I commend this article in Pimlico Journal for its unflinching analysis of where we find ourselves in the UK. Follow the link and read the whole thing, which is a grim tale I wish I could convince myself is excessively bleak.
The Narcissistic State represents a reversal of the key principal of the British social contract as outlined by Bishop Gilbert Burnett in the wake of the Glorious Revolution of 1688: that ‘government is for those who are to be government’. As the state starts once again to exist for its own sake, its priorities diverge from those of its citizens, and it increasingly starts to fail them.
Yet, like individual narcissists, the Narcissistic State demands praise even in failure, as encapsulated in the language adopted by the NHS ‘heroes’ or the ‘painstaking’ work the Metropolitan Police put into failed investigations. Here we recall the citizens of the Eastern Bloc who were not only expected to endure cold, fear, and hunger, but also to applaud those who kept them in such a condition. It never accepts blame or criticism, and reacts sclerotically when confronted with either. Indeed, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner himself physically lashed out at a reporter for asking him the question which is pressing most heavily on the mind of the public. Instead of looking to itself for answers, British law enforcement is going to the four corners of the earth to seek extrinsic causes for very civil unrest it has seeded. The Director of Public Prosecutions has suggested that foreign states might wish to extradite their citizens to Britain for departing from our state-sanctioned political narratives. Yet the same cohort will segue in the next breath to discussing the danger of Britain being affected by the authoritarianism of other governments; self-knowledge never being the forte of narcissists.
It’s not good anywhere, but the UK seems to be careening toward full-blown totalitarianism.
Yet the technological prowess of the state has far surpassed the point where the power principle it employs can also be employed against it.
That is the one significant point in the article I disagree with. The scope of government IT systems is enormous but it’s implementation is abysmal. Is this a reason to be cheerful? Maybe. Maybe not. Ask a sub post-master.
Plamus,
Shocking but not surprising. The scary thing is as the Pimlico article suggests that is on the way to no longer being “shocking” but the “new normal”.
Will people be jailed for pointing out that Muhammed was a peadophile? Even though that is actually proclaimed in Islamic scriptures?
Though intemperately phrased, “Who the fuck is Allah?” is actually quite an interesting question in terms of history and theology. There are a number of answers possible. Allah could be the one and only supreme being and creator or He could be a take on the God of Abraham and Jesus twisted to Muhammed’s personal, political and military ends. That is a very valid question. Being able to question religious beliefs is in the very foundations of post-enlightenment civilization. Whether that religion is Islam, Green, Woke or Trans.
It is important to remember that the principles, the foundations, of liberty were rejected by the establishment long ago.
Humans as beings – as free will moral agents? The establishment are educated in the doctrines of Hobbes, Hume, Bentham and so on – they regard humans as machines, not human beings with moral agency.
Rights AGAINST the state? Rights as limitations on state power rather than goods and services from the state? Again the establishment are taught to regard this as “nonsense” or “nonsense on stilts”. And it is NOT that they talk of natural law rather than natural rights – they regard both as “nonsense”, there is no natural justice according to the establishment – just the “historical stage” and the desires of those with power.
It is true that some members of the establishment make the great moral effort needed to break free of their education – but most do not.
Given the above it is no surprise that what is left of Freedom of Speech and other basic liberties is collapsing – indeed it is a surprise it did not totally collapse decades ago.
And none of the above is exclusive to the United Kingdom – it is common in the Western world now, including the establishment in the United States.
Privately, and not so privately now, the American establishment regard the Bill of Rights as “crime-think”. K. Harris and Governor Tim Walz certainly do – and look how the media and every institution support these totalitarians (for totalitarians they are).
I had forgotten that Herbert Marcuse’s essay on Freedom of Speech as evil “Repressive Tolerance” was published in 1965 – I knew it was the 1960s, but it is apt that it was 1965 – the year that Winston Churchill, who would now be in prison for his statements on various matters, died.
“Private Eye” the supposedly rebel publication, which has long been a lickspittle supporter of state power, had an interesting cover this week.
Supposedly the “ringleaders” of the riots were Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (“Tommy Robinson”) whose being in Cyprus is not taken as proof of his innocence, but rather as proof of his guilt (how dare he be on a beach, this proves he is evil – the “right wing” Daily Mail pushed the same line last week), and Nigel Farage – whose Reform Party, as the Pimlico Journal points out, gave Labour their largest majority ever in the House of Commons. Although the Pimlico Journal also points out that the Conservatives did very little to reverse the long march of the left through the institutions, and what little the Conservatives did do was either ignored (such as the orders to Civil Servants from Jacob Rees-Mogg – “stop being Woke” – “NO – and you have no power to sack us, you reactionary-running-dog”) or now being castrated – such as the Freedom in Higher Education Bill.
The other two “ringleaders of the riots” according to the “rebel” (i.e. slavishly conformist) Private Eye publication were Rupert Murdoch – a very elderly man whose newspapers supported the Labour Party in the election. And Elon Musk – a man who was a Democrat for most of his life (till his own son was brainwashed and then butchered) and stood in line for hours to shake the hand of his hero Barack Obama, and who was himself the hero of the “C02 is evil” “Climate” movement – producing the Tesla electric cars.
Do not laugh, not that anyone laughs at the unfunny stuff in Private Eye any more, for Private Eye is making a serious point – it has picked out four well known men (“Tall Poppies” as it were – tyranny always goes after the Tall Poppies) and smeared them as ringleaders of riots – riots they OPPOSED.
The point that Private Eye, and the rest of the establishment, want to make clear is simple – “if we can smear Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, Nigel Farage (who has often condemned “Tommy Robinson” – seemingly unaware that the establishment make no distinction at all between the two men), Rupert Murdoch and Elon Musk – well then we can smear and go after YOU – and there is nothing you can do to defend yourself.
Of course, one could sue for libel – but, as the courts (with the judges appointed by a Blairite Quango – and subject to endless “training” and “conferences”) have made clear in such cases as that of Lawrence Fox – it is fine for the left to insult you “racist” (Mr Fox is married to a non white woman) – but NOT fine for you to insult them back.
The “two tier” system is not a theory – it is a fact, and is based on Herbert Marcuse’s idea that different rules should apply to “progressive” and “reactionary” groups – an idea that Professor Marcuse did not invent as it goes back to Robespierre, indeed long before.
And it will not stop at smearing – people are already being fined and sent to prison, and it will get worse and worse.
Why not? Who is going to stop them? They control all the institutions. The historian David Starkey used to say that the House of Commons was the last non “Woke” (i.e. non Herbert Marcuse Marxist) institution in Britain – and that if only it would use its power it could smash the Civil Service, the Quangos, the Blairite (and unelected) judges, and so on.
But now the House of Commons has fallen. There are no non Woke institutions left in the United Kingdom – none.
The Pimlico Journal makes a comparison of Britain with Israel.
It is important not to get starry eyed about Israel – after all “gun control” laws were passed there, which is why a thousand unarmed people were butchered on October 7th 2023, and there was an utterly insane Covid “lockdown”, and the injections were pushed, and the war in Gaza seems to have no clear plan for what to do with two million Muslims (the idea still being that the problem is a few people who have “distorted and misinterpreted” Islam – as if Western leaders, including the Israeli Prime Minister, know the teachings of Muhammed better than people who have studied the teachings, and the life – the deeds, of Muhammed all their lives). However….
There is indeed a difference between the two countries – the government of Israel, in spite of its many faults, is nationalist – it wants the nation to survive.
The establishment in Britain and the United States (and Germany and …. even Japan now) is NOT nationalist (apart from “Civic Nationalism” – i.e. the bizarre worship of state institutions, rather than respect for the people – their history and culture) – indeed the establishment in Britain, America and so on, regards nationalism as evil – and welcomes (yes welcomes) mass immigration for the purpose of undermining historic national communities (nations – cultures). It does not want the immigrants and their children and their children’s children to assimilate into the nation (although this might not work – as the failure of the French experiment of trying to integrate the “new French”, trying to make these people or their children French, shows) – on the contrary the British, American (and so on) establishment want the influx to be of people who have no intention of becoming part of the existing nation and whose children and children’s children will replace that nation.
Remember the establishment, in various countries, regard the existing national culture as evil, as reactionary, they WANT it to be destroyed. That has been the aim of so many policies (most certainly NOT just mass immigration) since at least the 1960s.
As Prime Minister Blair said “we will drown them in Diversity” (and in Progressive domestic cultural policies – aimed, since at least the 1960s, at destroying the family and other basic cultural institutions) – the Israeli Prime Minister (in spite of his many faults) does not want to drown his own nation, he does not want Israel to be destroyed.
Israel has strong families – married mothers and fathers with children, it has strong religious faith, it is determined to be an independent nation state not subject to any international organisation, and it has lots of family owned business enterprises.
No wonder the international establishment hates Israel. It is like the United States in, say, 1960 – before the “social revolution” (of which mass migration after the Immigration Act of 1965 – that date again – was only part).
There is something dystopian about the idea of living in a state where government, law enforcement, media and judiciary rapidly coalesce leading to a policy of releasing violent criminals back onto the street in order to make room to incarcerate people posting tweets which might be interpreted as encouraging others towards illegal actions albeit several degrees less serious than those actually perpetrated by the prematurely-released.
@John – It is a question of priorities and this Labour government clearly prioritises locking up plebs for thought crimes over the safety of the proletariat from criminals and rapists.
I imagine that we’ll be voting out Labour with prejudice in 2029 the same way we did with the Tories this past summer.
Vote Reform!
‘government is for those who are to be government’
Is there a typo in that quote?
@Decnine – Would you prefer “Government exists to serve itself”?
That seems a more accurate description of the combination of Labour and the unCivil Service/Deep State.
Not that the Tories were any better.
The Tories were no better yet courtesy of never-Farage pearl-clutchers we have replaced 13 years of Labour-lite with at least five years of Labour full-strength complete with the extra power of a 167 seat majority plus further 102 like minded Liberals, Greens “independents, SNP and Plaid Cymru. I don’t know what make of SinnFein nowadays and have left them on the sidelines as likely NPCs.
During that time the state apparatus, its media flying monkeys and the reliable rent-a-mob will be doing everything possible to ensure that Reform is never in a position to threaten. Borderline violent yet barely policed demonstrators outside a major political party building is not something I expected to see in this country, let alone so quickly after an election. The utter lack of media concern is noteworthy.
John: Locking up the plebs instead of the criminals and rapists occurs because TPTB in the UK don’t fear them but are deathly afraid of the muslim invaders.
Well, there is at least the silver lining that – because Labour policy is for cutting short the sentences and they forgot to exclude the rioters from that policy – what they are sentenced to won’t be anything as long as advertised.
Because Labour are incompetent they’ve ended up on the end of their own policy again.
How about: government is a self-licking ice cream?
That makes no sense to me. I don’t think the authorities are afraid of Muslims in the least. They see them as allies. They see them as easily controlled, and let’s face it that’s true isn’t it – there’s a reason why most Muslim countries are dictatorships. Control the teachers and you control the students. The fact that most Muslims are quite authoritarian is also an attractive feature to the government.
Let’s face it, protest in this country has been a totally safe pressure valve for basically ever. Has anything actually ever changed in this country due to protest? Change is slow in the UK because it usually occurs once the technocratic class in Whitehall has itself changed by slow demographic replacement. As people against fox hunting became a majority in the bureaucracies of the UK, that “sport” was banned. Similarly see the green issues, and the smoking ban. Smoking was out of fashion in the middle classes by the 1960s, so by the 90s it was only dinosaur technocrats that were an obstacle to a ban. Today the average technocrat probably wants a total ban, even in people’s own homes.
The technocrats see Muslim protests over Gaza etc. as completely safe and irrelevant. However the increase in the number of people alarmed about immigration is a problem for them, possibly because there may be a few bureaucrats who share these views. I am firmly of the opinion that the immigration issue is “settled science” for the technocrats; they don’t like the ordinary people of this country and never have, and don’t really care if they are totally replaced by less revolting people. Furthermore they know there’s an enormous hole in the national insurance ponzi scheme and they see immigration as a quick fix. That’s why they won’t brook even discussion of the issue. The only thing they’ve failed to realize, perhaps until recently, is that the racism accusation that was so devastatingly effective in the 90s and 00s has worn out from overuse. I strongly suspect that these riots are an attempt to recharge that term by associating “far-right” protests with racist violence. There are, of course, a tiny minority of people who genuinely hold racist views and are easily stirred up to violence. A bit of actual violence goes a long way to giving irrefutable proof of the racist views of Reform voters, and other undesirables. Given the apathy of the majority of the population, I found these riots difficult to believe as organic phenomenon. I am convinced they were stirred up by plants, spies and saboteurs.
Alex, since when are muslims less revolting people? Tell that to the young girls serially abused by Pakistani rape gangs over the years in multiple locations, or the victims of bombs at concerts, or those stabbed at random on the street, or just walking by and then beaten up by the weapon-wielding muslim hordes looking for anti-immigrant protesters. If those are the folks the government considers as great allies then I’ll repeat what I said in a comment to another post: the UK is lost. Make plans accordingly.
And I haven’t even mentioned how they treat their wives and grown daughters.
I was talking about _their_ perspective. They don’t think that these rape gangs are common. If anything, they probably think it’s a consequence of young Muslim men being exposed to the looser morals of the British working class. Don’t forget the majority of the bureaucrats in the British government won’t even be aware of these things having happened. If they’ve heard anything about it at all, they’re probably inclined to write it off as racist nonsense. The nice-but-dim British middle class grew up being taught that everyone are the same, apart from the horrible skinheads on sink council estates. I used to work in the civil service and the only derogatory comments I ever heard were squarely directed at the ordinary British working class: people doubting whether ex-miners with lung diseases really couldn’t work, thinking that all benefits claimants were just workshy. Of course these views weren’t entirely wrong – there _are_ people who shouldn’t be on benefits but are, there are people gaming the system, and lots of young people on unemployment benefits could get a job if they tried hard enough. But the point is that two generations or more of middle class people in this country have grown up believing that Muslim extremism is extremely rare, and that the horrid hordes on British council estates are racist, violent thugs. That view is far more widespread than the alternative in most of the British middle and upper classes, and is basically state doctrine in the civil service.
Out of interest, Henry, what country do you live in if you don’t mind me asking?
I do mind you asking.
How do the people obsessively replacing the population not realise that it will result in themselves being replaced?
Alex – the “Woke” establishment may think that they can use Muslims as weapons or tools, but the establishment may, possibly, regret their smug attitude. Islam has not lasted for 14 centuries for no reason – it is a powerful system of thought, tactically a very effective culture in terms of survival and expansion, whereas the “Woke” establishment are just following the half baked ideas of Herbert Marcuse and co.
jgh – the establishment do not really identify with the people, whether “plebs” (someone used that word – I think ironically) or more wealthy people. The establishment see themselves as Plato style Gold Guardians – but on an international basis.
As for those who can not grasp the difference between people like Jacob Rees-Mogg and people like Sir Keir Starmer….
People such as Jacob Rees-Mogg and other “Tories” tried and, largely, failed to roll back the “Woke” (Herbert Marcuse and co) doctrines in the institutions – they failed because the grip of these doctrines on the institutions is too strong, and the British political system gives much too much power to unelected bodies, and even a Prime Minister can be removed quite easily (ask Mr Johnson or Liz Truss – or former Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab) – unlike an American President or even State Governors who are quite difficult to remove – because they are directly elected and have fixed terms of office.
Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour Party do not want to roll back the “Woke” totalitarian tide – indeed they want it to proceed to its natural conclusion, and will do all they can to aid its advance.
So “they are the same” is wrong – as the arrests are showing (I did warn you what would happen).
As for Reform winning the 2024 election if only a few more people had voted for it – people who think that simply do not understand how the electoral system works.
Voting Reform, or staying home, was always going to mean a massive Labour majority – and such a government would push forward (rather than resist) the Woke, totalitarian, tide. However, YES the last Conservative government failed – so I can understand why people voted Reform or stayed home (a lot of people stayed home – and they were overwhelmingly “right wing” voters who had voted Conservative in 2019). I understand why people did it – but I wish they had NOT done it, and soon they will wish that as well.
People who think that Jacob Rees-Mogg, Kemi Banenoch, Liz Truss, and so on, are the same, or even like, Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour party (who talk of “the uniparty” as Neil Oliver and co do) – are quite mistaken.
You are now starting to find out what the difference is.
We now have an elected government that is totally in tune (on the same page as) the unelected government – there is no more “unwoke” House of Commons, because the House of Commons is now also “Woke”.
In short – we, the British people, are now in an impossible position.
There is no one to appeal to – even the House of Commons is gone.
If you thought the unelected government was bad before (and it was bad – I denounced it as bad “under the Tories” I did not keep silent, and I always posted under-my-own-name so they may be coming for me at some point in the near future) – wait and see what it is like with an elected government that is totally on the same side (the side AGAINST you – the people) as the unelected government.
Or better, do NOT wait and see – if you have the means to do so (I most certainly do NOT) get out if you can.
Do not wait for them to knock or your door at 0400 in the morning – leave, whilst you can.
As for rioting and so on – that is exactly what they want you to do, it gives them the perfect excuse for a crackdown.
I am sorry, very sorry indeed, that I can offer you little comfort – we are where we are.
I would suggest, and I am quite serious, reading Boethius’ “The Consolations of Philosophy” – it may, perhaps, help prepare your mind for what is coming.
Yes, before anyone points it out, I know what happened to Boethius – and he also knew what would happen to him.
He saved what knowledge he could – for he knew that civilisation was collapsing. And he prepared himself, mentally, for his own end.
I understand why people did it (vote Reform) – but I wish they had NOT done it, and soon they will wish that as well.
Paul. I respect your views, we are all (still just about) permitted to hold our own. For my part I strongly suspect it will be those who still voted conservative, passing up the generational opportunity to decimate that loathsome bunch of lying Blairites, who will in time realise their folly.
“If it were done when ‘tis done, then ‘twere well / It were done quickly.”
More’s the pity it was not done quickly.
Speaking for myself, i see recent UK events as, on the balance, a good thing, because they brought into the open the violence inherent in the system.
Having happened so soon in the Starmer regime, it is even more of a good thing.
I have no regrets:
1. In my constituency, Reform outpolled the Tories, and the reason we have a Labour MP is because the Tory got in the way.
2. The Tories’ response to recent events has been pathetic. Almost invisible. I wouldn’t say Reform have been brilliant, but at least they are calling out MI5 shill leftists like Hope Not Hate.
3. Frontrunners for Tory leadership are all different shades of crap.
I think this shows the difference between short-term and long-term thinking.
TPTB fear the right more – in the short term – than they do the Muslims.
I’ll guess that they consider the long term to be something that they will find a way to deal with before it becomes critical. Once they have been in power for a bit, in their minds, they will have started in with solving all social problems and everyone will be happy. Thus, the Muslim issues can be left off for a bit.
The right-wing challenges to their power, however, are more important NOW. Plus, by going after the right, they think they can bring the Muslims onto their side.
The fallacy in their thinking is their assumption that they themselves have any place in a long-term examination of the country. The hardcore Muslims dislike them even more than they dislike the right-wing infidels.
Let’s have some constitutional protections against state tyranny. A formal constitution and Bill of rights.
bobby b: That’s a laugh. There is no effective right in the UK for TPTB to be afraid of, just regular folks who want their country back. The several (many?) disturbances by them here and there don’t cut it compared to what TPTB know the cultural enrichers are quite willing and able to do.
Henry Cybulski: You are (I think) assuming that the left thinks like you (and I) do.
They see Muslims as a probable longterm ally. Fellow victims of the white patriarchy and all that. They see the right – smashed down as it is – as still not quite dead enough – just resting, perhaps – able to maybe rebuild, still commanding fealty from some small but significant violent bunch.
No, I don’t think it’s a laugh.
(But I think they’re really just telling the alligator to “eat those guys first.”)
John – there was no such chance.
What Martin says about his constituency is true – there the Reform Party candidate got more votes than the Conservative Party candidate so was the runner up to Labour – but this was not the normal position.
In most cases in seats where the election was close – it was the Conservative Party candidate who came second, and some of the Conservative M.P.s who lost their seats were good M.P.s – they were NOT “A Listers” shoved into seats by David Cameron and Central Office (as Mr Sunak was in Richmond North Yorkshire), they were people such as my own Member of Parliament – who had been a “Spartan” on the European Union and had voted against the Equality Act.
It is not a matter of “my views” – what I have given you are the basic facts, this is my trade, I have been knocking on doors, and so on, at election time (and NOT at election time – full timers do such things all year long) for 45 years. I understand how the election system works.
The Reform Party never had a chance – not under this system, they were lucky to get 5 (5) seats, out of many hundreds.
Where they were the main alternative to Labour OF COURSE there was an argument for voting for them (I have never denied that) – but it most seats they were NOT and I (and many other people who understand the electoral system) tried to make that clear.
