Subscribe: Englands Freedome, Souldiers Rights
Preview: Englands Freedome, Souldiers Rights

Englands Freedome, Souldiers Rights

"I am by birth a free Commoner of England, and am thereby intailed or intituled unto an equall priviledge with your selfe, or the greatest men in England, unto the freedome and liberty of the Lawes of England." William Thompson, 14. of December, 1647

Updated: 2018-03-18T17:26:23.084+00:00


I figure ...


... it’s time to put the old charger out to stud, and plant the lance in the mud and see if a tree will grow there so to speak.

Thus farewell, dear readers. I wish you all the best, and trust our paths will cross again.
May the spirit of William Thompson, slain 1649, for Englands Freedome, Souldiers Rights, rest easy in his grave. A la proxima ...

width="560" height="315" src="//" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

Liberalism versus Imperialism


There is no sentiment in a nation so dangerous, there is no sentiment so easy to stimulate, as the false excess of patriotism. There is probably no country in the world from China to Peru in which the sub-conscious voices of national egotism do not persistently whisper in men's ears the same intoxicating tale: ' "We are the pick and flower of nations, and (in one sense or another) the chosen people of God! Various foreigners may or may not have their good points, but only we are really whole and right and normal. Other nations boast and are aggressive; only we are modest and content with our barest due, though it is obvious that we are by nature specially qualified for ruling others, and no unprejudiced person can doubt that our present territories ought to be increased. That our yoke is a pure blessing to all who come under it is a plain fact, proved by the almost unanimous testimony of our own citizens, our historians, our missionaries, our soldiers, our travellers, and only denied out of spite by a few envious foreigners, whom no one believes!"'

Sentiments like these call them patriotism, Jingoism, Chauvinism, or what you will form a strong and persistent force, valuable when checked, dangerous when stimulated, and charged with all the elements of exasperation and explosion whenever there is most need for patience and for care.

There is also in most civilized countries another party, inspired, consciously or unconsciously, by the older school of English Liberals, who do not accept the extravagant pretensions of their own countrymen; who judge of national honour by more or less the same standards as they apply to private honour; who believe in international morality and in the co-operation of nations for mutual help ; who, if they are to dream at all, will dream not of Armageddons and Empires, but of progress and freedom, and the ultimate fraternity of mankind.

Francis Wrigley Hirst, from the Introduction to "Liberalism and the Empire", 1900

Burglars in jail don't burgle, shocked researchers find


New research shows, quelle surprise, that if you don't release burglars from jail, they don't burgle as much.

Will this impress the Gadarene Swine in charge of the criminal justice system (falsely so-called)? Highly unlikely. I don't think anyone's quite sure how truth works its way through the labyrinthine defence mechanisms of denial, sub-marxoid sociology and cynical apathy erected around those bureaucrats.

I look forward to additional studies on the effects on the crime rates of shooting burglars in the act of burglary. It may be just a hunch, but I'm sure this would also work as a reduction strategy. Perhaps the Home Office could return our fundamental, constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms in order to facilitate some research?

Now, take a look at this run-of-the-mill news item from the United States:

src="" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560">

The British equivalent of this story would feature an old man dead, or lying in a hospital bed, his face purple and swollen, his daughter tearfully describing how his war medals had been stolen.

Peter Schiff sheds light on ObamaCare Supreme Court ruling


src="" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560">

Awesome Cover


src="" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560">

Ah, the joys of the internet - all manner of great things to stumble upon. I don't know too much about this, I might update later.

BMJ - British Medical Jerk-offs


... which is an American word for wankers, which is what they are, but BMW is already taken. With the BMJ, it's not so much 'Vorsprung durch Technik', but rather 'Vorsprung durch wahnsinnliche, hysterische Kontrol-Freakerei', as evidenced on their astroturf blog:
"Imagine you are sitting down to enjoy a nice meal in your own dining room, or settling in to your bed to read a good book or perhaps taking a long soak in your bath and all you could smell and breathe is cigarette smoke. Now, if you were eating in a nice restaurant or staying in a hotel or visiting a spa, you could no doubt complain to management and the nonsmoking policy would be quickly and swiftly enforced. But when this smoke is in your own home and the source is your neighbor who lives directly below, what recourse do you have?"
It's hard to comment. To do so would involve machetéing a path through the virtually impenetrable hedge of paranoid, puritan dumbnitude. When did people who think like this manage to convince themselves that they're the normal ones?

Hague lies again on EU referendum


Via UKK41, I come across that snake William Hague, just back from hanging out with the Syria Coup Committee, lying through his teeth, desperately trying to string along his poor, deluded party on the subject of the EU.

src="" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560">

I wonder what tories think of this man, who was once one of their favourite sons. Ain't you bored with the lies, tories? Ain't you tired with being treated like a bunch of fucking idiots?

My message to Hague is thus:

src="" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560">

Choice; Guardian-style


(image) It may not be very clear, but this is taken from the Graun article 'Smoking ban five years on'. As you can see, they're interested to know what their readers think, and are offering this question: Are current laws regulating smoking enough?

Most likely, this yes-no question captures the entirety of opinion among the jackboot-lickers who hang around that festering sore. Among the comments, which I don't recommend, one from a certain Rigsby, hits the nail on the head:

"Very few people more sanctimonious than a guardian reading non-smoker..."

Lew Rockwell interviews Marc Morano of Climate Depot


A great episode of the Lew Rockwell show:

Marc Morano talks to Lew about all the eco scares designed to wreck human civilization.

Meanwhile the government moves ahead with assault on internet freedom


Back in the dying days of the last government, in the 'wash-up', i.e., in the last session before the general election, there was an incident which sent up a flare that the Tories had no intention of making good on any of that civil liberties stuff they were happy to mouth while out of power. They voted through the Digital Economy Act.

They could have killed it as easy as crushing a snail under the heel of a hobnail boot, but they didn't. Why didn't they?

Because the Tory Party are scum, who hate our freedom. How can anyone with a conscience support this rank, despicable government?

Here we go again: reports of British troops inside Syria


From Debkafile:

"Unconfirmed first reports from British, French and Turkish sources say British special operations forces crossed from Turkey into northern Syria Tuesday, May 26, and advanced up to 10 kilometers inside the country. The same sources report heavy fighting around the Presidential Guards compound on the outskirts of Damascus."

A furnished mind


src="" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560">

Lord of all hopefulness, Lord of all joy,
whose trust, ever childlike, no cares could destroy,
be there at our waking, and give us, we pray,
your bliss in our hearts, Lord, at the break of the day.

Lord of all eagerness, Lord of all faith,
whose strong hands were skilled at the plane and the lathe,
be there at our labours, and give us, we pray,
your strength in our hearts, Lord, at the noon of the day.

Lord of all kindliness, Lord of all grace,
your hands swift to welcome, your arms to embrace,
be there at our homing, and give us, we pray,
your love in our hearts, Lord, at the eve of the day.

Lord of all gentleness, Lord of all calm,
whose voice is contentment, whose presence is balm,
be there at our sleeping, and give us, we pray,
your peace in our hearts, Lord, at the end of the day.

Shut up. Be happy.


Here's Claire Fox of the Institute of Ideas, speaking last year (passed me by at the time) casting a critical eye over the government's superficially silly, but actually rather sinister happiness agenda. Happily (!) the gov has gone a bit quiet on this one, although no doubt the policy wonks are still beavering away with their plans to put Soma in the water supply.

src="" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560">

Part two here.

The bureaucrat and the business man ...


Ernest Benn; capitalist, smoker, all-round good egg

"The bureaucrat and the business man are from two separate worlds. The former works behind the force of Law: it is not his business to consider his customer, he has merely to issue the form and follow it up with a summons. The latter lives by the favour of his customer and, if he would succeed, every moment of his waking hours must be devoted to the study of better ways of serving and thus winning further favour.

The two worlds are as poles apart, and the inhabitant of one can be nothing but a nuisance in the other. The bureaucrat works by force, he imposes his pleasure upon his victim, he enjoys security firmly founded upon the might of the State, and the ultimate, logical end of all he stands for is slavery and war. The business man goes bankrupt unless he can win the favour of a public free to accept or refuse his proffered service, the logical consequences of his activities being plenty and peace."

Ernest Benn - 'Happier Days' (1949) p 96

Subversive education


Educational progressives will wail and gnash their teeth. The clip below may mess up their long-fermented plans to reduce the nation's youth to the condition of 'noble' savages.

src="" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560">

Hat tip: Radical Rodent

Political BS from Danny Alexander


Oh yeah, if those immoral tax-dodgers didn't minimise their bills, the rest of us could have a tax cut. That back-of-fag-packet calculation notwithstanding, we all know that would not happen.

Danny Alexander is merely attempting to distract us from the huge amount his state coerces out of us. The government cannot live within its means. If they were able to shake us down an additional amount to cover the difference between current revenue and current expenditure, i.e., enabling a 'balanced budget', they would take the opportunity to borrow a whole lot more and spunk that away.

What these turd politicians like Alexander are not prepared to do is look unto themselves, and simplify the absurdly weighty tax code. Can he explain why the UK tax code is six times as long as its German equivalent?

I suspect what we are seeing with all this celebrity tax dodge stuff is a softening-up campaign to prepare the way for a new law stating, in effect, that the Inland Revenue will be the sole arbiter of what or isn't tax evasion, in other words some kind of 'enabling act' for the taxman, of the type called for by that collectivist nincompoop Richard Murphy.

Syria versus the West, and that downed plane


Now, listen carefully children: those nasty, wicked Syrians have done another terrible thing. They've shot down a Turkish warplane which was totally innocently minding its own business. The Syrians claim it violated their airspace, which the Turks admit, but that changes nothing!

The important thing is to focus on the real story: the outrage of shooting down a warplane, just because it happens to stray accidentally into your airspace. It's immaterial that the Turkish government is allowing its territory to be used for training Al Qaeda death squads and funneling weapons to anti-government militias, or that Turkey's main Nato allies are drooling at the prospect of raining death down on Syria in support of their Sunni extremist chums in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, which is most likely making the Syrian air defence somewhat jittery. Forget all that.

Just remember: it's all Syria's fault.


When Greece last played Germany


src="" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420">

Murderous Vapours


Into my heart an air that killsFrom yon far country blows:What are those blue remembered hills,What spires, what farms are those?That is the land of lost content,I see it shining plain,The happy highways where I wentAnd cannot come again.A.E. HousmanThere is little pleasure to be had watching 'Question Time' or listening to the radio equivalent 'Any Questions'. Not only must one hear the same old tired clichés from the exchangeable party clones, but one must confront the reality that a large proportion of the public, especially of the politically-engaged public, are fools. Occasionally they allow Peter Hitchens on, and it becomes watchable, although the two problems mentioned above remain. During his last appearance, we were forced to put up with one of those awful Labour women. I will not trouble myself to check her name but I will note that early in the programme she paraded herself as the product of a one-parent, council estate upbringing, but neglected to mention that her father was married to her mother for the first seven years of her life and a very highly-placed UN official and Cambridge professor, so she's hardly the average denizen of the underclass. In the clip below she gained my ire for her strawman attack on 'learning the names of the kings and queens of England'. (Also you will hear Greg Dyke saying what I criticised below). src="" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420">Examining her words, no one is saying that learning the names of the kings and queens of England is 'the most important thing'. So, to say this, it is a strawman. However, she asserts that history is important for us to know 'why we are where we are'. Sure enough, it is not essential to be able to recite the list from William I to Elizabeth II, but it doesn't harm you to do so, and it gives a foundation upon which more comprehensive knowledge can be built. It's like hammering in a row of pegs, upon which you can hang the knowledge, that would otherwise remain in a non-descript pile.If my education consisted only of what I had learned at school, I'd be ignorant indeed, and I can't think of any poem which I was taught (although I can tell you which prepositions take the accusative and which take the dative in German, thanks to Herr Alsop), but my reason for writing is in defence of learning by heart, or as it is put by 'progressives' 'learning by rote', a phrase fashioned, I suppose, to sound unpleasant and oppressive.These 'progressives' are not consistent. If they were, surely they would attack that most fundamental thing learned 'by rote'; the alphabet. What nonsense, they should say, this alphabet! Why is J before K? Why is T after S? Why should we chain down these young minds to such a system? Let them be free to make up their own alphabet, let them put the letters in whatever order they choose, and invent new letters and sounds! Burn the old books! We shall have new books, better books!Why do the 'progressives' not attack the alphabet? Because if they did so, if they were for once consistent, they would expose themselves and their poisonous ideology to even the most dull-witted, as ludicrously, monstrously wrong.The great utility of the alphabet cannot be denied, notwithstanding the fact that no one knows, at least I know not, why J comes before K and T after S. The 'progressives' attack learning by heart because they don't want educated people, they want slaves, incapable of thinking for themselves, and wholly deracinated. The 'progressives' not want people to learn what previous generati[...]

Let the experts decide


Watching the latest episode of 'Peter Hitchens versus The Idiocracy', the subject of state education came up, and Greg Dyke brought out and dusted off the one about 'taking it out of the hands of the politicians' and 'letting the experts decide'. This argument has a superficial attraction, based mostly on the people's disdain for their politicians, but if you scrape off this thin veneer, the argument loses its appeal.Under democracy, individual power is collectivised. No longer does each person decide for himself, everyone must pool their decision-making resources. When this leads to undesired consequences, the correct response is to hand that power back to the individual, not to keep it all gathered up together and pass it over to a group of so-called experts.Who, does anyone think, are these experts? They are in fact cut from the same cloth as the politicians, but without the need to appeal to the people. In the back of the politician's mind, he knows he can be kicked out if the people don't like him. The expert is not plagued by any such worry, and lacking this accountability, he also lacks the restraint which comes from it.Democracy is flawed, as was always accepted. When the franchise was being extended in the 19th century, the process was driven by people who believed it to be the right thing to do, but who also recognised the necessity of educating the people of their responsibilities under democracy, similar to their responsibilities as members of a jury, so that they would know what it could do and what it should not attempt to do. The risk of the masses being swayed by demagogues and jacobins was clearly seen.What has happened is that democracy has overflown its limits, and inundated places which it never should have reached. Prior to the coming of democracy, the struggle for liberty was always aimed at curtailing and limiting the power of the state. Once democracy arrived, too many people thought that there was no longer a need to limit the state 'now that it is our hands'. To the contrary, government must be limited whether it is under a monarchy, oligarchy or especially a democracy.Around about now, someone will pipe up something about brain surgery, as a defence of expertise. Certainly there is such a thing, and it is most welcome in a host of areas, such as, indeed, brain surgery and civil engineering. Expertise is the product of the division of labour, which encourages us to focus on that which we are best at. If we want something done well, then naturally we should seek out the most talented - the experts. However, once we move away from the realm of the natural sciences, the experts are apt to disagree, and in any case, as free individuals we retain sovereignty over ourselves, no matter what the experts say.The central issue is not that education is in the hands of politicians, but rather that it is under the control of the state. If this must be the case, then it is far better that it remains a political football, because at least we can observe the game, as it is wrestled from one end of the pitch to the other. The real answer to the problems of state education, as I have said before, is the state. Take away that bureaucracy and let a thousand flowers bloom.Update: here's Hitchens' take-down of Emily Thornberry, following her outburst in the show.[...]

How to tell when the government has grown too large


As any libertarian will tell you, government is way too big. The only thing we disagree about is whether the ideal situation would involve culling 90%, 95%, 98% or 100% of what now exists under that banner.

What minarchist and anarchist will unite upon is that the government issuing pamphlets telling parents not to discuss dieting in front of the children, for fear of having a negative effect on the child's "body image" is an outrage, which would be halted in the first 24 hours of a libertarian coup.

Hasn't the Home Office got better things to do, like maybe catching some of those foreign rapists it has failed to deport?

Labour goes after anti-immigrant vote, but not convincingly


Ed Mil’s statement on immigration, heralded as some kind of admission of mistakes when the party was under previous leadership (i.e., somebody else’s fault), deserves little attention. There is no apology in his words, nor should we expect or give respect to any one that was forthcoming. The truth of the matter has long been known, that Labour purposefully embarked on a policy of mass immigration, intent on socially engineering the population and obtaining political advantage. The propaganda spin that the government was ‘wrongly advised’ on the numbers is a stinking and cowardly lie. Additionally, let us look at his proposals to deal with the problem his party helped create. As a true Big Gov authoritarian, the answer is new laws for the rest of us and new shackles on business. Moreover, the ostensible ‘apology’ is quickly turned round into an attack on capitalism: He said: "Labour has to change its approach to immigration but you cannot answer people's concerns on immigration unless you change the way your economy works.” So, there you have it. The problem: government. The solution: more government! Finally, casually inserted down the article we see the driving force behind Ed’s change of heart: “Polling recently published by Policy Exchange shows that a Labour shift on immigration and welfare would be the single most important issues to win back Labour swing voters.”[...]

Just stop


In so many of the currents in the stream of debate, the libertarian must fold his arms and shake his head. It is often difficult to get the pro liberty argument across - at least not where it matters. This is partly because the stock position of the liberty-lover, with regards to what should be done? (by the government?, or, as they euphemise, what should we do about it?), is; do nothing, and what you are doing, stop.

Probably more than ninety percent of the problems we, as a nation or as a body politic, face are either; caused directly by the government or indirectly by the government, or by independent forces, but are nevertheless made worse by government intervention.

If inflation had affected feet and inches the way its affected pounds, shillings and pence ...


Between 1931 and now, I would have 'grown' to be 1,500 feet tall ...

(image) which is up to the top of the antennae on the John Hancock Center, in Chicago
(which is twice the height of Canary Wharf in London).

Round 8,568 of the Education Debate


You know the one. We've been having it ever since the dawn of state control over the schools. On one side the 'traditionalists'. On the other the 'progressives;. The former believe in Latin and the cane. The latter want five-year-olds to explore their own sexuality and report their parents for failing to recycle. Meanwhile, away from the sound and fury, the 'progressives' have been running the system all along.

Turning to Fiona Millar's contribution from the gruesome Grauniad, we find, after the obligatory attack on Gove, this:
There has always been a compelling argument that education policy should be the preserve of political parties. Education is a big political issue – it goes to the heart of what sort of society and young people we create. But even I now reluctantly wonder whether big questions such as this one, the answers to which will have such a deep and permanent impact on the lives of so many people, should be made in this sort of haste, without proper debate and consultation, or to further the ambitions of individual politicians. Better to seek some sort of cross-party collaboration or even take the issue out of the hands of politicians and give it to an objective body that can review the evidence away from the day-to-day political maelstrom.
Here we see the collectivist, authoritarian mind peeping out from behind the layers of self-delusory 'liberalism'. Firstly, she offers nothing to back up the assertion that there be 'a compelling argument that education should be the preserve of political parties'. Such an argument would rest on certain presuppositions which I would challenge. Those presuppositions shine through the phrase 'what sort of society and young people WE create' - that's 'WE' in the Yevgeny Zamyatin sense of the word. The authoritarian social controller 'WE', to whom the idea that each of us should be free and independent to follow our own plans and principles is utterly alien.

Millar looks at the system we have, sees it's not working and reluctantly comes to the conclusion that the part which must be removed is the political part, the democratic part. She's obviously happy with a powerful state dictating to everyone and running the schools from Whitehall, but, given that democracy occasionally throws a spanner in the works, far better to put it in the hands of an 'objective body' out of sight, mind and influence of the people over whom it is to rule, and, if I may be so bold as to suggest the bleeding obvious, wholly made up of people who think - to whatever extent that verb is applicable - just like her.