Whose nation is it really?

D J Webb

We are not lone individuals engaged in a struggle against nature, but social animals, who have our individual rights to liberty in a free country, but who are nevertheless part of a wider society, culture and economy. We have the right to expect the support of the society around us, which is why we also have the duty to uphold it to the extent that it protects us from the depredations of nature and wild animals and the bad behaviour of other human beings. Society is not meant to be a war of all against all, but a coming together of human beings in a way that promotes the good of each of them.

This is not a majoritarian concept. Society does not exist to promote the good of the majority at the expense of a minority. It ought to hold real benefits for every single member of the polity. This is the reason why the nation-state is important in terms of social freedom: the natural bands and connections of a real society—cultural ties—allow for greater latitude to individual freedom in a nation-state than does the creation of a “society” of warring cultural groups constantly intervened in by a lumpen bureaucracy that seeks social division and conflict as the price of its sinecurist monopolisation of social revenues.

Nations vs. nationalities

Nations are not artificially created: a European directive announcing that all Europeans were henceforth to be considered a single nation would not make it so. The roots of real nations are not in legislation or bureaucratic regulations, but are lost in the mists of time. We are who we are because only extensive historical research can reveal the origins of our nation, and the same thing is so for all other real nations too. We have a common history, common ancestry, a common language, a common culture, common religious roots, as well as understood mores and social expectations. None of this can be created by bureaucratic will.

In the case of the English, we know that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes arrived in England in the fifth century, speaking closely related dialects of Old English, and that from the middle of the seventh century the Church of England united them. It is not necessary to be a believer in religion today for this to have significance: many cultural assumptions derive from our religious roots. The “law of the land”—English Common Law—was not promulgated by some emperor or potentate, but derived from the customs of the English people before the Norman Conquest in 1066. The monarchy traces its roots back to the Saxon chieftains of the sixth century. This is not a nation created by Parliament.

To be part of the English nation is a very great thing to the English, and arguably something that attracts widespread respect throughout the world. We have given the world our language; we were the first industrial country, with a disproportionate number of key inventions to our name; our political set-up has been propagated throughout the world; and England is the “mother country” of countless states beyond the seas. In 1900, or indeed at any time before the late 1960s, it would have been no exaggeration—just the truth—to say that England was the greatest nation in the world.

So if we are English, where does the concept of Britishness come in? Historians tell us that England under Roman rule in the early centuries of the first millennium was called Britannia—the Roman province did not include much of Scotland—but the island of Great Britain was never politically united before 1707. Yet the unification of Britain was not artificial: England and Scotland had much in common, including descent from the Anglo-Saxons, Celts and Vikings; the English language; the monarchy; and our rejection of the dominance of Rome at the time of the Reformation. Great Britain worked because it was not the union of incompatible parts. Had England and Somalia been conjoined in a union got up by the politicians, it would never have been felt to be a true nation. England and Scotland, while each retaining their older national identities, became a composite British nation, which stood the test of time. The fact that politicians cannot decree the limits of a nation is shown by Britain’s history in Ireland: the political desire to make Ireland part of the Union could not override cultural and historical conflicts on the ground. The composite nation of Great Britain depended on the dominance of England in the Union, a dominance long accepted in Scotland and Wales, but never accepted on the ground in the Gaelic parts of Ireland.

A great nation was created in 1707, fusing, but not destroying, the compatible component nations of England and Scotland, nations whose populations ultimately had similar origins. The Union was nonetheless clearly rooted in the constitution and political values of England. Freedom is particularly associated with England, rather than Scotland, and the grounding of the British nation in an English concept of liberty is clear from the words of the patriotic song Rule, Britannia!:

The nations, not so blest as thee, Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall: While thou shalt flourish great and free, The dread and envy of them all.

These words are rarely heard today, because they contradict the multicultural ideology being coercively promoted by the British state. Not only does multiculturalism unpick the cultural bands that unite the British population—thus pointing, logically, to the dissolution of the Union eventually—it alters the nature of Britishness into an artificial creation of the state. If the British government passes a decree that everyone in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, is a British citizen, then to all legal intents and purposes they are so. But the government cannot make them part of our nation, because they lack the identity, the culture, the ancestry, the language, the history and much else to make it so. If these things are held no longer to matter, it can only be because Britishness is now meaningless: the nations we always knew could never be our equals are the source of the growth of our population, and so Britishness is no longer the political expression of the traditionally free culture of England.

