The EU may be something to be happy about and stay in


David Davis

Ian B, this Blog’s “commenter of the year” (I have just awarded him that accolade – Paul Marks, you might win next year if you try hard) has been bashing on and on and on and on and on, and on, about the Puritans. I nearly types Putirans, but I may also save that malapropism for later, as it could be valuable.

For Ian, the Putirans are so, so very up themselves about how Man can (and therefore should) be perfected, in their eyes and by their lights, that they _cannot abide any (perceived, such as, say, fatness, or smoking, or blotchy skin) imperfection_ in any living human creature.

Now, we learn that the EU may be about to – far from penalising “fat people” (what the GramscoFabiaNazis call “The Obese”) , they may be prepared to give them subventions and benefits. Here is a landmark case.

I am now not so sure that I want the UK to leave the EU at all. It’s not that I am fat (I am not, well not very, I weigh about 13.5 stone and I’m 5ft-9″ and I can lift heavy objects and boot them about, although arthritis makes it hard to go down staircases.) It’s that if the EU can get up the noses very badly of, in particular, White-Ethnic-British-fatcontroller-Nazis, then I am in favour of the EU, and I will campaign for the UK to stay in, for ever and ever, or perhaps until socialism will be destroyed at the very least. Perhaps we get into trouble over there because we don’t violently-trash the French-Gubblentment, and its statements, hard enough, since it it Germany that is paying for the circus. Perhaps we ought even to stop and burn more lorries belonging to French “firms”, although I think this would be rather counterproductive really, and would get us into bad odour with others. Perhaps instead, if we did more of French-Gubblentment-trashing more often and more hysterically, we’d be all right, specially with the modern German Gubblentment and even with French People, and we’d even get money back.

Then, UKIP might not even be needed. For we could “be in the EU and at the heart of the EU”, “ignore its “laws” and “directives” “, “take the money”, “trade with whoever pleases us”, and even give disabled benefits to fat people.

Advertisements

13 comments

  • We live in complex times. The EU is a bad thing, but our own ruling class is worse.

  • Agreed.
    But given that no possible elements of a proper Liberal English Ruling Class exist except perhaps among the officers and commenters of this blog, would not it be better for the UK to remain an EU satrapy for the time being?

  • Hmm. For me, the answer to the question of whether the EU may be worth staying in if it offers a short term benefit still has to be no. First reason: the EU is a process which always moves forward. Anyone who stays in will at some indeterminate future date find that if it wants to leave, it’ll have to fight its way out. Without an official army (which will by then have been replaced by the European Union Federal Armed Fighting Force (EuroFAFF). We aren’t at the fighting to leave stage yet, but at some time it will come. The longer we stay in, the risk grows of crossing that line. Secondly because of the thing we’ve all discussed here before, of how the EU allows all the ruling classes- particularly ours- to disseminate and reflect back policies they might not get away with on a purely national level.

    As to the Putirans, I’m not so sure they believe in the perfectibility of mankind. Their worldview is Calvinist, and so humanity consists of two classes- an Elect who are already saved, and a larger class of bestial Reprobates who cannot be saved. It is thus the job of the Elect to be the harsh shepherds of the Reprobates. Hence why the cultural marxist theory was such a good fit; we’re all racists, even if we think we aren’t, we can’t be cured, we must just be controlled by fierce laws.

  • The whole idea of taking us into the EU in the first place was driven by the soft Tories desire to restrain the mad cap excesses of the Labour party in the 70s. How did that work out?

    I also suspect that the EU sometimes does things like this to popularise itself, while simultaneously we will see every country in the EU introduce a “fat tax” at the same time and be expected to believe that this is just a co-incidence that our high handed, backwards national governments dreamed up.

  • I congratulate Ian on his victory – it seems I have to make do with the silver, whilst he wins the gold.

    However, like Ian himself, I find the title of the post confusing.

    Let us say that I thought that British government policy was under the great influence from “Puritans” in religion, actually I do not (at least not generally) – but let us say I did. How is this helped by having an extra layer of government? The extra government spending and regulations of the European Union?

    Surely this makes no sense, none at all.

    By the way…… on the Puritan thesis, that bad stuff in politics comes mainly from the nonconformist religious tradition (the so called “Puritans”).

    A noted supporter of it was the American writer H.L. Mencken, in the modern world the late Mr Mencken was the main supporter of the Puritan thesis – and Mr Mencken was well meaning, but often wrong on the Puritan thesis.

    Now it what follows I must make clear that I am NOT attacking Ian – he is a little paranoid at the moment (thinking I have called him “evil” – which I have NOT) so I need to make the matter clear. Also I do know that Ian stresses secularised “Puritans” much more than Mencken did (the thesis has developed – it has not remained in its early 20th century state).

