Having previously scoffed at the suggestion that we indigenous Britons might well be out-bred by foreign incomers anytime soon, that is not to say that our traditional way of life, our historic cultures, our well founded practices, or indeed our accepted means and norms are entirely safe from malignant and regressive outside influences.
After all, thirty or forty years ago, who would have imagined that in 21st century Britain, we would still be permitting the barbaric medieval slaughter of animals for food, when much more modern and humane methods are available? Who would have believed that in a largely gender neutral state, we would still be permitting women to be regarded as or treated as second-class citizens, or worse still, as mere chattels? Why would a country with one of the most evolved and secular legal systems in the world willingly choose to defer some of its own judicial authority to what are fundamentally ancient religious courts?
Why is a modern, generally secular state so instinctively averse to clamping down on religious fundamentalism and intolerance, or the grotesque, illegal and outdated cultural practices such as female genital mutilation, forced marriages, or the widespread and almost industrialised targeting of white girls for sexual exploitation? Why has it become almost acceptable for non-English speakers to live and work in our country for years on end, without having put any sort of effort into learning our language, either written or spoken? How has it become permissible for religious fundamentalists to covertly take over the running of some of our schools, thereby allowing them the opportunity to influence and corrupt some of our youngest and most precious minds? In a similar vein, how have we reached a point that small groups of young men, holding wholly unrepresentative fundamentalist views, are free to wander the streets of our country verbally or physically attacking those who don't share their faith or their opinions?
How is it that we have allowed the re-emergence of the "rotten borough", where religious and ethnic based bigotry, politically correct incompetence and outright criminality have become acceptable everyday activities? How have we managed to reach a point that in the coming general election, the most important for a generation, a small number of parliamentary seats will not only be influenced by, but might actually be decided by, those ballots cast by non-British born voters? How by any measure, can it be right for any single minority to have such influence on our political classes that it is only their needs, their opinions, their beliefs, their demands and their agendas that hold sway over those of the mainly silent majority?
If we cannot defend, or deliberately choose not to protect those things that make us who we are as a people, that distinguish our national identity from all of the others in the world, then won't that make us all equally complicit in the long term destruction of the British nation, which will almost inevitably be the long term outcome of our own inaction and indifference. If a nation is defined as "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language and inhabiting a particular state or territory then surely all four nations of the United Kingdom, are equally at risk of losing their shared history, culture, languages, as well as the rest of their commonly held practices, if we allow things to continue as they are.
After all, if we continue as we are, having increasing numbers of migrants settling from all over the world, then how can we realistically claim to have any sort of common descent? If our commonly shared histories continue to be revised, ignored and repudiated then how do we remain united through a mutual celebration of them? If our shared and traditional cultural practices are amended, proscribed or demeaned, simply through fear of offending another minority group's cultural sensitivities, then what hope is there for the British people? If we are content to have our common historic languages and regional dialects undermined by the forced introduction of a plethora of foreign and generally unfathomable tongues, then where is the commonality, or the national unity in that? If what remains of our traditional national religions continue to be further marginalised and challenged by what is fundamentally a minor foreign faith, then just how long will it be before its values, its laws, its interpretation begin to supplant those that have existed in Britain for well over 1500 years?
Clearly, there is an argument to be made that Britain, its history, its culture, and its languages has been built through foreign immigration in one form or another, whether through military invasion, commercial enterprise, or through simple human resettlement. Of course nobody with a modicum of commonsense, or a reasonable grasp of our island's history would dispute that, but it is absurd to try and equate what happened over a nearly two thousand year period of our country's history, to what has happened over the past forty or fifty years. In between each of the great influxes of foreigners to Britain, whether that was the Romans, the Anglo Saxons, the Vikings or the Normans, there were also significant periods of peace, stability and perhaps more importantly assimilation, where these outside influences, with their various foreign cultures, practices and tongues were absorbed into the prevailing British way of life, whilst also adding their own distinct flavour, in order to create a new and improved nation state.
Contrast that particular social outcome with what we're being forced to accept today. Not only have we been unwittingly compelled to accept millions of foreign migrants arriving on our shores, speaking a multitude of languages, holding a host of disparate cultural practices, believing in a plethora of foreign deities and containing a significant core who have no real interest in, or intention of integrating themselves into the prevailing British way of life. Instead, they are more than content to set themselves and their communities apart from the British mainstream, to retain their own cultural practices, their own native languages, their own belief systems and even their own legal and economic services. What is particularly ironic about this, is that most will still claim that they have migrated to Britain to benefit from the freedoms that it offers, freedom from religious and social persecution, from financial corruption, from economic stagnation, from religious fundamentalism, from sexual exploitation, from social isolation and a host of other man-made miseries that they claim to be escaping; and yet as soon as they arrive in Britain, they immediately begin to replicate the very same sort of society and social ills that they claim to be escaping from.
Despite what certain elements of the media would have us believe, perhaps Britain's greatest weakness is its people's tolerance, the inherent willingness to believe and to help those who we perceive to be worthy of our aid, even to the point of disadvantaging ourselves by doing so. In other words, we're suckers for almost any hard luck story we're told and as a direct consequence our tolerance and goodwill is regularly taken advantage of by any "chancer" who has a sad story to tell. How else would you explain our almost insane tolerance towards those elected political representatives who routinely lie, cheat and steal, yet still get re-elected? How else could you explain the fact that we give away billions of pounds in Foreign Aid to some of the undeserving causes and nations in the world today? How is it that we routinely offer sanctuary to some of the world's most vicious and despicable criminals? Exactly how is it that two minor religions in the UK have managed to dictate the way in which a significant number of our food animals are slaughtered, without the majority of us having been asked or informed beforehand? How is it exactly that we've arrived at a point in our country's history that a regional police force seems to be more concerned about protecting the sensitivities of an ethnic minority community than they are about upholding the actual rule of law? Just why is it that we deem it acceptable for young men born in Britain to set off across the world to murder, rape and loot in a foreign land and when they have had enough to simply come back home and face justice here, rather than in the lands where they committed their heinous offences?
If, as the old expression says, a house divided against itself cannot stand, then where exactly does that leave modern Britain and what does the future hold if we continue on our present path? After all, not only do we have our traditional and long held laws and culture being altered and diminished, not only do we have increasing numbers of foreign enclaves and ghettoes establishing themselves within our major towns and cities, but we also appear to have our ruling political classes actively trying to dismember the country by nationality, by region and even by city area. Were they to be successful in their aims, where would that leave Britain then, with the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish all separate; and all competing to promote their own individual nationalist causes, rather than a single British one? Worse still, where would Britain be, if England began to be divided down into its various regional entities, with Yorkshire trying to compete against Lancashire, or the North East competing against the North West, where would their common British ties be then? How could we profess to be a single unified modern nation, when neighbour was set against neighbour, region against region, city against city and the country was largely put back to a time not seen since the Anglo Saxon "heptarchy". By no stretch of the imagination could that be seen as a progressive move for our country, but perhaps represents the biggest retrograde step our nation have ever taken in the past two thousand years.
When in 1983 the late Michael Foot MP, the then leader of the Labour Party, decided to campaign on the most left-wing manifesto in a generation, one of his colleagues, Gerald Kaufman MP, described the document as the "longest suicide note in history", in recognition of the fact that such rabid left-wing policies would not be that appealing to the British electorate, which indeed proved to be the case. In a sense, by virtue of placing such policies in front of the British people, Mr Foot virtually ensured the electoral destruction of his own party for the next 14 years, through his own leadership, that of Neil Kinnocks and right through to Tony Blair, who finally returned Labour to power, as New Labour, in 1997.
Similarly, it might well be argued that from the perspective of Britain's national identity, in terms of its shared common descent, its history, its culture and its language, we have already allowed so much of them to be sacrificed on the relatively new dual altars of multiculturalism and political correctness, without actually recognising the importance of their loss to our traditional way of lives. If things like common descent, history, culture and language truly do define our nationality, or our nationhood, then will their diminution through our own inactivity, apathy and overt tolerance almost inevitably lead to their final disappearance; and if it does, what will we have to call ourselves then, Europeans? Just like Michael Foot was thought to have destroyed Old Labour through his outdated left wing policy manifesto, could it not be argued that anyone who continues to vote for the increasingly progressive legacy parties, the LibLabCon, are equally guilty of helping to commit the "longest act of national suicide in history", the death of traditional Britain as we know it?