The amount of government spending continues to rise and more rises are forecast for the future (page 86 here) yet our domestic services are under austerity; the demands of government have increased to give us masses of new rules and regulations; the state intervenes in our day to day lives on a massive scale, and many local decisions are overridden by distant authorities.
These trends have been accompanied with rising social tensions at home and in foreign relations around the world.
Living standards are coming down and people are looking for others to blame. Social and racial tensions are on the rise. Rioting took place on a massive scale in London and Athens and other several other European cities last year. The last few years have seen the appearance of anti-Islamisation marches, home grown terrorists, and twice as many people voting for fascist parties. Tensions have risen between various European nations and between the west and the east, most notably with Iran.
What forces can we attribute to our nation’s shift towards ever more government? And should we be worried?
Is the civil unrest on our streets and our lack of social cohesion a result of this political move to the left? What can we learn from history?
What changes do we need to make, as a country, in order to unite our people and preserve the peace? Could it already be too late?
* * *
"No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
James Madison
In times of war, freedoms are curtailed. While at war, the government ceases to be merely a protector of liberties and rights; it ceases to be a facilitator of private enterprise; it ceases to devote its time to fulfilling the multiple and diverse aspirations of its citizens and instead devotes all its time and attention and resources on one single objective – winning the war. In the case of all-out war, like WWII, very few people are free to pursue their own goals; whole industries are nationalised, able-bodied males are subscripted, resources are rationed, currency is debased, and democracy is suspended.
more war >>> less freedom
Today’s wars are not as outright as WWII, but similar traits can already be seen with regard to our freedoms. The so called ‘war on terror’ has been likened to a war on liberty, most notably in the USA with the dictatorial Patriot Act and intense airport security, and less noticeably with inflation / rising living costs - a direct result of the government’s money creation activities and the sky high spending levels needed to sustain its military supremacy.
Here in the UK, we also see negative effects of our presence in the Middle East and our alliance with the USA. Our diplomatic connections with Iran have been severed following the attack on our embassy in Tehran. Fuel prices rise as our trade links with Middle Eastern countries are diminished, and London will be on high alert for the Olympic games.
So long as our government keeps waging war, we will all keep having to pay for it through rising living costs and less freedom to live our lives in the way we choose.
It is important to distinguish between defence military spending and overseas military spending. The former aims to protect a country’s citizens with intelligence and a well equipped force to deal with the unexpected, whereas the latter expends enormous sums of money in interventions which drain our resources, tire our forces, and often create even more enemies in the process.
Surely all would agree that although a strong military is desirable in an uncertain world, we should aim for a foreign presence based upon trade and cooperation and limit our foreign military presence to only the most essential circumstances. With many tyrannical dictators still in power in other parts of the world, the case for intervention is often made. But it is rarely the best approach.
 |
| Obama insists his approach to Iran is 'diplomatic' |
Foreign interventions, rarely achieve the proposed objective of ‘freeing’ the people from oppression. Economic sanctions can be likened to an act of war as they stop goods and finances from entering a country and military engagements risk strengthening support for the dictator or even replacing one repressive regime with another.
Economic sanctions may also backfire and help to support the legitimacy of the regime. Sanctions serve to protect the government’s industries from foreign competition and force the citizens to be dependent on the government’s information and services. In other words they serve to ensure that the current regime remains in power.
A country cannot give democracy to another; people must free themselves. But this does not mean there is nothing we can do to help.
The best way to encourage democracy in another country is to open up as much trade and freedom of information as possible. This has the effect of empowering the country’s citizens with knowledge and foreign friendships and business relationships and therefore makes them vital to the health of the country. It also strengthens international ties with the country’s citizens and businesses, making it dangerous to lose the support of the international community.
The approach being pursued currently by the USA and the EU with regard to Iran, has so far been one of economic isolation – the exact opposite of this.
* * *
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left"
Bertrand Russell
This phrase is most commonly interpreted not in reference to the political spectrum, but as a play on words, meaning that once in a state of war, it no longer matters who was right, only who is left standing in the end. Interestingly however, it does bear some significance to the political landscape preceding the decision to instigate war.
less democracy >>> more war
Many people have enemies; but in a democracy with reasonable freedom of information, war can always be avoided through the will of the majority. In an autocratic regime, the dictator can control all the country’s resources to achieve his own goals. When decisions are taken by an individual or a small elite group on behalf of the population or information is controlled by the state, then a country can be taken to war without the people’s consent or people can be tricked into believing that war is in their interests. In other words, war is when dictators get their way. It is when the government is in a position to instigate war without consulting the people.
