You are on page 1of 32

Helot

Post Orwell: The Flight From Reason and Morality

Introduction

Philosophy is that part of the Humanities that tries to understand


the way men and women think. The discipline of Philosophy has been
with us for centuries and its exponents or rather thinkers have come
down to us as the heroes of thought and intelligence. Aristotle, Plato,
Epicurus, Zeno, Confucius, Bacon, Descartes, Kant, Butler, Von
Clauswitz, Avicenna, Aquinas, Goethe, Marx, Hegel to name but a few.
These men are the sum of human thought and most in some way
or other have helped Man to understand himself. Even Hitler in his Mein
Kampf, although unreadable, made his contribution to thought by
presenting to the world the extremity of human ideology. The same can
be said for Marx and Engels and especially the first can be said to be the
father of modern neo Liberalism that now strides the world.
Today we have the post Marxian Gramscian philosophy of
‘political correctness’ that tries to alter the not only the way we view each
other and ourselves but how we speak as well. No other philosophy as
far as I can see has ever attempted to do this on such a global scale. The
only trouble is that political correctness is not a traditional philosophy as
such but an ideological weapon used by an elite determined to destroy
everything we stand for in its quest for world domination.
One would not mind if those who try to impose this ideology on
the rest of us were doing it in pursuit of human happiness as all other
philosophies have tried to do in some form or other but it does not.
Indeed it does the very opposite and causes deep discontent and
resentment to its victims and appears to the author at least, as being
every bit as totalitarian and unpleasant as Nazism and Soviet Marxism
once did.
In fact there never has been such been such an unpleasant
ideology, since it not only strikes at our very humanity but eliminates the
very qualities that make us the reasoning moral conscientious being we
are. The philosophy of ‘PC’ is actually a form of ontological nihilism that
undermines by deconstructing the very humanity and thought that form
the context of our very existence. It is actually an annihilation of self and

1
what remains is but a paradoxical parody or Reality. I have therefore
called it Paradolological Nihilism.
Now before the reader runs away from this neologism in horror
let me explain my reasoning. Political Correctness tries to level the
playing field between those less fortunate in society and the more
successful sections of it. However, in doing so it actually undermines not
only the difference between the inferior and the superior form as is
intended but in effect does away with difference altogether by
eliminating both. If one eliminates the subject in a sentence there can be
no object: no object no subject: no subject no object. This is basic
grammar.
Let me explain: if I state that Beethoven is superior to a child
banging on a drum, most people would agree with me because everybody
knows that Beethoven was perhaps the most accomplished composer of
all time in Classical music. This is not only common knowledge but also
common sense. Beethoven structural musical brilliance is a byword for
genius. However what happens when somebody comes along and argues
that Mozart is a better composer and more sophisticated? Most people of
good intelligence would be able to understand why such a stance could
be true since, Mozart was a teacher of Beethoven and is equally famous.
So the two different opinions can stand and the opposites can agree to
disagree. We could describe this as a superiority of equals.
Civilisation is constructed out of such disagreements. It is one
reason why we are civilized men and why academics like me do as we do.
Both Mozart and Beethoven are musical pillars upon which we construct
the very socio-cultural milieu of our society and western culture. The
natural conclusion is therefore that both musicians are great in their own
right and exist because of that innate talent and greatness in themselves.
However, the child who was banging the drum comes along and
will have none of it! ‘I am a great composer too and equal to stuffy
grown ups like Mozart and Beethoven!’ he says. Of course his parents
disagree and tell him so. He argues and is sent to bed. However the child
is precocious and finds a lawyer to take the matter for him to court. The
Judge sympathetic to the child, issues a ruling that his drum playing is
equal to Beethoven and Mozart.
Of course the musical world is in uproar. The judge does not like
this at all. He feels the child should have its way no matter what, so he
instructs the local police to make a few arrests as an example and lock the
dissidents up in jail. The rest of the academic world is appalled at this
2
legalistic behaviour over a spoilt child. The judge orders more arrests and
soon the prisons are full of dissenting academics.
The child goes back to its parents and they tell him he has been a
naughty boy and send him back to his room. The little boy sneaks out
however and telephones his friend the judge, who immediately orders the
arrest of the parents and confinement to prison as well. However the
friends of the parents march to the court and demand their release. The
judge orders the police to arrest these too and imprison them. The local
police object to this as they realize that social unrest is a real possibility in
the face of such action. The judge acts quickly and sacks the police chief,
to be replaced by a friend of his who shares similar views to him, in
respect of the drum-playing child.
The papers and television get hold of it and soon headlines report
across the country, ‘Hundreds locked up because they do not agree that
Willy the Drum-Banger is the Equal of Beethoven.’ Many take to the
streets in protest at this appalling travesty of justice and demand the
immediate release of all the academics, parents and friends who have
been jailed. However it doesn’t end there.
Other groups seeing a chance to get back at the political
Establishment, take up the cause of the little boy and his drum as their
cause-celebre. Soon hundreds are marching in the street with placards
demanding that the boy’s drum banging is the equal of Beethoven. Many
more thousands carry placards saying it’s a load of nonsense caused by a
fascist judge. The Judge goes ape and orders his police chief to round up
all the dissenters. Finally the army is brought in to quell the disorder.
The dissent is silenced and it is law that the little boy and his
drum banging are equal to Beethoven. People though are far from happy
but keep quiet, as they know what will happen to them. In schools it is
now taught nation wide that Beethoven is only as good as the little boy
and his drum. He is feted by the Establishment as a ‘People’s Hero and
he gives performance after performance before enthusiastic audiences,
made up of the Judge and his friends. They clap and clap in admiration as
the boy bangs away. Papers are full of glowing critics’ reports. It is called
the New Drum Music. It is avant guard and all the rage. The intellectual
elite fall over themselves to find words and neologisms to describe the
new art.
‘Post Classical Cacophonism’ is the new name given to this new
musical form. Soon there are thousands of imitators and eventually
Beethoven is lambasted as the remnants of a bygone age. He is described
3
as reactionary recidivist musician and musicologists are forbidden or
discouraged from teaching him to their pupils. They must teach the New
music instead. Meanwhile, Post Classical Cacophony is played around the
world to intellectual elites. Most walk out in embarrassment trying to
stifle their laughter. An African leader asks the conductor what difference
there is from the drum beating done for thousands of years by his local
tribes. The conductor answer enthusiastically, ‘Yes exactly! You see we
are all equal now that we have rid ourselves of reactionary musical elitists
like Beethoven.’ The African leader looks piteously at the conductor and
says, ‘personally, old boy I prefer Beethoven: the man’s a genius! That is
just a silly child banging a drum!’ The conductor is dumbstruck but can
say nothing, as he is a guest in the man’s country.
This though is the practical reality of Political Correctness. Far
from equalising matters it is self-destructive, as it has nothing to replace
that which it destroys. It is in fact socio-cultural vandalism of the very
worst kind. Of course this maybe the very intention of the more
intelligent dark powers that lay behind this ‘philosophy’ intended to
deconstruct western thought and civilisation so sending us back to a new
Dark Age of totalitarianism and savagery: back to the beast that exists in
every human: the self-serving hunter and survivalist rather than the
mannered socialite.
In Reality, things are what they are because they can be nothing
else. I do not mean that a workman cannot become a good writer or that
a professor of mathematics cannot become a good workman, because
each has the choice if the talent exists within each one. Everybody is
different though and some are good writers, other good musicians, good
footballers and philosophers but that talent must exist in the person’s
make up and character. I am a good archaeologist but I would never
dream of turning my mind to Mathematics, because I know I am not
gifted in that direction. My talents lie elsewhere and no amount of social
re-engineering is going to change the fact. In order to be a good
mathematician I would need to be somebody else and in that case
therefore it is impossible for me to ever achieve this. To wish otherwise
is childish. Perhaps I should kill myself and come back as a reincarnated
Mathematician body. However this is patently ridiculous.
On the other hand perhaps the university should give me a
degree in mathematics and then I could be a Mathematician. However
this is also ridiculous because I would still be appallingly bad at
Mathematics.

