Copywrite: Guy R. Leven-Torres 2006
As human beings we need to develop a strong sense of right versus wrong. In our confused politically correct world, once common sense notions have been turned on their head and ordinary people are confused by what I shall term the New (A)morality, and worst of all feel unable to merely express an opinion for fear of causing offence.
For well nigh a thousand years the average Englishman, Scot or Welshman has stood fast to this basic privilege in British society more than any other aspect of his much cherished freedom. It is a simple fact that due to our isolation in Europe, surrounded as we are by sea, a quite different ideological and political-legal system has grown up. Furthermore it was an Englishman’s privilege to poke fun at foreigners, dictators and especially Monarchs bent on changing the ‘rules of the game’ in matters of democracy and especially religion. We were just not going to stand for it.
Political and religious debate were the peculiar fortes of the Englishman and most of our embattled history has involved either one or both aspects as a reason to pick a fight with either one’s fellow countrymen or ‘Johnny Foreigner’. The Englishman especially, always thinking he knew best, coming as he did from a land of freemen felt a peculiarly strong loyalty to his land and its traditions. The only other historical example one can really find to compare with this somewhat one sided opinion and its unique concept of Englishness is the Roman republic, whose citizens out of all the ancient city states saw themselves the superior of all other races and destined by the immortal gods to rule the world as nobody else was so well equipped to do so. The fact was, many a Greek historian agreed with them, especially Polybius, friend and confidante of that Scipio who sacked Carthage and wept like the good Roman he was and bewailing the possible similar outcome for his own beloved city and its institutions.
What has made us the way we are? Modern America sees itself in the very same light and they too feel this same sense of uniqueness and devotion to their land as well. In almost everything, they see America as the new mistress of the world and better and bigger than anything else within it. There is nothing wrong with this stance; it is after all merely the expression of opinion and the attitude of an imperial people. Twice they have rescued Europe from defeat and their dead litter the war cemeteries of France, Belgium, Holland, Italy and Germany and further afield around Asia and the Pacific Rim. The fact is they feel they have earned that right to feel imperial: the greatest of the best and I for one knowing history as I do and in particular European behaviour and lately British as well would not argue the point too closely. Without America imperialism we would be in the grip of a totalitarian regime. The Left as always and even European states like France, living as they do in a post imperial dream-world would hotly dispute this fact but then the truth always hurts.
Before any reader thinks I am anti-European and overly sympathetic to America, let me say here and now that I am a great admirer of German and French culture. I am well versed in Kant and Descartes, a fanatic in respect of Ludwig van Beethoven and as I already stated above a great admirer of European and especially French architecture. There is also much I dislike about the United States but when one owes such a nation so much it would simply be thoroughly bad manners to either criticise a good friend or examine him too closely. A true gentleman accepts the somewhat grandiose eccentricities of a generous and kind ally. The fact is Europe consists of spent imperial powers whose days of glory are long past. Many an ancient Greek would have recognised this scenario. As a people, I have come to admire the Americans greatly and I thank God for them, even if the rest of Europe would rather not. However, it is thanks to her that these same nations can spend what they do on social welfare and diminished defence budgets within a larger Pax Americana.
It is the Americans who have lost over two thousand dead in war torn Iraq. This is nothing to gloat about either but the Left always will, as it did over September the 11th 2001. Other Britons and I standing outside Buckingham Palace listening to the glorious American National Anthem, played by the Guards band, instead of the usual God Save the Queen cried. If ever there was a time to volunteer to fight that was it and I did, even at my age. Like the ex-soldier one is, I was spoiling for a scrap by their side. The anger I felt was intense. No nation deserves to be attacked like that. What really disturbed me was the British government’s desire to appease the religion and its extremists who carried out this disgusting act of war against an unarmed civilian population. I hate Evil and despise those who seek accommodation with it. It was akin to doing a deal with Hitler after the invasion of the Low Countries. Evil only understands one thing, ‘Might is Right’. This is why Britain fought the Battle of Britain, Rome survived Hannibal and the Spaniards evicted Napoleon from Spain, despite the terrible odds. One simply cannot and must not negotiate with demonic evil.
