On par with relevant history

By Johnny D. Symon

The past two weeks of my life have been a revelation, a time involving trips down memory lane of events that have firmly remained with me ever since, all of it thought-provoking stuff, some of it mighty humbling.

I guess it all began when I unearthed my first edition copy of Professor Michael A R Graves and Robin H Silcock's "Revolution, Reaction and the Triumph of Conservatism." It covers the most vital elements of England's history between 1558 and 1700. This period holds the "boot volume" that energized England's later software, The Industrial Revolution. It's a time period that for me holds the key that would still fit a 21st Century doorlock, bidding us entry into an environment of national economic recovery.

Okay, what I've just said may appear long-winded, but I'm trying to encapsulate a good deal of relevant history into a relatively short space. As I mentioned at the start, it sparked off in me trips down memory lane, one of them was of an event some time back when I had to perform business in Gloucestershire, England. After all was said and done, I headed on out to the town of Cheltenham. It's a beautiful place, full of great people. I received so many smiles on each and every street that in retrospect it now seems as if I was picking them off like ripe fruit on abundant trees. I can't properly place what it was about that town and its people, but whatever it was it became indelibly etched on my spiritual epidermis. One more tattoo to be added on to a list of many.

I met an elderly man who suffered from a severe spinal deformity from birth, and he was bent double. Every moment of his life was spent in pain due to his deformity putting great pressure on his vital organs. But there he was nevertheless wandering down a street in Cheltenham. I took the time to open a conversation, the usual thing you know; the weather, and his town, and he told me his name was Gerald. His wife, Margaret, was in hospital. Gerald was clearly worried about her life. She, he said, was the mainstay of his life, always able-bodied and healthy, and a hard worker. The things that he was unable to do through his deformity, Margaret would expedite with a smile. They had been married many years, fruitful and happy years, and he prayed for his wife's recovery.

He actually invited me to his home and off we went. It was an old, horribly built, pre-1950's hovel. A one-room shack even, and all they could afford. There was no room to swing a mouse, let alone a cat. I felt saddened by the environment inhabited by those humble people so rich in spirit.

Then Gerald's face broke into a smile and he whispered, "We're hoping to move into another house soon. It would be a great place for Margaret to convalesce in when she leaves hospital. It isn't far. If you like I'll take you there."

Sure enough it was little more than a half mile's distance away, at least for me as the crow flies so to speak, but I reminded myself that to Gerald it was more like 10 miles; 20 there and back, and torturous pain with it. When we arrived I marveled not only at the beauty of the house of sandstone blocks and quality build, 10 or 12 in a row, circa 1800, but the beauty of their surroundings also, being smack dead center of private wooded grounds. Everything around me was as was when originally built, and they'd been built so long ago with money gleaned from the rich of the area to serve the needs of the miserably poor. The local parish church council were charged with the work of distributing the donations wisely, and here was an end result.

Margaret and Gerald's future home, as indeed it became later on, a rent free alms house, was the fruit of the honest labor of the rich and the parish church long ago. A labor so honest and true that my friend Gerald and Margaret his wife were also to enjoy for the rest of their lives together. Good deeds stand the test of time. Honest endeavors stretch from here to eternity. Of this I stand convinced.

Alternatively, the seedbed of the West's betrayal spans Right to Left of the political spectrum. Their dishonest adventures have placed us in the predicament we experience today. In stark contrast to the honest labors of 16th through 19th Century rich folks and the parish churches, can be placed numerous political endeavors serving the side of evil most ably. Each endeavor, though purporting to be in the "national interest," finally proved to be of service to the "internationalists."

While the great Sir Winston Churchill proved the old adage wrong that stated "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword," having brandished a cavalry sword on horseback in battle as a young man, Dame Lady Thatcher was of the opposite school. As a politician, all things said and done, I prefer to liken her reign to that of Queen Elizabeth l, for the fruits of her labor, bearing in mind that she's a Bilderberg, led British Conservatism to swing Left in the hope of winning the next election. And I therefore recoin an old statement uttered by the Earl of Essex against Elizabeth l, and direct it at Thatcher, when he told her that her policies were as crooked as her carcass.

"All governments suffer a recurring problem;
Power attracts pathological personalities.
It is not that power corrupts but that it is
magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have
a tendency to become drunk on violence,
a condition to which they are quickly addicted."

— Frank Herbert

This may seem like unnecessarily strong language against an old lady, until one aligns and considers two events in the early years of her first term. She handed back Rhodesia, a British Colony, to its indigenous peoples in 1980. Robert Mugabe renamed the place Zimbabwe, then ordered a program, or more properly understood to be a pogrom, against white farmers and their properties. I clearly recall her plan when it was announced, and had no trouble anticipating the result. White farmers witnessed their wives and daughters being raped and murdered. Those left alive departed the country with just the shirt on their back. Their carefully nurtured and productive farms reverted back to dust and briar, and their savings stolen by Robert Mugabe.

My wife happens to know one of those unfortunate farmers. Everything four generations of his family built and bequeathed became just a bloody memory, then the nightmare reality of Zimbabwe and it's insane leadership began to get talked down and covered up by inept and highly corrupt Western Internationalist-minded leaders. That's the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, a lady who claimed her ghost mother kept coming back to haunt her. Somehow, if this is true, I myself can hardly blame her.