    Mr Mencken denounced the British cause in both the First and Second World Wars (it was his attitude in the Second World War that finally destroyed Mencken – but all the signs of a fatal lack of knowledge are there in his attitude in the First World War) as false “Puritan” propaganda against Germany (the homeland of his forefathers, a fact he stressed himself – so I am not “talking out of school”) to bias America against Germany.

    There are two problems with the Mencken thesis here.

    The “propaganda” was not actually “Puritan” – the British government was NOT under Puritan control in either the First World War or the Second World War

    Also the “propaganda” was not actually “false” – the British case was, fundamentally, TRUE. Our cause was just – and long term German plans were indeed a threat to the United States as well as Britain.

    Indeed one does not need the evidence of the British intelligence service (although such things as the exposure of German activities in Mexico were important – especially as Mexican Revolutionaries had raided the United States and murdered American citizens) – the academic and political elite in Germany were rather open about their long term plans. And the fact that Woodrow Wilson himself had a lot in common with the main German tradition of political philosophy (via his time in Johns Hopkins and via also the influence of the vile Richard Ely) does not alter this.

    Also one must consider the testimony not just of Ludwig Von Mises (someone I may talk about so much that it may bore people), but also of Dietrich Bonhoeffer – a German and one knew many of the key people in Germany, in politics, the military and the Church.

    May I say that I regard Bonhoeffer as a more important witness about Germany than Mencken – as the WELL MEANING Mencken seems to have based his pro German political opinions on “I like the beer” and “Germany gave us beer – Britain gave us Puritanism” rather than actual knowledge of any matter of any real importance.

    Far from praising the “philosophical” attitude to religion that had captured much of the German Lutheran Church (and some of the German Catholic Church also) Dietrich Bonhoeffer thought it was an utter disaster – with the German Church (or much of it) becoming a disgrace, no longer anything to do with the central (“fundamental”) doctrines of Christianity.

    Not only this – but Mr Bonhoeffer in his time in the United States was able to predict who would and who would not step forward to fight the evil that was taking over his homeland (evil that he went home to fight – knowing that his action would likely lead to his own death).

    It did not need any ESP on the part of Mr Bonhoeffer – he could tell which Americans would step forward to the oppose the evil of Nazi Germany (and of Marxist Soviet Russia) by looking at which Americans opposed evil in THEIR OWN country.

    For example in “eugenics” which Americans stepped forward to oppose such things as “Buck V Bell”. The gloating wickedness of “Justice” Holmes as he wrote to his friend Harold Laski (the British totalitarian socialist) about how he deliberately used rough language to playfully “shock” his fellow judges (who wanted to hide from the horror of the thing they were doing – as people so often do). Justice Butler, who did not hide from the evil or embrace it, being the exception.

    Was it those Progressives who “when they praise James mean William James not Saint James”? No – it was precisely their opponents who neither embraced evil (as Justice Holmes had) or hid the truth from themselves with a web of words (as seven of the colleagues of Holmes had) – after all they did not have to see the screaming woman being dragged to be cut up on the operating table (if they did not have to see it – they could pretend to themselves that they had not done it).

    Not just “fundamentalist” Protestants opposed such things (or the extermination of “inferior” races at the command of perverted “science” – as if what is moral right and moral wrong had something to do with the physical sciences a blatant category mistake), it was conservative (not Progressive) Catholics also, and conservative (Orthodox) Jews – and even conservative minded ATHEISTS. But Mencken had a habit of using the word “Puritan” rather loosely – sometimes including all these groups (even conservative minded atheists).

    What these people all had in common was a refusal to pretend evil (real evil) did not exist – and a belief that they could (and SHOULD) make a choice to oppose it.

    Bonhoeffer believed that they would not let him down (that they would not let the victims) – that although he would lose his own life, his sacrifice would not be vain, the evil of Nazi Germany would be destroyed. And the GOOD in Germany (for he still believed there was good left in Germany) would be freed.

    “George Orwell” (an atheist and a socialist) he had a similar experience in Britain.

    His Progressive friends fell away in 1939 – when Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia allied.

    But he did not find himself alone – people did step up to oppose evil (in both its Nazi and its Soviet forms).

    Who stepped forward?

    “Colonel Blimp and the old school tie” – the people that Mr Orwell himself had mocked, although not nearly as much as some had.

    And they did not step forward thinking it would be easy – actually they expected to be killed.

    And some of them had no religious faith (none).

    They made the choice to see evil for what it was (they did not pretend it was not there or was not evil) and they made the choice to oppose evil – regardless of the cost to themselves (they wanted to live as HUMAN BEINGS – or not at all).

