Thread: Alan England

Well you could start by not hiding anti-racial views from behind a St. Georges Flag!

Are you talking to me? What's an 'anti-racial view' when it's at home?

I'm sure the EDP will be pleased to have the likes of you on here sticking up for them! Eh lads ...?

Unlike Gareth [and your inadequate associate Paul Kingsnorth], I do not need to take bits of a post and jettison the other [inconvenient bits]; I address the whole post.

Originally Posted by Toque

This is pretty much my thinking on the matter. My 'agenda' is a parliament for England. What the English Democrats seem intent on doing is tying that goal into extraneous other demands on behalf of 'the English', in the vain hope, so far as I can tell, of drawing other nationalists (from UKIP and the BNP) to the cause for a parliament for England.

'Seem'? Unspecified 'extraneous other demands'? Goebbels the propagandist at work again.

Originally Posted by Toque

Instead of discussing this strategy

Which 'strategy'? An unspecified strategy in your troubled mind?

Originally Posted by Toque

the easy way out is to dismiss me as 'anti-English' or 'anti-white', or to point to the fact that I should be attacking the 'anglophobes' in the Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem parties rather than the EDP.

More absurd nonsense devised to concoct a fictitious case. Apparently, it's too much to expect you to attack the policies of these parties, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Toque

But obviously what the EDP do is within my sphere of activity and impacts upon what I am trying to achieve.

Such a facile, prejudices attitude. Of course the Labour party is not within your [unspecified] "sphere of activity" nor does it "impact upon what" you are "trying to achieve", nor the Conservatives etc!.

Originally Posted by Toque

The dismissals I can take because they are absurd.

Nonsense!

Originally Posted by Toque

I was at a seminar recently and a well known constitutionalist was asked by the chair what the support was for an English parliament. He turned to me, looked me in the eye, and mockingly said: "Let's ask Gareth shall we; Gareth, where did the English Democrats come in the recent election?"

Did this really occur, or was it all Gareth's imaginings. This is why he cannot name the 'well known constitutionalist' and attribute this 'mocking' question. It’s all Mills & Boon stuff.

Originally Posted by Toque

All the room[???] laughed, [b]knowing[b] that the EDP had come below the Monster Raving Loony Party.

Are we expected to accept unquestioningly that ALL those there [the room!], not just many or even most, but ALL knew!! How did Gareth know they knew? This is just typical of his slush.

Originally Posted by Toque

So I said to the room, "I'm an English nationalist and I wouldn't vote for the EDP, and you wouldn't gauge the importance of environmental issues on how many people vote for the Green Party, so why apply the same logic to an English parliament?"

Yeah! Great logic here! As an environmentalist, I would vote for the Greens, as a Conservative I wouldn’t vote for the Tories and so on . . .

Originally Posted by Toque

And there's the important thing.

????

Originally Posted by Toque

Despite what they tell themselves the English Democrats are not 'the English movement', they are a party not the issue, and certainly not the movement. To not vote for the English Democrats does not mean that you are 'anti-English' and nor does it make you an 'anglophobe' as Steve Uncles would have us believe, it doesn't even mean that you are opposed to an English parliament (you might, like me, be wildly and enthusiastically in favour of one). To criticise the English Democrats is not to undermine 'the English movement' (their phrase, not mine), anymore than criticising UKIP makes you an europhile. Unfortunately the English Democrats, at least the ones on this forum, are too stupid to separate out party from issue, manifesto from policy and identity from allegiance.

So, if the English Democrats are not effectively the English movement and the means most likely to effect political change, what is your alternative Gareth? Where are all the other components of the English movement attempting to directly create political change?

Originally Posted by Toque

In my little piece on Our Kingdom I noted that "There's no room for dual identity on this turf, no place for hyphenated anglo-brits in this polarised world; you're either English and with us, or British and against us".

I disagree profoundly with you. Neither would I presume to speak for others, especially someone as disturbed as you Gareth!

