home of ... Douglas Social Credit
Food for Thought: There is none so blind as they that won't see
Jonathan Swift (1667 - 1745) Polite Conversation. Dialogue II(1)
HOME AND AWAY August 2004
The Noose Tightens As We Continue To Look The Other Way
Education is one select subject of intense concern as a longstanding target of social and political dispute. In this context we have been tempted conveniently to forget the Cold War era and thus overlook its continuing relevance today, based as it was on politico-military confrontation with the now defunct Soviet Communist Bloc. Equally, we have lost sight of the subversion, espionage, infiltration, propaganda, agitation and so on that were part of this phase of international, geopolitical strategy. Just how serious this was, as its lingering ideological legacy remains today, when Education continues to be a philosophical and political battleground at the expense of our children, may be seen in an old press cutting on Education that recently came to hand. The article, by John Izbicki, was probably written in the late 1980s. It was also probably published in The Daily Telegraph. Here are a few extracts:
Not since the publication of the Little Red Book have I come across as scurrilous a document as the one now being circulated among some Left-Wing school governors. . . . For example, fellow leftists are told to deliberately prolong meetings by "seeking clarification, niggling and insisting on being heard out"; they are also told to "raise pre-planned 'unexpected' points," to discredit the board's clerk by constantly questioning his or her accuracy so that, eventually, they are forced to resign. At this point a member of the Militant Tendency or similar is put in to clerk. Extremist governors must "never be emotional" but must "keep calm and be relentless." They should "suggest the sixth form is non-viable, whatever its size" and they should always support the grievance procedure. The head, representing the establishment and therefore detested by the Left, has to be persecuted to such an extent that his authority becomes undermined, viz: "Constantly question statements made by the head; imply concealment of information; seek to isolate him from staff and governors; visit school unannounced; suggest unrest among parents, teachers, students; imply low morale, low public opinion of the school and ignore good exam results." Teachers, non-teaching staff or pupils with a grievance must be supported "whatever the grievance". . . . "Concentrate to begin with on teachers of humanities, social studies, religious instruction (but ignore music, P.E. and classics); find out teachers' feelings about ethnic groups; hint at unfairness in head's promotion policy; and visit staff rooms at breaks."
Revolution And The Metamorphosis And Arrogance Of Power
The bloody Bolshevik Revolution of October, 1917, which followed the Menshevik seizure of power in the previous March, was ruthless in liquidating whole swathes of Russian society(3). During the Stalinist period of the 1930s and 1940s we come across an important handbook on Diversion ("Diversiya")(4). This embodied many non-violent means to circumvent outright military conflict by undermining the administrative, moral and social fabric of one's opponent. It was based on the theories, 2,500 years before, of the Chinese military strategist, Sun Tz_, whose work is often glibly cited today, although the close relationship to Soviet Politico-Military Doctrine of the former U.S.S.R. is rarely recognised(5). What might be termed the "methodology" of the Armed Struggle of violent revolution failed to take root in the West. Therefore the Marxist corollary of the Ideological Struggle, for the mind, became the nature of the same revolution in Westernised, principally Christian society. This took the form of what has become known as "Cultural Communism"(6). An essential element of this is Political Correctness, the process originating with Marxism-Leninism, for relentlessly conditioning, and so controlling, public thought, perceptions and ultimately behaviour(7)(8). As one consequence we are even now witnessing the annual replay of cheapjack party political point-scoring over examination results in Education, just as we see this in continued attempts to eliminate merit, so-called elitism and competitive team sports in state schools.