Mr Blair, very much to his credit has stated that ‘The rules of the game have changed!’ This is quite an admission coming from him. His stance has changed my political opinion of him to a large degree and I am also encouraged by his Chancellor’s statements over the last few months that we must celebrate our nationhood and its imperial past. There is hope yet and these two at least seem to have the courage to admit to previous mistakes. As you probably have understood reader I am not a New Labour man by political conviction but a Tory of the old school. However in war, one has many strange allies.
The thing one loathes above all else when dealing with the Far Left, is its total inability to distinguish right from wrong. Francis Bacon stated something to the effect that when good men do nothing, evil thrives. The trouble with the Left is that it often does far too much. In its rush to understand the attacks upon the West by Moslem fanatics one could hear the gnashing of teeth, hair tearing and breast beating from all quarters of that particular political persuasion. The Left ‘do-gooders’ simply could not understand why it was that we had been attacked in their brave new politically correct amoral world. Their Gramscian New (A)morality was meant to prevent this was it not? Was their country so evil after all? Had they not done enough to purge Western and in particular American guilt in respect of ‘oppressed Islam and militant Israel?’ The fact was America had in fact done too much. Her actions as a world cash-cow to states like Egypt and even the proto-Palestine and politicians like Arafat and the Taliban did much to encourage the terrorist that far from being grateful saw these donations as weakness and the decadence of a super power. The unpalatable truth is that American money or rather Saudi Arabian money financed these atrocities. What has the West to feel guilty about? The oppressed Moslem populations of states like Iraq must face the fact that they themselves are largely to blame for their own predicaments, not America or any other land in the West. The fact the West relies to a greater or lesser degree on Arab oil should be a positive thing, not a thing to hold against us. Oil revenues have pushed many of the Islamic states kicking and screaming into the 21st Century from feudal subsistence. The Arab world enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. If they do not like what they see, then they should do what every European people has done over the centuries, change it through revolt or preferably, the ballot box and campaigns of civil disobedience. Ghandi showed the way here and yet his object lesson in simple people power is overlooked by fanatical extremists who mistakenly feel it right to blast innocents with flying bombs and pathological suicide bombers, that far from gaining world sympathy merely alienates an already hostile world. Ghandi had the world eating out of his hand.
There is of course the problem of being the World’s policeman. This was Britain’s and France’s role before the advent of the Pax Americana and there are legitimate reasons for ensuring that regimes conform to expected standards of behaviour. Of course the childish Left, being the naughty spoilt children they are, are unable to accept the fact that many of the oppressive regimes financially supported by the Americans would have been far worse had it not been for American money to keep them in line. Egypt is a case in point, so is modern Turkey. Neither of these regimes is half as bad as they potentially could be, since they know full well that withdrawal of American support would devastate them, especially under the Bush Administration and its attempts to seek a more democratic approach to world problems. It is a well known political fact that relations with the House of Saud are similarly strained. The truth of the matter is, none of these regimes could survive long without American might. The Left should have the moral courage to see and admit that far from there being a wicked CIA conspiracy to oppress the Islamic world that American power has done much to ameliorate a nasty situation that would mean the deaths of millions of Moslems and I point to Iraq as a good example. The Arabs are incapable of uniting and have always squabbled among themselves. The advent of American might, poured oil on stormy waters.
The fanatics talk about ‘Moslem honour’ being slighted. The truth is they slighted themselves by their barbaric acts of violence and casual acceptance of nasty regimes. It is not entirely their fault as their familial and tribal structures prevent them from advancing beyond a Middle Ages context. Attempts have been made in the past to soften some of the harsher requirements of their religion and some of these by the saintly philosophic sect known as the Suffis, who under the influence of Greek and Christian philosophy sought union with Allah through meditation, very nearly succeeded in changing things. As yet though, no Islamic Martin Luther or Thomas Aquinas has appeared long enough to right matters. Thos who have sought to do so through mystical experience and teaching have often been killed. One is afraid that Islam may never reach the more pacifist state of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism.
We have strayed a little from our discussion on morality but I would say that this digression was necessary in order to demonstrate the amorality and ignorance of the Left liberal ‘bien-pensants’ and their effect in wider affairs. The truth is that the Left cannot tell the truth in the first place and even when it does recognise it, cannot bring itself to admit to it. They search their troubled consciences like some waiter in a third rate restaurant apologising for the cook, taking the plate off the table in front of the irate customer, before scurrying back to the kitchen to reheat the same plate and returning it in the hope that the customer will not notice. The trouble for the Left is that millions of its ‘customers’ have started to notice that the food is old and stale; merely repackaged and rebranded.
The Left was faced with a quandary when the old reliable Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own corrupt inertia. Not even Superman Gorbachov could hold back the collapse. The heady aroma of freedom is the most exhilarating of all human desires. So what does the Left do? It allies itself to anything and everything that is seen as somewhat eccentric in the normal world. We see the growth of ‘Animal Rights’, not that animals could ever understand such a concept. We see the increased obsession of ‘Human Rights’ as though the Left in its arrogance was ever in a position in the first place to grant these. The plain fact is, there are no such things as ‘Rights’ of any kind, least of all human, let alone an animal’s.
Life is a fact and state of being not a ‘Human Right’. Education is a privilege not a ‘Human Right’. It is dependant upon the understanding and talents of the student not some dripping liberal social engineer. Likewise, no human has the ‘Human Right’ to be happy. How can this be a ‘Human Right’ granted by some government or legal department? Happiness is also a state of being, dependent upon the activities and mindset of the individual, not some bureaucrat. It is like the old joke about the Gestapo interrogator who told his victim that the Germans believed in ‘Cooperation, und believe me schweinhund you vill cooperate with us!’
If one should doubt this, examine the fact that the greatest freedom of all in Britain and America, that of Freedom of Expression, the very pillar of our democratic existence is merely a ‘Civil Liberty’ to be withdrawn as and when the government thinks. ‘Human Rights’ on the other hand are absolute, even if the individual or group that claims them have murdered and raped. No this is the true face of the demonic Left; its utter refusal to tell right from wrong. It is also its greatest weakness.
How can a bureaucrat grant what is already in existence? How can a bureaucrat change hundreds of years of accepted customary and legal privileges as they have done in Britain and even America? We saw above how Englishmen have fought civil wars and foreigners in order to protect that ancient privilege. The fact that he was prepared to fight for that privilege demonstrates that it was well understood that any kind of privilege has to be earned through the exercise of responsibility and obligation in return, namely to the country and people the citizen belonged to.
‘Rights’ without obligation is license to do what one wants without fear of consequence. Take for example the feudal oaths of medieval knights to their kings. These swore fealty and the use of their arms in return for feudal rights such as land and title. These oaths were sworn, under the strictest of penalties, ‘A system arising out of the breakdown of Royal power, profoundly altering the socio-political-military status quo. Power became the prerogative of the strong led by the King through ability to lead, obtain and control land and wealth, often through force of conquest and arms supported by powerful forms of sworn allegiance and fealty, if necessary supported by spiritual and holy trappings supplied by the Church. This system in its most developed form was a series of personal interdependencies, strictly hierarchical in nature, cemented by gifts of land, money, sworn allegiances between followers and followed, in which the cult of personality and prestige were perhaps the most crucial aspects’ (Guy Leven-Torres MA(Hons), The Importance of Feudal Ties in Regulating Relationships Between France’s Warrior Classes 1000-1200AD. University of London, 1992. AWARS Journal 2000.)
This is the true meaning of Rights. The King had the power to award these at his discretion. As usual the Left simply cannot or worse, deliberately fails to understand the reality of such a concept. They have no authority to give out Rights of any kind let alone ‘Human and Animal’ Rights.
It really is a question of morality. We saw in the first chapter Roger Scruton’s opinion of ‘Relativism’. This creed stipulates that there is no objective absolute truth but merely the individual’s subjective opinion. So that if a couple live together outside wedlock that is of equal value to a legally sanctified marriage, even if it is proved statistically that marriage and a stable family are better for the development of children than just ‘living in sin’. The same ‘Relativist’ outlook would state that since marriage and cohabitation are of equal value, adultery too is acceptable and that Homosexual lifestyles are of equivalent value to a heterosexual one.
