Only last week an intelligent educated Labour voter stated to me that Regulation is Law. Unfortunately, this is a confusion all too common in those who are seriously institutionalised. And as the administrative/managerial class, with their hierarchical rule-based mentality continues to grow in power, we will see an incremental increase in arbitrary power and a corresponding decline in the liberties of free born Englishmen.
The move towards Press Regulation by the Vichy political parties, whose Members of Parliament, were caught stealing through fiddling their expenses, by the free press, not so long ago, is a prime example of Law being destroyed and Regulation being used to cover up crime.
For make no mistake, the vast majority of crime in this country is committed by the government and its employees.
Yet, when blogs, such as this are licensed and the Internet is muzzled (to protect us from trolls, you know) you can kiss freedom goodbye.
At the moment if I, or a newspaper, make a libellous statement, the libelled person may take me to court and sue me, if they think it worth their while. If I reveal some form of government or corporate corruption both myself and those I accuse can slug it out in court.
However, once the press is regulated, soon to be followed by the Internet, by a committee of Vichy policemen and placemen, all they have to do is say 'You can't say that!' And then I will have to remove the 'offensive' post, or I will be shut down.
There will be censorship.
The Law will be replaced by Regulation.
And what may be 'inoffensive' today may be 'offensive' tomorrow.
All manner of crimes will be covered up by the managerial class. Arbitrary power will grow unfettered.
Without free debate there can be no legitimacy for any government.
Monday, 14 October 2013
Sunday, 13 October 2013
John Milton - On The Late Massacre In Piedmont
Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones
Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold,
Even them who kept thy truth so pure of old,
When all our fathers worshipped stocks and stones;
Forget not: in thy book record their groans
Who were thy sheep and in their ancient fold
Slain by the bloody Piedmontese that rolled
Mother with infant down the rocks. Their moans
The vales redoubled to the hills, and they
To Heaven. Their martyred blood and ashes sow
O'er all the Italian fields, where still doth sway
The triple Tyrant; that from these may grow
A hundred- fold, who having learnt thy way,
Early may fly the Babylonian woe.
Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold,
Even them who kept thy truth so pure of old,
When all our fathers worshipped stocks and stones;
Forget not: in thy book record their groans
Who were thy sheep and in their ancient fold
Slain by the bloody Piedmontese that rolled
Mother with infant down the rocks. Their moans
The vales redoubled to the hills, and they
To Heaven. Their martyred blood and ashes sow
O'er all the Italian fields, where still doth sway
The triple Tyrant; that from these may grow
A hundred- fold, who having learnt thy way,
Early may fly the Babylonian woe.
Saturday, 12 October 2013
Aseity
John Ball writes;
Aseity is one of the attributes of God. It means that he exists in and of himself.
God was not created. He simply is, was and will be.
It is obvious that we do not create ourselves. We do not will ourselves into existence.
The world was created because God willed it, but no one willed the creation of God.
I know that atheists, believers in Science and residents of the Tower of Babel tell us that there was a 'Big Bang' and the universe just sort of happened one day.
But out of matter, out of chaos came form, harmony, meaning, light, love, justice, beauty. How on earth could a 'Big Bang' create purpose out of nothing? God was in the beginning. God is the Light that shines in the darkness.
Aseity is one of the attributes of God. It means that he exists in and of himself.
God was not created. He simply is, was and will be.
It is obvious that we do not create ourselves. We do not will ourselves into existence.
The world was created because God willed it, but no one willed the creation of God.
I know that atheists, believers in Science and residents of the Tower of Babel tell us that there was a 'Big Bang' and the universe just sort of happened one day.
But out of matter, out of chaos came form, harmony, meaning, light, love, justice, beauty. How on earth could a 'Big Bang' create purpose out of nothing? God was in the beginning. God is the Light that shines in the darkness.
Friday, 11 October 2013
Alexis De Tocqueville - Tyranny And Arbitrary Power
A distinction must be drawn between tyranny and arbitrary power. Tyranny may be exercised by means of the law, and in that case it is not arbitrary; arbitrary power may be exercised for the good of the community at large, in which case it is not tyrannical. Tyranny usually employs arbitrary means, but if necessary it can rule without them.
