Tuesday 6 February 2018

The British don't want to be ruled by foreigners

The reason people who want UK to leave the EU do so is that they don't want to be ruled by foreigners. This way of thinking is permitted, which is one of the things that makes Brexit such an interesting issue, but it is not far from the borders of permitted thought. There are actually Remain voters who think this racist. I have spoken to two such people. 

Historians will one day tell us why they think like that or psychologists. Theologians are beyond hope these days.


  1. The British voted to leave the EU because they don't like Romanians and Poles.

    1. NOT true - and if you wish to smear the British people as haters of others, then do so under your own name. Do not hide.

  2. David in Ukraine6 February 2018 at 13:11

    "The British don't want to be ruled by foreigners"

    Well most peoples don't.

    The Indians, Hindus, Sikhs and Moslems, didn't and sought independence from British rule.

    Africans from north to south and from east to west of the continent didn't and sought independence from French Portuguese, Belgian and British rule.

    Latin America didn't and sought independence from Spanish rule.

    And in Europe, the Irish, Polish, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians and many others didn't.


  3. "Nationalism in the French Revolutionary sense - a derivation of fraternité, implies people have the right to rebel against a foreign monarch or ruler. It is something I certainly reject. It leads to all sorts of bad things like the American revolution and other insurrections. It leads to people like Gandhi, Nehru, the Stern Gang, etc."

    So not wanting to be run by foreigners is okay for Brits but not for other people? I think this interesting view demands further explanation.

  4. Does it? We are leaving the EU because we are a sovereign state. Scotland has no legal right to leave the UK nor Caralonia to leave Spain. Nowadays if the people of Scotland badly wanted to leave we'd let them but they have no right to rebel if we for some reason didn't let them. Give unto Caesar or put another way we have a duty to be submissive to authority placed over us by God. This is how any Christian should think.

    1. Ok couple of questions for you,

      1. Do you agree that once the Bolsheviks became the legal government of Russia, (and thus divinely imposed) and started legally mass murdering the peasantry then it was wrong for any individual rebel against that government? (Peacefully or not)

      2. Were the people of Eastern Europe wrong to peacefully rebel against their Foreign imposed Communist governments in 1989? Were the Romanians wrong to violently rebel against Ceausescu since he was clearly the authority placed over them by God?

      3. Also, would you regard the Warsaw ghetto uprising as immoral given that it occired under Nazi legal juristiction. What's your opinion on say, Claus von Stauffenburg?

      4. Finally, say you lived under a hypothetical government which passed a law which said: "Everyone with the name Paul is to have all their posessions siezed, enslaved, their children placed under the care of convicted paedophiles while their adul female relatives are to become sex slaves for rich Arabs." So lots of people called Paul (and thousands of their sympathisers) banded together saying "we are starting an armed rebellion against the current government and form our own breakaway state, Paulania, where our rights will be protected." Would you condemn the rebels for disregarding Jesus' instructions?

    2. I appreciate it might not be a yes or no answer and you have other things to do but I'm still waiting for a reply. If four questions is too many then just answer question 2. Do you think East Europeans should have been more submissive to their Communist authorities?

    3. Your questions are very reasonable and I have thought about them for decades. I could answer quickly but they deserve a considered response and I have had no time to write one. Many comments on my blog merit responses that I do not find time to write but I shall answer yours when I can.

    4. Briefly my point is that I am not a nationalist and my sympathies are with the monarchy in France in 1789, 1830 and 1848. I do not think a Communist government that claims their authority from what they claim (lying) was a popular revolution can justify itself using the ideas of legitimism.
      Hitler's government was perfectly legal at first but as part of his doctrine that might was right he chose to govern lawlessly without ever repealing Bismarck's Criminal Code, so his government too was, arguably, not the legal government. I admire Von Stauffenburg, of course.
      But I feel this argument is slightly jesuitical and one should not drive the train of logic so far that it crashes. I think Ian Macleod accused Enoch Powell of doing that. “I often start with Enoch on the train of logic. The difference between us is that I jump off before it hits the buffers.”

      I think, since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church now teaches that in certain extreme circumstances rebellion can be justified - but to be honest my knowledge of my own religion is sadly incomplete.

      My point in this blog post, I suppose, is to underline heavily that I am not a nationalist and think we have a duty to obey an unpleasant and immoral foreign government if it is legal, but I want to say that loving ones nation is something very important, more praiseworthy than being an internationalist. Of course, these things change as the times change. Internationalism was a very good thing after the war - we now have too much of it.

    5. My view is that the Southern States had the legal right to secede in 1861 though they made a terrible mistake in doing so. My view also is that, regardless of the constitutional position, which can be argued either way, Lincoln was very wrong in going to war to force them to remain.

      Why was he wrong? For several strong reasons apart from the legal ones, but mostly because he thereby caused a war that resulted in the deaths of 700,000 of his countrymen.

    6. I've just thought of another example: Iain Smith's Rhodesia which declared Independence on the Washingtonian model in 1965. Given what has happened to that country since then who would you say was in the right? the Rhodesians, or Harold Wilson who condemned the "rebels" in the same language as Lord North. As in many cases the ones acting illegally were the ones upholding Civilisation.

      I think that if you take an honest look at your position it can be summed up as "do what you want with us so long as you write it down on paper first". I think your Reasoning mind understands that a creed which preaches the virtue of acting like prey animals or sheep in the real world in return for the promise of afterlife in an invisible, "next world" is a bad creed. Sooner or later its bound to end in self-annihilation for its adherents. However, because you were born into this creed yourself you still feel an obligation to believe this one command "Give unto Caesar" attributed to someone (who quite possibly may not even have existed) in a set of stories which heavily contradict eachother and were written many decades, sometimes centuries after the alleged events occured. Sure, there are millions of Christians who probably think the same so there's safety in numbers. But if your religion had fifty members instead of hundreds of millions then you would have a lot harder time defending your beliefs.

    7. Christianity greatly differs from Islam or Judaism. The latter two have brought worldly successes to their followers. Christianity on the other hand is parasitic on its followers because it relies on them having a pre-Christian ethos to defend themselves. Christians had no desire to help one another despite the pleas that were sent by Balkan Kings when the Muslim Turks were invading Europe. Europe was defended by men like Stephen III of Moldavia, Vlad the Impaler, Ivan the Terrible, Ferdinand of Spain, amongst others. Yes, these men may have been nominal Christians but they fought for their kin and tribe so they were the Nationalists of their day. The same could be said for someone like General Franco. If Franco was a good submissive Christian he would have let tens of thousands of nuns and priests be massacred and burnt alive instead of starting an uprising.

      "But I feel this argument is slightly jesuitical and one should not drive the train of logic so far that it crashes. I think Ian Macleod accused Enoch Powell of doing that. “I often start with Enoch on the train of logic. The difference between us is that I jump off before it hits the buffers.”

      I see what you mean by this but I prefer the Germanic way of thinking: logical and precise, as opposed to the Anglo way: muddling through, half-baked, and "winging it". Enoch Powell was a more Germanic thinker. He saw that if Britain carried on with permitting immigration from the non-European world it could only end in national disaster. There could be no other logical outcome. His Tory collegues preferred muddling through and didn't want to look too far down the road. They must have thought it would sort itself out somehow. I think we know who was right though.

    8. I certainly thought Smith a rebel. He was. I remember Julian Amery telling me that he was the Rhodesian George Washington to which I replied 'You would have opposed Washington!'

      Now my opinion of Smith is much more favourable but a Rhodesian friend blames him for declaring UDI. Had he not done so and simply ignored the Governor a stand off would have ensued instead of a break.

      British rule in Rhodesia and elsewhere in Africa did a lot of good for Africans but it could not continue indefinitely. At least Zimbabwe avoided full Communism unlike Mozambique and Angola. South Africa escaped Marxism altogether.

    9. I admire Enoch Powell very much. I always loved him as a man and the greatest Parliamentarian after Churchill died but I agreed with Harold Macmillan rather than Enoch on Europe, economics and to even immigration. I am now on Powell's side on those things, with some hesitation when it comes to economics though - his economics were later called Thatcherism. He was right on Northern Ireland, which should have been made a part of a unitary UK and he was very right about the importance of not broadcasting the proceedings of Parliament and the importance of not creating House of Commons select committees. I love his belief in hereditary peerage too.

      The respected American journalist Christopher Caldwell is senior editor at The Weekly Standard and writes for the Financial Times. His 'Reflections on the Revolution in Europe' (2009) is a book I recommend.

      Caldwell vindicates the accuracy of Powell's predictions of the size of the non-white population in the UK thus.

      “Although at the time Powell`s demographic projections were much snickered at, they have turned out not just roughly accurate but as close to perfectly accurate as it is possible for any such projections to be: In his Rotary Club speech, [November 16 1968] Powell shocked his audience by stating that the nonwhite population of Britain, barely over a million at the time, would rise to 4.5 million by 2002. (According to the national census, the actual “ethnic minority” population of Britain in 2001 was 4,635,296.)”

