England, My Lionheart (2016)

There is an old Soviet era joke that tickles my fancy. An old man was asked by the housing commissar where he was born. St Petersburg he says. And where did you go to school? Petrograd he says. Where did you spend your working life? Leningrad he says. And finally where would you like to live in retirement? St Petersburg he says.

If a man loves England where should he choose to live? If a man is English, loves England, the English language and the culture of England, where should he choose to live?

Somehow I don’t think that America is a good answer to that question. Or Spain or the South of France.

I was born in England. I’m English. Thoroughly. Completely. I was born English, raised English I speak English and I have no ambition to be anything other than English, living as an Englishman, speaking English and living with English freedoms under English law.

If somebody hates England, the English people, English history, English heroes, English social and political culture and everything it stands for where should he choose to live? To me that seems a straight-forward question. Somewhere other than England seems a reasonable answer, and there’s quite a lot of not-England to choose from.

Do people really have to act as a gracious host to ungrateful incomers who wish to change and take over their home? Who says so and why?

If somebody hates your country what obligation do you have to try to make him feel comfortable living in your country? If the only thing somebody likes about your country is a vision of its future that you detest what business do they have living there and what obligation should there be on you to make them feel welcome and help them with their project to destroy the land you love?

Who invited Muslims to live in your country? Did you? Did anybody ever ask you? Did anybody listen to your thoughts on the matter? Have your parents ever told you about being asked that question? If they had have asked you what would your response have been? Now that you know what Muslims believe and what they want would you have allowed the process of mass immigration to have begun?

Muslims do not allow non-Muslims to thrive in their midst, at best they allow some people they find useful to live among them as long as they demonstrate that they know their place. There is not a Muslim country anywhere that is a, excuse the sick pun here, Mecca for free thinking people wanting to breathe free and live as they choose. Muslim countries are constantly exporting their populations, infecting the rest of the planet with their poisonous political religion.

How dare I say such a thing? Because I’m English and speaking the truth as I see it is my birthright. I will not be controlled by those who wish to censor opinions they don’t like by shouting them down and insulting those who express them. The whole politically correct movement is evil. It is not new of course, people have long spoken of the project of controlling thought by the use of language. One of the clearest descriptions of the process can be seen in George Orwell’s 1984, there it is called Newspeak, a new simplified version of English which is so denuded of meaning that expressing dissent to the party line becomes literally unthinkable. These days it is very easy to see the likes of George Galloway or Ken Livingstone as a double plus good duckspeaker. Newspeak couldn’t actually work in reality, its theory is inadequate to cope with the complexity of reality, and neither can political correctness, it is theoretically challenged.

What options do we have, those of us who love our country and our way of life? Do we really just have to wait and silently watch the slow motion tragedy unfold in front of us? Demography moves very slowly but that doesn’t mean that it is easily sidestepped or countered. It is slow and sure, like an expanding ice sheet, inexorable. The Muslim population of Britain is expanding by immigration, illegal as well as legal, and differential birth rates. Even if we could bring immigration to a halt at once there would still be the inexorable rise of Muslim numbers because of the numbers already here, their higher birth-rate and the different age structure of the native and immigrant communities.

We are not having enough children. When my mother died last year my sister recognized that she was the same age when her mother died as our mother had been when her mother died. The difference was our grandmother had died as a great-grandmother, our mother did not. My mother was a grandmother at her mother’s funeral, at the same age my sister was just a mother, with no obvious prospects of becoming a grandmother anytime soon. The combination of marrying later and having smaller families, and of many people not having any desire to have children is making our population stagnate. This is a problem in itself because of the distorted age structure of the population, coupled with uncontrolled mass immigration from fertile countries with strong religious pressure to breed it is potentially catastrophic.

It is not a matter of worrying about when they become a majority, you don’t need a Muslim majority to be a nation severely damaged by Muslim numbers. Just look at what is happening today in France. France is demographically challenged, or in oldspeak crippled by Muslims. There are many parts of France where the writ of the French government does not run, where the police don’t patrol, where even ambulances don’t go. In Britain things are not that bad. At least officially things are not that bad. There are no officially recognized no-go areas, but the white working class in many towns and cities across England could tell you tales that would make your hair stand on end. Nobody is listening to them, they are hated by the Muslims, by the white middle class and by the socialists and leftist political activists who pretend to have their interests at heart and monopolize all leadership positions. Few people really care about these people, they are not particularly likeable by nature, but they are suffering many times over because they have been abandoned by those who claim to represent them who instead represent political ideologies rather than people and their real interests and real views. Socialism has castrated the white working class, it has taken away its dignity, destroyed its future and changed the pitch of its voice.

The greatest hostility in politics today comes against those who would dare voice the concerns of the working class as they are rather than as they ought to be according to the socialist theories. The vitriol which this generates has to be seen to be believed. But this role is not one I am qualified for. I speak for nobody except my own views and I have no desire to be a mouthpiece or delegate for other people. I am just who I am, an Englishman with a free mind and a mouth I am prepared to use.

Sometimes I get accused of not having the courage of my convictions. This is usually code for saying that I lack the courage of other people’s convictions, usually anonymous people who do not reveal their faces, voices or names. If you have convictions I am not courageously espousing that is your problem, not mine.

I don’t regard the English as being fundamentally a race. Being English is a multifaceted thing. To a large degree being English is a choice that people make. All peoples, nations and tribes are a bit like that. You can become a member of another tribe by marriage or adoption, but not just by living near them. It takes more than just proximity. Propinquity is more important than proximity. You can’t become English by reciting a few words. You need to make a choice. Being English is not something you can do casually, like deciding to become a vegetarian, it is a commitment. I think the Jews have it right, they regard blood as significant (actually they’re a bit crazy about blood) I mean they regard a shared genetic heritage as important. While it is possible to convert to join the tribe they certainly don’t encourage it. I think the English should be the same. There should be the option for those who are prepared to commit to the identity 100%, to become English by choice, but we should make it a tough process. While we can’t ask them to undergo surgery to make the transition, as the Jews can, we should make it a lot harder than applying for a driving licence. I am toying with the idea that an order of 1,000 hours of unpaid community service should be required for everybody who wants to join us, including, or perhaps especially, the overseas-born spouses of citizens.

When I say I am not a racist that is not because I lack the courage to declare that I am a racist but because I am not a racist. I do appreciate that this is a subtle argument for some people who are hard of thinking but that isn’t my problem. There is more to the English than race. And not everybody who is white is English, not even close. Having said that it is a lot harder to be English if you are not white. If you want to be English and you are not white then you need to be seen to be making a really special effort. Just saying you like the Queen and occasionally waving a flag is nowhere near good enough. You have to commit to England. England before everything. There is no option to be Black British. No. You could be an Englishman who happens to have dark brown skin and more recent African ancestry than most. You need to choose to be English which means choosing not to anything else.

If you want to be a proud Jew go and live in Israel. I don’t believe in Jewish British (or British Jewish or English Jewish etc.) as an identity either. An Englishman with Jewish ancestry is the furthest you should go in that direction, like Nigella Lawson, Peter Hitchens and Stephen Fry. If you want to practice Judaism you’re not being English. If you want to identify as a Jew then you’re not being English. But if you choose to be English and happen to have been born to Jewish ancestors (rather like the Jesus worshipped by the Church of England) then that is acceptable. But you can’t go around riding two donkeys at once. Make the choice. Become an Anglican, they’ll take anybody, they’re desperate, and by doing so the prospect of Israeli citizenship evaporates.

How can we rescue England from the clutches of a rising tide of Islam? I wish I knew. Mass killings are clearly not something which any liberal can be comfortable with but if we deny all tools to engineer a future we want we end up as victims of forces of history and geography. If we ignore the problem there is no reason at all to expect it to go away. There must be some things which we can try to lay down a marker that this country is not a Muslim country and will never be allowed to become one, not a single acre of it.

Up until now there has been the unspoken assumption that the children of Muslims will automatically become Muslims and the schools and the state will never attempt to do anything about that. This has to change. The children of Christians are taught to think for themselves, and as a result many have no interest at all in religion. Why is it wrong to encourage the children of Muslims to think and to be their own person? If a white boy was told by his parents that he was to become a farmer and therefore school was of no interest to him the teachers would quite rightly not accept this unacceptable narrowing of a child’s potential. We need to ensure that it is just as unacceptable for Muslims to say that their children will not learn about sex or women’s rights or other religions or evolution or the story of the Three Little Pigs. Children don’t have religions and they don’t have the right to restrict what they are taught.

You can’t defend a liberal state with ever more freedom. The answer is not to love your enemies more and grant them even more freedoms so they will love you back. They don’t want to love you back. They want to assimilate you or annihilate you. Imagine facing up to a rampaging swarm of Nazis and trying to get them to love you and see the superiority of your views by using the tactics of the Care Bears. You can’t shame a Muslim into treating you fairly any more than you can appeal to the better nature of a Dalek. Muslims keep their Islam where their human decency should be. You can’t fight Islam with the tactics of Gandhi, that isn’t why most of India is free of Islam, the Hindus kept the Muslims at bay by fighting for what they believed in. Forget the purges of the Soviet Union, forget the hideous onslaughts of Chairman Mao, forget Hitler’s death camps, forget the Crusades, the biggest death toll in history, outside of the aggregate total for skirmishes over women and livestock which is the biggest cause – is the fight for the soul of India. More people than currently live in North America have died as Islam tried, as it continues to try, to make India submit to the death cult of Muhammad.

It is really no surprise at all that nuclear weapons were developed by both India and Israel, and also that they have been rather reticent about talking about how they might be used. When your biggest foe relishes the idea of the end of the world a workable theory of deterrence becomes a big problem.

Once a threat to a liberal state passes a certain point indulgence and love and liberty only empower the enemy, eventually the time comes to fight. No liberal state deserves to survive if it is not prepared to fight for its own survival. Never in British history were we closer to a national socialist state than when we were fighting for our survival against a national socialist state, in the name of freedom. The reason for that is simple: liberalism is not a weapon against the enemies of liberalism. Liberalism does not defend itself.

There is clear evidence that third generation Muslims are often more committed to Islam and Sharia than their grandparents, who often have a genuine love for their adopted country. What we have now is not any longer a problem of immigration, it is a problem of two cultures in one country. A war of civilizations.

What models do we have to help us understand the opportunities which two religious cultures in a small area offer us? We have Lebanon, the Balkans and Northern Ireland. We see segregation, which starts off as voluntary on both sides and then becomes increasingly enforced by violence, often violence which is up close and very personal. This segregation in living separately is then mirrored in education provision, which is sold to those who have the luxury of living above the struggle as being a matter of religious freedom and equality, all very laudable, I suppose. But the reality is that those in one community don’t mix with the other community and as time goes on the opportunities to mix get fewer and fewer. Two communities live close to each other in a constant state of alert and hatred with sporadic violence. Why would anybody see this as a desirable outcome?

What evidence do we have that this is a passing phase? Show me a country which has absorbed a significant Muslim community and been enriched by the process. Show me a country where Muslims cease to be noticeably Muslims and happily and proudly embrace a national identity in a secular country. Show me a country, anywhere on the planet, where the non-Muslim community is honestly thankful for the presence of a significant Muslim minority in their midsts. Or an easier one perhaps, show me a country with a significant Muslim population which has never seen Muslims either rioting, demonstrating or conducting terrorist activities. You can’t think of a good example, can you? So without a single model of success to point to many western European nations nonetheless pressed ahead with this doomed experiment, with the future of their nations.

I can see the day coming when those identified as the culprits will be dug up from the safety of their graves to face the wrath of those whose birthrights they betrayed.

Please leave a reply