Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Tyranny versus Liberty

Every so often, one of His Grace's communicants contributes a gem which merits reproduction beyond the confines of an ephemeral thread of largely-forgettable dialogue.

This from Bryan (with His Grace's thanks):

'I see the debate is framed here as it is in my own country; as a struggle between liberalism and conservatism.

'Yet no matter how the struggle turns out, both the liberals and the conservatives feel frustration, no matter who "wins", neither seem to enjoy the victory as "their" party fails to live up to its promises once in power.

'You see there is another, less obvious, struggle at work in the body politic, and that is tyranny verses liberty. Tyranny is the natural course of professional politicians, whilst liberty is the heart's cry of the populace.

'Tyranny lives in the professional politician's desire to remain in power, to increase his own personal power, and therefore the power of the central government over the people. He sells this through offering to lift the heavy burden of personal responsibility from off the shoulders of the populace.

'The amount of this tyranny you allow is entirely based on the amount of personal responsibility you refuse to bear; for personal responsibility is the cornerstone of personal liberty. Surrender your personal responsibility to anyone or anything else, and that other controls your actions.

'The true struggle of politics is therefore, how best to balance government control with personal responsibility. And the level of tyranny a people will abide is inversely proportional to their moral ability to shoulder personal responsibility.'


Anonymous philip walling said...

Yes, he's quite right.

That's why we have what's proving to be a tyrannical government, and why we are in such debt.
It started with the welfare state and God knows where it will end.
But when you have 54% of the population directly employed by the state there's little hope of a great cry from the people for liberty.
We have become what Hilaire Belloc predicted in The Servile State - a nation of slaves. We have given ourselves to it - nobody has enslaved us - but once in that state it's nearly impossible to get out of it - it becomes a hereditary thing.

31 March 2010 at 18:40  
Blogger awkwardgadgee said...

I would like to see that bettered. And I would like to see all MPs being forced to learn it by rote.

31 March 2010 at 18:41  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Unless we are careful, we will cheapen words like ‘tyranny’ if we use them simply to describe what really is, nothing of the sort.

It is already happening with the high-jacking of the word ‘Holocaust’ fashionable being used against Israeli Jews be by the supporters of a Palestinian Arab State.

I would like to think that on this site at least, we know what the real Holocaust meant, but will our grandchildren?

We can freely spout our displeasure with elected politicians, here in the UK or in any democratically elected government, but what then do we use to describe the likes of Stalin, Saddam, Kim Jong-il? or whoever is the next abomination to truly deserve the label.

Surely there is a better contextual word in our lexicon that does not lead to trivialising truly brutal tyrants.

31 March 2010 at 18:51  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

For some the idea of having a secular body corporate persona is immoral to begin with.

Most faiths know this at heart, for even the Jewish Sanhedrin are seeking a seperate state of israel, free of the secularist one.

Now if the Jews believe in a nation of salem (peace) muslims a nation of islam (peace) and a freeman must be one who keeps the peace, then I see a common cause and effect.

The national debt is a secular legal affair belonging the body politic, the tyranny and subsequent globalist agenda is the result of a very corrupt corporate power that is beholding to a fraudulant debt, of its own making.

You or me, moslem, jew it matters not who, if the bankers believe they are losing grip a state will become extremist to hold onto power and call in its debts by whatever means necessary.

31 March 2010 at 18:54  
Anonymous Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

An excellent post indeed, Your Grace. Perhaps, if I might venture to suggest a little Lutheranism, someone might nail it to the door of the House of Commons...

31 March 2010 at 18:56  
Blogger British Shorthair said...

Largely forgettable dialogue? Your Grace is too harsh on all concerned. Some of this site's recent writings about Boris Johnson have soared to inspiring heights of sublimated homo-eroticism.

31 March 2010 at 19:19  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

J Stuart Mill's essay on 'Liberty,
although rather turgid, also contains very valuable insights, which then may have seemed quite radical:
Speaking of liberty of conscience, thought and opinion, of expression, or pursuit or association he says:

"No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected is free..... and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as it does not deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.
Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental, or spiritual.
Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest"

Clearly he was not a Socialist, or supporter of State intervention to any much degree!

31 March 2010 at 19:23  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

In this clip from the BBC series NCS: Manhunt, Marc Warren makes much the same point:

❛And every day, we are told again and again how we are to be and how our country is to be. We’re told by them, and we know who they are. They’re English, too. They’re the class that has always set themselves apart. They’re the class that has always taken whatever they wanted for themselves.

And now they are the class that is giving England away. They have never asked us. And they never will.❜

31 March 2010 at 19:56  
Blogger David Wheeler said...

There is much talk of freedom on this blog. I assume this is a religious blog, so may we see what Scripture has to say about freedom?

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:31-32.

I am not convinced, that there is any other path to freedom.

David Wheeler.

31 March 2010 at 20:18  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I think a better term would be despotism. Tyrants gain power through unconstitutional means (so Hitler was not a tyrant, but Stalin was) and despots centralise power to an individual or small group (which is applicable to all of those you listed). I agree that the use of the term tyrannical is incorrect, but if it was replaced with despotic then I'd agree with the post completely.

I think that comparing our current governance to everyone's favourite list of autocrats is justified. The only difference is the speed and method. Godwin's law aside, I'd compare our democratic downfall to that of Germany between 1918 and 1936.
The Nazis gained power by democratic means on the back of a personality cult and a hatred of the weak former government (see 1997).
Once in power they immediately took steps to discredit, and eventually ban, their political enemies (well the BNP aren't banned yet, but it seems that all the other parties are quick to attack them rhetorically rather than discredit them intellectually).
They started to take basic freedoms away from people such as freedom of speech (hate speech laws anyone?)
They sought to bring religion under state control to stifle independent thought (okay, our government want to eliminate religion, but they have started to limit religious freedoms)
They were obsessed with race; they wouldn't allow integration, forcing different peoples to live apart. They also scape-goated one race for all their problems. (nowadays we call it multiculturalism and we blame white people for everything).
They invaded countries with dubious cause (this one's obvious).

Feel free to add to the list.

31 March 2010 at 21:17  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

It might be an interesting point to mention the article in the news about the men convicted of armed robbery without being tried by jury, Your Grace. I think this is a somewhat scary development of the justice system. Certainly very corruptible in the wrong hands.

31 March 2010 at 22:06  
Anonymous len said...

Davic Wheeler,(20:18)
The greatest freedom of all can only come from Jesus Christ. It is the only freedom that can be guaranteed, and Jesus is the only authority that can guarantee it.But notice furthermore that to have this greatest freedom, we must greatly restrict ourselves: we must abide in the teachings of Christ. If we will not submit to Christ's authority, if we will not sign up as his slaves, then we cannot be free. We must then be the slaves of sin.

Enslavement to Satan in sin, and liberty through Christ and his law, are not mere "ideas". They are very real, because Satan and Christ are real persons with real powers, and we all must be under bondage to one of them. The only freedom we really have of our own, is to choose which it will be.

To choose our enslavement is to determine our destiny —either the wages of sin or the gift of God (Rom 6:23). To be free to do that, is to be free indeed, however if we choose wrongly we will not be free but in bondage.

31 March 2010 at 23:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or as Bob Dylan put it:

"It may be the devil or it may be the Lord, but your gonna have to serve somebody!"

31 March 2010 at 23:52  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

My 2p's worth.

Great post, agree with every word.

Tyranny is the perfect description for what we have now. The only problem is that as this is tyranny what will we call our future?

(Answers on a postcard please, as using the internet these days is far too dangerous.)

For you can be absolutely certain that if the general public can not spot ever growing tyranny when it daily surrounds them, then things will get a whole lot worse before they inevitably do.

We live under far more tyrannical laws today then we did during the last world war. However the 3rd WW has not even started quite yet. The fact that many do not know that they exist, mainly because they have not personally come against them as yet. Does not mean that they do not exist, or will not be used on them or some one they know, sooner rather then later,

Which begs a very important question.

Are the people who run the world, PLANNING something BIG yet again?

It would seem self-apparent that they are. History is indeed repeating itself 1930's Germany style. Only this time the establishments 'toys' are very much more deadly.

1 April 2010 at 00:07  
Blogger Bryan said...

I'm deeply honored, and humbled by Your Grace's decision to post my comment.

