Deus ex Machina — Narrative of a Tragedy in Three Acts

Posted on by

Note: This post was originally “sticky”, and was on top for several days. Scroll down for “Jihad With a Latin Rhythm”, “Off of the Roof”, a video about the Iranian general who commands the offensive to retake Tikrit from ISIS, an interview with George Igler, a video of an “Islamophobic” city councilor in the Netherlands, and last night’s news feed.

Our English correspondent Seneca III returns with a disheartening look at the current state of political affairs in the United Police State of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Deus ex Machina — Narrative of a Tragedy in Three Acts

by Seneca III

Caveat: There are no caveats regarding this week’s rant, although it may constitute a ‘heads up’ and our Cousins across the pond and our European Kin would be wise to have a close look at any similar, well buried legislation in the darker corners of their own Statutory Instrumentation. — S III.

(Deus ex Machina (L fm. Gk) — God out of the Machine)[1]

Prologue

A couple of weeks ago I was in conversation with an old friend (in the Antipodes) as a result of his calling me, having just read my previous Post. During the course of this conversation he posed a seminal question: “What precise mechanism or mechanisms can your Junta-In-All-But-Name use to effect a seizure of absolute power?”

This question has been bouncing around in my old grey matter ever since, particularly within that intransigent part that tends to seize upon a particular idea and refuses to let go of it — somewhat like a mangy old dog with a dirty bone — and thus I have been on another eye-opening journey through the bowels of progressive totalitarianism, through the rotten rump of what once was a great, patriotic political system governing a once United Kingdom.

I am beginning to wish that I hadn’t.

DEMETRIOUS:   Villain, what hast thou done?
AARON:   That which thou canst not undo.
CHIRON:   Thou hast undone our mother.
AARON:   Villain, I have done thy mother.
 

― William Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Act I — The Twilight of the Gods

Scene 1 — Meltdown

First we look at the exposed face of the Mother of Parliaments and cast our eyes over the tip of this iceberg[2] shaped monolith, the bit that sticks out above the waterline, the medusa that is the UK State apparatus as we find it now halfway through the second decade of the 21st century.

Balancing precariously on top of that exposed and rapidly melting pinnacle, trying desperately to establish how many angels can dance on the head of a very slippery ideological pin, we find the current leaders of the two main political Parties and one from a minor. Venal all, the first two present as a vacuous, Islam-besotted rich boy (with some very dodgy foreign friends[3]) and an incoherent and mentally dislocated glove puppet openly manipulated by the hand of a collection of moribund Trades Union thugs. At their feet, scrabbling desperately for its moment in the Sun, is a diminutive puddle of even more duplicitous slime wearing a so appropriately yellow-coloured rosette.

All in all this tableau is not a heart-warming sight. With a General Election on the near horizon, it is quite a precariously balanced one to boot, little more than a triplet of ephemera blown out of their time by the hurricane winds of the 21st century, mayflies, having risen and now falling after their failed breeding season — three morally defenestrated tyro Horsemen of our Apocalypse anxiously awaiting the return of the Fourth who at the moment, but only for the moment, is otherwise occupied in Brussels, France, and Denmark.

Looking even further down the slippery slope our eyes will settle on the next layer of Misgovernance. Below the Horsemen we find the Principal Secretaries of State, Ministers, Junior Ministers and their ‘Special Advisors’ and then several layers of ‘Honourable Members’ (sic), the ‘Backbenchers’ as they are so quaintly labelled, so many of whom could hardly be described as the sharpest needles in the legislative sewing kit — except when it comes to creative expense accounting, that is.

And immediately below them, unhealthily close up tight, and most but not all ideologically in step with the left or the far left of the now conjoined social conservative and Labour Party drones, are the Parties Minor, all strong on ambition but currently weak on the ground and hoping to obtain a larger foothold and hence leverage in nine weeks’ time. Finally, beneath them all, right on the waterline, we find the exposed part of the principal Executive Branch of government, the Judiciary and, by association, much of the legal Profession, a murder of ambulance-chasing moral ambivalents with second homes and large amounts of pony fodder to fund, who in essence direct that Common Purposed iron fist in a no longer velvet glove, HM Constabulary, now known almost universally as the ‘Thought Police’.

There are many others, of course, partly submerged, particularly the mind-altering, borderline-superstitious interconnected disciples of the Human Rights, Racism, Global Warming and Multiculturalism myths, all to be found peddling their creed throughout the media, academia, the teaching profession and anywhere else they can penetrate. However in the interests of restricting this particular article to a readable length we shall have to leave that lot there, basking in the chill, actinic arctic light, and dip our heads below the waterline to have a look at what is happening beyond the light of day.

Scene 2 — Crossing the Styx

In those murky depths, where outsiders rarely penetrate, where the modern Scylla and Charybdis ply their trade, is the real power, eternal and existential, the arch schemer and manipulator of the posing, posturing political fools above, the gorgon that drifts so effortlessly in the shadows as its shadow stalks us down all our days: the Secret State, a squat, pyramid-shaped construct. At its apex the Mandarins head a Civil Service consisting of 350,000 careerists, penetrating deep into the intestines of the serpentine edifice above and in its turn supported by a vast, ever shifting sardine-like school of internecine bottom-feeders at its base — the Quangonistas[4], that self-serving tribe of pecuniary advantaged nomadic Jobsworths creating, maintaining and enforcing the politically correct diktats superimposed on our deconstructed and culturally exsanguinated nation.

It is here, somewhere at the epicentre this privileged realm, that we will find the locked cupboards of the Ministry of Hidden Skeletons. There lie the real records of the Department of Whitewashes and Cover-ups, the transcripts of the Secret Courts, the Secret Registers and all the of the other products of a vast personal power preservation and surveillance apparatus that has long been busy gathering and hoarding every little bit of information that may be useful in keeping an increasingly stroppy electorate in its rightful, ignorant place. And, in passing, further down this subterranean corridor can also be found the various publicly funded Party spin machines, the arch peddlers of misinformation and disinformation to a recently supine public at large. But not supine any longer, one can but hope and begin to suspect.

And so to…

…Act II — The work of the Secret State[5]

Scene 1 — Westminster, 2004 — The Civil Contingencies Act 2004

Prior to 2004, ‘civil contingencies’ were covered by the Civil Defence Act 1948 and the Civil Defence Act (Northern Ireland) 1950. However, these Acts were deemed inadequate by the then Labour government following

  • the fuel protests of 2000 (which were a direct response to the way the Labour Government’s outrageous fuel duties were strangling British transport businesses whilst they were under attack from inexpensively fuelled EU vehicles),
  • the mass flooding also in 2000 (resultant mainly from inadequate waterways management and maintenance by an underfunded and overstaffed Environment Agency), and
  • the Foot and Mouth epidemic in 2001 that set the British farming industry back by at least a decade (the disease spread nationwide directly resultant from the implementation of EU regulations which destroyed the existing network of small- to medium-sized locally-sited abattoirs supplied by predominantly local producers and replaced them with huge, regional mega-abattoirs which required the moving of livestock all over the country irrespective of geographic origin or state of health)

…and thus needed replacing in their entirety — which in my opinion they did not, and could easily have been modified to accommodate even the changing circumstances brought about by the EU-fixated Marxist-Socialist Labour administration.

Nevertheless, to this end the Deputy Prime Minister, John (now Lord) Prescott, a.k.a. ‘John the Erudite & Numerate’, the ex-shop steward with a chip on both shoulders and with only two neurons, which were rarely connected anyway, was tasked by Blair with producing new legislation. The result, created for this inadequate clown by the shadowy denizens of the Secret State, was predictable and, naturally, the antithesis of everything the phrase ‘democratic freedoms’ implies.

I am further of the opinion that this Act is arguably the most iniquitous assault on the freedoms our citizenry in modern times. Its provisions permit the establishment of an absolute dictatorship answerable to no one but the ruling Junta and brutally enforced by a Common-Purposed Police Force…and it won’t take much to trigger its imposition, just a certain level of kinetic activism by friends of the fourth horseman, perhaps?

