Merry Christmas!

From this bastion of unbelief and decadence, a very merry Christmas to all of my enormous readership! I am now esconced in my family residence in the rolling hills of the Borders. I Went to Midnight Mass last night (i.e. this morning). How droll and boring. I can see why the congregation is reducing in number. I wished I'd had a bit of Dutch courage and taken over from the priest - such was the overwhelming drollness of the Mass. I mean, who preaches a pre-prepared sermon that he's found on the internet. And all of that silly Popish ritual - kneeling before entering the pew, making the sign of the cross, incense - how can people take it seriously?!

I've cracked it. I know why Catholics are the filthiest, naughtiest denomination of Christendom. It's all of that ridiculous ritual. I mean, if you had to maintain the pretence of doing all the signs, the rosary beads, etc., of course you'd get bored and start fantasizing about the choirboys or Mrs. Jones and her daughters in the pew 2nd from front.

To appeal to the decadent masses of Europe, Christianity must be stripped of superfluous ceremony. We must remove the rituals and costumes. And in Europe in particular, we must brace ourselves for the onslaught of radical Islam. I don't think it's a huge stretch of the imagination to think about congregations gathering in secret while the civil war is in full swing. Myra Hess playing piano in the National Gallery while the blitz was raging; same kind of thing. Instead of Catholic priests sneaking away into hidey-holes in country houses, this time Christians of all denominations will be under duress.

The United States will be the last redoubt of the Christian faith, unless events take a sudden change of course, and soon.

Merry Christmas to everyone, and let us hope that our politicians regain their senses, or perhaps that a great man rises from nowhere to confound them all.

What hope for true conservatism in Britain?

It may have escaped the attention of American readers that this man, David Cameron, has just been elected leader of the British Conservative Party. If it has, don't worry, it matters not a jot.

As it says on the BBC website, David Cameron is an Old Etonian and an alumnus of Brasenose College, Oxford. According to the BBC, his tutor at Oxford, Prof. Vernon Bogdanor, describes his views as "moderate and sensible conservative". Could there possibly be a less suitable candidate for a conservative revival?

"Moderate and sensible" is codespeak for "wet". What Prof. Bogdanor is saying is that Cameron is not the sort of chap who intends to rock the boat. He doesn't have any zeal for genuine reform. He's a nice, sensible, middle of the road ordinary guy just like you and me who happens to be vexed and goaded by some of life's petty annoyances - high taxes, public sector inefficiency etc. that he's decided to be a public-spirited individual and try in his own small way to sort things out. Never mind the bigger picture - Islamic extremism on the march, the loss of British sovereignty to "Europe", the growing problem of an uneducated, violent underclass, the loss of social cohesion.

The Tories, despite all the rhetoric they can muster, have been beaten so often and so comprehensively by the media that they've developed a sort of cuckold-husband syndrome. The more they are hurt by media caricatures - too white, too male, too middle-class, etc. - the more they prostrate themselves before their tormentors and the more concessions they offer in a desperate attempt to dispell some of the "nasty party" myths.

Though I realise that every man and his dog has a theory about what the Tories need to do to win power, let me explain what we need to happen, not necessarily for a revival of the Conservative party, but for a revival of conservatism in Britain.

Two things are required:

1. A free market in televisual media. The majority of people in this country get their news from the BBC (ostensibly impartial but well to the left of centre), ITV (soft left but vacuous and devoid of hard content) and Channel 4 (explicitly left wing). Hence, no surprise that the Conservatives have trouble getting impartial or favourable coverage on TV. However, if one looks at the political inclinations of the printed media, there are plenty of right-of-centre papers - the Telegraph, the Mail, the Express, the Sun. There would undoubtedly be a market for a conservative news and documentary channel, perhaps along the lines of Fox News. The Tories need to realise that they can NEVER expect fair treatment from the MSM, and that the best approach is to fight the cultural hegemony.
2. Pick a candidate who isn't as damned boring as Cameron. I'm not asking for a Barry Goldwater, just someone with a bit of steel in them. Someone in the mould of a Reagan or a Thatcher. My concern now is that the post-Thatcher transformation of the Tories has put off true conservatives from trying to join the ranks of the Parliamentary party. If all the Tories can get excited about is a few pennies off the tax here and some public sector reform there, then those people whose lives are blighted by crime, who are concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism, who have enough common sense and a vantage point more suited to seeing the bigger picture will give the Tories the cold shoulder they deserve.

