Freedom, wealth creation, virtue

f4625bd62dTwice I came into contact with the day to day Muslim world – in Russia, more or less on a day to day basis over twelve years and back here with a Muslim family I know.

The latter, a Turkish family, were interesting, not being as orthodox as what we read about and yet they kept to the precepts and did have the Koran in the house and the other trappings. In Russia it was similar.

The world of severed limbs and bombs was just not something which ever cropped up and I was as accepted as a guest as anyone else. Muslim watchers would be quick to point out that over here, we’re in Dar al Harb whilst they are in Dar al Ahm thanks to our governments tolerating their carry-on.

My writing is essentially political. If I mention religious aspects, e.g. John 3:16, it’s in passing and the focus is on one basic precept – that the ordering of society in the Sermon on the Mount not only has much common sense to it and is the logical way for society to operate, given our human natures but it is also forgiving rather than punishing and so people can breathe with it.

Whilst the American system and all its flaws is still one of the best systems going to provide the mechanics of checks and balances, the moral aspect is best covered by the gospels and their precepts.

That there has never been a society where it has operated properly is down to the flaw Bill Whittle pointed out – that it induces and produces hypocrisy. If a person is amoral, which Them are trying to get this society to be, then even though there is no guilt, there is also no restraint and we reach a lawless stage where anything goes, including killing and grotesque deviance – in other words, you become unsafe in your own homes.

History says this is true.

I’ve seen this in Russia where most families have two and some have three doors to the entrances to their flats, including a steel outer door, plus bars on windows. A society which has to do that and which views neighbours with suspicion – one of the real consequences of socialism which both loosens people’s minds from the concept of yours and mine as well as loosens the moral compass from its base, whilst at the same time feeding their greed – that’s not a society you’d wish to be in.

Similarly, where religion takes hold, there is always a priestly class, from the Druids to the Archbishes and the potential for both corruption and control by the ungodly is immense. After all, where would you expect the ungodly to be – on the outer fringes, weeping and gnashing teeth or right in there, up in the high places, issuing directives and using scripture and pointy hats to keep the plebs under control? Meting out snippets of scripture to keep people compliant but not mentioning Ephesians 6:12?

The only sure way to safety is for society to have a code in place which guarantees room to move and space to breathe and speak and think and for centuries, this has been, roughly, the western nations which have had Christianity as its flagship religion and classical liberalism as its lip-service political ideal.

And it works, with one serious proviso below.

It did work – girls still got pregnant but not as many, it was frowned upon, people did cheat on their spouses but there was an atmosphere of constraint. People did not kill, in the main, to resolve a dispute or if they just didn’t like their partner. There was no amoral mandate to do those things or in other words, there was a Thou Shalt not in place.

It all comes down to percentages. Things now done by 80 or 90 percent were done by 10% back then and did not rule the society.

Where it was not ultra-orthodox, society could breathe and prosper, the work ethic was strong and being on the dole was shaming. The nation produced, e.g. in Sheffield and there was a pride in the nation.

The downside of a functioning nation of tolerance was that the intolerant were also allowed to take root and spread their poison but most people would shun those things. In an episode of Jeeves and Wooster, Spode in his Nazi uniform and with his marches is quietly shunned by the largely conservative middle-class and seen with bemusement by the upper.

There was enough elasticity in the society to live but in that were also the seeds of its doom which we are on the path to now. Where people are free to think, they are, as with Allende in Chile, free to vote in socialists and communists or even Themist parties. People’s stupidity is allowed free rein in the name of freedom.

Shakespeare wrote:

My love is as a fever longing still,
For that which longer nurseth the disease;
Feeding on that which doth preserve the ill,
The uncertain sickly appetite to please.
My reason, the physician to my love,
Angry that his prescriptions are not kept,
Hath left me, and I desperate now approve
Desire is death, which physic did except.
Past cure I am, now Reason is past care,
And frantic-mad with evermore unrest;
My thoughts and my discourse as madmen’s are,
At random from the truth vainly expressed;
For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright,
Who art as black as hell, as dark as night.

Concerning his dark lady, it could well concern society today. It’s all about someone becoming a slave to an obsession.

People’s love is shopping and porn, indiscriminate sex, X Factor and all the vacuous things which give control to Them, from the banksters to the sickos and shlockos. Even Strictly is tainted. By losing oneself in an obsession of materialism [Madonna], it is handing power to the purveyors of that.

We need to retain power within ourselves – every alcoholic knows that already. Similarly, if a “leader” steps up and has the answer, he is subject to, as Bill Whittle points out, something similar to the ring in Lord of the Rings – power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Cameron might have started idealistically, even Obama but as they came to see that they both had power over the people of the land yet were beholden to a greater dark power, in Cameron’s case the EU, the power became a drug and they couldn’t bear not to throw it about.

This is the flawed nature of the Westminster and American systems. This is why a benign autocracy is only possible at the start – Augustus, Caligula, Henry VIII. A politburo behind the figurehead is worse, for we don’t see who’s pulling the strings.

Soon, there is this talk of eliminating inefficiency and “reorganizing society” for good. In Philip Dru, Administrator; on pages 57-58, Colonel House [Wilson’s Them minder] wrote:

In a direct and forceful manner, he [Dru] pointed out that our civilization was fundamentally wrong, inasmuch, among other things, as it restricted efficiency; that if society were properly organized, there would be none who were not sufficiently clothed and fed.

There it is – the creation of a narrative.

