Would a libertarian society deprive individuals of cultural roots and collective identity?

by Robert Henderson
Would a libertarian society deprive individuals of cultural roots and collective identity?

Robert Henderson

There are many rooms in the libertarian ideological house. That fact often derails rational discussion of libertarian issues, but it need not be a problem in this instance because the question being asked is most efficiently examined by testing it against the flintiest wing of libertarian thought. If that pristine, uncompromising form of libertarianism is incompatible with the maintenance of cultural roots and collective identity, then all other shades of libertarianism will be incompatible to some degree.

The pristine libertarian has no truck with any form of government, believing that personal relations between individuals will adequately order society no matter how large or complex the society, and that such ordering will arise naturally if only the artificially constraints on human behaviour such as governments and laws are removed. Such a society would supposedly work along these lines. If the society is threatened by an invader, individuals will join together to defend it out of a sense of self-preservation. To those who cannot work for reasons of sickness, injury, age or innate infirmity, compassion and a sense of duty will ensure that private charity is extended to relieve the need. If public works such as roads and railways are required, self-interest and reason will drive individuals to join to together to build them. Matters such as education may be safely left to parents and such charitable provision as arises. Above all the individual is king and personal choice is only circumscribed if a choice involves the imposition of one individual’s will on another. You get the idea. The consequence is a vision of a society not a million miles away from Rightist forms of anarchism.

This concentration on the individual makes for a fissile society. If each person is to follow his or her own way without any requirement to believe anything other than to respect the conditions necessary to realise libertarian ends , that in itself would definitely weaken collective identity and probably affect cultural unity. Nonetheless in a truly homogeneous society, especially if it was small, the probability is that cultural weakening would not be great and the absence of a conscious collective identity would not present a difficulty provided the society was not subject to a serious threat from outside.

Serious problems for the pristine libertarian arise if the society is heterogeneous, because then there is a loss of collective unity. If the heterogeneity comes from class, the cultural roots may be largely untouched or at least develop in a way which ensures that there is still much cultural uniformity and that uniformity is clearly an extension of past cultural traits. It is also true that in a racially and ethnically homogeneous society, a sense of collective unity will be easily rekindled if the society comes under external threat.

The most difficult society for libertarians to deal with is one which is ethnically divided, especially if the ethnic divide includes racial difference. There a society becomes not so much a society but a series of competing racial and ethnic enclaves. In such a situation, it is inevitable that both cultural unity and collective identity is undermined because there is no shared general cultural experience and this plus racial difference makes a collective identity not merely impossible but absurd even in concept.

The brings us to the most obvious threat presented by pristine libertarians to the maintenance of cultural roots and collective identity. That is the idea that national boundaries should be irrelevant with people travelling and settling wherever they choose. This presumes human beings are essentially interchangeable and in this respect it echoes multiculturalism. The consequence of such a belief is to greatly increase the heterogeneity of a society through the mass immigration of those who are radically different from the native population. We do not need to guess what the result of such immigration is because it has happened throughout the western world in our own time. More specifically, it has happened in those countries whose populations which are most naturally sympathetic to libertarian ideas: those which may broadly be described as Anglo-Saxon; countries such as Britain, the USA and what used to be known as the old white dominions.

The influx of millions of people who see themselves as separate from the native populations of the countries to which they had migrated has resulted in the Anglo-Saxon states gradually destroying their tradition of freedom. Driven by a mixture of liberal internationalist ideology and fear, their elites have severely restricted by laws and their control of the media and public institutions what may be said publicly about immigration and its consequences. In Britain it is now possible to be brought to court simply for saying to someone from an ethnic minority “go home”, while any allegation of racist behaviour – which may be no more than failing to invite someone from an ethnic minority to an office party – against a public servant will result at best in a long inquiry and at worst with dismissal. Nor, in practice, is application of the law or the witch-hunts directed equally against everyone for it is overwhelmingly native Britons who are targeted.

At the same time as native Britons are being silenced and intimidated, an incessant tide of pro-immigrant and multiculturalist propaganda is pumped out by government, the public organisations they control such as the civil service and state schools and the mass media , which is overwhelmingly signed up to the liberal internationalist way of thinking. The teaching of history has been made a non-compulsory subject in British schools after the age of 14 and such history as is taught is next to worthless in promoting a sense of collective unity, both because it fails to give any chronological context to what is put before the pupils because it concentrates on “themes” rather than periods and because the amount of British history that is contained within the syllabus is tiny, often consisting of the Tudors and little else. The consequence is that the young of the native British population are left with both a sense that their own culture is in some strange way to be valued less than that of the various immigrant groups and the lack of any knowledge about their country’s past.

The most and sinister consequence of post-war immigration and the British elite’s response to it is the development within Britain of a substantial number of Muslims who not only do not have any sense of belonging to the broader society in which they live, but who are actively hostile to Britain and its values. But if this is the most dramatic example of the fracturing of British society, it is merely symptomatic of the separatist attitude of ethnic minorities in Britain generally, especially those from radically alien cultures allied to racial difference.

All of these developments are antithetical to pristine libertarian ideals, both because they undermine shared values and because they result in actions to control friction between competing racial and ethnic groups which in themselves undermine the conditions in which libertarian ideals flourish. That libertarians so often subscribe to the ideal of open borders despite the overwhelming evidence of its counter-productive effects for libertarian ends is indicative of the blinkered nature of much libertarian thinking.

The fundamental weakness of pristine libertarianism is its complete failure to take account of human psychology and the way humans behave as groups. This is unsurprising because of the central position given to the individual. But by doing this pristine libertarians ignore the central fact of being human: we are a social animal. Being a social animal entails two defining behaviours: all social animals produce hierarchies and all social animals place limits to the group. Homo sapiens is no exception.

Because hierarchies in the human context arise not only from the personal efforts, qualities and talents of each individual, as is the case with animals, but from the position each individual occupies through the accident of birth, this raises two difficulties for libertarians. The first is there is not a level playing field and without that the pristine libertarian ideal of society organising itself through freely entered into relationships is severely distorted because it is clearly absurd to say that a man born poor is freely entering into a master-servant relationship with a man born rich when the poor man needs money simply to feed himself. The second difficulty is that the very existence of an hierarchy, whether or not it is based on merit, undermines the notion of free choice because once it is established different power relationships exist.

The question of hierarchy becomes more complex as the heterogeneity of a society grows whether that be ever deeper division into classes or increasing ethnic and racial diversity . All social animals have to have boundaries to know where the group begins and ends. This is because a social animal must operate within a hierarchy and a hierarchy can only exist where there are boundaries. No boundaries, no hierarchy, because no individual could ever know what the dominance/submission situation was within their species or at least within those members of the species with whom they interact.

The need to define the group is particularly important for libertarians. Above all libertarianism requires trust. In the pristine libertarian society this means each individual believing that other people will keep their word and generally behave honestly. But as we all know only too well people cannot be trusted to observe societal norms and a society which is fractured by class, race or ethnicity is the least likely of all to have a shared sense of what is right. Therefore, libertarians need to recognise that however much they would like to believe that each human being is an individual who may go where he or she pleases and do what he or she pleases, the sociological reality precludes this and that the only sane ideological course for a libertarian is to advocate closed borders and the preservation of the homogeneity of those societies which are most favourable to libertarian ideals not because the society consciously espouses them, but because the society has evolved in a way which includes libertarian traits.

There will be libertarians who find it immensely difficult going on impossible to accept that the individual must in some respects be subordinated to the group. They will imagine, as liberal internationalists do, that human nature can be changed, although in the case of libertarians the change will come not from re-education but the creation of circumstances propitious for libertarian behaviour to emerge. Let me explain why this is impossible because of the innate differences between human beings and the effects of cultural imprinting.

Because Man is differentiated profoundly by culture, the widely accepted definition of a species – a population of freely interbreeding organisms sharing a common gene pool – is unsatisfactory, for clearly Man is more than a brute animal responding to simple biological triggers. When behavioural differences are perceived as belonging to a particular group by that group as differentiating members of the group from other men, they perform the same role as organic differences for they divide Man into cultural species.

An analogy with computers can be made. As hardware, a particular model of computer is practically identical to every other computer which is classified as the same model. But the software available to every computer of the same model is not identical. They may run different operating systems, either completely different or different versions of the same program. The software which runs under the operating system is different with different versions of the same program being used. The data which is input to the computer varies and this in turn affects the capabilities of the computer.

It clearly makes no sense to say every computer of the same model is the same even if the computer is loaded with the same software. But of course not all computers are of the same model. They vary tremendously in their power. The same software will run at very different rates because of this. Storage and memory size also vary tremendously. Some computers cannot run programmes because the programmes are too large. We may call all computers computers , but that is to say little more than that all animals are animals, for computers range from the immensely powerful super computers – the homo sapiens of the computer world as it were – to the amoeba of the simple chip which controls lights being put on or off in a room depending on whether someone is in it.

Are the circumstances of computers not akin to those of Man? Do not the racially based differences in IQ correspond to the differences in power of older and newer computers? Do not different languages represent different operating systems? For example, think how different must be the mentality of a native Chinese speaker (using a language which is entirely monosyllabic) to that of a native English speaker (using a polysyllabic language) simply because of the profound difference in the structure of the language. A language will not merely impose limits on what may be expressed it will affect the entire mentality of the individual, from aesthetic appreciation to social expression. Is not the experiential input analogous to the holding of different data?

But the most potent of human behavioural triggers are racial differences, for they exercise the strongest control over the group in a territory where different racial groups exist. Race trumps ethnicity where the ethnic clash is one of people of the same race but different ethnicities. Place a significant population of a different race into a territory where ethnicity rather than race is the cause of unrest and the ethnic factions of the same race will tend to unite against those of a different race.

To argue that racial difference is not important to the choice of a mate is as absurd as arguing that the attractiveness of a person is irrelevant to the choice of a mate.

In Freakonomics Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner cite a study made of a US dating site (the full story is on pp 80-84). The site is one of the largest in the US and the data examined covered 30,000 people equally divided between San Diego and Boston. Most were white but there was a substantial minority of non-white subjects.

The questionnaire the would-be daters had to fill in included a question choice on race as “same as mine” and “doesn’t matter”. The study compared the responses by white would-be daters (those from non-white were not analysed) to these questions with the race of the emails actually sent soliciting a date. The result in Levitt and Dubner’s words was:

“Roughly half of the white women on the site and 80 percent of the white men declared that race didn’t matter to them. But the response data tell a different story The white men who said that race didn’t matter sent 90 percent of their e-mail queries to white women. The white women who said race didn’t matter sent about 97 percent of their e-mail queries to white men.

“Is it possible that race really didn’t matter for these white women and men and that they simply never happened to browse a non-white date that interested them?”

Or, more likely, did they say that race didn’t matter because they wanted to come across especially to potential mates of their own race as open-minded?” In short, around 99% of all the women and 94% of all men in the sample were not willing to seek a date of a different race. How much stronger will be the tendency to refuse to breed with a mate of a different race?

If sexual desire will not commonly override the natural disinclination to remain racially separate nothing will.

Because the tendency to mate with those of a similar race is so strong and universal, both in place and time, it is reasonable to conclude that the behaviour is innate and that cultures necessarily include the requirement for a member of the society to be of a certain racial type. The consequence of this is that someone of a different racial type is effectively precluded from full integration because one of the criteria for belonging has not been met. That is not to say, of course, that many of the habits of mind of an alien culture may not be adopted by someone of a different race. What is withheld is the instinctive acceptance of the alien and his or her descendants as members of the society. Just as no human being can decide for themselves that they are a member of this or that group, no individual can decide that they belong to this or that nation because it is a two-way process: the other members of the group they wish to join have to accept them as a true member of the group. (Stephen Frears the English film director once wryly remarked that he had known the actor Daniel Day-Lewis “before he was Irish”).

Where does this leave us? In its present form libertarianism is a most efficient dissolver of cultural roots and collective identity. It is this because it ignores the realities of Man’s social nature. This results in the creation of the very circumstances which are least conducive to the realisation of libertarian ends. If libertarians are to realise those ends, they must recognise that the society most favourable to their beliefs is one which is homogeneous in which the shared values create the platform of trust which must underlie libertarian behaviour. Of course, that does not guarantee a society favourable to libertarians because the shared values may be antithetical to them, but it is a necessary if not sufficient condition for libertarian ideals to flourish. To that libertarians must add a recognition that there are profound differences between ethnic and racial groups and identify those societies which are most worth protecting because they have the largest element of libertarian traits within them.

Written for entry to the 2010 Chris Tame prize

22 responses to “Would a libertarian society deprive individuals of cultural roots and collective identity?

  1. Rick Santorum once remarked that when his grandfather fled the rise of Fascism in Italy, if he had fled to Germany or France, he would never have become German or French, but he fled instead to America, where he instantly became an American.

    • That’s because the Americans aren’t a people, or an ethnicity, just a bunch of folks with the same passport, which partly explains the excessive overccompensation with demented displays of patriotism. Santorum was able to become instantly American because he was able to simply append “American” to his sense of peoplehood with a hyphen and become “Italian-American”.

  2. No I don’t agree. I have never found a nation with such a profound sense of national identity as the Americans. Their allegiance to the Flag and, more importantly, the Constitution, is total, even if it is expressed in ways that appear sentimental to our cynical British eyes.
    I spend half my time in each country and I have to say I largely shed my cynicism when I am in the US. It’s weird. Here’s an example; when I was in Florida last I saw a news clip from Britain of a Police Transit van ploughing into a flood and getting stuck. The bystanders on the scene all just cheered and jeered. This seemed really out of place in America, where a more typical response would be for everybody to lend a hand to help push the van out. I am not saying this as an example of the differing public attitudes to the Police, but rather to contrast the negative British Schadenfreude with the American positive ‘can do’ attitude.
    Incidentally Santorum never described himself as Italian American – just American, period.
    As an aside, you will not find many Italian words in the American lexicon (unlike Irish, Yiddish, etc) because the early Italian immigrants insisted their children spoke English at home rather than cling to their native tongue.

    • LIke I said, it’s a kind of pantomime patriotism. Because they are not a people. They’re a passport, a flag, words on a piece of paper. America is an idea. Which is why they’re so dangerous. It’s effectively cultic thinking.

      The major problem with their absence of peoplehood is that they have largely exported the idea via the Left networks to nations that are peoples, hence you get simply untrue statements like “there are no indigenous Europeans” coming form those influenced by the American Left. Because to them, a “native American” is somebody there before the whites turned up. They can’t at a gut level understand what it means to have an ethnic identity. Because all they’ve got is a flag; hence its fetishisation.

      Which is why in my view European political ideas need to break away from the American discourse that has overtaken them since the War, and that includes Libertarianism. In particular, America can have open borders if they like, because there is no American people to be replaced. They really are a nation of immigrants. We aren’t. It’s a really big difference. America is doomed by its nature to be an eternal culture group war- Yankees and Rednecks, Blacks and Whites, Jews, Italians, “Scots Irish”, Irish, and on and on. The “identity politics” model is all they have, and all they can ever be. They have already inflicted that cultural model to a devastating degree on us. We need to recognise that, de-Americanise our political discourse, and be ourselves again.

      Unless with any luck that supervolcano in Yellowstone goes off, and solves the problem for us.

  3. That used to be so Hugo – it is much weaker now (although it depends where one is – in some parts of America it is still true, in other parts it is not true any more).

    As for Mr Henderson’s article .

    Libertarianism is about voluntary cooperation – “atomistic individualism” is actually easy for the state to crush.

    That is why libertarians stress Civil Society – cultural institutions of voluntary cooperation.

    I think Mr Henderson would agree.

    By the way a classic example of someone from another country (and a brown person at that) becoming English – is the former Bishop of Rochester.

    A person born and brought up in Pakistan – but both British and English.

    Even Enoch Powell never said this was impossible – he said it was “very difficult”, something a few individuals might do, but that should not be expected of large MASSES of people.

    There is a vast difference between someone saying “my loyalty is to British (indeed English) cultural institutions, such as the Queen and the Anglican Church, not the cultural institutions of Pakistan (Islam, tribal culture…..) – I should be in Britain” and a MASS of people coming over as a GROUP.

  4. In reverse order, Paul your closing remarks are of course Tebbit’s ‘cricket test’. I have often remarked that the Hindu Indians, of whom we have a large number in my neck of the woods (being near Gatwick airport) are more British than the British nowadays, and I find it profoundly depressing that the younger generation of In Indian males have adopted the swagger and brutishness exemplified by British youth, in stark contrast to the innate courtesy and gentleness of their parents.
    Your opening remarks, Paul, are true enough – again in my Florida home, redneck territory on the edge of the Bible Belt, peoples’ patriotism and love of country is as strong as ever it was. It is the Hispanics who espouse a different kind of values. I don’t like them one bit. Negroes are fine though – for the most part they fit in perfectly and share American values .
    Ian, I just have to disagree with you. It’s a bit like ‘radicalised’ Muslims in this country, or religious converts of any sort who are more zealous about their faith than those born into it; the immigrants who adopted America as their country are more fervently patriotic than anybody – and it is very real.
    I have spent the last fifteen years of my life and most of my money trying to obtain US residency, and I don’t regret it one bit. Since Blair came to power in 1997 I have realised that my loyalty is to the US – specifically the US Constitution, rather than Britain, and if it came to war between the two countries I know without a moment’s hesitation where my allegiance would lie.. Am I a traitor, or are the real traitors those who have stolen my country from me?

    • Well, just in terms of strict definitions no, of course you’re not a traitor though, as an Englishman, I would feel obligated to kill you for being one on a cultural basis.

      The basic problem I have is that as an English libertarian who would like my country to survive, it is in my interests to figure out why it is being ruined and who is responsible and the answer is that, just as at one stage the USSR was the primary cesspit of communism and sourcing the attempts to destroy my country from within, the USA is now playing that role as the source of PC, or whatever you want to call it. So, since you’ve now pledged your allegiance to that nation, from my perspective you’re the equivalent of a communist turncoat, so quite obviously in that war I would kill you. Nothing personal, you understand.

      Whether or not the USA ever actually reprsented the words of its constitution, it has not for a long time. Instead, it is the source of an ideology in many ways more pernicious than Communism or even Fascism (at least, the original Italian form) since while both of those political systems would have made England very unpleasant, at least neither of them explicitly intended to destroy my country, and my people in their entirety. It is interesting to observe that you escaped “Blair” when the ideology practised by Blair is the creation of the nation you swore a new allegiance to. This is odd. You have sworn allegiance to the country that has “stolen your country from you”. Like I said, nothing personal, but if that war ever came, I would bayonet you in the guts without a moment’s regret, and then wipe the blood from the blade on the flag you salute.

  5. Pingback: Would a libertarian society deprive individuals of cultural roots and collective identity? « Attack the System

  6. Pingback: Would a libertarian society deprive individuals of cultural roots and collective identity? « Attack the System

  7. Ian

    A bit over the top–no pun intended. A lot of Americans are, like the same proportion of humans everywhere, functionally dumb. That is they can only recognise and show support for an ever more empty set of words. It would not matter to them if Obarma took to wearing jodhpurs and jackpots and delivering his teleprompter harangues with demented hand gestures, they would still be talking crap about “land of the free” etc. Now there are lots (but a minority) of Yanks who , like a minority of humans everywhere, have the brains and nouse to see through and beyond the endless bullshit. The polit class and their gun-thugs still enjoy the support of enough idiots to, for the moment at least, carry the day. Too bad but lets not get overwrought. The game is far from over.

  8. I don’t think it was over the top at all. Hugo declared war on me, so I issued a robust diplomatic response, warning that the crossing of a “red line” would result in a proportionate retaliation.

    As leader of the English Nationalist Libertarian Revolutionary Golden Dawn Party (membership: 1) I vow to tirelessly defend our septic isle against insurgencies by turncoats. For England, Harry and Saint George. And Holly Peers, who I intend to replace dowdy old Britannia with on national emblemry, as soon as I have overthrown the ancien regime and assumed the role of Lord Protector of the neo-libertarian commonweal.

  9. Ian you definitely don’t like the Yanks, do you. I can get that sense from your writing. I didn’t actually issue a declaration of war against you, and I certainly didn’t threaten you with a bloody death. One month’s detention in Disneyworld would be an adequate punishment for insulting the Stars and Stripes in my humane world. I have more to say but it will have to wait as I’m watching a programme, sorry program, on Miami airport right now.

    • I’m sometimes rather theatrical in my denunciations of the Great Satan. But I genuinely share Ian’s dislike of America, if for other reasons as well. Nor are we alone.

    • I didn’t threaten you either, or at least no more than you threatened me. You stated that you would fight for America against Britain, and since fighting a war intrinsically is a matter of bloody death, that was a declaration that, in the eventuality that this war came to pass, you would be prepared to kill me or some other(s) of my fellows. All joking aside, that’s actually quite a serious decision to have made.

      “I have realised that my loyalty is to the US – specifically the US Constitution, rather than Britain, and if it came to war between the two countries I know without a moment’s hesitation where my allegiance would lie.”

      Being serious, I think personally that if I made that decision, I would feel traitorous.

  10. Maybe, but curiously I do not. ‘My country’ is now the ‘United States of Europe’ to which I feel no allegiance whatsoever. I am an EU citizen, as is my Head of State. The country formerly known as England quite literally ceased to exist twenty or thirty years ago. The EU consist of Member States, Regions, and Administrative Areas. ‘England’ is none of the above, merely a cluster of Euro-Regions, none of which contains the word ‘England’.
    I have spent the last twenty years fighting the EU. Not physically of course. But if and when the Euro-Gendarmerie start goose stepping down my street I would feel quite happy to lob a grenade or two in their direction. Whose side would you be on Ian? Would you stand by my side or march with the goons?
    Your earlier remark about Blair’s ideological inheritance coming from the US I find an inversion of the truth. Are you really saying that Blair and Jefferson share a common ideology? As I see it, Blair’s main achievement was to reverse the relationship between citizen and state. And this is where the US and the UK diverge, and this is where my allegiance diverged also. I certainly feel an allegiance to my fellow countrymen, but not to the Euro-State, and it is the Euro-State which now owns my country and its people.
    Here’s an example of how they do things in the States; – after 9/11 there was an Englishwoman who had lost her husband in the atrocity. Some bureaucrat spotted that as she had been on her husband’s visa, she was now without legal status in the country. The response of the authorities was telling. If it had happened in this country we would no doubt have watched with heads bowed as the tearful woman was led away by the police and put on a plane. ‘It’s the law’ would have been our response. Not so in the US; the Sheriff and the Fire Chief offered to take turns sitting shotgun in the good lady’s porch, saying that anybody who tried to deport her would have to get past them first. Meanwhile, her neighbours demanded of their Senators, DEMANDED, that the law be changed to accommodate this one lady. And it was. In America the Citizen is king; here we grovel to anybody in a Hi-Viz jacket. I find it all profoundly depressing.
    I used to share your distaste for things American, but as I got older and learned more about the country and its people, my perceptions changed.
    Incidentally, Ian, now that I have carelessly let slip the approximate location where I live, I have deposited a letter with my solicitor saying that if my body is one day found lying in a pool of blood with a knife sticking out of my back – “Ian B did it”.

    • This seems to be a major delusion. That somehow the modern USA has something to do with ideals from the time of the founders. We may as well say that modern England represents the ideals expressed in our Bill Of Rights.

      What I find sad is your claim that England does not exist any more and in that case, if the government is what you believe England is, you probably do deserve to be an American. This really highlights something I’ve been thinking about in discussions with Thomas Knapp, and about American-style Libertarianism in general. In the absence of a “people” called Americans, America is the federal government, and that is why Americans tend to be led from disapproval of the State to anarchism. That is, the State is all there is that can be defined as “America”. Because there is no American people. It’s a consequence in part of the federal nature of the beast.

      England is not its government. We would still be England if no government existed. England still exists, even if its government’s sovereignty does not. We have not as a people become “Europeans”. That is just a political designation. Which is the difference, then. America is nothing but its political designation. Dissolve the federal government, and you dissolve America itself.

      So anyway, back with Blair’s “ideological inheritance”, it comes from America as it actually is rather than as it is imagined to be by tear-drenched flag wavers. You can sit there singing the Star Spangled Banner and pretending you’re in “the land of the free”, but you’re actually in the land that combined New England puritanism with marxism to create the ideology we now call, for want of something better, “Political Correctness” and has spent the past five decades ruthlessly exporting it globally. You’re not living in the land of the free. You’re living in the Land That Banned Beer For The Common Good and has since gifted us the war on drugs, racial hysteria, radical feminism, paedohysteria, homophobiaphobia, the therapeutic state and all the rest of it.

      Glory, glory hallelujah.

      • Well said! I’m warming to your thesis. My own research indicates that the older generation of cultural Marxists got their opinions directly from the European neo-Marxists. There’s no doubt, however, that the current ideological hegemony took hold only after this was amplified back to us via America.

        I will bring out a new edition of my Culture War book next year. Ian B will receive much praise in the Critical Introduction.

  11. Ian, maybe I didn’t express it clearly, but what I meant was that England does exist as a legal entity any more. It is as obsolete as Mercia or Wessex. It was literally removed from maps of the EU twenty or thirty years ago. To clarify, the ‘UK’ is a Member State, which consists of twelve Euro-Regions; Wales is a Region; Scotland is a Region; Northern Ireland is a Region. The country formerly known as ‘England’ however, consists of nine Regions, none of which contains the word ‘England’ anywhere. The name ‘England’ is just a description for a group of Euro-Regions, and has no legal significance in the EU. And of course the Queen is no longer sovereign but is subject to EU Regulations and Directives the same as the rest of us . The phrase ‘immigrants from the EU’ is likewise a misnomer; they are EU citizens just like you and I, with the same rights and privileges.
    Your claim that ‘England still exists’ is reminiscent of John Major’s “warm beer an old maids cycling to church” twaddle after he signed the Maastricht Treaty. The fact is England has changed. Our culture has deliberately been obliterated wherever possible. The culture of honesty and common decency that used to prevail are fast disappearing. To cite a small example, I was reading an article from a bus driving instructor (I am a coach operator by trade) and he made the comment that one was always instructed, when stopping at a bus stop, to bring the vehicle to a halt at the head of the queue. Today there are no queues, not in London anyway, just an amorphous mass of people. Could this be linked to the fact that a quarter of the population of London are immigrants?

    America is not the Federal Government. Absolutely the opposite. I heard a Black Sheriff on TV the other day saying he was not going to assist the Feds in disarming the American citizenry. Number one he didn’t want to get shot, and he reckoned the American people would only take so much when the government tried to strip them of their constitutional rights.

    I am genuinely puzzled by your assertion that there is no American ‘people’ or Demos. What are your reasons for saying this? It is the diametric opposite of my own experience. Maybe other parts of America are different, but down in Redneck country the people are absolutely united by their love for the Flag and above all for the Constitution. And also by their respect for the Founding Fathers and their enduring values. There are still plenty of Originalists around, and I count myself as one of them. Just listen to Rand Paul and other Conservatives in Congress.
    No American ‘people’? My friends in Florida would scoff at such an idea.

  12. I should have added that yes, indeed, the United States has to an extent moved away from the ideals of the Founding fathers. The rot started with Lincoln, who turned a voluntary union of states into a union at the point of a gun, and who turned Jefferson’s dictum that “Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed” on its head by obtaining that consent at gunpoint. The process continued through FDR to the present incumbent, whop is determined to re-fashion the US along EU lines. Thankfully the American people, or large swathes of them at any rate, are equally determined to stop him. That is why he wants to disarm them.
    It is my honest opinion that the US Constitution, and the Second Amendment in particular, are the biggest single obstacles standing in the way of those who would establish a World Government.