A Proposition or Blood and Soil Nation?

We have been transformed into a people of an idea from a nation founded on kinship and land by stealth. There are two different views of a nation. The progressive or ideological view is that a nation is not held together by the bonds of history and memory, tradition and custom, language and literature, birth and faith, kin and territory, but by abstract ideas. An abstract or ideological nation is supposed to be united by a set of ideals or are just an economy! They think that a fondness for Democracy, the Rule of Law and Free Speech binds immigrants into a nation. But without the ethnic-cultural core a nation dissolves.

Neither Democracy and Equality nor free markets are enough to hold a people together. The progressives think we can transcend our history and origins as a common people. This is the view I remarked in “Filling the Reality Gap” where people think they are creating a new nation. This follows the rationalist idea that if you get the premise right the right conclusion will follow but in practice human nature, accidents and circumstances prevent the perfect conclusion. (1)
The natural equality ideal was well shot by Jewish Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli in Chapter 24 of “Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography”(1852): “The Jews...are a living and the most striking evidence of the falsity of that pernicious doctrine of modern times, the natural equality of man... but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world. What would be the consequences on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled, and who would then be their superiors.”
Queen Elizabeth in 1596, sent an "open letter" to the Lord Mayor of London, stating "there are of late divers blackmoores brought into this realme, of which kinde of people there are allready here to manie," ordering that they be deported..

In 1601, she again complained about the "great numbers of Negars and Blackamoors which (as she is informed) are crept into this realm," "infidels, having no understanding of Christ or his Gospel," and had them repatriated.

There is concern that the immigrants will come to dominate us. We read repeated reports that we are becoming a minority in our own towns and cities. The immigrants are human and like us, are subject to the same failings and are likely to treat us badly as we did them. They would not be human if they did not bear us a grudge.

Sir Winston Churchill tried in 1955 to have a bill to control immigration drawn up which was not ready until June, two months after he stepped down because of his health. He wanted the Conservative party to adopt the slogan "Keep England White." (2)

The fifth Marquess of Salisbury, grand son of the great Conservative Prime Minister and descendant of Lord Burleigh adviser to Queen Elizabeth, fought in Cabinet to stop immigration. A letter preserved at the National Archive written to Viscount Swinton in 1954: “We might well be faced with very much the same type of appalling issue that is now causing such great difficulties for the United States. The main causes of this sudden inflow of blacks is of course the Welfare State. So long as the antiquated rule obtains that any British subject can come into this country without any limitation at all, these people will pour in to take advantage of our social services and other amenities and we shall have no protection at all.”

Oliver Lyttletton (later Lord Chandos) wanted to introduce deposits of £500 to be put down by immigrants: “ if there is to be means of controlling the increasing flow of coloured people who come here largely to enjoy the benefits of the Welfare State.”

Britain allowed anyone to immigrate but other Commonwealth countries were trict on admissions and refused “persons who are likely to become a public charge,” illiterates”, those deemed “undesirable” had “unsuitable standards or habits of life” many had quota systems and even dictation tests. Jamaica prohibited those likely “to become a charge on public funds by reason of infirmity of body or mind or ill-health or who is not in possession of sufficient means to support himself or such of his dependents as he shall bring with him to the island”.

Thirty–nine territories had entry permit systems or required prospective residents to first obtain permission.
(Lyttleton letter to Swinton 31/3/1954.)
The battle between proponents of the two views have been nasty with representatives of the dominant view treating their traditionalist opponents with contempt. I invite anyone to read in Hansard the despicable way the great Cyril Osborne was treated in his many attempts in the House of Commons to introduce Bills to control immigration. He first tried in 1954 under the 10 minute rule. Before it got to Parliament the Commonwealth Affairs committee had 17 present, 14 spoke but only one supported the bill.

In May 1958, 3 months before the race battles of Notting Hill and Nottingham, Osborne wrote to Labour leader Hugh Gaitskill who left it to his secretary to reply: “The Labour Party is opposed to restriction of immigration as every Commonwealth citizen has the right as a British subject to enter this country.” Three months after he instigated a Commons debate on the 5th of December 1958. Labour spokesman Arthur Bottomley stated, “We are categorically against it (restrictions).”

At the second reading of the Commonwealth Immigration bill (1961) he said: “The world’s poor would swarm to Britain’s welfare honey pot. We have neither the room nor the resources to take all who would like to come.”

Norman Pannell a Conservative MP in Liverpool had served in the Nigerian Legislature and lived in Africa for over 10 years. He proposed a motion at the 1958 Tory conference for reciprocal rights of entry with other Commonwealth countries, for the U.K. let anyone in.
He also addressed the 1961 conference on the perils of admitting criminals and the sick. The debate was stage-managed to stop Cyril Osborne speaking. Pannell stated that though Home Secretary RAB Butler in 1958 disagreed with limiting numbers, had agreed with his suggestion of deporting immigrants who commit crimes but done nothing.

In a letter to the Times of 13th December 1960, Birmingham Conservative Harold Gurden wrote, “on the health question we find the middle ring of the city, where immigrants are mainly concentrated, heavily peppered with dots of tuberculosis incidence. It is the opinion of medical officers that at least some immigrants are suffering with this disease before entering the country...We have a duty to our constituents.” In 2007 it was admitted that we had a record number of cases of TB which the elites have imported.

When we were homogeneous, we trusted one another and the police did not need to be armed; now they regularly have to shoot people in the street, we are under constant surveillance and have totalitarian race laws the rulers use to oppress us.
http://steadfastonline.org.uk/journal/?cat=5