A Question of Balance: Guy R. Leven-Torres 2006.                             

 

                                                             Chapter 1

 

                                                 Overview of Modern Britain

 

 

                     The headlines of the Daily Mail proclaimed that a retired couple had been paid a visit by two burly police officers who wanted to,‘re-educate’ them about some of their ‘attitudes’ to homosexuals, after they had asked a local council if Christian literature could be placed alongside the ‘gay’ material being advertised by the latter as part of a ‘minority equality program’. The couple were informed that their request and attitude was ‘close to hate crime and that they were treading on eggshells’. A year before, a vicar had been prosecuted and fined for protesting in public about ‘homosexuals’ and calls for them to repent. At about the same time as the old couple were being reported for ‘homophobia’ by the district council, a well known social commentator, received a phone call from a police woman stating that she was ‘investigating’ a report of a homophobic’ incident on Radio 5 London, when during a topical discussion on recent ‘gay partnership’ legislation she had expressed the opinion it was wrong to allow same-sex couples to adopt children of the same sex as themselves for fear of harming the adoptee. She was informed she would be ‘placed on a list’ even though ‘no crime had been committed’. When she asked, ‘What list?’ the police officer was unable to tell her which one.

                     This is Britain today. These incidents are not uncommon either. What does it tell us about our society? Does it mean that merely to express an opinion that the state disagrees with, can find one under the prying eyes and bullying of police officers like the ones above? The majority of people in this country hold quite negative opinions towards homosexual life styles, especially wherein they conflict with traditional attitudes of family life and behaviour. There is no point in denying this fact and what right has a supposedly ‘elected’ government, national or local have to persecute the majority that either, do not care too much even to discuss the subject or who feel they have to make a point against such a way of life? Personally, I could not care less whether somebody is gay provided they are decent and law abiding but I do care when I see innocent souls set upon by politicised police and council officials who do not like their views. More than one gay friend has also stated that such activity in the ‘interests’ of people like himself sent a ‘cold shudder’ through his spine.

                     The truth is that it is not about homosexual equality at all. It is about a Left wing elite’s determination to impose its political power and control upon the people of this land and the political use of minorities to do so as ‘victims of Society’. Marx would have recognised this new ‘Class War’ but since the traditional working class no longer exist or even live in real poverty, it is issues such as homosexuality, ethnic and religious minorities and especially the disabled that now provide the inspiration to man the revolutionary barricades. A colleague of mine suffers from the debilitating illness of Neurasthenia. He finds these attentions unwanted and unwarranted. He does not want his illness politicised by the left or any other faction. What he would like, is practical assistance and constructive understanding instead of what is usually on offer in the form of politicised social workers, wearing their hearts upon their sleeves, ever ready to promote his ‘victim-hood’ and the cloying attitudes that normally accompany this. The trouble is he feels he is not a victim in any real sense apart from being unfortunate to suffer from an illness that makes no political distinction whatsoever between its sufferers. Indeed it is very ‘inclusive’ and well into ‘equality and diversity’ as it strikes at people of all backgrounds, classes and religions irrespective of colour or creed, even sexuality.

                       When I recently looked upon the internet for some practical support and assistance for him, all we found were sites offering page after page about ‘equality and gender’ issues in respect of his illness. However, we found absolutely nothing in all the verbiage and jargon that even remotely concerned his illness and its reality. He was trying to get support in his work but it seems that under our new elite, such things as support officers to assist him in finding and sustaining a career were abolished like so much that was of practical value to somebody like myself. All he and I found was a diatribe about how wonderful it would be to suffer from my neurasthenia in New Labour’s ‘inclusion and equality’ driven Britain. What has politics and its jargon to do with depression and anxiety? Now we realised what the papers meant when they talked of ‘spin and no substance’. It is a disgrace. The only websites that did offer some form of practical assistance were private and even in these one had to wade through web-pages of  policies of  ‘inclusion and diversity’ etc, etc.

                   Even worse was the realisation that many of the older traditional care projects and much needed support in our local area had been abolished in the name of ‘providing policies’ of ‘value and inclusive diversity’ within the community that meant in reality that the accountants and political ideologues had moved in and cut services back far and wide, often leaving families alone to cope with sufferers without adequate medical and psychiatric support. Even if it had been a genuine attempt to provide sufferers with a better way of life, which we doubt, it certainly is one of the most foolhardy and dangerous political experiments we had ever come across.

                 He has a loving wife, children and friends like me, who support him in his ‘down’ periods but he is also aided by a high intelligence and a thorough understanding of what the illness itself is all about. What of those isolated souls on sink estates and even private conurbations who have no real understanding of an illness that can strike anywhere at anytime irrespective of age or sex? The initial attacks are frightening and disorientating to both the victim and his family and friends. Many begin with a suicide attempt and unexplainable anger but fortunately he had a General Practitioner on hand who was already concerned with his illogical mood swings and who immediately sent him into hospital. One doubts if those facilities exist anymore.

              During one attack, nearly thirteen years ago, his wife and I. went for assistance and were informed, ‘that the Doctor could do nothing unless he asked for help’. Upon stating that he was not capable of knowing what was best for myself, we were informed that under the ‘equality and inclusive’ policies that respected all ‘individuals rights and individual values’ they were not allowed to interfere with his ‘privacy’. Only the timely interference of his social worker and our own dogged insistence that would not take ‘no’ for an answer, obtained the treatment he urgently needed. He could so easily have died in my unconscious state. This experience is not uncommon either. Deaths have already occurred and despite several attempts to address this ridiculous obsession with ‘rights’ and the usual left wing jargon of ‘inappropriate’, ‘totally unacceptable’, and assurances it would not happen again and report after report, making recommendations, little, if anything has changed and is still buried under a deadweight of political jargon and talk of ‘equality and inclusiveness’ as we have seen above.

                We live in an age of a bureaucracy that generates more bureaucracy in order to justify its existence. Even worse is the fact that this same bureaucracy singularly fails to do anything of any practical value and indeed is causing misery and unhappiness to millions of Britons from every walk of life. It seems that when one makes a complaint to any local body these days it generates a paperwork trail and a plethora of jargon, if anything else at all, except perhaps, when it involves a prized section of the Politically Correct Establishment’s favoured classes of ‘Victim-hood’ such as homosexuals, lone parents and their wayward offspring, asylum seekers, or the disabled. However, many like my colleague and I resent this whole idea that individuals like him are ‘victims of Society’ and especially the interference that comes with it. On the other hand when we or our families require practical everyday assistance, we face a wall of bureaucratic crassness and stupidity.

                 I know one or two ‘gay’ people and count them as worthy friends and they are quite capable of looking after themselves and like my friend, deeply resent being seen as ‘victims of society’ and especially the attempts by Left leaning government bodies, national and local to ingratiate themselves with them. One fine example is Elton John who lives not far away from me and whose wealth and estate runs into millions. The gays I know are more than capable of looking after themselves and in many cases do so far better than their heterosexual counterparts like me, shouldered with raising children and even grandchildren.

                  Yet we read of a council in the West Country trying to find ‘gays’ in an area in order to provide £100,000 for ‘their welfare’. They were only able to find two, so it seems, among all the inhabitants of the local area and one is led to believe these were none too pleased about being ‘found’ by the local council, rightfully fearful as they were of public censure and feelings of resentment caused by such unfair acts of ‘generosity’ at a time when public facilities like hospitals faced closure. The fact is ‘gays’ do not want special treatment but to be seen as normal members of wider society, subject to all the normative pressures that everybody else faces. If £100,000 were given to my Neurasthenic friend he too would feel the same. The simple truth is they do not want the cloying, dripping Maternalism of these local and national bodies trying to assist them with such outrageous grants of cash or social assistance in this manner when all they seek is to fit in like anybody else. Their needs and worries are the same as everybody else has! Those are survival and comfort and acceptance in a hostile world.

                   The trouble is that the neo-liberal fascists that now permeate every level of our society in government, the arts, science, education, legal and caring professions, police and increasingly the military never do ask the opinions of those they seek to utilise politically as ‘victims of society’. And when these do object like me, we are usually met by looks of pitying condescension and ignored. ‘You simply do not understand!’ they mutter. The trouble is we do understand perfectly well indeed.

                   Take for example the excuse not to hang out Christmas lights and decorations we now face every Yuletide. A Moslem friend of mine in Staines was harangued for nearly an hour by some bespectacled little tyrant about how such things as the Christmas grotto he had built in his shop, were offensive to Moslems and other people’s beliefs. My dear friend pointed out that he and his family were very devout Moslems indeed and celebrated Christmas, as Christ was a prophet of Islam second only to Mohammed himself. This was not good enough for this ‘bien-pensant’ who proceeded to question my friend’s beliefs. This was the worst thing this person could do and he was swiftly ejected from the shop and Christmas Grotto. My incensed friend rang me on my mobile and asked me, ‘if the local asylum had lost any of its patients?’ He was apoplectic with anger that somebody had done what this man had the temerity to do. The next day I went to see him and found a huge sign wishing everybody a ‘Merry Christmas’ had been placed above the entrance. After I mentioned it and inquired as to his state of mind following the previous day’s episode, he informed me he had gone out and bought a huge blow up doll of Father Christmas for his front lawn. His wife and daughter in full Islamic dress were terribly excited by it all. So much for claims that Moslems and others were offended. Each wished me a ‘Merry Christmas’ on my departure.

                 The trouble is the politically correct elite that now govern us are just not interested in hearing anybody else’s point of view. The reason for this is that they mostly feel that anybody who has not read Marx, Engels or especially the ‘postmodernist’ advocate of this modern arrogant politically correct idiocy, the Italian ‘bien–pensant’ Gramsci is not as intelligent as they are themselves. They simply cannot accept that somebody may have an alternative point of view. Roger Scruton the right wing philosopher has been subject to some absolutely scathing criticism by the Left elite. My old tutor Arthur Gibson, a remarkable man and original philosopher had also faced rancour and persecution by the Left. Scruton himself had something to say about that branch of philosophy so beloved by his critics namely Relativism that is in fact the basis of all left wing ‘political correctness’.

                 ‘‘This is frequently adopted by those impatient with the burden of sceptical argument, for it seems to cut through the whole dispute, leaving the individual sovereign over his little opinions.  It tells us that there is no such thing as objective truth, since all truth is ‘relative’. In argument about moral problems, relativism is the first refuge of the scoundrel. ‘That is your opinion’ says the relativist, ‘and you are welcome to it. But it is not my opinion, and I am welcome to mine.’ No opinion has authority apart from the point of view which adopts it. I have as much right to believe that adultery is right as you have to believe that it is wrong. Neither right nor wrong exist, apart from the opinions which we entertain about them……As Plato shows, however, the objectivity of our beliefs is not jeopardised, if relativism is true only for the relativist. Moreover in asserting that relativism is true for him, the relativist asserts that it is true for him absolutely. He is committed to absolute truth by the very practice of assertion, which has absolute truth as its goal.

                 The dispute here has not ended. But two things are certain: vulgar relativism has no hope of surviving outside the minds of ignorant rascals; sophisticated relativism has to be so sophisticated as barely to deserve the name.’’[1] 

                 This is the same type of thought and opinion that states that the Beatles are equivalent to Beethoven and Brahms as is ‘rap music’. The truth should be that the Beatles are certainly not the equal of Beethoven and Brahms and ‘rap’ is certainly not as good as the Beatles, who evolved many of their best themes from classical works. Ironically Paul McCartney has become a fine neo-Classical composer. But then one cannot deny that the Beatles and especially Paul were fine musicians and understood the musical scale and had real talent. One cannot say that about ‘gangsta rap’ despite the enthusiasm of its plaudits. It is why Christmas is treated equally with other religions, even if it the major celebration of the British majority.  It is why the family and marriage are under attack and old pensioners and vicars are persecuted by the police for opposition to homosexual activities of which they strongly disapprove. In short politically correct relativism teaches amorality and the true value of nothing. It is the creed of scoundrels and thugs, especially when these, knowing full well that it is a false doctrine nevertheless utilise it to further their own political ends.

                  This fact alone, as the fault-line that runs through most of decrepit left wing politics, will eventually ensure their ultimate defeat, simply because it flies in the face of human nature and nature itself. The fall of the Soviet Union should have taught these political Neanderthals something but it obviously did not. As always they say Society needs more of the same. The Left simply cannot entertain the idea that they could possibly be wrong. Like Hitler in his Bunker, they see non existent army divisions and secret weapons that are not there, ready to speed them to final victory over the wicked ‘Class Enemy’, the property owning bourgeoisie. 

                  Have you never wondered why there are so many speed cameras and other road charges? Have you ever wondered why householders are being sent to prison for refusal to pay, a council somewhere or other, local taxes to be spent on politically correct ‘outreach officers’ whose concerns and responsibilities belong to private fringe groups and why streets are untidy and bins un-emptied? Look no further than political correctness and its ridiculous obsessions and obsessives that inhabit, or rather infest like a viral infection every cell of local and increasingly national government and its state organs.

                     This is why people like my friend, genuinely disabled cannot find real practical help and assistance, why doctors and nurses and other professionals are in short supply and why multifarious bureaucrats now infect every level of the National Health Service and why hospitals are heavily in debt and schools faced with poor results and disrepair. It is in short pure financial waste as money is spent on vacuous jargonistic websites and more paperwork or computer systems that do not work and officials with outlandish titles, placed in positions to ensure politically correct compliance to ‘equal value and inclusion’ that actually means fewer people get treated and even removed from waiting lists. It means children taught about everybody else’s national culture rather than this country’s and why they cannot read and write properly.

                       A personal anecdote is worth telling here. I used to work voluntarily teaching in a museum not far from Staines and gave my usual talk to the children upon the Roman Army that I had given many times before. After the talk I was falsely accused of telling a child his father was going to die in Iraq and that I had shown props from the film ‘Gladiator’ that was not fit for children being a 15 certificate, despite this being one of the main attractions that my colleague and I who had been advisor to the film, used to get the children in. I was also ironically accused of teaching an inappropriate military subject and literally manhandled out of the museum by the bumptious bureaucrat that passed for the Director of the Museum. He gave me no chance to defend myself, told my boss that I was ‘unfit to work with children’ and repeated this to others despite promises to say no more about the alleged ‘incident’.

                     What was my ‘offence’? Apart from the above, was to have taught that armies do more than kill and compare what this country and America was about to do in Iraq at the time, namely go in as a peace keeping force. This was seen as ‘pro-American’ in the eyes of a group of venomous looking teachers I had reprimanded for interruptions and inability to control their class. I had not taught history as these nasty little commissars wanted but as it was. The question as to telling a child his father would die in Iraq was a distortion of a general question asked by one of sixty children, ‘Do soldiers die in war?’ I replied, Yes, sometimes unfortunately.’ How was I, to know, that one child among sixty had a father waiting to go to war? I was given no chance to defend myself and how else can one talk about the Roman Army unless it is military? No I am afraid this is the Left all over, intolerant of those who dissent and quite capable of distorting fact and twisting the same to the point of irrationality to suit their corrupt and childish dogma as like the naughty children they are they cannot stand adults like me, telling the truth. As for my suitability to teach children I have countless letters from satisfied customers as well as high level clearance from the Army to work with cadets, one of the toughest jobs in the world. I tried to sue these creeps but was met with the usual stone wall and counter threats. I will have them one day and part of my revenge is telling of the tale in this book. It is obvious to all who know a little of the geography of north west London suburbs and nearby Roman cities excavated in the 1930s, by my hero Sir Mortimer Wheeler.

                 The same authority had been heavily criticised in an auditor’s report for the extremely poor facilities its unfortunate citizens faced when going swimming and into communal areas for sports. The report talked of ingrained dirt and filth in toilets and showers, that either did not work or if so, very desultorily. The report was scathing. Strangely the museums received a fairly decent report but I know for a fact, having excavated there myself as an archaeologist, this had nothing whatsoever to do with the present corrupt management who like all their left leaning kind, trade upon the past work and success of others always claiming it as their own. They always do this being totally incapable of originality in anything. Even Marx borrowed heavily from the teachings of Jesus and put his own ‘spin’ on them.

                  Another anecdote concerns a friend of mine who used to work in the Finance Department of a local Police authority. This man was forced out of his job for something he was said to have done or other. He was not allowed to know what his ‘offence’ was as it was ‘too serious’ and because of ongoing internal ‘inquiries’. The same jargon and terminology was used in my case in the incident described above. Yet it is a right enshrined in ancient English Law that the accused must be informed of what he is charged. This basic right has always been quoted as that which differentiates us from more oppressive legal systems. After months of agonising in which his health finally broke down he left. His ‘too serious offence’ was to say ‘Jesus Christ’ in front of a ‘Born Again Christian’. He only found this out by wading through sixty odd pages of procedure and jargon. I tried to make him sue for constructive dismissal as did his union but the man’s nerves were too shattered and fearful he would get a bad reference, he let sleeping dogs lie. This poor man went through taped interviews, formal cautions, even though he had no idea of what he had been accused of, only to find out after he left, that it was all over some silly exclamation he had said in the hearing of some intolerant little busy body whose claim to be so ‘offended’, disgusts her fellows, namely Christians like me, even if not ‘born again’. Yes this is the nasty state of affairs we face today in modern Britain: prejudice, corruption, lies and ideological hatred of all things British and our traditions. The same is happening in the United States and to a lesser degree, due to socio-political structural models and traditional societal attitudes that do much to dampen the potential damage of politically correct politics. It is rather like waves dashing against a strong sea wall. In island Britain unfortunately, as in America, although our cultural sea walls being not so strong, the continual pounding waves have eroded much of the traditional political and social coastline of the country. Part of the problem is the British mindset and the age old class consciousness that have encouraged on the one hand, a surly respect for authority but also a traditional ‘them and us’ attitude that has done much to embed stubborn prejudice against the traditional working class on the one hand and towards the ‘upper classes’ or ‘toffs’ in respect of the British working man. This together with an obsessive ‘guilt’ over the British Empire by a younger generation not raised when the world was one quarter British, have done much to weaken our traditional political structure and allow ‘philosophies’, if one can grace such with this name, politically correct, neo-Marxist Communitarianism to become the doctrine of government and its institutions at every level.

               A recent report by a right-wing ‘think tank’ heavily criticised the unpleasant effects of this corrosive dogma upon British society and was met as usual by the gnashing of teeth and virulent criticism from the left leaning liberal elite that now rules Britain. In New Zealand, a country so sodden with the effects of political correctness, a special government Minister has been appointed to act against this ideology so serious a threat to the country’s traditions has it become. There have also been calls for the same to happen here. Unfortunately for us traditionalists, we now even have a Tory leader who espouses acceptance of these damaging policies by stating he is going to ‘stand up to big business’ and accept the fact of uncontrolled mass immigration, a fact that will not go down well with Tory voters and others. However, this is the reality of how strong a hold ‘Political Correctness’ has on this country and its ruling elite, even those one would have expected a more traditional stance from.

                Many people I have spoken to in the course of gathering material for this book are understandably angry but feel powerless to do anything about it. From my Moslem friends above to many others I have spoken to, the feeling is that ‘this country is no longer ours’. This sentiment was particularly expressed by two black Britons one of whom even stated that ‘We British really must stick together’ and the other a West Indian was appalled at the changes caused by asylum seekers in his local borough, so much so that he stated, ‘I do not feel this is my country anymore.’ These being the ‘natural’ targets of left- wing ‘multiculturalists’ ideology it was something of a surprise to me. Yet they are not alone. My Moslem friends and others I know who migrated here years ago and who have done so much to enrich our ancient land expressed similar views. One in particular, a Hindu from Leeds rubbished ideals of multiculturalism and said they did anything but allow people to exist in racial harmony and on the contrary, encouraged immigrants and whites to live apart in their own ghettoes, especially the Moslems whose troubles were further exacerbated by the isolationist tendencies of their religion that did not encourage assimilation in any form. He also expressed the opinion that multiculturalism was responsible for the growth of radical Islam and the isolation of Moslem youth who subsequently went on a bombing rampage in London and rioted in Leeds a year or two back. He finished by saying, ‘These liberal idiots have blood on their hands!’ His stance shocked me but it certainly made me think. These were not white people saying this but British Asians and Blacks.

               Many a white friend of mine has stated the same but much of this feeling of powerlessness and isolation was coming from the very people the Left wing ‘bien- pensants’ like to see themselves as champions of their cause. The trouble is that same liberal elite does not seem to want to listen and take note but instead to continue along the same destructive path. The plain fact is, that our traditional Asian and other Commonwealth communities do not want to be ‘victims of society’ so beloved of the Left. Like me they crave acceptance as ordinary decent human beings like everybody else. This is especially so among the thousands upon thousands of successful Asian business owners and their like who do not see themselves as ‘victims of society’ in any way whatsoever.

                 In many ways this reveals the reality of the Left and its ideology. They are just not interested in the truth of anything, merely the gaining and exercise of crude, political power and the imposition of a Marxist ideology upon society that has always been their ultimate goal. Marx himself said as much when he stated that ‘Religion was the opiate of the masses.’ One is given to believe that he meant this to be understood at various levels and not the most obvious one. Religion, it is true has played a huge role in controlling the behaviour of the poor and disenfranchised and has been successfully utilised by Kings and Popes for centuries to control dissent through fear of excommunication and eternal damnation. In this, ignorance plays a huge part as it does in modern Communitarian political correctness.

                  By playing upon the tender and sometime feelings of inadequacy of those they seek to ‘champion’, such as migrants, religious and sexual minorities including the disabled, the Left develops its religious ideology for the ‘victims of society’ to follow. This is done by instilling into these chosen ‘victims’ the idea that somehow society is unfair to them and that the only way to freedom and salvation is to follow the lead of activists and their creed. This is the simple requirement of the Faith.

                   It is well known that Karl Marx studied the teachings of Jesus Christ but adapted them to suit his own political outlook. The trouble is, Jesus never treated people as ‘victims of society’ merely to recruit souls into his political set up but on the contrary, encouraged his followers to stand up for themselves and contribute to the human race by showing others the reality of faith. His message was, ‘take up thy bed and walk’ or ‘physician heal thyself’ not ‘Let us carry your bed for you, you poor soul’, in fact a strong message of being God’s children and the importance of being self reliant as an example to others. Jesus gave an individual’s dignity back to them, not undermine it for the sake of Party and State. Marx utilised the opiate of Communism as a religion of the ‘oppressed masses’ and likewise the modern Left utilises politically correct theories and a theology of ‘Communitarianism’ with its jargon of ‘inclusion and diversity’, ‘equality and equal values’, ‘multicultural society’, ‘multi-faith’ etc, etc.

                 The truth is though, it does the opposite to its fine intentions and causes its victims to feel racially segregated and people who already have enough to suffer in life to be even more isolated. People need to feel important and welcomed not made to feel as permanent supplicants, food bowls outstretched at the Altar of Political Correctness for scraps of victim-hood that the condescending liberal fascists care to throw to them in order to assuage their own guilt trips. Jesus gave life and hope, the commissars and social engineers give anything but, namely social dependency and no hope of better things. What is even more unpleasant is the realisation, that this is deliberate as well in order to keep the ‘victims of society’ in thrall.

             Many on the Left of the political spectrum are genuinely decent well meaning souls but they are naïve; incredibly so. These will probably continue to be deluded and follow their illusory courses unless the more intelligent of them realise the cynicism and bankruptcy of Left ideology that is its reality. There are those of course who, being the intellectual leaders of their ideology are well aware of the shortcomings of their political creed but this does not deter them at all, as this same is merely a vehicle for themselves to achieve power and control over people and entire countries. These people exist on Left and Right of the political divide. A good historical example was Adolf Hitler and another was Fidel Castro. It was a well worn joke in the violent Weimar Republic of the 1930s, that this week’s Nazi storm trooper was next week’s Communist militant. It all depended on who was prepared to feed and clothe them and who stood the best chance of attaining power. One also suspects that many in today’s Left movement are the same. The lust for power is the most dangerous of all threats to the freedom and dignity of the ordinary people in any country place or time

             Hitler for example exhibited no irrational hatred of the Jews in his younger days, even employing one of his Jewish friends to sell his drawings for him when he passed himself off as an art student. His mother was dying of cancer and it was a Jewish doctor that treated her. It was only with the politicisation of the work shy young Hitler, that he ‘discovered’ that hatred of Jews got one into the various nationalist political parties and a chance to gain respect and position. Likewise Fidel Castro was quite keen for the Americans to assist him in his armed uprising in Cuba back in the 1950s but they foolishly rejected him. He turned to the Russians for assistance and became a good Communist. This was not about an ideology either but one man’s lust for power at any cost and any creed provided it suited the original aims. Had the Americans taken up Fidel’s offer she would by now have a staunch ally in her backyard instead of the proverbial pain in the backside he has become and there would have been no Cuban Missile Crisis either in 1962.

            My father used to talk to me readily about politics and philosophy that unfortunately, I have not been able to interest my own children in despite great effort. Politics to these somewhat cynical youngsters is apparently of no interest and we shall return to this theme later. It is one of the symptoms of amoral and ‘anything goes’ modern day Britain, whose behaviour upon the world stage in the hands of the present rulers especially, is like that of a cheap perfume soaked prostitute so aptly alluded to by a well known Daily Mail correspondent. Returning to the early lessons my father taught me, he demonstrated how elites and especially individual politicians changed once they achieved power into the very types they had sought to undermine in their earlier anarchical days. Mr Blair still experiences problems with the House of Lords despite filling it with his own placemen and expelling the hereditary Peers. The plain fact is it appears our charismatic Prime Minister is naïve in matters of historical precedent as most of the Left have always been. It is in fact their greatest weakness.

            The ancient Roman Senate, whose ancient lineage ensured a strong republican spirit even under the Principate or Emperors, continued to resent the highly questionable rule of one man, antipathetic as Roman experience and tradition was to Kings, the last of whom Tarquinius Superbus was assassinated in 509BC. Octavian, the first real Roman Emperor had to resort to all kinds of fiction to disguise the reality of his one man rule and a ‘restored republic’. Even in the time of Vespasian, in a Senate that bore little, if any resemblance to that of the Republic as most of the older Roman families had been exterminated or naturally died out, one finds die hard ‘republicans’ plotting and planning the overthrow of even this mild despot, himself a product of Italian rather than ‘Roman’ stock. By the time of Trajan, one finds Pliny and Tacitus expressing quite strong empathy for a Roman Republic that was largely fiction.

              However as the Left is keen on labelling national and local organisations, ‘institutionally racist’ and the like, they seem to have missed the fact that all such bodies including the Roman Senate and The House of Lords is ‘Institutionally Conservative’ in outlook and demeanour. Yesterday’s dockside militant is today’s Lord with all the traditional class prejudices that go with their new position in society. Institutions maintain a momentum of their own together with ‘institutional attitudes’. Ironically it is this fact alone that normally sees off the rampant ideologues and their corrupt facile doctrines, especially when they take their seats in the Houses mentioned. Likewise, Mr Blair is far more of a ‘Tory’ today than even the newly elected David Cameron, who strikes one as anything but, who it appears in an effort to gain power for his benighted party is even willing to ditch traditional Tory policies, alienate the majority of Conservative voters and pander to the deluded liberals on the Left to gain their support, even to the point of embracing tired old spent pop stars who rant at us over world poverty. This is the lessons of history and given the choice I would rather have pragmatist Mr Blair than a liberal revisionist Tory any day.

                 If further proof be needed of the above, most of the current Cabinet were one time Trotskyists and Marxists and Mr Blair himself said he would ‘destroy Britain and all it stood for’ in his younger days, if the tabloid press is to be believed. Mr Jack Straw was a well known activist while at University but look at them now, ‘Tories’ to a man. People should respect a politician by conviction and this rare breed does exist in Mr Anthony Benn and the deceased Mo Mowlem and Claire Short who were quite prepared to risk the Labour Party whip to state their opposition to the war in Iraq. Quod erat demonstrandum, I think….?

                  

            

                      



[1]  Roger Scruton: Modern Philosophy, Chap 3. 7 Relativism, pp32-3. Arrow 1997 London.