By Andrew Brons.
It appears that, amid all the nonsense that has been written and spoken about what constitutes Britishness, a majority of the British people knows the truth. Fifty-one per cent recognises British descent as the defining factor. We know this from the respected British Social Attitudes survey, published in June 2014. Of course, this fifty-one per cent is probably a much higher percentage of the indigenous British.
This might not seem to be a terribly profound conclusion and, in Central and Eastern Europe, it would certainly not be seen to be so. People there know that birth or legal contrivance might grant citizenship. However, they know that nationality is conferred by descent. Even in the Soviet Union, nationality was recognised, recorded and respected. Virtually all Soviet residents were citizens but their nationality might have been Russian, Ukrainian, Georgian or whatever.
However, in the West of Europe, nationality and citizenship are considered to be synonymous. It is so whether you are an aficinado of crosswords or somebody confronted with British state forms to complete. This error is not a recent one. The concept of British Subject precedes the concept of British Citizen and that appears to have been conferred by place of birth. The case of Don Pacifo in the nineteenth century is a product of this confusion. He became a British subject simply by having been born in Gibralter of foreign parents.
It would be necessary to return to the reign of King Ethelred and his infamous call, in the year 1000, for Danes to be slaughtered, to find a reference to nationality being conferred by descent.
However, instinctively, the indigenous British have regarded those of foreign descent (and particularly those of Non-European descent) as not being British.
The last few decades have seen a deluge of propaganda: from the state and the educational system; from the entertainment media; and even from the commercial media to ‘normalise’ multi-racialism. This is particularly prominent among furniture retailers. Perhaps an energetic investigative journalist might investigate the owners and managers of these companies.
However, the commonsense and instinctive definition of nationality has risen to the top. As hereditarians, we should not be surprised.
The survey also discovered that nearly half of the respondants believed that immigration had not only harmed the economy but had undermined British culture. This is very similar to our principle that if you change the population, you inevitably change the culture.
In contrast the Political Class has been floundering around seeking anxiously some sort of definition of a British Nation that would include, by their reasoning, so many foreigners. One answer has occurred to them for want of any other. It is that the Nation is defined by its values, which happen by coincidence to be liberal, multi-racial values – what a surprise!
This would seem to mean that if you adopt these values, you become British but if you reject them, your nationality is in question. I am sure that the Political Class would like to withhold nationality and therefore citizenship from those of us who reject many of the values of the Political Class. The problem for them is that many immigrants from the Third World would reject a whole range of values that really would be regarded as self-evidently right by virtually all of the indigenous population: ‘values’ deprecating grooming; forced marriage; female genital mutilation; tolerance of inhumane slaughter; and sharia law to give just a few examples.
As I have said repeatedly in the European Parliament and its committees: if you bring people to Europe, from the Third World, they do not become replacement Europeans; they turn parts of Europe into the Third World. Distinctive peoples are not the product of distinctive cultures. Distinctive cultures are the product of distinctive peoples.