Friday 28 August 2009

It’s That Man Again

Dan Hannan? Or Enoch Powell? Hannan has managed to put Powell in the news again. And thus to put himself in the news again.

Enoch was wrong. Wrong about immigration, at the time. Wrong about economics, although his followers were and are much worse than he was. Wrong in his inability to see that the implementation of his economic views was impossible without the huge-scale importation of people as much as of anything else, as part of that system’s overall corrosion of everything that conservatives exist in order to conserve.

Wrong to scorn the Commonwealth. Wrong in the bitterness of his anti-Americanism. Wrong to support easier divorce. Wrong to give aid and succour to the Monday Club, although he never joined it, when it was supporting the Boer Republic set up as an explicit act of anti-British revenge in a former Dominion of the Crown (a move fiercely opposed by Nelson Mandela and the ANC, for all their other faults), and that Republic’s satellite, which first committed treason against Her Majesty and then very rapidly purported to depose her, removing the Union Flag from its own, something that even the Boer Republic never did.

But Enoch was also right. Right to line up with Tony Benn and against Margaret Thatcher on Europe. Right to oppose both capital punishment and nuclear weapons, the two ultimate expressions of statism as idolatry, on which latter he again correctly sided with Benn against Thatcher, and on both of which he in fact shared the views of many High Tories. Right about the normalisation of Northern Ireland, conventionally known as total integration, which will almost certainly never now happen, since the place has been carved up between a bizarre fundamentalist sect and a fully armed Marxist terrorist organisation. Right to use the full panoply of central government planning to make significant additions to the National Health Service, and always to remain a stalwart defender of it.

Right to oppose the subordination of our foreign policy to a foreign power. Right to denounce the atrocities at Hola. Right to support Britain’s non-intervention in Vietnam. Right to oppose the first Gulf War, which we fought as if buying oil from Saddam Hussein would somehow have been worse than buying it from the al-Sabahs (or the al-Sauds). Right to reprimand Thatcher that “A Tory believes that there is no such thing as an individual who exists without society”, pointedly referring to Tories, an age-old culture or series of subcultures, rather than to the Conservative Party, a late and strictly conditional vehicle for Toryism. Right to oppose abortion and experimentation on embryonic human beings, unlike Thatcher. Right to support the decriminalisation of male homosexual acts between consenting adults in private. Right to predict that the Soviet Union would collapse anyway, and to see Russia as our natural ally. Right to fight against grotesque erosions of our liberties, such as reversals of the burden of proof in certain cases.

His present-day admirers and detractors alike should learn the lessons.

7 comments:

  1. The Catholic Church supports capital punishment and has always supported it. Capital punishment existed in the Papal States right up until they were abolished, just as it did in every Catholic state until the Catholic states were secularised.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Read any contemporary defence of it and the author has made an idol of the State.

    The Catechism, promulgated as an exercise of the infallibility of the whole Episcopal College in union with and including the Roman Pontiff, condemns it outright.

    If you can be executed by the State for being legally but not morally guilty of whatever, then why not for being legally but not morally guilty of whatever else? A disability, for example. Or an illness. Or an ethnicity.

    All sorts of things went on in the Papal States. They are hardly a model.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Old Labour Old Catholic28 August 2009 at 14:57

    Glorfindel must approve of the lavish welfare state in the papal states.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That wasn't a Welfare State properly so called.

    As I said, they were no model.

    But what DOES Glorfindel, who thinks that they were, think of their socio-economic arrangements? And why?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hannan went out of his way not to mention race merely that He admired Powell for his commitment to Parliament & inoffensive stuff like that. Same with health where he has said he admired Singapore's very thorough health service.

    Because we live in a soundbite world it doesn't really matter what politicos say as long as they use, or don't use, 1 or 2 specific words.

    ReplyDelete
  6. why was he wrong about easy devorse .is that not just your catholic faith coming out david?

    ReplyDelete