A Call To Arms

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another… a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
U.S. Declaration of Independence
Where the people fear the government you have tyranny.  Where the government fears the people you have liberty.
John Basil Barnhill
Power is never given; it must be taken.



A Call to Arms: Freedom Through Secession

Great Britain is dead.  It has been killed by the very politicians entrusted with its care, many prints are on the murder weapon and there is no hope for some Lazarus-style revival.  What exists today as the 11 regions of the UK is but a rotting corpse propped up by a failed state, and as with any parasite that kills its host, all that remains is for the latter to join the former on the dunghill of history where it, too, will putrefy, fester and finally crumble to dust.  Chaos will reign when it does.


Each of us therefore has a choice: do we remain and go down with the ship; do we individually flee abroad; or do we secede and begin anew with a government of our own choosing?  I believe we must pick the latter option.  I urge this course of action because we each carry the seeds of freedom and liberty within ourselves, and we should each make the choice to transplant and let them take root in a new setting.  If we are to survive as a recognisable people we have no other option but to come together as free men and women and construct a new nation amidst the ashes of the old.


Who could not imagine that shorn of the dead weight of the Tory, Labour and Liberal parties, the BBC and ITV, the Times and the Guardian, Westminster, the EU and the great lumpen mass of the public, we as a group would not be infinitely better off?  ‘The talking must stop some time and things are getting urgent.  We have to take control peacefully, before it spirals down into uncontrollable violence.’[1] In order to justify our decision we need not once again itemise the injuries done to us, catalogue our grievances or enumerate the costs of the corrupt state we linger under, for it is impossible for anyone to be unaware of the burden of our oppression and the violation of our natural rights.  ‘The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country’,[2] thus we need people who are instead willing to fight.  There is much work to be done and we have no time to lavish on those with eyes that will not see and ears that will not listen.


‘In surveying the state of the world, one is often at a great loss whether to ascribe the political misery of mankind to their own folly and credulity, or to the knavery and impudence of their pretended managers…  There must certainly be a vast fund of stupidity in human nature, else men would not be caught as they are, a thousand times over, by the same snare; and while they yet remember their past misfortunes, go on to court and encourage the causes to which they were owing, and which will again produce them.’[3] Blogging is surely nothing but a cul-de-sac of dreams if it doesn’t lead to positive, real-world actions, and I believe it is within our power to rally people towards secession.  There will of course be naysayers with alternative, tired, hopelessly flawed plans of their own, hence to dismiss them for the very final time let us review their supposed solutions:


Start a new political party

An utter waste of time.  UKIP and Sir James Goldsmith’s Referendum Party are proof that such a course is hopeless against the entrenched and gerrymandered ‘big three’, supported as they are by the forces of the mainstream media and the rent-seeking mass public.[4] It is in fact the stranglehold of that God-awful and irreformable triumvirate that we are striving to be rid of.


Reform an existing political party

Ditto.  To play by the enemy’s rules is to accept defeat before the first whistle has even been blown.  As above, we would never be sufficient in number to gain control, the powers-that-be would thwart any attempt, nor could such an act be achieved in our lifetimes.  Anglo-European politics is precisely designed to prevent attempts at real reform, and even if the 1972 European Communities Act were to be repealed to free us from the federalists, to leap from the EU frying pan back into the Westminster fire would be no solution at all.  The enemy is already within the gates.


Encourage mass protests

Once striking miners will testify to the effectiveness of that.  Furthermore, the public are ignorant of the truth so they wouldn’t turn out, the rent-seekers possess a majority of millions and would be opposed,[5] the police would be waiting to put us in jail, hospital or, if we’re unlucky enough, the morgue, and at the end of the day we’d just have a long, lonely and dismal walk home.


Withhold our votes

Pathetic.  A silent slave makes even less of a difference than one who squeaks occasionally.  Have you ever seen a pollster report the results of an election truthfully, that is, give the results as a proportion of all adults, rather than just the fraction that turned out?  Neither have I.  We’d be ignored just as we are now.


Force a referendum on EU membership

Tory betrayal heaped upon Tory betrayal saw that off, with the truest and bluest retards conned into voting for the transparently traitorous David Cameron, labouring as they did under the misapprehension that his deeds would match his words.  Once again, it would also be insufficient.


Armed revolution



To paraphrase Will Hutton then (without the sneering scorn and sarcasm), the state is, ‘inefficient, bureaucratic and monopolistic.  It [unjustly] taxes, legislates and regulates… [and] it infantilises everyone and creates dependencies – whether of welfare recipients or companies queuing up for subsidies and grants.’  Is it not then self-evident that the government and society we have are not only irredeemably corrupt but also corrupting; that as free men and women we have the right to withdraw our consent; and that as a result we have the natural right, indeed the obligation, to institute new and better government of our own choosing?


Government requires able and talented officers, not the feeble and inept traitors we have at present.  Through their incestuous conniving these careerist politicians and silver-spoon despots might as well declare themselves governors by ‘divine right’ such is their grip on power.  Whilst the faces may occasionally change the elite’s agenda remains forever intact, irrespective of election results.  No one with genuinely reforming thoughts has a prayer of ever getting into a position of influence because these people, with their nigh-on hereditary retention of control, simply prevent it.  They are able to easily extinguish any threat as soon as it sparks into life or, like euroscepticism, divert it away to aimlessly spit and fizzle in futility and frustration.


For God’s sake, we’re talking about our lives here!  The relentless rise of both the state and its tax burden has crippled us.  The national debt it obligates us to pay continues to grow inexorably, and this year we will each have to work 149 days just to pay our taxes.[6] This is intolerable!  I wouldn’t be suggesting that we sever the political bond between us and the rest of the country if it wasn’t vital, but there is simply no other option.  Out there in the towns and shires are tens of millions of rent-seekers, from the lowliest methadone-abusing dolite to the highest expenses-abusing EU Commissioner.  These leeches below and vultures above drain the lifeblood from us, and they put the traitors back into power election after election because they vote for those who continue to serve them bread and circuses, all funded with our taxes.


To quote Gordon Brown: ‘Politics is about shaping the debate as much as winning the debate itself,’ and never was a truer word spoken, which is almost unbelievable considering the man himself.  If we thus stayed to fight it out in Britain how, as but one example, would we overcome the mainstream media – the lie factory – to get our message out?  In short, we couldn’t.  I know it and you know it, so why fear secession when every other escape route is barred?  The power of the mass media is such that they exclude topics they don’t want discussed (and anyone who wants to discuss them), whilst then framing what they do want spoken of in such a way that vital issues are narrowed to a pointless, yet exclusive, Punch and Judy slanging match between the major parties.  How else did the 2010 election debates include only Cameron, Clegg and Brown?  How else are we bombarded with talk of ‘cuts’ when state spending is actually rising?  How else can the ‘big three’ decry each other’s strategies when on every fundamental matter their views are identical?


As most of us therefore realise, politicians in this country, and the power elite that support them, are in truth part of an unaccountable class that transcends both elected institutions and national borders.  They’re supranational in their outlook, largely concealed from public view, and hold interests not only separate to our own but in diametric opposition to them.  ‘The British House of Commons, British law courts and British civil servants are still here, but they have become agents of the European Union…  This is no accident.’[7] In fact, ‘the greatest single revolution of the last century in the political sphere has been the transfer of effective power over human lives from the constitutionally visible offices of government, the nominally sovereign offices, to the… invisible government created in the first instance by legislature and executive but rendered in due time largely autonomous… [and] often nearly impervious to the will of elected constitutional bodies.’[8]


These autocrats couldn’t give a damn what happens to us as long as they keep getting paid their blood money, and when it benefits them to do so they will happily sacrifice all of us – our families and children, our standard of living and our freedom – on the altar of collectivism.  What, for instance, do such people care if we become a racial minority in our own land?  All the better for them as more immigrants means more rent-seekers, more mouths suckling to the big government teat, screaming their demands for ‘public’ money delivered through grievance politics.  What do they care if gas and electricity prices treble because of their insane eco-fascism?[9] It isn’t their elderly relatives who must choose between eating and heating, with the attendant risk of illness and a one-way trip to a superbug-ridden hospital.  And what do they care if they deliberately cause fuel prices to rocket, such that families work to do nothing but fill their cars and pay their bills, with nothing left to save?[10] Gordon Brown’s own barrister was quoted as saying that, ‘manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation’,[11] thus when even what they openly promise cannot be trusted, when they will not even pretend to uphold their end of the social contract, then I say the bond is broken and they can all go hang.  The immutable principle is that we are the people, we have the right to create our government, and we earn the money so we should say how it’s spent.


The set of circumstances that we face has not occurred overnight of course, yet it is swiftly reaching its denouement.  ‘In the name of education, welfare, taxation, safety, health, environment, and other [supposedly] laudable ends, the new despotism confronts us at every turn.’[12] The state, ‘covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform…  The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting.  Such a power… prevents existence; …it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people,[13] till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.’[14]


In this, ‘the British have only themselves to thank; their downfall is a weakness of character – a corruption – that prefers moments of titillation, easier passage and the option to abdicate personal responsibility over more worthwhile methods, attitudes and goals that are harder to keep and attain.’[15] The less self-control there is within each individual, the more force must there be imposed upon all from without.  Thus does the mass society breed willing serfs who are incapable of functioning in the absence of government interference.[16] Such people do become feral and infantilised,[17] and the result is a brutalisation and coarsening of our society, elevated displays of callousness on the part of some and a general wariness, nay outright fear, on the part of others.  The end result is that families shrink, friends become acquaintances, workmates morph into co-workers, and everyone else is relegated to the status of a stranger, a role that requires them to be avoided, exploited or dreaded.  In Britain there is consequently no social integrity, no political accountability and no trust, and as a result there is no popular civic life.


If you cannot get furious about all of this then you either have no pulse or no pride.  Rather than ‘no taxation without representation’, we must rally around ‘no taxation without affirmation’.  In a true democracy there, ‘would be no need to talk of getting “in touch…” because politicians would have to listen actively and continuously to the wishes of the people before embarking on activities that require the spending of our tax pounds.’[18] Did you want your taxes spent on bombing Libya, on the BBC’s lies, on climate change or the Olympics?  NO!  But you weren’t allowed to say no; in fact you were never asked, and in Britain you never will be.[19] To pick our pockets and refuse, point blank, to let us say how we wish our taxes spent is tyranny.  What else can you call it?  It should be ‘we pay, we say’, with the ultimate sanction of withholding our funds until our satisfaction is achieved.  This, as I understand it, is the basis of the recently created Referism,[20] a great idea that, without secession, hasn’t a hope in hell of ever working.


The end of this nation then has not been brought about by a sudden knife in the ribs but by the death of a thousand cuts.  No single attack has ever been enough to cause the people to rise up and fight back, but cumulatively the impact of each minor assault has been to destroy us just as surely.  ‘Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately.  It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their own will.  Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated.’[21] Deep down I believe that millions of people out there just want someone else to fix things for them – they have after all been raised to believe that government is done to rather than by them.  They could then tag along without really being forced to put in too much effort or stick their heads too far above the parapet.  That isn’t going to happen though.  If we want real change we are going to have to bring it about by ourselves.


The preconditions necessary for real democracy never have and never will exist within the UK or the EU though.  The people in the aforementioned states are foreigners to one another – metaphorically and literally – and amongst their number are tens of millions of parasites who do nothing but feast off the contributing classes.  Moreover, the masses do not possess a unified heritage, culture, value system or outlook, all of which are necessities.[22] They are but a crucible of seething avarice; machine people forged by machine politics.  Such ‘voters’ are interested not in freedom through responsibility[23] but only in infinite licence to indulge in atavistic and amoral relativism.  They are the perfect pawns in the state’s chess game, and they, and through them we, were checkmated from the day we were born.  Democracy thus requires secession, and both demand an educated, capable, and united people – a demos – willing and able to not only create a popular form of government, but thereafter defend it from its enemies both foreign and domestic.


It can in fact only be as a result of the negligence, ignorance and contempt for the common man that is the hallmark of this centrally planned state, that we find ourselves in the situation we do: enslaved by the EU, overrun by immigrants, enfeebled by our enemies, and impoverished by the rampant corporations – the supermarkets, the energy companies and the banks – which parasitically feast upon the dwindling common wealth, and no appeal to our fellow citizens will cause them to wake up and join us.  I therefore say again that it is impossible for British ‘representative democracy’ to create anything but an interfering, over-taxing, spendthrift, socialist state which smashes the links of free association and tramples on the free-born rights of the individual.  ‘It is in vain to summon a people who have been rendered so dependent on the central power to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves…  It is indeed difficult to conceive how men who have entirely given up the habit of self-government should succeed in making a proper choice of those by whom they are to be governed; and no one will ever believe that a liberal, wise, and energetic government can spring from the suffrages of a subservient people.’[24]


We must therefore instead, ‘build up an open society which rejects the absolute authority of the merely established and the merely traditional while trying to preserve, to develop, and to establish traditions, old or new, that measure up to [our] standards of freedom.’[25] Out there are millions of people who do behave themselves, who do not shirk their responsibilities, who are temperate, mutually-concerned, honest, thrifty and sober.  We must henceforth recruit those who are fit for the task and unite against this breed of tyrants who would happily see us reduced to penury as long as their ‘progressive’ dream-cum-nightmare remained intact.  There can be no reconciliation of the enemy’s needs with ours, as they depend entirely on gorging upon our wealth in order to feed their lust for power.  What, moreover, do we have to fear from aggregating with others who share our views?  The whole point of exercising our right of secession would be that government would truly be the sum of our wishes.  Ask yourself: do you want to live in a country where the laws would be made by you and your peers, where civility and politeness would thrive, and where the evils of political correctness and multiculturalism would be unknown?  Then secede!  We would then be the ones making the choices, taking the decisions, filling the posts, casting the ballots and, crucially, both paying and spending the taxes.


The challenges we face, if they are to be overcome, require the acceptance of a wholly new mindset, one in which we shall have to put our future, long-term wellbeing above our immediate, short-term interest.  We know to our cost that people will not fight for a negative, and for too long that is what we have tried to do.  Westminster, the EU and every associated diktat and bureaucrat have had all the insults in the world hurled at them, yet we have made not one solitary dent because we have offered nothing in their place.  We cannot go on as we are, failing time after time and charging down dead-end after dead-end.  We must have a positive vision, a goal to unite behind, and I believe that secession, the hope and dream of a new life together, is it.  The perpetuation of the misplaced and disastrous belief that reform or ‘change’ can correct the defects and deficiencies of our current society will prove terminal to our chances of ever being free.  Mass state socialism is an incurable civic cancer and Britain is in its end stage.  Adequate modification of our existing institutions and society is impossible – we could not attain power, overcome the malaise of the mass or defeat the lie factory – but secede and all these things will happen together at the same magnificent moment.  This place is already part caliphate, part polyglot whorehouse and part police state, and without a shadow of a doubt things can and will only get worse.  This is not fear-mongering or an idle threat.  Look yourself in the mirror and say there isn’t worse to come.  I know I can’t.


To secede is to take a risk, that is, to make a choice that may lead to victory or defeat, success or failure.  To do nothing though, to carry on as we have been, is to guarantee the loss of everything we hold dear.  There is no risk inherent in that – it is a certainty.  It is thus only through secession that we have any hope at all.  ‘Plenty of internet writers already identify a lot of what is wrong and what needs to be done on a bit-by-bit basis…  The missing element is a subscription to a certain objective and a unity of method; the recognition that nothing less than the wholesale rejection of the current British establishment is required.’[26] Daily we are provided with ever more evidence of betrayal, surrender and desecration, and we hunker in our homes thanking God that the latest tidal wave of crime, immigration or state intrusion has not washed up directly on our doorstep.  If all we do in response is slope off to work and say nothing; if we endure the media’s lies and do nothing; and if we are prepared to silently live our lives under their heel and be nothing, then we’ll go from cradle to grave without living a day as free human beings.  This apathy, if continued, will lead to our outright extermination,[27] as, ‘when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.’[28]


