Whatever happened to the good, old working man?

Well, what indeed?

He got rubbed out of history as being no longer desirable or fashionable to the modern world.

And who rubbed him out?

His supposed best "comrade", the Socialist Left - that's who!

The Left began by extolling the virtues of the ordinary, working man but all the while they were planning his extinction.

And whenever Marxists took control of the government they literally "rubbed out" millions of ordinary working men and their families by mass slaughter. So much for the great champions of the working class! In reality, Marxism has ever been the darling of the lazy, stupid, prostituted, ne'er-do-well or egoistic members of the middle and upper classes who wanted to pose as salon revolutionaries and champagne Bolsheviks for their chic, rich friends and to climb up the greasy pole by the cheat's quick route rather than by hard work.

But it has ever been the ordinary working man who has had to pay for these revolutionary poseurs and hypocrites - often with his very life.

Now that Marxism and its base and murderous materialism is discredited (despite decades of utter adulation and base grovelling from the media and academics of the free world!) has the working man been restored to his rightful place?

Nope.

Seedy, hedonistic, self-worshipping, atheistic, anti-life Capitalism has swept in to replace the gross materialism of atheistic Marxism with another equally gross materialism. In each case their only god is self and material goods. In each of these loathsome creeds, one's neighbour is merely there to be exploited, used, cheated, defrauded or, if he gets in the way, terminated.

Each creed has one other thing in common. They have successfully abolished the good, old working man and replaced him with something entirely modern, entirely ugly and often grotesque and degraded.

Phoney, modern "working class" frauds include screaming, rock-ape billionaires like Bruce Springsteen. Working class? Who's he kidding!

The working man has often either been transmogrified into a caricature of himself, "sexed up" to look like some fatuous "pop" star, or forced into a job far more tedious, dreary and soul-destroying than any factory, coal-mine or ship-yard ever was. If that fails, he ends up in the Young Offenders' Institute or prison.

This is apparently called "progressive".

And, of course, if he is white, male and European, he is positively despised by the institutions of modern society whose political correctness has become a new form of neo-Fascism.

But when a war comes and the government needs someone to fight it, to whom do they go? Yep, the ordinary, working man, again. Old Tommy gets pushed to centre stage again. And when the war's over, he's forgotten again.

Or, if the government is New Labour, he doesn't even get remembered while he is actually fighting the war! Instead, he is forced to make do with out of date equipment, poor conditions and weapons and a black bag and a few quid for his wife and family back home, if he is killed!

Note well, ladies and gentlemen! Note well. This is a supposedly "Labour" government that is doing this to our boys at the front. "Labour"? Who are they kidding? They would not know a labouring man if he rose up before their very eyes and punched them on the nose!

Kipling, as ever, understood it well:

Tommy

By Rudyard Kipling, 1892

I went into a public- 'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls behind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play-
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you Mr Atkins," when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fighting', Lord! They'll shove me in the stalls!

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins," when the trooper's on the tide-
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins," when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll-
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes," when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind-
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck 'im out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

It was the Duke of Wellington who coined the popular nickname Thomas (or Tommy) Atkins, for the ordinary soldier. In the early 19th century, whilst Commander-in-Chief, he was asked to come up with a 'typical' soldier's name. Thinking back to his first campaign in the Low Countries in the 1790s he remembered a badly wounded, but stoical, soldier he had encountered - Sergeant Thomas Atkins - who had said in answer to an enquiry about his condition "All in a day's work, sir". So the name stuck as the sobriquet of the best sort of ordinary British soldier or "Tom".

Still, not all is black. There seems to be something of an interest abroad in restoring the old idea of training for a trade, instead of pretending that all young men and women must become University students. There is talk of widening the scope of opportunity for what used to be called apprenticeships to a trade.

A tradesmen these days can earn good money and can go into business on his own account. The self-employed tradesman is (or ought to be) the backbone of society and certainly was so during the Christian era in western society. He is the foundation of what Edmund Burke called his "little platoons" so essential for any successful and healthy society.

Indeed, in the Middle Ages a very well organised and structured system of Trade Guilds and Livery Companies existed which fulfilled a whole range of functions including:

• Training apprentices and journeymen (from the French journee i.e. a day worker) for each trade
• Regulating the standards of the trade to ensure that cheats, swindlers, crooks and thieves were weeded out and bad practices were not allowed
  
• Determining the standards and criteria for the awarding of the rank of Master or Master Craftsman
• Maintaining a provident fund for sick and disabled tradesmen of the Guild and their families
  
• Maintaining a Guild chapel or church and chaplains to provide for the spiritual needs of members and their families and to pray for their dead
• Maintaining funds for poor scholars and gifted sons of the poor to be trained for the sacred ministry
• Maintaining a general fund for the poor and indigent and their families
  
• Maintaining and regulating the government, customs, rules and traditions of the Guild
• Electing senior members of the Guild to the municipal government of the City or Town

This system was attacked and undermined by the rapacious "new men" of the Reformation who, already rich, wished to become richer and so invented the beginnings of modern Capitalism that went on to deprive the working man of his rightful and Christian heritage.

Now, once again, Tommy Atkins is derided and abused by those who think they don't need him any more.

Come back, Tommy, your country needs you now more than ever.

"When the guns begin to shoot"
The supposedly bigoted, ignorant and racist "Tommy" rescues his Indian cavalry comrade whilst being shot at by rebel Egyptians during the Battle of Tel El-Kebir in 1882. Worthless Feminists and Socialist trendies now call our Tommy a DWEM - "dead white European male" and dismiss him out of hand. They would have no freedom to do so were it not for the very Tommy Atkins whom they so shamefully deride.

...

King George III, Thomas Jefferson, Capitalism and kings

I am asked some interesting questions by a reader and will answer, with the indulgence of my other readers.

What is my assessment of King George III or his successors prior to Elizabeth II?

In simple terms, I think the monarchy began to improve under King George III and the recognition of his position by both the Pope and the Cardinal Duke of York (the true King of England) enhanced his legitimacy.

Thereafter, I think, we may safely assume that the Hanoverian dynasty gains sufficient legitimacy by the simple fact of its secure establishment and longevity, together with recognition in international law and by the Pope and the real claimant, and an attempt at restoration of the Stuarts, especially as they no longer made a claim, would have been morally doubtful.

George IV was fat and idle and abandoned his real – and Catholic – wife and William IV was a debauchee, having 10 children by Mrs Jordan, his mistress, giving rise to many Fitzwilliams and Fitzclarences (he had been Duke of Clarence before he was King).

Nevertheless, I think the time had probably passed to contemplate overthrowing them in favour of the Stuarts.

However, the American, and particularly the French, Revolution had opened up a whole new – and terrifyingly immoral – concept of rebellion and revolution and many now sought to overthrow the Hanoverian monarchy for entirely immoral, spurious and wholly anti-Christian reasons.

Thomas Jefferson was one such spurious and hypocritical revolutionary.

Thomas Jefferson

I do not admire revolutionaries and Jefferson is no exception. Indeed, he is exceptionally unattractive since he kept slaves, had a child by a slave whom he further kept as a slave, and yet bleated loudly about “freedom” and “liberty”.

It was of him that Dr Johnson said “Why is it that the cries for liberty come loudest from the drivers of slaves?”.

Well, indeed!

Jefferson also supported the French Revolution, at least to start with, and even said that “the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants” meaning King Louis XVI who was, by no stretch of the imagination, a tyrant. Indeed, Jefferson was more of a tyrant than Louis XVI.

It is true that Jefferson would almost certainly have supported the South in the War between the States but that is not enough to exonerate him.

Jefferson had, however, some good ideas about States’ Rights and was generally a decentralist which is good and reflects the Catholic concept of subsidiarity. But he was otherwise deeply anti-Catholic and hostile to the Catholic Church.

Robert E. Lee was, as I have said, a Christian gentleman – not perfect, of course, since he was not yet a Catholic. He supported the Constitution, even though it had been forged by revolutionaries, because, by his time, the idea of restoring the British monarchy to America was impossible and so he had a moral obligation to be loyal to the Constitution as it then was – which he did and which is why he fought for that Constitution and, in particular, the States’ Rights guaranteed by it.

