Category Archives: Uncategorized

Inventing trouble

Robert Henderson

Someone is trying to kill me. Or to be more precise a number  of people are trying to kill me. Or to be utterly exact  various professional killers employed by sundry powerful  men are trying to murder me.

Why are powerful men trying to kill me? Because  metaphorically speaking I invented a better mousetrap. Mark  Twain was right was right; the world does beat a path to  your door when you invent something useful. Unfortunately he  was under the misapprehension that the world beats a path to  the inventor’s door to make him rich. What the world actually does is beat a path to the inventor’s door to  kill, maim or cheat him. How did I get into this  predicament? I went to a patent lawyer who…no that’s moving  the story on too fast. Let’s get back to the why.

What have I discovered? Nothing less than the engineer’s  version of the philosopher’s stone, free energy. In  approximately two seconds of conscious thought I invented a  perpetual motion machine. You just set it off and it goes on  and on and on without any further power input until you want  to stop it. No fuel needed and precious few moving parts to  break.

Hell! the machine’s so neat it won’t even cause heartbreak  to the scientific gentry because it doesn’t transgress  the most biblical of scientific writs, that infuriating old  first law of thermodynamics which won’t allow more energy to  come out of system than goes into it. Bit of a shame that,  not outraging the boffins, but at least it means they won’t  be able to say in their canting obscurantist way that the idea’s nonsense because it breaks a scientific law.

The basic invention is such a damn simple thing. If you saw  the machine you would say how the devil didn’t anybody  think of that before! I did myself at first, but I got to  reflecting on how I was forty nine when I came up with the  idea and how that idea came out of nothing. Pure serendipity.

Happens every now and then. A young boy inadvertently  invented the centrifugal governor for Watt’s steam engine  by casually hooking up a lever to a valve and a distracted  Archimedes comprehended specific gravity whilst staring at  his bathwater. My idea was that easy and sudden.

Strange how people have these ideas. Watt’s boy did it to save himself the trouble of minding the steam engine so that  he could play with another lad; Archimedes did it to please a  king. Me? I don’t rightly know. I’ve always had a fascination  with the way things are, not why they exist you understand,  but how they’re made, how they function. But that’s not an  explanation in itself. Perhaps it’s because I’ve a mind which  works primarily on logic. That means I’m naturally inclined  to understand processes rather than cold data. Ask me to  memorise a list of names and I couldn’t do that to save my  life. Ask me to memorise a complicated process using the same  names and they would slip into my brain as easy as ABC. Come  to think of it, perhaps it’s the logical structure of my mind  which gives me my interest in the form and function of  things.

Anyway, whatever the reason, there I was one evening less  than a year ago, feeling old, flat broke, sitting in a  rented room with cheap furniture and even cheaper wallpaper,  staring blankly at a couple of common or garden objects  owned by the stranger who rented out the room. Suddenly I  thought you put this here and that there, join this to the other and bingo! there it was, an idea to turn the whole  world through eighty degrees. Suddenly I’m thinking that I’m no longer booked on a one way ticket to Palookaville with no  chance of a refund.

I’ve had a small model running nonstop for near on nine  months. As I write this I could hold out my hand and touch  it. I knew the machine must work when it was only an idea  in my head. But being intellectually convinced is only half  the battle, so I made the machine to pay heed to my emotions. I needed to see it working to believe.

It’s a very basic thing this model I’ve made, but in  principle it could go on for ever. However, parts will wear  out and materials deteriorate and accidents happen, so at  some point it will fail. As things stand I reckon that it  could take a thousand years or more to break down. With  better materials perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps  millions of years. Eventually who knows? Prevent the  materials deteriorating, avoid accidents, let the Earth  remain much the same and it’s forever. But even a thousand  years is as good as infinity for the individual man, so for  all practical purposes it’s a perpetual motion machine as it  stands. And the additional beauty of the thing is that it  takes precious little energy to start and next to no energy  to stop.

How does the machine work? It…well, that’s my big  problem, that’s why I’ve got all these people after me. I don’t dare tell anybody until I’ve got a few things right side up in my head, number one being how do I keep alive. But  I’ll describe it in general terms so someone reading this can understand what is making powerful men so angry and desperate that they want to kill a man without money, power or influential friends. Just hang onto your concentration for paragraph or two and you’ll get the general idea.

My miraculous engine uses a simple natural phenomenon to  produce motion which in turn is linked to another example of the selfsame phenomenon and the synchronised reciprocating action of these two phenomena sustains the motion of each other. Ergo, a self sustaining cycle is formed. Ergo it need  never stop. Now motion equals power, mechanical or electrical to your choice. So you can either use my machine  to drive something directly – a ship’s propeller say – or link it to a generator to produce electricity.

The power it generates is unusually stable. Because it  doesn’t use fuel, you need never worry that you’ll get an  irregular performance from supposedly similar fuel and it  isn’t overly dependent on the immediate weather conditions  like wind and solar power or naturally inconsistent in  strength like running water or wave power. My machine just  starts off at a pace and never changes unless gravity,  pressure or temperature alters.

Gravity and pressure aren’t a problem because neither vary  significantly on the Earth’s land surfaces, so that leaves  only temperature to fret about. That’s a theoretical problem  because the lowest natural land temperatures can make the  natural phenomenon impossible. In practice it’s no problem  because most places will never get cold enough most of the  time and, in those that do, the problem could be overcome  easily enough by insulation. Come to think of it, I could  overcome the difficulty by substituting the machine’s normal  primary material with one which reacts differently to heat.

At the worst, one of my machines might run a fraction faster or slower as the temperature goes up or down. In any case  if you want an absolutely stable power flow, all you need to do is put the machine into a pressure and temperature controlled environment which, of course, you can create  using power from the machine. Beautiful ain’t it!

Producing virtually free, stable power is recommendation  enough, but my machine has other flag waving advantages which say BUY BUY BUY ME. The materials needed to build it are plentiful and easy to work. It doesn’t use fuel. There is absolutely no pollution so there are no gas emissions, no chemical leaks, no nuclear waste, no interference with the  environment such as you get with wave power and no noise. You don’t even have the aesthetic problem of ugly equipment such as electricity pylons. In fact, my machines could be built in a way which made them part of the natural landscape.

Best of all the machine depletes no natural resources other  than those required to build the machines and is permanently sustainable. Sounds like fairy gold, don’t it? But there’s  more.

My machine could provide the power for most human needs at  the point of use. Imagine a world in which each building,  each home, each business, each factory had its own machine to  generate power. Out goes the great paraphernalia of  electricity lines and gas pipes we now have, out go the great  power generating plants. Even if a few public generators were required for undertakings such as the railways, they could be built using my machine.

The practical effects of the machine would have profound political consequences. All countries would have access to power so cheap as to be virtually free. No country could be utterly held to ransom by the oil and gas suppliers. Because pollution is zero, even the lowest tech economies could run it safely. In theory any country could industrialise.

If you’re thinking that the contraption sounds too good to be true, relax, no machine was ever built without a drawback or three. This one has two. The first comes from the stability of the natural process producing the motion. This stability means that power can only be generated at one rate by a particular machine.

Now that just goes to show the value of working things out on paper. Just after I wrote that last paragraph I thought of a novel way of gearing the machine to produce differential motion by restricting the opportunity for the motion producing phenomenon to occur. How easy it would be in practice is another matter, but as the gearing is a simple mechanical device I don’t foresee any great problem. A bit of tinkering here and there to discover the most efficient way f setting the gearing mechanism but that’s all. But even if the gearing did not work, all you need to do to produce differential power is store the electricity the machine produces and use it as required at what power level you want.

Goddamn! I’ve just thought of an even better way to gear the machine. I’ll use different materials to alter the rates of flow. So let’s say the machine has only one real drawback, size.

Even if I can make a machine which produces different levels of power, I am still constrained by its upper power limit. To alter its power I can only subtract from its maximum energy output. So what you say, the same applies to all powered engines. But with other machines you can improve their fuel or adapt their structure to gain greater power from the same size of mechanism. Unless I can find materials which act more efficiently than those I know of, I can’t make any significant improvements in power generation to my machine, because the natural phenomenon I utilise will only produce a given amount of motion in a given amount of space.

I could use greater pressures to speed the natural phenomenon, but that would be pointless because I would run into the old conservation of energy problem. The energy required to increase the pressure would cancel out any increased energy output from the machine. It really gets up my nose that conservation of energy law!

So the long and the short of it is that my machines will have to be on the large size for substantial power generation. Certainly too big to power a car or a plane because the power/weight ratio would be impractical. For the technically virginal, that’s just a fancy way of saying the machine would not generate enough energy to move its own and the vehicle’s mass.

But if my machine could not propel cars and planes directly, it might power a large ship. And even cars could be powered by it indirectly if electric propulsion becomes not merely possible, but at least as convenient and efficient as petrol driven engines.

How big can my machines be? In principle any size above the microscopic. The beauty of the machine is that it can be linked to any number of other machines or the process of the natural phenomenon could be replicated infinitely in a single machine. As for machines going the other way on the size scale, there is a limit because another natural phenomenon kicks in at the microscopic level to prevent the perpetual motion process happening. There’s probably a way round that as well, but I can’t think of it as yet, although I suspect the answer lies in using materials of different density.

Sounds like I’m a lucky man just waiting to coin as much money as a man could conceive of doesn’t it? Wrongity wrongity! There is a positive forest of stricken circumstantial oaks across the road to my fame and riches. After I had made my first machine and had it running for long enough to convince me that it was stable, I sat down to think about how I would bring the idea to the market. The trouble was that the more I thought about it the more impossible the business seemed.

To begin with I thought about patents. To patent an invention all over the world costs about thirty grand. I won’t keep you in suspense, I didn’t and don’t have thirty grand. But that thirty grand is only the beginning because you are bound to get pirating, and that’s particularly so when the machine is cheap and easy to produce. So you need more money for patent infringement law suits, lots and lots more money, boy! do you need money to keep lawyers happy. And the funny thing is it doesn’t matter where you go in the world, lawyers all have the same three principal character traits, greedy, greedy and greedy again. I was tempted to throw in idle, incompetent, dishonest, ignorant and cowardly before greedy, but that would be unfair to lawyers. Idle, incompetent, dishonest, ignorant and cowardly indubitably score just below greedy on the lawyer personality chart. And it’s been ever thus. First let us kill the lawyers! wrote old Will Shakespeare. I can’t say I’m utterly opposed to the idea.

Those are your legal problems with patents. Your other more pressing slings and arrows – let’s be polite and call them extra-legal difficulties – come from those countries which either don’t recognise patents for foreigners or do but don’t if you know what I mean. It’s a sorry truth that most countries don’t have a meaningful legal system, they being more than a little remiss in providing such things as due process and the right to independent legal representation.

And in any case I sincerely doubt whether a foreigner ever gets fair treatment before a foreign court anywhere. So legal action is not really a paying proposition anywhere unless your indecently rich.

Some wiseguys might tell you the way to deal with such unobliging states is to bribe their rulers. The wiseguys who tell you that will even offer to hand over your money to the  said rulers. You would be better employed donating the money to your favourite charity. If one thing is certain in this world, you never can trust a man who takes a bribe. Either he will be willing to take another one to betray you or he won’t have the power to deliver his promises.

When it comes down to it, your only real safeguards against having an idea stolen are technical sophistication and cost. You need to produce a product which is either too technically sophisticated for easy production or so expensive that bootleggers can’t afford to produce it.

Generally if you have the first you have the second. Sadly my machine doesn’t exactly fall into the category of technically sophisticated although it could utilise a lot of high tech stuff to maximise its effectiveness. In fact, my machine is so simple in principle that your average cackhanded technophobe bozo could construct a basic model in his kitchen and that basic machine could power a 60 watt bulb. So that makes effective patenting more than a mite difficult.

But patenting was just the beginning of my worries. I also had to find the money to either start up a company to manufacture the machines or persuade a big company to fund the project. Well, I sure as hell couldn’t do the first and I was damn sure that no big company was going to look at somebody they didn’t know from Adam. But hopeless as that seemed I played make believe to progress matters. I asked myself to suppose that I could get the money for the patenting and persuade a big company to finance me.

I could just about believe that some lawyer with an eye to the main chance might do the patenting work on a contingency basis. In the small hours I could even see some big business taking me under its wing. But what was there to stop either a lawyer or a company taking me for a ride? How could I trust the lawyers and businessmen with whom I would have to deal?

How could I protect my idea? In the end the answer I came up with was the only sane one: I had damn all ways of guaranteeing that I wouldn’t be shafted and the idea stolen. But before I got to that inescapable, indigestible conclusion I tied myself in knots trying to close down all the alleyways and thoroughfares which a lawyer or a business could scuttle down. I created positive sheepshanks of logical reasoning and half-hitches of practical actions to lash everything down. I’ll give you a taste of the way I went, twisting and turning till my head was near breaking. My mind would work something like this.

I need to prove that the idea was mine. Therefore I’m going to send myself a number of letters with the plans of the machine inside. The envelopes will have stamps over the sealing flap of envelope. That way the point of entry into the envelope is date stamped by the post office. A court will accept that as proof of my knowledge of the machine at the stamped date.

Damn! but that doesn’t prove that I invented the machine, it merely proves that I knew about it by a particular time. So I shall send a letter to the patent lawyer describing what the machine does in general terms but without describing the machine. This letter will be sent by recorded post so again I have a date stamp. But what if he says that he never received the letter? I shall send the letter to his home not his office. That will mean that either he or his wife signs for the letter. But that won’t prove that I sent the lawyer a particular letter. So I shall videotape myself putting the letter into envelope before I send it. But that still won’t prove that I sent that particular letter. Hell!

Or I might be thinking about meeting the patent lawyer. Then I would go along like this. What am I going to do about the meeting? The lawyer’s got to come to me. That way I can control the physical circumstances. Then I can record the meeting. But I mustn’t rely on just one record because that the recording might be faulty or the man’s face be turned from the camera so his lips can’t be seen. So I shall videotape the meeting with four video machines placed at 90 degrees to one another. Just for luck I shall run half a dozen tape recorders as well. I can’t afford to buy the video recorders but I can hire them.

Shall I tell the patent lawyer I am recording? Indubitably yes because if I don’t as sure as eggs are ovoid objects he will go scuttling off to the patent office or a manufacturer or both and sew up the patent for someone else. If I didn’t have the recordings I would…jeez you see what this sort of thing does, it signposts the way to a home for the barking.

Finally I got thinking about the practical effects my machine would have on the world. Just imagine what would happen if a source of energy was given to the world which required no more than the initial outlay for the machine. All right, you could factor in the costs of security for the biggest machines and there will be some piffling maintenance costs for the moving parts, but whichever way you look at it, the cost is minuscule compared with any current means of power generation.

The problem is that my invention is not like any other in the history. Other forms of power have come upon the scene. Windmills competed with watermills. Steam competed with wind and watermills. Oil superseded steam, electricity competes with oil and gas. Nuclear energy vies with all these. But in those cases the change was never immediate nor complete.

Steam may be almost dead as a serious primary power source but it took two centuries to become moribund. As for the others, they all have their niches. What I have is the means to make all of them, except petrol for vehicles and ships and planes, obsolete in a matter of a few years, perhaps as little as ten. And if decent batteries can be invented for cars, then most of the oil used in cars will become redundant.

Now sit down and think of all the powerful men whose place in the world is dependent on power generation. Think of the gas companies, the electricity generators and the oil companies.

Think of coal and gas. Think of the oil dependent cars. Think of all the people employed in all those industries. Think of all the other people who live off the general expenditure of the energy producing people. Think of the politicians who tax and spend. Think of the economic and social disruption a form of energy so cheap that its cost becomes negligible could cause. Think of what the likely response to the man who has invented the machine which creates virtually free power.

What do men do when they are threatened. They become either aggressive or submissive, the Uriah Heap syndrome. When they are powerful men, they invariably become aggressive. When they are really frightened they will kill. So I thought there would be more a fair chance that someone would want me dead if I tried to patent the machine.

After all that thinking and conjuring of demons, there I was sitting on this wonderful idea which could change the world and I couldn’t see a way of through the thicket to the open fields beyond.

I tried to shrug my shoulders and tell myself to forget about it. But the idea was so strong in my mind that I couldn’t leave the thing alone . However hard I pressed it down it kept clambering back to my frontal lobes until it became a mental sore.

I knew that it was Lombard Street to a china orange that I would be cheated. I knew that the machine could cause great social dislocation. I knew that the machine could threaten the security of the powerful. I knew that I was putting myself in danger. But it didn’t make a damn bit of difference, that’s the God’s honest truth. I didn’t care about anything but the machine.

It wasn’t even the prospect of money which was uppermost in my mind. What was sitting there was the sheer cleverness of the thing and the fact that I had invented it. If a philosopher ever made a more profound observation than David Hume when he said that the heart has its reasons that reason knows not of, I would sorely wish to know it.

Well that was six months ago. What did I do? I found a lawyer who agreed to apply for patents in Britain, the US, Japan and the EU. I reckoned that would cover enough of the countries who could not afford to be without the machine to make me a fortune.

True to form the lawyer just couldn’t resist the temptation to go to an oil company. Needless to say he didn’t register the patents. I know the lawyer went to the oil company because they tried to buy me out. But the trouble was they wanted to suppress the machine. And my trouble was that I couldn’t bear that. So I said no. The oil company offered more and more money but I kept on saying no. Eventually the oil company stopped offering.

I was just about to look out another patent lawyer when the first attempt to kill me happened. A car swerving up on the pavement. I just managed to get into a side alley in time. It could have been an accident but it looked deliberate and I don’t believe in coincidences. Another car tried to run me down the next day. Caught me a glancing blow and I ended up in hospital for a couple of weeks.

I can take hint so I didn’t go back to my room when I came out of hospital. I simply left everything I had and ran. Where am I now? Sitting in another rented room with cheap furniture and even cheaper wallpaper, feeling old and flat broke. I’m even staring blankly at a couple of common or garden objects owned by a stranger.

Any difference from a few months back? Yeah, I’m scared, but I’m even angrier and angry trumps scared any day. And I’ll tell you the damndest thing about my anger. I’m not  angry because I’m not making a fortune. I’m not even angry because people are trying to kill me. No, I’m angry because the machine’s a truly beautiful idea and if I’m killed it will be gone.

So what do I do? Shall I patent it as best I can? Shall I do what Alexander Fleming did with penicillin and give it to the world for free? Or shall I simply let the idea come silent with me to the grave? I can’t even console myself by thinking that if I don’t make the invention public then somebody else will soon discover it. The natural physical phenomenon I utilise for my machine has been known for at least three thousand years. We have had something approximating to a proper scientific method for at least four hundred years and a respectable technology for far longer. Yet in all that time no one sat down and looked at this phenomenon and put two and two together. So why should I believe that someone will discover what I have discovered? In fact, I reckon it’s even less likely now than it was three hundred years ago because our scientific erudition and technological brilliance has blinded men to simple processes.

One thing is for sure, when shove comes to push nobody can stop me from making the idea public knowledge. If all other roads come to dead ends, I can release the genie by uploading the details of the machine onto the Internet.

Well, I reckon shove has come to push so I put this lead here and that lead there, join this to the other, switch on, log on , upload and bingo! there it is, an idea to turn the world through eighty degrees, singing through the ether of the worldwide web. I wonder which big company will be the first to apply for a patent?

Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik

Robert Henderson

The trial of the mass killer Anders Breivik  in Oslo is truly remarkable. It is not Breivik who is fearful , but the Norwegian political mainstream trembling  their way towards what they hope will be a  politically correct ending to the story with Breivik declared mad, viz:

“The prosecutors are still beginning the trial calling for Breivik to be transferred to compulsory mental health treatment, not prison, despite a new psychiatrists report last week ruling him sane enough to be criminally responsible.

But they reserve the right to make a submission to have this changed to a call for a prison sentence, based on information that comes up in the trial.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9206193/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-one-as-it-happened.html)

Not, of course, that they would use the word mad because that would be so politically incorrect.

Liberals are desperately  struggling  to fit  the man into their fantasy world  where everyone is wondrously  multicultural and gleefully accepting of whatever change is forced upon them by mass immigration or the denial of human nature  and difference which is the essence of political correctness.  This entails  a blind refusal to engage with Breivik’s  declared motives and general criticism of modern  Norwegian society (and by extension the developed world generally) . In a nutshell, they  do not know how to rationally respond to a  man who challenges everything they believe in and can only deal with the existence of Breivik by turning him into a being who is either not worthy of consideration or a fabulous monster who can be viewed  in the same way that the audience for  a nineteenth century freak show would look at the unfortunate beings on display.

The refusal to engage with Breivik is epitomised by the mass public  singing during the trial  of a  song which Breivik claims is part of the indoctrination of Norwegians. The song , Children of the Rainbow,  contains lyrics such as these:

“A sky full of stars, blue sea as far as you can see

An earth where flowers grow, can you wish for more?

Together shall we live, every sister, brother

Young children of the rainbow, in a fertile land”

(http://www.policymic.com/articles/7556/norway-fights-against-mass-killer-breivik-by-singing-children-of-the-rainbow/related.

In propaganda terms, what is the difference between getting Norwegian children to sing that and the  Hitler Youth leading renditions of  the Horst Wessel song ?

Three  tactics have been used to negate the danger   Breivik represents: say he is insane,  seek to censor  his testimony  on the ground that he  will use the trial to promote his political ideas or  attempt to diminish him and his ideas by deriding him as a person.   This mentality is echoed by liberals everywhere.  Consequently, even outside of Norway  there   is precious little attempt to present  reasoned argument against what Breivik is claiming. Instead  liberals generally have  offered  feeble personal abuse of his person,  bald assertions that his arguments  are  wrong and delusional and claims that he must be mad.

Why are liberals so desperate not to address the issues Breivik has raised? Because they  know in their heart of hearts that their declared  political ends are no more than aspirations; that despite decades of politically correct propaganda  and the punishment of those who dissent from the ideology with the criminal law or non-criminal sanction’s such as  loss of employment,  humans  still feel what they have always felt, a strong sense of tribal identity and territoriality.    Liberals know this in the most certain way because they , like everyone else,  have the  feelings which lead human beings to naturally think in terms of membership of a group and to favour those like themselves. This commonly makes them arrange their lives so that they can avoid all the ethnic and racial diversity they extol as wonderfully enriching,  a trait most notably seen in “white flight” from areas of heavy immigrant settlement.

It might be thought that the secret fears expressed in their hypocrisy of avoiding the joy of diversity would make the sustaining of their  ideology impossible. Not a bit of it. Liberals can always tell themselves that they are still on a journey towards the promised politically correct land and find excuses for why they live (in England)  a very white and very English world . (The favourite  white liberal excuse for  denying themselves the  experience of the joy of diversity  is that it is a matter of  class  which causes them to  end up well away from the diversity. This , the white liberal claims, is   because they are richer than most and ethnic minorities are poorer than most and the two groups are accordingly sorted into different neighbourhoods by wealth not race or ethnicity.  It is an argument which does not seem to  provide an adequate garment to  cover the hypocrisy of the  likes of the leftist folk singer Billy Bragg  who removed himself from his Essex origins as the place became invaded by  ethnic minorities and went to live in Dorset, arguably the whitest and most English of counties).

When people support an ideology  which they know is false  or at the least not objectively demonstrable,  they invent excuses for reality not being in accord with the ideology. In the case of modern liberals they argue that human nature does not exist and behaviour is simply a consequence of social conditioning.  They then follow the logic  of that belief to say that all that is required to change (to liberals) harmful behaviour is to alter the conditioning. When their attempts to  re-condition humans in a politically correct way fail,  as they always do,  the liberal’s response is simple: the conditioning has not gone on long enough or has not be powerful enough to effect the required alterations in human behaviour.  This provides an excuse to continue with and enhance the re-conditioning by ever more draconian restrictions on how people may behave.  The liberal’s  chosen vehicle for the re-conditioning is the ideology we now know as political correctness or, to  the politically and academically inclined, cultural Marxism.

But although they can find excuses for why things are not as they are supposed to be according to the politically correct canon,  liberals, even the most committed believers,  also have a terrible fear that if people point out that the liberal emperor has no clothes before the politically correct promised land is reached, it could cause a revolution which might, at best, overthrow what they fervently want or, more venally ,  could result in  dire consequences from  themselves as the rage of those who have suffered  from the enforcement of political correctness and mass immigration is let off the leash.  At the very least all the highly paid jobs which rely on the dominance of political correctness would vanish.  This would remove the livelihoods of a very large proportion of those who sincerely believe in political correctness and even more  from those  who pay lip-service to political correctness  simply to obtain one of the politically correct sinecures.  There is a very large vested interest in maintaining political correctness once it has become the ideology of those with power.

If political correctness was simply a marginal political creed it would be harmless. Unfortunately, it has become  the elite ideology of most of  the Western world.  That makes it toxic and potentially dangerous enough to destroy the societies in which it has gained such a hold, most particularly through its permitting of mass immigration and the promotion of multiculturalism.  It is  catastrophically pernicious because it is totalitarian in its nature  for  it reaches into every aspect of life and insists that the only acceptable opinion in any situation is the politically correct one.

The ills of mass immigration and  the enforcement of multiculturalism require little comment beyond the obvious facts that mass immigration that the injection into a society of huge numbers of those  who either cannot  fully assimilate for reasons of racial difference or  will not assimilate from a determination to retain the imported ancestral culture ,must of itself be immediately divisive  and, eventually, if immigration it continues long enough, potentially result in the original population becoming a minority in their own land and their own culture, at the least,  badly mangled by that stark change in fortune.

The state  promotion of immigrant cultures and the suppression of  indigenous interests facilitates the process of the destruction of a homogeneous society, but   this may be an effect rather than a cause of the mass immigration.  Rather than being  the result of a conscious plot as the proponents of Cultural Marxism believe, it could be a response to the permitting of mass immigration through negligence or cowardice by political elites who then try to justify what has happened, control  native dissent and attempt to deal with the inevitable ills brought by mass immigration by developing a philosophy such as multiculturalism which pretends  that  there is no such thing as tribalism in the human DNA  and  everything is consequently  for the best in all possible multicultural worlds. It does not solve the problem but it provides the elite with  a narrative for what has happened  which diverts blame away from them at least temporarily.

The ill effects of political correctness as it relates to issues other than those arising from race and ethnicity are less immediately obvious.  The ever growing censorship of what may be said or done  is obvious enough, but  there are other more subtle effects. Because its tenets run directly contrary to the way human beings naturally behave as individuals and in the mass , political correctness  will never gain general acceptance, but what it can do is inhibit the normal  social relationships  of a society by making it dangerous for individuals to behave naturally.  By definition, this must undermine the efficient functioning of any community because people are being asked to behave in a manner which is alien to their natural function. .

The idea that discrimination – the Great Satan of political correctness – is self-evidently and always wrong is a literal nonsense.  Humans like every other organism have to make choices. Choice  requires discrimination.   We discriminate in finding people sexually attractive; in liking them as people;  in choosing someone because we believe they are competent  to do something and in a myriad  other ways. People have to discriminate between people many times a day.  All of these things are matters,  like race, over which individuals have no control because the judgement is made by others not themselves.   Except for a few very advanced cases of political correctness, liberals make no complaint about such discrimination. The choice of race, gay rights and sexual equality as the great forbidden subjects of discrimination  is arbitrary, no more than an ideological whim.

When the state interferes in the necessary and natural use of discrimination, which includes the exercise of preference for those who most resemble ourselves ,  they  distort society.  Breivik’s prime complaint apart from the effects of multiculturalism generally  and  Islam in particular is that Norwegian society has become feminised.  There is  force in his argument. Norway has probably gone further than any other country in forcing through the use of law  and incessant propaganda women into areas where they were considerably  under-represented, most notably in politics (http://www.norway.org/aboutnorway/society/Equal-opportunities/gender/politics/)and business (http://www.20-first.com/406-0-a-personal-account-of-the-quota-legislation-in-norway.html).

Breivik believes that the changes in male roles and the straitjacket of feminism on Norway has emasculated Norwegian men. He has a point.  The films of the  Stieg Larsson Millennium trilogy (set in Sweden not Norway, but Sweden is a country which is part of the general Scandinavian appetite for feminism)  show us a very strange world in which men are all viewed as potential rapists unless they have been  emasculated by feminist propaganda, women revenge themselves on men with violence  and women  play the  authority roles in the same way that blacks do in Hollywood films (https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/politically-incorrect-film-reviews-the-millenium-trilogy/).   Looking at the personnel  involved in the Breivik trial, it is eerily reminiscent of the world depicted in the Millennium films. The senior  judge and  one of the leading prosecutors  are women.  The men who appear ,  such as Breivik’s lawyer Geir Lippstad ,  commonly have a strangulated  emasculated manner .  Interviews with many  of the Norwegian men speaking about the  Breivik killings also  display this quality.

Why does this matter?  There are fundamental,  and   to everyone other than liberals,  obvious  reasons  why men are normally masculine and women are feminine in their behaviour.  That is the way Nature has crafted their  respective general personalities and behaviours.  Male dominance is the norm amongst mammals and it would be extraordinary if it was not present  in human beings.  Even if it was possible to remove the trait through conditioning, it would beg the question of whether it would be wise to do so. At best it would be a reckless gamble.    Human beings need to feel that their lives have purpose. Take away the natural roles of men and women and most will at some point in their lives feel that their natural purpose has been subverted.

As for women,  the fact that they bear children of itself writes the general  script of both their lives and personalities.  There will always be women who do not want children or who fail to display a strong maternal instinct if they do have them, but the great  majority will naturally behave in a feminine manner.

The natural instincts of Norwegian men  and women have not been abolished, but men  entering the Norwegian elite will tend to be those who are less strongly masculine and this trait will continue for as long as political correctness is the dominant ideology.  Any human group selects new members from those who most resemble the group.  In the case of Norway there will be the strongest selection pressure for emasculated men to be selected for  the elite because so many women, most of whom will be  strongly feminist because that is the mentality which pushes them forward in modern Norwegian political life, will be within the group.  Any man who is  both naturally masculine and espouses masculine behaviour,  will be excluded.    Below the Norwegian political elite will be the men who retain their masculinity, but even they will be hamstrung by the cloying feminist dominance.

Exactly what sort of society will emerge in such circumstances is problematic, but it is worth noting that the  predominance of feminism in Norway creates a situation potentially more immediately  destabilising than that of  immigrants because  women, unlike immigrants, already form more than 50% of the population.   There is a majority with a vested interest in perpetuating and expanding   feminist privileges at the expense of men.

In the longer term a situation of great irony could arise in Norway, with the demands of feminism clashing with those of  other groups created by the politically correct,  especially Muslims, to crush feminist policies.

The management of the trial

While they are refusing to engage with Breivik’s complaints against what the Norwegian political elite have done – permitted mass immigration and unceasingly promoted multiculturalism in particular and  political correctness generally with their consequent profound changes to Norwegian society – liberals everywhere are engaging in an orgy of self-congratulation about how civilised  it all is, a positive model of  a modern liberal society which shows how morally superior is the politically correct view of the world.    Ralph Waldo Emmerson’s “The louder he talked of his honour/the faster we counted the spoons”  comes to mind, as well it should,  for when  the claim  of liberal rectitude and beatific  self-restraint is looked at in detail it rapidly  collapses.

From the time of the massacre the Norwegian authorities have carefully controlled  the narrative.  Until the trial began , apart from brief court appearances  Breivik was kept under wraps, most of the time in solitary.  His only conduit  to the outside world has been his defence lawyer Geir Lippstad , a man who radiates permanent  liberal angst and  puts in the shade British barristers representing those deemed to have “racist”  or  “far right” views  who routinely  trot out something along these lines:  “My client is utterly despicable but you must put that out of your minds and judge him on the evidence”.   At his first press conference after  agreeing to represent Breivik,  Lippstad   blithely stated that his client was mad (a claim he later withdrew).  Before the trial began Lippstad was wringing his hands again about the defence he was being asked to present and made it quite clear that it was both repugnant to him and nonsense.

The trial is  being  very carefully stage-managed .  Parts  are being broadcast, but the court has ruled that neither Breivik’s testimony  - both his statement and cross examination – or that of his witnesses can be broadcast. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17312079).   This allows the liberal dominated mainstream media and politics to give their version of what Breivik is and stands for.   They wish to show him at best as a contemptible  and negligible person who is not worth listening to and at worst a strange creature so far from the norm as to be beyond any consideration other than that of a monstrous curiosity.

As so often with modern liberals, personal abuse is freely offered against those who refuse to accept the politically correct view of the world, despite the fact that the politically correct   supposedly hold that a person’s appearance is utterly irrelevant and derogatory mention of it  a prime example of  the liberal’s Great Satan: discrimination.   Here is a good example from David Blair of the Daily Telegraph : “The voice gave little away, but the killer’s eyes, posture and physique spoke volumes. As the days wore on and he became unsettled by the prosecution’s questioning, white specks of dandruff flecked Breivik’s dark jacket, beads of sweat glistened on a face pockmarked by acne, and a motionless comb-over grew more slicked and gleaming.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9218529/Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-Six-days-in-the-company-of-a-mass-murderer.html)

As the public cannot watch Breivik in action, no one outside the court has a clue whether the reports of his behaviour, looks and words are a truthful representation of what is going on.  For all we know He  might be wiping the floor with the prosecutor and any other hostile questioner.  The same will apply when the witnesses  for the defence are called.

The management of the proceedings is further heightened by the broadcast of the evidence from witnesses for the prosecution. Hence, you get the other side of the story in full and directly (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html – 2.31 pm).  With Breivik’s  evidence there is not only the missing personal behaviour,  but the quotes which appear in the media are selective, concentrating not unnaturally on the more sensational of his words.

Amongst the self-congratulatory  liberal tosh about what a model of liberal restraint the trial is can be found the contention that Breivik would not have been given such licence to put his views in many other Western  jurisdictions including that of England.  I doubt whether that is true. Breivik is arguing that he acted in self-defence, the danger to himself (and the rest of  Norwegian society) being the policies of  allowing mass immigration,  the promotion of multiculturalism  and the strangulation of  any  public dissent through the rigorous application of  political correctness  which he feared would lead to the destruction of Norwegian culture  and that this would effectively leave any Norwegian at the mercy of  forces inimical to Norwegian  values and customs,  in his eyes most especially  Islam This  would at best  leave Norwegians as a subject people in their own  ancestral homeland or  at worst result in their complete obliteration as a people .

Those are of course political statements,  but that does not disqualify them as reasons why someone  should have a rational fear of what is happening and that the consequences of what is occurring   - mass immigration and multiculturalism –  could plausibly lead to a mortal threat to Norwegian society and by extension to Breivik.  The fact that they are so politically dangerous  for the political elite would make it difficult for any legal system anywhere to simple refuse  such a  justification of  a plea self-defence. This was the case  with Breivik because before he  was allowed to read his statement  there were strong hints that he would not be allowed to read it even if it was not televised. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9205393/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-barred-from-reading-new-manifesto-in-court.html).

There is also a question mark over whether Breivik is pleading self-defence in the sense that it would be understood in an English court:

“8.05am Before the court started, journalists were spoken to by the translators who said that “self-defence” was a misleading translation for the grounds for acquittal Breivik is invoking. A better translation would be “necessity”, they said as the clause he’s referring to is about defence of property and defence of others, not solely about defence of your own person.”

08.28am While we wait for a decision, more on the clarification from the translators regarding Breivik’s defence of “necessity” rather than “self-defence”. In Norway section 47 of the penal code states:

No person may be punished for any act that he has committed in order to save someone’s person or property from an otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the damage that might be caused by his act.”

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9208311/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-two-live.html).

The charges brought against Breivik also potentially provide grounds for challenge.  Here are the salient parts of the indictment:

“THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OF OSLO

hereby indict Anders Behring Breivik, born 13.02.1979 currently remanded in custody before the Oslo District Court, pursuant to section 39 of the Penal Code, for sentence to be passed for his transfer to compulsory mental health care, cf. chapter 5 of the Mental Health Care Act, for having in a psychotic state committed an otherwise punishable act, namely in violation of:

Section 147a of the Penal Code, first paragraph letters a and b, cf. sections 148 first paragraph first penalty alternative and 233 first and second paragraphs

for having committed a terrorist act in violation of section 148 of the Penal Code, first paragraph, first penalty alternative (bringing about an explosion whereby loss of human life or extensive damage to the property of others could easily be caused) and of section 233 first and second paragraphs (premeditated murder where particularly aggravating circumstances prevail) with the intention of seriously disrupting a function of vital importance to society, such as the executive authority or seriously intimidating a population.

II Section 147a of the Penal Code, first paragraph letter b, cf. section 233 first and second paragraphs

 for having committed a terrorist act in violation of section 223 of the Penal Code, first and second paragraphs (premeditated murder where particularly aggravating circumstances prevail) with the intention of seriously intimidating a population.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9206336/Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-indictment-in-full.html)

Consider the passage “with the intention of seriously disrupting a function of vital importance to society, such as the executive authority or seriously intimidating a population.” Breivik was certainly not “seriously  intimidating a population”. Rather, he was seriously intimidating the ruling political elite by attacking the generation who were being trained to become the political elite.  As for  “seriously disrupting a function of vital importance to society, such as the executive authority”, it is true the bomb attack was meant to harm members of the government including the Norwegian Prime Minister,  but  in a representative democracy even the death of a Prime Minister should not  “seriously disrupt a function of vital importance to society”.

Breivik’s mental state

The calls for Breivik to be considered mad  unambiguously show  the  authoritarian  nature of  the modern liberal mind.  Compare their  calls for him to be judged insane with the  treatment of others who have killed for political reasons such as   Islamic fanatics and IRA bombers. They were and are not treated by liberals  as deranged but as terrorists at worst, although plenty of liberals will always find ways of qualifying even that judgement because of the terrorist’s supposed motives and environment.  As Breivik observed  if he was a “bearded jihadist” no psychiatric investigation would have been asked for. (1.11 pm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html)

Breivik is really in the same bracket as such people. Indeed, it could be argued that his motivation is  far more rational that, for example, the Jihadist who believes he will go to paradise with 72 virgins to use as he sees fit.  He has real fears about the future of his country and a clear idea of what he is doing, viz:

“10.28am Prosecutor Engh asked Breivik if he thought there were any parallels between what he had done and a war situation.

Breivik replied that it was “not a war but a political attack …. and I was trying to prevent a future civil war. Not just me but other political nationalists – we believe that this will happen” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html)

Moreover,  ostensibly at least,  Breivik has not killed on a whim, as an exercise in sadism, to  revenge himself for  personal  slights or injuries or because he has a proven mental disorder such as paranoid schizophrenia with voices in his head telling him to kill people before they killed him.  He has no psychiatric history and , despite the best efforts of the first set of psychiatrists who examined him to diagnose him as a paranoid schizophrenic,  this judgement was contradicted by a second examination which found Breivik to be sane. The other strong pointer  to his sanity is the fact that he  successfully executed a meticulously planned and complex attack.

Breivik cooperated with the first psychiatrists who adjudicated on his sanity  but not the second.  Could it be that the first psychiatrists, faced with the physical reality of someone saying all the things they as, as politically correct believers, could not bear to think anyone who so contradicted their views was  sane? The second set of psychiatrists were not confronted with such a reality made flesh and  came to  their judgement simply on his known views and behaviour, a much less emotionally involving business.   Perhaps ominously for Breivik,  the Daily Telegraph reported on 23  April that at  “2.43pm The judge has read to the court comments from the Norwegian commission for forensic medicine, which has asked for “further work” to be done on the second psychiatric report into Breivik. This is the report which found he was sane.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9220355/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-six-live.html)..

If this were an English court  it is difficult to see how Breivik  could  meet the test of insanity required by the McNaghten Rules. These  rest on whether a person accused of a crime knew they were doing something wrong or were suffering a defect of reason through mental illness,  most commonly paranoia, which drove them to commit the crime in the belief that it was necessary to commit it , most probably because of a belief that they or someone else was in danger. Clearly Breivik  is aware of what he was doing and how it would be viewed by society. That leaves only the question of whether he was acting under a delusion. That test would fall because manifestly what he fears, the objective threats to his society from mass immigration, multiculturalism, political correctness and Islam, are concrete facts. How far they could be judged to be mortal threats is another matter, but no one could reasonably argue that, in particular,  mass immigration and Islam are not real and substantial  threats to the nature of Norwegian society.

Compare the political positions of Breivik and the  politically correct:

Breivik points out the inevitable ill consequences of mass immigration; the particular threat from Islam and the enforcement of the totalitarian ideology political correctness.

The politically correct  ask human beings to  pretend that  that there is no difference between people of  varying races and cultures;  to willingly allow the invasion of their  territory  by strangers;   pretend that life is enriched by changing  from a homogenous to a fractured heterogeneous  society through mass immigration;  accept all sexual relationships as equally natural and socially useful and ignore the very obvious differences in interests and biological function between men and women in the name of sexual equality. The ideology requires people to behave as if they were not human.

Who is more divorced from reality?

Breivik’s ideas

How bright is Breivik? We are not talking Immanuel Kant here,  but neither is he a complete  clod.  His 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence   lists his concerns and programme for action as:

1. The rise of cultural Marxism/multiculturalism in Western Europe

2. Why the Islamic colonization and Islamisation of Western Europe began

3. The current state of the Western European Resistance Movements (anti-Marxist/anti-Jihad movements)

4. Solutions for Western Europe and how we, the resistance, should move forward in the coming decades

5. + Covering all, highly relevant topics including solutions and strategies for all of the 8 different political fronts

The  complete manifesto can be found at http://info.publicintelligence.net/AndersBehringBreivikManifesto.pdf.

There are aspects of the ridiculous about his ideas,  most notably the guff about the foundation of a latterday  Knight’s Templars of which he describes himself as  “ Justiciar Knight Commander for Knights Templar Europe and one of several leaders of the National and pan-European Patriotic Resistance Movement” and his truly embarrassing obsession with uniforms.   Breivik also shows  great obtuseness in thinking that a political manifesto of 1,518 pages  is a practical instrument to get his message across to a wide public, which was presumably his intent.  To the length of his writing can be added  the  barrier of  the quasi-academic style of  much of the content.  This prolixity and user-unfriendly style is unsurprising,  because he appears to be an autodidact  and an inability to understand an audience or edit out the marginal from the directly pertinent  often comes with that territory.  But that does not make what he has to say unimportant merely difficult  to access.

In his manifesto Breivik  is overly obsessed with Islam, although interestingly,  in his statement to the court  it is reported that: “09.32am The statement makes no reference to his crimes, his belief he is a Knight Templar, or, interestingly Islam. Instead, it’s a rant against left-wing multi-culturalism. “ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9208311/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-two-live.html).

The threat to Norwegian society posed by Islam is not to be underestimated,  but it is  a subset of the larger general threat from immigration generally, especially in countries other than Norway.   It could be argued that if it was only Muslims which constituted a threat, then the danger might be both better appreciated and more easily dealt with,  because it is only the multiplicity of competing ethnicities which allows multiculturalism  -   a classic divide and rule strategy – to be peddled.   (The  same applies to the  entirety of political correctness, because that also  relies on creating sectional groups who can be similarly manipulated ).

Nonetheless,  it is true that Islam  represents  the most coherent, immediate  and obvious threat  from immigrants  in Europe  because of the numbers involved – estimates of Muslims in the EU are around 20 million – (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html)  and the nature of the  religion itself which provides plenty of unambiguous injunctions to use force against non-Muslims to enforce Islam  and  is generally  implacable in its drive towards domination.    In judging  Breivik’s fears they should be put in the context of the fact that Norway has a population of less than 5 million (http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/befolkning_en/).  Mass immigration is  a  vastly more pressing matter  for Norwegians than it is for a country with a  population of, say, 50 million or more.

How many  Muslims are there in Norway?  No one knows for sure because the Norwegian statistics office does not count people by religion.   Estimates by non-governmental bodies  give figures such as 144,000 in 2010 (http://features.pewforum.org/muslim-population/) and 163,000 in 2009 (Islam in Norway http://folk.uio.no/leirvik/tekster/IslamiNorge.html .) These figures would not seem unreasonable when placed against the Statistics Norway 2010 figure for first and second generation immigrants:

“Immigrants and those born in Norway to immigrant parents constitute 655 000 persons or 13.1 per cent of Norway’s population, among which 547 000 are immigrants and 108 000 are born in Norway to immigrant parents. 

Broken down by region, 294 000 have a European background, 163 000 persons have a background from Asia, 60 000 from Africa, 18 000 from South- and Central-America and 11 000 from North America and Oceania.

 57 100 of those born in Norway to immigrants parents have an Asian background, 29 000 have parents from Europe, 19 500 from Africa and 2 600 have immigrant parents from South- and Central America.  “ http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/00/00/10/innvandring_en/

It would be a fair bet that the large majority of the Asians are Muslims.

Despite these substantial shortcomings, Breivik’s message is  most powerful and (for liberals) a tremendously  dangerous.   He  strikes directly at  the social  poison which lies at the heart of not only  Norway but  much of the First World: the pernicious consequences of mass immigration and the ideological justification for it – multiculturalism – which Western elites have developed to justify both the immigration and the authoritarian measures employed to prevent  public dissent  at its permitting.  In addition, by condemning political correctness generally he strikes at the other sacred cows of  political correctness ,  gay rights and feminism.   If Breivik is widely  judged to be right in his core  views  (not his actions)  the immense edifice of  political correctness  erected in in Norway  (and elsewhere)   over the past half century is under threat.

The eternal crime of treason

Most deadly for the liberal elite is Breivik’s  attack on mass immigration.  He  is accusing the Norwegian elite of  collective and sustained  act of  treason  which he believes  will obliterate  Norway as a recognisable nation

The idea of treason is so  potent  because it is one of very few crimes which exists in people’s minds  regardless of whether a law enshrining it is on the statute book.  Indeed, it could be argued that it is the only crime which commands such universality of natural recognition because even crimes such as murder and theft are open to considerable differences of definition for example, killing by vendetta has been morally sanctioned in many societies and theft by conquest lauded.  But treason  is always treason, the betrayal of the tribe, clan or nation.  It is even more fundamental than that,  because its roots  rest in the anger and dismay felt by any human being if they are let down by another whom they trusted.

A concept of treason is fundamental to every society because it sets the bounds of loyalty. Allow that there is no difference between a native of a country  and a foreigner, as the liberal internationalist does in practice (and increasingly in theory) , and the  coherence of a society is destroyed which puts its very existence under  threat – see  https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/what-is-treason-today/)

Liberals have been conditioned to eschew a sense of nation. Breivik has not. Here he is explaining why he wept at his trial when watching one of his videos :

“Because my country is in the process of dying – it was the sorrow over seeing my country … deconstructed. Especially the songs, combined with the message” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9210659/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-three-live.html).

There will be few in the West who will  espouse Breivik’s actions but many who will in varying degrees sympathise at some level with  his complaints about mass immigration, the demands of Muslims within Western societies and  the strangling of human nature by political correctness. A good parallel  for British readers is the relationship between Irish nationalists and the actions of the IRA.  Support for the IRA varied from outright glorification of terrorist acts to those who adopted what might the called the “I don’t agree with their methods but… ” approach whereby they supported the ends but not the means.

What  liberals everywhere should be doing is questioning why the imposition of their  political ideology  could drive someone to do what Breivik did. Such massacres are rare to  the point of almost  non-existence in modern Western  society.   The only real parallel is the bombing  of government offices carried out  by  Timothy McVeigh in the USA (https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/the-oslo-massacre-and-the-treason-of-the-liberals/) .

In both cases the perpetrators – Breivik and McVeigh  - were men who lived in societies which provided for their material needs.  They were not driven to do what they did by poverty. They were not fighting against an occupying power or an overt dictatorship.  Both men could  have continued to live what, by the standard of most places in the world , were extremely comfortable lives. Yet both chose to leave that security and engage in acts which by any standard were wholly exceptional  and deeply disturbing.   Moreover, the acts  are disturbing not just for the slaughter  which occurred, but also for their  causes.

Norwegians who buy into the multicultural, politically correct propaganda which has been  pumped out  for decades ought to be examining the type of world their rigid adherence to political correctness has created.   It has produced  the sense of  social claustrophobia common to overt  totalitarian states  whereby people find the range of opinion they are permitted shrinks and shrinks and instead of behaving naturally they are constantly thinking is it safe to say this? It is a mental gaol.   Breivik described  the symptoms graphically:

“09.46am I’m not scared of the prospect of being imprisoned. I was born in a prison and I have spent my life in a prison… this prison is called Norway. It doesn’t matter if I am locked into a cell, because you know that all areas will end up in a multicultural Hell that we call Oslo.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9208311/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-two-live.html).

Above all liberals need to ask themselves why, if Breivik’s ideas are so absurd, so outlandish they are afraid of them. The poet John Milton had the answer to those who wished to censor:

‘And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter…’ [Milton - Areogapitica].

If Breivik is as irrational and delusional as liberals wish to make out,  and liberals believe sincerely in what they say,  they would surely let their perceived truth go into battle with Breivik’s perceived truth. The reality is that liberals at best do not think that their ideas are practical or palatable to the majority  at present  and at worst they have ceased to believe in political correctness but cannot say so for fear of the consequences to themselves.

A sociologist and professor at Oslo university, Thomas Hylland Eriksen, has been called to give evidence for Breivik.  He has yet to give evidence but in the,  to English eyes,  rather curious world of Norwegian criminal justice, he has spoken to the media about his coming evidence (there appears to be little if any concept of sub judice in Norway) :

“I expect that they want me to help them substantiate the claim that he was not insane, what I can say is that his world view, or large parts of his world view are fairly widely shared… And this world view exists, not shared by a majority but by a fairly vocal and potentially dangerous minority,” Eriksen said. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9211988/Anders-Breivik-unable-to-distinguish-reality-says-professor.html).

There you have a liberal coming as close as they are likely to get to an admission of what they all fear:  that Breivik’s views (although not his actions) are shared by large numbers of people, especially his views on immigration and Islam.   Prof Eriksen  is wrong in one respect:  it is not a “dangerous minority” but humans generally who have these feelings, including, as mentioned previously,  liberals.  People may have been brainwashed  but that does not means normal human instincts have vanished or  that people generally  believe in the propaganda. Instead people  develop a fear response  which drives them to shun views which clash with the ideology and to give evidence of their belief in the ideology in public situations by paying lip service to it.

While an ideology can be enforced,  the public will display behaviours ranging from a servile adherence to the ideology to promote their interests  to lip service just to remain safe.   But once the means of enforcing the ideology are removed these behaviours will rapidly vanish.  The societies liberals have built in the West are houses of cards just waiting to be knocked over if the stranglehold of the politically correct can be broken.

I will end with a question, What is the non-violent means to break the hold on power of elites  who would destroy the societies they come from through mass immigration, obsessively enforce  political correctness  and  ruthlessly suppress  dissent to what they are doing  through the criminalisation of  ideas which run counter to those  of the politically correct?

A libertarian party is wrong in principle.

Political parties can exist under two general conditions: they can be based on a well-defined ideology or be coalitions without any rigid ideology, which at best are driven by an unfocused desire to “improve things” and at worst are primarily vehicles for the careerism of politicians. All modern British Parliamentary parties fall into the latter category, which might be best described as parties of vague expediency.

Libertarians are excluded from the ideological category not because they lack ideology  but because libertarianism it is not a neat, single set of ideas. It is not even, as Marxism or Christianity are, a system of thought which has started from a central point of authority and then worked itself into various forms. Rather, it is a multitude of  different and frequently contradictory ideas which arise from the simple human aspiration to take responsibility for your own life whilst living as free as possible from the suffocating attentions of both the state and overweening private authority . In all its forms libertarianism is the pursuit of the ideal of freedom not the mechanistic working towards exact ends such as is found in Marxism.

Because freedom is essentially subjective – one libertarian’s negative freedom may be another libertarian’s positive unfreedom and vice versa. – and because the means by which even a defined and agreed free end may be realised is uncertain, the variety of movements which fall within the libertarian fold is legion. To take only the major divisions, there are the  rights theorists (who eschew force) and consequentialitists (who permit it), the Right and Left Libertarians who dispute over property, minarchists (minimalist state) and anarchocapitalists (no state), those who call themselves libertarians and those whom others call libertarians but who repudiate the term themselves, most notably Objectivists.

Any ideological libertarian party would be faced with two choices: either produce a mish mash of ideas which wholly satisfied few if any libertarians or  allow itself to be captured by ideologues who would tolerate only their form of libertarianism, which behaviour would be the antithesis of libertarian ideals.

The reason why libertarians cannot go down the road of vague expediency is simple: libertarianism is the pursuit of an idea, the ideal of freedom. A party which did not have that ideal at its heart, which did not frame its policies with the intent of realising that ideal, would by definition not be a libertarian party.

There is also the nature of those who are attracted to libertarianism . As a philosophy (in all of its strains) it will tend to attract those of independent character, people who are naturally unwilling to compromise their beliefs and will tend more than the
ordinary run of humanity to want their own way even in non-ideological matters such as party organisation. . The propensity for fission within a libertarian party would be great and this trait, together with the diverse nature of libertarian ideas, make it probable going on certain that if one libertarian party was formed others would arise to compete with it.

Still not convinced? Very well, let us suppose that a libertarian party was formed. On what policies would the party run for office? Well, a “pure” libertarian party could seek power with the intention of disbanding the state entirely. A middle-of-the-road  libertarian party would remove from the state responsibility for health, the provision of benefit for disability and employment, education, the roads and railways, power generation. All that would remain is a minimalist state providing police, a justice system, armed forces and possibly a skeleton diplomatic representation. A moderate libertarian party would accept the minimalist state and in addition attend to basic infrastructure such as roads and take the Hayek line on subsistence support, viz.: “We shall again take for granted the availability of a system of public relief which provides a minimum for all instances of proved need, so that no member of the community need be in want of food or shelter” (The Constitution of Liberty Routledge pp 300-301).

The implications of having no state or even a minimalist one would seem to most Britons to be at best dangerously naïve and at worst a philosophy designed to promote the interests of haves. (A thorough-going libertarian party would be asking the British electorate to go into the unknown because no such party has ever obtained a seat in the Commons let alone formed a government). It is unlikely any party putting forward no state or a minimalist state would be treated as anything other than political eccentrics.

Even what I have defined as a moderate libertarian party would tend to scare the electoral horses. The public would be asking what would happen to the poor or the unfortunate? Who would pick up the social pieces in an emergency? What would happen if parents cannot afford to pay for their child’s education? Doubtless when pressed during an election representatives of a moderate libertarian party would say, because no electorate would begin to listen to them otherwise, “we would not be so extreme, we would take care to ensure that a bare minimum of welfare was available to stop people starving or dying from cold, we would not allow the infrastructure of the country to be left at the mercy of market forces, we would ensure every child was educated“.

The problem with such responses from libertarians is that they sell the pass on the minimalist state. Instead, they have become part of the mainstream political debate. The only question left for them to dispute is how much should be spent on welfare, education and so on. The argument that there should be nothing spent by the state, that it should all be left to private charity, has gone.

Democracy presents an insoluble problem for libertarians because most people are not wholehearted libertarians. In fact, most people are anything but libertarian, hence the depressingly frequent polls which show large majorities in favour of identity cards and CCTV, the banning of personal weapons, restrictions on free expression and  ever more draconian restrictions on drugs. But the reluctance to embrace libertarian ideas goes far wider than those iconic libertarian issues. . Most people in Britain enthusiastically approve of the Welfare State; and it is a fair bet that most would approve of protectionism and closed borders. if they were ever asked to vote in a referendum on such matters because it is a natural human instinct to protect one’s own territory and “tribe”.

There is also the practical difficulty of a new party succeeding within the British political system. In the three centuries or so in which parties have existed in the modern sense only one new party has managed to form a government, the Labour Party. Moreover, they managed it in the highly unusual circumstances of the aftermath of a World War in which members of their Party had been co-opted into Government and thus gained a public profile. It is noteworthy that no new political grouping since the extension of the Franchise to universal manhood suffrage in 1918 has succeeded in gaining permanent representation in the Commons. It is most

In opposition the position of the party would be simple: it could act as a platform for disseminating libertarian ideas: in power it would have to deal with the ugly realities of making decisions. It would have to force those who are not libertarians to live in a libertarian world., thus negating the idea of libertarianism being built on voluntary association. The fact that governments of a different colour force libertarians to live in ways they do not wish to live is neither here nor there, for that is something done to libertarians by those who are not libertarians. Libertarians cannot respond by treating  non-libertarians in a non-libertarian manner for that would negate their libertarian ideals.

