‘Is it cos I white?’

Dear English Heritage,

Thank you for providing your new program for ethnic minorities as described at this web site:


I wonder how you define ‘ethnic’. I have two daughters, both half Nepalese. Is that ‘ethnic enough’ to fit your definition? They have both English and Nepalese names, so if one applied as Zangmu Llama, I presume her application would be accepted, whereas if she applied as Jane Hawes, may I presume it would be rejected?

One of my daughters looks Asian. She has ‘Mongoloid’ eyes and epicanthic folds. My other daughter doesn’t; she has white skin, dark hair and eyes. She is often told she looks Spanish or Brazilian. If she were to apply, would she need to prove her ethnic mix? How do you determine who is ‘ethnic enough’? Do you ask questions about the sex lives of applicants’ parents, or do you require birth certificates? What happens if a birth certificate does not record the father’s name?

What exactly counts as ‘ethnic’? Does Jewish count as an ethnic minority? Many Jewish people look exactly like my daughter. Does Spanish count as ‘ethnic’? What about my previous husband who was half Singaporean and half British? He and his brother looked completely different: one looked Chinese and the other looked Caucasian. Does 25% ‘ethnic’ count? Does 12.5% count? Where does ‘ethnic’ end?

Would it be accurate to say that if two children of one English mother applied, one with an English father and 10 A stars at GCSE, and the other with an ‘ethnic’ father but 1 grade C at GCSE, you would only accept an application from the latter? Is this fair?

Your offer of training places exclusively to ‘ethnic’ applicants seems to breach anti-discrimination law. Have you ever advertised a similar scheme exclusively for native British people? Is English Heritage being blatantly racist?

Martin Luther King looked forward to a time when people would not judged by the colour of their skin. I wonder what he would have said about English Heritage’s racial discrimination.

With a falling birth rate and native Britons becoming a minority in an increasing number of British cities and towns, does English Heritage have any position on how to conserve the English people?

Yours faithfully, Catherine Blaiklock

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

36 Comments on ‘Is it cos I white?’

    • From her wiki page:

      “Blaiklock’s first husband was a Nepali called Gyaljen Sherpa whom she met in 1997 at Everest base camp,[a][3][12] and with whom she has two children.[4] Her second husband is a British Jamaican, Christopher Kirkpatrick.”

      Catherine is unfaithful to her own gene-line, but she is singularly faithful to a vigorous and true conservative critique.

      • As a general point Guessedworker, I think it best to assess people on their constructive contribution, nett nett, to the Greater Good Cause.

        This is esp so when our backs are up against a wall that cannot be jumped over, and we are fighting for our mere existence.

        For example, a person born Muslim who well and truly ceases to act in accord with Islamic practices and ceases to pursue Islamic goals could well be a useful contributing citizen in a Western nation.

        Yes, establishing the validity of such non-Islamic conditions would be a tough assignment -but I offer the condition as an example of what I am suggesting.

        • Your premise, Harry, is dangerous (though still common among the religious, the conservative, and the like). We English are not on this little patch of earth … our home … as “Western nationalists” or as “Western civilisationists”, let alone nice white people who are perfectly willing to share our land today, and lose our meaningful existence as a people tomorrow, for the convenience and benefit of alien, colonising populations. We are a people, not a cultural group; and our survival and continuity as such is our absolute value, for without that there is nothing for us.

          Miscegenation in a colonisation scenario represents the gene-killing of a traditional native family line. We cannot, then, be indifferent to it. But neither can we be insensitive to the plight of those who choose it. We are in cultural crisis. These things happen. The question is whether a given miscegenator has any remaining service to render to our people; and because of the grip of political correctness and anti-racism, some do. Indeed, some may be able to connect to the politically correct in the polity and communicate our truth than we who have never miscegenated may be ourselves. Such people are a positive in that respect and I, for one, welcome any help they can offer.

          As for Muslim apostates, no; we do not want to cure the Asian colonisers of our home of their religion. We want to secure the existence of our people and an English future for our children, and the sole means of achieving that is mass repatriation of our colonisers. There is no other way to life for us.

          • Powerful points you make Guessedworker.

            For the moment though, I think the best we can work for is for Muslim groups here to get loyal to the West/the UK, and quit being a nett cost to their hosts. No re-pat scheme seems feasible -for all variety of reasons.