4
However there might be a way through this. What if I was able to
change the status of subjects themselves? If I lowered the pass mark so
that I could pass Mathematics as a student, then perhaps I could be a
Math’s student? What is more all the other thick people who do not
understand Mathematics like me could also become Mathematicians too,
couldn’t they?
The answer in short is that they could not. Because if they did
Mathematics would cease to exist as genuine mathematics, because the
subject would have changed its nature to a point wherein it was not
Mathematics being taught but something very different. Real
Mathematics would still exist because measurement and trigonometry are
part of nature as are numbers: Man discovered Mathematics; he did not
invent it.
Beethoven will always therefore be the musical genius Beethoven
because he exists as the genius Beethoven in his own right. As the
African chief pointed out to the silly conductor, the boy playing the drum
is still a boy playing a drum.
One cannot deny something is just by changing words and
meanings to mean what they obviously do not. Things are what they are
because this is the nature of matter.
I can call a car anything I like. I can call a car a coconut and go
around asking garages to repair my coconut. They would not only think
me a little strange but the car would still be a car.
In a television comedy show from the early ‘Seventies’ called
Monty Python’s Flying Circus, one sketch had a man trying to buy a bed.
He was told by the store manger not to mention the word ‘Bed’ but to
refer to them as ‘Dog Kennels’. Every time the poor man asked for a
‘Dog Kennel’, the salesman told him to go to the second floor.
Eventually, he realised what the man was asking for and told him to ask
for a ‘Bed’. The man replied him he had been told not to. But the shop
assistant told him it was alright to ask for a ‘Bed’. So he did and the
salesman jumped into a fish tank. The Manager came running up
demanding to know why he had said ‘Bed’. The shop staff then had to
sing ‘Jerusalem’ and the man climbed back out of the tank. The customer
tried a second time only to repeat the previous episode and so the sketch
went on, with customer asking for a dog kennel instead of a bed and the
salesman jumping into the fish tank and the staff singing ‘Jerusalem’.
At the time I was around eighteen or nineteen and I was mildly
amused. It was not my type of comedy as such. However, today I wonder
5
if the brilliant minds that made it all up were trying to tell us something
about the reality of Academia? The Monty Python team were all
Cambridge ‘Footlight’ graduates like so many of the more talented
comedians of the time. Their sketches were amazingly prophetic and I do
now believe there may have been a hidden warning to us all of the
dangers we now face in the world today with ‘Political Correctness’,
better known as ‘PC’.
It began life amongst the Left Intelligentsia in the United States.
The trouble is, far from being intelligent, it has been incredibly
destructive and life for many, including myself, for while I remained an
academic it was indeed like living in a huge fish tank. That huge fish tank
has now grown to encompass Western Society and it is destroying us as a
civilisation.
Truth is vital to learning and research. It is especially so of logic
and philosophy because Truth itself is the very essence of meta-physical
theorizing. It is in search of Truth that people study the discipline and
develop theories as to the nature of the universe and our place in the
whole of nature. Philosophy is about Truth and anything that deflects
from this path is not philosophy at all but something else entirely: the
very deductive-inductive process of the discipline, so absolutely vital to
its exposition becomes compromised. So we have in effect a counter
philosophy:
One could perhaps call it ‘Aphilosophy’ or perhaps
‘Odphilosophy’ from the Latin odium meaning hatred. Phile/philo in Greek
means love and so we have filius/filia meaning son/daughter in Latin.
Translated, Philosophy means love of wisdom from the Greek sophos
meaning to be wise or clever. Sophizesthai refers in Greek to trickery or to
confuse by clever deceit. ‘PC’ should perhaps be termed ‘Sophistry’ alone
but it goes further than that. It seeks to deconstruct and level down by
changing the nature of matter itself. It is a philosophy of hatred though
and so perhaps ‘Odphilosphy’ is a suitable name after all.
Other terms could be applied such as ‘Entrophilosphy’ meaning
to deliberately think away or deconstruct disciplined thought and
meaning itself. However, I have given it the name ‘Paradological
Nihilism’ because as we have seen and understood above, it has nothing
to replace what it destroys through its application but rather enters upon
a form of denial and parody of fact, even self destructive of self
important ontological truths. It is a non-philosophy, a philosophy of
extinction, a philosophy of anti-life and love. A philosophy of hate: an

6
‘Odphilosophy’ therefore. The philosophy of Armageddon: our cultural
Armageddon. It cancels out subject by destroying the object through
lessening it. As Subject cannot be without object, they cancel each other
out. This is the tense dialectic of a philosophical nihilism.
Its whole purpose is Amorality not Morality. This is why I have
called ‘PC’ and its exponents the New Amoral Global Elite1. By taking
morality itself out of existence, we are not so much left with amorality
but the substitution of amorality by Evil. Amorality cannot exist without
Morality because it has no measure of itself. So both cease to exist.
Therefore by removing amorality and morality, Good is removed
so that Evil alone exists. Therefore read Amorality for Evil. One could
call the New Amoral Global Elite the New Evil Global Elite. Good can
exist by itself as can Evil. Something can be totally one way or the other.
This is a self-evident truth. However, Amorality must have measure of
itself to be truth. It can only do that by equating itself against Good and
Evil. Amorality itself tells us it is amoral, therefore devoid of good and
bad by comparison to either of the former. It is literally without morality.
So what is amoral in our universe?
Nature is amoral. It does not think about what it does. It acts in
accordance with itself. It has no mind to decide if it is wrong or right.
Therefore it is amoral, neither good nor bad. It has no need to be.
However, when a thinking mind understanding the difference of Right
from wrong, of Good from Evil and states that neither exists so in effect
living without Morality: amorality itself becomes Evil.
This is the ‘philosophy’ of Political Correctness. There is no
Good or Evil. Technology is the equal of primitiveness, Satanism is the
equal of Godliness, there is no difference between man and woman, child
and adult, science and superstition, life and death, youth and old age,
superior and inferior intelligence, a ‘rap artist’ is equal to Beethoven, a
child’s essay is equal to a novel by one of the Bronte’s, marriage is the
same as living together, crime is equivalent to law abiding, illegitimacy
equivalent to wedlock, homosexuality equivalent to heterosexuality, Islam
equal to Christianity, Western culture and civilisation the equal of stone
age Africans and Australian aborigines: all is equal.
The trouble is it is not. In practice of course the lesser become
the greater. Standards fall as they have in our schools both in Britain and
in the United States. Good manners are replaced by incivility and self-

1 A Questionof Balance? I-III: Guy Leven-Torres, Lulu.com. 2006.

7
centric activity, civilised behaviour is replaced by thuggish disregard and
violence, criminals are treated as ‘victims of society’ and householders
guilty of crime, as all property is therefore theft.
However, as young children are adults in children’s bodies able to
decide for themselves, they must be taught about sex and choice but be
protected from their traditional parents and allowed to make their own
‘informed’ decisions. Illegitimate liaisons such as underage sexual
relations must be kept in the dark, as are the numerous pregnancies that
result from them. This was why a recent survey in Plymouth reported
that the average age of prostitutes in one of the main streets was 12 years
of age.
It is why police forces in England make arbitrary decisions to
stop policing serious crimes unless they are ‘homophobic’ or ‘racist’. It is
why they say it is a societal problem not theirs. This is the older ‘It is
society’s fault’.
It is why venereal disease is at an all time high and why
degradation and poverty are rampant once again in Britain and the
United States. It is why we have uncontrolled drinking and openly sexual
behaviour on our streets and a general acceptance of such civil disorder
as a normal part of everyday life. This is the price of ‘PC’ Amoralism. It
has been itself replaced by immorality and evil: license and libertarianism
rather than liberty and liberality. We face in short cultural Armageddon as
a credible and creditable civilized nation.