............as long as the majority is undecided, discussion is carried on; but as soon as its decision is irrevocably pronounced, a submissive silence is observed, and the friends, as well as the opponents, of the measure unite in assenting to its propriety. The reason of this is perfectly clear; no monarchy is so absolute as to combine all the powers of society in its own hand, and to conquer all opposition with the energy of a majority which is invested with the right of making and executing the laws.
The authority of a king is purely physical, and it controls the actions of the subject without subduing his private will: but the majority possesses a power which is physical and moral at the same time: it acts upon the will as well as upon the actions of men, and it represses not only all contest but all controversy.
............as long as the majority is undecided, discussion is carried on; but as soon as its decision is irrevocably pronounced, a submissive silence is observed, and the friends, as well as the opponents, of the measure unite in assenting to its propriety. The reason of this is perfectly clear; no monarchy is so absolute as to combine all the powers of society in its own hand, and to conquer all opposition with the energy of a majority which is invested with the right of making and executing the laws.
The authority of a king is purely physical, and it controls the actions of the subject without subduing his private will: but the majority possesses a power which is physical and moral at the same time: it acts upon the will as well as upon the actions of men, and it represses not only all contest but all controversy.
Thursday, 10 October 2013
George Sand - State Feminist
Mary Malone writes;
George Sand, the nineteenth century French writer, who called herself by a man's name, sometimes dressed in men's clothing, and regarded love as some kind of entertainment, was an early example of a State Feminist.
Underlying her work and her life was the assumption that masculinity was better than femininity, and that the lower orders should know their place. She might have sympathy for their plight, but they must not help themselves.
In true bourgeois fashion she saw 'love' as a subjective experience. The Romantic Movement was part of the ideology of the rising military bureaucratic classes. In the new world of hierarchical obedience there was no need of give and take. It was all a matter of self.
George Sand was one of the nineteenth century's progressive patriots, some kind of safe radical. The working class were just a romantic ideal.
In her account of 'A Winter in Mallorca' she is contemptuous of the locals, wishing upon them some good benevolent French intervention.
In later life, at the time of the Paris Commune, she sided with Thiers and Versailles against the ordinary people.
Unfortunately, like modern day State Feminists she was bound by her class notions. The 'people like us' are those who command. The rest are non people.
For her the masculine was good, because the masculine in those days meant a place in the hierarchy, with its medals and its titles. For her, a woman, autonomous in her work, was sneered at as the servant of others.
Like the State Feminists today who claim to be radical while oppressing the poor, she could never take the truly radical step of being one of the poor and the powerless.
Instead, like now, the aim of the State Feminist was more power.
George Sand, the nineteenth century French writer, who called herself by a man's name, sometimes dressed in men's clothing, and regarded love as some kind of entertainment, was an early example of a State Feminist.
Underlying her work and her life was the assumption that masculinity was better than femininity, and that the lower orders should know their place. She might have sympathy for their plight, but they must not help themselves.
In true bourgeois fashion she saw 'love' as a subjective experience. The Romantic Movement was part of the ideology of the rising military bureaucratic classes. In the new world of hierarchical obedience there was no need of give and take. It was all a matter of self.
George Sand was one of the nineteenth century's progressive patriots, some kind of safe radical. The working class were just a romantic ideal.
In her account of 'A Winter in Mallorca' she is contemptuous of the locals, wishing upon them some good benevolent French intervention.
In later life, at the time of the Paris Commune, she sided with Thiers and Versailles against the ordinary people.
Unfortunately, like modern day State Feminists she was bound by her class notions. The 'people like us' are those who command. The rest are non people.
For her the masculine was good, because the masculine in those days meant a place in the hierarchy, with its medals and its titles. For her, a woman, autonomous in her work, was sneered at as the servant of others.
Like the State Feminists today who claim to be radical while oppressing the poor, she could never take the truly radical step of being one of the poor and the powerless.
Instead, like now, the aim of the State Feminist was more power.
Contance Garnett
I have been re-reading Constance Garnett's translation of The Devils by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. This remarkable woman, having attained a government scholarship, studied Latin and Greek at Cambridge University. Later on, married and pregnant, she began to learn Russian.
And having learnt Russian she began translating, and thereby introduced the Great Russian Novel to the English speaking world. Through her translations, authors such as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Chekhov, Turgenev, Gogol, and Herzen became known in the Anglosphere.