The late Alan Clark pointed out that the historical creed of the Conservative Party was to retain political power in the interest of their own kind, thus control over land ownership, property, inheritance, and entrepreneurial independence(9). But the Revolution has since moved on from this Left-Right ideological gridlock. It has deposited in its wake a barren Tory Party devoid of any viable or meaningful philosophy. Socialism, not Communism, was always the key philosophy underlying the Marxist World Revolution. Both served the increasingly global Power Brokers in some 200 years of revolutionary insurrection and social change. Revolution also required the essential stimulus of finance. The Soviet Communist system was sustained throughout most of its existence by Western Capitalism. Concurrently, the same Revolution in the West has been obligingly bringing the petty bourgeoisie, the middle classes, to heel. The electorate, who fondly imagine that they elect governments to serve the interests of the people, are being progressively emasculated and neutered by the ratchet of an oppressive domestic bureaucracy in conjunction with that of the centralist European collective. It is becoming an egalitarian, amorphous society in which we are gradually being coerced into becoming "non-judgmental", a function of power to be exercised only by the Ruling Elite - the Nomenklatura - over the rest of us. We may now better understand the close connections between the Marxist-Leninist concept of Diversion (Diversiya), Cultural Communism and Political Correctness.
But the Labour Party should know better. It shouldn't just grumble audibly. It should recognise that its leader has become a comic-opera figure himself and rise in revolt. In fact, he's worse than that. His outrageous decision to stay with Berlusconi was beyond mere snobbery and self-indulgence. It was a kick in the teeth for the Labour Party and a show of contempt for everything it has ever stood for.
IRAQ - A "BETTER AND SAFER PLACE"Tony Blair Justifying The War In His response To The Butler Report
The sickening parody of governance that prevails in Westminster today is starkly evident whenever Prime Minister Tony Blair makes any reference to the situation in Iraq. The "sparring between barristers" as the Labour and Conservative Party leaders confront each other across the floor of the House of Commons simply adds to this farce. Iraq is in flames. Newspapers like the Telegraph seek to portray the widespread insurrection as the work of rebels, renegades, insurgents, extremists and even terrorists. The United States, aided and abetted by the United Kingdom, contrived to invade a sovereign Nation that had posed a threat only to their oil hegemony. The invasion was based on brazenly false evidence and bulldozed through the United Nations Security Council. Primarily the United States, coarse, crude, cultureless and brutal has come close to destroying an historic country and its heritage in the name of "Liberation". The United States has no other card than the employment of brute military force on the scale of a conventional European-style conflict; force used to smash down, and continue to smash down, any one who gets in the way, at the hands of mindless politicians and mindless military commanders. The "Liberation" of the Iraqi people has turned out to be wholesale destruction, some 12,000 deaths and still rising, and countless innocent men, women and children bombed, shelled and maimed. All because the Iraqis, increasingly bonded together across religious divides, simply want their country back on their own terms. In the Basra region one, then two and now three British soldiers have lost their lives in the process of attempting to keep the lid on this holocaust in the South for the sake of the Americans. There is a rather coarse term, "pass the sick bucket", that comes to mind each time one hears any blandly idiotic, self-delusory pronouncement on Iraq from the British Prime Minister. Robert Fisk, an expert on the Middle East, wrote of the reality on the ground in the Arab News on 2nd August, 2004. Since then nothing has changed. We are moved to reproduce his words here:
Can't Bush and Blair See Iraq Is About to
Each day, the papers here list another construction company pulling out of the country. And I go down to visit the friendly, tragically sad staff of the Baghdad mortuary and there, each day, are dozens of those Iraqis we supposedly came to liberate, screaming and weeping and cursing as they carry their loved ones on their shoulders in cheap coffins. I keep re reading Tony Blair's statement. "I remain convinced it was right to go to war. It was the most difficult decision of my life." And I cannot understand it. It may be a terrible decision to go to war. Even Chamberlain thought that; but he didn't find it a difficult decision because, after the Nazi invasion of Poland, it was the right thing to do. And driving along the streets of Baghdad now, watching the terrified American patrols, hearing yet another thunderous explosion shaking my windows and doors after dawn, I realize what all this means. Going to war in Iraq, invading Iraq last year, was the most difficult decision Blair had to take because he thought correctly that it might be the wrong decision. I will always remember his remark to British troops in Basra, that the sacrifice of British soldiers was not Hollywood but "real flesh and blood". Yes, it was real flesh and blood that was shed. "Deadly force is authorized," it says on checkpoints all over Baghdad. Authorized by whom? There is no accountability. Repeatedly, on the great highways out of the city United States soldiers shriek at motorists and open fire at the least suspicion. "We had some Navy Seals down at our checkpoint the other day," a 1st Cavalry sergeant says to me. "They asked if we were having any trouble. I said, yes, they've been shooting at us from a house over there. One of them asked: 'That house?' We said yes. So they have these three S.U.Vs. and a lot of weapons made of titanium and they drive off towards the house. And later they come back and say 'We've taken care of that'. And we didn't get shot at any more."
