The use and abuse of history by the so called liberal Left is probably the greatest scandal of all. We have already seen how one’s own experience at University and subsequently, supports this fact. A good knowledge of one’s nation’s history is absolutely vital to any citizen, simply because it is the core of their very identity and being within a socio-cultural context and their place within it. These traditions provide the very essence of belonging and thriving in a modern state. Without them the individual is sorely equipped to deal with even the basic demands of his society simply because he or she cannot fully utilise that they have no of knowledge of or understand. My own love of history is a case in point. How could I ever have become the fully functioning confident human being I am otherwise? Even a basis of elementary history is better than none at all or a skewed politically correct version of it.
As I write this I can hear the howls of protest from the liberals but my question would be to them, how on earth can an individual even begin to understand the wider dimensions of history in the world at large without having a base plate from which to start? This is not simply about existence either but a state of being, because that is what we really are: a state of being. A citizen without the basis of historical fact from which to draw references as to the reasons for his own state of being is like a blank page with nowhere to look for safety and the familiar and even worse, he cannot even really make informed political choices that are the hallmark of a fully enfranchised member of a society and culture and is prey to every political charlatan advertised on the media and bill boards and more cynically, bigots like the politically correct fascist left.
The Left as always do not understand history and it proper use, let alone its lessons. Even if they do they always abuse it for their own ends. Governments in Britain and elsewhere in the West wonder why voter turnout is so low and why there is no vibrant interest in politics. The answer in my humble opinion lies directly at the door of the social engineers and ideologue activists who now infest like some rampant cruel disease our once excellent educational system.
In ancient Rome a whole society, raised upon the legends of Aeneas and Troy, Horatio Cocles and his heroic defence of the Tiber bridge, the wars with Veii and the Samnites together with the heroic stand against the Gauls bore fruit in later times against the invincible Hannibal and others, whose own exploits again bore fruit in later generations. The cry of ‘Hannibal is at the Gates!’ cowed many a delinquent Roman child, so ingrained was Roman tradition in all classes, passed down by word of mouth but nevertheless passed down, so providing a rich historical tradition for young Romans to understand their culture and its traditions and their place within it and what was expected of them. History and legend was not just a scholarly exercise for Roman dilettantes but a glue of tradition that bound the Romans together in a common tradition. This was in fact the very basis of Roman society whose individuals had a unique sense of the importance and place of Rome and being Roman.
One should perhaps begin by asking the question as to what is a nation- state? The next question to ask is: What is its purpose? The answer is before us and dates from times when man started to organise himself into organised groupings apart from immediate familial relations. Tribes evolve a collective consciousness beyond that of the immediate family in that they look to the wider definition of the larger organisation that may contain more than just family members. Rome had tribes to begin with, four urban and around 31 rural but it seems clear that there were originally four to seven, perhaps reflecting the social and living conditions of the settlement before it became a formalised city state. These various groupings had come together at the Tiber river ford that was a crossing point and gave easy access to salt pans nearby. It was actually a place of geographical and strategic-commercial importance, therefore it is probable that the different groupings lived in an uneasy peace before coalescing into a more formal establishment, perhaps with the agreement of the tribal elders who either appointed a tribal chief or petty king with the former elders as his advisory council, that later became the famous Roman Senate. This process and the coming together of disparate tribes, is known to have taken place in Greece as well and, archaeologists call this process ‘synoicism’ from the Greek word synoikia. The people of ancient Athens had a religious festival held every year of the same name.
The reason why tribes come together is not merely commercial either but protection and safety in larger groupings from a dangerous outside world. This is also the reason why we have the nation-state. By coming together and agreeing to submit to a larger grouping in return for protection and other benefits such as intermarriage, shared commercial rights and more importantly identification with and membership of a larger body under a code of laws perhaps, the individual, together with his family stands a better chance of survival than on their own. This being so, the tribes evolve a set of religious and political codes and beliefs to ensure the cohesion and loyalty to the tribe or petty kingdom and likewise the nation that comes out of it.
