How Do We Put it Right?
And Do We Even Want To?
by Phillip Day

One thousand years of independent history now boil down to the only two remaining questions that matter to Britain as a separate nation and culture today:

• Should the British regain their independence and become responsible for their actions once again?
  
• Do we even want to?

The only entity still holding true, latent power by numbers in Britain today are the British people themselves, who, up to now, have remained silent and have not yet chosen to unite and move to save their nation and culture. The British united are formidable. Is the reason they have not yet become so because they fail to see and feel the rot going on around them?

Not at all.

Travelling as I do to all corners of the land, as well as meeting many ex-pats abroad, the vast majority are extremely sore and vexed about the current situation. BBC commentator Jeremy Paxman puts this down to the belief that his countrymen are never happier than when they think their country is going to rack and ruin. Read his works though, and you can't help but sense that Mr Paxman is not even convinced by this, since he bothered to research and write his elegy, The English, and craft it with the same love and wistfulness one usually reserves for a lovable animal going to the vet for the final time.

Resignation rules the land. The people are bewitched by inaction and apathy. The mechanism linking the outrage we feel about how our country is run to anything we could do about it appears to have been completely disconnected. No-one knows what to do. No-one even knows whether anything can be done. Not one leading political party dares challenge Britain's traitors within, because the parties themselves are saturated with those who want to terminate Great Britain with extreme prejudice in favour of a European-wide socialist state. Not one newspaper dares expound in detail the ultimate option of actually leaving the European Union, since editors would lose their jobs. Leaving the EU for good is the one choice that dare not speak its name.

Limiting the range of the debate
We like to think that here in the West, we engage in free debate over the major, contentious issues. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Limitations to the extent and reach of important discussions are almost always controlled, while the appearance of the debate exudes depth and expansive content. To set the limitations to a debate such as the EU controversy, certain methods are employed by those who feed us our 'news' to keep us within 'safe' debating boundaries. And judging by the current level of interest in the EU, in both the media and among leading, liberated, Eurosceptic thinkers, the debate often appears to be far-reaching. Unwittingly or otherwise however, you will always see the borders to the argument ruthlessly policed.

The art of orchestrating and then assisting in the continuance of limited debate in 'free' society is admirably described by Noam Chomsky, American linguist and US media and foreign policy critic:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is strictly to limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free-thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

So what is the remedy?
Nothing less than a revolution in attitude, values and conscience in the minds of the British, whatever our ethnicity or beliefs. Nothing less than the reawakening of our responsibilities as citizens of the realm, to recover and protect the freedoms we unwittingly allowed to be stolen.

The answer for Britain is to secede from the European Union, sign a free trade agreement with the nations of the EU, and run our own affairs, as we have done for centuries. Britain is the fourth largest economy in the world based on GDP, and the EU's single largest customer. Who needs who?

Today, Switzerland and Norway are not part of the EU and are doing very well. No-one would dream of calling these countries extremist, and yet they demonstrate that life outside the EU has tremendous benefits, which include self-government, a free trade agreement to trade with the EU nations, with none of the restrictive ties and directives of the communist-style EU superstate.

Of course, some decent politicians in Britain will help. The reason we have extremists running the show is because the British culturally loathe their politicians. The brightest and the best, who should be looking after our best interests, don't, since they prefer relative anonymity to spend a lifetime in the political limelight suffering the opprobrium of the press.

Understanding the landscape

The take-over of Britain succeeded for three reasons:

• Firstly, elements of the revolution were able to hijack and take over media institutions, such as TV, radio, film, news, magazines and music, from which they could leverage their attack on the Old Order while popularising their extreme, minority views on a massive scale to a public who had no choice but to listen.
  
• Secondly, the revolution poured scorn on the established pillars of the British as a separate and distinct people - on their character, on their traditions, their reserve, their monarchy, their religion, morality and sense of duty - and told them the popular message that the time had come to stop playing the prude and start indulging their animal desires. All heroes of the Old Order were defamed and destroyed - every one of them.
  
• And thirdly, after the death and devastation of two world wars, the Old Order and the church were repeatedly and publicly mocked for having suffered a catastrophic failure of nerve even to fight for their own survival. They were shown to be inflexible, ineffectual and unwilling to live in a future without war and the weapons that went with it. They were thus unfit to rule.

And what did the average Brit feel about it all? Nothing. There's still that all-encompassing but gentle numbness today. Besieged daily through the newspapers by an unruly world they have no hope of controlling, the constant media barrages and exposés have produced what can only be described as shell-shock in the population. The British are exhausted and have had enough. We just want to play. And the Anything-Goes Revolution, like all good, popular revolutions before it, has given us all the bread, the sex, the booze and the circuses to which we feel we're entitled.

Today, Britain is a nation that has not only un-named evil, we cannot even feel shame. Yet shame is the last emotion a society should jettison, for it forms a check system that can bring the country to its senses whenever its behaviour becomes unacceptable to the great majority. But who sets the standards that will trigger shame? Who determines what behaviour is acceptable and what isn't? For a society to have the priceless benefit of shame as a check, one needs an ethics and values system against which to judge society's behaviour, but this too has been fed through the shredder. And herein lies the kernel of the British problem. As discussed earlier, we have two opposing and antagonistic belief systems in Britain today. Both are not perfect and have their problems. Neither is willing to yield to the other.

The Old Order
Largely still Christian, firmly rooted in the principle of personal liberty, traditionalist, monarchist, pro-marriage, anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment, patriotic, reverting to its faith, however dormant, to remind itself of the bedrock principles of British society. The Old Order has an ingrained scepticism of what government can actually achieve and prefers working what politics it can at the local level. The Old Order is a master of compromise and always seeks a 'middle way'.

The Old Order generally accepts the lessons of history, that mankind is inherently wicked and in need of restraint and redemption. It recognises that the British have a natural appetite for disorder and that this requires curbing. The Old Order believes that man is a moral being who is personally responsible for his actions, constantly faced with moral choices he must make which determine the path of his destiny. Behind the Old Order's requirement for discipline and duty in its youth lies the predicament that humans not educated to choose good over evil, take responsibility for their deeds or embrace the higher moral values, are those condemned to the prison of their own animal appetites and desires. Thus the Old Order understands the prime value of team-work - that if one is to survive, all must survive, and that rebellion and bad behaviour are expected in a fallen world but must be curbed with disciplinary education and the law.

The Old Order has a clearly defined idea of what 'sin' and 'moral evil' are and what should be done to contain and expunge them. The Old Order's society was set up, as we later saw, with its public and grammar school systems, to instil Old Order virtues of discipline, duty, honesty, integrity, honour, sacrifice, modesty, sexual probity and social reliability into its youth, and to have them transfer these values to their children. The Old Order took pride in applying the law fairly, dispassionately and with what it saw as a sacred duty to preserve the rights of the accused. The Old Order was pedantic about preserving the legal safeguards of habeus corpus, double jeopardy and trial by jury to ensure justice was applied without favour or prejudice. The Common Law, which was discovered to administer society along these lines, was tailor-made to anticipate the nooks and crannies of everyday situations and to provide for them.

The Old Order used the religious mechanisms of forgiveness and redemption to defuse themselves and their society, which they obtained through Jesus Christ and the Christian religion. The Old Order stated that no-one, including the monarch, was above the law. The monarch, to the Old Order, was the embodiment of the sovereignty of the people and endued with a certain mystery. In the past when the monarch abused the privileges of being the icon of the people, it did not go well for the monarch. The Old Order venerated the monarch, in spite of any problems, and sought not to criticise or defame, as the monarch was the stylised quintessence of themselves.

The New Order
The New Order behind the socialist revolution rejects traditionalism, is generally anti-capital punishment, anti-marriage, anti-monarchy, pro-abortion, non-patriotic but global-socialist in its outlook. The New Order generally does not believe that man is the creation of God, but chooses to embrace the theory of evolution, a religion constantly pushed through the media it controls. Since man now is apparently nothing more than a haphazard product of his environment, the result of the billions of blind-random mistakes of Lyell and Darwin's evolution, he cannot be held responsible for his actions. Right and wrong are religious notions, not scientific ones, therefore they are enslaving and stress-causing.

The New Order is anti-Christian, replacing traditional, religious mores with evolution and humanism and administering its society using humanism's psychological/psychiatric philosophies. Thus, there is no salvation, only survival of the fittest. There is no hell, therefore no personal accountability or judgment on wrongdoing. There is no heaven, therefore heaven on Earth must be established by the New Order. There is no sin, only sickness. And such religious rituals as repentance, designed to alleviate guilt and atone for sin, have been replaced by individual and group psychotherapeutic interventions. The New Order believes that mankind is basically good (in spite of the sobering record of history), and that bad behaviour needs to be understood and pardoned rather than punished.

Education
The New Order's youth has no concept of the mistakes of the past, since it is taught politically correct British history, not the 'warts and all' version. The new education trains today's youth to look at a beneficent European Union as the path to Britain's salvation, without teaching the heartbreak of the past that adorns all totalitarian regimes. Socialist education scorns the rich, so today's youth come to regard burglary and robbery as a justifiable levy against 'fat cats', who turn out to be everyone else but themselves. The new education sees competition as stress-causing, and so there are prizes for everybody, no competition, no right or wrong, no personal accountability.

How harsh the medicine?
For a society to change, the society has to want to change. The New and the Old must either learn to live together in compromise and a relative peace, or else continue tearing each other apart. The few, who are tirelessly active in raising awareness of Britain's social and political predicaments, must often wonder: "Why do I bother expending all this effort, spending all this money and investing all my time, if the British do not want to save themselves?"

Why indeed?

Like imperial Rome in the twilight of her years, could the rot be so ingrained, the hour so late, that the British as a people are unable to make a stand against their own annihilation? Do the British need to suffer on their own cross and die in order to be reborn? Could the wars of disassociation that may follow any armed civilian insurrection against the European Union a few years from now be the sacrifice required to shock the British to their senses? From some interviews I have attended, these agonies are described by politicians in muted tones. They recognise there are thousands in Britain who will not stand by and silently watch the destruction of their country. Too much blood has been invested; too many loved ones never came home from the poppy fields of Flanders, the jungles of Burma or the deserts of North Africa. Some never even made it home from the office.

But if the British fail to act in time, the European play moves to the final scene by default - total political and economic integration under an new EU Constitution. Coerced into breaking down the last of her political character by traitors within and a devious enemy without, Britain will be compelled by the power of treaty to embrace the dark and unfamiliar future she has chosen for herself. Short of war, this final move will be irreversible and final.

Then again, maybe this is the way it has to be. With the horrors of the past world wars forgotten or never known to many today, maybe the British have to re-learn the lessons of the past. Maybe, in the midst of all the turmoil, bloodshed and misery that must surely follow the dawning of the truth of our predicament, we might discover that we needed to be put into this position of such utter, dire peril once more, so we could find forgiveness for all the selfishness and indifference, and in the forgiving, perhaps a kind of redemption.

The Real Face of the European Union by Phillip Day, video documentary (PAL format only)
Ten Minutes to Midnight by Phillip Day
Vigilance by Ashley Mote

Click here to purchase or review any of the above resources
Click here for telephone sales around the world