AddThis

Share |

Sunday, 12 February 2012

A Nation in search of a State


This week witnessed the death of Ray Honeyford, the former Bradford Headmaster who had the integrity to speak the truth about the ruinous consequences of multiculturalism, and paid for this with his career. Honeyford, like Enoch Powell, was an outspoken and prescient man of principle who paid a heavy price for speaking the truth. Vilified, scapegoated and threatened with death, this good man was to be proven right, despite the professional naysayers within the race relations and ‘diversity’ industry. Alas, Honeyford has not been the only individual to have had their career destroyed for the sake of protecting the multiculturalist diversity dogma, although other cases have usually received less publicity or none at all. 

Ray Honeyford

 
The ritual purging of personnel in the name of "tolerance" is now endemic within the public sector, with employers enforcing a rigid code that frightens people into obedience, destroys rational decision-making and promotes ethnic mediocrities above capable, enthusiastic indigenous talent. Once ensconced within their managerial positions, the ethnic minority mediocrities play the race and religion cards to cover their deficiencies, and seek to engineer the ingress and promotion of others belonging to their group. Such widespread malpractice is not only ignored, but also actively encouraged. Without the underpinning state legislation, this would never have been able to happen.

In the same week that Honeyford died, we witnessed Neil O’Brien of Policy Exchange writing a piece in The Telegraph and appearing on Radio 4 talking about the “challenges” of “integration” now that English first language speakers are in a minority in London schools. This in itself is bad enough, but it is also something of a jolt to learn that 16.8% of all state primary schoolchildren in 2011 had “English as an additional language”. This prompted O’Brien to pose the following questions:
“But will children with English as a second language grow up to feel British, to get jobs and to feel included?

I think that is the bigger challenge, and the statistics above make me think it is a likely to be a rapidly growing one.”
Rapidly growing? Unfortunately, yes. O’Brien’s interview with Radio 4 was entitled ‘Is second language English an issue for children?’It strikes me as odd, although not surprising, that the BBC should choose to frame the question from the perspective of immigrant children, for is this matter not one of rather greater concern for the host society, and its increasingly ignored and marginalised custodians: the English? O’Brien’s concern with “inclusion” may to a certain extent be justified, but what we English in particular feel increasingly uneasy with and alarmed about is the mass scale of the immigrant influx and the demographic fecundity of the immigrant population. This theme has very much been in the air this week, with Alasdair Palmer of The Telegraph penning a piece entitled ‘Multiculturalism has left Britain with a toxic legacy’. This conclusion is one that is difficult to disagree with. However, when it comes to the question of “integration”, it strikes me that mainstream commentators are rather missing the point.

The size of the immigrant population is now such that it is not possible to integrate it effectively. Whereas immigration pre-1948 was on a relatively small scale and those who arrived largely assimilated and blended into the indigenous population, what has occurred since has not so much been mass immigration, but mass colonisation. London is now effectively a non-English city, and I no longer regard it as our capital in any meaningful sense, for it has become another land (this transformation was examined in the earlier article Celebrities note the Death of London). Given this fact, why should we wish to “integrate” with incomers who by dint of their numbers threaten not only to displace us, but also to replace us? The task is not so much “integration” as “preservation” of our native peoples and their rights.

First and foremost therefore, it is necessary that the English and other native peoples of Britain be recognised as indigenous and accorded the right to national self-determination. Those who have come amongst us, except for the small minority who came as genuine spouses of native Britons, should never have been granted citizenship. As a consequence of the mass settlement of other peoples in our country, our nation-state is becoming a hollowed-out shell, which although purporting to represent us, has largely ceased to do so, functioning instead as part of the anti-democratic apparatus of globalism. As such, our sense of allegiance to it is crumbling. Our society is Balkanising at a rapid rate and effectively dying, yet we possess no credible political party to tackle this phenomenon. The Conservatives are just as much the midwives of multicultural Britain as Labour and the Liberal Democrats, and having acted as such, they will in all likelihood be our undertakers too.

The social contract between the state and the nation has been broken. We native Britons – particularly the English - are now effectively a nation in search of a state. If we should not be able to take back the apparatus of the state in future, then may not consideration have to be given to how we can effectively replace it? May it in fact some day be necessary to declare secession from Westminster and set up our own state within a state? Without doing so, what future do we have as a people? None, it would seem. Sedition? No. The nation - the body of the native people - is sovereign, not the machinery of the state or the monarchy. Millions of incomers have been given citizenship and the vote by the state, and not unsurprisingly, they feel comfortable with more of their own coming here. It should not however be their right to determine either our future or the future of our country, for this would violate our inalienable right to national self-determination. How strange it would seem to our ancestors were they to see us now, having to contemplate such an admittedly outlandish idea as a struggle for national liberation? But, it is just such a struggle that now starkly presents itself to us. 

Before closing, I shall return to Ray Honeyford and an article penned by Leo Mckinstry for the Daily Mail. In this, it is clear that Mckinstry disapproves of today’s race legislation, and its attendant repressive professional apparatus that justifies its existence through creating an “atmosphere of synthetic outrage”. Mckinstry writes:
 “When Honeyford wrote his article, he was branded a heretic. His words had to be suppressed, his influence crushed. But that did not stop him being right.”

“In the name of promoting tolerance, race-fixated zealots exercise the most extreme intolerance, suppressing free debate and indulging in witch-hunts against anyone who dissents from their creed of multi-cultural diversity.”
I do not dissent from Mckinstry’s conclusions on this score. It is a pity that we do not, as yet, possess a credible nationalist party, to which figures such as Mckinstry could lend their support. This is the task that confronts us: to build such a political force. It needs to be done soon, but not in haste, for its goals, policies, strategy and tactics need to be thought through clearly and rationally. Many claim to have given up on such an approach to the solution of the problems that face our nation today, but I have not. 

Below is a new video produced by fellow blogger British Activism. In it, he highlights the issues dealt with in this article in a rather black-humoured fashion. Although the accompanying soundtrack is Bachman-Turner Overdrive, Smashie and Nicey don’t get to introduce it. His efforts deserve to be acknowledged, so if you would like to express your approval, please do visit his blog Independent British Nationalist.

17 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Admittedly, things don't look promising. Any suggestions as to where isn't beyond saving?

      Delete
  2. Charles is welcome to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charles III: the first Grand Mufti of Great Britain.

      Delete
  3. What can I say? Great video showing a terrifying future.
    God help us all. R.I.P. Britain.
    E.P.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BA did a great job on this video and must be congratulated for his efforts, even though it does make for rather sobering viewing. Hopefully, it'll get rather more views than this blog does.

      Delete
  4. Well it is what the people voted for innit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ones who imported themselves, yes, they certainly voted for it. As for the majority of the indigenous British, no they did not, for they have been consistently against immigration, let alone mass immigration, since the 1950s. The snag is however that all of the mainstream political parties have favoured it, with the only heavyweight politician to seriously challenge this dogma being Enoch Powell of course. As well you know, his Cabinet career was destroyed precisely because of this although he enjoyed overwhelming popularity amongst the public on this issue. So, in answer to you: no, we did not vote for it.

      Delete
  5. Sadly all I can see is a country in decay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not so much as in decay, as being euphenized by the 'elite' political class.

      Delete
  6. Excellent video. It's a tragedy the colonisation being inflicted on our nation. People need to wake-up and fast, and we also need to quickly develop a movement that will represent the indeginous interests.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, a movement does need to grow up to challenge this which encompasses not only party politics but specific campaigns. Crucially, alongside the obvious measures of campaigning against mass immigration and multiculturalism, we need a campaign to gain recognition of the English (Cornish if you so wish too), Welsh and Scots as the indigenous peoples of Britain. This latter point is pivotal, as we must demand our right to political self-determination in our homeland upon this basis.

      Delete
  7. They cannot face the fact that they have done ZERO for the past 40 years!! Integration nothing!! It was US who had to make the running and bend over backwards to accomodate these wretches, they have done nothing. A friend used to work for a housing association in late '70s, early eighties east London: they were giving away houses to these people, fully furnished. One Bangladeshi woman left the tap running just because she could.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, so many desire something for nothing, and they're very willing to take whatever is offered and demand still more without any feeling of gratitude.

      It's a facile argument is it not, when some people say "Oh, but what would you do if they left? You wouldn't have curry and the wonderful variety of restaurants that we enjoy today!" Don't they realise that there are such things as cookery books and that it's perfectly easy to cook a curry without being Bangladeshi or Pakistani? You can even have a pork rogan josh for heaven's sake! Try buying one of those in a restaurant!

      Delete
  8. Replies
    1. Cheers Gary. Somehow, that's not something I look forward to with any great degree of enthusiasm.

      Delete
  9. It not only stinks but it is toxic as well: the rotten omelette of multiculturalism.
    Prophetic Shakespeare, from his play Hamlet (ham omelette)
    Something is rotten in the state of ...

    Anonymous: Anglophile from Canada

    ReplyDelete

Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.