Monthly Archives: August 2010

Why is this blog entitled Living In A Madhouse?

 Why is this blog entitled Living in a madhouse? Because I live in a country dominated by the denial of reality that is modern liberal internationalism, a political ideology whose tenets have become enshrined in the creed we call political correctness. The result is a world turned upside down where black is called white and white black. 

Political correctness requires its adherents to subscribe to beliefs  which are at direct variance with the way human beings naturally behave. It contends that all humans are, in some mysterious and undefined way,  equal. It says that there are no important innate mental or behavioural differences between men and women. It attributes any differences in behaviour  between human beings to  nurture. It claims that race is no more than a social construct.  It holds that the idea of nations is simply outmoded tribalism. It requires nation states to open their borders to trade and mass immigration regardless of the economic and societal consequences and the affront given to man’s innately tribal nature.

Most absurdly and perniciously, it asks its disciples to believe that discrimination of any sort  between people is an absolute wrong despite the fact that human beings, like every other organism, have to discriminate simply to survive because to make any choice is to discriminate.

Back in the real world homo sapiens behaves from choice as it has always done; naturally forming groups from the small band to the modern nation state; displaying a desire to defend their territory against invasion by aliens; wanting to have their  economy protected and generally wishing that their government will defend their group interests.

If political correctness was simply an ideology which was adopted by those without power or influence it would be of no consequence. Sadly, for the Western world, it has become the dominant political creed of their political elites, elites who particularly in the USA and Britain have entrenched the tenets of political correctness in their societies through  laws penalising what are deemed “hate crimes” and controlling human interaction and  by the creation of a mentality in those controlling politics, public service institutions, educational establishments and private that the only way to remain secure in their positions and to continue to advance in their careers is to be religiously politically correct themselves and to punish anyone in a subordinate position who is deemed to have committed a pc “crime”. This mentality  is fed by the eagerness of the mainstream media to engage in witch hunts against anyone accused of a pc “crime”.

Such behaviour by an elite naturally creates a climate of fear amongst the  wider population. They also understand that is dangerous to be anything other than politically correct and consequently self-censor themselves. It is routine now for any white native Briton to preface any statement which is in any way less than unreservedly celebratory of “diversity” with “I’m not a racist but….”

But all is not equal in a politically correct world. Despite the watchword of equality which lies at the heart of political correctness, in practice some parts of the population are much more at risk than others.  The   groups of which the politically correct approve – ethnic/racial minorities, women and homosexuals  –  are to various degrees protected, while   the one group which the politically correct do not wish to protect, namely, white heterosexual males, is at risk in all circumstances when in a dispute with a member of an ethnic minority, a woman or a homosexual.  

But there is also a hierarchy of fear and risk within the politically correct approved groups. For example, being a black or Asian woman will trump being a white woman  in any dispute between a white woman and a  black or Asian woman. Similarly, a black heterosexual man will trump a white homosexual.

Political correctness is especially pernicious because it is a totalitarian creed,  which both brooks no contrary opinion and touches every aspect of life through its central tenet of no discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, gender or sexual inclination. Far from being paragons of moral light and reason, the adherents of political correctness are by definition bigots for they brook no opinion but their own. Let us call them what they are liberal bigots.

The application of  political correctness takes the form of a soft totalitarianism as yet for people are not routinely jailed or killed, but the penalties for being convicted of a politically correct “crime” are severe enough, routinely resulting in the loss of employment, social ostracism and a barrage of media abuse. But things are inexorably sliding towards an ever more restrictive and punitive state with, for example, Britain having a law which makes any crime deemed to have been committed from a racial motive deserving of a heavier penalty than if it was committed from some other motive.

The defining characteristic of the  modern liberal is hypocrisy. They preach the gospel of non-discrimination but practice it ruthlessly against those of whom they disapprove. They exalt the value of diversity yet take very good care to avoid living amongst it. They are also imperialist at heart. Instead of conquering lands the old fashioned way by force, they intend to do it by showing the benighted natives of less fortunate lands the “superiority” of their own liberal internationalist creed so that the benighted natives will turn into replicas of themselves. Sadly for the modern liberal the benighted natives don’t see it this way.

The consequence of the fantasy world which the modern liberal attempts to inflict upon their countries is that the West constantly weakens itself through a failure to protect its own interests, primarily  by allowing mass immigration and removing trade barriers, while the rest of the world – especially China and India – remains wholly or largely untainted by political correctness and wisely prevents mass immigration and protects its own economies.  The wilful shift of economic power from the West to China and India is the modern equivalent of “selling guns to the injuns”.

Because the world sought by the liberal internationalist is a directly at odds with human nature, the political elite who subscribe to the creed have become utterly divorced from what their electorates want and need. Because of this their electorates have become increasingly disillusioned with the mainstream political process because they believe quite rightly that all the parties capable of forming a government are essentially in agreement on all the major political issues. This disillusionment may explain the recent hung parliaments in the UK and Australia, countries which almost invariably since 1945  have  returned  a clear victory for a single party at general elections.