Dictatorships can of course come in many forms, and are not just limited to the far left / communist strain of thought. However, in the absence of dire circumstances that warrant radical decisions and the emergency nationalisation of resources, it is generally the left that advocates more government employment and state control of resources, and it is the right that fights for more private sector control of resources and less government interference.
more socialism >>> less democracy
A society in which a large proportion of the country’s resources are centrally controlled is called socialism. There are many different forms of socialism, which range from common ownership of resources on local and enterprise levels, to common ‘social’ resource ownership administrated by the state.
When the number of people employed by the state is increasing, this trend will tend to continue. As more people become dependent on state funding, the socialist government increases its base of support and the right is demonised for proposing cuts that will cost people their jobs.
Eventually the system reaches a point where the minority are paying taxes to support the majority and too few people are engaged in the competitive sector of the economy, inevitable economic problems start to appear. As demand falls and economic activity slumps, the security and stability of a state job and pension is rationally valued more highly than the uncertainty of a private sector more entrepreneurial endeavour, and the state continues to grow. Surviving and succeeding becomes no longer about risking time and money on private investments, but instead about chasing the best government positions and sucking up to those in power.
As more industries become subsidised or nationalised, whole cross sections of society become dependent on the state. With such a large percentage of resources under state control, power becomes increasingly more centralised and the will of the ruling class ripples through the whole population.
This slide from socialism into totalitarianism is what occurred in Germany in the 1930s. A combination of hard economic times, civil unrest and dependence on socialism led the people to slowly turn their backs on democracy.
It is important to remember that ‘far right’ label commonly given to fascist parties, like the BNP, is not an accurate description of their politics. People automatically associate racism with the far right, but these fascist parties advocate policies more akin to socialism and the far left. They do not want free markets. They want centralised command, high tariffs, protected markets, repatriation of immigrants and full employment in the form of guaranteed jobs for ‘indigenous’ people. It is like communism for one specific racial group.
The BNP call themselves nationalists but they reject the very nature of these islands and their historical development through the immigration of many different peoples. They are an anti-British party. The true patriot recognises that we do not have an ethnic conception of nationality in this country (as put very eloquently here).
* * *
The March of the Left and the swing to the right
In times of peace, the right wing is heavily criticised. They are attacked for being ‘little Englanders,’ or ‘xenophobes,’ or ‘racists’ etc. The youth are attacked for being ‘skinheads,’ uneducated or uncultured. Of course, if war does arrive, this is the first group of people that we rely on – “come on son, time to fight for your country!”
Nationalism, despite all of its negative connotations, was what saved the day in WWII. The allied nations were fighting for the freedom of all nations. They were fighting so that France could remain France, and that Britain could remain Britain. It was thanks to their nationalism, that we remained as free nations – free peoples, with our own identities, living under our own rules.
 |
| Jean Monnet, one of the 'fathers' of European Unity |
After WWII, the European leaders blamed nationalism for the wars that had devastated the continent. This was their fundamental mistake. However given the error in their diagnosis, their decisions to think progressively and begin the process of pooling their national sovereignties were made with high minded humility and noble intentions. The ECSC was to be the beginning of a supra national government and the inception of a single European identity.
In the UK we created the NHS and subsequently expanded our welfare system to include many more luxuries. Our cities and industries needed repairing and many young men had died on the continent, so many immigrants were welcomed into Britain to take the many jobs on offer. We were at peace, and living standards were rising, so nobody had anything to complain about. The welfare state and the population continued to expand, and the left marched on.
less nationalism >>> more socialism
These post WWII waves of progressive thought are now beginning to disintegrate. Now that the European Union and the welfare state are starting to buckle under their own weight, and now that immigration is seen as a burden instead of a blessing, nationalisms are starting to return quite visibly. It is now an exciting time to be on the right. All over Europe, right wing parties are gaining momentum as people long for the revival of their national identities.
In order for a free democratic society to function, there must be some kind of national identity – a demos. There must be a natural allegiance to one’s neighbour for the society to bond and for people to feel like they are all on the same team. When states are created without a demos, such as in Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, order can only be maintained through the means of force.
We currently have a crisis of nationalism in England. We have always been taught to express humility within the United Kingdom. Englanders are encouraged to call themselves British before English; we have a parliament where Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can vote on England’s legislation, whereas English MPs have no vote in non-English legislation; and we are all subordinate to a European Government that makes many decisions on our behalf. Our democracy has been vitiated and the English identity has been marginalised.
The influence of the European Union, and the changing face of England due to mass immigration has caused a rise in English nationalism as a political force. The Scottish are rebelling against this rise, and may even leave the union as a result. This yearning for more national identity has turned many white people inwards towards their older English roots, and the St George’s flag has become somewhat associated with the far right and racism. Many immigrants are left feeling that there is no common British identity for them to assimilate into.
We must restore English nationalism so that we can again become one nation. Only when we succeed in halting the march of the left will our country once again regain its national identity, and will we rise high above the road to serfdom.
Let it be that this happens soon, before we lose our most cherished of freedoms.
No comments:
Post a Comment