The Curious Case Of Ann Clwyd, M.P., And Ahmed ChalabiLabour politician Ann Clwyd, M.P., is Prime Minster Tony Blair's special representative on Iraq. It has also been announced that she is to be appointed to the Privy Council, a body of those of the highest integrity established to advise the Monarch. Dr Ahmed Chalabi's family left Iraq for the West, where Chalabi was educated, some forty years ago. From the outset, Chalabi has been a Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.), nominee and headed the Provisional Administration in Iraq. He is also wanted on serious fraud charges in Jordan. At On Target, we learned that Chalabi had been linked to Ann Clwyd since 1998 through INDICT Limited. This company was formed in 1997, apparently under the name of treetready, and purports to be a non-profit-making organisation. For six months, in 2000, another director was Sir John Morgan, K.C.M.G. On the board of the Maxwell Communications Corporation from 1989 to 1990, and Invesco, originally the Drayton Group, this leads to Lord Stevens of Ludgate, formerly of Express Newspapers. The Drayton Group leads in turn to the extremely murky world of the City of London, Southern Africa, and the Royal finances(10). This is the same apolitical hall of mirrors inhabited by the likes of Lord Charles Powell and Peter Mandelson, M.P. That such a trail should involve Chalabi and Privy Counsellor designate Ann Clwyd, M.P. five years before the invasion of Iraq suggests that much remains to be explained, including the reasons that nothing of this seems to have appeared in the media. Relevant pages from the Companies House print-out are reproduced on these pages. .
Hypothetical Mirror Images - The "Channel Wars" - Or How Would We Like It?Let us construct a theoretical scenario. This is the story of the first and second "Channel War" and the ten-year interval between them. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has a long-standing history of incursions into the territory of others; far worse than any Moslem nation, even the Turkish Ottoman Empire. However, through various treaties from 1972 the sovereignty of the United Kingdom has been progessively subordinated to that of an European superstate, the European Union; E.U. for short. As one anti-E.U. Member of Parliament, Sir Teddy Taylor has claimed, the United Kingdom cannot legally extract itself from this centralist state once committed. However, ten years ago, following increasing friction with the Republic of Ireland, a fellow constituent state of the European Community, given a nod and a wink by the European Commissioner for External Affairs (As had been given by the United States Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, in 1990, prior to the Kuwait invasion), Britain went ahead to invade the Republic. Ignoring assurances of a peaceful settlement from the British Government, the European Commission landed a large Coalition Army drawn from the European Defence Force, at Dover and at Waterford, in the Republic. Discredited by reports of British brutality, and rumours, later proved to be a fabrication, that babies in Dublin hospitals had been thrown out of incubators, the shattered and ill-prepared British troops retreated back across the border into Northern Ireland in confusion. Hundreds fleeing British troops and camp followers were slaughtered in wave after wave of attacks from the air, whilst others who were attempting to surrender were shot down in cold blood. In a high altitude aerial bombardment of London, huge bunker-busting bombs killed several hundred civilians as they sheltered in underground stations at Euston, Charing Cross and Victoria. Several bridges across the Thames were destroyed, vast areas of the West End were in flames. Fire had gutted parts of the House of Commons and the entire roof of Buckingham Palace had collapsed. The story was much the same in cities and towns throughout the country. As the Coalition Forces began to withdraw, major power generating stations, sewerage works and water pumping stations were deliberately put out of action by heavy bombing raids. The deeply unpopular authoritarian British Government was left to continue in office in London, but the European Commission pressed the United Nations to impose draconian sanctions, under which even the simplest education and medical materials, such as pencils and bandages were denied on the pretext that they might be converted for military use. The United Nations also despatched teams of weapons inspectors who closed the Porton Down Biological Warfare Establishment; all naval dockyards and defence manufacturing installations being likewise closed, sealed off and placed under permanent surveillance.