Originally Posted by Toque

Steve Uncles has proved me correct with his statement that "Not Voting English Democrats is Anti-English", from which we should presumably draw the conclusion that it is impossible to reconcile English identity - or at least primary political (national) identity - with political allegiance to Britain.

No! Do pay attention! Where there is no feasible, no viable practical alternative, it is effectively anti-English! You bang on about there being no room for dual identity, but you seem unable to distinguish between your eternal theorising and the real world. With you, it’s like having a vehicle with differing sizes of wheels, which doesn’t transport very smoothly or efficiently, but you demand that it be abandoned even though no other transport going in the direction you want [or profess to want] is available.

Originally Posted by Toque

The English Democrats, who willfully confuse ethnic cultural identity with political identity, think that an assertive ethnic English nationalism will be impossible to reconcile with political allegiance to Britain - which is one reason for 'converting' ethno-British nationalists to ethnic English nationalism.

Shucks! You really do write drivel.

Originally Posted by Toque

Whether or not this is actually desirable from either an ethical or political perspective is questionable, and for the tactic to work identity and allegiance should not be easily divided.

You seem to have gone up an intellectual cul-de-sac here!

Originally Posted by Toque

Consider the EDP's slogan "ENGLISH, british, or EUropean? YOU decide!" Essentially it's a forced choice, because you can't be both, or all three.

Oh really? Proof please?

Originally Posted by Toque

They want you to primarily identify as English (which is the probably instinctive for most of us) and to follow that instinct through to the logical conclusion that your political allegiance should mirror your identity.

Now read this very carefully. The English Democrats want those who are English whether by nationality or by national or ethnic origin to be conscious of being English, to be proud of being so – as are many [most?] other nations – and to be supportive of English society. Yes, they seek to make this predominant, to reverse the decades of obstacles to being recognisably English and the indoctrination [solely in England] seeking to make them regard themselves as solely British. There is much evidence that instinct is NOT a primary influence here, and that instinct in England has been distorted and cannot be relied upon.

Originally Posted by Toque

This sort of thing might make sense coming from the Free England Party but I don't think the EDP have really thought it through.

If Gareth says so . . .

Originally Posted by Toque

Do I really have to decide whether I am English, British or European.

NOPE!

Originally Posted by Toque

How can I be English without being British or European?

Ah! I see the EU has transmogrified into ‘European’. Gareth seems never to have encountered or heard [on the radio, for example] those Scots who declared that they saw themselves as Scottish first, then European, but not as British! As I repeatedly observe, Gareth singles out the English for his strictures!

Originally Posted by Toque

Are we talking about ethnicity - which the EDP seem very interested in - or are we talking about citizenship, in which case why not argue for independence from Britain as well as the EU.

Why don’t you just try to speak for yourself? The English Democrats declared policy is the creation of a separate parliament for the people of England. You, in all your ignorance and conceit, seek to import your own disjointed and wild ramblings. If you ever asked properly – a pre-condition of that being an open unprejudiced mind – you might well have been told. Instead, you come here making all kinds of wild accusations from afar.

Originally Posted by Toque

The founding statement of the English Lobby contained the following:

"That the nationality of "English" is recognised as such and is accorded

the same respect as any other national identity and that people born in

England have the right to call themselves English if they so choose."

Essentially then, if we take this at face value, the English Lobby is calling for all people born in England to have "the right to call themselves English" irrespective of their race or ethnicity. Therefore the definition of 'English' is to include anyone and everyone born in England.

Once again your fevered mind runs off at an unfortunate tangent! That definition enables anyone born here to identify themselves [ie NOT have it forced upon them!] as English.

Originally Posted by Toque

Yet Alan - Director of the English Lobby - clearly has a predilection for making distinction between 'whites' and 'so-called minorities', and 'alien' and 'indigenous' cultures. So events like the Notting Hill Carnival have, in the words of Alan England, "all been imposed with presumed consent on the English". However, by the English Lobby's own definition it is fairly likely that the majority of people taking part in the Notting Hill Carnival ARE English by dint of the fact that they were born here.

One of your many problems Gareth is that you are such a conceited smartass, that you’ve yet to make a distinction between ‘race’ and ‘culture’; the first, one has no choice about, and the second, one can change or abandon. Your other difficulty is recognising when an imported culture or custom is imposed on the much greater majority without consent, rather like the culture of unseemly MPs' expenses claims being imposed on us.

Originally Posted by Toque

So if I was an English person of Afro-Caribbean decent who was refused permission to hold a festival, would the English Lobby support me in my case for discrimination. Or would Alan England turn around and say ""I oppose these alien events in England, whether they be Burns Night, St Patrick's P*ss Ups, Dhivali, Kalees [English spelling], Notting Hill Carnival etc etc which have all been imposed with presumed consent on the English!"

Now Gareth, you are such a clever cove, you inform me – and everyone else here – of the provisions in the Race Relations legislation you would want to invoke! Then, if you can identify a suitable provision, explain whether it can also be invoked when English persons want to hold a St George’s Day parade and celebration? You wouldn’t by any chance seeking to apply rights – however notional – which you wouldn’t want applying to the English would you Gareth? It seems that your anti-white racism has become exposed here!

Originally Posted by Toque

Who are the English who have had these thing imposed upon them?

You must be blind! Just look at the double standards being operated by Sandwell District Council, for example.

Originally Posted by Toque

Can they be defined?

I don’t go in for definitions here.

Originally Posted by Toque

And how does this marry with the English democracy for the people of England that the English Democrats are hoping to achieve?

It will be democracy in England, rather than 'English democracy'!

Originally Posted by Toque

Should we even take the opinions of Alan England to have any relevance whatsoever to the English Democrats, or is there an ideological separation between the two organisations of which Robin Tilbrook is head?

I do not presume to speak for the English Democrats. YOU have used my utterances and those of Steve Uncles to misrepresent as English Democrats official policy, which is there for all to see and to download in pdf format. You wouldn’t want to do that though, would you Gareth! That would be too easy and would scupper your ill-intentioned vendetta against me and Steve, pulling in the English Democrats.

Originally Posted by Toque

Would Robin Tilbrook and Alan England represent the England First Party with whom the English Democrats are allied?

I wouldn’t presume to represent either party, but I would make two points here: (1) your presumption in the alleged association between the EDP and EFP is that the EDP will be influenced by the EFP, never the reverse [well, it suits your prejudices doesn’t it]; (2) you also assume that the EDP has adopted and recommends all of the EFP’s policies etc. With your attitude, one wonders how there have ever been any coalitions in British politics.

Originally Posted by Toque

Ideologically it seems very sloppy to me.

So what? You’re not a member. Do you go around checking the idealogical sloppiness of other parties you might wish to vote for? I think we all know the answer to that!

Originally Posted by Toque

The English Democrats should provide clarification and be more upfront about their precise involvement with the English Lobby and how it helps promote the case for an English parliament (and what sort of English parliament).

Why? You declared your unremitting opposition and antagonism years ago! You have a cheek to be making such suggestions about a party you’ve already written-off.

Originally Posted by Toque

They should also be more open about their meetings and cooperation with white nationalists, and their strategy of 'extracting' nationalists from the BNP who might not agree that everyone should be able to call themselves English.

You mean they should keep malign Gareth informed of every twitch? How can ANYONE take you seriously?

Originally Posted by Toque

The conduct of senior EDP members is damaging to both the EDP and the wider movement for an English parliament.

‘Wider movement’? How about one of those definitions you asked for above? There aint no wider movement to speak of.

.

David H:

He doesn't stick up for the EDP but he objects to the implicit deceit in purporting to be patriotic by calling oneself St.George yet attacking the English people. As for your mindless litany of PC cliches, Peekay (shouldn't it be PC?), Alan would be advised to ignore you as you have a very uncomplicated understanding of what it is to be English. To simplify for you: you are mindlessly following the political fashion and saying what the Globalist Establishment want out you to.

A few quick rejoinders:

1. I don't 'call myself St George' (?) (He wasn't English anyway.)
2. I don't 'attack the English people'. I am an English person, you tool. I attack two specific English people from this political party. They represent no-one but themselves. If they did, the English people would have elected them to office. Which they will never do.
3. You have no idea what 'PC' even means, clearly.
4. If you think I represent the 'Globalist Establishment' you would need to explain why I have spent fifteen years attacking it in print. Reading some of what I've written might be a start.

In conclusion: if it's PC not to be a paranoid racist with delusions of grandeur, then I'm PC.
But so are most other people in England, which is presumably why they don't vote for you.

Oh, and since you have such a complex view of 'what it means to be English', perhaps you could spell it out for us. It might interest some of your Germanically-inclined friends on here.

Originally Posted by Toque

No answer? It's probably bluster anyway. As one former EDP member informed me:

"The redness of his font has a positive correleation with his level of self rightious indignation, unfortunately it also has an inverse relationship with his sensibilities. I've taken Alan to task many times in the past and now just ignore him completely, he once challenged my service record so I told him that at the next agm I would bring it in, let him read it, then feed it to him, when my wife and I saw him at the AGM in Leeds he was most apologetic and very sycophantic, I asked him if he would like some sauce to have with his humble pie. Since that time he has never said a cross word to me! He is harmless for the most part but i still have huge reservations about his authenticity."

Pure fiction!

Once again, I observe that you avoid naming the individual to whom you are attributing fictional dialogue. Fancy that! Who is really blustering then?

If it is who I imagine it is, he was there with his wife and it was he who would not say 'boo' to a goose!

"most apologetic and very sycophantic"!!! I know many who would double over in incredulous mirth should anyone attempt to attribute such characteristics to me!

If you feel sufficiently nervous that you construe my comment as a threat, it says more about you than me. Besides, one of the forum rules prohibits threats. I might more validly aver that you've introduced such a suggestion in an attempt to get me banned.


.

Right David H;

They are trying, at best to push a 'long way' round alternative to a simple problem with a simple racial soloution.

Originally Posted by Peekay

I think you're right Cassie. There's clear evidence that Gareth Young is a 'promoter of Islam.' Last item I saw him he'd grown this enormous beard and was glaring at the pint in my hand. And he had a big rucksack on.

I think we should send him back to bongo bongo land, along with all the other foreigners infecting our proud white nation. I'll be round his place at midnight tonight with a burning cross if you and Steve want to join me. Bring your own robes. I'm sure you've got some.

Perhaps you'd care to tell us what you actually do for the community Mr Kingsnorth . . . what particular civic duties do you perform? Perhaps the answer - as with Gareth Young - is a big fat zero. He's yet to respond to this question.

It seems that both of you are little more than opinionated pontificators ie all talk and NO action!

.

As I said Paul: you may well be fighting for the English but at the same time you use the language and attitudes that the Establishment or Globalists promote which derive from Marxism and go against what you think you are doing. As for no one voting for me, that is hardly surprising as I have never stood for election.
The fact that St.George was not English is of no moment as these things are based in a myth not scientific accuracy. They are numinous not rational.
I am firstly an English nationalist but as a traditional Conservative accept our whole history and can not just advocate reviving everything Anglo Saxon as some do; neither do I accept ditching St.George for Edmund nor the Flag of St.George for just another dragon flag. I could not oppose the Normans like say, Tony Linsell, as it it done.

The majority of the EDP's middle-englander supporters found their heroes in Thatcher in the 80's, she was a miserable failiure, they now see the cross of saint george as a sufficiently fitting backwater to criticize the establisahment from within the tent, with a view to defending it.
Yes, there are problems but simply designating an English Parliament for Zionists, pretend-patriots and Thatcherites to play about with will only invite disgrace upon an honourable flag.