Friday, August 4, 2006

Churchill, his Conservatism and freedom

In an age of Islamic fascism maybe the Old Anglo Aristocrat would have had a wise thought or two

by StFerdIII

Churchill was the 20th century’s most influential person, because he personified, defended, and extended the franchise of the orthodox Anglo-Saxon inspired [big L] Liberal-Parliamentary order. Yet his lessons, attitudes and beliefs are already forgotten. In this sense he was indeed the last of the ‘Conservatives’.

The Liberal-Parliamentary order is not the ‘end of history’ but merely the most successful method of organising society yet developed. But we need to clarify some terms. First big L ‘Liberal’ in my usage does not mean the sick modern small l liberalism of left wing Marxists and chattering media elites with their empty headed politically correct rhetoric and matchless support of corrupt political friends. ‘Liberal’ in my vocabulary references the orthodox Enlightenment based Liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries – small government, low taxation, a strong military, a society keen on progress, innovation and self-reliance. In essence these ideals are branded in today’s parlance by the term ‘Conservative’ used as a pejorative by the weak-minded and power hungry. I in no way support the modern welfare or mommy-state as espoused by small l liberalism or the legal-gay-feminist axis that runs roughshod in today’s politics. Neither would or did Churchill.

Second I use ‘parliamentary order’ on purpose. I am not a big fan of ‘mass democracy’ which in my view leads to mob rule, socialist pandering to buy votes and widespread ignorance. Representative parliamentary and republican processes and institutions are necessary for society to develop. ‘Parliamentary order’ references legal, political, and systemic processes that allow a society to progress morally, spiritually, legally, economically and militarily. When politicians blather about mass democracy I have the suspicion that few know what they are talking about and that even fewer understand that it is systemic processes [as opposed to an all knowing liberal elite, educated at Ivy League schools reshaping society in their vanity], and institutions which are far surer guides to progress, then vacant rhetoric about mass democratic mob rule. In any event mass democracy has led not only to the emasculation of systemic processes and virtues but also to the establishment of a massive system of welfare and vote-buying which breaks society apart into little groups that must be catered to and bought. Mass democracy leads in short to corruption and the curtailment of freedom.

In contradistinction to what we have today, orthodox Liberals or Conservatives in the common parlance believe that systemic processes, virtues and respect for individual rights and private property ownership trump socialist vote buying and pandering to ‘rights’ groups. Churchill was one of the great defenders of systemic Conservative human progress based on orthodox Liberal ideas. This creed is premised on millennia of experiences, millions of social, economic and moral transactions and the affirmation that collective results premised on freedom of information and the accumulation of literally billions of decisions, coupled with parliamentary institutions, are far better guides to enlightenment and progress than following the utopian dreams and dictums of a self-appointed and self-absorbed corrupted elite who desire to create the mommy-state to accrete power and control.

In the age of fascist Islam, moral equivalency, United Nations corruption and support of illiberal forces, and the sad moral relativity embedded in socialist governance, there is no guarantee that freedom will survive. Churchill embodied the best spirit and hopes of mankind precisely because he defended the Conservative order and view of the world. He expressed clearly and consistently over a 60 year career in politics the belief that systemic and parliamentary forces are the only methods to move society forward in the right direction. Such forces are of course the most reliable means of increasing wealth, justice and morality for all. Though an aristocrat Churchill understood that the Conservative vision – which is so at odds with the modern welfare liberalism and mommy-state creations we have today in the West – was the only path to ensure societal dynamism and freedom for the mass. He also understood that international institutions are limited and that fascism is not reduced by endless jawing and discussions, but only through war.

Many however disagree. Hollywood airheads, pop singers, social-reductionists, leftist’s, Marxists, academics, and defender’s of the Third World’s self induced malaise, these critics and more descry Conservatism, Western history and Enlightenment ideals as being little more than white racist tripe. Such groups hate a man like Churchill who was full of pomp, addicted to empire and war, too manly, and incomprehensibly ignorant in dealing with modern socio-political issues – or so such groups claim. These criticisms take aim at Churchill’s policies; the fact that he was a white Anglo; his aristocratic lineage; his fondness for military affairs to defend empire and civilisation; his penchant for self promotion; his [admittedly] indefensible objection to India’s self-rule; and the politician’s flair for changing goals and objectives in order to succour election. Most of these critics contend that history is shaped by dialectical forces that overwhelm weak human leadership and initiative and in that regard Churchill was not brilliant but only lucky. They maintain that Churchill only rode the ‘tide’ of events and that any thinking politician did or would have done the same. One can analyse these criticisms and perhaps give them fair play but in general they are pathetic, insipid and largely worthless.

Freedom and liberty is a difficult concept to fully comprehend and defend – but they are not premised on ‘dialectical theories’ or luck. In the West it is simply taken for granted that freedom will flourish. There should be a debate however on how free people really are in the mommy-state creations of the 21rst century where tax, spend and programs of all sizes erupt yearly from self aggrandizing bureaucrats and officials. The more government power that we have, the less likely it is that prosperity will march on in a linear progression. The more mommy-state programs that are implemented the less reliable past systemic virtues, institutions and processes become. In the mommy-welfare state Conservative and systemic institutional ideals fade into irrelevance as history is rewritten and codes of conduct reshaped.

Though many people still live in poverty, filth, corrupt kleptocracies and desperation, to quote Churchill, ‘their liberation is sure.’ However, it will only be ‘sure’ if the current system of nation state and international governance does not mutate into anti-Western, anti-republican, or anti-parliamentary socialism and we defeat militant fascist pagan Islam in the Middle East and anywhere else it presents itself. These twin threats are very real. Many Western nations in the world that profess a faith in ‘orthodox liberalism’ are in reality top-down socialist constructs. Unsurprisingly most of these nations are also lax or non-participants in the war on terror against the fascistic elements of Islam preferring to free-ride off the Anglo-Saxon military. There is no evidence in history that socialism is a moral or successful construct yet it has sadly become the de-facto standard of political organisation.

In many countries socialist dogma has little in common with freedom, or what allowed the West to flourish and control history. For instance national defence, projectionable military force and pride in our collective Western greatness and historical dynamism have been jettisoned to establish immoral international or ‘post-modern’ groups, replete with unaccountable and expensive Orwellian programs and double-talk. We have replaced the philosophies of Churchill with the smirking incoherence of ‘mommy figures’ and immoral liars and centralists like Kofi Annan, Clinton and Chirac. The threat to Western freedom lies not only in fascist Islam, but in the oppressive socialism marked by post-modern welfare states, ‘managed’ trade, overbearing government, corrupt politicians and the imposition of the mommy-nanny state to turn individuals into narcissistic automatons and men into half female creatures unable to think and act like their forbears.

The values that Churchill stood for and defended, and in some sense allowed to survive and flourish, are under attack. Freedom is ephemeral and in mankind’s long journey only the late modern era has unshackled the average person’s life from tyranny. Socialism, government control, state managed trade, tariffs, regulations and unaccountable world bodies are as much of a threat to our prosperity – economic, moral, environmental and spiritual – as is pagan fascist Islamic fundamentalism. I hope we can all learn a lesson from one of mankind’s more interesting personalities and not take for granted what we have today and roll back the corrosive tides of socialist and fascistic tyranny. If we fail we deserve our fate. If we don’t understand history and realise that the fascist and illiberal ideas of the 1930s have indeed resurfaced in Islam and in small l liberalism than we truly are, as Churchill said about the human race, ‘un-teachable from infancy to the tomb.’ Unfortunately it may come to pass that Churchill was indeed the last of the Conservatives as the world falls prey to eco-fascist cults; post modern socialist silliness; and the onward march of militant pagan Islam.