His performance as a senior politician aside, I’ve no personal dislike of Rishi Sunak, a decent, bright man. In 2025 he told Nick Robinson: “I mean, of course I’m English. Born here, brought up here, yeah, of course I’m English”. I think he and I could reasonably discuss that.
His claim is imprecise. He can say he’s English by birth and address, a relatively novel civic concept. He can say he’s acquired English culture, but the “tea and cricket” version he cites is simply a veneer, and one that is not universally adopted anyway. He can’t say he’s ethnically English and equivalent to those that are.
I believe that to insist that civic/cultural layers of “English” are the whole of it, and to suppress discussion of an ethnic layer, is not only wrong, but self-defeating. It swipes aside the English culture it lays claim to, and creates the resentment it seeks to avoid. I conclude with a better, and recognisably English, proposal.
First, the argument itself
The axiom of an “inclusive” telling is that “English” – civic, cultural – can’t exclude. Englishness is a wet dog on the sofa, a cup of tea, where you live or were born. It’s just a “club” or “status”, according to a “woman of colour” writing in the Independent who wants a “grown-up conversation about race”. Not her race, of course, only mine.
She criticises the “exclusive” definition she ascribes to Konstantin Kisin and Suella Braverman: “For Englishness to mean something substantial, it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity – not just residence or fluency.” Kisin and Braverman insist they are not, and cannot be, English. John McTernan calls them fascists (Braverman, a White Supremacist?):
In 2021, 77% of white English people agreed that: “Being English is open to people of different ethnic backgrounds who identify as English.” So there is clearly a modern usage of “English” – inclusive, acquired rather than inherited. But ‘open to’ is not the same proposition as ‘identical’. It does not follow that every relationship to Englishness is equally deep, nor does it obviously apply to one generation of Indians that married each other.
Here, the word English or Englisc has ethnic origin “of the Angles”; and here’s Wikipedia’s version:
Ethnicity is not an opinion, but a fact of history, intermarriage and statistics of known populations: Romano-British, Anglo-Saxon, a few Scandinavian and, later, Normans. If you care to look up ethnogenesis, pedigree collapse and “identical ancestry” you can learn that, over several hundred years and assuming intermarriage, these groups have by now mixed almost entirely.
The population statistics of England are particularly favourable to this analysis because there wasn’t much immigration, from anywhere, from the 11th up to the mid-20th century. If your family were all here in 1900, it’s reasonably probable, with the exception of a relatively small influx of Huguenots and Irish, that they were all here in 1100 and that most of them were here much earlier than that.
English ethnicity, at the end of those several centuries, is more clearly defined than most. To deny an English ethnicity is to say ethnicity does not exist, which would pose quite the shock to parts of our current political establishment.
This ethnic, and original, usage of “English” has stood for around 1,500 years during which, and particularly with the unification of England under Alfred, it also acquired civic and cultural meaning. Until very recently those layers of meaning overlapped closely – that is to say, the people who were ethnically, culturally, geographically, civically and historically “English” were nearasdammit the same people, with the conspicuous exception of the Norman Conquest. Again, English history is particularly favourable to this interpretation, compared to most countries, because of unusually stable borders and polity.
Because of that stability, we do not need to boil our heads about “what fraction qualifies as English, then?” Something more than one generation of Indians that married each other. Something between a few generations of intermarriage, and several dozen.
Sunak uses the Normans as a case study. Jacob Rees-Mogg’s objection is similar, reciting a ditty from William of Orange, which concluded with the Normans – the English are all mongrels anyway! But the Normans did not become English at Pevensey. Assimilation happened over generations, via integration and intermarriage rather than by semantic decree, and the centuries since then prove my point, not theirs.
Language can evolve and perhaps there is, now, a purely civic/cultural layer of “Englishness”, the Sunak layer. But it’s a young usage, and doesn’t mean the ancient ethnic usage can be cancelled.
Ethnicity matters – both to others, and to the English
There are aspects of identity that you can don like clothes. Your flesh and blood, your forebears – or rather, mine – are not among them. I am descended from the people that gave their name to this land. To Sunak, the Bayeux Tapestry is a historical artefact of an adopted country. To me, it is a family photo album. English families fought Agincourt, Waterloo, the abolition of slavery. They manned the factories, and worked the Agrarian Revolution.
I’m not expressing disdain, calling for discrimination or apartheid. This ethnic identity is important to me, because I say so.
Family heritage and ethnic identity are, of course, important to others. Sunak is proudly Indian. Black Lives Matter, and don’t we know they’re all descended from slaves? David Lammy, Diane Abbott and Sadiq Khan are proud of their origins. I’m pretty sure it would be “cultural appropriation” if I claimed their ethnic identity.
They can’t appropriate mine.
Why “culturally English” is self-defeating
Did you notice that I drew on classical Liberalism, which Locke, Hume, Smith and Mill gave the world, and on the English Common Law? These, too, are my heritage, the “English culture and values” that our elites ignore when they pretend it’s all about tolerance and tea.
When John McTernan cancels my ethnicity by calling me “fascist”, he seeks to close down inquiry. Where I’ve (quite generously, really) allowed that language can evolve, bottom-up, he demands to abolish traditional usage of an ancient word, top down. Striking the very heart of Liberalism, he says the political community can prescribe my identity, that I may not choose what I value and how I express it.
To dismiss the discussion of ethnic Englishness in the name of cultural Englishness is entirely self-defeating, because it ruthlessly and selectively tramples on Liberal identity, language, the individual, heritage, inquiry, ideas and their expression, and the Common Law. It swipes away English culture itself, leaving only an address.
Why it’s dangerous, and how to do it better
What is also English, is to strain against an unjust yoke. Telling the English, uniquely, that our ethnicity doesn’t exist, we’re not allowed to argue it exists, it’s not allowed to matter if it exists, and we can’t demand any – let alone equal – treatment, in the Common Law country built by our forebears, is not a recipe for harmony.
I never thought my ethnicity and culture were threatened…but now, I do. I never thought they needed protection or any deliberate – let alone special – treatment…but now, I do. I have always distanced myself from the “far-Right” or whatever…but if you label me as such, well, labels make imprints as all good progressives know. If McTernan wants to rile up the English, he’s going about it brilliantly.
A multi-ethnic culturally English/British society might yet work, squarely built on Liberalism and Common Law. Why can’t the inclusionists say, all of them: “Let’s really embrace your culture. Tell us more about Common Law, the Glorious Revolution and JS Mill and how they’ll shape our lives here. In a few generations, like the Normans, our descendants will study how we integrated and intermarried.” Where do I co-sign?
That’s the outlook Rees-Mogg calls for, but he thinks the English should passively assume it will happen. What he ignores is not only the vacuity of the prevalent “tea and cricket” veneer, but how some recent arrivals prefer their own culture to ours, while intra-marrying rather than intermarrying. Erasing English ethnicity while pandering to theirs seems unlikely to help.
While Andy Burnham shares riveting cultural insights about buses and pork scratchings, Shabana Mahmood has spoken with great passion about Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the Common Law tradition she encountered as the child of immigrants. Credit where due. Here is an immigrant family engaging deeply with the inheritance of the country they joined.
If the English (under any definition) want a civilised society, we need to get back to reading it, understanding it, discussing it and loving it, in order that we may consider it worth protecting. That means being honest about both ethnicity and culture. We need to embrace our individual and family responsibility for what stimulates us, and choose “the best that has been written and said”, so that our history, satire, philosophy and literature makes its mark.
That is how we build English identity, and how we protect ourselves entirely from vibes-merchants like McTernan, promote the better sentiments of Mahmood, and set higher intellectual demands of decent men like Rees-Mogg and Sunak.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I agree with Konstantin and Suella – I was born in London, my parents were refugees from Poland and France. I have always described myself as British and would not consider claiming to be English
You can become British
Have to be born English of English stock to be English
Sunak can be British, not English
Sorry. English person here: “quite the shock” is not any kind of English idiom I grew up with. It is a complete maelstrom, a smorgasbord, of wrongness (in a teacup).
Apologies for the nit-picking. I just find this usage (which is spreading like knotweed) infuriating. Otherwise a good article.
Worse is the pathetic, cringeworthy use of the verb “ask” as a NOUN, as in “That’s a big ask!”