    A long way from the evil of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia to the prat falls of the pathetic “E.U”.

    But a similar clear sightedness is needed.

    The E.U. is an extra layer of government – more government spending, taxes and regulations.

    It is, in its pathetic little way, an evil – a minor one, but the world would still be a better place without the E.U.

    • It’s probably a good thing then that my Puritan Hypothesis has nothing to do with Mencken, a man about whom I know very little, and in this regard only that one pithy “someone somewhere may be happy” quote. The Puritan impulse and non-conformism are not synonymous, though they have often shared common cause. Puritanism is most commonly found among secularists these days, for instance. It’s probably safer to be a high church Anglican anyway though, just to be on the safe side. Avoid any place of worship without glorious stained glass windows. Or any with the Fabian Window in it, of course.

    • Paul, the way to try to win next year is to try, a little harder, to make your longish think-pieces somewhat shorter, if you could condense better what you say!

      Not all of us have all the time in the world.

  • Yes Ian – you do stress the secular “Puritans” much more than Mencken ever did.

    But is the “Fabian Widow” really an example of this Puritanism.

    It seemed more like the gleeful rejoicing in wickedness to me – something that “Justice” Holmes would have enjoyed it.

    After all H.G. Wells and G.B. Shaw both boasted of the millions they were going to kill.

    I remember the smiling face of G.B. Shaw (on an old film) “I do not want to punish anyone [he says in a cheerful way] but there are plenty of people I want to kill – if someone can not justify their existence before a government board, a bit like the income tax tribunal, they should be killed, for the good of the general happiness……” and on and on.

    And Wells with his teeming millions of “blacks, browns and yellows” to be happily exterminated “by some form of gas”.

    People at the time tended to suppose they were joking.

    As Philby and co in the intelligence services “joked” about their opposition to “capitalism” and how they believed the ends justified the means (and on and on).

    A lot of people tend to not see what is right in front of their noses – because they do not want to (they would prefer it not to be there – or “it is just a joke”).

    James McCosh (the head of what is now Princeton) was like that.

    He witnessed the rise of a new breed of academic – with a vile political agenda hidden under fair language.

    What did he do to stop them?

    Bugger all.

    He did not understand them – he had no idea what they wanted to do (even though they basically told him).

    Sometimes you are right about the morally virtuous Ian – they can be of limited use if they do not really grasp what they are looking at. If they really do “love everyone” – they also love those planning to destroy. “Jesus wants me for a sunbeam” is of no use facing a Tiger tank, or even a bit of trickery on an academic board.

    Perhaps one needs a dash of evil in one’s soul – in order to understand it.

    At least that is a useful excuse for me – although, I admit, I have more than a dash of evil (I have lots and lots of it).

    • Just to clarify, I wasn’t presenting the Fabian Window as an example of puritanism. I just put it in for a joke at the Fabians’ expense since I was waffling about stained glass windows.

  • Yes Ian – I do not understand why anyone could think that getting rid of beauty was a sign of good.

    True beauty and good are not the same thing – a handsome man may be evil, an ugly man may be good.

    But someone who goes round smashing statues and stained glass windows and whitewashing paintings (and on and on) is showing contempt for the work of those who created them, and the feelings of those who valued them.

    And if the attitude is “what do I care about other people, as long as I please God” it is not a form or religion I want anything to do with.

  • I would vote to leave the EU – chiefly because if you miss this chance, there won’t be another one. But I’ve noted that Ireland, being in the euro, has been forced to implement savage cuts, and is back to strong growth already! – our “cuts” are tiny by comparison, and so if there is anything to be said for the EU it is that they are forcing balanced budgets on the PIIGS!

  • Also, I am warming to the term Putirans, since it implies two nasty illiberal things, Putin and Iran. Which can’t be bad.

  • That is something (in fact two things) that I had not thought of Ian.

    Sadly the Chinese regime is now obsessed with destroying porn on the internet – I think the underestimate how much of it there is…..

    I would say that the only way they are going to stop men looking at naked women to remove everyone’s eyes – but I hesitate to make such a statement, for fear that the regime would actually try and do that. After all the only reason there is a shortage of women in real life in China is because of the “one child policy” (i.e. “if it is a boy that is your one child, if it is a girl, kill her and try again”).

    A useful reminder to people like me, who are obsessed with economic freedom, that a country can have low taxes and economic regulations and have lots of privately owned factories (number one in the world) and still be ruled by evil scumbags. And irrational scumbags – for a society with a massive shortage of women is not going to work. Still there are signs they have worked that one out for themselves.

    Mr Webb may well be right about the Republic – I just do not know.

    I keep meaning to visit the Republic – but I have not yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s