The English Are Sick of Being Polite
There is a fascinating new debate taking place in England over what it means to be English. Until post-War non-White immigration, this didn’t even need to be discussed. To be English was to descend from the Anglo-Saxons – Angle-land – who settled in what is now England after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Some pub bores would insist that there is a degree to which, in the west of the country, the Anglo-Saxons interbred with rather than simply replaced the Celts, meaning that those in the west were a Saxon-Celtic cline. This is true, but they are still descended from the Saxons and this is so even if there was an incursion of Normans, Vikings and Danes. As Frank Salter has shown in On Genetic Interests, the native English make up a distinct genetic cluster, two random English people are more genetically similar to each other than an Englishman and Frenchmen. On average, two random English people are twelfth cousins and they all descend from King Edward I, due to the way in which those of high status used to have higher completed fertility.
Multiculturalism has forced people, out of politeness and out of a desire for equality, to attempt to overturn this; to completely redefine what it means to be English. Such that Black and brown people can be included, and such that any sense of English identity and attachment to the pre-Multiculturalism past can be obliterated, opinion-formers have attempted to redefine Englishness. This process may have started as far back as the 1980s. There was a political advertisement by the Conservative Party in which was a Black man. Beneath him was the slogan: “Labour Say He’s Black. Tories Say He’s British.” Except most of them didn’t: “British” meant you were English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. Therefore, very few people thought he was British, let alone English. In the 1980s, Black football players would be regularly booed and subject to monkey noises at matches.
The new definition of English, or British, is simply that you are born in the country. The ludicrousness and tendentiousness of such a definition is brought into stark relief if we ask, “If a White person was born in Bengal, does that make him Bengali?” As the Prime Minister and military leader the Duke of Wellington, whose Englishness was questioned because he had been born in Ireland, put it: “Being born in a stable does not make one a horse.” But this was something that, until relatively recently, prominent people simply didn’t say.
We English all knew that Englishness was a matter of blood; we were an extended genetic family based around shared ancestors. But, being English, we tried to be polite and to not publically talk about such things. However, as I have pointed out in my book Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism, the Woke appear to be accelerationists. They have manifested because, with the collapse of harsh Darwinian conditions since the Industrial Revolution, there has been a huge build-up in mutation. Prior to that. we were selecting for mental health, physical health and group-orientation to better win the battle of group-selection (conservatism). But now there has meant a build-up of mentally unstable, left-wing, selfish people who virtue-signal to the point of anti-natalism: feel bad for being White, feel bad for being human, abort your offspring, do not have children, White people are evil. . . . This eventually creates a situation where the only survivors are the genetically conservative and it creates a conservative backlash before it’s too late.
These mutants have now taken over the culture and have become so tyrannical that conservatives have found themselves utterly excluded and having the feeling of being “in the world but not of the world” that fundamentalists have. Conservatives have been forced to find each other and they strongly bond with each other over shared adversity. In other words, Wokeness has created polarisation and once you are in the “conservative” camp, and understand that people will back you up, you dare to state your genuine opinions and you also conservatism-signal, such that the long-buried are reawakened. Further, Wokeness is, a sense, the new Church: it is, effectively, inviting young people to rebel against it. Conservatism is, ironically, now edgy, rebellious and cool, at least for a portion of young people. Remember the 1990s cartoon Daria? If she’d been born in the year 2000, I’m fairly sure she’d be “trad” and her sister would be Woke. And naturally, the English were pushed even further when, in 2022, they found themselves with an Indian Prime Minister and, in fact, all senior government positions occupied by non-British people. The English are also constantly being pushed further by unrestrained non-White immigration and the attendant crime, including the rapes of little girls. Serious politicians are, therefore, discussing remigration.
Sensing the way the wind was blowing, in February 2025, the right-wing Conservative former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who was born in the UK but whose family are from Goa, declared that though she was British she was not English, as this was clearly an ethnicity, like being Bengali. In a Woke context, only a brown person could dare to say this, and, in so doing, she was likely trying to make herself likeable to the increasingly angry English population. The comedian Nick Dixon joked on Twitter, in response: “I’ve always liked Suella Braveman and I will be sad when she is deported.”
In August 2025, a journalist called Robert Tombs wrote in the Daily Telegraph that Englishness didn’t really exist and, if it did, it was a culture that could be learnt. Naturally, this was met with derision. Did he think that cultures fell out of the sky like thunderbolts and randomly hit groups of people? Of course, there is a genetic component to Englishness. The previous month, at a public debate entitled “How to Save England,” Tombs had made the same assertion. It was met with gasps of disbelief from the (young) audience, with people insisting that Englishness was a matter of ancestry. Tombs, it should be said, is part-French, so not fully English.
For many years there has been a debate among feminists over what it means to be a woman. The typical Cluster B Personality Disorder, virtue-signalling “activists” have screamed as loud as they can that “Transwomen are real women.” This is important, because to say otherwise might hurt the feelings of victim-signalling men who are sexually aroused by the idea of themselves as a woman. Other women would regard it as “mean,” and women, being highly socially anxious, must seem “kind” in front of other women; in front of people whose friendship system is based around finding alloparents for their hypothetical children.
So-called “TERFs” (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) insist that sex is biological; you cannot change sex and, in that sex is a matter of your chromosomes, they are obviously correct. Tranwomen are simply deluded men who are trying to make us take part in their delusion.
The same debate has now arrived in the world of Englishness. Some people seem to believe that you can be trans-racial or trans-ethnic. This is palpably absurd. What we mean by “English,” as English people, is a person who is a member of our genetic family; a person who shares our ancestors, the founding ancestors who occupied our piece of land for a very long time. And it is Woke tyranny that has forced the English to be so impolite as to say this. We are fed up of being polite. A growing body of us are FERNs (Foreign Exclusionary Radical Nationalists) and, like ferns, we know our roots, deep in the primordial forest.