Apparently this was adopted by Weedy Wet Liberal Leftists trying to patronize the working class, because the Liberals decided such words as “REQUEST” were much too posh and hard for thick peasants to understand (yes, really!!!).
I remember an Anglican vicar apologizing to those he was about to confirm as church members for using “posh language that they might not understand”, that is, Biblical language in a church service!!! 🙄
I hate that, too.
What a brilliant summary of a difficult-to-navigate subject. If even the Mogg gets tripped up by it you know it’s a hard line to tread.
If I were born in Pakistan would that make me Pakistani? I suspect the majority of Pakistanis would say it did not.
To be English is much more than a self declaration or official piece of paper.
When discussing what made a man a “gentleman” Trollope said it was hard to define but “you know one when you see one”.
The same applies to being English.
Rishi Sunak betrayed his lack of “Englishness” when he thought it OK to leave the D-Day celebrations in France early, so he could micro-manage some campaign details for the up-and-coming election. He may have been born and brought up in Southampton, but Southampton was outside his front door and it was what went on inside his front door that counts. Nobody steeped in English history and culture would have left the D-Day celebrations early.
English ,sadly, is what is left of the UK when Scots, Welsh and NI are taken out. On a mundane note England should be devolved not as individual regions/citys but as a whole country. Then one can discuss what it is to be english.
Good article but it misses the issue that the immigrants have mostly not come here to integrate. They have done what all invaders do and have done: they come to take us over and they are aided by the traitors amongst us like McTeernan and Mogg. I am sick of the destruction of my people. All that matters is that this land belongs to the people who can say ‘If your family were all here in 1900, it’s reasonably probable, with the exception of a relatively small influx of Huguenots and Irish, that they were all here in 1100 and that most of them were here much earlier than that’
The natives of these islands are superior to the disorderly, Africans, Indians, Arabs and South Europeans (Bulgarians, Romanians, etc) who have been invited in and forced upon us by the elites and the communists in the establishment and the regimes that have worked to destroy us since 1945. The Socialist parties who have governed us since that time.
Civil war is coming because they have done this to us. It is an ethnocide and I despise them all for it. They deserve what will be coming.
British government on ethnicity:
‘There is no single definition of what makes an ethnic group. People decide for themselves whether they belong to a particular ethnic group and their ethnicity is subjectively meaningful to them personally.’
U.S. government on ethnicity:
‘Ethnicity is defined as cultural factors such as language, religion, cuisine, ancestry, and nationality that specific communities share.
Ethnicity is also considered a social construct that individuals may change as their community and personal dynamics change’
Crystal clear…or not really…
I don’t want to upset any WASPS keen for their identity or challenge the basis of this article but it doesn’t really work for so many who originate from this archipelago. I was born in Wiltshire, so I am a proud man of Wessex (I would rather have the Wessex banner than the Plantagenet imposed cross of St George). But then, my mother was born in Essex, so an East Saxon, like her mother whereas her father was a Devonian. My father, born in Dublin had parents from Glasgow, so Scots Irish. Am I truly a man of Wessex therefore? Can I consider myself ethnically English if I am half Scots Irish? And this is the point, many ethnically English will actually be Scots or Welsh in their ancestry and certainly if they live in the Marches, where the border was immensely fluid, with a name like Jones or Evans they are unlikely to be English but more likely to be Celtic Britons, so ancient Britons or just British. It was a Welsh king, Henry Tudor (the eighth) who created the English Empire, that went on to become the British Empire, so he could defy Rome, so even the English… Read more »
Nitpicking.
How exciting – two down ticks when normally I get dozens of upticks. Makes me wonder what I said that upset those two. Was it questioning the English flag, imposed upon the English by a Norman French dynasty? Certainly not a flag that Alfred or Aethelstan would have recognised. Maybe it was to point out that that the true natives of this land are more than the ‘English’. Indeed since the arrival of the Celtic peoples, who dominated most of Western Europe, what actually unites the various peoples of these islands is the fact that they have been conquered by minorities time and again. Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans, all became the rulers while being considerably less in number than the residents at the time, only achieving rule with the cooperation of part of the population. Maybe that’s the fate of these lands over the next century, as the current invaders get the support of the left and youth for their ambitions.
