RACE WAR POLITICS
The English Rights Campaign item dated the 2 March 2009 consisted of the reaction of the Steadfast Trust and Tony Linsell to the next census and the exclusion of a question relating to the English as an ethnic group. The Office for National Statistics [ONS] had backtracked from a previous understanding that there would be a tick-box for the ethnic English.
The Steadfast Trust correspondent complains that the ONS now intends to remove the ethnic English tick box and instead only include English as an option under National Identity. The correspondent complains that:
The Steadfast Trust are concerned with equality under the various race relations legislation for the ethnic English and believe that they need the ethnic English data to enable this and to give the ethnic English status under that legislation:
Tony Linsell points out that the National Identity question is to replace the previous census question: ‘What is your country of birth?’. Tony Linsell highlights the attempt by the British state to corrupt the meaning of language:
Instead of an ethnic English tick box, we are to be reduced to settling for a white British tick box. Beth Moon of the ONS revealed that the reason for the removal of the proposed ethnic English tick-box was to encourage ethnic minorities to describe themselves as English: ‘We don’t want only White people to call themselves English’.
Such a statement is pure race war politics. The next census will be corrupted by anti-English racial hatred. Tony Linsell writes that Beth Moon also alleged that there was too little room on the form for an ethnic English tick-box:
The lesson from this is that we cannot expect the British state to act fairly or be anything other than politically correct. The British state is anti-English. The corruption of the meaning of language, the control of language and all forms of media, and the imposition of a politically correct view on the population is political correctness in its purest form.
However, Tony Linsell has raised some interesting issues, which need further examination. As a grammatical fact, England is a country - not a nation. We should reject any attempt to impose grammatical nonsense upon us. It is the English who are a nation.
The English Democrats manifesto deals with the issue of Englishness and the people of England. The relevant part of the manifesto, written by Tony Linsell himself some years ago, states [italics are as in the manifesto]:
----------
England and Multi-culturalism
It is a fact that during the past forty years people of many different cultures have come to live in England. Our country is in that sense a multi-cultural society.
However, multi-culturalism is an ideology which suggests that a mix of many cultures in one society is desirable and that it is the duty of government to actively encourage cultural diversity within the state. Further, it suggests that all cultures should be treated as equal. A logical extension of this is that all languages, histories and law codes should be treated equally. This is clearly impossible in a unified country. All ethnic groups should be free to promote their own culture and identity but the public culture of England should be that of the indigenous English. This position is consistent with the rights of indigenous nations everywhere.
The English
It is common for those who assert their English identity to be challenged in a way that would be considered insulting if directed elsewhere. So as to avoid misunderstanding, and to meet the demands of those who are hostile to any assertion of Englishness, we have set out below what we mean by the English.
The English can be defined in the same way that other nations are defined. To be English is to be part of a community. We English share a communal history, language and culture. We have a communal identity and memory. We share a we sentiment; a sense of belonging. These things cannot be presented as items on a checklist. Our community, like others, has no easily defined boundaries but we exist and we have the will to continue to exist.
The People of England
The people of England are all those UK citizens who live in England. In electoral terms, the people of England are all those UK citizens who are on the electoral roll of an English constituency. The people of England therefore includes the people of many nations, all of whom share a common UK citizenship.
----------
The English Democrats manifesto clearly recognises that the ethnic English are a nation. That, for the English, ethnic and national identity are one and the same. This is a fact and not a matter of debate. The English were a self-governing nation until the formation of Britain. We remain a nation within Britain. The existence of ethnic minorities in England does not preclude we English from our culture, our history and our nationhood. Immigrants become British - not English. They acquire British passports. Those from the immigrant communities tend to refer to themselves as British-Asians, British-Pakistanis, or Black British etc. Very few refer to themselves as English and those who do may well do so as they have English blood in their veins.
If anyone in England was English, then any culture in England would be English. Such an ideological construct might suit the muliticulturalists, but it would make complete nonsense of historical fact and our understanding of society. Nor are the immigrant communities making such absurd inventions. It is only the politically correct who are doing so.
The English Rights Campaign item dated the 21 July 2005 examines the issue of nationhood and nationality, listing 6 matters for consideration. Those matters remain highly relevant as is the English Rights Campaign item dated the 28 September 2005. To deem immigrants as English is to propagate a lie.
Tony Linsell and Steadfast are concerned with English ethnicity in order to represent English interests within the race relations legislation. That may have some merits, and one needs to use all weapons to hand, but it is doomed to failure. The British state will not treat the English fairly and our very existence is a threat to its hegemony, especially if we demand our rights following the devolution of power to Scotland and Wales. The British state will resist with all its means the demands for equality for the English within the union, and likewise demands for equality with other ethnic groups.
Immigrants may have their ethnicity, but that does not make those ethnic groups a nation. Black British may include those from the Caribbean, various African countries or even the USA, for example. They may have shared racial identity or ethnicity, but not a shared national identity although they may acquire British citizenship. The English do have a shared national identity in addition to their ethnicity and in addition to their British citizenship.
Moreover, the English founded England. We are England’s Staatsvolk [responsible for England’s formation, its institutions and culture]. Immigrants have their own countries in addition to their right of abode in Britain, be it citizenship or other residency status. The English do not and have nowhere else to go. The various North American natives, such as the Inuit in Canada, have special homelands where they can enjoy their culture and autonomy. Nunavut is the homeland of 25,000 Inuit. Are we English to be denied our own homeland despite our far greater sense of nationhood, history and advanced national status? Are an indigenous national minority such as the Inuit entitled to more rights than a indigenous national majority such as the English, who in turn are a very small ethnic minority globally and also in the EU?
To treat the English as nothing more than an ethnicity would be to assume that we are as disparate as all the other ethnic minorities. That is not the case. To treat us as being nothing more than an ethnicity and as being no different from an immigrant ethnic minority would be subversive and pure race war politics.
It takes more than tick-boxes on a census form to forge nationhood. The several centuries of the British Empire did not make the various peoples of that empire members of the British nation despite their status as British subjects. They ultimately demanded independence and were prepared to fight and kill for it. Even the Americans rebelled. Likewise, the several centuries of other empires [eg Ottoman, Russian, or the Holy Roman Empire] failed to make the various peoples of those empires one nation. The Austro-Hungarian Empire failed to make even the Austrians and Hungarians one nation.
All Labour’s blather about Britishness is merely a con to allow them to rig elections and loot England for the benefit of Scotland and Wales, and allow Labour politicians to lord it over the English. It is spin to cover up the fact that Gordon Brown is not accountable to those over whom he governs. Gordon Brown is afforded far greater international status as prime minister of Britain than he would ever be afforded as prime minister of Scotland, drowning in all its banking debts.
So how should we English react to the English-haters at the ONS? We should not accept the attempted politically correct corruption of the meaning of language. We should stick to our own understanding, based on history and fact, of our own identity and nationhood. And we should unequivocally condemn the ONS’s attempt to encourage immigrants to lie in filling in the census forms.
The Steadfast Trust correspondent complains that the ONS now intends to remove the ethnic English tick box and instead only include English as an option under National Identity. The correspondent complains that:
‘A person’s “National Identity” has no actual meaning in law and carries no legal status. In effect someone can record their Ethnicity as Pakistani and their National Identity as English.’
The Steadfast Trust are concerned with equality under the various race relations legislation for the ethnic English and believe that they need the ethnic English data to enable this and to give the ethnic English status under that legislation:
‘Simply having a “place name” English identity (rather than the benefits of an “ethnic identity”) is not tolerable as it leaves the Ethnic English open to discrimination. In effect the Ethnic English have a non-identity. Discrimination against the Ethnic English is a growing problem and this can’t be combated if those who are so discriminated aren’t identified in law. For instance if the Ethnic English are under-represented in employment and feel that this is down to discrimination against them because of their ethnicity it would be quite possible for an employer to point to a fellow worker who might be Hungarian, or Irish or Afro-Caribbean and say they are not being discriminatory as all these people could be identified as English.’
Tony Linsell points out that the National Identity question is to replace the previous census question: ‘What is your country of birth?’. Tony Linsell highlights the attempt by the British state to corrupt the meaning of language:
‘In addition to the state sponsored British identity with its British history, culture and institutions, there is an inclusive and very thin state sponsored Englishness – ‘whatever your ethnicity you can be English if you want to be.’ An essential part of this systematic campaign is to suggest that England is a nation. Progressives play with words by changing their meaning so as to suit their interests. If they can get people to believe that England is a nation they will get away with the idea that national identity is determined by where you live. In other words, if you live in England you are English.’
Instead of an ethnic English tick box, we are to be reduced to settling for a white British tick box. Beth Moon of the ONS revealed that the reason for the removal of the proposed ethnic English tick-box was to encourage ethnic minorities to describe themselves as English: ‘We don’t want only White people to call themselves English’.
Such a statement is pure race war politics. The next census will be corrupted by anti-English racial hatred. Tony Linsell writes that Beth Moon also alleged that there was too little room on the form for an ethnic English tick-box:
‘Beth Moon also mentioned that the extent of the census form has to be limited and that it cannot include all the questions various groups would like included. There was obviously too little space to put in an English tick-box but enough room to put in a tick-boxes for Irish and for Gypsy or Irish Traveller. In any other country such obvious manipulation would be thought scandalous and insulting. Can you imagine an Irish census form that had an English tick-box but not an Irish tick-box? Only the half-witted English would allow such a thing.
I asked the meeting Chairman, Peter Benton, why, in view of the alleged shortage of space on the form, could room be found for an Irish tick-box and another for Gypsy and Irish Traveller. He replied, “They are discriminated against.” The clear racist implication, indeed the logic of this, is that the English discriminate against others but are not discriminated against.’
The lesson from this is that we cannot expect the British state to act fairly or be anything other than politically correct. The British state is anti-English. The corruption of the meaning of language, the control of language and all forms of media, and the imposition of a politically correct view on the population is political correctness in its purest form.
However, Tony Linsell has raised some interesting issues, which need further examination. As a grammatical fact, England is a country - not a nation. We should reject any attempt to impose grammatical nonsense upon us. It is the English who are a nation.
The English Democrats manifesto deals with the issue of Englishness and the people of England. The relevant part of the manifesto, written by Tony Linsell himself some years ago, states [italics are as in the manifesto]:
----------
England and Multi-culturalism
It is a fact that during the past forty years people of many different cultures have come to live in England. Our country is in that sense a multi-cultural society.
However, multi-culturalism is an ideology which suggests that a mix of many cultures in one society is desirable and that it is the duty of government to actively encourage cultural diversity within the state. Further, it suggests that all cultures should be treated as equal. A logical extension of this is that all languages, histories and law codes should be treated equally. This is clearly impossible in a unified country. All ethnic groups should be free to promote their own culture and identity but the public culture of England should be that of the indigenous English. This position is consistent with the rights of indigenous nations everywhere.
The English
It is common for those who assert their English identity to be challenged in a way that would be considered insulting if directed elsewhere. So as to avoid misunderstanding, and to meet the demands of those who are hostile to any assertion of Englishness, we have set out below what we mean by the English.
The English can be defined in the same way that other nations are defined. To be English is to be part of a community. We English share a communal history, language and culture. We have a communal identity and memory. We share a we sentiment; a sense of belonging. These things cannot be presented as items on a checklist. Our community, like others, has no easily defined boundaries but we exist and we have the will to continue to exist.
The People of England
The people of England are all those UK citizens who live in England. In electoral terms, the people of England are all those UK citizens who are on the electoral roll of an English constituency. The people of England therefore includes the people of many nations, all of whom share a common UK citizenship.
