At last we've seen the sordid truth of what happened on that fateful Sunday afternoon in Derry in 1972. It's a truth that for many was suspected. After one establishment cover-up in the 1970s (aka Lord Widgery's Enquiry), the Saville Enquiry - all those years later - has disclosed that the British Army were the first to fire the shots which resulted in a significant number of civilian deaths. For the sake of the Catholic families affected by this atrocity, I'm glad that they have had the result that had been denied them for so long.
Although I understand and sympathise with their reasons, I'm no starry-eyed supporter of the IRA/Sinn Fein; they - along with their Loyalist paramilitary counterparts - have a great deal of blood on their hands and in their consciences. Although political processes grind on and public memories tend to blur after the passage of time now that a measure of peace and stability has been established, the undeniable fact is that the UK Government must also bear a significant share of the blame for this and a lot of other wanton bloodshed. After all, the cosy collusion with the loyalists ensured that the Roman Catholic majority were denied basic civil rights, which sparked off the Troubles in the first place. They knew what they were doing. The duplicity of the UK Government in Northern Ireland through the secret services and the Army is an unpalatable truth that has yet to embed itself into the public consciousness over here.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
The Ghost Walks
When the Berlin Wall was pulled down in 1989, the event was regarded as the most significant development in 20th century politics; it sent a clear signal that communism was dead. The emerging countries behind the Iron Curtain had to come to terms with a new politics - and former Warsaw Pact citizens were having to adapt - emotionally and psychologically - to an entirely different landscape: one where the State no longer held its paternalistic sway. The difficulties encountered by individuals in the transition from dependence on the State and its institutions to liberal democracy must never be underestimated; for those who had lived with communism all their lives, it was a difficult adjustment to make. For the first time, people were forced to take responsibility for themselves because the State apparatus was no longer present to support them. Since that time, many of the Eastern European nations have been integrated into the European Union, and free movement of citizens within EU boundaries has been in evidence in the UK and elsewhere.
But while these quantum changes were in progress, the furniture in the West was slowly and gently being rearranged; subtle changes were being introduced through the mass media in an attempt to change the attitudes and perceptions of the Western populace. Political correctness - generally associated with and attributed to the Labour Party - actually started to emerge in the UK during the long years of Conservative governance. New taboos were being insidiously introduced through the institutions of the press, local authorities and the BBC, and in the fulness of time it became a social misdemeanour to express any opinions contrary to the received orthodoxy. For example, any semblance of racial preference - or criticism of certain selected minority social groups - was frowned upon. At first, no one was sure of the origin of these new social mores. As time passed, legislation was introduced to formalise and codify these new values. The result of this is that while 3 decades ago the National Front was tolerated by the majority - albeit superciliously regarded as a fringe party of bigoted nationalists - its successor, the British National Party, has been systematically demonised by all corners of the political establishment. A cultural transformation has taken place that has eroded long-held values of tolerance. There are regular reports to be read in right-wing tabloids like the Daily Mail of the discrimination of local police or councils against individuals who have held a principled stand for their beliefs. Christians who have publicly expressed their beliefs have been a favourite target by the zealous enforcers of the New Orthodoxy. As we direct our gaze to other European nations and North America, we see the same pattern emerging, a similar orthodoxy in place and similar repressions of those who publicly call it to question.
So, what is actually happening? Why is it that these developments have been taking place elsewhere? Is this part of some unavoidable process attributable to 'change' or 'progress?' The architects of this international cultural change would certainly like that to be the recognised perception. Yes - there are architects behind these value changes that have been foisted onto the public consciousness; they are the disciples of past intellectual masters: Plato, Hegel, Marx, Engels, Foucault and Gramsci - to name but a few. When we couple these social value changes with developments in the global political scene, a clearer picture comes into focus. When political leaders talk about a Common Purpose - and to be sure, Obama and Cameron and their illustrious predecessors have done so - we can be sure that they have a specific goal in mind - one which is hidden from public perception, but abundantly evident if one takes the time and trouble to look. The goal is Communitarianism, where the dictatorship of the community has replaced the dictatorship of the proletariat. The objective is the disenfranchisement and impoverishment (financially, intellectually, socially, spiritually and morally) of the majority by the wealthy and powerful few. A new landscape of poverty, hardship, heavy taxation awaits - while the political classes have untold opportunities to indulge their penchant for the quick buck and the privileges that accompany their role in the new order. Mark Twain said that a cauliflower is a cabbage with a college education. Communitarianism is Communism with ribbons - and some extra letters added. It is on its way. The ghost walks - but then perhaps it never really died in the first place.
But while these quantum changes were in progress, the furniture in the West was slowly and gently being rearranged; subtle changes were being introduced through the mass media in an attempt to change the attitudes and perceptions of the Western populace. Political correctness - generally associated with and attributed to the Labour Party - actually started to emerge in the UK during the long years of Conservative governance. New taboos were being insidiously introduced through the institutions of the press, local authorities and the BBC, and in the fulness of time it became a social misdemeanour to express any opinions contrary to the received orthodoxy. For example, any semblance of racial preference - or criticism of certain selected minority social groups - was frowned upon. At first, no one was sure of the origin of these new social mores. As time passed, legislation was introduced to formalise and codify these new values. The result of this is that while 3 decades ago the National Front was tolerated by the majority - albeit superciliously regarded as a fringe party of bigoted nationalists - its successor, the British National Party, has been systematically demonised by all corners of the political establishment. A cultural transformation has taken place that has eroded long-held values of tolerance. There are regular reports to be read in right-wing tabloids like the Daily Mail of the discrimination of local police or councils against individuals who have held a principled stand for their beliefs. Christians who have publicly expressed their beliefs have been a favourite target by the zealous enforcers of the New Orthodoxy. As we direct our gaze to other European nations and North America, we see the same pattern emerging, a similar orthodoxy in place and similar repressions of those who publicly call it to question.
So, what is actually happening? Why is it that these developments have been taking place elsewhere? Is this part of some unavoidable process attributable to 'change' or 'progress?' The architects of this international cultural change would certainly like that to be the recognised perception. Yes - there are architects behind these value changes that have been foisted onto the public consciousness; they are the disciples of past intellectual masters: Plato, Hegel, Marx, Engels, Foucault and Gramsci - to name but a few. When we couple these social value changes with developments in the global political scene, a clearer picture comes into focus. When political leaders talk about a Common Purpose - and to be sure, Obama and Cameron and their illustrious predecessors have done so - we can be sure that they have a specific goal in mind - one which is hidden from public perception, but abundantly evident if one takes the time and trouble to look. The goal is Communitarianism, where the dictatorship of the community has replaced the dictatorship of the proletariat. The objective is the disenfranchisement and impoverishment (financially, intellectually, socially, spiritually and morally) of the majority by the wealthy and powerful few. A new landscape of poverty, hardship, heavy taxation awaits - while the political classes have untold opportunities to indulge their penchant for the quick buck and the privileges that accompany their role in the new order. Mark Twain said that a cauliflower is a cabbage with a college education. Communitarianism is Communism with ribbons - and some extra letters added. It is on its way. The ghost walks - but then perhaps it never really died in the first place.
Monday, 7 June 2010
A change of mind
For some time I was a fellow-traveller with the socialists; I believed that the needs of people are more important than the greedy aspirations of Big Business and the banks. And this I still believe. Nevertheless I was not a Labour voter, as I've been vehemently opposed to the EU for years. But I've now come to recognise that I don't want to identify myself with any vestige of socialism. Why?
1. Bureaucratic Tyranny. In the last 13 years the Labour Party has brought in untold tyranny through the enactment of more than 4000 new laws to criminalise ordinary members of the public; placing the wrong type of rubbish in a bin could bring down the force of justice. Smokers are now lepers who hang around outside pubs. These new laws were nor designed to correct injustice - but to wear down ordinary people through myriads of infringements of their right to mind their own legitimate business and express their opinions. (Big Brother Watch - bless them - faithfully catalogues the persecutions of citizens through these draconian Labour laws.) I realise that most of these laws have been passed down from Brussels (the devil's socialist playground), but this does not excuse Labour parliamentarians. When they talk piously about a just and fair society, I really wonder who benefits from this 'justice.' Only the Treasury and the courts reap any rewards.
2. Imposed 'equality'. For some time it has been the objective of government to favour some marginal groups while deliberately ignoring the views of the majority. This has brought about the stifling of a Christian voice in a country that has a Christian value system integral to its social and judicial system. Woe betide any Christian who declares his beliefs concerning the practice of homosexuality - he or she is likely to feel the hand of the state on his or her shoulder. The majority of people feel that their feelings and views matter less than those of another group. I know the reasons for this - and they are sinister, as they are cynically designed to change the cultural values of the public. This is social engineering, and Labour have accelerated it at an alarming rate.
3. Other people's wars. These are the legacy of a morally bankrupt party who deceived the public.
Friday, 2 April 2010
A New Wat Tyler?
John Harris, who is one of the leading lights of the Lawful Rebellion movement (mentioned in a previous blog) has been doing his share of rabble-rousing as we approach a General Election (which he calls the election - or rather, appointment - of a general). Once again I find that he has been airing his extensive and formidable ignorance concerning British history and society by expressing some of the most scandalous statements without resorting to any means of proof to authenticate them. While it must be agreed that we are no more than slaves on this island, whose purpose is to turn the treadmill for those privileged enough to be born into families that rake in the proceeds of our toil and sweat, I start to bristle when Mr Harris turns his fire on the Christian Church, which he blandly accuses of being a part of the status quo that has helped (and continues to help) suppress the masses and maintain order for the benefit of the privileged few.
