Total Visits

Sunday, 20 October 2013

The Future of the World’s Oldest Nation State – England

The Future of the World’s Oldest Nation State – England.
On the 19th October 2013 in London I gave this Speech to the Conference of the Traditional Britain Group on the FUTURE OF THE NATION STATE .
The conference was very well organised and had an eclectic range of speakers including not only me, calling for Independence for England and therefore the dissolution of the UK, but also Dr Sean Gabb the director of the Libertarian Alliance which advocates extreme Liberalism and included those of more Traditional Right-wing views. I enjoyed the event and hearing such a range of divergent and interesting views. The group's organisers deserved the applause that they received!
Here is the text of my speech. What do you think?

Mr Chairman thank you for inviting me to take part in this debate and to be at your conference. 

I know you have recently had trouble with the supposedly Honorable Member for North East Somerset who seemed to have made much play of being a traditional Conservative.  Do I dare mention his name in this assembly?  This is the man who not only publicly bit your hand that fed him but has recently said:-

“Education and health policy in England will be made by people who cannot vote on those self same subjects for their own districts.  This is absurd and very unfair on the English.”

“Those of us who are English should feel that this is a price worth paying for the United Kingdom”.

That is not a sentiment that appeals to me, ladies and gentlemen.  I think that English National interests should be pursued by our own English National Government democratically elected by the English people.  Perhaps Rees-Mogg is a new word for Quisling? 

Ladies and gentlemen the title of my speech today is :-  The Future of the World’s Oldest Nation State – England.

One of the objectively obvious facts which it seems many either left wing and internationalist, or globalist, or pro-EU-ish commentators overlook is that nations and nationhood are not disappearing, but, on the contrary, they are increasingly popular. 

Just consider for a moment that during the course of the 20th Century a great many new Nation States emerged.  There are now 193 member nation states in the UN. 

I think that sometimes if you try to stand back from things and just look objectively at an issue you can see something that others may have overlooked in their haste.  But the title of this conference the Future of the Nation State makes me think of all the clamour which seems to suggest that the future of the Nation State is a troubled one! 

However one issue which we should try to avoid getting confused about is the fact that there may often be a great difference between the fact of a State (albeit often confusingly called a Nation State) and the idea of a Nation.

The State is of course at root simply a state structure with a constitution and systems of control and enforcement and, if it is an effective state, a monopoly of the legitimate use of force. 

Whereas a Nation on the other hand is a community in one real sense and is based upon national feeling.  So we could say that a Nation is a product of national identity, or as Left-wing academics would refer to it, a Nation is an “Imagined Community”. 

The people of a Nation have a subjective sense of national identity as being a member of their own wider national community.  They may have in their minds many objective criteria which they will apply in deciding whether an individual is a member or not.  This will depend on the peculiar ideas of that particular Nation, e.g.  the idea of Americanism or self-identifying as being an American which has different characteristics to Frenchism or self-identifying as being French.

At this point I would like to draw an explicit distinction between this sense of National Identity and the bogus and false notions of, on the one hand, “white race nationalism” and on the other, “international proletarianism”.   In neither case do those ideologues who wish to pigeonhole people into such groups care that real people don’t actually have any such sense of self-identification. 

On the contrary they then arrogantly and undemocratically claim that it is everyone else who is wrong and who have, they say, a “false state of consciousness”! I reject such ideas and wish to assert my democratic right to determine my own national identity as an Englishman and as a member of the English Nation. 

It is of course a fact that a State can be highly successful but yet not be a Nation.  Consider for example some historical examples!  Consider Prussia, which was mainly the conglomeration of territories ruled by the regions Hohenzollern Prince or consider the Hapsburg Austro-Hungary or indeed consider the Soviet Union.  Such States are in a sense Empires rather than Nations and cannot survive defeat or collapse as they have little hold on the hearts and affections of their subjects. 

On the other hand a Nation can have a strong hold on the hearts of its people but not be a State, for example consider the Kurds or modern Hungarians and in the late 18th and 19th Centuries the Polish, or, along the troublesome frontier between the States of Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Pathans.

Problems often arise within States where there is no key coherent or integrated foundation of national identity.  For example in most African countries today of the former British Empire, where British imperial policies of what we would today call multi-culturalism where instituted under the guise of “divide and rule”. 

It is instructive to make a contrast between Ghana and Malaysia, both countries that became independent more or less at the same time, geographically both are of a similar size, both had similar sized population and both are even similarly near the Equator.  However it is only Malaysia, with its strong emphasis on Malay nationalism, that has managed to make the leap into becoming a largely developed country.  I hope you see my point that nationalism can be a key determinate of the success or failure of a State?

How does all this matter in modern Britain or for the future of England?

Well first let us get some terms clear and then things may come more into focus:-

Britain was originally the name of the Roman province which included Wales and mostly went up only to Hadrian’s Wall and never included all of Scotland or any of Ireland. 

England” is arguably the oldest Nation State on earth.  The idea of the English Nation is first mentioned in literature by the Venerable Bede in about 731 who may well have invented the concept to try and bring together the disparate tribes of Jutes, Angles and Saxons which had coalesced into the seven kingdoms of the Heptarchy in what is now England and which would probably have never come together as a single State. 

