04b Theory and Analysis

Originally published April 28, 2025 for our End-of-Month Issue of Mindful Intelligence Advisor.  Subscribe to get semi-monthly issues.

By Paul Gordon Collier, Editor

“For in prosperity a man is often puffed up with pride, whereas tribulations chasten and humble him through suffering and sorrow. In the midst of prosperity, the mind is elated, and in prosperity a man forgets himself; in hardship, he is forced to reflect on himself, even though he be unwilling. In prosperity, a man often destroys the good he has done; amidst difficulties he often repairs what he long since did in the way of wickedness.” –Alfred the Great

INTRODUCTION

Where once the sun never set on the British Empire, we find an island-nation struggling to exist as a people borne from the same core ideal that formed our own United States of America. As a matter of fact, it is not an overstatement to say that this same British Empire is the mother of the American experiment where this ideal was allowed to be more fully and materially expressed.

That ideal is this: the individual is imbued with an innate right to define and pursue their own happiness so long as they respect the rights of others to do the same.

That spirit, the spirit of “individual liberty,” was itself borne from centuries of bloodshed on British soil spent fighting to possess the state authority to impose one another’s definitions of happiness and pursuit of that happiness on others.

The culmination of those wars was seen in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the so-called bloodless revolution that usurped a King who was imposing his definition of happiness and pursuit on others.

The end result of the war was a government more accountable to lower ranks of power than it had ever before been, at least in any sustainable state.

The parallels between the events that led up to the Glorious Revolution and the imposition of the definition of happiness and pursuit by the current UK parties in power are, in this writer’s estimation, striking.

Both the King, as an advocate of Catholicism, and the British parties in power, representing varying degrees of socialist-presuppositionally-framed ideologies, possess ideologies that assume state authority rights to rigidly define both happiness and the method of pursuit of that happiness.

In the case of the Glorious Revolution, the Protestants had access to one thing the British lack today: arms. It is the disarming of Britain that allowed the authoritarian virus sent from America (which received it from France, mostly) to more rapidly entrench itself in critical institutes of power, including the courts and the police.

Yet, there is no reason to lose hope, for once the spirit of England that became the spirit of Britain that became the spirit of America, the spirit of individual liberty, was almost snuffed out before it ever had a chance to flourish. That flourishing has benefited humanity as a whole.

That seed lay in the furrowed brow of Alfred the Great, who hid in the marshes, nearly alone, after being brutalized by the new power in the land, the Danes.

From the single light of a night camp mired in mud, the heart of America would rise, against all odds, with little more than a hope, a circumstance similar to what the British find themselves facing today.

May God restore the spirit of Britain to Albion.

A. THE DISARMING

It is difficult to say whether the spirit of individual liberty was already dead when the British chose “security” over “liberty,” but, nonetheless, the erosion of individual liberty assumptions in Britain since gun ownership rights effectively ended in 1997 has been exponential.

In less than 30 years, it has already reached the point where the British people have little (if any) representation by their political parties in defense of “dangerous” free speech (more on that later). But how did we get here?

1. REGULATION-FREE EMPIRE – The rise of British ingenuity and power was not accompanied with one thing that the nation is now dominated by: gun regulations. The first significant gun regulation came in 1903 through the Pistols Act, which created the first gun licensing, but only for pistols with barrels shorter than 9 inches.
2. THE FIRST BLOW – Britain would largely remain as free as America when it came to gun rights until 1968, when the British parliament passed the Firearms Act of 1968. This act expanded the licensing requirement to include ALL firearms owners, which also effectively created a government database of gun owners.

Perhaps the most significant change was a requirement that anyone wanting to possess firearms should have a “good reason” for owning a firearm.

3. USING THE DEAD TO DISARM THE FREE – Two major gun tragedies, the Hungerford Massacre of 1987 and the Dunblane School Massacre of 1996, led to the passage of bills that effectively ended gun rights in Britain, leaving us with the unarmed state Britain now finds itself in today.

The Hungerford Massacre claimed 16 lives. A lone gunman with legally owned firearms killed 16 people. The response from the British public was not just to support gun restrictions, but to demand them. Prosperity with fear led them to believe a monopolization of violence was safer than allowing human beings to defend themselves, possibly against their own tyrannical government.

The Firearms Act of 1988 (which was an amendment of the 1968 Act) banned ALL semi-automatic rifles, effectively ending rifle defense in Britain among non-government entities.

Just nine years later, another tragedy, the Dunblane School Massacre of 1996, where 17 people, one teacher, and 16 children, were murdered by one attacker, led to the Firearms Act of 1997, which effectively ended pistol defense in Britain for non-government entities. This now means Britain has effectively no real self-defense rights.

B. THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION

One revolution led to the rise of the spirit of individual liberty; another has led, so far, to its death. BOTH revolutions began with same appeal, an appeal to tolerance and justice. The first revolution was the Glorious Revolution.

King James II of England reigned for only three years, from 1685 until 1688. He was deposed through a bloodless coup when the Protestants William of Orange and Mary Stuart landed with an armed retinue to no resistance.

What followed later involved bloodshed and failed attempts by James to retake the crown, but James was never again able to mount a serious challenge to William and Mary.

The culmination of the Glorious Revolution, the actual revolution itself, is not as significant to this report as the events that led up to this revolution. This is what I will focus on here.

1. TOLERANCE – The beginning of James’ reign saw little action taken to impose Catholicism on others, but rather only gentle nudges to allow Catholics to openly worship and serve in government as well.

Like the UK authoritarians in power today, James began his reign appealing to tolerance, even diversity (though he would not have used that term, yet, effectively, that’s what he was seeking, diversity in government, religiously).

Initially, his efforts were to circumvent the Test Act of 1673 without outright opposing it. The act made government office effectively only open to members of the Church of England. James appointed Catholics in defiance of the act.

James justified these appointments, stating, “We have thought fit to provide that men of all religions shall now serve us, according to their abilities, without any distinction of sect or opinion.” (from his Speech to the Privy Council, 1686).

Father Edward Petre, an advisor to the King, claimed, “The King’s appointments reflect his commitment to justice, not favoritism.”

In other words, the King’s appointment of Catholics represented justice, not discrimination against Protestants. If you add the word “social,” you can see the parallels to the ideologies of the UK parties in power in the appeals being made in defense of the “outcast” Catholic Church.

Some, however, saw this appeal to “tolerance” as the opening salvo in a war intended to end with Catholic hegemony.

William Sancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, told a confidante in a private missive, “The King’s actions are a clear design to overthrow the Protestant religion and place papists in every corner of power.”

Perhaps John Hampden, a politician during the time, most resonates with the voice of resistance against today’s version of the same authoritarianism.

Hampden said, “This is not tolerance but tyranny, cloaked in the guise of liberty.”

This is because, at this time, the Catholic Church was still intolerant of any public expression of belief not in keeping with the official church narrative. Had the Catholic church not held such a position, perhaps the resistance to allowing Catholics into government would not have existed at all.

It should be noted, however, that up to this point, various Protestant political factions had taken their turns in being as intolerant of individually stewarded belief as the Catholic church was at that time.

2. THE SEVEN BISHOPS – There were a series of actions beginning in 1687 that led to the usurpation of James, culminating in the birth of a male heir that now made it clear James could extend Catholic rule beyond his life. Before the heir was born, only Protestants filled the potential requirements to succeed him.

The arrest of the seven bishops, however, was, in this writer’s analysis, the culmination of the end of any real support James could hope to receive from rank-and-file Britain. Perhaps this action can be compared to the current efforts in Britain to jail and imprison people for expressing beliefs not in keeping with the official party position.

In America, it may have been the day Donald Trump came within a whisper to being assassinated, then rose in defiance and shouted, “Fight, fight, fight!”

In May of 1688, James mandated that every church read the Declaration of Indulgence from 1687. It was a proclamation for tolerance of public worship. He declared, “We cannot but heartily wish, as it will easily be believed, that all the people of our dominions were members of the Catholic Church; yet we humbly thank Almighty God it is, and has of long time been, our constant sense and opinion… that conscience ought not to be constrained, nor people forced in matters of mere religion”

As you can imagine, not all non-Catholics were keen to read this declaration. Seven Bishops of note stood out after publishing a petition to the King that read, “We are bound to fear that your Majesty’s Declaration is founded upon such a dispensing power as has often been declared illegal in Parliament.” (from the Petition of the Seven Bishops, 1688).

In June of 1688, James had the seven bishops arrested, jailed, and charged with seditious libel. The trial was shared in pamphlets across Britian, with very few people not being aware of the drama unfolding, thanks to the now-accomplished rise of the pamphleteers, the progenitors of “modern” news publishing (expect a report on that in future issues of MIA).

The printing press was still causing narrative-control problems for the party in power as surely as social media continues to do today for our current brand of authoritarians.

The trial went badly for the King, ending with the bishops becoming national heroes and the King losing all legitimacy. The mask was now off; the King fully intended to force Catholicism on a people who were fundamentally now Protestant.

So far, the trials for those arrested for posting “hate” on social media have ended badly for the British, but perhaps the culmination of arrests will reach the critical threat level that seven bishops being arrested and jailed once did for these same people.

C. THE UNGLORIOUS REVOLUTION

In the Glorious Revolution, I covered the events that would culminate in the actual revolution. In examining the UNGlorious Revolution, I merely wish to cover the fruit of that now-completed revolution, the political state of reality in Britain today.

The rise of their power, however, though over a significantly longer period of time, was also driven by appeals for “tolerance” and “justice.”

Britain effectively had a two-party dominant political system that, in recent years, has become three, with the rise of Reform UK. There are really five major political parties in Britain: Labour, Reform UK, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and the Green Party.

Labour still leads in the poll of polls at 26%, with Reform UK still rising and closing in at 24%. Conservatives continue their fall, now down to 22%, with Liberal Democrats holding at 14% and the Green Party representing 8%.

On the surface, Britain seems like it has a lot of political diversity, but in areas that touch individual liberty, the British public have little to no representation in ANY of the current parties, including Reform UK.

The British people themselves are not aware of just how much liberty they have already lost (the right to defend oneself using effective tools like guns) and how that loss of liberty has created in them a mindset not fit for the danger of being individually free and “allowing” your neighbor to do the same.

1. FREE SPEECH – Here are statements from the major party leaders on free speech rights. Note that every party leader leaves room for some form of “hate” control of speech except for Reform UK (whose actions, which we will see, don’t meet the declarations of their own leader).

“Freedom of expression is a fundamental right, but it must not be used to incite hatred or violence. We will strengthen laws to protect vulnerable communities while safeguarding legitimate debate.” – Keir Starmer, Labour

“Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy. We must protect it, even when it offends, and resist the creeping authoritarianism of hate speech laws.” – Nigel Farage, Reform UK

ED.NOTE: Unless it’s a dissenting member of the party, Rupert Lowe, then you turn him in to the police for using bullying language.

“We must defend free speech vigorously, but there is no place for hatred or incitement in our society. Our laws must strike the right balance.” – Kemi Badenoch, Conservatives

“Free speech is a fundamental liberal value, but it must not be a license to spread hate. We will ensure laws protect both rights and vulnerable groups.” – Sir Ed Davey, Liberal Democrats

“We must defend free expression, but hate speech has no place in a just society. We will strengthen laws to protect marginalized communities.” – Adrian Ramsay, Green Party

2. BEARING ARMS – The right to bear arms, the fundamental assumption that a human being has a fundamental right to protect themselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is such a non-issue that even finding quotes was difficult to do manually. This writer had to rely on Grok3 to get quotes from the parties about gun rights.

This shift happened less than 30 years ago after they effectively lost all gun rights.

As I already stated, it is difficult to say whether the banning of firearms caused the British people to lose their sense of individual liberty or whether that spirit was lost before the gun bans, with the passage and support of the bills then being the fruit of the death of the spirit of individual liberty.

But one thing is certain: first, gun rights fell, and now the British people are already becoming accustomed to living in a world in which “common sense” thought control is considered a default presupposition.

Here are their quotes:

“Labour remains committed to keeping our communities safe through stringent gun control measures.” – A “party spokesperson,” Labour

“The UK’s gun laws are among the strictest, but we should consider the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves in extreme circumstances.” – Nigel Farage, Reform UK

“Our gun laws are essential for public safety, and we have no intention of changing them.” – A “party spokesperson,” Conservatives

“Gun violence is rare in the UK because of our laws, and we will keep it that way.” – A “party spokesperson,” Liberal Democrats

“We must go further to prevent gun violence, including banning all handguns and restricting access to firearms.” – A “party spokesperson,” Green Party

3. IMMIGRATION – Immigration in and of itself isn’t an individual liberty issue, but in this case, it is. The lack of respect for individual agency and individual liberty has led to a lack of respect for the agency, the liberty of a British nation, as a distinctly socially and culturally British people.

The approach every major political party takes to addressing the obvious, deliberate Planvasion of Britian reveals that the loss of individual agency (individual liberty) has led to a loss of national agency (national liberty) as well.

THE PLANVASION IS THIS: Non-British “migrants are being shipped and flown in, then funded by British tax dollars once they get here, then given near-free license to rape and murder British (preferably white) children in a DELIBERATE effort to shatter the nation from within until it dissolves into a UN province.

Here are quotes from the major party leaders on Immigration (See for yourself if ANY, including Reform, are talking about sending anyone back who has already been imported):

“Mark my words, a future Labour Government will bring down net migration.” – Keir Starmer, Labour

 “We would freeze non-essential immigration… this should be the immigration election.” – Nigel Farage, Reform UK

“We will introduce a binding, legal cap on migration to protect our public services and ensure the skills we need.” – Former PM Rishi Sunak, Conservatives

“We’ll replace the current salary threshold (for immigrants) with a flexible merit-based system to ensure fairness and meet economic needs.” – Sir Ed Davey, Liberal Democrats

“We’ll abolish the hostile environment and ensure migrants have rights, not barriers – migration enriches our society.” – Carla Denyer, Green Party

D. THE LAST PARTY TO FALL?

Nigel Farage was the man who led the charge that saw the British public vote to leave the European Union. Now, he finds himself the so-called Messianic head of what is effectively a one-man party that appears unfit to build broad-based, merit-awarding networks of support that are critical for political parties to be able to govern.

Could his latest venture, Reform UK, be the last hurrah of individual liberty, or could his party’s internecine wars be a symbol of the low point the British people must come to before they rise from marshes, shattered but determined, like Aelfred the Great, to restore the lost realm?

1. ENTER RUPERT – Rupert Lowe, an independently wealthy entrepreneur recently turned politician, was a rising star in Reform UK, having won his own seat in parliament and receiving rave reviews from his constituency.

Yet, the rising star dared publicly challenge Nigel Farage’s version of Reform UK, citing Farage’s inability to build the party beyond his personal brand, even calling him the messianic figurehead of the party.

2. EXIT RUPERT – The response from Reform UK was quick, vicious, and decisive, making efforts to disparage Lowe’s very character and integrity with what turned out to be questionable sources, and removing him from the party altogether. Farage said of the removal, “We cannot allow constant infighting to derail our mission. Divided parties don’t win elections, and we must show the public we’re serious.”

What’s worse, as revealed earlier in this report, Farage reported Lowe to the police for using “hateful language.”

Lowe’s crime was in pushing too hard against immigration, even daring to call for deportations, even daring to identify Islam as a threat to the British people, though his greater crimes may have been to potentially become a bigger star than Farage himself is now.

Lowe spoke of the efforts to smear him with charges he was a bully in the office, pointing out it was a claim denied by everyone in his office save for two women who leveled those accusations, and numerous others, only AFTER they were disciplined for inappropriate conduct.

Lowe said, “This is a political assassination. I’ve called for a properly structured party, not a one-man show, and they’ve smeared me for it.”

3. HOLDING ON? – So far, Reform UK hasn’t seen any dip in polling, but its rise has now appeared to have halted. Is this the sign of retreat to come or a reflection of a Nigel Farage-based party’s ceiling? Only time will tell. This writer believes those numbers are only set to go down.

It doesn’t help that Reform UK is doubling down with a new report based on the same questionable sources, two women who were FIRST reprimanded, then  AFTERWARDS started filing complaints against the whole office.

It also doesn’t help that Rupert Lowe is now reporting Reform UK to the police for illegally releasing two members of Rupert Lowe’s office to the public.

The net result is the last bastion for individual liberty made it clear it is no respecter of diversity of thought, the cornerstone of an individual liberty-based ideology. Britain is effectively without a true British party.

PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS

To look forward, perhaps we must first look back, back to what may be the real beginning of our current American story, the reign of Aelfred the Great, the King of Wessex. He ruled from 871 to 899 and laid the groundwork for what would become an English identity that culminated with the reign of his grandson, King Aethelstan, who reigned from 924 to 939 over the full territory of England.

1. THE GREAT DEFEAT – In January of 878, an invading force of Danes led by King Guthrum overtook Aelfred and his court at Chippenham. The battle was disastrous, leaving the kingdom effectively without a government. Aelfred was left to flee for fear of his life, taking to the marshes in Somerset, settling in hiding at the Isle of Athelney.
2. AELFRED LEARNS CAKE POLITICS – A myth that may or may not be based in fact has come down to us through the ages that describes a desperate Aelfred living in a peasant woman’s cottage, disguised as a peasant himself in need.

Even if the myth isn’t true, the creation and preservation of the myth suggests the values it reflects are those the creators and preservers of the myth wish to share.

The myth began with the peasant woman telling Aelfred to watch her cakes while she did other work.

Aelfred was not so good at cake watching, having left the cakes burn because he was pondering the state of his ruined kingdom. The old woman returned and gave Aelfred a tongue lashing that left him humiliated, but all the wiser because of the lessons he learned.

He didn’t punish the woman; he learned from her. The King learned a lesson from one of his poor subjects.

For one, he learned that no matter your station in life you must attend to the prosaic needs in front of you. He learned that being a person of integrity, demonstrating true “character” is something that should be expected of anyone, no matter their station in life, be they a King or a pauper.

He also learned that no matter how big your problems, if you can’t deal with the small ones in front of you, you’ll be ill equipped to deal with the bigger ones.

For this writer, this myth is also a parable of the principle of Popular Sovereignty, where sovereignty is through the consent of the people.

You can deduct from that axiomatic principle, Popular Sovereignty, a daily application principle I call the Sovereignty of the Task at Hand. This sovereignty trumps (at least generally) the ranks of the individuals within an association.

Even in the U.S. military, there are instances where Generals can be beholden to privates if the private is the one directing the task at hand (though, of course, Generals can trump that popular sovereignty as well).

To put it simply, thought Aelfred was the King of the realm, within the task at hand, minding the cakes in a peasant’s cottage, the King should defer to the popular sovereignty of the task at hand, which would be possessed by the one directing that task.

3. AELFRED RETURNS – In part thanks to this important life lesson, Aelfred began work on preparing his land for the next assault, instituting a number of military reforms and executing a massive building project, building a series of fortified towns called Burhs, which were intended to raise the cost of invasion, in terms of manpower and other resources, by making even small towns difficult to conquer.

He is even credited with creating the first Navy for what would become the English people, but some historians believe rather than creating the first navy, he laid the seeds for that eventuality.

The culmination of his return came in May of 878 with the battle of Edington. Aelfred’s newly trained and equipped military was able to easily crush Guthram’s forces, leading to the Treaty of Wedmore. This created a clear division between the Angles and the Danes, with the Danes’ portion coming to be known as the Danelaw.

The spirit of England was not only saved by Aelfred, but he was also the seed that created it. He created it in the face of utter hopelessness, and this writer predicts that this “rising from the marshes” moment is coming when the British people will rise up and reassert their individual-liberty-rooted identity once again.

Even as we speak, this writer has little doubt that many Aelfreds have learned their lessons in defeat and humility, that adversity has prepared them to be excellent, skilled, and thorough in planning and executing the plan that restores the British spirit to the land.

This is the season to come, and Reform UK will NOT be a part of that new reality.

“In prosperity, a man often destroys the good he has done; amidst difficulties he often repairs what he long since did in the way of wickedness.” –Aelfred the Great

The time for the repair of wickedness has come.

FURTHER RESOURCES:

Alfred the Great – Justin Pollard

Alfred the Great: The Man Who Made England – Richard Abels

Aelfred’s Britain: War and Peace in the Viking Age – Max Adams

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle – Asser