The traditions, customs and beliefs that evolve from this throughout the years act as further bonding mechanism by providing a framework to every individual therein of what his culture and people represented, their common beliefs, religious devotions, what was to be expected of him or her but more importantly a sense of morality and way of behaviour so that the individual could grow into a fully conversant member of his society and contribute to the common good. It also ensured his survival and that of his descendants within a common cultural context. These socialising influences are the basis of every human being anywhere and any place in the world. They may be diverse but without them the human being cannot grow to maturity.
Take for example the collapse in the Roman Empire in Gaul in the 5th Century AD or the slower collapse of the Eastern Empire. When imperial authority failed, the population suffered deprivation, violence, brigandage and worse. Human instinct requires collective action and more importantly leadership. In Gaul we observe the gradual supremacy of the Franks who eventually evolved their own Carolingian monarchy but in the East, we see the super session of the ancient Hellenistic culture by Islam simply because these were the only powers strong enough to impose order and authority in the regions. The old saying ‘Right is Might’ is not some brutal barbaric philosophic statement but a deeper observation of the truth and reality that is the human existence. It is the same throughout nature. It is the subsequent conquest of these lower ‘ideals’ that mark out the civilised from the barbarian. It is only when one follows a Hitler or Pol Pot that ‘Wrong is Might’. This is a misunderstanding of human nature as well, since history has proven the spirit and aspirations of humankind to be far superior to the animal that these state dictators would have us all believe we are. My father always told me that, ‘People could be far worse than they are’; he was right. The human being is a positive and good creation as is the basic decency to be found in every individual. The problems come when the human being is denied basic prerequisites for survival and the companionship of his fellows. These, prerequisites are not ‘Human Rights’ to be condescendingly awarded by arrogant ‘liberal’ elites either but a basic need for survival in a hostile world.
With the evolution of community consciousness, various versions of authority based upon different types of rule have emerged over the centuries. We however in the West, coming as we do from the Judaeo-Christian but more importantly, Classical traditions of ancient Rome and Greece prefer a more democratic approach. The ancient tribes who migrated into the Roman Empire usually had elected kings or tribal chiefs answerable to a council of elders. Strangely enough these traditions remained quite strong even into the Middle-Ages, even in England where many early English kings sought the support of various classes in their bid for election and legitimisation of their position. The City of London, even today enjoys rights in this respect as it is the first institution that has to be informed of the death or accession of a monarch. In older days a king was foolhardy indeed who ignored the City, so important was it as the centre and arbiter of power. Those ancient privileges were jealously guarded.
The Scandinavian and Germanic tribes always seem to have had a more democratic approach to political affairs and the oldest parliament in the world, namely that of Iceland dates from a time when these intrepid Viking settlers established themselves in colonies there. Neither were they the warlike savages of Nordic superiority lusting after blood portrayed by the Nazis but a highly cultured proto-civilisation from which developed some of the most highly developed democracies in the world.
For one thing, the sense of the individual and their place within society was highly important. These fused with the teachings of Christ and Greek ideals of democracy and philosophic understandings of an individual’s place and responsibilities within society allowed modern democracy to evolve and flourish. It took many centuries for the general enfranchisement of Everyman but this came as education and the need to supply a structured state system to support the concurrent development and evolution of technology and ideas after the Enlightenment gave rise to demands for a greater say and share of power originally vested in former feudal interests, namely the king and his aristocratic network of favoured families. The old structure was outdated and a new scheme of things needed.
Thinkers like Marx and even Darwin never meant a situation to exist like the one being imposed upon us today. Marx talked of, ‘control of the means of production’; he said nothing about allowing people to do what they liked irrespective of the consequences to themselves and others. The Communist regimes that arose from his writings and the Russian revolution of 1917 were disciplinarian and totalitarian. No mention was made of entropic concepts we see today or any talk of sociological fashion speak as ‘deconstructivism’. This is anarchy and a betrayal of thousands of years of evolutionary political thought. Without structure the human cannot function effectively and chaos ensues.
