Her Majesty's Government Is Rotten To The Core
They are deeply corrupt as David Selbourne
says. They are spending billions then walking away into very well paid jobs
after. They have their snouts in the trough and we are being screwed.
Her Majesty's Government Is Rotten To The Core
This political swine flu is about more than receipts
The philosopher David Selbourne says that the present parliamentary crisis [ over expense fraud ] is only one symptom of a larger corruption of public and civic institutions
On 6 December 1648, Captain Thomas Pride, an officer in Cromwell’s army, stood at the door of the House of Commons chamber. He and his colleagues on that day prevented 140 MPs from taking their seats and arrested over 40 of them. The door was then locked, and the key — together with the Mace — was carried away by a Colonel Otley. Today, Britain is in the midst of another lacerating, and self-lacerating, parliamentary crisis which has long to go before its course is run. Political swine flu has not only doomed the Labour government, but damaged parliament — the ‘origin of all just power’ — and the country’s self-esteem.
The range of those who succumbed to parliament’s ruinous ethical disorders has been staggeringly wide. Cabinet and shadow cabinet, political war horses and newcomers, men and women, left and right, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim and Jew are all involved. Tory toffs and Labour toughs caught this flu together; not surprising when their snouts were so close, and they were feeding from the same trough on the trampled pigsty ‘centre ground’, or Animal Farm, of British politics.
Comment has not got the full measure of this: a betrayal of parliament and the citizen-body by parliamentarians themselves, led by their Speaker. The torrent of publicity given to MPs’ wretched expense claims for TV sets and scotch eggs has itself got in the way of true judgment. Installing a home cinema, removing a wasps’ nest, spending a night in a spa — all at public cost — are relative trivia. Even the concentration upon MPs’ publicly funded profiteering, their false mortgage claims, tax evasions and ‘flippings’ of second-home allowances has been too narrow.
Instead, it is the moral disablement of parliament which is the greatest harm it has suffered. Both individually and collectively, its members have been rendered unfit (in the eyes of most of the public) to pass judgment on others, to make the law, to represent the interests of their electors and thus to fulfil their political functions. Is a second-home allowance fiddler, or a serial tax-dodger, an acceptable minister of the crown? Can the holder of three or four ‘outside jobs’ devote himself to the public weal?
And when a tainted Speaker can be praised for the ‘dignity’ with which he has presided over the corruption of parliament, and be elevated upon his ouster to an already degraded House of Lords — only to be succeeded by a new Speaker himself accused of ‘flipping’ — it can be no surprise if the ghost of Captain Pride should be stirring once more.
But the corruption of parliament is only part of a larger corruption of Britain’s public and civic institutions, whose ethos was once a notable aspect of the national culture. This ethos has been devalued, throughout British society, by the marketisation — or moral free-for-all — let loose in recent years upon the ‘public sector’ and its servants, of whom MPs are in theory the exemplars.
The greed of parliamentarians is merely one manifestation of the subordination of civic virtues to the privatised pursuit of self-interest, where having is more important than doing. Moreover, political parties in a marketised society cannot be run in the interests of the public. They are run in the interests of their own apparatchiks, MPs among them, and of their various clients and donors. The banker’s unwarranted bonus and inflated pension, and the parliamentarian’s indulgences and thefts from the public purse, are indistinguishable. They are all the market rewards of place, claimed without regard to consequence for others.
This is plainly a cross-party matter, as we have seen. Indeed, there is little to choose, morally, between the mainstream parties, even if the Tories have gained (disproportionately) from Labour’s failures and defects. Poorly led, increasingly memberless, and dependent on benefactions and bribes, none has been able to establish in the public mind what its fundamental aims are, apart from the gaining of office.
Again, comment has not got the measure of this. Part of the reason is the usurpation of debate in the mass media by many who are unfitted, from inexperience or unwisdom, to measure the true scale of what has gone wrong. This media failure is part of the political crisis itself. There are [ very few ] exceptions: Private Eye, for instance, deserves praise for its untiring coverage of the debasement of British public institutions, and for its accounts of the damage wrought, among other vast swindles, by the ‘private finance initiative’; PFI frauds dwarf the millions taken from the public purse by MPs.