Some definitive abstracts from the Act may be found in the Appendix — be aware, my Antipodean friend, be very aware — and the Act in full may be found here, and for comparison purposes Chap 5 of the 1948 Act here.

Scene 2 — Westminster, other Acts 1998-2015

In conjunction with the Civil Contingencies Act there are several other Acts that could be interpreted and used to give due cause to apply the former or even automatically initiate it. I list them briefly below for the benefit of anyone who may be of a sufficiently morbid disposition to actually want to look them over — it’s damned hard work, mind you, wading through all the extraneous verbiage in order to get to the core function, as the harpies of the Secret State intended it to be both for us and for a significant percentile of the Legislative.

Human Rights Act 1988… well, you may think that, but I couldn’t possibly comment!

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006…

Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006… clever trick, that, arbitrarily defining Islam as a race conjoined with a religion whilst it is in fact a theocratic political system encompassing and practised by every race on the planet with the possible exception of a few lost tribes in the Amazon basin and on the Andaman Islands.

Counter-terrorism and Security Bill 2015… the final nail in our coffin. Presented by implication as being needed to help deal with those endless acts of barbarism that obviously have nothing to do with ‘Islam’, it will in fact enable the hobbling and eventual destruction of any emergent patriotic movements by or on behalf of the native inhabitants. Anyone who resists, or even looks as if they might be about to resist their ethnic cleansing will be dealt with according to its provisions. Pushed through both the Commons and the Lords with unseemly haste, this Bill received Royal Assent on the 12th February and is now law — the Counter-terrorism and Security Act 2015.

Act III — In the afterlife

Scene 1 — The Machina that delivered us from evil (or so we were told!)

Globalisation is the secret love child of the EU, and the EU itself is a Frankensteinian construct introduced surreptitiously, step by devious step out of the back hatch of the Bilderberg machine. Both are artificial constructs and both are brought to dubious life and nurtured in a petri dish of oil wealth, multinational corporate greed and a lust for absolute personal power on the part of a small coterie of self-appointed elites so personified at the annual Bacchanalian gathering in Davos. However, the EU was poorly designed and developed, has not taken well and is withering in its rancid agar-agar, whilst Globalisation is fast becoming a self-sustaining plague vectored by the ethnic cleansing of Europe’s native peoples and being effected through a process of population-replacement masquerading as multiculturalism — and it is ironic to say in the least that this grotesquery is being abetted by the brutal criminalisation of our civil rights and imposed via that nihilistic ideology, Islamic Uniculturalism.

Scene 2 — Oh, Machina, deliver us from the evil born of the Deliverance

De modo Sarracenos extirpandi, ‘On the method of wiping out the Saracens’, is the title of a blueprint for Western survival written by the 14th Century Dominican Bishop of Smyrna and later Archbishop of Soltaniyeh in Persia, one Guillaume Adam. He knew a thing or two about the Religion of Peace, did Guillaume, and obviously felt its depredations did have something to do with Islam after all. Pity our elites do not think the same.

Whatever… I recently read somewhere that we in the West face three enemies: Our own governments, our own media and Islam in that order. It does ring a bell with me, and I wonder if the people will ever become their own machina — Villagers bearing torches? Burghers bearing arms? Warriors bearing honour? Villains in graves? Barbarians in flight? Wonders in words and deed? — but who knows? I certainly do not, but my mind does wing back to a tiny historical vignette: It is reported that the Duke of Wellington, when riding through his lines on the eve of Waterloo and seeing his troops drinking, brawling and singing around their camp fires, turned to one of his aides and said “I don’t know if they frighten Mr. Bonaparte, but they certainly frighten me”.

Perhaps it is time at last that the whole rotten collection of national and cultural deconstructionists began to fear their own people more than they fear losing the votes of the Religion of Peace. Oh where, where, is our Perseus, I cry?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Epilogue

The epilogue is yet to be written, and it will not be written by me — it is in the hands of the Gods.

Vengeance is in my heart, death in my hand,
Blood and revenge are hammering in my head.

― William Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus

Seneca III, Middle England, The Stoic’s Corner, almost the ides of March 2015.

Notes:

1.   ‘Deus ex Machina’ is a plot device extensively used in Greek tragedy where a machine is most often used to bring actors playing gods onto the stage in order to resolve a seemingly unresolvable problem. Both Aeschylus and Euripides used this device, the latter most effectively in his Medea where the deus ex machina is a dragon-drawn chariot sent by the sun god. It is used to convey his granddaughter Medea, who has just committed murder and infanticide, away from her husband and to the safety of Athens. (Now, could that be an interesting analogue of modern times?)
 
2.   From the Low Saxon, ‘lesbarg’.
 
3.   “Tory MP Alan Duncan’s government job as “special envoy to Oman” didn’t stop him accepting a free holiday to Spain from the UK arm of a company involved in Oman’s biggest bribery scandal. Duncan took the Oman role (along with “special envoy to Yemen”) when he stepped down as development minister in July 2013…his entry in the register of MP’s interests shows that in October 2013 he went on a £5000 “leisure” trip to Grenada, Spain, paid for by CCC Ltd, the UK arm of Consolidated Contractors Company, the Middle East’s largest building firm…

[…] This is not the only contact between Consolidated Contractors and the Tories. Founded by Said Khoury, a Palestinian billionaire who died in 2013, and now run by his sons, Consolidated Contractors’ various arms have given the party hundreds of thousands of pounds in recent years. Nor is its reputation impeccable: when a legal dispute with its former partner Munib Masri reached the British courts, a judge called Consolidated Contractors a “complete disgrace” for flouting court orders. The case was settled in Masri’s favour in 2011.” Private Eye 1383 — January 2015.
 
4.   From ‘Quango’ — Quasi Autonomous non-Governmental Organisation — semi-public administrative bodies outside of the civil service but receiving financial support from the government, which also makes all of the senior appointments to them: roughly 994 of them collectively in 2007, 1.5 million employees, annual cost to the taxpayer £170 billion, although precise, up-to-date figures are virtually impossible to extract from the un-disambiguated output generated by row upon row of hooded civil service scribes hunched over their electronic parchments wielding quills dipped in the ink of obfuscation — the obedient, tabulating elves from the lower echelons of that huge community troughing at the taxpayers’ expense and ingenuously referred to as ‘public servants’.
 
5.   The ‘Silent’ State is a book (William Heinemann, 2010) written by Heather Brooke, a freelance journalist and Freedom of Information campaigner to whom I am indebted for her courageous exposure of the dark side, several examples of which I have alluded to above.
 

Appendix

Definitive abstracts from the:

Civil Contingencies Act 2004

Part 1 Local arrangements for civil protection (Sections 1 to 18)

Section 1 Meaning of “emergency”

(1)   In this Part “emergency” means—
    (a)   an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom,
    (b)   an event or situation which threatens serious damage to the environment of a place in the United Kingdom, or
    (c)   war, or terrorism, which threatens serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom.
 

Part 2 Emergency powers (Sections 19 to 31)

Section 20 Power to make emergency regulations

(1)   Her Majesty may by Order in Council make emergency regulations if satisfied that the conditions in section 21 are satisfied.
(2)   A senior Minister of the Crown may make emergency regulations if satisfied—
    (a)   that the conditions in section 21 are satisfied, and
    (b)   that it would not be possible, without serious delay, to arrange for an Order in Council under subsection (1).
(3)   In this Part “senior Minister of the Crown” means—
    (a)   the First Lord of the Treasury (the Prime Minister),
    (b)   any of Her Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, and
    (c)   the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury*.
 