The Health Service organisation, one of the most comprehensive in the West, now faced a critical shortage of vital supplies and constant power supply breakdowns due to the precarious condition of the public infrastructure. This, and contaminated residues from the widespread use of Depleted Uranium ammunition, saw a massive rise in untreatable child cancers, birth malformations and other problems. When later challenged about the deaths of some 500,000 children, the European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid replied that this was "cheap at the price". Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland had been encouraged by the European Union to rebel at the end of hostilities. When military support from Europe failed to materialise, British reprisals began, including the use of poison gas supplied by some Common Market governments, so Denmark and Germany unilaterally instigated high altitude aerial patrols over the United Kingdom in defiance of the European Commission. A number of schools, hospitals and residential areas were accidentally bombed during the ten years that followed the end of the first Channel War. Even flocks of sheep, along with shepherds and smallholders' families as far apart as the Welsh Berwyns and Perthshire became innocent victims of indiscriminate bombing during surveillance patrols.
Ten years after the British surrender the European Commission began to bring pressure to bear on the British Government over "suspicions", based on information provided by British expatriates domiciled in France - vigorously denied by the United Nations Weapons Inspectors - that Britain was once again manufacturing Weapons of Mass Destruction. A suitable dossier of "evidence" was concocted. Helped by promises of aid to certain Third World countries, approval for a Resolution to sanction military action by the European Coalition was bulldozed through the United Nations Security Council. Ahead of any formal declaration of hostilities the Danish-German aerial bombardment was intensified and was now directed against specific military targets. The British Government dispersed into hiding. As a prelude to the invasion broadcasting and television stations were targeted in heavy bombing raids along with major public buildings in cities around the country. With numerous town and city centres already on fire, the ill-equipped remnants of the over-stretched British ground troops were overwhelmed by large armoured formations that were driving inland from bridgeheads at Folkstone and Portsmouth.
When checkpoints were established on major routes and all entry points to residential and commercial centres, numerous incidents began to occur in which innocent civilians were shot at random by raw, trigger-happy Coalition troops unfamiliar with the British language and customs. Heavy armoured vehicles were deployed en masse at key locations. A Provisional Administration, comprising long-term expatriate Britons appointed by European Intelligence agencies was installed, shortly after which Roman Catholic militiamen assassinated the Archbishop of York. Anger began to mount at the killings and lack of public services, even to war ravaged hospitals. With the Royal family incarcerated incommunicado in Holloway Prison, the Coalition Military Headquarters was established at Buckingham Palace. Kensington Palace, St James Palaces and Windsor Castle were taken over as barracks for Coalition troops. The British Museum and the British Library were ransacked. Numerous museums, historic castles, abbeys and cathedrals were similarly desecrated and, in some cases dismantled ready to be shipped for sale to collectors in the United States. Historic statues in Westminster were ceremonially dynamited before imported crowds. As pockets of British servicemen began covertly to regroup in regional militias across the country, the hard-line Bishop of London led the occupation of St Paul's Cathedral in defiance of the more moderate Archbishop of Canterbury. His militia seized a large tract of urban London to the East of Hackney. Two members of the puppet Administration were killed by rocket propelled grenades as they entered the House of Commons. A convoy of London buses conveying European officials to the Headquarters of the Provisional Administration in Whitehall was attacked on Waterloo Bridge with heavy loss of life. Helicopter gunships attacked centres of suspected urban resistance, maiming and injuring hundreds of innocent men, women and children, as the blitzed hospitals struggled to handle the flow of casualties. Several schools in densely populated areas were destroyed. Civilian ambulances clearly bearing the Red Cross were repeatedly fired on by Coalition troops.
