The State of the Nation: What is to be Done?


The State of the Nation: What is to be Done?
by Sean Gabb
(20th June 2017)

I have been asked to explain our present mess, and how the country is to be saved. I will begin with the easier, and perhaps the more cheerful, part of this question.

I did not want a referendum on our membership of the European Union. The country has no urgent problems that are the fault of the European Union. We already have as much control over our borders as we need to deal with immigration. That control is not exercised is the fault of our own government. There are few economic and financial regulations that our own government does not in principle support, and that it would impose of its own motion. Those regulations which are unwelcome could be mitigated or wholly evaded, given the political will. Membership is a symptom of what has gone wrong with the country, not a cause. Leaving will be part of an agenda of reform. Like membership of the United Nations, it does not need to be very high on that agenda.

I also doubted if the referendum could be won. There has never been agreement on how to leave, or on what to after we have left. I believed that these divisions would wreck any Leave campaign – and that a vote to remain would be taken as a vote of confidence in the general scheme of how the country is ruled.

However, we had the Referendum, and we voted to leave. For a while, I was decidedly pleased. It was as if the head of a household had bet everything on a horse with very remote odds, and had won. When that happens, you stop nagging about the risk, and look forward to a better life. And it did seem that everything was in our favour. The European institutions were in shock. Many European governments were facing elections. Our own government had a majority, and faced a broken opposition. It seemed to be a matter of telling everyone what we wanted, and insisting on getting it. We might not get everything. But it is the purpose of diplomacy to make the fullest use of latent power.

Then the Prime Minister did nothing. Then there were legal challenges to face that should have been pre-empted by early action. Then many of the Europeans had their elections. Then she called an election of her own. She lost her majority. She allowed the Labour Party to rise from the dead. It is now the second day of our leaving negotiations. As expected, our side has no leverage. For all it matters, our negotiators might as well come home, and leave the other side to negotiate with itself. We might then be given an unexpectedly good deal. Or we might be presented with a modern version of the Versailles Treaty. There is nothing we can do either way.

Or there are three things we can do. First, we can leave without an agreement. In a healthy, flexible economy, losing access to the Single Market would be inconvenient, but rapidly offset by other opportunities. The world outside Europe is a fine place for a country with low taxes and light regulation. Sadly, ours is not a healthy, flexible economy. Our taxes are not low and our regulations are not light. Nor is there the correlation of political forces to move us half an inch in that direction. The most likely effect of leaving without an agreement will be ten-mile traffic jams on the motorways to Dover, and empty supermarket shelves. Anyone who believes otherwise is living in a fantasy-Britain filled with thrusting, dynamic businessmen, all itching to get to the cutting edge of whatever the new economy is supposed to be. Dream on.

Second, we can rejoin EFTA, which I believe will allow us to remain in the Single Market while we make other arrangements. But, given our spineless politicians, that will probably amount to associate membership, in which we accept all the rules of the Single Market while giving up even the pretence of shaping them. And this assumes that the option of EFTA is open to us. We have to apply to join, and the other members may decide that, considering we may be only temporary members, and that we have hardly been cooperative in our membership of the European Union, the proper response would be to send us on our way.

Third, we can give up on leaving the European Union. If the Referendum were to be held again, I suspect last year’s result would be overturned. I suspect also that even the hard core of Eurosceptics would do nothing more than grumble. Or we could get the negotiations extended from two to five or ten years, and let the whole project die a natural death. The difficulty here is that withdrawing the notice we served a few months ago would probably involve giving up all our opt-outs. We would have to join the Schengen Area and commit to joining the Euro. Neither of these things might, in itself, be a disaster. But it would be a terrible humiliation.

So, what is to be done? Here I come to the hard part of the question. The answer is that there is nothing we can presently do. Something unexpected may turn up – and we have been luckier for much of our history than we deserved to be. But there is nothing we can do, or can be expected to do. The country is morally ruined, and all our problems are symptoms of that ruin.