The Left have in fact turned morality on its head and actively promote not only a ‘relativist’ amorality but does all it can to undermine traditional concepts of truth. One reason why we see old couples being visited by bullying politicised police and broadcasters telephoned by them as well for merely expressing a ‘homophobic’ opinion is that the Liberal fascists promote amorality and group rights as ardently as traditional legal systems punished wrongdoing in the past. The trouble is when this takes place it no longer becomes merely a question of championing amorality but immorality.
The Left does not believe in the concept of private property either. The middle-class house owner is the real ‘criminal’ in society. Therefore by this strange volte- farce in attitude the burglar and robber are not criminals at all but victims of the house owning ‘criminal’ class of petty capitalists. The idea behind this stipulates that there are only criminals because private property exists and therefore to remove it would remove the need for criminals to exist. This is pure Marxism.
The Left are obsessed with minority rights, seeing this as their main weapon against the property owning bourgeoisie. These minorities are seen as groups vulnerable to the rest of ‘society’ and therefore their rights as such should be promoted at the expense of the majority who do not need rights of any kind, being as they are the all powerful ‘oppressor’. This is why we read of criminals being given legal aid to fight abuses of their ‘Human Rights’ and homosexual couples wanting to adopt orphans given priority over heterosexual ones. This is why we see light sentences passed down by the legal system even in serious crimes such as murder and why child molesters continue to work in schools despite being placed on government lists banning them from doing so. More importantly from our point of view, it is why the Police have a hard time catching criminals and taking them off the streets. The burden of proof in the face of ‘Human Rights’ is now so high that it is often impossible to gain a conviction without months of intelligence gathering and even then numerous cases brought to court are dismissed purely on a technicality. The judiciary like the Police and Civil Service is now for the first time in history highly politicised.
The public is increasing fearful of expression of opinion. One often hears people say that they do not want to appear ‘Racist’ or ‘Homophobic’ or ‘Islamophobic’. These former terms are recent arrivals in the English language and are symptomatic of the Left’s obsession with jargon and the implementation of its politically correct agenda to change society and attitudes. These neologisms did not exist even in my own childhood and their influence upon individual behaviour and on wider society is dangerous. One simply cannot change a person’s attitude by inventing words and curbing freedom of opinion. This simply builds up intolerance and resentment.
The Left is already persecuting those who do not share its views. It is always like this. The old couple above visited and warned by the police, the broadcaster telephoned over a ‘homophobic incident on Radio 5 are all supposed to be warnings to the rest of us to be careful of what we do and say. The KGB and Gestapo used the same tactics in order to create a climate of fear in order to control the majority of the population. It will not be long before our new elite lock people up for expressing views they do not like. The incidents above were made public knowledge very quickly and this was deliberate and meant as a warning.
As I write the senior Moslem politician Iqbal Socranie is under ‘police investigation’ for merely stating that homosexuality was against Islamic teachings and that recent legislation allowing the establishment of same sex partnerships undermined traditional family life. I am no fan of Islam but I fully support this man’s right to an opinion. One is also delighted to hear that the Metropolitan Commissioner is to revise his force’s attitude to this kind of politically correct policing. Whether he will succeed is another matter as like all those who have tried to instil common sense, he will come up against the Left Mafia Octopus that infests every national and local institution in this country from top to bottom. Interestingly the offence brave Mr Socranie is being investigated for is one contrary to the 1986 Law and Disorder Bill that forbids the use of threatening language in the hearing of others and a communications and broadcasting act.
This is a good example of how the ghouls of the Left reinterpret Law to suit themselves. This particular law was meant to be used against those who aggressively threaten people not just express what to most is a commonly acceptable opinion; not that this will deter the Left that is simply not interested in anybody else’s opinion but its own. It is actually the especial hallmark of a totalitarian state when commonly held opinions are prosecuted for infringement of Party ideology.
