Total Visits

Wednesday, 24 December 2014



Last week, William Hague, on behalf of the leadership of the Conservative Party, took the first formal step that any part of the British Political Establishment towards recognising the legitimate grievances of England and the English Nation over their exclusion from the whole devolution process.

EVEL, or English Votes for English Laws, is rather a puffing, faltering little step but as Scottish National Devolution has shown once national recognition has been offered, a process has begun which must inevitably lead in the direction that English Nationalists will approve of.

As was recently pointed out to me by a Welsh Professor of Politics, Plaid Cymru’s traditional position before any party had started to talk about national devolution for Wales was as follows:-

“You’ll recall that the traditional view in Plaid Cymru was that they should say yes to anything that recognised Wales as a unit as that would lead – inevitably – to more. They weren’t wrong!”

In the circumstances English nationalists can unequivocally approve of there being a first step taken by the British Political Establishment. 

We should however be under no illusion that it is done for any reasons of love for England! 

Let us not forget that the person charged with the production of this little concession is the same William Hague who, when he was the Leader of the Conservative Party in 2002 said:- “English nationalism is the most dangerous of all forms of nationalism that can arise within the United Kingdom, because England is five-sixths of the population of the UK." Leopards famously do not change their spots, nor, I suggest, do Brit/Scots like William Hague - even if they masquerade as Yorkshiremen!


  1. The only good thing about EVEL, in my book, is that it isn't Regionalism.It's a misnomer. There can't be English votes because there are no English M.P.s. There are only Brirish M.P.s, sitting for English constituencies. A significant number of these, (I know of 29,) are Scottish or Welsh, anyway.
    I have absolutely no doubt that, faced with a proposal that would be damaging to England, (e.g. a further increase in England-only University fees,) these "English" M.P.s would all vote in favour, whilst voting for the continuation of English taxpayers' footing the bill for free university tuition for Scottish students.

  2. I still don't trust them not to try and swing the regionalism agenda in due course. This is what Alex Salmond is hoping for to weaken England.

    On another tack, I wonder whether any other members saw a lady called Hanne Nabintu Herland being interviewed by Oxana Boiko on Russia Today. This Norwegian lady was a bit offputting inasmuch as she looked like Miss Norway but was very firm in her views on what she called liberal utopianism. Like all utoptianism, the result is totalitarianism via the Marxist route of political correctness that she alluded to. She should have just come out and called it Marxism. Wearing a very prominent crucifix around her neck she also alluded to despotic secularism. Basically she said what I have said that liberal utopianism has lead to rootless individualism and the erosion of Christianity. She even said that Europeans are now under attack, which we all know.

    A Methodist minister of mine once quoted somebody who said that if you remove God then it is an easy step to totalitarianism. All left wing revolutionary movements have done this. And I note that the greatest opponents of communism in East Germany were the Protestant Church even though these utopianists tell us that what they are doing is the will of God.

    The cracks in the pluralist utopian agenda are now appearing thick and fast with the firebombing of a mosque in Sweden and a black officer in Missouri saying that blacks will have to be policed by blacks because the blacks do not trust the white police. Is this a return to segregation or apartheid or just human nature and proving that all utopianist movements founder on its rock.

    As with all others they are financed by the bankers for their own ends as is being shown by the fact that the one world utopia is benefiting them and their big business offshoots and certainly not Europeans or others as European Christian civilisation collapses and Europeans are targeted for extinction,as was the intent. Well done Hanne for standing up for us.
    Of course she is a pariah in her native Norway.

  3. Re the above, I noted with interest that t v channels at Christmas, amongst the plethora of Americanised rubbish, brought out Morecambe and Wise and the two Ronnies, with programmes dating from what was still a largely non-pluralist age of the early 1980s and 1970s. In fact the early 1980s was probably when England after so many centuries, if not millennia, began to fade away. I wonder whether they continue to show these programmes because they have a high viewer following from those who know England is dead but do not want to let go. As Charles Moore, although an Irishman, said a few years ago, England is gone, it was a wonderful country which he will tell his grandchildren about. It will live on in old films and books and in documentaries and old radio programmes.

    Only when it is recaptured do we realise what they have done to us. This was underlined by an excellent programme last night by A N Wilson on C S Lewis. Suddenly, we seem to sit up with a jolt and a warmth fills our heart as the England that still lies in our heart comes to life again. There is great misery in the land and in Europe in general as we wander around aimlessly in a place that is no longer England, no longer Europe, no longer anywhere. We are totally disconnected from our history, from our culture and from our indigenous ethnicity just as the Marxist utopianists and their Usurer backers of the City and Wall Street - where their power base lies - intended. Those of us who remember the old world have no choice but to live our remaining decades in a state of anger, disbelief and disconnect. Interestingly, this is something that Lewis himself felt even then. He harked back to a more civilised, pre-industrial age. I just wonder what he would think if he had been alive today 51 years after his death.

    Another thing that Hanne Herland said was that America - that should be the Usurers of Wall Street - want to spread their liberal utopianism through war to the rest of the world through "democracy" - whereas they are secretly creating a totalitarian world. As she pointed out, with its meetings of tribal leaders, Afghanistan was a democracy, just not in the American model. The same could probably also have been said for Libya. The irony is that the American model can only now be sustained through the creation of a police state. We were told the other evening by Afshan Ratansi on RT that many think that America is behind the EU as part of their ultra capitalist, banker dominated one world agenda. We should perhaps not say America as most thinking people now know who the real culprits are.

  4. I said that there is only one good thing about EVEL. It seems I was wrong. There is another; namely the prevention of a coalition or similar pact between Miliband and Salmond which would see the former as the puppet Prime Minister of the latter.
    Nicola Sturgeon said in her speech to the SNP conference, as its new leader, "Think what we could win for Scotland, with a Labour government at Westminster, dependent on SNP votes."
    Bearing in mind that the British parliament governs England only, we face the prospect of the English government consisting of the architects of the 2008 crash, propped up by a party that cares nothing for the UK and even less for England.
    EVEL beats that!
    What we need, however, is an English Government, comprised of Englishmen, elected by and serving the English.
    p.s. A Happy New Year to all who read this!

    1. Nicola Sturgeon said in her speech to the SNP conference, as its new leader, "Think what we could win for Scotland, with a Labour government at Westminster, dependent on SNP votes."

      Here, Nicola Sturgeon is talking about an arrangement between the SNP and Labour.

      You wrote, "Bearing in mind that the British parliament governs England only, we face the prospect of the English government consisting of the architects of the 2008 crash, propped up by a party that cares nothing for the UK and even less for England".
      The government of the 1980s was the architect of the 2008 crash, namely the Lawson budget of 1987, which led to the global financial collapse. (Brown was the poor sap who was left holding the parcel when the music stopped)
      There is nothing in your quote from Nicola Sturgeon suggesting any kind of arrangement between the SNP and the Tories, although I don't doubt that, as you wrote, the Tories care nothing for the UK and even less for England.

    2. It is possible that David Lloyd-George did something that had a knock-on consequence in 2008! Brown, however, throughout his tenure of 11 Downing Street , continually bragged that he was creating a bomb-proof economy and that prudence was at the heart of everything he did.
      Truth was that he was borrowing more and more, to sustain artificial growth, so that when the bomb finally went off in 2008, he had to borrow further countless billions to bail out the banks, when he was already "maxed-out".
      As for Sturgeon, she promised in the same speech that the SNP would never help the Conservative party take office.

    3. Clive,
      Your theory, that David Lloyd-George did something that had a knock-on effect consequence in 2008 (and presumably also the Wall Street Crash), is interesting to say the least.

      "The individual banks are the system," Lawson says.

      He concedes that some conflicts of interest may have emerged as investment banking evolved but says: "Nobody at the time realised that if you put everything together, there would be a problem."

      Britain was not the only country to unleash the money-spinning potential of the bankers, of course, but Lawson's Thatcherite convictions of unleashing the power of the markets put London in the vanguard — and Brown did nothing to fetter the masters of the universe.

      Twenty-five years on, Lawson is unrepentant, and is happy to see Brown take the blame for what went wrong as the result of Lawson giving free rein to the casino bankers with their complex financial instruments Ponzi schemes .

    4. In 2004 Blair signed off Brown's recommendation of a Knighthood for Frederick Anderson Goodwin, Group Chief Executive, Royal Bank of Scotland.
      Brown (and Blair) was cheering on the casino bankers.
      Steve, Ilminster

  5. I have read again what Vladimir Bukovsky said about the EU and its similarity to the old Soviet Union a couple of years ago. He said that the mistake that people make is to think that the Soviet Union was created solely through military force. According to Bukovsky this is not the case.
    Economics were used as the way to bring the various nations together and to sustain them in their state of imprisonment. Firstly, in the case of the EU, this was the promise of an improved economic condition for all; then the plug was pulled by the bankers so that there was "austerity" and the people were too weak, downtrodden and demoralised to resist.
    This is after they have been so flooded with the rest of the world as to destroy their unity and homogeneity; a clear case of divide and rule. We know from Peter Sutherland of Goldman Sachs that this is the aim to get the EU to work as a borderless amalgam. Sutherland is the UN commissioner for migration and Bukovsky goes on to talk of the final plan for one world government - probably at the UN, which he read about in the Kremlin archives in the early 90s. This was presumably the result of the work of Soviet agents and what they had gleaned from working inside the then European Community. Obviously, they know that political union between the European Union and the American Union is a non-starter and so through TTIP they are going to sidestep this and make big banks and corporations able to operate above and beyond democratically elected governments. They have tried the same thing in the Far East but have come unstuck because of China who is drawing the rest of the world to herself in order to preserve the nations' independence from Wall Street or City of London domination.

    Meanwhile in Sweden there has been another attack on a mosque and one on an Islamic centre. This against the background of the fact that even the EU has predicted that the Muslim population of Sweden will be 40% in 15 years. Here there is meant to be mounting Islamophobia even without such a demographic prediction - or not one that we are being made privy to. And in New York the police force has declared war on the black community after the killing of the two cops. I am reading a book about the state of the Continent at the end of the war when people wandered around from country to country and inter-ethnic violence was rife until people were sorted out back into their own countries with their own borders. Once that had happened the creators of the EU decided to reverse the process. Hanne Herland said that in terms of international tension in Europe we are in 1938. In terms of what is going to happen when the EU and the nations within it collapse into bloodshed we are in 1945.

    Bukovsky has said that political correctness or liberal utopianism is gradually leading to the gulag as any criticism of the destruction or crushing as he says of homogeneous nation states is punishable by the law. Apparently, European police forces are exempt from the law in a way that even the KGB was not.

  6. Steven Woolfe the UKIP MEP in the North West, and UKIP spokesman on immigration, has clarified UKIP's position on immigration. It seems that UKIP wishes to reduce immigration from the EU, but favours immigration from the rest of the world.
    UKIP differs from the pro-EU Cameron Tories only in how to remove national barriers and achieve globalisation. The Tories believe that the EU is the road to globalisation, but UKIP believes that globalisation will be more easily achieved outside of the EU.

    1. This is no surprise. UKIP is, we now suspect, just an offshoot of the City, as Mr Woolfe and Mr Farage are. A Swedish Imam said that the Far Right were stoking up fears of an ethnic minority take over. With 40% of Muslims there in 15 years this is bound to be the ultimate outcome. Immigration is like a tap you can't turn off when the Left think we are all the same and big business demands cheap labour. England will be non-white and probably Muslim be the second half of the century unless things change and UKIP seem wedded to immigration from the non-white world rather than our fellow Europeans. I wonder why?

  7. Having now finished the book, The Savage Continent, by Keith Lowe about what happened on the Continent after the War I have discovered that Lowe is optimistic but still concerned about the re-assertion of old ethnic rivalries despite the fact that in the late 40s steps were taken to remove minorities and put them back with the majority of their compatriots, including the removal of 11m Volkdeutsch back to Germany. Even in these islands, we have simmering unrest between Ulster Protestants and Nationalist Catholics in Ulster still and between the Celtic Fringe and England. Throw into this mix a massive selection of non-Europeans by ethnicity, culture and religion, stir for 50 to 60 years and tensions are mounting on a daily basis. Enoch Powell thought that the conflict would come between Europeans and non-Europeans, which is happening; but there is also conflict arising between those who favour mass immigration and those who are opposed. In Germany there are continuing demonstrations against the Islamification of Europe and those who are opposed to the protestors. In Denmark, four Pakistani brothers have launched a party to counter the anti-immigration Danish People's Party. This is something that Powell did not talk about but could probably foresee.

    Globalism/Globalisation is a dogma that brooks no opposition in the circles of our political elites and the big corporations and banks that are their puppeteers. Having read Lowe's book I wondered what would have happened her if the Germans had landed. How many people would have put putting up a fight before their own lives. In view of the total silence of the masses with regard to mass immigration for fear of falling foul of the law then I am beginning to wonder. I was speaking to a gentleman the other day about events in Kiev and saying that America is using the same people who joined Hitler to fight the Russians. He said it was a long way away and he did not think about it. Presumably this is the sort of ostrich mentality of the mass of the sheeple here now.

    I have mentioned before the wreath laying each October by the English Companions in the memory of Harold Godwinson. In their most recent magazine the writer says;"We did our best to give dignity to this place and time. In England today we can say that our troop has fallen and that all is troublesome in our earthly kingdom. We will be back next year and every year after that for as long as Englishmen and women still thrive in England". The inference is that this may not be for more than a few decades. Indeed the date for an English minority has been set at 2066. I think the date was chosen deliberately to rub salt into the wound. But what are we meant to do, any more than when we are told the cockney accent will be gone by 2040 to be replaced by an Afro-Asian patois. They tell us all this and then threaten us if we voice our opposition or concern. Pure sadism.