Stephen Moriarty
We live in strange times: if we leave aside surveillance and the speech laws (which are only sporadically enforced) for a moment, we are experiencing a libertarian experiment. In addition to the now long-established economic liberalism (the government is currently seeking to destroy trade-union power completely), modern communications allow one to access almost any idea or cultural product and to avoid all state propaganda. Furthermore, through multiculturalism, the state has permitted a range of lifestyles, communities to live in enclaves, and children to be educated separately.
Some groups are even using their own legal systems and eschewing the police. There has been some rhetoric from the Home Secretary, but there is no will to do anything about this, and it is not easy to see what the state could do without breaking “human-rights” laws. Of course, when crimes of sufficient seriousness are committed, the state still takes action (for many lesser crimes, such as drug use, it does not bother); but it can do nothing if it never becomes aware that a crime has happened in the first place. At the same time, CCTV means that public life is eerily calm for the most part, and one is free, due to state enforcement of such liberties, to dress and worship how one likes without inconvenience.
However, when people are granted freedom, they often choose to enslave themselves. Many of these groups have loyalties to foreign powers of one form or another. As a consequence the British state can seem to resemble that of late nineteenth-century China: prevailing over an anarchy, with its antiquated institutions are at the mercy of foreign investors. In addition to Britain having signed treaties that make nationalisation and other interventions in the market illegal, many of these investors think they have sufficient raw power, if only through the agency of their “fifth columnists”, to make the state think twice before adversely affecting their commercial or political interests. Whatever the de jure position with regard to sovereignty and property rights, it is the de facto position that matters.
Constitutionally and in terms of territory, the British state is also weak. The first-past-the-post voting system, once claimed as a source of strength, becomes less legitimate as the demos becomes less capable of consensus. It is thus an engine for Balkanisation, as people move to ensure that their group has a local majority (as Dr Gabb has pointed out, when national identity is destroyed, ethnic identity takes its place as people seek security from each other and from a state that claims no special loyalty to or from any group; this kind of liberty paradoxically results in increased conformity as people feel obliged to affirm their ethnic loyalties). With regard to political leadership, the quality of many MPs is poor due to the “Party List” system, which allows the Hedge Funds to make sure that they are biddable types. Something similar can be said of the “reformed” House of Lords, and Westminster as a whole, not entirely justly, is now a byword for sleaze and incompetence.
Neither has the irresistible force of nationalism finished its work in Britain. National feeling in Scotland and Wales is so strong that no British government can afford to antagonise it further. Even Cornwall has been allowed to develop the sense of victimhood that is the soil of separatism. Bourgeois Londoners see themselves as sophisticated cosmopolitans, and London has been given a separate political identity through its mayor. In other ways as well, foolishly heeding Terence (“If she is not mad enough herself, egg her on”), British politicians have encouraged these centrifugal forces through initiatives such as locally elected mayors and police commissioners, devolution, the “Northern Power-House”, “Free” and “Faith” Schools. There is even a move to weaken the public-service remit of the BBC.
Foreign policy has been so ineffective as to have caused a complete loss of nerve. Membership of the European Union is an explicit death-wish, but it is the interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya that revealed the incompetence and impotence of our leaders most tellingly. We were told that British intervention was in order to prevent the training of terrorists who might attack us. Traditional border-control would have been a more appropriate policy, but this was impossible for our leaders, not just ideologically, but practically. People who couldn’t run their own country thought they knew how to run some of the most intractable regions in the world and that the bloodshed would be worth it. At the bottom of this evil was political correctness combined with economic liberalism (the former is the cultural arm of the latter). These interventions were destined to failure because of the tribal nature of humanity, yet this made them inevitable. They were grotesque displays of ideological purity necessitated by the subliminal knowledge that the ideology was false. There was a circularity about them: what really worried our leaders was the effect of terrorism on “community relations” at home, but they could not bring themselves to admit that it was multiculturalism that was the source of difficulty, so they embarked on foreign adventures in order to convince themselves that the threat was external. By this they only reinforced the motivation of terrorists, whose tribal loyalty across borders was undiminished. When a society adopts as its control mechanism a guilt complex about one of the most important survival instincts – tribalism – it becomes fatally incapable of perceiving reality.
Does Britain then, as David Cameron has said, face an existential threat? The question arises because it has “bet the farm” on globalisation and multiculturalism. These terms were, in any case, really only excuses for hypocrisy and incompetence. The failure of multiculturalism in particular could take the British state down with it, not merely because such a failure is in itself catastrophic, but because the British state is now synonymous with it. Only colonising groups and their sponsors use the term “British”, but this identity is now shattered beyond repair even for these groups: the antagonisms between some of these groups are far more serious than between any of them and the English.