Section 21 Conditions for making emergency regulations

(1)   This section specifies the conditions mentioned in section 20.
(2)   The first condition is that an emergency has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur.
(3)   The second condition is that it is necessary to make provision for the purpose of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the emergency.
(4)   The third condition is that the need for provision referred to in subsection (3) is urgent.
(5)   For the purpose of subsection (3) provision which is the same as an enactment (“the existing legislation”) is necessary if, in particular—
    (a)   the existing legislation cannot be relied upon without the risk of serious delay,
    (b)   it is not possible without the risk of serious delay to ascertain whether the existing legislation can be relied upon, or
    (c)   the existing legislation might be insufficiently effective.
    (6)   For the purpose of subsection (3) provision which could be made under an enactment other than section 20 (“the existing legislation”) is necessary if, in particular—
    (a)   the provision cannot be made under the existing legislation without the risk of serious delay,
    (b)   it is not possible without the risk of serious delay to ascertain whether the provision can be made under the existing legislation
 

Section 22 Scope of emergency regulations

(3)   Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative; in particular, regulations may—
    (a)   confer a function on a Minister of the Crown, on the Scottish Ministers, on the National Assembly for Wales, on a Northern Ireland department, on a coordinator appointed under section 24 or on any other specified person (and a function conferred may, in particular, be—
        (i)   a power, or duty, to exercise a discretion;
        (ii)   a power to give directions or orders (whether written or oral;
    (b)   provide for or enable the requisition or confiscation of property (with or without compensation);
    (c)   provide for or enable the destruction of property, animal life or plant life (with or without compensation);
    (d)   prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, movement to or from a specified place;
    (e)   require, or enable the requirement of, movement to or from a specified place;
    (f)   prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, assemblies of specified kinds, at specified places or at specified times;
    (g)   prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, travel at specified times;
    (h)   prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, other specified activities;
    (i)   create an offence of—
        (i)   failing to comply with a provision of the regulations;
        (ii)   failing to comply with a direction or order given or made under the regulations;
        (iii)   obstructing a person in the performance of a function under or by virtue of the regulations;
    (j)   disapply or modify an enactment or a provision made under or by virtue of an enactment;
    (k)   require a person or body to act in performance of a function (whether the function is conferred by the regulations or otherwise and whether or not the regulations also make provision for remuneration or compensation);
    (l)   enable the Defence Council to authorise the deployment of Her Majesty’s armed forces;
    (m)   make provision (which may include conferring powers in relation to property) for facilitating any deployment of Her Majesty’s armed forces;
    (n)   confer jurisdiction on a court or tribunal (which may include a tribunal established by the regulations);
    (o)   make provision which has effect in relation to, or to anything done in—
        (i)   an area of the territorial sea,
        (ii)   an area within British fishery limits, or
        (iii)   an area of the continental shelf;
    (p)   make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for a specified purpose;
    (q)   make different provision for different circumstances or purposes.
 

(All my bold and italic — S III)

* Currently:

The Rt. Hon. David Cameron, MP First Lord of the Treasury.
The Rt. Hon. George Osborne MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Rt. Hon. Danny Alexander MP, Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
David Gauke MP, Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
Priti Patel MP, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury.
Andrea Leadsom MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury.
Lord Deighton KBE

For links to previous essays by Seneca III, see the Seneca III Archives.

89 thoughts on “Deus ex Machina — Narrative of a Tragedy in Three Acts”

  2. I have often pondered why the Queen remains so silent while her ‘realm’ is ‘re-organized’ by those she must perceive as less than desirable to upholding the continuance of the monarchy in Britain.

    Has the cat really run off with Bess’s tongue, is she remaining mum for the right moment to turn up or is it because she just no longer gives a damn?

    • Not that the old girl really has any power to throw about, but if her role as ‘Defender of the Faith’ is anything to go by……

      Now I know it isn’t nice to even speculate openly on Lizzie’s state of mind but she is old, and no more immune than the rest of us to ‘failing mental faculties’, and you know what I mean.

      • Seems to me Barmy Prince Charlie is even more a victim of senile dementia than his mum.

        • Oh I couldn’t agree more! It’s so frustrating to see the wrong person appointed or elected to any office anywhere, and right now we have a world nearly full of them; more rotten politicians than you can shake a stick at, traitorous British Archbishops, a barmy Pope who forgives muslims and washes their feet, Americans who elected a muslim as President, and the Brits. who know very well William is really the only hope but then “rules are rules”, and so they will get Charlie when Lizzie calls it a day. Pity.

        • Especially as Charles the Useful now learns Arabic, studies the Koran and has 12 unnamed ‘wise men’ of Islam to consult.
          He adores the absolute monarchs of the Gulf-States because they treat him,er well- like a King.
          Colluding with Prince Bandar, the then head of Saudi Intelligence, to invest in educational rabats in British universities.

          He’s also declared himself ‘defender of faiths’, while saving the environment with “Islamic spiritual principles”.
          Apparently he hasn’t reached the part where one faith he wants to ‘defend’, demands dominion over all others.

          • “Charles the Useful”?? How apt. What would the Queen’s appellation be? From Barmy P.C.’s point of view, probably “Mum the Obstructive”.

            BTW, in doing some research the other day I ran across a headline proclaiming Prince Charles’ place in the outer darkness when it came to being permitted to play the doting grandpa. Didn’t dare go off on that tangent and forget what I was after, but the headline has remained, lurking.

            If our English readers know anything about that, I’d appreciate a line or two. It’s only partially OT, but for me – amateur forensic student of family/kin constellations – whatever light you could shed would be helpful.

            A comparison of the remaining monarchies in the world, and especially the dynamic within their families and outward toward their people, would be worth the time of any forensic psychology academic. Probably too risky in these parlous times, though.

          • Charles has clearly never traveled to a Muslim country and seen how much they ‘care’ about the environment.

            At my site they toss the lead waste in a ditch and burn it along with the rest.

            The Ummah had better not cry to me when all their children have severe autism and mental retardation.

      • HM is severely constrained as to what she she can and cannot express in public in a constitutional monarchy.
        She is obliged to give ritual RoyalAssent to any Act of Parliament passed by that less than desirable collection of thieves and vagabonds.
        It is the inevitable result of disposing of that previous abomination, the Divine Right of Kings, no matter how equally undesirable it’s replacement system may be at this point in time.
        As for the ‘Clown Prince’ I can only hope that she hangs on long enough so that the Crown can skip a generation and perhaps do well enough that we may be able to continue to avoid the inevitable result of a Presidential System such as is being brought into serious disrepute by the current incumbent in Washington.

        • It could be that, in private, HM *does* vent about the Islamic population over and above those authorized by the (I think it’s) Right of Return.

          But she could *never* say these things in public. Never. Well, maybe once, but that would be the End of the Monarchy, as I understand from my long-deceased Hampshire grandmother.

          Given that the Queen Mother lived to be 102 and HM has 11 or 12 years to go to reach that age, it’s entirely possible that HRH Charles, if he does become king, will have a very short reign and that Diana’s older son, William, will inherit the–in every sense–royal mess.

          (In passing: I wonder what the Archbishops of Canterbury and York think about the prospect of a Defender of the Faith being a divorced and remarried man? and divorced in such a public and nasty way….)

          • Cynthia, I recommend a book on our sidebar. “Dark Albion: A Requiem for the English”. It’s a series of discrete essays so you can read the stand-alone chapters. We used to have his (?last) chapter, “William the Conquered” archived but I can’t find it now.

            The reader is skipped from 1044 to 2044, i.e., the present. The (now) current Prince William was crowned King at some point and in this chapter is a doddering old man. Islam has taken over the country in a bloodless coup. William’s and Kate’s grandchild is set to marry some Arab prince. When we see him, before he has to sign the papers, he is reminiscing over his time on the throne and his sadness re Kate’s death.

            The book ought to be required reading for every Englishman, but it’s written from the point of view of a pensioner so anyone in a class above him isn’t likely to give it the attention it deserves.

            See here: http://www.sparrowbooks.webeden.co.uk/

          • Given recent Archbishops of Canterbury and York, they probably wish he was an openly gay divorcee with an artificial limb and a stutter.

        • I do understand that Seneca, but what does it take for Bess to realize that she should have been speaking out, and regardless of the consequences – if indeed all those Christmas messages were anything to go by to all us ‘subjects’ – at least two decades ago when the plain to see ‘writing on the wall’ just became so obvious to those who had taken the time to note?

          She still comes across as a very smart person, so I cannot accept that she is not fully aware of what is going on around her.