I beg you to not disservice Your Grace or my fellow readers and commenters, because the articles you post and the discussions they engender are part and parcel to whatever might, in Your Grace's judgment, rise out of them.

In regards to the content, it has been opined that I have weakened the word tyranny through usage. If I have done disservice to the word tyranny, have I not also done disservice to liberty?

I, personally cannot think of any other word for excessive government control that would not also be an equally apt target for such a complaint. In the United States of America, our problem is arguably extra-Constitutional. We have a singular, short piece of paper (with a few amendments) which our Government is unable to directly change, but appears to be free to ignore. Maybe Despotism is a better word for the issue on this side of the pond where Her Majesty's Government is free to alter Constitutional law, pretty much as it pleases? (If I understand matters correctly.)

As for the religio-politicalness of the issue, I propose it is the "moral ability" of a people which empowers them to personal responsibility and therefore a desire for freedom from ... Excessive Government Control. What can be more religio-political than that?

1 April 2010 at 00:40  
Blogger Douglas said...

I have to agree with Dreadnought and totally disagree with Lakester91 as I stand in a different place with a different point of view. And my point of view is more historically accurate and global in perspective.

To compare even John Majors Government to the failure of Schleicher is to forget that that government included the Nazi party. And since we are talking about him when was Labours 'Night of the Long Knives'. When were opposition politicians assassinated? (except at the ballot box in free and fair elections?). Who has this government actually killed (David Kelly and squaddies in two wars don't count for lack of proof and the obvious).

Hitler had control of the justice system so tell us why you think that the number of high court judges throwing out things like detention orders are party to the fall of our liberty? In fact, are the judges not moving into other areas of government policy - Judge Carnwath ruling against Heathrow for example.

The Nazis used coercion and assassination to force through a number of pieces of legislation that allowed them to end the Weimar Republic and establish the Third Reich. A key partner in this was the Centre Party that voted with Hitler after recieving assurances that the Catholic Church was to be left alone. The Church did not speak out against the support from the Centre Party - what does Cranmer make of that I wonder?

Does this government want to end religion? Really? As an atheist and secularist I have to say that the scales are not tipping in my direction.

I am always amazed that Lakester91 and his ilk (Atlas shrugged etc) feel that we are falling into a tyrannical state - we are not. Look at Burma, North Korea, Uzbekistan , Cuba, Iran and even China. We have more freedoms than citizens of those countries can dream of. Look at Venezuela, Uganda, Saudi Arabia and many others and tell me they are better of, in terms of Liberty, than us?

Even your assertion that white people are the new Jews is desperate. Try to provide evidence of your arguments, as opposed to conspiracy.

1 April 2010 at 01:05  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Thomas Jefferson said:-

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Of course Jefferson I imagine had in mind the rule of a government 3000 miles across the Atlantic as opposed to the one at home, hence the call to bear arms.

A slave owner, like most of the founding fathers of the 'land of the free' etc, this 'freedom' of which he grandly speaks was restricted to exclude blacks and Native Americans who were not included within the broader sentiments of Declaration of Independence.

The perceptions of freedom or tyranny were obviously subjective issues for the Founding Fathers.

1 April 2010 at 01:07  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I think Bryan has made a good observation in that we can see what goes wrong when power is unbalanced or inbalanced.

David Camerons society ideas have hit/warmed a few commentators minds and injected some idealogical opposition compared to Labours state control failiure.So at least a little light has shone out of the box .Some press seemed a little cynical about it , which given how Labour have stopped social mobility is understandable.

What is difficult to interpret is just how much Labour have calcified certain concepts of freedoms and responsibilities making what David Cameron was trying to illuminate a lofty goal, not impossible I might add , but having considerable resistance from people who cannot tell any difference the two ideaologies .

There are other factors about this sex/drugs fueled anti social society which have the vested interests wailing , some aspects have become instituionalised , so it is a big task to try and disemble what factors are at play .

One thing is for certain that labour no longer offers eutopia (it never did but I dont wish to sound cheap) , however the system of eutopia delivery is still alive and well and demanding funds and presence.

To make a point I bought some items today took them to the till , they were duely scanned , blip blip , bag packed "thanks dude" said the young man on the till . I wasnt upset as being termed a dude , but somehow felt that a new language and terms of reference had occured , where not being "cheesy" was more acceptable , a sort of juvenile method of conversing has occurred , personal knowledge irrelevent and ergo being distinct/upmarket dangerous , yet bling designer casual and plasma cinema ok .
Society has changed , some may wish to make the calculation that on balance it is better , I am not so sure , is it really possible that the only thing society recognises as being of worth , is being a Dude or cool or nice trainers or a heat mag regular celebrity in a dress or personal crisis of some kind . Is that really the best any of us can be ?.

I look forward to a little more explanation of freedom than that after the election.

1 April 2010 at 01:23  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

I am always amazed that Lakester91 and his ilk (Atlas shrugged etc) feel that we are falling into a tyrannical state - we are not. Look at Burma, North Korea, Uzbekistan , Cuba, Iran and even China. We have more freedoms than citizens of those countries can dream of. Look at Venezuela, Uganda, Saudi Arabia and many others and tell me they are better of, in terms of Liberty, than us?

Do you believe that someone that has lost a child should be happy because someone else has lost two?

For surly the fact that other places in the world are clearly living under even worse forms of government then our own, should be a warning not something to be any way complacent about.

I was born during a time in history when most genuinely believed that freedom would soon come to all, not just the British. In reality not only has this not happened, but now the UK and the USA seem more like the Soviet Union then is at all comfortable.

This in spite of the 'reported fact' that the Soviet Union went extinct over 20years ago.

The truth is that when the wall cam down corporate capitalism may have moved more east, but corporate communism also moved more west.

There is much evidence as to why this has happened. However the most compelling is the evidence that surrounds us all every day of our lives.

One more thing Douglas.

Just because there is no evidence, or not enough to stand up in court, does not mean a crime has not been committed. Conspiracy reality is not proposing to have its day in court. Things are way past that stage.

We hear today that a war criminal made around £20 million last year doing virtually nothing, and paying virtually no tax. Yet we all know for sure this chap is never going to turn up at any type of court of law, unless he forgets to pay his parking fines.

Please remember just because the jack-boot is not currently standing on your particular smug face, does not mean it will not one day, or is not already firmly stamping on many others.

Please believe me this country has radically and permanently changed, and absolutely none of this change is for the better, nor is any of it intended to be so.

What is infinitely worse, YOU ANT SEEN NOTHING YET.

1 April 2010 at 01:59  
Blogger Douglas said...

Atlas shrugged, I am not complacent, although I will confess to being smug.

Anyway - my lack of complacency stems from precisely the observation that there have been periods of hope for universal freedom, only for them to be dashed. The history of Europe and South America/Sub-Saharan Africa is littered with free democracies stamped out by the jack boot of tyranny or the veil of religion.

Name me one 'freedom' that has been lost in this country since 1945? Compare any answer you give to the freedoms lost in Cuba and Iran (and even then, the previous freedoms were available under dubious leadership).

I will only believe that I have lost my freedom when I have lost the right to vote for a representative within defined intervals and for whom I choose. And I see no chance of that happening.

As for the UK and US being like the USSR - I have to laugh. Clearly you are to the right of Glen Beck. I fear no secret police, I fear no torture, I know that if I am arrested that I will not disappear, I have no government telling me what job I do, I fear no censorship (really I dont - I am free to say what I want to say), I am free to meet with whom I wish to meet, I see no prison camps for political prisioners. I could go on but I think I have made my point.

I am white and I am free. No conspiracy is looking to take that away (except in your head maybe).

You may be right that control of corporate entities is not as it should be but, again, there is no conspiracy to remove our liberty.

I may not have seen anything yet but that may be because I am looking at something different to you.

1 April 2010 at 02:31  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...


Sorry but you are deluded way beyond your own imagination. Let me try a frisking?

Yes my friend you are complacent to the point of childishness. The world you inhabit must be a wonderful place but it is a very different one then the vast majority of the rest of humanity does.

Name one? Why only one? I could list hundreds if I have the relevant documents in front of me.

How about the right to unrestricted association and peaceful protest?

As for your right to vote.

Yes you can still vote, but vote for what? The Red corporatist team, The Blue corporatist team, The Yellow corporatist team, the Green corporatist team, or the Brown Corporatist team? Not much of a choice as the same banksters control the lot of them. In fact when it comes down to it, NO CHOICE AT ALL.

No I am not to the right or left of anyone. I am a Libertarian.

Left and right are establishment sponsored perfectly meaningless constructs, designed wholly to confuse and divide, nothing more and nothing less. Glen Beck works for the banksters whether he knows he does or not. As we all do whether we know or like it or not.

Because you do not fear something does not mean you have nothing to fear. Because you refuse to see something, does not mean it does not exist.

You believe in god do you not? I assume you have not actually met him. However you are assured that he exists because you can plainly see his works of The Great Architect of the Universe, are you not?

As for being white, and feeling free. Good for you. Feeling free is fine, being white is not ever going to become in any way illegal, maybe quite the opposite.

Yes I agree there is no conspiracy about to take your whiteness away.

Sorry to say I can not say the same thing about your freedom, your feelings concerning same, are quite a different matter.

If you are content to sit about watching TV all day and still think you live in a wonderful world then I suppose you personally have little to worry about. The establishment love people like you. It shows the nasty bastards that their mind control methods are still working just great.

Are you sure that there is no conspiracy to remove our freedoms?

So why have so many of them gone then do you suppose? Surly not because of some kind of accident or worse incompetence.

No, on this you can be absolutely assured. Nothing gets done without a conspiracy taking place. Unless of course only one person did it.

Yes you got that right you are most surly looking at something different to myself. You are still looking up your own back passage, while I am looked where the information was. 35 years of research you may call it.

Ignorance is a wonderful thing, however some care to look further then their own underpants for the facts of the matter.

Please do not take any of my comments personally, you are in good company.

Keeping ones head firmly in the sand is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take.

However a warning; many members of by extended family embarked on that comforting strategy back in 1930's Germany. Lucky for me my grandparents were not so dumb.

1 April 2010 at 04:01  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...


How you personally feel on a particular subject is relevant and even a little interesting.

However when it comes to the arriving at the truth is concerned, knowing the sufficient amount of salient facts greatly helps.

Opinions are fine, however ones based largely on ignorance, or self-interested, self-centred self-delusion can be dangerous ones.

1 April 2010 at 04:23  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Bryan


1 April 2010 at 07:42  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Atlas S said:-

Nothing gets done without a conspiracy taking place. Unless of course only one person did it.

A one person conspiracy? Some one please tell me - this has to be April Fool.

1 April 2010 at 09:40  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Some people round here could do with a little less contempt for rhetoric and a little more attention to its content. Reading comprehension 101 might help.

Unless they're using the Marxist ploy of deliberate misunderstanding - meconnaissance.

1 April 2010 at 10:16  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

non mouse said:- pay attention to the 'rhetoric' of himself and Atlas S.

My apologies for thinking that religionists had no sense of humour, clearly, there are at least two April Fools - Have a nice day.

1 April 2010 at 11:22  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Mr Dreadnaought said

"A one person conspiracy? Some one please tell me - this has to be April Fool"

No it isn't. You are right that there is no such thing as a one person conspiracy.


That is, in fact, what Mr. Atlas Shrugged is saying!


No April fool.


A recommendation for Reading comprehension 101.

Have a nice day.

1 April 2010 at 11:41  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Thanks, Your Grace, for highlighting the quality of Mr. Bryan's contribution.

I do believe, though, that people must first recognize the tyranny that has crept upon them - and then mobilize their response to what has been wrought by sleight of everything ... by lies and deception; by divide and conquer.

Johnny Rottenburgh's link provides an example of the subtlety, of the many coils with which we struggle. In this clip, an apparent proponent of "Anglo-Saxon liberty" called 'Marc' incites a marxist "class war" against the tyrants who have given away England (to their fellow tyrants in the euSSR). Interesting that the "English indigenes" presented here descend from a mere thousand years of ugly, ill-spoken, fish-mongers. Classist it is.