8
Chapter 1
Beyond Orwell
l
Our humanity is the most wonderful gift of Nature. What does it
mean to be Human? What are its distinctive qualities that make it so
good? One of the answers must surely be our ability to think and reason
abstract problems. Philosophy is actually good fun and highly satisfying
as a human and humane activity. It is also of eminently practicable use as
it allows us to dissect our nature and understand ourselves in relation to
the world and universe we inhabit.
Every human being is a philosopher. From the very first
wonderings in a child’s inquisitive mind to high abstraction of physics
and astronomy, all would be lost without the discipline of constructive
philosophy. It is about ourselves and why we are here at all. It is about
life and death and everything in between that concerns our existence. It is
about consciousness and conscience and Reality of experience but more
than all of this, it is about that which is higher than ourselves, a superior
purpose: the Divine within and without us. That is the nature of the truth
that is philosophy.

9
In my book ‘A Question of Balance?’ I laid out my opinions and
understanding of ‘Political Correctness’. It was not a pleasant task as I
had to wade through the whole sorry saga of the dreadful happenings in
the world and particularly so, in Britain and the United States. I am by
nature gregarious and find it very hard to hate people, even to dislike
them. It is actions that I criticise not so much the individuals themselves.
The world we have today is not a happy one and it saddened me to have
to write as I did in the book above. Yet despite this one could not stand
idly by and see one’s fellow humans go lemming like to their own moral
destruction and dare one say death.
I like my fellow men far too much. This might appear arrogant
but somebody had to write something. It has not won me friends and I
have already been threatened by those who do not like my writings and
the things I have said. However when faced with such evil it would be a
dereliction of duty not to have written something, even if it is to salve my
conscience and concerns. Everyone of us has a role to play in society and
to stand idly by and say, as many do ‘I don’t do politics!’ is in effect
condoning a national situation that will end in disaster. I have written and
the information is there for all to see. My case rests.
I decided to write this book as an academic examination of ‘PC’
and its ‘philosophy’ rather than a highly political critique. One can only
rant so much and now in calmer times perhaps it is the right time to do
just that. This book will not rant at the reader in an effort to make people
understand the global menace we face but try to deconstruct ‘PC’ itself
by exposing it for the aphilosophical scam it is.
I am actually using the very weapon the Left loves to utilise
against its ideological opponents like me. This is no easy task on my part
and I hope the reader will allow for my obvious prejudices that have
stemmed from having been a victim of this pernicious thought
controlling dogma.
In ‘1984’ George Orwell tried to portray a society controlled by a
totalitarian regime that literally invaded and controlled every aspect of its
helot population, even to the things they thought, spoke and did. There
were ‘Thought Police’ to ensure ‘Right Thought’ and compliance to the
State’s wishes.
This is already happening in Britain to a marked degree. Cameras
police our streets in thousands. Motorists are hounded and fined for the
slightest of infringements. A colleague of mine even received a phone call
from a very unpleasant woman official who demanded to know why he
10
was ‘avoiding’ the Charge Zone in London established by Ken
Livingston on his trips to visit schools. She hinted that should this
behaviour be continued, prosecution may follow. When he asked, ‘Since
when is it a crime to avoid paying congestion fees?’ she was unable to
answer.
This last episode does raise some rather alarming issues. It is a
new twist on an already unpleasant situation. Does this mean we will be
fined in the future for not entering the Charge Zone. Now as far as one
knows it is still an offence to deny free passage to any member of the
public on any of the Queen’s Highways: so any attempt to coerce
somebody under threat of prosecution to take a certain route, would
appear to be criminal in itself. Furthermore it does rather suggest that
officials or perhaps rather certain officials, have taken it upon themselves
to rewrite the law in their own image. This is a very unpleasant
development.
The nearest comparison one can think of is telephoning a
criminal to demand why he had not committed a crime in an area heavily
policed by the Metropolitan Force in a ‘sting operation’. It actually
amounts to a form of ‘entrapment’.
It never ceases to amaze one, how compliant the general
population of Britain is. Our personal and public lives are interfered with
as never before by officious prying busy-bodies, most of whom are not
even police officers and we sit back and act as though it was all perfectly
normal. To a visitor from a past time, transported to the present, the
level of surveillance and intrusion would probably send them scurrying
back to his own time as fast as his time-machine could carry him. Even
one’s father and his friends are utterly astounded how apathetically
accepting younger people are today.
Even visitors from fellow European states, ones with a history of
state totalitarianism far in excess of Britain’s history, are appalled at the
level of intrusion seen on our streets and homes. A French friend
informed me that should the same happen in France, there would be a
national rebellion. And having seen the recent street riots over the last
year or so, one can believe it.
How on earth did we allow ourselves to become so over policed?
It is only when one stops to think about the situation in Britain today
that one comes to realise the dreadful reality. A friend told me he
thought Britain was becoming a police state. I am afraid to say, it is not
becoming one at all; it is one!
11
While driving back down the M1 motorway returning from an
archaeological survey of a battlefield site, my passengers and I thought
we had entered some kind of alternate universe. The motorway within a
space of four miles had no less than 32 cameras trained upon it. We also
noticed that hundreds of trees had been cut down either side of this new
stretch of motorway, leaving the cameras a wide angle of vision hundreds
of yards either side of the motorway. It was truly an Ellioten Waste
Land.2
Never had I been so affected emotionally as this experience. It
was absolutely awful: not a tree survived, only stumps. It resembled the
very worst of scenes wherein cowboy logging companies had illegally
ransacked a forest and fled before being caught by the environmentalists.
Every half mile or so a pair of alien cameras surveyed the site either side
while their lower minions mounted in pairs on gantries, completed this
vision of Orwellian Hell.
I had already noticed in my own area around my home that trees
had been similarly treated: their tops and branches lopped off leaving
them looking like monstrous amputees. I then telephoned the local
council to complain and was referred to the County instead and received
a lecture on ‘Road Safety’ and the dangers of trees overhanging roads.
When I enquired about the site on the M1 I had driven through and
whether this was the same thing, the answer was in the affirmative but I
was referred to the Highways Agency. I asked if all roads in Britain would
be treated similarly. The reply was, ‘Oh yes! All in the interests of ‘Public
Safety’ Guy!’ I was horrified.
In my previous book ‘A Question of Balance’ I had attacked the
Left’s obsessions with ‘environmental issues’ and had stated how much I
resented the hijacking of such important matters for political capital. Yet
despite all their overt emotionalism and ‘concern’ for ‘green’ issues and
nature, they do things like they have above, by killing healthy trees and
denuding landscapes; leaving instead, waste ground ‘no mans’ land
behind, so that they can ‘protect’ and survey the motorists who use these
roads with the thousands of cameras now deployed. The truth is, this is
not about environment and safety at all but money to be collected in
fines to fund their nefarious schemes and one suspects, their salaries.
In this book I am trying my level best not to be personal in these
matters and try to keep a detached academic viewpoint but it is very

