- Joe Priestley

Being British

By Joe Priestly — It’s the question that’s on everyone’s lips, especially establishment lips. And the LibLabCons are getting their knickers in a terrible twist as they struggle to answer it: What does it mean to be British?

But since when did they give a damn about what it means to be British? The political elite have been leading us away from Britishness since the end of the Second World War, and post war politicians have been consistent in favouring the international over the national.  It was the LibLabCons that gave away our independence by signing us up to the UN and to the EU, and they paved the way for this betrayal by attacking and ridiculing the idea of Britishness. Their insane fantasy was and still is to turn us British into ‘citizens of the world’.

Yet now they have the audacity to fly the flag and call for patriotism. Can you imagine anything more absurd - or ironic - than the liberal establishment flying the patriotic flag? When Samuel Johnson said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel he was of course talking about the patriotism of convenience, the very sort practiced by LibLabCon traitors.

Mention of flag and nation now even has the likes of left wing warbler Billy Bragg wiping a tear from his eye. No, don’t laugh. It really was a tear, honest. Billy’s written a book about it, The Progressive Patriot - a search for belonging. And then there’s his eagerly awaited new album Red, White, Black ‘n Blue in which “…he movingly explores the dynamics of the new patriotism from the perspective of international socialism in the context of the multiracial multicultural society as viewed from an isolated mansion on the Devon coast.” Must get that one.

Although it wasn’t his intention, Bragg’s scribbling illustrates the establishment’s Alice in Wonderland thought processes with a remarkable precision; The Progressive Patriot is a sort of autobiographical musing during which Bragg searches for “…a sense of belonging that is accessible to all.”

Those are the words, aren’t they? They could just as easily have come from a Labour Government Minister, or a member of the Opposition front bench, or a back bencher from either side of the House. They could be the words of a leading Civil Servant, a newspaper editor, or of a local councillor (though not BNP). It’s the sort of thing you find printed at the bottom of headed paper from the council, or from any government department - it could even be the title of an essay that one of your children is asked to write at school.

The phrase encapsulates perfectly the witlessness of the liberal establishment’s grand design - all together now, in new-speak of course, “Working towards creating a sense of belonging that is accessible to all”.

A country is defined by its exclusivity; it is a product of the peculiarities of its people. Britain isn’t France because its people aren’t French. And to anyone with an ounce of common sense a country that’s ‘accessible to all’ won’t be a country for very long; accessibility and social cohesion are mutually exclusive. But our establishment didn’t see it like that. Blinkered by equality dogma and seduced by dreams of utopia, it saw exclusivity as an obstacle to its long term goal, a stateless world governed according to the theory of universal equality. So naturally patriotism was a bit of a problem.

Love of country is love of its history, tradition, and way of life, and, dare I say it, love of its people. Patriotism is an expression of exclusivity, of belonging, of commitment, and its whole essence is ‘us’ and ‘them’. But Britain’s ruling elite are cosmopolitan and global; they rejected the reality of nation in favour of an ideal, universal equality, and in so doing they set themselves in opposition to exclusivity, patriotism, and even their own people. And with increasing fervour over the years the establishment has employed every arm of state to pervert and demean the expression of patriotic feeling so that it was seen as legitimate only in respect of sporting events.

The intellectuals and their friends in the entertainment industry have alternated between ridiculing patriotism and associating it with mass murder. The education system has taught its pupils to be ashamed of being British. And the British political system and bureaucracy act as though the rest of the world has a higher priority than the British people do. Two or three national newspapers have with varying degrees of effort attempted to resist this trend, but in the main patriotism has been presented as at best ‘…something that polite people don’t do,’ at worst ‘…something that Nazis do.’

And of course if the intention is to radically change the nature of a country, undermining the population’s support for it is a pretty good place to start. The cohesiveness of 1950’s Britain is what first hits whenever newsreels from the time appear on television. But that cohesiveness got in the way of the LibLabCon plan. So British people were made to feel bad if they felt good about their country and about who and what they were. Only if they felt bad about those things could they feel good about themselves - that’s how it works in Orwellian Britain. The intention was to make ethnic Britons psychologically incapable of resisting the changes the LibLabCons intended to force on them. It was the liberal elite’s precise intent to bring us to this sorry state where so many of us now no longer know who we are. 

It was treason on a vast scale. The people whom we gave the responsibility to act in our best interests have reduced us to the status of rats at a research facility. Our own establishment has used us as the subjects in their experiment to create The New Britain according to their theory of equality. They wanted a Britain that was “…accessible to all” and that’s what we’ve got.

Yet now our leaders want us to fly the flag and love our country. Suddenly it’s OK to be patriotic. What’s changed?

Two factors combine to fuel this LibLabCon change of direction. The first is that we’ve arrived! New Britain is accessible to all by virtue of the governing elite’s commitment to immigration, to the UN, to the EU, and ultimately to World Government. They had us commit national suicide on the altar of equality and out of the cremated remains they constructed New Britain. So naturally they want us to support it.

