Why should I mourn
The vanished power of the usual reign?
-T.S. Eliot
England has reached a crossroads. England is a European nation, and owes a great deal to commerce of all kinds with Europe. The period of European wars, which were meant to decide where the capital city of Europe was to be found, and who the master race of Europe are, ended in an unsteady truce or armistice in the West, which was brokered by the United States, and in military defeat and humiliation in the East. That political settlement, a dream which lasted eighty years, is coming to an end.
It was possible to say of a European war one hundred years ago, that it was a world war, since the only parts of the world which mattered at that time were European, whether England, Germany, France, Italy, or Russia. After a century of unrest and enforced peace, the situation is different. Now, the United States and China, and India and others, are roughly as powerful as Europe. Those places are also united and coherent parts of the world, while Europe remains fractured, disorganised.
Not only disorganised, but almost magically given over to fantasies and self-deceit in its culture and politics. It is a group of nations characterised by military and commercial weakness. During the armistice brokered by the United States, and the end of the European war brought about by the Soviet Union, the Europeans, and the English no less than them, created two organisations which have recently fallen apart. The first was commercial, namely the EU; and the other military, namely NATO.
Europe has reached a crossroads; and England has reached the same place. We can deal with England separately from Europe, since the nation remains the single unit of political will and value; and nationalism is the strongest political idea we know of; it is not profitable to talk about the future of a continent, since a continent is largely a mere geographical convention, and is not a political reality or unit. And for other reasons peculiar to me and to my reader, England alone has any real value among European nations.
I want to explain how I see the situation of England now. This involves describing what England is. And with such a dangerous situation ahead of us, it is also necessary to talk about ultimate directions and the ground principles of any decision we will be forced to take as a people.
These are my principles. If we examine our own lives, we see that our first desire and passion, is to stay alive, and to remain who we are. Each man has a self, and he is obliged to look after it. In some way or other, this self is eternal. He has to make himself eternal, and unmoved. He is mortal, and will die in the end, and the only way in which he can survive that is, if there is a life after this one. And the only way of ensuring that this eternal self is real and steady, is to become his eternal self here, in this world; but finally, he can only do this if he accepts that God is watching and demanding things of him, and has chosen the precise eternal self it shall be.
In this way, the first problem a man faces in life is not political, but religious. His greatest wish, often denied, is that he not die, but remain alive even after death; and God has promised this. It is said that a man can be atheist or ignore God’s demands of him, but this is not really possible for a man who has a self and wants to survive. For, if he does not believe in God, then he can have no self, and then he is worthless to himself, and probably to others. So, this is the first ground principle of human life: that there should be a means of getting to know about God, namely, a Church.
Second, a man requires a state to protect him, he needs a nation in which he can take part, and a state to protect it; his nation is his means of gaining his own protection and flourishing. His first requirement is, of course, a place to live, which, in all directions, in all places, means a nation. And the ruler of his nation is known under the name of ‘the state’. The purpose of the state, most often seen in the form of ‘the government’, is primarily this: to protect a man’s property, or sometimes his life. The state does not have to do with a man’s longing for eternal life in the next, but only for his survival in this world; so, the thing which the state protects is a man’s property, his land, the nation itself. The state is the fighting wing of the nation.
The state has regard for his physical property, and the Church for his life, his meaning and his eternal life. The one is prepared to kill, and the other aims to prevent murder. They must be separate. As first principles, then, we accept that there must be a nation; there must be a state; there must be a Church; there must be individuals; and all four of these are separate, but ideally work alongside one another in a rough harmony. In addition, we should add the activity of trade and the economy, which are also required of any man, if he is going to eat and subsist; work and trade are separate from the other parts of the nation, and often contradict the others. We could say, that the purpose of work is to eat and to gather money, but the Church advises poverty and fasting.
These principles are brought to bear at a time when we find England declining into anarchy or non-existence. The principles and the institutions which represent them, namely, government, military, church, trade, population, property, and so on, are shaking and tottering, some of them fatally injured already. England is at this time in danger of ceasing to exist in manifold ways. I am aware of a long essay written by George Orwell in the early 1940s, ‘The Lion and the Unicorn’, in which Orwell meditated on the same themes as my own, at a time when England was at war. England is not at war now, but it has entered into the space of history where wars or civil wars must soon take place. The existence of England is now so uncertain, that it is not coincidental that the nation is on the verge of war only, because a half-nation cannot ever actually engage in war.
I have brought Orwell’s essay to our attention here, as soon as possible in my own essay, because the primary obstacle to our survival as a nation is the same as the one he described. The principle self-destructive force in our country is what Orwell referred to as the financial interests, the domination of the rich in England. In his time, the financier class of Englishmen had left the country unready for war; they were idle and selfish, and unaccustomed to the way ordinary people, such as the leaders of Germany at the time, think and act. He said that that class of men would not be able to fight or lead; but he speculated that a bargain could be made between the rich, and the rest of the nation, once the war was over: the nation and the common people would win the war for England, but in the aftermath, the rich would need to step away from power. The situation is similar today, but much worse, much more spectral. England, by the estimate of its own governing class, as well as the rich, is something from the past, a corpse, a ghost.
The class of people who rule Britain are what I would call financial oligarchs, the people who work or use the services of the City of London, and associated financial services which are also to be found in Paris and New York; they run the money laundering and secrecy regimes of that kind, the banks, and the major international organisations which keep records of their loans, debts, and the obligations of governments. In any reasonable summary of what is going on in English politics and culture, the leaders of that activity are the financial oligarchs. It might be worth pointing to this again later, but the power of the oligarchs and the financial system has recently come to prominence in the Russo-Ukrainian war, in which the nations of Europe are combatants from a distance. There are three-hundred billion dollars of Russian government assets lying in a bank in Belgium; even though the nations of Europe have done everything short of declaring war on Russia in recent years, they are prohibited by the money-lending class from breaking the simple rule: that the banking system’s rules are more important than all others. The banking class rules Europe.
It is not one of my first principles to allow finance and wealth, even simply holders of wealth for purposes of usury alone, to have any power or importance. But financial oligarchs do not inherently have any power, of course, in the real sense. Which is why a man with money but without an army is interested in crafting a nation in such a way that it unconsciously serves him, and never sees him in the open. The society must work in such a way that, owning only money and banks, but not an armed forces or a police, he can rule the nation, and his work can go on, nevertheless. To achieve this powerless power, he must never be seen to hold actual influence. Financiers are essentially a parasite, and nobody would consciously accept their rule; as I do not. They rule the nation, but are never able ostentatiously to prove it or directly exercise authority. We know about a recent prime minister who was overthrown by the financial class, namely Mrs Truss; but all politicians serve under the same conditions as she did.
We have said, that the individual looks for a nation to which to belong; and he must be allied to a state; and to a church. He then fights his way through history to make his neighbours and his nation cohere; it is a struggle to create a nation and a culture, since the conflicting demands of state, church, population, money, work, and the divided loyalties, must cohere and become a nation.
Now, during the last eighty years of peace, something else has been shaping our country, something other than necessity and these conflicting forces, which should form a culture. The financial services system, which was born in the 1960s, and was encouraged to become Britain’s chief industry in the 1980s, has looked for a nation to which to belong. It does not need a church, or a state military. Rather, a bank requires people to whom it can lend; people who will pay their debts on time. It also requires people who will develop new technologies, for that is when lending becomes essential. It also needs constant expansion and development of new territories. Russia for example, is under invested, and it has been obvious since late 1990s, that the rulers of our nations want to break Russia and open it up for financial control and exploitation.
A bank seeks out responsible borrowers, so as to lend; it aims to watch the money be spent on the development of mines, resources, building; and, crucially, it aims to get the money it borrowed back, with interest. The interest is the essential part; the money-lending is the source of revenue and power. Russia, it would be natural to assume, is an unexploited market, a place where investment and returns ought to take place. But while the Putin and Russian nationalist regime is in control of that territory and that people, this cannot happen. To my mind, that is the reason that NATO, which was pointless after 1992, has continued to exist, and has expanded right to the Russian borders. NATO, it always used to be said, is not an offensive organisation. This has been revealed to be true; it is barely a defensive organisation any more; without the United States, it is an empty vessel. Since 1992, NATO has become a pressure group for the fall of Russia, much more than a real military organisation. It is a means of making regime change in Russia, and of disinheriting the Russian people of their unexploited wealth. NATO is to some extent, a direct descendant of the old British Empire.
I take no pleasure is sounding like a conspiracy theorist. But the origins of the financial system in England are plain, and have been set out in a sober manner. With the official end of the Empire in 1966, when the Colonial Office was closed, a new empire was born, consciously invented by men who were unwilling to let their empire disappear. The psychological motives are common and understandable; the financial interests which the empire represented had been destroyed, and sought a way of carrying on. The empire which died in 1966 was born again as the financial empire of the City of London. Britain’s remaining foreign colonies, consisting only of a couple of dozen small islands, became tax havens, and banking centres. The result of their patriotic efforts is that, until recently, London is the route through which more than half of all investment and lending activity takes place for the entire world.