I am asked what I think of Alexander Hamilton but I think it unwise to say as I do not know enough about him.

I am also asked what I think of the growth of capitalism and whether I am against it, as I appear to be, and if I am against it then wouldn’t I be deprived of the Internet without it.

Well, it depends what one means by capitalism. If one means “free enterprise” and “industry” then who can be against those except some crazy Communist or mad Marxist? And manifestly industry gave us the Internet.

But if one means Capitalism, with a big “C”, and/or a system of unrestricted capital accumulation by a few, or by anyone who can so accumulate, without regard to the moral laws that must bind the community of men, then, yes, I am against it.

In particular, I am against the sin of usury, condemned by the Catholic Church, solemnly and repeatedly, at more than one General Council, this being re-affirmed, but with appropriate distinctions, by Pope Benedict XIV in his Encyclical letter, Vix Pervenit, of 1745.

Usury is a form of theft because it consists in selling both money AND the use of money, as well as selling time (i.e. time to pay back the loan). This is to sell something which does not exist or is not one's own to sell, which is theft.

Pope Benedict XIV in 1745 hands down Vix Pervenit a decree which continued the ban on usury but with further explanations and appropriate distinctions for more modern times

In modern conditions, the meaning of the usury ban is unchanged but its application is much more complex.

I might do a post on this one day.

Suffice to say, the goods of the earth are not meant for just a few men but for all - but not in equal proportions.

Equally, this does not mean that the wheelers and dealers – still less the crooks and swindlers – should be given the lion’s share and ordinary families only a small share.

In a properly run society more regard is given to hierarchy and to recognising that those who rule and take responsibility deserve to be rewarded for having greater responsibility.

This was the original rationale for a ruling class, based upon family, with the Royal family at the apex of the hierarchy but with each class and stratum of society having rights and obligations to each other, guided by justice and moved by charity to serve each other, each in their own class and manner.

Every man is, and must be, in a Christian society, a servant to others, be he never so high. Hence the Pope is called servus servorum Dei - servant of the servants of God. So, too, was the Emperor.

The higher up the social class scale one is, the greater the obligation to society as a whole.

Thus the nobility had a special vocation to rule, to risk their lives in war, to adminster justice, to adminster the public patrimony and to care for and provide for their people as if they were an extended part of their own family.

This was the ideal but not always attained, of course.

The Capitalist ethos does not see the rich having any such intimate responsibility for the poor, the marginalised, the dispossessed and the weak.

Capitalism, of the unrestricted, self-interested kind, is essentially unchivalrous and is selfish and rapacious and enriches a man by unfairly exploiting others. This sort of Capitalism is not desirable.

Responsible free enterprise (by which I do NOT mean Socialism) enriches individuals and society. The wide distribution of capital is particularly to be encouraged but by incentive not by Socialist prescription.

Private social welfare is also preferable to state provision but almost impossible without a large network of the sort that existed in the Middle Ages through the Church and the monasteries.

Let us not forget that was an entirely PRIVATE system of social welfare and was most emphatically NOT state Socialism or anything like it, as some Leftists like to pretend.

On the hand, the Adam Smith school of thinking which claims that there is an automatic “hidden hand” which automatically and inevitably helps society by individual men seeking to enrich themselves by capitalist accumulation, is also not right, in my view.

Yes, it is good for men to work, invent, devise and plan to enrich themselves and others but it does not follow that ALL such self-enrichment is necessarily good.

My preference is for the system approved by St Thomas: the balanced constitution consisting of monarchy, nobility and democracy.

That, indeed, was the model of the old world and especially the Holy Roman Empire which was the prime model for Christendom of old.

This model is equally adaptable to the modern age. Indeed, there is no reason why a modern republic could not be modelled on similar lines. The United States, if it were Catholic, might readily become such a model and, indeed, it seems to be moving more in that direction than modern Europe which is rapidly abandoning all of its glorious Catholic past.

But that’s probably enough from me for one day!

...