About totalitarianism, Orwell once wrote: “A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable. It can never permit either the truthful recording of facts, or the emotional sincerity, that literary creation demands. Totalitarianism demands . . . the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of truth.”
How relevant are the various strands of that stated opinion? Let us take them one by one:
“A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial:”
“when its ruling class has lost its function” ~ Here, the surrender of so many powers to the EU, the loss of control of England’s borders come to mind as two immediate examples. The wilful weakening of England’s Defence Forces in dereliction of the ruling class’s duty to protect its citizens must not be overlooked.
“but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud” ~ Can this really be disputed when those in power contrive to allocate to themselves public funds in the form of (for example) Short Money, Cranborne Money and Political Development Grants whilst denying it to small registered political parties? In addition to that particular ‘fraud’, the broadcasting media permit endless exposure to the same groups in Parliament, whilst withholding those political benefits from other registered parties, thus reinforcing the status quo.
Short Money is paid to the official Opposition party. Short Money allocations, 05/2010- 03/2011, based on 2010 general election results:
|Political party||General||Travel||Leader of the Opposition||Total|
Cranborne Money is the common name given to the annual payment to Opposition parties in the House of Lords. Cranborne Money allocations during 2009 ~ 2014 are as follows:
|Cross Bench Peers||£61,003||£71,770|
Just consider the largesse, the booty doled out to themselves and their parties in power! It amounts to literally millions of pounds of public funds intended to prevent new parties from making in-roads to their power. It seems inevitable that, in the absence of any significant public demonstrations of objection to their schemes, those parties presently represented in Parliament will move to even more public funding which will give them greater scope to ignore their members and the wider electorate.
Political parties and their interests can only be justified in England’s traditional parliamentary system (essentially one in which individual Members are elected as representatives), when they are obliged to recruit members in order to obtain sufficient funding. Then, they would also be obliged to take account of the collective wishes of their members rather than act as dictators which party leaders are presently prone to do!
“Such a society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable.” ~ British ‘society’ (if it exists) is intolerant of England as a national entity and the English as a distinct people despite them accounting for over 84% of Britain’s population; how intellectually (and morally) stable is that?
“It can never permit either the truthful recording of facts” ~ Currently, Coalition Parties and their supporters refer to “the mess the Labour Government left” without mentioning crucial causes of that “mess”! Given that ‘truth’ requires the ‘whole truth’, such references can hardly be referred to as being ‘truthful’; certainly they are not conducive to creating a properly informed electorate.
The whole truth (and justice) requires the people of England of all hues to be able to record their ethnic identity as English just as White Scots are able to do in Scotland and have ben able to since 2001. The prevention of this facility is not only the untruthful recording of facts, it is wilful discrimination against the English on an industrial scale! The corruption and hypocrisy of the British Parliament is demonstrated by section 3 of the Equality Act 2010 which amounts to “Do as I say, not necessarily as I do!”
“Totalitarianism demands . . . the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of truth.” ~ Here, one cannot overlook the persistent, continual attempts to convert English History into British History, and to convert Englishness into Britishness in order to destroy English identity.
If UK society is not quite totalitarian yet, it must be perilously close! Who disputes that the British political system is largely unresponsive to the apparent wishes of the great majority of its citizens, those who live in England?