Britain is not a "multi-cultural" society, and could not be one even if its people wished it.

The only people who say otherwise are the politicians and the media, who together comprise the oligarchs who run this hapless country.

Take the comments of Peter Riddell, a leading liberal journalist whose generic opinions mirror largely those of his cohorts in the press, many of whom use the same type of syntax and adopt the same air of self-righteousness. Riddell criticised MP John Townend's claim that "our homogenous Anglo-Saxon society has been seriously undermined by massive immigration." That view, said Riddell, "is not only obnoxious, but is also historical nonsense on a vast scale."

Yet on other occasions Riddell and his cohorts have said: "Britain is a multi-cultural society." If so, then clearly there is not one culture but many, and Townend is therefore right. Dr. David Coleman, the Oxford academic demographer wrote: "The claim that the British population has been transformed radically by post-war immigration seems no more than the truth... immigration is ceasing to be a matter to be discussed freely... the acceptability of comment on major political issues such as this should not be a matter of taste, or of nervousness about giving offence, only of truth and evidence."

Richard Hoggart, a respected veteran commentator on British cultural trends, wrote in his The Way We Live Now that the phrase - "We are now a multi-cultural society" is often aggressively and loosely used, as though the speaker thinks Britain is by now a patchwork of several roughly equal ethnic and religious groups. Riddell and others have hoisted themselves on their own petard far too often in the race and immigration debate. Their generic liberal opinions are frequently based on factually incorrect assumptions. Britain has long been a diverse society, say most journalists. Yet the immigrants only started coming here from the 1950s onwards so Britain has only recently become a diverse society.

Self-contradiction

They say that multi-culturalism is "enriching". Yet their own press stories reveal a sordid world of ethnic crime and alienation, race tribunals and communal resentment. Now they have dropped that angle, and say instead that we need millions more immigrants to fulfil labour shortages. But in a crowded country like Britain the social and economic disbenefits vastly outweigh any benefits. Millions more houses and schools will have to be built to accommodate the new arrivals, many of whom will be dependants and their families.

The argument could be put more simply: we do not need more immigrants because we do not need the goods or services most of them provide. There is a glut of cars, electronic gadgets, clothes, food and commodities of all kinds. Sweatshop industries exist because crooked entrepreneurs want to make a fast buck by trying to undercut national pay rates and world commodity prices.

The problem is that most journalists are not people of much intellect and simply cannot handle the dramatic social and racial changes that have overtaken this country in such a short space of time. They fail to realise that ethnic minorities are members of "diasporas". One Asian wrote to the press recently saying that: "We have not come here as Asians and Africans but as Britons." This is clearly not the case, since London is now full of first-generation Africans and Indians who retain their own passports. They are not even "British" in the legal sense.

Worse, the media fail to see that immigration is a political issue, and is the direct result not of "globalising" trends but of unchecked governmental policies. This is why media people should beware of the word "racism". It is not a word used by the general public itself, and neither is it used among Third World peoples, where ethnic and tribal tensions are often rife.

No other ethnic nation has tried with such desperation to disconnect nationality from race purely for the benefit of the "diaspora" communities they have allowed in.

Our real origins

Robin Cook, the [former] foreign Secretary, declares to the world that Britain's strength lies in its "multi-cultural origins", the recent Third World immigrants just adding to an already rich stock. The Americans seem to know better. A briefing note at the website of the US State Department said recently: "contemporary Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century. The pre-Celtic, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Norse influences were blended in Britain under the Normans, [the] Scandinavian Vikings who had lived in northern France."

That a leading British politician tells lies about the kind of people he is governing and has to be put right by foreigners testifies to the growing regime-like character of this country. Not a single British journalist has contradicted Cook's remarks. One problem is the dumbing down of the British media. Britain now has no serious daily journal akin to Le Monde or the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. As a result the kind of writer employed by British papers has changed. What we get now is just someone who has gone on a media course and has only a cursory knowledge of world cultures and foreign affairs.

Politically correct judges

Apart from media bias, several other features have contributed to Britain's immigration fiasco. Judges are now allowing illegal immigrants to stay in this country despite the Home Secretary's attempt to remove them (this growing politicisation of the judiciary has taken even liberals by surprise).

Secondly, the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) is a powerful executive Trojan Horse whose sole purpose is to determine the direction of Britain's immigration policy. Other European politicians have not restricted their own autonomy in this way.

And only in Britain is the immigration issue discussed on the nation's airwaves with the ethnic minorities themselves who represent the sending countries. In other European countries asylum and immigration issues are discussed by indigenous commentators, acting as spokesmen for the actual receiving communities. Now there is pressure from the wider community for more openness about immigration issues. This suggestion greatly embarrasses the media, constantly hectoring authoritarian states for suppressing unfavourable opinions. Belatedly, the chiefs of the media are beginning to realise that they are fast getting out of kilter with not only European intellectuals but with what is happening in the rest of the world.

"Multiculturalism" is increasingly viewed as an outdated 20th century concept, the product of the totalitarian (communist) mass movements that tried to remould, "modernise" and politicise their societies. In the process, of course, they brought war, dislocation and oppression to Europe.

Professor Samuel Huntington says the West is in decline because its liberal elite has confused "modernisation" with "westernisation", when the latter actually means European Christian civilisation. Liberals hence are in the process of rapidly destroying their own "modernising" capacity by bringing in other competing civilisations, many with overtly un-Western views, to live within European borders.

Despite this, the world is now reverting to the 19th century concept of nationalism. All European races, virtually alone in the world, live in genuine pedigree nations. They are ancestral peoples surrounded by landscapes upon which they have built their own preserved heritage. The inhabitants hence have a shared history (rather than merely shared political values). Most people in developing countries are members of no more than tribes. The languages they speak do not match up with the names of the places they are living in, the frontiers of which were decided upon arbitrarily in the 18th and 19th centuries, and in large part by Western powers.

Further, most intellectuals in foreign lands are nationalists, since they often oppose the autocratic regimes that govern them and wish to hand back power to their own people.

Some 25 new countries have come into existence since the end of the Cold War. All civil wars in the last decade have been about nationality and sovereignty. No people has been prepared to fight in the cause of membership of supra-national institutions or of multi-culturalism.

Some Western academics are becoming increasingly scathing about recent developments. Sir Alfred Sherman points to the danger to social stability and democracy if immigration continues on its present scale. Professor J. P. Duquid of the University of Dundee wrote recently: "Firm action by governments to prevent replacement immigration is obstructed by opinion-leaders whose misguided altruism leads them to favour helping foreigners at the expense of their fellow countrymen."

William Pfaff, author of The Wrath of Nations, wrote, in regard to immigration: "It is the duty of a government to be selfish in the sense of looking after its people first... We can be charitable, but not if this endangers the well-being of our families or those for whom we are responsible." Ludovic Kennedy also wrote: "In the past immigration has greatly enriched this country, but to allow any more will aggravate what is already a growing lack of balances." At last, the liberals may be losing their monopoly of the immigration and nationality debate!

Nation na'shun, n. a body of people born of the same stock: the people inhabiting the same country, or under the same government: a race: a great number: an old division of students in universities. [Fr,... L. nationem, nasci, natus, to be born.]