This nation state

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”

– Jean Monnet, founding father of the EU, 1943

This one opens with Wiggia’s observations on the nation state:

Little by little the erosion of nation states goes on, yet never a word from our own government.

Yes but it’s also the banality of bureaucratic evil, masquerading under efficiency and having everything ship-shape.

As Chuckles says elsewhere, bureaucrats produce standards documents, specifications and boxes to tick, layer upon layer upon layer, until the people suffocate under the regulation.  It was the fate of Tuttle in Terry Gilliam’s Brazil:

This then becomes the norm.  Anything less is not acceptable to them, and the hell with the ‘standards’.  Perfect example:

Federation is achieved when such bureaucracy becomes merely the conduit for directives and “recommendations” from above.  The EU is the perfect example.

Meanwhile, the people themselves become rudderless, with no sense of belonging to anything worthwhile except some vague notion of a melting pot, as per narrative.  The Enemy [and we’ll come back to that term] knows the strings to pull, the images to portray, knows to ignore vital things like a sense of belonging, swamping them in equally vital things such as a sense of humanity.

Nothing wrong with a sense of humanity, as long as it doesn’t swamp and obliterate the sense of roots, of ethnic oneness.

Thus the images used by the Enemy are of innocence and happy faces, lies in other words – men, women and children, all joining in together in some great melting pot:

It’s bilge.  As we’ve found to our cost in England, all those people now sweeping into the nation do not come with a sense of joining that nation and fitting in, this new lot come in as economic migrants or those on a mission [the Muslims].  Observe Calais at this time.

Not Britain but the principle’s the same:


Nowhere can this wrong direction in Britain be seen better than in Australia, the land of “fair go, mate”.  A football team I follow the exploits of has just given Jake Kolodjashnij his first game.  Interviewed, Jake had no concept in his head of being from wherever, he was Aussie, he was a footballer, that was all that mattered.  One of my favourite players was David Wojcinski, now coaching in a minor league downunder.

He was an Aussie, first and foremost. He knew his family roots, he knew the nation’s British roots. He respected both.  And in the Test, as Tebbit asked, he supports Australia.

Ask any one of them and they are Aussie, Aussie, Aussie mate.  Cringe all you like.  Did you cringe when England went down to them at Lord’s?  You want to know why they so often prevail?  The real reason England are so brittle, so frail?

They’ve lost their sense of nation, England, Britain.  Americans are under attack for their sense of one nation, indivisible under God as we read, Australians have just started their first mass demonstrations against Islam.

Why?  Because those in Ferguson, those in Islamland, have no sense of the nation they’ve entered, they want it destroyed, they want the flag banned or burned as a symbol of oppression.  These are parasites feeding off the host nation.

Why were ethnics not oppressed in Australia, though in the 50s in that country they were given a hard time until they’d proved themselves?  It was because eyes were firmly on becoming part of that nation.  They don’t forget their roots but nor do they lose sight of the N1 goal – to become part of it all.  they no more wish to alter the nation in their own image as they would kill their own grandmother.

It’s quite true that the Moseleys and the type take an idealized sense of “our past” and caricature it, it’s true that the line between this and what is genuine racism – hatred of a colour itself, rather than a behaviour, gets muddied and this blunts the message of those who genuinely are not racist in themselves on a personal level but who do see the erosion of the sense of belonging which every ethnicity and language group has, must have.

In the Great Lie, the Meltingpotters like Sly and the Family Stone say Nationhood leads to war. No it doesn’t – it’s that lot at the top who bring everyone else into their petty squabbles who cause wars.  Metternich and the like.  It’s the Bavarian Bruderheist who cause the wars, Standard Oil and the like who fund it. Kissinger.  The nation itself is then manipulated to go along with it.

Thus Scot fights Scot at Culloden. It’s ever been so.

And they have such scant regard for the nation, that lot at the top, the stateless ones, that they’re forever creating United Nations and EUs and the like.  Their attitude was summed up by John Buchan in The Thirty-Nine Steps [1915]:

He told me some queer things that explained a lot that had puzzled me—things that happened in the Balkan War, how one state suddenly came out on top, why alliances were made and broken, why certain men disappeared, and where the sinews of war came from. The aim of the whole conspiracy was to get Russia and Germany at loggerheads.

When I asked why, he said that the anarchist lot thought it would give them their chance. Everything would be in the melting-pot, and they looked to see a new world emerge.

But there’s always something in the way of that, threatening to wreck the plans of the PTB:

‘They won up to a point, but they struck a bigger thing than money, a thing that couldn’t be bought, the old elemental fighting instincts of man. If you’re going to be killed you invent some kind of flag and country to fight for, and if you survive you get to love the thing. Those foolish devils of soldiers have found something they care for, and that has upset the pretty plan laid in Berlin and Vienna.

Yes, the soldiers out there now fighting for Britain have indeed found something and some country to fight for and when their eyes are cast homewards, what do they make of that home these days?