      According to the 2011 census, the non-white population of the UK was over 7.5 million.

    10. "Powell spent the first 20 years of his adult life as a convinced Nietzschean atheist. In his early 20s, he “read all Nietzsche—not just the main works but the minor works as well, all of them, and every scrap of published correspondence.”[2] His postwar conversion to Christianity did not put an end to his Nietzscheanism. One might ask how such a thing is possible. How does one reconcile the thought of Christianity’s most vociferous critic with the very same faith against which Nietzsche’s launched his invectives? And should we care?" https://thelibertarianideal.wordpress.com/2017/02/27/enoch-powells-nietzschean-christianity/

    11. I am no expert but I strongly suspect that Stephen the Great of Moldavia and Vlad the Impaler thought of themselves as Christians fighting foreign, infidel invaders. They did not I think regard themselves as Romanians. They were patriots but mostly they were Christian warrior kings. Stephen, now canonised by the Romanian Orthodox Church did his share of impaling. Both are considered great national heroes in Romania.

      SE Europe expended its blood and treasure defending the rest of Europe from the infidels, without much gratitude.

  5. Llewellyn the Great, who fought against Edward I, has always been one of my great heroes. That does not mean I would back a rebellion by the Welsh today.

  6. "Briefly my point is that I am not a nationalist and my sympathies are with the monarchy in France in 1789, 1830 and 1848."

    Ok but to me that just sounds a bit of a convienient fence-sitting position which doesn't ruffle PC feathers. If you declare that you are a supporter of Louis XIV then nobody will give you any trouble but if you say you are a supporter of the Front Nationale a lot of people will. The main political battle today is between globalism and nationalism rather between monarchy and republicanism although you could say the present conflict is a continuation of the older one. The world today is split between those who think that France should continue existing as a historical culture or those who think it should be just a few lines on a map. The older battle has already been lost. The only way a monarchy in France can be restored is first if the nation of France survives and if globalism keeps winning that isn't going to happen.

    You wrote:

    "I do not think a Communist government that claims their authority from what they claim (lying) was a popular revolution can justify itself using the ideas of legitimism. Hitler's government was perfectly legal at first but as part of his doctrine that might was right he chose to govern lawlessly without ever repealing Bismarck's Criminal Code, so his government too was, arguably, not the legal government. I admire Von Stauffenburg, of course."

    After the Enabling Act Hitler was legally the absolute dictator of Germany so he did not govern lawlessly. Nor did Stalin or any of the post-war governments of Eastern Europe. We know the Communists claimed their authority from popular revolution but I wanted to hear you test your Gospel theory of government legitimacy to the Communist governments. You couldn't quite do it though. You used it to defend regimes you do like, such as the British Raj against Gandhi, but you understood it can just as easily be applied to defend regimes that you don't like e.g. Nazism and Communism or any potential World Government that could legally do whatever it likes with Britain. I don't think its taking an argument to its extreme. I think its more the case that the Christian argument fell over on its first hurdle. Luckily Britain is allowed to legally leave the EU but what if they weren't? Your answer would be just to suck it up and live with it?

  7. The Church changed its teaching on rebellion in recent times and at the Second Vatican Council is said to have made terms with the French revolution. These words of Pope Paul VI seem to be the Church’s position now. They are from his Encyclical Populorum Progressio of 26 March 1967:

    “ The injustice of certain situations cries out for God's attention. Lacking the bare necessities of life, whole nations are under the thumb of others; they cannot act on their own initiative; they cannot exercise personal responsibility; they cannot work toward a higher degree of cultural refinement or a greater participation in social and public life. They are sorely tempted to redress these insults to their human nature by violent means.
    “ Everyone knows, however, that revolutionary uprisings—except where there is manifest, longstanding tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country—engender new injustices, introduce new inequities and bring new disasters. The evil situation that exists, and it surely is evil, may not be dealt with in such a way that an even worse situation results.”

    Was Tiberius a tyrant? Nero was, if we are to believe Suetonius and Tacitus. The Church did not favour rebellion against any Roman emperors, though Christians refused to eat meat sacrificed to pagan gods and were killed for doing so .

    The Church has a habit of claiming to teach unchanging positions even when they do change (think of usury). The Pope encouraged rebellion against Elizabeth I. Many or most Catholics backed Franco who rebelled against the Second Spanish Republic. It is a tangled web full of contradictions.

    But none of this rigmarole has anything to do with the point of my little note, which is: the British don't want to be ruled by foreigners and some people think this is xenophobic.

  8. Interesting how any reference to Christ brings on the entire critique of the Christian faith.
    In the case of the Caesar quote, the quote itself has a very narrow and personal meaning. Christ was explaining that his concern and his kingdom is not of this earth, and that he does not aspire to be the Caesar, nor does he aspire to be the king of the Jews. This in fact has profoundly disappointed his compatriots. So I don't think that we need to validate or not a regime based on the Gospel.
    However, I do wonder, what is France without Christianity. What was France before Christianity, and what were it's prospects had it stayed pagan?
    In my view there is nothing intrinsically French about being 'modern' or globalist, and besides EU has started imposing regulations on the bacterial content in cheese, so indeed it is becoming a line on the map. Farms in N California are making raw milk Camembert that is not bad.
    The fall of the Byzantium was the first tragic loss, and it was mostly self destruction. France and the other Western countries picked up the torch. Who will pick up the torch this time?

    1. You make very good points, Anonymous. Please invent a name as i don't usually reply to people who don't. I couldn't resist doing so this time.

      Yes as Belloc said,

      'Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe'.

      And I quoted Charles Maurras a few days ago.

      "I am Roman, because Rome, from as early as the Consul Marius and the deified Julius and up to the time of Theodosius, outlined the first configuration of my France. I am Roman, because Rome, the Rome of priests and popes, added the everlasting solidity of feeling, custom, language, and worship to the political achievement of Roman generals, administrators, and magistrates. I am Roman, because if my forefathers had not been Roman as I am, the first barbarian invasion, between the fifth and tenth centuries, would have made me today some sort of German or Norwegian. I am Roman, because, had it not been for my tutelary Romanism, the second barbarian invasion, which took place in the sixteenth century, namely the Protestant one, would have transformed me into some sort of Swiss. I am Roman from the moment that I give myself completely over to my historical, intellectual, and moral being. I am Roman, because, if I were not, I would no longer have virtually anything of Frenchness about me. And I experience no difficulty whatsover in feeling Roman in this way, the interests of Roman Catholicism and those of France being nearly always identical and nowhere contradictory"

  9. The problem is that even after Britain leaves the EU it'll still be run by people like this:


  10. James said: 'Christianity greatly differs from Islam or Judaism. The latter two have brought worldly successes to their followers.'

    It is true that the (so-called) Prophet Mahomet died in his bed a rich warlord and Jesus Christ died in torment on a cross but this does not prove that Islam makes its votaries successful. It is Christianity, that enjoins loving your enemies and giving away your possessions, that has made its adherents rich and powerful. Christian countries in Europe and those founded by Christian European settlers on other continents are vastly rich, rule the globe and have done so for five or six hundred years.

    1. I have to agree with James. It is not Christianity that made Europe powerful. It is not responsible for Whites' expansion over the globe. The splendour of Greece and Rome owed nothing to Christianity. Notice you said Christian countries in *Europe*. And Christian *European* settlers. Yes, because the common demominator is European genes, not Christianity. If Christianity is the cause of wealth and power then why are Nigeria and Bolivia still Third World countries? They are more Christian than any European country. Is South Korea richer than Japan because its more Christian? Of course not. Christianity makes no difference. The reason is that Japanese and Koreans have superior genes to Bolivians and Nigerians. If North Koreans got rid of Communism they would become richer than Bolivia and Nigeria inside five years.

      The imposition of Christianity since the fourth century destroyed huge chunks of European knowledge accumulated over centuries, medicine, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy and architecture. This is why Chinese and Islamic civilisations pulled ahead of us for a long time. Anything that was a reminder of pagan beliefs and traditions for example medicinal knowledge from plants was branded as heretical and destroyed. Christianity set us back centuries and did incalculable damage to European civilisation in so many other ways. Christianity taking credit for Europeans' success is a bit like a child abuser taking credit for their victim's successes in later life. We flourished in spite of Christianity.

    2. Pagan Germans and Britons didn't do so well. On the other hand the Philippines, a Christian country in the Far East, is less rich than her neighbours. I simply showed that Jews and Arabs have one done so well in material terms as many Christians. Christianity saved much of the knowledge of the Ancient World when the barbarians took over. I am not convinced by Gibbon's view that Christianity weakened the Roman Empire.

      South Korea is one third Christian and is a far more Christian country than any in Western Europe except Malta and Northern Ireland. Not excepting post-Christian Southern Ireland.