Many urban areas and much of the countryside became no-go areas for the Coalition Forces. Business was at a standstill. Railway and local bus services were non-existent except in remote areas, and the M1 motorway, a vital corridor between London and Birmingham was littered with the wrecks of Coalition vehicles and became too dangerous to negotiate. The militia effectively controlled all other motorways to the North, to Wales and to the West Country. Supermarkets began to close due to the shortage of fuel for road transport, and the refusal of transport drivers to run the increasingly dangerous gauntlet of the major supply routes. Rumours now began to circulate that British prisoners had been transferred from Wellington Barracks in London to Wembley Stadium, where, coached and incited by Mossad agents at the behest of senior local Coalition commanders, dogs had been set on them, and they had been sexually assaulted and otherwise humiliated for the benefit of the cameras. In a pattern repeated throughout the country, helicopter gunships and heavy artillery continued to pound residential areas in the hunt for the militia. In the face of this relentless use of military force by the European Coalition, Anglican, Catholic, Methodist, Moslem and Jewish factions began to unite against the common oppressor. Car bombs were exploding regularly in Coalition-controlled areas. Coalition British soldiers and police were particular targets. Bulldozers gouged a vast defensive wall to encircle the area from St James Park to the North bank of the River Thames. Tanks manned all checkpoints protecting the four square miles of this secure "Green Zone". Even so, parts of Downing Street had been severely damaged by mortar bombs, and the main building of the Ministry of Defence had been completely destroyed by fire. Westminster Bridge had already been mined by the militia; ritually condemned as "terrorist" insurgents.
In Brussels the President of the European Commission leaned, smirking, on his dispatch box and faced the assembled Members of the European Parliament. He contemptuously dismissed the highly critical findings of two investigations by the European Court of Justice into the justification for the invasion and conduct of the war. He went on with the same characteristic smugness to say of the "liberation" of British people , that the United Kingdom was: A "BETTER AND SAFER PLACE".
The Vice-President of the United States, there as a guest, and to negotiate reconstruction contracts for his company, Haliburton, applauded, as did the Australian Ambassador to the European Union.
HELPLESS, OR HOPELESS, IN THE GRIP OF POWER?We are heading for a global economic implosion, on current evidence, with the potential for the same socio-economic collapse that led to the artificial privation precipitated by the debt-usury system of Bankerism - the poverty amidst plenty - of the 1930s. We have only to consider private debt now in the order of £1,000,000,000,000, the collapse of pension schemes and an escalation of mortgage debt on a treadmill of escalating, but friable property values. The day of reckoning is only being averted by nosing "growth" ahead of the impending crisis on a global scale before a global crash brings down everything geared to it, with it. Currently we have one single impression of the collective public psyche; that of a supine, moribund electorate that is allowing the noose to tighten around its own neck in a sterile sea of political corruption and ineptitude. One image is that of the giant gorilla; King Kong of cinematic fame, in whose mighty fist wriggles the tiny heroine. Another useful analogy is that of the emulsion paint we store for months at a time between requirements. Out of sight, out of mind in dark places the gallon tins appear clean and in good order on casual inspection. Until one picks one up to find paint leaking because the bottom has rusted away. By then, like the King Kong heroine, it is too late! We cannot argue against the reality of debt; not least when it affects us personally. We can ignore it, heads in the sand, as we can, and do ignore many distasteful and dangerous trends in domestic society and around the world. But why do we live with these questions instead of maintaining relentless pressure on our Members of Parliament whom we elected to represent our interests? M.Ps. themselves have relatively little power unless they are forced to mobilise, especially at risk to their own political advancement. Or are we simply a Nation that has nothing better to do than grumble, look for grievances and play them up out of context?