The second factor is that the imposition of the multiracial multicultural society on ethnic Britons has raised the thorny issue of belonging. And in so doing it has highlighted the fault lines of ethnicity, culture, and religion that are running through new, accessible, New Britain. Even woolly-minded liberals are waking up to that one. Their solution though is the same sort of head-in-the-clouds wishful thinking that got us into this problem in the first place. They want to create a new sense of belonging for Britain’s patchwork of cultures; a special something that ‘unites us in diversity’. This is how these idiots’ brains work.

But haven’t we already got that special something that ‘unites us in diversity’ - it’s called chaos and it goes hand in hand with multiracial multicultural societies.

By a process of a thousand cuts the LibLabCons succeeded in suppressing the expression of and respect for British culture to facilitate their importation into our midst of millions of inassimilable and potentially hostile aliens. They wanted to construct heaven on earth in Britain; instead they created hell.

We have a situation now where an increasing number of ethnic Britons are unhappy with the changes imposed on our society by the establishment in its quest for paradise. And as a direct consequence of those changes Britain has a growing and aggressive Muslim population that demands to have its own say on what it means to be British. And the LibLabCons are playing an uncomfortable game of piggy in the middle.

So the search is on for a Britain that all groups will happily to subscribe to; the LibLabCons are (desperately) “Working towards creating a sense of belonging that is accessible to all.” They want a new meaning to being British.

Former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith is concerned that there is “less belonging” than there used to be. Now fancy that! I wonder if it’s got anything to do with the policies promoted by the likes of Goldsmith et al in their eagerness to use mass immigration as a means of changing Britain. The great Lord’s solution is an oath of allegiance to be introduced into Britain’s schools. This idea has as its long term goal the theft of our children’s birthright. It aims to catch ethnic British children young, to brainwash them into giving their allegiance to the multi-mishmash nightmare created by Goldsmith and his ilk, and to have them think of themselves as ‘one of a nation of immigrants’.

Not long ago Goldsmith was arguing for a change in the words of the National Anthem so that it was more, wait for it, inclusive. Minister of Culture (sic) Margaret Hodge is similarly angst-ridden about the lack of inclusiveness; witness her recent attack on the Proms for its failure to represent properly our modern, diverse, and vibrant society. Couldn’t space be found in the programme for gangsta rap?

And let’s not forget Gordon Brown’s proposal of a national holiday to celebrate ‘Britishness’ - and that without first deciding what Britishness is.

These people have deliberately undermined the notion of Britain and now they’re struggling to put something in its place that both fits their world view and is sufficiently inclusive to attract mutually exclusives. More pie in the sky anyone?

Writing recently in the Sunday Times magazine, allegedly about the issue of ‘no-go Britain’ but in reality putting the case for diversity, establishment historian John Cornwell unintentionally illustrated the LibLabCons’ confusion; “In a class of third years (at a school in Essex)… with only one white pupil and four veiled Muslim girls… It struck me listening to these articulate pupils, British yet widely diverse in culture, ethnicity, and religion…”

“British yet widely diverse in culture, ethnicity, and religion…” So what exactly is it that makes them British? According to Cornwell’s thinking, and that of the rest of the establishment, being British is not about culture, ethnicity, or religion - it is about perceiving the world through the same eyes as the LibLabCons. 

The vision of British citizenship for the 21st Century is, according to Prime Minister Brown, “…one founded on a unifying idea of rights matched with responsibilities.” In other words anyone can be British, irrespective of their culture, ethnicity, and religion, provided they concur with the establishment’s idea of rights and responsibilities. As usual Brown and the LibLabCons lack the wherewithal to follow their argument through to its logical conclusion: Compare a Somali immigrant to this country who accepts without reservation the establishment’s rights and responsibilities argument with an ethnic Briton who disputes it - according to the establishment the former is more British than the latter. That’s another fine mess you’ve got us into Mr Brown. Or is it a calculated effort to deprive us of our country?

Having created this multicultural mess the LibLabCons are now grappling with what they call ‘the progressive dilemma’ - the conflict between solidarity and diversity. This problem is entirely of their making; they purposely introduced diversity in order to undermine our solidarity and our resistance to the changes they intended to impose. But societies without solidarity tend to exist in a permanent state of tension, as the LibLabCons are discovering - hence their efforts to create some sort of solidarity behind a new patriotism.

The establishment favours the kind of diversity brought about by mass third world immigration - otherwise they’d not have done what they’ve done and they’d stop doing it now. So having created accessible-to-all Britain they now want us to put our support behind it. They’re motivated also by the realisation that something is needed to fill the vacuum left behind by their eradication of the old patriotism. And their solution, Ladies and Gentlemen, is (drum roll) ‘progressive patriotism’.

It’s a modern sort of patriotism designed for the 21st century globalised world. A non-patriotic patriotism where literally anyone can join; it’s the sort you know the LibLabCons will just love. Whereas ‘old fashioned’ patriotism was founded on solidarity, exclusiveness, love of country, of its history, tradition, way of life, and people, progressive patriotism is founded on diversity, inclusiveness, contempt for country, history, tradition, way of life, and people. 

Present day diverse Britain is a result of the practical application of the equality theory - and the LibLabCons are working to achieve a situation where literally anyone can be British; where the only condition on acceptance is support for diversity. They want us to rejoice in the fact that this country has been so ‘tolerant’ these past sixty years that it has tolerated its own destruction.

‘New Britain is founded on equality, its greatest achievement is its tolerance, and its people are bound together in their acceptance of certain fundamental rights and responsibilities.’ Well that’s the theory, that’s the ideal that the LibLabCons would have us believe - and they slant everything within their power to that effect. Having demolished Britain their aim is to rebuild it from top down.

They want to redefine what it means to be British so that it is consistent with the Britain they’ve created. But precisely what is it they have created - now there’s a question!

Their search for “…a sense of belonging that is accessible to all” is recognition of the problems associated with defining what it means to be British in multiracial multicultural Britain. On the face of it the LibLabCons are big on diversity but just beneath the surface they’re in a life and death struggle to resolve the problems that accompany it. Yet all the while they fluctuate between minimising those problems and denying their existence. Oh what a tangled web they weave…

They’ve bitten off more than they can chew.

What now passes for the British people is in fact a collection of unrelated, competing, and often antagonistic communities that just so happen to live on British soil. The only thing that binds them is their proximity. So how does one define them as a whole?

Over the years the LibLabCons have employed the tactic of minimising difference in order to facilitate its imposition. Their intention was to have us believe difference made no difference, though curiously they also want us to celebrate it. But now even they have woken up to the realisation that difference means a lot more than a preference for spicy food.

Conspiracy theorists go on about everything according to a plan, but surely not even the LibLabCons would have intentionally dug themselves into such a hole. They talk about ‘the banality of evil’ but where this lot are concerned ‘the incompetence of evil’ is more appropriate.

The LibLabCons have never really valued difference. To them it was merely a tool; a technique for undoing British society so that something else could be put in its place. And they worked on the assumption that after a limited period immigrants would drop their own cultural preferences for those on offer in an internationalised western liberal democracy; and if that’s not cultural chauvinism I don’t know what is. But much to the establishment’s horror Muslim immigrants in particular haven’t taken the bait. The political establishment encouraged the growth of Islamic culture as part of its effort to remake Britain. It didn’t anticipate that Islam would take on a life of its own to such an effect that it now presumes to challenge the LibLabCon hegemony.

And in a frantic effort to stop these centrifugal forces spinning out of control the LibLabCons are trying to cobble together a new definition of what it means to be British. It seems like only yesterday that they were saying there’s no such thing. What an incredible about turn.

Yet defining “…a sense of belonging that’s accessible to all” is no easy matter. Indeed, is it possible? Brown has talked about ‘rights and responsibilities’ but he hasn’t gone so far as to say what rights and what responsibilities. He must know there’s a lot of trouble down that road; how much common ground is there between mutually exclusives? There’s talk of tolerance coming into it, oh yes, and equality too - naturally. But there’s no meat on those bones either. And it’s unlikely the LibLabCons will put any on them; the establishment have a problem with precision. It’s a philosophical thing. They believe in a world without boundaries, irrespective of whether they are boundaries between nations or between individuals, and they’ve modelled Britain according to that.

And as for the inconvenient truth that we define ourselves according to our differences - that’s under the carpet, where the LibLabCons have swept it.

Consider for a moment the concept of tolerance and the idea that it should be used as a means of uniting the nation. Apparently Britain’s tolerance is something that we all can be proud of and that we should all celebrate. But even if this were true, which it is not, tolerance could only help unite the nation if we all had the same appreciation of it. We don’t: The LibLabCons favour tolerance because they want us to tolerate the chaos they’ve inflicted on us; the liberal-minded favour tolerance because it makes them feel good about themselves; the immigrants favour tolerance because it makes them feel secure; and as for the rest of us, before we commit ourselves we want to know who’s asking us to tolerate what!

The establishment’s shaky reasoning is also evident in its ‘patriotic’ appeal for us to celebrate diversity because diversity is our strength. Patriotism is the antithesis of diversity; the former is exclusive by way of its unity, the latter is inclusive by way of universality. What they really want is us to celebrate being made un-British; they want us to celebrate our demise.

They deliberately undid Britain’s cohesion by introducing radical difference and then blithely labelled the chaos they’d unleashed ‘the progressive dilemma’. With breathtaking effrontery they defined the problem they created ‘progressive’ and called the resultant social strife a ‘dilemma’. And then, as if to rub the dirt in our faces, the LibLabCons put the cause of the growing discontent in society down to a lack of patriotism. These people really must be taken to task.

Being British cannot help but mean different things to different people in multiracial, multicultural, multifaith Britain - you’d have to have your head in the sand to deny it. From the point of view of free thinking Britons, Britain as it is today is an aberration; from the point of view of liberal minded Britons it is something to be celebrated; from the point of view of immigrant communities it is a free-for-all in which they seek to advance their specific interests relative to those of ethnic Britons. And from this the LibLabCons are going to forge a new nation? Of course they are.

Share this page:

What do these buttons do?

© 2008, The British National Party News , PO Box 287, Waltham Cross, Herts, EN8 8ZU. Telephone: 0871 050 0232