“I fear that today’s way of life is not our strength but has become our weakness. It has become debilitating and corrupting. The two world wars spawned an enlarged public sector that has, in the past 30 years, become the insatiable cuckoo in the next, pushing out other activities by absorbing resources, increasing debt, raising taxes, creating unproductive employments, encouraging people not to work, over-regulating while under-performing, promoting mass immigration to feed its preference for cheap labour, and destroying vital industries in the pursuit of a green fantasy. It has created dependency and encouraged irresponsibility – all the more damaging in a society that has jettisoned much of its identity and pride. I have never felt more pessimistic about our ability to change.
“Our `progressives’ still inhabit a dream-world: globalisation, `rules-based order’, open borders and the EU. They depend on perpetual public sector expansion for their existence,. This is, say Labour MPs, `in the party’s DNA’. It cannot face reality, as the recent Budget shows. The only part of the public sector not in their DNA is defence. The Liberal Democrats and Greens are even worse. A coalition of the three would be a nightmare.
“We cannot defend ourselves while the present system prevails. Hence the contempt of Trump and Putin. People have of course been saying this for years and like the boy who cried wolf, they have been ignored. Now, however, the wolf is at the door.”
– Robert Toombs, Daily Telegraph (£)
I called the author “richard” – apologies for the goof.
It is almost a cliché that the rich man’s kids become spoiled little brats who, rather than advantaging themselves from their father’s success and building on it, descend into decadence and self loathing.
The rich man was the free market, a system that made the west inconceivably wealthy. And so many of its children are quite simply these usual self loathing, decadent, soft, spoiled little brats who hate their parents, and reject all that has been done for them.
The reference to “the boy who cried wolf” at the end is singularly ill-judged; it completely undermines the rest of the article.
The World Wars just continued a trend to bigger government that started (at least) in the 1870s – both in Britain and in Germany and elsewhere. And nations that did NOT go to war still had the same expansion of government – for example Sweden.
However, the basic point made Richard Toombs is correct – government is now vast, most people (let-that-sink-in MOST people) now either work in tax funded jobs or are on benefits – or both.
This is NOT like the Roman Empire where Rome and a few other cities had such a dependent population – in an Empire mostly made up of tax paying farmers. In our modern societies it is MOST people. It is an obviously insane system – and it will fall apart (indeed it already is starting to decay and has been for quite some time).
As for the “rules based international order” – when I was young that sounded good to me, because I did not really understand what it meant. It does not mean the rule of law in the sense that, for example, Hugo Grotius would have understood the term – on the contrary the “rules based international order” means a drive towards international “governance” with ever more regulations (falsely treated as “the law”) and much the same taxation and government benefits and services everywhere – making elections meaningless (as the same basic policies would be followed regardless of who is elected), and the whole concept of a “nation” and a “national culture” DEAD – and quite deliberately so.
If one looks at the people who were pushing all this world “governance” even more than a century ago, they had nothing but contempt for individual liberty – see, for example, President Woodrow Wilson – who despised the philosophy behind the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, and whose attitude to dissent was that the dissenter (no matter how mild the dissent) should be sent to prison – Woodrow Wilson would have got on well with Keir Starmer.
The idea that an “educated” elite should dominate the people, making their elections meaningless and destroying their basic liberties, is not a British idea – it is an international idea, the British establishment are just the local branch of the international establishment – their “rules based international order” is liberticide, and they hate individual liberty just as much as they hate national independence.
“No, no, no, Paul – the international Declarations and Conventions protect basic liberty rights”.
In which case why did none of them stop the Covid lockdowns – which were nothing to do with “saving lives” and crushed liberty in this nation far more than it had been crushed in either World War, or under Cromwell and the rule of the Major Generals – and why, today, do these “Declarations” and “Conventions” not IN PRACTICE protect FREEDOM OF SPEECH – or any other basic liberty?
The international Declarations and Conventions are not like the American Bill of Rights – they are written (quite deliberately written) to give-the-impression that they defend individual liberties whilst NOT doing so. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (centuries ago now) was much the same – its language gave-the-impression of protecting individual liberty, whilst if one examined it as a legal text (rather than a piece of rhetoric) doing-nothing-of-the-kind – and the people who wrote it knew that, they were followers of Rousseau and others – they redefined “liberty” and “freedom” to mean unlimited power for “the people” – by which they really meant the government, a government to be controlled by THEM – regardless of what ordinary people wanted (that was just the “will of all” – only they, only the “educated” elite, could know the true “General Will”).
If one looks up who was involved in writing them, the politics of these people, the international Declarations and Conventions are exactly the confidence trick (con trick) that one should expect. They were written to give the false impression of defending liberty – whilst actually doing nothing of the kind, indeed pushing the agenda of the destruction of liberty – both national and individual.
Yes Britain is in horrible decline, perhaps more so than some other countries, but this is an international movement.
An international movement towards tyranny and towards a tyranny that will lead to the breakdown of society.
In the end even the elite will suffer from the consequences of their insane policies – but that will be no comfort to ordinary folk, as we will already have been destroyed.
Simon Jester: The reference to “the boy who cried wolf” at the end is singularly ill-judged; it completely undermines the rest of the article.
The “crying wolf” trope is indeed designed to warn against falsely claiming problems because this means real dangers are ignored when they arise. Those who warned about Putin were not getting anxious about nothing. Toombs sort of messes that up. Putin is a wolf in plain sight.
On “open borders” – the gates of the city should be open to friends and closed to foes. This is basic common sense – and in no way contradicts the non aggression principle (indeed it is putting the non aggression principle into practice).
