indigenous culture. But if their numbers are too numerous, or if they don’t wish to integrate, it then becomes impossible for the indigenous culture to absorb them. If there simply aren’t enough peoplewho can identify with the country’s history, then it cannot be taught. And since any nation is rooted inits history, the national identity unravels. Being ashamed of our country’s past, no longer becomes aquestion of any relevance, as there is no longer a sense of any collective ‘we’.In his `Civitas` pamphlet ‘The Need for Nations,` Roger Scruton insists this situation places democracyitself in mortal danger. He suggests that without national loyalty, there can be no common ground. Ademocracy works only if its members think of themselves as ‘we’. If there is only ‘them,’ people nolonger acknowledge the validity of the laws that bind them, and are no longer prepared to makesacrifices or die for a country inhabited by people they don’t know or trust. The result is thatdemocracy withers, and social disintegration follows.David Goodhart, editor of the liberal magazine Prospect, makes a similar point. He says:“
We are linked by a set of common values and assumptions. But as Britain becomes more diverse, that common culture becomes eroded. And if we feel we no longer have anything in common with our fellowcitizens, we will no longer be prepared to pay for common welfare provision”.
Following his considered and thoughtful discussion of an important issue of national significance, Mr Goodhart found himself in the `gun sights` of no less a `grandee,` than the chairman of the Commissionfor Racial Equality, who labelled him a racist, and likened him to Enoch Powell and the British National Party. It is sometimes difficult to grasp how on earth have we reached the point, where aclearly decent man is smeared a racist simply for wishing to preserve his national identity? Why isBritain so much less attached to its own culture and traditions than the Dutch and the Danes, who haveachieved far less, or other Europeans like the French who have their own colonial history to contendwith? And why has education unraveled the culture in Britain to an extent not seen elsewhere?
Home To Roost:
The prime suspects in this sorry saga are the radicalised, `baby-boomers` of thesixties and seventies, who having been indoctrinated with the insidious ideologies of Cultural Marxismin university, set out to infiltrate and destabilise western society. They had much less impact in Europe,where institutions remained robust enough to mount a solid defence, and language provided a bulwark against the `new` ideas coming across the Atlantic from America. Schools still transmitted their traditional values, the family held up, and the churches were strong. In Britain, however, theseinstitutions simply collapsed. The welfare state, in promoting a culture of rights, had erodedresponsibility and duty and encouraged instead a culture of narcissism. This created fertile ground for the cult of personal choice promoted by the radicals.In addition, the shared language and close cultural ties with America made Britain particularlysusceptible to the Neo Marxist programmes of child-centered education, extreme feminism andminority ‘victim’ rights coming across the `pond.` In Britain, a State monopoly over schools anduniversities meant there was no challenge to these ideas, which aimed to disconnect citizens from thetraditions and established values of the nation. When faced with this rout, the established church merelywrung its hands and screamed, “No Mas,” then dutifully followed suit. As a result, the three pillars of national identity; family, education and church crumbled.
Britain and the other English speaking nations may be in the vanguard of this process, but it is part of a global trend, carefully planned and orchestrated by the `Hidden Power.` The