The stark contradictions of Thatcherism are clear to the eye, for her betrayal of Rhodesia, her relinquishing of British Sovereignty against all reason, and the Falklands War prove that her judgment was clouded by other concerns. While Rhodesia was expendable, in spite of the fact that it was one of the few successful African States and a huge exporter of goods, she felt free, against strong military advice, to remove the sole military presence from the Falklands, that being it's gunboat. This happened to occur shortly before the second general election in the UK, where most reputable opinion polls predicted her defeat. At that time the United States was in the uneasy position of being friends with both the UK and Argentina, then headed by General Galtieri. Both the US and the British Military knew and warned that should the gunboat go, Galtieri would invade. Nonetheless, Thatcher ignored reason, and withdrew. Shortly thereafter, Argentina invaded, and history became our witness, and the British election became Margaret Thatcher's.

Was her rejection of British Sovereignty for Rhodesia and her quest to retain the Falklands as British Sovereign territory a contradiction? I believe so. Were her contradictory actions fruit of her Bilderberg ideals? Of this I am certain. So therefore, did her unjust Head Tax of the late 80's that favored only the ultra-rich and devastated the average man and woman in the street, relegate authentic Conservatism to the trashbin of time? Without a shadow of a doubt. The fruit of that person's actions destroyed the roots of authentic British Conservatism.

I've spoken on this subject on more than one occasion to British Conservatives, and all of them flew to Thatcher's defense by stating that she did topple the mighty Trade Unions which were a terrible burden to business and the economy, and this is indeed true, but her work provided a vacuum that big government were only too happy to fill. Greater control of the economy by government, and far less control by small to medium businesses, was hardly a good example of a free market capitalist system.

Furthermore, she set about a tax reform for small to medium business, a plan that was highly unpopular even in her own government. When implemented, many small businesses closed down. They'd been bled dry. Most of them had been Conservatives. The town of Bath, then held by Conservative Chris Patten, became a ghost town, many shops and businesses boarded up. Bath had been a staunch Conservative town until Thatcher betrayed and stole from her own electorate. Resultantly those self-same Conservative business owners took the opportunity next election to throw Patten out, and off he went at Thatcher's behest, to become Hong Kong governor, and several years later he handed Hong Kong over to The Poopholes Republic of China. Later on still, he joined the EU and sang the praises and the glory of the wonderful Russian Conflict Federation. I covered in "Double Standards," June 20, 2004, part of a speech made by Patten, in Brussels, February 26, 2004, where he stated;

"It is clearly in our interest to try to promote close ties with an open, stable and democratic Russia, acting as a reliable partner which can uphold European values .."

I clearly recall back then homing in on the European "values" angle, and today I wonder if that angle can also be applied to China, another EU partner. Does China "uphold European values"? Russia too? Well small wonder the Pilgrim Fathers chose to head West and get the hell out of it!

Boy oh boy, I can almost hear the unsung unheroes of control-freak Europe screaming in their toilets, "How dares this man to ridicule us so!" And they have a point, one that I'm about to cover, because without Thatcher and Major, Tony Blair would have remained just a twinkle in Number 10's eye. And without Tony, Gordon Brown would have remained just another standpat Trotskyite. Let's call this the art of political progression ... the Conservatives became the main mover ensuring that Labor won the war, not them.

Equally, Barry White House would not have made President without more than a little help from Global Bright Spark, G W Bush. It's a strange thing to ponder on, the fact that prior to last election, with many Republicans calling out to see a copy of Barry's original birth certificate, that G W remained silent. For if he really cared about The Constitution and America's future, surely he'd have felt duty-bound to call an inquiry, or maybe he felt he couldn't. Yet if I'd been in his shoes I would. On the close of Joseph Farah's ed, "Finally, some insight into Obama's past," he states, "We still don't have his birth certificate .. Selective Service registration .. passport and travel trail .. records from Occidental College .. his Columbia records .. Harvard papers — none, zip, zilch, nada. We don't have any of these things and we are more than six months into his first term. What is this man hiding?"

To this I myself can add, "Why are so many others covering the trail on his behalf?"

I often tell European friends that Barry is in fact not the President of the United States. I'm an unpopular guy because of it, so I must be doing something right. His proposed Health Reform bill is ludicrous in the extreme. The cost is a huge burden on an already overburdened ass, and far from the alms ideals of Elizabethan and Tudor England. Back in those days the most needy were always taken care of, though not through the political motivation behind the welfare state. The rich took care of the desperately poor by way of the church, and the church acted through the precepts of the Bible. Willful loafers were taken care of too, they felt the bite of a cracking whip, then they were put to work.

My old friend Gerald and Margaret his wife were genuinely in need, and unable to take care of themselves properly. Many more are in that position. Politicians are least equipped to serve their needs. The only welfare should be private, and regionally based to directly serve the needs of the people. Surely a more novel approach, and one far less costly, would be to provide the taxpayer with a personal opt out on the percentage politicians filch from them to fritter away under the guise of Foreign Aid, Health and Welfare, and for they themselves to bequeath to an authorized Biblically sound organization, similar to the church parishes of Old England, their tax share for the welfare of the local needy. Firsthand they'd be able to see their donation at work, and their community and State begin to prosper, and happiness to reign.

How much positive change could be had if Barry, The Great Pretender, had placed the 1.4 trillion banker-bound dollars out of their reach, and into the hands of a New World National Parish Council? I reckon that few Americans would object to that move, for no one likes to see good money going after bad, and everyone, deep down, cares strongly for the old and infirm and those genuinely unable to take care of themselves, instead of taking care of the Mugabes of this world, who in their own way set out to "take care of" in the worst way possible, those around them!

© Johnny D. Symon