Upkeep

I have added a few new links, one’s I’ve had bookmarked for a while, there are a few everyone should read, the first is an interesting site called ‘The Modern Fascist’, it is a new blog and is apparently written by an 18-year-old American. I’m amazed that anyone is brave enough and smart enough to have the gall to call themselves a ‘fascist’, especially in America. Another very interesting read is ‘In This Age of Plenty’, a work by a Catholic Quebecer on the theory of Social Credit, I would be interested if anyone has an opinion on it, as I’m still working my way through the theory and trying to grasp how it could work.

Another interesting read is a book which I’ve entitled ‘White Australia Policy’ which is actually a long chapter from a book called ‘Connected Worlds’ written by an opponent of white self-rule, but he does do a good job of explaining the various experiments of white societies, trying to stay white in the face of a ‘rising tide of colour’, there are also chapters on South Africa, Rhodesia and the American South, which are just as interesting.

It is, I suppose a depressing read in some ways, to think of all the defeats and no victories we have had in the last century, but, it needs to be done!

If you have not yet had a peek at ‘The Fall of the Russian Empire’, it is also worth reading, the writer makes an interesting point that it was a spiritual failing in Russia that led to the conditions in which the Russian people stood by whilst their Emperor was deposed, imprisoned and then murdered, and that the Imperial family, were a symbol of the future that lay in store for the Russian people.

In the Art, Design and Architecture section, you may want to check out ‘Utopia’, people like Vanishing American would probably appreciate it, lots of beautiful old paintings and pictures of lost times. ‘Paris 1900’ is along a similar vein.

A blog I have enjoyed, despite not wanting to, is ‘Eternal Bachelor’, it is written by a fellow in London, from what I can surmise, he does not have much of a warm spot for women, and would not be what you would call a feminist! He uses some strong language, and I must actually admit it can sometimes be quite sad to see a man so jaded with feminism that he hates all women. But that is another of the curses of our times, our women turn on us as well as our enemies!

I also have an older link, ‘Magna Grece’, which is mainly concerned with Southern Italy before the Risorgimento which overthrew the ancient kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, it is written by a scholarly fellow and I have learned much from him, so please take a look.

Also, just for your edification, in the language section, there are a few good and free language sites, I have spent the summer brushing up on my French, German and Russian and it is actually very effective, especially with my French and German, I find Russian very difficult, and have only been studying it for the last two years, so it has not been as useful with that! So if you know a little French, German or another language, try it out, you can take it as fast or as slow as you wish, and it is definitely worth having another language.

Also, just for fun, I included ‘Thor Steinar’, a clothes company that apparently antifas don’t like because they accuse it of being a NAZI shop! It does seem that it was set up by a nationalist and that nationalists do shop there, but in reality it is not really that blatant, I just want a few people to buy some stuff to annoy the lefties!

Obama Lawyer Admits the Birth Certificate is a Forgery

After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd and, therefore, invalid as evidence toward proving Obama’s ineligibility in a court of law.

Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.

Source

It gets stranger all the time! And what is truly amazing is how wilfully blind so many Obama worshipers are. Our beloved state broadcaster has never mentioned this small issue of Obama’s eligibility to actually be the president of those united states, it refuses to mention anything about him which may give people pause for thought. They worship him!

This whole is creepy!

Establishment of the Left

‘What were fifty years ago the three most prominent non-leftist institutions in the world—the Roman Catholic Church, the United States of America, and the British monarchy—are now explicitly in the service of the left. And the conservative movement itself is now explicitly in the service of the left.’

Source

The only thing I would haggle with is the idea that the United States was ever a ‘conservative’ institution. America has been a revolutionary state for most of its existence, being held back only by the Christian faith of the South, and after 1865, until Bolshevik Russia appeared, America was the trend setter in progressive thought and action, perhaps the only other radical state would have been republican France. It’s odd that America is in hindsight regarded as ‘conservative’! That is only a modern idea, I think, I wouldn’t think British, Russian, German or Austrian aristocrats would have considered America conservative in 1910.

