Every couple of years Gordon Brown and his cabal of sycophants and lickspittles have another anodyne debate on 'Britishness' - what it is, who should decide etc etc blah blah blah
The only problem is that the versions of Britishness they promulgate are notable only for being modern, multi-cultural versions of britishness - in other words pap and not British in any way.
In Browns view Britishness is a generic thing, a mixture of competing narratives and it does not have a history - it is whatever it is now, not what it was in the past, a version of cultural and historical relativism.
For Brown one can have a Muslim Britishness, a Homosexual Britishness a Satanist Britishness - in fact one can have as many variants of Britishness except one - A BRITISH NATIONALIST BRITISHNESS.
We are supposed to be tolerant to every variation and permutation of Britishness that exists - except one - our British Nationalist version of Britishness.
In multi-cultural Britain all variants of Britishness are to be applauded, respected and regarded as equally valid - except the one variant of Britishness that is the Britishness of the indigenous British people.
That form of Britishness must not be tolerated of course, it must be repressed, surpressed and denied whilst all others worshipped, propagandised and celebrated.
This is also why none of the variants of Britishness promulgated by the multi-culturalists makes any sense - they are constructs of expediency and have no basis in reality.
They are notable only for the fact that they are meaningless, shallow constructs designed to appease simpering liberals and whimpering multi-cultaralists - or as I like to call them ' The Hand Wringing Destroyers' who contaminate and kill everything they touch.
Here below are what are the basics of Britishness - so celebrate them and defend them as British Nationalists - but also note just how many have been damaged, usurped and denied by the Labour government in its quest for an artificial version of Britishness ;
The Indigenous British people of England, Northern Ireland , Scotland and Wales.
The Act of Union and a constitutional monarchy.
The British Constitution and the rights and liberties enshrined within it.
Freedom of speech.
A secular state, but a Christian country where religious tolerance means not blowing ourselves and others up in the name of a book.
Democracy.
Christianity and the indigenous religious traditions of the Isles.
British Culture ;
Myths - King Arthur to Robin Hood
The English Language and the indigenous languages of the Isles from Gaelic to Cornish
English Common Law
British History from Boudicca to Carataccus to Churchill
Art - from Turner to Blake
Architecture - from Stonehenge to St.Pauls Cathedral
Food - fish and chips to roast dinner, real ale and whisky
Sport - football, rugby, cricket and sunday league footie
Who we fought against - from the Romans, the Normans to the Germans and the EU.
Movies - The Wicker Man and Clockwork Orange, from James Bond to Norman Wisdom
Books - from Shakespeare to Dickens to Terry Pratchett
TV - From Dads Army to Only Fools and Horses, to Coronation Street and Doctor Who.
All the above are just some of the manifestations of Britishness.
If you have not ever experienced any of the above, and have little respect or regard for them, then you are not British.
You are simply a colonist.
A nation cannot be built, nor can it survive, when society and community are replaced by rampant individualism.
Without a past, we have no future and are merely adrift in the present.
Without roots, nothing can live and bloom.
6 comments:
That's very good - IMO, Britishness is something you instinctively feel and don't even think about.
When I first decided to visit Britain (England specifically), I was excited about meeting the people, experiencing the culture as much as possible, etc. In all honesty, I wasn't interested in the multicultural aspect of England because to me, that wasn't the "England" I had in mind...it still isn't. I wanted to "see" what I read about in various books. While I firmly believe that people should be allowed to live, work, and become a part of any society they wish, the "original fabric" of that society should ALWAYS be maintained. In other words, don't try to change it into something it isn't because that takes away its beauty and meaning. If I want to experience Asian or African culture, I'll travel to both continents. If I want a French or German experience, I'll travel to both nations. I think you get the picture.
This may upset a lot of people, but I can't classify a nonwhite person as truly British or English any more than I can think of a white person as Kenyan or Japanese. At least not in the same sense as a white person who is English. Europe simply isn't the same as North America where anyone can be American or Canadian. Europe, Asia, and Africa are native lands as opposed to North America (not even for the Indians, IMO).
But, it has to be said that historically, the English did try to change other societies through colonization. Are they now experiencing what the colonies experienced? Sort of like Karma. My answer would be that two wrongs don't make a right.
Of all the things you stated, below is the only thing I strongly disagree with:
"A nation cannot be built, nor can it survive, when society and community are replaced by rampant individualism."
What's good for the nation is sometimes detrimental for the individual (which is why I personally will never embrace nationalism). Individuals are what make up nations. When the individual is preserved, everything else will fall into place (including the society in which she lives)
Hi Lormarie,
I always use this example to illustrate the point - under the rules of multi-culturalism if 100 million chinese immigrants suddenly appeared on the shores of Britain and claimed and were granted asylum, then we would be forced to accept and call them British citizens, and even though they would bring with them their own chinese culture which would in effect destroy our British culture through sheer weight of numbers, we would have to call their chinese culture British.
This is of course insanity - a culture is a product of a people and the nation a product of the people.
Individualism is merely a product of the nation - for it is the nation that nurtures, educates and protects the individual.
Without a home nation, an individual is merely a rootless drifter, an atomised particle adrift in the world at the mercy of far greater forces than him - from economics, criminals, rogue states etc etc.
The ONLY guarantor of the rights of the individual is the nation - without the nation the individual is forced to live in anarchy and becomes mere prey for those stronger than him.
Nationalism comes first, then the individual.
Take away the nation, and the individual is nothing.
In other words LorMarie, nation is family.
Great post Lee, and great comments also. I don't entirely agree with Lormarie as far as North America is concerned. I agree that we should allow more immigrants in our countries than Europe but it's not "everybody's country" either. Our ancestors gave blood and sweat for it the same way they have in any others and we're the ones that built it. And altough we've always prided ourselves as being the "lands of the free", whatever that means, the demographic rule still applies.
As far as the natives are concerned that's an entirely different matter and i think they should be given their own country. In Canada this could easily be done given the huge landmass. I've talked with a few natives and their main concern is the disappearance of their race and culture, wich will inevitably happen if they don't get their own land. But as long as liberals and neocons are in office such a thing will never happen simply because they'd have nothing to gain personally by doing this. And this in itself is nationalism, wich is something the globalist want to get rid of. They want fewer nations, not more.
Without a home nation, an individual is merely a rootless drifter, an
atomised particle adrift in the world at the mercy of far greater
forces than him - from economics, criminals, rogue states etc etc.
The ONLY guarantor of the rights of the individual is the nation -
without the nation the individual is forced to live in anarchy and
becomes mere prey for those stronger than him.
Nationalism comes first, then the individual.--DOL
On second thought, I think we are talking about two different types of
nationalism. Having a home nation is important, but placing the needs
of the group before the individual has not benefited all people in
every demographic. But I can probably understand why you feel the way
you do about it since your experience is drastically different from
mine. So on that we must agree to disagree.
Re: the Chinese analogy, I think that people have legitimate concerns
about immigration. But I personally feel that free nations should embrace true asylum seekers. But that's just me...
Alex,
Canadian? I'm not too familiar with the history of that nation so I can't say who actually built it. I'll take your word for it, for now. But even if it is primarily an Anglo culture, the "first inhabitants" can't be ignored. It's their country too. But the UK on the other hand is not a free for all in the same way that the colonies should not have been (a free for all).
Post a Comment