Counting the other costs of the pandemic

Truth and consequence.

“No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.” – Sir Karl Popper

It is an interesting time to be American. I sit, comfortably composing this article, the afternoon sunlight bouncing off my desk. I sip hot Twinings as the heater in the house where I grew up kicks on. The sounds and smells of my mother’s cooking (she is 90…) fill my senses.

This same sunny afternoon a US Marshall is shot during a standoff in a house about a mile down the road from my home near Ferguson. He is saved by his vest. A productive, long-term employee is sacked because he allegedly said something ‘offensive’. A family debates allowing their child to undergo sexual reassignment surgery. Another church closes its doors.

I sip my tea. Dinner is served.

Realising that America is and always will be intimately connected to the UK, I do my best to keep an eye to the political horizons of each nation. As the quest to move our rational, democratic societies away from God in pursuit of some global, utopian ideal weighs on my mind, I conduct a ‘flash’ overview of the ideological war being waged against the US President.

Recipe for a Coup

President Trump’s stated agenda is to restore to Americans many of our former cultural and societal freedoms and to rebuild the US as a sovereign, national republic. Despite his personal imperfections, his ideas and consequent taking of concerted and effective action to carry out his agenda represents a clear threat to the utopian global narrative that has been gathering momentum over the last 30 years.

Among those who have openly come against President Trump’s agenda are the mainstream media, certain financial entities, holdovers from the Obama administration, and establishment Republicans, many of whom are openly left-leaning. Celebrities and media personalities have openly declared that Trump should be assassinated, to the point that the idea is becoming common parlance.

Realising that America is and always will be intimately connected to the UK, I do my best to keep an eye to the political horizons of each nation.

Since the 2016 election, Trump has been labeled a Nazi, a fascist, a racist/sexist/xenophobe and as mentally incompetent to hold his position. Almost every attempt at staffing the departments under his control has been met with resistance on a ridiculous scale. Let us not forget myriad allegations concerning Russian collusion and election fraud; the Nunes memo, the Democrat memo, the ‘dossier’ (see Author’s Note, below).

From all that I have read and studied, such actions demonstrate the recipe for an internal coup, not just against a President, but against each individual citizen who voted for him - just as attempts to throw off Brexit represent a coup against those who voted Leave.

What is Freedom?

It seems to me that, in large part, there is a great misapprehension of key concepts on both sides.

Both sides declare that the endgame is ‘freedom’. Key to the concept of ‘freedom’ are the concepts of ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’. But the concepts and the words are open for interpretation (much like ‘love’ and ‘good’ and ‘justice’). We hear these words and immediately, libraries of mental pictures, interpretations and personal experiences come to mind. Ask ten people to describe their definition of ‘freedom’, ‘liberty’ or ‘equality’ and you will get ten different answers, each evoking mixtures of learned rhetoric, emotion, anecdotal evidence and fantasy.

Why? Because we are no longer a people trained and/or inclined to think critically or truly examine what we think we know. We are too busy attending to our phones, our possessions, our jobs and the pragmatic realities of this world to stop long enough to think or to seek wisdom. Concepts such as those I have mentioned, perforce, become two-dimensional. ‘Truth’ and our desire for it fades until we barely recognise it anymore.

The ideological war being waged against Trump amounts to an internal coup – not just against him, but against every citizen that voted for him.

To the average citizen, for instance, the concepts of ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’ appear to be closely related. We hear these words used alongside ‘freedom’ quite frequently, often from people we consider possessing more authority on the subject than might we, so we think no more about it.

But the devil is in the details. “Equality of the general rules of law and conduct…is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty and the only equality which we can secure without destroying liberty,” writes Austrian-British economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek.

“Not only has liberty nothing to do with any sort of equality, but it is even bound to produce inequality in many respects. This is the necessary result and part of the justification of individual liberty: if the result of individual liberty did not demonstrate that some manners of living are more successful than others, much of the case for it would vanish”¹ (emphases added).

This is the classic liberal view: that a society must have certain freedoms in order to flourish, which must be protected by the law. But those freedoms necessarily mean that inequalities will also arise. This is a necessary outcome of people’s diversity and the world’s unpredictability – and makes space for compassion and mercy in relationships. But any top-down attempt to artificially re-balance these inequalities will inevitably lead to tyranny of one sort or another.

The Founding Fathers

The classic liberal view was where the USA started off. To broad stroke a bit, America’s founders (many of whom were of British heritage) believed that each individual was created by God, born in an imperfect state. Yet God gifted us with individual liberty. It is God’s wish that we might seek relationship with him and become reconciled with him for eternity, but liberty in this lifetime, however we choose to use it, is ours.

It was the original intent of the founders to respect and protect that individual liberty and by so doing, honour God. The US Constitution was created to express the ideal that each man (ultimately, each person) could marry, worship as he chose, own property and possessions, exercise his right to defend and protect his family, work at whatever suited him and prosper as much as he was able. The potential success of the individual was protected by general rules of law and conduct created to facilitate a stable, safe and prosperous society.

Classic liberal philosophy has very particular views on the concepts of ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’.

This Constitutional ideal has been the bedrock of our national identity since its acceptance into law. By defining equality according to general rules of law and conduct, the individual remains accountable to society for how he/she exercises that individual liberty. Societal accountability often drives the individual to recognise and pursue relationship with God.

So, for the Constitutional conservative, ‘liberty’ is defined as their God-given individual freedom, of which faith is often an important component. ‘Equality’ is defined as equality under the law of safety, opportunity and socio-economic mobility.

The Postmodern Left

However, the utopian ideals being promoted by the postmodern ‘liberal Left’ are based on a humanistic, often atheistic approach, which has Marxist origins. For them, man creates his own liberty, his own equality, and so must also control it. If that means gaining control of the liberty and equality of others through gradual, often nuanced, ultimately tyrannical means, this is a price worth paying.

For the liberal Left, enforced ‘equality’ is a way to achieve human perfection. It teaches that an individual should be free to best express their own version of ‘liberty’ by letting the state administer their foundational needs, leaving them free to explore, create, express and fulfil their ambitions – so long as the fruits of those endeavours ultimately benefit the state. Individual ‘liberty’ is encouraged if it results in ‘equality’.

But true individual liberty has the capacity to produce very different results – and so is viewed ultimately as an enemy to the cause. Anyone who is industrious, independent and successful, who demonstrates what is possible under America’s current social conditions – achievement, prosperity and fulfilment – contradicts this utopian campaign.

The Battle for Truth

The ultimate battle of Truth vs Untruth inserts itself into our lives every day, in practically every situation – though we may not notice it. Even the definition of ‘Truth’ seems to have changed from ‘that which is inerrant’ to ‘whatever will work best toward achieving an end’.

The utopian ideals being promoted by the postmodern ‘liberal Left’ view true individual liberty as an enemy to the cause.

The idea that Truth no longer really matters and that its interpretation is up for grabs, is particularly insidious. It has been introduced through lots of culturally acceptable, benign-sounding rhetoric (e.g. ‘live your truth’), and perpetuated on every frontier of media, business, and often, in the Church. Talk about ‘fake news’….

As for the war on Trump, major revelations are pending which may totally up-end the liberal Left’s agenda for the United States and vindicate embattled President Donald J Trump. It is also possible that the web of deceit will continue to grow stronger and God will allow our nation to be broken. Perhaps much of his decision will depend upon how we, his people, respond to this crisis. Where do we stand on Truth?

Tea, anyone?

References

1 Hayek, F, 1960. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p85.

Author’s Note: For those interested in following up the issues raised in this article, I recommend the following shortlist of sound resources:

• For the circumstances perpetuating the Nunes memo: Nunez Memo and Russian Collusion: The Dan Bongino Show (Ep. 628)
• For a list of attempts made against the Trump presidency: From Conspiracy Theories to Conspiracies
• For an overview of his achievements in spite of the ‘resistance’: The Big List of President Trump’s Triumphs

We re-print an important article on Britain and the EU, by former Speaker of the House of Commons, Viscount Tonypandy.

Viscount Tonypandy, former Speaker of the House of Commons and a committed Christian, was a supporter of Prophecy Today and gave us this article which we published in Vol 13(3), May 1997.

It was a time when Britain was being pressed to join the Common Monetary Fund and there were calls for a Referendum. We feel that it is still very relevant for today.

DEFENCE OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT

Viscount Tonypandy speaks out about the dangers of Britain being drawn more into the European Union

Because ancient tradition requires former Speakers of the House of Commons to avoid involvement in party political affairs, I want to begin by asserting that the future destiny of this land is not a party political issue, it is bigger than that.

It is for this reason I support the initiative in forcing the question of the European Union onto centre stage. Our people have been kept in the dark about Europe, and many have been lulled into the belief that our future is sustainable only if we obey the diktats of non-elected Brussels bureaucrats.

Losing our Liberties

We are experiencing an unprecedented erosion of our traditional liberties; as both our fishermen and our farmers can testify. We are also suffering an ever increasing interference in our domestic, social, political and economic life. We realise how much dust has been thrown in our eyes, so that we have not properly seen where we are being led.

Monumental and historic decisions have been taken in our name, but they have not been made fully public. A supreme example of this chicanery is provided by our famous Fisheries Act which prevented Spanish fishermen sailing under our flag and taking a quota of the fish allocated to us. After the Bill had careful scrutiny in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords it was sent to the Privy Council where the Queen in person gave her approval. Thus it became law – or so we thought! How wrong we were!

The politically motivated European Court of Justice instructed us that our Fisheries Act was illegal. They defined limits on what our Parliament could legislate. Our Westminster Parliament was humiliatingly put behind the European Union! As a further measure of contempt for Westminster, Europe proceeded to give the bullying Spanish fishermen authority to demand compensation for the period that our Privy Council and our Parliament, by our legislation, kept them out of our waters.

What has happened to this proud nation that we allow anyone to treat us in this arrogant way? Has our pride already been consigned to the history book? Nay, I do not believe that. A national referendum is vital to prove that the fallacy is wrong.

We are still proud to be British and no German dominated European Union will ever succeed in crushing that pride.

Britain today is stirring anxiously as it is beginning to realise the extent of the betrayals we have suffered. Our young people are awakening to the peril threatening their future.

Common Market

The largest Common Market in the world is that forged by Canada, the United States of America and Mexico. They function quite successfully without a common currency! They do not intervene in each other's internal affairs. They are not troubled by calls for integration or by threats to each other's national sovereignty. That sort of common market makes sense. It was for that sort of common market, and only that sort, that Britain linked with Europe!

We have been victims of deceit! Britain said 'yes' to the type of common market we see across the Atlantic. As for a common parliament and a common bank – we have never had an opportunity to give our opinion.

Intrigue in high places has embargoed knowledge of secret negotiations reaching the people. In the name of human rights, we demand the chance to decide our own destiny that is the real issue at this time.

Chancellor Kohl's Aim

Listen to the chilling words of German Chancellor Kohl when he was addressing his own people earlier this year (1997). "The future will belong to the Germans – when we build a house of Europe."

Forgetting that the world was listening he added, "In the next two years we will make the process of European integration irreversible. This is a really big battle, but it is worth the fight."

It certainly was for Germany! As for us, if we fail to read the menace in the German Chancellor's announcement of his aims we shall betray our heritage. When German chancellors outline in advance what their intentions are, it is criminal irresponsibility not to take their threats seriously (surely that is a lesson we have learned from history after two world wars!).

We said yes to a common market - as for a common parliament and common bank, we have never had the opportunity to give our opinion.

Parliamentary Government

My life has centred around Parliamentary Government in this country. I hold it in the highest esteem, because I know that Parliament is not a caucus of clever creatures who are free to do what they like in Government. The House of Commons is an assembly dependent on a mandate from the nation. And every Government is answerable to the House of Commons.

No cabal of politicians elected for a maximum of five years' service as MPs without any guarantee that they will be even Members in any subsequent Parliament has ever been trusted with a mandate to diminish our heritage, or to barter away our liberties.

The question of a single European currency involves explosive consequences for the UK. We are fortunate because we have one of the most sophisticated electorates in the world; our people have an instinct that alerts them to any threat to our democratic way of life. When we, the British people, are given the vital information, we will tell Parliament the direction in which we demand to go. They will not tell us. We will tell them. Our intellectuals are not less able to assess conflicting issues than are our parliamentarians.

In Britain, parliamentarians serve the people. They do not tell us which direction to take - we tell them.

A referendum, conducted before our Government takes decisions concerning either a single currency or irreversible integration, will compel the production of facts that the electorate has every right to know, but which have not hitherto been fully revealed.

British Constitution

Our unwritten constitution is based on a sure foundation, that has served us well for centuries and that is that no Parliament can bind its successors. Yet this fundamental principle disappears if we integrate with the European Union or have a single European Currency which would make it inevitable. Our gold and currency reserves would be handed over to the European Central Bank in Germany as a 'common resource'. Every future parliament in Britain would be bound and manacled to the biased Brussels bureaucrats.

If any future parliament in this land says, "Enough is enough; we wish to readjust our relationship with you", do you think that the Frankfurt Bank would return our gold and currency reserves? Of course not! Chancellor Kohl has outlined his plans for Europe and I take him seriously. He has warned us that he is intent on making integration irreversible.

Once integrated, there will be no getting out. Integration would be the unforgivable crime of yielding up the liberties and rights for which so many of our compatriots nobly fought and died.

Those who believe that they can frighten or bully us into accepting integration make an old mistake. They underestimate the character of the British people; apparent apathy is grievously misleading to them: a steel-like determination to survive as a nation is part of our make-up.

Those who believe they can frighten or bully us into accepting integration underestimate the character of the British people.

Economic Issues

We fool ourselves when we talk of economic advantages in belonging to the European Union. Europe, sadly, is a diminishing not an expanding factor in world trade. Its significance in world markets diminishes daily. This is not my opinion. It is a fact. In any case we shall continue to trade with Europe, even if we are outside the Economic Monetary Union, but never forget global trade is our vital lifeline for our island history.

We need a referendum badly and we need it before any new decisive moves are made by any Government in this country concerning Europe. For me, the issue towers over party political considerations. It is a concern whether this nation survives with its cherished liberties or not. Give us a referendum in time and we will survive. I am in harmony with the sturdy defence of our British Parliament advanced by my predecessors in the Speaker's Chair in the House of Commons.

For me to remain silent now would be an act of treason, for such cowardice would betray the noble heritage handed on to me by former Speakers of the House of Commons.

God bless your efforts, as you battle for Britain, I wish you well.