          And on Royal Assent, does the Queen read every proposal for ‘royal assent’? I only ask that to point out that it has now become a simple formality today as to the actual Enacting of the Bill – which by the way has become an expedient pathway for those pesky fascist laws that now cast such a pestilence on Britain.

          And to the naysayers who believe that a Monarch who lives under laws that forbid her to speak out to the public whenever she recognizes that her people are playing second fiddle to a very malignant tune, I say to them, that all it would take to cause an uprising in Britain would be for the Queen to speak out to her loyal subjects – so what is holding her back?

          And Seneca, a good article mate!

        • “It is the inevitable result of disposing of that previous abomination, the Divine Right of Kings, no matter how equally undesirable . . . . . ”

          Oh yeah, humanity thought that getting rid of that “divine Right of Kings” would put an end to tyranny and oppression. Think of Henry VIII ‘s decision to “accuse anyone who he did not like” of adultery and incest, while no one guillotined him for the same crimes.

          Who would have thought that toppling monarchies would create wolves in sheep’s clothing, monsters, all the time mumbling about ideals and good things.

          Don’t we remember Blair Blaring about extinguishing World Poverty in 10 years. He and his Uncle Sam used to talk about Africa, Asia . . . etc. as if they were the guardians of Asia, Africa and the whole muslim world.

    • The total lack of interest in this and other matters regarding islam and the UK is reason enough to decry the monarchy as a spent force.

      As a formally staunch royalist I have long since conceded that the royals care little for the destruction of the British identity which extends to the destruction of the people themselves.

      They’re happy to mix with some of the vilest people on earth in the name of foreign relations and while condemning past actions of their own ancestors, say nothing about acts done against their own (former?) people or against the people with whose leaders they’re so happy to mix.

      • It *was* depressing to watch video online of Prince Charles visiting the Saudi powers recently, receiving tea/coffee with them in an all-male entourage. Of course.

        In this *one* respect, I think Pres. Obama presented–at least–a non-medieval front when he visited King Salman recently: Mrs. Obama appeared in public with him. Although not fully draped according to Saudi requirements (and good for her, I say), she was dressed at least as modestly as I was when I entered cathedrals in Belgium in 2004.

      • Very good. That’s the operative hypocrisy that you point out. Infinite outrage over the transgressions of our ancestors but none over what is done to us their descendants.

        It’s quite intentional and part of the war declared against us. The dishonesty of the left is proof of that. Multiculturalism. Living Constitution. Structural racism. Marriage as rape. Reparations. Public accomodations. Interstate commerce. General welfare. Amnesty. Asylum. Diversity. And etc.

        I completely accept that any people are entitled to take over the lands of other people if they have a superior political or military strategy and the forces to carry it out. It’s still the way of the world and will be till the end of time or progressives stop undermining their own people. Whichever comes first.

        Our enemies are entirely welcome to our country especially if they can do it in such a way that we give up without firing a shot in the war. If we will not fight back then oh well.

        The really strange part is why we don’t. From the lowliest Yale freshman to Queen Elizabeth, the majority are determined not to see or to fight. As I say at the risk of being a pest on the issue, the voters of Western countries will not support their salvationist parties or politicians. When all they have to do is pull the lever or mark the paper to banish the Treason Class to the Outer Darkness, will they? Absolutely not. The nationalists measure their progress in millimeters.

        There’s no sea change of opinion in the offing. French elctions this month? General in the U.K. in May? The vote will be for socialism and surrender. My bookie says go with apathy, stupidy, and weakness. She’s never been wrong before.

        • Wise bookie is she. And you are most fortunate for the acquaintance of such a gem. Would you ask her if there’s a generalized global war conflict in the offing? Natives and nativists everywhere seem right restive of late.

    • I am certain she was told many years ago : ” Keep your head down, keep your mouth shut, sign what is put in front of you and you will keep your throne – as will your idiot son “

  3. These laws are not the problem, they are necessary. They are what’s colloquially ( but arguably technically incorrectly) called ‘martial law’.

    They are an absolute necessity in the case of a jihadist insurrection, in order to quell the insurrection. I don’t agree with your assumption that they will be used for a pro-jihadist purpose, though I admit that there is no safeguard against misuse. But that is the nature of ‘martial law’. Insurrection can’t be effectively quelled while all the guards against misuse of power, inherent in democracy, are active.

    There is no defensible argument that full democratic process can be usefully maintained in the case of a sufficiently large and dangerous insurrection. In fact, the idea is a fantasy, no less a fantasy than the idea that full ‘human rights’ can be maintained in such a case.

    • Not even if that insurrection is being promoted as a means to power by those promoting it in their own interests, Billy Bob?

      • I tried to reply to you but whether it was a software glitch or my own mistake, my reply appears as a stand alone comment below beginning “Well Seneca, as I said, there are no safeguards.”

    • These laws that have been passed are odious. If there were any intention to solely control rabid islam this would have been targeted clearly by the legislation. Remember that every facet of language in a piece of legislation is placed with forensic care. The legislation is far more likely targeted at controlling British resistance to cultural annihilation than preventing Islam’s take over. As all the evidence we all see points to – there is a global pro Islamic agenda.

      • :: The legislation is far more likely targeted at controlling British resistance to cultural annihilation than preventing Islam’s take over.

        The legislation may indeed be used that way in parts. But I believe the reason for it is that they know that jihad insurrection is coming.

        • @ CBB

          I admire your trust that the British authorities have the good of the indigenous people at heart, and that they (authorities) are preparing to defend them (people) from Jihad attacks. S III has already said similar, but let us consider an alternative, and draw on recent German history for what could happen, remembering that Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei is translated as National Socialist German Workers Party.
          Today’s Left seem to be wimps compared with the NSDAP’s brownshirts. The Left appear to want to keep their hands clean of the thuggery necessary to force themselves into power. So they have imported the Muslims to do it for them.

          At root, the problem is not Islam, Muslims or Jihad; they are just doing what they always predictably do. The problem is those who invited them in, and the job that they gave them to do. That is why some of us are exceptionally worried about the powers they are awarding themselves.

          Yes, I believe that the British government has my back, in its gun sights.

          • My trust of the British government is very limited indeed. I do think that they are wary of jihadist insurrection in the future though, and I also believe that a major insurrection needs special powers to combat it. To what extent those powers will be abused will remain to be seen.

  4. “These laws are not the problem, they are necessary.” 

    Thus speaketh the Lord.

    “They are what’s colloquially ( but arguably technically incorrectly) called ‘martial law’.”

    A horse by any other name… (“colloquially”…thanks for clarifying that which us lesser mortals did not know.  Oh, and thanks for the “scare quotes around the term *MARTIAL LAW*) 

    “…though I admit that there is no safeguard against misuse.”

    Well, that’s awfully big of you. Now you can [insulting description redacted].

    “Insurrection can’t be effectively quelled while all the guards against misuse of power, inherent in democracy, are active.”

    Oh, by all means, then, let’s do away with all those guards! Surely we can trust our betters to mind the store.

    So let’s just suspend the rights of all? While Moslems roam free (seen any rape, assault or burglary stats lately?) and if the counter-jihadists  finally rise up and say enough is enough? Just who do you think is going to be clamped down upon? The moslems? Don’t make me laugh.

    You in your wisdom don’t see this as a distinct possibility? You think the EU doesn’t? You think Cameron and his functionaries don’t? You think if [the situation becomes dire] and the good whites in England finally find out there is no way the government is going to have their backs? 

    “In fact, the idea is a fantasy, no less a fantasy than the idea that full ‘human rights’ can be maintained in such a case.”

    So, it’s  Heil Hitler or Welcome to the Jungle? I call false choice fallacy. So, let’s, by all means do away with “human rights”, sort of like what ISIS is doing? Sort of like what the British functionaries did (and are doing) with those thousands of raped girls for going on 15 years now? Sort of like what the EU has done to the entirety of GB with decades of unrestrained foreign invaders being forced down their collective throats?

    It’s obvious you didn’t read in the appendix, Section 22 Scope of emergency regulations.  If you had it must have been over your head. There would be no need for this discussion had not the EU entirely disregarded the “human rights” of GB.

    Do you have even a tiny clue how statist your post is? 

    You’ld be right at home here in the U.S. with a top post in the Obama administration. (Hey, you could take Jen Psaki’s place.)

    Thank God for the 2nd Amendment although King Zero is doing all he can to neuter that, which I’m sure that “Billy Bob” ([redacted]?)  is on board with. If England hadn’t done away with it this never would have happened. 

    People like you keep me up at night with bad dreams and cold sweats.

    • I have disagreed firmly but politely with Seneca, and he, politely with me. You are the only one resorting to insults and snide language, and that never offers good support to a case.

      Your replies are emotional, and consist of political guilt-by-association attacks, and misrepresentation-ad-absurdum. Anyone can do that.

      I’ll try to extract substantive points from among that and respond.

      I’m talking about the UK, not the US, and the UK has no second amendment. It may surprise you but I see the second amendment as a strength of the US in the face of jihadist uprising. I’m not the statist or progressive you think I am.

      You say ‘so its Heil Hitler or Welcome to the Jungle’. But in that, you are equating martial law with a Hitler regime. You impose a false dichotomy of your own–it’s either non-martial law or its Hitler’s regime.

      My use of the quotes around martial law was for technical reasons. They aren’t scare quotes. What we’re talking about here is ‘state of emergency’ law which gives extreme special powers to the government. Technically it’s only martial law if the military is on top.

      Special-powers law pervaded all of the countries that surrendered to the Allies for some time. It wasn’t Hitler. But it wasn’t democracy either.

      I’m offering no promises or false hope of safeguards, but I’m standing by what I’m saying. If and when a jihadist insurrection becomes powerful enough, then you don’t have a stable democratic rule-of-law situation and there is no use pretending you have. You can’t manage it like a local spot of crime. It’s a war situation, not a crime situation. You can’t fight war like you fight crime. Interestingly, I associate the idea that war situations can be handled as crime situations as delusions of the progressive left.

      In a country like the US with its 2nd amendment, the citizenry is potentially in a much better position to defend itself from the jihadist insurrection. But we’re talking about the UK here. The UK is as it is, and perhaps paradoxically the UK is more vulnerable to the need for emergency-powers law for that reason.

      • @ CBB

        The US second amendment is mainly to ensure that the people keep the government in line, but self defence is also permissible. Here in the UK we have not had that option for many a long year. Self protection is NOT a permitted reason when applying for a firearms certificate. When TSHTF and the government tells the police to side with the incomers (as they will), I am therefore defenceless against both enemies and must hope the knife is sharp so that the agony is quickly past.

  5. BTW, absolutely brilliant essay!

    (Sorry you had to redact a small portion. To ne clear, there were no profanities nor other degradations involved. Just a bit of impolite language.)

    • It’s not just profanities. When phrasing is directly insulting to a fellow commenter, I redact them.

      You made good points, and I was glad to read them. As you can see from how little I changed, your case can easily be made without recourse to insults and ad-hominem. Just a few minor adjustments here and there.

      • There are lots of insults in what remained, Baron. I suppose you draw a line somewhere and have a high level of tolerance.

        • Yes to both. I try to interfere as little as possible.

          Any remaining insults are implicit, more in the nature of vehement disagreement than outright insult. It’s like the difference between “You don’t know what you’re talking about” and “you’re an idiot”.

          • I am less sanguine than the Baron. When I edit and happen to notice a misspelling caught in the clutches of the spewchecker (as it was called by a child of my acquaintance who was a few ‘L’s short of normal English articulation), I correct it. However, that’s tangential to redacting the [redacted] odiferous human effluvium out of the comment.

            Yeah, I know. But I can’t seem to erase the final bits of social worker still stuck to my soul after all these years.

          • Dymphna, I can see both sides. There is a tension between giving people their voice and allowing robust debate on the one hand, and allowing the degeneration of the publication on the other. Many thoughtful readers are put off by needlessly hostile engagement, and the general degeneration that can so easily follow.

  6. We were contemplating a visit to England, but in light of the above article I believe that we would be safer in Israel, even with missiles raining down upon us, as at least we would know the source of the threats.
    As for the long view, you and England and even Wales (I am a descendent of a long line of honourable Welshmen that goes back almost 300 years, that we have records of) have my heartfelt and fervent prayers. You are trapped in a prison camp that was built up around you without your knowing. Where we live we see the storm clouds coming with ourselves in the eye of the storm, until the storm moves or changes its configuration.
    With what you have written, and what I have observed from other sources, I am very grateful that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour and is faithful and righteous to not allow me to suffer the wrath that is to come. In view of all that I have observed, there is no escape, no place one could retreat to, except the loving arms of Jesus Christ.
    I apologize for being preachy, but as an appraiser, I have done my research and my homework and this is the conclusion my analysis points to. Thanks to all of you for your patience and thank you Seneca for your article Sic Omnia transit, quo rebus modus.

    • If only you weren’t preachy, there would be no need to apologize for it would there?

      So you’re safe huh? Jesus isn’t going to allow you to suffer? Do you have a special revelation on that? How do you know He hasn’t decided that suffering is just what you need? As seems to be the case those crucified Christians in the Middle East. They must be pretty bad, huh, given that they are being allowed to “suffer wrath” in the form of decapitations, rapes, being set on fire?

      I swan, acura, you ought to stay in the crime-free haven where you presently abide. Israel isn’t safe, England isn’t safe, France is worse, and you could get trampled by mobs of North African immigrants loose on the streets of Italy. Spain? You’d get caught in the crossfire…so to speak.

      • Taking everything into account at some point, when the picture that the dots are drawing is incontrovertible we will have to act.

      • the difference between tribulation and wrath is pointed out by Jack Kelly in this article, http://gracethrufaith.com/end-times-prophecy/bible-say-tribulation-wrath/. What you call wrath is actually the tribulation Jesus promised us. He said that inasmuch as the world hated Him, so too would it hate anyone who associated with him. As for cruelty, how would you like to be smeared with Henry’s roof tar and be set on fire, Nero did. In my case, how would you like to spend $55,000 on a four year degree only be told what to write, in a quid pro quo that would have you denying everything that you believe in exchange for the degree. You have no degree, you are stuck with the debt, and you are unemployable, so there.
        As for the Christians that ISIS has cruelly slaughtered, they are the true martyrs “who loved not their lives even unto death.” They loved Jesus more than their life. They are the standard that we should attain to.
        What I was referring to was making this world your ‘home’ in the face of it being taken over by the powers of hell. What Seneca related was a governmental grinding down of the citizenry into a cowed and paranoid serfdom. We know that the first steps of that process are occurring here. England was the test bed for what has been contemplated and planned here all along.
        As far as ‘safe’ is concerned, that is only temporary as where I live is presently a social backwater, but I know that will change, and most likely sooner rather than later. However, I AM safe in Jesus’ arms and I am confident that nothing will befall either myself or my family that He has not approved of in advance. In that light, if I am called upon to be a witness and give testimony with suffering and even my life to the wickedness of hell that the unsaved have subscribed to in these last days, so be it. At the very least I am free of the burdens that being of this world would impose. That was the point I was trying to ‘preachily’ make, having you home in heaven is better than having it here, and from what I have read and experienced, heaven is worth the wait.
        PS, Did you say crossfire? Try Mexico sometime. I would rather take my chances in Israel rather that with MS-13, Zetas, Federales et al, tain’t pretty down there right now, even in the resort towns.

    • My kingdom is not of this world says The Lord, acuara, and His Love which keeps one safe should be read as safe from spiritual harm. One’s body and place in the world are a different matter. If one is looking for biblical instruction on the current state of affairs of political correctness destroying society then the Flood is what is happening, and what Noah was told to do in order to survive might be worth reading up on, bearing in mind that its worth as scripture depends on its spiritual message.

    • acuara, Britain is still a ‘safe’ place to visit, especially compared to the Middle East for instance.

      I would stay away from the some areas in the big cities today, especially Eastern London.

      Get out into the countryside and meet the real British, not the watered down version you will generally come across in London for example.

    • @ acuara

      A plain reading of Revelation 20 v4 shows that plenty will lose their heads for their witness of Jesus, and they will be the first up. The rest of the dead must wait a bit longer. If pre-millennial rapture turns out to be correct, I will take that as a bonus. In the meantime, prepare for post-millennial rapture.

      I would add to that, the whole of Mark 13, with a bit of extra emphasis on verse 20.

  7. Well Seneca, as I said, there are no safeguards. But Jihad-denial is a complex phenomenon everywhere, including among the political elites. It’s very stubborn as a phenomenon, but it will wane, and it may prove to be like a market bubble, hanging on for a strangely long time but in the end, bursting quickly.
    I think you fear continued support of the jihad by our political elites. I don’t.

    Some on the political left could be called true quasi-jihadists themselves in that they genuinely support the jihad for its destabilizing effects. They are a minority though and will be openly held to be traitors and wartime collaborators. Many will be hanged–none will have a political future.

    I am not concerned about who will win this upcoming war. I am totally convinced that the counterjihad will win it. I am concerned rather about the great loss of life and destruction. What jihad-denial shall prove to have done is kill huge numbers of people, but it won’t lose the war for us. It won’t last long enough for that.

    The cracks are appearing in the jihad-denial facade. Look what’s happening in France with their huge deployment of troops in their own soil.

    The political elites are currently vote-followers almost all, and we have no leaders. The politician-rats however, shall jump out of the jihad-denial ship, simply because that ship is going down, politically.

  8. I should say a few more words.

    I stand by what I said, that emergency situations, when grave enough, require emergency powers law. And I have said that there are no safeguards.

    Does this mean that a person or group could misuse that to seize power and subvert democracy? Alas, yes.

    This is why something like jihad is dangerous to a society on so many levels. It may spill much blood and treasure, and it may also lead to the destruction of liberty.

  9. This essay would make a good exhibit for the affirmative in a debate on “Is it possible to be so poetic that communication suffers?”

    Here is a list of terms in this essay whose meanings or allusions are unclear: mentally dislocated; rosette; pony fodder; chill, actinic arctic light [still unclear even after looking up “actinism = that property of ultraviolet light, X-rays, or other radiations, by which chemical changes are produced”]; stroppy; fourth horseman [The reader is expected to know offhand which disaster is associated with which Apocalyptic horse?]; the Bilderberg machine; agar-agar; Perseus [another classical allusion?].

    And what short-attention-span reader could wade through this sentence from beginning to end with complete understanding?: “With a General Election on the near horizon, it is quite a precariously balanced one to boot, little more than a triplet of ephemera blown out of their time by the hurricane winds of the 21st century, mayflies, having risen and now falling after their failed breeding season — three morally defenestrated tyro Horsemen of our Apocalypse anxiously awaiting the return of the Fourth who at the moment, but only for the moment, is otherwise occupied in Brussels, France, and Denmark.” [What does it mean for a General Election to be precariously balanced? What or who are these three ephemerae? What does it mean to be morally thrown out of a two-story window? And what does the Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse (symbolizing what?) have to do with Denmark? (And does this sentence even parse?)]

    There is some valuable content in this essay, which seems to be about “the hidden machinery of tyranny”, but the reader has to slog through a lot of poetry and UK allusions to get to it. Some readers will enjoy the ride the writer takes them on; others might prefer that he get to the point.

    • You beat me to it, Mark S. Still a good article, though.

      “Stroppy” is UK slang for awkward, curmudgeonly, short-tempered, bloody-minded. Most Brits would get it, but perhaps it hasn’t travelled well.

      • Thank you, Mark H, for that clarification and to Mark S for raising the point
        As for my use of the word ‘rosette’ the fault is mine – I failed to capitalise, it and thus present it as a proper noun.
        Over here ‘Rosette’ does have a particular impact and meaning. It is a marker denoting a specific affiliation. It is worn mostly on the left lapel, by Party Political Candidates and their supporters, to define who they are and what they are selling: Red = Labour, Blue = Conservative, Yellow = Liberal Democrat. Others have a rainbow mix of colours that are equally recognisable within a politically aware electorate.
        As for the Poetry comment, well that is in the eye and mind of the beholder. Its usefulness or otherwise is beyond my ability to define – but, for some strange reason, it appeals to me and speaks to me in many tongues, and so do I thus use it.
        Rgds, S III.

        • Have you ever heard of “the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon”? It means encountering something highly unusual (like the word “actinic”, which I did not expect to see again in my lifetime), and then soon afterwards (two weeks, in my case) seeing the same thing again. Today, in a New York Times 21-by-21 crossword puzzle titled “Making Connections”, I saw a clue reading “Like light that causes chemical change”. I immediately knew the answer ACTINIC, solely because I remembered it from Seneca III’s essay, whose vocabulary-expanding nature came in handy. Thank you!

    • I am one of those readers with a short attention span and agree it was quite difficult. A second reading did help clear it up a little!

    • I’m not a big fan of poetry either. That’s why I didn’t read most of this post.

  10. @ S III

    You have omitted one law that seems to go very well with the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 if you were a low life intent on provoking an uprising in Britain that you could then use as the pretext for grabbing power. The CCA 2004 gives free reign to arbitrary acts but is time limited (as it stands) to the duration of the “emergency”. After “some while” it will be seen to be necessary to regain the cloak of respectability and the pretence of the rule of law, such as exists at present. If however, you wish to “modernise” the way the country is run, some changes to the body of law will be inevitable, to ensure that the new and more modern way of doing things remains legal (especially if it is not honest or moral).

    Step forward the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. This enables Ministers to make and repeal all primary and secondary legislation, though I do not think it is permitted to amend itself. Funnily enough an opinion piece at the time in the Telegraph has been expunged from their web site, thank goodness someone else had the sense to archive it! See here for the text of it. [It also has a go at the National ID Card & Register that was on the go at the time. At present that is sleeping, but it will be back again the moment the public can be distracted by “another big scare”(TM).]

    Sorry about the Godwin, but given the close proximity of CCA 2004 and LRRA 2006, I do not think it inappropriate to remind folks that after Hitler got the Enabling Act through the Reichstag in the wake of a false flag act that would these days certainly be classed as terrorism, he never needed to trouble the legislature again, ever.

    • Interesting point there, Yokel, thank you. I will go and look at it tomorrow when I may have recovered from a long and somewhat liquid Sunday lunch 🙂 :(. S III.

    • Thanks, Yokel, I have it and you are spot on with your analysis. Indeed it fits very well with Sec. 22 (q) of the CCA.
      Rgds, S III

      P.S. Baron, is there any chance you could insert this link in Act 2 between HRA 1988 and R&RHA 2006?

  11. Too bad the ‘opposition’ (such as it is) in the UK hasn’t taken MLK’s concept of civil disobedience to heart–or better still, to practice.
    It’s easy to put poor Tony in jail by hisself–but what if there were a few thousand or even ten thousand along side him? What about huge numbers reciting Churchill in Trafalgar Square? What then?
    At least here in what remains of the USA, I get a shot (actually, to empty many magazines) at the enemy and can go down fighting the good fight for as long as I last. At least I will be in very good company alongside my forefathers.

  13. The United States has had no true civil war in its history. The US War between the States is not a true civil war — both sides had full governance and conventional militaries and separate territories. It was a civil war largely in name only. The UK hasn’t had civil war for centuries.

    It’s common for people to see everything in terms of their own history. And it is common for people to make rules about reality which fit their own history. They are not prepared for what is outside their history.

    If and when civil war comes, it won’t be won, or even adequately controlled, with democratic process and a fine level of human rights. One can hope for maintaining the most fundamental human rights — no torture, no extrajudicial killing. But as for as the finer points — no unlawful search-and-seizure, no ethnic profiling, full freedom of movement, the right to silence, no imprisonment without full trial, full democratic process in the making of laws — forget about it. It’s delusion. We can stamp our feet and yell ‘tyranny’ all we want, but general upholding of these rights is not going to happen. All of those are possible only within a non-failing state.

    In a civil war or major armed insurrection, state failure is considerable at some level, and trying to pretend that state failure is not happening is a recipe for losing to the insurgents.

    Picture some of the worst scenarios.

    There are 50,000 dead in a week. The courts are full, the prisons are full. The police and the military are stretched to the limit.

    Insurgents are moving at night and emerging by day and carrying out atrocities. Time to impose curfew by emergency powers. It’s purpose is not to stop good people moving at night. It’s purpose is to allow the authorities to make the assumption that all of those who are moving at night are not good people, so their time is not wasted. Those who insist on moving at night are either insurgents, or other people consuming the stretched-thin attention of the night-watching authorities. Curfew, and many other measures, will take weeks to move through parliament. What now? Let the killings go on for another few weeks before imposing curfew, lose thousands of lives.

    Or impose curfew by emergency powers?

    Someone builds a concrete base of what is probably to be a rocket launcher. What now? You question them and they won’t answer. Take them through democratic planning-authority procedures for violation of planning law. ETA for removal of the problem; 12 weeks. Problem is, rocket launcher can be installed on it within hours at night and fire rockets into populated London.

    Solution: destroy it immediately by emergency powers.

    Same with the terror-tunnel you have just discovered in private property.

    Male jihadists are moving in burkas and carrying out attacks. What now? Wait six weeks for legislation from overly-pressed parliament? Or overnight emergency powers prohibit all covering of the face, even for religious purposes?

    Very few of the ‘human rights’ we hold dear can survive in a civil war situation. As I said the best we can hope for is upholding of the more major and fundamental human rights.

    • You said:

      The United States has had no true civil war in its history.

      I disagree. The northern half of the U.S. had already become a different country before the start of the war – urban, wealthy and mechanized to the hilt of its industrial sword.

      In the ten years between the census of 1850 and the one in 1860, the U.S. population had increased +35% and most of those incoming folks stayed north of the Mason Dixon Line; that’s where the jobs were and that’s where the more humane climate was.

      Thus the North, with its population masses and its ever-improving industrialization could well afford its share of the 700,000+ who died in that “non-civil-war”. The tattered remnants of those states below the line had stayed agrarian and closer to the ideals of the Constitution when it was written. In addition, the origins of the South – mercantile and in debt to England (both a familial and financial debt) meant a mindset so different that they might as well have been different countries. In the agrarian South family antecedents mattered; debt was difficult to avoid. Nor was there a vibrant middle class. After their defeat the decades of destructive “Reconstruction” carried out vindictively by the northern bureaucrats (backed up by an angry northern populace who lost so many of their boys) was merely a continuation of The War under another name.

      Had Lincoln lived the story might would have turned out differently. But his death abandoned blacks to a harsh fate, in far too many cases a much harsher fate than slavery had been. It was those two events – Lincoln’s death and Johnson’s term in the Oval Office – which would turn out to move our history in a direction few intended. I think Lincoln (judged by his second inaugural address) would have walked back his war-time encroachment of the federal government on the states. Sadly, he was left besmirched with that legacy – the consequence of a most unfortunate ‘presidentus interruptus’ event. That particular assassination still haunts our national conscience and skews present events.

      The ratified Constitution which tacitly accepted slavery in the south as a given (those slaves supplied by northern shipping) simply kicked the can down the road. The Founders could not have dreamed what forces would eventuate in a radically different country than the one they created out of whole cloth. Had they seen the massive immigration that was to come, the startling enlargement of the country by the Louisiana Purchase, and especially the giant industrialization of the north (which had its own form of slavery in those factories), our Constitution would have been written differently. It’s just as well they didn’t know.

      The kicked can stopped finally in 1860-61. When it came to rest, there was indeed a Civil War. And that particular war was to change the way wars were fought in Europe from then on. Without the Civil War, WWI would have been far less bloody. One can even imagine a less vindictive Treaty of Versailles, which in turn could have prevented WWII – or World War Eleven, as Stan Evans noted in his introduction on that video.

      • I’m confused why you agree that the North and South were practically separate countries, but disagree that it was not a civil war.

        Points of definition should not be argued over, ultimately. Rather, it is a matter of putting forward the definition that makes most sense. I would not define a war as a civil war if it is fought between governments in control of militaries, and conclusively not if they start with control of separate territories.

        I think that the current official term of the US government for this war is the ‘War between the states’.

        I don’t mind referring to it as the Civil War, capital C, capital W. But I still say the US Civil War was not a civil war. It was a war between states, and a war between states is not a civil war.

        The existence of the federal government did give an ELEMENT of civil war to the US Civil War. But if we look at the mechanics and dynamics of the war itself, that element didn’t change them. It was still militaries against militaries, states against states like any other war. It was an alliance of Northern States vs and alliance of Southern states. The legal fiction of the Federal Government — and it was a legal fiction once the Confederacy had secceeded — did not change the character of the war.

        • From my distance across the Pond, it most certainly seems like a Civil War. It was a war about State’s rights between the central (Federal) government and southern States, and in particular about the rights of States to leave the Union. Supreme Court Judge Scalia has written that the idea of secession was settled by the Civil War. That is secession is not permitted.

          • Indeed. Scalia is analyzing it as a legal event, which is his job, isn’t it?

            It looks like you bought the legal fiction — that it was between the Federal Government, and the Southern States.

            In what sense is this different from: it was between the states who remained in the Union and those who did not.

            Answer: only in a legal-fictional sense. Only if you look at what it says in some papers somewhere, and take those papers as defining reality. But outside those papers, it’s not a civil war, for reasons I put forward.

          • I don’t see that the idea of secession was foreclosed by the WBTS. All that was established was that the northern states had a more powerful army. Progressives are keen on hanging slavery on contemporary white Americans. That’s as fresh as the morning dew. Or the afternoon dew for that matter.

  14. An interesting article Seneca, your description of the elite reminded me of another one by Irving Kristol –
    ” “The New Class”: these are the professionals who run and benefit from the state and its power to tax: the government bureaucracy; the media elite, which interlocks with both; and all their various constituencies, to whom they channel tax monies.
    The New Class would use its superior political organization to impose socialism regardless of the economic consequences, just as the tapeworm doesn’t care about the health of its host.”

  16. Stacking up adjectives that add nuance to doubleplusungood will not of itself refute the reality of global warming. Whether the response should be to nationalize everything and everyone is an entirely separate question. As to the question “is it real?”, the answer is “yes”.

    Yes, because glaciers are generally in retreat. You don’t need governmental panels or scientists of any stripe to check this. Just an old book with photos of glaciers, a car, and a camera. Yes, because planting times have been moved up. All you need is an old almanac and a conversation with local farmers to check this one. Yes, because Arctic sea ice is much diminished from the days of Henry Hudson. All you need to check this is a newspaper from late August or early September, when the Northwest Passage is now in most years a reality.

    There is also a lot of scientific evidence, and because it comports with the direct evidence available to your own senses, that too ought to earn your respect. Measurements of CO2 in Hawaii, where nearby coal-fired plants cannot be blamed for the readings, show a steady increase year over year. That can’t be down to volcanoes, which are not clocks and do not keep to a schedule. Record high temperatures are recorded twice or three times as often nowadays as record lows. And on and on.

    Hitching your star to this false, falsifiable, already falsified, myth means that all your other arguments and points will be dismissed by the informed public. The rule False in One, False in All will apply to whatever you have to say. Even if some of the rest of it has some validity.

    • To “nationalize everything and everyone” is never the question, Sam, separate or otherwise. There’s been no warming for 18 years. Pay particular attention to the graph published at that link. So much for the “reality” of global warming. Hysterical or reckless warmism is a reality but not global warming.

      And note there the epic fail of the majority of the computer models (with the exception of one that tracked actual temperatures and one that was close). It looks like if anything is melting those glaciers it’s the heat from those computers being run again and again to make the graphs come out “right.”

      This graphic of atmospheric gases (without water vapor) illustrates the relative composition of the atmosphere that is CO2. CO2 is about .04% of that snapshot of atmospheric gases and the CO2 contributed by humans is 3% of that. Assuming all “warming” is due to CO2, humans caused .0045C of the putative 0.15C global warming. For that you think nationalization is a separate question. Wink, wink.