What do Western electorates want? I think an article published in Right Now! Magazine in 2005 probably comes close. Consequently, I end this first blog by reproducing it.

What the British people want from their politicians

Robert Henderson

Most  of  the  British electorate is  more than ordinarily  disgruntled with politics.  The problem which faces them is that they  want British politics to be about  something which is not currently on offer    from any party with a chance of forming a government,  or of  even obtaining a parliamentary seat.   They seek   what  these days counts as rightist action   when  it  comes to matters  such   as  preserving  nationhood,  immigration,  race and  political correctness,  but traditional leftist policies on items such as  social welfare,   the NHS  and  the  economy (has  anyone ever met someone in favour of free markets and free  trade who  has actually lost his job because of them?).

But the electorate’s difficulty  is not simply their inability  to find a single party to fulfil all or even most of  their political  desires. They  cannot  find  a  party  to satisfy any  of  them,  for   all  the mainstream   parties  now   carol  from   the  same   internationalist, globalist, supranational,  pro-Eu, pc songsheet.   The electorate finds they  may  have   any economic programme provided it  is  globalism,  a relationship with the EU provided it is membership and  public services only  if  they  increasingly  include private capital  and   provision.

The only difference between the major parties  is one of nuance. Nowhere is this political uniformity  seen more obviously  than in  theLabour  and  Tory  approaches to immigration.   Labour  has  adopted  a literally  mad  policy  of  “no obvious limit  to  immigration”.    The Tories claim to be  “tough” on immigration, but then agree to accept as legal immigrants more than 100,000 incomers a year from outside the  EU plus any number of migrants from within the EU.  There is a difference,  but  it is less or more of the same.  Worse,  in practice  there  would probably  be  no meaningful  difference to the numbers coming,  by  one

means  or another,    whoever is in power.  The truth is that while  we remain part of the EU and tied by international treaties on asylum  and human  rights,  nothing  meaningful can be done  for  purely  practical reasons – almost all the illegal immigrants and asylum seekers come via EU countries.  But  even if there was,  for whom  would  the person who wants no further mass immigration vote? No one is the answer.

A manifesto to satisfy the public 

So what manifesto would appeal to most electors?   How about this:

We promise:

–         To always put Britain’s interests first.  This will entail the adoption of  an  unaggressive   nationalist  ethic in  place  of  the  currently dominant  internationalist ideology.

–         The  reinstatement of British sovereignty by withdrawal from   the   EU and  the repudiation of all treaties which circumscribe the primacy  of Parliament. 

–         That future treaties  will  only  come into force when voted for  by  a majority  in  both Houses of Parliament and that any treaty  should  be subject to repudiation by Parliament at any time. 

–         A  reduction  in  the  power of Government in  general  and  the  Prime Minister in particular and an increase in the power of parliament. This will  be achieved by abolishing the Royal Prerogative,  abolishing  the party  whip and  the removal of the vast powers of patronage  available to government and the prime minister.  

–         That  the  country  will only go to war on a vote  in  both  Houses  of Parliament.

–         An end to mass immigration by any means, including asylum, work permits and  family reunion. 

–         An end to all officially-sponsored  political correctness.

–         The promotion of British history and culture in our schools and by  all publicly-funded  bodies.

–         The repeal of all laws which give by intent or in practice a privileged position  to any group which is less than the entire population of  the country, for example the Race Relations Act.

–         The  repeal of all laws which  attempt to interfere with  the  personal life   and  responsibility of  the individual.  Citizens will   not  be instructed what to eat,  how to exercise,  not to smoke or drink or  be banned from pursuits such as fox-hunting which harm no one else. 

–         A formal recognition that a British citizen has rights and  obligations not  available to the foreigner,   for example,   the benefits  of  the welfare state will be made available only to born and bred Britons.

–         Policing   which  is directed towards  three ends,  maintaining  order, catching  criminals  and  providing support and aid to  the  public  in moments of threat or distress.    The police will leave  their cars and go  on to the beat and there will be an assumption that the   interests and safety of the public come before the interests and safety of police officers.

–         A  justice  system  which   guards the  interests  of  the  accused  by protecting  essential rights of the defendant  such as jury  trial  and the  right  to  silence,  whilst preventing  cases  collapsing  through technical   procedural   errors    or  the   unreasonable  refusal   of admittance  of evidence and a cleaning up of the scandal  of  so-called expert witness evidence.

–         An absolute  right to self-defence when attacked.    The public will be encouraged to defend themselves and their property.

–         Prison sentences  that are served in full,  ie,   the end of  remission and other forms of early release.

