"In the absence of Culture, Democracy turns into a representation of collective folly.”

I came across John Stewart Mackenzie, (1860-1935) while helping with the translation into Polish of a book by an English theologian. Mackenzie was a rather old-fashioned philosopher, in that he regarded philosophy as a tool for living well, rather than as a purely academic study.

He wrote, following Voltaire up to the first comma: 

“Tyranny is usually tempered with assassination, and Democracy must be tempered with culture. In the absence of this, it turns into a representation of collective folly.” 

This statement illuminates so much of the present condition of Europe and its collective madness. Without Culture (in the sense used by Matthew Arnold rather than by anthropologists, sociologists, and politicians), and most importantly without religion, men and women are ruled only by their fitful, fleeting appetites.

England has many people to thank for the destruction of culture: Harold Wilson, the wretched Crossland, all those who out of spite or political Luddism wrecked the education system: politicians, clergy, educators, teacher trainers, and teachers, who sold the pass.

In or around 1979, a group of us, after canvassing for the Conservatives in Putney,  stopped for a beer in a local pub garden. There was a barrister among us, who told the following story, which I believe to have been true:

I was talking to my Head of Chambers (at his Inn of Court) the other day, and he pointed out of the window to the quad and said, I've had a quote."

What for?

Seating for up to (I forget the number of) people, a scaffold, and a multiple gallows.

What for?

To hang the last Labour government.

The Q.C. who said this, while obviously a brilliant lawyer, was perhaps, a bit eccentric in his wish for the public execution of those who had destroyed so much of what was good in England. 

Perhaps better hard labour for life.

When I hear the word 'Culture' I cock my Browning.

"When I hear the word 'culture', I reach for my revolver", normally attributed to Goering, first appeared in 1933 in the play "Schlageter" by the nazi playright Hanns Johst (1890-1978), as "When I hear the word 'culture, I cock my Browning", spoken by a 'stormtrooper'.

A plague on both their houses, but I think I know the feeling.

The problem is this weasel word 'culture' which seems to mean what its bien-pensant, would-be anthropogists users want it to mean. Not so.

'Culture', for me at least, means the best that has been written, said, thought , or done. It does not mean religion, customs, sexual practices, clothing, sport, or anything someone fancies doing.

It does not include:

Cutting a goat's throat over a drain. That pertains to religion.
A Corpus Christi procession. That pertains to THE Religion.
Voodoo (see above)
Being anti or pro abortion
A sexual fascination with the lower digestive tract,
Foot-binding,
Football, bull-fighting, cycling naked through London, hair length, etc etc.

I am not a violent man, and I am not possessed of a Browning, but if someone tells me that Mick Jagger, Wiccanism, religious practices, female circumcision, cruelty, and stoning adulterers are cultural phenomena, I shall wish I had a Browning (not Robert) to cock.

And just to remove any misunderstanding, the first bullet is for Goering.

Errrr what do you mean, exactly

First, a little story, a true one.

A few years ago, when I was working for a homelessness charity in London, a young pregnant client asked me to help her get an abortion.

When I told her that, as a Roman Catholic, I could not help with an abortion, but could suggest charities which could help her with preparing for the baby and finding a flat, she complained to the manager, who told me I could not continue to work for the organization, which was multicultural and valued and promoted all cultures. I was not open to the client’s culture.

I asked her if the organization practised religious discrimination, and reminded her that my application for the job had been supported by a reference from an openly Catholic priest.

She asked me if my anti-abortion stance was part of my “culture”. I replied, “No, part of my religion.” She relaxed at this, and said, ”We value and respect all cultures here, including yours.” Smart move.

And so the conversation ended and I kept my job, on the understanding that my religion was just a part of my “culture”, like enjoying poetry, or alcohol, or jazz, or wearing a tie - quite acceptable as a lifestyle choice, as long as it poses no threat to the social cohesion demanded by governments from the disparate people they try to control.

Culture and religion are not the same. For seriously religious people, their coreligionist are their tribe, their nation. Whoever shares my religion, whatever her or his ethnicity, colour, social class, personal hygiene, taste in music, shirts, or food, is someone I can understand: a sister or a brother.

The creation of a cohesive, easily malleable group of people is the aim of governments. To reach this goal, the divisive stony Decalogue of monotheistic religion must give way to the inclusive soggy ukase of the nanny state, which is, when challenged, of adamantine hardness.

Governmental insistence on “diversity” is interesting, because it is self-contradictory. The diversity of a Muslim, or a Catholic does not accept the diversity of someone who practises homosexual sex. The diversity of a practicing homosexual does not accept the diversity of a someone who states that such acts are against the natural law. Clearly diversity must pertain only to the cultural, not ethical, because ethical diversity raises too many problems and must therefore be eliminated.

So what is the solution for those in authority?


Among the methods used to erode ethical or religious diversity is ambiguity or imprecision. Nothing is right or wrong, but simply acceptable or unacceptable – but to whom? They word “culture” is used to cover religion, morality, dress, the arts, food – the list is long. This recourse to ambiguity is used not only by civil governments, but sometimes also by religious authorities. The ARCIC documents are an example. The old I.C.E.L. translation of the Mass, for example, used the phrase (of the bread before consecration) “it will become for us the Body of Christ”.

What do these words mean? Does “for us” mean “for our sake”, as in “my parents did a lot for me?”, or “in our opinion”, as in “for me, music is the greatest of the arts”. Is It the Body of Christ, only for us, not for everyone? There is no ambiguity in the Latin, but I am not so sure that there was no vagueness in the minds of the translators.

The books used twenty years ago in the preparation of my children for first Holy Communion avoided the divisive doctrine of Transubstantiation altogether. My parish priest in England when I asked him about this told me that my understanding of the Sacrament was too crude. “We have moved forward from all that”. Another weasel phrase – why do we always move forward, never sideways or backwards? Is theology also subject to Darwinian evolution, so that later is always better?

And what have we moved forward from? From plain speaking to anodyne obfuscation.

VERITAS IN CARITATE - truth in charity - is a fine motto. Truth curtailed by a desire to be tactful, or accepted, is not so fine. If no one knows what anyone means, no reasonable discourse is possible. Terms cannot be defined and no one can agree or disagree.

Truth perishes.