To sum up, the prospects for a conservative revival are slim. Not because such a revival is inherently impossible, but because of the naive and wrong-headed way the Tories are going about it. Day by day, the country slides towards civil disorder and societal breakdown. The man in the street feels that there's something wrong with this country and he can't quite tell what it is. Let us hope that true conservatives understand what is going on and persuade the public to vote for them. The alternative scenario, that of a new form of facism exploiting mass public discontent is a terrible one and would seem peculiarly inappropriate for this country, which played a pivotal role in the fight against the orginal form 60-odd years ago.

BBC Action Network

I'm not sure whether anyone from one of those blogs which, like mine, take an interest in the BBC have commented on this in much detail, but I've discovered that the BBC website has an "Action Network" section. Hmmm.... Strange that a public broadcaster, which aims to be "impartial", to "inform, educate and entertain", should regard giving succour to a generation of do-gooder nimbys as one of it's aims. And, broadly speaking, nimbyism is essentially what the Action Network seems to be about. What doesn't fall under the heading of nimbyism can usually be categorised as platitudinous poseur politics - Cambridge Women in Black for example (a bunch of sanctimonious preening know-it-alls who get a kick out of displaying their collective moral conscience) or the frankly ridiculous - don't attempt to read the "windfarms kill birds" page with a mouth full of cereal.

Most amusing is the rules page. "We want Action Network to be challenging and provocative as well as safe, civil and constructive" says auntie. One wonders whether it's crossed their minds that being truly provocative and challenging quite often means putting safety to one side. (See the glut of articles about Ayaan Hirsi Ali over at LGF for a recent example of what being truly provocative and challenging is all about).

This is strikingly reminiscent of New Labour's "Big Conversation". It's a sort of half-baked attempt at letting people think their opinion has value [is "challenging and provocative"], but without the risk of it actually having any effect [i.e. making sure that it is "safe"]. Forgive the broad brush approach here, but doesn't history teach us that progress is only made when conventions and beliefs are challenged, and that quite often brings about violent confrontations. Would America be an independent country without having fought for its independence? Would we have freedom of expression without brave men having challenged the authority of the Church?

George Best and the fate of modern Britain

As almost every British person, football fan or not, will be aware, George Best, the Manchester United legend died today in hospital. He had suffered multiple organ failure, a consequence of decades of heavy drinking. Of course, given his high profile and the numerous scandals that have surrounded him down the years (cheating, divorce, alcoholism etc.), his predicament was naturally the subject of much media interest and speculation. Watching the front page of BBC news for the last day or so, one might be forgiven for thinking that the media trendies of Shepherd's Bush were trying to portray Best's final hours as some sort of tragic drama. I was hoping that our media classes would have grown tired of the urge to inflate the death of any person thought to be popular, innocent, a man (or woman) of the people, into a dreadful tragedy of such intensity that ordinary people, swept along by the atmosphere created by the media, will take to the streets with flowers and weep together in public. However, it seems that the hysteria of September 1997 still lingers in their collective memory and they couldn't resist attempting a spot of grief-mongering.

Born in 1946 in Belfast, George Best lived through the period of turmoil as Britain made the transition from a world power to a neutered vassal of the EU. Of course, it wasn't just the political structure of the country which changed during his time, the established social structure, the class system, the morals and mores changed too. As an aside, if you ever have the chance of listening to an upper-middle class man in, say, his 60's, compare his accent, with it's clear enunciation and surety of verbal touch to that of a young man of the same social class. You'll notice that the young man will often mumble his words and speak with much less of a tone of command than his father. The anti-establishment revolution has been of such power and scope, it has even corrupted and enervated the spoken word itself (it's now a rare pleasure to meet someone who pronounces their 't's.) Anyway, to return to the subject, this man lived through a period of great change in his country, and perhaps his story and the story of Britain since the war have a number of parallels.

