THE PAPER I WROTE FOR THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS THAT THEY COULDN'T BRING THEMSELVES TO COMMENT ON.
"What is nationalism anyway?
I propose that nationalism be redefined as the ideology of promoting the long term national interest. The reason for this is to dissociate nationalism from racism and link it once again to the kind of Conservatism we used to know, ie social conservatism, which meant respecting the institution of marriage.
On the face of it, this sounds so last century and deadly dull, but it is actually radical and revolutionary.
The liberal establishment is now so far off respecting the institution of marriage that it does not even know it is doing the opposite, ie desecrating this time-honoured institution, by giving it to gay couples.
We may discern the nature and purpose of marriage by imagining the circumstances of its invention. It has been said that necessity is the mother of invention. If so, what necessity was marriage trying to satisfy?
It has been said that primitive societies are necessarily matriarchal. They are matriarchal because they are primitive, and primitive because they are matriarchal. In 19th century Western scholarship, the hypothesis of matriarchy representing an early stage of human development—now mostly lost in prehistory, with the exception of some so-called primitive societies—enjoyed popularity. This has been comprehensively debunked in the advent of feminism and the feminist legislation that followed in its wake.
It was Camille Paglia who said that if civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grasshuts.
It has been suggested that Neanderthal man was matriarchal, and homo sapiens, who defeated him, was patriarchal.
This theory cannot be proven nor disproven, however, and you are invited to come to your own conclusions.
What is the difference between a patriarchy and a matriarchy?
I would define a patriarchy as a society that condones male promiscuity while a matriarchy is a society that condones female promiscuity.
Under this definition, the conclusion that we are now living in a matriarchy becomes indisputable.
If we are indeed in a matriarchy, it would mean we are regressing. It is indisputable that we are now degenerate. Our parents were mostly legitimate, and we were mostly legitimate. Now, our children are mostly illegitimate.
Why is this a bad thing?
Because the English are no longer what they were after they lost their world empire through winning their pyrrhic victories of the First and Second World Wars. That is why we are now talking about English nationalism and not British nationalism.
Britain was always an English project. It was the English who conquered and annexed Wales and then entered into a Union with Scotland. Indeed, the BNP are in fact an English party, even if the leader makes a point of living in Wales.
It could be said that this sudden interest in English identity is testament to the failure of maintaining a cohesive British identity acceptable to the three kingdoms of Britain.
If the English are no longer what they used to be, what caused them to lose their sense of pride, identity and traditions?
The Englishman’s loss of political freedom is proportionate to his sexual liberation.
Sexual freedom is the antithesis of marriage, of course. If we want to respect marriage, then we would have to forbid extramarital sex and withhold the privileges of the married from the unmarried. If we respected marriage as nation, our Conservative Prime Minister would not be giving marriage as a toy for the LGBTs to play with.
The fact that we are so far away from respecting marriage that we do not even realise we are desecrating it.
But why is marriage so important to the national character, you ask.
Marriage is really about the rearing of children in optimum conditions. A society in which most children grow up with both biological and married parents living together would tend to do better than a society consisting mostly of single mothers whose children suffer from this thing called “fatherlessness”.
Why do we no longer talk about illegitimacy and immoral women?
Because we are afraid.
Because these women are so much in the majority now that we fear to offend. Politicians especially fear to unnecessarily alienate the female vote which is of course half the total vote, and that is why they will not discuss the most important institution of human society.
It is marriage - a very delicate mechanism for regulation the human sexual impulse - that is the pivot upon which gender *balance* rests. It is respect for the institution of marriage that reins in the worst vices of each sex, but we no longer respect it.
Because it is now the majority practice to have sex with a sex partner to whom you are not married before you will consider marrying them, men are now forced to lie in order to get sex from a woman to whom they are not married.
To become habituated to lying because men want sex and are expected to have extramarital sex, must corrupt the character of men.
"After the male has made a successful approach, saying anything the female does not like, and which induces any unpleasant feeling, irrespective of how truthful the statement is, immediately sours the male's chances. His error is often irrevocable. This is a likely source of male dishonesty, and indeed the male may, from adolescence onwards, adopt female perspectives in order to improve his success. The most convincing liar is one who has deceived himself."
The process of the feminisation of the Western heterosexual male has now been explained and revealed.
If however women were expected to be virgins before marriage, the transactions would be more honest. A man would decide upon the woman he wishes to have as a wife but without the option of taking her for a test drive, so to speak. (I have heard of a middle-aged woman who claimed she never married because she did not believe in sex before marriage, and sex before marriage in Britain would be the only way to get yourself into the game of finding a husband if you are not Jewish or Muslim to whom premarital sex is frowned upon.) This prohibition against premarital sex would inevitably make the courting couple dwell on non-sexual matters during courtship, which means that the man is not compelled to lie to the woman to get sex, but will be judged solely on his ability to provide for her and any children they might have together, and whether he would be a good husband and father. This is a better criterion to judge a man because what is being contemplated is their long-term future together instead of merely whether she is physically attracted to him ie whether he will do for a one-night stand. The offspring of the former will inevitably be of better quality than the latter. The important thing is that their children will be legitimate and grow up into responsible adults with the guidance of both parents with the benefit of their respective family connections and their cultural and economic resources.
