Condemned if you do, condemned if you don’t

BreitbartUK reports on a rally in London to ‘protest against ”racism” ‘.
Counter-demonstrators from the Britain First group reportedly clashed with the far-leftist open borders rabble.

According to the Breitbart article, an alleged ‘comedian’ named Jeremy Hardy made the usual self-abasing statements required of White people:

“People say white people are in danger of becoming a minority in London. Well, I am one of the whitest people you will ever meet. I’ve done my family tree. I thought ‘this will be interesting’. It f*cking wasn’t. 200 year of white people from the South East of England.

“Because you are my brothers and sisters. These people are my brothers and sisters. I have no more claim to this soil than anyone here.”

If Hardy had any integrity, he would then leave Britain, having no claim to the soil, and hand it over to his ”brothers and sisters”. Maybe he can go and ask his ”brothers and sisters” in Africa or Asia to allow him into their countries. After all, by his logic, they have no more claim to the soil than he has — we’re all just inhabitants of planet earth; freedom of movement for all, right? What are the chances Hardy would be welcomed into some nonwhite country? People like Hardy should leave their native countries and go to where their ”brothers and sisters” are. Science now allegedly has the means to change someone’s sex from male to female or vice-versa; when will they develop race-changing surgery so that people like Jeremy Hardy can escape their loathsome whiteness?

Britain First, the nationalist group mentioned in the article, is labeled in all the media reports as ”far right extremist” and ‘fascistic’, as ‘a hate group’ and so on. But are they?

I don’t think there is any substantial ethnonationalist group in the UK. The English Defence League, about whom we occasionally read, are, despite their name, not necessarily English; they have claimed to be ‘colorblind’ and they are not by any means open only to English members. They are a civic nationalist group, and a rather politically correct one at that. They are ostentatiously pro-Zionist, and the founder is of Irish background.

Similarly with Britain First, see this page on their own website:

“Britain First and “Racism”

Britain First is a loyalist movement: This means that if you are loyal to Queen and Country then you are welcome to join our organisation. “Race” does not feature in our policies or outlook in any way.”

The page features a large picture of a black man against a backdrop of a Union Jack. [Note: the page has annoying pop-ups which demand that you click ‘like’ in order to continue viewing.]

It is sad that no actual ethnonationalist or ethnopatriot party has appeared in the UK. It is telling that the flag with Cross of St. George, the traditional symbol of England, is condemned as ”racist” and ”hateful” in much the same way as the Confederate Battle Flag is condemned and banned here. In our case, we are told that because the flag represents ”slavery and hate” it must be removed from public view. One day it will be against the law to even own one, I believe.

But why is the cross of St. George offensive or a ‘‘hate symbol” according to the liberals (both left and right) in England? I think it’s because just as the Confederate Battle Flag represents a people who are now deemed political outcasts, so with the red cross of St. George, representing the English. Just as America does not like to remember that the English were the original stock of this country, Britain or the United Kingdom does not like to remember that the English people are the very heart and core of the United Kingdom; it was English dominance that led to the formation of a kingdom with the English at the top, in the position of rulership. Resentful minority groups (and yes, the Scots are called a ”minority group” and consider themselves as such, as do the Irish and the Welsh) insist on being made coequals but in practice have put the English beneath them. The Scots, the Welsh, even the Cornish have their ‘nationalist’ parties and flags, while the English are told that their symbols are ”racist” and offensive.

So the only nationalism that is allowed to exist in Britain is not ethnonationalism but only ”civic” nationalism, centered on a geopolitical entity called the UK. And by definition it must be an ideological loyalty, not limited to a particular people, not even the founders of the nation, the historical owners of the land, the English.

As the Britain First statement says, loyalty must be to Queen and Country not to any people or group of people. So Britain First, sad to say, agree to some extent with that sad sack Jeremy Hardy, who says he has no more claim to Britain than someone who just crashed his way into the country via Calais.

According to Britain First, the man in the picture at the link counts as ‘British’ though his origins are in Africa.

While I don’t want to be too hard on Britain First, or any civic nationalist group — at least they are doing something –British civic nationalism in effect means dispossession in one’s own land. It means accepting Pakistani and Caribbean ‘baronesses’ and ‘barons.’  It means Babel re-created, with people from the four corners of the globe swamping your small island. And we here in the not-so-United States are not much better off; we have our own useless ‘civic nationalism’ in which ”as long as you come to this country legally, and assimilate, you are just as American as I am, and we’re all immigrants anyway.” This is still the credo of far too many Americans.

The Tea Party, though originally a welcome idea, centered exclusively on what the misguided Republicans call ‘conservative ideology’, mostly abstractions about ‘small government, tax cuts, responsible spending, and free markets.’ They were not only afraid to express ethnonationalist or ethnopatriot sentiments but leaned over backwards to display their ”diverse and inclusive” credentials. Now they are history.

I would like to think that something was learned in the process: running from the race-baiting accusations, trying to be all things to all people, going on the defensive, are losing tactics, and above all, dishonest.

Trump, so far, appeals mostly to economic nationalism — which is needed. He speaks of ‘making America great again’ which is very much the same kind of generic ‘patriot’ rhetoric employed by the Tea Party.

But sooner or later, as the opposing sides array themselves, people will have to face the reality that civic nationalism or generic “patriotism” is an evasion. We might be optimistic and say that it’s just a way-station on the route to a true ethnopatriotism but we don’t have all the time in the world to take it in increments.

The core people of this country, contra Jeremy Hardy and his American counterparts, do have a claim to this country. Our ancestors built it for themselves and their posterity — that’s us, or a lot of us, anyway — and we do have rightful claim to it. We must not be shy about saying so.

We can see, with the press coverage, that even organizations which obey the politically correct commissars and shun any kind of exclusivism, are still labeled as ”hate” groups and ”extremists”. What good then, does it do to tailor a group’s policies and language to conform to the leftist orthodoxy? Better to take an unequivocal stand and not bow down to a PC establishment which will condemn them regardless of their ‘diverse and inclusive’ pandering and their tiptoeing around controversial subjects.