Whose Nation is it Really?

We are not lone individuals engaged in a struggle against nature, but social animals, who have our individual rights to liberty in a free country, but who are nevertheless part of a wider society, culture and economy. We have the right to expect the support of the society around us, which is why we also have the duty to uphold it to the extent that it protects us from the depredations of nature and wild animals and the bad behaviour of other human beings. Society is not meant to be a war of all against all, but a coming together of human beings in a way that promotes the good of each of them.

This is not a majoritarian concept. Society does not exist to promote the good of the majority at the expense of a minority. It ought to hold real benefits for every single member of the polity. This is the reason why the nation-state is important in terms of social freedom: the natural bands and connections of a real society—cultural ties—allow for greater latitude to individual freedom in a nation-state than does the creation of a “society” of warring cultural groups constantly intervened in by a lumpen bureaucracy that seeks social division and conflict as the price of its sinecurist monopolisation of social revenues.

Nations vs. nationalities

Nations are not artificially created: a European directive announcing that all Europeans were henceforth to be considered a single nation would not make it so. The roots of real nations are not in legislation or bureaucratic regulations, but are lost in the mists of time. We are who we are because only extensive historical research can reveal the origins of our nation, and the same thing is so for all other real nations too. We have a common history, common ancestry, a common language, a common culture, common religious roots, as well as understood mores and social expectations. None of this can be created by bureaucratic will.

In the case of the English, we know that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes arrived in England in the fifth century, speaking closely related dialects of Old English, and that from the middle of the seventh century the Church of England united them. It is not necessary to be a believer in religion today for this to have significance: many cultural assumptions derive from our religious roots. The “law of the land”—English Common Law—was not promulgated by some emperor or potentate, but derived from the customs of the English people before the Norman Conquest in 1066. The monarchy traces its roots back to the Saxon chieftains of the sixth century. This is not a nation created by Parliament.

To be part of the English nation is a very great thing to the English, and arguably something that attracts widespread respect throughout the world. We have given the world our language; we were the first industrial country, with a disproportionate number of key inventions to our name; our political set-up has been propagated throughout the world; and England is the “mother country” of countless states beyond the seas. In 1900, or indeed at any time before the late 1960s, it would have been no exaggeration—just the truth—to say that England was the greatest nation in the world.

So if we are English, where does the concept of Britishness come in? Historians tell us that England under Roman rule in the early centuries of the first millennium was called Britannia—the Roman province did not include much of Scotland—but the island of Great Britain was never politically united before 1707. Yet the unification of Britain was not artificial: England and Scotland had much in common, including descent from the Anglo-Saxons, Celts and Vikings; the English language; the monarchy; and our rejection of the dominance of Rome at the time of the Reformation. Great Britain worked because it was not the union of incompatible parts. Had England and Somalia been conjoined in a union got up by the politicians, it would never have been felt to be a true nation. England and Scotland, while each retaining their older national identities, became a composite British nation, which stood the test of time. The fact that politicians cannot decree the limits of a nation is shown by Britain’s history in Ireland: the political desire to make Ireland part of the Union could not override cultural and historical conflicts on the ground. The composite nation of Great Britain depended on the dominance of England in the Union, a dominance long accepted in Scotland and Wales, but never accepted on the ground in the Gaelic parts of Ireland.

A great nation was created in 1707, fusing, but not destroying, the compatible component nations of England and Scotland, nations whose populations ultimately had similar origins. The Union was nonetheless clearly rooted in the constitution and political values of England. Freedom is particularly associated with England, rather than Scotland, and the grounding of the British nation in an English concept of liberty is clear from the words of the patriotic song Rule, Britannia!:

The nations, not so blest as thee,
Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall:
While thou shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.

These words are rarely heard today, because they contradict the multicultural ideology being coercively promoted by the British state. Not only does multiculturalism unpick the cultural bands that unite the British population—thus pointing, logically, to the dissolution of the Union eventually—it alters the nature of Britishness into an artificial creation of the state. If the British government passes a decree that everyone in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, is a British citizen, then to all legal intents and purposes they are so. But the government cannot make them part of our nation, because they lack the identity, the culture, the ancestry, the language, the history and much else to make it so. If these things are held no longer to matter, it can only be because Britishness is now meaningless: the nations we always knew could never be our equals are the source of the growth of our population, and so Britishness is no longer the political expression of the traditionally free culture of England.

We need to be clear on what is happening. Governments hand out nationality, not nationhood. Nationality is a piece of paper from the Home Office; nationhood, by contrast, is something that cannot be decreed, but is elemental, fundamental, natural. Just as American courts claim to be able to “divorce” a child from his parents, overturning the natural order—in reality, he remains his parents’ child, regardless of the estrangement—the British government claims to be able to “graft in” new members of the nation, by handing out nationality. True, adoption laws do allow the state to declare that someone is the child of people who are not his natural parents, but all such cases depend on the successful integration of the child into a loving relationship with a family, and not on an opposition or confrontation between the child and his adoptive parents. Compare the way that multiculturalism encourages new citizens to oppose our culture, thus “grafting in” antagonising and antagonised groups into society, with no intention of encouraging in them the natural growth of the national sentiment that characterises true nationhood.

In the end, nationality is a vertical relationship with the state bureaucracy. People with no British ancestors are declared “British”. People who speak no English, or who have never visited England, or who are seeking to blow us up, have been declared to be “British”, as fully British as you and I, despite the fact that they lack our national identity. We mock ourselves by turning Britishness into a bureaucratic connection with the state. Nationhood is a horizontal relationship between people: people who have things in common. It cannot be faked and its recognition cannot be commanded by the state. It is either there or it is not.

Consequently, we should never accept that being a British citizen makes someone British, and we should never forget that Britishness is a real national identity, and not a fake ‘nationality’, because of the cultural commonalities of England and Scotland. As England and Scotland begin to feel themselves to be separate, the British identity itself seems destined to fall apart, leading to a reversion to the older identities of the English, the Scottish (and the Welsh and Irish too). A civic national identity only works, therefore, when based on real, underlying nationhood.

Ethnic minorities

So what about the many millions of people who possess British passports, but who are not English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish? Clearly, if naturalisation is allowed by the state, or if the immigration of people who are not British is allowed, that does not make the people concerned really British (and definitely does not make them English). It could be argued that small numbers of people, ready to fully assimilate, could become truly British, just as a child adopted when young can often become a genuine member of a new family, where there is no opposition felt between him and his adoptive parents.

It is in this light that we could regard, for example, a French person born in Britain, with British nationality, who has lived all his life in England. To all intents and purposes, he will look, feel and be accepted as English. The graft will have taken. He is very unlikely to be constantly suing the English for discrimination or emphasising his distinctiveness in any other way.

It is not the same with the “ethnic minorities”, who have been encouraged to feel and remain distinctive, while holding out for all the benefits and advantages of British citizenship, and even insulting us by standing for Parliament and trying to inveigle themselves into positions of power in our society. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that such people have valid gripes with the British, that they do indeed face “discrimination” in England. That merely shows that they are seen as separate from us by many of the people who belong to the real historic nations of the British Isles. It proves, without any possibility of contradiction, that they are not British. For them to sue for discrimination, or even expect to be treated as British, is to perpetrate a fraud, to behave in an insolent manner in someone else’s homeland.

Even the self-righteous left-wingers who are seeking to recreate our society along multicultural lines do not argue that the ethnic minorities are no different from us. They see them as different too, but argue that we should “embrace the diversity”. The problem with this is that nations are based on things held in common, not on diversity, and so arguing for the acceptance of ethnic minorities in terms of embracing diversity fails to explain why we should regard them as the same as us, why we should see them as like us, what they have to do with us in the first place. Support for cultural diversity is an admission that they are not British.

Laws preventing us from expressing our feelings on this subject do not change the matter. National identity is instinctive and unforced: when I see an English person, I recognise his common origin with me, without being compelled to do so by the state. Even if we are forced to pay lip-service to the idea that ethnic-minority people are British, or even English, we will still notice the “diversity” of origins, culture and allegiances, and in the final analysis this means that we know they are not really part of our nation. Ethnic-minority people who were born in England are just as likely to play the race card against us, and so we are right to instinctively feel they are different from us, and therefore not British.

