Multi-Culturalism is officially dead. Apparently, whether white, black, brown or yellow, "we are all British now." But is the new formula better than the old, or could it lead to the even more rapid destruction of the British people - and is that the real intention?

No less a personage than Mr. Trevor Phillips, Blairite supremo of the Commission for Racial Equality, has undergone a conversion. That, at least, is the hype we've been told to swallow. Whereas formerly Trevor and the CRE were fans of multi-culturalism, now they have suddenly discovered that, instead of celebrating the differences which had been supposed until now to have 'enriched' our dreary and outmoded Anglo-Celtic culture, there is a universal "core of Britishness" to which we should all alike aspire.

This rhetorical shift in a direction redolent perhaps of Norman Tebbit and his 'cricket test' for immigrants has, predictably, been lauded to the skies in particular by media 'neo-conservatives' of the Melanie Phillips/ Simon Heffer variety.

British meant 'racist'

On the surface of it, this no doubt looks a startling change for a man like Guyanese-descended Phillips (Trevor, that is, not Melanie, who belongs to a different ethnic minority). Trevor Phillips until recently was regarded as a veritable firebrand of radicalism. Indeed, only a year or two ago he was denouncing the very word British as 'racist' and demanding such things as a modern south African-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission to deal with 'racist' police officers. For Trevor in his Mark I version, "not indulging cultural differences [created] disharmony," according to the Sunday Times (2nd May) account of his apparent change of heart.

But now listen to the reinvented, Mark II Trevor. Multi-culturalism, he told the ST, "suggests separateness... We are in a different world from the 1970s... one in which people are equal under the law, where there are common values - democracy rather than violence, the common currency of the English language, honouring the culture of these islands, like Shakespeare and Dickens." Nowadays Phillips even puts in a word for the merits of making St. George's Day a public holiday, so we are told.

A far cry, all this, from earlier CRE fulminations against Britishness as "the ruthless imposition by the colonial white hegemony of alien norms and values upon a subject people powerless to resist", to quote Rod Liddle in The Spectator (1st May), describing Phillips' earlier views and attitudes.

Has Tony's confidence

But before we go overboard with enthusiasm alongside the journalistic panjandrums of the Tory right, there are perhaps a few flies in the ointment that we ought to be investigating. To begin with, Trevor Mark II most certainly enjoys the confidence and backing of No. 10, just as surely as did Trevor in his Mark I incarnation. "With only Tony Blair acknowledging voters' real concerns over immigration last week," says the Sunday Times report, never were Phillips' persuasive skill more needed."

Here we're getting to the real crux of the matter, for, as the ST remarks, despite his reputation for radical militancy Trevor has "close links with senior New Labour figures and has always come to the aid of the party in times of crisis." Moreover, "He is able to morph easily among the influential circles he has cultivated since his days as a student activist, broadcaster and politician."

Plainly the man of the hour - and how! Here we have just the fellow to head off the kind of popular national rebellion which could spell potential disaster for all the powers and principalities that currently bestride the globe. For a point is rapidly being reached ("a crisis of confidence in multi-culturalism," as the Sunday Times coyly describes it) where the cowardly passivity of the mass of Britons (and other Whites in other countries, even liberal Holland) in face of the multi-racial New Order and its excesses can no longer be so safely relied upon as in previous decades. It is necessary for a new red herring to be spun, one which moreover will seem superficially sympathetic to the ideas and values of the white majority, if such a rebellion is to be averted. Enter Trevor Phillips!

For it is not really too hard to see that Trevor's 'conversion' is not quite the dramatic Damascene affair it is presented as being. In fact, what is on offer is not only "more of the same", but more of the same poison laced with additional arsenic. If ever applied literally, single-mindedly and ruthlessly enough, it would serve to abolish Britain much more swiftly, effectively and thoroughly than the creeping Balkanisation of our society implicit in our present form of multi-culturalism.