            And miscegenation -with all its negative consequences for those involved and among those who pay for the broader fall-out- is simply not preventable, again for clear reasons.

            Best to work on remedies and defences that are politically feasible and humanly practicable.

            (But I am struck by the images and themes in contemporary Russian war movies that use The Great Patriotic War as their backdrop: Devotion, to the death, to one’s own -one’s own people, one’s own land, and the great tenderness towards one’s own people in the most terrible of circumstances, all with deep comprehension of what is at stake. Such themes are absent in contemporary Western arts-entertainment, to say obvious)

        • Harry, who told you mass repatriation is not preventable? There are many things that can be done to make it so, some manifesting as “carrots”, some “sticks”. In any case, we have no choice but to repatriate our colonisers. There is no outcome if we fail but our death, in the same sense that, statistically speaking, there are no Maori alive today in the Land of the Long White Cloud. There are only mixed-race people with varying degrees of Maori descent. The Maori as such have gone forever.

          This is what awaits us. Let us not be defeatist about it. Let us not be respectful of the vast power exercised by those who want the New Deracinated Man in our home. We must live. We do possess the right in Nature to do whatever we must in that cause. Join that fight however you may.

          • Guessedworker, let us treat each other with appropriate respect.

            No one has told me about the impossibility of repatriation.

            This impossibility is obvious to me without the input of others’ views.

            To be clear:

            I see all the negatives of “multiculturalism”. And I see the factors that over the decades have combined to make our current situation so very, very bad.

            And I see the currently decisive political weight, among whites, that favours the continued inflow of anti-Westernist/anti-white groups who will always incur massive nett costs on productive, law-abiding whites.

            And I see the appeasement with which our politicians and all their allies in the civil services, and in the “law”, and in media and arts-entertainment and non-education industries treat these anti-Westernist/anti-white groups.

            Because: no appeasement will result in more costs in general, and specifically in loss of more white lives and confiscation of white wealth, and destruction of white property.

            And I see how more of these enemies are waved in, daily.

            Now, let us focus our energies on feasible, necessary preliminary preparation.

            -rather than dissipate ourselves on frontal attacks that will only fail and result in our encirclement by the forces who have most to lose by any changes to to the current situation, as terrible as this situation is, in loss of white lives.

          • It is for nationalists to make a full-spectrum frontal attack, grounded, one must hope, in an Heideggerian perspective and not a cod-Nietzschean one. My own work within nationalism is dedicated to that philosophical decision. It is hard going even twenty years after the BNP committed in principle to what it called ethnonationalism, largely for the reasons I have set out at my own site but in detail in this essay here:


            In the medium-term traditional conservatism must relinquish its mechanical and learned opposition to our nationalism, and find deeper human values than those it currently espouses. We must all become nationalists in the ethnic sense of the term. But that is scarcely possible while the nationalism which is extant today is still drawing its precepts from the continental post-WW1 era.

            As regards seriousness I think one has to proceed from the existential arguments for our people’s life. Actually, nothing else is serious. As regards realism … taking cognisance of the current political dispensation … that is very much my intention with the communicational project I mentioned earlier. I do not believe that there is another clean and executable way to prepare the political round. I have written a brief paper on that, dated some six weeks ago, and which I can send you if you are interested in understanding more about it. We need conservatives like you and Catherine aboard.

          • Yes Guessedworker, I recognise your great scholarship and the intellectual powers that you bring to it.

            And I am certain that others have already benefitted and will continue to benefit from your work in these areas.

            Now with utmost respect, I encourage you to explore what it is to think, feel and act like a Great General.

            And perhaps partner-up with an experienced, successful General -well, several actually.

        • Why? Because we are living in the end time of our people. There is a gene-killing in train, and every principle and value, every belief, every attitude, every action is of the highest import. Do you not understand that?

          • Strategy, Guessedworker, strategy.

            Focus on organising and mobilising the political and material forces that will save us.

            With “every principle, value and belief” in mind.

            But generalship in the field -that is what is required.

            What we understand and what we do -these inform each other, of course.

            But beware talking about symptoms -when underlying causes must be dealt with, in practical and material terms.

          • Harry, I am not a political person myself. It is for others to organise politically.

