Return of Heptarchy

We don’t know a lot of the British isles, prior to the Romans arriving. Archaeological and genetic evidence gives some broad outlines, but the details of daily life and the history of rulers and tribes is largely unknown to us. The best we can do is piece together some general ideas based on what has been dug from the earth and what the Romans recorded about what they found when they landed in Britain. There’s also genetics which can be used to trace the movement of peoples over time. This helps build a general picture, but it is filled with assumptions.

What we do know is that for most of her history, various tribes controlled areas of land and those tribes eventually formed kingdoms. The Picts, the Celts, the Welsh, the Angles and later, the Saxons, are familiar names to people fond of history. Similarly, Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria  and East Anglia probably ring some bells for most people. These were some of the kingdoms of the Heptarchy, a period in British history that lasted from the end of Roman rule until most of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms came under the overlordship of Egbert of Wessex in 829.

It’s useful to keep this in mind when looking at the changes that are coming to the UK if they follow through on the Brexit vote. The Scots are talking about independence again. The Welsh have been talking about independence for a while and may get serious about it again. Then you have the always difficult problem of the Irish. Membership in the EU was a disaster for the Irish in many ways, but they instinctively wish to go the opposite of whatever way the English are going so it is hard to know what happens with them. Then you have the Unionist issue, which is complicated in the best of times.

Whether any of this will come to pass is unknown at this point, but there’s no doubt that the UK is about to go through a period where it redefines itself to meet the world of the future. Those two great forces discussed in yesterday’s post are at work in the UK now. On the one hand, we have movements toward greater local control, even independence, and on the other hand we have a movement to fold the whole country into Europe as an administrative zone of Germany. For now, the smaller is better side is winning the argument, but how far it goes is up in the air.

The issue that lies beneath all of this is whether or not the United Kingdom as a concept is of much use in the modern world. A unified island made a lot of sense in an age when invasion was a reasonable concern. A divided squabbling people would not stand a chance against Norse raiders. The Continent has produced many threats that required a strong and unified Britain. Today, invasion is not a concern and the greatest threat from the Continent is a fresh batch of regulations that make flush toilets less efficient. It’s entirely plausible that the costs of being united outweigh the benefits.

Scotland voting themselves out of the UK is an obvious first step, but that may not be a great move on their part. The Scots remind me of the French-Canadians. They like waving flags around more than they like self-sufficiency. Similarly, the Welsh voted Brexit and seem to like being in partnership with the English. Preservation of local customs and language don’t require independence. The Scots and the Welsh would probably be happy with the symbolic parts of nationhood, but let the English run foreign policy, trade and the central bank, as long as they have a voice in Parliament.

The other side of this is the fact that the English may be tiring of the Scots. In the last two national elections a clear line exist between the Scots and the English. SNP is basically Labour with more Brave Heart references. The Scots vote for a populist left-wing party while the English are voting for what passes for a nationalist right-wing party now. UKIP in Scotland is a collection of fringe nuts, while in England it is a real party gently tugging the Tories back to where they belong on the Right. I bet more than a few English would like to vote the Scots out of the UK and be done with them.

Then we have the Irish. Currently, there is free movement between England, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Britain leaving the EU means a return of border controls to the UK and that means borders come back between Ireland and England. There’s also the fact that Norther Ireland voted heavily against leaving the EU and is making noises about gaining special EU status. That’s only possible if they are an independent country. How likely is it that Northern Ireland will follow the same path as the Scots and begin badgering for independence? How long before the English tire of them?

All of this is idle speculation, but the ground is shifting in the UK.

75 thoughts on “Return of Heptarchy

    • 57 comments before someone dinged me for it. In fairness, I did change it after the fact just for laughs. The grammar police must be on holiday.

      • No Doug, I wasn’t aware of him until I read your Query. However he’s one of the few O’Neil’s who spells his name right, with only one ‘L’. 😉 Thanks for pointing him out, I’m reading his ‘The Islamification of America, and the Emasculation of the U.S. Military’ right now

  1. I wonder if what is taking place is what McLuhan predicted in “Medium is the Message”. His argued that our current society is textual based and postulated that, as the world became more saturated with video media (he was specifically addressing TV but all video falls into his rubric) and progressively less textual, pressure would build across humanity for a return to tribalism. As someone above has pointed out this urge to ethnic/cultural/political separateness is not confined to Northern Europe. Brexit has everyone’s attention but it seems to be a worldwide phenomenon. I see a wide variety of justifications for these would be breakups, but one sentiment comes through loud and clear in every situation: to the man-on-the-street the established associations “just don’t feel right”.

  2. The EU’s mere existence undermines the legitimacy of all the national governments in its confines. Every European country has the potential to split into smaller ethnic fragments. Both France and Spain could lose their Basques regions, and the Spanish Catalan region spreads into France, too. Then there is Corsica and Brittany, northern Italy and Sicily, Bavaria, etc. etc.

    • @ bob sykes – As thezman pointed out, Texas has the economic ability to stand on its own and I would probably argue Bavaria could too. However these small, fragmented areas of Spain and France you mention wouldn’t last very long on their own. Having said that, there are two tiny countries over here that I can think of that have shown it can be done; Andorra (between France and Spain) and San Marino (in eastern Italy) which are fully independent, but really function as nothing more than tax free zones and tourist attractions.

  3. My English friends tell me that if English people had been allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum, Scotland would have been long gone.

    • Quite right, Ivar. We English would have voted for them to bugger off because we are somewhat sick of Scotland ranting about independence after that historical chap called Mel Gibson inspiring them all to wear blue make-up. They can keep their deep-fried Mars bars.

  4. Having never shopped there, I know very little of the British aisles. 🙂

    Although the Scots psyche is often portrayed on the premise of rugged, strong-minded and scrappy individualists, the concept of Big Government is deeply ingrained in their identity. A Brit co-worker told me last week that he anticipated the post-Brexit reaction we have seen regarding a do-over for Independance – in the English / Welsh states, the ratio of private / public sector employees is about 10:1. In Scotland, it’s closer to 4:1.

    • That is the Scottish psyche. Those with it simply self-deported (or were deported to serve as “a useful buffer against the wilde red men” on the colonial frontier. The remainder….not so much.

  5. For whatever reason in the past, Britain tended to work (literally) as an entity despite some strong differences. Many things have been cited as reasons in that Britain avoided some of the bloody revolutions of other countries which merely set those nations back in their haste to declare freedom, another was the success of the Industrial revolution and harnessing alongside that with the clout it could gain through a well-drilled navy and established legal system, and the relative smoothness of succession to the throne which — wars of the roses and Cromwell apart — which guaranteed less upheaval that might be expected (yes, I know much skullduggery took place, but the nation didn’t suffer as much as might have done.) The fact that Elizabeth I died childless meant that Scotland and England could be joined through James, for example.

    No nation is short of dark deeds, and no nation is without its heroes and great inventors, but the impression the UK gave was the positive tended to outweigh the negative. As an Israeli I know who joined the British armed forces told me, he was impressed by how the nation punched above its weight. While this may be less true in an age of nukes, the principle holds.

    Being an island meant I think we had to watch how we handled the sea. It was both a protector, an open route to others and a reason to go alone if needed.

    However, as much as Britain owes to a perhaps unique combination of English, Welsh, Scots and Irish ways there may be little reason for it to stand together today when there are more tempting paymasters in Europe. England is usually hated by the others because it is the largest entity and dominates language and culture, has the greater capital and attracts more than the others do. But if the Irish want to cling to Brussels and Scotland would like to bow before it as well then perhaps the Welsh should join the frenzied desire to becoming another Estonia too.

    All i can say is that maybe the door would be kept open for the Irish, Scots and Welsh in particular to rejoin and form a new UK in the future is for now they want to go their own way and fly the EU ring of arseholes flag proudly over its main buildings.

    We may however slide back to tribes: I like to tell my wife that she is lucky that I as a member of the Brigantes tribe was ready to marry someone from her Canti tribe. She wouldn’t have stood a chance if she had been Icenii.

    • I think the Scots, Irish and Northern Irish are in for a rude awakening. They are going to learn that Germany was never interested in having them in the EU. But, to get the English it meant taking the Irish and Scots. Now the the English are leaving, the better play is to let the English have their little brothers back.

      • Ireland gained it’s independence in 1916 so it’s now 100-years old. Since then it has had plenty of time to sort itself out after so many years of English rule and has yet to become more than it is today. The Irish north-south split was purely religious which is why the north stayed with England. The Scottish only recently got a feather up their kilt with their financial surge based on north Atlantic oil. Haggis, as you can imagine, is not a hugely successful export. Like Wales, none of them can stand alone economically so the idea of them all splitting off and reverting into their original kingdoms is about as likely as Bavaria and Texas succeeding. Yes – they could probably find a constitutional argument to do it – but why?

        • Unlike Scotland, Texas would probably do better on its own.

          My view on this is that Europe has gone through something similar to what the Mayans went through. The Mayans kept building every larger edifices as a part of their competitive monument building. In Europe, bigger came to mean safer but that’s no longer true. Technology and mass media have lowered the threshold point where bigger is just more expensive. The EU is a solution to the problems of the Industrial age, not the technological age.

          Similarly, the UK was a solution to problems of a bygone era for the people of the British Isles. A federation of some sort may be the answer for this age.

          • “The EU is a solution to the problems of the Industrial age, not the technological age.” Exactly right! They are still stuck in the days of the Coal and Steel Treaty and can’t understand why this isn’t working. I do support a united Europe, but not they way they are going about it. Borders, language and culture as are relevant in the US as they are here.

  6. Pretty much anybody with ambition simply left Scotland. It’s scenic, still makes great whisky, but otherwise not much to offer. Full disclosure, all my ancestors on one side were Lowland and Highland Scots. The former deported first to Northern Ireland to mix it up with the locals thence to the New World, when they became too troublesome there. But what you have left is the genetic equivalent of No. 6 fuel oil. They just need a teat to remain fastened to and are not too particular about whose teat.

  7. Ireland and Scotland aren’t going anywhere. They have traditionally been, and for the most part remain poor countries dependent upon the greater economy generated by trade with the British. One only need drive around Ireland, which is roughly twice the size of Switzerland but with less than half the population (4.5 million vs. 8.1 million respectfully) to appreciate the reality of the Emerald Isle.

    Unlike Britain, Ireland has a devastating history which has kept the island poor and depopulated to this day. The Irish economy is not tied to the land, and technology, as the Irish are quickly learning, can be moved in a heart beat. Swiss pharma company Roche in county Claire just shut down and MSD is due to close by 2017. The point being despite its recent industrial growth, Irelands greatest export has historically been people, and that remains true even today.

    As for Scotland, it is in many ways the same situation as Ireland, but without the history of famine. However, it too is a resource poor region which has only recently experienced an economic boom through north Atlantic oil. And even that, as we have seen with falling oil prices, is not a sure way to sustain an economy. So while Ireland and Scotland can protest against their ancient oppression by the ‘bloody English’, their very existence depends upon them.

    When you live on an island, it’s important to be able to figure out how to make the best of what few resources you have and Great Brittan is the only island to pull that off on a global scale. They did it by colonizing, controlling trade and protecting trade routes, which was the sole purpose of the British Navy until WW1. As the founders of the industrial revolution, they openly exported new ideas and licensed their technology abroad, something the French and Germans failed to do. Meanwhile France and Germany attempted to acquire new land through imperial expansion into neighboring countries which brought constant war and destruction across Europe under Napoleon, Wilhelm II and Hitler.

    Great Brittan on the other hand, simply imposed it’s amazing bureaucratic system into existing countries and expanded with government, schools and hospitals across North America, West Indies, South America, Middle East, India, and China. And by the middle of the 19th century Britain accounted for 23% of global industrial production, British workers were the richest in Europe, and comparatively few of them worked on the land.

    What made Great Brittan so powerful so quickly was that it learned to rule as market nation which ignored borders and put diversity to work – just as global corporations do today. Something France, Germany and the rest of Europe has never been able to do so successfully.

    • “What made Great Brittan so powerful so quickly was that it learned to rule as market nation which ignored borders and put diversity to work.”


      What made Britain (watch your spelling) so powerful was:

      a) it was a democracy.

      b) it brought actual *civilization* to decidedly *uncivilized” parts of the world.

      c) it was an industrial and intellectual powerhouse long before another nations were.

      “Diversity”? You on that hobbyhorse again? Ever hear the story of how the Brits stopped cold the Indian practice of sutee?

      Some Indians were about to enforce that abominable practice and a British officer tried to stop it. The Indians said “that’s our custom”.

      The Brit said “Well, it’s our custom to hang people who do it.”

      Stopped them cold.  

      Diversity my ass.

      • @ Fuel Filter – I’m pretty sure England, under King George III, was not as democratic as we know it today- thus the need for your Declaration of Independence. What I mean by Britain (thank you for the spelling check) being able to deal with diversity is from the perspective that they were able to successfully capitalize in foreign countries, which had ethnic and religiously diverse populations, without the need for military invasion and large scale war as was common across the rest of Europe.

        I’m not saying they did it peacefully, but they did a much better job than the Portugese, Spanish Dutch or French before them. And unlike the US, they realized slavery wasn’t a long term solution, thus William Wilberforce’s Slave Trade Act of 1807 which abolished the slave trade in the British Empire.

        Germany has only experienced a ‘diverse’ population since it invited guest workers after WW2 and like Italy, Switzerland and Scandinavia, has had very little colonial success outside it’s borders.

        • Actually the U.K. was the most democratic nation state in the world in the latter 18th century, with the possible exception of the Swiss. All of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence were products of Parliament. The Continental Congress wanted to garner support in the English population while increasing the fervor for independence in the Colonies. The King lay outside both groups and, as head of State, an easy target to fix and demonize (Alynski wasn’t really all that smart, certainly not on the same level as Hoffer, but effectively distilled obvious political agitation lessons from history. Alynski was a plumber; Gramsci a Grand Architect). The Declaration was one of the first, and arguably most effective, propaganda documents ever written.
          All of the British colonies were products of invasion. If not the outright product of direct military action then certainly backed by implicit threat of it. What the British were very good at was tailoring force to situation, with occasional failure i.e. Gordon in Sudan. They took a page from the Romans and left local traditions, customs, laws, etc. in place as long as it did not interfere with trade or become administratively problematic. The few exceptions to this were instances of such moral enormity that it could not be overlooked, for example sutee, as F.F. has pointed out, was a bridge too far while the caste system, though abhorrent, was left largely untouched. Wilburforce’s efforts were effective because of two conditions. 1) It was settled law that no one could be a slave in England; hence the institution was essentially a distant abstract to the vast majority of citizens, just as it was to most New Englanders of the mid 19th century. 2) The economic effect of slave labor was not nearly as vital to the English as it was to the agriculturally based southern U.S. that depended heavily on discriminating labor. Combined with the gradual phase out, the Slave Trade Act of 1807 only ended trade, slavery would continue until 1833, the effects of ending the institution were imperceptible to the typical Englishman. It wasn’t that It wasn’t a, “…long term solution.” To The English, particularly the middle class, it was a solution to which they could not attach a problem. Therefore it was unnecessary and could be dispensed with as a purely moral high horse, a dinner party abstraction.

        • Actually the little tiff between Charles I and Cromwell’s gang, re-ordered the relationship between the Crown and Parliament permanently, despite the Restoration. And with the balance of power permanently in Parliament’s hands. The issue was really the extension of those rights to colonial America as the colonies became economic powers of their own. The oft forgotten Galloway Plan of Union (one of my ancestors, actually) did propose a re-ordering of that relationship and was narrowly defeated in the First Continental Congress. As is the case with success, the British did not really think through the political ramifications of a wildly successful collection of contiguous colonies, built in the British image, wanting political parity.

  8. “…the greatest threat from the Continent is a fresh batch of regulations that make flush toilets less efficient.”

    I get what you’re saying (tea kettles, toasters, BTW, did you know there are more than 60 regs governing fucking PILLOWCASES?!?) but I gotta strongly disagree with you on that statement.

    By far the greatest threat are the moslum cockroaches infesting the island.

    They undermine the livelihoods of the dirt people, the educational system (read up on the “Trojan Horse” scandal that Michael Gove rooted out, much to the chagrin of those snakes Cameron and May) the safety of children (Rotherham and the “Grooming Gangs”),  the transformed working-class neighborhoods where women in burkas and hajibs with 4-8 sprogs in tow dominate sidewalks, and of course the ever-present arsenals of hate called mosques everywhere.

    No, there will be more 7/7s and Lee Rigbys until England rids themselves of this scourge on mankind.

    That is, far and away,the greatest threat. And they cannot do it unless they first completely rid themselves of any semblance of sucking up to the EU.

    No question.

    • I’d fold the Muslim problem into the regulatory problem. Brussels is the definition of Anarcho-Tyranny. Police toilets and pillow cases, while leaving the borders untended.

    • I go with Fuel Filter on this one. The open borders have created a Muslim invasion, not much different than the Vikings back in the day. I would guess many more Leavers voted on the issue of open borders than about any other matter. Now that parts of the country are Islamized, dealing with it may not be a regulatory issue any more, but rather a hand-to-hand battle, day by day and block by block. These people are cutting off heads in the street, raping children, and blowing up the Underground. Regulations will not change the status quo, such as it is. Only brute force will do, as always and everywhere.

    • That’s it in a nutshell Filter, the whole point of the state is to makes laws so you outlaw anything that gets in the way of the take or increases your share from the extortion racket for you and your buddy’s.

    • @ Fuel Filter – In the US you have various safety and engineering standards such as OSHA, ASME, ANSI, UL and others which have been normalized with CSA (Canada). If you look at TUV or DIN (German) SAI (Swiss) and BSI (British) standards, you will find they are not always the same. From the perspective of raw materials, steel is a good example as there are different types in the UK, Germany and America and they not all the same. Part of the EU charter was to harmonize all these regulations. This is one reason why you see 60 regulations on pillow cases. Granted this does seem a bit ridiculous, but that’s now it works.

      When you travel in the US, you can use the same electrical plug from New York to California. However, if you have traveled to Europe, one of the first things you fill notice is our household voltage here is 220-volts. Despite a common voltage, the outlets in England are completely different from those in Germany which are completely different from those in Switzerland and Italy. Had this been harmonized 100-years ago, we’d all have common outlets too.

      So when it comes to what I do favor about the EU, as an engineer, harmonization of industrial and commercial standards is very important for improved trade between market partners.

      • “harmonization of industrial and commercial standards …………….”

        Heck, even I see that as vital, and I can’t count past 10 without taking off my socks and shoes.

        PJ O’Rourke had a good bit on 220V long ago…….about how you couldn’t plug something in without first putting on rubber boots…

        • @ jay dee – “…I can’t count past 10 without taking off my socks and shoes”. I guess all those things they say about how bad American schools are is completely unfounded. 😉

  9. I’ll believe Brexot actually happens after it’s implemented. The rulers over there aren’t in the habit of letting the dirt people interfere with business.

  10. One thing is evident, the modern state is a system which is an unmitigated disaster. Less is more as far as the size of organized nation states sure looks like it’s time has come around again. The whole concept of the American Compact of Confederation has much going for it. It is interesting those who crafted the document called the USC stepped way outside the bounds of their mandate given to them by the CofC, and created the back door of administrative tyranny we dirt people are yoked with today. Patrick Henry and his brethren where very accurate in their suspicions, along with many of the nation states of the CofC, in balking in signing that piece of parchment. Time has proven them to be right about the hidden built in abuses of power the USC would bring. If anything, contrary to what many believe I think the USC has worked right to this minute exactly as it was intended to work. In all it’s life, the US Constitution has never been an instrument which has created one iota of freedom and liberty, it has been an instrument instrumental in diminishing and enabling those cunning enough to create workarounds of it’s veil of rule of law, exactly by providing those with the intent to hide behind it’s sanctions of “the law” to protect themselves from the will and wrath of the dirt people. And so it is in the rest of the western hemisphere to one degree or another.
    The nation states of the west have failed miserably by any standard of primal rights of the dirt people. And after all, it is the dirt people who constitute the labor, the sweat, the industriousness, the productivity, and the creativity that created the greatest civilization the world has ever known, all by the dint of the dirt people. Who the fuck do these sonofabitches running things think they are, gods or something? They have taken advantage of every chink and bulwark in the basic decency of armor the dirt people possess against usurpations and tyranny in every flavor of the rainbow, and with the exception of the tiny nation of Iceland only recently, those in power have striven in every conceivable manner to inhibit and or destroy the plain basic common sense self determination, happiness and humble prosperity of the dirt people. Not only inhibit and destroy, but plot and scheme at every turn to deny plain decent folks of the entire west their basic rights as free men, their property, and the whole fruits of their labor, and the insult of this injury they have created a system of usury which at the ultimate threat of force and use of violence, ultimately by the barrel of the gun, if you as a dirt person refuse to comply, you end up incarcerated and or taking a dirt nap for your defiance against the ruling scum running this west into hell. But what is even worse is as a dirt person, you are forced with the same threat and use of violence, if you refuse to pay for your own slavery to the state. So ya, right about now, there are a lot of dirt people who are thinking they had enough of this fucking bullshit and the “elite” scum who have shoved this shit sandwich up our arses and left us with this unmitigated disaster. Because guess who gets to claw their way out of this morass and will have to create the basic intrinsic wealth required to have happiness and prosperity they can call their own. That’s right, the dirt people. Well, to say the dirt people are a tolerant and civil group of human’s is an understatement which brooks no equal. So maybe ya, it’s time for some payback, a little bit of comeuppance is due, rightfully so. And if you scum who have raped the golden goose of our prosperity and our intrinsic wealth don’t like it because we dirt people are getting a little testy and uppity, you can go fuck a flying’ rollin’ donut.

    • Amen Brother!

      I do, however, think differently about our founding documents. I think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the USA are some of the most beautifully conceived and written thoughts on liberty and God’s will in the heart of man. What happens though, through no fault of the authors is the never ending war between good and evil. Those elected leaders are human and the human weakness inherent in many, and unexposed until faced with money and power, does not surface until that weakness is tapped.

      Then the responsibility of containment becomes the duty of the citizens. No one in history has made a better set up documents. So I think blaming the Founders for conspiracy is a bit much. It is the citizens who keep reelecting the “rascals” with the excuse “but he is our rascal.”

      Nevertheless, we are faced with a situation after 240 years, of lawyers, politicians who spend most of their lives in “public service” who learn and perfect the game, and then rig the game in their favor and for that of their “friends.”

      What has never happened throughout this time is the follow through on Thomas Jefferson’s quote “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” This is the epitomy of the other saying by Benjamin Franklin “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” So much time with no corrective action on the part of the public other than the weak ballot box? No wonder we are in this mess.

      We do not need professional politicians nor do we need the rich to think for us. The system is broken. Time to fix it.

      • I hear what your saying, and have given the same much thought. There is a conundrum about it, it involves the concept between omission and commission. And in some things there is a chasms of difference between them. The evil perpetrated by those doing it certainly is mostly not possible without some sort of consent from those the evil is directed towards. I think it is just as important to understand the Fabian’s and their roots. Because if one thing that almost all of us have suffered is the revised history they have been responsible for. It is part and parcel of their long march, and has been quite effective. That revision has been instrumental in us being manipulated subtly six ways to sunday, it doesn’t lesson the virtues of our founding, but it sure has made us from a self determining people into a malleable throng, and that was the point. I too believe those documents are part of that 5000 year leap that Skosen wrote of, without doubt. It isn’t the ideas behind the documents in question, which are beautiful and God blessed to me.
        Here, you might find these sources of great interest and enlightening. Due to a fellow Name of Gary North who has kind of been thinking in X when everyone has been thinking in Y. This is a thoughtful introduction by Al Benson Jr to North’s work:
        This is Gary North’s theory:
        And this master piece is a must read regardless, brief but concise, it delves into one of the prized primal rights of men, an amazing document:
        As for your willing participants in their own serfdom, this piece is another masterpiece:

        And if there is one book you could read to get a unvarnished history of the birth of Liberty and America, and insights into your comments to me, this baby is a gem, it’s only a buck on Kindle. The fellow who wrote it did yeoman’s duty. It is a pretty much unvarnished look into history from all perspectives, unlike any I’ve read. Even if it is only half accurate, it will transform your thinking on our history and what we are as people. It is the nasty gritty accounting of the lead up and the revolution. Brother, if it’s 10% true, we been lied to like you can’t imagine:

        • re: Gary North

          Remarkable output of mostly high quality analysis since the 1960s. However most of it has been Calvinist exegesis. His full court press, incorrectly in hindsight, about the Year 2000 computer problem damaged his reputation. People have long memories of a failure so he carries a tarnished reputation according to many. His continuing remarkable output has never stopped. Look for him on Lew Rockwell frequently vas well as his own site, just Gogle him.

          Dan KurtTBnJG

          • Addendum:

            Google: Free Books Gary North. He gives away all (or most) of his books and dozens of his essays in e-format.

            Dan Kurt

          • I think we are all in one way or another having to figure out a lot of things that have been lost. There just is no way North or probably anybody, but maybe for Jefferson and Henry and a couple little recognized people lost in infamy, who knew or now knows the answer. Skosen was correct I think in his insights that for the first time in 5000 years of recorded human history, more people have lived in Liberty, in the last 234 years, than in all of those 5000 years, than all the humans who have lived, including all the people in the last 234 years, combined. That is amazing shit right there.
            If there is credence in Skosen’s theory, and I’m a believer, that is pretty profound for a lot of reasons, and it is not too much of a leap of faith we all have a lot more to learn and discover about liberty, that it is evolutionary, not revolutionary in nature, and our mistake as Freemen, has been more along the lines we lost sight of the possibility it is not what our founders established we have neglected collectively, but a legacy they left for us we have to figure out. And maybe what is all is happening is something we just have to go through, warts and all or not, that the liberty we got, is not the liberty we can create now and later. Growing pains of freedom anyone?
            Call me provincial, an eternal incurable optimist, an agrarian radical, but don’t call me unwilling or a coward, because I truly believe we as dirt people, as a people, will come out the other side of the trials and tribulations of our age, better and wiser, happier and wealthier for it, those trying to enrich and empower themselves at our misfortune, not withstanding. Sometimes you just got to grab your primal rights by the balls and stare the truths of them in the eyes and say lets roll motherfucker. And maybe that is what the true nature of liberty and primal rights of men is about. Only each of us can figure it out, and act and choose on these components of unfettered freedom. That nobody has the answers, but if there are answers, I know where to find them, and that begins with each of us, and evolves into a tireless plurality who secede from the established status quo of thinking, acting, and society. It is dangerous, yes, but the best things are never easy nor are they always safe. But that is the beauty of it. You got to stick your neck out and risk something to gain much.

        • Good stuff, thanks for the references.

          FYI, the “True History of the American Revolution” is available in pdf for free download from the Internet Archive at

          I know it’s only a buck, but … lots of good stuff available there for FREE!

          I’ll have to put down my current reading, Philip Caputo’s “Acts of Faith” and check this out.

          • Oh Man your welcome, thanks for the tip on free. have a range of books aside from TTHOTAR?

            There is a awesome account and great primer for “The True History of The American Revolution”, ‘Ben Comee: A Tale of Rogers’s Rangers’: 1758-59 (.99 cents), it is a primer in the sense that in relation to your comment above regarding the creation of the documents, had a true grass roots dirt people element that is overlooked, you see how the dirt people gestalt of the rights of men was born and grew out of 4th generation insurgency warfare of the French indian wars in many of the future men and woman who did the actual fighting in the Revolutionary war, (there are similar dynamics taking place right now, it struck me as prologue, allegory, and cautionary for the present, combined). Aside from the small unit infantry tactics honed to a fine edge of Roger’s Rangers, (which really was more of Captain John Stark’s Rangers than Roger’s, Roger’s if accounts are accurate, was a bit of a expender of other men’s lives in regards to the conduct of true light infantry’s maxim of preserving cadre to live to fight another day). The frontier at the time was the boundary of the Connecticutt River along the NH – Vt border. Outstanding account of the times places and people. I think you would really appreciate it. It sure opened my eyes, aside from it being such a great yarn. I was born and raised up in Starks area of operations, and the revelations of how much history was created up there is worth it alone for the book. But you can see how much is tied between the span of the two times and extrapolate many of the influences and conflicts of interests up to the DOI and USC.

        • You people rant and rave but don’t fight. You’re like the warrior in the shield wall, banging away with your weapon the on the boss of your shield, clamouring for a fight, trying to find the courage to step forward a pace towards the enemy. Problem is, you aren’t hurting nearly enough; you’re not yet cornered, hungry enough, naked enough, bereft enough of dignity. Really, you eat their shit sandwich and ask for more – most of you. The overlords have your number, understand your limits. They might one day over reach – mandate, e.g., that they grope your children in line to board transport, or, maybe dictate that your daughters share the facilities with the worst kind of creepy freaks of the opposite sex, mandate that you pay fines for not calling someone ‘zir’ instead of ‘her’, but its water off a duck’s back….we’ll just elect a populist and all will be made better. The great sabbatical of the Good continues unabated – the self loathing that is our Christian heritage – we cling and kiss and hug the wheel to which we are chained and delude ourselves that things will improve – always tomorrow, in the future, in an ever receding horizon that the closer we approach the further it escapes us.

          • John should go back and read one of the foundational documents a bit more closely if he thinks this is new:

            “…accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

          • We conquered Germany then gave them their freedom. I stood in the ‘shield wall’ there but found the Germans to be quislings. You might hate Hitler – I do – but at least he knew how to take risks. That’s more than you can say for his (fitting) replacement. The pendulum swings, dudn’t it? I found the Germans to be, like the rest of the Euroweenies, ungrateful, resentful, selfish – its a long list. They don’t appreciate their heritage any more than we in the U.S. We stand on the backs of giants and piss in their mouths.

            Geothe’s Faust (I visited his house during my service) famously wrote “Only he deserves freedom as well as life who must conquer them every day!” I challenge you to show me where that sentiment is lived today.

          • “You people”? That’s a dead giveaway John Hinds. Let me ask you how that your talking about is working for you since your admonishing us people?
            Sincerely, I think you mistake dignity of liberty, and of the dirt people for subservience, dignity being something I’m honored to say is in abundance on Z’s blog. But there for the grace of God many of us may go John. I’m no serf, and I see no other serfs here. I see strong thoughtful considerate people who have a genuine care for what is going on, and all seem dearly involved in trying to figure out what can be done in rational ways. Slaves of the state genuflex to their slave masters. Be careful what you preach regarding violence for the sake of revenge or the means justify the ends. Those in power have a propensity for force and violence as a tool, and you might have to eat your words. Or worse yet, get the lead lobotomy your ranting about.
            Besides, words and reason are a component of the long form of self defense of ones freedoms, going off half cocked just because you have a legitimate beef with the oligarchy is the hard way of winning, you seriously got to get all your ducks in a row if violent redress is ever to be used in defense of liberty. It costs us next to nothing to stay ones hand at this juncture, and much is to be gained by exchange of ideas. Our founders knew this all to well and acquitted themselves handsomely in those regards. Something to aspire to.

          • I don’t apologize. Neither do I tend towards ad hominem attacks.

            Actually, I like your comments here. Most of us aren’t interested in the Truth as much as being validated in our thoughts, our existence. I think you are one who loves Truth. So, how bout this, Doug:.

            We can suffer outrageous fortune as we strut and fret our way on life’s stage but that only promotes/encourages the outrageous. It’s only when, finally, we’re driven to take up arms and by real opposition find a good end that we win and they lose.

            A valid point made here is the organic nature of organisations. They feed and grow. Words don’t affect them. Its delusional to think that they do. One would have a similar outcome by pissing up a rope.

      • LP, I can’t help but be moved by your heart felt comments. I’m moved by yours to express my most heart felt sense of things.
        A guy name of aka John Mosby wrote this below. It speaks to something that cuts to the chase. That secession from tyrants and what they are doing is a matter of the heart and mind, as it is action. Secession of the heart is withdrawal of consent, and that secession is existential and 100% defensible from those out to deny us our freedoms. That withdrawal of consent, or giving it freely with full grasp of the reasons and unfettered truth involved, is legitimacy in action. Like self defense.

        Here’s John Mosby’s words:
        “The fundamental human right to self-defense and its tools does not stem from any piece of parchment or other act of man.
        It is much more elemental than that.
        I have more principled reasons for my stand on owning firearms, and I don’t care one whit in the world for the Second Amendment. It means nothing to me. My rights have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution, and when it dawns on people that it has finally been erased — the principal danger of all political premises posed as “social contracts” — my rights will still validly exist, even if I die defending them. I own firearms because I have a right to private property. That is the First Thing.
        …As the Regime takes off the gloves, every day it creates tens of thousands more American Patriots who realize yes, it really probably is going to get that bad, so really, they may not have that much to lose after all.
        So why not stop being afraid and stand up to the Regime?
        Join the honorable Resistance, or make your own. Garden, cook at home, teach your children, and get right with the Lord. Cut expenses, avoid taxes, learn new skills, and build savings of tangible real assets. Train, stockpile, recruit, prepare, guard, protect, and defend.
        Make this your finest hour.”

        So permit me to run this by you. After all, this post by Z is about secession and abolition of the transnationalist’s state of tyranny. And you and I are sharing back and forth about the nature of our founding documents. I do not fault the documents, but in North’s words, the conspiracy of malice of how those documents have been abused to protect the abusers from consequences, meaning lawful, and peaceful recourse, of responsibility for their crimes and treason, with malice and forethought against, MY, liberty. If I have to end up using other means of recourse, in defense of mine and my liberty, those documents no matter how beautiful, have they worked as advertised? North may be barking up the wrong tree in some respects, but the malice and conspiracy regardless of his theory, they exist as sure as the sun rises. It kind of goes against everything intended in regards to peaceful lawful redress sanctioned in those documents. The elemental and principles behind John Mosby’s words, aren’t the reason why in the first place, those documents where created? So on first principles, and elemental reasoning of primal rights of men, it does not matter if those documents work or not, conspiracy in Philidelphia or not, the dirt peoples omissions and or commissions or not, those primal rights are what matters, and no document, or all the documents in the world, don’t matter a hoot, because the reality right now, is those documents don’t matter to those who are usurpers, and to many people who have benefitted from them at the expense of those documents. So what is left for us my friend? Because beautiful or not, as you say, they ain’t working.

        So the Brit’s think when are those Yanks gonna give their leaders the what for? Sorry to our cousin’s, you guys don’t have the conundrum of governing documents and the wild wacky crazy mixed up dynamics of them being abused by every tin pot corruptocrat and illegal alien free shit freeloader useful dupe, in fact you Limey’s don’t even have governing documents, and you really only have withdrawn consent from one layer of statist tyrants foreign to your dirt, you still have the sticky problem of your domestic enemies. Lets see how you all handle that without founding governing documents. Of course you Brits have centuries of precedence in dealing with your Royal’s, and how they reneged on the Magna Carta, screwed the Scotts Irish, etc. And remember, those Scotts Irish are the dirt people of America, the original dirt people, who jumped over the Alleghany’s into the frontier, and who ended coming back over them to fight you Brits and your Tories, and made up the majority who did the bleeding and dying for those governing documents. Then again in 1862 did the decedents of those Scotts Irish, fight for secession and abolition of tyranny, against the same cultural marxists, the same marxists who are still waging a war of aggression against the southern heritage of the Scotts Irish. What a mess.

        • First off, nice work on the writing and use of paragraphs to make it easier to parse your thoughts! Much appreciated.

          Secondly, I keep going back to the Founding Documents as simply those “documents” that encapsulate basically the same thoughts that you, John Mosby, Gary North, and others including myself consider a natural fact. I don’t know why people hold them in such disrepute.

          Nothing the libs, socialists, or any other fascist mofo say or do can change the basic nature of man and our natural God given rights. I only marvel at the simplicity and beauty of the way the Founders stated the obvious when no one up till then had done so, and so many even today refuse to accept. Of course, those against this statement of man’s liberty object opening to any mention of God, but in truth, they just don’t like the thought that anyone, everyone would dare to think that they could be equal and free in every regard as the fascist’ who they consider superior to everyone else.

          It is the Bill of Rights and their Amendments that have issues, however, they still follow from the experience of the abuses those men had seen first hand from the British Crown and other European countries of the time.

          As for the claim that “government” was foisted on “us” by these devious and conniving people, a centralized government, I have thought about this in contrast to writings by ZeroGov and his writings. What I have come away with is that I do not think it is practical for man to exist and prosper without some form of organization. The basic need for defense, for you will always face threats from an Attila or Genghis or Alexander, etc. who want what you have, or simply enjoy killing and plundering; and a form of economic leveraging of mankind’s knowledge of specialization so that a civilization can grow and prosper. There are practical economies of scale that can be realized that benefit a larger group which would be cost prohibitive to a small one. Otherwise, I see man simply existing in a small tribal, fiefdom oriented existence which will always be racked by conflict with neighbors in a much diminished capacity, and any “progress” minimized or nullified as learning is lost or not shared widely for all to share. Heck, I am surprised even in this day and age how parochial people of different countries can be. There is all kinds of information available on how to solve problems, how to do things, etc. but are not adopted because it is not the way things are done locally.

          Just because man is a flawed creature does not mean you can’t have an organization run by men. Even at it’s smallest, a man alone makes good and bad decisions. Lots of people blame those on welfare, i.e. poor, or disadvantaged, illegals, or just those who game the system, for the mess of large government and the largess at the expense of tax payers. But what seems to avoid open derision is Big Business and Financial Institutions that are treated as “too big to fail.” To my free market, capitalist mind, there is no such thing as TBTF. They fuck up, they should die. That is the fault of their management, their Board of Directors, investors and consultants. It is not the tax payers fault. Period.

          So government like business should operate on performance measures. You don’t perform. You get fired. However, politicians have insulated themselves from any responsibility of their actions, do not consider past commitments their responsibility, and want to become TBTF as they grow their connections, power, vote themselves pay increases and increased benefits way beyond what their constituents enjoy. They are so deserving aren’t they. They earn every penny they can steal and vote they can buy. That is where the problem is. Not in words on a document. And our justice system and the election system does not punish these mofo’s for anything. Nothing. Lost is the justice for traitors. They are simply called partisans. But in my book, the 44th president of the USA is a bona fide traitor and should be brought up on charges but won’t be because … he is black?? Go figure.

          • As you say, the entire reason for governments existence now is for TBTF. It’s sole function now is to survive it’s illegitimacy. It abandoned it’s mandate of will of the governed and consent of the dirt people. That can only be so if virtually every actor of the state goes along and or enables this abandonment of consent for it. It must be so, for how could it be anything else? Where the state manages to survive is the almost incomprehensible thought of life without a state so many just can’t wrap their heads around, it horrifies them, it’s Impossible! We need some form of government! What about the Mongrel hordes! Where is my fainting coach!

            What is republican form of government but the motive power of liberty of the people. How can after centuries of tyranny of every type imaginable, can you look another guy in the face and say abolition of the state will never work? Ah excuse me, it did work, until the ratification of the USC nullified the Compact of Confederation. Whether that was a conspiracy, or just plain old simple stupid you can’t fix, it doesn’t matter. The truth is the CofC was working, it was a true venture in various forms of Jeffersonian Agrarianism, and it certainly had it’s teething problems, but it was real, and small nation states where beginning to figure it out. I think the answer is small, small nation states, in a compact of mutual support and economic co-operation. Small as in it is very much more difficult to usurp power and create tyrant states when they are small and surrounded physically and connected culturally and economically to other republics. And unfettered economic freedom is the greatest component of liberty. In such a small nation state that concent is hard wired into wealth and prosperity and the creation of it. It is like a kind of peer pressure, a very critical aspect in a unified culture. Everyone has a vested interest in happiness.

    • Doug, I like what you say. But for the Love of Mike, Use some paragraphs. The word salad you write is just one dense block of wordy prose. Indent. Line Break. Something. I agree with much of what you’ve said, but please make it easier to digest. Thanks.

      • OK, thanks for the constructive criticism. I have a terrible case of dyslexia, not trying to make excuses, but I have serious trouble with those concepts of construction. I kind of have to just write as the words form. Sincerely, my apologies to you if it is aggravating. I’ll try to be more conscious of things. It is splendid to be able to share thoughts with you all, great bunch of people here, lots of real good thinking. Inspiring and enlightening.

  11. It’s exactly like the French Canadians.

    Two things ended the seemingly endless calls for separation. First one was a clear path for exit with a very high (but fair) bar, not just 51% in a referendum with no exit plan. And during the last vote where Canadians said, sure leave but no, no union where you keep the protection of Canadian army and currency. You want independence, you got all of it.

    Separatists died totally as a cause when the politicians realized it wasn’t a path to Toronto doing all the heavy lifting while pretending independence. I’m convinced the Scots will end up in the same place, given how dependent they are on the Brits.

    • I found this old Mark Steyn article from 10 years ago: It’s interesting how relevant it still is, and to the political situation in other countries too. I’d almost forgotten about André Boisclair, “a coked-up gay “party boy” routinely described as having ‘matinee idol looks'” who was the leader of the Parti Québecois, but he’s a perfect example of the frivolous nature of a lot of politicians. More relevant, though, is Steyn’s observation that a lot of other countries achieved independence since 1989 – Latvia, Slovakia, Slovenia – but for some reason Quebec couldn’t do it, despite having a well-educated population and lots of natural resources.

      The margin of loss in the 1995 was narrow – 1%, about 60,000 votes, and Steyn noticed something that nobody had thought of: “As I wrote here a few months back, “In the sixties, Quebec separatists made the strategically disastrous decision to reject both the Queen and the Pope, the Crown and the cross–and, because they disdained the latter, they’ll never be rid of the former.” Young Quebecers trend separatist, but there aren’t enough of them. Had the province’s Catholics maintained traditional birthrates, they would have won their country. Instead, the glorious republique slips a little more beyond their grasp within each census.

      … If the province ever seriously dreamed of independence, those dreams long ago turned to dust–or, according to taste, white powder. If Quebec is “small,” it’s because it shrunk itself to the point where “separatism” is not serious–except to English Canada, which has to live with the consequences of having pretended it is for 40 years.

    • Those are British investments and the Brits sill control the army. That was settled in the 18th century. The UK mad it absolutely clear during the last Scottish referendum that North Sea Oil did not 100% belong to the Scots. The Scots need the UK way more than the other way around.

    • There is essentially no private economy in Shitland. People either collect benefits or work in social services, with not a lot in between. The Shits are a mongrel race and hardly worht discussing…

        • which I’ve never understood. A nation of just over 5 million has in its history produced inventors, scientists, authors and men-of-letters, etc etc that would do a nation 10 times its size proud. Yet here we are – West Virginia with golf.

          A case where, indeed, all the smart people really DID leave?

          BTW – Wales is just as fitting the West Virginia analogy, if not more so. GDP is only 2/3 that of the rest of Great Britain… the coal mining angle.

          • The people of Appalachia largely came from those border regions of Scotland. There are a fair number of place names in America that come from the Scottish cities and towns that sent the settlers.

          • The old joke from pioneer days was that when the Germans moved into a new area they built a barn first, the English built a house first and the Scots-Irish built a still first.

          • Pretty much. Though one of the reasons for heavy movement West after the Revolution is that many of the soldiers were paid off in land grants in Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois for their service (hard money resources lacking) Just look up “land bounty regiments”. It beat farming rocks in NY anyway. But the prevalence of distilling was also driven by the need to produce something easily transportable that had cash or trade value. Hence why my ancestors who first settled in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky in the 1790s were also distillers. (and probably paid no exise tax)

          • Just drive up US60 from Charleston WV into the mountains. Lots of Scottish names intermingled with towns that describe their function, like Alloy and Nitro.

          • You can walk into England from both places,(I can see Wales out my window as I type) and that’s exactly what the smart ones did.

          • The famous Doctor Johnson quote from Boswell’s “Life of Johnson”:

            He thought he was safe in saying that Scotland had a great many noble, wild prospects. “I believe, sir,” said Johnson, “you have a great many. Norway, too, has noble, wild prospects; and Lapland is remarkable for prodigious noble, wild prospects. But, sir, let me tell you, the noblest prospect which a Scotchman can see is the high road that leads him to England.”

          • Read ‘Albion’s Seed’. Excellent reading about your heritage. You’ll learn where things like sod cabins came from and the significance of the Hatfield & McCoy feud.

          • Along the same lines, the Nine Nations of North America and American Nations are good reads too. Both are much shorter than Albion’s Seed and a little more accessible to modern readers. In the Internet age, brevity is important. I always found Albion’s Seed a bit gassy.

            I should do a post on books

          • I couldn’t get all the way through Albion’s Seed. I found it fascinating but soporific (fully half the text is footnotes and they’re meaty).

            I’m glad you mentioned American Nations the other day because I started reading it immediately. It’s WAY more accessible (albeit less meticulous) and the author mentions Albion’s early on in the context of building upon that landmark work on the subject of American folkways.

            I too would like a post on books.

Comments are closed.