Kemi Badenoch, a Nigerian immigrant and Tory post girl for diversity, now serving as Equalities Minister in Boris Johnson’s government, has been in the news for her response in the Commons two days ago to a demand from Dawn Butler, Labour MP and the daughter of Jamaican immigrants, for the decolonisation of the school history curriculum.  Here is the guts of her reply:

Of course, the media are very excited about a black woman minister tearing into BLM; and it is good to see.  But the interesting thing is this passage at the end of the recording:

“Any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory as fact, or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law.

No doubt she is referring to one of the Education Acts.  But from a nationalist perspective it is simple racism to speak of, in Ms Badenoch’s words, “whiteness as oppression”.  Any generalised, race-based accusation directed at our ethnic kind is simple racism.  The practise of anti-racism itself is racism.

There is a primary and universal principle at issue here, which is that all peoples grouped by kinship naturally self-identify, and naturally express self-interest and self-concern.  In fact, British law does not disqualify any ethnic or racial group from so doing.  It is silent on the matter, seeking only to defend all groups defined by their “protected characteristics”, one of which, importantly, is national origin.

Our defining characteristic is not solely that we possess the physical trait of white skin by way of our northern European descent.  Our identity as the native ethny of the land which bears our name is also our defining characteristic of origin.  It is a proving point of difference to every other group in our home, white and non-white, for it automatically orients our self-interest and self-concern as qualities of a people equipped by Nature with the right, unique to us here, of defence of life and land.  It cannot be otherwise.  British law, in protecting our national origin, cannot but protect that orientation or it is to void it of meaning.  Nowhere does British law void our native status of meaning.  The principle of non-discrimination itself cannot void the native status of its meaning, for that would be discriminatory and therefore fall foul of itself.

British law does not void our native ethnic self-interest and self-concern of its meaning.  Therefore, attacks on our nationalism as the expression of that meaning (ie, as defence of our people against non-national groups colonising our home) cannot be lawfully made or communicated.

Discrimination against our native status is possible only because of a quite unexamined and one-eyed presumption that our act of self-defence is illegitimate merely because it expresses in opposition to the other groups who have come into our home over the past seven decades.  Those groups, by their acts of colonisation, initiate the oppositional relationship.  No native people, ensconced in its own home, can be held uniquely responsibly for the oppositional character of the relationship between coloniser and colonised.  It is the party which is offended against.

The moment is nearing when we must establish if the existing protections under law, ie, those parts of legislation dating from the 2010 Equalities Act back to the 1986 Public Order Act which are relevant and have force, apply equally to all.  If so, we must recover our right to speak and act in our own group interest, free of untrue and hateful accusations, like any other group.  The fact that, as the natives here, our people’s ethnic interests run contrary to the interests of non-native groups and to government policy on race, immigration and population is completely immaterial, and cannot constitute a lawful basis for discrimination against advocacy of our ethnic interests.

If action is taken one day and succeeds, the results will be felt across the polity, turning the tables completely on anti-racists, breaking their one weapon into small pieces, making us respectable at a stroke, and leaving them to stew in their own inexpressible hatreds.  The press will also be unable to mechanically employ the use of the same hateful and untrue terms, and could additionally be in breach of libel law if it does so.