The MADNESS of allowing mass immigration into our, already natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country (and sub-continent) has resulted in the creation of a multi-ethnic society and state – there is no denying or getting away from that, and the consequences which accompany it.
However, what I do deny, and reject as complete nonsense, is the assumption that Britain is still a NATION. It is not.
Actually, I don't believe that Britain ever was a NATION, but has always been a STATE (like other states) posing as a nation, in order to facilitate its powerful and privileged elites' exploitation of society as a whole. Elites which now include not just aristocrats, clergy and the wealthy, but also those in politics, academia and the media, who between them wield virtually total power in our “democratic” state.
ETHNIC drives from Greek ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION. So, if multi-ethnic Britain is a nation, it is also a multi-national nation, which is manifest nonsense. This is why, in order to aid the (self)-deception, the more ambiguous term “multi-cultural” is generally used.
A NATION, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, is “a large aggregate of people so closely associated with each other by factors such as COMMON DESCENT, language, CULTURE, HISTORY, and occupation of the same territory as to be identified as a DISTINCT PEOPLE” [my capitals].
Does this describe multi-ethnic Britain? Of course not, but speaking truth to power, i.e. the STATE, is no easy task.
The immediate response of the state and its apologists is to deflect such an attack on itself as a “racist” attack on immigrants, thereby positioning it/themselves on the unassailable “moral high ground”.
This is the state's first line of defence, which, by exposing its ground plan, I hope to help demolish.
Then suddenly, I find that I have virtually EVERYONE against me – because we ALL depend on the state and, for all its short-comings, don't want it demolished; certainly not the bits that we ourselves personally depend on.
Calm down. I understand your fears. I have them too. I don't want to demolish the state (certainly not before we have something better to put in its place), but to expose it for what it really is and isn't. Since only then will we be in a position to change it – not demolish it. It is state deception and deceit I want to demolish.
Maintaining the deception of British nationhood seems to serve individual interests, especially of those who have done, or are doing well for themselves under its auspices, including members of ethnic minorities (for whom it is a lot better - materially, at least - being “British” than whatever they or their parents or grandparents were before them), but this is a narrow and short-sighted view to have – although, unfortunately, one that the human brain, owing to the conditions it evolved under, is naturally very inclined to favour.
What are the consequences of Britain being not a NATION but a STATE posing as a NATION?
The consequences are that whatever the state attempts to do on the assumption of being our nation, it makes a mess (often a complete mess) of, the evidence for which is all around us, but difficult to recognise, just as a wood, when you are in it, is difficult to see for trees.
The STATE has one essential function, which is to enforce, when need be, peaceful coexistence between the different tribes and nations which comprise it, who might otherwise be at each other's throats.
Social welfare (health, housing, education, care of the old and infirm, etc.) belongs in the hands of the NATION, as the natural extension of one's original TRIBE.
The welfare state only works (and even then very inadequately), as the current recession shows, when there is enough money to pay for it. Money derived from an economy based on the ruthless and unsustainable exploitation of both the natural and human environments, where human beings are reduced to the primary role of “human resource” and “consumer”.
A genuine NATION, in contrast, like the TRIBE, would not depend on money and exploit its own people or damage the natural environment they depend on, but facilitate their mutual well-being and sustainability as a PEOPLE.
To be continued . . .