He credits the Church with a great deal more influence than it actually has. For example, the Archbishop of Canterbury has already publicly stated in recent months that he believes that the politicians in Government regard Christianity as some kind of social disease rather than a force for good. Never has the Church had less influence than it has today; we only have to look at the secular agendas set by politicians in the last 25 years. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, its influence is likely to recede further in the light of recent disclosures of cover-ups for gross sexual offences against children by priests. Even Ratzinger can't get out of that one, as he's also implicated.
What are the facts? Well, the Christian Church certainly has played a role in the maintaining of the status quo. This is beyond dispute. However, there have always been tensions within the Church between Establishment-maintainers and those who wanted to reform the Church according to its original biblical foundations. Some were burned at the stake because they posed a threat to the status quo; Savonarola was one such victim; William Tindale was killed for translating Scripture into English. By the time Luther came into the scene, the exploitation and corruption in the medieval Church was at an all-time peak; it was palpably on the take with the cynical sale of indulgences to help fund the new basilica building project. But Luther's arrival at a biblical understanding of the Gospel and his posting of the 95 Theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg was (unbeknown to him) to prove to be the catalyst to pull together already existing strands of dissent and discontent from many quarters of Europe. Consequently the Protestant Reformation was born. In due time the established protestant churches became identified with the state, and once again there were internal dissents and secessions, resulting in new churches. And so it goes.
And now our Mr Harris is accusing the Church of bolstering the position of the socially dominant in our society. Which one, Mr Harris? The Church of England? Oh, yes, the C of E is the 'established' church. Personally, I'd be very happy to see it disestablished - the sooner the better. But I can't see Mr Brown or Mr Cameron having regular briefings from the Archbishop at No. 10 Downing Street. Nor from the Cardinal or the leader of the Methodists. For the sake of maintaining the illusion of 'diversity', though, an imam might tag along. Mr Harris - one of the first things you need to do is to make sure you're sure of the ground you're standing on. Otherwise I might be tempted to believe that you're just taking the piss.
He credits the Church with a great deal more influence than it actually has. For example, the Archbishop of Canterbury has already publicly stated in recent months that he believes that the politicians in Government regard Christianity as some kind of social disease rather than a force for good. Never has the Church had less influence than it has today; we only have to look at the secular agendas set by politicians in the last 25 years. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, its influence is likely to recede further in the light of recent disclosures of cover-ups for gross sexual offences against children by priests. Even Ratzinger can't get out of that one, as he's also implicated.
What are the facts? Well, the Christian Church certainly has played a role in the maintaining of the status quo. This is beyond dispute. However, there have always been tensions within the Church between Establishment-maintainers and those who wanted to reform the Church according to its original biblical foundations. Some were burned at the stake because they posed a threat to the status quo; Savonarola was one such victim; William Tindale was killed for translating Scripture into English. By the time Luther came into the scene, the exploitation and corruption in the medieval Church was at an all-time peak; it was palpably on the take with the cynical sale of indulgences to help fund the new basilica building project. But Luther's arrival at a biblical understanding of the Gospel and his posting of the 95 Theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg was (unbeknown to him) to prove to be the catalyst to pull together already existing strands of dissent and discontent from many quarters of Europe. Consequently the Protestant Reformation was born. In due time the established protestant churches became identified with the state, and once again there were internal dissents and secessions, resulting in new churches. And so it goes.
And now our Mr Harris is accusing the Church of bolstering the position of the socially dominant in our society. Which one, Mr Harris? The Church of England? Oh, yes, the C of E is the 'established' church. Personally, I'd be very happy to see it disestablished - the sooner the better. But I can't see Mr Brown or Mr Cameron having regular briefings from the Archbishop at No. 10 Downing Street. Nor from the Cardinal or the leader of the Methodists. For the sake of maintaining the illusion of 'diversity', though, an imam might tag along. Mr Harris - one of the first things you need to do is to make sure you're sure of the ground you're standing on. Otherwise I might be tempted to believe that you're just taking the piss.
Saturday, 27 February 2010
My response to Andy Reed's Reply
This is my reply. No further response has been expected or received.
A Reply From My MP
This is Andy Reed's response to my Facebook message:
In Loughborough if you don't vote for me you get a right wing Tory MP - simple as that.
I clearly won't change your mind on your poltics so I won't waste anytime doing so. But enjoy having a Tory MP and government more right wing than Thatcher
Andy
A Letter To My Local Labour Member Of Parliament
I sent this to my MP recently to express my opinions on the corrupt and malevolent organisation that he represents:
Andy - I respect you and believe that you're doing a really good job. But I don't want to vote for a party that has sold its soul to the corporate establishment, and until Labour starts to demonstrate that it represents the public rather than the political elite, I will be a disaffected voter.
Regards
Dave Faulks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)