At the beginning of this essay, however, I mentioned surveillance. This is one thing that the British state is quite good at. Huge amounts of money and talent are expended spying on people who, not without reason, could never have been expected to have much loyalty to the British state in the first place, and have been given little incentive to alter their views. Increasingly, indeed, almost no one can be expected to have much loyalty to the British state. Hobbes conceded that one owed no loyalty to a state that could not fulfil its raison d’etre – to keep the peace – but to keep the peace the British state is now obliged to spy on its citizens, and is thus incapable of arousing any loyalty beyond that which we might feel towards a kidnapper who has thus far desisted from carrying out his threats.
I feel as though I and my children have been taken hostage by the British state: it offers no long term security and yet has become so powerful it can afford to let us run about like a cat with a mouse. There is no course of action that would allow any of us to show that we are loyal citizens. This was always the sadistic motive behind “diversity”. I would rather have made this bargain the other way around: I would be happy to show loyalty if I were granted privacy, freedom to speak my mind, and long-term security.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The deconstruction of Britain is deliberate, part and parcel of the European project. The British Navy is, to all intents and purposes, ferrying immigrants across from North Africa. International treaties on asylum in no way qualify the people queuing up at Calais for entry, simply on the face of it.
Instead of railing against the free movement of peoples libertarians should be railing against government forced redistribution of wealth and property and the growing impact of supranational and international treaties on the law. Immigrants would sink or swim according to their own devices.
You should have stood for parliament ten years ago Stephen – when you could have done some good. But not now, now’s too late. The country my parent’s knew is gone, done, dead and buried.
Allow me to bore you for a few minutes: These past few weeks have been interesting. Among others was an invite to fly out of Luton by private jet to France. This was in order to take a peek at the latest Bugatti sports car. In a party of just 7 was a millionaire, an aristo multi millionaire and a billionaire. All have homes abroad. The super rich one has homes on 3 continents… no less.
A good enough day out with people you might think owning few worries. In ways that don’t really matter they don’t but in ways that do matter, and for reasons so well highlighted here by Stephen, I sensed among each a deep feeling of foreboding. Things that would have been spoken about ten years or so ago were answered with a quick shrug of the shoulders. It seems that all of us are fixed in a trance and don’t know how to snap out of it.
It’s all so deeply unsettling that I feel disinclined to continue writing but you know it’s true that when the roof falls in those that own nothing lose little always providing they get out alive. When these particular car enthusiasts smell busted plaster, then everything will be buried including their future. The higher they’ve managed to climb then the further they must fall and they know it
During the course of the day I spoke to each in turn. Two women and four men, and they all fear for England’s future. In fact they don’t think she has a future. Those with kids back at home fear the most. Something has got to be going terribly wrong right now.
Many people do surely know what’s happening but have become paralysed. They don’t know what to do or say. It’s worse than all-out war where at least a man can recognise his enemy. Too often these days our enemy are white English who’ve allowed themselves to be persuaded to work toward some new world order. That wouldn’t be so bad of course, if they knew precisely when to stop working.
A miracle would be handy but I’ve no idea where one can be bought.
The few tens of thousands of particular White English to which you refer, John, took the decision to work for Cultural Marxists freely and eagerly. That is because they actively desire and _want to bring about_ “new world order” you described. They won’t be stopping working for it at any time.
Proximally, I blame our “universities”; specially the 4,575,819 non-existent ones currently harbouring hundreds and hundreds of millions of “young learners” during term-times, the only extrinsic benefit of which is better trade for their towns’ shops, guitar-shops, “discount fashion outlets” (for the women), bistros, bars and “clubs”. Of course, British universities, of which there used to be about 20 – more than enough for 40 or 50 million people – perhaps did not consciously or actively hire what seems to have been the entire serial graduate-classes of the Gramscian Frankfurt School for 25 years, but a space-alien from the Planet Tharg could be forgiven for thinking so.
Distally, I blame us ourselves. Those of us alive then, like my father returning from Burma, that could have made a difference and arrested stupidity in time, went to sleep in 1945 when the Nazis won WW2 and fired Churchill. He told me quite sincerely later that “SON, WE WERE VOTING FOR A BRAVE NEW WORLD; WHERE EVERYBODY WOULD BE HAPPY AND THERE’D BE NO MORE WAR, AND ALL PEOPLE WOULD HAVE FOOD AND MEDICINE OUT OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, WHENEVER THEY NEEDED ANYTHING”. (He voted Labour. He was also a seriously devout “low church” protestant Christian; he _hated” “sanctus lights” especially (and Jews sadly) – he’d say…”that Parson is a SPIKE! He’s _on the Road To Rome!_”)
Distally also I blame us later on too, for being asleep on the job in the 1980s and early 1990s. I think 1989 was about the last year in which Britain’s education system, schools and universities could have been saved from the death-black cesspit into which the entire enterprise has been plunged on purpose. Much about this stuff has been written by me in the early years of this Blog; better perhaps than I can summarize now or exactly recall…I am right now intensely in pain from rheumatoid in both feet, and concentration on syntax is hard.
I’m reminded of the prattish phrase “ever-closer union” – as though even a metaphysical act of union is capable of being executed infinitely.