Who made Liberty an Orphan?

There was a thought provoking post on these pages, some days ago from Witterings from Witney, on the manipulation of language and the part that such distortion of English has played in delivering the country into its present dreadful plight. A topic on which my blog has had much to say down the years.

Yet Newspeak was a known danger, of which we had all long been warned by George Orwell, and the disappearance of truth from Government was well underway, long before the arrival of Tony Blair in 1997. We are well passed the point of concern over the loss of the true meaning of our language, in my view.

The blog that hosts these pages and provides a platform for myself and my fellow scribblers, is dedicated on its URL “4liberty”, and to advance a return to what that one emotive word represents. So what or who caused the demise of the all the other freedoms which gave Liberty its birth?

In browsing my blog in search of milestones on the path towards the mutilation of plain English, I came upon a posting, made just over two years ago, and in its turn quoting an earlier post made some six years earlier even than that. The culprits in the destruction of both our freedoms and liberty, are clearly identified within the words and quotes of these two postings, mostly not my own.

The more recent post of 2009 is titled, Britain’s Constitutional Crisis” and is linked from here. It is tagged EU Conspiracy, which today appears somewhat misleading for the conspiracy was surely that of Britain’s politicians, continuing even to this day, over the handing of our nation to the EU. This too, of course, after thoughtful consideration, is merely an avoidance of the truth. So what did kill the parent’s of Liberty in Britain?

We perhaps should first ask ourselves who or what such parents were. Honesty, integrity, straight-talking and fair-dealing would be on the list. Respect for the law, individualism over corporatism are possibly more controversial, but would be high on any list that I would propose. All must hold their own ideas, some may believe that our present day society comes closer to an ideal of Liberty than at any time in the past. I do not!

The posts from Ironies and Ironies Too, linked above, delve into the mechanics of how our freedoms were destroyed and rail against the politicians and the establishment who accomplished these treacherous and clearly quite astounding feats. The true murderers who left Liberty abandoned were, of course, ourselves, accepting lies, wallowing in consumerism, accepting affluence and leading lives of lethargy, as we chose to pretend the world was other than what we knew it to be.

This past week, it has been suggested that the national assets of one former sovereign state be disposed of by an outside body of foreigners, and that even the tax receipts of that nation be gathered by another outside foreign authority. The media have chosen to keep the British people in almost complete ignorance of such proposals, ostensibly from Holland and relating to Greece. Even the EU Commission has condemned such a move, yet in the UK, virtual silence and a huge pretense that we can even still influence the game of football internationally and the sacking of a TV celebrity dominated the headlines. Could we have believed eight, or even two, years ago that such a possibility could ever have been considered in the EU as it was sold to us by our political classes? WHY are they not today being challenged over the mere discussion of such a proposal?

We, the British people, made Britain’s Liberty an orphan, the price of liberty is constant vigilance, we have chosen to even cease looking! We continue as blind today as if our eyes had been stabbed with hot irons when Heath first took us into the EU, on a package of lies, in 1972!

11 comments for “Who made Liberty an Orphan?

  1. Sackerson
    June 4, 2011 at 6:48 am

    Yes, the kinds of things that libertarians are arguing for / about here are linked to the lack of democracy. I don’t think most here would actually advocate the complete absence of law and government, what irks is the imposition of rules by what has become government without real democratic legitimacy.

    • June 5, 2011 at 6:18 am

      We can see what ‘the complete absence of law and government’ looks like; it looks like Somalia.

  2. June 4, 2011 at 7:35 am

    Can somebody tell me what text I should use and font size to avoid my posts appearing as the one above is presently displayed. I have given up on the Word Press editor and am now using Windows Live Writer to prepare drafts for this site. Thanks in advance. 😕

    • June 4, 2011 at 8:32 am

      It’s showing okay from here. When I use Blogjet, I only format the occasional word using bold or italics. Otherwise, you shouldn’t need to do anything regarding formatting as the CSS in the theme takes care of it.

      If I use a reference and put a footnote to that effect, I will use a smaller font. Windows Writer has that facility on the toolbar. click the “A” icon.

  3. June 4, 2011 at 8:36 am

    It’s also worth pointing out that I have a post in the queue that picks up on the same theme…

  4. WitteringWitney
    June 4, 2011 at 8:39 am

    Many thanks for the link to my earlier post and many thanks for your well-crafted post.

    We have, as a nation, sleepwalked into the situation in which we find ourselves because as you say we have not been vigilant. We have allowed politicians to lie to us, we have allowed the state to become a provider, rather than a facilitator through their desire to indulge in social engineering.

  5. ivan
    June 4, 2011 at 9:30 am

    What has been done is done.