But the main argument made by Lawrence Auster is correct, Every surviving institution from the ‘old days’ is an instrument of the left, and for conservatives that is a problem. Being conservatives, we naturally wish to see the continuance of that which is tried and tested, but, the values that these institutions now push, are the values of our enemies, so do we reject these institutions?

The universities, which used to send reliable Tory MPs to parliament, were pillars of the old order, and are now a part of the new order. Do we reject the universities? Do we set up our own? I do like the thought of setting up an online university, as is already happening, this could be used to begin new universities, or could be kept online.

The Army in Britain and now the US seem to be completely co-opted into the new order as well, I’m sure individuals can be conservative, but if you wish to climb the ladder of promotion, you need to brown nose and proclaim one’s fealty to the negro and paki. It is the same in the police forces, they are no longer on our side, they are the instruments of the enemy.

Is there any institution that has not been co-opted?

The churches have been taken over, the schools, the media is obviously in their hands, the Monarchy is a puppet, that regularly parrots the multi cult line, all of our institutions and constitutions have failed us and have been and will continue to be used against us.

I fear the only way to fight these things, will result in the abolition of everything we are familiar with. But I suppose that is exactly what a few long-term thinkers amongst our enemies were thinking.

How Jewish is Hollywood?

I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.

How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.

The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)

The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.

As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you’d be flipping between “The 700 Club” and “Davey and Goliath” on TV all day.

So I’ve taken it upon myself to re-convince America that Jews run Hollywood by launching a public relations campaign, because that’s what we do best. I’m weighing several slogans, including: “Hollywood: More Jewish than ever!”; “Hollywood: From the people who brought you the Bible”; and “Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all.”

I called ADL Chairman Abe Foxman, who was in Santiago, Chile, where, he told me to my dismay, he was not hunting Nazis. He dismissed my whole proposition, saying that the number of people who think Jews run Hollywood is still too high. The ADL poll, he pointed out, showed that 59% of Americans think Hollywood execs “do not share the religious and moral values of most Americans,” and 43% think the entertainment industry is waging an organized campaign to “weaken the influence of religious values in this country.”

That’s a sinister canard, Foxman said. “It means they think Jews

meet at Canter’s Deli on Friday mornings to decide what’s best for the Jews.” Foxman’s argument made me rethink: I have to eat at Canter’s more often.

“That’s a very dangerous phrase, ‘Jews control Hollywood.’ What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood,” he said. Instead of “control,” Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry “happen to be Jewish,” as in “all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish.”

But Foxman said he is proud of the accomplishments of American Jews. “I think Jews are disproportionately represented in the creative industry. They’re disproportionate as lawyers and probably medicine here as well,” he said. He argues that this does not mean that Jews make pro-Jewish movies any more than they do pro-Jewish surgery. Though other countries, I’ve noticed, aren’t so big on circumcision.

I appreciate Foxman’s concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.

Source

So, when writin…

So, when writing a constitution I am writing it making a few assumptions, one is that the people are a virtuous, Christian people. This will impact on many things, one being that I don’t have a marriage clause, because in a healthy society, no one seriously considers that sodomites could wed each other, another is that I would not have women voting in this theoretical Federation, women’s suffrage has caused too much trouble and most women, are not interested in politics anyway. I did include a clause in Article II prohibiting women from voting, but was not sure if I should include it.

The preamble is the most iffy bit I think, I suppose each preamble will be different according to who writes it and among which people are having it written for them. I like the first Article, it lays down, much more clearly then say the American constitution, what is and is not allowed, the right to life specifically prohibits abortion, so that no harpy can claim she has the right to kill her child. The slavery clause also prohibits usury, this would be quite important in years to come, when banking interests are attempting, once again, to re-enslave the people, this would mean no credit cards with 20% APR, no Wonga.Com charging over 2000% interest on a short-term loan etc…

The Section IX is a lot more strict on government or enforcement agencies then is now the case in America or anywhere else I can think! It not only ensures someones house papers and effects can’t be searched without warrant, it makes the intercepting of communication, the hacking of their computers or a search of the person, something they would need a warrant for as well. Remember, this is for a theoretical situation, where we don’t have any immigrants, they all left and went home, so very little crime, a virtuous and Christian people etc, etc…

No faffing about with the right to keep and bear arms, not sure about Section XI, it is something I like the sound of, but it could be construed to allow sodomites to have their little ghettos where they hang out rainbow flags and felate each other on street corners! But it could also be used by Amish types, so I am minded to keep it! Any thoughts?

