Britain's state-imposed multi-ethnic national identity

According to his Guardian profile, "Cole Moreton is an author, journalist and broadcaster", who in his article, England's daft and pleasant land, advances the notion of a multi-ethnic English identity, and that "England is changing colour", by insisting that anyone who has a problem with it is a "racist".

Well, I'm NOT a racist, but I still have a problem with it, because my own sense of English identity has a strong historical, even prehistorical, and ethnic component. If individuals of manifestly non-European origin want to call themselves English, they are free to do so, but it won't mean much to me (unless, perhaps, I get to know them personally), and I shall assert my own distinctive identity by calling myself "native English" (as in native American).

What Cole Moreton is doing is asserting (very unpleasantly, through intimidation) the state's assumed right to impose its own, proprietary and mercenary, definition of national identity on all its, especially indigenous, citizens.

Does the state really have the right to do this? I don't believe it does. What it does have, however, is the POWER, which Mr. Moreton, for reasons of his own perceived self-interest, obviously identifies with.

A prerequisite of working for Britain's liberal media, e.g. the Guardian and BBC, is embracing state ideology of "colourblindness" and of a multi-ethnic British (including English) identity.

Thus, Cole Moreton's article is an expression of his own perceived self-interest in keeping in with state and establishment ideology, and in maintaining the kind of (multi-ethnic) sociopolitical environment in which he personally thrives.

Anyone who opposes him and the state ideology he has embraced he dismisses as a "racist".

The real issue here is not racism, but statism - or, as Jonah Goldberg would call it, "liberal fascism".

The race paradox, and the political confusion and exploitation it engenders

The race paradox is this: at the personal level it is natural and appropriate to play down or deny the importance of race and ethnicity, an individual's person and character being far more important than the colour of their skin, i.e. ethnic origin.

At the political level, however, where we are dealing with large numbers of people, the vast majority of whom are and will always remain strangers, race and ethnicity do matter, because of their natural role (when not suppressed, as it currently is, by massive social and political taboos) in determining a deep and healthy sense of personal and group (e.g. national) identity.

The reason why the central, though not sole, role of race and ethnicity in determining national identity is suppressed is clear: it would undermine the legitimacy and authority of the STATE, as currently structured, and with it, deeply rooted ideological assumptions, emotional attachments and vested self-interests (e.g. claims to the established "moral high ground") right across the political spectrum.