In many ways our situation boils down yet again to the presentational role of the Mass Communications Media. It is a case of what we are told and how we are told, or not told. It is not merely a question of what sells newspapers, or is good for listening and viewing figures. It is about what we are entitled to know; what we need to know and, if not, why not; who is covering up and in whose interests? Remember the Monsanto affair in 1997-98 when determined attempts were made to foist Genetically Modified agricultural produce on an unwilling public? When the first New Labour Government was working in league with Monsanto until public and political concerns became too great for the Government to keep the lid on it? Let us select another example. In 1999 a United States-United Kingdom "Nato" force stormed into the former Yugoslavia on the pretext of protecting Albanian Kosovans from the ravages of the Serbian majority. For weeks we read of little else. The Balkans are still an important area of the world, and individual Balkan states important parts of the mosaic of an enlarging European Union. In the shadow of the invasion the United States set up a massive military base in the region. How much of this has been put to the general public who have been told virtually nothing of the base or its purpose? Why do we not read regular up-dates of the evolving situation in Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, Macedonia or Montenegro? Instead we are diverted ("Diversiya" again), and dumbed down by endless, bland coverage of celebrity-babble, sport, fashion, antiques, animal and hospital tales and so on; when a supposedly serious broadsheet, such as The Sunday Telegraph, on 28th August, 2004, can devote an entire half-page to buttock enhancement in the style of film star Jennifer Lopez. In 1999 we were being conditioned to be concerned about peoples' lives and futures in the war-torn Balkans just as long as it suited media promotion, political movers and shakers and those members of the so-called "International Community" whose geopolitical purposes were served by the invasion. Now read a letter from Mike Finch that was published in the Financial Times of 14th August, 2004; then ask what has become of our concerns:
Persuade the high and mighty to promote a dubious proposition and even illustrious Harvard professors will eventually join the chorus. How else is one to explain the claim by Francis Fukuyama, author of The End Of History, that Kosovo proves that the international community knows how to do reconstruction? Reconstructed Kosovo is plagued by high unemployment and is crime ridden. Far worse, most of its Serbs, Roma and other non-Albanian communities were ethnically cleansed under the noses of the occupying Nato troops. This was accompanied by a concerted and continuing campaign to erase the province's heritage. Countless churches and monasteries, many mediaeval, have been destroyed. The few remaining Serb enclaves are under constant threat. Professor Fukuyama also forgets the Kosovo Liberation Army and its Macedonian offshoots used Nato-occupied Kosovo as a base to mount war against neighbouriing Macedonia. Far from rushing to confront the K.L.A. insurrectionists as was its legal obligation, Nato's response was appeasement. Skopje was duly pressured to make concessions. Kosovo is no success story.
Clouding The Debate About Political Correctness
Addressing business leaders and party supporters in Staffordshire on 26th August, 2004, Conservative Party Leader, Michael Howard, stated that Political Correctness was a "madness" that was driving the people of Britain crazy and undermining the Nation's basic values. Howard made reference to several examples; a Government-backed booklet that warned nursery teachers against playing musical chairs because this encouraged aggressive behaviour; a ban on cakes made by a Women's Institute for elderly hospital patients because the health authority feared that the cakes could pose a health risk, and the term "hard-working" banned from a Job Centre advertisement because it might offend the less industrious. We were surprised at the manner of the criticism of Michael Howard's line on Political Correctness from the normally excellent Financial Times that we read regularly along with The Daily Telegraph, the Morning Star, the Jewish Chronicle, the Guardian Weekly, a number of weekend newspapers, Middle East International, the Washington Report, the London Review of Books and The New Statesman together with a regular supply of cuttings from other newspapers. The Financial Times editorial, headed "Grumpy old men - [P]olitical [C]orrectnesss cannot be blamed for all society's ills" opined that Howard's "tirade" was no more than party political opportunism and an attempt to "engage with the prejudices of the saloon bar bore". "Resistance to change" is the cliché that springs to mind in this context. Political Correctness and other issues espoused by the Party were deemed in the editorial as those that will "go down well with the elderly Daily Telegraph readers who provide the backbone of the Tory Party". The Financial Times also pointed out that this would not appeal to a younger and more inclusive society, and that the insensitive and offensive terminology of half a century ago was no longer acceptable despite "foolish things that have been done in the name of P.C."
