In our 2013 Prospectus we identified the threat that our Christian Society is facing and has been facing over the last fifty years. This threat has come about and grown because a number of minority groups, each with their own agenda, have banded together on the basis that ‘we will support your cause if you support our cause’. Thus we have a rainbow coalition that is far from bright, intent on destroying the family and attacking religious belief. Christianity is the main target, with the Catholic Church coming under intense fire because it is the bulwark on which their efforts – and ultimate goal – have foundered so far. This drab network of individuals and groups, with their message of despair, have become more confident in expressing views that are frankly outrageous and would have been ostracised not so long ago. The news media allow them the oxygen of publicity, especially the BBC, that helps them to propagate a culture of death and destruction. In our Prospectus we defined these people as aggressive atheistic libertine progressives.
This is a postscript to the previous post two days ago about – the enemy within. The monster that emeritus Professor Frank and his accomplices have created in our further and higher education establishments is modelled on a humanist education and open society that encourages ‘risky behaviour’. Right on cue today, new guidelines urge universities to take a zero-tolerance approach to sexual violence and harassment with better support for students. A report by a UUK taskforce addresses the culture that has developed in our universities and their non-involvement approach, which must end; and instead sets out standards of behaviour that they should promote and accept that they have a duty of care. Go to > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37718851
The latest book by Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent, is ‘What’s Happened To The University?’. His answer is different from the experience of many students. With the new funding regime and the payment of fees, resulting in massive debt on graduation, students are more discerning and critical of academics and with the quality of tutors and the teaching on offer. The student view of universities is – they do not care about the individual student and are only interested in tuition fees and rental money for halls of residence. There seems to be more focus on the social activities available on campus. Some universities have on-site nightclubs and bars in abundance. The subsidised alcohol may be a way of damping down criticism and complaints. Freshers Week is legendary for the excesses of the new students, apparently vomit-buckets have replaced spittoons. This is hardly the reassurance that the Bank of Mum and Dad need as they question the value of a qualification that does not lead to a well-paid job or even employment. It is also part of their job to be protective of their children, morally as well as physically.
There is an old saying – if democracy worked they would abolish it. Democracy is only tolerated by politicians while it enables them to exercise power, especially in the case of ‘progressives’. The party elites, who operate in the background and are not accountable to anyone even their own party members, love this arrangement. The State establishment – the unknowns – who really have their hands on the levers of power go along with it because it shields them from the public spotlight. At the first indication that some maverick politician is going to disrupt the status quo by being a true democrat – that is government of the people, by the people, for the people – they will react and put a stop to it. Colonel Blimp and Sir Humphrey together with the Secret Service, the top echelon who know better, will discredit or organise a coup in defence of the realm. This cabal will include media-moguls and the chief judiciary, together with the economic movers and shakers. The irony is that the head of the kingdom or realm, in whose name this is being done, is as much a victim as the people. They are a puppet or rubber-stamp of the ‘powers behind the throne’. This is true throughout history (even before democracy) with only tyrants and despots exercising autocratic power through fear and reigns of terror. These people are antidemocratic and only crawl out of the woodwork when under threat and their plans start to unravel. They reveal themselves by their actions and behaviour, all the while claiming to be democrats. We are in such a situation now following the unique demonstration of direct democracy via the EU Referendum.
There is also the question of honesty and integrity? What is obvious is, that despite the tendency for comparisons, TM is not MT. Theresa’s confidence shines through the post-Brexit gloom. She has made a good start as Prime Minister, and with two well received speeches at annual conference her popularity rating is very high compared with previous PMs. However it may be due to relief that the grown-ups are back in charge, and we have had truly awful PMs going all the way back to and including John Major. The overall position is that it is too early to judge her and only time will tell.
Why should we suspect that she might be a closet Christian Democrat? Well she has emphasised her desire to work for the common good. She has also had friendly meetings with Angela Merkel, with the media coverage showing a genuine empathy and rapport. It would be interesting to know to what extent she influenced the slogan for annual conference – A Country that works for everyone. That was the message for voters, and inside the conference hall there was a similar message for party members – A Party that works for everyone. She and her Cabinet colleagues also collectively and subliminally littered their speeches and interviews with – an economy that works for everyone. Right, we get the message. Now for the criticism.