Also interesting to see those clinging to their Englishness by saying that the English went around the world to impart the achievements and inventions of the English on the rest of the globe. I am sure that the Scots,… Read more »
You are a half-breed.
The peoples of GB and Ireland are a fusion of Brythonic Celt and Germanic/Nordic DNA. The distribution of Celt is 30% to 70% depending on ancestral origins.
Majority Germanic/Nordic DNA= English, majority Celt = Welsh, Scottish, Irish.
As expected, the author first appears to defend the right of English and WHITE PEOPLE to exist, and then proceeds to stab them in the back, falling back upon the Bog-Standard Wishy Washy Weedy Wet Liberal Propaganda:
“A multi-ethnic culturally English/British society might yet work, squarely built on Liberalism and Common Law.”
Really, Isabel Paterson? WHO VOTED FOR THAT? NOBODY.
Then she writes, “That is how we build English identity, and how we protect ourselves entirely from vibes-merchants like McTernan, promote the better sentiments of Mahmood, and set higher intellectual demands of decent men like Rees-Mogg and Sunak.”
NO!!! There are neither “better sentiments” nor “higher intellectual demands” of TAQIYYA DECEIVERS like Pakistani Muslim Mahmood with her Skeletal Smile, openly facilitating the Muslim Army of the Global Caliphate, Communist Globalist Invaders like Hindu Billionaire Sunak, who like to keep one foot in the door of several western countries at once, or Vatican Crypto-Jesuits like Rees-Mogg trying to demolish the Protestant Reformation, with all three of them keen on Sending the Proles to Die in Yet Another Foreign War.
NOBODY VOTED FOR THAT.
And we don’t need to build English identity. We know who our ancestors were, and what they achieved,… Read more »
England has had continuous migrations to its shores over millennia:
‘large-scale isotopic meta-analysis of early medieval England which reveals migration patterns from c ad 400–1100…Contrary to traditional narratives of discrete migratory events, the data show continuous movement, with significant activity in the 7th and 8th centuries. Male migrants appear more prominent’
‘Such a flood of these new (Protestant) immigrants was washed onto British shores in the 1680s…Forty or fifty thousand crossed the Channel while Louis XIV sat on the French throne (1660-1714). Others had come in the time of the Tudors, especially during the reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth. More continued to arrive during periods of persecution in the eighteenth century’
During the nineteenth century and earlier, Britain had an open-door policy towards immigration…The largest group of immigrants who settled in Britain during the nineteenth century was the Irish. By 1861 the Irish-born population in England and Wales had risen to 602,000 (3 percent of the population).
Another major source of immigrants was continental Europe. For much of the nineteenth century, Germans were the second largest group of immigrants in Britain after the Irish, with 33,000 living in England and Wales in 1871. However, after 1880, large numbers of… Read more »
So there is no such thing as the Ukrainians you’re always banging on about?
Maybe you should go there and tell them, and see how that works out for you, Monro.
‘The analysis of ancient DNA shows the genetic imprint of Ukraine’s history as a crossroads of human migrations, connecting people from the vast Eurasian steppe with central Europe.
The study showed how genetic ancestry in the North Pontic region (what is now Ukraine) changed along with migration patterns.
“By the end of the Bronze Age, around 1000 BC, the patterns of genetic ancestry in the inhabitants of this region are similar to their contemporaries in the rest of Europe – a mixture of the genetic origins of European hunter-gatherers, early Anatolian farmers and steppe pastoralists.
“It is important to note that our results show that these ancestral components have been found in the Ukrainian region since that time until the present day, for thousands of years.”
In one case identified in the study, the researchers found evidence of near eastern ancestry on a site in the far west of Ukraine, in a late Bronze Age settlement which is notable for being the only known glass production point outside the Roman Empire at the time. As ancient glass production was concentrated in the Middle East, the findings suggest that eastern Mediterranean craft bearers may have been living in the settlement.
Archaeological… Read more »
So what’s YOUR ETHNICITY, Monro?
You haven’t really got the hang of this, have you…
‘People decide for themselves whether they belong to a particular ethnic group and their ethnicity is subjectively meaningful to them personally.’
The whole idea of ethnicity is dotty.
Your DNA is what biologically defines your origins. All the rest is a (conscious/inherited) pose.
We’re all just a bunch of monkeys…
‘Despite the widespread belief that South Asian migration to the UK began after WWII, there is evidence of a considerable South Asian presence dating from the 17th century that has been documented by historian, Rozina Visram (2002).
The early settlers from South Asia included a range of transitory and permanent migrants, and were a diverse group from different regions of South Asia. Some of them survived on the margins of British society, lived (and died) as destitutes but others were very wealthy. South Asian migrants over the centuries included servants, such as nursemaids and travelling nannies (known as ayahs) who accompanied British families returning from India, sailors (lascars) who settled in port cities like Glasgow, London, Liverpool and Cardiff, soldiers who fought in the two world wars, members of Indian royal and aristocratic families who came for education purposes and for leisure trips, and professionals like doctors, lawyers and merchants’
So what’s YOUR ETHNICITY, Monro?
Ethnic Indian Subcontinental?
Another one for the so bad it’s good file!
Generally a lively and punchy article but the warblings of the idiot Mog and Shabs from the Turd World must be discounted.
English is both a noun and an adjective. As a noun it defines a thing – what Alfred the Great called the Angelcynn (English folk/kin) to unite Angels, Saxons, Jutes as a single People at a time when the Viking Danes had invaded and colonised a large slice of territory North of the Humber and who were threatening to conquer all five kingdoms. It therefore describes ethnicity. Alfred’s ambition was a single English kingdom, Englaland, for the Angelcynn – English people.
As it transpired, once Englaland was united in 937 by Æthelstan, it included the Viking territories. Intermarriage over centuries, produced a Germanic/Nordic ancestry we call English.
It is a matter of DNA. Mine is about 70% Germanic/Nordic, 30% Celt. That proportion varies depending on where in Britain you get your DNA. The Welsh, Scots are predominantly Celt. Our ancestors were white. Since skin colour is inherited, their descendants are white. We are white because we are British, not British because we are white. By logic and biology, to be British, English, Scot, Welsh, Irish – you MUST be white.
Unless a person has this DNA fusion they cannot be English, Irish, Welsh, Scot, British.
We… Read more »
Agreed. Whilst I don’t like to just focus on Sunak, the fact is that he chose to marry another person of Indian heritage.
In other words, he married within his tribe. Just as a majority of the Pakistani, Sikh and Bangladeshi communities do. They are perpetuating “their tribes” in the UK, not intermarrying with and integrating into the native population.
If they do and they produce several generations of children who gradually lose their tribal heritage and only embrace British/English culture, those children will eventually be accepted as English. But it will take a very long time and the Establishment has implemented policies which could have been designed to prevent it from happening (and probably were since they want the “divide and rule” situation).
What are you saying??? You sound like the former French President Sarkozy, who threatened the French People with Forced Miscegenation! Nobody voted for intermarrying and integration of Third World Ethnics with Ethnic Europeans = White People. That is Ethno-Genocide. It’s also against Scripture.
NOBODY EVER VOTED FOR THAT, and English people do NOT have to just lie down like doormats to feebly accept it. Nor do the French, or anybody else!
Sarkozy: Challenge of the 21st Century: Racial Interbreeding (FRANCAIS, intro anglais) – YouTube
“To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots.”
Aleksandr Solzenhytsin (1918-2008)
The Enemy Within has been sowing the seeds of destruction ever since Britain opened its borders to Marx and Engels in 1848.
Spot on!
Now in fashion “ Ethnonationalism”, “Ethnonationalist” to be used where Far Right, Fascist, Neo-Nazi just won’t do.
None of this really matters. Rushi Sunak behaves like an educated Englishman, probably because he, or his parents, had our civilisation imposed on them while living in India. Consequently, I will allow him the status of Englishman. Abdul, the child rapist from Pakistan, does not qualify: no matter how many bits of paper he signs to “prove” he is “British”, I will not allow him the status of Englishman – he doesn’t behave like one. You may say that there are English men of ancient lineage who are equally as bad as Abdul. Agreed, but they didn’t migrate here recently and they know what is morally right and what is wrong. Very possibly, Abdul doesn’t, or maybe he regards his own alien morals as superior, in which case he proves himself not to be English.