On reading the Financial Times editorial we wondered if this was seriously the editorial view, or that of a "duty" scribe who had drawn the short straw for the day? Certainly the editorial was quite correct on a number of points. On the fundamentals of Political Correctness it was dangerously wide of the mark. Quite right, we are elderly; we tend to be testy, too and somewhat cynical; with good reason. One subscriber, regular contributor and confidant is a 79-year old academic, formerly of the Oversea Colonial Service, with a distinguished career in Education as deputy head teacher and college lecturer who, at the age of 50, studied for a further Degree (M.A.), in History, (Note the subtle conditioning process of Political Correctness when we instinctively typed "head teacher" instead of "headmaster"). He made contact with On Target after despairing at the sterility and paucity of informed, intelligent conversation - or interest - in his club, on questions of serious national and international concern; typical of the Telegraph readers to whom the editorial refers! It might interest the editor to know that two of our youngest subscribers are both aged 23, from that more "inclusive" society to which the editorial alludes. They share our concerns, based on years of experience and observation; one has even provided us with excellent original material of his own - written from the perspective of his generation. It might also interest the editor to know that the Campaign Against Political Correctness (C.A.P.C.), was launched by a young couple, already immersed in civic affairs, who became deeply concerned by politically correct trends and doctrine.(11). We are not aficionados of The Daily Telegraph. In our opinion Telegraph newspapers convey only a veneer of traditional conservative values. Even post-Barbara Amiel, The Daily Telegraph has long been strongly associated with Political Zionism; witness alone Daniel Johnson's astonishingly over-the-top leader only hours after the destruction of the Twin Towers, on 11th September, 2001, before even the dust, let alone the evidence, had begun to settle. ("War to the death between America and Islamic fundamentalism", 12th September, 2001). We do, however, like The Daily Telegraph crossword. The Financial Times was undoubtedly on the ball in criticising Michael Howard and the Conservative Party for jumping unconvincingly on the P.C. bandwagon as an opportunist electoral issue. The late Alan Clark was very clear on the central philosophy of the Tory Elite - that of maintaining power in their own interests(12). Today the Party remains exhausted by the greedy self-interest syndrome of the Thatcher period. Devoid of any meaningful core philosophy, its instincts marginalised by the greater theology of globalism and the mores of Political Correctness, it now scavenges desperately for short-term electoral issues. Our occasional contacts with the bilious anachronisms of the Tory shires, the golf club and saloon bar mentality, only confirms that the Financial Times is right, even if the judgement is somewhat sweeping.
Here we believe the Financial Times, in the popular idiom, loses the plot with grave danger of misleading the reader. The newspaper dismisses as "forms of stupidity" certain examples of what Howard considers Political Correctness. In some cases this may be true as it always has been. But many subtle, interactive and interrelated tributaries may be traced to Political Correctness. It is a matter of cause and effect. Problems of insuring the traditional village fête against possible litigation involve the mentality cultivated at source in the bureaucratic chain, its infusion into local government circles and the legal field. Much historically offensive terminology may have been rightly erased, but this has threatened, for example, the harmless Irish joke and resulted in the banning of sales of the Irish coffee mug, which has the handle on the inside. In the end, tolerance and inclusiveness are a matter of balance, good manners and respect for others at all levels in a proper social order that certain influences are seeking to replace by legislation. Grumpy old men - and women, "persons", let us be Politically Correct - do not all haunt, or fulminate in, saloon bars, even if such generalisations can be excused by the constraints of a few column inches available to an editorial. Some have followed closely the post-war decades of often bitter social dichotomy and painful re-adjustment. They also have many years experience of people, rich and poor, at home and overseas, from the shop floor upwards. They have seen and lived with poverty and known street conditions at first hand. They have the benefit, too, of decades of research and analysis of important national and international affairs, along with comprehensive archives and libraries.
