An Ideological Nation?
We have been conceptually transformed into a people that fit into an ideological view of the world from a nation founded on kinship and land by stealth. There are two different views of a nation. The progressive or ideological view is that a nation is not held together by the bonds of history and memory, tradition and custom, language and literature, birth and faith, kin and territory, but by abstract ideas. An abstract or ideological nation is supposed to be united by a set of ideals or are just an economy! They think that a fondness for Democracy, the Rule of Law and Free Speech binds immigrants into a nation. But without the ethnic-cultural core a nation dissolves.
Neither Democracy and Equality nor free markets are enough to hold a people together. The progressives think we can transcend our history and origins as a common people. This is the view I remarked in “Filling the Reality Gap” where people think they are creating a new nation. This follows the rationalist idea that if you get the premise right the right conclusion will follow but in practice human nature, accidents and circumstances prevent the perfect conclusion. (1)
The natural equality ideal was well shot by Jewish Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli in Chapter 24 of “Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography”(1852): “The Jews...are a living and the most striking evidence of the falsity of that pernicious doctrine of modern times, the natural equality of man... but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world. What would be the consequences on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled, and who would then be their superiors.”
Queen Elizabeth in 1596, sent an "open letter" to the Lord Mayor of London, stating "there are of late divers blackmoores brought into this realme, of which kinde of people there are allready here to manie," ordering that they be deported..
In 1601, she again complained about the "great numbers of Negars and Blackamoors which (as she is informed) are crept into this realm," "infidels, having no understanding of Christ or his Gospel," and had them repatriated.
There is concern that the immigrants will come to dominate us. We read repeated reports that we are becoming a minority in our own towns and cities. The immigrants are human and like us, are subject to the same failings and are likely to treat us badly as we did them. They would not be human if they did not bear us a grudge.
Sir Winston Churchill tried in 1955 to have a bill to control immigration drawn up which was not ready until June, two months after he stepped down because of his health. He wanted the Conservative party to adopt the slogan "Keep England White." (2)
The fifth Marquess of Salisbury, grand son of the great Conservative Prime Minister and descendant of Lord Burleigh adviser to Queen Elizabeth, fought in Cabinet to stop immigration. A letter preserved at the National Archive written to Viscount Swinton in 1954: “We might well be faced with very much the same type of appalling issue that is now causing such great difficulties for the United States. The main causes of this sudden inflow of blacks is of course the Welfare State. So long as the antiquated rule obtains that any British subject can come into this country without any limitation at all, these people will pour in to take advantage of our social services and other amenities and we shall have no protection at all.”
Oliver Lyttletton (later Lord Chandos) wanted to introduce deposits of £500 to be put down by immigrants: “ if there is to be means of controlling the increasing flow of coloured people who come here largely to enjoy the benefits of the Welfare State.”
Britain allowed anyone to immigrate but other Commonwealth countries were trict on admissions and refused “persons who are likely to become a public charge,” illiterates”, those deemed “undesirable” had “unsuitable standards or habits of life” many had quota systems and even dictation tests. Jamaica prohibited those likely “to become a charge on public funds by reason of infirmity of body or mind or ill-health or who is not in possession of sufficient means to support himself or such of his dependents as he shall bring with him to the island”.
Thirty–nine territories had entry permit systems or required prospective residents to first obtain permission.
(Lyttleton letter to Swinton 31/3/1954.)
The battle between proponents of the two views have been nasty with representatives of the dominant view treating their traditionalist opponents with contempt. I invite anyone to read in Hansard the despicable way the great Cyril Osborne was treated in his many attempts in the House of Commons to introduce Bills to control immigration. He first tried in 1954 under the 10 minute rule. Before it got to Parliament the Commonwealth Affairs committee had 17 present, 14 spoke but only one supported the bill.
In May 1958, 3 months before the race battles of Notting Hill and Nottingham, Osborne wrote to Labour leader Hugh Gaitskill who left it to his secretary to reply: “The Labour Party is opposed to restriction of immigration as every Commonwealth citizen has the right as a British subject to enter this country.” Three months after he instigated a Commons debate on the 5th of December 1958. Labour spokesman Arthur Bottomley stated, “We are categorically against it (restrictions).”
At the second reading of the Commonwealth Immigration bill (1961) he said: “The world’s poor would swarm to Britain’s welfare honey pot. We have neither the room nor the resources to take all who would like to come.”
Norman Pannell a Conservative MP in Liverpool had served in the Nigerian Legislature and lived in Africa for over 10 years. He proposed a motion at the 1958 Tory conference for reciprocal rights of entry with other Commonwealth countries, for the U.K. let anyone in.
He also addressed the 1961 conference on the perils of admitting criminals and the sick. The debate was stage-managed to stop Cyril Osborne speaking. Pannell stated that though Home Secretary RAB Butler in 1958 disagreed with limiting numbers, had agreed with his suggestion of deporting immigrants who commit crimes but done nothing.
In a letter to the Times of 13th December 1960, Birmingham Conservative Harold Gurden wrote, “on the health question we find the middle ring of the city, where immigrants are mainly concentrated, heavily peppered with dots of tuberculosis incidence. It is the opinion of medical officers that at least some immigrants are suffering with this disease before entering the country...We have a duty to our constituents.” In 2007 it was admitted that we had a record number of cases of TB which the elites have imported.
When we were homogeneous, we trusted one another and the police did not need to be armed; now they regularly have to shoot people in the street, we are under constant surveillance and have totalitarian race laws the rulers use to oppress us.
At Birmingham Town Hall, on 18 April 1968, two days before Enoch’s Rivers of Blood speech, Sir Ronald Bell warned of the forthcoming Race Relations Act, "I am profoundly convinced ... many further uses of law and of the power of the state for shaping men’s minds will follow...“To control thought totalitarians redefine words and change the meaning of legal terms.”
In 1981 K.Harvey Proctor announced the Monday Club plan to repatriate 50,000 immigrants a year. At a Monday Club dinner in early 1984, guest of honour Enoch Powell told that the Conservative party had threatened tosend Proctor to Coventry which would have been the first time in their history they had refused to speak to one of their MP’s !
In “The Unarmed Invasion”(1965) Lord Elton wrote:” We seem to be re-enacting the story of the Roman Empire, which in its decadence imported subject races to do the menial tasks.” In a biography Rock guitarist Eric Clapton tells of adverts he saw while touring Jamaica for immigrants and it was clear they were being brought as cheap labour.
The issue is not our “racism” but treason of the ruling caste that is held together by ideology. They have used propaganda and social engineering constantly to wipe us out and give our country to immigrants and their descendants. Protest and you are called a Nazi or smeared by the media with no regard to the Democratic principles they pretend to uphold. (3)
They have presented Patriotism as something evil or primitive because it is the soul of a nation and a barrier to reconstructing the nation along ideological lines. Patriotism is presented as nation-worship or the nationalism that denigrates or wants to dominate other nations, but it is an emotional bond with one's own country - its land, its people, its past, its heroes, literature, language, traditions, culture, and customs.
A nation is more than a "division of labour" or a "market,." and communities of interests makes commercial treaties. An economic union like the European Union is not a nation and can only be stopped from fragmenting by identity checks for every transaction, political police and surveillance.
An economy is not a country it operates within one and an economic system should strengthen the bonds of national union, but the nation is of a higher order than the construct of any economist. A nation is organic; lives and grows and can be destroyed.
A constitution does not create a nation it gives it order but that is after it lives in the hearts and minds of its people..
This belief that"that people of any culture or continent can be assimilated grows from John Locke’s funny idea that humans are Tabla Rasa - blank slates for experience to scribble on
and make them what they are. It’s nurture versus nature. This is why the believers or what Peter Brimelow termed “Immigration Enthusiasts” see no harm in immigration. (3)
Nation, is from a Latin root nascere, to be born, which intrinsically suggests a blood link, and a common community - an extended family. An “Ethnocultural community is”, wrote Peter Brimelow, “an interlacing of ethnicity and culture, that speaks one language”. It is handed down to the current generation by their ancestors and they have a duty to preserve it and pass it down to their children ad infinitum.
The immigrants are human like us and have attachments to their own tribe, race, nation, culture, community whence they came. Any man or woman, of any color or creed, can be a good person and law abiding citizen but will their grand children merge? The Muslims fighting us on our streets are from the smiley, servile immigrants of the fifties. They are now showing their teeth.
French counter revolutionary Joseph de Maistre wrote: "During my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians... but I must say, as for man, I have never come across him anywhere; if he exists, he is completely unknown to me." It is what is left out of the abstraction "tribal behavior" is what makes us human. Take it away you do not get "pure man" or "liberated man" but dehumanised man.
To traditional conservatives, this "abstract nation" is an intellectual construct, which inspires love nor loyalty. They have the superficial idea that people speaking in local accents are as British as us! But what are they speaking about? (4)
Every true nation is the creation of a unique people. Indeed, an ideological nation based on abstract ideas only appeals to the reason not the heart and it is emotion that unites people not high minded attitudes and citizenship classes. We no longer speak the same language nor do we share the same faith. We are splitting into warring factions.
We have been trained to despise our heroes yet immigrant communities are encouraged to identify with theirs. But our glorious past is treated as shameful history.
Edmund Burke definied a kin and territory nation which involves a shared identity, history and ancestory, and continuity: “As the ends of such a partner-ship cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living and those who are dead, but between those who are living and those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”
Around ten years ago President Bill Clinton proudly told some Arab leaders that he was looking forward to whites becoming a minority in the states! Our children are having their future taken away.
I hear that artists and with his new film sacha Baron Cohen is pushing the boundaries back. Well that sounds such fun that I thought I would push some back: We are not going to be wiped out and we are going to give our children a future and we do it by re-asserting our being as Patrick J. Buchanan’s “Blood and Soil people.” As three times British Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin put it On May 24 1929 :“Let us keep this thought ever in our mind: “that each one of us, so far as in him lies, will strive to keep these islands a fit nursery for Our Race”. (5)