Total Visits

Sunday, 6 December 2015

SPEECH TO Europe of Nations and Freedoms CONFERENCE


SPEECH TO ENF CONFERENCE, 4TH DECEMBER 2015


Ladies and Gentlemen when Charles de Gaulle gave his famous “NON!” reply to the British Government’s applications to join the European Common Market, as the European Union was then known, he said:-


“England in effect is insular, she is maritime, she is linked through her exchanges, her markets, her supply lines to the most diverse and often the most distant countries; she pursues essentially industrial and commercial activities, and only slight agricultural ones. She has in all her doings very marked and very original habits and traditions”.



Most British commentators since then have either ignored that comment or laughed at it. I however, as an Englishman, think he was right. In doing so I fit in with opinion poll evidence which makes clear, that people who think of themselves as being “British” are very likely to be Europhiles, whereas people like me who strongly identify with being English, are very likely to be Eurosceptic.


Let me now explain why I think I am right in thinking that Charles de Gaulle was right.


To do so I first need to explain why England is so exceptional and the uniqueness of the English Nation.


Of course a collection of eminent patriotic nationalists, such as we have here in this conference from other European countries revel in the uniqueness of their own country and their own nation and rightly so! It is partly out of a sense of English understatement and restraint and politeness that English people don’t emphasise the uniqueness of England, hoping thereby not to give offence. However it is because our uniqueness is what makes us so uniquely unsuited to incorporation into the European Union Superstate project that I must run the risk of offending but I hope that you will understand and forgive me because it is to educate English people that I need to say this. It will probably seem odd to many of you that I have to explain what may seem obvious but the UK State and the British political and media establishment are hostile to Englishness and want to break up England.


Most non-English people, just like President De Gaulle, are well aware of England’s uniqueness but English exceptionalism does need to be explained to English people. This is partly because of English insularity. It remains a fact that many English people have never been outside of England and so know nothing else other than English ways. Such people are singularly ill-equipped to judge what is special about England. As one of our famous 19th Century poets, Rudyard Kipling, wrote:-  


“What should they know of England who only England know”?


There is also the problem that even those English people who have travelled outside of England have usually not travelled outside of the Western developed world. All Western countries have adopted large parts of the English cultural, political, legal, industrial, etc., contribution to the world. So such limited English travellers are inclined to imagine, as they only anyway get a superficial view of other countries, that the glimpst similarities, which they have only seen at a quick glance, show that all other countries, and therefore all human beings, are basically English with a few quaint or interesting customs thrown in! They do not see the deep differences that make each nation unique. As we say:- “They cannot see the wood for the trees”! This is what in psychology is known as “projection”. Most English people “project” that everyone has the same moral code as them and so projection may also be part of the multi-culturalist delusion that mixing everyone up could ever lead to harmony!


There are therefore only a few English people who have seen the unique contrasts and so have the perspective to understand the reality that English ways and culture are unique.


This lack of understanding is a pity, not only because English people should feel some pride in the achievements of our Nation, but also because an understanding of English uniqueness would help English people appreciate that not only should our own uniqueness be treasured, but so also should the uniqueness of every other nation on earth. Such an understanding would be a transformative inspiration leading to a better appreciation of the role of nations and of the need for respect of other national identities.


People who understand that idea would support the emergence of a world order, where nations are encouraged to be self-governing. The fundamental principle is that nations should be self governed. The borders of states would be encouraged to be reordered, where practicable, to re-unite divided nations and to facilitate the correction of past errors, many of which were made by British imperialists.


For example, part of what we are seeing in the turmoil in the Middle East now is the inevitable instability created by States seeking to maintain themselves as entities against the wishes of their constituent fragmented nations often where the boundaries were drawn after the First World War, without any respect for the various nations or communities within the Middle East.


Returning to England, to point out why the English Nation is so unfitted to be in the EU I shall go through some of the reasons why we are unique. The first thing to note is how ancient England is.


English is ancient


After the collapse of the Roman Empire what is now England was settled by the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes, whose political systems gradually coalesced into the Kingdoms of the Heptarchy but already by 731 AD the Venerable Bede was writing about England and the English Nation. England would never have come into unified existence except as a result of the Viking invasions.


Alfred the Great not only started the fight back but set up many of the social, political and cultural institutions that have come to define Englishness as the mission for his dynasty, the House of Wessex. So successful were they that under his Grandson, the great King Athelstan, England was united on more or less its current borders. Which it has retained more or less uninterruptedly ever since the 12th July in the year of our Lord 927!

Aristocracy


Another example of “English Exceptionalism” is that our aristocracy were never legally a separate Caste, unlike French aristocrats who before the French Revolution could not be required to pay tax but also not be either prosecuted or sued in a court of law. Our aristocracy has never been like that and indeed in 1760, at the very height of the Ancien Regime in France, Earl Ferrers was hanged at Tyburn having been convicted in an English court of law of murdering his steward.

Rule of Law


In 2015 there were some celebrations of another “English Exceptionalism” that of the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta at Runnymede where England became the first country ever to make its King subject to the Rule of Law.


Compare that with Roman law, as handed down to us through the Institutes of Justinian, which is by comparison the law of tyranny, specifically stating that the ‘Emperor’s Will is Law’. Since 1215, the English King’s Will has not been Law in England.

Representative Parliament and Democracy


Although universal adult suffrage is relatively new in England, with all adult women finally getting the vote in 1928, our representative parliamentary system is much older. In 2015 there was some limited official recognition given to January 20th being the 750th anniversary of the calling of the first English Parliament by Simon de Montfort. The meeting took place in the still existing Chapter House of Westminster Abbey.

Even that anniversary somewhat understates the antiquity of English representational participation as the Anglo Saxon Kings ruled through their Witan, with participation from a representational sample of the great men of England, in a manner totally dissimilar to autocratic Roman Emperors or any of the other tyrannical states all across the globe and throughout history.

The Anglo Saxon Kingdom also had a highly significant array of courts and of local representative decision-making bodies which as a result included in decision making and implementation quite a large proportion of the adult male population and most of the free population.

Together with the Rule of Law this led very early to Englishmen having a clear idea of their rights and of what the Monarchy was allowed to order and what tradition did not allow. It was against this strong idea that King John’s autocratic idea of Kingship was wrecked. As Kipling wrote of the Anglo Saxon mentality:-

“But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right. When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own, And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone!”

Religion


The Church of England is unique amongst the Nation States of the world. The Church of England is part of the constitutional structure of England with its Senior Bishops having automatic positions in Parliament and the Queen being the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.


England alone has a Protestant church which regards itself as Catholic in the sense of being for all People of England. This combined with our history led to a unique attitude to religion and had a big impact on other aspects of our politics and our economic development.


Because until 1829 people who were not Church of England could not hold official positions, non-conformist Protestants tended to focus on business and are disproportionately represented amongst the great historical entrepreneurs e.g. Cadbury, Rowntree. As attendance in the Church of England has declined this has led to the English Nation being one of the most secularist societies on earth.

Political Sectarianism


English Politics were partly configured as a result of our history and our religion. With religious non-conformity being the root of our radical traditions and of the historical foundations of our political divide between historically conservative traditions and Labour non-conformist.


Also the fact that the English constitution has evolved over the last thousand years without being utterly overthrown by the devastation of invasion means that our political divide is unique in its ideological content.


So perversely for a nation which almost invented the ideology and practise of free trade capitalism, our Conservative Party fights to maintain the monolithic, statist, bureaucratic structure of one of the largest single employers in the world, the National Health Service (only just beaten in size by the Chinese Red Army!). Unsurprisingly no other country has thought to copy such an unmanageable behemoth.

Mercantile Revolution


England early had its mercantile revolution and English merchants were already trading around the world in the 16th Century.

Agricultural Revolution


England’s medieval open field assistance farming systems were early being transformed into commercially engaged enterprises, aiming to sell produce in markets from the middle of the 14th Century. It was this transformation that gives England its unique countryside, villages, farms and country houses.

By the beginning of the 18th Century there was virtually no subsistence farming left in England and almost all farming was commercialised and incorporated into national market commercial patterns. The hub of which early became the largest city in Europe, London, with its world trading connections and politically dominant role. By the Norman Conquest in 1066 London was already by far the largest city in England.

Industrial Revolution


England had the Rule of Law and a legally enforceable array of individual rights, and of property rights, whereby anyone could own, buy and sell property in most cases by the early 16th Century. In principle all property was legally transferrable and the last of the restrictive medieval ownership patterns were abolished in the 1650’s.

It is partly as a result of this exceptionally early ability to transfer property that the English were the first people in all human history to have an Industrial Revolution. In England’s case it was not a product of State intervention but as a result of free enterprise.

To give an anecdotal example of how unusual this is, I was having a conversation with a Austrian a couple of years ago and explained to him that the English railway network was built by entrepreneurs and not by the State. He was amazed to hear this as, of course, almost all the railway systems of continental Europe were built by the State, often mainly for military purposes rather than commercial purposes.

Sporting Revolution


England is the home and the source of most of the games which dominate in world sport today and the English wrote the original rules regulating them and first turned these games into mass spectator events.

Empire


The British Empire wasn’t a uniquely English phenomenon but the English had a big role in its creation and maintenance. Unusually for empires it had its roots in trade and commercial opportunism as Napoleon famously and rightly said “England is a country of shopkeepers (merchants)”. While the high watermark of empire was very short its impact includes English as the world language. English is now the largest language in all human history at over one million words.

Naval power


Unlike most European Powers which had large armies, English security and power rested on the English Navy from Queen Elizabeth’s defeat of the Spanish Armada (latterly the Royal Navy) until after the Second World War. Our armies were usually small and were also usually deeply unpopular in peacetime.

The Evolution of our Unions


The Kingdom of England is particularly ancient but the first national union that took place within the British Isles was the Union between England and the newly constituted principality of Wales in 1536. That was a full Union whereby Wales was fully incorporated into the political, legal and religious structures of England.

The next Union is 1707, which was the Union between the Kingdom of England (which as I say included Wales) and the Kingdom of Scotland. That Union was and is a partial union. The Scottish monarchy and the English monarchy, which were already the same person, changed its title, to the King or Queen of the new Kingdom of Great Britain. The Scottish and English legal systems and religious structures, the education establishments remained separate. In effect the main result of the Act of Union of 1707 was the merger of the parliaments of England and Scotland. This Union took place in response to war, with absolutist France under Louis XIV, and was not a popular measure in either Scotland or England but just part of the elite building up the constitutional infrastructure that enabled the creation of a world empire.

The next Union also took place against the backdrop of war and empire, this time against Napoleonic France in 1801 with the Union between Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. This again was a partial Union and in the case of Ireland did not even allow Irish traders to have full access to English markets.

In 1922 a further change took place to the structure of the multi-national state known as the United Kingdom, when Southern Ireland succeeded in obtaining its independence, leading eventually to the current constitutional structure known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I think this explanation is necessary to understand what exactly the United Kingdom is and therefore to be able to question whether it serves the best interests of the People of England and the English Nation.

Legacy of Imperialism


The Union of the United Kingdom was formed, as I have already said, in order to advance the Imperial project and as part of the struggle for Imperial dominance with France. Thankfully those days are over, but the legacy hangs on in Government. British Governments still wants to prance about on the world stage making out that we are an important power. That is the reason we got ourselves into the mess as of Iraq, Afghanistan and even more ludicrously and disastrously Libya. We are now faced with active involvement in the quagmire of Syrian Civil War. I would say let us revert to the traditional English virtue of minding our own business!

The existence of English National Identity


You may ask whether there is such a thing as the English Nation after 300 years? Well my answer to you would be to say yes of course there is and the simplest demonstration of that is the strong sense of national identity shown in the 2011 National Census Results organised by the Government’s Office of National Statistics. For the first time in it we in England were asked whether we felt that our national identity was English rather than just British or Irish or a foreign national identity.


The results horrified the British Political and media establishment because even including the very multi-racial London, over 60% (over 32 million people) of the population of England said that they were “English-only” and not “British”. A further just less than 10% said that they were “English and British”. That is 70% of the population of England including London saying that their national identity is English. Also there was less than 30% that said that they were in any sense “British”. The difference was made up of course by people who said they were of “Non-British” national identities.


Outside of London typically 70% of the population say that they are “English-only”. Adding those that say that they are “English and British” will usually take you up to somewhat over 80%.


So it is absolutely crystal clear that there remains a strong sense of national identity in England. Indeed, despite 50 years of increasing mass immigration it remains by far the dominant national identity in England.


However I mentioned the expression “English Exceptionalism”, of course, not only is England exceptional in its cohesion, Rule of Law, our representative parliament, our constitutional monarchy, our glorious history, the first agricultural revolution, the first industrial revolution and so many other achievements but now the English are also exceptional in having no English national parliament, no English national government and no English First Minister.

Conclusion


It is therefore not surprising that given England’s uniqueness and exceptionalism that it is uniquely difficult for us to accept the Statist, corporatist, bureaucratic structure of the EU that incorporates the 28 Nations forming the European Union (out of the 50 European Nations). Just as De Gaulle thought England is unique, quirky, often infuriating, but we English like it that way.


English nationalism is developing towards not only withdrawal from the EU but also from the other Union that we are involved with. That is towards ending the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


There is an excellent Eurosceptic reason for supporting the call for English Independence. If England left the United Kingdom it would be dissolved. The United Kingdom is the constitutional entity which joined the European Union and it is a fundamental Rule of Law that if the entity which enters into an arrangement ceases to exist then that arrangement ceases to exist.


That is why in the run up to the Scottish referendum, Senor Barroso, the then President of the European Union Commission, came over here to say that if Scotland voted to go, Scotland would not be an accession State and would be automatically outside of the EU. The same logic applies to England. It is therefore a complete solution to not only the imbalance of the arrangements within the United Kingdom Union but also the £18bn a year which England gives to the EU which would also automatically cease.


This logic will apply to other EU member states/dissident nations like the Flemish nationalists in Belgium and the Catalonian nationalists in Spain.


So our English ambition should be to turn Karl Marx’s comment:-

 “England: The rock upon which all the revolutions of Europe are wrecked” 
into a prophesy and make England indeed the rock upon which the EU revolution is wrecked!


And so Ladies and Gentlemen what I would like to see, and what the English Democrats campaign for, is for England to resume its place amongst the Nation states of the earth and to be able to become a modern, democratic, prosperous, independent European Nation State respecting the uniqueness of all nations and in friendship with our European neighbours in a Europe of Nations and of Freedom!


Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen.

60 comments:

  1. A very well reasoned argument that would be difficult to refute.
    Clive,
    Weston-super-Mare.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Billy Bragg is at it again, proposing reform of the Lords linked to the division of the UK into 12 regions, getting rid of the nations of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Exceptionalism should be worn lightly, however: lest it become arrogance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. English Christian nationalism has a long history. At the Synod of Whitby the abbess of Whitby Saint Hild sought to defend the religious exceptionalism of the English Church against the Roman faction led by Saint Wilfrid.

      Delete
  4. Very good indeed Robin. I think hopefully that will have woken some of the English who were present. Git them thinking more deeply on the mater.

    English Declaration of Rights, English Bill of Rights, Common Law and Habeas Corpus

    Must point out. England was united Several times before Athelstan. By West-Saxon, Mercian, East Anglian and Northumbrian(Angles)kings. In Fact their shared identity of being English is what allowed them to invade Britain together. In that they were already ethnically and culturally united before they came to these islands.

    It is also a very important point to make that only the English are English. To be English is to be an indigenous ethnic English person, of Anglo-Saxon English stock. The English understand, recognise and acknowledge themselves to be the direct descendants of their forefathers who founded England.

    And to further the case how old an unique we English are, rather than using the term Anglo-Saxon concerns the English before 1066, we should do as Bede and our other forebears/relatives did, and call oursleves English and then place Anglo-Saxon in brackets.

    ..Because there are some non-English who wrongly believe themselves to be English along with their actual ethnicity. Because of 'immigration/refugees', there will be more of that confusion,(deliberately ill-informed, ill-educated and miss represented by the establishment in order to weaken real English identity and ethnicity and culture).

    English and Anglo-Saxon, are one in the same, they mean the same thing, the same folk, the same nation, the same people. They do not mean a separate folk or nation. We English alive today are Anglo-Saxons. The venerable understood this, as did Alfred the Great. And King Harold at Hastings.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Strictly speaking only the Mercians, Northumbrians and, East Anglians are English. The West Saxons were part of the Saxon half of 'Anglo-Saxon' along with the South Saxons and the East Saxons. The Saxons settled here, under the Romans, hundreds of years before the Angles.
      But the people of south east Scotland are Northumbrian Angles too.
      The English are becoming just one of the nations living in England.
      The way the English will be identified from the rest is by speaking English English, using only words from the Anglo-Saxon and Norse languages.

      Delete
    2. On that basis do Danes have as much claim to be English as Saxons? The eastern (former Danelaw) areas of England today exhibit - from census data - a slightly stronger identification with Englishness than other parts of the country - a little inconveniently for Anglo-Saxon romanticists.

      Delete
    3. Language is the most obvious and significant way in which nations are recognized. That is why the English need New-English derived from Old English. See Anglish Moot and David Cowley "How We'd talk if the English had won in 1066".
      A nation without its own language is a nation without its soul. The English do not own international World English, because we do not control its development.

      Delete
    4. Germanic tribes were already settled here in some settlements because they were mercenaries for the Romans. The Saxon shore forts both to be manned by Saxons, and to deter other Saxons and Germanic tribes.

      Saxons' were also related to the Engle before they came to Britain. They both belonged to the ancient cultrual and religious confederacy of ingaevones/ingwine/ingwi (including Jutes,Danes, Swedes, Geats)

      Lets not forget King Raedwald's line being related to the Swedish.

      In England the Angles or as our forefathers called themselves "Engle", were the largest of our tribes. So it was their name that was taken up by all the nation, who as mentioned were already related in every way.

      Later mercenaries Hengest and Horsa, were Jutes. Though quite rightly we consider them English. Hengest's great-grand son, King Athelbert of Kent, was responsible for introducing Roman Christianity to the English.

      The best way of being identified as being English is by speaking English, and acting and thinking as an English person.(unfortunately the failed education system has done so much harm to our young in this area)

      There are no other 'nations England, there is only the English nation. Anyone else are not 'nations', they are non-English/foreigners.

      For if you have a country where the actual indigenous ethnic English majority are marginalised or no longer exist, then that place can no longer be called England. As is has no English nation in it.

      This why it is so essential to get of of the EU. Then the establishment can longer hide behind EU regulations on 'immortal/refugees'.

      I'm afraid though many in lowland Scotland are English descent. They know consider themselves Scottish.

      Delete
    5. On 7 December, anonymous wrote, "On that basis do Danes have as much claim to be English as Saxons? The eastern (former Danelaw) areas of England today exhibit - from census data - a slightly stronger identification with Englishness than other parts of the country - a little inconveniently for Anglo-Saxon romanticists."
      Not at all inconvenient for Anglo-Saxon "romanticists" since the DNA of those areas shows little evidence of the Danish occupation of the former Danelaw. The areas where the sense of English identity is greatest are those which were settled by the Angles, i.e., the original English; rather than those settled by the Saxons, where Folk are more likely to self identify as both English and British. North of the Thames the folk are more likely to identify as English not British.

      Delete
  5. "While the high watermark of empire was very short its impact includes English as the world language. English is now the largest language in all human history at over one million words."
    But English as the world language is not English. Most of those million words are foreign imports.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it is about 60% or 70% of words originate from English?

      Delete
    2. I think you'll find that it is nearer to 20% and shrinking.

      Delete
    3. Oswald writes that most of the million words in English as the world language are not English.
      The Oxford English Dictionary records words since 1066. Many thousands of those words are shown as obsolete. Mostly, those obsolete words are genuine English words, pushed aside by those foreign imports.
      The EU was set up by the Treaty of Rome to be the successor to the Roman Empire. We have already allowed our language to be polluted with Latin, from 1066 onwards, and our minds to be colonised by the Roman ethos.
      Having a million words recorded in the OED (nearly all foreign) is not something to be particularly proud of.

      Delete
    4. The English Democrats should have a language policy in favour of purified New-English using Old English and Norse words.

      Delete
  6. We will have to identify which parts of England are occupied by English people and protect them. It has to be accepted that London has been lost. Let them have London as their International city state, but confine immigrants to it. It is too late to recover London, but immigrants elsewhere should be encouraged to relocate to London or return to their home countries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Today most cites in the world are intentional cites. And no matter what the media states, most of London is not a foreign majority. Though there are certainly specific areas that are not English any more. It is one of our cities in our country, which the English need to regain control of. And immigrants should not be encouraged to 'relocate'(go to/move)to London. Scotland and Wales should be taking proportionately their share, which they do not thanks to the anti-English lab/lib/con. How would you feel if you an Englsih perosn living in a certain parts of London with lesser degrees of so-called 'immigration' and you hear other English folk saying move more non-English there?

      What is needed is a mass awakening of the English. I find the English still a bit stand offish about how angry they are about what is happening to them. ..We need to gain control of so-called immigration/refugees and to do that we need to leave the EU and UK.

      Delete
    2. Most cites in the world have a 'cosmopolitanism' element to varying degrees.

      Delete
    3. Capital cities and ports have always been cosmopolitan to some extent, but when the proportion rises to near a half or even higher, things have gone too far.
      Spreading the immigrants throughout England is calculated to dilute Englishness.
      The huge foreign presence in London is not just a media story, it is shown by the statistics.
      London is beyond recovery in any reasonable time frame (the next century or so).
      Steps must be taken to stop other English cities following London down that path.
      The proposal to confine immigrants to London seems a reasonable one.

      Delete
  7. Attacking the NHS and proposing handing it over to the neo-liberal globalists will not help the English Democrats' case with the voters whom the EDs need to persuade. The NHS might be a behemoth, but the English NHS will be less so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NHS England already exists, the trouble is it is under immense pressure because of our memberships of the EU, which endorses and makes 'lawful' mass immigration/refugees' entering England.

      privatisation will not help anybody apart from the government's friends, their quangos, and corporate allies. It is a number game. And the numbers are to high because the immigration/refugee numbers are to high.

      Delete
  8. Marine le Pen has demonstrated that the nationalist message can succeed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Front National is disproportionately winning over the support of French youth. That means that support for the nationalists is likely to grow in future.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Agreed. I think a patriotic positive nationalist message can always succeed. But that is why the establishment and media has been so determined to demonise positive English nationalism and anything remotely patriotically English.

    ReplyDelete
  11. An English Youth Group within the EDP is much needed. It what the EDP lacking, if it wants a long term future it must reach out and connect with the young English.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is time to set up a 'Young England' youth wing.

      Delete
    2. Ukip call theirs Young Independence.

      So EDP could go with as mentioned above simply Young England?

      Labour has:
      Labour Students - English Students?
      Labour Women - English Women?
      Disability Labour - EDP Disability?

      Also thinking along lines of:

      English Rights?
      English Legal?
      English Workers Association?
      English Farmers?
      English Fisherman?
      English Housing?
      English Advice? (similar to citizens advice)



      Ed

      Delete
  12. I highly recommend:

    "English Witness to their Darkest hour" by P Scrivener.

    "The Deculturalisation of the English people" by Jon Lovejoy.

    "Views form The Community" edited by Tony Linsell.

    "Our Englishness" Edited by Tony Linsell.
    Contributions from Kathleen Herberst, Stephen Pollignton, Andrew Phillips, Tony Linsell, Jon Lovejoy, Geoffrey Littljohns, Garman Lord

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The Deculturalisation of the English people" by Jon Lovejoy.
      Excellent. Recommended.

      Delete
    2. There is the excellent "An English Nationalism" by Tony Linsell.

      Delete
    3. A number of the individuals named above are linked to English nationalist cultural movement the Steadfast Trust which has been deregistered by the Charities Commission.

      Delete
    4. Deregistered because the establishment continued attack on any who try to promote and support English interests. The establsimsnt had been trying for years to do this and failed. Even now the attackers cannot back their claims, bust went ahead and close on their own dubious grounds. Yet in the meantime they let so-called Muslim charities exist that advocate terror against us. Think on that.

      The above books are excellent. If you are a real English nationalist I urge you to read them, knowledge is power. Others say ignorance is bliss. But rather ignorance is cowardice.

      Ed

      Delete
  13. AS Books has some fine books about our English language. I think it was William Barnes who said that though he wanted us to speak pure English, he was not against loan words only if we did not have suitable English word to describe certain things nor could create new English words for certain things. The more I hear folk speak today the more I like to hear our dialects and accents in the old films and documentaries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William Barnes was laughed at, but he was right.

      Delete
    2. If William Barnes was around today, he would be telling the English Democrats to adopt a policy in support of purified New-English with a vocabulary taken from Old English and Norse. Most nationalist parties have purification of the national language at the forefront of their policies.

      Delete
    3. Just look at the Welsh Nationalist party. Its site is written in Welsh and English. And as far as I know in Wales civil servants and teachers all have to be able to speak Welsh.

      Ed

      Delete
    4. It would be good when the English Democrats website is written in New-English as well as in international English. All civil servants and teachers in England should have to be able to speak and write New-English.

      Delete
    5. It would be needful to make a far reaching New-English word-hoard, but it can be done, given a strong enough will, by the English folk.
      This is written in New-English.

      Delete
    6. We should use International-English and New-English? What are you on about? How foolish and ignorant.

      Delete
    7. The national language is the mirror of the nation's soul. Multicultural English is a distorting mirror. Bring on New-English.

      Delete
  14. The Front National in France has a language policy of keeping the French language French. The English Democrats should have a policy of making English purely English.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are surely more pressing things to spend one's time on. Tinkering about with the language is something that the media would easily hold up to ridicule.

      Delete
    2. A national language is crucial to social cohesion. There is nothing more pressing.
      The British establishment and their media will no doubt hold New-English up to ridicule, just as they hold English nationalism up to ridicule.
      Nationalists must defy them.

      Delete
  15. "New English", "International English"? You are missing the point or an idiot. There is no such thing as "international English" there is only English, then foreign words used with it when and if needed. And there is no such thing as "New English", We use modern English. Most of our words directly coming from old English. Look up Orwell, Churchill and Barnes when speaking about English. A real eye opener.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. who's the idiot?14 December 2015 at 19:46

      You are no nationalist, Sir. No one who knows anything about the subject would claim that most of the words in the language, which I hesitate to call English let alone our language, come from directly from Old English. The gentlemen your mention, all regret the replacement of good English words by foreign words.

      Delete
    2. who's the idiot?14 December 2015 at 19:52

      William Barnes coined a whole range of New-English words, such as 'folkwain' for 'omnibus'.

      Delete
    3. who's the idiot14 December 2015 at 20:33

      "There's no such thing as "international English". Really? There is a whole industry producing books and dissertations on "International English", "World English", "English as World language", "Global English", "English as Lingua Franca", "Englishes", "Special English", "Simple English", etc., etc.. The BBC, China Radio and VOA all broadcast in Special English, i.e. English for an international audience.

      Delete
    4. who's the idiot14 December 2015 at 20:41

      "foreign words are used with it [English] when and if needed". We are forced to use foreign words because we do not have English words we can use, often because their use has been actively discouraged by the British establishment. That is where New-English comes into it, to restore lost words and to create the necessary truly ENGLISH vocabulary.

      Delete
    5. William Barnes thought up many new English words which could work in New-English such as folkwain (omnibus), handbook (manual), wordbook (dictionary), wordhoard (vocabulary, lexicon) and so forth.
      This is written in New-English.

      Delete
    6. Foreigners don't want to learn International English because it's English, but because it's international.
      In England, International English would always be in use, but alongside New-English as the national language, just as international English is used in Ireland alongside Irish as the national language there.

      Delete
  16. who's the idiot14 December 2015 at 20:13

    When people sink to immoderate language, such as suggesting that their opponent in a debate is 'an idiot', it is a sign that they fear they have lost the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I am not sure if readers will be welcoming my return to the blog after a respite of over a week. This was caused by the flooding here in Cumbria. The situation at times descended into farce and proved that there no longer seems to be anybody around with the gift of leadership or common sense. However, many of our woes can be laid at the door of the bankers' austerity con. Because of "austerity" the traditional flood warning siren, left over as the air raid siren from WW2, failed to go off. This was because "austerity" had closed the police station about two years ago and the county council had not thought of giving anybody the job of taking over. As for the police, there were so few of them to deal with the multiple floods that the firemen and women had to play the role of police officers. Messages seemed to be passed by Facebook or twitter so that many never got them and relied on word of mouth. If the floods had happened at night many would have been drowned in their beds. As for austerity, such cuts have no doubt allowed Jacob Rothschild
    ( estimated to be worth 500 trillion dollars ) and his fellow elitists to grow even richer. And George Osborne, one of Jacob's acolytes, has tried to slip through a clause in a bill cancelling any punishment for the bankers for their misdemeanours. However, there is hope, I suggest that readers tune in to Colin Powell's former deputy Larry Wilkerson, not only has he said that America's is an empire of debt ( i.e. of the bankers ) backed up by the Pentagon and would soon collapse but in a recent RT documentary he said that we are now ruled not only by an oligarchy but by a plutocracy and the documentary ended with all fingers pointing at the biggest banking family named above.

    Meanwhile, it was interesting to see the French regional elections. Firstly, because it now appears that France has been divided into six or seven euro mega-regions each with a regional assembly. English patriots should take note that this is what is planned for England. Secondly, I have been trying to work out why the NF did so well in the first round and then slumped in the second. One theory is that voters on the right returned to the republican fold so as to counter the socialists. But a NF spokesman said that France is on the verge of Civil War. Perhaps the NF's policies would have averted that. Hence I fear the usual electoral rigging as with UKIP in Oldham. It now seems that the aim is to start civil wars between the natives and the hordes of incomers not only in Europe but in the USA as well. Texans are now arming themselves for the oncoming battle. The aim would then be to create martial law, further surveillance on the road to the one world dictatorship by the plutocratic elite.

    Further alarm bells should be ringing with regard to the new EU border force. The force has the power to challenge sovereign states choosing to close their borders to the - allegedly George Soros created - "refugee" crisis. Our hero Viktor Orban's Hungary and many other eastern European states would no longer be able to close their borders in order to preserve national identity. Such states would be forced to become as polka dot as Western Europe.
    In fact, I can see the day when national border guards would be slogging it out with the new European border force whilst the "refugees" just run in. A day of reckoning is coming. Sadly, I have not had time today to read all your piece, Robin, but you should not overlook the Scandinavian element in English identity and the fact that Scandinavia had democracy even before England did. A comparison should be made between North Europe and the South of the latin countries and the North and Scandinavia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is very little Scandinavian DNA in England. The majority in England are descended from the Angles in the North, and the Saxons in the South (West Yorkshire and Lancashire, and Devon and Cornwall are pre-Anglo-Saxon). The earliest parliaments were indeed Scandinavian, e.g., the Tynwald in the Isle of Man and the Althing in Iceland.

      Delete
  18. The English are a Baltic folk and always have been. No other people in England are English parts from the indigenous ethnic English. That is fact. That is our ethnicity and from whence most of culture comes from. There is no austerity. Cameron gives away billions of our money in oversea aid each year. While cutting billions of council money. Police stations are being closed as are fire stations. They are even trying to sneak regions by have one person from one council also in charge of certain departments in another shire's council.

    I Believe all the election here and and over in Europe have been rigged for decades. These are the same types that made countries vote 3 times one EU membership before they miraculously got the answer they wanted. These are the type who had deposed legitimately elected leaders of Greece and Italy, along with starting wars. There evil no knows no bounds.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh dear, they now think Mckenzie is an Englishman, no he is not. He does not have an ounce of English blood. And everyone on the planet knows the English are a white people. He is Black British person not English. To say he is to be racist against the actual English people of England. He does not have an English heart, soul, spirit, forefathers nor blood. His ethnicity is not English, fact. His perspective is one of a Black person of immigrant stock. I'm a Londoner. I can tell you the the only times non-English claim to be English is when they want someone for blacks or asians i.e. non-English. Spend a life time among them as I have and they will tell you they are from the west Indies or this and that part of Africa. It is absolutely insulting and disrespectful that a party that likes to say it is an English nationalist party is in fact putting non-English interests before that of we the native indigenous ethnic English i.e. true English. EDP needs to wise up, they are having their leg pulled by this Mckenzie. ..To think I was going to send money to the EDP. ..If this is the best EDP can do then it might as well fold now because by this action it has become another party that is pc anti-English. They no longer represent the true English folk, but non-English people and their interests. I notice on the Article about Mckenzie their is no comment box, I wonder why? the truth hurts and EDP doesn't want to hear that the majority of supporters feel betrayed. I will no longer be voting for EDP until they stop this nonsense with McKenzie.. And I will encourage others not to.

    No doubt in the best tradition of anti-English pc, because as an real Englishman I speak home truths, my post will not be posted. Speaks volumes. ..Unless someone actual agrees and has the spine to post it.

    EDP or is that UKIP/Labour/Liberal/Conservatives? .. Certainly no longer English. And to think EDP has the hypocrisy to try and associate itself with OUR English achievements and history, that is the history of we the indigenous ethnic English, our history, our ethnicity and our identity. We the majority of this country, the real English.

    Surprised you haven't started signing up all the so-called immigrants/refugees and all of the Eastern Europeans. As we all know they will say anything for money and to get an opportunity to displace us. ..Talk about help along the genocide/ethnocide be committed against us.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well done to the English Democrats for appointing Winston McKenzie. He'll be a good candidate for the London Mayoral election.
    The above poster says that in order to be English one must be ethnically English. Well he and others of the same asuasion should realise that their opinion in regard to this matter is not shared by the English Democrats.
    As another anonymous poster above points out "The best way of being identified as being English is by speaking English, and acting and thinking like an English person." So it is not a prerequisite of being English that one is ethnically English.
    Instead of trying to encourage the English Democrats to take up their luddite opinions, these racial nationalists should move on from the English Democrats as they have obvious and fundamental differences.
    Winston Mckenzie may hold certain opinions on the grounds of his religious belief to which I may personally disagree. Religious dogma threatens to hold England back in my opinion. However, the English Democrats allow for a broad church of opinion. But the English Democrats should strongly condemn those who share the view that 'English ethnicity' is a prerequisite of being English.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't agree more! I'm English. Why? Because I say I am. My grandfather was Irish. I have no "feelings of Irishness" whatsoever. I was born in England, My parents were born in England and I, like them, am English. End of...(as they say nowadays!)
      Clive,
      Weston-super-Mare.

      Delete
    2. I entirely agree. My great-grandmother was Irish and I too have no "feelings of Irishness". I am English and in my view someone can be from any ethnic background and still wrap themselves in the Cross of St George.
      Steve,
      South Somerset

      Delete
  21. Your grandfather was Irish. Does that mean the rest of your family were ethnically English? Because if all your relatives were not ethnically English then neither are you. It does not matter even If you were born here. And yes I can say that because I am an indigenous ethnic English person. I can speak for all true English, we will not comprise a very soul, being and identity for a pc version of your very confused idea of would be nationalism and what it is to be English.

    And just because someone says they are English doesn't make them English, That is a ridiculous statement. If I said I was Chinese, Korean, Eskimo, Apache, would that then mean I am? Of course not. So it goes that just because a person claims to be English does not make them English.

    Yes it is a perquisite for so-called English nationalist to actually be ethnically English and for the site to be a a "true English nationalist" site. And the best way for a real English person to be identified as English, is to speak, act and look English. And for that they have to be ethnically of English stock.

    Those who actually denounce true English people.. (you know those who are actually ethnically English,you know the real English people) ..are the real luddites and bigots for you actually deny the right of a native indigneous ethnic population in its own ancestral homeland the right to exist and continue to do so. I bet you would not dare say such things about indigenous ethnic populations elsewhere in the world. It is pure pc snobbery, hogwash and hypocrisy. Self-righteous and ignorant to the core.

    It has long been felt that UKIP stooges are amongst EDP and the above anti-ethnic English i.e. anti-true English posts seem likely candidates.

    What don't you understand about how the ethnic English named England after themselves. That means that the we named the land/country/nation after our own ethnic name.. So you cannot just be born here and say you are English. You have to be ethnically English, with all that entails.

    We English now have a similar saying to that being used Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands and Germany. .."if things keep on like this how can a country be called England when there are no actual real English people left in it, but only non- English?"

    How absurd that some here accept nonsense about mckenzie's views on religion, yet pride themselves on their own racism and bigotry against the actual English people i.e. the ethnic English.

    The best thing EDP can do is get back on track and encourage these UKIP stooges above, to move on. No wonder EDP is so small and has been treading water for so long.

    And if EDP cannot actually bring itself to be a True English nationalist English party and put the ethnic English majority of England first and for most, then it should stop being hypocritical and change its name, as it certainly doesn't represent the true English nor England with it current mistake and stance...Just seems like small bad pc version of UKIP, albeit with another name.
    Time to remove the anti-ethnic English multicultural multi-ethnic supporters/fanatics from the EDP set up. And replace them with true ethnic English nationalists. Those who put the real English and England first and foremost.

    Real English Patriot

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This rant would have gone down well at Nuremberg! The English Democrats is the party of England, not of "the ethnic English". If you want a party for the ethnic English, you could always start one.
      Meanwhile, whether you like it or not, I was born in England, raised in England, I live in England and love England and am proud to be an Englishman.
      I wish you well.
      Clive,
      W-s-M.

      Delete