Thursday, 15 April 2010

Projected History - But With Present-Day Similarities

Burning Our Money has an intriguing post, the beginning of which I reproduce:

"And one of the most intriguing is what if Britain had made peace with Hitler in the summer of 1940? It's generally reckoned that once France had fallen, large swathes of our ruling establishment were in favour of a deal, and Hitler seemed to be offering one.

But let's change the question slightly. What if there'd been an election after the fall of France? What if the choice had been between a war party under Churchill and a peace party under AN Other? How would we have voted?

Of course, with the benefit of hindsight and safe in the knowledge of our final victory, we'd have voted overwhelmingly for Churchill. But at the time, with most of Europe already crushed, the panzers massing outside Calais, and the mighty Luftwaffe buzzing the Channel, some belligerent old toff promising to have us fight on alone, street by street through our towns and cities, would likely have lacked mass appeal.

Indeed the whole campaign would soon have switched focus. Instead of blood, sweat and tears, we'd have had a debate about negotiating the best possible terms for British entry into the European Co-Prosperity Community. About how by being members we could secure a seat at the top table, and could influence policy making more in the direction of free markets and stuff. And how we would insist the Community made special arrangements to preserve the British Empire and our historic links with kith and kin across world. And most of all, how British Reichsmarks would still have the King's head on the back (King Edward's head, that is).

In other words we'd have slipped straight out of the phoney war into a phoney election. An election in which the really big issue -whether to fight while we still had a chance - would barely have got a look in.

Fast forward to today. Well, the 'panzers' are already here, except they are disguised as the present party leaders, Common Purpose 'placements', Regional & Fake Charity bureaucrats. We are being informed that we still have a place at the 'top table' and that we do 'influence policy making'. Another similarity is that we do now have a phoney election as the 'invasion' is not discussed by the 'panzers' - and when questioned we are told by them it is a 'fait accompli' and the fight is not worth the effort. We do have a 'fighting' party, headed by Lord Pearson and we do have a 'peace' party, headed by Cameron, Brown and Clegg.

As with all tyrannies, there is only one party for whom we can cast a vote, or so we are led to believe by the MSM. But wait, I hear you say, we have three parties contesting this election. Well yes, that is true - but remember it is just one and the same party spreading their bets so to speak, thus making the electorate believe they do have a choice.

However, for the good of the country there exists what, for the moment, appear to be a small minority comprising those who believe that the fight is not lost; don't give a damn whether a chance of success exists or not and, as a result, will never 'give-in'. That 'minority' - the 'fighting' party and others of similar beliefs - are those on whom Britain's future as an independent, self-governing nation now rests.

1 comment:

eddyh said...

It is difficult to know whethe a committed antiEU such as myself should bother to vote for UKIP. The constituency I live in would elect a chimpanzee if it was wearing a blue rozette. What we need is an electoral system which gets rid of the vast proportion of safe seats.