As Pakistani as roast beef and Yorkshire pud

What does it mean to be British? A recent video on citizenship and identity produced by ‘BBC Teach’ (an online teaching aid aimed at ‘early year infants’) argues that Britishness is founded on ‘tolerance’, ‘respect’, and ‘equality’ with no other defining national characteristic given. The video, with its cartoon clips of blue-face painted Scottish nationalist Sue, or Jamal from Birmingham, glued to a giant TV screen showing Pakistan’s winning cricket team argues that all these kinds of activities are just as British as any other, and how could anyone claim otherwise? To any objections which might be raised to this revaluation of British identity- a revaluation which relegates actual national loyalty to a footnote- the program imploringly asks ‘But what is Britishness anyway?’ It ultimately gives no answer beyond referencing a shared love of fish and chips, while reminding us that potatoes were also immigrants – as they came from South America – and that battered fish was introduced by Jewish refugees. Diversity, plurality and inclusivity are what makes us British – it is the absence of coherent national culture which allegedly constitutes our national culture.

However while Britain can supposedly look back upon a halcyon history of mutual cultural interchange there are increasing ‘concerns’ amongst people in response to recent changes. We are shown that a few decades ago someone could get on a bus and expect to speak English with his fellow passengers (but anyway given how reserved the old monocultural British in their drab clothes used to be before the advent of diversity, they probably wouldn’t deign to speak to each other in any case). But today if we entered the same bus in colourful, vibrant multicultural Britain we would be presented with a chattering cosmopolitan microcosm of our new society, with people speaking ‘Australian English’, ‘Latvian’ and ‘Urdu’ (all three count here equally as foreign languages). In response to these changes, many people have reacted badly, presumably being unable to appreciate the chappatis and pizza brought to our shores by minority communities. The video suddenly strikes a darker note. Images of fists and sounds of shouting fill the screen. We see a national-front style rally in full flight. Hate crimes are soaring we are told, due to irrational fears and impulses amongst natives. Of course the video does not seek to address the concerns of natives. Indeed in a post-modernist twist, it argues that there is no such thing as a native. Identities are just a product of various intersectional factors that are entirely relative to each individual’s experience.

The video, with its deliberately simplified cartoon images, emotive music, jolly jokes, and reassuring homely northern-accented nanny-speak narration, is typical of the particularly sinister propaganda produced by modern multicultural states. If you watch the propaganda of an openly totalitarian state such as North Korea, you are at least aware that a particular ideological message is being rammed down your throat. Mass military demonstrations don’t pretend to impartiality, and neither do the forced confessions of self-reproach from dissidents. These regimes want you to know that they wield total power and demand total obedience.

What’s so insidious about Britain’s soft totalitarianism is that its political program isn’t enforced at the end of a bayonet or a truncheon. People are regularly interned and persecuted by the police on the flimsiest of grounds, but nominal civil liberties are still protected generally. BBC propaganda – listen with mother, ‘auntie’ knows best – is sinister and alarming in that it seeks to guide by the hand and reproach the population for failing to see the ‘correct view’. It’s the fact that we have a state religion so institutionally ubiquitous that it even makes daily teaching aids aimed at indoctrinating young children, and that we aren’t even aware of it which is so deeply alarming.

Today state-funded institutions can offer — without challenge — a teaching aid for classroom use in Britain’s schools, which presents as factual truth a series of lies about Britain’s history. An Orwellian process of restructuring the national experience is occurring, in which the British are being gradually written out of their own history. This is a seminal project of national deconstruction. Britishness is being recast as an infinitely inclusive panorama of different cultures from across the globe. We can see this project everywhere, in popular culture, in advertisements and even historical dramas. But most importantly young people will increasingly be taught that we are a nation of immigrants and they will absorb this message from an early age. In turn this will mean that they will not perceive the coming demographic transformation of British society, which they will be witness to as a generation, as a radical break with all past precedent. They will see it as simply another shift, another period of change analogous to the foundational conquests which created England. England, it is true, was founded by one impactful period of migration. But it is now being ended by another. But perhaps what is so strangely unique about this wave of migration is that it is the state, and its attendant institutions – designed to protect and to serve us – which instead seek to blind and delude us from perceiving the reality of national oblivion.

