Dominion Day, 1964

[H/T: British & Commonwealth Forces | Facebook]

Wealthless Nations?

The above is from one of those boring but important/scary articles that give one some idea of quite how badly things are really going. England will prevail, of course. But before that happens we may well have to learn the hard way (once again!) that the only way to wealth, health and happiness is through earning and saving, whereas spending leads only to poverty and misery.

Benjamin Franklin of all people put it well:

The way to wealth is as plain as the way to market. It depends chiefly on two words, industry and frugality: that is, waste neither time nor money, but make the best use of both. Without industry and frugality nothing will do, and with them everything.

Kipling, of course, put it better:

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew,

And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true

That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four– 

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

Melbourne Grammar School

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Melbourne Grammar School (@melbournegrammarschool)

From Bad to Worst?

Somewhat depressingly, my order for the least worst Prime Ministers of the 21st century goes

1. Blair
2. Brown
3. The other brown one
4. Lord Cameron of Diddly Squat Farm
5. Boris
6. Mrs O'Leary
7. Sir Keir
8. Lady May

I suspect Mr Burnham will slip neatly into place either just before or just after the current No 7*.

In reality, they have of course all been fairly terrible. What is interesting though is that there's a discernible sense in which they generally get worse as time goes by, and not just because of "events, dear boy, events!". Indeed, even general entropy and decline, not to mention political evolution (not to mention "devolution"), the ever expanding and less efficient "civil" service, and quite simply "modern difficulties" (ageing and increasingly "diverse" populations, "secularism", etc.) don't quite account for the distinctly palpable sense that each new PM will in all probability be more politically incompetent than his or her predecessor(s). But then maybe I'm being optimistic.

The cretinous Sir Keir Starmer - in reality an over-promoted government bureaucrat rather than a politician as the term is normally understood - must surely be a case in point. How does one account for the little creep's sheer awfulness? Despite having survived in No 10 for barely a couple of years, the man's "war record" is prodigiously impressive. Just to list out his achievements, since he took office he has declared war on:

• landlords;
• political protesters;
• schools;
• churches;
• farmers;
• war veterans - Ireland and Iraq;
• employers;
• unborn children:
• teenagers;
• trail hunters;
• what remains of the British Empire; and, of course, 
• our country's most important international ally.

In fact it was of course the last of these that finally did for him. The desperate need to replace our man (or person!) in Washington, who is normally a career bureaucrat, with a twice-failed career politician (i.e. the opposite of what had been done in 10 Downing Street!) was because of the Labour Party's bizarrely ill-advised decision to intervene in American politics by sending its goons to campaign for the Democrats at the last Presidential Election. Sir John Major, after all, might have warned them about the perils of that sort of thing - not to mention Lord Cameron, whose equally disastrous decision to get his black pal Barack Obama to intervene in British politics on the side of the Remain campaign was similarly poorly judged.

In reality, I think it has to be confessed that the problem is liberalism itself - or, in its developed forms, Marxism and nationalism. People don't become politicians anymore because they don't like politicians, and they don't like politicians because the whole concept of state authority has to a large extent broken down. Why should someone who's just like me get the authority to tell me what to do? Well, unless you genuinely think it's OK for a majority to use its sheer weight of numbers arbitrarily to bully a minority into doing what it was - including giving up its property and income for the sake of the supposedly greater good - it's quite hard to explain why being "democratically elected" means anyone should be able to tell you what to do. And in our heart of hearts we all know that it doesn't. And thus liberal democracy is to a certain extent self-discrediting. Ordinary decent people prefer to give it a wide berth because they know it's fundamentally unfair and quite frankly just not right.

And so the sort of people who end up getting elected (or, in the case of the creature that's about to start inhabiting No 10, not even elected) just go from bad to worse to worst.

*The sheer unbridled catatonic pointlessness of the last must never be repeated.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Adam Smith Institute (@adamsmithinstitute)