The fathers of the United States Constitution freed themselves from British rule on the basis of ‘One man one vote’. This principle is now universal in the West at least. More importantly the Classical ideals of patriotism and citizenship required such a system of political choice. The legendary ‘Struggle of the Orders’ in Republican Rome are a case in point. Around 454BC, with the growth of military technology and trade through the advent of iron smelting and changed military tactics that diminished the role of individual display and combat that had been the hallmark of ‘aristocratic warfare’, armies required larger more disciplined bodies of men equipped in the new style that apparently reached Greece and Italy from the Hittites in the Near East. This ‘orientalising’ influence had already played a significant role in the evolution of those societies, especially in the development of literacy and the arts. The Phoenician alphabet formed the basis of legal codes and their written implementation within Greek City states that were a direct result of the new social political consciousness that led to demands by the wealthy non-aristocratic elements for a greater say and equality before the law in city state affairs. The ‘Struggle of the Orders’ around 454BC and the legendary establishment of the ‘People’s Tribunes’ (Tribunus Plebis) was a direct result of this social upheaval. These sacrosanct individuals were allowed to impose their veto upon any Roman magistrate that was felt to have abused a citizen. The Plebs had apparently marched out en masse and refused to fight against the enemies of the state unless given more authority and protection from the Patricians who formed the ruling caste of the Roman Republic.
Likewise in Greece we see this same phenomenon of rich plutocrats demanding a fairer share of political power. This was brought on by the growth in wealth through trade and the evolution of massed concepts of warfare that required an armoured disciplined grouping of soldiers fighting similar formations. The trouble was that the new armour was expensive and the wealthy non-aristocratic plutocrats and wealthy aristocracy were the only ones able to afford and equip themselves in the required manner. Human nature being what it is, and the very natural desire to see fair play led to a demand for a greater share in political decision making in return for sharing the defence of the city. It is clear that this meant the right to vote in elections and the holding of offices traditionally the privilege of the aristocracy.
In Rome itself, much of the legendary detail and laws were formed at this time. Legislation guaranteeing that one Consul would be a Plebeian, that intermarriage was allowed between a Patrician and Plebeian and more importantly for us the organisation of the Roman People into a political system and series of graded voting rights known as the Servian Constitution, based around the amount of property a citizen had and his ability to purchase the new equipment. The idea was that the richer one was, the better equipped, the greater the risk one took in line of battle. The Romans simply believed that the more a man owned and had to defend the better he would fight and defend his country as he had more to lose.
Of greatest importance was the voting system that unlike ours favoured the richest classes as it was they who voted first within the tribal system and the majority usually followed their lead. The system itself was so established to favour the plutocratic few anyway, with these placed in the top voting classes and the poorer majority of citizens placed in the largest voting classes whose numbers although far greater than the richer carried far less weight. The vote was not validated by numbers but by block vote of classes. So for example if the richer class contained perhaps one tenth of the numbers of the lowest, its vote counted the same as these but as there were less people in it, favoured the few rather than the larger poorer sections of society.
Today we would never countenance such a system within our own electoral structure although it is a well known ploy of the Left who either skew the system or more likely ignore the voter altogether, except in this case it is not the rich who have the ‘majority’ vote but party ideologues. The point we have to remember is that no voting system is worth much if those who vote within it do not fully comprehend the meaning or possible consequences of what such an elective process is about. In order to do this a reasonable understanding of a country’s history is required but also enough intelligence to understand the cultural and societal consequences should the vote go one way or the other.
By this one means a voter must be of sufficient educational standard to weigh carefully the ‘pros and cons’ of the issues at stake in order to make an informed choice and not be prey to very political charlatan with a grudge against the system or a hidden political agenda. This is why the system of education is extremely important within such a national establishment as a nation state so that the traditions, customs and history of the same can be passed on from generation to generation in order to ensure the country’s very survival as a political entity. Transmute this system as the Left have attempted to do in order to socially engineer society in their own image, and one is in deep trouble indeed: voter apathy and disinterest being one major consequence but the greatest loss of all is the authority and freedom of the citizen voter itself. Even worse, the consequential feelings of powerlessness in the face of an all embracing state machine that is the result and the civil unrest and violence that follows not far behind as we have already seen in Britain and elsewhere.
The plain truth is, the human being needs to feel secure and safe from harm and the unknown. The need for this is closely allied to the need for basic requirements of survival, so any political system that appears remote to any individual and of little consequence to their daily lives is not going to concern them overmuch, except in the manner we have stated above. With the Left’s obsession with ‘Globalism’ and other pan national paraphernalia, which in reality means the diminishing of the Nation state in favour of larger power blocs like the European Union or better still the increased authority of the United Nations as a form of ‘World Government’, those normal everyday concerns of the national voter, let alone one in a local government election, seem of no importance whatsoever to the individual who feeling utterly powerless simply gives up expressing an opinion through the ballot box. ‘At the end of the day’ as the maxim goes, political issues need to be on a human scale and relevant to the voter.
The Left with its ideology, talk and jargon of ‘multi-culturalism, multi-faithism, international law, United Nations Authority, inclusion, equality and diversity’ and its penchant for poking its nose into matters that are of no real concern to the West, even if they are dreadful regimes, favouring minorities at the expense of the majority and common sense is gradually but surely dismantling a system of democratic government that has successfully operated for hundreds of years with nothing to replace it. What do such stances and terminology mean to the average ‘Joe Public’ in the street? The answer, if the ‘bien-pensants’ who now govern us would care to listen, is mostly nothing except to alienate the average citizen who simply cannot see the relevance of such matters and wonders bemused at the strange new world he now seems to exist in where common sense, morality and law seem to have been turned upside down. He would have appreciated Winston Churchill’s famous riposte to a question from a Member of Parliament, ‘They are round and they bounce!’
It really is a question of human scale, indeed one of balance and relevancy. It is all very well for the liberal elite to stride across the globe saving the world but at what a cost? Last night the BBC broadcast as its main bulletin headline that people had been killed in a religious stampede in Saudi Arabia during ‘Haj’. Even though there are upwards of two millions of Moslems in Britain today, what relevance does this have for the average Briton in the street, especially in the light of recent events? I also have been informed by contacts of mine that the Media deliberately kept quiet on the true scale of recent disturbances in France for fear of such violence spreading to ourselves. This is not an isolated example either and the BBC in particular seem to have jumped overboard in its attempts to globalise news and historical events, many of which have no relevance to us, not because we do not care but since they are simply not of much concern except to express sympathy. In many ways these global obsessions drive sympathy away. Take the dreadful Tsunami in Asia for example. Far more Scandinavians died than Britons, yet the BBC insisted on ‘rerun’ after ‘rerun’ even a year later even though far more relevant news such as the plight of our national farming industry in which news of rising suicides and bankruptcies was almost ignored!
In July, ‘Islamic’ bombers killed themselves and innocent travellers in London in a day of carnage. One has no intention of glorifying their inhuman and disgusting behaviour that far from drawing empathy merely infuriated and alienated the people of this land against their cause and ‘religion’. However it was clear to anybody who cared to listen to the chief bomber’s political diatribe broadcast after the event, that he and his companions had absolutely no feeling for this country or its history. They had in fact grown up in a ghetto of immigrants, made no attempt to integrate or assimilate British culture and ideals, feeling more loyalty to their community, its religion and history. This is not acceptable behaviour from any British citizen and subject. However this is the true result of ‘Multi-culturalism’ that far from encouraging us all to live in tolerance and harmony, actually prevents us from doing so by maintaining and fostering an alien culture within a larger indigenous one. The barriers that now exist between these communities and the rest of us are the direct result of this warped doctrine and its nonsense talk of ‘inclusion and diversity’ and the growth of ‘Islamic’ extremism. The Left in short by failing to discharge its duties as a national elite have blood on their hands. The Tories as well, who did nothing to circumvent this terrible dilemma. Yet what is the Left’s answer to all this, ‘More of the same please!’ Their complete inability to admit to mistakes is the biggest disgrace of all. Mr. Blair a man I do not share much in common politically even went on television and spelt it out to these people ‘The rules of game have changed!’ The silence was deafening because the Left wing ideologues who now infest the national and local government system just do not want to hear.
It is the same with everything these naïve politically and culturally illiterate people touch. The Prime Minister tried several times to introduce quite sensible fines on the spot for yobs and anti-social behaviour but he was howled down. The fact is, he and his predecessor were prevented from doing what they knew was best for the country by an Executive that wanted things to be done the way they thought best, not the way the elected government desired. This is the true nature of the danger we now face.
Returning to the title of this Chapter, history is a highly relevant and vital component in a nation’s right to exist and function as something that can be understood by its citizens, no matter where they come from. Those bombers were British citizens! Coming as they did from a culture and religion, that simply refused to assimilate into a British culture and in the worse scenario imaginable actually supplant it over time, it was the outright duty of the various authorities in education to ensure that British history and cultural outlook was instilled from the beginning and that no other course was acceptable. No nation state can afford to have multicultural ‘statelets’ or ghettoes within its midst. On the other hand, neither can a state afford to be prejudiced towards its own citizens just because of colour and race. ‘Multi-culturalism’ though is not the way to achieve this.
So we have come full circle. Hopefully reader we can agree that the proper teaching of history is vital to a nation’s survival and more importantly the ideals of democracy that ensure that survival. Every generation has the utmost duty to transmit its traditional cultural and political mores to the next. Transmutation of history for whatever well intended end is simply wrong and far from eradicating pre-conceived ideas, redressing historical injustice does in fact quite the opposite. It disenfranchises the citizen leaving them thoroughly ill equipped to deal with the local and national relevancies of the day and in the case of the bombers above achieves far worse. No traditional History is a basic requirement for freedom and knowledge that every citizen should enjoy as of being a member of a nation state.
Abstract ideas of universal statehood and ‘globalism’ are utterly irrelevant to the average man or woman in the street. These same simply cannot fathom matters of ‘International Law’ and other ideas that contradict commonly held notions of right and wrong. History itself needs to be relevant to students who can then, by gaining a base-plate from which to focus in order understand the wider issues involved and the place of their own country’s political attitude within the world make informed political choices. The major weakness of the Left is that they cannot trust the fact that people for all their faults are quite decent and that all affairs if left to themselves, sort things out in a natural fashion. The Third Reich has gone, the Soviet Union has gone and China only survived by adapting itself to a nationalist fascist capitalist model. In fact historians left or right of the political divide would be hard put to name any culture or ‘civilisation’ that survived the social engineers like Marx and Hitler. It is in fact one of the greatest tributes to the human condition and outlook.
Any civilisation that has survived for any length of time like the Roman or the Egyptian did so because it insisted on transmitting its traditions and customs at the expense of any other. The Roman Empire is often called cruel and oppressive, yet today we look back at it with rosy coloured spectacles as a time of order and when a man could travel from Scotland to Iraq and find a common culture. No civilisation or Empire can achieve this without the support of the people within it. One can hold these down by force for a while but it will not last. Rome achieved this feat by assimilating whole cultures and peoples into the Roman ideal of ‘Romanitas’. She showed this abstract ideal but eminently practical result, by demonstrating that Roman culture and ways were superior to all she conquered. The British in India could have achieved far more than they have, if they had been a little more forthcoming towards those she ruled, for example by allowing Indians and Africans to take part in the governance of Empire. Islam and its community understand the concept very well indeed. It is the fastest growing religion in the world today….