Section XVI, the reason I single out Senators as different, is because I would be attempting to establish a new aristocracy, or something approaching it.

Not sure about Article II, Section I, I want something that prohibits hordes of foreigners from trampling our lands, but, am not sure exactly how to word it!

Section II, I think with all the porn in the world, we need a censor, not someone censoring politics or blogs, but someone censoring vile images, which, are not speech!

And, most importantly, in Section III, the prohibition of political parties, this is essential. Even if this was the only thing I could actually accomplish, I would be happy if this was to pass. Political parties divide our peoples, it makes people stupid, they argue with someone they should be allying with, all because of some stupid personality or some idiotic policy, health care or pensions or some other irrelevancy. The worst thing about political parties, is that good people will say, ‘I shall vote conservative and they will stop immigration’, when they won’t, in fact they speed it up!!! Whilst lefties say, ‘I will vote Labour for peace and justice’ and they get Serbia, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq! Not exactly getting what you voted for is it? So political parties will be abolished, people can vote, but they shall vote for the man, instead of the party!

The General Assembly, I suppose you could call it whatever you want, a parliament, a congress, a council, but I think this is an improvement on what we have now, it allows for election to the House of Delegates, but the Senate is in effect a life appointment, each Senator can appoint a successor, most I imagine would appoint a son, but they don’t have to, if they have a feckless son, they might appoint a nephew or brother or even a friend. But just in case the appointed successor is not up to it, the rest of the Senators have a say in who gets to succeed, so that the truly feckless can be kept out, again, I am assuming that we are dealing with virtuous people here! The Delegates are elected in much the same way that the American Senate used to be elected, by the states/cantons, in the American constitution, the legislatures had the rights to elect a Senator, in my constitution, the state or canton will decide for itself, so it could be the legislature electing the delegates or it could be that they are elected by a popular vote, it will be up to the constituent member of the Federation.

The composition of the Senate and Delegates, restrains ‘democracy’ without abolishing it, it is not mob rule, but it does allow for some popular influence.

Another thing I like, it the option of a referendum on possibly every Act of the Assembly, this is used in Switzerland to keep their politicians in check, it is something they hate, but must put up with, and so it would be in my theoretical Federation.

The war powers of this Federation are retrained, and unless they have been invaded or attacked, they must seek a declaration of war from the General Assembly and must have a referendum on this, with each voter who approves war, signing himself up to fight. In this theoretical Federation, voting is public, not secret, people should not be ashamed of how they vote. Secrecy was a good idea when it was introduced, but it has passed its usefulness, especially in a virtuous polity. So we would know how people vote, and so could have internet voting, but with open voting everyones voting record could be accessed, this would keep voting fraud down and we could see who voted themselves into the army.

Also a special war tax would be imposed on everyone, this would ensure only a truly popular war could be fought for any length of time. No more Iraqs or Afghanistans or Serbias or Somalias or Vietnams! Unless people don’t mind the tax, and volunteering to fight!

Section XI has one of the most important clauses, and that is;‘No tax shall be laid on incomes, capital gains, inheritances, property or gifts of an individual or family’ This ensures that no government can pile tax upon tax, ones income profits, inheritance, property and gifts belong to one, not the government, and with this, they shall be powerless to take your money. I specifically make this about individuals and families, so that corporations, can still be taxed.

The government is also prohibited from creating a national debt, this is one of the central powers that modern states have, and it is one mine, shall not have.

