I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
As if the monsoon of liberalism drowning our political life in it PC sewage wasn't bad enough, even the Catholic Church (the surviving member of Harold McMillan's triumvirate of formidable powers) has the same culture war as the political world: their 'leadership' is rotten to the core with false liberalism and the tone deafness and stupidity in the face of change that typifies the Boomer generation and their acolytes.
Even much of the argument and the invective is the same.
I dare say the good old C of E is just the same.
And there are millions of people out there who hate the destruction or corruption of the old and the good. They'd do something about it and offer help and cash to anyone who promised to use authority to perform the tasks to which it is suited and who would also swear to destroy the falsely gained and cruelly used power of the Political Class with which it seeks to uproot and plough over everything good and old in England.
What a power such people would be, if honestly and bravely led. What a mighty forest they would grow into if only integrity and foresight weren't banned from public discourse.
There really ought to be a name for that kind of thinking, but I just can't put my finger on it right now. I guess we'll have to look forward to the best available deal that can be done with the Liberal Democrats and the BBC.
Meantime, serendipitously, a lovely blog called English Buildings.
Something else to fight Them for.
Picture, hilariously, from here.
2 comments:
The thing that strikes me about that Catholic link is the complete unawareness of these folks. They want to modernise to keep the Church hip'n'relevant, but it's dying, which means..l even more modernisation. Like liberalism in general, their theory is completely unfalsifiable: it either works or you're not doing it right.
More virgins! More heretics! Burn them all or the Great Ones will be angered further!
But that's the problem when you whole world view runs according to a narrative instead of a set of principles.
They call us conservatives inflexible in our fuddy-duddy principles, but you only have to compare the two approaches on the simplest of levels to see who's the stick-in-the-mud. Looking at Islamic terrorism and how to deal with it, which is likelier to actually work: 'How shall we deal with an unexpected problem within our delightfully multicultural society, and how shall we define and dig out the white racism that caused it? ' or 'How shall we use the huge resources of civil and military society to define and defeat an existential threat to civilisation without utterly corrupting the rule of law?'
It's a different kind of no-brainer on each side, I think.
Post a Comment