Ladies and gentlemen it is often claimed that all nationalisms arise in response to a threat.  In the case of England and the English Nation that threat was the Vikings and our great founder is Alfred the Great, who after his memorable burning of cakes when he was a fugitive and the last serving Anglo Saxon King, came back to win the decisive Battle of Edington against the Viking host in 878. 

Alfred then launched his Wessex Kingdom on a mission to create a new Kingdom of the Angelcynn with his burhs, or boroughs, and civic freedoms, reforms of the army, putting village life on the war production footing of the early medieval open field system (a system which continued right up until the Black Death); his encouragement of reading and writing in English; his translation of the Bible into English; his strongly Roman Catholic Christian mission.   Alfred’s policies were crowned with ultimate success by his grandson Athelstan on the 12th July 927 at the Council of Eamont when the then new State, England, was unified into a single kingdom on more or less its current borders.

Ladies and gentlemen just compare that length of history with the creation of a united Germany in 1871, or a united Italy in 1863, by contrast we English have a united national history of 1086 years. 

In all those years since then England was never divided nor separated into warring States and so therefore the English Nation has the deepest roots of all European nations. 

The only Nation State in the world that has an equivalent claim is that of China, but I would question whether China isn’t an Empire rather than a Nation, given its over 200 spoken languages.  Also it has had several periods of division and warring states since it was united under the first Emperor.

Another term which we need to define is that of Great Britain.  In 1603 there was the Union of the Crowns with the accession of James I of England, who was also the VI James of Scotland, but despite James’ best efforts there was no union of England and Scotland. 

In 1707 the increasingly successful English State and Nation entered into a partial union with the Kingdom of Scotland, which was then in deep financial trouble after its unsuccessful colonial adventure in middle America.  The Darian adventure was a sort of Scottish South Sea Bubble where there was a speculative boom which bankrupted much of Scotland’s elite and the Scottish state.  The Scots at the time had a different Act of Succession so it was feared that on the death of Queen Anne, the last Stuart monarch there would be an end to the Union of the Crowns.  The English threatened to end Scottish trading access to English markets under the Aliens Act and eventually a sordid deal was done, in what is now a public toilet in Edinburgh, which meant that members of the Scottish elite would be bribed with English taxpayers’ money and a partial union would be created by the union of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England into the newly coined “United Kingdom of Great Britain”.  That is the origin of the term Great Britain.

The purpose of this Union of Great Britain was nakedly about big power, real-politique and imperialist aspirations, coupled with the struggle for imperial dominance and world power against in particular the absolutist Catholic monarchy of France there was also a strong element of Protestantism at its foundation.

We then move onto considering the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which was created in the last great struggle with France, this time in the Napoleonic wars, and led to another partial union with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801.  In this case it didn’t even create a customs union or economic free trade zone between Great Britain and Ireland.  When the Union with Ireland largely collapsed in 1922, not only was the modern Conservative party formed and its 1922 Committee, but also there was yet another permutation of the Union state, with its new and current title, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 

The next term we need to consider is Devolution.  In 1998 New Labour enacted, following strong success in their Scottish referendum and very marginal success in the Welsh referendum, Devolution in Scotland and in Wales.  These devolutions were different from each other and both began a process whose destination it seems to me can only naturally be the end of the UK. 

In Northern Ireland of course there is a special case arising from the peace agreement. 

For me as an English Nationalist a key factor to take account of in considering devolution is of course that there was to be no national devolution for England.  On the contrary the only attempt to devolve in England was an attempt to break England up into EU inspired Regions. 

This gives us another term – Regionalisation.  This was a policy first pursued by the John Major government following Maastricht, but most enthusiastically pursued in office by new Labour.  The attempt to break England up led to a spectacular failure to get any democratic mandate for regionalisation in an area which Labour had created by gerrymandering the so called “Region” of the “North East”.  Here devolution was defeated by a full 79% of the electorate of the “North East” in 2004.  There is no coincidence that the so called “North East” is one the areas which has the strongest English National Identity (80.5% in the 2011 Census).

Ladies and gentlemen next year on the 19th September 2014 we have the possibility of another great change to the Union, perhaps its very dissolution if Scotland votes, and I think it may well, for Independence. 

You may ask how does this cause the dissolution of the UK?  Well I have partly answered this question already, but going back again to history to help to show how that applies to our constitutional law, the Union of the Crowns of England and Ireland took place in the Middle Ages but in 1536 the principality of Wales, which historically had never coalesced into a long-lasting single sovereign state, was incorporated by an Act of Union but this union was a full incorporation of the principality into the Kingdom of England.  This got MPs for Welsh constituencies sitting in the English House of Commons.  Wales was integrated into English law and included in the English Judicial Assize Circuits and also had established the Church of England in Wales. 

In 1603 as I mentioned there was the Union of the Crowns of Scotland and England. 

In 1707 the Union of the Scottish and English parliaments let some Scottish Lords sit in with the English Lords and some Scottish MPs sit in what had been the English Commons but there was and never has been any union of the Scottish and English churches or of the two legal systems. 