The easy option is to dismiss Political Correctness
as the facile diversion of those with nothing better to do. The use
of "Chair" or "Chair-person" instead of "Chairman"
comes to mind, even if the problem of "Manhole" has yet to
be resolved! When a letter to a local newspaper from the female Chairman
of an organisation, which term is enshrined in the Constitution, is
arbitrarily amended to read "Chair", one has to ask what was
in the mind - who had conditioned the mind - of the editor or sub-editor
responsible? When such changes are imposed, ipso facto, down through
the chain of public services, as far as local government, to the point
of ridicule or intimidation of those who demur, the question becomes
more serious. If one enquires after the formal authorisation or legislation
for such changes, it is a fair bet that it will not be forthcoming and
almost certainly does not exist. Rather it is a process of induction
and indoctrination. When a College of Further Education can devote scarce
education resources to the production of a 24-page Policy Statement
on equal opportunities, a substantial portion of which comprises college
doctrine on Political Correctness, the questions become even more serious.
When this literature includes the elimination of such terms as "Lady"
because this has "class implications", "Nitty gritty"
"because this refers to having sex with slave women", or "Slaving
over a hot stove" because this "minimises the horror and oppression
of the slave trade", we have to ask after the mentality of the
originator, and of those who authorised it.
In past editions we have explained how Political Correctness is a mechanism in this process for penetrating the highest levels of government, academic and public life. This has the continuity of a "virus" with its own carefully concealed "genetic identity" as the World Revolution has continued to transmute following the collapse of the Soviet Communist system in 1989. We need to remember also that the second "S" in U.S.S.R. stood for Socialist, not Communist. Fabian Socialism is International Socialism, and Socialism is politically entwined in various forms throughout the European political establishment. By the same token Political Correctness has an unbroken thread back to Marxist-Leninist Doctrine and the strict requirement for correct mental orientation in accordance with that doctrine. Let us take one small example. We have pointed out that Education continues to be a philosophical and political battleground at the expense of our children. We may recall the deliberate character assassination of the socialist education authority, Sir Reginald Burt, at the hands of the B.B.C. and an academic we may fairly regard as a product of Cultural Communism - of Gramsci's "long march through the institutions". ("Facts and the 'faked' evidence", The Sunday Telegraph, 7th August, 1987). We will now project this forward to the present examination system. Any one who studies tables of G.C.S.E. examination results, even those not necessarily involved in Education and Training, will recognise that "E", "F" and "G" grades are failures by any other name; virtually meaningless for the purpose of future employment. However, the correct orientation in accordance with the official doctrine is that such grades must be interpreted as "passes". We may see the same objectives being achieved when a fair and rational approach to sensitive issues, the natural justice, such as Feminism and Race are deliberately exploited beyond the "point of balance", when we may identify the virus of Cultural Communism and its expression through Political Correctness. Judith M. Bardwick wrote, in 1979(15):
When pushed beyond valid theological argument, we may see how feminism has successfully riven the Anglican Church; thus contributing to the revolutionay aim to eliminate religion. Feminism imposed in all departments of the Armed Forces has introduced many unnecessary, unwelcome administrative, training and operational complications for the front line role, as well as infusing potentially destabilising social and moral issues. Enforcement of Feminism and Race issues in the Police, even allowing for instinctive prejudices within the ranks, has had a similarly destabilising effect. This has not only diverted resources but has seriously destabilised morale in numerous cases.
Political Correctness is not a facile diversion. It is not a prejudice of grumpy old men who read The Daily Telegraph. It is deadly serious. The danger is that as ususal we shall recognise this too late. Consider once again the words of Bertrand Russell(16):
Diet, injections and injunctions will combine from a very early age to produce the sort of characteristics and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so. . . . Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between the rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton (Emphasis added).
REFERENCESNote: Prices are shown where available from Bloomfield Books, and represent only a selection relevant to the theme of this edition of On Target. A wide range of reading may be found in the Stock Price List (S.P.L.), which may be obtained post free on request from the address on the last page.. Out of print, or older works, may be obtained through the Book Search Service, or the Second-Hand Book Service, both of which are operated by Mr. T.G. Turner, for which details are available as for the S.P.L.
(1) Bartlett, John. Familiar Quotations. A Collection
of Passages, Phrases, and Proverbs Traced to Their Sources in Ancient
and Modern Literature. Editor, Christopher Morley; Associate Editor,
Louella D Everett. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1946.