And now, apart from re-learning Rousseau’s elementary lesson that the pursuit of self-interest is not enough to establish a common good, what is to be done? And who will lead the way? Here, we again face the dire problem of the waning of moral authority in so many once-respected British centres of influence and power. Quite apart from the loss of such authority by parliament, it has also been largely lost by the Established Church, the judiciary, the BBC, the suborned civil service and even by the monarchy; and, as it happens, by international institutions too, from the UN downwards. Moreover, there is no movement, moral or political, and whether of left or right, which is strong enough to purge the British body politic of its foulness.
It is for this reason that Britain’s parliamentary crisis is so troubling. Above all, it has seemed to confirm that, in a consumer society, notions of service and obligation have lost their traditional status. Indeed, so far had this gone among the representatives of the people that their mere whims and wants — for a ‘Manchu cabinet’ or a porn video at taxpayers’ expense — had come to be regarded as entitlements; as if there were an implied right, sanctioned by custom and practice, to steal and cheat.
When my book The Principle of Duty was first published in 1994, and knowing little of what was later to be revealed, I discussed its arguments at some length with members of parliament — including Jack Straw, Michael Howard, Iain Duncan Smith, Bill Cash, and David Willetts — in the hope that it might have some influence on public and party policy. The hope was naive: doctrines of rights, coupled with a belief in the moral autonomy of the individual, possess an easy primacy in our political culture over concepts of duty. In addition, there remains greater fear of a (phantom) ‘police state’, and of the ‘violation’ of our near-limitless liberties, than of the consequences of neglecting citizen values and duties.
Today, there is a void beneath our feet. In September 1654, Cromwell ringingly declared that the breaking of obligation was a ‘sad token of the last times’. These are not the last times. But the outbreak of political swine flu has been toxic, and will remain so until a true cure is found. A widespread loss of public regard for the parliamentary system cannot be afforded.
Nevertheless, the exposure of Commons corruption has been salutary, despite the contempt and anger it has aroused. For the disclosures have reminded us that there are more important badges of belonging than that of party, and that a democratic civil society must be protected from abuse of its freedoms, whether the abuses are committed by members of parliament or by others.
Resignations — or ‘stepping down’ while the going is good — deselections and prosecutions for fraud are therefore not merely to be welcomed but are essential; certain MPs, in particular, deserve to pay for having damaged the reputation of the Commons. But parliament, foolishly about to take a ten-week ‘summer break’ after having rushed to shut the stable door, is only one public institution among others which has been brought low; and a new Captain Pride is now being secretly prayed for by many. One day, those prayers may be answered.
David Selbourne’s The Principle of Duty is to be republished by Faber and Faber in October.
Jews Bully Pakistani Who Told The Truth [ 11 February 2014 ]
Actually she was unfair to the Nazis. They are nicer than the murderous thugs who brought us Gaza Massacre I, Gaza Massacre II, Gaza Massacre III et cetera. They kicked off with the Deir Yassin Massacre in 1948 and never looked back, except to laugh. This incident tells us about the power of the Jews, the same bullies who are harassing Dieudonné in France. It took two days for the Puppet Masters to force her to claim that she lied.
A British [ Pakistani in fact - Editor ] lawmaker has apologized for remarks comparing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to Jewish suffering during the Holocaust.
Yasmin Qureshi of the Labour Party made her apology in a statement Friday for remarks she made two days earlier to the British parliament.
“The debate was about the plight of the Palestinian people and in no way did I mean to equate events in Gaza with the Holocaust. I apologize for any offense caused,” she said. “I am also personally hurt if people thought I meant this.
“As someone who has visited the crematoria and gas chambers of Auschwitz, I know the Holocaust was the most brutal act of genocide of the 20th century and no one should seek to underestimate its impact.”
Qureshi had said on February 5, “Israel was founded because of what happened to the millions and millions of Jews who suffered genocide. Their properties, homes and land, everything, were taken away, and they were deprived of rights. Of course, many millions perished.
“It is quite strange that some of the people who are running the state of Israel seem to be quite complacent and happy to allow the same to happen in Gaza.”
Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, condemned the remarks.
“We expect our politicians to speak responsibly and sensitively about the past and about events today,” the Jewish Chronicle reported her as saying. “These lazy and deliberate distortions have no place in British politics.”
Labour Friends of Israel had called on Qureshi to apologize following the remarks.
Then Jews claim that they don't manipulate countries.
Her Majesty's Government Is A Corrupt Tyranny
Sean Gabb is England's leading Libertarian. Here Doctor Gabb writes more about Tyranny than Islam.
Plain Words about “Islamist Extremism”
By Sean Gabb
According to The Daily Telegraph, “[o]ne of the most serious challenges facing [England] is that of tackling religious extremism.” Apparently, some of the Moslems here are attempting “to seal Islamic communities off hermetically from the rest of society.” They are taking over state schools in the areas where they are settled, and imposing on them their own ideas of curriculum and behaviour. Girls are made to sit at the back of the class. Evolution is not taught. Christmas and Easter are not celebrated. Instead, there is fasting during Ramadan, and the call to prayer sounds through the playground. We are all supposed to think this very wicked and in need of action by the British State.
I disagree. Mass-immigration has not, by any reasonable standard, been a success. Even before it started, anyone with half a brain could have seen what was coming. Many people did see, and only stiff laws and a controlled media have been enough to keep the volume of complaint to a low rumble. It may be encouraging that the ruling class has finally chosen to notice and deplore some of the consequences. But I am not encouraged. The media drumbeat against “Islamist extremism” and “radicalisation” is not, I think, the prelude not to a frank discussion of where we are, but to the finishing off of what freedom remains in this country.
The phrase “Islamist extremism” may be fair comment. The mosques do seem to be filling up with ranting clerics, and with young men in beards who hang on their every word. More disturbing, though, than this change in itself is how politicians and the media have agreed to analyse it in quasi-medical terms. For example, Ofsted – a body set up by the Blair Government to control both public and private education – is claiming that schools do too little to “keep students safe from the risks associated with extremist views.”
Boris Johnson, the “Conservative” Mayor of London, goes further. For him, “[t]he most important question now is how we prevent other young men, and women, from succumbing to that awful virus: the contagion of radical Islamic extremism.”
Some respect has always been paid in England to the right to hold and communicate opinions. Epidemic diseases, on the other hand, are a matter of public health – of quarantine and vaccination, and even of compulsory treatment. Insist firmly enough that opinions are an illness, and censorship and brainwashing become therapy.
And, if unwelcome, these are opinions. Let us look at the nature of “Islamist extremism.” Its core message can be expressed in three propositions:
1. That the British State is committed to an American-led campaign of war and destabilisation throughout the Islamic world, and shares responsibility for millions of civilian deaths and maimings there;
2. That it is the duty of Moslems everywhere to come to the aid of their brothers and sisters when they are attacked;
3. That modern British society is so degenerate that the only moral response is to keep away from it.
These are not unreasonable propositions. The first is obviously true. After 1945, we put much of the Islamic world under the sway of brutally despotic puppet regimes, and kept these in place with arms and diplomatic support. More recently, we have been systematically replacing these regimes with failed states. You need to be stupid or a liar to claim that the Islamic world has any inherent capacity for liberal democracy. But if it has become a row of slagheaps reeking with human blood, that is largely our fault.
The second proposition is at least creditable. I wish it were interpreted less often as a duty for young men to blow themselves up in railway carriages, or to murder off-duty soldiers. To be fair, though, it hardly ever is. No one can say that the Moslems are harmoniously integrated into our national life. But the half dozen terrorist acts they have committed in all the years they have been settled among us are nothing set against the campaign of atrocity waged against us by Sinn Fein/IRA. So long as it is displayed with prudence, solidarity with your own is a fine thing. We might usefully learn some for the support of our kith and kin in Southern Africa and of our fellow Christians in places like Egypt and Pakistan.
Anyone who doubts the third proposition should try watching some British television, or looking at our newspapers. It may be that memorising reams of Koranic verses in Arabic will tend to narrow the understanding. But there are worse ways to bring up a child.
Our ruling class disagrees. The Education Secretary, Michael Gove – another “Conservative” – holds to the public health analysis. He has decreed that children are, by way of vaccination, to be taught “British values,” and that these include “democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.”
Fine words – a pity about their meaning. In modern England, democracy is the right to choose between competing sets of rogues, all with identical policies. The rule of law resides in half a million pages of chicanery and oppression. Individual liberty? The question mark alone answers that one. Respect and tolerance? Ditto. The “British values” children are to have rammed down their throats are nothing more than a duty of boundless obedience to the ruling class. Perhaps this has always been one of the functions of state education. But I cannot think of a ruling class in English history more risible in its quality, or hostile to the interests and values of ordinary people.
The Moslems are to be vaccinated out of their opinions. If that fails, they are to be medicated with the theft of their children. See Boris Johnson again: “A child may be taken into care if he or she is being exposed to pornography, or is being abused – but not if the child is being habituated to this utterly bleak and nihilistic view of the world that could lead them to become murderers.” Warming to his theme, he continues: “The law should obviously treat radicalisation as a form of child abuse. It is the strong view of many of those involved in counter-terrorism that there should be a clearer legal position, so that those children who are being turned into potential killers or suicide bombers can be removed into care – for their own safety and for the safety of the public.”
On the face of it, this is not an idle threat. The British State has a settled appetite for stealing children from their parents. In 2013, it even allowed its officials to cause an international incident. Allesandra Pacchieri, an Italian woman, came to England while heavily pregnant to attend a training course. She was a little too honest with the airport security about her mental health. Arrested and driven to a hospital, she was held down by the police, while social workers ordered the doctors to perform a caesarean. The child was taken straightaway into care. Despite outrage from the Italian authorities, she has never seen her child, and it has now been adopted by unnamed strangers.
Or there is the peculiar case of two Slovak Gypsy children. After allegations of “neglect,” they were taken from their parents and given for adoption by a homosexual couple. The parents went into court, claiming that homosexuality was regarded in their culture as an abomination, and that the children should be given back. Their case was dismissed by Lord Justice Munby, President of the Family Division. He explained that, while any judge should “respect the opinions of those who come here from a foreign land,” he had to judge matters according to English law and by reference to “the standards of reasonable men and women in contemporary English society.”
This is one of those cases that leaves you scratching your head. Does it show the current positioning here within the pc “hierarchy of the oppressed?” Do gay rights now trump anti-racism? Or is it an inventive way of telling East European Gypsies to go away and find some other rich country to pay their welfare benefits? Whatever the answer, Mr Johnson’s call for Moslem children to be stolen from their parents may be worth taking seriously.
Or is it? Look again at Proposition 2 above. Moslems believe in solidarity, and they practise solidarity. In August 2007, Haroon Zafaryab returned from prayers in a North London mosque to find that his car had been clamped, and that he would have to pay a £100 fine, plus £265 to have it released. He refused to pay and sat in his car, taking advantage of a law that prevents a vehicle from being towed away while someone is inside it. For the next thirty hours, he and the clamping authorities faced each other down. His other three wheels were clamped, and he was given more parking tickets that added up to £3,565. Mr Zafaryab got the full support of his community. Dozens of people stood round his car. Others brought him food and drink. In the end, the authorities accepted a token payment of £100, before running away.
When did a native Englishman last get this level of support? More to the point, can you imagine how many armed police would be needed to cover the removal of one child from a family of Islamic enthusiasts? For all they may huff and puff, the rulers of this country are cowards. They are willing to preside over mass-murder abroad. Threaten them with a good riot here, and they always back down.
So, what actually is happening with all this propaganda about opinions as a matter of public health? Well, I have limited evidence, but I do suspect that the apparent panic over “Islamist extremism” is a front for something else. This something else is probably a set of laws and procedures to legitimise the theft of children from white dissidents.
Though the BNP has collapsed, the UK Independence Party [ UKIP ] is doing well. Ignoring it has failed. Lies about its leaders and policies have failed. An alternative strategy would be to attack its activist base. This has already been attempted. In 2013, Rotherham City Council removed three children from the care of foster parents who were known UKIP activists. The officials said this presented a “safeguarding issue for the children.” On this occasion, the Council had to step back – uttering the usual claim that “lessons had been learned.” But the secret of government in this country is that the authorities are concentrated and homogenous in their opinions. We natives are mostly atomised and indifferent to what is done to others. Sooner or later, the war on “Islamist extremism” will be revealed as the fraud that it largely is. Then the inquisition our rulers are setting up to public acclaim will be turned loose on its real object – namely us.
And so, I denounce the war on “Islamist extremism.” Anyone who thinks men like Michael Gove and Boris Johnson are standing up to Political Correctness is a fool – as big a fool as those who believe that diversity is strength.
Errors & omissions, broken links,
cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if
you find any I am open to comment.
Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP Key. Home Page
Updated on 15/03/2017 08:27