From "old England": Britain's fox populi

Maybe you have even read about it in your newspapers. The Countryside March in London on 1st March, 1998, was the biggest march ever staged in Britain. Never mind that some of the media immediately said that it was "almost as big" as the anti-nuclear marches of the early 1980s. That was just typical liberal-left bunkum. As a helpful police spokesman informed the Daily Telegraph, they used to claim half a million supporters every time they had a demonstration but, in reality, there were never more than 90-odd thousand people involved. So that's all right then.

This time they really were properly counted at a dozen points in the march and there were 280,000 people from every corner of England. Not a sign of Rent-a-Mob Inc.; no delegation from the Student's Union of Strathclyde, enjoying a day in London at the Union's expense; no "collective" of this, or "community" of that-these were whole villages that descended on the capital, leaving just the Church Warden and the retired policeman to act as Home Guards whilst they were away.

And no, they were not all "toffs," red-faced aristos or landed gentry taking time off from grinding the faces of the workers. They were the ordinary people of Great Britain from every class, background and financial bracket. Many had their dogs, even more had their children and, as on all the other occasions when the people of England get together-such as the Royal weddings and other serious State occasions-there wasn't so much as a flower trampled in the immaculate beds of the different parks they travelled by or through. As we passed down the Strand, crossed Trafalgar Square and walked up Pall Mall, all the posh clubs of St. James' had members on their balconies toasting us; the ordinary Pubs, filled to capacity with Londoners and overflowing onto the pavements, raised a cheer and shouted "Good Hunting brothers!"

Good Heavens! In that one phrase, which I heard many times, was packed a very precis of an anti-politically-correct cannon. Hunting-commended; brothers hailed with no separate category for our disaffected sisters; the implicit assertion of a blood relation between the people on the march. Tradition, sexism and racism all in one phrase! It was enough to make all those who have laboured for a generation to make us disdain and renounce all such sentiments despair.

First of all, therefore, what was the march for? And secondly-what does it mean in terms of the sort of thing which might interest Human Life Review readers? The first answer here is fairly straightforward and factual. Our present New Labour government gives the impression of two boys fighting under a blanket. That is to say, it is not socialist and has done many things so "right-wing" that Mrs. Thatcher would not have dared to try them; like introducing University fees, for example and sending home illegal immigrants. On the other hand, elements of the "Old Guard," class warriors of the old Labour Party, are still heaving about under the umbrageous tegument of the blanket coverage which accompanies everything they do. It was no doubt as a harmless sop to these mediocrities that the government decided to allow one of them to test public opinion on the matter of fox hunting. They found that, when asked, most people said they did not like it.

Fair enough; no doubt they would have found the same majority against arranged marriages; an even larger number who disapproved of circumcision, and an overwhelming majority who were absolutely outraged that Muslims are permitted to slaughter animals for their Hala meal without stunning them first. Furthermore most people, when asked, say that they disapprove of homosexual behaviour. So what?

It has long been our tradition that minorities are not coerced into doing what the majority happens to favour, unless they are doing something criminal, which hunting animals is not. However, for the purpose of throwing this titbit of class envy to the dogs of egalitarianism, members of the government all went into "democratic" mode and pretended that what the people wanted, they must get. That is democracy, they said.

Unfortunately for them, it did not wash. It was just too, too easy to shoot them down and on every talk show or phone-in, we heard even plainly uneducated people pointing out that the government didn't take any notice whatsoever of the enormous majority in favour of capital punishment, or any of the well-tried punitive measures which the people who suffer most from crime would like to see applied, virtually cost-free, to the criminal.

Actually, I was on such a radio programme, London Talk Radio, with a lawyer who was a fervent advocate of the hunting ban, when precisely this point was put to him. Like many people, I had always wondered how people like him managed their balancing act of invoking democracy when it suited them, only to deny its sovereign power if it did not. The caller asked if he supported asking people what they thought of immigration and capital punishment, and then legislating accordingly.

The lawyer's face changed to a look of studied stupefaction. "It is my absolute conviction," he said, "that most people welcome immigration as much as they deplore capital punishment." "You must live on the moon then" the caller said, "What about opinion polls that say differently?" "If opinion polls say differently, then they lie," the sage replied with magnificent confidence, "and must be ignored."