    The real question is, what do we do about it? Can it be reversed and if so how?

    After we have reversed it is the time to look for the cause just so it is made more difficult for it to happen again. Analysing what has gone wrong at the moment is an interesting exercise but does not point to a way forward. Until we look at a way forward, and push for it, we are no better than the bulk of the population that do nothing – in fact we may be worse because we know better.

    • June 5, 2011 at 6:19 am

      It can only be reversed if we separate from the governance of the EU. Without that, we can do very little.

  6. June 4, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    A system of direct democracy, tied to the potential created by the internet, with constraints similarly available to those of the Swiss Cantons in their system of regular referenda, would have been perfectly feasible at the time of V. Giscard d’Estaings Convention. He avoided the issue and chose to interpret the warnings of Karl Popper, regarding tyranny, in a manner completely contrary to that clearly intended by that great thinker.

    The problem at the time of the Laeken Convention (read the declaration at http://european-convention.eu.int/pdf/lknen.pdf and weep), and the Intergovernmental Convention that followed, as I saw it (I would be happy to be corrected on this point by either David Heathcote-Amory or Gisela Stewart, the MPs who represented Britain’s Parliament at that farce),decided, IMO in advance, that a move towards European Democracy, would be unacceptable to the National Parliaments and established parties. Namely it would be too great a power grab.

    Eventually, what was to be the democratic highlight of the entire sham, an elected EU President, was even dumped.

    Later I ceased to peddle the idea of a Swiss style, pan-European, direct democracy with large percentages of the former nations being awarded blocking powers – (ie 75% of all member nations states must pass constitutional matters by at least 66% in each such state,for example, all along Swiss lines) – because in enacting the (Constitutional Treaty, EU Reform Treaty,) Lisbon Treaty and engaging in so many underhand and devious ruses such as ignoring referendum results, it was clear that the EU itself had become so thoroughly corrupt, that any further voluntary transfer of power to that organisation had become unthinkable. (This continues, see my Ironies Too post today on “reinforced assistance” WHAT THE HECK!!!!!)

    So Britain will soon be left to resolve its own democratic disaster on its own and without being a part of a gradual transfer of democratic institutions to a body itself directly responsible to voters, by regular referenda on which all could easily vote by use of the internet, as I had originally briefly dreamed). If Britain is to have any funds remaining to tackle the huge problems it will soon face, the earliest possible end to further monetary transfers to the EU is becoming an imperative. Resolving that no solution for our domestic difficulties can come from the EU is the clearly missing first mental step that needs to be taken by our Coalition Leaders.

    The abject failure of the convention that followed the Laeken Declaration, mostly lies with three people appointed to lead it by the European Council Mr V. Giscard d’Estaing as Chairman of the Convention, Mr G. Amato and Mr J.L. Dehaene as Vice-Chairmen, all abetted by those who attended and the European Council members themselves.

    But in Britain the lies needed to sustain the illusion of continued national independence and the suspension of press reporting on the issue is hugely suspicious and has grown to today’s situation of an almost complete news blackout! Where in the UK MSM can you read of the proposed taxation and privatisation powers that have been debated in Europe over the past week, as discussed on my blog.

  7. June 4, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    Good post, although I’m not sure I agree about the role of language. Language has always been used to mislead, mostly by conventions on what constitutes normal or polite conversation. In other words, we bias public utterances by restricting the range of admissible topics and what it is said about them. The BBC misleads more by omission than direct distortion.

    In that sense, Orwell got it wrong, maybe intentionally for dramatic effect. It isn’t so much the words that matter, but the range of socially permitted topics and points of view. Big Brother had already achieved a deep and all-pervasive behaviour control using extreme fear as a way to condition the population into strict conformity of behaviour and language. Orwell indicates this was achieved before Newspeak was introduced.

    • June 4, 2011 at 5:40 pm

      Good points on language and the BBC ommissions. I did not intend to shrug off, nor to make light of the distortion that now crops up everywhere, so that certain words come to mean almost the exact opposite of what they once were. What I tried to convey was that the misuse of language has taken us so far towards other miseries, that correcting that seems the wrong place to start.

      Nothing can be achieved unless the entire mindset of those heading the Coalition,(plus the Establishment behind it) can be almost completely reversed, as I tried to put across in my follow up post on this comment thread.

      An admission of guilt from a major figure such as the editor of the FT, or a so-callled ‘establishment pillar’ such as Lord Patten, owning up to all the perks he still receives from the EU and an admission that he and Major got it totally wrong would be a start! Some previous EU federalist fanatic needs to step from the shadows and start revealing the hidden facts!

Comments are closed.