If we truly want to be richer, freer, safer and happier, then it is my conviction that secession is our only option.  ‘People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are.  I don’t believe in circumstances.  The people who get on in this world  are  the  people  who  get  up  and  look  for  the  circumstances they want, and, if they can’t find them, make them.’[29] Salvation therefore, ‘lies not in government but in making government conform to the wishes and needs of the people.  Government is a poor master – it will kill you with its indifference.  But it can be an adequate servant, if forced to be so.’[30] For me, talk of the ‘why’ is done.  Talk of the ‘how’ must begin, now.



Quotes can be sourced more precisely by searching online.

[1] North, Richard.

[2] Paine, Tom.  Common Sense.

[3] Trenchard, John.  Cato’s Letters, No. 13.

[4] ‘The art of the game after all, [is] to reward your voters and favoured groups with money plucked from the pockets of those who do not vote for you.’  Worstall, Tim.

[5] ‘When it comes to a referendum on the budget, if you add together the public sector, the private sector that relies on the public sector for its income (consultants, defence contractors, etc.,) and then add pensioners and diverse benefit recipients, you pretty much have a majority in favour of public spending. Add the status quo effect – plus the unwillingness of people to rock the boat – and you are fairly well assured that a popular vote under the current system will never reject a budget.’  (Richard North)

[6] Adam Smith Institute.

[7] Leonard, Mark.

[8] Nisbet, Robert A.  The New Despotism.

[9] www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/national_grid_2020

[10] At the time of writing the retail price of petrol is 136p per litre, yet the true price before duties and tariffs is just 54p!  That’s a tax rate of 150 per cent on an essential good needed by every single person in the country.  It is insane, with knock-on rises in the cost of every other product and service we buy, yet the powers-that-be will not stop and will not listen.  Data from the Association of British Drivers Fuel Tax Table.

[11] More-To-Life-Than-Shoes.

[12] Nisbet, Robert A.  The New Despotism.

[13] By attacking the social and psychological foundations of our culture the state has successfully warped people’s external behaviour.  When it corrupts what people believe, what they think, what they feel and especially what they fear, in turn it is able to distort what they say and how they act.  That is the power of political correctness.  The state’s fanaticism in imposing the ‘correct’ beliefs stems directly from those in positions of influence – for only people with the correct mindset are allowed to hold such posts – then they in turn create rules and regulations which indirectly spread the miserable creed further.  Schools, councils and the police are particularly obvious examples, with all employees contractually compelled to attend indoctrination sessions where these slavish dogmas are repeated.  You will likely have been in such gatherings yourself.  You know how it goes.  You are forcibly selected for diversity training or some similar programme.  You attend because you have to, sitting down and chatting, perhaps grumbling quietly about being made to come.  Then the zealots arrive with their forked tongues and false smiles.  From the huddled ranks of those watching the PowerPoint presentation or forced to join in the role-playing there is not a peep of contradiction.  Who would dare?  To openly do so would alert them to your non-conformism and to get on you need to fit in; your job, and therefore your livelihood, likely depend on such things.  And after all, you’re effectively being paid to attend, so why not keep quiet, nod like everyone else and just go along?  Hushed private mockery is no match for such communal programming and propaganda.  Afterwards you tell yourself it doesn’t matter, that you’re still your own person.  But have you ever checked yourself in conversation in a public place?  Have you thought better about voicing your thoughts because you don’t know who’s listening?  Or have you failed to openly agree with the opinions of someone else, for fear of what others might think of you?  Thus are the freedoms of thought, speech and action curtailed, not by external but by internal censorship, coercion and fear, and all brought about without a secret policeman in sight.  ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’  Attributed to Burke, Edmund, but likely apocryphal.

[14] De Tocqueville, Alexis.

[15] Luikkerland.com

[16] ‘When an essentially statist view of life is adopted, rights and freedom take on new meanings. Freedom is separated from a normative principle and turns into anti-normative licence. Instead of a protective shield against abusive power, rights are now claims or entitlements to be made on and delivered by the state.  Rights thus understood do not increase freedom but diminish it, making individuals more dependent and vulnerable.’  Antonides, Harry.

[17] ‘Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild.  It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing.  For their happiness such a government willingly labours, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?’  de Tocqueville, Alexis.

[18] Autonomous Mind.

[19] ‘[Rowan] Williams is an idealist if he thinks we actually get to vote for matters that affect our lives. We do not. What we get is an opportunity every five years to elect another self-serving muppet who will ride roughshod over our wishes, who will feather his own nest at our expense and, once he has his hands on the levers of power, will do all that is necessary to keep them there. We don’t count. We never have and never will. What we want isn’t a priority –  we are merely the cash cow; the means to an end, that being the acquisition and retention of power. Oh, sure, come election time there’ll be some soft soaping to swing public opinion, but anyone who thinks that they will get what they are voting for is likely to get just that –  good and hard.’  (Longrider)

[20] ‘Referism is a political philosophy which states that, in the relationship between the… people and their governments, the people should be in control.’  (Richard North)

[21] De Tocqueville, Alexis.

[22] ‘Without ideas in common no common action would be possible, and without common action… there could be no body social’.  De Tocqueville, Alexis.

[23] ‘The roots of social order are in our heads, where we possess the instinctive capacities for creating not a perfectly harmonious and virtuous society, but a better one than we have at present.’  Ridley, Matt.

[24] De Tocqueville, Alexis.

[25] Popper, Karl.  The Open Society.

[26] Luikkerland.

[27] ‘First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.  Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.  Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.’  Niemöller, Martin.

[28] Burke, Edmund.

[29] Shaw, George Bernard.

[30] North, Richard.


19 comments for “A Call To Arms

  1. June 29, 2011 at 7:47 am

    I disagree wholly.

  2. June 29, 2011 at 9:07 am

    I agree wholly.

  3. June 29, 2011 at 9:29 am

    I see where you are coming from – defeated despair, and you have my sympathy – but I fear where you are going: a state very different from but ultimately even more unfree than this one. For how, in your Utopia, would you deal with me when (not if) I deviated from your approved politics and dared to defy your consensus of the like-minded? Polite shunning? Or worse? For to preserve your new state from threat by dissident members like me, you would have to prescribe curbs upon my innate liberty. 

    You protest emotively and exhaustingly but do not convince me that you have developed a philosophically or morally acceptable solution to a problem which, like the poor, will be with us always. I say nothing about the practicality or otherwise of your proposal. 

    No, I shall stay and fight here, on this ground.

    I watched ‘Downfall’ again last night. Now, I wonder why I find myself typing that?

  4. Peter Whale
    June 29, 2011 at 10:48 am

    Talk of the ‘how’ must begin, now.

    This was at the end of the “Armed Revolution” section.

    Is this your last resort?

  5. June 29, 2011 at 11:57 am

    Oh come on its not all bad, just say NOOOOOO!

  6. June 29, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    and the great lumpen mass of the public

    This is one of the main issues – coz them is us. Much as we might not like it, these are fellow citizens. We like to think we are more enlightened and that this blog is more enlightened than some. We look at the lumpen proletariat, the sheeple and conclude that they’re not very politically aware, that they have been bamboozled for years.

    If we accept that that is so, then it’s a dangerous step for us to step forward as the enlightened vanguard, teaching the unenlightened, as that’s what all elites do. I fear a certain latent elitism in the background here.

    We’re in a quandary. We clearly need to wrest back control but who is “we”?

  7. Casablanca
    June 29, 2011 at 1:18 pm


    I’m at a loss to understand your comments. If you’d read it properly you would have realised that I was proposing ordinary people get together and decide between themselves what they want – not that I dictate anything.

    ‘No, I shall stay and fight here, on this ground.’ Sweet Jesus – that’s what I’m saying. How else does secession work if not on this ground???

    Also, keep the sneers about utopia and Downfall to yourself. No one else mentioned utopia or is interested in your TV habits.

    @Peter Whale

    My last resort is emigration.

    @Captain Ranty



    Why? Instead of just recounting on a daily basis all the attacks upon us, give us your opinion about the analysis then. What’s the answer to the dictatorship we’re living in? I’m trying to prompt a debate. At present I see secession as our only hope (pie in the sky that it is). If you disagree it’s insufficient to just say “I disagree”. Instead suggest what you think will work instead.

    The entire eurosceptic ‘community’ has NO idea what to replace the EU with. Without a grand idea we’ll never win out freedom.

  8. Wildgoose
    June 29, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    I’m sympathetic – we have to remove ourselves from the pernicious influence of the current system to the farthest extent that we can.

  9. June 29, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    This is a reasonable analysis but how is it to work? i.e. do you refer to individual secession or a group of people moving to the Isle of Wight etc? Could you put some meat on the bones?

    • Casablanca
      June 29, 2011 at 6:52 pm

      It would have to be collective secession. I deliberately didn’t make rigid specifications as I didn’t want people to say “who are you to make the rules?” Instead I just wanted to spark a debate – where would we secede, how would we go about it.

      Libertarianism, small C conservatism, euroscepticism – they obsessively catalogue the wrongs done to them, yet come up with no ideas how to save themselves. They’re like survivors on the Titanic watching it go down, but instead of launching the lifeboats all they do is say “ooh, the water’s at deck 16, now deck 17, ooh deck 18’s going now… woah, the stern’s lifting up!”

      • June 30, 2011 at 6:54 am

        Some Free staters are having a go at this in New Hampshire as I am sure you know. This is easier because state powers are far greater then those of a local council and so the infrastructure is already in place.

        • Casablanca
          June 30, 2011 at 10:14 am

          Yes, indeed. I am very envious of them.

  10. June 29, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    “Power is never given; it must be taken.”

    Isn’t that Godfather III?

  11. June 29, 2011 at 11:48 pm

    You fulminate about revolution and then you rage at a commenter who (after very careful reading – twice) challenges the implications of your manifesto? Ironic – and not a good look if all you want to do is to start a debate. I pay you the compliment of thinking you mean that, but if you don’t I shall not trouble you again after this. But for now, I’ll risk more of your wrath by explaining how your ‘call to arms’ implies, to this reader at least, the displacement of one kind of tyranny by another, albeit (possibly) down the road a way and allowing that this is not (one hopes) your intention.

    You propose that ‘ordinary people get together and decide between themselves’. Which ‘ordinary people’? You roundly disdain those you call ‘the masses’, feckless in their ‘malaise’, their comfortable dependence on the state, so that rules them out. Or they rule themselves out, not wanting your revolution. Millions of them. So, just the workers/producers/taxpayers?

    Obviously the seceded entity should not be another despised ‘representative democracy’ so it would be, what, an ‘un-representative un-democracy’? Is there a shorter name we can use for one of those?

    And the ‘armed’ revolution? Armed how, by whom? Who gets to shoot whom? Who gives the order to open fire?

    These images do not imply hope of the sort of humane thinking on which a good society is founded and in which ‘ordinary people’ would wish to live, in this revolutionary and newly-seceded… what? England seceded from the UK/EU? Or is it the UK seceded from the EU? Or some new… state? What? It’s not clear, except you mean ‘here’. But…

    What about those blighted, feral, malaise-ridden masses? Are they present in the newly seceded state? If not, where have they gone? If present, what is their position in the revolutionary society? Do they have a vote? Obviously not if it is an unrepresentative undemocracy. Untermenschen, then. Maybe they are drafted into re-education programmes and thereby given some hope of respectable citizenship?

    And where is *liberty* in all this?

    What about the refuseniks, and fearful ‘ordinary people’ who do not want armed revolution? More re-education? Or up against the wall?

    You speak of (recruiting) ‘those who are fit for the task’. Fit? Who decides? Task? What task? Fighting the armed revolution, with loaded guns? Governance? The surviving, fit revolutionaries would presumably be many fewer than the non-combatant masses who, presuming any of them were around when the fighting stopped, would need to be ’managed’. The ‘fit’ would have to form a leadership echelon. A system of what we might call ’soviets’?

    You say your last resort would be emigration, which would change no-one’s life but your own, but taking you at your word one must assume that your first resort is, literally, *armed* revolution leading to a new society borne out of bullet wounds, pain, deaths and bereavements, a society of the governing ‘fit’ and the unfit governed masses, the unfree, the untermenschen.

    Can you honestly not see how your Call To Arms paints a picture reminiscent of past tyrannies, of dictatorships by nomenklatura? Of a society without liberty or with only a distortion of liberty, and that only for a few?

    • Casablanca
      June 30, 2011 at 10:12 am

      I’m sorry to say that I’m at a loss to understand your perspective.

      Only people who wanted to be involved would ever sign up to secession. No one else would be included, forcible or otherwise.

      Secession is not revolution, and by allusion to a certain film you made reference to mental breakdown – an ad hominem implication if anything is.

      Again, if I wanted a dictatorship then I’d be saying: we must do PRECISELY this or PRECISELY that, but I don’t because I think it ought to be an educated decision by all those involved. What can WE agree on, what will WE decide, etc. It’s not purely MY choice. The millions of state-dependent serfs wouldn’t want to be involved and I wouldn’t want them, so what’s your problem with us leaving them behind to continue as they always have done?

      The secession state would be a true participatory democracy (think Switzerland).

      Where are you getting this idea of armed revolution from? I mention it solely to dismiss it. I can’t see from the text where you think I’ll be ordering anyone to open fire.

      Again, you question whether I would want the UK to secede from the EU or for England to secede from the UK. You say you’ve read A Call to Arms twice, but in the text I expressly state that NEITHER of these is acceptable (‘out of the frying pan into the fire’). Who am I to impose my will on anyone? It’s a voluntary association I want, not the coercion of the UK/EU. Personally, I’d favour moving to a semi-rural coastal location en masse and seceding from there.

      There would be no untermenschen, nobody would go up against the wall, etc. I’m at a loss to see how you’ve formed these opinions from what I wrote. It’s a VOLUNTARY act to join the society, and in a geographic location where we wouldn’t include anyone who didn’t want to be included.

      • June 30, 2011 at 12:53 pm

        I meant no ad hominem insult when mentioning Downfall but I see what you mean and because of that I withdraw the remark. I was thinking merely of the dismissive attitude of the ‘ultras’ to the mass of the ‘unworthy’ German people, a contempt common in dictators.

        Thank you for the further explanation which answers some questions and reassures to some extent although I still cannot help seeing dark implications in your analysis, not to mention your headline which rather colours one’s reading of your text.

        • June 30, 2011 at 6:59 pm

          I think we both got off on the wrong foot.

          Personally, I didn’t think the title was THAT diversionary. It’s metaphorically taking up arms, not literally.

          Ordinary people get together by choice, they move to a low population coastal locale, they decide to write a constitution, they all agree to it, they neither seek to impose their will upon anyone else, nor do they wish to abscond with all the natural resources, wealth, etc., and then finally they secede and run their state via a participatory democracy. I can’t see the ‘dark implications’ in it to be honest, but thanks for the back and forth nonetheless. At least you’re taking the time to read it!

  12. PT
    June 30, 2011 at 12:14 am

    “And gentlemen in England now a-bed
    Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.”

    Shades of KH V?

    It seems to me that, with a few exceptions, most revolutions have left the majority of ordinary people a lot worse off, for a long time. Even those initially apparently benign ones, which inevitably suffer what we now call “mission creep,” as practicalities intrude upon the initially “pure” ideaology, and amendment after small amendment (sound familiar?) becomes necessary, and things end up worse than before. Remember the old military truism – No plan of battle survives first contact with the enemy? The usual enemy in the case of revolution is human self-interest, greed and hunger for power.

Comments are closed.