As I've posted here before: modern genetics indicate that so-called 'English' indigenes are in fact basically Celts. As such, we have been here since at least Neolithic times; a very few may have Mesolithic genes. The Norman French killed off most of the Anglo-Saxons around 1066-1069. Of the negligible percentage in our DNA, some could conceivably have arrived with the Romans; most came in the fifth century-so that's fifteen hundred years at least.

Modern franco-germans - the Marxists - in fact play the divide and conquer game set up by a long tradition of invaders from Romans onwards; but the Marxists always designed their 'class war' to turn turn British Celt against British Celt.

They follow in the Norman tradition, particularly: Normans are the ones who came here a thousand years ago. Having further dispossessed and disenfranchised the much invaded 'English' Celts, the Normans invented Arthurian legend as part of their propaganda for inciting hatred against the imaginary 'English.' By presenting themselves as Celts, Normans like Geoffrey of Monmoouth and Gerald of Wales pretended consanguinity with the Welsh and Scots/Irish - that way they pre-empted Celtic attempts to unite against the invader.

And now look which Celts are still buying into it and giving us all away to the euros. Though - I have heard the occasional Scottish muttering about the Germans: some do say "I'd rather have the Sassenachs than those b******s."

So I argue that "fragmenting" the English still further is a very Marxist way of defusing opposition in England. It discourages the "English" from uniting against the enemy...the "English" they have already balkanized from the other British Celts.

Apart from the ploy against us, I thinks it's unjust to the poor dead English. All sorts of evidence (starting with Bede) suggests that, in the long run, they tried not only to develop political and military unity with the Celts, but even to retain diversity among the traditions within the island.

The euro tyranny works only to destroy our individuality and traditions.

One freedom we have lost? How about the right to vote "NO" to foreign rule ... to the euSSR?

1 April 2010 at 11:44  
Anonymous GTGTWG said...

Well said No Nonny! Good to read a 'deeper' viewpoint.

1 April 2010 at 17:00  
Blogger Bryan said...

Racism and "classism" are not deeper viewpoints, but rather shallower.

They are merely tactics used, by the unethical of all sides, of any side. False divisions of human beings which are all created in the image of God. Though fallen in nature, the nature of our fall is equivalent and total.

The only true division among mankind is that between the regenerate and the unregenerate. And that is a matter which God alone can (and will!) sort out.

1 April 2010 at 17:46  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Indeed, Mr. Bryan @17:46.

However, I think the deeper viewpoint stems from identification of how the tyrants and despots strengthen their power: by employing racism and classism.

The Anti-Judaeo-Christian Marxists have been inciting both forms of 'hatred' for quite a while - genderism too; their cause is rather more advanced here than in the US, I believe.

The enemy is nothing if not unoriginal; therefore we have precedents to guide us towards perceiving their tactics, and then towards taking the type of responsibility you recommend.

1 April 2010 at 18:25  
Blogger David Wheeler said...

Wow, what a fascinating debate - and generally polite and civilised too.

Len - Many thanks. I was wondering whether to add that bit, and am delighted that you did.

Douglas and Atlas Shrugged - great debate. If you are looking for the rulers of this world try: . It is interesting to note that the numerics of William V in Greek is 666.

David Wheeler.

1 April 2010 at 21:00  
Blogger Lakester91 said...


"And my point of view is more historically accurate and global in perspective."

A little arrogant don't you think? I've studied the rise of Hitler in a fair bit of detail. To claim that you must know more than me, despite having read only one of my posts is rather silly. I know how despots come to power and I can see the mistakes they made. I can also see that our current despots have learned their lessons and are employing a new tactic. They play the long game. They have no need for violence because they can coerce people through 'education' and law and other slow methods. Even the Conservative party is a hollow shell of what it was; more interested in pandering to what they consider popular opinion than any real principle.

My reference to the lack of popularity for the Social Democrats had nothing to do with the years in which the Nazi party had any real power (before Schleicher), and was more about how they took advantage of it to gain votes. The Nazis didn't need to kill anyone in order to become the biggest party in the Reichstag; they took advantage of the dislike of the party in power and the charisma of their leader. This is just like the 1997 election.

Yes, this government hasn't done anything violent to its opponents, but that also was not the point of my comparison.