This is no doubt why the likes of Tony Blair could sign up to Trevor's new formula with something much more than mere equanimity. It is of more than academic interest that the present Prime Minister and so many of his closest Government colleagues have their political roots in the juvenile student radicalism of their university days of thirty or more years ago, however expedient they may find it to dissemble their true natures at election time.

The object of the revolutionary forces of modern times, which Blair and his cohorts have served in various guises from their youth, is a global tyranny that can brook no deviation from its pattern. Above all, its architects cannot tolerate the existence of distinct and coherent racial identities, nor any desire in the separate branches of mankind, especially European mankind, to maintain such identities. The universal proletarian servitude their system requires is quite incompatible with the sort of independence which such separateness implies for the peoples who enjoy it.

Flooding of white lands

Hence the deliberate uprooting since World War II of so many Africans, Asians and other non-Europeans from their homelands to provide unprecedented waves of migrants to flood into the regions of European race and culture. This has been done, and is still being done, under a number of pretexts, but its constant effect and deliberate, if more or less surreptitious, agenda have always been the same: to subvert the European identity of Britain and all other white nations.

Hitherto it has been possible to thrust this agenda upon the British and other white nations by a subtle mixture of browbeating and bribery. For over 50 years an intimidating public consensus in favour of so-called 'racial equality' and against so-called 'racism' has been fraudulently generated by means of an aggressive, unremitting and one-sided propaganda, conducted with official backing under governments of all political stripes, through every agency of public information and instruction. Not only has the general population been psychologically disarmed but the atmosphere thus contrived has lent itself to the introduction of legal repression against dissidents actively opposed to the dispossession and ruin of their peoples, with these dissidents being maligned and marginalised as 'haters' of other races.

If one adds to this the sloth and apathy which material well-being has brought in its train, and in which white westerners have been sunk for so long, it is not hard to see how all truly effective and sustained political opposition to mass immigration and multi-racialism and their consequences has been thwarted. In such circumstances, the costs of resistance for the individual have vastly exceeded the benefits to be anticipated in any short term; and the more materialistic we have become in our outlook the more short-term we have become in our thinking and behaviour. Self-sacrificing fighters for the cause of race and nation have been in understandably short supply.

People becoming restive

But now the globalist machine is moving up a few gears. Material insecurity is widespread as a result, and few can see an end to it. There is growing angst as more and more people become disquieted and restive, increasingly aware that their worries are directly attributable to the globalist policies of their governments, the most prominent mark of which is mass alien immigration and its impact on the general quality of life.

Having picked up these vibrations, our political overlords find it expedient to play on, and actively sow, as much confusion around the real issues as possible. The veritable pièce de résistance of 'spin' would be to make it look as if, while abolishing our identity, they are somehow acting to preserve it! This is undoubtedly the audacious psychological game plan in the apparent volte face of Mr. Trevor Phillips. The more things change (and the faster they change) the more contrivance there must be to make it seem as if they are staying the same.

For there are in reality two levels at which the British (and European) identity is being threatened: that of culture and that of physical (or biological) race. Popular anger at mass immigration and its consequences naturally finds its initial flash-point at the level of culture, where totally foreign customs and folkways irrupt into a previously settled and determinate community whose members are both culturally, and in a high degree physically and biologically, kindred.

One may easily find examples, in Britain and elsewhere, of the kind of culture clash that recent immigration has brought in its train. For instance, when Bangladeshis flood into the East End of London they speak a foreign tongue, follow an alien religion, descend upon the community in vast extended families, and network among themselves in ways incomprehensible to local indigenous British folk, who find themselves displaced in very short order.

Then there is the 'Islamic Republic of Bradford', where almost complete communal apartheid is now said to prevail between Briton and Asian. Here Muslims from the Indian sub-continent have mobilised as a group to dominate local politics and recreate this once proudly British industrial city in their own image. They have demanded everything from Halal meals and mother-tongue education in local schools to public subsidies for madrassehs and mosques, and been given much of it. A not too dissimilar pattern has emerged in North West England, the East and West Midlands, certain suburbs of Glasgow and other places too numerous to mention.