I’m not a fan of copyright or patent laws, it seems the super rich use this to squeeze more money out of the poor for no reason other than they had something developed in their labs fifty years ago. I don’t really think that is right! Also, I hate Hollywood, anything that hits their pockets has got to be good!

And so onto Article V, instead of a president, I have a council of nine, kinda like the Venetian one, but without the Doge! The office of president, along with the Supreme Court seem to me, to be the greatest weaknesses in the current American system, between them they dominate that country, which they should not do. My system would lessen the possibilities of a Lincoln or a Roosevelt or a Tony Blair or an Obama, with more than one leader, it diffuses power and could contain a danger like those above. Although at least six of the nine Consuls would have to agree on everything, they could pardon or honour anyone they wish.

Another important one, is the Supreme Court, the Judges have terms, so can’t be as almighty as the American version!

And another office I would introduce is the Tribune of the people, a council of five tribunes, elected by lot, so that possibly anyone could serve in this position for a ten-year term, I don’t prohibit further terms, because the likelihood of being chosen twice by lot is highly unlikely! They  would have power to appeal to the Assembly and the Consulate, they could investigate government, they could make a fuss and embarrass people, they could bring issues to trial and make recommendations for legislation, not all-powerful, but a good speed bump for those greedy for power.

In describing the Cantons and their powers, it states unequivocally that each can leave the Federation at any time and for any reason, with this and the fact that the army is the militias of the cantons, one would hope that no American civil war situation could arise. Each canton could have its own sort of government, monarchial, direct democracy, representative etc…And most importantly, each Canton may restrict immigration into their cantons, no automatic right of abode. This could be a great firewall against any future mass migrations, as only some cantons, one would hope, are stupid enough to allow immigrants into their cantons, most others could insulate themselves from this, with this power.

Overall, there is little democracy in this, which I think is only good, the Tribune is there by lottery to stand up for peoples rights and against power, the courts are elected by the Assembly, but only for one term, the Senators are appointed, but only with the concurrence of the other Senators, the delegates are elected, but they are representative only of a state or canton, not a constituency, but they are influential in who they elect, the Consuls and the Judges as well as confirming the appointments made by the Consuls.

It seems a well-balanced constitution, but if there is anything you think needs alteration or revision, leave a comment!

On Constitutions and Eternity

Constitutions are means to constitute what are the fundamental rules of governance for an organisation, whether it is a bridge club, the local rugby club, the Swiss Federation, Apple Inc or the even the Soviet Union. The American constitution is the most infamous codified constitution known, I would imagine and being an expression of the enlightenment, it should be something I am instinctively against, and I am, on an instinctive, idealistic plane. However, it seems that the days of kings and chivalry are long over, and to codify how much you can get screwed by the government may actually be important. The American constitution is enlightening,(not in that way!) for one reason it should not be, it proves that all constitutions can be ignored and overthrown whilst feigning loyalty to it. The American government today is obviously in breach of the spirit of the constitution as well as many of its clauses. The most infamous being Obama’s questionable place of birth and his obstruction of people trying to discover whether he is in fact a natural-born citizen. Others that I can think of off the top of my head would be the existence of a massive national security apparatus, a permanent established army of many millions of men, the CIA, FBI, NSA among others, surveillance on a massive, unholy scale that would have terrified the writers of the constitution, a presidency that seems to be powerful without any limits, whose occupants can issue decrees, some of which are only known to people in government. The Supreme Court is too high and mighty for its boots, and no one is willing to challenge it, it holds more power than any king ever did, whatever it says in inviolable, and no one seems to think, ‘hey, wait a sec’.

So constitutions, whether written and codified or not as is the case with Britain, can be and currently are being subverted by a nasty clique that seems intent on destroying us. Now, it does seem that the American constitution is faring a little bit better than the British one, which has been swept away in the last thirty years. But the American one seems to be kept in its procedures, more than in its original intent or its spirit. The American government will tie itself in knots trying to make everything ‘constitutional’ whether it is or not. The Supreme Court seems to be able to say that the constitution can mean anything, it means every woman is entitled to kill her child in utero apparently, although I’ve never seen that section or article myself. Recently the Supreme Court said that Obamacare was ‘constitutional’, whatever that means anymore. How?

The whole Constitution thing in America is actually keeping people from making the break they need to make, it is over, and it is time to begin again. The United States is finished as it was, whether you believe it was good or bad, doesn’t matter, it’s over! Now, you have to look for something else, whether it is a ‘white republic’ or a Vermont republic or an independent Texas or whatever, but you need to start again.

It is the same over here in Europe, we can’t go back, it is too late, the UK is over too, at some point Scotland and Wales will go independent, England will be in chaos due to the race problems, and the rest of Europe, well it is anyone’s guess. But the old order is coming to an end. I sometimes wonder what people though in the year 400 as they looked forward, would they have foreseen the end of Rome in 76 years, earlier if you count the second sack of Rome, or would they have thought things would continue just as they had been for four hundred years?

The transformation from hegemon to ruin took place over a fifty year period of immigration, economic crisis, wars and political crises, it dragged on for decades, until at some point people realised it was over. But even after the fall of Rome, many of the new kings and leaders considered themselves successors to Roman authority and would have protected Roman custom, even encouraged it, they would have relied on Latin or Greek speaking scribes, this was in no way a sudden collapse, it really was an evolution over time. It was only in 800 AD that a new Emperor was recognised in the West, and that was Charlemagne. So at some point between 476 and 800, it was realised that the Roman Empire in the West had collapsed. over 300 years!

Now, if you were in the future looking back on now, what do you think this period would be?

I don’t think its the German crossing of the Rhine in 406, I think that was like our Empire Windrush in 1948.

What about our sack of Rome? Could that be Detroit? London last year? Paris in 2005? Or is that still to come?

We can know we are not at the end, as that would take a formal abdication of power, but how long off is that?

Even after the fall of Rome, I imagine that there were many city dwellers and peasants and Senators and soldiers and traders who thought it would all go back to how it’s always been, perhaps with a German Emperor instead, but can anyone have realised what lay in store for them and their progeny? The division of the West into thousands of autonomous polities and semi autonomous polities, the sacking and destruction of the richest part of the world in less than 200 years time, and it’s forced conversion to Islam. The blending of the German overloads and the Gallic, Hispanic, Italic and Britannic into new races of men, the birth of dozens of new languages, the thousand-year long war with Islam with the Mediterranean as a frontline instead of the nice cosy safe bit at the centre of the known world.

Nothing would ever be the same, and we still live with the consequences, what will the world be like in 76 years? How about 200? We can’t know and the arrogance of those who think the American constitution will last forever, just because it has lasted the previous two centuries, is baffling.

A constitution should be useful, and let’s be honest, can only work when you have a virtuous people. America has neither.

 

 

 

Smallness Works

Well, it seems to help.

I believe that a part of our problems, whether they be economic, social or cultural stem from the prison that is the modern-day nation-state, where once we had a small and distant government rule over a small and lightly populated(by todays standards) polity, we now have a large and increasingly belligerent state, attempting to rule over millions, tens of millions and sometimes hundreds of millions of people, resulting in misrule, tyranny and increasing impoverishment.

It is a simplistic argument, I know, but hear me out. Is it at all possible that a ‘democracy’ like the United States can actually represent the will of 310 million people, in an area the size of Europe? Each representative in the Congress represents on average about half a million people, I’m not sure about you, but I don’t think it is even possible to meet half a million people in one lifetime, and even if it were, could anyone remember very many of them? Can an elected representative in the American Congress actually represent 500,000, as they would wish to be represented?

The senators, represent the states, so, the Alaskan senators, will represent about 600,000, a large number, the Californian senators will represent 35 million people. Now even if you think that there may be a possibility, however unlikely, that a representative can actually represent half a million people, can anyone, in their right mind say that someone can accurately represent 35 millions?

