AFTER THE TROJAN HORSE scandal there is a revival of the old 'we must
teach our children British values' ploy by our politicians to try and convince
the public that they are doing something about the Birmingham scandal. Both
Gove and Cameron are making these noises; but this is all they are, noises;
just a kind of spin doctor's muzak . For it is hard nowadays, in this
multicultural society with its slide into European federalism, to know any
longer what British values and the values associated with it, actually mean.
Still, in today's Daily Telegraph, its Telegraph View
tries to enlighten it readers and gives ten examples. I would, first of all,
take issue with the second of the Telegraph's examples which states '… the sovereignty of
the Crown in Parliament. The Lords, the Commons and the monarch constitute the
supreme authority in the land. In recent years this has been extended to the
Supreme Court." A very sound example
you will say, and I would agree; but the 'sovereignty of the Crown and
Parliament' is under constant threat from Europe; where our laws are becoming
ever more subservient to European laws which trump English.
It is the intention
of Brussels to be the sole lawmaker ruling over the continent. The Daily Telegraph knows this, just as they
know that this and other European nation states will be dissolved into
provinces within Europe, if federalism meets with its desired end. And no kind
of negotiated reform by Cameron will change this…and if there were a few tweaks
made that he could sell to the British public: they would be recalibrated and returned
back his successor, whether Tory or
Labour.
The third
definition concerns tolerance; '… no one
should be treated differently on the basis of belonging to a particular group.
By the same token, all parties, sects, faiths and ideologies must tolerate the
existence of their rivals. On the other hand, there should be no toleration at
all of unequal treatment of men and women'
Tolerance
has become an all encompassing virtue of liberalism without any prescriptive
use, unless it runs counter to their politically correct set agenda. This is
because, like such concepts as love and happiness; little thought has been
given to the exceptions. I once more agree with most of the Telegraph's third
definition. Who but a racist could not? And anyone who seeks to take issue with
the degree of such righteous tolerance, runs the risk of (if not by the Telegraph)
then by the PC environment we are forced to suffer from being called a racist.
Now
the Telegraph's third definition reads like a United Nation's wish list of
liberal naiveté. First of all there are aspects of the human condition whereby
intolerance also becomes a virtue. Intolerance of arranged marriages, honour
killings, female genital mutilation, homophobia; and the racist implications
behind the selecting of young susceptible white girls for gang rape by Asian
men in Rochdale and Oxford.
However
the most guileless of the Telegraph's third definition refers to that part
which states; ' By the same token, all
parties, sects, faiths and ideologies must tolerate the existence of their
rivals…' If this is not wishful thinking then I know not what is. It may be
a modern interpretation of British values[1],
but unlike the first, it is not an historical definition. For multiculturalism
is a modern ideological implant started by empire hating Labour governments,
and has been continued by the none 'nasty' Tory Party under Cameron.
LET US MOVE on to example number seven: '… institutions that are quintessentially
British and capture and reflect its character. They would include the monarchy,
the Armed Forces, the Church and, yes, the BBC.' Once again this seems straightforward. Until,
that is, the last institution mentioned which even the Telegraph knows will
cause controversy; the, ' and, yes, the BBC.' At one time almost 100 per cent of the papers
readers would have nodded in agreement to including the BBC.
The
BBC is an institution which taxes people under penalty of imprisonment or a
fine for none payment - there is no choice. The BBC garners £3.7 billion
annually in this fraudulent way - fraudulent, because it is also a tax on the
ownership of a television set as well as on watching the BBC.
Given
its current (30 year) bias toward the liberal agenda in politics, on Europe,
and its promotion of multiculturalism, all of which it effectively
propagandises for: why should I, a Conservative who sees all sense of
Britishness, being filtered and made slowly extinct, by institutions like the
BBC, have to pay the licence fee, let alone regard it as an example of Britishness?
I have taken issue with only three
of the ten examples of what the Telegraph sees as Britishness. What the
Telegraph should have done was just publish the tenth and leave it at that; it
is so apt that I quote it in full: '…in what is by no means an exhaustive list,
is patriotism – not in the pretended sense derided by Johnson as “the last
refuge of the scoundrel”, but real and generous love of country. It is,
therefore, hard to believe that the nation itself is at risk less than 100 days
from now, when Scotland votes on whether to sunder it after more than 300
years. The debate about “British values” would then take on a very different
perspective.
Finally,
here is a suggestion for the Government. If ministers believe so strongly in
the concept of British values, then let the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta on
June 15 next year be a national holiday.'
Great
Britain as a nation state is under a far greater threat to its survival as a
nation than at any time under Hitler - this time from European federalism.
There is a real threat to its internal culture and traditional values, which are
being corroded daily by the increasing multicultural nature of British society,
and its adjutant, political correctness; orchestrated by the liberal hegemony
that governs us in the provinces from metropolitan London where they live a
dream-like perception of their own self importance.
[1] The first definition was; "it
would emphasise the rule of law, and specifically the common law tradition that
can be traced back to before the Norman Conquest. Our society
is based on the idea that we all abide by the same rules, whatever our wealth
or status. As Thomas Fuller said in 1733, “Be ye never so high the law is above
you.”
No comments:
Post a Comment