In 1801 there was the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain’s Parliament with the Irish Parliament but no customs union, nor a union of legal systems but the Church of Ireland was Anglican and Episcopalian. Bear in mind  however that this further Act of Union in 1801 is grafted onto the foundation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain brought about expressly in the 1707 Act of Union by the merger of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England into that new United Kingdom of Great Britain. 

Therefore it follows logically and legally that if Scotland secedes then the United Kingdom of Great Britain is ipso facto dissolved and so is the subsequent Irish Union as that was with that United Kingdom of Great Britain. The Northern Irish rump of the 1801 Union would then no longer have any constitutional entity to be attached to. 

So in late 2014 the British Establishment politicians may have to scrabble about to cobble together a new Union, but if Scotland goes then the Union of Great Britain is dissolved from any sensible constitutional and legal perspective. 

Who can say what the other constituent parts of the current Union will then want to do and here I would just remind you what the current First Minister of Wales, the Labour Party’s Mr Carwyn Jones has said at a meeting in the London School of Economics earlier this month.  Here is what he said and I quote:-

“Imagine a referendum of the European Union which resulted in a vote to leave, carried by the weight of English votes against the preferences of other parts of the UK to remain in membership.  That would put us under enormous strain and could only serve the interests of those who wanted the United Kingdom to cease to exist.

It is ironic that those who are pressing for an ‘In/Out’ referendum on the grounds of their commitment to the United Kingdom may actually be imperilling the very future of the UK as presently constituted.  And that would be a matter of grave concern to the majority of people in Wales.

Wales remaining part of the United Kingdom benefits our economy.  The UK works for all of its constituent nations, and all have contributed to its success.  I want the Union to flourish, and Wales to play a dynamic role in it.  But for this to happen, the structures of the UK must adapt to the changing identities and aspirations of its citizens”.

Oh the irony of Ed Miliband’s recent sloganising at the Labour Conference, about Labour’s “One Nation” vision!  Which Nation is that Mr Miliband?

But coming back that maelstrom of negotiations that will inevitably arise if Scotland votes to go I would ask everyone here to search carefully for an answer to this question.  Who then will speak for England? 

One contender might be Mr Cameron is the British Prime Minister.  He is a man who is on record as having promised to fight “little Englanders” wherever he finds them and he asserted to the BBC’s Andrew Marr that he would keep the colossal over subsidy for Scotland going, despite being the MP of an English constituency, because he said, and I quote “I am a Cameron and there is quite a lot of Scottish blood following in these veins”. Is that, ladies and gentlemen a race point or what?  So will it be Dave Donald Cameron that speaks for England? 

Or would it be the Dutch/Russian Nick Clegg, or the Ed Miliband whose Marxist father fled here from the Nazis and who ungratefully seems to have wished us to lose both the Second World War and later the Cold War? 

No, Ladies and gentlemen, none of them care a damn for England.  Indeed all three have already been trying to break up England with their parties’ respective Regionalisation policies. 

Is it a coincidence I wonder that this is the very England that Karl Marx mourned was the “rock upon which all the revolutions of Europe” were “wrecked” upon?

I have mentioned the term “Regionalisation”.  The policy of Regionalisation is the British Establishment vision for England’s future.  It was introduced by the Conservatives, to break us up into EU Regions.  Regionalisation was enthusiastically pursued by Labour, and whose purpose was said by Charles Kennedy when he was the Leader of the Liberal Democrats saying that he enthusiastically supported Regionalisation for England it because he said – and I quote - “it was calling into question the very idea of England itself”. 

It is in this sense that the new post-colonial Britishness, having lost its Empire and collapsed its power and nearly exhausted its credit over the last 100 years, is now a threat to our English Nation – an English Nation which some commentators have pointed out recently is now the last British colonial possession - the last part of the world directly ruled as it is by the British State.  As Jeremy Paxman said England is now something of a “Scottish Raj” – where is an English Mahatma Gandhi when you want one?
Our former Colonial Master or should I say “Dear Leader”, Gordon Brown, went so far as to talk of the “Nations and Regions of Britain” with England called the “Regions”.  He restructured the English national curriculum to ensure Britishness classes were given to English children, whereas the devolved governments of Scotland and Wales of course teach their own children the value of their own nations.  This is all part of a wider effort to propagandise English people into accepting the dissolution of the English Nation and the use of our resources to unfairly subsidise Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under what is known as the Barnett Formula.

In early 2009 a cross party committee of the House of Lords reported that the Barnett formula subsidy to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was running to the tune of £49bn a year.  That is right ladies and gentlemen, £49bn a year - almost half the entire UK budget deficit! 

The good news though, ladies and gentlemen, if you are English, is that the English are awakening.  Consider the results of the Labour supporting Think Tank,
JULY 2013 IPPR Report called
The IPPR is a Labour supporting “think tank” and was one of cheerleaders for the Labour Government’s attempt to break England up into regions. They are still trying and their latest scheme is for a Northern Parliament.  So this is by no means a report from our friends and the report’s authors include not one single English patriot. The results are therefore all the more striking! Here are all the important extracts:- 

The level of British identity recorded was the lowest in any survey reported here (going back to 1996). 

Only 10 per cent of respondents claim to be ‘more British than English’. In this sense there was no discernible post-Olympics ‘Britishness bounce’. 

58 per cent agree that the English have ‘become more aware of English national identity in recent years’. 

There is one significant exception – in the strength of English national identification. That exception was London. In the dual capital of England and the United Kingdom, while English national identity remains the most popular choice, Englishness was notably weaker than elsewhere and Britishness rather stronger. 
That fully 40 per cent of people in England would, if given the opportunity, choose an English passport is striking, especially given the complete absence of any public debate around English citizenship. 

Across all age-groups, social classes and both genders Englishness is stronger than Britishness. The one important exception concerns members of England’s ethnic minorities.


Scotland was felt to receive more than its fair share of public spending (and England less than its fair share). 

The English also overwhelmingly believe that public services delivered in Scotland should be funded by taxes levied in Scotland, and that Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote on English laws. 


Also striking is the lack of trust in the UK government to act in England’s interests.  Around 60 per cent of respondents did not think that the UK government could be relied upon to do so.

Such sentiments are widespread across England. Although Londoners appear a little less dissatisfied than the English average, there is a striking regional uniformity in views. The overall message is clear: English dissatisfaction with the territorial status quo is both broad and deep. 

The UK’s relationship with Europe was accorded highest priority. But, strikingly, the question of ‘how England is governed now that Scotland has a parliament and Wales has an assembly’ was in a clear second place, well ahead of a range of other constitutional issues – including voting reform, reform of local government and the House of Lords, and even the position of Scotland within the UK – to which the political system itself has accorded much higher priority in recent years. 

Equally, English Independence might be seen as a potential response to the electorate’s call for action. We broached this possibility for the first time in our 2012 survey and garnered an intriguing response. Despite no significant political party or actor advocating this option, those supporting the proposition that ‘England should become an independent country’ (34 per cent) were only narrowly outnumbered by those in opposition (38 per cent). And when asked how they would respond if Scotland were to vote to become independent, a plurality (39 per cent, compared with 33 per cent who disagreed) then said that England too should become independent. 

 So the responses confirm: 
• low and decreasing support for the status quo 
• very low support for English regionalism 
• strong support for a form of governance that treats England as a distinct political unit 
• continuing lack of consensus about which English option is appropriate
It confirms low support for the territorial status quo, at 22 per cent.

When respondents were asked to choose directly between English votes on English laws or an English parliament, they split their votes almost evenly – and both options were more popular than the status quo

The status quo is consistently less favoured than alternatives which would give some form of institutional recognition to England as a whole. 

Our data shows a strong, consistent and unambiguous link between Euroscepticism and English, rather than British, national identity. For example, when asked whether or not UK membership of the EU is a good or bad thing, negative views are much more prevalent towards the more English end of the identity spectrum. Conversely – and again counter to received wisdom – attitudes to European integration are notably more positive among those with a more British identity. It is British identifiers who are the Europhile group in England. 

Those who adopt the Eurosceptic position (regarding EU membership as a bad thing; indicating they would vote for UK withdrawal from the EU; and regarding the EU as having most influence over the way England is run) are also notably more dissatisfied with the constitutional status quo in the UK. 
Euroscepticism and devo-anxiety are two sides of the same coin of English discontent. 

Euroscepticism is also clearly associated with a demand for greater recognition for England in the UK’s own constitutional arrangements. 

Also and in many ways even more definitively the 2011 Census returns also show Englishness rising:-

England has over 32 million (32,007,983) people (or 60.4%) who have stated they have only English National Identity.  A further 4.8 million (4,820,181) people (or 9.1%) stated that their National Identity is ‘English and British.

In sharp contrast with this nearly 70% being English there were only a mere 10 million (10,171,834) people or (19.2%) who claimed to be ‘British only’.  A substantial proportion of these ‘British Only’ appear, from cross referencing with the results of the Census ethnicity question, to be of non-English ethnicity (ie Scottish, Welsh or Irish).

On the question of demand for English Independence there is also increasing rapidly in England and although reactive to the movement for Scottish Independence it is not dependent on it.  The June 2011 ComRes survey done for the BBC showed that then there was 36% support for England to be a fully independent Country irrespective of the result of the Scottish Independence Referendum.

And now ladies and gentlemen there is also for the first time in all our long history a fully-fledged albeit as yet small (with about 3,000 members) political party calling for Independence for England.  That Party, ladies and gentlemen, is the English Democrats.  

So ladies and gentlemen to answer the proposition in the title to this speech, I think that there are good grounds for some optimism as to England’s future.

I cannot finish without suggesting, ladies and gentlemen and Mr Chairman, to a body with the name of Traditional Britain that some of the features of the emergent English nationalism identified by the IPPR may appeal to your members. 

One feature is that whole England political solutions to devolution are overwhelmingly what English people want - and all such solutions are more popular than the current constitutional status quo! 

English nationalism seeks no cross border subsidies and, in particular, Scotland to pay its own way. 

English Nationalism seeks an end to mass immigration; it seeks a celebration of St George’s Day  and other English festivals.  It even seeks an English passport!  40%! 

However I think that one of the key aspirations of English nationalism that will have instant appeal here, it is the demand to get England out of the EU.  This is an aspiration which seems to be contrary to the majority feeling in Scotland and Wales. 

One of the interesting things is that the IPPR’s research shows that the National Identity which is most Europhile is in fact people who identified themselves as being British! 

So Mr Chairman to be cheeky I wonder whether these points appeal enough to you and your members for you to consider becoming “Traditional England”?

So, ladies and gentlemen, finally I suggest we take the EU Justice Commissioner and indeed Senor Barroso himself at their words. They have repeatedly said that if Scotland leaves the UK that as a new State which not a signatory to the EU accession treaties, Scotland would be automatically out of the EU.  They went on to say that Scotland would then have to re-apply to re-join!

Ladies and gentlemen, that means that if England leaves the UK we would be automatically out of the EU too!  Is there anyone here who is so Britishly Europhile that they would want to take Mr Barroso’s advice and apply to re-join the EU? 

Thank you Mr Chairman and ladies and gentlemen for your patience.


  1. Would it be worth the EDP getting involved in the "bloody Sunday"arrests case?
    Is there a N.I. veteran Association?

  2. "One of the interesting things is that the IPPR’s research shows that the National Identity which is most Europhile is in fact people who identified themselves as being British" - further proof that Ukip is promoting a false prospectus.

  3. I suddenly realised today that the One World Plan has failed because those two homogeneous giants of Russia and China have escaped the net. Russia ditched Gorbachev and refused to be drawn into the EU, American kleptocratic investment and the bankers' net. Putin has vowed to keep her solvent so the latter cannot occur.

    And China is like pre-1960s Europe, homogeneous and the powerhouse of the world. Europe and the US have been destroyed by the globalists and unless something happens will become like the third world and owned by China.

    Meanwhile, it is EDF who are going to built our reactors. I hang my head in shame, especially since I have been forced to buy their electricity. There was a letter in our local paper from the Green Party calling for wholesale renationalisation of the railways, utililties and the Royal Mail. I am all for that. Perhaps we could make it an ED policy?

    The BMA has been accused of racism for failing more ethnic doctors than white. The BMA reject this. But this is a worrying sign as a glance at the iq levels of the countries of origin of these medics might give a reason why. The iq level of India is 80, sub-Sarahan Africa 67 and Afro -carribeans around 80 compared with the 100 plus of Europeans. To mention this is taboo as Dr Frank Ellis found out when he was sacked from his post as a lecturer at Leeds University.

    Meanwhile we have all this wrangling about racism in the selection of the England World Cup team. How I wish it was 1966 again. Wrangling over racism are now going to go on for decades if not centuries as Enoch Powell warned with regard to the US. If only he had been listened to with his immense intellect. But of course the oppostion in the form of Heath had probably been paid as have all our political leaders and those of the whole western world to do the New World Order's bidding. Clinton deregulated US banks and millions of dollars poured into Democraric Party coffers.

    By the way I read somewhere that French nuclear power stations were leaking into the Rhone so Fukishima in Somerset anybody especially if they start fracking nearby as Cameron, having been paid by the oil companies, is desperate for us to do everywhere.

  4. The White Dragon21 October 2013 at 16:50

    Co-incidentally I was at a talk 'King Alfred the Educator' given by Dr Sarah Foot, Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Oxford University on Saturday. She described in her excellent one hour presentation how he rallied his people after years of defeat and demoralisation. Ironically here we are again a people under attack, today patronised and insulted by an arrogant Elite.
    An excellent speech Mr Tilbook, we need exactly the same focus on our Englishness today that led Alfred's rallying and rebuilding of his Wessex people to success and the eventual creation of England.

    We must have our own parliament and we must have our own cultural institutions which represent the English and reflect our identity back to us. We must get 'Britishness' - consider it as today's Viking oppressor - off our backs and out of our territory. Let's have reform of institutions; for example, the 'National Gallery'. Which nation? Where is England in it? Or in many of the other 'national' institutions.


    1. Alfred was the leader of his people. That is the difference. Our leaders have been hostile to the English for the last 60 years. The only one to stand up for the English was Enoch Powell, doing so despite being the son of Welsh immigrants.

      Alfred stemmed the tide of a Danish takeover but did not arrest it for long. In due course Canute became king, became Christian and united people of common blood, culture and language. Unfortunately, as Enoch pointed out, we are not dealing with any of these this time and our whole identity is being changed for something wholly on-European. That is the problem.

    2. Ðe Danes and ðé English were already néar neighbörs on ðe kontinent, wið ðé English being between ðe Danes tö ðeir norðh and ðe Saxöns tö ðeir souðh, and ðe Danish and English languages weren't very different, alðough not as alike as ðe dialekts of ðe Saxons and ðé English.

  5. Book review: Exodus: Immigration and Multiculturalism in the 21st Century, By Paul Collier. Friday 11 October 2013

    Migration,Paul Collier observes, "affects many groups, but only one has the practical power to control it: the indigenous population of host societies". So, he asks, "Should that group act in its self-interest, or balance the interests of all groups?"
    A developmental economist, Collier has long been concerned with questions of poverty and justice, particularly in Africa. Truly to understand immigration, he argues, we have to unpack its impact on the three key groups - migrants themselves, the host community, and those left behind in the countries of origin. The real question, he suggests, is not whether immigration is good or bad, but how much of it brings benefits to each of these groups.

    Poor countries would "benefit from emigration controls" to prevent their best people from leaving but in practice cannot "control either the emigration rate or the rate of return", and so "are dependent upon controls set by governments of host countries".

    For Collier there is a moral case for rich countries to impose immigration controls as a way of helping the poor. But if it is immoral for poor countries to prevent citizens from leaving, why is it moral for rich countries to do that job for them?

    For years, the EU paid huge sums to Colonel Gaddafi for his security services to ensure that immigrants did not cross the Mediterranean. Today, Morocco plays much the same role.
    Collier's insists, too much diversity creates social problems, in particular by destroying "mutual regard", the willingness to co-operate and redistribute resources. He draws upon the work of the American sociologist Robert Putnam who has shown that the more diverse a community, the less socially engaged are its members – they vote less, give less to charity, have fewer friends.

    Putnam's work has long been seized upon by critics of immigration to suggest that diversity undermines the social fabric. Over the past few decades, we have seen the demise of movements for social change, the rise of identity politics, the atomisation of society, a loss of belief in universal values, all of which has led to civic disengagement and a greater sense of anomie.
    Collier insists on viewing political shifts almost entirely through the lens of diversity. He suggests that recent "policies of reduced taxation and increased reliance on the market" have been shaped by "the pronounced increase in cultural diversity brought about by immigration". He suggests that the 2011 London riots reflect "a decline in social capital within the indigenous population" caused by immigration having led to "indigenous people" losing trust in one another. A key argument in Exodus is that the levels both of migration and of problems created by it are linked to the size of diasporas. If there are already large populations of Jamaicans or Bangladeshis in a country, then it is easier for more Jamaicans or Bangladeshis to arrive. At the same time, a sizeable diaspora slows down integration because it is easier to live in enclaves. A vicious cycle, therefore, develops: a large diaspora draws in more fellow-immigrants, hinders integration, makes the diaspora larger, which draws in more fellow-immigrants.

    Collier's solution is contentious: he wants to peg immigration from any group to the size of the existing diaspora.

    Collier thinks that immigrants' right to bring in relatives should be cut, partly because it "reduces the incentive to make remittances" (another disingenuous "we are only doing it for your benefit" claim) and partly because indigenous workers don't have the same right (no, their families are mostly here). Any refugee who flees a war, Collier insists, should be sent back the moment the conflict ends. And so on.

  6. Further to my recent comment about the one world experiment having failed because of the rise of Russia and China who seem to have escaped the net, the Marxists seem to have achieved their objective of destroying European Christian Civilisation and the shadowy people for whom they have been the useful idiots seem to have achieved their objective of financial and industrail control of the whole Western world. So if this was the one world objective then they have about half succeeded. The BRICS countries still have half the world's population.

    Most people you speak to now realise that Europe is being reduced to the third world. America has collapsed as predicted by the Zagorsk prophecy because of sheer greed of a plutocratic and political elite and Europe is heading down the same path with England well ahead. France is meant to have a black and muslim majority by 2050 with most other indigenous peoples in the West of Europe shrinking to minority or near minority levels in due course.

    Whether it was the UN, the OECD, the ILO or whoever is behind them who has brought this about is irrelevant. This is not the answer as Mr Collier suggests. The answer is to create the circumstances in the countries of origin to deter emigrants from leaving. Paul Nuttall of UKIP has said that out of the EU we would be free to form trade alliances with Black Africa to help them to stay put. Italy now has a congolese minister, a doctor, who without doubt is desperately needed back home as probably most East European immigrants. But the problem is that so that the plutocracy can prosper on cheap labour they are luring these people away to Europe and North America where the pavements are paved with gold. Only when we finally rebel will the tide be turned and their countries given the help they need.

    The status quo is helping nobody. Europe is like the cuckoo's nest where the original inhabitants are being pushed overboard by the cuckoo that is the burgeoning immigrant population. Europe is in chaos with riots and demonstrations everywhere against the austerity caused by the bankers who probably are a the back of it all; but try proving it.

    In the coming decdes Europe and North America will burn and China will look on in bewilderment and incomprehension. Four thousand years of civilisation gave them some idea of what constitutes utter foolishness.

    India is booming as are Brazil and the other BRICS countries. Perhaps it is time to suggest that our immigrants would be better off returning home or trying their luck with their own kinds rather than creating a situation in Europe and North America which is unsustainable and will lead to bloodshed in a short space of time.

    We hear that a Ukrainian who killed a muslim and set fire to mosques is described by the BBC as a white supremacist. This seems to be the term they use to describe anybody who thinks that multiculturalism is unwise and undesirable, probably most native Europeans. And, of course, that muslim gentleman has just added his blood to the rivers that Enoch predicted would flow. We have only reached a stream so far but who knows what the future holds?

  7. Former Conservative Prime Minister John Major has warned that the Tories have to change, if they are to win seats in the North. The weakness of the Tories in the North represents a huge opportunity for the English Democrats.

    1. According to Max Keiser on Russia Today, George Osborne told the Chinese that the British were a second rate people and he wished that they could be more like the Chinese. So the Tory plutocrats don't even like their own people. As sure as eggs is eggs they probably sneer at the northern working classes whom the political elite, Tory and Labour, have marginalised over the last 60 years of globalism and want rid of. If this is what Osborne thinks of the British ( I hope he is not including the New British, I assume not as he would be open to a charge of racism) then he probably thinks the unenlightened non-cosmopolitan English are a third rate people. As for being like the Chinese, should we then let anybody without a job starve? Presumbaly he idolises China as now being the most capitalist country on the planet. Other things the Chinese are good at are executing people and then selling their body parts for profit, spitting on the floors of railways carriages and being one of the most corrupt countries there is, fighting with India for the prize. Perhaps he is suggesting we should throw people alive into the fireboxes of locomotives as happened during the cultural revolution. Like most Asiatics, the Chinese are extremely cruel. And he doesn't care about their human rights because they are going to buy us up and get us out of the hole he and his predecessors have dug for us. To gain Osborne's approval we must be capitalists par excellence without a hint of welfarism. Hopefully things will change in China as Christianity continues to burgeon there, the reason the Chinese have deduced for Europe's erstwhile success.

      In the final episode of the Art of Australia, the presenter is a British immigrant with an anti-European bias. He described a 1930s painting of Australians on the beach as pure aryanism and is drooling over Australia's increasing diversity. Last night he looked forward to Australia being no longer a European enclave but part of Asia. By doing so he gave the green light to Asia to expand. According to the Chinese edition of Time magazine recently, the countries of South Asia are demanding expansion into Australasia.

      Meanwhile the Afro-asian populations of Central America, if you count the hispanic population as premdominantly Asian in origin are expanding rapidly into North America, re-colonising if you wish. And Africa and Asia have been given permission to expand into Europe as well. China is overspilling its border with Russia given a pretext for a war to shed China's 24m young men who will never find a wife. This is if you deem Russia to be European. Even the Russians are as confused as anybody else as to whether Russia is European or Asiatic.

      We are witnessing a reversal of the European expansionism of the 15th to the 20th centuries. Africans and Asians from the Pillars of Hercules south and from the Bosphorus to the East Indies are pushing their ways into Europe by the boat and planeload.

      The chap on the Art of Australia confusingly thinks that Australia should become Asian even though in a sense its Aborigines were probably more African than Asian and had nothing to do with Orientals. However, undoubtedly he would not apply the same criteria to Europe. With his leftist leanings he would probably be quite happy for Europe to belong more to Africa and Asia then remain European in identity. The common denominator seems to be that European/white is bad and Afro-asia is good and we must fall on our swords for the good of mankind. There is even a gentleman in America lecturing whites on the need to engage in self-immolation. Self-defence and opposition to this Marxist doctrine seem not to be available. Has any race or people in the history of the world just willingly agreed to its own extinction before. It shows that we are now dealing with people who seem to possess a servious psychological condition, pathological masochism or live in a sort of pot-induced woolly psychodelic haze harking back to their student days in the 60s and early 70s.

  8. As regards the Chinese, as Max Keiser on Russia Today has pointed out the Chinese economy, much like those of the Indian Sub-continent, works on the basis of sweatshops where people are usually locked into the building and if fire breaks out and kills them then tough. This is presumably what George Osborne has in mind for the British and the English most of all. Even the Tory-supporting Daily Telegraph thinks he has gone too far with his plans for nationalised companies in China and France to buy up the privatised UK, asset stripping in the words of Max Keiser. But they keep the natives happy with Strictly Come Dancing, the Great British Bake-off - bread and circuses - and with a property boom in the south-east fuelled by foreign money laundering. Cameron thinks no hours contracts are fine as they encourage foreign criminal employers to exploit us. How long can all this continue before something goes pop? Time for the EDs to put forward alternative policies to this extreme capitalist exploitation of the English by the kleptocracy.

    An interesting survey in the Daily Telegraph found that the happiest people in the country live in rural areas with the happiest in parts of Northern Ireland and in the Outer Hebrides and the Shetlands. This is obviously because people there live still in homogeneous cohesive communities as was the case in the whole of England and the rest of Britain before the migration tsunami. Going back to the comments about enclaves of immigrants elsewhere, as I believe I have previously posted, this is why the Chinese are opposed to large scale immigration. They do not want the creation of alien and possibly hostile enclaves fragmenting their homogeneity and national security. This is why they crack down so hard on their muslims.

    And now we hear that the Al Shebab leader that the Americans went after spent some time in Britain. Is this a surprise? Doesn't every foreign criminal or terrorist find their way here either for permanent or short-term residence? Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. I expect he spent some time with the white widow from Aylesbury plotting what they would get up to in Kenya and elsewhere in East Africa. By the way, a lady suicide bomber, a convert with her husband to islam, blew up a bus in Russia this week and killed 6 and injured 72, many gravely.
    Not a peep of his on the BBC. Could it be that with the recent arrest of a Somali and another studying how to make bombs they thought we would think we would be next, which we probably will. The Russians want us all to co-operate on terrorism but the New World Order won't listen to Russian wisdom. They are now trying to wriggle out of Syrian peace talks, Hague having met with the "friends of Syria" bent on regime change and that oil pipeline from Saudi Arabia ( the home of all world terrorism) at any cost.

  9. All these ramblings are just what the LibLabCon want. We need to focus on the target of getting people elected then getting out of the EU aswell as gaining Independence ! We will get nowhere unless we stay focused we all know whats happening nothing can be done until the Voters
    Vote in for the Democrats of England

  10. The White Dragon25 October 2013 at 18:00

    At the risk of boring the followers of this blog, I'm just back from another talk, this time given by Michael Portillo. He recited various bit of his life, and whilst some of the introductional anecdotes were clearly well rehearsed he was interesting and personable. He is also clearly popular, the hall was full to capacity - about 400 - with people who were very enthusiastic, clearly the majority shared his political views. Digs at Milliband went well.

    I'm mentioning it because I got to ask him a question; 'Given your remarks earlier about national identity, do you support the establishment of a parliament for England? He answered that with the existing Scottish parliament and Assemblies elsewhere, it would be logical to expect England to be similarly served, but my answer is 'no'. The first reason is that I do not detect any interest (he may have said appetite) amongst the English for a parliament, and if one were to be established it would further weaken the Union, and the Westminster parliament is more than capable of catering to the English. We didn't get to respond.

    This is not the first 'no interest' answer I've had, Daniel Hannan MEP, used it in his answer to my question on his blog and John Redwood MP has used it in the past. I suppose 'no interest' is a rehearsed response amongst the other members of the Unionists and British Establishment. It is an argument which can be disproved and we should do so whenever we get the chance.

    I want to fair to him, he answered quickly and clearly all the questions put to him, and one in particular impressed me, he was asked about HS2. He supports it. He thinks it is the right thing to do and we know just how enthusiastically many other countries have embraced high speed rail. It astonishes him that Britain, as if we had some kind of superior insight, might take the stance that they are wrong and we are right, to reject such progress. He has a particular interest in Spain as may be well known, and we are now many, many years behind them.

    I agree with him totally on this; if we as a party are to be taken seriously we must put the advancement of England first as a matter of principle and avoid, like the plague, the temptation of gaining local political advantage and a few votes (which will later disappear like mist in the sunshine), by backing the 'antis' as some kind of NIMBY.

    P.S. The 'Chairmen' who introduced him and later thanked him was a UKIPPER and got in a few words to promote his party. I think he there were quite a few party supporters in the audience.

    1. High Speed Rail has been a disaster for Spain and France, sucking the life out of the provinces and overheating Madrid and Paris. HS2 will do the same to England, sucking the life out of the North and stoking up Londonistan, where David Cameron has welcomed Islamic banking complying with shariah law.

    2. The White Dragon30 October 2013 at 10:30

      To find my comment about HS2 being linked with issues of Sharia law and Londistan, is, shall I say, a disappointment. What about the merits or demerits of my points? I'm more concerned that if we don't have some vision in our leadership (of the nation I mean here) we will end up in some neo 'dark age' where the rest of the world has modernised and we become a laughing stock, living in some kind of quaint themepark-like nation with everything 'old-fashioned. I wouldn't be surprised if we were there already. Just look at the nonsense of the Olympic ceremony.

    3. I'm in favour of HS2 also. It will be around 2030 by the time HS2 is fully operational, by which time France will have had high speed trains for around half a century. Surely it's not too much to ask to have trains travelling from Manchester and Leeds reaching London in two hours. The plan, of which HS2 is only part, involves improving the whole infrastructure and connectivity of the railways.
      As regards Portillo, I was watching his latest series about railways on the continent. He went to Gibraltar and was explaining that he saw his own identity as being British and Spanish. I have a lot of time for Portillo himself. However, it seems self evident that people such as he, who do not identify themselves as English, do not see a need for initiatives and matters which are specifically English in nature. It's as if many 'non English' people such as Portillo positively work towards denying England equal rights that the rest of the home nations benefit from. Perhaps because many 'non English' immigrants prefer to see England as Britain and fear that a stronger English identity and awareness could marginalise their own British identity.

    4. So you support the EU's HS2 which will bankrupt us and ruin the English countryside.

  11. "Just a matter of time" before we get someone into Parliament.Then your see the liblabcon start to wobble start talking at least about England and about "The English " then some sort of English Parliament,which they will try and con the English Voters into believing.

    1. Getting "someone into Parliament" won't just happen. The EDs need to take a leaf out of the Lib Dems book. Whatever you might think of their politics, the Lib Dems showed how to get elected and it took time and strategic planning. First, they got onto councils and they built a power base in the South West. Ukip has followed the Lib Dems' example in the South and West.
      The English Democrats will have to do the same thing, by building a base in the North of England and the East Midlands, and expanding from there.
      It took the Lib Dems 40 years of hard slog. The EDs must be prepared for what could be a long hard struggle.

    2. Alfred is right not to trust the LibLabCons regarding what kind of English parliament they might allow. The only way to get an "English parliament for the English" is independence from both the EU and the UK.

  12. Ðe English Democrats shöud set up a ’Heritage/Englishness’ komittee wið partikúlar reference tö developing a truly English langwidge kleansed ov unneeded foreign wörds keeping ónly ðose ðe Inglish langwidge kannot dö wiðout.