–         A   general   economic  policy  which  steers  a  middle  way   between protectionism  and  free trade,  with protection given  to   vital  and strategically  important industries such as agriculture,  energy,   and steel and  free trade in anything which is not a necessity. 

–         A school  system which  ensures that every child leaves school with  at least  a firm grasp of the three Rs and  a school exam system which  is based  solely  on a final exam. This will remove   the  opportunity  to cheat by pupils and teachers.  The standards of the exams will be based on those of  forty years ago. 

–         To restore credibility to our university system the taxpayer will fund scholarships for 20 per cent of school-leavers. These will  pay for all fees and provide a grant sufficient to live on during term time.    Anyone not in receipt of a scholarship will have to pay the full fees  and support  themselves  or  take  a degree in  their  spare  time.     The scholarships will be concentrated on the  best universities.  The other universities   will be closed.   This will ensure that the cost  is  no more  than  the current funding and the remaining universities  can  be adequately funded. 

–         A clear distinction in our policies between the functions of the  state and   the  functions  of  private  business,   charities   and    other non-governmental  bodies.   The  state will  provide  necessary  public services,  business will be allowed to concentrate on its business  and not be asked to be an arm of government and  charities will be entirely independent bodies and will no longer receive public money.   

–         A    repudiation  of   further privatisation  for its own  sake  and  a commitment   to   the  direct   public   provision   of  all  essential services  such as medical treatment.  We recognise that the  electorate overwhelmingly want the NHS,  decent state pensions,  good state funded education for their children and state intervention where necessary  to ensure necessities such as affordable housing.  This promise is made to both  reassure the public of continued future provision and  to  ensure that the extent of any  public spending is unambiguous, something which is  not the case where funding channels such as PFI are used.

–         A   commitment  to   putting  the family  first,   which  will  include policies   that   recognise  the best childcare is that  given  by  the parents  and that parents  must be allowed to exercise discipline  over their  children.  This will be given force by a law making  clear  that parents  have an absolute right to custody of and authority over  their children  unless  the parents  can be shown to be engaging  in  serious criminal acts against their children.  

–         Defence  forces   designed solely  to defend Britain and  not  the  New World Order.

–         A Parliament for England to square the Devolution circle.  The  English comprise  around  80 per cent of the population of the  UK,   yet  they alone of all  the historic peoples are Britain are denied the right  to govern  themselves.    This  is  both   unreasonable   and  politically unsustainable in the long-run.

–         A  reduction  to the English level of  Treasury  funding  to  Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.   This will save approximately £10  billion [RH now £15 billion] because  the  Celts receive overall approximately £1,000  per  head  [RH now £1,500 per head] per annum more than the English.

–         An end to Foreign Aid. This will save  approximately œ5 billion. 

–         A  written constitution to ensure that future governments cannot  abuse their power. This  will be predicated on (1) the fact that we are  free society,  (2) the belief that in a free and democratic society that the individual can be trusted to take responsibility for their actions  and to behave responsibly and (3) that politicians are the servants not the masters  of  those who elect them.  It will guarantee  those  things necessary  to  a free society,   including an absolute  right  to  free expression,    jury trial for any offence carrying a sentence  of  more than one year,  place citizens in a privileged position over foreigners and  set  the interests and  safety of  the country and  its   citizens above the interests and safety of any other country or people.

Those  are  the  things which I think  most  of  the  electorate  could embrace,  at least in large part. There are also other issues which the public  might  well be brought to support if there  was  proper  public debate  and  a  serious political party supporting  them  such  as  the  ownership and bearing of weapons and the legalisation of drugs.

The   positive  thing  about such an agenda is that either  Labour   or the  Tories  could comfortable support it within the context  of  their history.

Until  Blair  perverted its  purpose,  the  Labour Party had   been  in practice  (and  often  in  theory  –  think  Ernie  Bevin),   staunchly nationalist,  not least because the unions were staunchly protective of their  members’  interests  and  resistant  to  both  mass  immigration (because it reduced wages) and free trade (because it exported jobs and reduced wages).

For the Tories,  the Thatcherite philosophy is as much an aberration as the  Blairite de-socialisation of Labour.  The true Tory  mentality  is that  of the one nation nationalist.  It cannot be repeated  too  often that  the  free market,   internationalist creed is the  antithesis  of conservatism.

Of course,  the manifesto  described above   would not appeal in  every respect  to  ever  member of the “disenfranchised  majority”.  But  its general political slant would be palatable to that  majority and  there would be sufficient within the detail   to allow  any individual who is currently  disenchanted with politics to feel that there were a  decent number  of important policies for which he or she could  happily  vote. That  is the best any voter can expect in a  representative  democracy.

Most importantly,  the electorate as a whole would be able to see  that there  was  a clear choice between our  existing politics and   such  a manifesto. People  could believe again that voting   might   actually change things.

%d bloggers like this: