“The greatest pleasure in life is doing what other people say you cannot do.”(Attributed to Walter Bagehot)
Some are suggesting that, while it was clear what the Brexit vote was against, it may be less clear what is was for. The memory of independence from supranational masters may – even for the English – be distant. Like those with Stockholm Syndrome, the Remainers seem happier to stay locked behind the bars of technocratic rule.
Friedrich Hayek, as long ago as 1944, wrote:
“It is true that the virtues which are less esteemed and practiced now – ndependence, self-reliance, and the willingness to bear risks, the readiness to back one’s own conviction against a majority, and the willingness to voluntary cooperation with one’s neighbours – are essentially those on which an individualist society rests. Collectivism has nothing to put in their place, and in so far as it already has destroyed them it has left a void filled by nothing but the demand for obedience and the compulsion of the individual to what is collectively decided to be good.”
Have politicians and the media become so conditioned to this negative mindset of collective obedience, that the void cannot be filled, or can a People’s House of Lords fill that void with new optimism?
In Part I I wrote how the People can build a better future by taking back power into their own hands. But people-power is not, as the socialists would have us believe, the power to subvert and destroy, as means to the end of “building a Utopia”. We know that this gives free vent to all the worst excesses. Neither, as the capitalists would say, is it the power to spend and invest freely: what if the choices are all controlled?; nor, as religions will say, the power to perform acts that will bring the glory of a supreme being into their lives: what if the supreme being’s thoughts were just delusions?
I also do not mean more PC, right-on, one-world, “endless revolution towards a better planet”. This “New Age” concept has no future any more and we have all realised that it is just a con-trick. It is a new religion just as duplicitous as many others have been. And there is something wrong where the values of revolutionary “progress” allow any “deserving group” to dictate change to an entire society, or for a PC mainstream media to proclaim as “normal” or self-evident that any group, dictating its own cultural norms, is to be heard within a society that on the global scale is in a small minority. This is social engineering, and it uses “gaslighting” techniques to re-write the past, causing ordinary neighbourly standards to be swept away.
Anyone who remembers a better past knows that there is nothing “progressive” about constant change. Since the 50s the populations of MENA have mushroomed some five-fold. Economies that do not have the capacity and agricultural basis to sustain themselves have been sweetened with all kinds of promises from the West, later to be either bombed or infiltrated in the name of “humanitarian democratic change”.
For instance, Syria’s population has rocketed from 4m to c.20million; only a very mature economy could come near to managing such enormous upheavals that come in tandem with the rapid IT revolution and access to concepts and views of a way of life that is out of control. The “promise” of a “better life” leapfrogging hundreds of years of painful discovery by mature post-industrial societies is fake, and its values cannot be taught by pinning up notices in public swimming pools about groping defenceless women. There is a reason why the West underwent the progressive emancipation of women from as far back as the age of romantic chivalry in the Middle Ages, namely that under a healthy social contract, embodied in the principles of a common law, women already had equal and even superior status to men, and were honoured, not chattel.
These wrong turnings on a collective scale – where a whole society is duped into accepting new social norms and into believing that the “old world/ways” are somehow “wrong” – are highly selective. It is a view of “progress” that serves an ideological goal of social revolution and is akin to the way that sociopaths work when denying the factual view of reality of their victims.
Psychologists since Carl Jung have been alerting us to the need for “individuation” – that is to say a state of individual wholeness that does not lead to that person having an unhealthy need to believe in indoctrination, dressed up as normality and justified by dogmatic observances. A clear-minded, alert state is not afraid of speaking out against the machinations of evil-minded groups intent on pressurising society into fearful acceptance of changes that were never wished and never given permission for. Jung’s book “The Undiscovered Self” (1958) was dedicated to showing how a collective complex such as Communism or Nazism, or ideological religion, is the enemy of the self-sovereign human being.
Sociopathic games such as these allow the perpetrators of enforced changes to blame their victims, justifying the worst atrocities that allow them to subvert, enslave and kill, in the name of “progress” – as did the Nazis, Fascists, Maoists, Stalinists, International Communists, “democratic humanitarian” globalists, as well as religions based on the the Dark Age view of a cruel sky god who in the name of “love” calls upon his adherents to slaughter, rape and convert. It has taken the West over a thousand years to escape the Dark Ages of ghastly, distorted religions that are both self-hating and dangerously destructive which we see again today raising their ugly head. Countless reforms and the rediscovery of the principles of rational Enlightenment, followed by the insights of psychology, have gradually enabled us to be free of what enslaved the minds of most of the planet.
From the 1930s onwards, observing the madness engulfing the world yet again, psychologists believed that without a better understanding of the workings of the mind supposedly “good” intentions, dressed up as righteousness and religiosity, have always cast a shadow of destruction across humanity. Today, the misguided “do-gooding” idealists, “experts” and planners continue in the same vein to dictate what is right for people. In an age of almost total self-obsession and self-analysis, people are as much as ever removed from true power over the direction of their own lives.
We need to wake up from the Marxist and religious programming that claims that the solid values of the past are “vestiges of an oppressive system of class-based exploitation”, or that a certain privileged “elite” – like a goullish priesthood that survives on spreading madness – “has all the answers”. Good neighbourliness is not opening the doors to antagonistic, even atavistic groups that seek to destroy the values that it has taken generations to build.
I am reminded of the words in Homer’s epic The Odyssee (Europe’s oldest poem), where the suitors, made welcome in Odysseus’ absence and treated generously – food, lodging, rest and respect – are extremely rude to Penelope and Telemakhos after the latter show the suitors their highly civilised hospitality. Next, when Telemakhos tells the goddess Athena (the protector of his people) of the suitors’ rude behaviour at the beginning of the poem, he is disturbed:
“For now the Lords of the islands, / … are here courting my mother; and they use/ our house as if were to plunder. / …Meanwhile they eat their way through all we have, / and when they will, they can demolish me.”
What makes the behaviour these guests bad “xenia” is the way they go about it. They impose themselves on the household, devouring the livestock, consuming the wine, and insulting their host. The custom of xenia was, to the Greeks, the mark of civilization. This not only takes generations to establish, and can be wiped out almost overnight, but needs to be carefully protected by the established national Constitution. This is what Odysseus learnt and what this oldest of stories teaches us. We should not give away priceless possessions won at great cost, to anyone. That power to determine our destiny resides in the People having constitutional powers, not in the State or Supra-State.
Without the People having the authority to check the power of government – as a powerful 2nd chamber would do – there would be nothing between even a democratically-elected government and total rule. People must be trusted to determine their own futures, free of dogma whether imposed by religion, “technocratic experts” or PC conformity. All these things are relayed from above by interests that talk of the “needs” of the planet but more often produce the opposite. Even if they break every single one of their manifesto pledges, they end up only pleasing themselves since there is no constitutional mechanism to stop them. The vain “leaders” who want to “be remembered in history”, like their equivalents in the world of here-today-gone-tomorrow self-promoting celebrities, or in blind religious subservience, need to start listening to a free People who express their will directly to a People’s House, a reformed PR House of Lords.
Let’s set free the voice of the People! Then, we will have a true Constitution to balance the vested interests (political/religious/ideological/financial) that tend to dictate over this planet.Walter Bagehot said in 1867:
“Free government is self-government. A government of the people by the people. The best government of this sort is that which the people think best.”