Monday, 29 September 2008

Opinonion: Multiculturalism has dealt a fatal blow to Britain

"In the name of multiculturalism, Britain has done something terrible to itself. Like a once proud King disowning his child, our nation has downplayed British cultural identity, leaving long-standing inhabitants fearful and new immigrants alienated, creating a vacuum ripe for exploitation by extremists.

Multiculturalism and its allied doctrines of human rights and anti-discrimination are acting as a kind of corrosive acid eating away at our institutions, values and national identity, like rust on an old penny-farthing.

What's more, they are also actively preventing us from defending our own country. Just look what happened when the Army said it wanted to put a 15 per cent cap on the number of recruits it takes from overseas - someone dared mention that this could be interpreted as 'discriminatory'. Madness.

Really, you don't know whether to laugh or cry. Although, surely, given the gravitas of this very article, crying must be the more appropriate reaction. It surely doesn't need to be said that to defend Britain, the armed forces must reflect and share the culture and values of British society - and, obviously, foreigners do reflet or share the culture and values of British society. Why not? Well, they just don't. They weren't even born here.

This is not a matter of treating foreigners less favourably - simply that a country has to be defended by those who are, overwhelmingly, part of it and thus loyal to it. It is because they identify with their country that they are prepared to lay down their lives for it. Immigrants, even legal ones whose families have been here for generations, CLEARLY are still not part of it and therefore are disloyal. Disloyal subjects would never want to lay down their lives for queen and country, even though thousands do every day by signing up for our armed forces. So many, in fact, that some military figures feel it necessary to call for a limit. For the purposes of this essay though, signing up to the army does not mean that a person is loyal to his country. I'm not sure why exactly, but my point is that these foreigners aren't prepared to lay put their lives on the line for Britain, despite the fact that they do just that, in droves.

For sure, there have always been foreign nationals who perform exemplary duty in our armed forces and have made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. But if there is no longer a critical mass of soldiers whose first loyalty is to Britain because they are not British, then that sense of a common struggle must dissipate.

Those last two paragraphs were really really difficult to write. They are probably even harder to read and understand. But I'm fairly certain there's an enormously valid point in there somewhere. If you can't understand it, that's because you're a lefty equality zealot.

Anyways, I've gathered myself now so let's attempt to shamble on. It's difficult to write when you're this outraged but you don't really know why. The important thing is that you just are.

The head of the Equality Commission, Trevor Phillips, objects to the Army's proposal on the grounds that it 'raises large issues of principle'. You bet it does: the largest is the principle of citizenship itself, at the very heart of which lies the duty to fight for one's country. It is that principle which the Equality Commission now wishes to destroy, like the Japanese destroyed Pearl Harbour.

On Planet Equality, it seems it is racist to have an Army consisting of Britons committed to defending their own country. That's because multiculturalism holds that no one culture can lay claim to be the custodian of this nation's values. Mass immigration is regarded, instead, as the means to transform this green and pleasant land into the nursery of the brotherhood of man. Pfft, how ridiculous. The brotherhood of man could only ever exist between men of the same ethnicity. That's why it's called a brotherhood; brothers are the same race. Apart from when they're of mixed race parents - but even then they're kind of the same. I think.

As a result, the country is increasingly resembling some kind of mass transit camp, in which fewer and fewer inhabitants have any permanent attachment or identification with Britain. That's why almost two-thirds of all applicants wanting to join the Army in London are now foreign nationals - hence the Army's concern. These two seemingly mutually exclusive statements - that fewer people have an attachment to our country and yet an increasing number wish to fight for that same country, are in fact not mutually exclusive. It makes sense.

This attempt to change the very nature of our country is now also affecting the most fundamental of our institutions. The Government is considering proposals to amend the 307-year-old Act of Settlement because it breaches human rights and sex discrimination law by not allowing a Catholic on the throne and by giving male heirs priority over older sisters. Of course, a law being 307 years old makes it far more respectable thatn normal, New Labour influenced laws. Rather than being outdated, long forgotton and irrelevant, it reflects Britain as it should be - old and traditional.

I could go on; indeed some columnists have. However, I think the point has been made (somewhere). Multiculuralism is a terrible thing and has destroyed British values, even though I have no evidence to support that claim. Some may say that, in fact, I have used evidence that supports the opposite of what I claim. This may be true, but I'm fairly sure it isn't. At the end of the day, the army said they don't want any more foreigners in the forces, and that MUST mean something."

Adapted from an article that orginally appeared HERE:

No comments:

Post a Comment