In my previous article I asked whether or not the Tories were fascists and to cut a long story short ended up with the fact that Fascist was a wide term that could be applied to many things. That it was counterproductive to give them a label, that while emotive in its imagery, ultimately only provided an easy way to deflect real criticism by explaining that they were 100 percent fascist.
That Tory was a far more damning title which has for some time stood to mean corruption.
The easiest way to explain that is with what Tory means;
Tory is derived from the old Irish derives from the Middle Irish word tóraidhe, itself from the word tóir, meaning "pursuit", since outlaws were "pursued men" because tóraidhe and Tory mean outlaw, robber or brigand, a criminal of low moral character out to rob you.
Honestly, that sounds like our David Cameron but like many rich old men before them they realised they could get more money by changing the law than by holding a gun and really consider this for a minute, Tory has always been an insult, it's how it started and what it remains.
Now think of all the times you've heard Conservatives referring to themselves as Tories, one well-known example here;
These people are literately telling you they are thieves every time they say that.
I would uphold a separate point to that, though, that Tory-ism and Conservatism are not the same things, that in fact, the modern Conservative and Unionist party has been so corrupted as to be unrecognisable by an ideology that is morally bankrupt.
To be Conservative.
"I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few."Benjamin Disraeli, in a speech at High Wycombe, England (27 November 1832); published in Selected Speeches of the Late Right Honourable the Earl of Beaconsfield, ed. T. E. Kebbel (1882), volume 1, p. 8.
To preserve, to defend, to ensure the unity and happiness of the nation.
Certainly doesn't sound like the Tories does it?
At it's best Conservatism is not something to be feared, it is only when, like many beliefs, these ideals become corrupt or absolutes that we see the most harm.
There are some common themes to the philosophy and naturally, I'm going to go at it from a positive point of view to illustrate the higher ideals and what Conservatives should be.
The preservation and enhancement of society.
All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honour, duty, mercy, hope. Winston Churchill
Defending the democratic will of the state (such as upholding the Welfare state and the NHS which could have been reversed after Atlee's government but wasn't) as well as fighting corruption within government that undermines such things.
The moral obligations of institutions.
The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.
Edmund Burke
That power is not an end in of itself, might must be tempered by, and used for, what's right.
After all, what is the point of a government or country if not to work towards creating a better nation and that by allowing unfettered corruption, only invite the question of why no one has ousted such evil.
The betterment of individuals through self-reliance.
Often through laws improving the conditions of the populace such as through Fair wages to increase the standard of living (Which past Conservatives have done), better-working conditions and industry practices as well as various programs to build a skilled workforce, better systems of education, equality in employment, etc.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Winston Churchill.
That change must occur naturally at a controlled, tested pace.
“To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.” ― Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays
Conservatism tends to view radical change as unpredictable but inevitable and try to affect such change gradually to both ensure change happens in a stable and effective manner preventing these changes from causing chaos in an unpredictable manner.
Now, of course, I've simply stated what I feel are the most prominent features of a positive conservative ideology, not really going into the differences that appear from a more authoritarian or liberal dimension nor something I myself want, simply how I see a Conservative Ideology the would be at least respectable.
Cautiously tinkering with the established institutions to improve them, defending the rights of the poor and needy while providing means to improve their capabilities, using sound judgement and ethics to improve the conditions of the people and ensuring the intuitions responsible for all that are free from corruption.
I must ride with my knights to defend what was, and the dream of what could be. Arthur, Excalibur.In this base form, it is an ideology that makes sense and one that can be understood but it is not what a Tory believes in.
The Tories
Our 'neoconservatives' are neither new nor conservative, but old as Bablyon and evil as Hell.Edward Abbey
Neo-liberalism is one of the oldest stories in the world, I often hear it told that Thatcher pioneered the economic thought and brought much-needed aid to western economics, that without it some great and terrible age would have continued to disrupt something or other, what these reasons/policies/social conditions/boogie men change allot though and I don't really feel like dignifying the flimsy rationale by repeating it.
This, of course, is often said by people who benefit off of a system that is rigged to favour the 1% because Neo-liberalism is no different from the oligarchies of the dark and middle ages, it is an ideology that removes regulation from the banks, industry and financial services, a system the promotes institutions as unassailable.
The best example of this corruption comes from the banking crash in 2008, around the world Financial institutions revealed in the deregulations being pushed forward by their governments, Subprime Lending, The housing bubble, predatory lending, the collapse of the Shadow banking system and more served to create an economic system to corrupt to survive.
Once the metaphorical pyramid scheme ran out of ways to keep juggling its problems in the air it came crashing down.
