Total Visits

Monday, 30 January 2017



I recently had this exchange of views on Twitter with a Leftist troll:-

Robin Tilbrook 

What are British Laws when there are several jurisdictions in the UK? look at >>>
The Difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England Explained


British Laws are the collective laws of the UK over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.

Tilbrook‏ Jan 24

Not so. It isn't a proper "Supreme Court" like the US one. It has jurisdiction over the parameters of eg Scots' Devolved Powers

“Chris” Jan 24 

think you need to do a bit more research on their jurisdiction. Either way, UK Supreme Court, not of E&W, so British correct

Tilbrook Jan 24 

As a litigation solicitor, I suspect I know more about the "Supreme Court's" jurisdictions than most. …

“Chris” Jan 24 

As a member of a fascist group, I suspect you're more blinded by ideological hatred than anything else, but there we are.

Robin Tilbrook‏ Jan 24 

Not true and shows what a hypocrite you are, being that you are the one who is blinded.


so, despite your profile, you're not a member of a far right party with fascist beliefs?

Robin Tilbrook‏ 

The English Democrats are:- "Not Right, Not Left, Just ENGLISH!"


Are you even English? Have you had a DNA test? How long have your family been in this country? Do you test members?

Robin Tilbrook‏ 

Now who is being the Nazi?


Pointing out the absurdity of your ideology. Personally, I'm proud of my mixed background - Norman, Anglo-Saxon, Irish

Whilst it would be hard to summon much sympathy for “Chris”, as an individual, in fact he does express, albeit “through a glass, darkly” the commonly held Left-wing confusion between Racism, Nationalism, Nazism and Democracy.

Of course, as I put into the exchange, many Leftists, like “Chris”, are not interested in engaging in a sensible discussion about these matters. Their only purpose is to use what they think are ‘nasty’ words to smear people who they regard as political opponents. For this purpose Nationalist, Fascist and Nazi are all interchangeable, even if that usage tells you nothing about the real meaning of those words or the differences of political outlook that these words encompass.

We should try to be more sensible than “Chris” and have a look at the meanings of these words. Let's start with "Democracy". The word “Democracy” derives from the ancient Greek word for the rule of the “Demos” which means “the People”.

As regards the modern movement for democracy, whilst there were strands of it in the English tradition, which burst forth into full bloom in the foundation of the United States, the real impetus for much of democratic development comes from the French Revolution. The Revolutionaries talked of the “People” aka le Peuple”, and "liberté, égalité, fraternité". The Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars overturned the assumptions, practices and politics of most of Europe.

The history of the remainder of the 19th Century and quite a bit of the 20th Century can be referred back to the forces of Democracy and Nationalism which had been unleashed by the French Revolution and by Napoleon.

In particular Democracy and Nationalism were seen by people as two sides of the same coin. Nationalists wanted to see their national group and its interests properly represented in Governmental systems and the “Nation” was seen as the same thing as the “People”. The rule of the “People” was thus expanded to be the rule of the “People of the Nation.”

One of the things we see in the modern world is that where a state occupies territory over which there is no concept of a single nation, it is impossible for that state to be democratic.

It is also worth observing that while nationalism and democracy have a large overlap there are of course versions of nationalism which are undemocratic, such as Fascism. Fascist leaders tended to claim that they were doing what the people of the nation wanted or was in their interest. Nevertheless Fascism was always opposed to representative parliamentary democracy.

Nazism and Fascism are basically both heretical offshoots of Marxist/Leninism. I would remind everybody that in 1932 Hitler made a well publicised speech in which he stated:-

We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions. 

And of course Hitler’s Party’s proper name translated into English, was the “National Socialist German Workers Party”. 

Where Hitler departed from the basis on which nationalism had previously proceeded was in his ideology that there was an objective "Aryan" race the struggles of which are the basis of history. This is an idea in some respects similar to the Marxist delusion of there being an objective class, the “International Proletariat”. It’s also perhaps not all that surprising that Hitler wasn’t a German nationalist since he was after all Austrian!

Before we leave the subject of Democracy and Nationalism it is perhaps worth considering what Count Klemens von Metternich said in the early 19th Century about the Italian nationalist movement. He said:- 

“The word “Italy” is a geographical expression, a description which is useful shorthand, but has none of the political significance the efforts of the revolutionary ideologues try to put on it, which is full of dangers for the very existence of the states which make up the peninsular”.

So comprehensively has that early 19th Century Statesman’s view of Italy been swept aside that I have met quite a few people who think that Italy has always been a nation! That Italy is a single nation state going back to ancient Rome.

It is worth remembering that Mussolini’s political objective was partly to try to bolster a sense of Italy being an united nation state, when in fact Italy had only become united in 1863 and the First World War had tested the idea of Italy almost to destruction. But he then went on to found the first nationalist movement which was not avowedly democratic i.e. the Fascists.

On the other side of the concept of representative democracy we have the emerging idea of “Liberal Democracy”, which “Chris” mentioned. 

In England “Liberal Democracy” was really formed on the ideas of, amongst others, John Locke. The right to vote and to hold office was mostly dependent on owning property and therefore on being somebody with a stake in society. It was after all only in the late 19th Century in England that the right to vote was no longer limited to those people with property. Even until the 1960’s those who served on juries had to be rate payers and therefore householders.

Liberal Democracy's roots therefore are not in Nationalism. 

We have seen this very clearly in the outcome of the Brexit case, in which most of the judges have firmly stated that legally the terms of the constitution is not a “Democracy” in which the “People” would be the sovereign body. Instead the Judges ruled that the “Crown in Parliament” is “Sovereign”, the “People’s” view therefore merely advisory. This is the position of Liberal Democracy clearly expressed.

Nationalists and Democrats on the other hand would say with one voice that it is the “People” that should be “Sovereign” not the Crown in Parliament. Both would also say that Parliament, the Monarchy, Councillors, Local Government, etc., should be seen as all merely the institutions by which the Peoples’ Will is expressed.

As we are seeing the development of Brexit is exposing one of the great divides in the world!


  1. Funny isn't it how many of these Anglophobes will use the ideology of racial purity to try to debunk Englishness "England is a mongrel nation, there are no truly English people etc etc", while at the same time condemning the English for supposed hostility to foreigners "multicultral Britain is preferable to whites-only Little England".

    With this in mind, here's a comment I posted on the Guardian, on an article concerned with the subject of Scottish independence. (Note, I simply employed the same kind of thinking to Scotland that is usually applied to England).

    --- ---

    "Scotland" isn't even a proper nation, from a linguistic, political or historic point of view.

    For centuries "Scotland" was in reality two lands - an Anglo-Celtic south/Lowlands, and a primarily Irish north/Highlands, with little in common with each other. They spoke entirely different languages and post-reformation even professed different faiths.

    The reigning monarchs of "Scotland" exercised little real power over the Highlands, and sometimes struggled to defend the areas they did control from incursions from the north, even being forced to build fortified burghs (boroughs really, the concept of the Borough/Burgh was imported from England, like many "Scottish" legal traditions) to protect areas of the Governed Lands (the Lowlands) from the Ungoverned Lands (the Highlands). Only during the 15th century did any monarch of "Scotland" actually manage to assert any measure of control of the Highlands, and that was only through the use of military force, one of many campaigns that "Scottish" monarchs were forced to wage - not against the English (with whom their subjects in Lothian had more in common with anywhere else) but the Highlanders and Islanders, whose semi-independent Lordship of the Isles had been disbanded in 1493.

    The existence of modern "Scotland" is mostly due to the Hiberno-Pictish imperialism of the 10th/11th centuries, when "Scottish" monarchs expanded their power into English lands such as Lothian, introducing another ethnic and cultural divide in an already divided land ("Scotland" hitherto being a mishmash of Britons, Picts and Irishmen).

    Of course, "Scotland" has, like I said rarely had any real sense of unity or nationhood, and often required Anglo-Normans or Englishmen to forge her into anything that even began to resemble a nation; Robert the Bruce for example, was an Anglo-Norman warlord of a tradition wholly foreign to "Scotland" and could only succeed when presented with an external foe to direct the energy of his kingdom against. As soon as the immediate threat of Longshanks and his successors receded the "Scots" did what they do best - fighting and killing each other, because then as now there is really nothing that an Irishman from Argyll has in common with a Dane from Caithness, let alone an Englishman in denial from Edinburgh or Selkirk.

    An interesting aside - in 1598 King James VI of "Scotland" (but not yet James I of England) authorised the so-called Gentlemen Adventurers of Fife to establish a plantation colony on the Island of Lewis, to subjugate and civilise the "barbarous" inhabitants of the Western Isles. Unsurprisingly the adventurers were repulsed by local forces, but this was to be the beginning of a systematic attempt to finally bring the still-too-independent North and West of "Scotland" to heel.

    So is it any wonder that "Scotland", an insecure little land full of long-standing cultural and historic divisions, a mongrel nation with no real identity of its own, with much of what it calls its own being borrowed or imported from elsewhere (hell, "Scotland's" patron saint isn't even "Scottish") is so reluctant to embrace independence?

  2. "Nationalist, Fascist and Nazi are all interchangeable." Are you aware, Robin, that the "Unite Against Fascism" website lists all the English Democrats 2015 election candidates by name and denounces us as "fascists"? This is the same group of thugs who confronted a family St George's Day parade in Brighton a few years ago, chanting "Racist scum - off our street".

  3. Yes- English not so mongrel after all.
    Tally Ho,Chaps!

  4. In the last 20 years DNA studies have proved how homogenous the *UK* population still is in the main, despite the malign depradations of various governments over the last 100 years. It is this shared characteristic ultimately which counts, not regional variations in culture or dialect.

    Disraeli said through the mouth of one of his characters "Race is everything". If you want to make aliyah, you can be asked to provide evidence of genetic identity in the way of DNA test, and the result is a strong identitarian state irrespective of religious outlook or "common values". Why shouldn't that same approeach work here in these islands? And why is the one laudable, and the other "Fascist/Nazi"?

  5. Robin, are you aware of the Crown Court Trial of Tim Burton from Liberty GB?

    Apparently he has used a Dutch Expert Witness to testify about Islamic Taqiyya and political nature of islam.

    Why do so many lawyers and judges need the most obvious facts to be written down in a formal CPR compliant form.

    The lack of common sense within the judiciary is surely evidence of severe negligence and time wasting.


  6. Tony Shell has updated his website again and straight to the point that the NWO needs the "religion of terror" to eradicate the native European Peoples. He argues that we cannot defend ourselves until we understand the true nature of the globalist psychopaths and their methods.

    Islamism and jihad are only symptoms of the globalist onslaught against us.


    1. Francis,

      According to Donald Tusk, the EU is now under attack from Trump's America, as well as Russia - who are going to rig the upcoming elections on the Continent say the euro-elites - China and the Islamic State.

      Despite this, Nigel Farage told the European parliament that Trump's pause in the immigration of peoples from those countries that Obama had already singled out for extreme vetting was to protect his people from jihadist terrorists whilst those in the European parliament seem to prefer to be "inclusive" even if it means, as they have, welcoming terrorits under the guise of refugees into their midst. He also referred to the fact that Obama had forbidden immigration by people from Iraq in 2011 for six months. None of it cut any ice with these ideologues of the Left.

      My hero, Viktor Orban, is off toe Moscow to talk to Putin as he has got no sense out of the EU nor the pre-Trump America. He wants to put Hungary first, just as Trump has for the US. And it has now been revealed that Soros is engineering a coup to bring Orban down, as he has in many other former Soviet countries. What amused me was to see Jean Claude Juncker refer to Orban as the Dictator. Tne man obviously has no sense of irony. The EU is a dictatorship but the elites haven't realised this. They think of themselves as enlightened. Jean Claude Juncker is an unelected dictator. Frighteningly, Martin Schulz thinks he is going to be the next German Chancellor.
      Both Trump and Orban were elected. Personally, I think both the meps and the Brussels commissioners and their bureaucrats are getting the jitters as their cushy numbers are under threat from "populism" i.e. democracy.

      Even more frightening was Stephen Schlesinger on RT's Cross Talk last night, who said that, because of changing demographics - i.e. non-white against white - the next president in 2020 will be a Democrat. There as an article in the Daily Mail a few years ago entitled "The end of White America" predicting that as whites near minority status then there will never be anything but Democrats in power. Schlesinger's comment would seem to confirm this. He also referred to Trump's assistant, Steve Bannon, as a "white nationalist". Indians can be nationalist, the Chinese and Japanese can be nationalists and Africans can be nationalists but Europeans/whites cannot. But it would seem that the so-called populist revolution is just that, a last ditch attempt by Europeans to preserve their nations from being overrun and rendered history by non-Europeans courtesy of the infantile, irrational hatred of their own kind by their globalist, left-leaning self-genocidal fellow Europeans.

  7. I here Hope Not Hate are going to sue Nigel Farage for defamation after he called them extremists oh the irony


  8. The EU is in tatters. They are meeting to try to stop the Libyans sending refugees into Europe whilst castigating Trump for doing the same with regard to the US. And today's thwarted attack in Paris will mean the end of Manuel Valls and his Socialists; no chance of him winning the presidential election, especially after he told the French they would have to live with terrorism after there have been four attacks/near attacks since 2015. And Fillon has had the skids put under him by the Socialists re Penelopegate which will leave only one contender for the French presidency with any hope of winning; the feisty Bretonne!

    Hopefully, this will make Europeans see that Trump is acting sensibly in vetting those coming from certain majority Muslim countries. He should have included the terrorist state of Saudi Arabia but until he stops the Americans selling arms to them will not be able to do that.

    The Euro-elites are incandescent because Trump's choice of American envoy to the EU is somebody who has said that the EU should be dismantled as it is like the old Soviet Union; he is not the first to have made this comparison. So they are between Russia and Trump's America and fighting to preserve their dictatorial empire from collapse.

    I am sure we are all agreeing with Michael Fallon in his warnings about Russia's twisting of the truth and the danger it poses to us with its hacking. Of course, neither we nor the US ever did the same to Russia. But wouldn't you fight back if there was a crowd of thugs - i.e NATO forces - standing outside your front door? If some of us are being duped by Russia, do we care? We haven't believed what our own governments have told us for years. They way things are going, when Donald and Vladimir lock arms in that big embrace, they will trample all over Europe and give us our freedom back. But as a friend has said, Russia may need to move west to rescue Europe from Islamic terrorism, which is of course, what NATO should be doing not pretending to counter a non-existent Russia threat.
    In a way, the thwarted French attack may help UKIP in the by-elections as Europeans begin to see that a tough immigration policy may be a sensible thing to have and it might help people to ignore George Soros's paid hystericals over in the US and cities here.

  9. I urge all supporters to sign Matthew Lee's petition on Change.Org to remove Sadiq Khan from being mayor of London for proposing, with all the arrogance of the coloniser, that London remain in the EU and in effect become independent of the rest of England.

    The folly of mass immigration into hitherto white homogeneous nations is becoming more and more apparent. London, with its non-ethnic English majority is being classed by Khan as what it is, no longer part of England. How did our politicians bring us to this pass? And things are only going to get worse. I still fear that May will switch from bringing cheap labour in from the Continent to bringing it in from the New Commonwealth merely hastening the arrival of a white minority in our country, as elsewhere in many countries in Europe.

    My previous reference to Stephen Schlesinger on RT's Cross Talk saying that the Democrats will be back in power in 2020 due to changing demographics did not make it to the blog. He is admitting that whites in America, the original vast majority, may never control their country again but will have lost it due to the browning of America. This was explained in the Daily Mail a few years ago and is all down to the Democrats' overturning a move in the 1970s to prevent it. As our towns and cities are taken from us, are we, like our fellow Europeans in America and on the Continent, going to have to look on helplessly as we are pushed into a corner? In America I predict Civil War; but what will happen here and elsewhere in Europe?

    1. We also need to repeal the 1972 Local Government Act an act that started the Balkanisation of England and undermined our cohesive nation. Many counties were split up, bits chopped off and moved into other new counties. The West Riding of Yorkshire was probably the worst affected county with it being split into West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire while parts of it were given to other counties like Greater Manchester and North Yorkshire. Not forgetting Monmouth too.

      The anger created by the county changes rages on but because of that act of treachery England lost its identity. Khan knows this and the 1972 Act allows for parts of England to leave England. For all we know he is probably preparing a Referendum to bring London into Pakistan.


  10. Interesting article in yesterday's FT entitled, "Welcome to the most pro-Brexit town in Britain". Thet's Boston in Lincolnshire, apparently. Some local politicians there used to be described as "racists" and "bigots". Now the populace has woken up!

    1. Clive, I have just read on teletext that Swindon has a problem with pop-up brothels introduced by Poles and Romanians who bring sex workers in from Eastern Europe to work in them. I suppose this is no different from Polish shops and wonder whether the clients are predominantly East European; if not then some may regret Brexit for the very reason that the pop-up brothels may just pop down again. After the floods here, we had a pop-up Co-op appear whilst the flooded shop was sorted out. I will never view the ladies who manned, sorry personed, that shop in the same light again!!