How these people can now condemn Saddam, Hitler, Stalin or any other despot and party state is unbelievable as they are doing the very same thing. They have not started killing people as yet buy that usually follows with political gulags and all the other nefarious accoutrements of the police state. One wonders, how long the Police Commissioner will remain. It really is time the people of this land and elsewhere woke up to the true state of political control here and elsewhere and realise we are in the harsh ideological Stalinist grip of a demonic unelected Executive, not the elected national government.
If the Sir Ian Blair persists in carrying out his intention I predict that he will be removed shortly as will all those in positions of authority who have increasingly come to realise the true state of affairs. The excuse will probably be ‘retired for reasons of failing health’ or some such epithet. The Soviets and Nazis used exactly the same terminology to rid themselves of leaders and politicians who failed to conform to the Party line. The Leftwing social engineers and ideologues are incredibly well organised in this country and elsewhere, as they have had years to organise since their last failed attempt to takeover government through the old Labour Party and the Militant Tendency back in the 1970s. These people then donned a suit, cut their hair and became ‘fellow travellers’, biding their time and slowly but highly effectively transforming governments and other institutions from within. One was even informed by a well placed colleague that a meeting of all these people took place on Dartmoor in which their current agenda was worked out in detail. Their influence was even felt under Mrs Thatcher, who to her discredit did not do very much to alter an already failing British Education system as other Tory leaders have failed to as well. The Grammar schools and ancient public schools were the primary targets of the Left for years and these will not rest until they are all swept away.
Some years ago a ban of hunting would simply have been treated as the fringe interest it always was. Hunting is actually guaranteed in the European legislation on Human Rights. Yet our Parliament has seen fit to ignore this and proceed anyway. One would not mind if the issue was really about cruelty to animals, rather than the class hatred that lies behind the reality. The majority of people who hunt are ordinary folk, not public school boys and girls guffawing like hyenas as their pack of hounds attacks a poor little fox named Basil Brush. Foxes are a pest and I should know because a farming friend lost, in one night his flock of chickens and nearly his livelihood. The fox had made no attempt to eat the dead fowls, just killed them in a bloody frenzy. Ironically, this is the very same thing that the animal rights fanatics level at the hunters and dogs. Hunters and dogs though do not destroy people’s property and threaten livelihoods but the Left has never been interested in fact only its own version of matters.
Above I introduced a new name for this inverted sense of values, calling it the New (A)morality. Perhaps a better name would be the New Immorality because that is what it really is. It is the gradual replacement of morality, the good and right with the wrong and bad; in short. the triumph of Evil. There is no such thing as a half way compromise in such matters as far as objective absolute Truth is concerned. If behaviour is not Good in human terms, it is by its very nature Bad.
Nature herself is neutral. She is neither, good nor bad but some of her effects are bad such as the giant Tsunami and earthquakes that hit central Asia recently. This however was not a deliberate calculated act. To commit an act of Good or Evil, it is necessary to know the good from evil. As we are conscious beings able to understand such abstract concepts, any act we do, especially towards another creature is either good or bad. It cannot be more simply put. The objective truth we should always ask ourselves is this, ‘If I do this to that person is it good or is it bad?’ If I take that person’s life without cause then that by its very definition is bad and therefore murder. Murder is prescribed by Law. If on the other hand, I prevent somebody from dying by an act of selfless courage that is good because I have saved a life. Society rewards such acts. In other words the Law and Society recognise both actions as either bad or good.
What is the definition of Good and Bad? Is it perhaps fair to say that Good is any action that supports life and happiness for the common Good and that Bad is any action that destroys life and fails to encourage happiness and the common Good? So by this definition any group or person whose activities contravene these is bad and any group or person that do not, is good. Life however is a little more complicated than this. My father always told me that ‘Life is shades of Grey.’
As I stated above, I have Gay friends and they are thoroughly decent souls. Their effect upon me is not bad as they do not try to enforce their sexuality upon me or others and they are every bit as disgusted by evil as any other right thinking person. Is homosexuality evil? Other societies in the past have utilised it to very positive effect, especially the ancient City Sate of Sparta that actively encouraged such relationships within its ranks to help bond its military forces together and encourage a strong fighting spirit. Our own military until now was very much against such relationships and even now that gays have been openly admitted to the armed forces, personal relations are frowned upon between ranks. People cannot help being homosexual that is the way they are; it is their genetic disposition.