The English

If some people belong to ethnic minorities, who, then, are the majority ethnic group in England? Interestingly, there is officially no such ethnic group in England as the English. People from all over the world have recognised ethnic identities: they belong to certain ethnic groups that are recorded in official documents. But the claim that there is an ethnic group called the English is regarded by the state as a challenge to multiculturalism. If there are people who are English, then, logically, England belongs to them. Consequently, we are assigned to the White British category. “White British” is not the name of an ethnic group. It is a racial classification—people with British passports who are “white”—but not a description of an ethnic group to whom this country belongs.

Despite official non-recognition of the English, the decline of Britishness, or its reinvention as a meaningless term for anyone the state chooses to hand out identity papers to, means that most English people now feel more English than British. We are not simply the White British, but in fact the same nation that founded the Kingdom of England in the Dark Ages. It is an interesting question what will happen to the ethnic minorities once Scotland has declared independence and the Kingdom of England resumes its independent existence once again. Few ethnic-minority people claim to be English, rather than British, but I suppose that in an independent England the logic of their situation would be to advance the claim to have become English, not because the unforced consensus of the English was that they were just like us, but because they would have the support of the state in coercing compliance with such a suggestion, which would justify their presence in our country and thus their access to all the good things life in England can provide. Official terms are likely to be concocted to justify this; maybe the White British would become the White English overnight? But in the end, only we can be us: only the English can be the English, and so the question remains why so many millions from all around the world are coming to settle here, and why we are letting them do so.

This is our country

There is nothing repugnant about refusing to recognise the claim made by ethnic-minority people to be British (or English). After all, the small number of English children born in China or Africa do not claim to be Chinese or African. We are not trying to give offence to ethnic-minority people by asserting that we have a national identity, but merely stating the truth. Conversely, ethnic-minority people who claim to be British are indeed trying to remove our status as the titular nation in this country. We are labelled the White British solely in order to placate their demands to be recognised as the Black ‘British’ (and a number of other categories, including ‘British’ Asians and others). They are the ones causing offence by attempting to deny us our national rights. We ought not to assert ourselves in a boorish manner on the national question, but we should stand up for our nation, its territory, culture, laws and freedoms.

Long queues at Heathrow Airport are caused by Britain’s open door policy, and the insistence that many millions of people who have settled in our country and then behaved badly by refusing to assimilate to our culture are equally entitled to free entry to Great Britain. Even more distressing is the politically inspired policy to use members of the ethnic minorities to man our borders and decide whether we can enter our own country. People who behave in this way in another nation’s territory are certainly not well-disposed towards us; they are lording it over us, loving the indignation they provoke in us.

Policemen and judges are now frequently drawn from the ranks of the incomers in what I can only interpret as deliberate insolence, or even racial supremacism, as the insistence that England belongs equally to people of all races is designed to dislodge us from our prior claim. I have never claimed that China does not belong to the Chinese or that Nigeria does not belong to the Nigerians, but these ethnic policemen and judges exercise illegitimate authority over us on the basis of the political viewpoint that Britain does not belong to the so-called White British. My personal view is that there is little to be gained from challenging these individuals, but I would never volunteer to help an ethnic-minority policeman with his inquiries into any matter, no matter how serious. We also have the nonsense of our sporting identity, where we are expected to cheer on black footballers, or Britain’s Olympic team, many of whose members are drawn from the ranks of other nations, including those who should logically be representing Jamaica and other parts of the Caribbean. I would prefer to see Britain never win a sporting medal again than to see people who are not members of our nation (although quite possibly “British citizens”) draped in the Union Flag as if they belonged to the historic nations of the British Isles.

I cannot suggest we would be better off like North Korea, with no interaction whatsoever with the world, but Hong Kong provides an example of how a territory can have the deepest economic integration with the world economy without giving away its territory and culture. People from all around the world can travel to Hong Kong, generally without visas, but they are not invited to displace the Chinese population of Hong Kong as the territory’s majority community, and, although many foreigners do take up jobs in the territory’s financial services and other industries, the city remains overwhelmingly Chinese. We could easily have had strong links with the whole of the world, while retaining our own patrimony.

I personally do not accept the legitimacy of the British ‘citizenship’ of people whose ancestors do not come from Europe. People whose ancestors are French, German or from some other closely related European nation are likely to assimilate easily and, within a single generation, become normal, natural members of the British nation, recognised as such by all without coercion. People whose cultures are so distinct from ours that they seek to recreate their societies as enclaves here are simply unassimilable. A nonsense has been made of our citizenship rolls.

We cannot force massive population movements, not least because it behoves us to recognise that our own stupidity has played a role in the demographic overwhelming of our nation. But marriage to or a family relationship with an ethnic-minority person resident here should never be considered grounds for entry to the United Kingdom. I would like to see passports withdrawn from the ethnic minorities, replaced by Permanent Residence cards, which could not be used to vote, stand for political office or bring in spouses or family members. Public employment should be reserved for members of our nation—people of English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish descent—and the social welfare system should also be exclusively for our own people. Ethnic-minority residents who maintain themselves in the private sector (owners of corner shops and the like) would stay. Those who could not maintain themselves without access to public funds in the form of public-sector employment or welfare payments would be left to find their own ways out of our country.

This is not a harsh policy, but in fact the policy employed over the larger part of the world. English people who try to apply for jobs in the Chinese government or who demand Chinese pensions will find themselves knocked back. Just as every family reserves its household funds for members of their own families, we ought to prioritise the welfare of our nation. If we don’t do this, we will lose our position in Britain, and with it our freedoms too. We have brought in competing and warring cultural groups to jostle for supremacy in a single territory, destroying the basis for a free society and underpinning the role of the state bureaucracy in “managing” cultural conflict. It is likely that, even were my approach adopted in full, England would remain host to minorities from many different cultures, but social peace could be created by insisting on the rightful dominance of English culture in England. In this way, we could defend the rights of all the English, and stop trampling on the interests of our own disadvantaged. This is the only way that liberty for the English can be restored, as multiculturalism requires state coercion of our own people for its success.

Céadnithe an Chruinne-thómhais

Céadnithe an Chruinne-thómhais
(The Elements of Geometry.)

Sloínnte
(Definitions.)

1. (a point), .i. ionad gan méid.
2. Líne, .i. faid gan leithead.
Críoch líne eó, & cómhghearradh línte eó.
3. Líne díreach .i. líne gan casadh ann.
4. Uachtar (a surface), .i. ní ag á bhfuil faid agus leithead gan raímhre.
Críoch uachtair líne, & cómhghearradh dhá uachtar líne.
5. Clár (a plane), .i. uachtar ’na luíonn díreach idir aon dá eó ann.
Ní fhéadfadh dhá líne dhíreach luí ar a chéile, i gcuid díobh, gan luí ar a chéile ar fad, ná slí do chómhdhúnadh. Ní lú ná fhéadfadh dhá chlár.
6. Taibhse (a solid), .i. ní ag á bhfuil faid & leithead & raímhre, in éineacht.
Teóranna taibhse uachtair.
7. Oscall (an angle), .i. gabhal, .i. cómhrac (meeting) dhá líne.
8. Oscall dírlíneach (rectilinear angle), .i. oscall is de chómhrac dhá líne dhírigh1.
9. Díoroscall (right angle), .i. nuair ’ chómhracaid dhá líne dhíreacha & do-níd dhá chómhoscall 2 in aice a chéile, is díoroscaill an dá chómhoscall san, & is cómhdhíreacha3 dá chéile an dó líne sin.
10. Móroscall (obtuse angle), .i. oscall is leithe ná díoroscall.
11. Caoloscall (acute angle), .i. oscall is caoile ná díoroscall.
12. Línte díreacha cómhfhana (parallel straight lines), .i. línte díreacha in aon chlár & fan a chéile, i dtreó, pé faid do leantar iad, ar aghaidh nú siar, nách féidir dóibh dúnadh ar a chéile.