So that is how it's done. You just say that something is so, in a very sincere voice, and it becomes so. It reminds one that this was what Thomas Huxley described as a "theology without God." He recognised that public morals must have something underpinning them in an agnostic society and urged "top people" to shoulder the responsibility of giving what were, in truth, simply their opinions, in a very confident manner. Of course, he lived in a more deferential society anyway but, even so, this was, and is, most unlikely to impress the ordinary person. A contemporary of his, Charles Dickens, portrayed far more accurately the common man's response to this line of argument when he had Mr. Bumble lugubriously commenting upon the law's precept that a man was held to be master in his own house: "If the law supposes that, then the law is an ass."

This was the ploy upon which the whole wretched business of the proposed legislation to ban hunting was based. A tin-pot government not one year old felt that it had the right to prohibit an activity and a way of life that has enlivened the countryside since time immemorial. Maybe they wanted to test their powers of coercion in view of the coming Economic and Monetary Union experiment in Europe and the conflicts this is bound to cause. Or perhaps they simply wanted to set their stamp on the coming age; maudlin and prescriptive, this was the perfect Bill with which to do it. Unfortunately for the government, it didn't work-as one hopes and prays it never will. On this occasion, to the central issue of the freedom to hunt were added a dozen other large and small grievances which, happening separately, might have been resented bitterly but would not have suddenly sounded the alarm through the countryside.

It is part of the magic and mystery of language that words represent, as Genesis tells us, the essence of meaning. The word for "country," meaning countryside, and the word for the mother-country are the same. The countryside is the country in most European nations and I would guess it is in America also. Therefore, when the countryside is up in arms, that goes for the whole country. The thousands of beacons which were lit within sight of one another from one end of the country to the other, were tended and visited by hundreds of thousands of people who have never hunted and perhaps never would. There was a sudden, acute sense that unless they reminded the people who lead them that they were a force to be reckoned with, absolutely nothing of our way of life would be safe; or even be left to us. It was the suddenly-perceived threat to our liberty that made them turn out in such numbers in London. And it worked.

This much at least even the meanest newspaper hack seemed able to glean from the hordes who passed in front of him. Though many tried to argue that hunting was not the central issue of the march because so many other things were being protested about; this was wilfully to miss the point. It was that issue, more than any other single one, which symbolised the contempt shown by the present governing class for the British way of life. The concerted roar of rage which greeted this attempt to impose orders from above, and the complacent expectation that they would be obeyed, "because Parliament has said so," was just the last straw.

If it does nothing else for the moment, it will have done the job of reminding squiffy little government functionaries, "dressed in a little brief authority," of the limits of government. It also gives a foretaste, more vivid than any punditry, of what to expect if and when the demands of "European Union" become similarly dictatorial and onerous.

The message was well taken. The government backed away from further confrontation and the Bill to outlaw has been quietly dropped. The attitude of those who went on the march is, naturally, one of satisfaction but not necessarily of relief. That crucial point has been passed with a lot of people, which I always think of as the "embarrassment factor." It is absolutely natural to us over here, not to show our emotions. However, once a line has been crossed and the truth is revealed, there is no point in going back.

For the last thirty years or so, the wishes of "the people" have been comprehensively ignored on almost every important subject. This has only been possible with the willing co-operation of the media, who have done everything to portray anybody who did not want mass immigration into the country as "racist," anybody who believed in severe punishment for serious crime as "fascist," and anyone who did not welcome special homosexual privileges as "repressed" and "sexually inadequate."

The media, of course, have more power than government ever does to influence attitudes-at least on the public level-because they can select and edit the protagonists in any debate. There are one or two people on every subject who are well-known to sink any cause they espouse, and these are the people who are always chosen to put the case for a politically-incorrect opinion. Of course people know this very well and it is gratifying that, in all the major subjects, surveys show that people still base their opinions on their experience rather than what they are told is correct. On corporal punishment, for instance, about which the intelligentsia show a united front-against it, naturally-a Mori poll last year found 68% of parents wanted it returned to schools and so did 67% of children. True to form, last week the government made corporal punishment, even in private schools, illegal.

In this case, it doesn't much matter since so few people are involved and most private schools do not have it anyway. It was relatively unimportant except for the fact that the children's rights activists who sponsored the law were establishing the principle that it is the State, and not parents, which decides how a child should be treated in disciplinary matters, just as they have established it over the question of whether underage girls should be given contraceptives. It's another brick in the wall that separates parents from the effective care and control of their own children.

This then is the cultural background, or at least a part of it, against which the Countryside March took off. They expressed complaints specific to those who live in the countryside, but the context of their complaint was a fierce discontent with the increasing power and reach of government. In their case, it has been the power to virtually close down whole areas of traditional economic activity. Much of it closed, or adversely affected by European legislation. To the disinterested observer, it really beggars belief that any government can look with equanimity-or even think it possibleto engineer further integration with a European bureaucracy that is certain to enforce more of the same.

