Atheism
Politics
Memes
Mind
Matters
Random
Interact
Feedback
Links
Forum
Home
Atheism
Politics
Memes
Mind
Matters
Random
Interact
Feedback
Links
Forum
Home
Long Live The English Republic
English: Mongrel Race?
Pride
St George, the Big Pussy Cat and King Richard
More Tea Vicar?
A Princely Price to pay
Enoch Powell: Failure
The Mob, the Mask and the Masquerade
The Defence of Liberty
 |
Since graduating my intense interest in politics has waned considerably, at least as far as active party politics goes. Unfortunately I have found that all elected politicians have to make far too many compromises in order to remain electable. I doubt I could ever get involved at any lesser level than dictator, I value my honour too much to pander to the electorate. That is not to say that I am not some form of democrat. No, simply that I know that it is a job that I know I could not do, like policeman or probation officer. It is not as if I believe that nobody should do it. A country needs politicians just as a body needs an arsehole. But I'm not volunteering. I want to change the world for the better but I want to remain true to myself. Politicians, in the main, do want to improve the world, but they have to make so many compromises to succeed that they lose sight of why they started out on their journey. I have first hand experience of politicians. I have had a drink with the leader of the Liberal Party. I have shared dirty jokes with a frontbench spokesman. I have shared a joint with a bloke who is the chair of the Liberal Democrat's parliamentary party. I have seen a New Year in with the bloke who is now the Chief Whip. I have met US politicians too; a former Secretary of State, a Vice Presidential candidate, a candidate for Congress and a failed Democratic Presidential hopeful. I respect all their motives. Except the State Senator who offered me a Green Card. |
I'm not racist but.Why does everybody find themselves at some stage saying something like this? Racism seems to be the worst crime that anybody is capable of. Being an armed robber is understandable, you cannot help the way you were brought up, but being a racist?! That is unforgivable. No I am not a racist. I judge people by a broad range of measures of both who they are and what they do. Everybody does in their own way. Anybody who claims that they do not see the race of people is lying, to themselves as well as the rest of us. I certainly do not judge people as superior or inferior simply by race. I firmly believe that the differences between each racial group are probably largely superficial and that the differences within each group are much more significant. Only at the very extremes can you begin to see some differences. If you see 8 men line up for the hundred metres Olympic final you know that if 7 of them are black you can bet you on the track, not at the pool. Compared to Europeans people of black African descent have a higher muscle and bone density, which is an asset to a sprinter or boxer but can be a hindrance to a swimmer. A lot of harm is done by trying to deny what people know to be true by direct experience. Racist attitudes do not keep black people out of the swimming pool or white people out of boxing. To claim that the only differences between the races are the colour of skin, shape of facial features and so on is playing into the hands of the racists. Racists do not need evidence, they have faith, but they can use evidence against the anti racists. 
Eric The Eel Moussambani.It is so easy to see that there are differences between the races, some are genetic, most are cultural. To deny any differences is to reduce your credibility. To fight racists I suggest we use truth not rhetoric, never deny what can be proved. This situation is very similar to messages about drugs, young people are not stupid, and when you lie to them your credibility is damaged. They can see from their friends that one joint or tablet is not going to destroy their lives, they know you are lying to them so they disregard everything you say. Black people and white people are different, deny that and the impressionable will ignore you when you say that these differences are trivial. |
| David Robertson wrote:
There have also been Black women who won Olympic swimming
medals. Enith Brigitha of Curacao, Netherlands Antilles was the
first Black female swimmer to win two Olympic medals (in 1976),
both bronze, one for the 100m and one for the 200m freestyle.
In addition, she had world-best short-course (50m pool) times
of 2:00.98, then 1:58.83 for the 200m free. In those days, short-course
times were called world-best. Today, they are simply called world-records. Thanks a lot. I can't understand how I can have had that page
online for about five years and nobody has corrected me. Why
isn't this stuff more widely known? I obviously need to rewrite
that page quite extensively. Is Nesty terminally shy or something?
He coaches at the University of Florida so I assume he speaks
English well enough.