Would I legislate to remove the sickness, the things people are obsessed by? Hell no, as that is precisely the N1 error – every time you call for a ban, you are handing govt yet more power, you are defining society in terms of govt itself until they become the arbiters themselves via the vast hydra of bureaucracy. The public sector becomes a giant blister, festering within.

No one person must have the power and if people’s hearts give their prime loyalty elsewhere, then govt never gets a grip on the people. They know this, which is why they are acting as they do.

How to get back to what we had?

Well, for a start, we have, in Yuri Bezmenov’s words, tainted people, hardwired into this narrative, fully believing they are on the way to a “more tolerant” society but going about it by giving govt power to enforce it, including in people’s private lives and the results are there for all to see. This constitutes about half the society – the types who would vote in a Barack Obama or Ed Millipede.

You can’t get to this nirvana via legislation. A societal code children are brought up with, combined with a strong classical liberal tradition is the best extant way to go.

Which is why tyrants want to stamp out both. And such people, under the guise of being the moderate or tolerant wing, also infest the Tories – Cameron, Clarke et al. Which is how Cameron is able to join Labour to push through legislation he wishes to impose on the nation. People who enjoy the accolade of tolerance but are actually the most intolerant people going.

The blogger who concentrates on abstracts like this rather than the everyday “he did this to him” at Westminster, is nowhere near as readable and yet, if people really do want an end to the direction we are falling, lawful rebellion is one thing but what comes after? Root causes then become important. As in Shakespeare above, why persist with the very things which are causing the malaise?

So we don’t replace a Cameron with a Farage, as Nigel might be a nice guy now but give him power and it will be the same story – Shakespeare and Bill Whittle are at one on this.


The results are catastrophic because people are given absolute power [mandate] to enforce that which they think is good for society and it doesn’t end well … ever. That is why we believe in diversifying power.

Barack Obama said the other day: “There are people out there saying don’t trust the govt. We are all the govt together, collectively.” That’s not true – I don’t have the power to take your money at gunpoint because I’m not in the govt but the govt does.

The President of a republic which values freedom should have gotten in front of those kids and said the opposite:

“You know enough about history to assume that everything I say is a lie, that every motive I have is base and self-serving, that every action I take has an ulterior motive and that every fact I quote is doubtful and needs to be checked.”

The only way is for everyone to be wedded to three principles:

1. Freedom

2. Wealth creation

3. Virtue

The former is even given lip service to by the left and it is the core value we must fight to preserve, just as all those poor sods in WWs 1 and 2 felt they were doing.

Wealth creation is really misunderstood by half the population. There is no national cake. It has to be produced and then we can share in that. But first it has to be created and then maintained.

Virtue. This is the core of all our moral writing. Virtue gives rise to ethics and lines in the sand. Amorality gives rise to chaos and danger. There really must be the rule of law and that law, in turn, must be founded on core principles.

As it used to be here before Them, behind the scenes, in education, the law, medicine and so on termited it, debased it, made a mockery of it. NHS for example.

Freedom, wealth creation, virtue.

9 comments for “Freedom, wealth creation, virtue

  1. November 3, 2013 at 7:26 pm

    A most thoughtful post. It got me thinking that Russell Brand is one of the priests of the new “church”.

  2. richard
    November 3, 2013 at 10:25 pm

    Well said, James. I would say, though, that wealth creation is inevitable in a virtuous society as the initiation of force would be seen as unethical since taxation would be seen as a euphemism for theft.

  3. Voice of Reason
    November 4, 2013 at 1:02 am

    Some of this is certainly selective memory.

    1. I watched a talk in which the researcher analyzed the probability of being a victim of violent crime. Except for the big wars, this number has been steadily in decline for decades.

    2. Puerto Rico is fiercely Catholic, as are many of the countries in South America, yet they are among the most violent places on Earth, including people of means living in modern-day fortresses.

    • November 4, 2013 at 9:45 am

      How much of that is cultural? Russia is ex-socialist and is one of the most violent. My eyes have seen the result of the USSR and here – they are very similar processes. All these social ills weren’t about to this extent when the Narrative was still weak.

      How could they be? Self-entitlement, victimhood, all the isms, the faux positives such as equality and diversity, resulting in the opposite.

      • Voice of Reason
        November 5, 2013 at 1:53 am

        Read about Russia before the revolution, also fiercely Christian. People were actually fried alive in the basement of the Kremlin, for the massive crime of crossing themselves in the wrong way. Religion rarely is the cause of bad behaviour directly, but is often used as a good emotional anchor for those actions.

  4. Viscount Rectum
    November 4, 2013 at 9:48 am

    Untill you get the Shakespeare thing right dont bother, he could not write his own name. “So give authors their due as you give time his due, which is to discover the truth”.Bacon’s Promus, 341.

    • Voice of Reason
      November 5, 2013 at 1:55 am

      I watched an item (perhaps in the ‘Cosmos’ tv series) about the Elizabethan period. Paper was expensive, so people would write notes without vowels, much as Arabic and Hebrew are written. Perhaps spelling wasn’t a big issue for that reason?

  5. November 5, 2013 at 9:13 pm

    also fiercely Christian. People were actually fried alive

    You really do have a lot of trouble with this – the two are mutually exclusive. That was Russian Them frying Russians, using a word as a cover, just like socialists using democratic.

    • Voice of Reason
      November 7, 2013 at 1:05 am

      I do, because I cannot think of a single time when the dominant religion in any culture was not used to oppress people.

Comments are closed.