Yesterday was Armistice Day, and as we remember those who fell in war, the questions that vex me more with each passing year are, “Why did so many give so much? If they could see the current state of the world, would they still do it again?”
We expended much blood and treasure in defeating a Kaiser, standing fast against the Nazi regime and contributing to the bulwark against communism. All were totalitarian forces that sought regional or world domination. In those days it seems we thought that democracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech and the rights of the individual were worth defending and preserving. Eventually all those major external threats fell in the face of the West’s resolute stance. Appeasement does not work.
Whatever the original intent behind political correctness was, it has been distorted into a demon of oppression. It has become puerile, irrational and fearful. It was once the case that a person was presumed innocent unless or until proven guilty and that it was the duty of the prosecution to provide compelling evidence to show that someone had committed a crime. That has steadily morphed into guilty unless the alleged offender can prove his innocence. Both public and private figures are put through inconceivable stress and endure often irreversible reputational damage at the hands of a legal system more intent on acting like a witch finder rather than a noble seeker of truth and dispenser of justice.
As for spoken ‘offences’, one now only has to be perceived, not intended, and the mindless outcry is swift. This is quickly followed by the obligatory apology, which is simultaneously demanded and dismissed as hollow. If you dare to criticise the sometimes alarming and thuggish actions of Israel you are judged to be anti-Semitic. Voice your distaste about the distortion of the traditional notion of marriage and you are summarily convicted of being a homophobe. Declare your alarm at the creeping Islamisation of this country and you are condemned as Islamophobic. Point out that multi-culturalism now dictates policy to the indigenous majority and is changing the very nature of British society and – you’ve guessed it – you are branded a racist. In short, discussion about, or criticism of, any important issue which needs to be dealt with by government or society actually causes inaction, even paralysis, and is countered by making it an offence. Thus debate is shut down and the problems, far from going away, simply get worse. An industry of claim hunters forage, like pigs seeking truffles, for any opportunity to cash in on injured feelings. Who needs a Stasi or NKVD when so many are ready to report or fabricate what they say they saw or heard, with appropriate embellishments, exaggeration or downright lies?
The US election result has confounded the pundits, shattered cosy presumptions and given a hard kick to the political testicles of the American elite. To the losing side I say this; ask yourselves why you lost. Be honest about those reasons and stop imposing your increasingly stifling view on how things should be. You ignored the people, took them for granted and dismissed their concerns for too long. They will now be heard. To those who protest about the recent result, I would say this; Donald Trump won via the same election procedure that installed Obama and Clinton in the White House. It is called democracy – grow up and deal with it. Republicans didn’t take to the streets when Obama was elected; they may well have sighed, perhaps even cried, but then they got on with it.
We now have preening, pompous personalities from the entertainment industry emoting and fawning on our screens, those false often wealthy demagogues, who use fame to stir their unthinking followers to their idol’s chosen cause. We are being manipulated by the advertising industry into accepting what they now perceive to be the new normal. For example, watch for the incidence of the affable family man (black) and his doting wife (white, often blond) perhaps accompanied by their mixed race offspring.
Yet another force seeking world domination faces us but this one may succeed through the timidity of those in power, if not their actual complicity. From what I see, understand and have studied about Islam, it exhibits the symptoms of an almost incurable mental illness for it seems to hate most aspects of the human condition. Its fundamental premise is that the purpose of existence is to worship god. No it is not! And who in their right mind would want to worship such a self-absorbed, unproductive and conceited entity? The purpose of existence, if such a concept can easily be defined, is to use and improve the physical and mental capabilities with which nature has endowed us, ideally for good and constructive objectives. I’m heartily tired of hearing Islam’s defendants claim that it is a tolerant religion. To that I would simply respond by asking, “How many churches are there in Saudi Arabia?”
It may serve to quote this passage from Corinthians (13:11):
“When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”
The western world needs to do some serious growing up.
Leave a Reply
10 Comments on “Why did we bother to fight?”
Dear Dee,
You are the only one to hit the nail on the head.
Please keep commenting.
Thank you so much, Bob.
Please let’s make sure we never repeat the situation where so many millions of young lives are lost in war because kings and politicians fail miserably to settle their differences in a civilised way. It’s essential to maintain a strong military as a deterrent and in case our shores are directly threatened and they also provide a valuable resource in times of international disasters. They must never be used for political purposes or to get involved in conflicts that are none of our business.
How you propose that Herbert Asquith & Neville Chamberlain were supposed ‘to settle their differences in a civilized way” with Wilhelm II & Adolf Hitler not being made clear?
The answer Ajax is that both Asquith and Chamberlain had to negotiate without sufficient deterrence being in the hands they played.
Before WWI Britain had a sense or moral superiority which would carry the day like an army. Before WWII people shrank from deterrence under the illusion of ‘lessons learned’ from WWI and a naive belief in unarmed negotiation under a halo of goodwill.
Then we found that in both cases – as Lloyd George put it in 1915: ‘We are fighting the best organised community in the world either for peace or war’.
Well said, thank you for doing so.