When the people they are fighting for can’t even be bothered acknowledging their national days.  When councils order people to take down English flags, when the government, made up of the stateless PTB, mistreat, underfund and disrespect their soldiers.

This is civil war, my friends.  And the Enemy is the faceless bureaucratic chief, the PTB behind the visible leaders, the thinktanks such as Tavistock, Chatham House and all the acronyms such as ACORN, DEFRA, DARPA, Common Purpose as well – the lot of them all working to destroy the sense of nation.

Once again, that agenda:

1) Abolition of all ordered governments
2) Abolition of private property
3) Abolition of inheritance
4) Abolition of patriotism
5) Abolition of the family
6) Abolition of religion
7) Creation of a world government

Always keep your eye on the agenda of the Enemy.

8 comments for “This nation state

  1. Graham Wood
    July 20, 2015 at 11:52 am

    Good post James and timely reminder of who the real, if not hidden, enemies are to the concept of the nation state we must continue to value and defend, if for no other reason that there is no viable alternative.
    As an answer to the “abolitionists” who wish to destroy us, I cannot recommend too highly Nigel Farages Q & A session in the U S A recently, organised by the Heritage Foundation.
    Without being overly simplistic NF goes a long way IMO in countering much of the sinister agendas of the internationalists and statists, and particularly as expressed by the arch appeaser, one D. Cameron.
    Excellent riposte from Farage – a ‘must view’

  2. Henry Kaye
    July 20, 2015 at 1:02 pm

    Well said again James but I fear you are preaching to the converted. Why do the majority not see what is happening and fight against what is being imposed upon all of us by an ideologically inspired few who are intent on changing a world that, whilst not perfect, was doing very nicely thank you. Heaven knows there have been new ideas expressed and acted upon for centuries but nothing before has threatened to destroy the complete basis of our existence. Once again, I am in despair.

  3. July 20, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    [With admin hat on for now, boys, we are having tech issues. Comments is gaga, regulars going to spam or pending, with me being banned at one point and unable to get in.

    Plus it’s taking 35-50 seconds for each click to get a response. Trying to sort it.]

  4. July 22, 2015 at 11:33 pm

    You open this post with what seems a well-established example of an invented quote, of which there are so many on the internet, and it is an invention explained and accepted (apparently) by the author of the book which led to the invention… This is the trouble with humans… they make things up (although Monnet may well have been thinking along such lines, but the balance of probabilities certainly seem to suggest it’s an invented quote). Wasn’t it Abraham Lincoln who said “The problem with internet reserach is that it yields 90% nonsense”?)

    • james higham
      July 23, 2015 at 9:11 am

      You’ve fallen for the same old same old and are not neutral, Andrew. You are pro-EU. That needs to be stated.

      I think it’s not out of order to say your argument is roughly along these lines:

      The method the author [and look at his url] uses is to say something cannot be found in Google, therefore it was never said. He goes further and quotes many things Monnet did say and leaves out the quote.

      Therefore, in the author’s view, this is “proof” he never said or wrote it.

      But there are many examples,particularly from members of the PTB, where something has been said, immediately seized on, the PTB have seen that and expunged anything whatever on it.

      This was so with the Mueller quote on the World Core Curriculum. It was only an archived post which actually produced it at the time and showed that yes, he did say it.

      There have been hoax quotes before, e.g. the protocols but they’ve always come out with debunkings. Monnet’s falls into that group never debunked but neither can they be found in one medium – the net – today.

      This is an old EU ploy – remove the source. Detractors, on the other hand, are not careful. In my early days, I copied and pasted quoted text without attribution and yes, I should have written all of it but never thought it would be used later and simply was run off my feet at the time in other directions. Easy in hindsight to reproach someone.

      Yet Andrew has a point about scrupulousness. These days, pundits of note are far more careful to get sources noted, in case someone like Andrew comes in and challenges them. In the life of my own new blog, it’s rare to find something I can’t source.

      And on this one, Monnet – it’s still up there as valid. The EU trolls have failed to debunk it – those grounds for saying it does not exist do not suffice.

  5. Andrew MacLaren-Scott
    July 23, 2015 at 5:27 pm

    Have you not fallen for the “same old same old” James? And of course you are anti-EU and so not neutral. The source you quote is not the source(s) I used. Of course I do not know what M. Monnet actually said about anything, however. Actually I am neither pro-EU nor anti-EU these days. And actually I have no idea how I will vote in the referendum, or if I will vote. I remain to be persuaded. Please do not assume that one’s opinion can never change.

  6. July 23, 2015 at 7:45 pm

    Encouraging to see your views have shifted. Warms the cockles.

  7. Andrew MacLaren-Scott
    July 23, 2015 at 9:02 pm

    Indeed James, and you were once a Fabian I have heard you say. We can all change, and I think that is the benefit of having conversations. The only thing I am sure of is that I am not sure of anything.

Comments are closed.