Still it is water under the bridge now – who was right and who was wrong in the 2024 election is now an historical matter. There is no way back to convince people not to stay at home and not to vote Reform – but to “hold their noses” and vote Conservative (in spite of the FAILURE of the elected Conservative government to defeat the unelected government – and I must say that I was not pleased by the recent comments of Priti Patel claiming that the bad record of the last government was good on immigration and other matters, when the record was actually dreadful – as Suella Braverman and others have admitted) to try and prevent totalitarianism – things have moved on.
The United Kingdom may well now be finished.
And, I repeat, rioting and other violence plays into their hands – it is exactly what they want opponents to do, it gives them the perfect excuse for the crackdown that Progressives have long wanted.
“There is nothing new under the sun” – just as Hobbes, Hume and Bentham were mocking traditional liberties, and even the existence of the human person (the free will moral agent), centuries ago – so censorship and persecution also have always had their defenders.
The first great defender of censorship and persecution, whose works survive, was Plato – and he has been an influential philosopher for around two and half thousand years (so this puts Karl Marx, 1818-1883, rather in the shade).
But in British academic and political life one can also point to rather more recent figures. When P.E. Moore (the American mentor of T.S. Elliot, an American who became a famous British poet) came to visit Britain in the 1930s (yes as far back as that) he was at first charmed by the politeness of British political and academic discourse – so unlike the grim ideological struggle between the Collectivist New Dealers and the Liberty League in the United States. But then it dawned on P.E. Moore WHY politics and academic life in Britain was so gentle – it was because, even then, the Collectivists had won the ideological struggle (so it was not really a struggle any more) – “the greatest good of the greatest number” to be decided by the state (Bentham) was accepted by everyone of importance as the basis of policy with no rights AGAINST the state, and humans were not considered beings (almost everyone, of importance, accepted the Hobbes-Hume-Bentham doctrine that humans were not beings, that they were machines – that they were not capable of real choice, of doing other than they did) – Conservatives in Oxford and Cambridge and so on seemed to have philosophically collapsed, even as far back as then,
I think that P.E. Moore was too gloomy in his view – after all, to take Oxford alone, such thinkers as Professor Harold Prichard, Professor Sir William David Ross (known in anther line of work as Major Ross), J.R.R Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were active – and influential. But Moore did have a point about the influence of Collectivist ideas and the weakness of most Conservatives in defending either traditional liberties or even the soul (in the Aristotelian sense) itself – the human person.
For example….
Professor Pigou of Cambridge was presented by J.M. Keynes, in his “General Theory….”, as a sort of classical pro free market economist – but this is an “in joke”, as people in the establishment at the time would have been aware, Professor Pigou was really a state interventionist on economic matters (he ended up being adviser to the Atlee government) – and he was also a person who believed that Freedom of Speech should be limited if it threatened “scientifically correct” policies.
Professor Pigou even suggested that people who suggested reducing tax rates below the “scientifically correct” level should be censored – so he was very much a child of Plato when it came to censorship and the rule of “experts” (as one might expect from a Cambridge academic – the works of Plato were influential at Cambridge long before the works of Karl Marx started to influence the Apostles Club and so on). One can imagine Professor Pigou writing lying articles about how “Liz Truss crashed the economy” in the “best” (i.e. worst) tradition of Plato and the “Noble Lie” – lies were noble to Plato, and his followers, IF they pushed the cause of Collectivism (they did not just go round telling lies for the fun of it – well they were not supposed to).
The Chairman of the Labour Party in the late 1940s was Professor Harold Laski – a famous man at the time (even if he is forgotten now) and he also supported censorship and persecution – even suggesting that people who wanted to follow “Reactionary” policies, reversing “Social Reforms” should not be allowed to be elected. Very Rousseau and the “Lawgiver” deciding what the “General Will” “really” is – even if the ordinary people say the opposite (the “Lawgiver” of Rousseau is, of course, Plato’s Gold Guardians in a rather thin disguise).
Prime Minister Clement Atlee REJECTED the totalitarian path – but this strand of thinking in the Labour Party never went away.
How many Labour Members of Parliament support real Freedom of Speech now? A handful.
How many Labour Members of Parliament would support any-means-necessary to prevent “reactionary” policies being followed, policies that would repeal “Social Reforms”? Most of them – just as most officials (in both the Civil Service and the Quangos) and many judges would.
Does the House of Commons have a majority of such people? Yes it does.
Are all other institutions “Woke” in the Herbert Marcuse Freedom of Speech is “Repressive Tolerance – Hate Speech” sense? Yes they are – including the courts with judges appointed by a Blair created Quango and subject to endless “training” and “conferences”.
It may not be “game over” – I may be being too gloomy.
But it certainly looks like “game over” – it looks like check-mate for what remains of liberty in this land.
Again let us hope I am being too gloomy – as P.E. Moore was too gloomy in the 1930s.
Let us hope that the long twilight struggle with the totalitarians, which is fought everywhere from academia to the House of Commons, to back streets where men die in the gutter serving liberty – sometimes betrayed by what they thought was their own side, has not yet ended in defeat.
By the way – I hope people do not think that I have an anti Cambridge bias, I actually prefer the town to Oxford (and it is very sad that new developments may threaten to overwhelm the villages round Cambridge into an urban sprawl – that did not turn out well in Oxford, some of whose suburbs are bad).
And I did not mean to imply that someone who went to Cambridge is more likely to be Collectivist than someone who went to Oxford.
Indeed the Oxford “PPE” assembly line has produced lots of interventionists – as well as some good people.
But historically Oxford was more Aristotelian and Cambridge more in line with Plato – at least to some extent.
Now I doubt there are many pro reason and pro liberty academics in either place.
It used to be the case that British universities had at least one token conservative in each department – department concerning history, politics, economics and so on. But that seems to have gone by the board now.
Outside the University of Buckingham one is, I am told, unlikely to find any pro traditional liberties academics.
And there was a bizarre course on the United Nations – a course dominated by socialist totalitarian academics, even at Buckingham.
It is depressing that what was known for centuries (from 1621) as the White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford has been renamed after a foundation set up by an ex Communist Party Czech billionaire whose idea of “liberalism” is such philosophers as Wittgenstein (a pro Soviet person who was an associate of just about every Marxist academic at Cambridge) and the “Christian” socialist philosopher John Rawls (“the most important political philosopher of the modern United States” – which says all we need to know about just how bad academia, and the Democrat Party that comes from academia, has become in the United States).
Liberalism was the opposite of Collectivism – now the word “liberalism” has become just another word for Collectivism, and a Chair that was created to be about moral philosophy (and was – for centuries) has become just another way of pushing international collectivism (the agenda of the WEF, the UN, and so on).
The United Kingdom may, perhaps, be an extreme example of the triumph of leftist Collectivist forces – used as a warning by the Deputy Prime Minister of Italy (himself an ex leftist – so he knows of what he speaks) and others, but it is not unique – the trend towards the destruction of what is left of liberty is widespread in the Western world.
Any formal constitution written now would enshrine state tyranny, not protect against it.
We had a Bill of Rights in 1689.
This is not 1689. A 2024 Bill of Rights would be written by people who admire Tony Blair.
Now if only the 1689 Bill were enforced.
It would be 396 pages plus appendices. It’s already written, waiting for someone to start the process. It’s the ultimate progressive wishlist, and it lasts forever because you need a supermajority to change it. Run away.
The last Labour Prime Minister was famously congratulated on his transformation on taking office, turning from Stalin into Mr Bean.
The current Labour Prime Minister appears to be turning into both Stalin and Mr Bean.
Yes Perry – it would.
Sir John Holt, Chief Justice from 1689 to 1710, believed in liberty – he believed in individual rights against both King and Parliament, modern British judges regard rights AGAINST the state as “nonsense” or “nonsense on stilts” – they believe that rights are goods and services from the state.
And, as Senator Cruz made clear in his recent book, a couple of appointments to the United States Supreme Court and the United States will go the same way as the United Kingdom – the American Bill of Rights of 1791 will be dead.
That is one of the reasons that the American election is so important – a “President Harris” would be able to make those couple of appointments to the Supreme Court.
If Harris/Walz win – then it is over for the Bill of Rights, for any limits on government power.
The media know this and support Harris/Walz anyway – which means that the media, the international media, are as bad as the Collectivist Harris/Walz themselves.
Tell me how you plan for you and your friends to become the constitution drafters and ratifiers, and how you plan to occupy the judiciary and civil service that will enforce it, and the schools that educate the staffs of these institutions.
Unless you have some great ideas how to accomplish the above, talk about new constitutions and bills of rights as some kind of solution to contemporary problems is foolish.
Yes, but in the British constitutional system, the Bill of Rights was easy to repeal; wholesale or piecemeal.
Don’t know much about Rawls, but i understand that he is very popular.
For me, the most important political thinkers of the modern US are Mancur Olson and David D. Friedman. I don’t necessarily agree with them on everything, but they are the most important (modern Americans) in teaching me how to think about politics.
Martin
Following WW2, British lawyers were involved in framing a constitution for Germany.
I do understand the problems we’d face but I really don’t care for the downright negative attitudes of many commenters here.
The lack of what I’ve proposed can arguably be linked to the UK joining a political union in 1973 that put a foreign legislature above our parliament.
The lack of brought us a supreme court that can meddle in any way it thinks fit.
The lack of allowed our human rights arbitration to be decided by a court not within the whole jurisdiction of the crown.
Now people are being locked up for political reasons and our freedom of speech is trounced.
I assume you support all these incidents?
Given that the contemporary FRG is one place probably even more cucked than contemporary Britain is, this doesn’t fill me with confidence.
Nope, I just don’t see how something that would likely be written and enforced by your enemies is going to help with such things. A constitution/bill of rights written and adopted by Britain’s elite would have more in common with the constitution of ANC ruled South Africa than it would with either the 1689 bill of rights or the late 18th century American documents. With a constitution to uphold their rule further, the current ruling class will be even harder to fully dislodge than they already are, and even more able to present opposition as treason.
Before wading in, I wonder – do you all define “Bill of Rights” differently than we Americans do? For us, our Bill of Rights is merely a set of amendments to the actual Constitution, added to it because some people wanted more specificity.
Thus, in my mind, a Bill of Rights is essentially the same thing as a constitution.
And (back to wading in), if that is true, you do not want to draft and adopt a written constitution unless you and your side hold the power to define what’s in it.
Otherwise, you’re going to get South Africa’s version of a constitution.
I think constitutions and BoR’s are great, except for when the wrong people draft them.
Bobby:
Or more precisely, part of a constitution.
But note that a self-contained constitution includes rules for its own amendment, which the British constitution lacks.
But i agree that, were a new British constitution written today by the British Establishment, it would stink.