2 T. S. Eliot, the poet and friend of Siegfried Sassoon: The Waste Land.

12
difficult to do so. I care passionately about our landscape and the
environment and the effects upon it of our society. I have though no
political axe to grind; either left or right but an archaeological and
humane concern for nature and all that lives within it including one’s
fellow humans. We are fast becoming desensitised to our natural
surroundings and one fear this may actually imperil our futures. We
simply cannot carry on like this, especially if damage done in pursuit of
political funding and ideology ruins the land like one observed on the M1
and in Surrey. Like I said it is very difficult to remain detached in the face
of such corruption, spite and ideological vandalism.
I entitled this book ‘Beyond Orwell: The Flight from Reason and
Morality’. I think the example given above is the epitome of this: one can
understand the need for some kind of surveillance in the interests of
public safety but 32 cameras and acres of wooded amputees? This is
beyond reasonable behaviour and tolerance: this is mania. There is also
the question of morality. How morally justifiable is it to destroy acres of
living tissue, even wooden material in an orgy of destruction like this?
This is not safety; this is ideological vandalism aimed at motorists and
done by others determined to impose a totalitarian nightmare upon the
rest of us. It left me cold.
I realised that this is to be our future indeed, as was confirmed by
the County official: a land with cameras wherever one could look: a land
wherein trees and landscape were laid bare, in order for us all to be seen
the better: a wasteland of wooded amputees and raw pained soil.
Imagine a countryside wherein, cameras on 200ft poles hovering
like aliens surveyed the activities of this country’s citizens. Even in areas
of deserted countryside, clearances would be common place, and human
activities allowed such as picnics, only in places visible to the all seeing
aliens: their lenses watching everything we do and super sensitive hearing
devices listening to what we say. And is this so far fetched then, having
read what we have above? Westminster Council have just installed
listening equipment to its street ‘cctv’ cameras
There already exist plans to place cameras in place of ‘cat’s eyes’
in the centre of our national roads in order that our movements can be
tracked by recording car number-plates. There is also serious
consideration being given to implantation of readable microchips into
our bodies, so that all our private and public details can be scanned. If
one should doubt this, then please remember that dogs and cats already
have this routinely done to them as a form of passport in order to travel

13
abroad to avoid quarantine regulations. Chips in humans could be used
to track us as well: it doesn’t take much thought to realise the inclusion of
homing devices into these miniature devices: nano-technology has come
a long way as Prince Charles has already voiced in his concerns for our
future.
An American Chief Executive of an electronics company, has had
himself implanted along with other members of his staff in order to
avoid the ‘tiresome activity’ of swipe cards to gain entry to his company’s
premises. Is this so far fetched then? Who would have believed the level
of surveillance we now have as commonplace, even twenty years ago?
And of course it is always for our own protection, isn’t it? The trouble is it
isn’t: not any of it at all!
It is about control and persecution: about a New Amoral Elite’s
determination to have its way with us all. It is about exploitation and
spite, commercial and political. It is about a dying nation and an
increasingly helotised unquestioning ill-educated, brain-washed
population. It is beyond Orwell and Big Brother. It is Demonic and evil.
One often hears debates on various radio ‘talk shows’ and many
of those members of the general public that do bother to telephone in
their opinions, demonstrate common sense but one has also noted a
serious decline in general knowledge and understanding. Many of these
people are speaking from their own ill-informed, poorly educated
backgrounds. This is not their fault, coming as they do from a pathetic
state educational system that has done its level best to demonise the land
of their birth and its history by actively teaching an alternative education.
What is refreshing though, is the conclusions arrived at by these
speakers and an innate ability they all show to distinguish truth or even
half-truths, that give the lie to the politically correct propaganda and spin
taught to them in school. The British working man or woman has a
strong loyal tradition of common sense, epitomised by the classical
average man on the Clapham Omnibus. I am pleased to state that Mr
Common Sense may not travel by London Transport anymore but drives
instead, a white van or an ‘Artic’ (articulated truck). Thank goodness
they do not suffer the excruciating guilt complexes of fashionable ‘rent a
cause’ middle-class politics and their ‘save the world’ hypocrisy fought
from ‘Chelsea Tractors’3.

3 Nickname for ‘4X4 off-road’ vehicles.

14
One particular gentleman enthused about his book and its tale of
the abuse of law in this country and others. Law was to him simply about
justice. This is wrong actually as was his ‘informed opinion’ that police
constables in Britain had no right of arrest or to lay charges against a
defendant. Every police officer has the right to arrest anyone for
suspicion of either having committed an offence or in the process of
doing so. This is the reality of the Royal Warrant carried by every police
officer. They are charged to ‘keep the Queen’s Peace’.
Law and legislation are there to prevent breaches of the Royal
Peace. They are a set of standards of behaviour, established with the
consent of the People to regulate the workings and relations inherent
within the groups that make up that same society or People. The concept
of justice itself though, is to be found in the cause and effect of those
laws, for example in the apprehension and fair trial of those who choose
for whatever reason to transgress those laws. The purpose of Law, is
above all to protect and nourish civilised behaviour, in order that society
may continue in safety and free from harm from those who would seek
to do so.
Justice is therefore not the primary reason for Law and
legislation. There has always been a concept of natural justice but the
justice we know today, or equitable justice arrived fairly late into English
Common Law. There was no ‘justice’ for example in hanging or
transporting starving thieves for stealing loaves of bread. Modern
socialist-liberal ideas of justice only gained credence towards the end of
the nineteenth century and such notions as the speaker had above about
‘Justice’, have more to do with modern preoccupations and concepts of
‘Human Rights’ than the true purpose of Law that is to protect the
Queen’s Peace.
Policing society can only take place through common consent. It
cannot take place fairly and properly without the support of the persons
it is supposed to police. If it does attempt to do so, it is in serious error
and therefore against the common consent of the People and therefore
illegal. The French philosopher Rousseau called this pact between the
Executive and People or Sovereignty, ‘The Social Contract’. Should this
contract fail, the Executive is therefore illegal as it is acting without the
consent of the People or Sovereignty that gave it its original authority to
act on behalf of the general consensus.
Of course there will always be those who disagree for whatever
reasons they do so. However, Rousseau still maintained that the majority

15
view must in the main prevail. Now it is important to distinguish between
the legal authority of a sovereign people and a mob demanding its own
opinions in such matters as ‘justice’, be listened to.
We have already discovered above that certain truths in
philosophy are self-evident. This is called ontological truth: a truth
therefore that exists within itself free from external influence. This was
the point I was trying to explain above, about the superiority of
Beethoven to a child banging a drum. Beethoven is superior to a boy
banging a drum, because he is Beethoven, the superior musical genius in
his own right or simply because if he was not, he would not be the
superior musical genius Beethoven. This is self evident-justifying truth. It
cannot be denied. The child did not write the 9th Symphony or study
music for years under the masters: he is simply a child banging a drum.
Natural law and justice is also an ontological truth, as is human
freedom. It is by replacing natural law and freedom with legal guarantees
of duties and privileges that the social contract that make up any civilised
society come into being as a legal entity. Those duties and privileges
enshrined in law may mean the individual surrenders some of his natural
rights but he receives by common consent greater protection from the
society he elects to join.
So what happens when an ‘Executive’ starts to arrogate authority
and act contrary to the original contract upon which it was supposedly
elected to rule under? Now modern civilised industrial society is a
complex organism indeed. Among the millions of souls that make it up,
there is always, a fair proportion that will always fly in the face of public
opinion. This is actually where concepts of justice enters the civilised
complex societal frame. It is called democracy. This means that not only
will the general opinion of the People be listened to but also those
individuals and groups who form the lesser numbers in society as well.
Ever since the days of ancient Athens, individuals have fought
and spoken up for those less fortunate than themselves. The plain truth
is that, unfortunately the State and People are not always right. Even in
nature, animals often protect the weaker elements in their society. In
Rome and Greece, the very gods themselves protected the weak and
impoverished. The Bible and the Koran are forever exhorting God’s
protection and especial assistance of widows and the poor. This is
actually what differentiates us as civilised beings from the savage and
animal. We have a self-evident duty towards those less fortunate than

16
ourselves and in the absence of that, the Executive or State must perform
that function. This is actually one of the primary functions of Law.
However this is not simple justice but fairness. The justice comes
from the implementation of that protection and fairness. It comes from
ensuring that the weakest elements in society do not suffer abuse and
exploitation by the more, well off or fortunate.
In the ancient city republics of Italy during Dante’s time, around
the late 13th century, attempts were made to throw off narrow aristocratic
oligarchic rule by the populations of the various city states, tired of the
continual oppression and violence caused by a mere one percent of the
populace,

‘Quivi sospiri, pianti e alti guai


risonavan per l’aere sanza stelle,
per ch’io al cominciar ne lagrimai.’4

Many of these narrow city ruling elites, consisted of wealthy


merchant aristocrats and warlords, vying with one another in familial
wars, in order to gain ascendance within the tiny states and territories that
made up the Italy of the day. This two hundred years period was the time
of the Prince Machiavelli and Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet; itself
based upon such a family tragedy.
The will of the People, that greater part of Society was felt to be
the best form of governance in a world awakening to the influence of a
revival, brought on by the Renaissance interest in Classicism and its
democratic idealism of ancient Athens and the Roman respublica. Strictly
historically speaking, Greek and especially Roman democracy was one of
a narrow class interest supportive of a narrow paternalistic male citizen
body, rather than the broader ‘demos’ we enjoy. However the principles
of democratic tradition of the struggling individual against or in service to
the state body representative of the voting populace, is inherent in both.
It does not take a great leap of imagination to apply its general principle
to Everyman, especially given the influence of Christianity.

4 Here sad cries, moans and deep sighs, sound through the starless sky, so that it made me cry at

first Dante’s Inferno. III, 22-4..

17
There was always an inherent duty of the stronger therefore to
protect the weaker. The problem comes though when one section of a
ruling elite tries to utilise the weaker elements of society to establish a
new governance or order within society. That is happening now within
Britain and wider afield in Europe and especially the United States of
America. It is also being done in the face of the popular will and
especially the traditions of the countries involved.5
It has always been a maxim of warfare that ‘Right is Might’.
However what transpires if ‘Weak is Right’? There are many that would
claim this was the message of Jesus Christ himself and his saying that,
‘The meek shall inherit the Earth’. However he also told the Jewish
priest-leaders, ‘Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s!’ Jesus did not say
‘Replace what is Caesar’s with something else’ or ‘Steal from Caesar, what
is Caesar’s!’ On the contrary Jesus meant we should obey all those in
authority as far as was possible.
He never exhorted rule by a colony of lepers or the debasement
of a nation by deliberately handing over government to ill-educated
morons. On the contrary he chastised the Scribes and Pharisees for
failing the Law and the People they were supposed to serve and protect,
namely the ancient Chosen People of God and King David: the Jews. ‘I
have not come to destroy the Law but to fulfil it!’ was his cry in the face
of the corrupt oligarchy of the Temple.
Jesus respected law and order. His whole message was one of
service to the various elements in society; the weak and the strong but
especially the protection of the weak by the stronger. This was the duty
placed upon the elite by God, in order that those weaker elements may
survive and thrive under the good government of the stronger and more
wealthy, better educated sections of the state.
He never meant that elite to deliberately undermine the very
society it was meant to serve by destroying those best placed to do the
job, such as intellectuals and thinkers charged with being the conscience
of the People. He never meant the boy banging the drum to replace
Beethoven. He never meant the elite to deliberately replace intelligence
and knowledge with ignorance and stupidity, or to substitute a diseased
man for a whole one, or a foreign power for one’s own efficient rule, yet
this is happening apace in many western countries. He never meant the

5 See ‘A Question of Balance?’, Guy R. Leven-Torres Lulu.com, 2006 or www.guyleven-

torres.co.uk.

18
dullard and stupid to replace the scholar. He never meant the disabled to
deliberately breed genetic copies of themselves in parody of eugenics. He
never meant morality to be replaced by amorality and good replaced by
the evil, that is the reality.
He never meant any such elite to oppress its own sovereign
People, by destroying its traditions and laws, by conducting a deliberate
class war through the effective debasement of standards and perversion
of right thought and speech in a systemic attack upon the philosophical,
often ontological truths, that formed the moral basis of that society in a
deliberate antithetical assault based upon a totally alien dialectical concept
called Marxism, that through the reinterpretation, perversion of language.
half-truths and lies, seeks to establish itself as the ruling ideology: yet this
is the reality of modern Britain and elsewhere.
He never meant an inversion of society, wherein the incapable
and weak held sway, in appearance at least, over the good and moral, the
strong and protective. He never meant the rule of the criminal and
wrongdoer over the right and law abiding or the substitution of societal
guilt for that of individual responsibility and obligation, or the
replacement of state ownership to private, as ‘all property is theft’. The
state just becomes the biggest robber of all. If an individual chooses to
give away their wealth that is his choice. If an individual feels it better to
retain his wealth in order to benefit the less well off or even to keep it
altogether, that is their choice for better or worse but their own
nevertheless.
When a ruling elite places itself beyond the Electorate and
perverts its rule and the very Law it is entrusted to uphold by the
Sovereign People, it illegitimates itself and becomes tyranny.
Furthermore, when it uses that same perverted law to oppress its own
People, it becomes a greater tyranny still, especially when it seeks to alter
the very society it is charged to defend, by attacking the very speech,
thoughts and acts of its own citizens, through mass censorship, control
and surveillance like those mentioned above via the media and national
camera schemes in our towns, motorways and countryside.

19
Chapter 2
Reasoning With the Unreasonable

People these days do not like to think overmuch. Many, on first


reading the opening chapters of my first book, free on the World Wide
Web under www.guyleven-torres.co.uk, entitled ‘A Question of Balance? 1’
the comments were somewhat disappointing. These were not about style,
even content but at the fact that many found it ‘depressing’ and ‘too
much to take in’. I do not feel angry with this but rather sad. I am not
going to rant at them or tear my hair out in a pique of literary self-
emasculation because in many ways they are correct. The book is
depressing, since it is about a depressing state of affairs. However, if we
are to avoid becoming permanently depressed as a human race we must
bestir ourselves and face up to this depressing state of affairs as our
fathers and mothers did in the face of equally depressing threats. They
had to think on their feet as well. To not do so will only encourage the
bully. We simply have to act. My little books are but one shot in an
opening salvo that needs not one mere bullet or even three but millions.
We have a duty: morally, patriotically, humanely and personally to think
and then act. To do otherwise is tantamount to collaboration and
cowardice.
We are generations raised in peace and conspicuous
consumption. Our parents and grandparents sacrificed everything they
had in order for us, to enjoy the lives we have today. They suffered death,
deprivation, homelessness, the gas chambers and much more than we
could ever imagine. Are we now to become ht e generations that allowed
these sacrifices of blood and toil to mean nothing: dashed upon the rocks
of political correctness and Marxism? The new Hitlers may not wear
jackboots or rant at lines of Germans with Chaplinesque comic
moustaches and gestures but they are just as evil.
No today’s Hitlers are far more urbane. They drive large ‘off-
road’ vehicles, wear fashionable designer clothes, read Gramsci and
inhabit expensive addresses while enjoying salaries most could only
dream of. Their children are groomed for high office themselves and
they attend expensive private schools and like their parents ‘do drugs’ at
fashionable dinner parties attended by the ‘in crowd’.
They chatter among themselves about ‘green issues’ and wonder
what it must be like to live in one-parent families or be ‘gay’ in a largely,
white lower middle-class bourgeois society. They wonder at Islamic
20
extremism and what has society done to deserve such spite and hate?
They wonder about the poverty and failure of mass education and
wonder at that as well. Of course they could not possibly be responsible
could they? Obviously there is still the great revolutionary struggle ahead
in the final push to amoral Nirvana.
They decide among themselves to renew the great fight with
more intensity, in order to annihilate the old class enemy within: namely
the white Caucasian male and his minions that still inhabit those nether
regions that the great new neo-Marxist-Pantheist-Gramscian amoral light
has failed to penetrate: but don’t worry they are on the winning side, as
always and they know and understand, far better than the rest of poor
recidivist, misguided, enslaved humanity. And the boy banging the drum
is equal to Beethoven after all because they say it is so: that poor
misguided African leader who shocked them all by preferring Beethoven,
just simply does not understand, poor guy!
‘It is all society’s fault!’ they tell themselves and each other. Of
course it has nothing to do with them. They are the enlightened elite after
all: individuals above society therefore and charged with changing it for
the better. ‘Why doesn’t ‘society’ understand them more?’ they wonder to
themselves and each other: things could be so much more pleasant and
those dreadful tabloids! Surely there must be ways to curb their vitriol?
They are so Fascist!
They rant against ‘Civil Partnerships’ and same-sex unions, about
one parent families and paedophilia, green taxes, race and immigration.
Wouldn’t it be nice if it all went away? They simply do not understand.
However, who or what, is meant by ‘They’? Society of course, as always!
Couldn’t we make a few examples then of ‘Them’ to silence ‘They’? That
would be a good idea wouldn’t it? But just a minute, didn’t Hitler do the
same thing in order to silence the ‘Opposition’? Well not really and that
was Hitler after all!
‘Have a word with Sir Ian to send out a few of his ‘Bules’
(Constables) to make ‘inquiries into incidents’. ‘You know the type of
thing, ‘‘usual suspects’’ and all that lot. Be discreet mind you: an aged
Christian couple here and there: perhaps a senior Moslem or two but
don’t be too hard on the latter. After all they are victims of society after
all and we don’t want to upset them do we now? A well-known white
radio social commentator is an excellent choice actually! And its even
better if she’s Jewish, because it will go down well with the Moslems and
prove we are on their side!’

21
One can jest like this but these events all took place in Britain
recently or a year or two before at most. At present no real prosecutions
have actually taken place because at present it is not actually against the
law to have a different opinion to somebody else. However examine the
methodology used.
The victims of police were individuals selected mainly because
they could not answer back. Even the Radio social commentator was
unable to do little more than protest without effect, simply because her
opinions about same-sex unions flew in the face of a largely libertine
Media, so she would be isolated in that respect at least. Mr Socranie, the
Moslem leader was also under ‘investigation’ at one time for similar
‘homophobic’ expression of opinions but this was only after complaints
had been received from readers of the Daily Mail. The reluctant police
did not push this ‘investigation’ too far. Likewise, they trod softly in the
aftermath of the Mohammed ‘cartoon protests’ but dealt very heavily
with white British and other groups that objected to the placards calling
for the deaths of those who drew the cartoons. I do not want to
concentrate here on old ground already covered in my book ‘A Question
of Balance’ but merely to reiterate a process that is becoming all to
familiar in Britain and the USA.
The whole point of this process is to send a message to those,
namely the rest of normal society that such opinions were not going to
be tolerated. It was psychological warfare intended to silence us through
fear of what might happen if we persisted in expressing such opinions
that flew in the face of the New Amoral Global Elite (Nage, Nagists) that
rule most of the European countries and United States. The message was
simple and highly effective, ‘You will not have opinions we disagree with
and you will most certainly not express them, because if you do, we will
(or more likely may) find a way of prosecuting you: it will simply not be
tolerated!’
These actions are of course the traditional ways of the bully:
select a much weaker victim and prey on them as an example to the rest.
And for good measure commit another ‘legal’ act to reinforce the
message like arresting shopkeepers for legally displaying nursery toys6 as
offences under a 1986 law7 that was never meant for such matters so that
the message is understood clearly by one and all.. Effectively this message

6 Golli-wogs in Herefordshire and Sussex.


7 Public Order Act 1986.

22
is, ‘We8 can do what we like and even make something a crime even
when strictly speaking it isn’t!’
Now in anybody’s opinion, this cannot be reasonable surely?
How can it be right to reinterpret law and effectively make innocent acts
crime just because somebody does not like an opinion? It is even more
unreasonable surely to utilise authority that either one holds personally or
in the person of somebody holding it, under state sanction? This is the
activity of the police state. Yet this is taking place in democratic states
like the United Kingdom. How can anybody reason with
unreasonableness like this?
Judges are forbidden by legal tradition and Parliamentary sanction
from involving themselves in public debate. The reasons for this should
be obvious. The late Bernard Levin, my much admired namesake wrote
before he died9 an article back in 1986 entitled ‘Silence in Court’10,
‘Before I paint a blood-curdling picture of what would happen if
the prohibition were to be lifted, there is one point on which the critics
of the present system do have a powerful argument to deploy. It is that
although Britain’s constitution insists on the separation of the judiciary
from the executive, we put up with the anomaly of the head of the
judiciary being a cabinet minister and…….Even as things stand, the
amount and nature of irrelevant judicial comment from the Bench,
usually but not invariably in the form of orbiter dicta, is enough to cause
nightmares. How many litigants in divorce cases have sought a decree
and received in addition (and sometimes instead) a detailed critique of
their morals?…..convicted criminals have had to listen to a lecture as
long as their sentence?…..
It could start with speeches at public events…..then the
newspapers… Next it will be Dial-A-Judge. Just as politicians, eager to
go get themselves before the public, will answer any question from a
reporter who telephones them…
The only excuse for a judge with opinions is that he refrains from
expressing them; the moment he steps into controversy, or indicates that
he has views, all respect for law itself will collapse, as the
public….realises that the august figure, wigged and robed, who embodies

8 The Home Office itself wrote to the police forces concerned to state that golli-wogs were not

illegal and neither was the sale of them. This did not stop the police though.
9 Aged 75 years 2004.
10 Bernard Levin 1986. Johnathan Cape Ltd, London 1986.

23
the rule of law and its truly vital function as the foundation of our
liberties, is only a daft old geezer with funny clothes who thinks that pubs
should be made illegal and that all homosexuals should have their
whatsits cut off’.
Now in the United States, judges are often elected or selected by
the People or government because of their stated views. Now one can
see the benefits of this and I have felt for some time now that perhaps it
is time for Britain to move in the same direction, simply because we have
a situation that the late Mr Levin, quite rightly lambasted above in today’s
judiciary. Our Judges and police are behaving not as dispassionate
arbiters of law and legal process but highly politically.
This was never the intention of Law in Britain at least. Our
Common Law and Parliamentary Acts, were always meant to be
interpreted by Police and Judiciary as blindly as possible in order that the
‘Guilty’ party, were indeed innocent until a court trial proved so.
What is happening now, is not only that people are being made
subject to ‘crimes’ that do not exist as yet on the Statute book but worse
still, presumed ‘guilty’ before even being brought before a court of law
and in these cases at least, arraigned on actions that are ‘legal or illegal’ on
the mere say so of a state servant, namely a police constable or his police
chief. The Police have in fact placed themselves by such actions above
the elected executive authority of national government. We therefore
have a subservient organ of state charged with the protection of the
public it serves preying on that same body, indifferent to sanction and
control. This means that we have a de facto police state in Britain.
The old couple threatened with prosecution for ‘Hate Crime’
because they did not approve of homosexuality is not legal by any stretch
of the legal imagination as I have clearly stated in my book ‘A Question
of Balance?II’11 and the police and council officials involved, themselves
could most certainly be guilty of an offence under the very laws they have
taken it upon themselves to reinterpret.
This abuse of power is unreasonable and illegal. One simply does
not stand a chance of reasoning with unreasonable behaviour like this.
Yet what other alternative is there, other than to utilise reason and logical
argument to defeat these people and their activities in order to expose the
fallacious doctrine and amorality that underpins it? The other way is
violence and I for one do not want that. Violence solves nothing. No it is

11 Guy Leven-Torres 2006 Chapters 10–12. www. lulu.com/guyleventorres, New York 2006.

24
within Reason and Truth, particularly Ontological Truth or self-evident
fact, those very same, the exponents of ‘Paraodological Nihilism’ and
‘Gramscian’ amorality hate so much, that their defeat is most assured. It
is also called Common Sense. And this shall be our weapon of choice!
With Common Sense we can deconstruct and expose their dangerous
corruption and perversions.

Chapter 3
The Void Person

Wolves raise a foundling child. For the first ten years it has no
contact with any other human being. It knows it is different to its
adoptive lupine mother but does not realise how different. The child

25
cannot speak and only growl and howl as the wolves it lives with do. It
postures like a wolf as best it can but it knows it is not a wolf.
The child is intelligent and naturally curious wonders why it feels
lonely. Is this all there is to life then? The child quickly understands that
it has something far more than the wolves in its pack. It realises that not
only is it physical different but unlike the carnivore wolves has something
way beyond mere instinct: He cannot describe it, yet he knows it is about
himself: a consciousness way beyond that of the wolves. He sees and
understands the world so very differently to them.
He also knows he can make sounds the wolves cannot with his
lips. These sounds are very different to the howls and growls of his wolf
family. He can do other things as well like scream and make a whole
range of noises. Sure enough he understands the desires and moods of
the wolves but that is as far as it goes. He sleeps with them and their
smell, make him feel safe. But he is different.
One day he has to cross a stream and without realising picks up a
wooden branch to keep him balanced while he crosses, so as not to lose
his footing. Then one day he sees the old mother wolf that raised him die
an agonising death and he cries and cries. The wolves howl and wail their
distress at this loss but they do not feel the loss of self that the boy does.
This sense of loss is like another kind of Otherness.
The boy has intelligence and also a conscience unlike the wolves.
He feels that he has to leave the pack and try to establish his own origins.
Of course he cannot speak or form words in his mind but he knows.
Take the branch for example. The wolves did not think about
doing that: he did. He cannot stay with them now. He feels guilt at
leaving them but he must. He leaves the woods where he has lived for all
his childhood and goes to a village where he knows now that there are
people like him. The villagers are kindly and despite the filthy disheveled
appearance of the boy take him in.
He cannot speak of course but he understands gesture. Soon he
learns to be more human and starts to learn to talk. He is known as the
‘Wolf Boy’ and thousands flock to the tiny village to see him. He brings
the villagers wealth and luck and they want to hang on to him.
He even has a name now and he is called Tippoo. Soon Tippoo is
the very epitome of civilised man. He becomes wealthy and a film star.
Yet he has a yearning for his wolf companions and so one day sneaks
away from the village and finds his pack,
26
They approach him with caution and snarl as he comes close. He
smells differently. What is more he is Man and wolves don’t like Man: he
is dangerous. Tippoo soon realised he could not be friends with them
anymore. He returns to the village and his own kind.
What then is the moral of this tale? It is this. We are human. We
have superior intelligence to animals. We also have an innate sense of
right from wrong and far from just having instincts like animals have a
conscience and more importantly a higher sense of self- consciousness.
Tippoo could only be what he was a human being. He could never be a
non-person either. Our sense of self is just too strong as is our curiosity.
Even without the ability to speak and form words in his human
mind, Tippoo knew he was different. He was never a void person but a
state of being. When he learned to speak he was able to become more
fully human still. Language completed the process.
Any ‘philosophy’ or dogma that seeks to limit what we think and
say diminishes us as human beings. The censure of everyday acts leads to
a process of dehumanisation as it is only in conversing freely with our
fellow humans that we become happy contented individuals.

Chapter 4
Song of Songs

Does it really matter whether somebody is Left or Right politically? We


often hear the Left denigrate the BNP (British National Perty) but why?. Many
of their policies are the same as those of the Left that attack it. They believe in
state ownership and much else. In many ways they are a National Socialist Party
every bit as the Morning Workers Party and Hitler’s NSDAP. Personally one
feels that semantics plays a pert here.
One morning, I received about twenty e.mails attacking my book ‘A
Question of Balance?’ One abusive e.mail called me an ‘idiot’ because ‘You
confuse Fascism with Liberalism by the use of the term ‘‘Liberal Fascists’’!’ I
27
will not stoop to the use of abuse as I am confident that I am right in my use
and application of the term. I am far from being the first. The late Bernard
Levin used it while he wrote his excellent column in the Times.
My accuser needs to do some real reading and stop trying to muscle in
through his own shallow puerile interpretations of such concepts. ‘Politics does
not run on ideological rails’ might be apposite here. There is also the biblical
admonition not to ‘cast pearls before swine’. Individual’s naiveté never fails to
amaze one. As one e.mailer said, ‘Go back to sleep old chap!’ It will be
Children’s hour soon.
Sven Hassall the novelist who wrote ‘Wheels of Terror’ a part
fictionalised account of his service in Hitler’s Penal Battalions on the Eastern
Front, demonstrated clearly that the question of ideological difference between
National Socialism and Communism is one of degree rather than content. Even
here, they have much in common: the first wanted to foment international
socialist revolution through the Communist Internationale by subverting nation
states, as can be seen by the fact that it is still at it as we have seen through
Political Correctness. The second wanted to achieve world domination via
Blitzkrieg and tank formations to establish a German National Socialism across
Europe and the Free World.
Even ‘Liberalism’ as practiced by our own ‘Liberal’ elite is really a form
of totalitarianism. Perhaps the correct term should be ‘Fascist Libertarianism’ or
‘Fascist Amoralism’. Too much freedom can be as oppressive as the most
totalitarian of socialist regimes. The fact is both Communism and National
Socialism are Left ideologies, stemming from the same Marxist-Leninist
premises and misinterpreted Darwinian theorising.
The New Amoral Global Elite boast about ‘freedom’. However what it
terms ‘freedom’ is license. Nobody can be truly free under such regimes.
Genuine freedom carries with it law and responsibility. True freedom must have
a strong component of denial within its template. ‘Libertarianism’ imprisons us
by enslaving us to the bestial unchecked passions that true freedom and law
releases from. Denial in fact is a major component in real freedom.
The age-old expression of ‘Freedom under the Law’ is not just some
repetitive cliché but witness to the truth. Law is there to make us free: free from
oppression and fear, free from those who covet what we have striven for and
earned through our own efforts, freedom to say what we feel and think and
most importantly, to agree to disagree.
In contrast, we now have fascist liberalism that allows the criminal to
do what he or she wants, where society is at fault rather than individuals
charged with responsibility for their actions, where fascist religious ideologues
prevent us from speaking our minds and bomb and kill us if we attempt to do
so or lock us up. A totalitarianism where sexual abstinence and license are
almost compulsory and where even our very language is curbed, should it not
28
reflect the new order’s accepted way of doing things. A society where exist
‘Human Rights’ without duty to others and where that very concept of ‘other’ is
subordinated to self. More importantly ‘all property is theft!’
Human beings can only truly be free under the Law. Any other way is
that of the beast. The greatest freedom is that which comes from within, namely
oneself. However in the situation that now exists, wherein we are increasingly
censured for being self-disciplined and on the contrary, encouraged to be self-
indulgent and tolerant of acts, that only a while ago would not only have been
illegal but anathema, we are imprisoned by the very fact we are not allowed to
live by that ancient Law that allowed us to be free. License is therefore a form
of amoral prison: a celebration of bondage through non-guilt and self-
indulgence. We are therefore bound by the ropes of sexual fetishism and
perversion of morality. Amorality has become our prison cell.
Guilt is part of freedom too. Now we are even denied that privilege.
The right to feel remorse and regret is perhaps the greatest of all human
freedoms as these reflect upon us as the moral human beings we are. To deny
this aspect of our humanity, is the greatest threat to our freedom of all. It denies
us the very privilege of understanding right from wrong: good from evil.
Without the freedom to do so we are less than animals.
I have given all this the name Paradological Nihilism. This is because I
feel that we are on the road to self-extinction through parody and paradox.
What we have today in the society we live in, is a parody of its former self
Furthermore it is a sick parody of the democratic system and Law we once
cherished. It is not freedom but license. It is a totalitarian license too. The
paradox should be obvious even to the most dull. By releasing us all from moral
and spiritual responsibility we have become imprisoned and subject to our
basest of desires in pursuit of self at any cost.
We have discussed ‘Deconstructivism’ in my previous book ‘A
Question of Balance’ and seen that it is as incredibly destructive as intended by
its exponents. The trouble is they have replaced that which is lost with amorality
and license that far from freeing us has imprisoned us, as it allows evil to thrive.
It has no standard apart from worship of self and perversion. It does not pursue
excellence and perfection but the base and lowest common denominator. This
is indeed the road to extinction not Nirvana.
Some turn back to religion in order to find direction. This aspect in
particular is a traditional approach to such situations. What is not traditional
though, is the deliberate attack upon innocents that some of the more fanatical
elements of the new religionists have sought as a way of destroying those
systems and people of whom they disapprove. They only become part of the
Paradological Nihilistic problem. They actually aid and abet the very same
corrupt ideologues they profess to despise. This is why we now face a Triple
Alliance of militant Islam and Christianity on the one hand and ‘Politically
Correct’ post Marxist-Gramscian idealism allied to Far Right organisations, like
29
the BNP and Communistic parties like Respect and Animal Liberation
movements. In reality there is no political difference even though their
exponents would argue the fact like the dunderhead who called one an idiot
above for ‘confusing’ Fascism with ‘Liberalism’. There is no confusion: all want
to control us irrespective of professed political colour or creed. That trip down
the M1 was a warning of the Armageddon that awaits us all: a dark post
Orwellian nightmare that not only controls our thought but our very souls.

Conclusion

We need to return to Common Sense! Any other way is the road to


Hell. There is nothing wrong with being proud of one’s country. Patriotism may
be the refuge of some scoundrels but not every patriot is a scoundrel. The
nation state may be far from perfect but it is better than anything that the
extremists want to replace it with.
It is not racist to object to mass uncontrolled immigration. It is not
bigoted to object to sexual and other practices that traditional morality informs
us is wrong.
It is not elitist to object to mass education in a university system never
meant to be so. Every country needs it elite, except the fools we have now
ruling us. Having a decent elite is good. It provides something to strive for.
Society must be fluid enough though to admit new talent into its elite. Something
the current one does not allow.
Competition is also good. The deliberate undermining of knowledge
and high ambition in pursuit of the lowest common denominator in pursuit of
‘Equality’ is wrong: it is also stupid and self destructive.
True equality comes in recognition that we are all unique and different:
one from another. True Equality in recognition of those differences and
allowing us to stand before the Law that takes account of our station in life
30
irrespective of our differences. That Law must also recognise our uniqueness as
human beings.
It is not racist or xenophobic to object to a religion and its extremist
followers who have stated openly the wish to conquer us and replace
Christianity with Islam as the dominant ideology. We have the right and
absolute duty to stand against this.
It is not wrong to object to anything one dislikes. The privilege to do so
is democratic and right. We must have the freedom to agree to disagree.
It is not wrong to object to the imposition of curbs that discriminate in
favour of the disabled at the expense of common sense and the fit and healthy.
One cannot simply legislate disability away. My own mother was wheelchair
bound and I strenuously object to the fascism that dictates she should have her
disability placed above the activities and pursuits of the fit and healthy. She, one
knows would have had great objection to being utilised as a political weapon to
undermine society. In short she would have been deeply offended. It is in caring
and assisting those less fortunate than ourselves that we become more fully
human and compassionate.
The wholesale utilisation of disadvantaged individuals and groups for
political advantage over the rest of society is the greatest of all evils. This is in
fact exploitation at its very worst as it seeks out the weakest elements in society
and places them at even greater disadvantage.
The biggest bigots, racists and xenophobes are actually those who
espouse political correctness. They hate their own people and country and only
indulge those weaker elements of society so long as they are in a position too. I
will finish with a short anecdote.
Years ago while studying Archaeology I read of a city in Rhodesia or
modern day Zimbabwe that was years in advance of anything at the time it was
built in so called ‘civilised Europe. So advanced was it that the British colonists
could not believe the black man had built it and thought it was constructed by a
missing ‘white race’!
I mentioned this to my very left leaning tutor. He told me that ‘for
reasons that ‘you could not possibly understand, it was not a city in the
traditional sense.’ I pointed out the urban plan, paved streets, halls and houses
constructed out of dressed stone and even street lighting. ‘No it is still not a
city!’ was his reply.
Then I realised the awful truth: it could not be accepted as a city
because if it was, it would mean the black tribe or tribes that had constructed it,
would be as capable as the whites and that if this was so, then the Blackman was
their equal and could not be a victim of ‘white’ society to be felt sorry for! It is
similar to the situation to the mounds found in the United States that the white
settlers refused to admit were built by native indians but by some missing ‘white

31
race’! This is the true nature of the arrogant left all over. They are in fact the
biggest bigoted racists of all and why one despises them so much. Is there really
so much different between Left and Right then? To me they are all Socialist
Leftist bigots and racists.

32

You might also like