However, today if one tries to do this – the establishment screams “RACIST!”, “ISLAMOPHOBE!” – and-so-on, and seeks to punish the person even suggesting such a policy. We live in an age where people who are quite open about their hatred of the West, their desire to destroy the West, are invited-in, and given every inducement to increase their numbers. Whilst anyone who questions this policy is persecuted by the authorities – and this is true even in once isolated (isolated from the horrors of the world) nations, such as Iceland (yes even there).
In the end such madness will destroy the “liberal” (who are not really liberal at all) establishment themselves – but not before they have doomed the ordinary people of Western nations.
It is interesting that the trope of someone who accurately predicts the future while being roundly ignored is sufficiently established in human experience to justify a myth to describe it, Cassandra.
I think it is pretty much unarguable at this point that we are living through the decline and eventual fall of the west. A fate deliberately inflicted upon us by our own bloody government.
“Our `progressives’ still inhabit a dream-world: globalisation, `rules-based order’, open borders and the EU. They depend on perpetual public sector expansion for their existence,. This is, say Labour MPs, `in the party’s DNA’. It cannot face reality, as the recent Budget shows. The only part of the public sector not in their DNA is defence.
But the drip drip drip of cultural propaganda is a counter-current to reality. See https://grokipedia.com/page/I'd_Like_to_Teach_the_World_to_Sing_(In_Perfect_Harmony)
Even the adverts are promoting progressive themes. If you composed an ‘inverse’ version of the jingle you would perhaps be prosecuted for hate speech.
Robert Toombs, not Richard. His book, ‘The English and Their History’, is a go-to reference for me and is highly recommended.
A possible way, of our society avoiding decline, is suggested by Iain MacGilchrist and his works, which follows Alexander Pope on the proper study of man.
Discovered Joys – someone may join the Labour Party for all sorts of reasons (because their family supported the party, or because they want to socialize with people, or whatever) – but to make the great effort that is required to get on the list of candidates for Parliament and get elected to Parliament (although that was made unusually easy by the split vote on the right in 2024) means that someone is committed to bigger government – to more government spending, more taxes and more regulations – so Labour Members of Parliament are what they are, and do what they do.
It is supposedly anti socialist Members of Parliament since 1990 (yes going back that far – to the betrayal of Margaret Thatcher) who hard to forgive – for they were elected to roll back the state, and allowed it to expand. Because they did not really believe in liberty, or were too weak to defeat the officials and “experts”.
Roue le Jour – yes indeed Sir, I fear you are correct.
Philip Scott Thomas and David Roberts.
I am sadly ignorant of the writers you mention – but I trust your judgement.
It’s Robert Tombs, a very nice man, and unusual in being a conservative academic and a Brexit supporter. You could get away with it in some colleges back in the day, I am not sure about now. Luckily, Dr Tombs is safely retired.
JohnK- universities used to have one Conservative in each economics and politics department, that was the way it was in most (although not all) universities – but I noticed as these Conservatives retired they were not replaced by Conservatives, they were replaced by standard-issue leftists. Even Jack Wiseman’s collection of free market books at the University of York was effectively destroyed (as a library) – the university “needed more admin space”.
In other universities students started to be encouraged NOT to examine the old collections of books (one could often find hidden jems – for example I found a book on the corruption in the Truman Administration), and just stick to “Student Reserve Collections” of books on the “Reading Lists” – books that, for many subjects, were worthless – other than to give the approved (and factually wrong) answers for course work and examinations.
Discovered Joys at 11:05am, “If you composed an ‘inverse’ version of the jingle you would perhaps be prosecuted for hate speech.”
I’ve always thought that one reason the hippies prevailed is they had better song writers. If I had any talent in that regard and utter contempt for hippie copyrights, I would re-write the lyrics to such classics as “Imagine” by J. Lennon, or was it Vladimir Lenin? Anyway, it was some kind of Lennon/Lenin.
Since I’m not up to the writing task I’m going to see if an AI LLM can do it for me!
Re-write the whole canon of 1960s leftist music!
GregWA – in the United Kingdom possession of “right wing” music got a person 40 months (almost three and half years) in prison. I do not remember John Lennon being sent to prison for the far left song “Imagine” – with its demands for the end of nations and the end of private property.
The lyrics of the ghastly ‘Imagine’ are so hypocritical that I feel an inclination to vomit when I hear the opening bars. It is ironic that the video for it appears to have been recorded in a millionaire’s country mansion but I have come to see that as entirely apt; the message is for the masses, not for those giving the message.
I loved the idea of a rewrite of Imagine, so here is Grok’s attempt, I like it!! The tune is really catchy, so when you hear it maybe sing this in your head instead.
Oh, I missed Grok’s outro, which I really like too:
I mean how much more positive a message is this to give to our young people than Lennon’s ridiculous nonsense? He was a great musician, and a terrible lyricist.
David Norman – yes indeed Sir.
Fraser Orr – excellent Sir, but do not come to Britain as these lyrics may be considered “racist” (remember that “whiteness” is “capitalist attitudes”) and you might be sent to prison for three and half years. Up to three years WITHOUT trial by jury.
Not mere possession – he was distributing it. If he’d simply been listening to it himself, he’d be a free man.
JuliaM – I believe you are mistaken.
There were two different “crimes” – one was indeed selling a couple of “right wing” music records (along with lots of other music records that were not “right wing”). But the other “crime” was possession – for which he also got 40 months.
What may have confused you is that both sentences are to run concurrently.