The free markets ideals are that the market should be free of government to operate, objecting to regulation from governments they fund parties that will continue to remove restrictions on unethical or corrupt practices yet when the crash hit they begged for that same interference in a way that's best summed up thus;
Banks: We've run out of money.
Governments: oh no, what will you do?
Banks: well, We'll need you to lend us the money.
Governments: But we get our money from you.
Banks: Yes, so will lend you the money to give to us.
It sounds ridiculous because it is, it was just a way to move the debts from the private banks onto the various countries they operated in.
Throughout it all, we've been fed a tale about Government Borrowing and debt, the comparisons to household budgets have been made to justify this myth, that the recession and austerity that followed were created by irresponsible governments, not by a corrupt banking and financial industry.
Our good David Cameron and the rest of the Tories even have the nerve to ply that it's out fault, that building public services is what caused this, the NHS can't be run but don't worry, I have some good friends in the financial sector who want to take it and "Modernise" it.
All with the promise that if we allow this it will make us successful again.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is, “make” something of ourselves. You don’t need to look far for examples. A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master’s degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture. Yet our norms and values make up an integral and essential part of our identity. So they cannot be lost, only changed. And that is precisely what has happened: a changed economy reflects changed ethics and brings about changed identity. The current economic system is bringing out the worst in us. [Source]
It is purely and utterly a doctrine in service to the select privileged few, Iceland didn't follow this course and flourished but Greece tried to break free and was crushed.
Our good Cameron is just bought and paid for, just through the money and influence needed to keep him and his fellows in power to work for those who keep him there.
And of course, there's just the unpleasant nature of many of their beliefs;
"In its worse forms, conservatism is a matter of 'I hate strangers and anything that's different.'"P. J. O'Rourke
"People are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture." Margaret Thatcher, in a Granada TV interview, January 1978
"One shark turned to the other to say he was fed up chasing tuna and the other said, 'Why don't we go to Morecambe Bay and get some Chinese?'" Ann Winterton MP, making a joke about the deaths of Chinese cockle pickers, at a dinner party in Whitehall in February 2004
"The only solution is to kill 600 people in one night. Let the UN and Bill Clinton and everyone else make a scene - and it is over for 20 years." Alan Clark MP, on how to deal with the IRA
"Hang Mandela." campaign slogan of the Federation of Conservative Students during the 1980s, during which time its chairman was John Bercow, now Speaker of the House of Commons
Really I could go through it all, from Thatchers war against the British people to Ian Duncan Smith's version of smother with a pillow welfare in great detail but that would make this article even longer than it is, so I'll just go with one story, one tale of a real conservative against what Tories consider acceptable business dealings.
The sad Tale of Geoffrey Dickens.
By all accounts, he was the sort man who is often described as a clown.A plump jolly man who acted ably as a councillor and constituency MP, he still had a tendency to take himself more seriously than his peers but then would do things like holding a press conference to announce he was leaving his wife.
Without telling his wife first.
So had a bit of reputation for that kind of headline-grabbing actions or being a "rent a quote" but was otherwise a fine man.
He was also the man who assembled the dossier about high-ranking individuals in government that Leon Brittan "Misplaced" never to be seen again.
Accounts seem scarce as to when Geoffrey Dickens began his investigation into the Paedophile Information Exchange and it's various supporters in Westminster and Whitehall but the first time I can find that he acted to reveal them was inside parliament itself to publicly expose Peter Hayman.
Needless to say the reaction of the establishment to Peter Hayman's activities being brought to light under parliamentary privilege, Which allowed Geoffrey Dickens to ask why after being found to have been in possession of violent child pornography without being sued for slander, was shock and horror that one of their own could be disrespected in that manner.
Peter had left an envelope of the aforementioned materials on a bus in an envelope that had been through the mail system, so an investigation into the envelope revealed an apartment in Bayswater, London that Peter used the pseudonym Peter Henderson to receive such material as well as discovering 45 diaries describing six years of "sexual fantasies" concerning children.
So with such evidence against him he was naturally released, he even got a warning not to send any more Indecent images through the mail, bet he even got a finger wag along with it. Don't let the futurama meme deceive you, though, there was a reason, oh was there one.
You see, everyone agreed he owned these images, the diaries and was a member of The Paedophile Information Exchange.
The response as to why Peter Hayman wasn't prosecuted given by the attorney general in parliament in response to Dickens perfectly reasonable question was, and I quote;
"That prosecution was against persons alleged to have been involved in the management or organisation of PIE. Although Sir Peter Hayman had subscribed to PIE, that is not an offence and there is no evidence that he was ever involved in the management. At the recent trial, whilst there were general references to members of PIE, including, though not by name, Sir Peter Hayman, there was no reference to any material produced by him or found in his possession.