Probably the two most interesting periods of his life from the perspective I describe above are the peak of his career in the 1960's and during the early 2000's when his alcoholism, marriage scandals and so on were all over the news. Back in the day, Best was a legendary player, both on and off the pitch. I recall watching a television programme where a teammate told how Best had 'had' 7 women in 24 hours, or something like that. As he said himself, "I spent 90% of my money on women, drink and fast cars. The rest I wasted." He lived a hedonistic lifestyle, and in that respect the only difference between him and present day Joe Bloggs is that Best indulged in his wild, self-destructive antics amidst a whirlwind of publicity and with a lot more money and style than the average man. But did the drinking, fast women and fast cars buy him happiness in the end? No. I think it's clear that, especially during his decline in the last few days, he himself realised that all the bravado about women and drink was really a sign that he was a man unhappy in his own skin. Moreover, he was deeply unhappy and caught in a vicious circle of despair, every latest press scandal causing a few days of introspection, then back to the boozing and shagging with renewed vigour, as if he thought that such activities would be a way out of the problem, in the short term at least.

His drinking and promiscuity, along with a vacuous and short-termist approach to life are now the norm for most of my contemporaries. I wonder if perhaps his predicament might cause a few enlightened individuals to stop and ponder whether we took a wrong turn in the 1960's when we adopted a more liberal approach to sex and drinking. Maybe when we reach his age and find ourselves still trapped in a teenage state of mind, perhaps rich in money, but without any close family bonds and feeling utterly spent and bereft of self-respect, maybe then we'll realise where we went wrong.

Modern British society is a bit like George Best. We're all stuck in a vicious circle of despair. Our tabloid press can't decide whether to be stern 1950's moralists (which they are fond of being, especially when a senior politcian is involved in a scandal) or to go with the flow and endorse the practice of libertinism as being the natural behaviour of enlightened individuals. But suppose a change of mind did occur. Suppose that real conservatives came to power and wanted to end the culture of nihilism and hedonism. How to get out of this vicious circle? How would it be possible to re-install, or re-instill those values which we have lost? Or perhaps the momentum of the cultural revolution still so great that any political efforts against it will be rendered futile and we will find ourselves destined for a similar fate to that of George Best.

BBC Have your say: How should Britain be policed?

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=361&&&edition=1&ttl=20051116211949

The masses opine on how we should be policed. There's a wonderful contrast of opinions in evidence, but since the length of each comment is kept short, no one involved has the chance to develop a coherent argument. Hence we end up with a series of occasionally pithy, sometimes curt and mostly blunt statements, which can usually be put into a category that most people will already be familiar with. Allow me to list a few of them:

