The latest immigration figures are worrying. Apart from the additional strain these incomers place on the NHS, schools, housing, welfare and the like, there are the threats posed to social cohesion and national identity. Calais is bursting with yet more hopeful migrants and now the EU wants member countries to take a proportion of the Mediterranean boat people.
There are two ways to take over a country, the first of which is by military action. For the victim this leads to the destruction of its property & infrastructure, and death among its population. Once hostilities cease and the aggressor is ensconced, one usually witnesses resistance being punished, free speech forbidden, culture suppressed, rights suspended and a festering, persistent disaffection toward the invader.
For those with patience and an eye on the long game, an unarmed alternative method of conquest exists; immigration. This involves the slow but steady entry to a new land and basic immersion within that culture. It is important to arrive few in number at first and ideally by invitation. Next, feign assimilation by smiling politely, notionally playing by the rules and causing little trouble whilst continuing strong ties with what will always be the mother country. Having become broadly established and accepted, the opportunity then arises for more arrivals. New generations born in the new land, preferably in large numbers, means foothold strengthened. Bolstered in number, it would then be logical to feel heartened and no longer prepared to tolerate a second class condition. Time to begin making demands of government, one which, if weak (or beset by post-colonial guilt), would readily acquiesce – entrenchment thus assured, whereupon it then becomes only a matter of judging if or when to make the move.
The last successful overthrow of this country was in 1066. Since then we have regularly thwarted the tyrannical ambitions of Spain, France and Germany. However, this country did some subjugating of its own, which often had innocuous beginnings, too. India is a prime example.
The East India Company (EIC) was granted its royal charter by Elizabeth I on 31st December 1600. In 1612 it sought to establish a territorial foothold on the sub-continent, the purpose being to arrange a commercial treaty that would give the company exclusive rights to reside and build factories. In return it offered to provide the Mughal emperor with goods and rarities from the European market. The mission was a great success. In 1634 English traders were welcomed in Bengal and by 1647 the company had 23 factories. At first EIC officials were encouraged to go native by adopting the local style of dress, marrying local women and so forth. However, as the company’s influence and military grew there was a change in attitude. In The Battle of Plassey in 1757 the EIC’s army triumphed over the Nawab of Bengal and his French allies. This made Britain the paramount European power in India. The century following Plassey was a period of expansion and consolidation for the company, which began to function more as an administrator and less as a trading concern. After 1815, EIC’s relaxed approach to the government of India was replaced by one which set great store in reshaping the country along European lines.
Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800-1859) was a British historian and politician. He was pivotal in introducing western concepts to education in India and supported replacing Sanskrit and Persian with English as the official language. He proposed the use of English as the medium of instruction in all schools and endorsed the training of English-speaking Indians as teachers. Macaulay divided the world between civilised nations, of which he placed Britain at the apex, and barbarism. In a contentious statement reputedly made by him he opined;
“I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.”
In the aftermath of the 1857 Rebellion, the British Government passed the Government of India Act 1858 and nationalised the EIC. The Crown took over its Indian possessions, its administrative powers and machinery plus its armed forces. Self-rule activism grew steadily in the early 20th century and following WW2 it became clear that empire had run its course. The indigenous people wanted their freedom and nationhood. In August 1947 India gained its independence and, six months later, the ceremonious departure of the 1st Battalion, Somerset Light Infantry, marked Britain’s complete withdrawal.
Today, some in our midst are applying the essence of Macaulay’s sentiments to a modern setting and endowing them with fresh purpose, this time to be brought to bear on us but more rapidly and far more stealthily. Those elements serve a foreign, ruthless ideology that has a global reach and fierce resolve. It sees us as weak, corrupt and contemptible. If unopposed, our downfall will not take hundreds of years to accomplish and I fear our disconnected political class neither knows how to deal with it nor really cares about the fate that could await this nation of ours.
It is now we who must struggle for the preservation of our culture and the return of our independence. Britain’s withdrawal is again necessary, this time from the imperious EU, and we must regain control of our borders.