Is my friend’s illness of Neurasthenia evil? He cannot have a choice in the matter as it seems that it is a genetic predisposition that makes him like this. Is adultery evil? Some men and women have such a longing for sex that they are unable to resist temptation. That is just the way they are. Is living together without the formal ties of marriage evil? Some people just do not see the point or there maybe some impediment to their marriage through contravention of religious teachings and secular law.
If someone went to Parliament and succeeded in having a law passed making it legal to suffer from ‘Neurasthenia’ and that anybody who did not encourage sufferers to fully live their ‘Neurasthenic lifestyle’ by actively promoting ‘Neurasthenic Rights’ would face prosecution, what would it mean for sufferers and wider society? How would it be if people faced prosecution for merely stating they did not think it right that ‘Neurasthenic lifestyles’ should be allowed in the armed forces?
My first reaction would be that such a law would not be in their best interests or that of wider society, simply because it is impossible for them to do certain activities, especially in the armed forces and one would also be most concerned that an illness is being promoted as a ‘group lifestyle’ at the expense of the well and active majority of the population. As for not being allowed to express an opinion against this illness on the grounds that such utterances are ‘Neuraphobic’ one would be concerned that a government saw fit to politicise an illness. It would harm the neurasthenics because it would build up resentment against them within the larger population, that in normal circumstances would be sympathetic to such a nasty disability but more importantly they simply cannot do some things because of it and to do so would not only endanger them but society as a whole. The illness is not evil or good but promotion of such a lifestyle would be wrong.
Likewise, there have been a number of cases recently where disabled people have deliberately passed on their disability to their children by ensuring that they mate with somebody in a similar disposition. How can it be right by any stretch of the imagination to deliberately breed disabled offspring? As parents we have an absolute duty to ensure our children run no risk of suffering so that such a deliberate act to breed deaf or blind children must be wrong, surely? My mother suffered from Diabetes and she went to great lengths to ensure that it was safe to bear me and that I would not suffer as well. If she had bore me knowing full well that I would suffer from it as well in a deliberate act to encourage a ‘Diabetic lifestyle’ I can inform you reader I would have cursed her to Hell. How can it be right to encourage the deliberate politicisation of illness and disability? It is Evil! This is not eugenics either but common humanity and decency.
‘Homosexuality’ is not the normal way of things, neither is ‘Neurathenia’ or any other kind of disability; to actively encourage and promote such matters as ‘lifestyles’ is wholly unacceptable. However, that does not mean one should actively go the other way and persecute and prosecute homosexuals and the disabled. People are the way they are and that is that; accept it but don’t politicise it. This sort of thing clearly demonstrates the facile bankrupt ideology of the Left. A person being disabled or homosexual, is not evil in itself but a fact of life; though the active political promotion of the same and the censorship of those who disagree, is evil. However how we respond to our afflictions is another matter, especially in respect of our attitudes and treatment of others in wider society. All one can expect from others is compassion.
Until medical science finds a cure, then all must suffer in silence and stoically hopefully with the support of their families and close friends. I am not going to fall into the trap of debating the rights and wrongs of homosexuality or any other kind of sexual variation until the next chapter. However, I will state here and now that anything that prevents a human being from enjoying the full fruits of humanity including the love to be found in marriage is a disability. No doubt one will probably receive a phone call about a ‘homophobic incident’. However I have expressed my opinion and that is my privilege and no threat or coercion is going to change what I think. I have gay friends and I do not ‘hate’ them in any sense of the word, so I am not guilty of ‘hate crime’. They are some of the most considerate people I have the privilege to know. Let us leave it at that.
Suffering and pain, disappointment and failure are a necessary part of human life. As I said above, Humanity is a state of being; it is not a ‘Human Right’. One either is or is not; it is as simple as that. Education and its success is dependent upon the student and his or her ability to take in information and use it. This is not a ‘Human Right’ either. Education is a privilege to be earned in the same way as any other aspect of a free and democratic nation that gives authority and freedom to a citizen. Some people will reach the highest offices in the land; others will work in the open air. This is dependent upon the talents and desires of the individual. Most will be decent and honest and not a few will be criminals in one way or another. There is nothing right or wrong in this, it is the way life is.