----------
The English Democrats manifesto clearly recognises that the ethnic English are a nation. That, for the English, ethnic and national identity are one and the same. This is a fact and not a matter of debate. The English were a self-governing nation until the formation of Britain. We remain a nation within Britain. The existence of ethnic minorities in England does not preclude we English from our culture, our history and our nationhood. Immigrants become British - not English. They acquire British passports. Those from the immigrant communities tend to refer to themselves as British-Asians, British-Pakistanis, or Black British etc. Very few refer to themselves as English and those who do may well do so as they have English blood in their veins.
If anyone in England was English, then any culture in England would be English. Such an ideological construct might suit the muliticulturalists, but it would make complete nonsense of historical fact and our understanding of society. Nor are the immigrant communities making such absurd inventions. It is only the politically correct who are doing so.
The English Rights Campaign item dated the 21 July 2005 examines the issue of nationhood and nationality, listing 6 matters for consideration. Those matters remain highly relevant as is the English Rights Campaign item dated the 28 September 2005. To deem immigrants as English is to propagate a lie.
Tony Linsell and Steadfast are concerned with English ethnicity in order to represent English interests within the race relations legislation. That may have some merits, and one needs to use all weapons to hand, but it is doomed to failure. The British state will not treat the English fairly and our very existence is a threat to its hegemony, especially if we demand our rights following the devolution of power to Scotland and Wales. The British state will resist with all its means the demands for equality for the English within the union, and likewise demands for equality with other ethnic groups.
Immigrants may have their ethnicity, but that does not make those ethnic groups a nation. Black British may include those from the Caribbean, various African countries or even the USA, for example. They may have shared racial identity or ethnicity, but not a shared national identity although they may acquire British citizenship. The English do have a shared national identity in addition to their ethnicity and in addition to their British citizenship.
Moreover, the English founded England. We are England’s Staatsvolk [responsible for England’s formation, its institutions and culture]. Immigrants have their own countries in addition to their right of abode in Britain, be it citizenship or other residency status. The English do not and have nowhere else to go. The various North American natives, such as the Inuit in Canada, have special homelands where they can enjoy their culture and autonomy. Nunavut is the homeland of 25,000 Inuit. Are we English to be denied our own homeland despite our far greater sense of nationhood, history and advanced national status? Are an indigenous national minority such as the Inuit entitled to more rights than a indigenous national majority such as the English, who in turn are a very small ethnic minority globally and also in the EU?
To treat the English as nothing more than an ethnicity would be to assume that we are as disparate as all the other ethnic minorities. That is not the case. To treat us as being nothing more than an ethnicity and as being no different from an immigrant ethnic minority would be subversive and pure race war politics.
It takes more than tick-boxes on a census form to forge nationhood. The several centuries of the British Empire did not make the various peoples of that empire members of the British nation despite their status as British subjects. They ultimately demanded independence and were prepared to fight and kill for it. Even the Americans rebelled. Likewise, the several centuries of other empires [eg Ottoman, Russian, or the Holy Roman Empire] failed to make the various peoples of those empires one nation. The Austro-Hungarian Empire failed to make even the Austrians and Hungarians one nation.
All Labour’s blather about Britishness is merely a con to allow them to rig elections and loot England for the benefit of Scotland and Wales, and allow Labour politicians to lord it over the English. It is spin to cover up the fact that Gordon Brown is not accountable to those over whom he governs. Gordon Brown is afforded far greater international status as prime minister of Britain than he would ever be afforded as prime minister of Scotland, drowning in all its banking debts.
So how should we English react to the English-haters at the ONS? We should not accept the attempted politically correct corruption of the meaning of language. We should stick to our own understanding, based on history and fact, of our own identity and nationhood. And we should unequivocally condemn the ONS’s attempt to encourage immigrants to lie in filling in the census forms.
posted by erc @ 4:54 pm
<< Home