1. Civil libertarians: no to ID. Paranoid about Britain turning into a police state. I must declare some sympathy here. I recall reading an article by Theordore Dalrymple, where he desribed the police as being "at once menacing and ineffectual". The good doctor is absolutely spot on. To sumarize with a soundbite, it used to be the case that the police were nasty to the nasty people and nice to the nice people. They now seem to have got that the wrong way round. It's not surprising though - namby pamby human rights legislation means that the police treat the real thugs with kid gloves, whereas the nice people are subject to increased low level annoyance because of more speed cameras and a whole load of new and restrictive laws about what they can and can't do - drinking on public transport for instance.
2. Hang 'em and flog 'em: I have a certain sympathy for these people, I just wish they were more articulate. Naturally, the BBC and other elements of our political and media classes sweep aside the feelings of these people as the bigoted, backward attitudes of Daily Mail readers. Their rage at natural justice being flouted and the evildoers getting away with it is treated with contempt.
3. ACAB (All cops are bastards): The police, being a symbol of authority, are inherently distasteful to these people. They are evil; inside every copper there is a Nazi waiting to get out. We should reduce their power accordingly, to prevent 'discrimination'. One must remember though, that 'discrimination' is a rather nebulous phrase. Mostly applied to poor, working class, non-white people, it reflects a perceived grievance, not necessarily an actual one. "Palestine" is a case in point. Large numbers of self-loathing white liberals will take to the streets to shout their 'solidarity' with "Palestine", keen as they are to take the side of the downtrodden and aggrieved. No actual connection with the conflict is required for a person to develop strong feelings on Israel/Palestine (I suppose I'm an example of that, except I've taken the side of democracy rather than supporting a quasi-religious death cult). This is essentially a Hampstead liberal's way of keeping up with the Joneses; the long term consequences are beside the point - one must remember to always take the side of the oppressed - that way, one can guarantee that one's reputation among fellow members of the media and political cognoscenti will be safe.
4. If we let the police carry guns, then all criminals will arm themselves. "We don't want to become more like America where they're all shooting each other" they shriek. G*d help us if these naive bunch of middle-class know-it-alls continue to have their way. We used to be able to get away without armed police in England because of a strong sense of social cohesion, and because of a willingness on the part of ordinary members of the public to deal with transgressors and law-breakers directly. Now, the police tell us not to confront criminals but to ring them instead. That's the real reason why crime has increased. Less social cohesion, less public willingness to step in and directly confront criminals. An armed police force, willing to use lethal force when confronting criminals would be a start, but the ideal is surely for an assertive and armed citizenry, like in America.

Corporate EVIL!

I know this is old news, but I couldn't resist highlighting this story. It encapsulates perfectly the contradiction central to the lives of many of the Notting Hill/Hampstead trend-setters.

Coldplay attack corporate evil:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4557877.stm

The hypocrisy is simply wonderful, I bet he pissed himself laughing when the story hit the papers. 'Just think, a load of fuckwit teenagers will go out and buy our records because they think we're really, like, ethical and down with the kids and expressing our solidarity with all the poor people of the world who are oppressed by nasty men in pinstriped suits'. I'm sure all the old buffers will guffaw with laughter when Chris tells them the story at the next Sherborne Old Boys' reunion!

The malign influence of well-meaning, well-educated people

I'm back to posting again after an unplanned hiatus. Apologies to any "regular" readers, if there are any. I thought I'd take as this evening's subject the damage that can be created (wittingly or otherwise) by the well-educated, well-intentioned members of the intelligentsia in their role as paragons of virtue and advocates of "social justice".

I feel as though I'm blessed with choice; so many examples to pick from, where do I start? Perhaps I might begin with teachers.

My job has recently brought me into contact with the British education system through a school-industry link scheme type thing (I won't mention which one exactly as it's not relevant). I thought that after 13 years of school and 4 of university I'd be done with education now, but it's not so. Anyway, it's been an education, if you'll pardon the terrible pun, to experience life inside a London comprehensive.

There was, as one might expect, the hubbub of activity, shrieking and squealing that there always has been in the corridors and playgrounds. What really struck home though, were the sullen, defeated, tired faces of the teachers. Some of the older ones had the look of a clapped out alcoholic about them. There was no evidence anywhere of respect for authority. The teachers' faces said it all. Well-intentioned souls most of them, but hopelessly naive about the need for them to exert authority over their charges. Why, oh why, do I waste my time with these kids? Why don't they want to learn? Why do they make every effort to belittle me and make my life a misery? Naivety abounds, and it has not yet been challenged.

The teachers are their own victims. Well-meaning, well-educated teachers were at the forefront of encouraging the changes in schools which have done so much to weaken discipline (and thereby reduce the ability of teachers to teach uninterrupted).

I do hope that there are some thinkers out there in the teaching profession who are sceptical about modern teaching methods, and I hope that they are young teachers rather than old crusties. How refreshing it would be if a few young teachers had the courage to blast away the self-delusion and state the unutterable truth about modern schools.

To finish, have a look at this. I'm really going to miss the Duke of Edinburgh when he's gone. He can really hit the nail on the head now and then:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4355696.stm