This information does not however change the fundamental point, that differences between races (groups or whatever else you want to call them) need not be denied as a matter of faith in order to end the evil of racism. It is simply wrong to treat individuals as being representatives of a group rather than as individuals. That is a hard and fast principle. Stressing that there are no differences, and couldn't be, while refusing to look just in case some are found, is a bad tactic. To make out that all human groups must be and therefore are equal, by definition, and no other finding is allowable, is not just bad science it is anti-reason and an insult to truth. If you want to select children for the school swimming team don't select all white children, or the same proportion of each ethnic group as in the school, just let them all swim and select those children who show the greatest aptitude to learn how to swim fast on an individual basis. The same goes for selecting people for any other task. Ignore race, it won't go away whether you ignore it or not, but don't make it more powerful than it need be by obsessing about it. -- http://mwillett.org |
Nationalism
Nationalism is a hollow bankrupt ideology and it should never be the master. I have rejected it completely, although ironically I could be considered an English Nationalist, due to my rejection of Nationalism. I shall explain; the Scottish, Welsh and Irish Nationalists want to be out of the United Kingdom, I also want out for England. I see no reason why the English taxpayer should subsidize self proclaimed foreigners. I expect relations between the English and the Irish could be as warm as those between the English and the Americans if WE ENGLISH make a Unilateral Declaration of Independence.
The British media is constantly having to apologize for its "English bias", the Scottish in particular are constantly on the alert for the slightest hint of it. The British media is not biased in favour of England, the BBC in particular has a very high proportion of Scottish and Welsh voices, it sometimes smacks of tokenism.
The national identity problem within Britain is caused by the unavoidable fact that England has a much bigger population than Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is the beginning and end of it. I am reminded about the story of the butcher who sold rabbit pies; he padded them out with "50% horse meat" to go further, he used one horse for every rabbit. Britain will always be like that, the British pie will taste of England. It is both fair and inevitable. There are more people living in London alone than in Scotland. Less than ten million people live within the United Kingdom who are not English. The United Kingdom is over 80% English.
Imagine if the USA and Canada were to become united in one country. The Canadians no doubt would claim it should be an equal partnership, just as the Scots do. No independent observer could see it that way. The English and Scots case is very similar, but England also has more landmass than Scotland too.
If the other, smaller, countries want their own identity it can only be achieved by separation. It now seems like they do want it, I have no problem with that.
As an Englishman I see no good reason to be a part of a Union with any country, but Northern Ireland in particular. Nobody ever asked the English population at large whether we wanted a Union, nobody has ever asked since if we want to keep it up. It takes two to tango. Why should there be a permanent pledge of union as long as "The majority of the Northern Irish people" want it? What about the English? My country is England, not the United Kingdom.
If the IRA want to get a peaceful settlement they should stop fighting now for ever. The English do not have any reason to stay in a union with the Ulster Protestants, we find them deeply embarrassing. We are certainly not in it for the money, it costs a fortune every year even without the "armed struggle". But if you fight us we fight back. The only reason we will not say good riddance to the Ulster Protestants is our determination not to give in to terrorists. Stop fighting and we will stop resisting. I have never understood why any country should want to rule over another country unless there is some kind of benefit. In the old days of empire there was a clear benefit, the colonies were used for the glorification of the Motherland. Now there is no benefit from “England's colonies.” The only possible benefit comes from the Union with Scotland and their North Sea oil. I would much rather be loved than rich, let them have it all.
I think England and Scotland would get on tremendously well as neighbours, much better than as uneasy partners. We English have our culture, language and skills to keep us in the first division of nations. We do not need to build ourselves up as an empire. There is no glory today in empire, whether in the "United Kingdom", "Greater Serbia" or in Indonesia. I want to see all great nations lose their monolithic structure and at the same time pool their sovereignty and their futures in a true world government.
