Friday, 2 September 2011

The creep of totalitarianism

"The loss of liberty, to a generous mind, is worse than death. And yet we know that there have been those in all ages who for the sake of preferment, or some imaginary honor, have freely lent a helping hand to oppress, nay to destroy, their country.... This is what every man who values freedom ought to consider. He should act by judgment and not by affection or self-interest; for where those prevail, no ties of either country or kindred are regarded; as upon the other hand, the man who loves his country prefers its liberty to all other considerations, well knowing that without liberty life is a misery."
Andrew Hamilton, The Trial of John Peter Zenger [1735]

David Hughes, Telegraph Blogs, writes posing the question: "When exactly did free speech die in this country?", in which he cites David Starkey; the opposition to the Coalition's proposed planning rules; and Nadine Dorries with her amendment to the abortion debate - and in each case quotes the wrath of groups who disagree with that which is being proposed. Asking why this country has become unable to hold a civilized debate on any subject, Hughes ends by writing: "the common theme in all these examples is not that a point of view is being questioned – that’s healthy. What is being challenged is someone’s right to hold that view. And that’s dangerous".

That debate is missing is something which can no longer be ignored is undeniable - what usually happens is, as exampled by Hughes, contentious statements are made in rebuttal without having any real basis where fact is concerned. This lack of debate is rife within the political sphere and it is practised by politicians, quangos, fake charities, pressure groups, even including political commentators such as Polly Toynbee. Just what do these organisations and people have in common? Invariably, they are of left-wing persuasion, politically correct and rely on a form of debate which runs along the lines of: "I'm right, you're wrong, end of discussion".

It is also becoming increasingly obvious that such people are gaining a majority in 'advisory bodies' to which our politicians pay heed, likewise it is becoming increasingly obvious that politicians of the Lib/Lab/Con are becoming increasingly enraptured with the European Union, its ideology and thus of its aims. The outcome of all this is that the people of the United Kingdom are gradually being led into a totalitarian state, one perforce in which thought, word and deed are controlled.

Consider the definition of 'totalitarianism' provided by Wikipedia:
"Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror."
I defy anyone to pick one phrase from that statement and argue that it is not being introduced into this country by our political elite and likewise, one phrase that does not apply to our political elite. There may be those that would counter we do not have a single party, to which I say they should study the party manifestos of the three main parties (Lib/Lab/Con) - they are the same, all that differs is the method how the same goals should be achieved. Some may also contend that terror is not a weapon employed in this country, again I say how many stories emerge about the dangers of smoking, alcohol, what we eat, how we use our leisure time, coupled with the obligatory stories of impending disease and plague that may be fast approaching from other parts of the world.

In conclusion, I can but refer to my previous post in which I repeated Ian Parker-Joseph's '6 things' question - and on which incidentally one commenter, Old Holborn, posted yet another challenge:
"Name me one thing in the room that is not measured, taxed, regulated or licensed by the State or the EU."


Anonymous said...

This is a very prescient post, I agree wholly.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

Saot: Thank you! Its coming... promise!

DeeDee99 said...

Good post and I cannot disagree ith a word of it.

It is amazing that having destroyed one attempt at enforced tyranny in 1945, the UK Establishment meekly acquiesced to its political replacement and now supports its continuation.

The DT's question should have been 'When did freedom die in the UK.'

cuffleyburgers said...

Whilst I agree with the general theme of your post I take issue with your position on the use of terror by the EU or the British govt - in the context of the wikipedia article this means the arbitrary use of violence against the citizen, illegal detention, torture, judicial murder. It is stretching the truth to say this is happening now. And I think we are still some way away from it.

So, yes it is bad, but it is going to have to get a lot worse before most people get exercised by it enough to get of their arses and do something about it.

I don't think this kind of exaggeration does any favours - it makes you look foolish which anybody who reads you regularly knows you are not, and it detracts from the value of the 95% of what you write which is absolutely bang on the money.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

DD99: Thank you!

cb: The wikipedia article can be interpreted as you say, however I don't interpret it so - as I said articles about possible impending swine flue, for example, is but another example of terror, one which is intended to spread terror amongst the population and make them comply with whatever health diktats may be issued. In conclusion I maintain that terror does not have to be blatant, it can take a more subtle form. If it is an exaggeration, then it is only a small one......?

Oh and; judicial murder? Kelly? Until the truth is known then I believe that link is permissable.

However, thank you for your kind comments in your last paragraph.

TomTom said...

I suspect you can trace it to the Robbins Report and expanded Higher Education in the 1960s.

When you had to run factories or command soldiers the leadership factor contended with a variety of personalities and views, even if they were overridden they were heard.

The rise of University education as an ideological programming of youth into GroupThink together with the emergence of service business with small coterie + secretary + word processor in rented office, has led to fewer social interactions across the scale and more homogenous work environments without challenging ideas.

The more graduates of same or similar institutions work together in a) banking b) consulting c) PR d)Media e) UNions or Think Tanks the more unchallenged their raw ideas are and rarely by practical experience.

It is not planned totalitarianism but the inbreeding caused by lack of cross-fertilisation and a direct product of destroying State Grammar Schools and the teaching of Latin

WitteringsfromWitney said...

TT: How true - thank you for yet another insightful and thoughtful comment.

Keep'em coming...... :)