Monthly Archives: September 2010

16-Year_old delivers address to Labour Conference

Master Edward Milliband aged  about 16 in mentality if not years delivered a speech  appropriate to a fifth-form debating society.  Delivered in the flat panic-striken tones of an adolescent  making his first public speech, with the added distraction of young Milliband’s near lisp, and filled with every ghastly cliche and platitude from the NuLabour lexicon, it shrieked one thing: this is not a person to be taken seriously, not merely in politics but generally, vide his failure to marry his partner and the absurd excuses he gave for not doing so when questioned by the media (didn’t have time because of this and that) or his odd failure to have his name on his child’s birth certificate as the father.   He is also one of those “professional politicians” who went from university straight into politics by becoming a political researcher. At the age of 40 he has never had a proper job.  Scarcely surprising that he should have remained so immature. (His brother David had the same lack of work experience. )

The speech  was rigid with political correctness and dishonesty, the dishonesty of the speech is symbolised by his stance on immigration. Milliband reduced the issue to a purely  economic matter when it is one concerned with the most fundamental issue a nation mus addressed, namely, who controls the nation’s territory.  But even with the parameters of his definition he contradicted himself, saying at one point that free movement in the EU cannot be stopped,  while at another saying he would stop immigrants coming to Britain and undercutting British workers by working for less.

It is also worth bearing in mind his ancestry as he is the son of immigrants and the member of an ethnic minority. It is difficult to imagine him being in practice anything other than rigid with political correctness  or  pro mass immigration.

The most significant pledge in the speech was his endorsement of AV.  He did not say it would be Labour policy, but even if it is not most Labour MPs will vote as he does. The fly in the ointment is the Tory pledge to include a clause equalising constituency boundaries which would severely damage Labour. However, if that does not prove a barrier to the passing of the legislation to hold the promised referendum on AV the likelihood of it passing has improved if the Labour leadership backs it.

Apart from his personal defficiencies , Master Milliband is set for a rocky ride  both because of his brother’s resentment and the the fact that he did not get the support of a majority of MPs and MEPs.

It is a very disturbing thing that the Labour leadership election should have been fought between two brothers who had no experience of work outside  the narrow confines of  Labour politics. That suggests a very narrow base to the Labour party at Parliamentary level and the ability of rival factions within the Labour elite to readily manipulate the result.  The other oddity is that neither Milliband is really in the modern media mould for politicians, both looking  distinctly odd in a way which my paternal grandmother would have described as “simple” and with unpleasing voices.

Oh my aching sides …Stop it MI6

The  public attempts by the police  to explain the death  of the GCHQ  operative Gareth  Williams on secondment to MI6 hurtle towards  absurdity.  Their latest theory is that Williams died in an sado-masochistic sex game in which he allowed himself to be locked (with a padlock) into  a holdall to role-play a situation of complete helplessness, a situation which included the person who locked him into the holdall leaving him alone in the flat.  When the person returned,  the police surmise ,  he found Williams to be dead, probably of asphyxiation and dehydration.  That person then re-padlocked the holdall and fled leaving the body to be found.

Even from the details of the death which have been released this seems an explanation on the outer margins of improbable. The body was found in the holdall in the bath. Why on earth would the putative role-play have included being left in the bath? If the holdall and body was placed in the bath after the death, what could possibly have been the motive? If it was an accident presumably the person who discovered the body would have been in a panic and simply concerned to get out of the flat as quickly as possible.  Similarly, if the death  was an accident why would the person who discovered him re-padlock the bag?

Then there are the questions of whether the holdall would have been secure enough to both hold Williams if he wanted to get out  and airtight enough to either asphyxiate him and/or dehydrate him enough cause death. The holdall was made by North Face so it was reasonably robust. However, I doubt whether  it would robust enough to withstand a determined attempt by a very fit man (Williams was a fitness fanatic addicted to cycling) to break the seams or split the material, especially one driven by the manic energy of panic which he would presumably have experienced if he found himself suffocating. The largest North Face  holdall I could find on theNorth Face website is this :

Description The Rolling Thunder – Large with 138 litres of capacity is the big daddy of wheeled luggage built with robust TPE tarpaulin.
    86 cm x 43 cm x 36 cm

    Phthalate-free TPE fabric laminate, 840D Jr. ballistics nylon

    138 liters

If this was the holdall used, then the body would have had to be placed in the foetal position to fit. Even then it would be a remarkably tight fit because 86cm is a shade under three feet in length. If Williams was alive when he was put into the holdall, would he have been likely to agree to such an incarceration even if he wanted to play a bondage sex game?

As for the holdall being airtight,  that would seem  improbable.  The material of used by North Face is a laminate and that might be impermeable. However, there has to be an opening point which would be something like a zip or Velcro fastening which would allow air get in. Note that the bag specifications above have it as a top access bag which suggests a zip or velcro running along the entire top surface. Moreover, if there was insufficient air that would become apparent rapidly and the person would soon attempt to make an escape.   It is noteworthy that  there are no reports of evidence that he struggled to get out of the bag  such as damage to the bag or injury inflicted on him which could have plausibly been the result of such a struggle.  The police have suggested that he may have become unconscious without realising what was happening and died without regaining consciousness. However, if that is the case,  why the re-padlocking of the holdall after his body was discovered? It is worth adding that Williams was a very bright, scientifically inclined man into high-level  exercise who almost certainly would have assessed the likelihood of suffocation or  dehydration before voluntarily  allowing himself to be locked in the holdall.

Finally,   there is  the failure to identify the cause of death. Tests for alcohol and drugs have proved fruitless, there is no bruising suggestive of strangulation.

What is a plausible explanation for the body being found without obvious cause of death in a locked holdall in a bath? Try this for size.  Williams died  naturally, by accident  or was killed somewhere other than his  flat. The body was placed in the holdall to transport it. The padlock was used to make it secure during transit from where Williams died to his flat , especially during the  moving of the body  from the place of death to a vehicle and from the vehicle to Williams’ flat.

If that is what happened the probability is that he was murdered rather than died a natural death or died by accident. If  it was a natural death, there would have been reason to get rid of the body. If he died by accident in embarrassing circumstances such as a sex game,   it is unlikely that a person or persons who were simply ordinary people would have had the presence of mind to return him to his flat. Much more probable that they would have  at best attempt tried to make the death look like a natural one by a ploy such as saying he had been found dead in his bed or by calling 999 and saying someone had collapsed.  If an attempt to get rid of the body was made, it would most probably have been dumped in the nearest river or canal or buried somewhere.

If Williams  was murdered by someone other than a person or persons acting directly or indirectly for some security organisation,  it would again be most improbable that the body would have been returned to the flat, either because the people who killed him would not know where her lived – he was living in temporary accommodation – or because the killer or killers would have a similar panicked response as the normal person would who found the body after death from an accident in embarrassing circumstances.

The return of the body to Williams’ flat would have great advantages  for a killer acting for a security organisation.  It would greatly reduce the possible  forensic evidence because all  there would be from the site of the killing would be the body and the  bag itself. By leaving it in the flat the killers could probably rely on it not being discovered for several weeks. Placing it in the bath would have kept it out of sight of any casual inspection. (It would interesting to know whether a bath was run to cover the holdall with water to destroy forensic evidence. )

Alternatively,  if it was a security organisation killing, the body may have returned to the flat to send a message to our security services.

Facts taken from :

Public provision and a civilised society go together

What are governments for?

The traditional  areas of government have been  defence, foreign affairs, policing, the provision of justice, the execution of legal judgements including criminal sentences, the collection of taxes and the  allocation of those taxes to the public enterprises mentioned above. But long before the rise of the modern industrialised state, the more organised and effective governments recognised that something

beyond this minimalist role of government was desirable, not least because underlying any society is a fear of civil disorder (which might overthrow  the status quo) and crime if there are too many have-nots (this was one of the primary reasons for Imperial Rome providing a daily dole of bread to its citizens.)

England has had a legally enforceable national welfare system since 1601. In the sixteenth century, enclosure of mediaeval open fields and the dissolution of the monasteries drove many from the land and removed most of the informal welfare system which had long existed through the charitable works of monasteries. The consequence was the creation of a large number of “sturdy beggars” (a substantial rise in the population of England at the time was a considerable aggravating factor). This  drove the Tudors to introduce various Acts which attempted to both restrict the movement of the poor and to provide for them. These efforts culminated in the 1597 and 1601 Poor Laws. These Acts, for the first time anywhere in the world, created legally enforceable provision for the poor for an entire nation (although it took half a century or more to get the Poor Law generally enforced).

Along with the fear of social disorder ran the natural feelings of pity and moral obligation, feelings bolstered by the  custom of hospitality and of a  religion which enjoined a duty of alms-giving to the poor.  Such sentiments were gradually assimilated into public policy.

Of course, the national and political desire to provide for the poor and the unfortunate has been massively enlarged in the centuries since the Elizabethan Poor Law was passed.  In Britain, we think that everyone in our society should have the necessities of life – food,shelter, warmth, clothing, preferably from their own efforts in part or whole, but where necessary from the taxpayer. The vast majority of Britons believe that these things are desirable, although there are differences of opinion over the extent and nature of the provision.

But most Britons – both at the political level and as a large majority of the population –  also think that a good deal of other state provision should exist, not merely for the poor or unfortunate but for every citizen.  We recognise that there are other things which the state should do beyond maintaining the integrity of the state and providing the basic means of subsistence. These are enterprises which are deemed to be both for the public good and in need of public action because private provision will not do them at all or only do them inadequately.

We expect  the roads to be maintained by the state because that increases the efficiency of commerce and industry and enhances private life (most of the population probably think the same of railways.) We believe that no one should be left without medical treatment within the limits of what can be reasonably afforded.  We think it necessary that the population should be educated to a certain level because that is essential  for the individual’s chances in life and because a modern  industrial  society requires educated people.  The  more thoughtful  see education as a civilising process which has general value for a society.

Equality before the law, or even justice itself, is a special case of social provision because it requires social provision for it to exist. Unless the state provides the means for each individual to have equal

access to the law to remedy a wrong and to have equal access to professional legal assistance when they are a defendant in either a  criminal or civil case, there is no equality before the law. All legal assistance must be free, because otherwise there is no equality for an  individual will either not be able to afford the assistance or be deterred from seeking it because of the cost.

Law exists to provide a peaceful alternative to private action to right hurts and no defendant has a choice of whether they are defendant. Those two facts should be remembered by those who balk at the idea of universal legal aid. Sadly, legal aid in Britain, although still generous compared with many countries, is inadequate and is being reduced.

All social provision, from the supplying of basic needs such as food and shelter to education, has a further role.  In a reputed democracy, each person is supposed to be an autonomous human being capable of both  existing and of making decisions about who shall govern and what shall be done.  A person constantly wracked with the uncertainty of poverty and  the fear of ill-health or insecure employment will have little time to devote to anything other than surviving.  A person denied a formal education will probably be illiterate and have a  poorly developed intellect. To  possess  such disadvantages  in  our world is effectively  to be excluded  both  from  the  more comfortable  and influential parts of society and, consequently, from politics.  And such disadvantage follows down the generations, with the children of the poor taking on the privations of the parents.

If we are to have a meaningful democracy, or  more exactly a representative system (elective oligarchy) which allows the masses to exercise meaningful democratic control over the elite through their votes,  every member of the electorate has, ideally,  to be in a condition whereby they both have the time to consider matters beyond the everyday  and the education to understand matters of  public policy.  The ideal is of course unobtainable, but many more will be brought closer to such a condition if supported and encouraged by public provision than if left solely to the vagaries of  private provision. It is worth noting that historically elites have generally been opposed to expanding the intellectual world and material standing of the masses. There is a good if immoral reason for this: the poorer and less educated a population, the easier it is for the elite to control it.

Why do we need public provision?

Why do we need public provision? Why cannot we live in the type of world envisaged by extreme libertarians, who imagine that everything could  be supplied through private arrangements  and charity?  The short  answer  is  that  private  provision  never  provides universality of provision  or anything approaching it.  We know this because  all  the experience of history shows no case where private provision has met the general need.

Most societies at most times have had no state provision for welfare. In those societies private charity has invariably fallen not merely short but far short of meeting need. Periodic famine, illiteracy, untreated illness and poverty have been the all too common  lot of the masses throughout history. Unless a society is willing to allowpeople to starve, suffer and remain uneducated – and no politician in a modern western country would openly espouse such an idea – the only  answer is state provision to assist those who cannot afford to pay or who are unable to find charity.  Consequently, it is pointless asking the  question  could private charity and individual  effort provide  a better general service in he provision of this or that vital  service than public enterprise  because  private  charity and  individual enterprise will and can never provide comprehensive provision.

The extreme  ideologues  who advocate private action  as the only legitimate means  of providing social  goods invariably  fail to meaningfully acknowledge the elephant in the room, namely, what happens to those who are unable to buy what they need or who cannot obtain charity? When pressed they claim that the abolition of tax, or at  least  its reduction to the low levels needed to maintain  a minimalist state,  would allow charity to rise to a sufficient level to meet all demands for social provision.  The fact that this has never happened in the entire history of the world does not concern them.  Like Marxists who still  claim that communism only  requires the right circumstances to be realised, the supporters of private provision  remain convinced that their utopia is just waiting to be realised if only society was ordered by their rules (It is worth noting that a utopian libertarian society could only exist if all other political ideas were suppressed).

What can we say to these vaulting optimists who appear to be oblivious to the facts of human psychology and sociology?  These extreme disciples of the free market, civil society and private charity should remember that even the Messiah  of laissez faire economics,  Adam Smith,  allowed that there were things of purely economic concern which  could not be left to private provision because it  was inadequate, for example the maintenance of the roads. Smith also recognised that there was more to life than economic relationships and that the social consequences of economic decisions sometimes mean that  unfettered economic arrangements are unacceptable, for example, in the  provision of war materials which have a strategic value as well as an economic one.  In more modern times,  one of the creators of neo-liberalism, F. A. Hayek, acknowledged the need for public support of the needy, for example, “We shall again take for granted the availability of a system of public relief which provides a minimum for all instances of proved need, so that no member of the community need be in want of food or shelter” (The Constitution of Liberty Routledge pp 300-301).

It is difficult going on impossible to envisage a time when the poor (relatively speaking) will not be with us. In the most benign social circumstances, there will always be substantial numbers who through illness, injury, age, bad luck or general incapacity  will need and deserve taxpayer provision.  To take but one example of a widespread

and unalterable disadvantage:  approximately 10% of the population of Britain have IQs of 80 or less. An IQ of 80 is the point at which most  psychologists  consider an individual begins to struggle  to live an independent life in an advanced modern state such as Britain. Because of the way IQ is distributed – more or less as a Bell Curve – most  of that 10% will always be drawn from the poorer sections of society (attempts to boost IQ with enhanced environments, for example Headstart in the USA, have persistently failed to do so by more than a few points and often the gain is not permanent. The implication is that IQ is to a large extent genetically determined). The low IQ poor will  be likely to need substantial  social provision because their families and friends will not have the resources commonly available to the low IQ individuals  within  better-off families.  If substantial  public provision is not available to them, the likely outcome will be increased anti-social behaviour from those unable to cope or earn a living capable of supporting them.  The moral to be  drawn  is that any society should, simply as a matter of prudence let alone morality,  provide a viable life for all of its people, not merely the fortunate or able.

There is a further consideration: the responsibility of governments for the general conditions in which people live. For example,  the position of low IQ individuals in poor families is considerably worse now than it used to be.  British Governments over the past 25 years have changed,  primarily through a commitment to free markets and free trade and increasingly uncontrolled immigration,  have removed  many of the circumstances which previously gave Britons with a low IQ the chance of living  an adult life largely independent of the  state.

Manual jobs,  especially  in  heavy  industry,  long-established working-class communities,  cheap housing and a tight labour market have all been greatly diminished or have vanished altogether.

Mass immigration, especially from the new EU members, is especially disadvantageous for the low IQ, low skill Briton. The immigrants, even the well-qualified,  are happy to take the low paid unskilled jobs which would be suitable for those Britons with low IQs. They do this because the money they can earn in Britain doing a menial job is considerably more than the average wage in their own countries. For example,  £3,000 a year in Poland is a good professional salary.  A Pole earning even the minimum wage in Britain can often save that in  a  year because his money will probably not be taxed  and he will be living either in squats or in very overcrowded conditions which cost him little. (Give native Britons the chance to save the equivalent of a doctor’s salary in Britain by working in a menial job in  a foreign country and watch them flock there.)

The consequence for the low IQ, low skilled Briton is not only competition for the sort of jobs he or she has traditionally filled but reduced wages and even exclusion from part of the British job market altogether, because  certain types of job  become effectively reserved  for immigrants of a particular ethnicity –  this  is particularly the case where foreign gangmasters operate for they commonly employ only people of their own ethnicity.

Of course, the effects of the actions of governments go far beyond the low IQ individuals in a population. To take another example which affects most, if governments engineer, as has happened in Britain,  a decline in the state education system through demands that the same formal  school exams must be sat by all pupils or that 50% of school-leavers should go onto higher education, then the politicians who introduce the policies take upon themselves the responsibility for any inability of the ill-educated to lead productive and socially useful lives.

A prayer and a reading for the laissez faire religionists

The Lord Mammon’s Prayer

Our Invisible Hand

Which art in the Market,

Hallowed be Thy name .

Thy economic Kingdom come

Thy will be done In Earth,

As it is in the Chicago School textbooks.

Give us this day our daily profit

And forgive us our losses,

But allow us to dun

Those who debt against us.

Lead us not into protectionist temptation

And deliver us from state intervention

For Thine is the economic kingdom

and the Market power and selfish glory

For ever and ever


Exodus from reason verses 1-17 King James’ version

1. And God Market spake all these words, saying:

2. I am the Lord thy God Market, which have brought thee out of the land of national interest, out of the house of safety.

3.Thou shalt have no gods before me.

4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image of state intervention or any likeness of anything that is in the theoretical imagined market above or that is in the market on earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5. Thou shalt not not bow down down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God., visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and foruth generation of them that hate me:

6. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my market commandments.

7. Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God Market in vain; for the Lord Market will not hold him guiltless who taketh His name in vain.

8. Remember the trading day, to keep it wholly profitable.

9. Six days shalt thou labour, and make all thy profit unless that profit is not enough

10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God Market: in it thou shalt not do any work, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates except when there is profit in it.

11. For in the six days the Lord Market made the Adam Smith, the Manchester School and free trade , the open borders for goods and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord Market blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it for the purpose of counting money. .

12. Honour thy wealth and thy economic advantage that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord Market giveth thee.

13. Thou shalt not kill and get found out.

14. Thou shalt steal if thou can get away with it legally.

15. Thou shalt commit adultery with the power money gives you.

16. Thou shalt bear false witness against thy neighbour when there is profit in it.

17. Thy shalt covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt covet thy neighbour’s wife provided she is fit, and his manservant and his

maidservant provided she is fit, and his ox, his ass and anything that is thy neighbour’s.

Patriotism is not an optional extra

Robert Henderson


1. What is patriotism?

2. The roots of patriotism

3. Nations are tribes writ large

4. The importance of a national territory

5. The democratic value of nations

6. What the individual owes to the nation

7.  The liberal internationalist

8. How to move from multiculturalism to patriotism

9 No patriotism, no enduring society

1. What is  patriotism?

By patriotism I mean the sense of belonging to a people, of  owning a land, having a group identity,  of feeling  at ease with those belonging to the group  in a way which meeting  those  outside the group never engenders, of naturally  favouring your  people above foreigners, of knowing that the  interests of the “tribe” must come before that of any outsider. By this  definition patriotism is something which the vast majority of human beings can  understand because it is not an ideology but an innate human quality whose origins lie buried deep within the evolution of social animals.

The only people who may genuinely be unable to understand  patriotism are the severely mentally retarded or those with a personality disorder such as autism which reduces their ability to understand social contexts.  Despite their incessant repudiation of patriotism even latterday liberals understand the pull of patriotic inclinations, although of course they would never recognise the nature of their inclinations.    These drive  them to live in a manner which is directly at odds with their professed ideology. Look at the life of a white liberal and you will find that they overwhelmingly arrange their lives so that they live in
very white, and in England, very English worlds. They do this in two ways. They either live in an area which is overwhelmingly white – the “rightest of right-on”  British folk singers Billy Bragg chooses to live in the “hideously white”  and English county of Dorset – or  reside in a gentrified white enclave created  on the outskirts of an area such as Islington in London  which has a significant ethnic content to its population– the Blairs lived there before moving to Downing Street. The latter tactic allows the white liberal to luxuriate in the faux belief that they are “living the diversity dream”,  whilst in reality encountering little if any  of the “joy of diversity” they are so vocally enthusiastic about.  A splendid example of  white liberal ghettoization is the drippingly  pc TV presenter Adrian Chiles who  described in a BBC programme  The  Colour of Friendship (18 August 2003) how he looked at his wedding photographs which were taken only a few years before and saw to his dismay and  astonishment that it was in the words of the one-time BBC director-general  Greg Dyke “hideously white”.  With a guest list of several hundred he was unable to find a single non-white face staring out at him. The only ethnic  minorities he had equal or extended contact with were those he met at work, who  were of course middleclass and westernised.

The ease and near universality of understanding of  patriotism sets it apart from ideologies such  as Marxism and liberal internationalism.  The majority of the followers of any ideology with a large number of adherents  will have little understanding  of it, either because they are intellectually lazy or because they lack the  intellectual wherewithal to master the creed. Few Marxists have ever had  a grasp of such ideological niceties as the
laws of dialectics and even fewer modern  liberal internationalists understand  the relationship of  laissez faire economic theory  to historical economic  reality.   The tendency for those who ostensibly support  an ideology to be ignorant of it beyond the grasping of a few ideas which can be reduced to slogans is greatly inflated where, as has happened with political correctness, it becomes the  ideology of  the ruling elite.  In such circumstances people  give lip service to an ideology ,  even  if they neither understand its theoretical basis or even agree with it out of  expediency, whether that be driven by fear or ambition.

The majority of believers in any ideology  are in the position of the laity in Western Europe  before the Reformation when the universal use of the Latin Bible and Latin in church rites meant that the vast majority of the population were left at the mercy of a clerical elite who simply told them what to believe, whether or not it was  sanctioned by the Scriptures. Such people will chant the slogans and support  the intellectual leadership of their movements not because they understand and  are convinced by the ideology, but because  they have  nailed their emotional  colours to  a group.  Ironically, they are tapping into the same  innate traits which create tribes and nations.  The problem is they are creating something which is evolutionarily destructive because it drives them to attempt to destroy the natural formation of human groups through bonds of cultural and racial similarity.

Compare the  situation of the follower of an ideology with that of those who respond to the all of patriotism as defined above. They cannot be so easily or routinely hoodwinked and manipulated by the few, because almost everyone instinctively understands what it is to be patriotic. It does not need to be explained to them.  Whatever the behaviour arising from appeals to patriotism it is not undertaken out of ignorance. Of course, the  ways in which people respond to  their innate feelings  need not be either pretty or moral,  for at its extreme appeals to the emotions and thoughts which come with patriotism may lead to attempts at genocide.  However, even in such extreme circumstances,  the tribe or nation attempting genocide is at  least behaving in a way which is congruent with human biology  and the survival of the group, although an  attempt at conquest or genocide which goes wrong may severely damage or destroy the aggressor.

2. The roots of  patriotism

The sense of being separate, of belonging to a discrete group with identifiable characteristics is a necessary part of being human because Man is a social animal. Social animals have two universal features: they form discrete groups and within the group produce hierarchies – although both the group and the hierarchy vary considerably in form and intensity. Human beings are no exception; whether they are hunter-gatherers or people populating a great modern city they all have a need to form groups in which they feel naturally comfortable.

Why do social animals form discrete groups rather than treat all the animals of their species which they encounter as being part of the group? Part of the answer surely lies in competition for territory, food and mates and the  limits placed on any species by their environment.  For example, it would be impossible for lions to exist in much larger groups than they do because of their heavy food demands. Moreover, once the group size is established it is not possible for a species to suddenly change its size because the behavioural template will have been set to accommodate the size which exists.  Man is possibly the exception to this rule, but  it could be argued that humans only learned
how to form larger groups very slowly and that where larger groups form today, for example, villagers moving off the land to the cities in developing countries,  this is simply  the extended consequences of the long, painful steps towards extending the human group size.

Some animals, most notably insects, fish and birds, successfully form very large groups. However, the  form of their association  or their degree of social integration  differs from  that of primates  (and arguably mammals generally). Social insects rely for their organisation on what are in effect  simple  automated responses through such triggers as
chemical releases. Fish and birds may form large groups, most probably because it affords them evolutionary  goods such  as greater protection from predators or easier access to mates,  without  engaging in much social support for one another beyond being together. Birds  may assemble in large groups only when they migrate.

The most highly developed social animals amongst mammals such as primates and wolves do far more than simply congregate.  They develop patterns of behaviour which require active and complex  cooperation between members of the group.  Such behaviour may of itself place limits on the size of a group by the behaviour being dependent  upon the mental capacity of the animal.   For example, it could be that a pack of  wolves can only be the size it is because anything substantially larger would  be impossible for the mind of the animal to comprehend or for behaviours which are essentially automatic to operate within.

There is also the question of mating strategies and the  raising of offspring. Sexually reproducing social animals have to evolve strategies to maximise reproduction for the individual whilst preventing competition for mates amongst males becoming so intense it threatens the viability of the group.  Probably the most common method of achieving this amongst social mammals is to have a dominant male; frequently  a sexually mature male who occupies the position of the oriental despot with his harem, for example,  the gorilla.
This of itself means that that the group must be clearly defined with males from outside excluded. But even where there is a looser social arrangement which permits different males within the group to not only co-exist but share the females , as is the case with the chimpanzee,  there is still a sense of possession amongst the males at least and hence the need for a defined group.When a species has moved to social animal status,  behaviours that intensify group behaviour such as the recognition of members of the group by scent will make the exclusion of outsiders  ever more rigid. It is also probable that amongst the most advanced social  mammals that the individual animals have sufficient mental awareness to become, just as humans do, accustomed to the behaviour of the members of their particular group and that becomes a  major part of maintaining the group identity.
Animals generally hate novelty so it would make evolutionary sense for them to prefer those individuals with whom they have grown up to strangers.

Man is the exception to the rule of group size in as much as over the past 10,000 years or so humans have shown themselves capable of  creating groups of vast size . This is plausibly attributable to the mental capacity of humans being sufficient to overcome the organisational  which thwart the increase in group size of other social mammals.  But this ability to increase group size massively has only occurred in recent human existence. Human settlements where people are counted in thousands rather than dozens or hundreds have a history of less than 10,000 years and even today most human beings live in small communities.   From paleontological and archaeological evidence, historical accounts of how people lived  and  the example of  tribal peoples living today, we can reasonably deduce that the natural size of human groups living  without the ability to generate their own food supply through farming is a few hundred at most.   Importantly, although  Man can now live in larger communities,  he is still in evolutionary terms equipped to live in small groups. This means that the innate tendencies which lead social
animals to set limits to the group  are alive and well.

That leaves the formation of hierarchies to be explained. For animals other than Man the answer is I think simple enough, only by forming hierarchies can social groups cohere. Animals vary considerably in their physical and mental qualities. Observe any animal, even the simplest single cell organism, and differences between individuals within the species will become apparent. Some are more vigorous than others, some unusually large, some abnormally small, some more adventurous and so on. Individuals will also vary in physical capacity and behaviour by age and, in sexually reproducing species, sex.

Solitary animals compete for existential goods through direct competition with other members of their species, something they do through methods such as such as scent marking of territorial boundaries and serious fighting . When an animal is social, differences in individual quality and the urge of each individual to survive have to be resolved by something other than the methods used by solitary animals because the animals live in close proximity. Competition for desirable goods still occurs, most notably
competition for food and mates, but normally within behaviours which are not fatal to other members of the group or behaviours which are so disruptive as to threaten the survival of the group. Moreover, the development of such behavioural restraint  provides the possibility for  behaviours to develop  which  make the individuals of the group dependent  upon one another, for example, the hunting strategies of  the wolf which
requires the adult members of the pack to display a very considerable degree of cooperation.  The development of  such behaviours probably reinforces the tendency
towards hierarchy. The upshot of these various social accommodations  is the formation of different social niches into which individuals with different qualities ad histories fit.

Consider what would happen if hierarchies did not exist. There would be constant conflict within the group because no individual would have cause to defer to another except from fear of physical harm.  Fear is a blunt and very limited instrument of social control, whether it be of humans or animals. It is a strategy more suited to the solitary animal than the social one. Group behaviour is a compromise between the immediate advantage of the individual and the diffuse advantages derived from group activity. The compromise is given structure by hierarchies, whether that be a fixed biological distinction by sex or caste (for example, social bees) or a transient one due to the age of an animal. Hierarchies are
built on the differences between individuals and the more rigid the hierarchical structure the greater will be the selective pressures to produce individuals in the right proportions to fill the various social niches within the group.

Hierarchies also make sense in terms of the development of social animals. Social animals are descended from asocial animals. The movement from asocial to social animal is presumably akin to the evolutionary process whereby a parasite is converted to a symbiotic partner. It is a process of gradual behavioural accommodation.

Social animals on the bottom rung of the social animal ladder may do little more than associate together at certain times. The next rung up and the animal frequently associates with others of its kind. One more step and the animal forms more or less permanent groupings. And so on until we reach the ultimate social animal, Man.

The gradual evolution of social behaviour of itself points to the need for hierarchy, because at each stage of the evolution the natural overtly selfish behaviour of the original solitary animal has to be modified. That modification will only come through natural selection working on behavioural traits which favour more complete socialisation.

What about human beings? Are they not capable of breaking the biological bounds which capture animals? Does not their immense intelligence and possession of language place them in another category of being? Could Man not simply decide not to behave in a non-hierarchical manner? The fact that human beings have never done so is of itself sufficient evidence for all but the most ideologically committed nurturist to decide that human
beings cannot do it in practice and to conclude that the forming of hierarchies is part of the human template. However, to that fact can be added another, the dominance-submission behaviour which every person witnesses daily not merely in positions of formal dominance and subordination such as the workplace, but in every aspect of social life.

Societies which consist of various human groups that  see themselves as separate  from each other disrupt the creation of a healthy hierarchy. Instead of there being a single hierarchy within an homogenous group (defining homogenous as a population in a discrete territory  which sees itself as a group), there are  hierarchies formed within each group and a further overarching hierarchy formed from the various groups themselves
with  each group hierarchy competing within the population as a whole.

The nature of the competition between the groups will depend on the relative  proportions each forms  of a population and the history of each group.  The subordinate groups within the society will feel that they are there on sufferance and  be suspicious and fearful of the dominant  group and constantly  worried that any  other minority group is outcompeting them.  A majority population which has been  dominant  in all respects within the territory will take some shifting from its position of supremacy,  but the influx of substantial numbers of outsiders will nonetheless create insecurity and  resentment amongst the dominant population. In such circumstances no individual , whether of the dominant or subordinate group(s), feels entirely  secure because there is constant tension between groups. Most importantly for the wellbeing of the society, there is no common bond of trust between people sharing the same territorial house.

3. Nations are tribes writ large

Nations are tribes writ large. They are remarkably durable. Empires invariably fall but a nation is timeless and can be only be utterly destroyed only through an act of genocide. Even the loss of a homeland – the most traumatic loss any nation can sustain – does not destroy a people as the Jews have emphatically shown for nearly two thousand years.

A shared faith or political ideology does not make a nation.  Muslims may claim to be one people, but the reality is very different as the continual strife between Muslims bears witness. Not only is there the major division between Shias and Sunnis, Muslim dominated states of the same ostensible branch of Islam are often hostile to each other, while Muslim terrorists/freedom fighters (take your pick) willingly kill fellow Muslims – women and children included – in large numbers.

Similarly, Marxist Leninists in the Soviet Union and Red China may have maintained the fiction to the bitter end of the Soviet Bloc that the international proletariat was as one, but the substantial deviations between their ideologies and the viciously repressive measures they used to deny their own proles contact with outside world (and hence with the rest of
the proletariat) told another tale.

Today, the doctrine of liberal internationalism pretends to a universality of human experience and commonality which is refuted every day by the manifold social, ethnic and racial strife throughout the world. It is an ideology which wishes the world would be as it says rather than asserts that this is the world as it is or would be under given conditions.

Nations are organic growths. They cannot be constructed consciously as the “nation-builders” of the period of European de-colonisation fondly imagined and their liberal internationalist successors today continue to at least pretend to believe. Nations are developed through the sociological process of establishing trust within the group. This only happens when others are recognised as belonging naturally to the group. That does not mean that every member of the nation is seen as equal as an individual, whether for
reasons of personality, ability or social status, but it does mean they are accepted automatically as being part of the nation. An English duke may have little if any social contact with the English working man, but each would instinctively recognise the other as English because despite their social distance they fall within the recognised template of what it is to be English.

Nor is the sense of group solidarity and empathy  restricted to nations. As David Hume noted  over two centuries ago when he reflected on how we respond to people in different circumstances: “An Englishman [met] in Italy is a friend:  A European in China [is a friend] ; and perhaps a man [of any origin] wou’d be belov’d as such, were we to meet him in the moon.” ( A Treatise of Human Nature Book II section 2 (A Treatise of Human
Nature).  The same forces which create tribes and nations are at work here as the individual seeks, in the absence of members of his tribe or nation,  those who are closest to his tribe or nation.

Just as a nation cannot be consciously created the individual cannot decide in anything other than the legal sense that they are this or that nationality. A man may decide to become a British citizen through an act of will but he cannot decide to be English. That is because being English is the consequence of parentage and upbringing, something over which the child has no control. It is the unconscious imbibing of a culture something

Most vitally, to be part of the tribe or nation a person has to be accepted without thinking by other members of the nation as a member of the nation to be of that nation. That is why the claims of English men and women to be Irish, Welsh or Scots are both forlorn and ridiculous. As the English film director Stephen Frears wittily remarked of the very English actor Daniel Day-Lewis “I knew Daniel before he was Irish”.

Like it or not, the upbringing of these wannabe Celts has made them English. Not only do they think like the English, understand English mores without thinking and are armed with a library of English cultural references, they have a personality which falls within the English spectrum. Put them in a room with foreigners or the Celts they wish to be and they will be taken for English. Such people cannot be anything but English, because only by being raised in a society where you are accepted without question as being part of the nation can the person become part of a nation. An Englishman who wishes to claim that he is a Scot cannot realistically  do so because he lacks the cultural imprinting of a Scot. It is not something which can be faked.

4. The importance of a national territory

A national territory is essential to the well-being of the nation. The fate of the Jews after they lost theirs is a cautionary tale for anyone who believes otherwise. The ideal is a territory which is controlled entirely by the nation, a population which is overwhelmingly comprised of people who are authentic members of the national “tribe” through their parentage and upbringing. The prime example of such a state is the pre-union England, which was the first true nation state.

The next best choice is for a nation state containing different peoples who each have de facto their own national territory. Britain is a first rate example of such a state, with the four home nations – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – each having their own territory.  Simply having a land in which you form the majority on the ground is a great consolation and benefit . That applies even to a people such as the Kurds whose land is  divided between Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Being the dominant population they have both the reassurance of their demographic  control of the territory – boots on the ground – and the consoling possibility of converting that demographic dominance into political control in the future.

The Jews are an oddity. Until the modern state of Israel was founded in 1948 they had been without a homeland for nearly two millennia. They neither controlled a territory in their own right nor were the dominant people in a land. Because of that they were able to convert their religion into a cultural suit to be worn by all adherents in a way that Islam and Christianity or any political ideology never could. Denuded of their own land, they could neither be oppressed by an invader nor oppress others by invasion. They could
not exercise state power. All they had left was cultural power, whether that be intellectual or economic. The consequence was that Jewish culture rather than the possession of a homeland became the primary or even sole psychological focus of  Jews.

As a consequence of the history and  evolution of Jewish society, there been a strain within Jewry since the foundation of a modern state Jewish state was first seriously mooted  in the 19th century that has been hostile to the formation of such a state,  because the Jewish culture which they valued was the product of not having a country to call their own and consequently would become tainted if Jews had a homeland, that Jews would become like other peoples.

Although this mentality has a certain intellectual attraction, it condemns Jews to perpetual insecurity. Although Jews have successfully developed a culture built upon the need to accommodate themselves as a minority within majority non-Jewish populations whilst maintaining a strong ethnic identity, the absence of a territory which they control has meant that their history for the past twenty centuries has been an unhappy one, punctuated regularly by abuse from the majority populations with whom they co-existed,
abuse which ranges  from everyday discrimination to attempts at genocide. This abuse is the consequence of the disordering of the hierarchy humans need, the consequences being what at bottom is a battle for territory.

5. The democratic value of nations

Politically, nations are immensely valuable because the nation state is the largest political unit which allows any meaningful democratic control. Indeed, it is arguable that representative government at the national level is the only real opportunity for serious democratic control, because representative bodies below the national level are always subject to a national government. Supra-national authority signals the end of democratic control. More of that later.

Only in a country where there is a sense of shared history, culture and communal interest can representative government function, even in principle, as a conduit for the interests of the entire population. In a country which is riven by ethnic and racial difference representative democracy invariably deteriorates into a mass of competing groups all struggling for their own advantage. Policy making and its execution becomes fragmentary and it is impossible to construct a coherent approach to promoting the common good. In a nation state with a large degree of homogeneity the political process is concentrated instead upon policies which affect all, or at least the overwhelming majority, of the people. For example, before post-war mass immigration fractured Britain, the great political questions were ones related to class. Policies were put forward  which either were intended to better the situation of the working class or to resist change.  Whichever side a person
was on in that debate, they had no illusions that political policy was designed to meet the situation of the British people as a whole. Today political policy in Britain  is at best a juggling act between the competing ethnic and racial groups and at worst  a deliberately  conspiracy amongst the political elite to suppress the interests of the native population to accommodate those of  minority groups formed over the past 60 years  by incontinent mass immigration.

Once a country’s sovereignty is breached through treaties which commit countries to bow to the will of supra-national bodies , as has happened with the constituent countries of the EU, democratic control withers on the vine because mainstream politicians of all stamps begin to formulate their policies within the context of what the supra-national body allows not in the interests of the country. Eventually, a situation is reached, as has been reached in the case of the EU, where all parties with an opportunity for power sing from the same policy hymn sheet. At that point representative government becomes a shell and democratic control is gone because there is no opportunity to vote for any party which will change matters. That is so because the grip of the existing elite is so tight on all the levers of power, most importantly the mass media, that no new party can even get a serious hearing.

Where the form of government is parliamentary, the difficulty is enhanced by the fact that very large numbers of candidates must stand to both be taken seriously and have any chance of forming a majority. This imposes an immense organisational and economic burden on the new party, not least because the party will lack experienced politicians as candidates and party bureaucrats. Add in things such as first-past-the-post voting in
individual constituencies and the deposit of £500 for each candidate which is at risk of being lost in the vote does not reach 8% of the total, and the British system is just about the best armoured against new parties gaining a foothold in government as any in the world.

Democratic control is vitally important to maintaining the integrity of the nation. There is only one general political question of importance in any society, namely, how far can the masses control the abusive tendencies of the elite? Elites as a class are naturally abusive because it is in the nature of human beings to be selfish and to look for their own advantage and that of those closest to them. That does not mean that no member of an
elite will break ranks and go against their class interest. What it does mean is that an elite as a whole will not change its spots , not least because the sociological shackles are too strong for most of those members of the elite who might be tempted to go against their class interest will be dissuaded from doing so because of the group pressures within the elite, for the elite will develop a “tribal” sense of their own, with those outside the elite seen as a separate social entity.

The less democratic control there is over the elite , the more the elite will engage in behaviours which are detrimental to the coherence of the “tribe” as a whole because the elite will seek their own advantage rather than that of the nation.  Before the rise of the nation state, the abuse was generally much in evidence because elites commonly took the form of monarchies and subordinate rulers in the forms of territorially based aristocracies presiding over territories which contained various national/ethnic groups, the members of which were seen as subjects not part of a national whole. The common and deliberate policy of such elites was to “divide and rule”. Territories were also frequently subject to changes of ruler through conquest, a change of royal favour (in the case of subordinate rulers), inheritance or marriage contracts. In such circumstances there was little
opportunity for the masses to exercise any form of control over their rulers because there was no unity of feeling or sense of commonality amongst the peoples they ruled and the sense of “tribe“ was localised.  It is noteworthy that arguably the most dramatic popular rising in Europe during the mediaeval period took place in England (the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381), the one large kingdom in Europe at that time with a broadly homogenous population and a territory which enjoyed meaningful central Royal control.

With the creation of the nation state there arose the possibility of democratic control. The creation of a sense of nation within a single territory responsible to a single ruler in itself provides the circumstances whereby dissent can be focused and power and influence removed from the monarch and diffused to an ever larger part of the population. That is
precisely what happened in England , with first the gradual accretion of powers by Parliament , especially over taxation, then with the development of Parliamentary government after 1689 and finally with the extension of the franchise from 1832 onwards. By the beginning of the 20th century a large degree of democratic control had been established because the elite were working within the nation state, were dependent on a mass electorate and were having to produce policies within a national context. That control lasted until the early 1970s when the elite found another way of breaking it by moving politics from the national state to a supra-national power, the EU. Once that
was done, the abusive tendencies of the elite could re-assert themselves, as they have done in spades.

6. What the individual owes to the nation

Membership of a nation places a natural duty on the individual to support the nation. Patriotism should be viewed as a matter of utility, an absolutely necessity for the maintenance and coherence of a society. The idea that a society can survive which is merely a collection of deracinated individuals has no basis in history or observed human behaviour today.

It is a very great privilege to be unambiguously part of a nation, for it is the place where you automatically belong. Just as a family is the place where most people can find automatic support so is the nation. In fact, the nation is even more reliable than a family because no one can remove the nationality which has been imprinted into a person while a family can reject a member. In an advanced country such as Britain membership of the nation state is valuable indeed, for materially at least it is still (just) a fully-fledged
life support system.

That which is valuable needs to be defended, because what is valuable is always envied by others and will be stolen if possible and destroyed if not. The state recognises this by expecting its nationals to fight to protect the national territory against an overt invader. The principle can be extended to other things such as opposing mass immigration (a surreptitious form of conquest) and defending the nation’s vital industries.

Patriotism becomes less intense as the size of the group   increases, a fact noted by David Hume: “But when society has become more numerous, and has encrease’d to a tribe or nation, the interest is more remote; nor do men so readily perceive , that order an
confusion follow upon every breach of these rules , as in a more narrow and contracted society.”  (Book II section 2 A Treatise of Human Nature).  But that does not mean it becomes diluted to the point of having no utility. It simply means that patriotic feelings are not as immediately strong as those which attach to family and friends.  Perhaps more exactly, patriotism is not called upon with the same frequency  as the emotions which attach to those whom we regard with personal affection.  The latter feelings are constantly with us,  constantly being called upon. Patriotism on the other hand, is intermittently required to preserve the integrity of the tribe or nation. But it is always there in the
background guiding our  behaviour from thinking it natural that immigrants are excluded from our territory to supporting a national sporting team.

Being patriotic by my definition does not mean constantly and stridently asserting a nation’s achievements and superiority to other nations. It simply   means looking after
the national interest in the same way that an individual looks to their own interest.

7. The liberal internationalist

Liberal internationalist ideology is diametrically opposed to what Nature has decreed. It states that homo sapiens is a single species whose atoms, the individual human being, are interchangeable. For the liberal internationalist discrimination is the dirtiest of words and a word which he interprets to the point of reductio ad absurdum.

That is the theory. In practice, the liberal internationalist complains of discrimination only when it effects those whom it includes within the protective embrace of political correctness. Those outside that embrace may be abused and vilified. Most perversely this attitude frequently results in members of a majority actively discriminating against their
own people. Nowhere is this behaviour seen more sharply than in the attitude of the British elite towards the English to whom they deny any political voice – a privilege granted to the other parts of the UK – and actively abuse them by representing English national feeling as a dangerous thing.

The liberal left internationalists may have made truly immense efforts to portray nations as outmoded relics at best and barbarous survivals from a less enlightened past at worst, but despite their best (or worst) efforts they have not changed the natural feelings of people because these feelings derive from the general biological imperative common to all
social animals: the need to develop behaviours which enhance the utility of the

But if an elite cannot destroy the naturally patriotic feelings the people they rule, they can severely taint and shackle  them by suppressing their public expression through the use of the criminal law, for example, laws against the incitement to racial hatred which are interpreted  as applying to any dissent from the politically correct position on race and immigration  and civil law penalties such as   extortionate payments for unfair dismissal
through racial discrimination which, curiously, only ever seem to apply to members of  ethnic minorities. To this they add the ruthless enforcement of their liberal-left ideology throughout politics, public service, academia, the schools, major private corporations and the mainstream media.

So successful have liberals in Britain been in their censorship and propaganda  that rarely
does any native dissent about immigration and its consequences enter the public realm, while it is now impossible for anyone to occupy  a senior position in any public organisation or private organisation with a quasi-public quality, for examples, charities
and large companies, without religiously observing the elite ideology which has solidified into what is now called political correctness. The consequence is that people have developed the mentality common in totalitarian regimes that certain feelings, however natural, are somehow now out of bounds and dangerous and consequently should be the subject of self-censorship. People still have the feelings but they are withdrawn from public conversation and increasing from private discourse.

It is important to understand that even the most vociferous liberal does not believe in his or her heart of hearts that humanity is a single indivisible entity whose atoms (the individual) are in practice interchangeable. They wish it was so but know it is not so. However, the ideologically committed continue to live in hope that minds and behaviours can be changed by what they are wont to call “education”, for which read indoctrination. The rest go along with the idea because it has been built into the structure of the elite and the doubters prize ambition and their membership of the elite above honesty.

It is of course impossible to consciously force someone to be patriotic,  but there is no need to because the natural instinct of human beings is to be patriotic. All that needs to be done is to remove the constraints placed on national expression by the liberal internationalists and these natural instincts will re-assert themselves . That can be done by the political elite changing their tune towards a defence of the nation and the nation state. Let the political rhetoric alter and the public mood will swing towards the patriotic. The underlying strength of patriotism can be seen in the case of England. Despite being denied any national political voice and incontinently abused by the British elite,   whenever a national sporting  team representing England takes the field the support is immense.  Come the football World Cup and vast numbers of the flag of St George appear on everything from flagpoles to cars. Let England win the Rugby World Cup or cricket’s Ashes and great crowds fill the streets of London as they teams go on a celebratory parade.  Whenever an England side plays abroad they are joined by astonishing numbers of  English men and women.

8. How to move from multiculturalism to patriotism

All treaties which restrict the power of a government to act in the national context must be thrown away. In the case of Britain that means leaving the EU and repudiating treaties such as the UN Convention on Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The institutionalisation of political correctness within public service must be destroyed, both by dismissing all those employed explicitly to enforce such views (who are de facto political commissars) and by repealing all laws which both provide powers for officials and those which restrict free expression. I say political correctness in its entirety because the various strands of political correctness support each other, most notably in the general attack on “discrimination”. Leave anything of the “discrimination” culture intact and it will be used to bring in multiculturalism by the back door. It would also require many of the de facto political commissars to be left in office.

Public office, both that held by politicians and officials, should be restricted to those with four grandparents and two parents as nationals born and bred. This should be done to prevent any lack of focus because of the danger of divided national loyalties.

Mass immigration must be ended. Immigrants in a country illegally should be removed in short order where that can be done. Where possible, those legally in a country who cannot or will not assimilate fully, should be re-settled in their countries of their national origin or the national origin of their ancestors or in other countries where they will be in the racial/ethnic majority. Those who are in a country legally but who do not have essential scarce skills which cannot be supplied by the native population, should be sent back to their countries of origin – there would be few from countries who could not be returned because they would be definitely identifiable as coming from a country and few countries will refuse to receive one of their nationals even if they do not have a passport.

A written constitution is a must because otherwise any change to remedy matters will be vulnerable to easy reversal. Such a reversal could be thwarted, as far as these things can ever be thwarted, by placing a bar on what a government may do. That should include prohibitions on the signing of treaties which restrict national sovereignty and mass immigration, provisions for the protection of strategic industries and the restriction of
public office to born and bred nationals and a clear statement that the nation state exists to privilege its members over those of foreigners. Most importantly, there should be an absolute right to free expression for that is the greatest dissolver of elite abuse and general chicanery. Milton understood this perfectly: ‘

And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the   earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously  by  licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength.  Let  her
and falsehood grapple;  who ever knew truth put to the worse,  in a free and open encounter…’ [Milton – Areogapitica].

9. No patriotism, no enduring society

The value of patriotism is its ability to produce social coherence and an enduring and discrete population . Without patriotism a country becomes no more than a geographical expression and is ready prey for colonisation by overt conquest through force or covert conquest through mass immigration.

Liberal internationalists have ends which are directly in conflict with patriotism. They seek the destruction of nation states and the subordination of nations to a world order ommanding a single human society .  A particularly crass example comes from the TV
broadcaster I mentioned earlier, Adrian Chiles:

“I want all the species to marry each other so that in 300 years’ time we are all the same colour.

“White people can’t talk about whiteness without sounding racist. I would love my daughter to marry an Asian or black man. “

The  ends  of liberal internationalism are predicated on the demonstrably false premise that diverse populations will live not merely as peacefully and productively as homogeneous ones , but produce stronger and, by implication, more enduring societies . The internationalists have no rational grounds for believing this , for the whole experience of human history and the world as it is today is that diversity of race and ethnicity in the same territory equates to violence and social incoherence. There is literally no example of a diverse society which has not suffered serious ethnic strife, whether that be outright racial war or chronic social disruption such as riots and the production of ethnic ghettos which become de facto no go areas.

Ironically, the invariable consequence of mixed populations is not as liberals would like to believe, a diminishing of aggressive national/tribal sentiment but an inflation of it. A people secure in its own territory does not need to engage in constant national expression because nothing threatens it: a people in a mixed society must constantly do so because
all the ethnic/racial groups are necessarily in conflict because of the need for each to compete for power and resources for their own group.

Because Man is differentiated profoundly by culture, the widely accepted definition of a species – a population of freely interbreeding organisms sharing a common gene pool – is unsatisfactory. Clearly Man is more than an animal responding to simple biological triggers. When behavioural differences are perceived as belonging to a particular group by that group as differentiating members of the group from other humans  they perform the same role as organic differences for they divide Man into cultural species. That is how homo sapiens should be viewed, as an amalgam of species and subspecies who require their own territories to maximise peace . In addition such societal differentiation probably  drives  the evolution of Man . A good example of  the latter would be 18th century England and the Industrial Revolution. Would that revolution have occurred if England had not been a very homogeneous society which suffered very little immigration from the 14th century onwards?  Probably not, because large-scale immigration or conquest by a foreign power would have radically changed the nature of England.

The Liberal internationalists’ belief  that human beings are interchangeable social atoms who may live as readily in one society as another is a recipe for national suicide. Patriotism is not an optional extra.

Intelligent Design is creationism in pseudo-scientific disguise

In the beginning was the argument from design.  This claimed that God’s existence was made manifest  by the intense intricacy, utility and beauty of the world, a state of affairs its advocates said could never have happened by blind chance but only through an intelligent creator. Analogies with God and watchmaker were most popular. The most famous advocate of this idea in the English-speaking world was the Rev William Paley who spent immense time and effort  either side of  the year 1800 attempting to prove his case.

The argument from design crashed into the intellectual  roadblock of Darwinism and the general growing rationalism of  the nineteenth century. The religious responded by covering  the argument with  a carapace   of metaphysical explanation  couched in scientific language . Their arguments took two forms. They either ran along the lines of “the human eye  cannot  possibly have evolved because how do you get from no eye to an eye through  natural selection?” * or claimed that the world, including apparent examples of evolution,  could be perfectly well explained by either God setting off a system which evolved to His plan.

However, some still hankered after immediate creationism. Some just left it at that and said faith proved it to be true. But some  decided to justify the creationist argument using rational  forms if not rational means. So they began to say that it was a theory just like Darwinism. They began to produce   arguments couched in   scientific language  but essentially non-scientific because what they claimed could never be objectively tested. Often what they claimed required the Darwinists to prove a negative, for example, to show that this or that feature could not have arisen by means other than natural selection.  In short, scientific creationism bears the same relationship to science as democratic centralism does to democracy, the answer in both cases being none.

But the scientific  creationists had a problem – they just could not keep God out the picture. But the more intelligent amongst them realised that introducing the Christian  God and  Genesis into the argument made them and rationality strangers in the eyes of most and so they  re-packaged the belief without  Jehova and the Bible and called it Intelligent Design  (ID). It  is scientific creationism in disguise, Christianity without the Bible as it were.

Contrary to what  the  ID/creationists claim, there is ample evidence that Darwinism is correct.   We have the fossil evidence of  long runs of evolving organisms such as the horse and pig – an ID advocate would have to believe either that the intelligent designer created each individually or that the intelligent designer set the world off on a course in which everything would evolve to a pre-ordained pattern.

We also know from organisms occurring naturally that variations in a species are commonplace and from animal breeding that organisms are quickly malleable and can be manipulated through selective breeding within a few generations to enhance desired traits. Controlled experiments have also demonstrated  that agents such as radioactive materials and heat can create mutations.  In addition, geneticists have begun to identify the genes which control biological development and behaviour, which explains how  variation occurs.

Rapidly increasing understanding of genetics has  shown that all organisms are genetically linked, in some cases surprisingly very closely.  This  strongly suggests but does not prove evolution – it is conceivable but improbable that each organism could be individually designed. .

Common observation tells anyone that  the natural world has at the least not been directly  designed by an intelligent creator. We can tell this from the Heath Robinson nature of organisms. These, far from being highly engineered examples of organic perfection, contain within themselves just the type of development one would expect from evolved organisms: structures which are clearly adapted from structures with different functions. Look at a flatfish such as a plaice. Its mouth and eyes etc  have been twisted round through about 90 degrees to allow the fish to place its previously vertical body  sideways in the water. The twisting is very obvious and the result crude and not as one would expect from something deliberately designed.

It is of course possible, as I have mentioned above, that every organism is individually created or that the whole of evolution has been the consequence of an event such as the working out of a computer programme. However, there is no evidence whatsoever for this and in principle there could never be because it would be impossible to provide objective evidence that it was the truth for the same reason one cannot provide evidence of a God: there is no way of demonstrating that such knowledge was more than a fantasy.

The God problem for ID/Creationists

Imagine that ID is the truth. The ID/Creationists have a bit of a problem. They are, to the best of my knowledge, all Christians. Yet if their God is responsible for creating the world he cannot be the God of love, whose first priority is the wellbeing of Man.

When Darwin was an old man he  said something along to the effect that when he contemplated the natural world he shuddered at the thought of a mind who could have created something so barbaric.   What God of love would create predators, many of which eat their prey alive? What God of love would  visit so much suffering by way of disease? What God of love would make organisms grow old and defunct rather than letting them die when vigorous? What God of love would create natural disasters such as floods, droughts, volcanic eruptions or earthquakes?

If the ID/creationists are truly sincere  in their belief in a creator they must conclude that their god is, in human terms, psychopathic.

* The mechanism for the evolution of the eye by Darwinian means is easily demonstrated.  The starting point are a few light sensitive cells (some living animals have such things). . These  prove useful and more cells develop in succeeding generations. Then a protective cover develops. This gradually develops into a lens and so on until the eye as we know it is formed.

The geneticist Steve Jones (D Tel 31 August)  described research on the nerve transmitter serotonin. The research shows that a receptor for serotonin  on the surface of brain cells  varies in quantity from individual to individual. The fewer you have the more likely you  are to be anxious and nervous. Strong correlations exist between schizophrenics and religious believers and the number of receptors they have – the fewer the number of receptors, the greater likelihood of either state of mind existing.

As Jones puts it “The molecular lock into which serotonin key fits is, it seems, Beezlebub’s own protein, for to inherit a decent dose of  it is as good a vaccine against belief as was compulsory school assembly.”

What is the rational position on religion?

With believers and avowed atheists energetically  locking horns as a consequence of events such as the Pope’s visit and Stephen Hawking’s latest offerings on  God to no certain purpose what, if anything, is an  objectively  rational position to take with regard to religion?

 It is reasonable to dismiss all religions as man-made artifacts because (1) they all rely on the supernatural, something for which there is no objective evidence, (2) particular varieties of religious belief tend to pass from parents to children, for example, Roman Catholic parents will tend to have children of the same faith, (3) religions tend to congregate in specific territories and (4) religions tend to reflect the cultures from which they arose. 

Atheism is intellectually unsound because like religious belief it is being dogmatism based on assertion.  The strongest philosophical position on whether there is a being we might call God is agnosticism. 

What is not reasonable is to assert is that there is definitely not a being with the attributes of a God. This is so for a beautifully simple reason: the very fact of existence.  That fact demolishes the argument that it is up to the believers to prove there is a God for the fact of existence creates the possibility of one, a possibility which has the same status as the possibility that there is not a God.

 The question of whether there is a God is unanswerable rationally. We could in principle discover if our universe had been created by an active intelligence, but that would not answer the question ultimately for the problem would then arise of who created the creator and so on ad infinitum.

There are further problems: while it might be possible to prove that the universe had an immediate creator, it would be impossible to prove that it had no beginning or end or that it came into existence at a particular point through no directed agency, that is, it simply arose. The former case would fail because it would involve proving that the universe had lasted for an infinite period and the infinite cannot be measured, and in the latter case,  no proof could be produced which would rule out the possibility of acreator, because there would be no way of demonstrating that what was perceived to be the spontaneous and undirected production of the universe was not in fact the result of a creator whose existence was as yet hidden.

 Because of these considerations the rational position is that the universe may or may not have been the result of active creation by an intelligence with the attributes we assign to the concept of a God.

What is treason today?

A vital  part of the liberal internationalist  plot to destroy Britain as an independent nation is the destruction of the concept  of treason. They do this  the attempt through a tidal wave of propaganda about the joys of diversity,  the incessant reciting of mantras such as  that “we live in a globalised world” ,  the signing of treaties which embroil Britain in supra-national authority and the repeal of laws relating to treason. (see as an example of the present government’s mentality).

A concept of treason is fundamental to every society because it sets the bounds of loyalty. Allow that there is no difference between a native of a state and a foreigner, as the liberal internationalist does in practice, and the  coherence of a society is destroyed which puts its very existence under  threat.  The article below examines what constitutes treason now. It was published in Right Now! magazine  in 2001.

What is treason today?

Robert Henderson

Treason is a famously slippery word, not least for the reason   enshrined   in  the oft-quoted  but,  because it  contains  a  savage truth,  eternally  potent   rhyme:

Treason never prospers,

What’s the reason?

For if it does

None dare call it treason.

Yet  elusive   as it is,  treason clearly  has  an  objective  reality, a reality, moreover,  whose essence is  changeless.  That   quality  is  betrayal which goes beyond the  personal. If  a  friend  betrays  you to another  friend  that  is  not   treason.  If a fellow countryman  betrays you to an occupying  power that is.

As  a legal concept,  treason  has  been redrawn during   the  past millennium.   In a dynastic context,   where the king is  king  in  executive fact as well as name,   treason   is  the betrayal   of  the  sovereign  by  a  person  who  owes   him  allegiance.  That  betrayal may be through disloyalty  or  an  attempt to harm  the person of the monarch (and generally his family). By extension,  the same applies to those to whom the  monarch’s  executive power is delegated.  Kill the King’s man and you attack the King.

But    treason   in  dynastic  circumstances    was   not   a  straightforward  matter of simply  plotting against the  king or attempting harm to the king’s person or doing the same  to his  representatives.     A great noble or courtier close  to the  king  might well lose his head through being  deemed  to  have given “evil  counsel”  to the monarch,  even though that  counsel  had been accepted and acted upon by the  king.   The “evil  counsellor”   would be blamed (and probably  executed)   to ensure that the monarch was not held to account.

The idea of “evil counsel” had an important effect in English  constitutional  development and a consequent   broadening  of   the  idea  of  treason.   Evil   counsellors  were  generally identified  not  by  the king but  by  others,  most  notably Parliament. Thus the practical application of the idea of the   evil   counsellor both reinforced the idea that  the  monarch was not a completely  independent agent  and created the idea  that any man involved in politics owed not merely his  formal  loyalty to the king (and later the people),  but also  should  take care to act and speak in a way which would not be to the disadvantage of the king and his subjects.

The  notion  of treason evolved in  Europe  because  monarchs have  rarely if ever  been able to act   indiscriminately  in   their  own interests.  Indeed,  European monarchs  have  been remarkably  unsuccessful  in creating efficient  and  lasting despotisms.  Because  of that,  their subjects   never  truly  succumbed  to  politically  debilitating ideas  such  as  the divine right  of kings.  Rather they expected of a king  duty  as well self-promotion and satisfaction.   The concept of the   unjust  prince was well developed by 1100 and  culminated  in   the doctrine of tyranicide developed by John of Salisbury  in   the 12th Century.    Here is Manegold of Lautenbach   writing      in the 11th Century:

No man can make himself emperor or king;  a  people sets  a  man over it to the end that  he  may  rule   justly,  giving to every man his  own,  aiding good men and coercing bad,  in short,  that he may  give  justice  to  all  men.  If  then  he  violates  the  agreement  according  to   which  he  was   chosen,  disturbing and confounding the very things which be was meant to put in order,  reason dictates that he    absolves    the   people  from   their   obedience,  especially  when  he has himself first  broken  the   faith which bound him and the people together.*

* Quoted by A.J.  and R.W.  Carlyle in  A history of Medieval Political  Theory in the West , Vol. III, p. 164, n. 1.

For Manegold a people’s allegiance to its ruler is a  promise support him in his lawful undertakings and is consequently void in the  case of a tyrant. In a sense, a tyrant committed  treason by dishonouring the office of monarch and its implied  and inherent obligations.

Restraints  on the monarch were given formal status by  their   coronation  oaths.  In  England,  Magna  Carta  (1215)  moved  matters  on to  another stage where a monarch was  forced  to  agree  to direct constraints on his power.   The  example  of   Magna  Carta  in turn led to the development of  the  English   Parliament,  which moved from a petitioning and tax  granting   body  in the 14th century to the point where it  practically,  if not in theory,  usurped the power of the king.

As  the  power of monarchs waned,   the emphasis of  who  was   betrayed  gradually  moved  to  the  idea  that  the   entire   population of a country was an entity in itself and  betrayal of that entity amounted to treason.   The shift from  monarch to  people  was completed  with the advent  of  the  formally  democratic state,   where,  in theory at least,  the  general   population  became  the sovereign.

Of  what  does treason consist in  the   formally  democratic  nation state?  Generally it must be the conscious decision to  act  in a way which will weaken the integrity of  the  nation  state.  Betrayal in the old manner of spying or acting for an  enemy in war is still part of that.  But the primary  treason in  the modern  formally democratic state is more  insidious.   It  is the abrogation of the sovereignty of the nation  state   by  immersement in larger political entities and through  the  signing  of  treaties  which  restrict  the  opportunity  for national self-determination.

This raises an interesting question, namely  can   an elected  politician   commit  treason if the treasonable  activity  is    part  of an election manifesto or it is put to a  referendum?   The  textbook answer would be that ultimate sovereignty in  a formal democracy lies practically and morally,  if not always  legally,  with the electorate.  An electorate which elects  a  party  or  individual  on  a manifesto  or  votes  yes  in  a  referendum   is considered to be tacitly granting the  policy   legitimacy.  However,  there are strong  objections  to  this   interpretation.

The   first   is  that  the  treasonable  activity   may   be  misrepresented by the party or politician.  A classic example of  this  is Britain’s entry into what is  now  the  European   Union   (EU).   The  British   electorate   were   undeniably  deliberately  misled  by   the  1970  Tory  manifesto    into    believing  that they were merely joining a free  trade  area.

They   were  deliberately  misled  again  during   the   1975  referendum on Britain’s continued membership.  They have been  deliberately  misled consistently in the 35 years  since  the  referendum,  being  told  by every  government  that  British  sovereignty is not being lost, when massive amounts have been  ceded.  That is treason by any meaningful definition that has  ever been used in the past.

But  what if all the sovereignty which had been ceded to  the EU  had  been  done after it was presently  honestly  to  the electorate?  Suppose every change had been the subject  of  a   referendum.  Suppose  those referendums  had  been  conducted with  absolutely fairness.  What then? Here the old  idea  of     “evil   counsellors”   has  utility.  In  the  modern  formal  democracy,  politicians play the role of  counsellors.  Where  their counsel is bad and the results of it disadvantages  the    people  to which they owe their good sense and loyalty,  then  that  might  be said to be treasonable.  Our  representatives   owe us their best judgement and courage. If they act in a way        which  is  compromised  by considerations  other  than  their  honest  judgement  and  that action  has  results  which  are   treasonable,  they are guilty of treason. Not only that,  but the  representative  must  be honest  about  the  foreseeable  consequences of what they propose.   In the  representative’s  special  position,  treason may be committed though  acts  of    omission  as  well as commission,  through not  pointing  out consequences.

What are the great particular treasons of our time?  They can be defined in terms of what causes damage to the viability of   the nation state.  In the case of Britain,  the most dramatic  formal  act  of  damaging  the nation  state  has  been   our  membership of the EU.  But that  is  only  one of a number of   serious  attacks  on  the  British  state  and  people.   The permitting of mass immigration is a profound form of treason,   for mass immigration is a form of conquest.  North America is  now dominated by the white man because of a slow accretion of  settlement not through sudden and violent conquest.   To that   treason  is  linked its sister act,  the  attempted  cultural          cleansing of the native population of Britain in general  and  the English in particular,  through the wilful denigration of   the native population of this country,  the deliberate denial  to them  of their history in our schools and the  suppression  of dissent through the power of the state, willingly assisted  by the mass media.

To  those   may  be added these  others  which  are  patently  against our interests.   Entering into treaties which  remove  freedom  of  action  from  the  country,  for example  those  governing  membership of the World Trade Organisation.    The  failure  to maintain the country’s military capacity and  the   use  of what military we have in foreign adventures in  which    Britain has no natural interest.  The   deliberate refusal to  ensure  that the  country’s economic capacity can supply  all  essential  items  in time of  emergency,  in  particular  the securing of the food supplies.   The  spending of  taxpayers’  money on  foreign peoples.  All these treasons,  and those of the preceding paragraphs, apply to a lesser or greater degree throughout the First World.

Our  own  time has  brought a new problem  of  definition  to  treason.   The  elite  ideology  of  the  moment  is  Liberal Internationalism. This   might seem to be  a direct challenge to the very idea of treason, for where neither the primacy of   the  nation nor the authority of a sovereign  is  recognised, against  whom is treason committed?  The answer is  that  for  the Liberal Internationalist, treason is any dissent from his  ideology. Treason has put  on totalitarian clothes.

Unfortunately,  the Liberal Internationalist  propaganda  has  been so successful that treason has an old fashioned ring  to  the modern Briton.  It is  mocked along with the very idea of  patriotism.  So long have the British been at peace,  so safe  does everyday life seem, so ruthlessly have the liberal elite   and  their  educational and media nomenclatura  promoted  the    idea that the time of the nation state is passed,  that  even   naturally  patriotic  Britons  find the idea  of  treason  an     uncomfortable one.

That  is a mortally dangerous because  a belief that  treason  may be committed  is vitally important if we wish to maintain   our independence.  It is so because the nation state requires  a  concept of treason  as a foundation of its integrity.   We  desperately need to understand the nature of treason and  act  upon it for our own protection.

National Identity Theft

The Historical Association reports that history as a subject is dying in schools. This is no accident but the deliberate policy of all governments from the 1980s onwards.
First, the idea of chronology was removed; themes replaced periods and children were  encouraged not to learn about  great figures from the past but to “empathise” with common folk  by imagining they were a peasant in Mediaeval England  or a chambermaid in Victorian London.    Then the curriculum was narrowed by teaching the Tudors and the Hitler period over and over again. Finally, history was made non-compulsory after the age of 14.
Why did all this happen? Because the entire British political class became committed to multiculturalism and the putative wonders of diversity, a state of affairs they had engineered over half a century from 1945 by allowing mass  immigration.  To enforce multiculturalism it was necessary to destroy historical understanding and national sentiment  amongst the native population, because the success  of multiculturalism relied on the native population being denied not only a public voice but the intellectual and emotional  tools to oppose the imposition of multiculturalism.
The other side of the multicultural coin was to incessantly promote the various  cultures of immigrants as things of great value   which both excited and strengthened the naturally separarist  tendencies of the and indoctrinated the native population with the idea that these people  have culture, you have none.

Armed forces to defend Britain not to serve the New World Order

The current Government dithering over what cuts should be made to our already distorted and overstretched  armed forces  is taking place not in the context of what we need to defend Britain and her interests,  but by asking  how the cuts  can be made to allow the dangerous and  destructive fantasy which has been taken hold of British politicians for several decades – that Britain can perform  the  quasi-imperial role of  bringing  “enlightenment”  in the form of  political correctness to the benighted natives – to  be sustained.

What Britain needs, as every state does, are armed forces to defend its territory and to intervene abroad when a vital British interest is at stake.  The article below (which was published by Right Now! in the summer of 2004) attempts to define what such armed forces should be and give a broad defence strategy which goes beyond the armed forces.

Armed  forces  to defend Britain not to serve the  New  World  Order (NWO)

For  the British political elite the loss of empire  did  not  signal the end of the imperial  mentality.  As a consequence, Britain’s   defence  capability continued for decades  to  be built  upon the ridiculous assumption that she still had  the military responsibilities of a  great power.   This has meant until recent years that Britain has shaped her  defence to be able to operate,  in theory at least,  anywhere in the world, with  a  very full range of expensive military toys  such  as aircraft  carriers  and  heavy tanks,  neither  of  which  is necessary for the defence of modern Britain.

That  policy  was mistaken but not inherently  dangerous.  It  cost  the  British  taxpayer a great  deal  of   money  spent  unnecessarily,    but it did not commit Britain to  dangerous  adventures or leave Britain incapable of defending herself.

In   Tony  Blair’s hands this  “great  power”  mentality  has  transmuted  into an ideology what might be described as   New  World Order (NWO)  chic,  whereby  Britain’s armed forces are  no  longer intended to protect British territory  but  rather  exist to operate as an arm of some ill-defined  international  order.   To  call them defence forces is rapidly  becoming  a  misnomer.  Equally important,  the military enterprises which  our armed forces are being shaped to perform are fraught with  diplomatic,  military and economic danger,  not least because  they are likely to be taken in conjunction with the USA.

Creating the NWO force of tomorrow

The  shaping of our armed forces to serve the NWO rather than British  needs  is   already   well  under  way.    This   is  exemplified by recent   equipment proposals which, at massive   cost, lumber Britain with weapons which are not needed.   Two giant  aircraft  carriers  have  already been ordered   at  a  current   estimated  cost  of  £13  billion  and a  new “mini-tank” which can be lifted to foreign fields  by air  is proposed at another  œ6 billion (Sunday Telegraph London 5 10 03).

In  addition  to these vast equipment projects,   Britain  is committed   to   providing   a   rapid-response   force   for “international  emergencies”  and is being  gradually  lured,  whatever Blair says, into an EU defence force.  The  effect  of  this reshaping of our  armed  forces  is  to starve  them of  the means to defend Britain.   The  aircraft  carrier  project  alone will take  a  quite  disproportionate amount  of  the defence procurement budget  for  many  years,  while the mini-tank  project, if it goes ahead,   will result  in the end of our heavy armour  regiments altogether.

The defence policy Britain  needs

It is improbable that Britain in the foreseeable future  will  have  to  fight,  as  a  matter  of  necessity,   either   an aggressive war  abroad on its own or in alliance with another    country such as the USA.  What Britain needs are armed forces which  will  prevent  attacks on Britain  itself,  guard  her waters  and (just conceivably) allow her to break a blockade.   Such a policy could be easily met within Britain’  s  present spending,  because it is always easier and cheaper to  defend your own territory than to have to invade another territory.

Having  armed forces which are  designed to  operate only  in the defence of  Britain should  mean that recruitment of both regulars  and reservists   becomes easier  because  long  and frequent  tours  of    duty abroad would   no  longer  be   a problem.  In particular,   shortages of specialists  such  as military  medics should become a non-issue.

The  policy   would   have the  further  great  advantage  of  hamstringing    politicians.    Whatever    their    natural inclinations,   even   the  most   reckless   politician   is     constrained in what he  can do by  simple practicalities.  If  Britain  has  armed forces which are only equipped to  defend  British  territory,  they  cannot easily  be  sent  to  fight  abroad, even in conjunction  with a power such as the US.

Equally  importantly for the long term interests of  Britain,  if  politicians cannot  engage in military action abroad,  it is  probable  that   their  ability  and  desire  to   impose draconian “anti-terror”,  laws such as those which the  Blair  Government has been eagerly passing since September 11,  will  be  much diminished.  Stripped of the propaganda   engine  of  how  Britain is militarily tackling “the war on  terror”  and “our  boys are at war”,   any government would  find it  very difficult  to  rush through  authoritarian  measures  because  opponents  amongst the elite would be more willing  to  speak out.

What are we guarding against?

There  are  three  general threats to Britain,  nuclear  war,   conventional   war/blockade/sanctions  against  Britain   and  terrorist  attacks from within and without.   Nuclear war  we  can   only  deter  by  possessing  a   credible   independent deterrent,  which  would also deter  a  direct  conventional attack. As for blockades and sanctions, these can be resisted by ensuring we are self-sufficient in necessities.

At  present  we  have  Trident and that  is  it  for  nuclear weapons. Trident  may  not be  under our control –  Tony Benn believes  that  it cannot be operated without the release  of American codes because it is dependent upon US satellites for its  guidance system – and we scrapped our  freefall  nuclear  bombs in 2003.   Britain  should develop a variety of nuclear  weapons and delivery systems.

To  have a potent threat  below the nuclear,  Britain  should also  pursue  the development of weapons such as the  neutron  bomb  and  lasers and any other appropriate  sub-nuclear  new technology  which  arises.   Such  technology  would   permit  Britain  to defend the Falklands with some  certainty  whilst deploying little manpower.

The Navy and Airforce should be reshaped utterly.   To defend  Britain,   we  require  not  giant  carriers  but  plenty  of submarines,  minesweepers  and small assault  ships  such  as  destroyers to police our immediate seas.  The airforce should turn  its efforts towards the development of unmanned  planes and a  space programme capable of at least launching our  own satellites – at present we are entirely dependent on Nasa  or European  Space Agency satellites the use of which  could  be denied  at  any time.  The space programme would  be  run  in conjunction with general missile development.

The  regular  army is large enough as  it  is  (approximately 110,000)  provided  women are excluded from the count and  it is  supplemented by a decent sized TA and properly  organised reservists, ie, the regular soldiers who have completed their service and then go onto the reserve list.

Military procurement

In the end, the only certain  defence is that which a country can  provide for itself.   Relying on foreign  suppliers  for   military equipment  is  self-evidently  dangerous because  it  places  us  in their hands.  There is also the  inability  of  Britain to ensure that foreign equipment is upgraded  through further development.

A  country like Britain has it within its  power  to  produce all the weaponry and associated equipment it needs.   That is  especially so if the defence of British territory is the sole  concern  of Britain,  because the range of  equipment  needed becomes much reduced,  for example, we would  not need  heavy tanks or aircraft carriers.

Those  who doubt that Britain could go it alone in  producing their own equipment should reflect on the fact that until the early  sixties  Britain produced virtually  all  its  defence equipment,  including   cutting  edge  planes   such  as  the Lightning  fighter  and the V bombers,  when  our    national  wealth was, in real terms, very much less than it is today.

To   those   who  argue  for  the  economies  of   scale   in  joint-projects  with other countries I would simply  say  one  word “Eurofighter”.     Originally intended to enter  service in  the 1990s,  it has still  to do so,  nor is it clear when it will.

Nor is simply buying foreign a panacea. Take the case of  the Apache  Helicoptors  purchased  from the USA.  These  have  a  rather  distinctive design fault:  rockets can only be  fired from   the right-hand side of helicopter because if they  are  fired from the left hand side  debris may hit the  tail rotor which is situated  on the left-hand side.

National self-sufficiency

There  is  more to defence than men and armaments.  The  more  self-sufficient  a country is  the less vulnerable it  is  to  foreign  pressure.    There  is no  point  having   the  best equipped defence force in the world if   a country is reliant  on  the import  of much of its food or raw materials such  as iron  and energy sources such as oil.

With modern farming practices,  Britain could feed herself at a pinch.   Presently, we produce approximately 60% of what we eat. In addition, we export a substantial amount of food.  We  might  not  be able to  produce as much food  as  we  consume today, but  if we had 80% of what we consume  now – something which could be achieved  by  temporarily banning exports  and  maximising the use of existing agricultural land – in time of   emergency we could continue to feed ourselves.

We  also  need  to  maintain  the  capacity  to  produce  all  necessities,  not  necessarily at the level we  now  consume, but  to  have  the ability to manufacture them.  In  time  of emergency  the capacity could be expanded.   If  no  capacity  exists it cannot be expanded.

Energy needs should be  entirely met by the country. The only practical  way  of doing this rapidly is by   engaging  in  a  nuclear power building programme.  In the longer term,  other renewable energy sources can be expanded.

Lastly, strategic stockpiles of vital raw materials should be created   by the government sufficient to provide five  years working  stock.    This  would  allow  time  to  withstand  a  blockade or devise ways to evade  sanctions.

International treaties and joint defence

Mutual defence treaties are  a perpetual source of  mischief,  providing an ever-open door to unnecessary war.  For example,  in 1914 Britain  went to war ostensibly because  of a  treaty  signed  in  1839  which committed Britain to the  defence  of  Belgium.

Presently  we are primarily tied into Nato.   I came  to  the conclusion  that  Nato  was essentially a PR  vehicle  around 1970,  when I could not quite  bring myself to  believe that the  US  would launch a nuclear strike on the  Soviet   Union simply because the Soviet Union invaded or attacked any  part    of  Western Europe  – which was  the bottom line of  Nato.  I  find  it even less probable that an enlarged Nato would  come  to the aid of a member if it was  attacked, not least because the  most likely attacker of a Nato member  is  another  Nato member.

Whatever  the  utility  of  defence  treaties  in  the  past, nuclear  weapons  have changed the rules of the game.   If  a  country  has  a nuclear capacity it is most unlikely  to   be  attacked.   Thus  defence treaties are,  for  nuclear  powers  which  have no aggressive ambitions,  practically  redundant.

Britain  should withdraw from them,  together with any  other treaty, such as the Treaty of Rome, which restricts Britain’s freedom of action and control of her borders.

Let us not sleep-walk  to disaster

Should   Britain continue to have forces which are shaped  to engage  in NWO expeditionary adventures there will be no  end to military and political quagmires such as  those which  now find  British troops trapped in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the  absurd   but  sinister  “War  on  Terror”   will   carry   on indefinitely.   There is no end to the madness and peril such policies  could engender.  We need to remove  temptation  and   opportunity from politicians.

%d bloggers like this: