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.