PS:
Honorable mention goes to James Burnham, not as an original thinker, but as a popularizer of ‘Machiavellian’ ideas, in The Machiavellians.
Again, i do not necessarily agree with the ideas that Burnham introduces in that book, whether or not his own original ideas.
But the important thing, in my mind, is:
Lacking a written constitution, a new written Bill of Rights would in fact become your new defacto Constitution.
And you do not want to approach such a thing in this environment. The progressives are far better than our side in the deceptive machinations that go into convincing a populace of entering into a new but pervasive founding document. The Right has just not been good at this kind of thing, while the left has been very successful in pushing its “nice, kind” face. Remember, we’re the mean guys, while they’re the Nice Guys. (At least, that’s the theme they have very successfully pushed.)
And so, as an example, South Africa pushed its new constitution through, containing thousands of pages of progressive laws and rules and regs, codifying every form of “unfairness” they could think of. A new constitution in the UK in such an environment would be an unchangeable body of proper pronouns, rights to transition for 9-year-olds, open borders, and whatever other “nice” rules a prog could come up with.
Run away, until you have the power to control the entire process.
An American I once happened across said the UK lives under an ongoing constitutional convention.
The fact we have no entrenched law that parliament cannot change at will supports his assertion.
Someone once said parliament can do anything except change the sex of a person. I’d rather that wasn’t the case.
Both Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke (famous for the case of Dr Bonham in 1610 and for other cases – in which he opposed that advocate of tyranny and mentor of Thomas Hobbes, Sir Francis Bacon – of “The New Atlantis”) and Chief Justice (Chief Justice from 1689 to 1710 – i.e. the vital post “Glorious Revolution”) believed that neither the King or Parliament could repeal basic liberties – they believed this because of their natural law – natural justice, background of thought.
However, Sir William Blackstone (mid 1700s) whilst paying lip service to natural law (the tradition that there are universal principles of natural justice – upheld by Aristotle, Cicero and-so-on) held that Parliament could do anything it liked – in short he did not really, in practice, believe in fundamental liberties at-all. This was noted by the American Founding Fathers who (contrary to what is now taught in the schools and universities) had a deep distrust of Blackstone’s legal writings – for this basic Constitutional reason.
The question is why did Blackstone’s interpretation of the British Constitution, essentially making all the great statements of principle from Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights things that Parliament could sweep away on a whim, sweep all before it?
I do not think it is enough to say that Sir William Blackstone gave Parliament the “ideological justification” for its exercise of power – there must have been a philosophical undermining of the foundations of natural law – natural justice, for the idea that Parliament could do anything it felt like doing to become so dominant (true it was never a universal view – but it soon became a dominant view in the United Kingdom).
There was a large network of Constitutional Clubs and a British National Rifle Association (bigger than the American one) right to the First World War – but the philosophical foundations of such things had long been undermined.
“Humans are beings, they have free will, moral agency, and fundamental liberties under natural law, natural justice – but, post script, Parliament can do anything it likes, even having you raped to death for having blue eyes, or burned alive for having brown hair” makes no sense as a position. Especially as this was extended to “and Parliament can give these powers away – to any group of unelected officials, and they, the officials, can do anything they like to you”.
So the lip service that thinkers such as Sir William Blackstone paid to human personhood, natural law – natural justice, was eventually dropped – leaving only Parliament can do anything it likes, and it can hand over such powers to any group of officials who can do anything they like, even to Members of Parliament.
It is well known that Martin Luther had a deep contempt for “that whore reason” (totally rejecting the natural law – natural justice tradition of the Scholastics) and that Dr Luther was a determinist – believing that human actions were predetermined (see his “Bondage of the Will” – which led to the break with Erasmus).
It is true that Dr Luther DID have one free will moral being in his system – God, but this is largely dropped by Thomas Hobbes (who, along with Sir William Petty, was a follower of Sir Francis Bacon), David Hume and Jeremy Bentham – Thomas Hobbes only pays lip service to God, and Hume and Bentham do not even do that. Human personhood, even personhood that dies with the body (as Alexander of Aphrodisias, the great Commentator upon the works of Aristotle, conceded that it might) is totally rejected by these thinkers – which means that tyranny does not violate human personhood, because human personhood (the existence of humans as human beings – free will moral agents) does-not-exist.
But where did Dr Luther get his rejection of both “that whore” reason (especially moral reason), and human agency (especially moral agency) from?
Martin Luther himself claimed he got his entire philosophy from the Bible – but that does not really stand up, even if one only looks at the Bible as he left it (some Books of the Bible removed because Dr Luther did not like them, other parts of the Bible translated rather oddly, and even parts of the Bible he left in, such as the Epistle of James, dismissed with contempt by Dr Luther himself “Epistle of straw”) – there is more in the Bible, even after Dr Luther had finished changing the Bible, that opposes these philosophical idea of determinism and the denial of human agency (moral responsibility) than supports it – it being remembered that the Bible is actually a series of different books written by different people at different times.
So where does it come from – this great contempt for “that whore” reason (especially moral reason – natural law, natural justice) and the rejection of any idea of human personhood (moral agency – choice) that one finds in the works of Dr Luther?
If it is not really from the Bible – where is it from? It is, of course, possible that he invented it all himself independently – or that he was inspired by out-of-the-mainstream Medieval thinkers who had similar opinions, but there is one other possibility that should be considered.