We need to be clear on what is happening. Governments hand out nationality, not nationhood. Nationality is a piece of paper from the Home Office; nationhood, by contrast, is something that cannot be decreed, but is elemental, fundamental, natural. Just as American courts claim to be able to “divorce” a child from his parents, overturning the natural order—in reality, he remains his parents’ child, regardless of the estrangement—the British government claims to be able to “graft in” new members of the nation, by handing out nationality. True, adoption laws do allow the state to declare that someone is the child of people who are not his natural parents, but all such cases depend on the successful integration of the child into a loving relationship with a family, and not on an opposition or confrontation between the child and his adoptive parents. Compare the way that multiculturalism encourages new citizens to oppose our culture, thus “grafting in” antagonising and antagonised groups into society, with no intention of encouraging in them the natural growth of the national sentiment that characterises true nationhood.

In the end, nationality is a vertical relationship with the state bureaucracy. People with no British ancestors are declared “British”. People who speak no English, or who have never visited England, or who are seeking to blow us up, have been declared to be “British”, as fully British as you and I, despite the fact that they lack our national identity. We mock ourselves by turning Britishness into a bureaucratic connection with the state. Nationhood is a horizontal relationship between people: people who have things in common. It cannot be faked and its recognition cannot be commanded by the state. It is either there or it is not.

Consequently, we should never accept that being a British citizen makes someone British, and we should never forget that Britishness is a real national identity, and not a fake ‘nationality’, because of the cultural commonalities of England and Scotland. As England and Scotland begin to feel themselves to be separate, the British identity itself seems destined to fall apart, leading to a reversion to the older identities of the English, the Scottish (and the Welsh and Irish too). A civic national identity only works, therefore, when based on real, underlying nationhood.

Ethnic minorities

So what about the many millions of people who possess British passports, but who are not English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish? Clearly, if naturalisation is allowed by the state, or if the immigration of people who are not British is allowed, that does not make the people concerned really British (and definitely does not make them English). It could be argued that small numbers of people, ready to fully assimilate, could become truly British, just as a child adopted when young can often become a genuine member of a new family, where there is no opposition felt between him and his adoptive parents.

It is in this light that we could regard, for example, a French person born in Britain, with British nationality, who has lived all his life in England. To all intents and purposes, he will look, feel and be accepted as English. The graft will have taken. He is very unlikely to be constantly suing the English for discrimination or emphasising his distinctiveness in any other way.

It is not the same with the “ethnic minorities”, who have been encouraged to feel and remain distinctive, while holding out for all the benefits and advantages of British citizenship, and even insulting us by standing for Parliament and trying to inveigle themselves into positions of power in our society. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that such people have valid gripes with the British, that they do indeed face “discrimination” in England. That merely shows that they are seen as separate from us by many of the people who belong to the real historic nations of the British Isles. It proves, without any possibility of contradiction, that they are not British. For them to sue for discrimination, or even expect to be treated as British, is to perpetrate a fraud, to behave in an insolent manner in someone else’s homeland.

Even the self-righteous left-wingers who are seeking to recreate our society along multicultural lines do not argue that the ethnic minorities are no different from us. They see them as different too, but argue that we should “embrace the diversity”. The problem with this is that nations are based on things held in common, not on diversity, and so arguing for the acceptance of ethnic minorities in terms of embracing diversity fails to explain why we should regard them as the same as us, why we should see them as like us, what they have to do with us in the first place. Support for cultural diversity is an admission that they are not British.

Laws preventing us from expressing our feelings on this subject do not change the matter. National identity is instinctive and unforced: when I see an English person, I recognise his common origin with me, without being compelled to do so by the state. Even if we are forced to pay lip-service to the idea that ethnic-minority people are British, or even English, we will still notice the “diversity” of origins, culture and allegiances, and in the final analysis this means that we know they are not really part of our nation. Ethnic-minority people who were born in England are just as likely to play the race card against us, and so we are right to instinctively feel they are different from us, and therefore not British.

The English

If some people belong to ethnic minorities, who, then, are the majority ethnic group in England? Interestingly, there is officially no such ethnic group in England as the English. People from all over the world have recognised ethnic identities: they belong to certain ethnic groups that are recorded in official documents. But the claim that there is an ethnic group called the English is regarded by the state as a challenge to multiculturalism. If there are people who are English, then, logically, England belongs to them. Consequently, we are assigned to the White British category. “White British” is not the name of an ethnic group. It is a racial classification—people with British passports who are “white”—but not a description of an ethnic group to whom this country belongs.

Despite official non-recognition of the English, the decline of Britishness, or its reinvention as a meaningless term for anyone the state chooses to hand out identity papers to, means that most English people now feel more English than British. We are not simply the White British, but in fact the same nation that founded the Kingdom of England in the Dark Ages. It is an interesting question what will happen to the ethnic minorities once Scotland has declared independence and the Kingdom of England resumes its independent existence once again. Few ethnic-minority people claim to be English, rather than British, but I suppose that in an independent England the logic of their situation would be to advance the claim to have become English, not because the unforced consensus of the English was that they were just like us, but because they would have the support of the state in coercing compliance with such a suggestion, which would justify their presence in our country and thus their access to all the good things life in England can provide. Official terms are likely to be concocted to justify this; maybe the White British would become the White English overnight? But in the end, only we can be us: only the English can be the English, and so the question remains why so many millions from all around the world are coming to settle here, and why we are letting them do so.

This is our country

There is nothing repugnant about refusing to recognise the claim made by ethnic-minority people to be British (or English). After all, the small number of English children born in China or Africa do not claim to be Chinese or African. We are not trying to give offence to ethnic-minority people by asserting that we have a national identity, but merely stating the truth. Conversely, ethnic-minority people who claim to be British are indeed trying to remove our status as the titular nation in this country. We are labelled the White British solely in order to placate their demands to be recognised as the Black ‘British’ (and a number of other categories, including ‘British’ Asians and others). They are the ones causing offence by attempting to deny us our national rights. We ought not to assert ourselves in a boorish manner on the national question, but we should stand up for our nation, its territory, culture, laws and freedoms.

Long queues at Heathrow Airport are caused by Britain’s open door policy, and the insistence that many millions of people who have settled in our country and then behaved badly by refusing to assimilate to our culture are equally entitled to free entry to Great Britain. Even more distressing is the politically inspired policy to use members of the ethnic minorities to man our borders and decide whether we can enter our own country. People who behave in this way in another nation’s territory are certainly not well-disposed towards us; they are lording it over us, loving the indignation they provoke in us.

Policemen and judges are now frequently drawn from the ranks of the incomers in what I can only interpret as deliberate insolence, or even racial supremacism, as the insistence that England belongs equally to people of all races is designed to dislodge us from our prior claim. I have never claimed that China does not belong to the Chinese or that Nigeria does not belong to the Nigerians, but these ethnic policemen and judges exercise illegitimate authority over us on the basis of the political viewpoint that Britain does not belong to the so-called White British.

To avoid any doubt, my personal view is that there is little to be gained from challenging these individuals, but I would never volunteer to help an ethnic-minority policeman with his inquiries into any matter, no matter how serious. We also have the nonsense of our sporting identity, where we are expected to cheer on black footballers, or Britain’s Olympic team, many of whose members are drawn from the ranks of other nations, including those who should logically be representing Jamaica and other parts of the Caribbean. I would prefer to see Britain never win a sporting medal again than to see people who are not members of our nation (although quite possibly “British citizens”) draped in the Union Flag as if they belonged to the historic nations of the British Isles.

I cannot suggest we would be better off like North Korea, with no interaction whatsoever with the world, but Hong Kong provides an example of how a territory can have the deepest economic integration with the world economy without giving away its territory and culture. People from all around the world can travel to Hong Kong, generally without visas, but they are not invited to displace the Chinese population of Hong Kong as the territory’s majority community, and, although many foreigners do take up jobs in the territory’s financial services and other industries, the city remains overwhelmingly Chinese. We could easily have had strong links with the whole of the world, while retaining our own patrimony.

I personally do not accept the legitimacy of the British ‘citizenship’ of people whose ancestors do not come from Europe. People whose ancestors are French, German or from some other closely related European nation are likely to assimilate easily and, within a single generation, become normal, natural members of the British nation, recognised as such by all without coercion. People whose cultures are so distinct from ours that they seek to recreate their societies as enclaves here are simply unassimilable. A nonsense has been made of our citizenship rolls.

We cannot force massive population movements, not least because it behoves us to recognise that our own stupidity has played a role in the demographic overwhelming of our nation. But marriage to or a family relationship with an ethnic-minority person resident here should never be considered grounds for entry to the United Kingdom. I would like to see passports withdrawn from the ethnic minorities, replaced by Permanent Residence cards, which could not be used to vote, stand for political office or bring in spouses or family members. Public employment should be reserved for members of our nation—people of English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish descent—and the social welfare system should also be exclusively for our own people. Ethnic-minority residents who maintain themselves in the private sector (owners of corner shops and the like) would stay. Those who could not maintain themselves without access to public funds in the form of public-sector employment or welfare payments would be left to find their own ways out of our country.

This is not a harsh policy, but in fact the policy employed over the larger part of the world. English people who try to apply for jobs in the Chinese government or who demand Chinese pensions will find themselves knocked back. Just as every family reserves its household funds for members of their own families, we ought to prioritise the welfare of our nation. If we don’t do this, we will lose our position in Britain, and with it our freedoms too. We have brought in competing and warring cultural groups to jostle for supremacy in a single territory, destroying the basis for a free society and underpinning the role of the state bureaucracy in “managing” cultural conflict. It is likely that, even were my approach adopted in full, England would remain host to minorities from many different cultures, but social peace could be created by insisting on the rightful dominance of English culture in England. In this way, we could defend the rights of all the English, and stop trampling on the interests of our own disadvantaged. This is the only way that liberty for the English can be restored, as multiculturalism requires state coercion of our own people for its success.


  1. It is certainly true that libertarianism is not “atomistic” individualism (as opposed to methodological individualism – a very different thing). Libertarianism is about voluntary cooperation – civil society (families, churches, commercial companies, clubs – and on and on). Based on the moral choice of individuals (our ability, with effort, to tell moral right from wrong – and our ability, again with effort, to choose to do what is morally right against the desire to do evil), but voluntary cooperation (in such things as churches, secular clubs, commercial companies) not “atomistic” individualism.

    It was the Jacobins (radically ANTI libertarian – indeed followers of Rousseau) who believed that there were only individuals and “the people” (the collective – with the “Lawgiver” telling everyone what their “real” interests, what the “General Will” as opposed to the “will of all” – i.e. what people only “thought” they believed in).

    The Nation.

    As Michael Oakeshott pointed out in his long essay “On The Character Of Modern European State” (in his “On Human Conduct”) nations are complex things – and YES Mr Webb is correct, one should not confuse “nation” with “government”.

    Kings of England have claimed to rule parts of Wales since at least the time of William the First (William the Bastard), and claimed overlordship of Wales long before this (many Anglo-Saxon Kings made the claim).

    Since the time of Henry VIII (himself the son of that “mad Welsh adventurer” as David Starkey called him – Henry VII whose partly Welsh army won the Battle of Bosworth in 1485) England and Wales have been one Kingdom – there has been no legal distinction between them (till recently).

    However, there was always a sense that whilst England and Wales were the same political country – they were different “nations”.

    This was not really a “racial” thing – after all whilst in the east of England most people indeed are Germanic in heritage, in the west of England many people have “Celtic” and “pre Celtic” DNA signs (but are just as much “English”).

    In the end it is a cultural matter – if someone (who can not speak a word of Welsh – as many people in the south of Wales historically could not, till government schools started to shove down their throats over the last few years – even making up Welsh names for towns that NEVER had Welsh names), regards themselves as “Welsh” they are.

    Ditto if someone with a “Celtic” DNA regards themselves as “English” – they are. Indeed if a man with brown skin who was born and brought up in Pakistan and then becomes Bishop of Rochester regards himself as “English” (as part of English culture – the English “nation” in the sense of the Middle Ages where students of different cultural “nations” would gather together in Paris and Rome) then he is English.

    It is subtle and complex – “identity” things normally are.

    Even “identity politics” is an old tactic – after all Henry the First against his older brother. I (Henry) am the one born in England and I am marrying a Scottish Princess whose forefather was ALFRED THE GREAT – support me! And it worked – the English flocked to his banner against his older brother (although the legal Charter of 1100 helped as well). Indeed most Norman lords married Anglo Saxons within an generation or so (somehow they knew that their decedents would have a better time if they could be “English”).

    And certainly the idea that “nations are un libertarian” or “nation means state” is
    nonsense – again Mr Webb is right about that.

  2. As for public employment (and so on) being reserved for people of the correct bloodlines.

    I doubt that even Queen Victoria would have qualified under these rules. What about Prince Charles – after all his father is Greek (born on a kitchen table on a Greek island – as Prince Philip himself points out), and the Greek Royal family were of German ancestry (although, like all Royal families, they had a mixed ethnic heritage).

    Being British AND being English is partly cultural and partly a matter of political loyalty – to the Crown. It is not a matter of “race” (see above, my first comment, it never was).

    I am sure Mr Webb would, on reflection, agree – after all he is NOT a Nazi.

    The English word “folk” may have the same linguistic root as the German word “volk” but they are wildly different concepts. German thinkers (whether they were basically nice, although misguided, people such as Herder, or rather nasty people such as Fichte) are not English thinkers.

    Someone may be become part of the English folk – simply by living here a few years and becoming part of the culture (if they really make an effort – not if they hate the country).

    In German thought (at least from the early 19th century) it was increasingly fashionable that someone who was not “racially” German could not be part of the German “volk” – the Nazi position was an extreme one, but one that had developed over time (Mr Hitler invented nothing himself – he picked up fashionable ideas and took them to an extreme).

    Win an Iron Cross in combat in the First World War, be born in Germany, and have a doctorate in German literature – you are still not “really” German, because you are the wrong “race”.

    The English are opposed to this evil nonsense. As Queen Victoria pointed out – there are few things more absurd that colour prejudice. Unless it is hostility to people whose “race” is not even visible to the human eye – after all only a fool would claim that Mendelssohn was not a German. And, as Prince Albert knew well, virtually every Royal and Aristocratic family in Germany was at least partly “Slav” by “race”.

    The grandson of Victoria and Albert – Prince Frederick, fought the tide of insanity (no not insanity – moral evil) that was sweeping over Germany. But Frederick was cut down by cancer almost as soon as he became Emperor in 1888 – after that the liberal cause (already in peril) was lost in Germany and war became inevitable.

    During the First World War there did indeed exist traitors to Britain, traitors to ENGLAND – who accepted strange “racial” ideas (such as Stewart Houston Chamberlain – who later anointed Mr Hitler as the leader of the “Master Race”), but such un English people (such traitors) were few, just as they were in the Second World War.

    As John Buchan (as the King’s representative in Canada) said – “these silly lies, mostly invented in Germany” would only be believed in by fools.

    Again I am sure that Mr Webb would agree, Would agree that nationality is a mater of political loyalty and of culture – not of biological “bloodlines”.

    As for people of different “races” not being dependent on government benefits – on the need for them to be self supporting, or supported voluntarily.

    Again I am sure that Mr Webb, as a libertarian, would agree that everyone who is physically and mentally capable of working for a living should do so – regardless of biological “race”, so the words about “ethnic minorities” serve no useful purpose.

    By the way……

    The Japanese have carefully kept out most immigrants over the decades (they have few they could expel).

    This does NOT mean that the Japanese Welfare State is sustainable – of course it is not.

    • I agree. The remarks about ethnic minorities standing for public office being insolent, and refusing to help an ethnically non-English police officer in serious enquiries seem extreme and very bizarre, especially from a libertarian.

      What better way for settled minorities to integrate than to be in public service?

  3. My, what on Earth’s happening here? All this Honest to God plain speaking’s going to lead to the issuance of a pc arrest warrant. Plod must be salivating already. If you haven’t put defensive measures in place yet then please be very careful. Freedom of speech is now extinct throughout Europe.

    Always remember, the revered POTUS still fervently believes that the Islamic Call to Prayer is the best sound in the world, and his favourite European puppet, young Dave, obviously, still dances a jig when his strings are jerked.

  4. English is not just a colour but a state of mind and an identity and indeed a boundary connectivity. It is an identity based on agreed and accepted norms and values, as well as being based on cultural and historical attributes, as DJ has stated. I know such norms and values have obscure boundaries at times, a blurring of conceps. But the concepts of the Rule of Law, Habeas Corpus, Property Rights and indeed certain agreed to and conformed with ethical and moral behaviours that are linked through tradition and harmonious connectivity of the distant past, recent past and indeed the present which still holds those attributes dear. Those who live by and adhere to those norms and values have every right to call themselves English, or indeed even British if they live here as citizens. Culture not only colour is often a defining factor; many use culture to mean colour. It is when colour, not culture or adherence to a set of held norms and values, traditions and expectations, is put first and foremost in every distinction that we have disharmony and discombobulation within the populace.

    DJ remarks that he “…personally does not accept the legitimacy of the British ‘citizenship’ of people whose ancestors do not come from Europe. People whose ancestors are French, German or from some other closely related European nation are likely to assimilate easily and, within a single generation, become normal, natural members of the British nation, recognised as such by all without coercion. People whose cultures are so distinct from ours that they seek to recreate their societies as enclaves here are simply unassimilable”. This ignores the integrated and assimilated other different cultural nationals. They are as British, or as English, as DJ. It is the desire to create multi-cultural zones within the UK, and only in certain parts of the UK, that is both alien and detrimental to the host nation, the long established citizens of the UK and the new citizens that do want to embrace the norms and values of English or British culture, that has to be curtailed. And as we know from past and present experience that cultural misnomer and subversive desire can well be in the persona of the colour white.

      • Locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, in a world of mass communications.

        And still, no answer to the fundamental problem of “western civilization’s” (or whatever the code word for white races is) below replacement fertility.

        • I am not sure Benefits Britain is below replacement fertility. But clearly fertility is affected by house prices and the difficulty of affording to have children. Wider economic solutions are required.

          • Is it purely an economic matter? I’m not so sure. Yes, we may be heading towards decline and “Idiocracy” simultaneously but, for sure, the numbers don’t lie about the eventual outcome unless something drastic is done to make a turnaround.

  5. I wish I could be more vocal on some of these issues being raised lately on this site, but I am not in the best of states at the moment and haven’t much will or enthusiasm to really get my teeth into things.

    Exploring the role of ethnicity on society and our collective sense of self as an historic nation of people can be very tricky to navigate, particularly without an avalanche of people piling on things in an attempt to brush certain aspects under the carpet again.

    Of course, contrary to the statement made by somebody above, somebody of non European origin even if born in England can never be ‘as English’ as the author of the piece or even English at all, certainly not without denying the racial and ethnic heritage of the English people.

    The English, to my knowledge, had around 1000 years of relatively perfect homogeneity when compared to other lands. Those that did come from elsewhere were not only similar (often identical) in racial origins, but had similar traits, customs, faiths and linguistic origins.

    Furthermore, the numbers were so tiny and the people were so spread out that after a generation or two, they were indistinguishable from the rest in all ways and were happily adopted into the wider nation family. This is no longer the case.

    We have had the biggest population change since the thawing of the Ice Age, where more immigrants have come in the last few decades alone than had arrived over the timespan of a thousand years. Three English cities, soon to be four with Manchester, are already not English in the majority when it comes to historical origins.

    To expect the indigenous people, the hosts, to not find it jarring that is is going on, that they are told to be nobodies, that they never really existed, that this is some “nation of immigrants” to which they have no claim to (and no favour to in comparison to a second generation Somali born in Britain) is, to me, not only historically false, but nonsensical and insulting.

    Whilst the past may indeed now be “another country” – and I would agree that it now is, even amongst the nature and ways of the modern English people and our national character – it is pretty short sighted to retort that we should ‘get over it’ when ‘getting over it’ means the replacement of your own people in your own homeland and, perhaps more importantly to libertarians, the tendency for freedoms and liberty to be failures in such a society in the future.

    Libertarianism is overwhelmingly successful and fundamental to European peoples. To my knowledge, no other continents or cultures led to libertarian principles being possible, never mind adopted.

    Most of the rest of the world do not really share those values and instincts, certainly not to the same degree, instincts which I personally believe are intrinsic to the Caucasian peoples of Western Europe and which were helped to be derived by the thousand years of relative homogeneity of race, languages, religions, values, customs, cultures.

    The march the other month against freedom of speech by thousands of Muslim men is one obvious example of this, particularly when it will have contained many second, third, even fourth generation Pakistani and other origin peoples who were born in England. But the same can be said for many groups, many Africans and others, who simply will not be chomping at the bit to subscribe to libertarian values.

    I don’t think a society of different races and religions can ever be peaceful in the long term. I think it has been a curse for this island and a curse on many nations of European origin – and that those who think it has been marvellous and will be marvellous in the future are ignorant to the troubles of the world both today and throughout history.

    They are often just too short sighted and/or arrogant enough to believe they they have perfected it this time, that they are superior people to all the other places in the world both past and present which have been drenched in bloodshed and turmoil thanks to this “diversity” and “sharing of territory” between different peoples.

    Despite popular misconception, it is extremely new to Britain – and what is happening today is not some kind of evolving of what has gone on before.

    But back to libertarianism, seeing this is the libertarian website. Thanks to the drifting and propaganda pushed out by the liberal establishment, the British people have changed in themselves and the “social justice warrior” generation are extremely detached from the ancient rights and norms which we may have all once taken for granted.

    It is not uncommon to hear from English people, in modern Britain, that they actually welcome locking somebody up for ‘hate crimes’ or being forced out of employment for being ‘racist’ even when they are not on the company time or premises. The list goes on and on. Including the mindbogglingly stupid people with the “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” attitude to monitoring by the state.

    What I am saying is that we are having a hard enough time reinforcing and reaffirming libertarian values in our own populace, yet at the same time importing literally millions of people who certainly do not share them and will never entertain them, nor will their children tend to do so either.

    Not wishing to knock the libertarian movement, but how many hardcore and long lasting recruits/efforts will it have amassed in the last 70 years? A few thousand? A million? Probably not that much –

    – Yet how many millions of un-assimilable people have been allowed into this country and how many more millions of offspring have they created that similarly reject the basis for the concepts?! How many more are coming every month of the year?

    To ‘get over’ the fact that the indigenous populace are being pushed out of their own homeland, that we are likely to face an extremely hard time in the future as minority groups, to be humiliated and shamed in our own historic lands, to see a future that is far from comfortable to our natural disposition and far from the libertarian desires is not really all that easy.

    I don’t know what the solution is, particularly with a population so divorced from the desire to take any action or interest in their own future. It is hard to unscramble the egg which has been scrambled (without our say so) when the whole apparatus of the state loves scrambled eggs.

    I just don’t think this whole situation will pan out very well. I may be proven wrong when the Social Justice Warrior generation are so utterly brainwashed as to gleefully flush their own race and lineage down the toilet and thus not care less what happens, well, until they cannot hide from racial reality anyway. In order to have the conflicts that have besieged the rest of the world, you need two sides to fight after all.

    The solution though is not some form of apartheid. That was a failure before and it would be a failure again. Different races should ideally not share the same territory, particularly not in large concentrations or numbers.

    Maybe the doors ought to be closed to non Europeans, those ethnic groups here who are hustlers and antagonistic to the English need to be removed. Others may need to be encouraged to leave, whilst the English are given subtle boosts, such as the things conducive to birthrates and stable families so that we are more “fit for purpose” than the many dregs we can often seem to be, people with a higher sense of self once again.

    The rest and all the ones in between would have to be given breathing space of time and pressure to be assimilated in all ways if they want to be considered instinctively as one of our own in the future.

    This is far from possible at the moment and has been far from possible since the 1970s in many areas I suspect, hence the very adoption of “multiculturalism” as “integration” was ALREADY said to be a failure in the late 60s. The onus was then put on the ENGLISH to adapt, and any failure of the project was therefore THEIR fault and not the fault of the arrivals or the architects of their arrival.

    The pace and scale of what is taking place is not fitting to harmony or a future for the English.

    It may seem extremely harsh, but I think the risks of horrific conflict or even further totalitarian control measures in the future (to keep control of it all) far outweigh the discomfort and nastiness that such mild and longer term plans would involve.

    It is not nice, it is not pleasant, we all may know people who are very well integrated into British life who are not part of the ethnic family. It is tough to think of looking at them in this light, yet at the same time, lines may have to be drawn somewhere if the English want to remain in existence in England.

    On the scale of things, I think future damage has to be controlled, the obvious piss takers and abusers of our hospitality removed, the criminals, the illegals and their families, the religious fifth column colonisers etc. The rest, we would just have to see what happens.

    But all of this is of course in cloud cuckoo land when the entire established order would need to be overturned to do it, and the English people actually be assertive enough to collectively put their foot down and secure a future for themselves as “a people”.

  6. CB

    I think maybe you should write more when you’re feeling more vocal on some of these issues. Perhaps when you own a little more will and enthusiasm to get your teeth into the subject.

    That wee comment is not meant to sound hurtful CB. It’s just that when the comment first started to roll, I was expecting a couple of paragraphs before your typing fingers slowed to a full stop. Then, the longer you went on, the more your enthusiasm and energy levels seemed to rise. Truthfully, I did enjoy reading it.

    This post and every comment thus far represents, to me at least, a breath of welcome fresh air in the deliberately poisoned atmosphere that surrounds the UK’s never-ending immigration problems. Reading through both post and comments attached, I’m encouraged to think that perhaps, after all, there yet remains hope. Hope, at least that much, offered back to all those men and women who never supported a massive legal invasion of our island home.

    Maybe seeds of a justified rebellion have at long last taken root. I hope so.

    For anyone who might have missed it, Sean posted on-line in the early hours of this morning, probably his most professional speech to-date. He took on Ted Heath’s cowardly destruction of the reputation and political career of Enoch. He did well enough with it in my humble opinion. Especially given that he’d barely 30 minutes to make an impact.

    Well done Sean

        • Not fishing for compliments. I look at what I’ve written and am generally pleased. I listen to my speeches, even as I give them, and am always disappointed.

          • Though it might not qualify as a speech in the formal sense, but I happened across a video of you speaking to a room full of public sector apparatchiks at the ICA (on election night in 2005, I believe) and the combative instincts in me found it most enjoyable. Ten years on, and that ICA still receives generous subsidies to (re)produce excrement! What a world.

  7. “In the case of the English, we know that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes arrived in England in the fifth century, speaking closely related dialects of Old English, and that from the middle of the seventh century the Church of England united them…”

    Elizabeth I would have been rather surprised to hear that the C of E existed in the seventh century 🙂

    National identity is most commonly presented in terms of such banalities as “national dress” (often a mark of past servitude), food and crafts or in the more demanding but still narrow world of High Art. Both are inadequate explanations because they touch only a small portion of human existence. To find the answer to a people’s national identity one must look to their general culture which includes at its most sophisticated, science, technology, politics, education, sport, history, morals, humour, language.

    From the general culture comes what might be called the secondary human personality, which is developed by and is continually developing the components of culture. By secondary personality I mean a nurtured overlay on the innate personality. The range of basic human traits – aggressiveness, placidity, timidity, extroversion and so forth – are universal. But those qualities are the mere skeletons of minds. Above them stand the modifications of experience. From experience develops the secondary personality. The social context of that experience and the reflection of that experience through the secondary personality creates culture, is culture.

    All of this is not to say that the material and mundane accoutrements of a man’s life are completely unimportant to the foundation of national identity. There are certain things which are such a part of the warp and weft of life over a long period that they acquire true symbolic value. For example, The wilful destruction in England of their historic measures which arose naturally from man’s everyday needs and a coinage more than a thousand years old, has helped undermine the self confidence of a people who retained such things not out of backwardness, but from a sense of national worth and importance.

    The most extraordinary fact of English history is that it happened. On the periphery of Europe, sparsely populated for most of its history, always faced by powerful neighbours, it is barely credible that this people achieved such a prominent place in history. Rationally England should have been throughout its history a small impoverished backward state, an extra on the European stage. Consider the history of Ireland which was placed in much the same general situation as England. A novelist who created an equivalent fictional history would be laughed out of court on the grounds of utter improbability.

    There is so much that is unusual about England. Not only did she possess the only world empire ever worthy of the name, she produced the one bootstrapped industrial revolution, has displayed a quite unparalleled political stability and a unique political evolution leading to representative government and perhaps most importantly in the long run created a language which for its all round utility cannot be equalled. England is the cause of the modern world. Let her self-respect rest on that massive fact. The English do not need to invent a mythical past for their self-esteem: the reality with all its warts is splendid and marvellous.

  8. Red squirrels didn’t applaud the immigration of gray squirrels into the UK. They are now being decimated in their country by an animal with which they can’t effectively compete. Gray squirrels are more aggressive and they breed faster. All DNA is in an evolutionary fight to the death. The meaning and purpose of life is to pass on your DNA.

    Other peoples assume their right to exclusive control of their own lands. They are not embarrassed about restricting employment, land ownership, voting rights for people with different DNA, or who just have a different culture. Their nations exist to promote the interests of their genetic kin. Their nations don’t exist to export jobs or technology. They don’t exist to allow the import of cheap workers.

    Think of how strongly Jewish people demand that Israel, a land they left for thousands of years, should be a Jewish state. Jewish people just as strongly demand that countries with “white” people must be multicultural and have an open borders movement. Can anyone explain the apparent contradiction?


    Did you realise that the open borders movement has been almost exclusively Jewish? or that Jewish legislators such as Leon Britain (Pedophile dossier) and his cousin Malcolm Rifkind (Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee) have been instrumental in introducing “hate speech” and “group libel” laws? Did you know that it has been Jewish groups in every formerly white country who have, and are, fighting to remove our freedom of speech?

  9. These immigrants should surely be treated as denizens? [They cannot be a member of the privy council or of parliament, or hold any civil or military office of trust, or take a grant of and from the crown.]

Leave a Reply