I look forward to the day when nobody says they are either proud or ashamed to be English. It makes as little sense as being proud to be blue eyed or ashamed to be a man. History is in the past, never forgotten, but it should never be more important than the future. Being a product of a particular history should not make you a prisoner of it. I hold no grudges against the Romans, Vikings, Normans, French, Germans or Japanese. It makes me very angry to be seen as responsible for the Irish potato famine, the slave trade, the opium war and most bizarrely for the genocide of the aborigines (blamed by white Australians!) To the best of my knowledge none of my ancestors ever owned a single slave, founded a colony or even stepped on a plantation.
England is a natural entity, a language community, the borders of England enclosed all those people who spoke English as their mother tongue and very few who didn't (Cornwall is perhaps the only English colony). Great Britain and later the United Kingdom were entities imposed on the English from above, the political elites tried to make the people feel loyal to the new entity and they eventually succeeded. Ironically now this relatively recent and artificial British nationalism is an obstacle to those in the current political elites who want to create a new kind of nationalism at the European level. To my mind fostering any kind of nationalism is as evil as as forming a religion.
The Republic
I want to see an end to monarchy. Not because I have anything against the Royal family personally, simply because they stand for everything I want to see changed; the hereditary principle, wealth and privilege. I scarcely see the need to justify this point. England should be a strong country with citizens, not subjects. Anglo Saxon Kings were not rulers by divine right, they were a means of securing firm leadership, and subject to the will of the people. England had a form of democracy before it was a Christian country. The Divine Right of Kings was an imported notion.
Now we do not need a King or an executive President. The Speaker of the House of Commons could hold all residual constitutional powers and be there on the podium to welcome visiting Heads of State. The British public are constantly being scared away from republicanism by talk about Presidents and who the President might be. It is a red herring, there is no need for a President. A Parliament can be run by a Speaker, and the leader of the majority party or coalition in Parliament can be the Prime Minister. There is no function for a President in such a set-up.
Those who are in favour of the monarchy keep saying that it brings us tourists. I do not believe that. I have walked around the Imperial Palace in Vienna, (I won the holiday in a competition at work) if there was still an Emperor around I would probably have felt less inclined to do so. My presence may have been construed as support for the concept of monarchy or even for fine detail of Austrian foreign policy.
I cannot imagine that hordes of tourists turn up in London genuinely believing that they are going to see the Queen. Paris and Rome are full of tourists, not many of them expect to see Marie-Antoinette or Julius Caesar. Tourists also go to the White House, yes, I am sure they would love to catch a glimpse of the President but visits are not cancelled when everybody knows The President is off kissing babies in New Hampshire or walking the Great Wall of China. Even if this argument did hold water it is prostituting ourselves to fawn to tourists by upholding moribund principles.
The House of LordsEvents have caught up with this page. The House of Lords is doomed. Better late than never. There can be no place in a democracy for a chamber of a parliament that has even a single member of it who is there simply because they were born in the right bed. Every day that the House of Lords survives with any hereditary members, or even members who initially came to the house via heredity, is an insult to democracy. (If you agree with that point but think the UN's chamber full of tyrants has some kind of legitimacy may I ask you why?) |
 |
I look forward to the day when instead of being a subject of Her Majesty The Queen of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland I am a citizen of a federal world, living in the Republic of England. I am not sure, but I suspect that the last sentence technically makes me a traitor, and eligible for sentence to death by hanging or life imprisonment. I am glad that the country I live in does not have a written constitution or a pig headed attitude to such matters as national identity, unlike 95% of the rest of the world. I suspect that I am very unlikely to be arrested for publishing this page and the only reason the page would not get updated would be if I found a better ISP.
In summary, while I am not exactly proud to be English I am at least comfortable with the idea. The only problem I have with being English is that many people seem to take it as a racial group as well as a Nationality. Black people living in England are told they can call themselves black-British but they cannot be English. That I must object to. I am as English as any Englishman (which is of course much more English than any member of the Royal family or much of the English aristocracy) I am of a typically English mongrel stock taking in Anglo Saxon, Norman, Celtic and Viking ancestry. Being English is nothing to do with race. It is about living in England, feeling you belong there or hoping to return there, it is about speaking English and indulging in English culture; it is about caring to be English.