As was also the case in Orwell’s time, most people are unaware that the empire exists, and the great majority of people don’t care about it. They pay for it, and suffer for it, no doubt; but they do so almost as a subject people would do. At the time of the financial crash of 2008, Nicholas Shaxon wrote about this secretive empire, and argued that it should be dismantled for the sake of the British people. Lingering doubts should remain, however, since we are proud of our empire in our hearts. When I myself read Shaxon’s book, I felt a natural flush of pride that we had never given up, and had sustained our empire, my empire, but in a new guise. Teaching me about it was not the shock therapy which Shaxon had intended it to be; I would guess most people would feel the same way as I did. So, in a follow up book, Shaxon pointed out that a nation with a single industry, in our case, banking, cannot survive, and that the people cannot flourish; he proved this with statistics and historical surveys of single-industry nations. Even then, most of us remain unmoved. We are proud of our piratical masters, the class which is are stealing the wealth of the world, and putting it into our colonial islands, taking a cut in interest and fees, and then sharing the resulting theft with the people of Britain. But more recently, the horrible truth has become apparent. That the ruling class of these islands was a banking class was noticed a while ago, however, or it was imputed to Winston Churchill, that he represented those people, by Ezra Pound, in the 1930s and 40s.
What is England? England is not run by Parliament; it is run by financial oligarchs. These days these ‘pirates’ with their treasure islands, are rarely even British, although they push our parliament around on the important foreign policy, and shape the character of our nation by rendering it impotent. England behaves at home like an impotent and dead nation.
What has England become, and what did it used to be, or what should it be? England is a nation in debt to banks and international investors. England also has considerable private debt. The national debt is roughly the same size as the entire annual production of the nation. If private or individual debt is added to this, it is around three or four times the value of the productive activity of the nation over a year. England or Britain is in debt well beyond any ability to repay; it can only pay the interest, which is the idea, of course. Work in order to repay debts is the chief reason for work at this time; and all debt repayment includes a severe burden of interest. Collecting that interest is the reason that England is what it is; it is the reason that most of the disaster we see slowly unfolding does unfold. England effectively exists, in the eyes of those who run it, in order to pay debts and interest, and for no other higher purpose.
The other things which occur in England in our time are, in consequence, chaotic and self-defeating. The life of a nation is like the life of a person: bad decisions or habits do not usually have immediately catastrophic or even obvious results. What began in 1997, only shows itself as ruinous in 2025. The chief centre of mischief and irresponsibly has only recently become the same thing as the actual centre of government. That is to say, parliament is now almost entirely without any responsibility for the nation. One must work backwards from the obvious crisis, to the root cause. The obvious things are widely manifest, almost too hard to bear.
Probably the thing which woke up the true conservative people, as most of us are, people loyal by nature and necessity to our nation, was the 2020 response to the Covid flu outbreak. At that time, the British government took out a loan for more than four-hundred billion British pounds. With the appearance of responsibility and authority, it entirely shut the nation down for at least several weeks, so that the roads and streets were literally empty. For another two years, it kept industry idle. Only a government which was not actually a government could have done this. This only coincided with, but had a symbolic resonance with, the death of the Queen, and the Queen’s husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Phillip. The old order had died.
The second demoralising event, which showed the true impotence and emptiness of the nation, was the provocation of the weak but underexploited nation on Europe’s periphery, namely Russia. Provoked by constant interventions into Ukraine, and Ukrainian attempts to break away and to join NATO, Russia bit back in a short term invasion of Ukraine, after giving fair and clear warning of how much this problem meant to it, as a nation. This outbreak of war between NATO and Russia would once have brought forth men who are serious and determined, determined to make peace. It would have been easy, and the Ukrainian electorate could have been told that joining NATO was not worth the bother or the likelihood of war with Russia. Not in this case. The Prime Minister of the time, Boris Johnson, urged Ukraine to fight, and offered the highest possible commitment from his own country, and NATO as a whole, to the war effort against Russia. In consequence, the war became a long term one, of mutual slaughter and attrition, which Ukraine was certain to lose.
But the third symptom of disaster and of governmental irresponsibility was the immigration from the third world into Britain, which still averages around one million people from south Asia and Africa; the one million figure per year takes into consideration those leaving. This massive increase of foreign people into a relatively small and already densely populated country, has gone on for at least the last ten years, and has even increased, beginning around the time of the Queen’s death. The arrival of eye-watering and merciless numbers of non-white people, and consistent evidence that they were not in any sense an asset, even if that mattered, was found not only in the large cities where foreign people were expected to gather, and where they were a majority, but even in the smaller towns and villages of the country. Effectively, in order to avoid them, the English had nowhere to run, and so the truth could not be avoided any longer. England was been invaded by hoards of foreigners.
Here are three pieces of evidence that the country was not being governed by parliament, and that it was no longer a real nation: in finance and work; in military and foreign policy; and in control of borders and cultural protection. In the finer details, the ruin of the nation was confronted inside parliament, and parliament showed itself to be impotent and averse to its own nation, as if a dying man, suffering an auto-immune crisis, could not be saved because his own body was killing him. Parliament discussed making it illegal to criticise Islam, which was a very serious threat to the English way of life. Other measures taken were to imprison anyone who complained about the disaster. Parliament got involved in race politics, and the future prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, took the knee, a symbolic gesture of submission to anti-white racial politics, sometime around 2020. These were the most significant measures that the old and world-renowned liberal system of national government took in these moments of crisis.
The British Army, which is crucial to the national survival, could no longer pay for soldiers, and numbers have become absurdly low; recruitment failed, and soldiers were demoralised, so that there were more soldiers leaving than attempting to join. The last active service in a war theatre was around 2010; by 2025, the armed forces had been instructed by parliament, to ensure that 30% of all soldiers were female. And that the re-education of all male soldiers must take place, so that the traditionally most brutal and murderous part of the people, should now show as much restraint as possible in the face of women and foreign people. This even though it is understood that on average, the human female is around 60% the upper body strength as the male, and equivalent physical power and endurance across the whole of the physical system; and when it is standard practice for athletes and the like to work their fingers to the bone to achieve a mere 1% advantage in strength and power over their peer competitors. This appears to me to be the last straw for the organisation, or the three arms of the forces. The British were never a people who considered the military to be the core of the nation, as some peoples do; nevertheless, the military had prided itself on being able to win wars when necessary. This is obviously not something we can believe anymore.
In the back ground, it started to become apparent just how important it is, that a nation has access to fuel and energy. Energy is necessary because, if is lacking, then the further resort must be to manual labour, horse power, or other primitive time consuming and servile things. Energy is what makes civilised life possible. Britain had already closed its own coal mines; by 2025, it had become almost impossible to mine for gas or oil, because mining was prohibited. The only resources available, after closing down its own industries and mines, were found in places like Russia, from which the British people continued to buy fuel, but in a circuitous way, through third parties. And thus we find a secondary effect of all this irresponsibility: the rise of lies and deception in Parliament and the culture in general.
In summary, the civil life, the industry, the military, the justice system, parliament itself, and the people’s racial memory and history, were all being shut down progressively, without any turning back or halt to the process; so that nothing could hide any longer the death of a nation. 2025 was the year when perhaps a great deal of prior mistakes finally began to give results. It is only possible to put this down to either, a planned destruction, or a negligence based on self-delusion and a bent for telling lies. But we have explained that the real rulers of the nation were never visible, and that letting a single industry dominate the country was never going to result in long term good. The longer term just arrived in this year, I suppose.
A final and cruel aspect to the self-destruction is the involvement of women. While all of this was going on, women were being given the highest positions in the various parts of our nation’s life, public or private. The first female archbishop of Canterbury was anointed for the role in 2025; the deputy chief of the general staff was a woman for the first time; women led in almost all parts of British public life, because there had been legal mandates for them to be selected for ‘jobs’ such as this in parliament. While the nation is a collection of people which derives from the nuclear family, and the origin of life is in the pairing of a working man and a fertile woman, namely in the family consisting of two people who divide their roles between male and female, and that almost everyone in England belonged to a pair in this way, so that the life of the nation was a pair of people with particular roles, the law had insisted for some time, that a woman can be considered as a separate individuals, as people who intrinsically is alone, and who are equivalent in every respect to a men or the male of the species. Parliament gave out statute laws ensuring that there was in practice only one sex, and male and female were interchangeable. This absurd and unnatural idea was shown to be absurd, when some men began to pretend to be women in sports, in dress, and in almost every activity, and where given parliamentary approval for this disgusting fraud, and encouraged the outrageous results that followed.
Women are not equal or even very much like men; rather men and women are different, but only alike and useful to one another, in a marriage. But marriage, and the truth of our condition, had been destroyed in many decades prior to 2025. So, it only remained to pretend that women could be soldiers, or priests, or statesmen; such things are still considered possible, even while the army, church, and parliament tend towards disappearance and irrelevance.
The kind of society which could have done this to itself has a strange nature, peculiar, but not inexplicable. I do think it’s possible to show how England murdered itself slowly both on purpose and by accident; it’s a complex matter with many actors and many reasons. It is more common to say, that England is on the way or the path of progress. But really, it is in its death throes. I have struggled with the notion of this death, and thought of means to avoid it. But more recently, having agonised over it, I think it is now better to provide a vision of how things ought to be, rather than simply attempt to stop a process of demise. There has to be a vision, not merely the demand for abuses to come to an end for a while.