Now, without offering to do anything practical about the presence of what is seen as this 'alien wedge' in our midst (to use Enoch Powell's expressive phrase), Mr. Trevor Phillips, acting in the capacity of His Master's Voice, holds out a simplistic 'solution' involving a sort of cultural alchemy. Raise young ethnic minority members in the English language, he suggests, teach them about Dickens and Shakespeare, wag the Cross of St. George from time to time and, hey Presto! They will miraculously evolve into fully fledged Britons.

A superficially seductive formula for the naïve, this is in reality a cynically deceptive one which studiously begs the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question of whether such a transformation is remotely possible. It does so especially by ignoring the physical and biological side of man's identity as if it were of no account. Further, its implication is in fact that the best way for us British to save our cultural identity is to sacrifice our racial one!

For sheer naïvity, one figure surely stands head and shoulders above any other involved in this controversy. The prize here has to go to former Bradford headmaster Ray Honeyford, a man of simple liberal outlook, according to Rod Liddle, who is "as far from being a racist as it's possible to get." Honeyford, it may be recalled, was driven from his headship at the city's Drummond Middle School some twenty years ago after a long and nasty campaign of intimidation mounted by left-wing militants and ethnic-minority agitators. Contrary to the local educational authority's multi-cultural policy, he wanted his Asian pupils taught in the same way, according to the same curriculum, as their white counterparts. "They knew they were Asian, he was quoted as saying," and they knew they were Muslim. But they didn't know they were British.. Stating his overall philosophy in the Daily Mail (12th May 2004), Honeyford wrote:-

'It was, I suppose, a belief in integration and a rejection of both racial prejudice (sic) and multi-culturalism.'

Political class close ranks

Whilst Honeyford has been enthusiastically appropriated by the Tory right, his views would seem to chime perfectly with those of Trevor Phillips, whose purpose is stated as being an "integrated society." Once again, our political class closes ranks in a conspiracy against the welfare of the British people.

For nothing could be more ruinous, not to say lethal, to us than the "integrated society" of the Phillips and Honeyford imagination.

Central to the ideology of the New World Order and its protagonists has always been the claim that differences of physical race are either culturally, socially and politically without importance, or, in recent times - as such ideologues have grown bolder (and we have become more brainwashed), that they do not even exist! There is no such thing as race, they say, and there are no human differences so rigidly innate that their effects cannot be ironed out by education.

We need not enter here into a detailed account of the ferocious intellectual civil war which has racked Europe, America and all the other lands of white civilisation during the past half-century over the question of race. Suffice it to say that in the contest between the apostles of human equality and the champions of heredity the academic battle honours have overwhelmingly gone to the hereditarians - a fact tacitly acknowledged by the 'equality' brigade in their refusal to meet their challengers in an open public debate over the matter. If the notions of the egalitarians have continued to hold sway as the sole permissible point of view this is not because of their scientific merits but because it suits all the powers that be in our society to elevate them to the status of dogma. Dissenters from all this all-but-obligatory consensus have suffered everything from ostracism to physical violence for their pains: the names of such illustrious thinkers as Professors Shockley, Jensen, Eysenck, Herrnstein and Murray spring to mind.

Races irreducibly different

In fact, the only sound conclusions to be drawn from objective consideration of the arguments are quite straightforward. The races of mankind are naturally and irreducibly different from one another not only in their anatomy and physique but at least as profoundly in their instincts and behaviour - that is in all the key characteristics that bear upon cultural potential. This must limit rigidly the cultural adaptability of every human individual.

Neo-conservatives in particular like to argue that, to quote the fatuous adage of that icon of theirs, Margaret Thatcher, "there is no such thing as society, there is only the individual." But biologically, every bit as much as sociologically, this is unspeakable nonsense. An individual's race is the defining element of his or her personal identity; each and every human being is a phenotypal expression of the gene pool belonging to the breeding population from which he or she is drawn. The human species contains a number of such discrete sub-groups, each reproducing its specific physical and behavioural characteristics in a balanced and consistent way from one generation to the next, so long as it avoids uncontrolled and promiscuous out-breeding. In this way such factors as national character are able to emerge and survive.

With the exorbitant faith in the transformative power on human beings of changes in social environment (above all by way of education) that liberals always profess, the likes of Honeyford and Phillips want us to believe that such qualitative human factors are transmissible across racial boundaries. The theory is that not just knowledge and belief, and the externals of culture they imply, but character too can be inculcated by the right educational curriculum, man being limitlessly plastic within the wide boundaries set by the nature of the human species as a whole. In other words, with the right curriculum, any Chinaman, Indian, Congolese or Australian Aborigine has as much chance of attaining the qualities of an English gentleman as any one of us. Racial or sub-species identity is no true obstacle, and the sky is the limit!

It can hardly be doubted that the real Phillips agenda in adopting this new line of cultural assimilation to a common British norm is to promote the rate of inter-racial fusion. What the prophets of 'core Britishness' are offering us, in the name of opposing the multi-cultural fragmentation of our society, is social unity at the price of our disappearance as a people!

What alternatives: balkanisation or extinction! The frying pan or the fire! This is the ground onto which they want to steer the public debate over the racial future of our country and our civilisation. True nationalists will reject the whole nefarious package.

The CRE siren song is actually nothing new. The integration to which Phillips and Honeyford aspire can be, and has been, imposed by sufficiently authoritarian governments. The history of the Portuguese and Spanish empires testifies to the fact, as it does to the consequences. For under the guidance of the Catholic Church both Iberian kingdoms sought to consolidate their grip on their overseas territories by means of assimilating all their peoples to the metropolitan norm from the 16th century onwards, at which the kings of Portugal officially banned racial discrimination in the colonies (shades of modern legislation closer to home!), as well as permitting the importation of negro slave labour into the metropolitan country itself to replace much of the country's free peasantry. The racial consequences are visible to the present day, with wholesale racial amalgamation as the result.

Declining through racial admixture

In the upshot, neither nation achieved consolidation of its empire as a single Lusitanian or Hispanic political and cultural unit which its rulers aimed. Such policies contributed neither to the native vigour of Portugal nor Spain, both of which rapidly went into long-term decline, nor their control of their colonies. The mainly mestizo and negroid inhabitants of Latin America today largely exhibit only a debased cultural coinage, an attenuated travesty of Lusitanian or Hispanic identity.

Surely it is hardly to be expected that any mixed population made up of elements at too great a distance from each other in terms of physical/biological race could ever efficiently embody the values, aspirations and achievements of any high European culture, such as the ones the Iberian peoples took with them in their voyages of discovery and conquest across the globe.

Surely too, modern Brazil and Mexico are hardly the type of countries we should wish to hold up as role models for our own! Their pattern of 'integration' applied to ourselves would eventually cost us the unique genius, inherent in our genes, that is at the root of our distinction as a nation. We would quite simply no longer be the people of Shakespeare or Dickens, with the ongoing potential to produce more of the same. The seal would have been set on the abolition of Britain.

We must decline to slumber in the fool's paradise that the Phillipses and Honeyfords are setting up for us by verbal trickery and ideological sleight of hand. We must firmly reject any simulacrum of cultural continuity they try to fob us off with, whilst on the sly they carry through the most radical transformation imaginable - that of the national DNA.

In face of the global tyranny stealthily advancing itself with such manoeuvres, we might profitably recall the words of Edward Gibbon on the subject of an ancient revolution and the methods of the tyrant in promoting it.

'Augustus was sensible that mankind is governed by names; nor was he deceived in his expectation that the Senate and people would submit to slavery, provided that they were respectfully assured that they still enjoyed their ancient freedom.' (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)