"Judge Carnwath ruling against Heathrow for example"

You cannot cite such an example to generalise that our justice system is working in perfect order. The Government does not control the courts (yet), and that is your (valid) point. However, they are disintegrating the very foundations of our legal system. Judges exist to interpret the law, not make it. Even if they are independent, they cannot overturn a corrupt law.

"The Church did not speak out against the support from the Centre Party - what does Cranmer make of that I wonder?"

I'm sure quite a lot: he's pathologically anti-Catholic. Besides, your point is an over-generalisation; there were several reasons for the support of the enabling act, including the assurance that they could continue to exist as an independent party. They didn't think that Hitler was going to ban all other parties and become a dictator. Your point is misleading because it implies that they were colluding with the Nazis; something that they most certainly weren't.

If you want a list of liberties we have lost and unwarranted constitutional changes, then I am willing to provide a few off the top of my head.

Removal of trial by jury
Removal of double jeopardy
Removal of freedom of speech via incitement to hatred laws
Removal of the law lords in favour of a government appointed 'Supreme Court'
Dubious uses of the Parliament act (equalising age of consent for homosexuals and the hunting ban of all things)
Cramming of the Lords with 'Life Peers' who act as an unelected commons rather than the independent house they are supposed to be.
Passing the European Constitution (err... I mean Lisbon Treaty) without referendum or consulting the public at all.

"As an atheist and secularist I have to say that the scales are not tipping in my direction."

This is the most hilarious quote of your post. I'm sure homosexual pressure groups would say the same thing about them. I'm sure that 'pro-choice' groups say the same about themselves. They are so very wrong I wonder whether they know it even themselves.

1 April 2010 at 21:22  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I realised I did not answer your point on the Church's silence on the Centre party; only on the Centre party itself.

The enabling act was an emergency act tabled in response to the burning of the Reichstag (probably by the Nazis) and used to allow Hitler to gain total power. It was not advertised as such, and so to interfere with this act would be for the Church to interfere with politics. In Germany this would have been unacceptable. Imagine if the Church had made a fuss over the 1949 parliament act. Secularists would use it as an example of how religion sticks its nose into political matters and would claim it justified more secularisation. Cranny himself got rather upset when the Pope commented on the Equality Bill (evidently the Government lecturing other countries on their law is okay, but to reciprocate is just impolite).

There is a lot of comments made about the Catholic Church's actions in Nazi Germany, but I maintain that without the benefit of hindsight they did everything they could to oppose the injustices of Hitler's Nazis. There is a reason that he considered the Pope to be his greatest enemy and plotted at least one assassination attempt on him.

It has been, and will be, very difficult for the Church to make its voice heard in this country. We have a rabidly secularist government and a rabidly secularist minority who are very loud indeed.

Jesus called us to fight injustice cleverly; using the hypocrisies and failings of those in power against them. I could go into greater detail over the 'Turn the other cheek' speech but that is for another post. We need to find a way to have our voice heard without resorting to violence or overt and futile opposition.

1 April 2010 at 21:52  
Anonymous Adrian Peirson said...

You ask for evidence that whites are the new Jews Douglas.


The European Union's own Agreements.
The Euromed Agreement

The best people to rule over are poor and uneducated, does that make things a little easier to understand, and as Atlas suggests, you really aint seen nothing yet.

4 April 2010 at 09:45  
Blogger adrian said...

An article from From Catholic Insight on
Frankfurt Subversion of Western Society

Frankfurt Subversion so called because the technique was devised by the Frankfurt School.

4 April 2010 at 09:54  
Blogger adrian said...

Did you know Douglas that since 1970 these state sanctioned extermination centres ( misleadingly called pregnancy 'advice centers )
have sliced up 7.2 million Indigenous British babies,

oooops, there goes the workforce we are now told we need.
Wouldn't these children by now have been raising their own familes.

Wouldn't it be better if Westminster actually supported family life and tried to do something about the 200,000 abortions carried out each and every year in this country.

Do you still think that this is all an accident
or by design

Somebody is at war with us, there is no denying this, someone somewhere Hates Western civilization, Western European Peoples, Now you could say it was Islam, but Islam does not have the clout ( yet ) to arrange what has been going on for decades at least.

4 April 2010 at 10:02  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older