Si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer


Today is Good Friday.

Not sure if Voltaire used the capitalized Dieu or not but if so, it shows due deference to One who did exist in his mind. I believe Voltaire was not atheist but of the other side. He knew full well and was going to do anything he could to pretend he didn’t.

Ça ne fait rien. Voltaire was quite right in this. If He did not exist, it really would be necessary to invent Him because of human nature. Humans operate best when they have a higher authority.

For a corporate leader, it’s the firm they’ve constructed or have inherited, plus God and country. For a father in a family, ditto. For a woman, the family, with the man as its flagship. For Drake and Raleigh, God and their sovereign.

I’m in a situation in real life that, aside from legal constraints, I’m pretty free to do as I please, that is – alone. So what constrains me? Scripture as I see it, in the sense that everyone in society once generally accepted that, plus a personal project, e.g. building a boat. I’m vastly better for both. As Evelyn Waugh noted to Nancy Mitford – imagine how bad he would be without his faith.

The least worst society is one with a constitutional monarchy, that is, a monarchy constrained in its mad whim by the rule of law. Under such, society flourishes, every man is king of his castle and every woman queen of her boudoir and kitchen. The child is master or mistress of his room. But there’s far more.


Deference is a vital component. It is woven into the young man going down on one knee to his lady and in his lady being worthy of that. Cuts both ways.

It’s woven into a boy seeing his father deal with a threat to the family but then change his attitude to his wife and go all soft. The young man sees something strange there. This mother he sees everyday, is even cheeky to, is deferred to by the father. he learns to do similar to girls. Not legislated for by harpies, something he observes at home.

And the mother going to the door to meet the father – he notes that too and it’s also necessary for the charade. He realizes he can’t put it over such a team. My parents always combined regarding me – always. It was only when I was grown I understood how bad it had sometimes actually been between them. But those were the days where parents put on a front and stayed together, where the family was vital to the woman and so she’d take that backward step in the interests of the higher authority than her personal wants.  Where a man, recognizing that, would also step back.

And after some time, if they’ve known nothing else, it ceases to be a charade and is the reality. That is a vital process – where the fiction becomes the reality. Better it’s a good fiction in the first place.

Queen Bess had the Drakes and Raleighs about and a highly stylized and ritualized chivalry. She did not hesitate to say she ruled “with your loves”, that she was a “weak and feeble woman”, which everyone knew she wasn’t.  There’s so much vital playacting goes on – she got the best out of her men by playing this adept game, by playing on their chivalry.

Today, women can rely on fewer and fewer men to protect them when the chips are down.

The people of course – though many did suffer under every later middle-ages regime, loved the pomp and circumstance, the order of things, the equivalent of the bread and circuses. The security of it all. And I’m suggesting that this flim flam was absolutely vital for the good of society.  This is why people still cling to it, even though, personally, the Royal family has shown itself to be shocking. If they want to survive, they need to start acting royally, getting down to hard work as Anne does.

Not just Caesar’s wife must be beyond reproach but every woman down through society needed to be without blemish – cf. the slapper army today. Respect for women stemmed from the charade of chivalry but both had to play their part.  I now have utter disrespect for certain types of silly cows, as you know but in real life, as in my past, I am only surrounded by sane women and I show due deference there, hold fire, would never cross a line. I’m a little bit frightened of Julia and so it should be.

And that’s the only security women truly have – the fiction of the traditional narrative, ritualized respect, chivalry. The wife looks over at her husband and knows she’s revered but the man also defers to country and country defers to God. Paul might be spat upon by today’s harpies but he also demanded men revere their wives.

The absolute necessity of God in the country is that He is the final court of appeal. But not a Muslim God who says kill them where you find them. Oh no, a benevolent one which spoke the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount.

Because that highest authority is not going to eat its young, it’s going to abide by firm rules it first established or at least reaffirmed.

The United States’ Constitution is an attempt to do similar – something which would always protect but America itself always deferred, in private life, to God.  It was in official documents, for goodness sake. It was never just the Constitution which protected, it was the ordering of private life by that higher authority, the bible, which completed the task.

You may hate that and I do not speak religiously here, I speak politically – a benign highest authority is vital. If it doesn’t exist, then invent it.

Now the communists are trying to remove God from everything and once that is done, once the safeguards are gone, the wolves move in. We see it now with all the raping and violence across society, through vacuous Dave et al.

A nice analogy is the De Caprio film The Beach. Remove a natural authority, go to this stupid faux democratic society where flawed humans are the highest authority and sure enough, the monster rises, in the form of that woman who ran that society.

Crims always rise and take over – see Somalia. Evil values, not good, take over. There is no safety because the one at the top, e.g. a Hillary Clinton, is lawless and mocking, like her master [and I don’t mean Bill].

Another analogy is Lord of the Flies. Ralph was not strong enough. Had he been strong and still deferred to a higher authority who had laid down strict rules, e.g. The Ten Commandments, then it would hardly matter if there really is a God or not, there is this set of rules purportedly from a God and these rules will do quite nicely, thanks very much.

Even an atheist can sit in the reflected shade of those. Atheists and rationalists need to sit back a moment and reflect on this – where their freedom to even have their views comes from.

One more thing is needed, apart from a God, and that’s a constitutional monarch, plus a knightly class, plus the traders and the workers – a set of immutable rules of contract. A house costs this percentage of a gross wage, murder in the first degree gets this, no discretion, taking from a shop [first offence] always gets this.  Corrupt judges wither away in such a system.

To change those relations, referenda are needed.  And that today is dead easy via electronic means.

One of those rules is that Blair cannot send us to war – it takes a referendum, a mini-survey, not some multi-million pound extravaganza.  And it’s binding on him.

That’s how your rights are to be protected, not via some corrupt  ECHR – the rights are in our Common Law, Magna Carta and the weight of tradition.  It stops socialists changing things, pretending they’re reforms when they’re nothing of the kind – they are attempts to chip away at true freedom.

And within a seemingly dictatorial system, on paper, true democracy flourishes.  That is the enigma, that is the paradox. That by deferring to a higher authority, one secures one’s freedom.

There is a vital need for a God in society, if only to keep rulers in line.

May I add one more thing. Equality of opportunity. There MUST be some mechanism whereby the Essex boy can do well – grammar schools open to all on merit are such a step forward. If you have half a chance, then you can’t belly ache and go into this self-pity, victimhood thing.