Does anybody out there still remember what’s meant by a free country or just how free do you think you are in today’s United Kingdom?
Newshawk asked 37 politicians from national and local government chosen at random (i.e. those who bothered to answer the phone) for a definition of democracy. They were then asked to define a democrat. Both definitions were considered by the Newshawk political team to be important, basing this on Plato’s argument that the people are members of what rules them: “Seek not to rule a people without god!” Thus if you want to operate a democracy you must first find the democrats as we pointed out in the first of this series.
However, not one member of our political class questioned could come up with anything close to the classical definition of a democracy. Some specimen responses were: “Democracy is when not all of the people can be fooled all of the time; something like that? No, it’s when they can’t fool all of them all the time!”
A local politician described democracy thus: “It being able to vote in a polling station wit proper curtains so his vote cannot be seen so he can be kept private …” Another when asked what would comprise a good democrat voter answered: “A good Democrat is an American who votes for the Democrats!”
A democracy according to the Oxford English Dictionary is “Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people and is exercised either directly by them or by officers elected by them.” The OED also admits a modern usage by which all have equal rights.
And the common sense answer to what makes a good democrat is exactly what makes a good citizen or even a good person. Thanks to Plato we can safely suggest that this is a man who can rule his own body.
When the great Hilaire Belloc during a Baliol dinner expressed his preference for republican over monarchial rule the senior master replied: “But where, Mr. Belloc, are we to find republicans?” It’s the same conundrum but one which this little foray into political matters will not seek to evade.
We are not told what constraints if any are placed upon a people’s governing representatives or what is actually meant by the rights that all are owed equally. We have already touched upon the view of the Ms. Nichola Sturgeon, leaderette of the Scots separatists which is that she can do whatever she pleases simply because she has been elected and her party holds by the dogma that theirs is a “parliamentary democracy”. Obviously not the other kind of democracy we cannot but conclude. To go back to the OED it seems obvious that those members of the public elected to office are representing the sovereign power of the rest of the public and therefore obliged (by definition) to act according to the will of that portion of the population which empowered them. This at least clarifies that if the people are not in control of themselves they will scarcely provide a sovereign will worth representing.
So the question remains a valid one; who knows what Democracy really means today? Who remembers why Democracy was ever considered absolutely essential to a free society? And how quickly we have forgotten that as World War I erupted the World’s intelligentsia were already sneering at democracy as a “political anachronism” and, more critically, they were dismissing it as a “failing system” which placed intolerable constraints on “progress”, both economically and culturally.
What was then considered democracy’s preferred replacement? The answer believe it or not was Fascism. Let’s repeat that, the world consensus by a mile was for fascism to succeed limping, untidy democracy.
O.K. This was well before the three mightiest currents of fascism coalesced into the obvious abominations led by Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. George Bernard Shaw died convinced that Stalin was a superman. Mussolini got the trains running on time. Hitler’s social model was the envy of the Western ascendancy classes, the adulation of political academics. Yes, your grand dads and great grandmothers! Then the war came, and another war and all that embarrassment.
Perversely we have chosen to investigate what Democracy is all about by examining what it is obviously not all about, and that is fascism.
So what exactly IS fascism? We can cut through the persiflage of post war academic “studies” most of which labour under the disadvantage of examining fascism from a position of floating relativism or from one or another form of fascism in the mind-set of the researchers themselves; and go with the masterly definition of Mr. Jonah Goldberg whose book Liberal Fascism has been keeping many American Liberals sleepless and in a complex state of unresolvable paranoia since its publication in 2007.
This quotation from Goldberg explains what has caused this politico-ethical unhinging:
“Fascism is a religion of the State. It assumed the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the State is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore defined as the enemy.”
