Are such things done on Albion's shore? by Phillip Pullman

Originally published in The Times, but then removed.

Republished without permission.

The image of this nation that haunts me most powerfully is that of the sleeping giant Albion in William Blake’s prophetic books. Sleep, profound and inveterate slumber: that is the condition of Britain today.

We do not know what is happening to us. In the world outside, great events take place, great figures move and act, great matters unfold, and this nation of Albion murmurs and stirs while malevolent voices whisper in the darkness - the voices of the new laws that are silently strangling the old freedoms the nation still dreams it enjoys.

We are so fast asleep that we don’t know who we are any more. Are we English? Scottish? Welsh? British? More than one of them? One but not another? Are we a Christian nation - after all we have an Established Church - or are we something post-Christian? Are we a secular state? Are we a multifaith state? Are we anything we can all agree on and feel proud of?

The new laws whisper:

You don’t know who you are

You’re mistaken about yourself

We know better than you do what you consist of, what labels apply to you, which facts about you are important and which are worthless

We do not believe you can be trusted to know these things, so we shall know them for you

And if we take against you, we shall remove from your possession the only proof we shall allow to be recognised

The sleeping nation dreams it has the freedom to speak its mind. It fantasises about making tyrants cringe with the bluff bold vigour of its ancient right to express its opinions in the street. This is what the new laws say about that:

Expressing an opinion is a dangerous activity

Whatever your opinions are, we don’t want to hear them

So if you threaten us or our friends with your opinions we shall treat you like the rabble you are

And we do not want to hear you arguing about it

So hold your tongue and forget about protesting

What we want from you is acquiescence

The nation dreams it is a democratic state where the laws were made by freely elected representatives who were answerable to the people. It used to be such a nation once, it dreams, so it must be that nation still. It is a sweet dream.

You are not to be trusted with laws

So we shall put ourselves out of your reach

We shall put ourselves beyond your amendment or abolition

You do not need to argue about any changes we make, or to debate them, or to send your representatives to vote against them

You do not need to hold us to account

You think you will get what you want from an inquiry?

Who do you think you are?

What sort of fools do you think we are?

The nation’s dreams are troubled, sometimes; dim rumours reach our sleeping ears, rumours that all is not well in the administration of justice; but an ancient spell murmurs through our somnolence, and we remember that the courts are bound to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and we turn over and sleep soundly again.

And the new laws whisper:

We do not want to hear you talking about truth

Truth is a friend of yours, not a friend of ours

We have a better friend called hearsay, who is a witness we can always rely on

We do not want to hear you talking about innocence

Innocent means guilty of things not yet done

We do not want to hear you talking about the right to silence

You need to be told what silence means: it means guilt

We do not want to hear you talking about justice

Justice is whatever we want to do to you

And nothing else

Are we conscious of being watched, as we sleep? Are we aware of an ever-open eye at the corner of every street, of a watching presence in the very keyboards we type our messages on? The new laws don’t mind if we are. They don’t think we care about it.

We want to watch you day and night

We think you are abject enough to feel safe when we watch you

We can see you have lost all sense of what is proper to a free people

We can see you have abandoned modesty

Some of our friends have seen to that

They have arranged for you to find modesty contemptible

In a thousand ways they have led you to think that whoever does not want to be watched must have something shameful to hide

We want you to feel that solitude is frightening and unnatural

We want you to feel that being watched is the natural state of things

One of the pleasant fantasies that consoles us in our sleep is that we are a sovereign nation, and safe within our borders. This is what the new laws say about that:

We know who our friends are

And when our friends want to have words with one of you

We shall make it easy for them to take you away to a country where you will learn that you have more fingernails than you need

It will be no use bleating that you know of no offence you have committed under British law

It is for us to know what your offence is

Angering our friends is an offence

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Inconceivable.

And those laws say:

Sleep, you stinking cowards

Sweating as you dream of rights and freedoms

Freedom is too hard for you

We shall decide what freedom is

Sleep, you vermin

Sleep, you scum.

College

Hey,

Now that I'm back at college (I've been back for a while now, as you can probably tell) updates will be less frequent than they were over winter break. I apologize, but I'll do my best to have the posts I do make be more relevant and interesting than they would be otherwise.

-Matt

In Addendum

In Addendum to an earlier post talking about how history will remember President Bush:

The rise of terrorism might just be the big historical theme of the next quarter century. Maybe more. If that is the case, he will simply be remembered as the first president who had to deal with direct threats from terrorists, with little idea on how to do so.

It's no secret that warfare is changing. Thanks to globalization, war between countries is more and more unlikely and if it even happens is more likely to resemble the Falkland Islands War (oh, now the mighty British Empire has fallen). When you depend on a country for a certain good it becomes increasingly unlikely that you will bomb them. At this point radicalism is more likely to pose a threat than other countries. Warfare between a country and an ideology seems to be more and more the norm.

With no real territory, clear objectives for victory, and organizational structure radicalism becomes hard to fight. Our future leaders will have to figure out a way to combat the new threat. Traditional tactics simply will not work.

...Or at least that is my hypothesis...

Failure By Your Own Standards

Earlier today Barack Obama became the first African-American president of the United States. Historic not only because of the racial aspect, but because he is expected to save the world.

Ok, well not exactly save the world but he is expected to deliver...everything. Gas money. Health and wellness. Mortgage payments.

The idea that Obama is going to be a mixture of JFK, Abraham Lincolin, FDR, and, depending on who you talk to, Jesus just means that he is going to fail by those standards. He can't do that. No one can.

Unfortunetly, even if he fails to deliver on any of his campaign promises, is unable to do anything that the American people think he's going to do, the economy gets worse, and he fails to change anything he is still going to be lauded. It seems the simple fact that he is in office seems to be enough. It isn't.

If he doesn't make good on any of his campaign promises (with a Democratic Congress) excuses will be made for him. Same if the programs the American people think he will enact falls through. If the economy gets worse the excuse will be that if we didn't have him in office, it would only get worse.

Now that he's in office, we need results. And they need to be demanded.

Reexamination Needed

Thanks to EconLog for this post discussing how D.C.-area suburbs have grown in wealth from 2000-2007. Still think all that new government spending is going where it's intended? Yeah, right.

The government takes your money in the form of taxes, spends it, and then can't even account for the expenditures of your money. In the private sector, that's called theft.

Even with the change coming on Tuesday, this is unlikely to fall under the net Obama intends on casting. More government money is going to be spent and accounting for that money is going to be tough. Furthermore, no amount of policing can change the misuse of government funding.

Stop and Look

I've recently come across the Stop and Look series of videos and there's nothing more I can say besides that these are some of the most important videos on YouTube.

Granted they are awkward at times (explaining where liberty comes from comes to mind, the sports analogy for laws forcing "equality" is another) but they explain why those who fight against big government do so so adamantly and why that fight is so important. Unfortunetly the Freedom Force International group that seems to sponsor these videos seems very conspiracy whackjob-ish, but I can overlook that as these videos, as crudely animated they are, impart extremely important and relevant knowledge.

No Female Presidents

Despite how quickly Mr. Obama is to divulge the fact that the missus wears the pants in their relationship, she is still more likely to appear on the cover of Us or Ebony or Radar than she is The Economist.

It's also more likely that people will talk about who designed her dress rather than what she thinks on health care reform.

Fair enough, she is the first lady, but this conundrum illustrates the fundamental problem that women have - and will continue to have - when running for office: Become masculine a la Hilary Clinton or be feminine and have porn made in your honor.

I'd hate to see what happens when an intelligent, articulate, attractive woman tries to run for president (think Sarah Palin minus the stupid accent, plus brains).