Does this mean that libertarians should eschew political action? Not a bit of it. They should make every effort to promote libertarian ideals through other parties, especially the existing mainstream parties which have a chance of power. They should join such parties and argue from within and lobby individually and as groups. They should try to obtain jobs in the mainstream media. They should lobby the mainstream media. They should In short, they should attempt to do what the liberal internationalist left has done over the past sixty years, infiltrate the positions of power and influence.

Being a libertarian should be about ends not ideology because what the libertarian wishes to achieve can be reached by more than once means. Any person who imagines there is a set of objectively necessary ideas to be a libertarian is by definition not a libertarian because they wish to reduce the world to their black and white version and exclude all other voices. The sort of self-described libertarian who believes such a thing is the type of person who can be heard wondering to themselves “what is the correct libertarian position on this?” sadly oblivious to the fact that they echo the mentality of the Marxist.

Even amongst those who describe themselves as libertarians there are few  who subscribe to the “pure” libertarian menu. Most recognise that a minimalist state is necessary, that society cannot be left entirely to voluntary association and agreement. Many go further than the absolute minimalist state and recognise that some state intervention beyond the basics of defence, justice, policing, public health and sanitation and foreign policy is necessary for the maintenance of a stable society.

Most libertarians have something in common with the mass of humanity: they are libertarian on some issues and not others. Let me take myself as an example. I am pure  libertarian on issues such free expression (no censorship at all because it is an absolute: you either have it or you do not), drugs (legalise them all), the ownership and carrying of weapons (you should be able to buy a gun as easily as a pound of carrots) and self-defence (you should be able to use whatever force you choose if attacked), public surveillance by the state or others (an outrage), petty state interference with private life (an absolute no, no).

On other issues such as immigration and free trade I take a non-libertarian position because I believe the ultimate consequences of these  policies is to undermine the ends which libertarians seek because they create circumstances of pernicious competition, both ethnic and a simple scramble for scarce resources. The more fractious a society is the less libertarian it will be because when a society becomes more disordered those with power seek ever more authoritarian means to control the disorder. Libertarians may wish this was not so but it is a contingent fact that it always happens. .

These views provoke a considerable variety of responses from those who call themselves libertarians. Nor is the response of any individual libertarian I have ever encountered consistently libertarian. . One person may disapprove of drug legalisation while being utterly opposed to surveillance; another be in favour of free trade but against open border immigration. Interestingly, the most general resistance I have encountered is on the issues of freely available drugs and weapons, support for which one might have imagined would be naturally close to all libertarian hearts. .

The fact that few libertarians do follow a wholeheartedly libertarian ideological line means that most will not find it emotionally impossibly to engage with other parties. They will have even less difficulty with single issue movements. The individual libertarian will be able to pursue his or her particular libertarian passions within such contexts.

Should libertarians be downhearted at the idea that there should be no libertarian party or any likelihood of a full-blooded libertarian programme being brought to reality? Most certainly not, in fact, they should rejoice. Libertarians should never wish for a perfect libertarian society because one could only exist if all other competing forms of political thought and action were suppressed by authoritarian means, for it is certain that never would there be circumstances where most let alone all would subscribe to the full gamut of libertarian ends. That inescapable authoritarianism would undermine the principle at the heart of libertarianism: voluntary association. All that would exist would be a perfect libertarian society in form not content and even the form would be ephemeral for all tyrannies fall sooner rather than later.

 

Poems of Existence

God’s Ennui

The press of moments

The dullness of the present

The synthesising of existence

The ending of doubt

The quietude of knowing

The staleness of omniscience

The desire for oblivion

The impossibility of nothingness

The sadness past the mending

The blind wall of the futile

The eternal engine of isness

All becomes part of a whole

Nothing has distinction.

The viciousness of being.

 

The ineffable   

A flower opening, a man thinking;

A mole burrowing, purblind only in sight.

Wings beating an ageless rhythm,

Generations uncounted.

Normal is as normal does,

Abnormal is as most don’t,

Undigested otherness.

Purpose always inherent

In things which are,

Yet where to seek or glimpse

A semblance of certainty?

 

Omniscience

I am the perceiver.

I have the power.

I know the ending.

I was the why.

I am the now.

I will complete.

I shall say enough.

 

Necessity

Logic is the god of isness,

The cranking engine of being.

Every possibility, every was

Or might or maybe

Ground hard sure to facts

By the mill of must,

If this then that, not perhaps.

The universe thralled

To laws which chide

Green doubt to oblivion

And fashion certainty.

All is one thing or another,

Gorgeous simplicity.

 

The building of illusion

An ultimate point of mass,

Expanding, none knows why,

To a  state where particles

Shimmer into simple atoms

Which transmute to complexity

Through mere existence.

Ten a world discordant,

Settling to a unity of form

Which accidentally births

The amoeba  from flinty inertness,

Disrupting entropy accidentally

But signifying nothing.

An eon or two of isness

And a being who thinks

Tat here is free will,

An untrammelled desire,

No chance agglomeration;

The building of illusion.

 

Groping

Screech, screech!

Events.

Screech, screech!

Concatenation.

Screech, screech!

Undecided being.

Screech, screech!

Consciousness.

Screech, screech!

Ideas.

Screech, screech!

Action.

Screech! Screech! Screech!

 

Circles

Existence equals competition.

Competition equals events.

Events equal results.

Results create conditions.

Conditions are existence.

Existence equals competition.

Causation

Motion to energy, awareness or unnoticed isness.

Where is proper explanation and analogy?

Things which are, have been or linger for futurity

Through the aperture of consciousness.

But give no lasting truth

Because of chaos.

 

Solipsism

Like times were never seen

Nor perceptions made,

But in the sanctum of my mind

Where all creation’s laid.

Intellect

The ascribing of value.

The judging of the unbounded

The pounding of the moments

Upon the skein of mind

The sharpening of sense

At the knowledge of error.

The sin of hearing things

Above the commonplace.

The pestle of being

Grinding to madness

The understanding.

 

Futility

This press of being which grows within

This shaking of the mind

This maddening of me

These falling leaves of experience

Which flutter to nothing

In the vice of time

This debris of a life

Littering my conciousness

Ex nihilo I came

Ex nihilo I go.

 

The world after the Euro

Robert Henderson

Amidst all the gnashing of liberal internationalist teeth and  prophecies of doom if the Euro collapses a question goes unasked in the mainstream media : could the collapse of the Euro leave Britain in a better position than if  the currency  survives or could  its failure even be positively beneficial for Britain?  Sounds mad? Well, consider this, Britain may be far better placed to survive the shock than any Eurozone country because of two things:  the fact that we have our own currency and our position as a  world financial centre.

The Euro’s collapse would  cause a good deal of economic riot  within the Eurozone because of the difficulties of assigning values to the newly formed marks, francs, drachmas  and so on, both in terms of establishing the new currencies and the adjustment of contracts, loans and other  financial instruments  which are drawn up  in Euro values. Most of the contracts and loans in the Eurozone countries will require adjustment.  That will involve a massive administrative cost and make Eurozone countries less competitive.

Britain will have none of the costs  and disruption of re-establishing a currency. She  will be affected where British contracts  and loans have been drawn up with the Euro as the unit of value or financial instruments are denominate din Euros, but unlike the Eurozone  members that will affect only a small minority of British financial agreements because most of British economic  activity is within and for the British domestic market .  The lesser costs will make British business more competitive relative to the Eurozone countries.

In addition, while the administrative changes and the task of valuing the re-established currencies in terms of the value of the Euro  is proceeding, those wishing to enter into contracts from outside the Eurozone  may be reluctant to do so with Eurozone countries until the currencies are fully re-established. This could drive non-Eurozone foreign contracts to Britain which might otherwise have  been placed with Eurozone businesses.

While the turmoil of changing from the Euro to the re-established old currencies continues ,  there would almost certainly  be a reluctance to buy the sovereign debt of even the likes of Germany at reasonable rates of interest . That would make British issued bonds more attractive and  keep  the rate of interest paid on them low. The difficulty in raising finance would also affect non-governmental  corporate bodies  such as companies, charities and other not-for-profit organisations.

There is of course the possibility  of a substantial diminution of Britain’s trade with the Eurozone during the initial upheaval  when old currencies are re-established and values assigned to contracts and so on;  a much lesser chance of lost trade with rest of the EU which remains outside the Eurozone (and like Britain retains national currencies)  during the period of adjustment and a  lesser chance still of disrupted trade with  members of the European Economic Area (EEA)such as Norway and Switzerland.

How much might Britain lose?  Claims of  Britain having 50% of  its exports going to the EU are misleading because they are inflated by “….two quite separate effects. The first, the Rotterdam-Antwerp Effect, relates to exports of goods and commercial services to Holland and Belgium. About two thirds of these pass through the two biggest ports in Europe, Rotterdam in Holland and Antwerp in Belgium, on their way somewhere else – some to other EU countries, the rest outside the EU.

“The second, the Netherlands Distortion, relates to Income. This often flows through Dutch “brass-plate” holding companies which offer tax advantages. As a result, much of the investment and income flows recorded in the British statistics as going to or coming from Holland in fact go to  come from somewhere else, very often outside the EU altogether.” (http://www.globalbritain.org/BOO/HowDependant.htm)

How much of an inflation of UK exports to the EU it is difficult to say, but it would  probably  be reasonable to knock the amount of our exports which go to the EU overall down to 40%.

Would Britain be ruined if the Euro collapsed?  It is worth remembering that only around 18% of UK GDP is devoted to exports.  UK GDP in  in the financial year 2009/10 was £1453billion (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?title=UK%20Gross%20Domestic%20Product&year=1950_2010&chart=#ukgs303) and exports of goods and service came to £260 billion (http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/united-kingdom/export-import.html) or 18% of GDP.  If only 40% of UK exports go to the EU (or strictly the European Economic Area),  that would mean around 7% of the UK total economic activity would be at risk.

Of course,  no such wholesale loss would occur because stricken or not the Eurozone countries (and even more so the other continental EU countries not in the Eurozone) would not suddenly lose most of their economic activity.  Moreover, it is conceivable that the re-establishment of national currencies could   stimulate the economies of those involved remarkably quickly because it would allow them to trade on reasonable terms.

It is also probable that the UK financial sector would  pick up much of the business involved in the break-up  of the Euro as companies and governments both in the Eurozone and the wider world look to the financial expertise of the UK to help unravel the mess.

The problem of the Euro as a reserve currency

It is one thing to be a currency  which is a national currency and little else: quite another to be the second largest reserve currency in the world which is the fate of the Euro. Extremely problematic  questions arise from that status most pressingly, what will the holders of the Euro as a reserve currency receive if the Euro collapses? ?

The conversion of Euros to new national currencies of the Eurozone is in principle (but not in practice) straightforward, because the Euro holdings within the Eurozone could be converted to whatever the exchange rate of the each new currency is deemed to be, for example, a one to one parity for the Euro and a new German Mark and three to one parity for the Euro and a new Drachma (the  conversion ratios could be achieved either by negotiation within the Eurozone members or by allowing the new currencies to float for a few months and  then using their market valuations).

The position of the holders of the Euro as a reserve currency who are not Eurozone members  is completely different for they will not have a new currency to which to  convert. All would want the new  Mark and none the new Drachma.  I suppose that they could be offered a basket of all the new currencies with the contribution of each weighted to a criterion such as the population of each Eurozone member. However, that would be tantamount to a substantial devaluation of their Euro holdings.

Running parallel to the position of the reserve currency holders is the status of private individuals and organisations outside of the Eurozone holding Euros. How will they be treated if the Euro ceases to be?

These are all questions  which wait to be addressed . They are capable of causing immense tensions not merely in the EU but   worldwide as holders of the Euro face massive losses.

Will the Euro survive?

The intense desire of the EU elites to preserve the Euro to provide the glue to maintain the greatly expanded union and as a platform for further federalisation is not at issue.  A collapse of the Euro would both reduce to rubble the EUs attempt to project itself as a superpower and  leave the EU subject to economic sanctions by countries outside the EU which had lost out through the Euro’s collapse.  That alone would provide the most pressing reason for the Eurozone elites to maintain the currency, even to the point of engaging in large  capital transfers  from richer to poorer Eurozone members.

But the  will of elites  cannot keep a political system in place if the fundamentals are wrong.   In the Eurozone they are wrong both in terms of the vicious absurdity of the Euro and  the profound lack of democratic control.  Ironically, the agent of immediate destruction will be a god  of the Western elites own creation, globalisation, which has allowed that most truly supra-national of  entities, the financial markets, to come into being.

If the Euro does fall, it could herald the end of the EU. That would be a savage irony because the Eurofantatics would have destroyed that which they most desired by feeding it on too rich a political fare.

The nation state: the only platform for democratic control

Democracy in the literal direct sense does not exist in the modern world, indeed for practical reasons cannot exist in a state of any size. What we have is what political scientists call elective oligarchy, a political system whereby the electorate is offered a choice ever few years between competing parts of a society’s elite.

That paints a dismal picture for the masses. However, even within an elective oligarchy, they can exercise considerable control given the right circumstances. What the masses can do and have done for most of the past century and a half in Britain is exert an ever increasing control over the elite through representative institutions. But they have only been able to do this because the representative institutions have operated within the context of the national state. Elites as groups have been forced to take heed of the masses because they relied upon their votes to be re-elected and the system worked by and large because the major political parties offered a meaningful alternative on the most of the great issues.

In the past thirty years our political circumstances have changed dramatically. Two things have happened. The freedom of action of the Government and Parliament has been greatly reduced and the political parties have become ideologically aligned.

Entanglement in the EU has resulted in a majority of British legislation ultimately originating not in Parliament but within the European Commission, while various treaties have removed whole swathes of political choice from the electorate, ranging from proper control over foreign policy and border control to the pursuit of a national economic policy. Most profoundly the European single market agreement and the GATT treaty arrangements and membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have left British parties with no choice of economic policy, for as things stand they have to support the notions of free markets and free trade. Any party wishing to offer protectionism and state intervention in the economy cannot do it unless they commit themselves to withdraw from the EU and WTO.

The consequence of the our membership of the EU and our other treaties is that our politicians in practice can offer very little difference in policy to the electorate. And, of course, our politicians find it convenient to use our EU membership and other treaty obligations to excuse themselves from responsibility for unpopular measures or as justification for forcing through vast amounts of detailed legislation which Parliament, let alone the electorate, is barely aware is being passed into law.

The position is worsened by the careerism of the modern politician. This has always existed to a degree, but what we have now is of a different order of magnitude. The really depressing thing about the House of Commons now is the sheer narrowness of experience of the members, many of whom have never had a career other than their political one. Hence, once on the political career bandwagon they cannot afford to get off. The current bandwagon is the internationalist one.

Internationalism dissolves national sovereignty. The left may cheer this but they are discovering by the day just how restrictive international treaties and membership of supranational groups can be. As things stand, through our membership of the EU and the World Trade Organisation treaties, no British government could introduce new socialist measures because they cannot nationalise companies, protect their own commerce and industry or even ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent in Britain with British firms. As far as economics is concerned, a British government can have any economic system they like provided it is largely free trade, free enterprise.

The Right are suffering the same sickness with different symptoms. They find that they are no longer masters in their own house. They cannot meaningfully appeal to traditional national interests because treaties and EU membership make that impossible. Control of national borders has gone.

A reversion to nationalism need not be a party political matter in Britain, but the modern British left are unfortunately conditioned to believe that the national state is at best outmoded and at worst xenophobic, racist even. This ignores both the history of the mainstream British left and mistakes form for content.

The Labour Party for almost all of its existence has been strongly protectionist and hence de facto in favour of the nation state. Indeed, Blair in the late 1980s was still an economic nationalist. Moreover, for most of the time Labour has been consciously in favour of the nation state and of Britain’s independence – few could give the likes of Attlee and Bevin lessons in patriotism.

As for mistaking form for content, it is simply a matter of empirical fact that the nation state does not produce a uniform behaviour – take Switzerland and Iraq from the present day as examples of that. The idea that nation state equals aggressive, xenophobic, badly behaved warmonger is a literal nonsense. In particular, there is good empirical evidence that where there is significant democratic control within a nation state, this makes aggressive war much less likely than where a dictatorship exists.

It is also true that supranational bodies are not noticeably better behaved than nation states. Worse, they have a large element of the sham in them, being invariably dominated by the more powerful component states, for example, the UN being heavily manipulated by the USA and the EU broadly controlled by its major members. Supranational bodies are not simply vehicles for the normal process of power-mongering, but, in practice, that is their prime function. That they give a spurious appearance of international agreement and legitimacy adds to the ability of the dominating states within them to exercise control over weaker states by direct threats, the withholding of money and, most insidiously, the development of bureaucracies which carry forward the policies forced on the supranational bodies by the most powerful members. (It is often said that the UN has no power. This is utterly mistaken. It may not have an army but there is a vast web of agencies which allow a great deal of control and influence to be exercised over states which seek their assistance. Some such as the IMF and World Bank control client countries from the outside, while others such as UNHCR permit direct internal interference on the ground.)

What should be provided indirectly by the state?

Just because something is a necessity does not mean that the state must or should provide it directly. In fact, the less direct provision the better, because in a free society government should only touch that which it needs to touch. For example, whereas there are not many possible suppliers of air traffic control systems or railways, there are many possible suppliers of food. Government may safely leave food distribution to the private supplier and provide assistance where it is needed through payments to those in need. It should be noted that it is not the market or private enterprise which provides the general provision in cases such as food but the giving of taxpayers’ money to those who need it which provides the general provision.

Service is really the crucial criterion. Governments should become directly involved in industrial work very rarely – the exceptions are defence suppliers, utilities such as water, gas and electricity because of their status as natural monopolies and their immense importance. No nationalised industry making or extracting anything has ever been an economic success. Governments running manufacturers, farming or the extractive industries such as coal mining are neither necessary nor desirable, because private enterprise will always do the job adequately and more efficiently provided the economic circumstances are right, that is, vital industries are protected through tariffs, quotas or subsidies to the extent necessary to make them profitable.

But such vital industries are the Government’s business because they have both a strategic and a social and economic value. Consequently, governments do have is a responsibility to ensure that they are maintained.

Any country which cannot feed itself, produce all essential manufactured products and services, is not self-sufficient in energy and does not have substantial reserves of essential raw products such as iron ore, is constrained in what it may do both nationally and internationally and the greater the reliance of imports, the greater the constraint. Of course any advanced industrial state will not be completely self-sufficient, but it is possible for a country to have a large degree of self-sufficiency in the essentials especially food. With modern crop yields and modern animal husbandry, Britain could feed itself at a pinch if her market for food was protected to allow reasonable profits to be made by farmers using not merely the best or most convenient land, but the more marginal land as well.

Where a country is severely dependent on imports, as is the case with Britain, they are utterly at the mercy of international blackmail and events. Even the most powerful state in the world, the USA, is much restricted because of its reliance on imported oil. Such constraints have the most serious of consequences. Would George Bush have invaded Iraq if the USA was not reliant on Middle East oil? I doubt it.

The free trade dream of buying where a product can be produced cheapest is based on the absurd premise that never again will international circumstances arise which will place any country at risk of war or blockade. There is also the question of what happens when raw materials run short and the scarce materials either remain in the countries of origin or go to the richest and most powerful countries with the rest left to go hang. Free trade is not merely a fantasy but a dangerous one in the long term.

There is also the economic and social case for protection. Cheap imports from countries which have labour costs many times below those of the mature industrial states, goods made cheap by state subsidies and plain old-fashioned “dumping” means that no company in the West is able to compete with the imports. The effect of allowing such imports is twofold: either the workers in the importing countries must take lower wages or, more probably, watch the obliteration of the domestic industry.

The same thing happens where mass immigration is permitted. If the immigration did not occur the wages for the type of jobs which immigrants take would be higher. That in turn would lessen or end the shortages of native workers willing to do them. For most jobs all that is needed to solve a shortage of labour is a wage sufficiently competitive with other employments to attract enough applicants. A good example in Britain are nurses: a shortage of native applicants a few years ago has been turned into a surplus now by a substantially increase in their pay.

The loss of jobs and suppression of wages through cheap imports, outsourcing, or large scale immigration has considerable social and economic effects. Those who lose their jobs either remain unemployed or take jobs which pay much less, are less secure and have lesser benefits. Those who remain in their jobs but whose pay is suppressed suffer similar difficulties. Both groups find their spending power is reduced. They pay less tax. If they are unemployed the Treasury is a net loser. New immigrants compete for scarce public goods such as free healthcare, education and social housing. Most particularly they compete most directly with the poorer native members of society who have most need of such social supports. Poor pay, insecurity, unemployment and competition from mass immigration all place a severe strain on the social cohesion of a country.

Neither the Left or Right need recoil in horror at the idea of a judicious protectionism and a strong immigration policy. The Labour Party has been strongly protectionist throughout most of its history. The Tory Party was protectionist before therepeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 and protectionist again between 1931 and the advent of Margaret Thatcher. For most of their history both parties have been in practice opposed to mass immigration.

No 10 ‘interfered to push through £600m plan for virus superlab’

London Evening Standard
  
Mark Blunden
20 Jan 2011

Campaigners against a maximum security “superlab” in the heart of London are calling for a parliamentary inquiry claiming that there was political interference in the bidding process.

The UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation, behind the British Library in St Pancras, will be capable of containing flu viruses, malaria, tuberculosis, cancer cells and HIV.

Residents living close to the centre are calling for an inquiry into the £600 million project after Cabinet Office emails, seen by the Standard, revealed that the previous government was keen to “make it happen” before the tendering process had closed.

They also claim Camden council failed to inform residents fully of the severity of the diseases to be tested at the 3.6 acre site and is stonewalling their questions.

Today, it can be revealed that in July 2007, Jeremy Heywood, a Cabinet Office civil servant, emailed officials, including the Department of Health and the Chief Scientific Officer, stating: “The PM (Gordon Brown) is very keen to make sure the government departments are properly co-ordinated on this project – and that if there is a consensus that this is indeed an exciting project, then we do what we can to make it happen.”

The email, released under the Freedom of Information Act, was sent the week before the first bids were due in and six weeks before the shortlist was finalised.

Other documents reveal that among 27 competing proposals for the site were a multi-faith centre and hundreds of affordable homes in a borough with 18,000 people on its housing waiting list. Both of these proposals complied with Camden’s brief for the site, but it is alleged the superlab initially did not.

Resident Robert Henderson, a retired civil servant, 63, said: “Camden went against their own original plan for a mixed-use development.

“There’s been political interference with the bidding process as well as the grave security issues. There should be a parliamentary inquiry because £250 million of public money is at stake.”

Read more at

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23915802-no-10-interfered-to-push-through-pound-600m-plan-for-virus-superlab.do

 
Letter sent to Evening Standard 21 Jan 2011
 
Sir,
 
I can expand upon Mark Blunden’s report “No 10 ‘interfered to push through £600m plan for virus superlab’” (20 Jan) .  
I am the person who obtained the evidence of Brown’s interference using the FOIA. I have a mass of documents showing that Brown was pressing for the sale to UKCMRI before the formal  bidding process had ended and afterwards before a formal decision was made. Here is an example of the documents: 

  Sent: 27 November 2007 13:09

To: HOLGATE NICHOLAS

Cc: _[40]_____________

Subject: RESTRICTED – Land to the North

 Hi Nicholas,

 Jonathan spoke to Jeremy Heywood this morning. Jeremy said he needed the bid to be agreed by next Wednesday – 5 Dec (or Thursday latest) as PM wanted to get MRC in then (or possible public announcement.

Jonathan explained that there are two issues from our point of view: .No revised formal offer has been received by DCMS .HMT are not being helpful of recycling returns – without an improved offer from HMT JS said it would he v hard to justify.

JR said he thought the offer was sent to us yesterday – have checked but nothing in JSs post or email – JH will chase. JH also said he would go back to HMT to see what  more they can do, but that ultimately PM may have to arbitrate.

 Cheers

 Private Secretary  to Jonathan StephensDepartment for (Culture, Media and Sport 2-4 Cockpur Street, London SWlY) 

  This was a public bidding process. The decision was supposed to rest with the the Minister heading the DCMS. Brown as Prime Minister should have played no role in the decision. There were 28 bidders of whom 9 were placed on the short list. It would be interesting to know how they feel about the conduct of the bid.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

See also

http://ukcmri.wordpress.com/

Patriotism is not an optional extra

Robert Henderson

Contents

1. What is patriotism?

2. The roots of patriotism

3. Nations are tribes writ large

4. The importance of a national territory

5. The democratic value of nations

6. What the individual owes to the nation

7.  The liberal internationalist

8. How to move from multiculturalism to patriotism

9 No patriotism, no enduring society

1. What is  patriotism?

By patriotism I mean the sense of belonging to a people, of  owning a land, having a group identity,  of feeling  at ease with those belonging to the group  in a way which meeting  those  outside the group never engenders, of naturally  favouring your  people above foreigners, of knowing that the  interests of the “tribe” must come before that of any outsider. By this  definition patriotism is something which the vast majority of human beings can  understand because it is not an ideology but an innate human quality whose origins lie buried deep within the evolution of social animals.

The only people who may genuinely be unable to understand  patriotism are the severely mentally retarded or those with a personality disorder such as autism which reduces their ability to understand social contexts.  Despite their incessant repudiation of patriotism even latterday liberals understand the pull of patriotic inclinations, although of course they would never recognise the nature of their inclinations.    These drive  them to live in a manner which is directly at odds with their professed ideology. Look at the life of a white liberal and you will find that they overwhelmingly arrange their lives so that they live in
very white, and in England, very English worlds. They do this in two ways. They either live in an area which is overwhelmingly white – the “rightest of right-on”  British folk singers Billy Bragg chooses to live in the “hideously white”  and English county of Dorset – or  reside in a gentrified white enclave created  on the outskirts of an area such as Islington in London  which has a significant ethnic content to its population– the Blairs lived there before moving to Downing Street. The latter tactic allows the white liberal to luxuriate in the faux belief that they are “living the diversity dream”,  whilst in reality encountering little if any  of the “joy of diversity” they are so vocally enthusiastic about.  A splendid example of  white liberal ghettoization is the drippingly  pc TV presenter Adrian Chiles who  described in a BBC programme  The  Colour of Friendship (18 August 2003) how he looked at his wedding photographs which were taken only a few years before and saw to his dismay and  astonishment that it was in the words of the one-time BBC director-general  Greg Dyke “hideously white”.  With a guest list of several hundred he was unable to find a single non-white face staring out at him. The only ethnic  minorities he had equal or extended contact with were those he met at work, who  were of course middleclass and westernised.

The ease and near universality of understanding of  patriotism sets it apart from ideologies such  as Marxism and liberal internationalism.  The majority of the followers of any ideology with a large number of adherents  will have little understanding  of it, either because they are intellectually lazy or because they lack the  intellectual wherewithal to master the creed. Few Marxists have ever had  a grasp of such ideological niceties as the
laws of dialectics and even fewer modern  liberal internationalists understand  the relationship of  laissez faire economic theory  to historical economic  reality.   The tendency for those who ostensibly support  an ideology to be ignorant of it beyond the grasping of a few ideas which can be reduced to slogans is greatly inflated where, as has happened with political correctness, it becomes the  ideology of  the ruling elite.  In such circumstances people  give lip service to an ideology ,  even  if they neither understand its theoretical basis or even agree with it out of  expediency, whether that be driven by fear or ambition.

The majority of believers in any ideology  are in the position of the laity in Western Europe  before the Reformation when the universal use of the Latin Bible and Latin in church rites meant that the vast majority of the population were left at the mercy of a clerical elite who simply told them what to believe, whether or not it was  sanctioned by the Scriptures. Such people will chant the slogans and support  the intellectual leadership of their movements not because they understand and  are convinced by the ideology, but because  they have  nailed their emotional  colours to  a group.  Ironically, they are tapping into the same  innate traits which create tribes and nations.  The problem is they are creating something which is evolutionarily destructive because it drives them to attempt to destroy the natural formation of human groups through bonds of cultural and racial similarity.

Compare the  situation of the follower of an ideology with that of those who respond to the all of patriotism as defined above. They cannot be so easily or routinely hoodwinked and manipulated by the few, because almost everyone instinctively understands what it is to be patriotic. It does not need to be explained to them.  Whatever the behaviour arising from appeals to patriotism it is not undertaken out of ignorance. Of course, the  ways in which people respond to  their innate feelings  need not be either pretty or moral,  for at its extreme appeals to the emotions and thoughts which come with patriotism may lead to attempts at genocide.  However, even in such extreme circumstances,  the tribe or nation attempting genocide is at  least behaving in a way which is congruent with human biology  and the survival of the group, although an  attempt at conquest or genocide which goes wrong may severely damage or destroy the aggressor.

2. The roots of  patriotism

The sense of being separate, of belonging to a discrete group with identifiable characteristics is a necessary part of being human because Man is a social animal. Social animals have two universal features: they form discrete groups and within the group produce hierarchies – although both the group and the hierarchy vary considerably in form and intensity. Human beings are no exception; whether they are hunter-gatherers or people populating a great modern city they all have a need to form groups in which they feel naturally comfortable.

Why do social animals form discrete groups rather than treat all the animals of their species which they encounter as being part of the group? Part of the answer surely lies in competition for territory, food and mates and the  limits placed on any species by their environment.  For example, it would be impossible for lions to exist in much larger groups than they do because of their heavy food demands. Moreover, once the group size is established it is not possible for a species to suddenly change its size because the behavioural template will have been set to accommodate the size which exists.  Man is possibly the exception to this rule, but  it could be argued that humans only learned
how to form larger groups very slowly and that where larger groups form today, for example, villagers moving off the land to the cities in developing countries,  this is simply  the extended consequences of the long, painful steps towards extending the human group size.

Some animals, most notably insects, fish and birds, successfully form very large groups. However, the  form of their association  or their degree of social integration  differs from  that of primates  (and arguably mammals generally). Social insects rely for their organisation on what are in effect  simple  automated responses through such triggers as
chemical releases. Fish and birds may form large groups, most probably because it affords them evolutionary  goods such  as greater protection from predators or easier access to mates,  without  engaging in much social support for one another beyond being together. Birds  may assemble in large groups only when they migrate.

The most highly developed social animals amongst mammals such as primates and wolves do far more than simply congregate.  They develop patterns of behaviour which require active and complex  cooperation between members of the group.  Such behaviour may of itself place limits on the size of a group by the behaviour being dependent  upon the mental capacity of the animal.   For example, it could be that a pack of  wolves can only be the size it is because anything substantially larger would  be impossible for the mind of the animal to comprehend or for behaviours which are essentially automatic to operate within.

There is also the question of mating strategies and the  raising of offspring. Sexually reproducing social animals have to evolve strategies to maximise reproduction for the individual whilst preventing competition for mates amongst males becoming so intense it threatens the viability of the group.  Probably the most common method of achieving this amongst social mammals is to have a dominant male; frequently  a sexually mature male who occupies the position of the oriental despot with his harem, for example,  the gorilla.
This of itself means that that the group must be clearly defined with males from outside excluded. But even where there is a looser social arrangement which permits different males within the group to not only co-exist but share the females , as is the case with the chimpanzee,  there is still a sense of possession amongst the males at least and hence the need for a defined group.When a species has moved to social animal status,  behaviours that intensify group behaviour such as the recognition of members of the group by scent will make the exclusion of outsiders  ever more rigid. It is also probable that amongst the most advanced social  mammals that the individual animals have sufficient mental awareness to become, just as humans do, accustomed to the behaviour of the members of their particular group and that becomes a  major part of maintaining the group identity.
Animals generally hate novelty so it would make evolutionary sense for them to prefer those individuals with whom they have grown up to strangers.

Man is the exception to the rule of group size in as much as over the past 10,000 years or so humans have shown themselves capable of  creating groups of vast size . This is plausibly attributable to the mental capacity of humans being sufficient to overcome the organisational  which thwart the increase in group size of other social mammals.  But this ability to increase group size massively has only occurred in recent human existence. Human settlements where people are counted in thousands rather than dozens or hundreds have a history of less than 10,000 years and even today most human beings live in small communities.   From paleontological and archaeological evidence, historical accounts of how people lived  and  the example of  tribal peoples living today, we can reasonably deduce that the natural size of human groups living  without the ability to generate their own food supply through farming is a few hundred at most.   Importantly, although  Man can now live in larger communities,  he is still in evolutionary terms equipped to live in small groups. This means that the innate tendencies which lead social
animals to set limits to the group  are alive and well.

That leaves the formation of hierarchies to be explained. For animals other than Man the answer is I think simple enough, only by forming hierarchies can social groups cohere. Animals vary considerably in their physical and mental qualities. Observe any animal, even the simplest single cell organism, and differences between individuals within the species will become apparent. Some are more vigorous than others, some unusually large, some abnormally small, some more adventurous and so on. Individuals will also vary in physical capacity and behaviour by age and, in sexually reproducing species, sex.

Solitary animals compete for existential goods through direct competition with other members of their species, something they do through methods such as such as scent marking of territorial boundaries and serious fighting . When an animal is social, differences in individual quality and the urge of each individual to survive have to be resolved by something other than the methods used by solitary animals because the animals live in close proximity. Competition for desirable goods still occurs, most notably
competition for food and mates, but normally within behaviours which are not fatal to other members of the group or behaviours which are so disruptive as to threaten the survival of the group. Moreover, the development of such behavioural restraint  provides the possibility for  behaviours to develop  which  make the individuals of the group dependent  upon one another, for example, the hunting strategies of  the wolf which
requires the adult members of the pack to display a very considerable degree of cooperation.  The development of  such behaviours probably reinforces the tendency
towards hierarchy. The upshot of these various social accommodations  is the formation of different social niches into which individuals with different qualities ad histories fit.

Consider what would happen if hierarchies did not exist. There would be constant conflict within the group because no individual would have cause to defer to another except from fear of physical harm.  Fear is a blunt and very limited instrument of social control, whether it be of humans or animals. It is a strategy more suited to the solitary animal than the social one. Group behaviour is a compromise between the immediate advantage of the individual and the diffuse advantages derived from group activity. The compromise is given structure by hierarchies, whether that be a fixed biological distinction by sex or caste (for example, social bees) or a transient one due to the age of an animal. Hierarchies are
built on the differences between individuals and the more rigid the hierarchical structure the greater will be the selective pressures to produce individuals in the right proportions to fill the various social niches within the group.

Hierarchies also make sense in terms of the development of social animals. Social animals are descended from asocial animals. The movement from asocial to social animal is presumably akin to the evolutionary process whereby a parasite is converted to a symbiotic partner. It is a process of gradual behavioural accommodation.

Social animals on the bottom rung of the social animal ladder may do little more than associate together at certain times. The next rung up and the animal frequently associates with others of its kind. One more step and the animal forms more or less permanent groupings. And so on until we reach the ultimate social animal, Man.

The gradual evolution of social behaviour of itself points to the need for hierarchy, because at each stage of the evolution the natural overtly selfish behaviour of the original solitary animal has to be modified. That modification will only come through natural selection working on behavioural traits which favour more complete socialisation.

What about human beings? Are they not capable of breaking the biological bounds which capture animals? Does not their immense intelligence and possession of language place them in another category of being? Could Man not simply decide not to behave in a non-hierarchical manner? The fact that human beings have never done so is of itself sufficient evidence for all but the most ideologically committed nurturist to decide that human
beings cannot do it in practice and to conclude that the forming of hierarchies is part of the human template. However, to that fact can be added another, the dominance-submission behaviour which every person witnesses daily not merely in positions of formal dominance and subordination such as the workplace, but in every aspect of social life.

Societies which consist of various human groups that  see themselves as separate  from each other disrupt the creation of a healthy hierarchy. Instead of there being a single hierarchy within an homogenous group (defining homogenous as a population in a discrete territory  which sees itself as a group), there are  hierarchies formed within each group and a further overarching hierarchy formed from the various groups themselves
with  each group hierarchy competing within the population as a whole.

The nature of the competition between the groups will depend on the relative  proportions each forms  of a population and the history of each group.  The subordinate groups within the society will feel that they are there on sufferance and  be suspicious and fearful of the dominant  group and constantly  worried that any  other minority group is outcompeting them.  A majority population which has been  dominant  in all respects within the territory will take some shifting from its position of supremacy,  but the influx of substantial numbers of outsiders will nonetheless create insecurity and  resentment amongst the dominant population. In such circumstances no individual , whether of the dominant or subordinate group(s), feels entirely  secure because there is constant tension between groups. Most importantly for the wellbeing of the society, there is no common bond of trust between people sharing the same territorial house.

3. Nations are tribes writ large

Nations are tribes writ large. They are remarkably durable. Empires invariably fall but a nation is timeless and can be only be utterly destroyed only through an act of genocide. Even the loss of a homeland – the most traumatic loss any nation can sustain – does not destroy a people as the Jews have emphatically shown for nearly two thousand years.

A shared faith or political ideology does not make a nation.  Muslims may claim to be one people, but the reality is very different as the continual strife between Muslims bears witness. Not only is there the major division between Shias and Sunnis, Muslim dominated states of the same ostensible branch of Islam are often hostile to each other, while Muslim terrorists/freedom fighters (take your pick) willingly kill fellow Muslims – women and children included – in large numbers.

Similarly, Marxist Leninists in the Soviet Union and Red China may have maintained the fiction to the bitter end of the Soviet Bloc that the international proletariat was as one, but the substantial deviations between their ideologies and the viciously repressive measures they used to deny their own proles contact with outside world (and hence with the rest of
the proletariat) told another tale.

Today, the doctrine of liberal internationalism pretends to a universality of human experience and commonality which is refuted every day by the manifold social, ethnic and racial strife throughout the world. It is an ideology which wishes the world would be as it says rather than asserts that this is the world as it is or would be under given conditions.

Nations are organic growths. They cannot be constructed consciously as the “nation-builders” of the period of European de-colonisation fondly imagined and their liberal internationalist successors today continue to at least pretend to believe. Nations are developed through the sociological process of establishing trust within the group. This only happens when others are recognised as belonging naturally to the group. That does not mean that every member of the nation is seen as equal as an individual, whether for
reasons of personality, ability or social status, but it does mean they are accepted automatically as being part of the nation. An English duke may have little if any social contact with the English working man, but each would instinctively recognise the other as English because despite their social distance they fall within the recognised template of what it is to be English.

Nor is the sense of group solidarity and empathy  restricted to nations. As David Hume noted  over two centuries ago when he reflected on how we respond to people in different circumstances: “An Englishman [met] in Italy is a friend:  A European in China [is a friend] ; and perhaps a man [of any origin] wou’d be belov’d as such, were we to meet him in the moon.” ( A Treatise of Human Nature Book II section 2 (A Treatise of Human
Nature).  The same forces which create tribes and nations are at work here as the individual seeks, in the absence of members of his tribe or nation,  those who are closest to his tribe or nation.

Just as a nation cannot be consciously created the individual cannot decide in anything other than the legal sense that they are this or that nationality. A man may decide to become a British citizen through an act of will but he cannot decide to be English. That is because being English is the consequence of parentage and upbringing, something over which the child has no control. It is the unconscious imbibing of a culture something
visceral.

Most vitally, to be part of the tribe or nation a person has to be accepted without thinking by other members of the nation as a member of the nation to be of that nation. That is why the claims of English men and women to be Irish, Welsh or Scots are both forlorn and ridiculous. As the English film director Stephen Frears wittily remarked of the very English actor Daniel Day-Lewis “I knew Daniel before he was Irish”.

Like it or not, the upbringing of these wannabe Celts has made them English. Not only do they think like the English, understand English mores without thinking and are armed with a library of English cultural references, they have a personality which falls within the English spectrum. Put them in a room with foreigners or the Celts they wish to be and they will be taken for English. Such people cannot be anything but English, because only by being raised in a society where you are accepted without question as being part of the nation can the person become part of a nation. An Englishman who wishes to claim that he is a Scot cannot realistically  do so because he lacks the cultural imprinting of a Scot. It is not something which can be faked.

4. The importance of a national territory

A national territory is essential to the well-being of the nation. The fate of the Jews after they lost theirs is a cautionary tale for anyone who believes otherwise. The ideal is a territory which is controlled entirely by the nation, a population which is overwhelmingly comprised of people who are authentic members of the national “tribe” through their parentage and upbringing. The prime example of such a state is the pre-union England, which was the first true nation state.

The next best choice is for a nation state containing different peoples who each have de facto their own national territory. Britain is a first rate example of such a state, with the four home nations – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – each having their own territory.  Simply having a land in which you form the majority on the ground is a great consolation and benefit . That applies even to a people such as the Kurds whose land is  divided between Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Being the dominant population they have both the reassurance of their demographic  control of the territory – boots on the ground – and the consoling possibility of converting that demographic dominance into political control in the future.

The Jews are an oddity. Until the modern state of Israel was founded in 1948 they had been without a homeland for nearly two millennia. They neither controlled a territory in their own right nor were the dominant people in a land. Because of that they were able to convert their religion into a cultural suit to be worn by all adherents in a way that Islam and Christianity or any political ideology never could. Denuded of their own land, they could neither be oppressed by an invader nor oppress others by invasion. They could
not exercise state power. All they had left was cultural power, whether that be intellectual or economic. The consequence was that Jewish culture rather than the possession of a homeland became the primary or even sole psychological focus of  Jews.

As a consequence of the history and  evolution of Jewish society, there been a strain within Jewry since the foundation of a modern state Jewish state was first seriously mooted  in the 19th century that has been hostile to the formation of such a state,  because the Jewish culture which they valued was the product of not having a country to call their own and consequently would become tainted if Jews had a homeland, that Jews would become like other peoples.

Although this mentality has a certain intellectual attraction, it condemns Jews to perpetual insecurity. Although Jews have successfully developed a culture built upon the need to accommodate themselves as a minority within majority non-Jewish populations whilst maintaining a strong ethnic identity, the absence of a territory which they control has meant that their history for the past twenty centuries has been an unhappy one, punctuated regularly by abuse from the majority populations with whom they co-existed,
abuse which ranges  from everyday discrimination to attempts at genocide. This abuse is the consequence of the disordering of the hierarchy humans need, the consequences being what at bottom is a battle for territory.

5. The democratic value of nations

Politically, nations are immensely valuable because the nation state is the largest political unit which allows any meaningful democratic control. Indeed, it is arguable that representative government at the national level is the only real opportunity for serious democratic control, because representative bodies below the national level are always subject to a national government. Supra-national authority signals the end of democratic control. More of that later.

Only in a country where there is a sense of shared history, culture and communal interest can representative government function, even in principle, as a conduit for the interests of the entire population. In a country which is riven by ethnic and racial difference representative democracy invariably deteriorates into a mass of competing groups all struggling for their own advantage. Policy making and its execution becomes fragmentary and it is impossible to construct a coherent approach to promoting the common good. In a nation state with a large degree of homogeneity the political process is concentrated instead upon policies which affect all, or at least the overwhelming majority, of the people. For example, before post-war mass immigration fractured Britain, the great political questions were ones related to class. Policies were put forward  which either were intended to better the situation of the working class or to resist change.  Whichever side a person
was on in that debate, they had no illusions that political policy was designed to meet the situation of the British people as a whole. Today political policy in Britain  is at best a juggling act between the competing ethnic and racial groups and at worst  a deliberately  conspiracy amongst the political elite to suppress the interests of the native population to accommodate those of  minority groups formed over the past 60 years  by incontinent mass immigration.

Once a country’s sovereignty is breached through treaties which commit countries to bow to the will of supra-national bodies , as has happened with the constituent countries of the EU, democratic control withers on the vine because mainstream politicians of all stamps begin to formulate their policies within the context of what the supra-national body allows not in the interests of the country. Eventually, a situation is reached, as has been reached in the case of the EU, where all parties with an opportunity for power sing from the same policy hymn sheet. At that point representative government becomes a shell and democratic control is gone because there is no opportunity to vote for any party which will change matters. That is so because the grip of the existing elite is so tight on all the levers of power, most importantly the mass media, that no new party can even get a serious hearing.

Where the form of government is parliamentary, the difficulty is enhanced by the fact that very large numbers of candidates must stand to both be taken seriously and have any chance of forming a majority. This imposes an immense organisational and economic burden on the new party, not least because the party will lack experienced politicians as candidates and party bureaucrats. Add in things such as first-past-the-post voting in
individual constituencies and the deposit of £500 for each candidate which is at risk of being lost in the vote does not reach 8% of the total, and the British system is just about the best armoured against new parties gaining a foothold in government as any in the world.

Democratic control is vitally important to maintaining the integrity of the nation. There is only one general political question of importance in any society, namely, how far can the masses control the abusive tendencies of the elite? Elites as a class are naturally abusive because it is in the nature of human beings to be selfish and to look for their own advantage and that of those closest to them. That does not mean that no member of an
elite will break ranks and go against their class interest. What it does mean is that an elite as a whole will not change its spots , not least because the sociological shackles are too strong for most of those members of the elite who might be tempted to go against their class interest will be dissuaded from doing so because of the group pressures within the elite, for the elite will develop a “tribal” sense of their own, with those outside the elite seen as a separate social entity.

The less democratic control there is over the elite , the more the elite will engage in behaviours which are detrimental to the coherence of the “tribe” as a whole because the elite will seek their own advantage rather than that of the nation.  Before the rise of the nation state, the abuse was generally much in evidence because elites commonly took the form of monarchies and subordinate rulers in the forms of territorially based aristocracies presiding over territories which contained various national/ethnic groups, the members of which were seen as subjects not part of a national whole. The common and deliberate policy of such elites was to “divide and rule”. Territories were also frequently subject to changes of ruler through conquest, a change of royal favour (in the case of subordinate rulers), inheritance or marriage contracts. In such circumstances there was little
opportunity for the masses to exercise any form of control over their rulers because there was no unity of feeling or sense of commonality amongst the peoples they ruled and the sense of “tribe“ was localised.  It is noteworthy that arguably the most dramatic popular rising in Europe during the mediaeval period took place in England (the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381), the one large kingdom in Europe at that time with a broadly homogenous population and a territory which enjoyed meaningful central Royal control.

With the creation of the nation state there arose the possibility of democratic control. The creation of a sense of nation within a single territory responsible to a single ruler in itself provides the circumstances whereby dissent can be focused and power and influence removed from the monarch and diffused to an ever larger part of the population. That is
precisely what happened in England , with first the gradual accretion of powers by Parliament , especially over taxation, then with the development of Parliamentary government after 1689 and finally with the extension of the franchise from 1832 onwards. By the beginning of the 20th century a large degree of democratic control had been established because the elite were working within the nation state, were dependent on a mass electorate and were having to produce policies within a national context. That control lasted until the early 1970s when the elite found another way of breaking it by moving politics from the national state to a supra-national power, the EU. Once that
was done, the abusive tendencies of the elite could re-assert themselves, as they have done in spades.

6. What the individual owes to the nation

Membership of a nation places a natural duty on the individual to support the nation. Patriotism should be viewed as a matter of utility, an absolutely necessity for the maintenance and coherence of a society. The idea that a society can survive which is merely a collection of deracinated individuals has no basis in history or observed human behaviour today.

It is a very great privilege to be unambiguously part of a nation, for it is the place where you automatically belong. Just as a family is the place where most people can find automatic support so is the nation. In fact, the nation is even more reliable than a family because no one can remove the nationality which has been imprinted into a person while a family can reject a member. In an advanced country such as Britain membership of the nation state is valuable indeed, for materially at least it is still (just) a fully-fledged
life support system.

That which is valuable needs to be defended, because what is valuable is always envied by others and will be stolen if possible and destroyed if not. The state recognises this by expecting its nationals to fight to protect the national territory against an overt invader. The principle can be extended to other things such as opposing mass immigration (a surreptitious form of conquest) and defending the nation’s vital industries.

Patriotism becomes less intense as the size of the group   increases, a fact noted by David Hume: “But when society has become more numerous, and has encrease’d to a tribe or nation, the interest is more remote; nor do men so readily perceive , that order an
confusion follow upon every breach of these rules , as in a more narrow and contracted society.”  (Book II section 2 A Treatise of Human Nature).  But that does not mean it becomes diluted to the point of having no utility. It simply means that patriotic feelings are not as immediately strong as those which attach to family and friends.  Perhaps more exactly, patriotism is not called upon with the same frequency  as the emotions which attach to those whom we regard with personal affection.  The latter feelings are constantly with us,  constantly being called upon. Patriotism on the other hand, is intermittently required to preserve the integrity of the tribe or nation. But it is always there in the
background guiding our  behaviour from thinking it natural that immigrants are excluded from our territory to supporting a national sporting team.

Being patriotic by my definition does not mean constantly and stridently asserting a nation’s achievements and superiority to other nations. It simply   means looking after
the national interest in the same way that an individual looks to their own interest.

7. The liberal internationalist

Liberal internationalist ideology is diametrically opposed to what Nature has decreed. It states that homo sapiens is a single species whose atoms, the individual human being, are interchangeable. For the liberal internationalist discrimination is the dirtiest of words and a word which he interprets to the point of reductio ad absurdum.

That is the theory. In practice, the liberal internationalist complains of discrimination only when it effects those whom it includes within the protective embrace of political correctness. Those outside that embrace may be abused and vilified. Most perversely this attitude frequently results in members of a majority actively discriminating against their
own people. Nowhere is this behaviour seen more sharply than in the attitude of the British elite towards the English to whom they deny any political voice – a privilege granted to the other parts of the UK – and actively abuse them by representing English national feeling as a dangerous thing.

The liberal left internationalists may have made truly immense efforts to portray nations as outmoded relics at best and barbarous survivals from a less enlightened past at worst, but despite their best (or worst) efforts they have not changed the natural feelings of people because these feelings derive from the general biological imperative common to all
social animals: the need to develop behaviours which enhance the utility of the
group.

But if an elite cannot destroy the naturally patriotic feelings the people they rule, they can severely taint and shackle  them by suppressing their public expression through the use of the criminal law, for example, laws against the incitement to racial hatred which are interpreted  as applying to any dissent from the politically correct position on race and immigration  and civil law penalties such as   extortionate payments for unfair dismissal
through racial discrimination which, curiously, only ever seem to apply to members of  ethnic minorities. To this they add the ruthless enforcement of their liberal-left ideology throughout politics, public service, academia, the schools, major private corporations and the mainstream media.

So successful have liberals in Britain been in their censorship and propaganda  that rarely
does any native dissent about immigration and its consequences enter the public realm, while it is now impossible for anyone to occupy  a senior position in any public organisation or private organisation with a quasi-public quality, for examples, charities
and large companies, without religiously observing the elite ideology which has solidified into what is now called political correctness. The consequence is that people have developed the mentality common in totalitarian regimes that certain feelings, however natural, are somehow now out of bounds and dangerous and consequently should be the subject of self-censorship. People still have the feelings but they are withdrawn from public conversation and increasing from private discourse.

It is important to understand that even the most vociferous liberal does not believe in his or her heart of hearts that humanity is a single indivisible entity whose atoms (the individual) are in practice interchangeable. They wish it was so but know it is not so. However, the ideologically committed continue to live in hope that minds and behaviours can be changed by what they are wont to call “education”, for which read indoctrination. The rest go along with the idea because it has been built into the structure of the elite and the doubters prize ambition and their membership of the elite above honesty.

It is of course impossible to consciously force someone to be patriotic,  but there is no need to because the natural instinct of human beings is to be patriotic. All that needs to be done is to remove the constraints placed on national expression by the liberal internationalists and these natural instincts will re-assert themselves . That can be done by the political elite changing their tune towards a defence of the nation and the nation state. Let the political rhetoric alter and the public mood will swing towards the patriotic. The underlying strength of patriotism can be seen in the case of England. Despite being denied any national political voice and incontinently abused by the British elite,   whenever a national sporting  team representing England takes the field the support is immense.  Come the football World Cup and vast numbers of the flag of St George appear on everything from flagpoles to cars. Let England win the Rugby World Cup or cricket’s Ashes and great crowds fill the streets of London as they teams go on a celebratory parade.  Whenever an England side plays abroad they are joined by astonishing numbers of  English men and women.

8. How to move from multiculturalism to patriotism

All treaties which restrict the power of a government to act in the national context must be thrown away. In the case of Britain that means leaving the EU and repudiating treaties such as the UN Convention on Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The institutionalisation of political correctness within public service must be destroyed, both by dismissing all those employed explicitly to enforce such views (who are de facto political commissars) and by repealing all laws which both provide powers for officials and those which restrict free expression. I say political correctness in its entirety because the various strands of political correctness support each other, most notably in the general attack on “discrimination”. Leave anything of the “discrimination” culture intact and it will be used to bring in multiculturalism by the back door. It would also require many of the de facto political commissars to be left in office.

Public office, both that held by politicians and officials, should be restricted to those with four grandparents and two parents as nationals born and bred. This should be done to prevent any lack of focus because of the danger of divided national loyalties.

Mass immigration must be ended. Immigrants in a country illegally should be removed in short order where that can be done. Where possible, those legally in a country who cannot or will not assimilate fully, should be re-settled in their countries of their national origin or the national origin of their ancestors or in other countries where they will be in the racial/ethnic majority. Those who are in a country legally but who do not have essential scarce skills which cannot be supplied by the native population, should be sent back to their countries of origin – there would be few from countries who could not be returned because they would be definitely identifiable as coming from a country and few countries will refuse to receive one of their nationals even if they do not have a passport.

A written constitution is a must because otherwise any change to remedy matters will be vulnerable to easy reversal. Such a reversal could be thwarted, as far as these things can ever be thwarted, by placing a bar on what a government may do. That should include prohibitions on the signing of treaties which restrict national sovereignty and mass immigration, provisions for the protection of strategic industries and the restriction of
public office to born and bred nationals and a clear statement that the nation state exists to privilege its members over those of foreigners. Most importantly, there should be an absolute right to free expression for that is the greatest dissolver of elite abuse and general chicanery. Milton understood this perfectly: ‘

And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the   earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously  by  licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength.  Let  her
and falsehood grapple;  who ever knew truth put to the worse,  in a free and open encounter…’ [Milton - Areogapitica].

9. No patriotism, no enduring society

The value of patriotism is its ability to produce social coherence and an enduring and discrete population . Without patriotism a country becomes no more than a geographical expression and is ready prey for colonisation by overt conquest through force or covert conquest through mass immigration.

Liberal internationalists have ends which are directly in conflict with patriotism. They seek the destruction of nation states and the subordination of nations to a world order ommanding a single human society .  A particularly crass example comes from the TV
broadcaster I mentioned earlier, Adrian Chiles:

“I want all the species to marry each other so that in 300 years’ time we are all the same colour.

“White people can’t talk about whiteness without sounding racist. I would love my daughter to marry an Asian or black man. “http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/content_objectid=13305960_method=full_siteid=50002_headline=-Asian-for-Aide-s-girl-name_page.html#story_continue

The  ends  of liberal internationalism are predicated on the demonstrably false premise that diverse populations will live not merely as peacefully and productively as homogeneous ones , but produce stronger and, by implication, more enduring societies . The internationalists have no rational grounds for believing this , for the whole experience of human history and the world as it is today is that diversity of race and ethnicity in the same territory equates to violence and social incoherence. There is literally no example of a diverse society which has not suffered serious ethnic strife, whether that be outright racial war or chronic social disruption such as riots and the production of ethnic ghettos which become de facto no go areas.

Ironically, the invariable consequence of mixed populations is not as liberals would like to believe, a diminishing of aggressive national/tribal sentiment but an inflation of it. A people secure in its own territory does not need to engage in constant national expression because nothing threatens it: a people in a mixed society must constantly do so because
all the ethnic/racial groups are necessarily in conflict because of the need for each to compete for power and resources for their own group.

Because Man is differentiated profoundly by culture, the widely accepted definition of a species – a population of freely interbreeding organisms sharing a common gene pool – is unsatisfactory. Clearly Man is more than an animal responding to simple biological triggers. When behavioural differences are perceived as belonging to a particular group by that group as differentiating members of the group from other humans  they perform the same role as organic differences for they divide Man into cultural species. That is how homo sapiens should be viewed, as an amalgam of species and subspecies who require their own territories to maximise peace . In addition such societal differentiation probably  drives  the evolution of Man . A good example of  the latter would be 18th century England and the Industrial Revolution. Would that revolution have occurred if England had not been a very homogeneous society which suffered very little immigration from the 14th century onwards?  Probably not, because large-scale immigration or conquest by a foreign power would have radically changed the nature of England.

The Liberal internationalists’ belief  that human beings are interchangeable social atoms who may live as readily in one society as another is a recipe for national suicide. Patriotism is not an optional extra.

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.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 182 other followers

%d bloggers like this: