"No civilisation other than that which is Christian is worth seeking or possessing." Bismarck
MULTICULTURAL MADNESS: a mission of self-destruction
With the rise of the Nazi regime in Germany in the 1930s, nationalism fell into disrepute and nationalists became disillusioned. After World War II and the appearance of two super-powers of some significance and the founding of the United Nations, Britain pooled its security interests with others in NATO. Eventually in 1973 our distinct national consciousness was further eroded as Britain threw in its lot with the European Union. This event resulted in a loss of sovereignty and the transference of many important powers from Westminster to Brussels. The Schengen Agreement was to lead to a borderless Europe, an idea at the heart of the original Treaty of Rome. First signed by five of the then ten member States in 1985, it was supplemented in 1990 by the Schengen Convention. There are currently 26 European countries in the Schengen Area, which as far as travel goes operates very much as a single State. The lack of border checks has led to enormous problems as floods of migrants and refugees have sought to reach Germany. Schengen is now in serious risk of collapse as a number of the EU States most directly involved have been obliged to secure their borders. The Marxist ‛no borders’ world citizen concept, promoted by politicians of all persuasions, was predated by the Jacobin and mocked at the time by George Canning.
A steady patriot of the world alone,
The friend of every country ― but his own.
Over the years large numbers of immigrants have come among us, particularly from former colonies. This has had a deeply unsettling effect. Many now enjoy British citizenship. With recent wars in the Middle East caused by western meddling, refugees are now once again flooding into Europe in unprecedented numbers. The breakup of the traditions and identity of all our countries is now underway at breakneck speed.
Those Europeans who themselves were caught up in the huge movements of displaced persons after World War II will recognise the plight of many of the hapless families, the genuine refugees, and will recognise their distress and be filled with sympathy. Unlike the previous large movements of people across our continent, those entering England today from overseas are predominantly of different race, language and religion. They often find things difficult and many resist any attempt to persuade them to integrate with the indigenous population. This does and will continue to create a feeling of deep unease. It is becoming more difficult by the week to know whether or not old England still exists.
The words immigrant, settler and refugee each need careful definition and careful use. An immigrant may move to another country for many different reasons, family, improve his or her lot in life. A refugee is usually someone fleeing from their home country because of danger created by a war or fear of persecution. A settler is someone who goes to a generally sparsely populated place in order to start a new life, even creating a new country where none existed before. The British who originally settled in the New World, America or Canada, or went to Australia, New Zealand or South Africa were never immigrants as such. None of these countries was ever ‛colonised’ by the British or by anyone else. How far back in English history shall we go to find the true Englishman? The cry ‛we were all immigrants once’ is a piece of arrant liberal nonsense, total garbage. Our liberal élites regard themselves liberators of us all from ‛white supremacist ’ ideology and the suppression of minorities. Where has old England gone? Way back in 1984 in a television interview, a Bradford Conservative councillor, Peter Gilmore, made this remark: “There is no such thing as an Englishman”. It is difficult to imagine anyone in Russia today suggesting there is no such thing as a Russian. Surely, they would be lynched.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission, formerly the Commission for Racial Equality, now works under a broader mandate than previously. With respect to immigration and multiculturalism it is committed to unravelling our distinctive and traditional English culture and to putting in its place a vapid, bland cultural pluralism. Bradford, of course, has long suffered under a powerful multiculturalist bureaucracy. Schools in the city are not interested in integrating newcomers within the British way of life, instead they promote a vague ‛multicultural identity’. In this context there can be no commitment to a common history, tradition, development or religion. They seek to impose a new culture by dictat from above, wiping clean the past. Most of us will find this as offensive as it is totalitarian. This can never work and remains a recipe for growing resentment and disharmony on all sides. Conflict has now become inevitable and unpreventable. There is a clear denial that anyone in Britain can be autochthonous, indigenous, rather than descended from migrants or colonists. We were all immigrants once and on the same footing as everyone else. A myth is perpetuated of vast movements of people in the past, exaggerated to support a multicultural agenda.
Britain’s place in world history is taught in State schools as being something approaching ‛shameful’. Multiculturalism has been empowered by dishonesty on a grand scale. It is a pot-pourri of distorted facts enhanced by noxious and wayward lies. Excellence is hated, totalitarian movements and vile régimes are praised. Any notion of Britishness or Englishness is deliberately debunked as racist. Students are left in ignorance of their own cultural background. Traditional Christianity is scorned, Islamic culture celebrated, carefully ignoring its somewhat savage origins. The British people are generally tolerant and open-minded, too much so in many respects. Yet, why on earth should they have to tolerate having their own financial resources used to insult them?
In this climate, our children grow up devoid of the teachings of the Christian faith, but in doing so they do not suddenly acquire or assimilate another in its place. They simply have no culture at all. Our nation is rapidly losing its Christian traditions and values, but this does not make us ‛multicultural’. The result instead is a profound disorientation and a lack of any measure by which to make serious life-changing decisions. Furthermore, those who have lost their faith will still tend to look at the world in religious terms, but those who never grew up with the Christian faith will have great difficulty in understanding its message or grappling with the great issues of life. Those who are unfamiliar with the King James Bible or know little about its place in our culture, those who hardly know who Jesus is, will find allusions to these things in English history or literature mystifying or they may pass them by altogether. Our literary heritage is difficult, if not impossible to fathom without a background in the teachings of the Christian faith. Those who have destroyed our cultural heritage, deprived our children of it in school, are engaged in something that is worse than criminal. What is lost will be very difficult to retrieve. One day, most certainly our crooked politicians and others along with them must be called to account for the evil they have perpetrated.
Britishness these days means little more than the possession of a UK passport. ‛Nationality’ is conferred simply on the receipt of a letter from the Home Office. Having a multicultural, multi-ethnic employment policy and ethos in government offices, it will often be a member of one of the ethnic minorities themselves who decides on naturalisation and asylum issues. Many with no particular loyalty to Britain, even members or terrorist groups, supporters of ISIS, all hold UK passports. Once a treasure to be carefully guarded, British Citizenship is now a much devalued currency. In the eyes of the Home Office the ISIS recruit from Birmingham is as worthy of British citizenship as genuinely British people. Those who deny that our country belongs by right to every imaginable ethnic group worldwide are considered racist.
Now nationality has little to do with belonging to what historically has been understood as a nation. Despite handing out little bits of paper, the Home Office actually cannot confer nationhood on anyone, if we understand by that a shared identity. Anyone who does not share the ancestry, the language, the history, the culture of the English is not English, nor can they be made such by anyone, nor can anyone choose to be English. A donkey cannot be said to be a horse as it was born a donkey and no bits of paper from an unenlightened veterinary surgeon can change that.
Different demands are made in different countries should immigrants aspire to citizenship. To become a French citizen is far from easy. A good command of the French language, demonstrable absorption into French culture and a good knowledge of the main events in French history are the basic requirements. Clearly, immigrants who decline to make any effort in this direction ought not then to claim discrimination or marginalisation. Multiculturalism is a smokescreen for a multitude of evils. What is demanded by so many incomers is not equality but special treatment. The supporters of multiculturalism live in a contradiction by proposing assimilation and at the same time promoting a perpetuation of cultural differences.
The natural concept of nationality is to do with birth, background, language and culture. Legal nationality has to do with State bureaucracy and nothing more. It was expected by some although deemed unnecessary by others that as passports were given to ‛new’ Britons, they would with time assimilate and perhaps with the second or third generation be hardly distinguishable from other British people. What has happened as a direct result of ruinous multiculturalism is that wholly distinct communities have evolved often all living in the same areas of our large cities in what are little more than ghettoes. Again, the official promotion of anti-racism and multiculturalism has been divisive, generating within these tightly-knit communities deep hostility to the host nation. All immigrants benefit from our culture and traditions, even from the freedom to criticise Britain. Many have come from countries that are authoritarian to the point of oppression and racism, where ethnic minorities are treated as second class citizens or worse. Immigrants quickly learn how multiculturalism and the inherent rights they have thus acquired can be used against us. We are forever being pressurised to treat as British those who do not share our national identity and have no desire to be assimilated into our society. The threat of crime and terrorism, real or imagined, means we agree to draconian laws enacted to ‛protect’ us. We have become complicit in the winding up of our ancient civil liberties.
A blatant case of inverted racism, fairly typical and also offensive, came from a Director-General of the BBC, who declared his management team was ‛hideously white’. Multiculturalism is as bogus as it is dangerous, creating problems where there where previously none. Multiculturalism stands high among those liberal articles of faith that no one is allowed to question. Yet, the assimilation of immigrants professing a different faith into a country with a Christian culture is simply impossible. The understanding of what is right and wrong that until very recently has been emphatically Christian stands to contradict much that is acceptable to other ‛faiths’. What is in our culture is called oppression is deemed part of the culture in many other countries, particularly the Middle East.
Multiculturalism has suffered some setbacks in recent years. Despite this, its basic premises remain entrenched. All cultures are said to be equal; British culture is essentially racist; incoming cultures are to be viewed as a resource. Many, such as Trevor Phillips formerly of the then Commission for Racial Equality, no longer contends that newcomers need not learn British ways. The public overwhelmingly recognise that limitless immigration is unsustainable and have become aware of the deceitfulness of the political class in this matter. We must add to this the rejection by the majority population of the funding of the disproportionate amount of welfare benefits given to those who not only reject our political and Christian moral culture, such as is left, but who want to see it overthrown. Multiculturalists have persistently used white protestant ‛guilt’, the ‛sins’ of imperialism, to tap the vast reserves of public finance. With the continued influx of refugees from the Middle East, it will become increasingly clear that a generous welfare State is incompatible with open borders. It aggravates an already difficult situation.
Government is weakened in a multicultural society. Where there is no shared identity among the people, the connection between government and the people is severed. Governments are forced to operate over and above the people over whom it rules arbitrating between different identity groups. Eventually cynicism towards politicians grows and the judicial system begins to lose its legitimacy in the eyes of the native population. Traditional religion declines to make room for the growth of multiculturalism. There is a consequent parallel descent into the disintegration of our society and the abandonment of moral values.
Britain has for years been working feverously towards its own extinction as has Germany, but also many other European countries. There are places, such as in Hungary and all strength to their arm, where this trend has been resisted. Most cities and large towns in the UK have a substantial population of immigrants, largely Islamic. Almost half of the Muslim population in the UK was born here. They have nothing in common with the host community and show no desire to integrate into British society whatever. Instead they have over recent years shown an increasing hostility to all that is British. They emphasise their differences, wearing different clothes, speaking a different language, eating different foods, watching different films and taking on none of the customs of the indigenous population. Showing no respect for the country in which they now live, they bite the hand that feeds them, denying the legitimacy of the State them provides them welfare. This contributory factor to bottomless pit of debt into which this country continues to sink should worry us all.
Over ten years the Muslim population has increased by more than 75% and now stands at 2.7 million. The significant rise in numbers can be accounted for by the swathes of refugees coming into the country from Afghanistan, Somalia and the war torn areas of the Middle East. Some are genuine refugees fleeing desperate situations, but a much larger number appear to be economic migrants seeking a better life or are young men trying to dodge conscription into the armed forces. Many of the Muslims are of an age when they are raising a family. The Muslim population must increase as the birth rates in the non-Muslim population continue their steady decline and have sunk below replacement level, but amongst the Muslim population they continue to grow. Some estimate suggest that the Muslim population in Britain by the year 2051 could range from anything between 40% to 50%. The drastic changes this would bring about are certainly most alarming.
Also alarming is the fact that all discussion about the kind of country we are becoming has been shut down. In some inner city areas Muslim children make up 86% of all children aged between five and fifteen. The London borough of Tower Hamlets is 34.5% Muslim. The prediction is that by 2021 there will be around 300,000 Muslim teenagers living in Britain. Three quarters of the Muslim population is concentrated in London, the West Midlands, the North West, Yorkshire and Humber. In many wards in Birmingham more than 80% of a school’s intake of children are Muslims, in Washwood Heath it is 86%. According to recent research, a disproportionately large number of Muslims are in prison at 13% in England and Wales. No other group is so strongly linked to the welfare State and to crime. Whilst the majority of the British population say they are Christian, followers of Islam constitute the largest number of all the minority religions. With the Muslim population becoming an ever higher percentage of the population, if the UK government is seeking to diminish or even eradicate the influence of the Christian faith through its tacit support of Islam as it appears to be doing, it is certainly going the right way about it.
Since the advent of multiculturalism the character of our nation has undergone mind-numbing change. Multiculturalism promotes the equality of all races, religions and cultures, this sounds very pious and good. No particular ethnic group enjoys a position of privilege, we are told. Incomers are to preserve their distinctive group identity which at all costs must be protected from the impact of the dominant white culture. In this way the ‛rights’ of immigrants are protected whilst those of our own people are denied. Multicultural ideologies encourage the attachment of incoming minorities to their religion, customs and ethnicity, whilst at the same time denigrating the heritage of majority and imposing upon them a kind of historical amnesia. We are being dispossessed of our heritage whilst all others are being encouraged to celebrate theirs. The dismemberment of our ethnic identity is viewed as progressive, yet pulling it apart ought to be viewed as grossly xenophobic. Why are we alone in this world expected to bow our heads, seal our lips and accept diversity and massive immigration? What liberal multiculturalists fear more than anything else is the authentic voice of the people rebelling and fighting against their own destruction.
Multiculturalism must be one of the craziest and most extreme ideological policies ever conceived. It has brought about irrevocable changes to the ethnic and cultural composition of our land within a very short space of time. This sinister ideology portrays its proponents as moderate and tolerant and opponents of mass immigration are labelled ‛far right extremists’. Opposition to the influx of large numbers of migrants on its own is sufficient to be called extremist, xenophobic, even racist or neo-fascist. How can it be that those wishing to maintain the historic identity of their nation are called extremist and those calling for the dismantling of our heritage are called reasonable and moderate? According to even mainstream ‛conservative’ media outlets, the desire to retain the ethnic and cultural identity of the nation is enough to warrant the term xenophobic fascist. The promotion of multiculturalism is seen as a tool to expand government and overthrow traditional values. Immigrant labour is seen by most European governments as essential to economic growth and corporate globalization. Everything is explained in terms of economics and there is talk of a looming labour shortage due to low birth rates and retiring baby boomers. Almost everyone has fallen for Marxist’s claim that opposition to mass immigration is xenophobic. In the meantime we watch as they destroy forever our ethnic and cultural distinctiveness.
Cultural pluralism is now at the heart of British identity. Every ethnic identity is equally ‛British’. What nonsense this is! British ethnicity is now of no greater importance than any other in determining what it is to be British. No, it is quite wrong to suggest that multiculturalism in any sense describes what is Britain’s historical culture. Yet all the values, religious identity, institutions, history, we are told, are no longer those things which define our identity. Multiculturalism is destructive of the past and looks to the future, a fantasy future that is not real. The past, we are led to believe, was full of bigotry, exclusionism and racism and is not to be tolerated. The future, we predict, if we continue along this pathway will be calamitous and violent.
It can never be racist to think in an ethnocentric way or have a preference for our own traditions. It is a healthy evaluation of our own ethnic identity. It is not racist nor is there any implied xenophobia in exhibiting a preference for one’s own ethnicity or heritage, any more than it is to feel more comfortable in the company of one’s own family. Our cultures have now been swamped by immigration and diversity. Unceasing media propaganda enforcing diversity has severely eroded historic pride in all things British. Many welcome these changes as the world moves to greater globalization. Civil servants in Whitehall will argue for the most open door possible to immigration. Global rather than national welfare is paramount. There has never been any debate with the people themselves about the desirability or otherwise of mass immigration and multiculturalism. It has come upon us quietly and gradually by hidden regulations and administrative directives long before the introduction of any statures in law and is underlined by a stream of propaganda and thinly veiled threats.
An intolerant politically-correct multiculturalism rules. Our language, way of thinking and living, is being transformed in front of our eyes. Our words change their meaning, certain words and phrases are forbidden. Our educational institutions, media channels, inculcate anti-racism and political-correctness. They oppose anything they perceive as even faintly ‛fascist’. Our nation must be ‛liberated’ from the chains of tradition, oppressive orthodox religion, inherited moral values derived from religious belief.
It is the pernicious policy of multiculturalism pursued by our own governments that has led to increased heterogeneity in Britain through immigration. This has and is hindering the peaceful resolution of conflicts caused by the meddling of western powers in matters that are none of their business. A utopian senseless egalitarian prejudice prevents the recognition of all differences between individuals is proscribed. Natural loyalties to family, kith and kin, are all abhorrent to these numbskulls. Their vision of oppression is of a man caring for his family and his own.
Multiculturalism is now an obligatory part of British identity. Racism has been inexorably linked to white British ethnocentricity so that its elimination requires the eradication of British identity as we have always understood it, surely this is an act of ethnic cleansing? To bring an end to mass immigration and multiculturalism cannot be seen as an act of exclusion or racism. Far from it, multicultural policies are acts of exclusion and discrimination against the historic British people. Revoking multiculturalism would not be an act of hatred against other ethnic groups. It is the multiculturalist who holds intolerant views, so that anyone who is in any way proud of his British origins and refuses multiculturalism is hated as racist and xenophobic, words used as abuse and consequently emptied of meaning. The cost of creating a ‛universal humanity’ has been the dehumanization and demonization of the British people who love their heritage.
D. William Norris
“Only the nation itself can say what it is and feels itself to be” - Enoch Powell