Nótaí

Do-níd: PUL here uses the traditionally correct absolute form of the verb déanamh, corresponding here to deinid.
Dhá chómhoscall: note the failure to use the correct dual form, oscaill, here. T. F. O’Rahilly comments in Papers on Irish Idiom, in which he transcribes PUL’s Euclid, that in the meaning of “angle”, PUL usually had oscall as a masculine noun, thus creating a contrast with oscall, meaning “armpit”. But he often had oscaill in the dative or dual, which O’Rahilly adjusted in his editing to oscall in line with the generally masculine declension of oscall when meaning “angle”. (The editing approach adopted by O’Rahilly seems flawed, as inconsistencies in the original manuscript should be retained and discussed, but that is another question.) Consequently, without checking the original manuscript, it is difficult to know if PUL had oscall or oscaill here.
An dó líne sin: is given in the original (i.e., the text as edited by T. F. O’Rahilly), where would be expected.

Foclóirín

ag: “at, by”. Note the combination ag á, where the CO has ag a.
caoloscall: “acute angle”, or géaruillinn in the CO.
céadní: “element, a basic part of something”. This may be an ad hoc word produced by PUL to translate “element”, as the word is not given in dictionaries. Possibly eilimint in the CO.
cómhdhíreach: “perpendicular”. This appears to be an ad hoc word produced by PUL, as the word is not given in dictionaries. Ingear is used in the CO where “perpendicular” is a noun, and ingearach where it is an adjective.
cómhdhúnaim, cómhdhúnadh: this word is not given in dictionaries, but slí do chómhdhúnadh appears to mean “to close the gap, to come together with no space left between”.
cómhfhan: “parallel”. This appears to be an ad hoc word produced by PUL to translate “parallel”, as the word is not given in dictionaries. Parailéalach is used in the CO.
cómhghearradh: “concision, curtailment”. Cómhghearradh dhá uachtar líne, “where two surfaces meet is a line”.
cómhoscall: “equal angle”. This appears to be an ad hoc word; the CO for “equal angles” is uillinneacha ar cóimhéid.
cómhracaim, cómhrac: “to meet, encounter”, or comhraicim, comhrac in the CO. Cómhrac dhá líne, “the juncture/confluence of two lines”.
cruinne-thómas: “geometry”, or geoiméadracht in the CO. Cruinne-thómas appears to be an ad hoc word produced by PUL, along the same lines as the word given in Dinneen’s dictionary, cruínn-eólas, “geography”.
díoroscall: “right angle”. This appears to be an ad hoc word; the CO has dronuillinn.
dírlíneach: “rectilinear”. This appears to be an ad hoc word; the CO has dronlíneach.
eó: “point”, especially the point of a blade. PUL uses this word to refer to a geometrical point, where the CO would have pointe or ponc.
faid: “length”, or fad in the CO.
gabhal: “fork”.
ionad: “unit”. PUL normally uses inead, but here the CO form ionad is found.
leath: “broad”. Listed in Dinneen’s dictionary as an obsolete word (more usually found as leathan), although the comparative leithe is sometimes found.
móroscall: “obtuse angle”. This appears to be an ad hoc word; the CO has maoluillinn.
oscall: “armpit”, or ascaill in the CO. PUL’s use in the meaning of “angle” here appears to be an attempt to create new geometrical terminology. Uillinn is the word used in the CO for “angle”.
sloinne: “surname”, but also “definition”.
taibhse: “solid”. This word generally means “ghost” or “appearance”, but Dinneen’s dictionary shows it can also mean “size, bulk”, and maybe by extension from here, “solid”. The CO form is solad.
teóra: “border, limit, boundary”, with teóranna in the plural. The CO has teorainn and teorainneacha.

1De chómhrac dhá líne dhírigh: dhírigh is as given in the original, although it is unclear to me that dhírigh is the right form to qualify a feminine noun in the genitive dual. More research required here.

2PUL: cómhoscall, an equal angle.

3PUL: cómhdhíreach: a perpendicular.