This practice, if practised generally would tend to improve or at least maintain the quality of the next generation.
This practice, if abandoned by most people would tend to make each subsequent generation more degenerate than the other.
Marriage is eugenic, while bastardy is dysgenic.
Apart from not respecting the institution of marriage, the English have also forgotten their traditions.
What are traditions?
They are things you do to please your father. Mothers are not much interested in tradition, you will find. In most cases it means more work for them.
If fathers are mostly not in the lives of their children then it is not surprising that there will be no culture but pop culture, celebrity culture, football culture, pub culture and perhaps drug culture in the lives of the young of today.
Children get their culture from their peers, their school and from TV, with no moral filter whatsoever.
Are they taught to respect marriage?
Only the children of immigrant families, who cling to their culture and tradition more as a result of being away from the land of their birth, keep any of their culture because they stay married, practise their religion, exercise the virtues of prudence and industry, and keep in touch with their families. They know they have to be different from the locals to survive and do well, and this is what they do.
How are we going to give the English a cultural identity that would make them more cohesive?
It is very simple really. State what you want the English to be, ideally, talk about it and take steps to do it.
You will not be surprised to learn that I have a few ideas about what I would like it to be: robust, rational, resourceful.
It is the process of turning a people who are mostly illegitimate, illiterate and innumerate into this that would forge the new English national identity.
How would we go about making the English robust, rational and resourceful?
These proposals are undoubtedly controversial, but we already know that politics – our moral imperative of imposing on others what we think is the right thing – can only advance through controversy and conflict.
As long as we present our policies and arguments cogently and concisely, there is no reason the EDP cannot give the other Eurosceptic parties a run for their money. It is imperative that we are bold in the field ideological innovation, particularly as it requires no large capital investment and can be accomplished only with pen, paper and a thinking cap."
This was the response I received:
"What is nationalism anyway?
I propose that nationalism be redefined as the ideology of promoting the long term national interest. The reason for this is to dissociate nationalism from racism and link it once again to the kind of Conservatism we used to know, ie social conservatism, which meant respecting the institution of marriage.
On the face of it, this sounds so last century and deadly dull, but it is actually radical and revolutionary.
The liberal establishment is now so far off respecting the institution of marriage that it does not even know it is doing the opposite, ie desecrating this time-honoured institution, by giving it to gay couples.
We may discern the nature and purpose of marriage by imagining the circumstances of its invention. It has been said that necessity is the mother of invention. If so, what necessity was marriage trying to satisfy?
It has been said that primitive societies are necessarily matriarchal. They are matriarchal because they are primitive, and primitive because they are matriarchal. In 19th century Western scholarship, the hypothesis of matriarchy representing an early stage of human development—now mostly lost in prehistory, with the exception of some so-called primitive societies—enjoyed popularity. This has been comprehensively debunked in the advent of feminism and the feminist legislation that followed in its wake.
It was Camille Paglia who said that if civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grasshuts.
It has been suggested that Neanderthal man was matriarchal, and homo sapiens, who defeated him, was patriarchal.
This theory cannot be proven nor disproven, however, and you are invited to come to your own conclusions.
What is the difference between a patriarchy and a matriarchy?
I would define a patriarchy as a society that condones male promiscuity while a matriarchy is a society that condones female promiscuity.
Under this definition, the conclusion that we are now living in a matriarchy becomes indisputable.
If we are indeed in a matriarchy, it would mean we are regressing. It is indisputable that we are now degenerate. Our parents were mostly legitimate, and we were mostly legitimate. Now, our children are mostly illegitimate.
Why is this a bad thing?
Because the English are no longer what they were after they lost their world empire through winning their pyrrhic victories of the First and Second World Wars. That is why we are now talking about English nationalism and not British nationalism.
Britain was always an English project. It was the English who conquered and annexed Wales and then entered into a Union with Scotland. Indeed, the BNP are in fact an English party, even if the leader makes a point of living in Wales.
It could be said that this sudden interest in English identity is testament to the failure of maintaining a cohesive British identity acceptable to the three kingdoms of Britain.
If the English are no longer what they used to be, what caused them to lose their sense of pride, identity and traditions?
The Englishman’s loss of political freedom is proportionate to his sexual liberation.
Sexual freedom is the antithesis of marriage, of course. If we want to respect marriage, then we would have to forbid extramarital sex and withhold the privileges of the married from the unmarried. If we respected marriage as nation, our Conservative Prime Minister would not be giving marriage as a toy for the LGBTs to play with.
The fact that we are so far away from respecting marriage that we do not even realise we are desecrating it.
But why is marriage so important to the national character, you ask.
Marriage is really about the rearing of children in optimum conditions. A society in which most children grow up with both biological and married parents living together would tend to do better than a society consisting mostly of single mothers whose children suffer from this thing called “fatherlessness”.
Why do we no longer talk about illegitimacy and immoral women?
Because we are afraid.
Because these women are so much in the majority now that we fear to offend. Politicians especially fear to unnecessarily alienate the female vote which is of course half the total vote, and that is why they will not discuss the most important institution of human society.
It is marriage - a very delicate mechanism for regulation the human sexual impulse - that is the pivot upon which gender *balance* rests. It is respect for the institution of marriage that reins in the worst vices of each sex, but we no longer respect it.
Because it is now the majority practice to have sex with a sex partner to whom you are not married before you will consider marrying them, men are now forced to lie in order to get sex from a woman to whom they are not married.
To become habituated to lying because men want sex and are expected to have extramarital sex, must corrupt the character of men.
"After the male has made a successful approach, saying anything the female does not like, and which induces any unpleasant feeling, irrespective of how truthful the statement is, immediately sours the male's chances. His error is often irrevocable. This is a likely source of male dishonesty, and indeed the male may, from adolescence onwards, adopt female perspectives in order to improve his success. The most convincing liar is one who has deceived himself."
The process of the feminisation of the Western heterosexual male has now been explained and revealed.
If however women were expected to be virgins before marriage, the transactions would be more honest. A man would decide upon the woman he wishes to have as a wife but without the option of taking her for a test drive, so to speak. (I have heard of a middle-aged woman who claimed she never married because she did not believe in sex before marriage, and sex before marriage in Britain would be the only way to get yourself into the game of finding a husband if you are not Jewish or Muslim to whom premarital sex is frowned upon.) This prohibition against premarital sex would inevitably make the courting couple dwell on non-sexual matters during courtship, which means that the man is not compelled to lie to the woman to get sex, but will be judged solely on his ability to provide for her and any children they might have together, and whether he would be a good husband and father. This is a better criterion to judge a man because what is being contemplated is their long-term future together instead of merely whether she is physically attracted to him ie whether he will do for a one-night stand. The offspring of the former will inevitably be of better quality than the latter. The important thing is that their children will be legitimate and grow up into responsible adults with the guidance of both parents with the benefit of their respective family connections and their cultural and economic resources.
This practice, if practised generally would tend to improve or at least maintain the quality of the next generation.
This practice, if abandoned by most people would tend to make each subsequent generation more degenerate than the other.
Marriage is eugenic, while bastardy is dysgenic.
Apart from not respecting the institution of marriage, the English have also forgotten their traditions.
What are traditions?
They are things you do to please your father. Mothers are not much interested in tradition, you will find. In most cases it means more work for them.
If fathers are mostly not in the lives of their children then it is not surprising that there will be no culture but pop culture, celebrity culture, football culture, pub culture and perhaps drug culture in the lives of the young of today.
Children get their culture from their peers, their school and from TV, with no moral filter whatsoever.
Are they taught to respect marriage?
Only the children of immigrant families, who cling to their culture and tradition more as a result of being away from the land of their birth, keep any of their culture because they stay married, practise their religion, exercise the virtues of prudence and industry, and keep in touch with their families. They know they have to be different from the locals to survive and do well, and this is what they do.
How are we going to give the English a cultural identity that would make them more cohesive?
It is very simple really. State what you want the English to be, ideally, talk about it and take steps to do it.
You will not be surprised to learn that I have a few ideas about what I would like it to be: robust, rational, resourceful.
It is the process of turning a people who are mostly illegitimate, illiterate and innumerate into this that would forge the new English national identity.
How would we go about making the English robust, rational and resourceful?
- By abolishing the welfare state, for one thing. No other party proposes this, so why not the EDP?
- By respecting the institution of marriage. This means that extramarital sex will officially be forbidden, unmarried mothers ostracised and fault reintroduced into divorce.
- By repealing the Equality Act 2010. It contains all the totalitarian antidiscrimination legislation that amounts to thoughtcrime in Liberal England.
- By making state education in Britain free, excellent and selective.
These proposals are undoubtedly controversial, but we already know that politics – our moral imperative of imposing on others what we think is the right thing – can only advance through controversy and conflict.
As long as we present our policies and arguments cogently and concisely, there is no reason the EDP cannot give the other Eurosceptic parties a run for their money. It is imperative that we are bold in the field ideological innovation, particularly as it requires no large capital investment and can be accomplished only with pen, paper and a thinking cap."
This was the response I received:
27/09/2013 14:00
Robin Tilbrook
Dear Claire
As I think you have already guessed I have not had any enthusiasm from other members of the National Council that I have consulted with and, accordingly I do think that it would be a waste of your time and money and of ours for you to come to our National Council meeting.
Thank you for thinking of us and no doubt we will bump into each other at some point at some political venue or other, but, in the meanwhile, I hope that you are not too disappointed.
Yours sincerely
Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats,
Blog: http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/
FaceBook Profile: http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook
Party Tel: 0207 242 1066
Twitter: @RobinTilbrook
Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org
English Democrats' FB Page: http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook#!/www.EngDem.org
Chairman's FB
Page: http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook#!/Robin.Tilbrook.English.Democrats
No comments:
Post a Comment