Britannia Radio

WHOM THE GODS WISH TO DESTROY…

 

…they first drive mad…  

Thus spake one, James Duport (1606-1679), though his actual words were: “Whom God would destroy, 

He first sends mad…”

 

That seems to be exactly what is now occurring, and it has been occurring for some decades in most western democratic societies, not least our own, so that now we are living, those of us who retain as much sanity as we ever possessed, in a world of double speak, contradiction, and manifest absurdity….a madhouse, in fact.

 

Of course, it is difficult for those who are incapable of rational thought – which seems to be most of those who claim any kind of leadership in society, politics, the church, and thereby attract regular media attention - to recognise the condition to which they are now reduced, since most of them no longer believe in God in the first place.   But as nature (human nature, in this case) abhors a vacuum, whenever belief in anyone or anything superior to ourselves is banished from our lives, it is inevitably replaced by an idol of our own construction, be it a philosophy such as hedonism, or a social or political philosophical base which is intended to form the basis for the construction of a more “perfect”, “equal”,“socially just” and “compassionate, caring” society…

 

The problem with all such idols, however idealistic the intent, is that they are constructed and put on a pedestal by human beings who are by nature imperfect,  unequal both in intelligence and in ability, and incapable of bringing about the type of society that often, they sincerely desire.  Even were their aims achievable,  they would inevitably discover that the society that resulted did not in practice look at all like that which they had vaguely in mind

 

I say “vaguely”, because it seems evident that such idealists do not have the capacity to think realistically about the consequences of all the changes they claim to desire, and the chief reason for that is that they ARE idealists, they are NOT realists.  They do not grasp that unless they are to have a totalitarian dictatorship, it is impossible to persuade all their fellow men to behave and to think as they do, and therefore to conform without protest or complaint to their wonderful new society.  They do not, either, grasp that even compulsion has its limits, and that any society where everyone is forced into a mould shaped and dictated by its leaders will sooner or later face rebellion in the ranks.

 

In England at the present time, we are living in a situation where the structures of that society and its government have been steadily eroded over quite a long period of time, and most of them now have almost completely disintegrated.  In order to fill this vacuum, we have been increasingly pressed to adopt other systems of belief, which, since they ARE systems of belief, not practical and pragmatic means of enabling society to function effectively on a practical level, far from filling an increasingly gaping void, only add to the resultant confusion, mistrust, anger and frustration already existing in a fragmenting society where nobody any longer knows what the rules are. 

 

The new rules, which have to do with health, safety, correct thinking about a myriad subjects such as the relative merits and abilities of men and women, the rights of

 

 

homosexuals, the rights of minorities, and so on, far from providing reliable guidance and dependable structure, are so much a matter of individual preference, opinion, and prejudice, that there is no possible stability in them at all.  The remnant of the population still capable of independent thinking retains the preferences, opinions and prejudices it has always had, and intensely dislikes the increasing feeling of being marginalised by the “opinion formers”.

 

Since there are no means whatsoever whereby “authority”, whether political or otherwise, can FORCE anyone to adopt an opinion or an attitude or behaviour which the individual does not like or agree with, the authorities have two options.  They can force outward conformity from the majority by means of fear and intimidation, or they can liquidate dissenters.  What they cannot then do is claim to be heading anything deserving the name of a democracy.

 

Despite worthy motives, tangled up with motives very considerably less meritorious, these “movers and shakers” MUST at some point face the fact that they have to choose between continued pretence that their intentions are benevolent and will improve the life of the population as whole, or be honest enough to admit that whatever the population may think of their grand design, they are damn well going to swallow it, or take the consequences of their refusal to do so.

 

Democracy has been for most of my life a byword for good and beneficial government, where the population enjoys freedom of speech, freedom of action in all things not strictly and specifically forbidden – I think I would back Churchill’s comment on democracy, made in the House of Commons on 11^th Nov. 1947:

 

“No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise.  Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…”

 

In other words, government of any description is damnably difficult and democracy is only the best of a bad lot.  It’s certainly not a panacea for all ills, and is as much subject to corruption by those who lead it as is any other form of government.  Humanly speaking, there simply IS no remedy for the flaws in human nature, but in a democracy worthy of the name, there are more safeguards against the worst consequences of those flaws having a seriously negative effect on the population as a whole. 

 

Those who have abandoned any belief in the Creator have substituted idols of their own making for the understanding that they are flawed and imperfect, and therefore, they fail to understand that their self-created substitutes suffer from the same disability.  They therefore consider  themselves the final arbiters of what is good and just and right, but not only for themselves – for everyone over whom they intend to wield influence and authority.  So, no one is permitted to hold views of which they themselves do not approve, and thus, free speech is abolished.  It is only a matter of time before independent thought will, if they have their way, follow the same route to extinction.

 

 

We are well on the way to that now, when it has become desirable to know the company one is in before making any adverse comments on homosexuals, immigrants, the education system and so on.  This curb on freedom of expression has

come about gradually since the end of  the Second World War, and it does not make for a freer, happier and more cohesive society.  On the contrary, it stifles free expression, and makes it risky even to joke about matters which were at one time commonly part of normal social exchange.  Nowadays, when such jokes are made and accepted even by those against whom they are told, the Thought Police are more than willing to prosecute ON BEHALF OF THE STATE the person THE STATE decides is guilty of being “offensive”, even when the supposedly “offended” person DENIES being at all offended!  Whatever this may be, it is not free speech, and it is certainly not democracy.

 

It is also noteworthy that since the end of the last war, there has been a wearying explosion of self-conscious and continuous mention of such words as “community”, “caring” and “involvement”.  It has also been very evident, to anyone who has lived through this period, that whereas both during and for a time after the last war, when there WAS a real community, real caring and concern, and involvement , the words were hardly ever heard, they are spoken with increasing frequency and urgency now precisely because the things themselves have more or less ceased to be.  If you care, you show it – you don’t continually talk about caring.  If a real community exists and thrives, people feel part of it, they know it, they live it, and they never have any need to mention that they are doing so.

 

If people are involved with one another in that community, and beyond that local group in the wider community of the nation, they don’t talk about their “involvement” – they LIVE it.  All that is really meant by this continual verbalising of concern and the importance of community is that it no longer exists as a reality.  Speaking about it is therefore nothing more or less than a kind of emotional masturbation – it is a sloppy, sentimental and vacuous attempt to make the speaker feel good…signifying damn all else.  But unfortunately, it has another effect, which the speaker may welcome, but which is equally bad for the population – it inculcates guilt.

 

Certainly, it accomplishes nothing whatsoever in the direction of recovering that genuine spirit of community which successive governments since the last war have done so much so effectively to eradicate.  In order to have a community worthy the name, there are a few essential elements which must be present.  One of these is that the people who form the group, whether it be a village, town or city, or the nation itself, must hold in common certain allegiances, and also because of their background, upbringing and experiences of life, feel a common kinship with those amongst whom they live.

 

This does not mean, in England, that everyone must therefore be a native-born English man or woman.  But it does mean that if there are those in the community who were foreign born they will adopt the habits and customs of the country and the locality where they now reside.  This is easier of course, if the newcomers are not instantly identifiable as such, but that is a minor issue.  If they are very evidently not English born in appearance, they will encounter far fewer difficulties in feeling a part

 

of the English community if they adapt at least in public, their behaviour and their attitudes to conform to the place in which they now live.

 

For many years, this is what immigrants to England did.   They did it not least because they were relieved, delighted, happy to be here, and they wanted to learn  the customs and habits of their new homeland.  It would be foolish to pretend that there were never any problems, but most could be and were eventually sorted out, and the immigrants were accepted as part of the group.  However, since not only have successive English governments in recent decades encouraged the arrival of huge numbers of immigrants to our shores, but also actively encouraged them to retain the habits of life, customs and social behaviour they have brought with them, the integrating of these people into English life has been not just difficult, but impossible.  It is hard to avoid the belief that British governments have, on the principle of divide and conquer, done this deliberately to break up the social cohesion that by and large existed for generations amongst the people of this country.  To put it another way, we in this ancient “democracy” have been governed for the past 50 years at least by people who whilst appearing “one of us” have actually been and now much more clearly and obviously are, simply traitors to all that we have for generations held dear.

 

A nation of  polyglots, a nation with a myriad different allegiances, cannot function as a coherent whole because it is not one.  It will in a fairly short period of time cease to be a nation.  But leaving aside for a moment the manifest follies of mass immigration and multiculturalism, is it not perfectly logical that such a nation should be led by those who are themselves incoherent, disorganised, unfocused, and without any clear purpose whatsoever?  And is it any wonder that such people should heartily desire to be rid of all responsibility for the nation they claim to govern, so that handing it over lock stock and barrel to a wholly unaccountable foreign power is to them a very logical step indeed?

 

Then they can have all the trappings of office holders without any responsibility – “we have to do this, because the EU says so…”  No wonder Clegg, Brown and Cameron sound like clanging gongs and mouth empty platitudes.  It’s all that’s left to them now, because it really couldn’t matter less what they say – and anyone who thinks it does is as deluded as they are themselves.

 

So – what to do at the next election?  I suggest, if you agree with this, that you go to the polling station and write across your ballot paper “None of the above” – unless of course, you think still believe it possible to trust any one of them to do any of the things they promise….

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx jn

April 2010