There’ll always be an England – Just not in those tiny little minds.



Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam CO2I was raised in a very Anglo home. I read P.G. Wodehouse, Jerome K. Jerome, Aldous Huxley, Orwell, you name it, with real enthusiasm. It was “England” to me, incarnate. The English mindset may be insular, etc., but it’s highly evolved. It knows how to express itself.

The England  of my grandparents which found itself running an Empire was nether altruistic per se, or naïve per se. It was reflective, and innovative in some odd, but practical ways. It was also highly articulate. It had its own aesthetics, and genuine, if all over the shop, values.

England as an idea is a collection of people of deep roots. Those deep roots may be many things, and almost unique in their local forms, but they speak a language which is mutually understood on many levels.

The minds which created the Empire were a mix of Tudors and Drakes, Adam Smith, and pure business. The East India Company was a virtual empire unto itself, but still connected to the English metier. Opium wars and Jardines may come and go; the idiom remains.

The immortal Celts in England

Includes useful information on How To Be English. Insufferable, eh?

An empire based on sheer gall, as the original British Empire was, is inventive by nature as well as by necessity. The tiny little Royal Navy was able to fight its way in to global supremacy, using a unique perspective. It was no accident that the Royal Navy happened to be an effectively invincible force at the times of Napoleon and Hitler.

The most basic idea of England, the island nation, made the Royal Navy a natural first choice of weapon. If your interests are overseas, you must have a navy, and a good one. America would probably be still a member of a very different world if not for the Townshend Acts and a rather unfortunate incumbent monarch.

You could argue that England, left to itself, without the foreign complications, would have continued to pursue its own best interests to this day. World War 1 was an unnecessary obscenity leading to World War 2, a necessary obscenity, but an expensive one. Without those two wars, the British Empire, with its built-in Englishness, would still probably exist, in whatever form.

England was one of the first truly cosmopolitan modern nations, despite itself. “Foreign” has never been a recommendation in England, even if you’re an importer. It’s “there”, not “here”. That’s a mistake on its part. “Here”, by definition, is good. Anywhere else, therefore, isn’t.

Being cosmopolitan didn’t mean in any sense adopting culture; it meant reacting to it. The English sense of superiority, like most of its kind, was based on historical superiority, not some mere bits of relevant information.

It’s odd how the English mindset and those of Imperial China overlapped, even when at war with each other. The culture of England, like that of China, was paramount; it defined the superior. The Chinese thought foreigners barbarians. For the English, simply not being English was quite enough information to denigrate anyone or anything.

Yet – England has produced some of the finest ideas in history. The English mind may not be patentable, but it is interesting. The Industrial Revolution started in England. So did computing, anti-slavery, mental health care, and virtual, if not quite literal, encyclopaedia of other modern ideas.

Those ideas are now globally accepted. The little island, with all its accents, was nevertheless the cornerstone of true modernisation in so many ways. A tide of English personalities, a few Scots and Irish, but on the English stage, changed the world. England was a miniature of what the USA became in the 20th century.

Culture is one of the worst defined of all terms. According to Google, a culture is:

  1. The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
  2. the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society.

That hardly begins to describe a living society, which is acting continuously in millions of different context. A culture, by definition, is a living thing. It may not be much of a living thing, but it acts like a living thing, trying to survive and prosper.

England’s Glory

The innovations of England were always a form of some practical management; call it greed, call it culture, call it literature; they all came from the same organism.

…Which is why this current pathetic, inward-looking mindset is inherently anti-English.  Leaving the EU is as much cosmetic as anything else. Foreigners are inevitable; whether you’re in their club or not doesn’t really matter. The English can always take or leave “there” and its peculiarities.

What matters isn’t the relationships; it’s the benefits. What profit is derived from what is now looking like a petulant, badly managed exercise in cutting one’s own throat? Melodrama, let alone on the world stage, isn’t the English way.

A quiet word, preferably meaningful, is more the preferred English style. One doesn’t have to personally outrun a horse on the race track; one can simply nobble it or beat it in the betting market, or even the breeding market.

England vs Small Ideas

Big ideas do better when not encumbered by small ideas. Being lumbered with pedantry isn’t only annoying, it’s unprofitable. So Brexit, in its ponderous self-importance, is neither here nor there. Lousy navigation, to say the least.

The EU and Brexit are an example of appalling little minds. The EU is a platform. It’s just the stage, not the performers or the play. It’s floorboards, not Falstaff. It’s what you put on that platform that matters. The play’s definitely the thing. It’s also what draws in the audience, and the money.

A more English approach would be accommodating to the point of being comatose, while diligently paddling one’s own canoe somewhere worth going. Why get out of bed, simply to announce you’ll next be throwing yourself out the window?

…Particularly when you have no intention of doing either, given half a chance. Perfidious Albion has a terrible, and thoroughly deserved, reputation, but it also has a reputation for success and intelligence. The English way is to be elegantly enigmatic, superior in assumed social class, but absolutely unfathomable when it’s anything important.

The lack of subtlety and incisive initiative in Brexit and this rather sloppy range of inverse domestic policies is decidedly un-English. Not only are these things much too melodramatic; they don’t work.

Silence and achievement go well together. An enigma is much more respected than a babbling gossip of one’s least impressive issues. A silent response is not only more subject to misinterpretation, but impossible to contradict. Deception is based on misinterpretation, and if someone else is doing the misinterpreting, it’s less effort on your part.

England is a mentality. It may grow actual and social bluebells, and good luck to it, or the true classic English gardens, madly overgrown but truly beautiful. You see why England cannot be grown by fools, particularly noisy fools.

Note the following very English view:

The psychology of ‘Not’: Meet your (unexpected) inner conservative


Paul Wallis, Sydney Media JamIf conservatism is famous for anything, it’s famous for what it doesn’t do. Conservative platforms since Thatcher and Reagan have been all about ‘Not’:

  • Not regulating.
  • Not funding.
  • Not culture.
  • Not education.
  • Not public health.
  • Not social justice.
  • Not science.
  • Not environment.
  • Not modernizing.
  • Not listening.

These Nots are basics, monotonously droned out by conservatives in every Western country on Earth without exception. They’re therefore usually ignored, and therefore not at all understood, by progressives. This range of Nots are everything about conservatism that any progressive has ever claimed them to be, and devalued accordingly.

The problem is that’s a very simple, and shallow, way of looking at conservatism. It’s also a great way of totally misunderstanding what Not really means in practice.

Paul Wallis books, sydney media jam

This book is all about creative ideas. Nobody has yet died of reading it, but it’s a pretty tough call for those not familiar with working with ideas. “Passive voice”, eh?

For example – The usual appeal to “tradition” is often based on a personal reward. It brings back to you things that barely exist anymore. Tradition, however, is also the incarnation of a range of Nots, too, if you spin it that way. These appeals to tradition are great for those lost in the modern world, modern thinking and modern initiatives.

Tradition can be a huge reward. It’s a return to the womb or the family home of childhood, a safe place in your mind. (You could call it a luxury, on that basis.) It’s also a well-known psychological manipulative process. It’s guaranteed to appeal to the insecure, the overstressed and the under-acknowledged. It’s particularly effective on the modern psychological plague, anxiety.

This is the major, classic version of ‘Not’. These pre-adult nostalgias are at their core all about things  that are ‘not’ the things now bothering you. It’s like watching an old TV show from when you were a kid; you’re back home, somehow, at least for a while.

Let’s be fair about this –

  • Everyone over 10 has an established ‘Not’ zone, and a range of experiences and preferences to back it up.
  • The ‘Nots’ are real, perfectly valid psychological buttons, and they work on anyone. People use their Nots as valid reasons.
  • There’s a natural, and reasonable, right to insist on your personal ‘Nots’.

The problems with ‘Not’ as a basis for anything start with the ultra-dangerous “Not real”. This is a double entendre in a whole new class:

  • It can mean your personal Nots are real.
  • It can mean that any reality which isn’t a Not, isn’t real.

The separation between reality and Not is based on deep Fight or Flight catalysts. Fear is always effective, delivering adrenalin to upgrade non-specific Nots to personal crusades or deeply held, sudden beliefs in anything and everything.

Case in point – Many people fear change, and by extension, progress. Others may fear ideas, which leave them lost and totally unprepared for the thinking that goes with new ideas and new things.  They feel insecure, and disadvantaged by these things, and, in fact, they are. Their Nots have excluded them.

This is another universal human experience. It can be a very honest experience.  Many are highly distrustful of the often fake, facile logic of business culture. They distrust it, both on the job and in general.  That distrust is usually backed up by truly lousy personal experiences, and the belief in Not, which is a natural defensive reaction to adversity, becomes entrenched.

It’s a type of logic, perhaps not very focused, but it can drive a drastic response to anything. It can also drive a demand for more Nots. Nots are both a combination of conflict evasion and a position for conflict. Any Not can be used as a stonewall reaction to any group. It can be a rallying point. Add some dopamine, and you can even use it as a basis for “friend or foe” relationships.

The reality or unreality of Nots in history

Put enough Nots together, and you have a society based on Nots. That would be all fine and ducky, but Nots have a 100% record of failure over time.

  • China had a policy of not introducing foreign goods, for decades; look at China now.
  • Tsarist Russia had a policy of two very separate economic classes, not connected in any way and a strict social hierarchy on that basis; look at Russia now.
  • The sun did not set on the British Empire; Not-style mindsets destroyed it with unpreparedness and mismanagement based on the Not mentality. Look at the UK now.

The moral of history is that it’s not about Nots. Nots are straws in a hurricane. Life isn’t, and can’t be, entirely about negativity. The question is this: Does everyone’s inner conservative, the usually self-serving Not-addict, recognize the risks? Probably, Not.




England ad oblivia – Mediocrity to the end


Paul Wallis, Sydney Media JamIt means “England to obscurity”. If you have an atom of English blood in you, not the pathetic England of today, but older, more plausible, England, you don’t even need to ask what happened. The tedious little bastards have finally done it – From super power to car park in 150 years.

England has produced some truly remarkable people. These aren’t them. Look at the leaders of today off camera, and you wouldn’t notice them, or care that you didn’t. They’re nobodies. They do very little worth mentioning except find disasters in which to participate.

This is the fifth generation after the fools who entered World War 1 and bankrupted the country for the first of many times. Do you think Henry VIII or Elizabeth 1 would have gone to war over a trivial assassination? Hardly. The ancestors of the current useless load of baggage, however, did.  All the rest followed; the slaughters, the blunders, and the economic failures piled up for the rest of the century.

The immortal Celts in EnglandBritain’s passage through the 20th century was only redeemed by its people, who somehow managed to survive some of the least competent governance in history. England, however, did one better – As a tale of conscious, wilful national self-destruction, it’s hard to beat.

England has always been a separate entity, mainly for physical reasons. In ancient times, it was quite successful as a Celtic, then Roman, country. It had enough resources and trade to be at least visibly prosperous. It wasn’t overpopulated, either.

History was a series of invasions, wars, revolutions, the odd relieving plague or so, and maniacal mercantilism. England, then, as now, was as much an economic entity as anything else. The Tudors started the empire, almost by accident, and a progression up to George III did quite well until losing America over a piffling tax.

The City of London, apart from being burned down by Boudicca and the Great Fire, has always managed for itself. During the Wars of the Roses, it guided itself through and kept the business of the city, and the nation, more or less intact. It survived the blitz as being just another unasked-for encumbrance on its business.

The Empire of England – What was and what wasn’t.

Wanderlaugh, Paul Wallis books, Amazon

My books are set in the England of the immortals, not some dreary little off license. Wonder why? No.

The brilliant stage of England at its modern best came after the Napoleonic Wars. This was an uncharacteristically prosperous England. It was truly rich. That rarely occurs in English history. Under strong kings and queens, it was very rich at times, but most of the monarchs were pretty average.

The Empire flourished after 1820 – Mainly because it had no real competition. Europe was a disorganized, neurotic, inward-looking, mess. Russia was a backward blizzard full of the poor and the not-all-that arguably delirious. The Royal Navy ruled, and until after World War 2 it was an instrument of national policy with global reach. That it’s now more of an auditing exercise than a global power isn’t its fault – It’s the fault of substandard Whitehall lackeys who never really understood what it was for, or what it did.

Queen Victoria was a very good ruler in one way – She was the face of a triumphant, very English, not “British”, super power. The money was in England, the power was in England, and the global reach was in London. “Britain” was a sort of geographical euphemism.

Didn't know that, eh?

Didn’t know that, eh?

If the Empire existed today, it would cover North America, Britain, half of Africa, India, Australia and New Zealand, with countless other islands and territories. It would have been unchallengeable, un-fightable, in fact, with 19th and 20th century military technologies. The money would have flowed back to England. It would have been the biggest economic entity in human history, bar none. Even bigger than America at its peak.

If Europe wanted to destroy itself, it would have just meant more business for London. England could have remained aloof, and not much could have been done about it. A fairly rational policy, in fact.

The fact that it didn’t happen is based on one thing only – Politics. This obscene word is now a synonym for insanity, but it’s always been a negative force. Consider a form of government based on division of societies and conflicts over every piddling issue, however instantly fixable. Does it sound like a good idea?

Paul Wallis books, sydney media jam

This book is all about creative ideas. Nobody has yet died of reading it, but it’s a pretty tough call for those not familiar with working with ideas.

England, however, managed to avoid global domination thanks to its politics. The big money centralized the real power. The soggy brains of England’s very average politicians were easy to outwit. More big money was made, and hypnotized by the cash, national and Empire policy followed it, not logic. It’s been doing that ever since.

There is no human social dynamic less able to resist money than politics. There is no social structure more able to spread corruption and inefficiencies than politics. The rest of the story is all about politics doing what it does, and doing it so very badly.

The Commonwealth could have worked as an economic entity, and it did, in a largely ignored way, for a while. Putting together decent trade deals and managing all those foreigners, however, was quite beyond the governments of the postwar era.

English culture, apart from the 20s and the 60s, has become more superficial than real. It’s a two dimensional form of England, appropriately enough, a shop window. It’s a sort of reality-mediocrity bit of theatrics. There is a real English culture under the drunks, criminals and tiresome little rich people, but it’s not visible.

Brexit unter alles – England? Where’s that?

An English author. Perhaps that'll be illegal too, in the cowardly, dribbling modern version of England? You have to wonder why this book is STILL so far ahead of "debate" so many years later. A classic case of the norm being so far behind previous thinking.

An English author. Perhaps that’ll be illegal too, in the cowardly, dribbling modern version of England? You have to wonder why this book is STILL so far ahead of “debate” so many years later. A classic case of the norm being so far behind previous thinking.

Brexit is the next to last step in the total destruction of the giant achievements of England. The final step will be actual dissolution of Britain and reversion to a tiny little nation which has escaped from national prosperity yet again.

The Scots don’t have much choice – They need Europe. The Welsh and Northern Irish need their lifelines, too. The self-destruction of English industry and mainstream economics doesn’t give them many choices, either.

Even more spectacular in its utter mediocrity is the fact that England has effectively moved itself to the bottom of the food chain. With one stupid, barely considered move, England has managed to go from a palace to a bedsit. Only England’s least intelligent could possibly have achieved this situation.

I’m not quite prepared to write an obituary for this stupid, insular little country, despite its oversupply of absolute fools. Much of my ancestry is English. I like the place, if not the idiotic national image of it and the pathetic losers running it.

My family worked for the Tudors, set up Wesley Mission for the Wesleys, and participated in most of its wars.  We have a family crest going back to the days when there were wolves in England, pre-1120 AD.

It’s just possible that another English characteristic, knowing what to do with fools, may reassert itself. Parasite removal may come back in style. Someone with a vision may find a way out.

The problem is that the people expected to find the fixes are obviously irredeemable genetic morons. They’re the descendants of useless scum, following the family trade. Nobody with half a brain would have staged Brexit with no idea what to do next.  There may well always be an England, but it’ll be an idea, not a fact, until someone pulls their finger out and gets down to business.

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam, Paul Wallis books