Stephen Moriarty
[This has been promoted from a comment on David Webb’s latest post]
A good article, but there are reasons to be less pessimistic. First, there is a good deal of inter-racial marriage. Second, not all Muslims, for example, are the same and thus they may not form a “bloc”. Third, the most intelligent members of every group are probably appreciative of Western civilisation and have no desire to go “back”. We are suffering from what someone called “away-team-itis”: the hand we hold is not nearly so weak as we fear. Our main effort should be to create a clear argument for English civilisation. We will find allies in all quarters. Here is my suggestion:
London should become an independent city-state.
Northern Ireland should be partitioned further between the Republic and an independent Protestant state.
Scotland should be granted independence. The Welsh should be free to choose the same.
What will remain will be recognisably England. Reinstating the pre-1974 counties in this England would simultaneously restore local and national pride and allow for further dismemberment if required.
In England, government should be returned to the pre-1999 model. All citizens should be schooled in their restored privileges and duties as Englishmen and women: habeas corpus, jury-trial, freedom of expression, religious tolerance (see below), the vote (see below). These rights should be clearly defined in statute and not subject to qualification via human rights laws: “When I hear of men’s laying aside all engagements for some wild notion of what in every man’s conception is just or unjust, I tremble at the consequences.” (Ireton). Nevertheless, there should be legislation against monopoly and over-large estates.
England would not be opposed to membership of international organisations, but it would refuse any treaty that infringed the sovereignty of the English Parliament.
Foreigners would not be allowed to own property or reside permanently in England, but citizenship would be available to those who sincerely wish to be English. Englishness would not be defined by race, rather by a commitment to those rights and duties mentioned above.
There would be suffrage for all over thirty years of age who are not in net receipt of state assistance. “For where is there bound or limit set if men that have but the interest of breathing shall have voices in elections?” (Oliver Cromwell).
A Test Act should be instated, including the rule that only members of the Church of England may hold public office (remember that most of those who will find this impossible have been offered Lancashire or London). Membership of the Church should be on easy terms, however, such that those who found it impossible to join would lay themselves open to an accusation of unreasonableness (not unlike today). All would be welcome at CofE services.
The Church would return to the Book of Common Prayer (which it has not completely abandoned): “And grant, that all they that do confess thy holy Name may agree in the truth of thy holy Word, and live in unity, and godly love. We beseech thee also to save and defend all Christian Kings, Princes and Governors; and specially thy servant ELIZABETH our Queen; that under her we may be godly and quietly governed: And grant unto her whole Council, and to all that are put in authority under her, that they may truly and indifferently minister justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue.”
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
A Systematic REVIEW of Autopsy findings in deaths after covid-19 vaccination
The Adam Smith Institute: Architects of Moral and Economic Ruin
Kemi Badenoch: One Hundred Promising Days
The Madness of the Neoconservatives: A Disaster Britain Must Avoid
Bled Dry and Loving It: The Middle-Class Masochists of England
Reforming the Housing Market: A Cautious Welcome
Powered by YARPP.
Yes. I think so too. I would limit the Franchise to Free-Holders, in that they are the penultimate (at least) owners of fixed and immovable property Under the Crown – such as Land, or buildings on land that they own, or Free Businesses (which could go anywhere.)
Free-Holders could be men or women. It makes no difference.
Since it is in practice not easy to abolish the State as a global idea, at this time, and most libertarians would probably accept a minimalist one as the best deal going, I can’t see any problem here.
We used to have protective legislation, but because the supremacist one worlders found it an inconvenience, they either repealed it or ignored them; one was the Denizen Law another was the Statute of Provisors and Praemunire, then there are the treason laws to stop foreign people having influence or power in this country, which were created by far sighted people to protect the country and it’s assets.
Denizens from a letter to Bernard Hogan-Howe by the founder of the English Constitution Group:
A Denizen is a naturalised person half way between a natural born subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and a alien, he can buy sell inherit or leave property and experiences most though not all the rights and freedoms of a natural born subject.
A Denizen can not be admitted to any order of Nobility, sit in either house of Parliament nor may he sit on the Privy Council, nor hold any public office. Our Most Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth II is refused permission to change this by English Common and Constitutional law, the 1559 Act of Supremacy and the 1689 Declaration and Bill of Rights. As well as a natural restriction placed upon the Sovereign Kings and Queens of England. As made crystal clear by the above two Major Constitutional Laws.
Now this I am sure will give you more than a twinge of conscience, but the attached article on our friend Simon Hughes MP in which he clearly attempts to subvert the Common and Constitutional law of England by inviting Muslims who by definition are at best Denizens at worst the enemy of the free world to hold the highest offices in the land. Offices they are forbidden by law to hold. Offices Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is forbidden by law from granting them.
Ah you say but they already hold high office, and this is true because treacherous politicians have betrayed this Kingdom and Her Majesty for personnel gain, and allowed them to curry favour.
_______________________________________________
2. Pre-Eminence of King Over Pope in England before Henry-viii:
Praemunire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praemunire
In English history, Praemunire or Praemunire facias was a law which prohibited the assertion or maintenance of papal jurisdiction, imperial or foreign, or some other alien jurisdiction or claim of supremacy in England, against the supremacy of the monarch. This law was enforced by the Writ of Praemunire facias, a writ of summons from which the law takes its name.
The name Praemunire may denote the statute, the writ, or the offence.
Praemunire in classical Latin means to fortify. In medieval Latin, praemunire was confused with and used for praemonere, to forewarn, as the writ commanded that the sheriff do (facias) warn (praemunire) the summoned person to appear before the Court.[1]
The Statute of Praemunire (16 Ric. 2, c. 5) was passed by the Parliament of England during the reign of Richard II, who purchased various loans from foreign creditors and rulers as well as bulls from Rome in 1392. It was only one of numerous stringent measures passed for the purpose of restraining the Holy See and all forms of papal authority in England and of eliminating in general the influence of foreign powers especially creditors and the Holy Roman Emperor. Because the Papacy had long claimed a form of temporal supremacy over England and Ireland, from the beginning of the 14th century, papal intervention had been particularly active, more especially in two forms. The one, the disposal of ecclesiastical benefices, before the same became vacant, to men of the pope’s own choosing; the other, the encouragement of resort to himself and his curia, rather than to the courts of the country, for legal justice.
The Statute of Provisors (1306), passed in the reign of Edward I, was, according to Sir Edward Coke, the foundation of all subsequent statutes of praemunire. This statute enacted “that no tax imposed by any religious persons should be sent out of the country whether under the name of a rent, tallage, tribute or any kind of imposition.” A much greater check on the freedom of action of the popes was imposed by the Statute of Provisors (1351) and the Statute of Praemunire passed in the reign of Edward III.
Foreigners not allowed to own property (thus locals not allowed to sell it to them), and people infantilised until the age of 30 by the state? Sounds like bad news to me.
Alex,
Thanks for this. With ownership comes power, so it is reasonable to limit ownership to only those who show, by being resident citizens and thus subject to our law, that they accept the responsibility that comes with that power. Our worry is not so much individuals, but foreign states and corporations (often hard to tell the difference), so from a libertarian point of view one is merely trying to prevent state-control “by the back door”.
My maths teacher at school, Col. Haddon OBE, always said that one didn’t grow up until one was 40, so 30 is generous I think!
Everyone thinks everyone younger than them is not grown up yet. We’d end up limiting the franchise to the over 80s.
Projections put 3 million refugees incoming to Europe next year after a million this year… will the centre hold?
I am never in favour of limiting the franchise, as this seems always to be a strategy to limit the franchise to “my kind of people”. The particular problem anyway is that the current Progressive Tyranny is the invention of the new upper class (euphemistically, the “middle class”) who are generally owners of expensive property as well. And usually prosper both directly and indirectly from State incomes- but not “benefits” or “assistance”- and if not that, simply from the existence of an expanded legislative State. The poor are not the problem, in my opinion.
As to the Muslim issue, I am in some agreement. I currently have a colleague who is the full headscarf, so to speak, but considers the source of all the trouble to be Wahabbism, which she considers whatever the equivalent of a heresy is in Muslim terminology.
Nonetheless, I consider the demographic challenge to European civiilsation to be one of the great issues of our time, akin to the state of the Church during the Reformation in importance.
Welcome back! We were missing you badly.
I think I disagree with you on the franchise. The poor in themselves are no harm. Also, the propertied classes are often dangerous. On the other hand, the existence of a mass-electorate may be a problem, so far as it is easier to manipulate into endorsing trashy candidates.
I am always with you, even if you can’t see me. Like Jesus.
I don’t have a particular problem with trashy candidates. It’s the hardcore, hardworking, committed reformer types that scare the willies out of me.
We’ll have to thenceforth, yea, verily we say unto thee, redub thee “Ian B-Jayzus” then….
What if we said “limit the Franchise to nett tax-payers”? Of course, this might create a problem since “the poor”, through their consumption of baccy and booze (you should go out and watch them shopping sometimes, people) are higher “nett tax payers” – as a group – than, say, Alan Sugar’s outfit that sells computers to the public-sector, headed by that ghastly and rude man Claude-something-or-other.
I’d still suggest “freeholders of UK fixed property”, for these are the only people or corporate-persons whose taxation burden can be reliably assessed. That way, we could tax foreigners too, a bonus surely.
I think foreigners should pay extra tax. There might then be fewer of them.
A good article, but there are reasons to be less pessimistic. First, there is a good deal of inter-racial marriage.
Yes, and what a good thing inter-racial “marriage” is. We get people who are less intelligent and more criminal than so-called British whites, but — and this is why we should be optimistic — more intelligent and less criminal than Jamaicans, Pakistanis and other vibrant communities.
On balance, I prefer the way the Jehovah’s Witnesses engage issues around diversity:
Thank you for these responses. I know I’m a bit guilty of building castles in the air, but I think it is worth having a discussion about how to create sufficient loyalty in a free society for it to survive.
On the race issue: the Victorian model is clearly wrong. There are different groups, and these groups probably have different characteristics that may impinge upon politics, and they clearly resist mixing; but there are not three or four huge chunks into which humanity can be divided, rather thousands of groups. What’s more, multi-“racial” societies don’t instantly fail, and although they are problematic – perhaps fatally so – that does not mean that there is a better alternative once the genie is out of the bottle: what test could be used to determine the “race” of any individual? Of course some people would not be Caucasian, but what about all the people who are not quite pure? It would be a bit like trying to recreate the weather of a memorable summer: England or Britain passed through a period when conditions were such that the idea of tribe and nation could be conflated, but that “weather” has passed and there is now no way back – we have to look forward. I am trying not to be a glib optimist – I am not optimistic – but certain solutions are out of reach. It is not that I am happy to see a nation subsumed, but that that may be the best that can be achieved; perhaps we can best preserve England and the English by becoming a sort of leavening, and by refusing to be beaten.
What’s more, multi-“racial” societies don’t instantly fail…
People who swallow polonium and people who drink meths don’t instantly die.
what test could be used to determine the “race” of any individual?
Appearance is a crude but effective guide. Genetic tests can follow if necessary. Doctors don’t get diagnosis 100% right, but that doesn’t make medicine random or ineffective. Again I point to the Jehovah’s Witnesses:
A Test Act? Are you barking? I thought Libertarians and enforced religion did not mix.