The fishermen were there in force; so were the farmers, particularly but not exclusively the beef farmers; and a myriad other small rural industries that have been impeded, priced out of existence or refused licences by asinine European regulations that all our trading partners ignore.

Large-scale deployment of posters hostile to further encroachments upon greenfield sites for building were also much in evidence. This was not simply a "green" protest as was piously claimed by many observers. We know the government is expecting a further million immigrants by the early twenty-first century, with large-scale new towns being created to accommodate them. This was the first protest against that fact and must make the government uneasy. This is not a topic upon which the elected oligarchy which governs us has ever permitted a vote. There is a widespread belief which never surfaces in public discussion, that somewhere in the corridors of power, it has been decided that England shall become a vast industrial estate with foreign workers imported from every part of the globe to service it.

It is, I believe, the recognition of this as an unacknowledged fact that has influenced the beginnings of a change in the public mood. It is the long-delayed recognition of the nature of the problem facing us that precedes the lengthy process of solving it.

It is almost impossible to judge another country's mood changes because, as in personal conversation, one needs to know the cues, the body language, the inflections of the voice and hints rather than statements, which are thrown out to test response. All we can know is that what is always called "The Rise of the Right" is going full-steam ahead in many parts of Europe with so-called neo-nazis making gains everywhere amongst the young. In fact, what this usually comes down to is not a National Socialist attitude to economic planning or, indeed, to anything else. Wherever it manifests itself, in the newly freed countries of Eastern Europe, in Greece, Spain, France, Italy and Austria, these groups are almost always simply protesting against immigration.

It prompts the question: Why are governments allowing such large-scale immigration all across Europe when it is so unpopular? One truly wishes that it could be said it is purely for economic reasons, and some do indeed argue that this is the case. However, it causes such discontent and fragmentation amongst both the indigenous community and the arriving immigrants that again, one wonders how any government can think it good, and can so painstakingly put together the ingredients for inevitable future civil strife.

But the signs are definitely there that we have decided, belatedly, we must face up to what is being done to us. For the first time, figures were recently issued-without there being a liberal outcry-which indicate that immigrants are in a majority in the schools in many metropolitan areas, including London. One report concluded: "We must face the fact that in 20 years time, our capital city may be European only in name."

The delicate tone of this alarming statement speaks volumes. It was not called "a prediction" since it was a demographic fait accompli. On the other hand, the word "may" indicates eager anticipation of a miracle to save us from the implications of what this might mean for us. The writer does not share with us his own speculations as to what form this miracle might take; in the circumstances, it is probably just as well.

According to a government report published in September, 1996, the Asian population grew at a rate 40 times faster than the white majority in the 10 years to 1991, and they are becoming more segregated from Native Britons. The report also stated: "High levels of unemployment combined with a decline in the overall quality of the built environment have produced and still produce deep-seated resentment which has the potential to spill over into violence."

We know that a very large proportion of the immigrants are Muslims and that they are strong family people. They protect their women and children from outside interference and there has not been even one case of social workers bursting into an Asian home with policemen in tow, because of an anonymous accusation that the children are being roughly handled there. There would be riots if it was even attempted. They have a very high birth-rate and, because of our liberal divorce laws, have no difficulty in keeping more than one wife as is permitted in their religion. So their presence is increasing exponentially and, furthermore, at least some of them have plans for us!

In August 1994 the Khalifa International Conference was held in no less a place than Wembley Stadium, with delegates from every mosque in the country as well as a capacity crowd. Almost nothing was written about it in the British press apart from reporting that it had taken place and that both adulterers even Royal ones-and homosexuals would face execution in the process of making Great Britain an Islamic State. In fact, the only people who seemed to have reacted to anything that went on that day were a small group of foolhardy homosexuals who had to be rescued by the police.

Barbara Amiel, the distinguished journalist and wife of the proprietor of the Daily Telegraph, wrote about that day in that newspaper nearly two years later and quoted one speaker from the platform who said, using English for the benefit of those born here, "This notion that there is a moderate and an extremist and fundamentalist Islam is a war on us by the media. We have one agenda: Islam will not coexist with tolerance. Islam is a political system that will prevail over all other religions, and in order to have our system, you have to have all other systems out." This was greeted with "thunderous applause" from the audience.

So no one can say that they were not warned. It is of little avail either to claim that there are many tolerant and democratic Muslims in Europe. No doubt they exist in places like Saudi Arabia. It's just that they don't stand a chance against the militant variety who obviously outnumber them. When there is both a pacifistic and an aggressive wing of any movement, one does not need to be very bright to see which will dominate; and that any power struggle is likely to be short-lived. It is summed up in Hilaire Belloc's rhyme,

Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight But roaring Bill, who killed him, Thought it right.

The question is why Europe has embarked upon the perilous enterprise of allowing millions of people who have promised, on many occasions, that they will one day rise against us, to settle in our midst? It really is a poser for which there can be only two possible explanations. The first is that government thinks it will be able to control any bid for power made by Muslims. But even so, what then? We cannot even solve our tribal dispute between the Irish and the Scots descendants in Northern Ireland. The gypsies are a non-militant headache throughout much of Europe. The Spanish cannot cope with "their" Basques, and the Belgians, who hope to govern us all, have French speakers and Flemish speakers who hate each others' guts and don't even want to share a country as nondescript as theirs!

Can governments, therefore, seriously believe that they will be able to cope with a determined attempt to create an Islamic State out of Europe? It is literally unbelievable. The only thing that can be said in support of this argument is that the sort of people who seek to govern others are often "one sandwich short of a picnic" when it comes to common-sense.

The evils of many atrocious regimes, including fascism in all its forms, passed the intelligentsia by for many years, and it was only brute reality which brought them to their senses. Indeed, this has happened so often in European history that one wonders whether the second possible explanation is not more plausible. That there comes a time in the natural life-cycles of societies when the need is felt to shake out the genetic stock of the core nation. We march blithely into a minefield, knowing that only the strongest in mind and body will come out of it alive.

It is a grisly sort of scenario, but yet the thought makes me quite cheerful. Perhaps we do need to re-learn the ground-rules of life every so often. It is a melancholy fact that, without the realism that accompanies conflict, we often go terribly astray. It would be pleasant to be able to think that the Germans-without the defeat of the Second World War-would have, in time, abandoned their terrible eugenic practices; but we have little reason to believe it.

Now that our generation has discovered the practical advantages of getting rid of unwanted people-and trying to breed better ones in a laboratorywho can honestly see us thinking our way to a more moral way of living? In peacetime, the rich and powerful become corrupt and, at the same time, are able to ring-fence their position so that, within a civil society, no one can assail them. The contraceptive and abortion industries, with their satellites in education, the medical profession and the social services, are all now so well-entrenched that they are like an alien army themselves.

Likewise the criminal-dependence lobby, which stretches all the way down from learned and respectable judges to lawyers, prison staff, probation officers and councillors, all have such a financial interest in the continuation of high levels of crime that only an uprising amongst the victimised majority will ever wrest their power and their policies from them.

The path from peace to domination by power blocks is a well-worn one. The self-interested, unrepresentative pressure groups looking for territory to colonise make their own clamour for bureaucrats to carry out the reforms they want. The bureaucrats commend the demands of the pressure groups because they give them jobs. Governments listen to these power blocks because, like the media, it is easier to apply to them than to risk asking "the people" what they really want-lest they ask for something which throws a spanner [in U.S. English a "monkey wrench"] in their ideology, or their plans. In the end, the mass of the people become almost completely unrepresented and have to accept paying for the upkeep of the barons of the bureaucracies, and the financial interests they represent, regardless of whether they like or want them. Only conflict, with its sudden promotion of a different type of person to positions of power, can change this scenario.

And yet, as we see clearly in our own day, this is the inevitable endgame. The powers that govern our lives have not seen the dangers presented by their marauding on the moral sense of the people they are parasitic upon. They think we can live without it; but without it they will be the first to go.

Nor do they seem to have realised that, unless the people are reasonably content, they will not consent to be governed at all. At what point in Europe's history the people will decide that the pleasure of fighting for what they have lost is better than enduring the present or anticipating the future, no one can say. But it will undoubtedly be somewhere near that time of numerical parity which the Islamic world has told us will signal the start of their onslaught on democracy, tolerance and "other religions."

The only comfort for those who fruitlessly labour now to make morality the basis for our lives is one fairly safe prediction. You can be darn sure that the abortion clinics will close; and that when they are reopened, they will have guides and maps and memorials to the innocent dead, to remind our heirs of the depths to which we sank under the old dispensation.

Lynette Burrows, our Country Correspondent, writes from deepest Cambridge, England.

Copyright Human Life Foundation, Incorporated Spring 1998
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved