Today Sean O’Neill of The Times deigned to inform us that “Race killings are no longer a matter of black and white”.

Well, thank you very much, Sean.  But excuse me if I am unimpressed.  Race killings never were the sole preserve of white men.  Your headline neatly avoids that, and I wonder why.  Specifically, I wonder why you didn’t write a story headlined, “Who wants you to think that race killers are always white?”

The problem, I suppose, is that it has been journalists of both left and right who wanted this.  What purpose but the construction of a false public perception did the press feeding frenzy over the Lawrence and Walker murders serve?  The Marxist prescription of white guilt somehow became theirs, and they sought to make it ours.

They have no excuses.  The purpose and perniciousness of political correctness was well understood in America by 1992, and the term itself was quite possibly recycled from early Soviet communism by right-wing academics as early as 1980.  What serious journalist of the right anywhere has not debunked it since, and enjoyed himself hugely in the process?

All the more extraordinary, then, that these proud linguistic gladiators, these professional cynics and modern inquisitors should all come to crowd together on an extreme ideological outcrop way out left of human nature.

Let’s take a look at O’Neill’s article today.  The meat of it is this:-

Official figures obtained by The Times show that victims and killers are of increasingly diverse ethnic origins.

... On close study the figures show that the patterns of racism are much more complicated than the stereotype of shaven-headed neo-Nazis abusing and attacking black and Asian people.

In a constantly changing Britain, with new migrant communities arriving from Eastern Europe and Africa, ethnic violence is no longer as easily identifiable as it was in the cases of Stephen Lawrence, in South London, or, more recently, Anthony Walker, in Liverpool.

Communities that were once victimised can also spawn perpetrators of racial violence.  In 12 of the 22 homicide cases categorised as racially motivated, the ethnicity of the victims was white. In four killings the victims were Asian and in three others, black.  The remaining three victims were categorised as “other”.

Paradoxically, given that slightly more than half the victims were white, half the principal suspects were also white.  In seven cases the suspected killers were Asian and in four the ethnicity of the killer was unknown.

There are white-on-white and Asian-on-Asian deaths, two cases involve Asian attackers killing whites and two relate to whites killing blacks.

A belated and very limited act of truth-telling, then.  But one in which O’Neill succeeds in demonstrating his own thorough-going Marxisation.  He closes by quoting black race huckster, Trevor Phillips:-

... close proximity of different groups does not necessarily equate to integration and understanding.  Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, has recognised that too.  Speaking this week about Lozells, he said that ethnic tensions arose because “people who are strangers to each other are ready to believe the worst about each other”.

The answer lay in dialogue.  He said: “Our agenda is equality, so people don’t feel resentful.  They need to get to know each other and that’s the act of a thousand little meetings ...”

So, our agenda.  And with Phillips stands who, precisely?  Definitely not me, or my people - for whom good, solid resentment is only just getting underway!  To judge from the complete lack of objectivity he accords Phillips’ quotes it must be O’Neill, then.

But why?  What’s the motivation, if indeed it can’t be fear of the much reviled Pee-Cee phenomenon?  An abiding love for suffering humanity, perhaps?  Something that would rank alongside the enthusiasms of the great and the good of Anglicanism?  But I’ve met a journalist or three and, believe me, these guys ain’t no saints.

How about professional self-preservation, then?  They just write for a living, you know … and will write what they must to keep the pay-cheques rolling in.

But consider the extreme case of Simon Heffer, a Cameron hate-object and one of the two or three most right-wing journalists working for the national dailies.  He writes in the Telegraph today of Karen Healy, a multiculture-mad headmistress in Stoke who attempted to ban the Cross of St.George from her school:-

Long before the BNP existed, the St George’s flag was my flag as an Englishman: and it was the flag of the English people who lived in Stoke-on-Trent, the rest of Staffordshire and all over our country. It symbolises our history, our culture and, above all, our Christian roots. It flies on Sundays from church towers, not as a rallying point for shaven-headed racist thugs, but as a symbol of the nation in which the established Church does its humane work.

All Mrs Healy did, in her zealous thoughtlessness, was help pass ownership of this benign symbol to extremists, bigots and bullies.

This man believes that our love of country accords with his race-blind “English” patriotism rather than the BNP’s unequivocally racial nationalism.  He is using some really quite vile language simply because he has to clothe his patriotism in the inevitable, leftist-style moral superiority.

Is it all synthetic?  I don’t know.  But I don’t believe that it is synthethised for the benefit of the Barclay Brothers.

Short of writing about cake baking, only two courses of action are open to Heffer and O’Neill.  Fighting for the English right to England is not one of them.  Fighting for a dominant English culture in an England of racial multitudes is.

This is still the preferred strategy of hard-bitten, hypocritical right-wingers like the members of the Cornerstone Group.  It enables them to come over all tough and right-ish about controlling the flow of asylum seekers and the removal of failed applicants, foreign criminals, overstaying students etc.  And it’s safe.  Things have not yet reached the point where they must cleave with the natural lines of race.  That point will be reached, and hard choices may have to be made.  But not yet.  Their parliamentary careers can continue unmolested.

In the world of the possible, of course, arguing for a dominant English culture is seen as arguing for anti-Islamic, anti-immigrant conditions which fostered 7/7.  This is completely impractical politics, and not the official position of any Party in the political mainstream.  Everybody is a social engineer nowadays, and you don’t have to be an egalitarian to want things to “work” somehow.

Writing about making it work, therefore, is the second course of action currently open to opinion-formers.  The London bombings have made critics of former friends and enemies of multiculturalism alike, Phillips at the fore of them with his calls for integration.  Sean O’Neill plainly falls within this new integrationist grouping.  Even in his article today, intended as it is to break the taboo over non-English racism, the blind presumption at the core of the argument is that a racially Marxist future is in everybody’s best interest.

For minorities that may be true.  For the rest of us neither Heffer with his ersatz resistance nor O’Neill with his integrationist piety hold out hope. 

We’ve heard all their commendations of hopelessness.  “A non-white majority is inevitable” … “the clock can’t be put back” ... “the egg can’t be unscrambled” ... “ returning to the 1950’s ain’t never gonna happen, pal”, etc.  These ideas aren’t propagandised at us from liberal-left power centres.  They are not just said by race hucksters and self-hating white leftists.  They are said - and believed - in the privacy of millions of ordinary English homes.  They are a discourse of the defeated, conducted beneath the constant drone from the political class to be always more positive about and open to change.

But change, too, has alternative meanings.  The unwanted brown-ness of England’s future is now understood by most if not all of us.  To some, race replacement is so completely offensive that no amount of Pee-Cee, no coercive measures by the state will dent their will to fight.  There may never be enough of them.  They may never be the mainstream.

Or they may.  And what will Heffer and O’Neill be writing then?