 

Free speech isn’t free – Make a donation to the Salisbury Review

10 Comments on As Pakistani as roast beef and Yorkshire pud

  1. Will they succeed? We know very well what they are up to now and they will have quite a task in the future to persuade an ancient people to peacefully accept minority status in their own homeland. We know we are bing indoctrinated and the progressives are unable to deny it.

    I feel that somewhere in the near European future the waters will break on this and the progressive western establishment will begin to lose control of events.

    Progressives currently have control but they are not a numerical majority.

  2. A brilliant article – especially the way you note the contradiction – that “Britishness” is held to amount to nothing more than collective self-abolition.

  3. A sadly familiar tale told in this excellent article, describing what is happening. But it doesn’t address the (seemingly) never answered questions: Who? How? and Why?

    Who is orchestrating the wholesale reinvention of the history of one of the most successful countries in world history; a nation shown to be more than able to defend itself? It’s not enough to say the ‘establishment’ or ‘leftists’. These aren’t actual categories, but rather euphemisms freely used to describe something seemingly indefinable.

    How has this group (whatever it is) managed to do so much damage so swiftly? Is it simply happenstance – various people in different fields acting unilaterally, who happen to want the same thing – or some kind of joined up attempt to change society (and if so, how is it joined up)?

    Why have so many people unquestioningly accepted what amounts to a reinvention of things once unquestioned – marriage, human biology, national identity? Is it the case that people will believe anything told them by ‘authority’ and if so, what next? (I remember a few years ago some sexual rights campaigners arguing for the age of consent to be lowered to 14 for both sexes. This was quietly dropped in the wake of the Catholic child abuse scandal, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it became the next great campaign, it being one of the few remaining taboos.)

    Who, how and why? These are the real questions. Without an answer to each it is impossible to mount a defence, let alone offensive, against what is happening. Without an answer to each, all we are left to do is describe the effect and suffer it.

    • John; I and many others have pondered that question for many decades. Who, how and why?
      I think you need to look to the elite class of leaders who experienced The Great Catastrophe, and who then led Britain during and after WW2. Nationalism was blamed for those events, so many men looked to internationalism, globalism and the philosophy of “one race, human race”. The pinnacle of achievement for those men was the creation of the United Nations, this was to be the preliminary step towards the real world government. A world where the tensions associated with ethnicity and national identity and fervor were to be banished.
      I am thinking particularly of men like Clement Attlee, Anthony Eden, Harold MacMillan, et al.
      We know from Cabinet records that Winston Churchill was not in this group, he had only gone along with the UN ideas because Britain was so beholden to the USA. The whole UN concept was a creation of FDR and Harry Hopkins, who detested colonialism and saw the UN developing into a forum where all nations would be equally respected. Churchill saw through such utopian naivete, but his hands were tied, besides which Eden and other powerful cabinet members were determined to thwart Churchill’s “white Britain” plans.
      Like many things there is something of “a perfect storm” about Britain’s immigration policy, it cemented Britain’s place on the UNSC, of crucial importance to the Westminster/Whitehall elite, and it allowed the socialists to virtue signal about the comity of man. Business groups supported it because it promised to break the labor unions grip on industry and commerce as millions of desperate job seekers were added to the labor pool.
      Whether any of the above is true or not it fails to explain why so many Western nations followed the same disastrous policies. Germany needed workers to man the production lines, so imported millions of Turks. It would have been far better for German society if the factories had been relocated to Turkey.
      France had dreams of a Eurabian empire (or any empire at all) so imported millions of Algerians, etc. It is peculiar to say the least that Algerians fought a brutal war against French colonialism, and then upon winning it, half the country moved to France!
      What to make of Sweden, Norway, Holland, all of whom have comparable problems to Britain, all self-inflicted damage, all leading irreversibly to the destruction of those societies as they have existed for thousands of years.
      What to make of the 1965 immigration act in the USA? Americans were solemnly promised that the demographic make-up of the US would not be affected.
      That was a bald-faced lie, to the extent that European descended Americans will be a minority around mid-century.
      It is clear that decisions have been made at a supra-national level, in secret, and have been implemented to the detriment of the native populations of Europe and North America.
      So who? The Bilderbergs? Davos? The UNSC? The EU? My guess is all of the above, because the participants in those organizations will never have to suffer the disastrous consequences of their actions. They will, however, and have, reaped massive benefits from those policies as the facts about global income distribution so clearly show.

      • I believe that the issue you described above is a one of the many factors that influence the fall of “the western world”. In my opinion, looking at the history of civilisations we are at the end of the cycle, just before total collapse and chaos.
        Cycle known from the time immemorial : poor countries create a strong man -> The strong man builds strong country -> strong country creates a weak man -> the weak man builds poor country. We are at the second to last stage, because of relatively strong countries we can afford BS of left thinking for example which would never occur in such intensity if we didn’t have a massive surplus of wealth gained in the peak time of imperialism/ industrialism . The current left thinking is the proof that we are even able to produce (pseudo) intellectuals on a massive scale and they are able to reach to a new level of absurdity every day.

        In this soup we have many powerful groups of influence (few you mentioned above), religious sects (for example Islam), enclosed cultures like Chinese and so on, each claiming to know the right path for human kind. Speaking about the current direction that is orchestrated by ruling (pseudo)elite it has its roots in Institute for Social Research better known as Frankfurt School founded in 1923, which revisioned classical marxism and (very shortly speaking) “invented” neo marxism infecting every university with their dogma since then. They resign from the idea of bloody revolution instead they decided to work at the grass roots and change the whole society gradually in the longer time. Those people were well educated and highly intelligent (Horkheimer, Adorno, Fromm, Habermas and others) and true believers of their righteousness. Due to historical events and determination they influenced many cultural environments in short time (details are freely available on Wikipedia). All current most powerful (and less powerful too) world organisations are either run or were founded by people educated in or influenced by their thought. Today’s universities lost their original purpose of the place where great minds can meet and exchange thoughts instead these are places of the high level of indoctrination. These people are truly convinced that this is the right, progressive and only way for the future.

        I am afraid that there is no way to stop this process other than total collapse and start from “poor country” level. All we can do is to take care of ourselves as individuals, not signing up to some collective projects – job for everyone, house for everyone, pension for everyone ect. Take care of your family and friends those who you know and can rely on and if you believe that signing up to a crowd of million people is the right thing, do not be surprised if instead of being treated as an individual you will be treated as cattle.

        Sorry for my style I am new to this website and to English language too.

        • rube: Thank you for that comment.
          Well, here is the enemy:
          http://commonpurpose.org/about-us/common-purpose/
          And there I was thinking that “Common Purpose” was a UK phenomenon created by Julia Middleton, silly me.
          Probably much, perhaps most, of the work that CP does is necessary, beneficial and done with the best of intentions. However, nothing can mask the fact that this is a collectivist, internationalist and globalist organization. Read their agenda: “Combat bias”, (race-realists and nationalists out). “Boundaryless World” (destruction of the nation state). “Drive radical change” (collective ownership of property). And lots more.
          Harry Black; you are going to need more than a few disgruntled old sods turning up to the local Tory Party meetings to combat this lot!

  4. I think we are all alluding – in coded language of course – to a war against the Anglo-Celtic races and their civilisation. A war that is steadily being lost. The calls to arm are many, but soldiers like Tommy Robinson are few.

  5. If mass immigration is good and every additional culture is equally enriching to its new environment one might expect mass immigration to the Americas to be regarded in the same way.

    It must surely be the case therefore that the monocultural North American tribes, the Incas and the Aztecs benefited from the introduction of pizzas, democratic government, the wheel, the horse, the giving up of human sacrifice etc.

  6. What’s British?

    A Constitutional monarchy and a democracy, a nation which introduced great legal, social, and moral reforms unprecedented in human history, a historically successful and unarmed police force, famous literary giants, the English language, beautiful castles, football, afternoon tea, great accents, and yes– fish and chips.

    It’s clearly not an amalgamation of different cultures from around the globe. What’s the point in even claiming this? What’s the point in making it offensive to state the obvious? I grew up in a conservative Nigerian household; it was plain as day that my parent’s culture had its stark differences with British culture. Some were good (emphasis on education, social conservatism), some negative (iron “discipline”, self-isolation rather than engagement with the outside world). Different language, different context, different culture.

    As an adult, I stopped vacillating between the two identities and embraced being British. I identify more with what I listed above than with my parent’s country. I think that is what makes a non-native a citizen: when they see the good in their host’s land and identify with it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*