England came to this situation through the idea of progress; that is what is most commonly said in apology for it. The dissolution of all traditional differences and prejudices essential to survival, is said to be because we are entering and creating a new age; on the political level, the bargain which has been made indicates another but related reason: England is too small, and it would benefit from joining a larger alliance of friendly allies, and therefore give up its traditions and its character, and its freedom. The arbitrary ruin of the facets of the nation also came to this pass because of universal suffrage, and to this extent, it was an accident which could not have been intended. Universal suffrage was meant to have been a good; but when universal suffrage became a fact, the poor and the needy were able to vote for parties which gave away charity by act of parliament. Likewise, when women were given the vote, the strange figure of the aggressive female statesman arrived, and now fills many of the senior roles in the land.
But let us not forget the power of the financial empire of Britain, the dominance of the financial oligarchs, the money lending elite; their part in this was to make the people stupid and to divert their attention away from the changes and their effect; the oligarchy owns the newspapers, as well as promoting and paying for the candidates in parliament and the other institutions. In addition, as a secondary and not essential cause of the ruin, England had already signed its future over to the allure of the European superstate, namely the EU, and to NATO. Additionally, it had submitted to the protection and the demands of the United States, or in other words, to the demands of international law, where the United States was the guarantor and policeman of international law. As an early and stark example of this submission, Britain’s last imperial war, in Suez, failed: purely because the US didn’t approve of it.
It is held that the universities were first to start to produce unpatriotic and misguided people, because it gave an education to the class which now runs Britain on a daily basis, in the civil service, and parliament, of whichever party. Roger Scruton used to attend to the French philosophers, and their influence; he occupied himself continuously with confronting the faults of education on its own terms. Men and women educated in the 1970s through to the 1990s at universities, where an idealistic socialism was prevalent, are now in office. But I don’t care to go over that ground. I disagree, in that I think that the vast majority of people just do as they are told in their work, or make up their own minds, and that the entire English culture is rotten, and that the universities only have a moderate guilt for this.
So much for the condition of the patient, the disease, and the cause of the sickness. What interests me now, and for the rest of this essay, is to refer to my experience and my belief about what England is, and what it must be. If a man were to arrive with sufficient vision, he could change the country overnight, since most people do not believe in anything, and have limited resort to thinking. A leader could overturn decades of negligence and bad habits, sacking the government overnight, putting the correct people in place, showing the way.
England is that kind of place. If left to themselves, the modern English people have a vaguely Christian approach to things, and tend toward bureaucratic and officious idleness. These are the hobbits described by JRR Tolkien. The English have willingly submitted to a nightmare of ruin, and preferred not to see how things are going, until the last moment, because they trust in their nation’s rules and its rulers; they don’t take much interest in what is going on in the past and future, because they are content, by and large. Equally, given a good leader, they would organise and turn things around in a mass movement, because they follow instructions, and won’t do anything without leadership and the inertial movement of the majority. The English and Europeans in general, follow orders, and do not act like a man running amok, as some types of men in foreign cultures do. The British are law abiding, obedient; they await instructions. A leader who gave a certain set of instructions could override decades of pseudo-Christian socialism in any or all large organisations.
Running amok or randomly stabbing and killing British people has of course become more common with recently years, as the third world component of the country has grown. Aided by Islam, to some extent. Scruton also used to say, that Islam is an entire and complete system of religion and politics in one; and is incompatible with British life. But that is another matter, and I leave that aside in this essay, other than to make the claim that Islam must be prohibited in England, if it is to survive. What I am interested in here, is showing what British culture is, not what Islam is.
I will divide the rest of this essay up into three sections. 1. My impression of England. 2. My vision of the future of England. 3. The civil war, and how to avoid it.
1. England, an impression
My impression of England as it was is not exactly flattering either to it, or to me myself. When I say ‘as it was’, I refer to a time before the arrival of two-tier justice, which is maybe the most depressing aspect of the dying England. Two-tier justice is the approach taken by police and judges and officials paid by the state, to set aside the law, for the sake of peace and order between the English people and the foreign people who live in England now. Foreign people get a different standard of justice from British people, because they can run amok, and they are a dangerous part of the population, which does not naturally respect authority, and does not naturally belong with the rest of us. The English character is such, that a sense of a united and racial unanimity and harmony has been the case for nearly a thousand years; being a set of islands, Britain has mostly shrugged off immigrants and has had few of them. The people who call themselves English are generally trusting of strangers on their own territory, and know the customs and laws. Foreigners do not belong to this largely subconscious network of trust between British citizens. So, when foreigners break the law, or act in a foreign way, the police and law have not known how to deal with them, without also drawing attention to the fact, that they do not belong in the country. Choosing not to do this, the law has taken to mollifying and treating foreigners as one would children, or dangerous animals. They get a different treatment, a softer treatment, while British people tend to get harsher treatment. It’s one of the more depressing aspects of the final days of the country. We never thought that we should have to feel such distrust of our own courts and police.
But this same sense of failing justice comes alongside something similar respecting women in the public space. Even while women are on average not much more than half as strong as men in the upper body, and in the body as a whole, parliament and the military have insisted that there are quotas for them across the armed forces. Quotas of other kinds have been introduced, into a system which was only suitable for men, or for extreme elite level talent. What is depressing here, in the specific case of the armed forces is, that this goes against all experience of what military life is, and what it is for. In order to get a quota of females into the forces, it has been necessary to start deceiving organisations, or just practicing deception on a wide scale. The results of females in the military are likely to be unspeakably bad, if ever a war were to break out, since those three out of ten members of the proposed military, would likely be raped before being killed, if they were ever captured by an enemy. So, by making females into a part of the infantry, the British Army has effectively made any surrender, or orderly retreat, and perhaps even any dangerous attack which could result in failure and capture, undesirable if not impossible. No commander would put his troops into battle if they were likely to be captured and raped.
But while the British Army turns its eyes away from this, it has also, in all likelihood turned its eyes away from the reality of the world at large, too. By the early 2020s, the British political class and the educated members of our culture unanimously could not understand why Russia would invade Ukraine, unless for territory, and because of madness or despotism. To me, there was no madness, and the invasion or the ‘special military operation’ was not motivated by an appetite for more territory. But then, I have not routinely closed my mind off to reality, in order to believe in fantasy worlds, as a rule. If a man refuses to lie sometimes, he is also likely to refuse to lie in particular cases. Likewise, if a nation has begun to lie and deceive itself in small and daily things, then it is very likely to do so about the big things, too.
The British have been lying to themselves about who runs Britain for a while; and they have also signed up to the international system of rule, which is the rule by the United States. There is a widespread belief in the British MOD and military, that all future wars will be small-scale counter-insurgencies; or, that large scale wars would be decided by robots and drones. Soldiers would not be necessary, the story has gone. But this is a lie, if any professional soldier has said it. Wars are a perennial problem, since the only way in which this system would, for example, prevent any future wars, would be if all the world were submissive to the international system – which it is not. Many states do not recognise the power of the United States, and hence, are liable to one day go to war with Britain. And thence, because our female soldiers are likely to be raped if they go to war, then Britain will not be able to fight. There is an essential difference between the case in which a man faces another man in battle, and when a woman faces a man in battle. When men fight men, they often treat them badly, but they have no inherent desire for their bodies. With women, it is entirely different, and physical desire is an essential feature of the interaction, across all races, and all situations. To my knowledge, at this time, no foreign state has agreed to treat all female British soldiers with the same indifference with which they treat our men. But it is now a profound aspect of British or English military thinking, or it was until recently: there will be no more wars. Only counter-insurgency, drone strikes, robot wars, and artificial intelligence and UAVs will be deployed rather than human beings. These are severe effects of a society run by delusions and lying.
If we go back to the 1980s, and up until the last Thatcherite Conservative prime minister, before the date on which Mr Blair was elected, there was only limited deception of the kind described above, about race and sex. By and large, the natural condition of men and women, British and foreigner, applied, across the whole human race, and in Britain, up to the end of the last century. I could tell you how it seemed to me, and how I was educated in a comprehensive school, and I could show this, in the 1980s. Peter Hitchens, who shares my outlook to some extent, who was born twenty-five years in advance of me, refers back with happiness not to the 1980s, but to the 1950s. He similarly says it was a happier time, but does not accept that it would be enough to bring those days back. Similarly, I see no benefit in saying that the 1980s and 90s were ideal times, and should be revived.
What came after the 1950s, were the movements toward the EU, the social experiments, the divorce laws, the abortion laws, laws liberalising homosexuality, laws to rid our people of deference and sobriety in public life. The 1960s saw the first sustained attack on the family, in favour of the interference of the state; universal suffrage, and the arrival of the total national surveillance and control system; things which prefigure the mandatory ID card for all British people. By and large, the British accepted these destructions of the family and the right to privacy, and the principle that the law and the state have nothing to do with the individual. The situation which developed in the 1960s, was already apparent in the 1940s, when George Orwell worked in England at the BBC. The people are ready for total government, for the demolishing of everything traditional, and they will simply accept it, given an authority with the desire to do it to them.