Now, let me be clear that, when I talk of moral ruin, I am not sliding into some Daily Mailish whine about buggery and porn and funny cigarettes. The Pax Romana was built and maintained by men who had Catullus and Martial in their heads. When they were not worshipping dildoes, they were bombed out of their minds on cannabis and magic mushrooms. The Pax Britannica was as much about sex and drugs as making money and spreading the Word of Christ. When I talk of moral ruin, let me explain by reference to how the ethnic minorities arrange their lives.

So far as I can tell, the great majority of Moslems live in genuine communities. They live close by their relatives. They do business with their relatives and neighbours. The mosque is at the centre of their communal life. They take their disputes to their imams, and settle their general affairs under the supervision of their imams. They have a constellation of schools and other places of learning in which their cultural values are handed on to the next generation. There is a Muslim Council of Great Britain, of which the individual communities are federated parts. If they find themselves in dispute with the external authorities, they stand together. They do not inform on each other to the authorities. When Anjem Choudary comes out of prison, he will have no trouble finding somewhere to live. His new neighbours will not feel embarrassed to be seen having lunch with him. He will have friends to help with his welfare applications, or to find him some light and agreeable work. The other day, when that man crashed his van into some of them in Finsbury Park, they pulled him straight out and handed him to the police, and they arranged for the care of the injured.

Compare this with our own degraded state. We are, for the most part, atomised sheep. If the authorities come for us because of something said on FaceBook, or some other fanciful crime, our neighbours look the other way. We usually have no idea who our neighbours are. We have at best a vestigial sense of acting together for our common good. To be sure, the institutions that once bound us together have been taken over by the leftists. Churches, schools, universities, clubs – these no longer serve their historic function. But they lost this function more than two generations ago. We have done nothing to replace them. When those terrorists attacked our people by London Bridge earlier in the month, our people, for the most part, ran like scared rabbits, and applauded when the police turned up to spend fifty bullets on shooting three men.

I will not romanticise the Moslems. They are, however, doing something right for themselves. If we spent less time complaining about them, and more learning from them, we also might do something right for ourselves.

Until the native majority in this country can rebuild some kind of institutional life – an institutional life that cannot be co-opted by our enemies – arguments about trade policy are at best a diversion. How this European mess will be sorted, if at all, is beyond my knowledge, and beyond our control. I am not saying that we should ignore it. We have some duty to exercise what remains of our democratic rights. But something in our control is how we lead our personal lives. The sooner we start forming new communal institutions, and regarding ourselves as members of a community, the more likely we are to find less trashy politicians, and the more likely we are to avoid crises of the sort we are now living through.

Your answer may be that we are living through these crises, and that what I suggest does nothing to address them. But, as I have said, there is nothing we can do. And I will add that they are hardly existential crises. Even the worst-case scenario involves only more than average inconvenience and embarrassment. We shall have another recession. The pound will become somewhat more worthless than it already is. We shall recover in a year or two, and continue drifting as we have. The point is to start with our own habits of life, and to make sure that we shall eventually stop drifting. That is something entirely in our own hands.

Advertisements

15 comments

  • What a pathetic essay. If the Muslims had been under the sustained attack to their identity which we English have suffered since WW2 I doubt if they would be so cohesive either. Since Dr.Gabb out of sheer terror refuses to acknowledge or discuss the criminals who have destroyed our identity ( and thereby confirm their identity and crimes) his words are just pie in the sky. One member of this criminal fraternity recently stated that he wanted the child refugees to have the benefits he had. Stuff the English who are sleeping in doorways!! then we have the delightful Mr Keith Vaz who boasted during the election at the number of ethnic minority candidates Labour are fielding. not forgetting the equally delightful Nadim Hadawi or something like that (Iranian child refugee) -MP for Stratford on Avon of all places – who says we the english, who gave him everything – need more of his kind to help run our country. how we possibly managed for the last 1000 years is not discussed.
    Dr Gabb makes no significant mention of how we ought to return to our legal constitution, separation of powers and the real rule of law, not just rule by laws,thus leaving the political party criminals in place to wreak their havoc on the English while promoting every other unfortunate from the third world. But to do, otherwise that would be “racist” and that we must not be!! We must just sit by as we are replaced in every walk of life and must say nothing, as that is racist and we know what that leads to, don’t we. i invite readers to visit our Facebook video “The Party System and the Destruction of England @democracydestroyed. hope you can stand the pace?

    • “I will not romanticise the Moslems. They are, however, doing something right for themselves.” – Sean

      I think you may have skipped over that part of the essay, not to mention missed the entire point.

      Furthermore, your less than subtle insinuation as to who is behind our present degraded state is ludicrous. You’ve spotted a symptom and rather than simply mistaking that symptom for the cause, you’ve gone one further and have singled out a patient as the cause of his own infection. The people you are referring to have also “suffered a sustained attack to their identity” and appear to be in the midst of a self-destructive cultural decline, much the same as ourselves. We are victims of the same ideological ailment.

      All of us here in the West have been subjected to the same evolution of nefarious ideas, ideas which did not originate with the people to whom you refer and upon whom you place all blame. Even if you were correct, can a healthy society be convinced of its own worthlessness? Can a healthy society really be persuaded to arrange for its own destruction, and to consider such to be the height of virtue? I think not.

      Your diagnosis fails to explain the progression of the disease. It is a wrong diagnosis.

      • If the destroyers have access to the law to misuse and abuse then the victims either have to fight and die or live as slaves.(Churchill). One of those people wrote: ” We…are destroyers. there is nothing you can do to please us as we need a world of our own”. There is ample documentation out of their own mouths and by their actions that they are behind the mass immigration into England. By mass immigration they can disappear into the background as the natives struggle with the more obvious menace. Dr Gabb has on several occasions stated that he feels relatively free. He is able to rise above the damage due to his intellectual and economic status. Not so for those in poorer areas who have had their areas destroyed. So much for liberty.

      • “All of us have been subject to the same nefarious ideas”. I don’t now which planet Dr Gabb has been inhabiting but it has been the use/abuse of the law to punish and even imprison those who dared openly to oppose multi-culturalism which has done the damage.Not ideas.

        Dr Gabb may have had heated debates. i doubt if he has ever faced physical violence to shut him up? Couple this to political violence and the English have been made to feel so ashamed of their culture – one of the finest in the world taken in its broad spectrum of science, invention, law and government (“let not England forget her precedence of teaching nations how to live” wrote Milton). Their Christianity has been sneered at and instead of “Onward Christian soldiers” attacking the US/UK warmongers who caused the refugees the liberal elite like Justin Welby, posing as Christians, sneer at patriotism. Likewise we have had liberal Jo Cox and Alf Dubs refusing to attack the war-mongers but saying we ought to let more refugees in. That Dr Gabb refuses to discuss these criminals openly confirms the existence of the dictatorship. It took a frail old lady the late Dowager Lady Birdwood to display any guts and name these criminals while “libertarians” of his calibre cowered in their studios. Powell’s “rivers of blood” has started.

        Perhaps Dr Gabb is unaware that the ideas hostile to the nation state have come down from the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the UN being the second attempt at World Dictatorship. Several of the aforementioned criminals have claimed that the UN is their idea. So Mr Gabb is in good company with all the main party British politicians (including UKIP) who are terrified of being called “racist” and find it more expedient to sweep it under the carpet.

  • Sean, excuse me for a longish post. I know it is rude to post at length in a comment, but this could be worked up into an article. You raise an important question about the real functioning social fabric of Islamic communities in our country. Has libertarianism been overinterpreted in a way that has ripped apart the social fabric of English life, producing empty hedonism and thence the lack of any horizontal society at all? I’ve been thinking about this recently. Muslim communities are vibrant in fact, in that they are living, growing communities that are founded on the continued life of the community: they have large numbers of children, don’t encourage divorce, don’t commit abortion, don’t encourage homosexuality, and don’t encourage feminism. They have real families in a way that suggests they’re commited to their community and its survival for the long term.