What about a world government? Some people seem keen on that, how many representatives would we have to a world Congress or Parliament or Assembly or whatever it might be called? One thousand? That would mean each representative would represent about seven million people, so we could increase the representatives to ten thousand, then what? Well we could all be represented, but how efficient would such an assembly be? Could there be a possibility of companies, pressure groups and others buying votes? Could it mean an ineffectual, pointless debating chamber that would quickly be overtaken in importance by the bureaucracy?

The European Union is an attempt to make things big, about 400 million people jammed together to form one state, well they are trying. The European Parliament is famous for its irrelevance, there are 736 MEPs(Members of the European Parliament) and there will be 750 MEPs at the next European elections, due to the expanding EU. Britain has 73 MEPs, Germany 99, Malta 5, France 74, Ireland 13.

Now, if for some reason, every MEP from Ireland, Malta and Britain voted against something which they believed would be harmful to them, say, banning English, they would be outvoted and their votes would mean nothing. In a world parliament, if every white nation joined together to prevent, lets say, compulsory compensation to third world states for colonialism, imperialism, apartheid, slavery and racism, what do you think the result would be?

Even democrats should be able to see this, democracy can’t, and won’t work as the state or nation becomes too large, the only form of government which works in a large nation or state is dictatorship, or at least authoritarian government. China is run by one party, Russia is a managed democracy, India is a corrupt democracy, Brazil is another corrupt democracy.

These places work, after a fashion, but they are not in any sense ‘democratic’ and nor should they be, democracy would cause chaos and lead to wholesale looting of one group or region, to placate the violent anger of another.

America is the odd one out, it resembles a managed democracy at the federal level, but at the local level can actually be very free, towns, townships and counties which are rural and white tend to be ably governed, even small states like Vermont, New Hampshire, North Dakota and other mid western and Rocky Mountain states seem to get along fine. It is when we look at the large states where problems arise, California, New York, Florida and Texas. Texas seems well run(I’m an outsider) but the diversity being allowed will kill that place too.

Small polities on the other hand seem more likely to be wealthier, healthier, happier and freer than the teeming empires of diversity and crime.

The first examples are the ones above, the small American states, they are reputedly some of the best places to live in the world. And then we have some small places in Europe;

The bailiwick of Sark, is about two square miles, it has its own government, and is very lightly taxed, no diversity(I’m sure someone will try to cure that soon), a pleasant landscape, and plenty of sea views. No poverty, no crime and no cars! only 600 people live here and their parliament, the Chief Pleas, has thirty members, meaning each person, not voter, each man woman and child has one member for every twenty of them. Now, is it possible to get to know your twenty electors? I think there is, and if three or four tell you how strongly they feel about something, do you think the representative will take notice?

Sark

The other Channel Islands are also small, rich, happy and free, Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney all have their own assemblies, elected by a few thousand people, who know each other and so can actually have an effect on their votes, and who can call them afterwards to have a cross word if necessary. None of them are in the EU, all have low taxes and good public services.

The Isle of Man is another good example of a successful small country, although it has a somewhat larger population then Sark, at 85,000 and is about 500 square miles. But it is small enough to be run well, for its own people. It has, the Manx say, the oldest parliament in the world, the Tynwald, which has 24 members, meaning that they represent about 3,500 people apiece. A massive electorate when compared to their Sark counterparts, but still a wee bit less than the half million that each American representative has. It still seems likely that each member of the House of Keys(the lower house in the Tynwald) will know a good part of his electorate, or at least be available to all of them, if they so wish. Man is rich, lightly taxed and again not in the EU. They also have a wonderful custom, where each year on Tynwald Day, they read aloud all the laws passed by their assembly over the last twelve months, in English and Manx. I imagine this may give the members pause for thought when a long and boring piece of legislation is passed, knowing they will have to stand at Tynwald hill and listen to it being read out out twice!

A Part of Man

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another interesting place is the Principality of Liechtenstein, it is a small place, that makes Switzerland look big. It is about 60 square miles and has 35,000 people. It is ruled by a prince whose family have held this fief for over 400 years, the people are rich and lightly taxed, the public services work, the streets are clean and it is not in the EU! Surprise surprise! This little place has had no experience of war since Napoleon and was the only place in Europe to give asylum to 500 Russian nationalists who fought against the Soviet Union in the Second World War, whilst larger more powerful states like the US and Britain happily handed over hundreds of thousands of poor souls who disappeared in Siberia.

Liechtenstein

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

San Marino, the worlds oldest republic, is a tiny little place in Italy with only 24,000 people, it is independent, and has been since St Marius established his monastery on Mont Titano in 301AD, it is not part of the EU, is rich, happy and free. It has no national debt, unlike neighbouring Italy, and has no ‘diversity’ to talk of. It is lightly taxed and has a constitution that can be traced back over 400 years.

San Marino

We have all heard of Monaco, another rich, free place ruled by a prince, and Andorra? A Co-Principality between Spain and France, which is also rich and free.

Gibraltar, a British colony on the south Spanish coast. Iceland a large country, but with a small population, only about 300,000. Luxembourg, the Faeroes and the Swiss Cantons, some of which are not much bigger than Liechtenstein.

Gibraltar

All of these places have something in common, they are all small, all have small homogenous populations, all are wealthy, all have contented populations, all of them are well-governed and lightly taxed, all of them are free. Even the principalities, even here the people are freer then many of us who live in big ‘democratic’ states, which exposes the lie about monarchies being old-fashioned totalitarian states. Iceland was able to reject enslavement to the IMF due to its small size. A few thousand people converged on their parliament, which is about as big as a normal house, and threatened to burn it down if the parliament passed the act which would have enslaved them. This forced the government to put the issue to referendum which resulted in its rejection. Man, Sark, Alderney, Jersey and Guernsey are not completely independent, but this means very little in any real sense, they rule themselves for the most part, foreign policy and coinage being the only things they don’t have, and for small places like this, foreign policy doesn’t really mean all that much anyway. Politics in these places is extremely local, people don’t go into politics to make their fortune, or to lord it over anyone else, as who would be impressed that you are a member of the Chief Pleas or Colonial Assembly of Gibraltar?(Well I would, I would be fascinated) People don’t go into these assemblies to conquer the world, or change the world, only to have a say in how the local school is run, or to oppose licence changes for pubs, or to campaign for a road to be repaved. these are boring, irrelevant things to the entire world, except for the tiny corner where it does matter. In short, those who lust after power, leave these places for pastures new, leaving these little pieces of well-governed earth, to remain the same. Perhaps the most tory of places?

So what am I saying? Well, small government is good government. And perhaps if we are to focus on politics, we should focus on the small? Although I despise ‘democracy’ as a sham, as it is in large states like Britain and America, on a small, local scale, representative government, as opposed to democracy is a good thing. If you could go and get yourself elected to a parish council, or a town council, you could have an effect. You could oppose foolish spending, you could oppose some silly declaration or propose a good and worthwhile thing. Immigration can’t be stopped at the national level yet, perhaps we could make illegal immigrants uncomfortable at the local level by denying a business licence, you don’t have to say why, or you could oppose it on environmental grounds!

I have read that the future will be one of small states, city states and the like, I don’t know if it is true, but I do think it would be a good thing. The large, centralised, bureaucratic states of the last century are failing. They have lost their legitimacy and are about to go bust, they no longer look out for their people, they only look out for their own financial futures. Too many in government, such as that worm Tony Blair and Nickolas Sarkozy, used the power of their states to wage cowardly wars against third world nations, partly, I’m sure because it massaged their egos. A Tony Blair as a member of the Chief Pleas or House of Keys would be of no danger to the world, or even to a country, even if he managed to convince the assembly to import millions of immigrants, the other parts of the country would be ok.

So let us get elected to our small local councils, lets start positioning ourselves to be the leaders of  the remnants of these failed nation-states, I predict that this is where and how we begin to take back what has been so unjustly taken from us and ours.