For the want of a fast coach, the Kingdom of France was lost. For the want of a Kingdom, the French Revolution succeeded. And so Europe was put on the long and bloody path from guillotine to gulag.
You didn’t really think the French Revolution was a force for good, did you? As if. All the great political woes of the modern era — Communism, Fascism, and its German bier and swastika variant, Nazism — have their tangled, bitter beginnings in the storming of the Bastille. The French Revolution was the taproot of Tyranny in our time. No French Revolution, no Marx, no Hitler. Voila!
The French Revolution began in 1789 as an Enlightenment experiment. In 1793, however, the Jacobins, led by Robespierre, tried to turn France into a Rousseauian theme park — where the people were sans private possessions and sans self-interest, but were suborned to the state (“the general will”) — by destroying the rich. The Jacobins also wanted to export the ‘benedictions’ of Revolution via the barrel of a cannon.
Sound familiar? Yes, it is the same millenarian collectivist philosophy of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden. The accompanying praxis was, and is, murder. Mass murder. As Robespierre so delightfully put it: “We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish with them…Terror is nothing but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue.” Before 1793, Europe was no stranger to violence, but not until the French Revolution was murder used systematically to erase a designated internal enemy from its existence. The Jacobin’s mass firing squads anticipated absolutely the Nazis’ Einsatzgruppen.
The Jacobins desired “Year One,” a cheerless utopia in which individual freedom was rescinded in the name of the commune, and where the people were dosed daily with propaganda to rid them of their vices — such as the desire to own a home of their own (“Property is theft!”), to possess freedom of thought or to enjoy a private life. The Jacobins and their descendant mini-mes, in their thirst and thrust for absolute power, have disavowed all ordinary amusements. Hence the purist, monkish public image cultivated by Robespierre, Hitler, Mao, et al.
It could have been so different. In June 1791 Louis XVI was about to flee Paris in a fast carriage; at the last moment, MarieAntoinette (and her voluminous baggage) insisted on accompanying him, rather than travelling separately. Uxorious to the nth degree, the king agreed. Consequently, they took the big and literal slow coach instead of the speedy light one — and were intercepted by revolutionaries a mere 25 miles from the safety of the Belgian border. The royal couple were then returned to Paris to be shortened by Madame Guillotine.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAs a 20 year old when the speech was made, I was appalled at the response it engendered. I struggled to see anything in the speech which was anything other than a political analysis of the possible outcome of a government policy.
In the eighties, taking an education degree at a time when multiculturalism was being thrust into the curriculum, I was called racist, by a few (fortunately people were not as polarised or as vicious then) for querying the agenda of the group who came into college to lecture us on its implimentation. I wish I had been better informed to marshal the argument of incoming culture v the laws of this country that needed to be discussed, let alone the other issues.
Not that long ago, I watched with interest as articles suggesting the failure of multiculturalism began to appear in a few places. When Enoch Powell was referenced, this time as being prescient, I reread the speech and looked around at what was happening.
Recent events and their treatment by the media are leading us to a situation where the abuse of this country and its inhabitants by a small, vociferous and overindulged section of the minority groups, supported by a large number of ill informed and/or ill intentioned members of the majority group, together with the heads of some institutions and authorities, may well lead to the already violent clashes becoming even worse.
Enoch Powell may be vindicated but I doubt his shade will be taking any pleasure in the fact; he is one politician who truly had the interests of everybody in the country at heart.
I will make three points.
First, I am aware that other professionals are also becoming disincentivised by the increasing impositions of ‘standards’, and ‘procedures’, and the reduction in respect accorded to learning, experience and ethics.
Second, we are cursed with the system known as the NHS, the most important feature of which is that it is the direct responsibility of the government of the day. Add to that the fact that there are many people (opposition and media) who always exploit any incident for their own reasons. A bad incident is used for this, rather than given an appropriate level of attention by disinterested authorities.
Furthermore, politicians cannot stop themselves tinkering with it for one reason or another, and when they do so, they need numbers of civil servants to carry out their plans, and who probably end up sponsoring or defining the ‘guidelines’ etc. with minimal practical knowledge which end up causing the frustration referred to above. .
Third, another feature of the NHS is that it is colossal, ranking alongside the US department of Defense and the PLA. It may adopt ‘corporate identity’ policies, but such a size provides limitless opportunities for creating jobs which seem a good idea at the time, but consume resources, and worse, create yet more red-tape, and distract from effective health care.
Far better to have much smaller units, such as a hospital (and I don’t mean a group of hospitals, necessarily,) within which it becomes much easier to create teams with esprit de corps. It’s also easier to administer and remunerate.
The obvious thing to do would be to look at the rest of the world, and copy what the best of them do. How about the countries to which these doctors are emigrating? They’re not going in order to find a better NHS-type system.
As for money; doctors are amongst the more affluent embers of society, as indeed they should be, which is why I believe lack of satisfaction with the job is the problem.
Socialised medicine is a failed Neo-Marxist ideal. The reason they run to places that use a hybrid system is that they are not wholly beholding to the “Woke” rubbish in the social medicine system.
In the long list of murderers from Marx to Osama Bin Laden one name is missing ” Mao Zedong! Is it intentional or accidental? I suspect the former as intellectuals in the West still don’t know (or care to know) how many Chinese lives Mao destroyed. Pol Pot is in the list. I wonder if he could have killed one million of his countrymen without Mao’s active support.
Fascinating article! But on your point “Europe was no stranger to violence, but not until the French Revolution was murder used systematically to erase a designated internal enemy from its existence.” would you not say that the Catholic / Protestant schism in England and further afield led to precisely such systems, not to mention going back further to the complete eradication of the Cathars in Occidental France?
“It was in the British interest to preserve its naval strength through means ‘not short even of alliance with Japan,’
Indeed, for Powell there was little to choose between the two, and “no reason to believe that the British constitution will be threatened more by the socialist dictatorship than by the democracy of the United States”.
So, he was stark raving mad! Far from being the prophet the author suggests, Powell’s rants sound even more delusional now than when he made them.