England expects …
‘All the English want is a chance to attend to their own affairs’
The pathetic ‘Stay Alert’-’Stay At Home’ scrap between Britain’s prime minister and the first ministers of the devolved Scottish, Welsh and Ulster governments brings to the surface a problem that’s been simmering just off the radar in the increasingly incompatible union we call the United Kingdom. It’s the English question or, looked at from south of the border and east of Offa’s Dyke, the Celtic problem. It’s one that neither of the two main Westminster parties – let’s leave the so-called Liberal (Bollocks to the 17.4 million) Democrats out of it – wants to think about. For the Tories, the union is – inexplicably – “precious”; Labour cannot hope to win a Commons majority without the seats it has lost to the Scottish Nationalists.
The difficulty was outlined in 2018 by John Denham … a Labour MP on the party’s sane wing from 1992 to 2015, a minister in the Blair and Brown administrations, and now Professor of Knowledge Exchange and director of Winchester University’s Centre for English Identity and Politics. In a lecture on the identities, politics and governance of England, he noted:
“England is now the only part of the UK governed permanently on most domestic policy by the UK government, not by its own elected parliament or assembly. It’s the only un-reformed element of the old imperial parliament. Reform that started with the division of Ireland in the 1920s and continued when Scotland and Wales took authority from Westminster at the turn of the 20th century, has not yet touched England. The Commons does not provide a forum and focus for the politics of England … There is no crucible for England’s national debate.”
It’s a question that’s also been raised Cambridge University Professor Robert Tombs, whose 1,000-page The English and Their History has been lauded by even the Guardian as a work of “resounding importance to contemporary debates”.
Blair’s devolution strategy, with new powers for national parliaments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, he says, was a solution to political difficulties outside England. “At first, the problem was ignored by the English public. But as the Scots mysteriously acquired much-trumpeted advantages in health care and university education – with over 20 percent more spent on public services per head – the disadvantages of being a nation without a state began to dawn.”
That growing sense in this state-less England of discontent with the new devolution arrangements fed into a pipeline of bubbling grievances: public spending cuts after the 2008 crash; a realization that Scottish and Welsh nationalists, and Northern Ireland MPs, could be power brokers at Westminster; uncontrolled immigration from the EU; an awareness of the supremacy of EU laws … all of which contributed to the Brexit vote that so appalled those accustomed to governing Britain – and Europe – from a business class cabin at 35,000ft.
“It is the ultimate irony”, says Denham, “that the architects of England’s suppression are now seeing an angry England taking the whole union out of the EU, against the wishes of the majority in the devolved nations. The defenders of the union have triggered unprecedented threats to the continuation of the union itself. Instead of blaming a supposed English nationalism, it is time that they confronted their own responsibility for the current situation.”
The reference to the European Union is not insignificant; it was in England – the nation that has more than 80 percent of UK’s population and produces more than 80 percent of GDP – where the Leave vote was several points higher than the UK-wide margin. A crusading journalist who might have understood what is at play now was W. T. Stead, who exposed among other iniquities the scandal of child prostitution in London. He turned his mind in 1893 to Anglo-Irish relations, writing: “All the Irish want is that the House of Commons shall again affirm its devotion to Home Rule. All the English want is a chance to attend to their own affairs.” If given that chance, if the UK’s lopsided devolved structure isn’t fixed, don’t bank on the English – coming out from under Britannia’s skirts – not taking it, gifting their neighbouring nations with independence they might, if push comes to shove, not want or be able to afford.
Conspiracy Theorists Go Where Mainstream Media Fear To Tread
Niall McCrae is a regular writer on social and political affairs for Salisbury Review, Politicalite, Gateway Pundit and Bruges Group websites. He is the author of three books: The Moon and Madness (2011), Echoes from the Corridors (with Peter Nolan, 2016) and the forthcoming Moralitis: a Cultural Virus (with Robert Oulds, 2020).
Lockdown, arguably, has contributed to mortality from the coronavirus pandemic rather than reduced it, by sending young people back to family homes from suspended study or work, and by extended families in poorer ethnic communities infecting each other in overcrowded flats. Similarly, the attempt by politicians, social media companies and broadcasters to silence conspiracy theories is counterproductive. The more authoritarian and secretive the state, the more speculation about ulterior motives or hidden agendas.
Conspiracy theorists weave strands of disparate detail together to make a patchwork. But use of the philosophical tool of Occam’s razor, whereby only the most straightforward explanation is accepted, could rip this apart. Outlandish beliefs about JFK, Princess Diana or the Twin Towers are not necessarily wrong, but the burden of proof is with the speculators.
The notion of the New World Order may be deconstructed, but many of its fragments are entirely factual. One can disregard the message of David Icke but be impressed by his encyclopaedic knowledge. The facts remain, however far-fetched the theory. So too with Covid-19. Here are key pieces of information, scarcely reported in mainstream media, from which a jigsaw may be made: –
- ‘Wet markets’, where bats and other live animals are sold for human consumption, exist throughout the Far East. Was it mere coincidence that the virus started in Wuhan, a city with a research institute heavily involved in viral research on bats?
- Shi Zhengli, a prominent researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (known as ‘Bat Woman’) has co-authored several papers on coronaviruses created in the laboratory. These synthetic viruses demonstrate bat-to-human transmission, sometimes with monkeys as a conduit.
- In nature, zoonotic transmission occurs unpredictably (e.g. SARS in 2003): was the purpose of the research in Wuhan to control this process?
- Leading virologists have expressed concern about this research: Simon Wain-Hobson of the Pasteur Institute in Paris warned: ‘If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory’. The US National Institute of Health collaborated with Wuhan Institute of Virology, but withdrew in 2014 due to safety concerns.
- The source of Covid-19 was reported as a horseshoe bat, presumably through human contact at the Huanan seafood market. Yet no bats are sold at this wet market, according to a scientific paper by South China University of Technology researchers (now removed).
- Wuhan Institute of Virology gets its supply of horseshoe bats from caves 900 miles away in Yunnan province.
- Covid-19 is highly similar to a bat coronavirus previously discovered by the Nanjing Military Research Institute. Molecular biologist Judy A Mikowitz doubts whether Covid-19 was transmitted directly from bats: ‘I certainly believe that the 100% amino acid similarity says it can’t possibly be a natural mutation. It almost certainly is a recombination event that was laboratory driven’.
- ‘Patient Zero’ could be research graduate Huang Yanking, whose papers were mysteriously removed from Wuhan Institute’ of Virology website.
- The Huanan marketplace was closed on 1st January and disinfected. But a study in the Lancet showed that of 41 early cases, 17 had no history of exposure to this market.
- China initially tried to cover up the virus, detaining a doctor who raised the alert, threatening whistleblowers, and denying human-to-human transmission for weeks after this was apparent.
- Wuhan was locked down on 23rd January, with road, rail and river links closed, yet the airport remained open for international flights.
- WHO failed to declare a public health emergency until 30th January, when the disease had already spread to other countries. Tedros, its chief, met President Xi on 29th January and delivered a sycophantic speech on his handling of the outbreak. For many years China has been gaining power over United Nations agencies.
- With Chinese support, WHO advised that borders should remain open, with no restriction on flights (although when the outbreak declined in China, all flights from overseas were stopped).
- China exploited Western liberal sensitivities about racism, deflecting attention away from its culpability for the pandemic. It sponsored the ‘Hug a Chinese’ stunts in Italy, the initial epicentre of the virus in Europe.
- Flights continued to British airports from Covid-19 hotspots throughout the outbreak, even after a curfew imposed on citizens, who were told ‘Stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives’. Why did this not apply to potential virus spreaders from abroad?
- Few deaths occurred in other parts of China, despite cases having been reported in most regions. Why did the disease not spread there, as it did in Europe and USA?
- Lockdown was enforced by most countries, informed by the Wuhan response, but without evidence that it was necessary or that it saves lives. With Chinese businesses back up and running, the West faces economic carnage.
China could bolster its power following Covid-19. Huawei could profit from lowering of opposition to its controversial 5G technology, which Western governments insisted was vital for emergency services. Chinese manufacturers of surveillance systems (including Hikvision) will do well. We should also consider the globalist elite who could benefit from the pandemic, such as Bill Gates with his vaccination crusade, and all who are working towards a cashless society (thus enabling global control of citizens).
Will we be locked down forever?
Catherine Blaiklock: Wild Animals Are Enjoying COVID-19
Wild animals are enjoying Covid. In Nara, Japan, deer are wandering around ‘lock-down’ subways stations. In Panama, raccoons are frolicking on deserted beaches and closer to home, a little train of mountain goats was spotted wandering past a solicitors office in Llandudno High Street. Less people and nature returns quickly and with a vengeance.
There is another advantage to Covid – borders are closed and immigration has stopped for the first time in two decades. There are the odd few dinghies arriving on our shores but 73 people do not compare with the thousands who normally arrive illegally in Britain each month in boats, lorries and planes. Additionally, another thirty to forty thousand will not have arrived through legal means. In a single month, four new towns will not be needed and thousands of acres of prime farmland will have been saved from the bulldozer and the cement mixer.
Covid has highlighted a lot of things – that planes spread disease and are viral deathtraps, that the constant movement of people enables what could be localised diseases to become deadly pandemics in a matter of weeks and that globalised manufacturing is dangerous to the security of our country. It has shown how easy it is for an advanced country like Britain to completely run out of such a simple product as paracetamol. France’s National Pharmaceutical Academy estimates the EU imports 80% of its “active pharmaceutical ingredients,” mostly from China and India. Reuters reported on 4th March that Europe is ‘panicked’ over India’s pharmaceutical exports ban. So they should be. Forget complex cancer drugs, we could end up in a situation where we cannot even get basic antibiotics and generic painkillers normally sold as international generics for a few pence.
Will British civil servants and politicians wake up after Covid or will they carry on with their petty ‘hate Trump’ and ‘wish Boris dead’ politics? Will David Lammy realise that it is not some sort of white male conspiracy but basic supply chains that put him and his own family at enormous risk?
Will people realise that we will need less people, not more after Covid? Far from needing to import millions of people, we will have millions of our own people unemployed. Covid has shown we will need less General Practitioners, not more: virtual surgeries and consultations will become the norm. They are cheaper to run, save time and staff and will be increasingly popular with patients. John Lewis has service staff working from their own living rooms – maybe they will continue: less offices means fewer buildings, cleaners and road-clogging journeys. People will realise that they need less services, less goods and that they must save money for the next crisis.
Covid has shown to many what really matters – one’s own family, community and country. The outrage over the European Union planning to send Euro 20 billion out of a total Covid relief fund of Euro 37 billion to Africa and the Middle East rather than helping stricken Italy is rightly palpable. The European Union does not have a clue and deserves to die as does the corrupt World Health Organisation, run by an Ethiopian who is the first head not to have a medical background and appears to be in China’s pocket.
Let’s also hope that people will understand that we do not need to import hundreds of thousands of people in a time of crisis and we must look after our own first. The old adage, ‘charity begins at home’ has never been more true.