This article is the first of four, laying out some thoughts and suggestions – with Brexit looming – for an eventual renaissance of ideas and shared culture, a reformist agenda and positive thinking for the people of Britain as the nation resumes independence.

I’ve already written some articles about elaborate propagandising from unfriendly Liberal/Left tendencies, also present in the Tory party and reinforcing the grip of the Establishment; I believe that the real argument is not between anything called Left and Right, since historically-speaking the extreme right was in fact a form of State socialism, as seen in Germany and Italy in the fascist years. This was literally “3rd-way” socialist corporatism, defined as such by both Blair and Mussolini, opposed to individual sovereignty. By usurping the narrative in our public life and instilling contradictory ideas in the educational system, there has been a common intention in the interests of external and transnational unelected bodies, to disempower the people,  disallow them their birthright, namely of designing and choosing their own laws and therefore destiny as a nation.

Essentially, globalism (as witnessed in the EU project and others) is the “brainchild” of the elites and directed towards a further feudalising of society, with increased regulation and control. I see no hint of this changing with Mrs May’s Brexit plans as she promises to “build” on existing EU arrangements and without asking the people if we even want that (Brexit presumably meant that the majority do not). Throughout the Reformation, Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, these competing forces have been at play; this does not mean that the only road is change dictated by an establishment wanting to cajole us into their “technocratic” plans. People-power through greater direct democracy is surely the way forward.



Thinking of which popular policies beyond Brexit should occupy people’s thoughts, we may rightly fear that the wider “globalist agenda” will continue unremittingly despite it (since it is so entrenched) with Mrs May’s Brexit. How can the combined forces of collectivisation and globalism be resisted by returning more sovereignty to the people in their day-today lives and businesses?
In the light of Mrs May’s vague plan – which says nothing about popular sovereignty (the main stumbling block with the EU from day one!) and “what next?” we need to extend the debate around people power and address the apathy of yet more of the status quo. Let’s negotiate a mutually beneficial exit from the EU Single Market quickly and have a decisive and positive vision for all areas, not just Brexit. Since the EU will probably stagnate further under the imbalance of an area divided along consumer/producer economy lines, these terms can be revised later on as it morphs.



Let’s have a more classical and technical base that emphases practical skills of numeracy and critical analysis, knowledge of Western achievements, and the origins of science, philosophy and law.

Bring forward and encourage critical debate and self-reliance, the study of science and technology, and forms of competitive sport; where awareness of overseas cultures is helpful, explained in a non-ideological way free of religious or political bias, perhaps through the study of comparative world philosophies and history of British and European ones.

Let’s do more to promote business/commercial awareness as well as on the arts and music.

Make Headteachers responsible for overseeing content in dialogue with parents, not the LEAs, which will merely provide funding.

The national Curriculum is a guide and not to be followed to the letter; exam boards should seek to raise their standards of excellence and further encourage and reward critical thinking and independent research/activity.

Allow schools to define their own aims and make these public – and within the Law.

Where social/political issues are presented from an ideological (religious/marxist/green/globalist etc) perspective, this bias must be declared.

Choice in education, including private education of all kinds, is surely good. Should schools therefore be able to define their own aims and succeed or fail on their merits? Regarding the demographics of choice, arguably if a school is good and has a strong, sensible ethic, the neighbourhood around it will become successful and ethical also, benefitting both.



A popular idea might be to re-introduce a matron system in the wards where one person has full control of movement and activity and making this person responsible for a rolling budget; re-channelling funding for the NHS from other areas until the NHS again has a clean bill of health, making the ward system responsible for overseeing spending under the finance director.

Since the NHS is responsible for health, once it has fulfilled its mission to the people that fund it (taxpayers in the community) it could then be involved in helping others from abroad.  People are surely better served and helped in their own countries, and perhaps the NHS could have a humanitarian/charitable side, too, and this could involve fund-raising and missions for a number of causes both in (first and foremost) and out of the country?


Movement of people and foreign affairs:

Stricter border controls make sense, unless someone has something to hide. Foreign migrants are welcome if they provide a service not already fulfilled by a local person/native resident, but why shouldn’t immigrants keep their original nationality anyway? (my grandfather did and was never naturalised, so what? what is the problem? My father still fought as a Desert Rat during WW2 and I am proud of his defence of England as I am proud of having a Danish-Icelandic ancestor; my children have Italian cousins etc.. but one has to earn the right to be accepted within a culture, this right cannot just be “taken”.) It is in the nature of work in multinational business, to travel and even work and live abroad, obtaining a long term work visa if one is in employment, what is wrong with using Interpol intelligence? Countries as diverse as Saudi Arabia and Israel employ strict controls without criticism.

No-one should expect a house, healthcare or education, until they are in work and then adapt to the system that is in place for the rest of the society. Prioritising unskilled migration encourages exploitation and their efforts to break the rules to get in.

We should help the needy in their own lands where possible – and only the needy (ie those with health needs or who are in danger of death under persecution – the Yazidis are a good example).

Armed intervention must be agreed by both Houses (reformed HoL) and decisions to go to war, put before the people as a Referendum or a General Election. Common sense first.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email