Survive the Jive, Early History Of The Britons

Where we came from, … and Cheddar Man wasn’t black.

Alternative source, Odysee: The History Of Britain And Her People

Alternative source, Odysee: Cheddar Man And Mesolithic Europeans

This from the New Scientist:

A Briton who lived 10,000 years ago had dark brown skin and blue eyes. At least, that’s what dozens of news stories published this month – including our own – stated as fact. But one of the geneticists who performed the research says the conclusion is less certain, and according to others we are not even close to knowing the skin colour of any ancient human.

The skeleton of Cheddar Man was discovered in 1903 in a cave in south-west England where it had lain for 10,000 years. …


More from Survive the Jive:



A Law Above the Law – England, The Origin of Common Law

England’s foundation is deeply rooted in Christianity. For centuries Kings and Queens have sworn an oath to God, and the moral foundation of Christianity reflect in the common law decisions and rulings of the Christian judges shaping the behaviour and attitude of the English people, and so moulding the character of England and the English into what it is today. Natural law heavily influenced the principles and path of the English common law.

The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature: being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free will. But every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish. And this species of legal obedience and conformity is infinitely more desirable, than that wild and savage liberty which is sacrificed to obtain it. For no man, that considers a moment, would wish to retain the absolute and uncontrolled power of doing whatever he pleases; the consequence of which is, that every other man would also have the same power; and then there would be no security to individuals in any of enjoyments of life. Political therefore, or civil, liberty, which is that of a member of society, is no other than natural liberty so far restrained by human laws (and not farther) as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public. Hence we may collect that the law, which restrains a man from doing mischief to his fellow citizens, though it diminishes the natural, increases the civil liberty of mankind: but every wanton and causeless restraint of the will to the subject, whether practiced by a monarch, a nobility, or a popular assembly, is a degree to tyranny. Nay, that even laws themselves, whether made with or without our consent, if they regulate and constrain our conduct in matters of mere indifference, without any good end in view, are laws destructive of liberty: whereas if any public advantage can arise from observing such precepts, the control of our private inclinations, in one or two particular points, will conduce to preserve our general freedom in others of more importance; by supporting that state, of society, which alone can secure our independence.

Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England.

The Full English Show: Is the common law Christian Law? Yes, according to our previous law lords.

Linked below is the pdf document referenced in the video above.

A Law above the Law: Christian Roots of the English Common Law

The English common law has an incredibly rich Christian heritage. England’s most celebrated jurists – including the likes of Blackstone, Coke and Fortescue – often drew heavily from their Christian faith when expounding and developing what are now well established principles and doctrines of the common law. This article demonstrates how Christian values and principles underpin the English common law, and how they still remain valid to the interpretation of the common law even to the present day. Finally, the article explains why Christianity has always been an important element of the common law, and why the Christian foundations of the common law should not be ignored or neglected.

This phrase “a law above the law” comes from the Nuremberg trials and was formulated to ensure conviction of those on trial whos defence was “I was only following orders”.

Nuremberg Trials: “A law above the law”

At the end of WW II, many Nazi leaders were put on trial for war crimes. Their defense was simple but almost impossible to challenge except on the basis of the teachings of the Bible.

The defense was that the Nazis were innocent because they had been obeying the law and the legal Fuhrer. Clearly, they were guilty of great and inexcusable evil but how does one establish that in court, since “evil” is not a legal category?

The chief counsel for the United States, Robert H. Jackson, won the day with the argument that there is a “law above the law” that is the measure by which some laws can be deemed good and some evil. His position was upheld by the court and used as the basis for the conviction of most of the Nazi leaders and the execution of many of them.

Would a court today be able to agree with Jackson? Having worked hard to scrub any traces of God from our national structures, how could we envision any sort of “supra-legal” basis of legal judgment? All such attempts to establish a secular morality end up being either absurdly permissive, leaving society with no cohesive principles, or totally arbitrary.

We can coast for a generation or two on the foundation of biblical ethics which guided most American and Western thinking for so many centuries but each generation becomes more and more removed from the source. The convictions about right and wrong become muddled. We soon will be where ancient Israel was for a time before their kingdom was established: “. . .all the people did what was right in their own eyes.”

Moral anarchy is ugly and deadly. And we are already paying a great cost for having rejected any foundation for ethical thinking.

Fair Complexion, With Pleasing Countenances, And Very Beautiful Hair

I believe that this is possibly the earliest documented description of The English. They are described as boy slaves “of fair complexion, with pleasing countenances, and very beautiful hair”. As you can read in the text, this was well before Christianity came to our shores.

Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of England, page 82.

Nor must we pass by in silence the story of the blessed Gregory, handed down to us by the tradition of our ancestors, which explains his earnest care for the salvation of our nation. It is said that one day, when some merchants had lately arrived at Rome, many things were exposed for sale in the market place, and much people resorted thither to buy: Gregory himself went with the rest, and saw among other wares some boys put up for sale, of fair complexion, with pleasing countenances, and very beautiful hair. When he beheld them, he asked, it is said, from what region or country they were brought? and was told, from the island of Britain, and that the inhabitants were like that in appearance. He again inquired whether those islanders were Christians, or still involved in the errors of paganism, and was informed that they were pagans. Then fetching a deep sigh from the bottom of his heart, “Alas! what pity,” said he, “that the author of darkness should own men of such fair countenances; and that with such grace of outward form, their minds should be void of inward grace.” He therefore again asked, what was the name of that nation? and was answered, that they were called Angles. “Right,” said he, “for they have an angelic face, and it is meet that such should be co-heirs with the Angels in heaven. What is the name of the province from which they are brought?” It was replied, that the natives of that province were called Deiri.159 “Truly are they De ira,” said he, “saved from wrath, and called to the mercy of Christ. How is the king of that province called?” They told him his name was Aelli;160 and he, playing upon the name, said, “Allelujah, the praise of God the Creator must be sung in those parts.”

Then he went to the bishop of the Roman Apostolic see161 (for he was not himself then made pope), and entreated him to send some ministers of the Word into Britain to the nation of the English, that it might be converted to Christ by them; declaring himself ready to carry out that work with the help of God, if the Apostolic Pope should think fit to have it done. But not being then able to perform this task, because, though the Pope was willing to grant his request, yet the citizens of Rome could not be brought to consent that he should depart so far from the city, as soon as he was himself made Pope, he carried out the long-desired work, sending, indeed, other preachers, but himself by his exhortations and prayers helping the preaching to bear fruit. This account, which we have received from a past generation, we have thought fit to insert in our Ecclesiastical History.

Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of England

Linguistic Silliness

Can men get pregnant?

If you are a British Citizen the answer is no.

Section 50 (9) of the British Nationality Act 1981 lays it out that a woman is the only person that can give birth to a baby.

“(9) For the purposes of this Act a child’s mother is the woman who gives birth to the child.

(9A) For the purposes of this Act a child’s father is—
(a) the husband or male civil partner], at the time of the child’s birth, of the woman who gives birth to the child, or
(b)where a person is treated as the father of the child under section 28 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 or section 35 or 36 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, that person, or
(ba)where a person is treated as a parent of the child under section 42 or 43 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, that person, or
(c)where none of paragraphs (a) to (ba) applies, a person who satisfies prescribed requirements as to proof of paternity.”

English vs British Debate

Graham Moore leader of the English Constitution Party, and Paul Rimmer (Britain First??), discuss whether we in England are English or British.

I see it like this (below), and so am mainly in agreement with Graham.

The English are an ethnic group that along with three other ethnic groups share a landmass called Briton. The English Kingdom and the Scottish Kingdom made a political agreement to unify the two Kingdoms. The legislation (The Union With England Act 1707) redefined the English and the Scottish peoples in law as British subjects, and the two separate Kingdoms as one United Kingdom called Great Britain . Politically and by statute we are now British citizens, a legal entity. But in nature where it matters biologically we are still ethnically English, and the Scotts are still ethnically Scottish. My core identity is with my biology and secondly with the wider political union.

The English Constitution and Common Law are the birthright of every Englishman and is intertwined with our ethnicity and historically governed how we behaved both as an individual and as a Nation, and it is this that gave us our English character, not only by what it did, but also by what it didn’t do.

And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints. Restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear upon farther inquiry, that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened. For all of us have it in our choice to do everything that a good man would desire to do; and are restrained from nothing, but what would be pernicious either to ourselves or our fellow citizens.

Sir William Blackstone

Our Constitution and Common Law is the base set of mental programs that formed us as a People and tells us what is Right and what is Wrong for when our Nation interacts with itself. It has been written over the centuries by the wisdom of thousands of Englishmen during the process of determining what is right and wrong when there is social conflict.

“The common law, is the best and most common birth‐​right that the subject hath for the safeguard and defence, not merely of his goods, lands and revenues, but of his wife and children, his body, fame and life…No man ecclesiastical or temporal shall be examined upon secret thoughts of his heart…the house of an Englishman is to him as his castle.”

Edward Coke

A British citizen being a legal entity has no such birthright.

In my opinion Paul let the British side down when he used the dirty tactic of bringing racism into the discussion. Is that really all he had?

He also said that our constitutional documents are essentially worthless today and that the British are a people of liberty. Haha, where exactly does he think the idea of liberty in England was defined if not in our Constitutional documents and history of Common Law?

William Blackstone: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals

He also seems confused as to whether he’s British or English.

Mr Rimmer believes his anti-immigration politics and English nationalism are highly relevant in being mayor of Liverpool.

“I am standing as an Englishman. I am patriotic and I want my city and my country to prosper.”


Protest Replacement Migration Then You’ll Lose Your Bank Account, … Again, … And Again …

The thing that people need to understand about the Globalist British establishment is that they don’t have any empathy for the English people.

In the lifetime of my parents the British establishment have imported millions of aliens into England and in doing so have completely changed our communities, our culture, our language, our way of life, our English character. Those of us that have noticed this changing of England as it happened, have come to the conclusion that the English people have lost their Home to the Globalists and their agenda.

Just look around you. Replacement migration as pondered as a solution to declining birth rates and people living longer by the UN, has been initiated. If you are English and you live in Leicester, you know. If you are English and you live in Birmingham, you know. If you are English and you live in Luton, you know. If you are English and you live in London, you know. If you are English and you live in Slough, you know. If you are English and you live in Manchester, you know. In all of these cities you know that the English people are now minorities and those cities no longer feel like England, like home. Numerous other towns and cities are now dangerously close to this point too.

Anyone that speaks out in any way other than positively about the English being replaced by aliens are demonised as racist. You just are. It’s an easy and lazy way to shut conversation down. But what if you carry on?

Laura Towler knows only to well. They raid your house and remove your property. They target your finances.

This isn’t the first time that they have targeted Laura’s bank accounts either. Regardless of her politics Laura has to pay bills, rent, food etc. She is also a new mother so if she suffers punishment her family equally suffers. The British government have the power and the will to use this disgusting tactic against dissenters and people should be aware of that because one day, they themselves to might decide to go against government policy and suffer a similar fate.

“Here is the email I received from Monzo this afternoon, informing me that they’re closing my bank account. To clarify, this is my personal bank account which I only use to pay my bills and do a bit of shopping with. My account was in good standing and I have no debt.

At the same time, Mark and Sam (my colleagues at Patriotic Alternative) also had their personal Monzo accounts shut down. This is clear political discrimination aimed at those who speak out against the demographic replacement of our people.”

What other British establishment policy are we supposed to accept without question today?

And, … how easy will it be to punish people in this way when they force digital ID’s on us?!

The British Establishment Stole English National Identity From The English People

The native people of England are a distinct ethnic group. We are a nation of people called The English. Our English nation resides on a specific location on the land mass called Briton. Our national identity is English. Our home is England.

People from the White British group were more likely to describe their national identity as English (58 per cent) rather than British (36 per cent). However, the opposite was true of the non-White groups, who were more likely to identify themselves as British.


And yet …

“UK law does not recognise English as a nationality”


Did you know that?

The people of the English nation cannot identify with their English nationality under British law.

Fyi, Schedule 4 of the British Nationality Act 1948 repeals all variations of the phrase “natural born” from numerous statutes. Natural born means the English.

Halsbury’s Laws of England tells us that a “new concept of citizenship” was created.

But in creating that, something else was destroyed.

5. British nationality legislation.

British nationality law is now mainly contained in the British Nationality Act 19811, supplemented by various other Acts2 and by subordinate legislation3. The British Nationality Act 1981 created a new nationality structure, with effect from 1 January 19834, and repealed previous nationality legislation which was contained in the British Nationality Acts 1948 to 19655. However, the national status on and after 1 January 1983 of a person born before that date frequently depends upon the status he had, or would in hypothetical circumstances have had, under the British Nationality Acts 1948 to 19656. In addition, the British Nationality Act 1948 itself, with effect from 1 January 19497, created a new concept of citizenship8, the applicability of which to those already in existence on that date depended upon their status under the law in force prior to that date9. Thus, though now repealed10, the British Nationality Acts 1948 to 1965 continue to be of relevance during the lifetime of anybody born up to and including 31 December 1982; and, in the case of a person born before 1 January 1949, not one but two repealed statutory codes may be relevant11.

Halsbury’s Laws of England.

Here a question was put to English District Councils, and the reply would have been unfathomable to our forbears.

Here is a question put to District Councils in England.

Dear Sir/Madam

I am English not British.

My National Identity is English and I would like that reflected on the voter register. My English National Identity is important to me.

If you consider this is not possible, please explain why?

Yours Faithfully


[Name of Person]

Here is the most common answer;

Dear David,

With reference to your query regarding your nationality in the electoral register.

It is not possible to register you as English for the following reasons:

Under The British Nationality Act 1981 British Nationality Act 1981 ( UK law does not recognise English as a nationality;

To register to vote one of the criteria is a person must be a British Citizen.

With regards,


Electoral Services Team

District Councils – Working Together


UN Replacement Migration (Mass Immigration)

Anti-Globalism is our strength.

See page 71 for data relating to Britain.

The United Nations Population Division monitors fertility, mortality and migration trends for all countries of the world, as a basis for producing the official United Nations population estimates and projections. Among the demographic trends revealed by those figures, two are particularly salient: population decline and population ageing. Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the present study addresses the question of whether replacement migration is a solution to declining and ageing populations. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that would be needed to offset declines in the size of population and declines in the population of working age, as well as to offset the overall ageing of a population. The study computes the size of replacement migration and investigates the possible effects of replacement migration on the population size and age structure for a range of countries that have in common a fertility pattern below the replacement level. Eight countries are examined: France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. Two regions are also included: Europe and the European Union. The time period covered is roughly half a century, from 1995 to 2050.

Continued …

The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working- age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population. In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 — between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy.

Continued …

English Common Law Protects Your Reputation

Our reputation is one of the most important and treasured possessions that we own as it affects our standing with others in society. When our reputation is harmed, we are harmed because our standing within society is harmed. This has been recognised for centuries and in our Common Law it comes under the Right of “personal security”. Personal security has been established as an “absolute Right” and in our ancient constitutional documents these Rights are referred to as our “Liberties”.

Therefore slander and libel are harmful to your reputation and at Common Law, offenders can be sued for damages.

It is evident that in England there are two Globalist agenda’s at play that directly affect us right now, the UN’s replacement migration strategy (mass immigration) and, mass vaccination of the population leading to vaccine passports/digital ID.

Attacks tarnishing the good reputation of any opposition of these two agenda’s are being committed by the media encouraged by the British Globalist establishment with the intention of “nudging” public opinion. These attacks are very simple and consist of a single word that when used in the wrong context are designed to demonise the person opposing, and shame them into silence and compliance.

Both of these words are of equal severity within today’s society and both are equally injurious to the reputation. But when these words are used without foundation, they create the potential for criminal action in a court of law.


An antivaxxer is a person who for whatever reason is against ALL forms of vaccination. Antivaxxers are publicly portrayed in a specific negative light. They are conspiracy theorists, they are incapable of rational thought, they are paranoid, they are anti social, they are not good people at all, etc, etc.

The word “antivaxxer” has negative connotations is being used in a derogatory way to shame and cause harm to your reputation in the eyes of society. Opposition to one vaccine does not warrant the label “antivaxxer” so when used incorrectly is defamatory and the person committing the offence has caused harm to your reputation. Not only that, the owners of the platform that the libel was published on are liable to prosecution too.

We all know what the true definition of a racist is. Opposition to mass immigration cannot be considered racist. For the same reasons stated previously when that word is used without foundation then the offender and anyone supporting the offender can be sued.

When these words are used without material foundation to demonise, or shut down legitimate opposition of these two Globalist agenda’s, they are damaging to the reputation and the offender can be sued. This is our Common Law protecting us.

So to protect our reputation from harm the offender must prove their publicly stated claim that you are in deed an antivaxxer or that you are indeed a racist. If they cannot, they must retract their statements else face the consequences deemed appropriate by the experts (people that know better than them) in a court of law.

Our way forward then is when someone online makes libellous statements, document any such unfounded claims, demand proof of claim else retract it and publicly apologise, else “see you in court”. If they refuse, contact the platform owners. If they know what’s good for them they will remove it.

It’s as simple as that.

Know your Common Law Rights and protect your good reputation.

This is what Halsbury’s Laws of England has to say:

(ii) What is Defamatory

42. Meaning of ‘defamatory statements’.

The essence of a defamatory statement is its tendency to injure the reputation of another person. There is no complete or comprehensive definition of what constitutes a defamatory statement, since the word ‘defamatory’ is nowhere precisely defined1. Generally speaking, a statement is defamatory of the person of whom it is published if it tends to lower him in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally2 or if it exposes him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule3 or if it causes him to be shunned or avoided4.”

“38. Joint and several liability.

Every person who takes part in or procures the publication of a libel1 is prima facie liable jointly and severally for all the damage caused by it2. Thus, if a libel appears in a newspaper, the author3 of the libel and the proprietor4, editor5, printer6, publisher7 and vendor8 of the newspaper are prima facie jointly and severally liable.