At the very time that Dr Luther was composing his philosophical position, and his political position of absolute rulers not subject to limitation on their powers by natural law – natural justice (a position that we see later in Thomas Hobbes and others) there was a great emerging power….
This great emerging power was the Ottoman Empire – which was advancing into Europe, even almost taking Vienna in 1529. The Ottoman army succeeded in collapsing a section of the wall of Vienna, but out of the dust and rubble emerged a group of German mercenaries – who proceeded to cut the advancing Ottoman soldiers in half with their pole arms and Great Swards (by the words “cut in half” I am not using a figure of speech – a Great Sword, used by a skilled man, can do that), the Ottoman slave soldiers were being driven forward by overseers armed with whips, but on observing their comrades being cut to pieces by the German mercenaries (and not knowing how few in number these mercenaries were) turned on their own slave overseers – and fled, the entire Ottoman Army went into a panic and withdrew, pausing only to mutilate and kill and the women and children it had taken prisoner. But this was just one incident in a struggle that had already gone on for many years – and was to continue into future centuries.
Dr Luther was, for a time, infamous for arguing that Christians should not resist this Empire – as its ruler was a ruler and there must be absolute submission to any ruler (essentially the philosophy of despotism) – he was later forced to modify his position (forced by the possibility that his political protectors would withdraw their protection – if he did not modify his position on the Ottoman question).
The philosophy of the Ottoman Empire, the greatest power in the time of Dr Luther, was Islam – specifically Sunni Islam (although of the most moderate of the five or so schools of Sunni legal thought).
Sunni Islam is determinist – it holds that human actions are predetermined. It also rejects ideas of natural law – natural justice that are independent of the will-of-God – holding that what God orders is good because God orders it, and what God forbids is bad because God forbids it (in theology this is known as voluntarism – and is, famously, found in strict Calvinism – the development of the ideas of John Calvin, but Sunni Islam reached these philosophical conclusions centuries before John Calvin or Martin Luther did). No moral measuring of the commands of God – if God commands it, it is good (by definition) and if God forbids it, it is bad (by definition).
As for the ruler – in practice the ruler is absolute, like an Ottoman Sultan, he can do such things as take land from one person or family and give it to another (that a Western ruler could not, justly, do that had been accepted as an “old right” as far back as 877 AD).
The unlimited ruler (Prince – or other ruler or rulers) that Dr Luther supported seems, in practice, very close to the sort of power that an Ottoman Sultan had (and which their Hapsburg enemies down the centuries of war, in spite of all their faults, did NOT have). And the philosophical position pushed by the Ottoman Empire, on such matters as human personhood (moral agency) and natural law – natural justice, seems to be that of Dr Luther himself.
Was this really just a total coincidence? Or was Dr Luther influenced by the ideas of the greatest power of his time?
The standard view is that Martin Luther took his ideas from an extreme interpretation of Augustine (who, perhaps because of his political connections in the church, became the most well known theologian of the 5th century – in spite of his inability to read Greek, an usual thing for an educated Roman scholar of his time, most of whom could read the scriptures at least in Greek, even if not in Amharic and Hebrew as well ) – but there does seem to be more to it than having a very radical interpretation of Augustine. Although, yes, I can see where some of it might indeed be from Augustine – interpreted in a particular way.
Snorri – yes the late John Rawls is wildly popular in American education, at least he was – these days his lack of obsession with race, “gender” and sexuality, counts against him. He is (or at least was) popular BECAUSE his work in political philosophy was awful – my late friend Antony Flew came to that conclusion and I think he was correct. It was not “in spite of” the obvious absurdities and contradictions in the work of John Rawls that he became popular with the “intellectual” and education establishment – it was BECAUSE of the absurdities and contradictions.
The, vastly superior, thinkers that you cite – are hardly taught at all in most American schools and universities, and when they are mentioned they are mentioned as basically “crime-think”.
As you have admitted to being influenced by these thinkers – what you believe would also be treated as “crime-think”.
The situation has become very grave in Western, not just American, education and culture – but then you know this Sir.
I think the point about a bor and constitution are well put here:
https://www.turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/front-page/politics-tory-fundamentals/
A belated reply to bobby:
I shouldn’t think so, for 2 reasons.
First, a Constitution should not be easy to amend or repeal — and in the UK today, a Bill of Rights could be amended or repealed by a simple majority in the Commons.
Second, a Bill of Rights, by itself, is just a piece of paper. What makes it enforceable are checks & balances.
I take the Machiavellian view: a constitution should be designed in view of the pessimistic principle that all humans are potential criminals.
For me, checks & balances (including federalism, and democracy sensu Popper) are the core ‘Machiavellian’ elements of a proper constitution.
A Bill of Rights, as well as enumerated powers, are the ‘Lockean’ element; almost as important, but not quite.
What was the context in which the US Constitution and BoRs were written and why did they serve so well for so long? I think the answer says that even if those documents were written today, they’d last a generation at most. We just don’t have the civic mind to sustain a rule of law.
I remember in my “yout” reading that all this constitution stuff, law and such, basically boils down to a contract between us all. More specifically a contract between the citizen and the State. I agree not to pillage, kill and whatnot in return for others doing the same. Then we hire some guys to enforce the rules (the State).
But when the contract is broken, the guys we hired actually turn against us in exactly the ways this was all supposed to prevent, what are my options? What are my rights? The answer is easy. The action needed is obvious. And it won’t be fair, or clean. Revolutions are messy.
Do you think we can avoid that? If so, how?