Get it? And don’t imagine Liberals are the only target here. Try the Scots Nats (so amusingly renamed Scots Natsis) We will be looking more closely at their idea of a “parliamentary democracy”. Remember, that’s where their leaderette is entitled to act as a totalitarian despot because too many unthinking Scots elected her into our hybrid “parliament”. In other words, she is above all law, including the Ten Commandments. Since this wee lassie can make all law, she can make law banning electoral procedures. The strange rabble of Socialist malcontents who empower her would find it harder to frame a definition of a national constitution (never mind construct one) than they were capable of defining democracy when we asked them to.
If you are in doubt and feel that our charge of fascism is extreme consider this example of State intervention into the people’s most private and privelleged right. The Scots Natsi Party rushed a law through the Scottish Assembly removing all parents from first right possession of their own children. This barely coherent collection of sundry socialist elements unable to conceive of the problems involved in finding and collating the ethical and legal essentials for a written constitution nevertheless tore away the foundational edifice of marriage and the family in one blow of authority assumed.
It cannot be too strongly stressed that the Scots Natsis are not the specific offenders of our basic freedoms; the Liberal Fascism we describe is now woven into every political organisation in the Western world today. Our lives are shot through with it. When Mr David Cameron whitters on about Big government and whatever he says its opposite is we are listening to a man who has become blind to the fascism in our midst. Its opposite is not little or even littler government. It’s opposite is called human freedom!
So Goldberg’s is the key definition. Fascism is State intervention into the rights of free people. In other words, it is an authority which assumes there can be no rights and no free people. Vide; Mr. Tony Blair stepped down from his global space travels recently to remind his fellow Socialists ( and Con-libs, and Lib-cons, and David McCameron) that the British people must never have a say on whether or not to keep Britain in the United European States or EU “because they can’t understand it”. Obviously he thinks it’s all above our heads and we plebs are a bit too thick and not rich like him.
Whether or not we believe Democracy has had its day it would seem vital that if it must be replaced we must replace it with something less dangerous than Fascism. Even if die-hards insist (as they do) that Fascism was seen at its worse in the conflagration of the century of all out global war, they may not deny that Fascism was not just the greatest causal strand but that its bloody harvest of human populations has proceeded unabated throughout our so-called peace. Read The Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard University for death figures updates.
Probably reading this some people feel much as Americans did when Mussolini was being feted by nearly all Western leaders, others may feel that even if we are back into an early form of fascism it could not possibly morph into the hellish nightmare that was Europe and Asia caught up in two world wars. Well here’s Goldberg’s take on that attitude as he tries to explain how it could happen:
The answer resides in the fact that Fascism was born of a “fascist moment” in Western civilisation, when a coalition of intellectuals going by various labels – progressive, communist, socialist, and so forth – believed the era of liberal democracy was drawing to a close. It was time for man to lay aside the anachronisms of natural law, traditional religion, constitutional liberty, capitalism, and the like and rise to the responsibility of making the world in his own image. God was long dead and it was long overdue for men to to take His place. Mussolini, a lifelong socialist intellectual, was a warrior in this crusade, and his Fascism – a doctrine he created from the same intellectual material as Lenin and Trotsky had built their movements with – was a grand leap into the era of “experimentation” that would sweep aside old dogmas and usher in the new age. This was in every significant way a project of the Left as we understand the term today, a fact understood by Mussolini, his admirers, and his detractors. Mussolini declared that the nineteenth century was the century of liberalism and the twentieth century would be the century of Fascism
Into the frame of this little political essay the word Freedom has insinuated itself, almost as though it is part of the label of what we discuss, possibly the essential part. What is hard to deny is that freedom is not any part of the Fascist political agenda, unless it is that the wunderkid leader is free to do as he pleases. As it happens Mussolini was a serial rapist. It is also apparent, especially in the model provided by the politically naïve Scots-Natsi party that as the spirit or attitude of state control is empowered its activity is recognised in attacking the freedom of the individual people and a contempt for any concept of an individual “rights” unless as in a legalistic terminology which actually degrades rights even as it pretends to enhance or defend them. A perfect example is the call upon the rights of a mother to abort her baby which now has no right even to life itself. Arising from abortion is the unavoidable consequence that no human being has any longer the right to life. The child is actually alive but the law deems this life to be expendable and affords it no defence even from its own mother. If this be so then no human life exists of right greater than that of the state to extinguish it. This means YOUR life! Not just in Fascist Scotland but practically throughout the so called “free world”.