I have said, that a leader could turn this back; but what hope or goodness, in such a fickle population, such a careless and unself-conscious people? But I think I have the answer to that riddle. Just because English people sold their birthright for an ID card, and gave up all their money to digital currency, so that they practically owned nothing, does not mean they cannot be led properly, or that their trusting nature should be despised, or that it is appropriate to write them off as worthless. So there is no sense in mourning, or describing the past.
The conditions of a country’s survival and regeneration are universally applicable, in all lands. In this age, a nation needs a source of steel and chemicals and other things which can be mined; it needs a moderately large population; it needs a military and an aggressive spirit; it needs to be able to sell more than it buys and to store up wealth for emergencies; it needs women who will give birth to at least two children each; family life; it demands a certain amount of distrust for foreigners, or xenophobia, and probably a bit of racism thrown in, to ensure that the national identity remains proud and worth fighting for, worth surviving; a nation needs a self-sufficiency of energy resources; and it needs a will to survive in a coherent and cultured population. England once had these things, and these are things which it can still easily have.
Western Europeans are very effective in large organised groups; as Scruton used to point out, the English have created innumerable clubs, associations, and societies. In England, and the West generally, there is an obedience and willingness to follow orders without any complaint, because of trust in authority and a love of peaceable co-operation, which Orwell described as a certain gentleness, so that there was no other place on earth where it was so easy to shove a white man off the pavement. The English don’t do anything without written instruction. But with encouragement from parliament or the like, it has been shown that up to 90% of the British people will obey, no matter how misguided or counter-productive the instruction might be; that was the case in the Covid period, where vaccines and lock down instructions in general, had a 90% compliance rate. It is true, that there is a spirit of going off the books, going rogue, of theft, a piratical spirit expressed here and there, and it was built into the English to admire rebels and outlaws; there was always an admiration for underhand cynical behaviour, which could be found in the military or other places; but this was celebrated as the exception, not the rule. The 10 per cent who did not take the vaccine are no doubt the ‘Robin Hood’ aspect of the national character. It is my experience that those who tend to question authority in this way, people I knew of that type in youth, were often dead or disabled by the age of twenty-five in England.
To submit, the English, who will follow instructions, to their own demise and their own death, has been easy, and very sad to see. Without an order to stop the bus, they will drive off the cliff. The illegal immigration problem, where the British have simply put nearly one hundred thousand invaders per year into their premier accommodation, paid for, and with gentle kindness, because the government told them to do so, is almost unbearably painful to see from the outside.
What is also saddening, is that having been given the vote, the poor in vast numbers have voted that they can do without work, and the unemployment and sickness levels in Britain are eye-watering. Democracy has eaten itself. These are characteristics of the English, and western Europeans in general. It is noteworthy that England has also given rise to incredibly talented and productive individuals who worked almost entirely alone; it is a characteristic shared with Germany. But let us not forget, that the genius of England in religious matters and cultural matters at the highest level, that the spirit of the people is embodied not in the whole people, or in those large numbers of co-operating individuals; but in the isolated individual. The appearances on the outside are deceptive. The essential holiness of England is in its God anointed individual.
Before moving on to my vision of the future of England, which I would like to see a leader bring about, I should mention our culture, and what distinguishes it from others. For it is legitimate to ask whether it deserves to live on. When the Labour governments after 1997 had decided to change Britain, they did so while saying that Britain was now ‘multicultural’, and that the nation did not have a specific culture any more. I think its necessary to be clear that this both did not work out well, and that it is not true, either.
The British culture is obviously broken up into at least four parts, namely the four nations, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland or Northern Ireland. That’s to say, the culture is territorial. Britain has a distinct culture, because it is a distinct territorial area. It has a distinct population, which transmits itself. Some parts have their own language. On the other hand, the culture has been, that an elite can be drawn to London for commerce and, to a broader European culture in higher science and learning in general. While our culture is regionally derived, it also has a capital city where the elite can be drawn to work with investment and capital, and do larger projects. And, what we have achieved, such as it is, has also derived support from the other western European populations and activities. And so, when I think of our culture, I say that it was culturally British to discover the calculations for gravity, for electro-magnitism, or biological evolution, for principles of geology, and for all the advanced physical natural sciences – all of which are effects of British culture, but which were part of a Western European project, shared by Germany, France, Italy, and perhaps Spain. I would add the derived practical benefits of the English scientific activity, in engineering, industrial revolution, exploration, and technical developments of all kinds, which originate in England, and are effectively its unique culture. These must be mixed up with the financial and industrial exploitation culture, of what Marx called ‘capitalism’. Capitalism is in large part nothing more than English culture.
This British culture was a joint project with the rest of Western Europe, it is true. It was what allowed the English to spread their way of life to the ends of the world. While fighting Spanish and French, or Dutch navies, the British culture set down roots across the world, after the Reformation and the dissolution of the monasteries. To this extent, the empire or emigration of the British was also a European project, which the British tended to come out best at. The British culture is Faustian: experimental, investigating, expanding, commercial. These things: inventions and science, knowledge and world discovery, are only in part universal human attributes. They are specifically British things. It is implicit in the works of Spengler and Toynbee, who devoted their time to studying all forms of culture which the human being has created, that if the British ceased to exist, scientific knowledge and technology would largely become superfluous in most of the world. Other countries merely emulate and appropriate the British culture, in order to keep up and not be overwhelmed by its riches and success.
Because the English culture is so effective, there has arisen in most people, English and otherwise, the mistaken belief that Britain does not have a culture of its own. But this is only because Britain is self-denying by nature, and because the nation has exported its own way of life everywhere else, to the point that what is British dominates the entire globe. The Chinese, for instance, model their dress, their education, their literary and scientific knowledge, their institutions, their political settlement and constitutions, their medicine, their military, their conduct and living arrangements, on the British one. As do the Americans, the Indians, and the elite of almost every nation on earth.
When we see an Indian man in India behave just like an English man in England, this is not because there is some ‘universal’ default way of life, which is shared by the Indian and the English. Rather, what we see is the English way of life becoming the way of life of people across the world. Perhaps part of the deal was, that for foreigners to come to terms with their cultural defeat, the English for their part, had never to talk about what had happened, and to pretend that British culture was simply a pre-existing default culture for the elite of all races and lands. Or that they do not speak of it, and rather sacrifice themselves, in this kind of deal: everyone will behave like the English; but the English will cease to exist. I don’t think that the second part of the deal need be the case. So much for who the English are.
2. My vision of the future of England
When the Romans by military power took over the lands around the Mediterranean, and then fanned out into Europe, north Africa, and the old Greek colonies in the east, Greece itself became a museum. It has been noticed that this is happening to France and is likely to happen to England. Wales is supported by holiday makers and tourism, and without tourism, the Welsh farmers could not survive. But those are visitors from England and western Europe, who keep the Welsh lands populated and active. To England will come people from across the world, to view the relics of history which brought about the development and application of a universal civilisation, the British civilisation which was adopted around the globe for a time.
We say that Athens became a museum; but properly, the nation of Greece and the Greek character never fully disappeared. It continued until 1452 at least, in an unbroken career, changed by the influence of the Christians and the Gospels, removing its cultural centre from Athens to Constantinople. And in the same way, Rome never really died even after the barbarian invasions of the fifth century AD. The barbarians assumed the old habits and rules of the Romans, and France and England are more than memories of Rome; the Roman colonies and empire turned into France, Italy, Spain, and England. Still, there is no doubt that Greece and Rome simply disappeared although their cultures lived on. England is a Roman place.
Likewise, the universal civilisation of the world, which the British exported around the entire globe, including to Russia with Peter the Great, survives even while the homeland becomes a museum and a mess on the verge of a humiliating collapse.
In the case of Greece, after it became a Roman colony, the Greek language, culture, and even the people, remained in place. Changing and developing, no doubt, but they did not simply cease to exist; on the contrary. And that is how it must be for the British. The collapse and change must be resisted, and then the accidental superiority of our culture must be reaffirmed and it must carry on. Nothing intrinsic about life has changed, despite the liberals claims that things are different today, in this era.
The imperatives which drove us to be British once, still apply now; over history, that imperative was simple survival, and how we are now is a result of a struggle to survive. And a leader can describe the things which we resorted to once, and push the people to make obey them again. I mean by this, that the conditions of life are the same. Human beings still require air, water, food, shelter and company. There is a still a binary quantity of the sexes. Artificial intelligence is not intelligence. The singularity either of earthly life or intelligent life has not and will not happen. Men need a land, and political institutions which ensure their survival. They still die of the same diseases, and they die at roughly the age specified in the Bible. It is necessary to say this, since the liberal international rules-based order and similar liberal delusions or outright lies, base their policies about Britain and about foreign enemies, on the notion that mankind has changed and will evolve into something else, which is untrue as a fact, and improbable as a prediction.
Men must work in order to eat; and they must have a private individual life with meaning, or they will die of sadness. It seems likely, that collapse such as that suffered by Athens in the century preceding Christ, has happened in Britain.