Human happiness is not a ‘Human Right’ either to be legalised by any government. It is part of the state of being called Humanity. Those that feel it correct to usurp this natural condition by awarding ‘Human Rights’ like some commodity in an emporium have perhaps committed the greatest of all sins. They have taken something from our state of being that is not theirs to give in the first place. I said that there were no such things as Rights so now I will justify this further and hopefully expose so called ‘Rights’ for the sham they are.
The Left goes to great lengths to establish so called ‘Equality’. The old religious statement that we are all equal in the eyes of God bears no relation to the version above. For one thing we are made in God’s image. That means that in His eyes the human being is perfect in form and spirit. Now one has no intention of drifting of into the world of high philosophic theology but merely to place the reality behind what is normally meant by ‘Equality’. It means that every individual will be treated according to their condition, rich or poor equally before the law. What the Left means by it, is actually the opposite.
A Leftwing definition might read. ‘Since everybody is not created in the image of the Left, those that are not….. are certainly not equal before our law. On the contrary, for true ‘Equality’ in the sense we mean it, the minority groups must be favoured at the expense of the Majority.’ Understand this viewpoint reader and one will begin to understand the heretical reality behind relativism and Left thinking.
It was well understood that when Marx spoke of things like ‘Control of the means of production’ did not mean that everybody would have personal ownership over the machines he or she used in a factory but, the abolition of such ownership in favour of state Party ownership as representative of the masses. Marx used words to mean something quite different to what the normal individual meant by them. He called this tension between the meanings ‘dialectic’ in which his interpretation of the meaning of any word would eventually supersede the previously accepted one. This is how the Left operate and why we have talk of ‘Inclusion, Equality and Diversity’ but as we have now seen these do not mean what every normal person believes them to be but as the Left means. The Collins English Dictionary definition of dialectic is: Philosophy, the process of reconciliation of contradiction either of beliefs or in historical processes. This was how Marx utilised it and not simply as debate in the classic Socratic philosophical sense to resolve dispute but as a method of subversion and beguilement. Certainly Marx was concerned with form but his form. This is in fact the weakest fault line that runs through the Left and its relativist philosophy. It is here that its enemies need to attack it. Their philosophy is corrupt because it cannot even bring itself to be truthful in the very language it uses. As one has to remind a petulant child, truth is objective and absolute, so are objects and language. One cannot simply transmute them to mean something else by simply altering their meaning.
What the Left has actually done is turn morality on its head. This is evil and there is no other word to describe it. Morality is more than just cultural or social, it is all of these but it is also common to every member of the human race. Private property is a universal human standard, so is the taking of life without legal sanction, as is the family and marriage, the protection of children and the obligation to see they come to know harm.
The disabled and disadvantaged are what they are through no fault of their own and most decent societies have gone out of the way to protect these vulnerable souls. Legislation awarding ‘Human Rights’ that simply do not is exist is bad enough but usurpation of the idea they do and that the Left has the ability to do so is the highest arrogance of all. Humanity is a state of being not a ‘Human Right’ at the behest of political fanatics and fantasists. As for the promotion and politicisation of ‘lifestyles’ such as the disabled and homosexuals this is not only wrong, it does the ‘victim’ no good whatsoever. I would be the first to protect a gay friend from unfair victimisation as I would elderly Christians visited by politicised bullying police.
I would also be set against any system that persecuted people for ‘living together’ or tried to control people’s religious beliefs, or those whose convictions sometime clash with the state. I now face this very dilemma in a country called England wherein it seems to express a moral opinion is now against the law. Life is indeed ‘shades of grey’ and long may it be so. With freedom and adulthood comes responsibility to oneself and others in wider society. It is about making informed decisions and living with consequences. This is actually very near a genuine human right; the right to make decisions, even the wrong ones and live with the results free of ideological interference and police bullying……