Hindu Ethnic Indian Sunak is not, and never will be, an Englishman in any sense of the word, just because he was born in Britain.
Just as Ethnic European Cliff Richard is not, and never will be, an Indian in any sense of the word, just because he was born in India.
Do our South Asian friends describe themselves as English when they go to see the cricket, or do the describe themselves as Indian, Pakistani, etc. That it what is at the centre of their own identity, not English.
Debating what is Englishness and whether it exists or not is pointless.
You could construct rational arguments in all sorts of directions everyone of them leaving you absolutely nowhere.
The issue is the country is being flooded with people from other places and being given lots of free things. This is the practical issue that needs to be resolved and intellectual debates about the nature of Englishness isn’t going to resolve it.
The way it is resolved is cutting all benefits and all support for anyone who doesn’t hold British nationality. You come to this country to contribute. If not, you’re not welcome and you’re out
That solves it. Everything else is pure distraction.
That would be a big step forward but I think you also need people coming here whose culture and behaviour is compatible with ours, what little is left of it. Most races throughout history and many today are pretty ethnonationalist, in my view with good reason. I think there’s nothing wrong with that provided that it doesn’t lead to immoral behaviour towards others just because of their race. But wanting a homeland for ethnically English people where they remain a majority seems reasonable to me. But it’s not going to happen. Already too late and lots of English people disagree with me on this (and most other things).
That’s another good reason to focus on shutting down all the free stuff to immigrants. It’s much more likely to get support and get somewhere then the ethnonationalist route – however justified it may be.
White Brtis are still a majority. The situation can still be saved if the influx is stopped now. So all efforts should go towards that.
Yes that is more likely get support.
AI says without any more immigration it will take 100+ years for us to become a minority. Not much comfort there.
I doubt many who are currently here would leave – they are established, have kids, many have jobs, and unless they have a decent country to go back to, why leave? The most likely to leave are the EU people whose countries are on the up – and that’s the group who are most compatible with us.
This is a very solvable problem.
That’s it. Done.
No need to get into discussions about race or remigration or any of it. They are divisive and they distract from how simple and straight-forward it is to resolve the issue. In fact, I am convinced these are all red herrings promoted to distract us away from the most simple and effective solutions which are perfectly sensible, reasonable and really quite hard to argue against.
I doubt that will happen. I have reservations about retrospectively changing the rules for people already here legally but the situation is desperate.
Under your rules my wife, who I have supported financially since our children were born nearly 30 years ago, would need to leave. I don’t think we will need to worry about that though.
Maybe some people are promoting these discussions to divide and distract, but I am not. I think they absolutely matter because the self destructiveness of so many rich white Europeans will lead to disaster sooner or later.
All academic – we are a million miles away from either of our desired next steps.
You and your fellow Ethnic European = White wife & children have helped stem the continuing slide of Ethnic Europeans toward extinction. Nobody minds about our own kith and kin amongst the various Ethnic European Tribes like English, Swedish, Germans, Aussies, Welsh, Poles, Russians, etc. because together we all comprise The World’s Smallest Ethnic Group: Ethnic Europeans = White People, regardless of the exact Tribe. And all of our Tribal cultures were once based on Christianity.
It is the “Global Majority” Third World Ethnics now comprising 93% of all the people on the planet which are threatening our “Endangered Wildlife Species” of White People, regardless of which specific Tribe they come from. And Ethnic Europeans have a right to exist in their own “Safe Havens”, just like any Endangered Wildlife Species.
Indeed – one reason I thought hard before voting for Brexit, because I thought that Europeans should stick together and defend their civilisations against the rest of the world. But then it became clear that the establishments of many other EU countries did not share this vision for Europe. Once Merkel started talking about a million “refugees” it was obvious that the EU was never going to deliver anything good.
Speaking of Europeans sticking together, have a look at this, Transmission. I think it’s the first time I’ve ever heard of western judges actually charging people with “Anti-White Racism”.
Well done those French Judges!!!
12 Charged With Anti-White Racism over Stabbing Attack in French Village
“Nearly three years after the mob stabbings allegedly carried out by a group of youths at a dance party in the small French village of Crépol, judges have determined to charge 12 defendants with murder and attempted murder with the aggravating circumstance of “racism against white people and the French nation”.”
Glad there are still some decent judges left somewhere
Obviously, I’m really talking aboit broad principles. To me a dependent who is maintained by someone who contributes to tax rather than collects benefits is the same as someone who does it themselves.
The issue to me is what has more chance of success curbing mass immigration. Closing down the financial incentives that attract so many migrants? Or trying to establish Britain as a bastion for the white European ethnic group?
I believe the former.
Maybe neither, in which case, it’s.all a lost cause and we may as well all just sit back and meekly await our fate.
I just don’t get what’s.so complicated. Can we just stop giving shit away for nothing?
It seems to be lost
We can only try to chip away while trying to behave like decent humans to ourselves, family and friends, and enjoying life as I believe we were intended to do
I find the whole thing very odd – why do so many people seem to want to ruin something that has given them such a good life
I think that happens when people get something for nothing. Getting something that deep down you know you haven’t earned and don’t deserve has a negative psychological effect which leads to destructive behaviour.
It’s just so obvious to me that western civilisation is collapsing because of an ever growing proportion of the population that contributes nothing, hate themselves for it and project that hatred outwards
Yes, absolutely – giving people something for nothing in the long run does not help them and I believe the giving ends up being about the giver, not the receiver. It seems toxic to me, same as all this fake kindness – patronising.
Under Margaret Thatcher’s watch, all foreigners had to work AT THE SAME JOB continuously for SEVEN YEARS, paying tax the whole time, before they could even APPLY for British citizenship. Not chopping & changing with a stint of car washing here & dodgy money-laundering shops there & pretending to be care workers at another place, all the while collecting welfare benefits.
And all British employers had to convince the Home Office that they had tried their best to recruit Brits for the job, and that the foreigner had special skills that the employers could not find in Britain.
Things are very different now.
Englishness is not the issue – English is. That means ethnicity determined by biology.
If you think it is pointless debating this, then you must think it pointless debating whether a man is a woman because he dresses, behaves like one and insists he is.
Oh, I absolutely think it’s a waste of time debating whether a man is a woman. I couldn’t think of a bigger waste of time. What would be the point? The person I would be debating would either be mentally ill or a troll just trying to get a rise out of me.
Debating the extent to which being English is biologically determined is, to me, pointless in light of what actually matters which is stopping mass immigration into Britain.
It’s a practical matter. In my view you can get more support more quickly for stopping mass migration by focusing on all the economic incentives that act as a magnet than by getting drawn into a debate about who is the rightful owner of this land in the first place – a debate which I am convinced is designed to be divisive.
And why debate it? Right now, white Brits are a majority, ergo, de facto rightful owners (sorry for all the Latin) Focus on keeping it that way, rather than getting drawn into a divisive debate about whether it should be that way. It already is. Just,
Perhaps I chose the wrong word. How about “dispute” or believe what you know to be false and stop believing what you believe to be true.
No, just cutting benefits for non-Brits doesn’t solve it.
You could be Muslim extremist; a burka wearing slave-wife who doesn’t speak English; or a Sikh who thinks carrying a ceremonial knife and using it to murder a young lad and NOT claiming benefits.
That won’t solve it. Immigrants must want to adopt our laws, customs, values and culture and if they do that, eventually they will be accepted as part of the English tribe. It cannot be achieved by simply not claiming benefits and being given a British passport.
1) They are ALL claiming benefits.
2) No they will NOT “be accepted as part of the English tribe” just for adopting customs or values or whatever. That is a ridiculous, subversive idea, like the Ethnic Indian man from Bangladesh I saw wearing a Scottish tam with a pom-pom on top, calling himself a “Scot”.
3) Whose side are you actually on?
A very good article IMO.
Deserves a wider audience.
No other people in history would tolerate the deliberate erasure of their glorious nation by their own political class.
Time to push back hard, and a key element of making that possible will be erudite and intelligent articles, like this laying the groundwork.