Of course, she had her critics, and no doubt sometimes the voice of the translator becomes mixed with that of the writer, but, for all that, through her vivid translations, many a young peasant, like myself, has been introduced to the magical world of those crazy Russians.
In all, Constance Garnett translated some 71 volumes of Russian literary words - that is some going!
All these translations were accurate and the quality of the prose was high. She was an explorer into the depths of the Russian soul, revealing to us a New World, a world of visionaries, saints, great egotists, nihilists and criminals, the great of the earth, and the wretched, the desperate and the destitute.
So now I'm going to put the samovar on, make my myself a nice cup of tea, and read a few more pages of sublime prose.
And having learnt Russian she began translating, and thereby introduced the Great Russian Novel to the English speaking world. Through her translations, authors such as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Chekhov, Turgenev, Gogol, and Herzen became known in the Anglosphere.
Of course, she had her critics, and no doubt sometimes the voice of the translator becomes mixed with that of the writer, but, for all that, through her vivid translations, many a young peasant, like myself, has been introduced to the magical world of those crazy Russians.
In all, Constance Garnett translated some 71 volumes of Russian literary words - that is some going!
All these translations were accurate and the quality of the prose was high. She was an explorer into the depths of the Russian soul, revealing to us a New World, a world of visionaries, saints, great egotists, nihilists and criminals, the great of the earth, and the wretched, the desperate and the destitute.
So now I'm going to put the samovar on, make my myself a nice cup of tea, and read a few more pages of sublime prose.
Tuesday, 8 October 2013
Moralism and The Decline Of Christianity
It is very easy to blame the decline of English Christianity on the so called Permissive Society of the 1960s and since, and the material wealth available to even the poorest amongst us, but in reality the Church has to look a little closer to home if it wants to see the causes of its decline.
From the eighteenth century onwards the Christian faith changed from a means of interpreting the world into a moral code, one that was predominantly set by ruling groups and was therefore seen as yet another source of oppression.
The residual hostility towards the Church today is because it is often viewed as being an establishment organisation. Indeed the mainstream churches are still establishment in their outlook, a sort of Guardian readers prayer group, for the managerial classes only.
Three hundred years ago Congregational churches began their slow transformation into effectively Unitarian churches, denying God's grace, making us work for God's favour. The Methodist Church too, leant heavily in that direction. In a propertied society, governed by new laws handed down from above, God took on the role of supernatural policeman.
He could see everything you did! And he would judge you!
The land was enclosed, the peasantry impoverished, and morality covered the land. The Church became a keen supporter of social order, the magistrate, the government, the hangman, the army.
The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, was the creed.
The Church supported wars in Europe and further afield. It became the enemy of the poor.
It became an institution the self respecting poor kept at arms length. The parson, the minister - they were the officer class.
And today the remnant of the Church ploughs the same furrow.
They're happy to lecture us on global warming - the consequence of all those peasants getting rich - but scarcely raise a whisper when the government's allies massacre Christians.
It is not only the Church of Rome that has surrendered to the third temptation.
From the eighteenth century onwards the Christian faith changed from a means of interpreting the world into a moral code, one that was predominantly set by ruling groups and was therefore seen as yet another source of oppression.
The residual hostility towards the Church today is because it is often viewed as being an establishment organisation. Indeed the mainstream churches are still establishment in their outlook, a sort of Guardian readers prayer group, for the managerial classes only.
Three hundred years ago Congregational churches began their slow transformation into effectively Unitarian churches, denying God's grace, making us work for God's favour. The Methodist Church too, leant heavily in that direction. In a propertied society, governed by new laws handed down from above, God took on the role of supernatural policeman.
He could see everything you did! And he would judge you!
The land was enclosed, the peasantry impoverished, and morality covered the land. The Church became a keen supporter of social order, the magistrate, the government, the hangman, the army.
The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, was the creed.
The Church supported wars in Europe and further afield. It became the enemy of the poor.
It became an institution the self respecting poor kept at arms length. The parson, the minister - they were the officer class.
And today the remnant of the Church ploughs the same furrow.
They're happy to lecture us on global warming - the consequence of all those peasants getting rich - but scarcely raise a whisper when the government's allies massacre Christians.
It is not only the Church of Rome that has surrendered to the third temptation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)