      Record highs mean nothing, any more than my telling one or two great jokes makes me a comedian.

    • I’ll add a little more to the Colonel’s reply if I may, and from a historical perspective.

      When the Romans occupied Britain in AD 44 they found they were able to grow grapes. A whole new industry was brought to Britain and as grapes require a temperate climate in which to flourish, it is obvious from Archeological records that Britain and Europe were at that time experiencing far higher temps than what is being recorded today. Try growing grapes in Britain today. Impossible.

      And;

      Australia was first settled in 1788. Many records were kept by the Royal Navy of weather conditions and temperature recordings that show Australia was hotter then with summer temps well above the average of what has been recorded for the 20th Century. Temps have been recorded daily since January 26, 1788 but our own Bureau of Meteorology insists on using only the recorded temps from 1910 onwards completely ignoring the fact that higher temps were recorded well before that time, why? Because from 1910 temps dropped on average until the 1960s when they began to rise marginally and that taken out of context, as they have been, falsely shows a rise in temperatures to sell a false notion based on some computer modelling that was based on a THEORY and that has now been proven a failure.

      World wide, temperatures have stabilized and have not risen for 18 years.

      Now that is an inconvenient truth indeed!

      Myths are one thing, but promoting a THEORY as evidence and on what were then unproven computer models and rejecting standard scientific investigation while claiming ‘consensus’ is not only dishonest and criminal in its fraud, but brings into disrepute the whole scientific process and the whole scam must be exposed for what it has been permitted to get away with.

      • Actually we do grow grapes again in the UK, but I don’t think the French and Australians need panic yet.

        Otherwise well argued by all, especially Babs.

    • OK, I need to stop you right here:

      “Whether the response should be to nationalize everything and everyone is an entirely separate question. As to the question “is it real?”, the answer is “yes”.

      No, sorry, the answer is not yes but rather the answer has become so corrupted by big money and big political power that no one knows what the answer is.

      “Yes, because planting times have been moved up. All you need is an old almanac and a conversation with local farmers to check this one. Yes, because Arctic sea ice is much diminished from the days of Henry Hudson. All you need to check this is a newspaper from late August or early September, when the Northwest Passage is now in most years a reality.”

      You don’t need an almanac to know that we are experiencing one of the coldest winters on record, even breaking the cold records of last year, throughout the hemisphere of North America. ICE BREAKERS are being employed to keep the Hudson River open to trade in and around Manhattan Island!. As for Arctic Sea Ice, the last I heard it has increased.

      OK, I’m not going to argue with you has I have done with so many others… You have your narrative, which is insane; if it gets warmer, it is global warming. If it gets colder, it is global changing. No matter what happens we should give billions to a multi-gov’t consortium, the UN, that is going to fix it…

      What I would like to know from people of your persuasion is WHAT IS THE OPTIMUM TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH? Should we be colder or should we be warmer: This doesn’t seem to be answered… When grapes were able to be grown on Greenland was that a good or bad thing? When ice covered Long Island NY was that a good or bad thing?
      Please define your terms!

      Has it ever occurred to you that climate is cyclical? That climate changes in response to many factors, the least of which is the people living on the planet? Can you actually imagine that there is something bigger than you orchestrating your existence. I don’t know… Like sunspots or tidal cycles or God (OMG!!!!) Your ilk don’t wish to consider any of these narratives because it wouldn’t fit with your overall goal of control of the earth’s population…

      Just as an aside… The most current high mucky-muck of global warming for the UN traveled over 400,000 miles in a private jet. Two of his trips from, I think London, were to India to watch cricket matches! The “Railroad Engineer” in charge of “Global Warming/climate change” for the planet loves his cricket…

      To paraphrase Glenn Reynolds “When I see the big climate change people change their behavior, I will change mine.”

      Although I am not sure what further changes I can make. I am sitting here in my home in NY fully dressed with a heavy robe on and a hat. What I think the end result of this will be is that people like me will give up the steward of our land to the elite because we will freeze to death if we don’t.

      We will decide against good fresh food vs heating. Our kitchen fireplace is already running about 18 hours a day. Do you think this is better for the environment than cheap energy through fracking?

      We will continue to send plumes of wood smoke up into the atmosphere because we can afford wood heat more than the gov’t regulated heat that we should all be embarrassed for needing while Al Gore idles a fleet of SUV;s outside a venue where he is telling everyone that the world is coming to an end.

      Meanwhile the poverty stricken in 3rd world countries continue to burn dung in their homes leading to major respiratory diseases that take their children from them…
      A coal fired powered plant would greatly appease this but the “global warming” insanity demands that they continue to live under these circumstances rather than build a coal fired power plant to alleviate their suffering.

      Having said all that, maybe someone could tell me what this emissions thing is all about other than a distribution of the poor in western countries to the rich in non-western countries?

      The woman in the dung hut isn’t going to see a penny of this.

      • Excellent comment Babs, your question – “What should the optimum temperature of the earth be?” is a keeper and one that I intend to use, I believe it to be unanswerable.

      • Babs, I’m impressed, great comment!
        Another thing the global warming wombats wail about is rising sea levels, as a sailor that one is my pet peeve.
        I asked the profs at the Institute of Ocean Sciences and was told if indeed there was any rise in sea level it would be in millimetres, in other words too small to measure from land masses which are still moving. (up or down)

        However, I have been told ‘authoritatively’ by a global warming nutter of my acquaintance that indeed the sea level is rising, and has risen over two metres in the Maldives, and also in Hawaii where several beaches were disappearing! The stupidity of his statement will be obvious to any sailor, indeed any sensible person.

        • Yes, Babs’ question is a very pertinent one. Perhaps a warmer, arable, Greenland would be a good thing, as would be a warmer New Zealand, Finland, Nova Scotia, Ireland & British Columbia.

          So the sea level has risen by over 2 metres in the Maldives (but no place else in or fronting the Indian Ocean ?!?). My understanding is that most of the Maldives has an elevation of 2 metres above sea level.

    • Not you again. Back here to drop your falsified myth (read the emails, son) spoor and then take off again. Our commenters will reply in good faith, not knowing you won’t show up again for weeks, when you stop by to drop another load.

      Remember that name, readers: SAM GRANT. Had I been tending the comments when this came in I would’ve trashed it. But I see y’all have answered him in full so I’ll leave this lump where it is.. Doesn’t matter though. SAM GRANT won’t respond. He’ll just keep turning up on occasion to play the same old liberal tune.

      When GoV readers see SAM GRANT, just scroll on by because he doesn’t respond. Maybe he’s a robot? An Obmanoid? A lower life form from Liberal Land??

      To Babs: you really nailed it.

      I’ll have to remind the Baron about this fellow; he was busy and forgot.

    • This is the kind of post that comes from conflating multiple distinctly different issues. There’s no logical discussion with this sort of fuzzy thought process that is lacking in the ability to distinguish between issues like whether the earth is warming, what is causing it, and whether it is necessarily some sort of disaster threat.

      This is the best summary of the major science issues that I’ve seen so far: http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2010/10/15/denying-the-catstrophe-the-science-of-the-climate-skeptics-position/

      • Nimrod-

        SAM GRANT is a troll, a hit-and-run troll. He only made it to the comment section bec I wasn’t there to catch him. By the time I came back, several people had responded…had responded in good faith. SAM GRANT doesn’t deal that way. He zooms in, leaves vulture droppings and is gone. He’s a serial commenter, i.e., drops one and leaves. If I remember correctly, they’re always on warmist subjects.

        That’s a good essay by Warren Meyer. In addition, the co-founder of Green Peace resigned a few years ago, claiming the whole thing had become fraudulent. In addition, look at Climate Audit– http://climateaudit.org/

        And see also Anthony Watts — http://wattsupwiththat.com/

        On both pages see the many scientists who have rebutted this politicized “cause”.

        I reminded BB about him and will make every effort to trash any further comments when he returns. It’s not often and it’s a one-way ticket. He doesn’t stick around for any conversation. What can I say? Liberal ‘thinking’ all the way.

Comments are closed.