The Englishman is characterised, if we pay attention to his cultural history, by his solitude, his isolation. The Englishman believes in private property, and in having his own house. The protestant religion over which he fought the last civil war was won by him in order to eradicate the power of the church and the state over him. His religion was so unostentatious that it looks like atheism, or no-God worship, and we would think that he was an atheist, except that he spoke about God and sang about God. When Ruskin spoke to upper middle-class Englishmen in the 1850s, in the lectures published as ‘Unto this Last’ and ‘The Crown of Wild Olive’, he told them that they were merchants, and the counting house was their church. The mill, the industrial works, were their cultural inheritance. If he has a relationship with God, which is what religion is specifically, then it takes place for the Englishman in private, by and large.
His character is also to be either idle, or else industrious; activity and doing things, or not doing things, namely the economy of employment, is his form of religious observance. The contemporary difference between the established political parties of Britain often seems to be a quarrel over how hard a man is expected to work. The contemporary conservatives argue that work and making a living are the correct approach to work; while the contemporary socialists argue that the workless should have a good life, too. That is the essential ideological difference of the current political masters of the country, because work and leisure are the categories under which everything political falls. In a country such as that, the chance of getting money for nothing has been a lure for foreign people from the third world; they understand that Britain, unlike other places, is a land of money and work or else free money and no work. The policies of the conservatives or ultra-right are no more than to take away the free money from the workless. Such is the religious aspect of British life. The British culture is concerned with economy, industry, self-motivation, and solitude. In a way different from that of other cultures across history and the globe, the British think themselves blessed and atoned with God, if they have paid their own way in life.
The British of whatever stamp do not require a constitution, because they trust the government. They follow instructions easily, and they do not admire independence of mind and thinking per se. English saints are few, but the course of English history is concerned with its monarchy, a fixed unquestionable master of the land. And despite the fondness for debating, which has led us to the mess we are in, the monarchy is the natural form that the British state must take.
Similarly, the meditative private, isolated, and secretive relation to God, is the ideal form that the English worship of him must take. We do not like to worship in the open.
The formal worship of the church of England is finished, I believe, because the interrelation of church and state has brought the ruin about. State appointed clerics have taken too much interest in contemporary politics, and too little in God or in the harsh solitary worship which is the ideal and monastic worship natural to Christians. Christianity is a wild religion of the worldless man; it is the opposite of the world, power and prestige. Its hierarchy of values and of elites, is the antithesis of the hierarchy of the world. It’s objective is the next world, not this one. So how can there be a state Church? It’s an oxymoron.
I must dwell on this, because I think that the future of England, is in the separation of the Church from the State. With, however, the proviso, that the Church in England will be territorially confined to England. Whatever happens in the next few years, if England is to survive, it must set up the relation, between the individuals who make our country on the one hand, and God on the other, and do so in a way which is entirely separate from the state. A monarch should assume control of the nation, and instruct the people to attend church and to believe in God; and they will do it.
It will be necessary to outlaw Islam. There has never been a surviving state or people in which Islam has been tolerated over a long term; and we are interested in the long term future of the nation. I do not wish to discuss the details of why Islam must be banned, here. But the mosques must be removed or converted; the right to citizenship must be contingent on adherence to the Nicean Creed. That is how it used to be, and the only way the nation can survive as more than collection of islands containing a random assortment of people.
I have said that Britian must be ruled by a monarch. The power of a monarch derives in the last resort, on the divine right of kings. The job of the monarch is, to be the highest form of freedom and individuality of any nation, in a human form. The king looks after the people, but gets his authority from God. He consumes and accepts the excess production of the nation, and spends it on luxury, the highest culture, or on war. Other nations have hit on the expedient of electing a king, in the form of a president, for a set period, based on that person’s policies. But this is not satisfactory, in that it lacks the divine and Biblical warrant, and, since election and votes are required, money more often than not decides the nature of the president, and not the people.
A monarch must be bound by some legal constitutional boundary, and he should be able to consult a parliament of the people. But parliament has in our age, reached its useful limit, and should be in second place to the king.
I know that there are manifold objections to this set up, the most frequent being, that we now live in a new age, and there is progress. People have apparently believed that we have entered a new age for several decades, now. We hear it frequently when our old constitutional arrangements are discussed. Liberals can be trusted to point out that a monarch, or the House Lords, are not needed in this age. However, civilisations rise and fall, and ours is at the end of its tether. Our nation is not on some march of progress, so that the march itself is an argument to do away with the king and the other paraphernalia of our national life. Why should the mere fact that we are going somewhere into the future, mean that we must therefore throw aside what we currently have? The argument that in this day and age, we don’t need old things, is not an argument, but the expression of an aspiration. There is no way of proving progress, either, so it can’t be brought to bear and considered seriously, when thinking about who should rule. Advances in science and communication, which are the heart of what they mean by progress, have made a mass total parliamentary style government possible, but it would be impossible to be certain that this is better than things as they were before. Arnold Toynbee counted twenty-one major civilisations prior to ours, and each of them eventually collapsed, and not due to any progress about which I am aware. Rather, they tended to chose a certain pathway, which brought about their ruin. If ours is to survive, we do require something which works, and which will allow our nation to survive. Monarchy works.
Above all, the relation of the individual to God, and the relation of the king to God, is the most important aspect of the constitution. There is reason to think that a national church which is related to the national state are a very bad thing; a man who ought to be considered a western saint, Soren Kierkegaard, spent his last years, and the spirit of all of his work is concerned with, explaining to his national church that it was not Christian. A Christian church can be national, without being attached to the government. And this is how it is done in Orthodoxy. Indeed, the English church of future times, must be an Orthodox Church. The English character is suited to it, and it is the Church which is related directly to Christ. Notice the character of the northern European Kierkegaard in contrast to the eastern European St John of Kronstadt, a near contemporary. The one fully engaged in the life and liturgy of the church with his people. The other hard to work to make the church independent of the state, and more attentive to the individual soul. And yet, I find that the character of Orthodoxy is suited to both cultures and both peoples.
In his collection gathered under the title ‘A Writer’s Diary’, see how the Orthodox Christian of Russia, Dostoevski, speaks of the Russian people and their fate. They are able to understand and embrace all humanity, they are a global people. Dostoevski understood the Russians to be by nature selfless and humble. Kierkegaard, by contrast, recognised in the northern and western people a type of human being who is utterly isolated; the European individual is always isolated and in his own tangle with God; God’s approach to them is not an approach to the whole people. But in both cases, the Orthodox Church is suitable, since it is by nature independent of the State, and unchanging from the time of Christ. I must leave it to another time to investigate how the Orthodox Church should become the national church of England.
But the separation of the church from the state, must also be seen in the separation of industry from the state, or the rich from the state, or the judicial process from the state. Only a king can bring together into one person, the various strands of our national culture; and, particularly, withstand the currently governing influence of the money-lending oligarchy. It is understood, that a rich man does not need to be bought. A king can dispense with the canvassing and payments of a caste of rich men.
Likewise, the aristocracy or the merchants must not be supported by the state. They must live and die on their own means, and not be bailed out, or awarded exceptional contracts by the state, as banks have, and construction operations, in recent years. The state in fact must have no money of its own. The state will be the monarch, and the armed forces, and the judiciary. And nothing more. The state should not look after the poor, either. By dispensing with the provision of pensions and welfare to the idle, the nation would be able to give to the king only enough money as he would need to run the armed forces, and to enable justice across the country. Rule by a monarch would be efficient and cheap, with perhaps a maximum of 10% of national production, or 5% in normal times.
How will the idle and the poor survive without pension payouts, and welfare? They will make their way by means of family, and the church. But not by government charity forcibly collected from the productive part of the nation. The government charitable sector has grown so large and monstrous, that it now has the power to prevent a man from working, unless he will let his property belong to the state, in the form of a compulsory tracking and tracing and compliance system. The state as a communist entity is the natural outcome of any development of parliament as we know it, where there is no significant way in which the productive part of the population can outvote the unproductive part; where women’s unrealistic charitable nature determines on an almost unlimited desire to redistribute wealth to anyone and everyone. The state, when given 50% of the nation’s wealth, as things are now, wastes it, and uses it to accrue more power over the nation. A limit of 5% in peacetime should be set for the money allocated to the state, to pay for the military and judicial services.
England obviously needs to be deregulated, if it is to survive. It must make its own goods, and mine its own fuel. This goes without saying. The delusions of world global unity, and the short-term and unpatriotic ideas of financial oligarchs have led to the ultra-regulation of industry and energy, which have made Britain a nation unable to survive on its own. The wreckless spending of other people’s money which the state has engaged in for decades, which began more than century ago, with the Prussian style 1910 and 1921 Welfare Acts, has to come to an end sometime. It should not go without attention, that the rise of the charitable giving of the state, is proportionate to the decline of church attendance, because the one has usurped the place of the other. And likewise, the more greedy and powerful the state becomes, the less influence individual people have on their fate, and the smaller and frailer families become.
3. Civil War and how to avoid it
I do not think that civil war can be avoided in England now. The crossroads I spoke of at the beginning of this essay present us with these options: internal war, war across Europe, or pure anarchy and the disappearance of the nation. While it seems improbable at this time, that a king will have the power to rule the country, and to take 5% of the nation’s GDP, and then allocate it to the military or not, such a thing will not be improbable when once the country has been devastated by internecine war.
It seems likely to me, but perhaps not so to others. But I consider the Russo-Ukrainian war to be a civil war. I also see the first moves being made by the parties to our own civil war, in the mass rapes of British women by Muslim rape gangs, in the complicity of the civil service and government agencies in that industrial scale rape. The war has already started, and rape has been one of the strategies for winning it. Similarly, it seems to some that the youths from overseas who randomly kill British people in the street these days, are not unconnected. Things happen slowly, then all at once, in matters such as violent upheaval. It is only because third world violence and war has such a slow burning and uncoordinated and self-willed, undirected character, that we barely put two and two together. In most parts of the world, where civil war is quite common, combat takes place over years, in a disorganised, almost random, and truly senseless way.
On the one side, there are the government authorities, namely the police, chief army officers, court judges and lawyers, and the civil servants who collect tax, the people who control the borders, and so on. These people are the employed and modest members of the third world invasion army. They chose a side simply because they are being paid, and could easily swap allegiances, if their leadership, namely the political profession, told them to do so, and if the law told them to look after the nation. But as we have said, the English need instructions before they do anything.
The leadership of the immigration army, and the political and civil services and allied public services, is the banking profession in general, and money-lending oligarchy in particular. As we have said, that elite of the wealthy are not always British people, but they do rely on a stable and compliant British people, and they do reside from time to time in our country. They are not space aliens: they need somewhere to live, to send the children to school, a good environment. However, they are basically the same pirates who bought blacks in Africa, shipped them to America, and then set up trading houses in Britain to continue doing the same. They are the people who work and own Britain’s financial services, for whom money is king.
Their rule over the governing clique of Britain explains why the British have no armed forces, why all governments let illegal immigrants live in hotels for years, why the belief that men can be women is so widespread, why the media and journalism are so indifferent to logic and the truth, and why the entire western world owes unpayable levels of interest-dependent debt; that they are in control of Britain explains why inequality between the richest and poorest has never been worse over the entire course of human history as it is today.
In a book from around the first term of president Trump, Barbara Walters, a professor of International Relations, devoted the first half of her book ‘How Civil Wars Start’, to showing indirectly that Britain is ripe for civil war. She proved conclusively that it is unavoidable in the western world now. The second half of her book was concerned with showing how to prevent a civil war. Her advice was, to do more of what is already being done, namely, to shut down complaints about foreigners, to take action against right wing parties and force them out of office, and generally to force the people who are unhappy in a nation to be happy, by giving them money or removing their sources of information. She does not advise tackling the root causes, but rather, dealing with the symptoms of the problem. It’s a strange disappointing book in that respect. She simply didn’t have the nerve to say it: governments should not wreck countries and introduce foreigners in large numbers, if they want to avoid civil war.
Other commentators, following Professor David Betz, Professor of War Studies at the LSE, have said that the war in Britain will begin slowly, inconspicuously, in attacks on the infrastructure which supplies the major cities of England, where immigrants for the most part live, and where the governing class do most of their work. He says that these acts of terrorism would become a dirty war very soon, when the authorities hunt down the offenders, and the revolutionaries resort to murdering judges, journalists, and other enemies of the people.
It is my thought, that the British are not good at that kind of thing, and rather, a mass mobilisation under an elected leader, could become a genocide movement against one side or the other, as in Germany in the 1940s. This is more characteristic of the English. Ethnic cleansing under a large governmental organisation is more common in Western Europe, than the work of disparate commando units without any central leadership. The financial oligarch class could switch sides at a moment’s notice, and, forsaking the Muslims and other third world peoples, who they have encouraged and made into public figures for the past decade or so, and decide that mass expulsions and violent genocide inside England are necessary.
If England were to enter into a civil war, it would be difficult to leave it; other counties would likely get involved, either making invasions, stirring up other problems, selling weapons, or even trying to invade the nation with conventional forces, with the intention of forcibly pacifying it. However, unrest in once place, would sweep across Europe as a whole, if it once took fire in one nation. After that, I believe a European war would likely take place. The conclusion to which would be a politically unified Europe, with its headquarters and government based in the country which turned out to win such a European war.
As I have said, it is after this, that an Orthodox Church must set be set up by the king, and that the state must be stripped back. The West of Europe must survive, and it will do so with a monarchy. As we have seen, the mass migrations into Europe, which were once said to have been likely when climate change made them necessary, did not materialise. Instead, oligarch financial types took control of England, and were so indifferent to the nation, that for financial gain alone, they opened the borders, threatening any country which closed them with economic punishment.
It is opportune for the banking elite, since nationalism is an extremely potent political idea. Destroying nations from inside makes the people easier to manage or to govern by technocrats; but it was an ignorance of psychology which led them to believe, that native populations usually prefer to die and destroy their home, rather than see themselves disinherited and down-graded in their homeland. This would be my guess about why the entire western world is suffering economic collapse and massive unneeded immigration, and why the grounds for civil war have been laid. Since it has already happened, the time for turning back is gone, and the time for working out how to survive as a nation has arrived. What is needed is preparation for the aftermath, in what remains of our country.
It is interesting and slightly depressing, to see Rudyard Kipling complaining in his poetry, as long ago as the late 1800s, about the rise of liberalism and financial utopianism and its imperatives, its new rules for man; how could Kipling have known with such certainty, that this strain of the English blood would manifest down the ages, and how did he know to focus on it with such certainty so long ago? Also, the same phenomenon being commented on by GK Chesterton in the 1920s and 30s. by that time, the British ruling class had become unmilitary, ignorant of the needs of the people, over financialised, and unrealistic, just at the height of their empire, effectively losing interest in the basic rules of empire, nation, and government. They became rich and only interested in money. That is why the second world war almost saved us, as a people, since it introduced to the true quality of their beliefs, and made it undeniable that the beliefs of a financier are not in keeping with reality. It brought back some realism to the English governing class, perhaps. Orwell says the same thing about the English, when he says that in the 1930s, the rich, who ran the country, didn’t understand how dangerous our enemies were. Their indifference to reality has been a long term chronic thing. I don’t class Mr Putin as a dangerous enemy, by the way, but the indifference to truth and reality has led the British authorities to pledge themselves to war with him, when it is plain that this would result in defeat or annihilation. The British of the last century or more, have continuously behaved as if they believe in the triumph of their universal civilisation, simply by virtue of the fact that it exists, and they have put no effort into nurturing order or working for anything lasting.
It is said by historians of the Spanish Civil War, that the Spanish empire’s men came home to Spain, and insisted on their right to rule in Spain as they had, until recently, in the Americas. When they lost Cuba in the Spanish-American war, those old officers returned home, and brought the same methods of subjection and military domination to Spain to which they had grown used, and that this is why they were dissatisfied with the Spanish peasantry’s indifference to them, and why they resorted to a military takeover of the government, which started the civil war in that country. The same is easily said about Britain and its empire. The British empire was not initially, essentially, or finally a military rule, but a trading and financial domination. Merchants colonised India at the start; and the final viceroys were overseeing a financial system, a place dominated by financial interests and local financial compliance, rather than one controlled by martial law and imperial garrisons. And likewise, when in the 1960s, the old imperial class came home, they set about using the same methods of financial control here, as they had overseas. This meant gradually reducing their reliance on expensive British workers; it meant bringing about population migration to our islands; it meant making the British lose their identity. Enoch Powell was disturbed enough by the continued existence of a shadow empire of a different kind, which was known as ‘the Commonwealth’, which facilitated these things, and which did not inherently assist Britain or the British people.
So here we are, at the butt end of that colonial rule, as it came home to us. The population of Britain has been disinherited by its ruling and piratical class of merchant adventurers and thieves. That’s putting it in a sentence, with the emotive force it probably deserves. The financial banking oligarchy rules our country, determines our immigration and legal policies, our cultural behaviour determined by their imperial requirements. Women must work; foreign workers are cheaper; a national culture is not required, and probably illegal. In recent times, the legal system and the military, the church, and the culture in general have been twisted so as to maintain order and peace in a country which is no longer the property of the people. In more recent movements to make the people a mere financial asset, and to take their money and property from them entirely, the British ID card has again been brought to our attention. It will be the key to gaining access to a man’s money and a way of making his ownership of property, and to the right to work, conditional on allegiance to the government. At the discretion of the apparatus of the state, and the banking system, some or all of a man’s property will be suspended and removed from him, by means of his ID card’s relationship to government on one side, and his property on the other. The final point of the ID card is to facilitate the collection of government revenue, and to police the population as it grows restless about the loss of its nation. Beyond that, it will become necessary for every man to recognise that he does not have a country at all, but is an international human, with no rights specific to a country, or to a tradition, a family, a nation. The ID card, in its British form, and as announced, is the product of the vision of an imperial class, who intend to monitor and direct populations, for financial reasons alone.
There is a conflict between the government as it has been crafted by financial oligarchic pressure, since at least the time of Mrs Thatcher, on the one hand, and the people of the nation, and their undeniable interest in keeping themselves to themselves, and leading their own lives as sovereign individuals, on the other. The importation of more than ten million economic migrants to the country in the past decade, in the interests only of ‘business’, has made civil war impossible to avoid, it is said. I can admit, that the EU has a hand in this, but the EU is a trade and banking organisation, which leads us back to the assumption that money and greed have done this to us, and not any court or humanitarian organisation.
Now, I proposed in this essay, that the Church must be reinvigorated, after the war. The Church cannot fight. It goes without saying, that Christians must in their daily living observe the beatitudes, and respect the fact that love is the nature of the perfected human world and of God. That, where there is a peaceful society, the law is such, that breaking of the commands of Christ is also a breach of the legal codes of England. Our common law was made by generations of Christians, and that is simply what it is. A Christian, it goes without saying, must recognise love as the way of God.
But in war, Christian people are obliged to be interested in victory, and they must be led by the rules appropriate to soldiers. The state, which is the authority specifically concerned with fighting wars, is separate from the Church, and must not behave as monks do. The separation of the church and state is as profoundly basic to Christian people, as the difference between this life, and the next life. There is a simple reason that the values of the Church are upside down, compared with those of the world: namely, the Church is preparing the people for the eternal life of the next world, while the state is concerned with the people surviving in this one.
The liberal state, which is atheist by principle, and secular, does not recognise a distinction between religious values, and secular values, because it does not recognise the afterlife and the eternal world. That is why it submits to the rule of oligarchs, vice, money, and the invasion of the country by foreigners, and thence why it is inherently cowardly and unable to fight. A Christian state can fight, with regret, and with the awareness that men must sin; but liberal states aim to put an end to war, because like Marx, they eventually want the state to wither away. Instead of the state, and the church, there would only be the rule of money, as is practically the case in England today.
In an additional cruel and self-defeating oversight, the liberal state also does not recognise the power of Islam to organise itself inside our country, and then potentially tear it apart, before taking control of it. A Christian people would put a stop to that at the first opportunity. How could a Christian people tolerate Muslims or Islam, knowing as they do that Islamic practice and belief is the direct enemy of their faith, and of Christ as the Son of God? But this is only to say, that the old British liberal and Church of England establishment is at the end of its rope, and has nowhere left to go, but the worst kinds of blind alley of history.
It seems to me that the only way of combatting both the desert spreading all around the oligarchs, and the threat of the Muslims from distant sandy places, is in following Christ, and supporting the Church, and then refashioning the state in a Christian way. The first principle of the Christian life is, that we are not of this world; but, that we must live in it while we are alive here, according to the commandments of Christ. And, therefore, where it is impossible to do so, we must fight to ensure that we can so live. This means removing those religions from England which are unable to convert to Christianity. Such a command applies only to Islam in England today. There is a hierarchy of perfection in this world, at the summit of which is the saint, who almost entirely has given up his self as distinct from others, in order to become his eternal self. He already lives in heaven, while in this world. Therefore, he should own nothing, fight for nothing, and love all living and dead souls. But this saint also needs them of lower holiness, who facilitate his life on earth, by protecting the land, which is to say, the statesmen and the soldier. That’s the economy of a Christian country. At the same time, while the saint does not need justice or recourse to the law, because he has no family or possessions, the common people do need them, for antithetical reasons. And since those laws are clearly laid out in the Old Testament, and are applicable to people in the world, just so the Church must encourage the proper standards of law and order, punishment and trial, which are traditional and necessary in our country. In England today, as is well known, crime is fading away, and a system of non-justice, or at best, two-tier justice, has been put in place. This is the result of the rule of the oligarchic banking and debt collection system. That system only has one priority, namely that there must be no general disorder which could prevent the running of the bank and finance industry, even during and after population migrations, so that the lending and collection may take place. That is the type of country which we now live in, a people for whom there is no afterlife, and no trust in God.
There are men in the United States who are no friends of the international banking interests. We are fortunate in having Donald Trump and Elon Musk, for this reason alone: that they did not make their money from speculating and banking. They therefore have an inherent dislike for the unnatural course with the United States and England have been following in the past decades. They are not Christians in any obvious way, but they do have the interest of the people in mind, when they complain about immigration, and put a stop to the waste of the nation’s capital on things which only benefit foreigners and the permanent oligarch establishment. These men are not part of the permanent government, nor its media propaganda, and have openly said so, and taken measures to combat them. While being from a Christian culture, these people are what I would call statesmen, and their methods do not need to be the same as those of monks and the Church. Rather, their final aim should be to protect the people so that the nation can remain and continue to be Christian.
To return to the path we are currently on, and the path we must take. Mr Blair was prime minister during a period of many small wars that had no obvious purpose other than to remove or disable regimes which are not part of the oligarchic control system. Blair had an intuitive sense for how to encourage the linkage of the United Kingdom to the United States. And therefore, to strengthen the financial control of our country, by erasing its differences. He called himself a Thatcherite, insofar as he turned the country into a more extreme version of a nation ruled by a banking oligarchy. With the same intuition of how to turn the country into a single-industry nation, linked to the world super-power, he is today a leading proponent of the digitisation of money, and of human life. There are benefits to this system, there can be no question, in his mind, and the minds of liberals. But we have said what we think of the liberals. Reducing the humanity and the ownership of property to almost nothing, is not in the interest of the people of this country. It may tie the United Kingdom to various blocs of trading and imperial character, such as the US or the EU, but it will also practically annihilate the freedom and the traditional rights of the English.
The English man, and the English spirit is practical, and individualistic. It is not by some accident or coincidence, that the first English novel is Robinson Crusoe; that the greatest of our thinkers are the romantically isolated and furiously proud scientists, Newton, Clark-Maxwell, Faraday, and Darwin. Or that they worked mostly alone. That the English religion was expressed concisely in a work by a man in prison for religious dissent, and is about the single individual making his way to the eternal world and the afterlife, with little more than his conscience and his Bible to guide him, I mean the Pilgrim’s Progress.
It is a paradox, then, that the political philosophy which expresses the freedom of individuals as its primary concern, is liberalism, and that liberalism has given rise to a state which is overwhelmingly authoritarian, money-gathering, powerful, and interfering. Political liberalism as the theory of how a state should work, when applied in practice, does not conduce to actual liberty. Perhaps it can be put like this: it is a paradox that there should be a political party of government whose aim is individual liberty. My view is, that a reduced state, led by a single individual, with a very harsh system of justice based on common law, is the traditional form of government in England, and must be the future one, because it is most suited to individual liberty. In a system of individual life, where each man faces God alone, there must be a class structure, with a code of conduct for the members of the respective class. This might appear paradoxical, that an individualist society should submit to being hierarchically arranged, so that the individuals are not equally placed. But the reason is clear: a collective of individuals must arrange itself into an external order, so that they are compelled to work together, or, they would not work together at all. The classes are also necessary since there must also be a king or a monarch and therefore, there must be a ladder to the summit of the state. The primary purpose of the monarch is to be the leading edge of social order, under the sanction of God, based on the divine right of kings; and in public and civic life, this means a ladder, a pyramid of powers and responsibilities.
It should be a principle, that the highest purpose of a nation is unknown or mysterious. That there should be a meaning of life goes without saying. Nobody can lead a meaningless life. But the ultimate purpose of being alive is not something that can be established absolutely. And the ultimate reason why one man governs and the others do not, is also something which cannot and should not be established. The final point of life lies elsewhere, or in the next life. The almost arbitrary nature of the line of succession in monarchies and noble ranks in England, embodies this. Succession is not by inheritance, even; it is by the mere primogeniture of one individual, and then the primogeniture of that man’s children. It is a scheme of natal bloodline, not even a rational scheme of succession by inheritance. It is almost as if the highest offices are determined entirely and purely by accident of birth and blood, so that explanations and claims become superfluous, as if to prove the vanity of human wishes. Only the individual counts; his claims on other people and his reasonings in public are not important.
A Christian and free England must be self-sufficient: in its production of items and machines, in its food, its energy; it must be xenophobic, as all nations must be, if they are to retain their integrity and identity. They must believe in right and wrong, and have integrity. Good and evil, crime and punishment, must be enforced. Men cannot live together unless they know what is permitted themselves and each other; and if there is no punishment for what is wrong, then they will begin to fail to live together, or to live happily with themselves alone. Prisons and police must be in the care of the state, as embodiments of ‘the king’s justice’, or the law and order of the people when living together, a work of the state or the monarch second in importance only to the work of the military.
As for the military, the English must build that up, as a priority. If and when civil war develops, other nations nearby will attempt to interfere, and perhaps even to invade Britain with organised forces. But this will take place at a time when Europe as a whole has begun to collapse, and when it has begun to look in despair for a unified governing authority, the EU having providing nothing in that way. To my mind, the conquest of Western Europe by one of the old established nations, will be necessary; if any powerful Western nation can establish a traditional and lasting order within its own borders, in its own nation, it will probably export that method to its neighbours, by force probably, and eventually unify Europe, as the master of the continent. This will eventually become necessary.
This article has taken up much more space than I intended. Since the crisis is on-going, I notice that writing about our situation is like writing a diary of current events. Nevertheless, there are some important things to bear in mind about the highest matters, and the lowest which bear on the highest. Firstly, we must know how we understand God, and how God created us in England.
When I have said that the state can’t run the church, and the church can’t run the state, I do not mean that the Church of England merely needs to be disestablished. Rather, the Church needs to be somehow forced to become an Orthodox Christian organisation. Additionally, it is not sufficient to my mind, to allow Parliament to continue to be the de facto highest court in the land; rather, there must be a dictatorship by a single person, for only a person can lead other people. Parliament has become unaccountable and relatively useless, and the members are so powerless and often stupid, that they have ceased to behave like men in command of men; a king can love, but a committee cannot love anything since it is not a person. Parliament today only pretends or assumes that it rules the land, when it is clear that the pressure exerted on it is too great for it to bear; pressure from voters who have no reason to love the country on the one hand because they are from a hundred different countries, and have no idea who they are; and pressure from the banking profession on the other, the money-lending establishment, which is only motivated by greed.
The state can’t have any influence on the church, once the Orthodox church has been established, since nothing can. An Orthodox church by its nature does not change or respond to events. Its relationship is to God alone, and to the saints of the past. The church is not interested in this world; it is an organisation interested in the eternal soul of the people. The quarrel in which Kierkegaard spent his final years, with the state church of Denmark is relevant. A state church is not Christian, as the Church of England no longer is. A recent Archbishop of Canterbury told the people, that he suspects sometimes that God does not exist. His church is not made of souls and people, but of an obligation to carry out constitutional functions. His church also has choices and makes changes in the same way as the state authorities do, and believes in progress of a purely secular kind. We’ve seen that shortly after females of our kind are allowed to vote, or to work in some profession or other, the English church happened to allow female priests and bishops, because it is a secular organisation, and does what other public bodies do.
The avoidance of God by any person results in them losing their self. Their self becomes prey to whatever fashion or externality comes its way. Likewise, a nation as a whole loses its identity, if it denies God. But who could help denying God, if his church is a merely secular organisation? And hence, the nation has lost its identity. When Britain declines, and the people feel lost, and a sense of dread overcomes them in private and in public, this will also be because God has abandoned them, as they have abandoned him.
Again, the state cannot run the church, it must not influence the church; and likewise, the church cannot force the state to do anything. In an ideal situation, the state will protect the church, and the church will look after the people. The Church will allow the individuals who compose the nation to find their own relationship to God. The most fundamental principle of our lives is, that we are each alone, and neither Church nor State can or should try to interfere in how a man faces himself and his maker. I would make it a crime, after the wars have finished, for any person in authority to deny the immortality of the soul, the rights of God; it will become an major offense for anyone with influence and the means of commanding or influencing other people, to take way from them their right to a relationship to God, by lying to them about these matters. As we have seen, most people follow instructions, and they would follow the instructions of the church, if such were issued, and if the state advised them to listen. That the state and church do not instruct them, results in the decline of our land, the ignorant obedience to the oligarch ruling financier elite.
The English are not by nature a people, in the way the Russians are. They do not have a communal character. Each Englishman is an individual with his own intensely personal life, and only by choice does he enter the crowd to work at citizenship or communal worship. The orthodox ritual is ideal for him, since it has two broad methods of leading men to God: an emphasis on mystical union of the man with God; and, an entirely impersonal liturgy and calendar in which a man may chose to engage or not.
Philip Larkin’s poetry has represented the English character in a concise way for the past half century; his attitude toward life still characterises us, more than forty years after his death. Harold Bloom, the American critic, singles Larkin out, as the most insistently English poet of our time. Bloom has taken the time to try to destroy his reputation, because it is so obvious that Larkin, simple and plain as his writing was, cannot be circumvented, and represents despite its lack of ambition and its pedestrian expression. Larkin was a notorious atheist, whose work was admired by other elite minds of the country, such as Martin Amis, and Christopher Hitchens, bringing Larkin into the same field as the so called ‘Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse’, a group of fanatical atheists. Typically English, Larkin lived alone, had his own employment, paid careful attention to the decline of Britain with regret, and above all, regretted that the world lacked any meaning because it lacked any God. Whether an Orthodox church in England would have suited him, I don’t know, in so far as, it is doubtful he would have attended. But that he would have learned to do prayer, and benefitted from it, I have less doubt. If he could have been encouraged to pray as the Orthodox do, it would have been something he had otherwise never tried. The English have been starved of God for so long.
Additionally, the Orthodox Church would have regretted the passing of England as much as he did; the Church shares his attitude toward the devastation of our country. The Church of England has not. The Church of England has tended in recent years, in consequence of its lack of distinction from the state, and its loss of belief in God, to try to turn England into the afterlife, into the other world.
What does a country, which belongs to the next world, look like? Should it be a paradise of fairness and wealth equally distributed? Or would it tend toward non-existence, given that the other world remains for ever somewhere else? Should a country try to build itself higher toward God, in this life, and build the heavenly Jerusalem in this world? In many of the Church of England’s interventions in our lives in public, and in its changes of the liturgy and so on, it is actively trying to bring about the next life in this one: which can only mean extinction and disappearance in this world. This movement toward fading away is based on a misunderstanding about what Christians must do in this life. Principally, they must love one another: that is, Christians should love other Christians. They must never love Muslims, for example, or Hindus; that is an insidious and disastrous thing which the church’s priests have been trying to do. And second, the church must not attempt to rid the people of their property, which is what the church has been doing when it encouraged illegal immigration. In this way, the church has been extremely harmful to the country and the people. It would be a shame to recognise it as a Christian church. Where does the Church propose that the people will live, when they have given this country to foreigners and to men who do not believe in Christ? Are they going to live in the afterlife? There is no sense in saying, that we shall then be ready to die and attain our reward, when we have been robbed of our country; there is no guarantee that God wanted us to renounce England as a Christian land, which is what the Church of England has been advising.
Everyone has a story about the England they knew, which is now gone. Scruton said that his England died when he wrote ‘England: An Elegy’. We all know it’s gone. But when we pick a king to rule the land in future, it may not be necessary to pick one, since there already is a monarch. It will not be right to simply enjoy the destruction, because a new world is being built, after the war. The monarch will still be in place.
As a man anointed by God, and dedicated to this nation alone, from which he receives whatever value he has, the king cannot fail to serve better than parliament has been serving. A king is an individual, as we each of us is. And only an individual can represent other individuals, and have an innate interest in their welfare. And as each person is half God and half man in private, so only a king is both a private man with a soul, and also in the public and life of the state, as both God and man.
In the England in which I grew up, and where I lived until around five years ago, the monarch was the distant and quiet summit of our quiet and steady country. Unlike George Orwell, who was born and raised in the empire, I grew up in England, or rather, on the border of it, in Wales, to a people who were indifferent to the distinction between the two nations. We were British, which is another name for being English.
I have no recollection of old maids cycling to mass in the morning, but I do remember the Methodist church at Gresford, and Sunday worship. School assemblies singing hymns. As we get older, history compresses, and what was once very distant, way back in the past, seems very near. And thus, I realise that it was only thirty years before I was born, that the last war ended. Our teachers were sometimes veterans of that war. The country, at least where I lived in it, was poor, and had a touch of anger and personal violence underlying everything, particularly among children. People were naturally competitive and eschewed the superficial parts of life, such as politeness; it was a semi-militarised culture.
I remember that we were never far away from farming fields, machines turning the land over, and growing crops, throughout my entire childhood. Inside and outside school, there was a compulsion to play games on grass fields, football, rugby and cricket. Those were the days when parents would put their children out in the morning in the holidays, and did not expect to see them until late evening. This is how I think of our people, as tough, independent and proud, with a stand of loss and melancholy about the inevitability of suffering, and the need for work.
It was a place in industrial decline, but still a steady and orderly land, which meant it was tidy, and had a sense of what it was, and what it did not want to be. I admired machines, war, conscription, and doing your duty – as things which were apparently less and less interesting to other people. But the older generation were still involved in them, our parents. It was an entirely British place, distinct from foreign nations, by having won wars, and being independent. When my parents and I were out on the road, travelling somewhere, I used to take pleasure in spotting British made cars, and to think fondly of the places and populations which had contributed to our winning the war. We were relatively superior, it seemed to me, to all other nations, other than the United States. Our economic and industrial power, and our military independence, seen for what turned out to be the last time, in the Falklands war, mattered to me.
We were a people who did not expect to be able to spend, but rather to work, and to make a living by obedience and discipline. In such circumstances, a certain toughness and coldness of character were essential. And, as a man whose only heat and entertainment is the fire in the grate, and who lights the fire in the evening, must eventually turn to quiet and meditation while looking into the flames, so that toughness of a dark self-reliance and self-composure seemed to me to be the most English thing, when I was a child, and as a youth.
Such things mattered all the more, I suppose, because they were passing or in danger. They were not so important to Orwell in the 1930s, because he could take them for granted. But the owl of wisdom takes flight only at twilight.
November, 2025
-----