At this point we perforce examine another uncomfortable reality, one which is quite intolerable to the new fascist political atmosphere of Europe and America. The hated thing is religion, especially Christianity, particularly Catholicism.
Hilary Clinton, at the Women in the World Summit held in New York today (April 23 2015) told her Sisterhood fans this:
Yes, we’ve cut the maternity mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health, and safe children. Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases, have to be changed.
This snappy summation of classical fascism is a masterpiece of verbal economy fit to rank with the collected political rhetoric of all time. It can be written on the back of a wallet card. It must never be allowed to fade.
Clinton’s one breath fascism mission statement actually embodies not only the political agenda of totalitarianism but never once deviates from fascist-speak; that is, it exemplifies a liar’s lexicon whether blatantly, or by disguising vicious intention with evasive or sanitised terminology, and twice by inventing pacifying neologisms.
Lets go through the text; “we have cut the mortality rate in half”. This has actually increased alarmingly in relation to legalised abortion alone — for the simple reason that invasive surgery into a mother’s womb has increased astronomically. Despite even the highest levels of medical care the sheer statistical weight of risk involved in multi-millions of procedures such as exist in the United States makes her claim mathematically preposterous.
By “reproductive health” Ms. Clinton means abortion operations.
With the abortion industry now claiming in excess of 60 million dead babies what can be meant by “far too many women are still denied critical access” (to abortion)? “Critical access” must then imply some means of increasing abortion through direct State enforcement; this is already in a manner proceeding against the poorer women who are denied health care unless they agree in certain situations to have their healthy babies aborted.
“Safe children”? By what contortion of reality can the industrial level of baby killing be conceived as making them safe? If a sibling survives does it become safer emotionally or psychologically in the care of a mother who feels at ease aborting a child? Research overwhelmingly indicates serious psychological harm to women who have had a single abortion. Today there are many mothers who have endured multiple operations.
When she uttered the chilling phrase, “political will” which of her fans at the Women in the World Summit had the imagination to hear the click of jackboots.
She finished thus: “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases, have to be changed”.
The sound bite “Deep-seated cultural codes” most probably relates to Natural Law which is described from Cicero to the founders of modern America as the foundation of all law, and which is given to mankind in a privileged form in the Decalogue or Ten Commandments.
The “religious beliefs” she deplored are necessarily taboo to all fascists for the simple reason that fascism is a religion itself and an intolerant one.
This leaves “structural biases”, and you can lump into that particular portmanteau neologism anything from your suspicion about global warming, your irritation you may not smoke a cigar in your gentleman’s club or five ale bar, to your disinclination to have your 14-year-old sons hanging out with men who engage other men in the act of buggery. That mankind in its difficult journey through the ages has learned instinctively to avoid or mark as a byword what is dangerous to its survival means little to Ms. Clinton. It is difficult to envisage exactly what benefits accrue to her political cause by stirring in such murky pools, but there exists a sort of dark halo about fascism, a sense of perversion for perversion’s sake. The German fascists, the Nazi party, attracted a weird naturalistic religion well described in the book Geist uber Deutschland.
When all is said and done, Ms Clinton has proven herself to be the mistress of confounding verbiage and it hurts us to have to point out that obfuscation of terms is a signal mark of the political scoundrel.
The famous American journalist Bill Donohue raised the question, now that Ms. Clinton has publicly attacked the mainstream Christian Church and has moved up to the next step, when will she tell the American voters exactly how she plans to fix those “paper rights” into legally binding edicts, backed up by courts forced to dispense punitive sentences upon anyone convicted of violating the great “women in the world” creed?
He wrote: “Not only would practising Catholics like to know; so would Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews,Muslims and all those who value life from conception to natural death.”
It is a perfect example of the rights that destroy even the right to life in the demented logic of fascism, and exactly why fascists from Mussolini, to Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Ho Chi Min detest Christians for defending natural law. Oh, and Ms. Clinton, wife of the former President of the United States of America, is a Democrat. We do not need to enquire about her concept of democracy or what she imagines a democrat to be. Jesus Christ could never be a democrat in her eyes.
Every one of the great fascist movements attacked and persecuted Christians. It is no accident that Mr. Anthony Blair a Clinton “suffragette” as my American colleague cruelly lampooned him, proclaimed: “We do not do God!” He actually did do God though and got a rather unhappy, fat Irish RC prelate to accommodate him in that respect. Then, of course, he offered private dogmatic lessons to the Papacy.
Which brings us to a fascinating fact emerging that the only positive authority on earth defining, defending and advocating maximum freedom of the individual human, constraining and explaining the necessary boundaries of State power, while admitting of political variety of organisation is the Roman Catholic Church. Her doctrines referring to this and other human rights are elegantly set out in the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church.
There is we fear yet another strange movement among those who seem to carry unbridled influence over present day attitudes. It was described by the brilliant American Archbishop Charles Brown during a six prelate public catechesis convoked by Bishop John Keenan of Paisley, Scotland, as more deadly even than Marxism. The Communists, he argued, believed at least in the existence of truth, that is that their ideology was true and worthy of being pursued. But today truth itself is denied in the chaos of relativism.
He quoted W. B. Yates’s The Second Coming:
“Turning and turning in the widening gyre the falcon cannot hear the falconer. Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold ….”
The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity
Strangely, Dom Hugh Gilbert, former abbot of Pluscarden abbey and presently bishop of Aberdeen (another of the theologian bishops who addressed the great Paisley catechesis), independently quoted exactly the same lines from the same Anglo-Irish poet whose religious convictions were perhaps even less clearly formulated than Blake’s. The Second Coming was published a year after the end of the First World War when nobody could have dreamt that after a few more years in which to replenish the human cannon fodder pool the Second World War would commence, with culminations in nuclear bombs and sleeping cities evaporated to eternity in the night.
Yates poem continued with a line that might be the succinct epitaph of our intellectually disordered age: “The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
The passionate intensity of Ms. Clinton, Ms. Scot Natsi Leaderette, Mr. Milliband, Mr. Blair, etc. etc. etc. You know, fascists all. You may even meet their like on your doorstep this week.
In this second in our series on the problem with democracy we looked at the classical concept of freedom as man’s fundamental right and ask if that concept is generally accommodated in the real world of today.
In future editions, Andrew McIvor vich Iain Mhor reads up on Hillaire Belloc and Six Oxford Men to the period of established peace just before the First World War. Their fears for the future and regrets of their past comprise a poignantly prophetic warning for today, he argues..
Later, J. E. Barrett reads the signs of the times present and accuses the “free world” leaders of suffocating even moral and religious freedom with what he calls Gas Cloud Fascism. The now famous Jonah Goldberg study into Liberal Fascism and the Media and academic led bacon slicing programme which is hypnotising both rulers and the ruled is examined in relation to its effect upon British and continental political cultures.
Finally, Adam Bede takes up the challenge by insisting that Western pre-Christian sensibilities are not so easily eradicated. Freedom is deeper than a merely learned or habituated attitude to life more powerful than the individual suppressive demands of, say, the herd instinct or any other proposed survival collective; it is an instinct correctly identified by Rouseau, he insists. “Man is born free and is everywhere in chains.” Chains are breakable, the birth mark is in the soul of man.
Trackback from your site.