Hideously amoral Little England has stepped through the looking glass
Britain has stepped through the looking glass into a weird and distorting new world, and one from which I fear she will never step back.
By refusing to punish a foreign dictator for his despicable use of poison gas on unarmed civilians, we have deliberately relinquished our once cherished role as one of the world's foremost moral policemen, and joined the ranks of global spectators, merely tut tutting from the sidelines rather than taking an active part in defending decency.
A huge cultural shift has taken place in our country and historians of the future will focus on Thursday night, in the House of Commons, as the time that the new Britain emerged in all its hideous, amoral selfishness.
The Britain we have lost is the one that took its historic responsibilities as a former Great Power seriously and sought to enforce international agreements, such as those banning the use of chemical weapons.
The Britain we must now look forward to is the one exemplified by Danny Boyle's Olympics opening ceremony, where everything socialistic, feel goody, hipster and 'progressive' was glorified, whereas the things we should really be proud about Britain www pandora charms for such as her place in the front pandora charms website lines of the struggles against Fascism, Communism, Islamofascism and other totalitarian ideologies were entirely ignored.
Where were the references to Winston Churchill, 1940 or the Battle of Britain? They were replaced by children jumping up and down on NHS beds.
I don't recognise this culturally, socially and morally very different country. On Thursday night the majority of our Parliament knew that they had nothing to fear from their constituents if they indulged in a gross display of Little Englandism, in stark contrast to centuries of traditionally supporting the victims of monstrous oppression.
And nothing qualifies as worse oppression than having at least 1,429 innocents slaughtered 400 of those children with a weapon so obscene that the world came together in Geneva in 1925 to outlaw it. The only people to have used this monstrous weapon since then have been Benito Mussolini against the Ethiopians in the 1930s, Adolf Hitler in his war against the Jews in the 1940s, and Saddam Hussein in his massacre of the Kurds in the 1980s. In each case Britain was in the van of nations that led to their downfall. Yet we will now not be with President Assad.
The re emergence of this foul weapon in the Damascus suburb ought to have especially as we prepare to commemorate the centenary of the outbreak of the Great War brought together the House of Commons in solemn support of the Prime Minister's commendable efforts to punish Assad for taking it out of history's Pandora's Box and unleashing it on his own people.
Yet instead Mr Cameron's initiative, which stood foursquare in the historical tradition of previous prime ministers faced with such a crime, was voted down. Have we really been so traumatised by the decision to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003 that we cannot even fire a few missiles at a vicious dictator like Assad? If so, Britain's days as a power that deserves its prominent position in Nato and the United Nations Security Council are going to come to an end. But he has also declared that he will take unilateral action and 'confront the menace' alone.
Of course there are plenty of Britons who would love to see Britain relegated to the sidelines discount charms for pandora bracelets of world history, and simply opt for the quiet life. All too often, we see on Twitter, Facebook, and blogs, a new generation who want Britain to become just another minor power that watches events from the sidelines: another Norway, Japan, Sweden or Ireland. Somewhere that likes to be liked. Lovely countries all, but they do not matter on the world stage like Britain did until Thursday night.
The scourge of moral relativism, the theory that nothing no action, no statement, no work of art is inherently better or worse than any other, has now even infected foreign policy.
The assumption that in the cultural sphere everything must be judged according to its own criteria rather than any outside ones and thus Coldplay are as good as Bach has seeped into our national consciousness and wrecked our notions of good and evil in international affairs.
In any earlier and better age there would be demonstrations outside the Syrian embassy protesting against Assad, instead of protests against the US for attempting to rein him in. For the simple fact is that some nations simply are better than others, and until Thursday night we were one of the better ones. The very act of punishing a state for gross violations of international law and human rights today brings with it such emotional and philosophical concerns for so many Britons that the underlying morality of the action is forgotten, and the nation becomes paralysed when faced with an incontrovertible evil.
What we witnessed on Thursday was nothing less than the most visible manifestation of a malaise that has afflicted this country ever since the end of the First Gulf War: the progressive 'Scandinavianization' of Britain. I seriously doubt whether, if the Argentinians invaded the Falklands tomorrow or Spain invaded Gibraltar, the British people would clamour for the military action needed to liberate either of those places.
The progressive 'Scandinavianization' of Britain has afflicted this country since the end of the First Gulf War
We would 'morally relativise' our way to a position in which we felt guilty at having retained them for pandora charms bridesmaid so long, against the demands of the adjacent powers. Our national will is reflected in the House of Commons, and on Thursday we saw it has now been sapped away to nothing.
The re emergence of poison gas as what now must be seen as a legitimate weapon of war or at least one that Britain will do no more that protest verbally about would have disgusted those Great War veterans whom we lauded during their lifetimes, and whose sacrifices we will be remembering next August. But what does the new post Thursday night Britain care about any of that? The past is the past, according to the new Britain through the looking glass, and no guide to the future.
Similarly, the smashing blow to the Special Relationship seems not to matter to new Britain. The fact that it was dealt to as Left wing and anti war a president as Barack Obama shows just how ambivalent modern Britons feel about the friendship of our best, closest and most powerful ally.
If it had been George W. Bush or Mitt Romney who had been let down so monumentally, one might have assumed it was a personal rejection of them, but because it was Obama who opposed the Iraq War and has promised to scuttle from Afghanistan the only conclusion to be drawn is that the cultural shift of new Britain away from America is so profound it even makes no distinction between hawks and doves, Republicans and Democrats.
Despite Margaret Thatcher's closeness to Ronald Reagan, the Tory Right has always had an anti American aspect to it. Ever since the Suez Crisis of 1956, Tory nationalists have blamed America for the loss of British Great Power status, though not with any particularly good reason historically. All the Americans are trying to do in Syria is hold the world to a minimum standard of human decency, but that truth is anathema to the new Britain, for whom American foreign policy is always in the wrong, and patent traitors such as Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden in the right.
The way that the CIA and NSA organisations with a fine proven track record of foiling lethal post 9/11 plots are routinely demonised is testament to quite how far we have stepped through the looking glass.
The emasculation of British foreign policy after the Iraq War and during the ongoing Afghan War is an extraordinary phenomenon, considering how few Britons gave their lives in those places compared with other wars.
Every death is a terrible tragedy for loved ones and friends, but the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001 and the victory over Saddam Hussein two years later were won at an incredibly low cost in historical terms.
What changed was the culture: the way the wars were presented by the media, the way the reasons for them were sidetracked into endless public inquiries, the way the churches reacted, the obsession with dodgy dossiers, and so on.
The scourge of moral relativism has infected foreign policy
With the appalling precedent set last Thursday that now no British Government will be able to take swift military action ever again without Parliament being allowed a debate it, our very constitution has been altered, and decidedly for the worse.
It was inevitable that at some stage this new Britain would impose its will on foreign policy, as it has on every other aspect of society, culture and politics.
The way the British Empire has been taught for so long as something of which to be ashamed was always one day going to hamper Britain's ability to take the right, moral actions.
One can't have decade after decade of TV and radio shows and movies depicting the Britons who ran the Empire as racist sadists without it seeping into the nation's collective consciousness eventually. This is the case even though historically we know that for the most part our forebears were in fact upstanding, incorruptible, brave and patriotic people who, at enormous personal sacrifice, brought peace and good governance to the largest empire in history.
Prev: charm bracelet pandora price
Next: pandora one australia