I am in agreement with the Director of Public Prosecutions' advice not to prosecute Sir Peter Hayman and the other persons with whom he had carried on an obscene correspondence." [Source]
That although Peter Hayman having received Pornography of children in an envelope proven to have gone through the royal mail (actually two crimes) leading to a flat were further correspondence were found connecting him to all of it, where they even told him of not to send any more such thing through the mail.
That there was no reason to prosecute him for this since there was a trial for running an organisation related to his offense he was originally named in, not trafficking child porn.
So despite being a member of an organisation dedicated to the finding, creating and sharing of Child pornography, the Attorney General, Sir Michael Havers, actually in parliament said, that though Hayman was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange, he was not actually a member of the executive committee, so was they couldn't prosecute him as others were for all of the things he did in P.I.E. because he wasn't in charge of the entire thing.
The really sick thing though is the outcry afterwards, oh you'd think it's because a man so clearly at risk of abusing authority was put in several high authority positions over the decades and who, as Dickens asked "How did such a potential blackmail risk come to hold highly sensitive posts at the MOD and NATO?", but no.
Oh no, see, just having an entire flat of evidence that he possess child Pornography and belonging to an organisation dedicated to disseminating and/or creating them at a profit wasn't enough to be outraged for him... possessing and potentially distributing Child porn, no no.
The outrage was at Geoffrey Dickens asking why someone arrested for an illegal activity, with clear evidence and no actual denials he possessed the pornography or belonged to P.I.E. wasn't being prosecuted, was itself the scandal because how dare he ask that.
Just listen to some of this.
This is the battle Dickens had to fight over one question about publicly available information, what he had to go through to get the information he did for the many dossiers he distributed I'll never know.
It came at risk, to quote him;
"The noose around my neck grew tighter after I named a former high-flying British diplomat on the Floor of the House. Honourable Members will understand that where big money is involved and as important names came into my possession so the threats began. First, I received threatening telephone calls followed by two burglaries at my London home. Then, more seriously, my name appeared on a multi-killer's hit list."
Sadly, he wouldn't take them down.
He'd continue to fight as long as he could but ultimately there was one key problem, reporting a crime does not matter if the people who commit the crime can tell the police they can't investigate because it's a threat to national secrecy.
You can't seek legal help when they control the courts.
You can't rally the morally indignation of the democratic institutions to meet out justice when corruption and abuse of power are part of the bedrock foundations.
This is what it means to be a Tory but why do this?
The news program Sixty Minutes created a documentary called spies, Lords, and Predators.
Listen to the views they hold, the actions that these guys took and the things they did as well as the lengths people went too to keep them concealed.
And you know, I was going to posit this as an Idea, no really, I had no proof that it was definitely the reason but something changed in between my starting this article and finishing it.
Edward Heath, a former prime minister is being investigated for Child Abuse.
As sad as that is, it led to Scrutiny that turned up this Quote from his Chief whip.
Don't believe me? Don't think anyone on the face of the planet could possibly be that secure in their ability to cover up crimes that they couldn't fathom telling others they covered up crimes would actually get them in trouble? Here's the video.
I swear to god that was exactly what I was going to say, that while the people who perpetrated these crimes did so for their own enjoyment that the rest of the Tory establishment turned round, saw this, and realised that unfathomable evil wasn't something to be stopped, It was a political opportunity.
Geoffrey Dickens saw evil and fought it because he was a conservative, he still believed in his parties stated ideals and he knew that meant to protect the nation he would have to fight those in charge of it even if it meant his life.
These things matter.
Just not to a Tory.
The scary thing, though, is that being a Tory doesn't mean being in the Conservative and Unionist Party, It doesn't even mean being part of P.I.E.
Tory-ism has come to mean, a person in power who views Corruption, Crime, Discrimination, blackmail, Deceit, Abuse of Authority and just straight up evil as their basic methods of operating if not their desired goals.
A belief in their own right to use the country as well as it's people for their own pleasure and profit or something to be undermined if they are held to account.
None of this is anywhere near the belief that people should be made self-sufficient, that people's rights must be protected or a government must be just working towards what's right.
It's a shame that there's so few Conservatives in the conservative party, that the Tories have taken it over but don't think that this is a problem that is restricted to one party because like P.I.E. Toryism is a crime that works across the political spectrum.
That only makes it's more important to stand up and oppose it, it's just a funny quirk that the party whose true ideals would demand such action are the party that has been taken over by that evil.
Sincerely
Ethan Blair.
No comments:
Post a Comment