Disunited Kingdom

Britain is presently under the rule of a radical government. Under this government, the British royal family’s influence on society has been greatly reduced, the queen’s military forces decimated. Parliament has seen the diminution of the influence of the House of Lords; Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have virtually been given separate parliaments; and a whole swath of foreign laws, rules and regulations have been thrust onto the unwitting British public by a seemingly all-imposing European Union. The result is a deeply divided population.

Britain’s prime minister, Tony Blair, modeled his campaign for victory over the conservative government in 1997 on that of President Clinton when he won power from the Republicans in 1992. Both leaders simply sacrificed principle for power. Departing from the traditional ideological perspective of their respective political parties, they stole many of the policies from their conservative, or “right wing,” opponents and billed them as their own. This tactic meant that disaffected voters who traditionally voted conservative, or Republican, yet who were disenchanted with the party leadership of the right, shifted their vote to the opposition camp.

The hybrid mix of policies and procedures which have resulted from this crossing of political boundaries more recently has been lumped together under the term “Third Way.” This Third Way is deeply fracturing British society at the family level, the institutional level and the national level.

Similarities

Winston Churchill in his typical wit described England and America as “two nations separated by a common language.” It is uncanny how each of these Anglo-Saxon nation’s style of government, at any point in time, often seems to reflect that of the other. This has certainly been the case over the past few years.

There is, in fact, a great deal of similarity between the level of division within American society, reflected in the results of the recent presidential election, and the division which is steadily fracturing British society.

Just as rural England continues to generally portray a picture of basic decency—of common sense, a down-to-earth grasp on just what it is that makes things tick, a lingering sense of general courtesy and basic manners—so these traditional values are often found in the rural countryside and towns of the heartland of America, that part of the U.S. commonly referred to as the “Bible belt.”

Yet it is also in the cities of these two nations that comparisons between Britain and America meet, and both nations divide within themselves. For it is in the cities that the porn merchants and drug pushers thrive. Here are based the merchants of flesh and fleshly lust. This is where bodies are peddled for gain, rackets run which reach at times deep into the nation’s banking, brokerage and business sectors, and the homeless street people, many of them minors, abound. It is in this climate that a “new” form of governance termed the Third Way has thrived of recent years.

This Third Way, which is deepening these divides between the traditional liberalism centered in the cities and conservatism which has its roots in primarily the rural areas of “landed gentry,” is not a new concept. It raised its head throughout the last century with drastic results, in Europe in particular. Fundamental to its ideology is a complete overturn of moral values. At its heart it is centered on the crazed thinking of that revolutionary philosopher turned psychotic, Fredrich Nietzsche.

“His ‘transvaluation of values’ was to be the final, ultimate revolution, a revolution against both the classical virtues and the Judaic-Christian ones. The ‘death of God’ would mean the death of morality and the death of truth—above all, the truth of any morality. There would be no good or evil, no virtue or vice. There would be only ‘values’” (Gertrude Himmelfarb, The De-moralization of Society).

Professor Himmelfarb, historian at City University, New York, praises the behavior, manners and morals of the Victorian age—contrary to present “politically correct” trends: “Even the ‘gentlemanly’ virtues of honesty, integrity, courage and politeness were not above the capacity of the ordinary person. Still less were the ‘respectable’ virtues: hard work, sobriety, frugality, prudence…. They were, so to speak, democratic virtues…. All individuals were assumed to be free moral agents [not just a ‘human resource’ to be exploited by the state]” (ibid.).

Professor Himmelfarb then goes on to highlight the illogical thinking of the unprincipled Third Way mindset which casts principled morality aside, labeling it as oppressive: “Today, among the disciples of Nietzsche or Foucault, it is precisely this self-induced morality, this internalized conscience, that is regarded as most coercive and tyrannical! This point of view would have been incomprehensible to virtually all Victorians” (ibid.).

Historically, British political parties have fought their campaigns based on matters of a purely political nature. Yet the current discourse between Britain’s two leading political parties goes to the very heart and core of British identity and morality!

On the one hand, the leader of the incumbent liberal-socialist left, Tony Blair, decries all that is historically British as that which holds Great Britain, the world’s fourth-largest economy, back from further growth and development which his government promises via deeper entrenchment in the European Union.

On the other hand, conservative leader William Hague seeks to limit the impact of negative forces on British identity and British heritage by promoting the old moral values. He holds up the nature of “Britishness” as something which, at heart, is most separate from the very nature of that which drives the European Union.

Yet the undercurrent which flows beneath and which deeply influences such divisions as these is moral and spiritual both at its source and in its effect. Perhaps this is best illustrated by comparing extracts from keynote speeches delivered by each of these British political leaders within the last two years.

Moral and Spiritual Divide

At a speech to a gathering of the Labor Party faithful in Brighton, England, on September 28, 1999, Mr. Blair gave his mandate for “new Britain”: “Today at the frontier of the new millennium I set out for you how, as a nation, we renew British strength and confidence for the 21st century…. A new Britain where the extraordinary talent of the British people is liberated from the forces of conservatism that so long have held them back…. Now the new progressive force in British politics…can modernize the nation, sweep away those forces of conservatism” (emphasis mine throughout).

But the prime minister then went on to declare, “Look at Britain. Great strengths. Great history” (ibid.).

One can hardly look at Britain and consider its great strengths and great history without realizing there was something inherently different in the foundation upon which that greatness was founded from the Third Way proposed by Mr. Blair (see “Where is the Third Way Taking Us?”, Trumpet, Aug. 2000).

The prime minister, expressing his party’s view of their mission to Britain, preached, “Ours is a moral cause, best expressed through how we see our families and our children…. If we are in politics for one thing—it is to make sure that all children are given the best chance in life.”

Best chance? What do the liberal-socialists of Britain mean by this? Moral cause? How has that moral cause been enacted by this sitting government in Britain since its leader made that statement? What is the fruit of this British government’s moral crusade, ostensibly offering the best chance to British families and British children for their future? Read the headline!

“Gay Age of Consent Dropped to 16 After Two-Year Battle” (London Telegraph, Dec. 1, 2000).

And what is the result of this new “moral cause”? Read the next day’s headline: “Make Age of Consent Lower, Urges Tatchell” (Telegraph, Dec. 2, 2000).

“No sooner was the age of homosexual consent legally lowered to 16 than campaigners were yesterday demanding it be reduced further. Peter Tatchell, of the pressure group OutRage, called for the age of consent to be 14 for heterosexuals and homosexuals” (ibid.).

The lowering of the age of consent for homosexual acts in Britain was a specific promise made by Prime Minister Blair as part of his party platform for election in 1997.

And what will be the bitter fruit of this rank perversion, should it be allowed to persist? The following extract from the same British newspaper gives some indication: “A 40 percent rise in people with aids in England and Wales in the next three years was predicted by government figures released yesterday to coincide with World aids Day…. With an aids pandemic of biblical proportions sweeping across Africa, do the statistics tell us that Britain is about to endure the same horrors?” (ibid.).

What, then, is the present British government’s true attitude to that basic building block of society, the family? “The government should not promote marriage as the ideal context for bringing up children, Tessa Jowell, the minister for employment and women, says today…. Miss Jowell says she does not think that marriage is necessarily the best model…. The Tories said Miss Jowell’s remarks showed that the government no longer supported traditional family values. Ann Widdecombe, the shadow home secretary, said last night: ‘If this is what a government minister is saying, it gives the lie to Tony Blair’s claims to be the party of the family’” (ibid.).

Not only does the present British government reject, even lampoon, the basic moral and ethical principles upon which Great Britain was founded and developed as a nation, it seeks to promote a radical change in the basic institutions of marriage and family within this hybrid mix of liberal ideas called the Third Way. The confusion that results, going to the very heart and core of the nation—its families—is not surprising, nor is the British prime minister’s rhetoric on the family and morals really surprising, when its source is revealed.

Hope of Salvation?

Anthony Giddens is the director of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Mr. Giddens has done much to promote this ubiquitous Third Way, embraced by Prime Minister Blair and President Clinton, and with which Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has even flirted. Tony Giddens is said to be Prime Minister Blair’s favorite intellectual.

Here is what Mr. Giddens has to say about the traditional family unit: “How might the new politics approach the question of family? We should be clear first of all how implausible the idea of returning to the traditional family is. It is worth listing the reasons: …Nostalgia for the traditional family idealizes the past…. Traditional marriage was based upon the inequality of the sexes…. Children are no longer an economic benefit but instead a major economic cost. The nature of childhood and child rearing has changed profoundly. Recapturing the traditional family is a non-starter” (Anthony Giddens, The Third Way, pp. 91-92).

This is the spin behind the words of Mr. Blair’s Brighton speech. This British government’s Third Way of governance is built upon a foundation of sand in that it undermines the very core building block of the nation’s structure: God-given families. It can therefore have but one result: “And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it” (Matt. 7:26-27).

Amazingly, unbelievably, the prime minister presented this “new moral purpose,” this vision for his scenario of sodomy, in theological language!

In that 1999 Brighton speech, Mr. Blair said this: “The cause we have fought for, these 100 years…is the nation’s only hope of salvation.”

Salvation? The British Oxford Dictionary defines salvation as “deliverance from sin.” The Bible, the word of God which defines God’s plan of salvation, condemns homosexual acts as sin. What is this salvation that Mr. Blair and his party promotes? It certainly does not come out of the book which defines the fruit of his “new moral purpose” as sin! That’s the book that the English-speaking peoples have done more to print, publish and distribute than any other book in history—your Holy Bible!

The prime minister declared that he and his fellow “new radicals” were intent on undertaking “this historic mission to liberate Britain from the…old structures…old ways of working and doing things”! (ibid.).

Most of the British peoples may not have come to understand their incredible God-given human potential throughout the history of the British Empire, but they did largely accept the old biblically based moral principles which were taught to the empire’s children and its children’s children. Once they were enshrined in British law! The Bible enjoins us to hold on to those ways, but it prophesies a refusal by many to do so in these end times: “Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein” (Jer. 6:16).

Identity Crisis

This liberal-socialist radicalism is wreaking havoc with the British public as the British media march largely to the beat of this immoral Third Way drum. It has exacerbated Britain’s post-empire identity crisis and sapped this nation of its confidence, creating uncertainty about a future attached to a developing European superstate on a continent whose multi-faceted peoples have never fully understood the British and their heritage.

British parliamentary opposition leader William Hague put it this way in a speech to the Center for Policy Studies on January 24, 1999: “The British people…according to current wisdom, are unsure of our own identity and uncertain of our future…. [Once] we were the people who could never be conquered, whose freedoms were God-given, whose industry was the workshop of the world, whose empire had brought civilization to far-off lands, whose navy kept the sea-lanes open, and whose Parliament was the mother of all parliaments.”

Mr. Hague specified that Britain’s current crisis was a crisis of identity! He stated that his first purpose in this speech was “to show that we cannot allow British identity to be treated like some passing fad that can be repackaged, rebranded or simply consigned to the dustbin. The idea of what it means to be British has existed for hundreds of years and has sunk deep roots into our consciousness. It represents something much bigger than being English or Scottish or Welsh, and something much stronger than being European. Our British identity is not only relevant to today, it also holds the key to a successful future” (ibid.).

Recalling how Winston Churchill, in his famous wartime speeches, pointed to Britishness, the British history and heritage of renown, Mr. Hague warned against the prospect of Britain, being subsumed into the European Union and losing its sovereignty and distinct nationality: “Churchill’s great speeches roused the British people by celebrating the nation state…. That struck me forcibly when a senior German politician told me…the only path for his country was greater European political union” (ibid.).

Mr. Hague continued to strengthen his point that Britain, by absorption into a European superstate, risked total loss of its identity.

“Another threat to the defining features of Britain’s identity, and our future success, comes from the drive to create a single European state…. Transferring power from Westminster to Brussels strikes at the core of our national identity” (ibid.).

In an emotional appeal to his audience, Mr. Hague honed in on the dangers of the much-touted Third Way of the centrist movements, embraced by Britain’s present government: “All these policies share one common feature. They run counter to the essential character of the British people. They are the Third Way and not the British way” (ibid.).

God and My Right

Today’s Britain is a poor witness to its glorious past. Gone, long gone, is the empire. The glory reflected in its key naval, sea and air battles is fast disappearing as regimental museums are decimated at the present government’s behest. The new generation of immigrants who have no intention of adapting to British ways—who are taught to feel alienated and discriminated against, and that the British owe them a living—is drastically breaking down that very way of life which held out some hope in times past to the disenfranchised landing on Britain’s shores.

Over the past 30 years, British history has been progressively revised to write out the achievements of its heroes and heroines, great orators, authors, geographers, explorers and scientists—in an effort to largely appease this multicultural minority within its midst and bow to those who would seek to Europeanize Britain’s culture.

Forty-five years ago, sociologists Edward Shils and Michael Young were able to state legitimately, “Over the past century, British society, despite distinctions of nationality and social status, has achieved a degree of moral unity equaled by no other large national state…. Constitutional monarchy and political democracy have played a part in the creation and maintenance of this moral consensus” (Prospect, Dec. 2000).

But as Alan Wolfe and Jytte Klausen comment, “Since that was written, the monarchy has become tarnished as a symbol of moral unity—its place, arguably, taken by the nhs [National Health Service]—and Britain has become far more diverse in values, lifestyle and ethnicity” (ibid.).

This has led to a situation in Britain where, as the scripture prophesied of Israel, if they would dare forget their identity and their God, “The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low” (Deut. 28:43).

Bhikhu Parek, author of the recent report “The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain,” sponsored by the Runnymeade Trust, goes so far as to state that Great Britain ought to abandon the idea of “Britishness” altogether in favor of a “community of communities.” Such statements are right up Romano Prodi’s alley. This president of the administrative body of the European Union has taken the title “President of the Commission of European Communities.”

Do we get the point? National identity, national sovereignty, is obliterated as the member nations of the EU are reduced to being mere subservient communities within a federal superstate.

Today’s Britain is a nation divided. Mr. Blair would seek to join the European Monetary Union; 78 percent of Britons say no! Mr. Blair backs a European army; the British reaction is an overwhelming no! Mr. Blair may wish to yield to Romano Prodi and his ilk when he cries, “Give up your power of veto”—the only leverage which Britain has left in negotiating with the EU; the British public say no!

On the other hand, Mr. Hague sees that Britain faces the greatest of risks if it loses its national identity. He perceives that a moral and political dagger is being shoved through the heart of Britain. That dagger has already cut deeply into the British nation and reaches now toward its very vitals.

In his masterful exposé of America risking a similar crisis, Cultural Amnesia, author Stephen Bertman declares that in this crazy, high-tech world, “Our salvation belongs to a dimension no wires can ever reach” (p. 89). That’s right. Mr. Bertman speaks of a higher power than man. A power that defines evil and good. Mr. Blair preaches a political and moral theology where good becomes evil and evil good (Isa. 5:20). Mr. Hague is concerned about Britain’s political bedrock being destroyed.

The nation sits dazed and divided as to its future. How did Britain get into this dilemma and where does Britain’s future lie? Will it lose itself in a European superstate? Will it leave the EU? Or will it just become one of those second-rate nations trailing in the wake of a two-speed European Union led by the bully Germany?

British politician Alan Clark incisively concluded how Britain has been manipulated into its present crisis of identity and moral purpose: “So the technique for their subjection has to be gradual: to first isolate and then erode those various indicators of British national identity and self-confidence” (Adrian Hilton, The Principality and Power of Europe, p. 169). There are forces at work seeking to destroy the British heritage.

“Dieu et mon droit”—God and my right. These are the simple words on the British royal arms that describe in one phrase the heritage of Britain. This ancient nation’s identity is irrevocably tied to its God and its birthright.

Britain faces its greatest crisis ever! This divided nation needs to heed the call of one of its brightest analysts, the best-selling author Adrian Hilton: “Just as Churchill called the nation to prayer on the eve of the Battle of Britain, the current threat from the Continent is no less worthy of constant prayer, and the call is just as urgent. It is a righteous government which will restore British sovereignty, pursue righteous laws” (ibid., p. 181).

The burning question is, where is that government? How will it come to power to unite this ancient house divided? Write for your free copy of The U.S. and Britain in Prophecy for the most amazing, and provable, answer to this urgent question.