    British society, by contrast, is barren: sometimes literally in the sense that middle-class women often opt not to have children and—get this—women often don’t want to raise their own children, but seek the service of childminders!!!!! This is so they can go out to work! Families are born later in life among the English. Most marriages end in divorce, and most procreative relationships are not blessed by the marriage bond in the first place. No long-term commitment is made to the mother of your children, and this is, we feel or are told to feel, good. (???) I’m disturbed by the promotion of homosexuality on the TV all the time, as this is also a sign of a barren culture. When you’re in your 40s you should be welcoming grandchildren into your life and preparing to become a font of wisdom and cash to your offspring’s offspring. But the idea now is that you can party and club into your fifties, and bear no children. Viagra is also a sign of an empty society: when the middle member wilts, it is time to grow old gracefully.

    If you are “gay”, all you have to do is run out the clock on your own life; there is nothing beyond you, and nothing left behind. You have become the Last Mohican of your own tribe. But “straight” people are behaving in a similar hedonistic fashion, albeit still bearing children. A counterproductive lifestyle of clubbing and one-night stands is blended with childcare responsibilities, like the woman who rolled home drunk from a club and then rolled onto her small baby in her sleep (she never considered that having a young baby at home meant that she should be at home and not in a club). The transgender thing is beyond disturbing too: children of 5 and 6 are actually coached to want sex changes, in between the primary school classes on anal sex. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is a society that is pulling up the drawbridge and no longer wants to survive.

    It is in fact easy to see why Islamic extremists despise our society! Yet curiously most of what I have outlined is supported by libertarians. I think we need to draw a distinction between what things the state should intervene to ban (none of the above), and what things should be considered socially desirable (also none of the above). My views on this are evolving, and I’m starting to think that support for the traditional family has to be at the dead centre of a free society, and that a basic sturdiness of the social fabric at the cultural level is the precondition for freedom: for this reason, the preconditions for freedom don’t exist in England today. Libertarians have cheered as our society has shredded all social bonds. Are there not parallels with ancient Rome?

    • Obviously, I agree with you. If all the ethnic minorities went away tomorrow, we’d still be in headlong decline.

    • I couldn’t really agree more.

      The question is: How is ‘libertarianism’ going to be established (or encouraged) as part of something that can remedy the ailments described – and, in terms of the main article here, how can it be posited and made part of libertarianism to become a vehicle that stops the ‘atomisation’; and instead builds the ‘new communities’ and attitudes required to emulate Muslims (and thus return us to our own ways of life we enjoyed before this nightmare developed)?

      I also wonder whether this comment will be published on the new website, seeing as a handful of my last ones seems to be being blocked or banished.

  • I don’t want “light regulation”, thank you, not when the Dow Jones is in charge. We can perhaps have less regulation in a different sort of society, in which the interests of the British people are paramount. But while the ‘Roger Helmers’ of this world are still calling the shots, I think I’d quite like to keep that fire escape and all those “daft” regulations, if you don’t mind.

    Moslems might appear to provide an idealised example of community living, but two major points (among many I could mention) have been omitted:

    (i). Most of them don’t work and are on benefits (according to a 2010 report by the EHRC, the figures were 75% of women and 50% of men).
    (ii). It seems that young Pakistani Moslem men have been spending their sexual frustrations on underage white girls.

    I think those two facts rather take the shine off the romanticised picture painted. It strikes me that it’s rather easy to be a conservative ‘community’ when you’re parasiting off the host population, using its young women and girls as sex dolls, and leeching off its benefits system – all with minimal legal superintendence or sanction.

    Yes, we might still have been in decline without mass immigration, but then you have to ask what is meant by ‘decline’, because the situation would be very different without the bizarre belief in flooding the country with foreigners. If you mean a declining population, that’s likely, but fluctuations are natural and nothing to be alarmed about. This country could easily function with half as many people. If you mean moral decline, that’s a symptom of affluence and probably reached its apogee with the boomers. It continues now with the generations that the boomers raised, including my own. Soon there may be a push-back against it in some form. Or there may not.

    Although we must acknowledge and accept that the white British have been culpable in their own destruction, it would be disingenuous to pretend that there has not been a supra-agenda at work. On this blog, ‘the state’ is conceptualised as a derivative of Hobbes’ Leviathan: a kind of all-encompassing, impersonal monster. I have always found this unrealistic because it ignores that the state is a vehicle for the agendas of those groups that are able to capture it. The state has been captured by some sort of ‘neuter’ Enemy Class, but these people serve a broader agenda. It is, if I may say so, rather ‘wet’ to ignore this and go round with a sort of puzzled expression on one’s face, affecting to not have a clue as what is going on or what to do about it.

    I think a hint as to the explanation for the puzzlement (not specific to the author, but common among people like him) can be found in a little anecdote. A few months ago, I visited Kent (for personal reasons, my father was born there) and happened on places that one would be mistaken for thinking were part of Africa. Kent is a mess. I was reminded of this inauspicious excursion while watching a video by somebody else today, in which coincidentally he too had visited Kent and came to the same conclusion. But the white middle-class people of Kent won’t see this. They will mostly get on their trains or in their cars and go around in white utopian bubbles and won’t interact with the working class or the poor who have to bear the brunt of this betrayal, socially, economically, culturally and financially. They will, however, interact with politer non-whites who dress in suits or attend university, especially Hindus, who we must remember are “more British than the British themselves”. These people think that racism is déclassé. I disagree. I think that what’s déclassé is shafting your own so that you can make a bit of money.

    You will not be able to run from it forever, and I’m afraid I will have no sympathy for those who said nothing and were willing to throw their own people under the bus. They deserve everything that is coming to them.

    • A quick post-script:

      On the point about young white girls and Pakistani Moslem men, although I reserve a healthy scepticism about any sexual claims made by women, there is no doubt these men were following and pressing young school-age white girls into sex. At least let’s be blunt about that.

      The above essay brought all this back to me, because 20 years ago I knew a Pakistani Moslem who used to talk down to me quite condescendingly about the community values of Moslems and how these were superior to those of whites. I found him annoying but at the time I had no information to contradict him.

      Now I, and we, do have the necessary counteracting facts to hand. Now we know they have been lying to us and putting on a front. Now we know that the Moslem community is a Horror Village. Now we know that this stuff was going on even back then, 20 years, and maybe even as early as the 1970s or 1960s.

      Oh how the Moslems must laugh at the gullible and credulous whites! Behind our backs, they must be laughing like robots on a Smash advert.

      I’m afraid Dr. Gabb’s essay is just one more example of this white credulity. It’s from the Roger Helmer School of Thinking, which says that if you paper over enough cracks, you’ll still turn a profit on those wotsits before next Tuesday tea-time.

      We really need to start being stronger and firmer about this.

      • You misunderstood me. But I will reply at length when home.

        Sent from Samsung Mobile on O2

    • If you look at what I wrote – unless I wrote it badly, that is – you will see that I explicitly do not romanticise the Moslems. Saying that people live in tight, functioning communities is not the same as saying they are nice. Doing right by themselves may not involve doing right by us. Sexual and economic parasitism on outsiders may be a successful group strategy. Our problem is that we have no group strategy of any kind.

      • I did read what you wrote before I commented. My point is that they can live in communities because they are allowed to abuse the rest of the population, under the threat of violence (more riots, more terrorist attacks, etc.). So any example they provide is hollow, as would be any comparable response. It’s all an illusion. There is nothing to learn from them. In reality, the Moslems are allowed to do what they do for a reason; and should they ever exhaust their usefulness, they will be quickly and ruthlessly dispatched, or ‘integrated’ (like the non-whites, especially the blacks) into our atomised consumer society.

        I thought we had a successful group strategy already: our own country with borders. This strategy has failed, and the culture that supported it has been shown to be empty, because certain influential white people themselves want to bring it all down and have poisoned the minds of the young, and certain others are too frightened and timid to stop them for fear of being called ‘racist’, while the majority of the country are, or affect to be, oblivious. The reality is that this could all be over in minutes if people wanted it to be. It’s all a giant confidence trick. That there is talk of parallel societies before we reach that point is more a tribute to the cowardice and credulousness of the typical British middle class person and the mistaken belief that racism is déclassé. It’s a little like discovering that the Wizard of Oz is just a silly old man, but instead of laughing at him, the characters in the movie continue, rather inexplicably, to be scared of him, and the famous film ends with the Lion still a coward, the Scarecrow still brainless, and the Tin Man still without a heart; all because none of them had the courage of their convictions or the inner strength and character needed simply to point at the Emperor and state the plain and obvious truth: that he is dressed in dishabille.

        But let us consider one strategy proposed for whites, which is to create ethnic communal institutions. I happen to live in a 99.99% white town. Surely a normal white person who lives here would wish to keep it that way? As a practical matter, you are most certainly right that our problem is that we do not have a strategy, especially in areas such as mine because people in overwhelmingly white parts of the country tend not to be conscious of what is going on. But people want to be led up the garden path. They know they are being lied to, and they prefer it to being told about reality – an awkward fact of human nature, and also an explanation for why even my town, I believe, will one day have its own Moslem minority. Enoch Powell would at this point remind us of how people prefer not to deal with problems of the distant future anticipated now. Right now, we have one single Moslem family here out of a population of 30,000. That will change, but most do not have the vision to foresee it and act preventatively now. A parallel society will not stop it because the parallel society idea is not designed to solve the problem, which is demographic. Instead, it is designed to provide a basis for confronting the real problem later. That being the case, to be brutally honest, it is just a way of delaying what needs to be done. It won’t stop planning controls that are used politically by elected and non-elected officials. It won’t stop Moslems establishing their own schools. It won’t stop your children or grand-children being assaulted and sexually-harassed, and so on. The only way to stop all that in its tracks is by ensuring that people openly hostile to Third World immigration are elected locally and for certain able men in these localities to be willing to resist the presence of any non-whites using political violence.

        • A healthy nation is not some homogeneous mass all looking to the State, which is what the native English are at present – not even if that state is on-side. It is a collection of small communities of interest and religion, of neighbourhoods, of charities, and other institutions. It used to be that these all somehow worked together under a reasonably benign state. We have now lost that state. The answer is not to dream of storming the Winter Palace, but to reconstruct our communal lives at the lower level. If we once more were a nation of communities, we might be taken seriously again.

          • This gets right to the heart of the issue. The question, of course, is how to re-establish local communities given the present, hyper-centralized environment. We have to start with ourselves and our immediate connections I suppose, but beyond that I’m not sure how much is in our hands. We’ve lost the churches and the schools (not that we’ve ever really had the schools). Perhaps we need an alternative to both, which performs many of the same civic and communal functions of each.

  • There will be no Brexit. It was never on the cards.

    As mentioned by Sean here, there is a significant probability that Britain will finally be backed into a corner where it has to join the Euro.

    As for mass immigration it’s simple, if the economy as it is currently constituted is to continue functioning it needs consumers. The only place they’re going to come from is Africa.

    https://econimica.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/some-thoughts-for-tuesday-june-20th.html

    There is no obvious viable alternative without mass starvation and the collapse of so-called civilisation, anyone who imagines otherwise is paddling in that well-know river in Egypt. I’m confused as to why supposedly rational people are unable to confront the facts and arrive at the obvious conclusions – clearly the political class have made the necessary calculations and arrived at the obvious conclusions.

    The generic problem with the Libertarian Alliance was that it was all very hypothetical and generally bordering on wishful thinking. Let’s hope the The Ludwig von Mises Centre For Property and Freedom is more strongly grounded in reality – facts, evidence, reason, logical conclusions.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s