonder if we shall see this Government toppled. It is so arrogant, but worse still, it is so like its predecessor, that Direct Action seems to be the only way to CONFRONT and RESIST.

Conservative MPs with thin majorities and party loyalty may find life very uncomfortable. The Foreign Aid Budget belies the fluff about austerity and national survival and Osborne is hardly Stafford Cripps and rationing is not in place.

When did Bananas go off ration in Britain ? wasn't it 1954 ? When will Bananas go on ration this time around to cut imports ?

paulsc said...

You ask "Revolution anyone?" but you stated earlier that "Some are born to greatness (of which none presently are alive)".
I am increasingly persuaded that the only way to create the country I want to live in (small, light government, not part of the EU) is through revolution and not the ballot box. It seems to me that to achieve the point at which revolution is inevitable what is needed is a significant number of people who agree and a great leader to rally those people. I think we have the former, I am still looking for the latter.

Anonymous said...

The problem we have is that for a revolution to succeed against this monster EU, a monster that is camouflaged and hidden, that the revolution will have to have leaders to coordinate actions, and therefore take on powers of the same order the enemy has usurped.

If the revolution succeeds, will the revolutionary leaders relinquish those powers? Most examples are to the contrary.

Anonymous said...

Dirty secrets, just like the accounts of the EU.

From UP Pompeii

Moreover, under an ‘EU loyalty clause’, anyone who has worked for the institution who speaks out against Europe can be stripped of their pension.

They must abide by certain obligations ‘both during and after their term of office’ including maintaining ‘loyalty to the (EU) communities’.

If they break this obligation, they can be ‘deprived of their right to a pension or other benefits’.

And just look at the salary and pensions for these non-jobs. This is nothing but slush money.

Anonymous said...

More on the death penalty, and the "Solidarity Clause" in the EU, in the link in the previous post.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

TT: I believe there always will be class, hence my statement some are born to greatness and the majority aren't, although I am not just limiting that to social standing.

I would also agree the anger is growing and when uncorked it may well get very nasty. One hopes not, however....

p: Agreed and it may well be that from those people that make the revolution a leader will emerge...?

DP111: I do not fear that a relinquish of power is the danger as, as a result of any revolution, true localism and democracy can flourish.

kenomeat said...

There are 5 candidates for the Inverclyde by-election, representing the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and UKIP. On the BBC 6 o'clock news 4 of the candidates or their representatives were interviewed. I need hardly say which one was left out. This is a major reason why the anti-EU movement can't make a breakthrough. As far as the broadcast media is concerned it barely exists and is therefore not attracting public consciousness.
(Sorry if I'm a bit off topic again).

Edward Spalton said...

I have always thought the obsession with class was overdone. Yet it was the Labour party (Anthony Crosland) which decided (as he said privately) "to close every f*****g grammar school in the country" which kicked the ladder out from under the able, aspiring working class.

It was decreed that they must "rise with their class, not out of it" (whatever that meant) and the most prolific closer of grammar schools was one Hilda Margaret Thatcher as Minister of Education. She followed the party policy which was to be the "nice party" so that "all would have prizes". As with the EU she later recanted when she was no longer able to do anything about it.

Until that time, grammar schools were rapidly overhauling the public schools in gaining admissions to top universities without any need for government intervention. I remember very peppery public school headmasters being grilled on Panorama about this and not liking it at all.

The reason for the present ascendancy of the privately educated seems to me to be the appallingly misdirected policies and methods followed in the state sector which have the effect of dumbing and levelling down, whatever their stated intent.
Making the exams easier is not kidding anybody who matters.

TomTom said...

Your mistake WW is to think greatness means Home Counties, public school and City/Media/Conservative Party.

The Men From The Marches make history. You don't know where they are or when they will emerge and you will probably loathe them.

is through revolution and not the ballot box

Question: How deep in blood are you prepared to stand ? I don't know if Cromwell intended to execute a King, but he did become the first European to do so.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

k: Happened previously and occured I believe in Norwich.......

ES: Agreed.

TT: Correction I never said, nor do I believe that greatness means Home Counties etc.

How deep am I prepared to stand? I don't much worry or care about that with the proviso that at the end we have small govt, small laws and the people decide........

Anonymous said...

More on referenda

Ignored by the MSM, peers are quietly eviscerating the European Union Bill, intended to provide for referendums on future transfers of power to Brussels. Heaven knows the legislation was feeble enough as it stood. It would have done nothing to prevent the transfers of power to Brussels that have already taken place since the election (European Investigation Orders, higher budget contributions, control over financial services, UN recognition, the European External Action Service, etc). Still, at least the Bill half-recognises that the voters are sovereign, and contains a mechanism that would trigger referendums on certain future alienations of sovereignty. A small and imperfect reform, but a reform none the less.

A reform too far, it seems, for the Lords. If you create a legislative chamber as an antidote to the elected one, you can hardly be surprised when it disdains democracy. Just as the Upper House rejected the idea that voters should have a say over their local police forces, so it has now rejected the idea that they should have a say over European policy. Euro-integrationist peers have inflicted four successive defeats on the government. Earlier this week, they voted by 242 to 209, to water down the Bill’s “sovereignty clause” and by 209 to 203 to insert an article which would cause the referendum lock to lapse automatically at the end of this Parliament

the situation appears to be this, if we do not like or want to be in the EU we cannot or will not be able to voice our wishes legally and in any democratic form (general elections excepted), if we then chose to show our disapproval be any other means - which will be illegal we could end up dead.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

DP111: Reform? Yes, at the agreement of the Minister concerned that any matter is a transfer of power - and we all know they wouldn't know that if it slapped them in the face.

Re your last para: yup, that is the choice we face and as far as I am concerned better dead than subject to the EU - but then I probably will be before that is accomplished, so what have I got to lose?