            All I can really do is to gesture towards the intellectual task of creating a structured response to those forces and ideologies which have driven us to this point. If one stands back a little one can quite easily see the outlines of two such streams of formative influences, one material and historical, the other ideational and historiographical, thus:

            Technology, modernity, urbanisation, alienation.
            Capitalism, materialism, economism, commodification, homogenisation,
            Power elitism, cosmopolitanism, globalism, immigrationism,

            Judaism and the Jewish ethnic paradigm, Christianity, liberalism
            Individualism, atomisation
            Universalism, utopianism, equalitarianism, socialism/Marxism

            All this we oppose. All this we must address, if we are to secure the existence of our people and an English future for our children. But it is a massive task to create a systemic philosophy of epochal meaning and application, as you will appreciate. We are decades behind with it, and our people do not have decades to act politically and freely. Nevertheless, we must do what we can, obviously.

          • I understand what you are saying here Guessedworker.

            I wish you all best of all kinds of strength in your work.

            I will say that, in my view, in all fields of human endeavour, the best that has been said is for the person to have a robust system of ensuring that the right questions are being asked, the right problem is being formulated in the most productive way, that one’s resources are being best focused in the most important areas. And that the senses/references/implications of “best”, “important”, “right”, “productive”, and similar, are also subject to frequent re-assessment.

            With respect, Harry.

  1. The demonising of white men generally and the demonising of white women who love and marry and bear and carefully raise white children with white men -in the context of stable home-life supervised by those white mothers and provided for by those striving, working, white fathers in close attendance- has contributed greatly to the destruction of the West, esp the Anglosphere.

    And the clever-boots who did the demonising -females and males and non-whites and whites there in the elites- are enjoying themselves immensely with the entertainment that pertains, and really getting-off on the celebrations of their woke celebrity in the media, among the arts-entertainment people, among the educationists, and at dinner tables of said elites.

  2. Interesting. I’ve often wondered about this. My understanding is that race and ethnicity are separate things. Of course, ‘race’, is merely a term that groups people based on common characteristics, and there is obvious overlap with ethnicity.

    Race: Between three and five major races – Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid (and perhaps Capoid and Australoid).

    Ethnicity (ethnic background): The cultural identity of a given group which can include geographical origins, birth place, nationality, ancestry. culture, language, customs and traditions. One can have multiple ethnicities.

    I’m a mixed bag. My father is an Englishman, my mother Chinese Singaporean (vs Singaporean Malay, for example). I was born in Rhodesia, which became Zimbabwe. I grew up in Zimbabwe and had a Zimbabwean passport. I’ve never been to Singapore or China, and don’t hold any of those passports. I emigrated from Zimbabwe to England in 2001, using my British passport.

    What am I? Any number of combinations including White, Chinese, Mixed Race, Zimbabwean, English, Singaporean, and African. If I was a leftie I would have enough ammo to join the intersectional oppression olympics.. 😉

    If having British ancestry is a requirement to claim British ethnicity, can I, with my mixed heritage, part of which is British (English specifically) ancestry, claim to be British (or English specifically)?

    • Roger Morgan:

      If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has a drake for a father, it’s probably a duck. You look like an Englishman, write like an Englishman, and have an English father. I think you’re English. (Some of us might also be delighted if you described yourself as a Rhodesian.)

      But if you ever need assistance from the NHS, the DWP, the Police or English Heritage, it would be wise to claim to be “mixed-race”. (And if you need top priority, claiming that you’re a mixed-race woman beginning her transition would work.)

    • Roger Morgan, a good answer to your question is along these lines:

      It’s one thing to have heritage/s.

      It’s another to decide which side you are on, and to act decisively in this matter, and to give your life dearly in upholding the essential norms of contributing citizenship/membership, with great vigour, with focused, ever-persistent attention, in pursuing the aims of your chosen side.

      This is esp important when your chosen side is being assaulted both by outsiders and by insiders who are ignorant ingrates and who take much from but contribute little/ nothing that is positively constructive to one’s side.

      And yes, it’s bit hard to do that now, now that the Western white elites no longer regard as essential to their (the elites) achieving what they want to achieve.

      And note that the ultra-elites -in money-making, in political power, in the arts&entertainment&non-education&the civil service industries agree on anti-Western/anti-white aims and disagree on others.

      But the big thing is, these ultra-elites and most of ordinary Western, white post-Christian folk have lost confidence in the guiding ideas they inherited from their Western, white Christian/nominally-Christian forebears.

      As such, the main question now is:

      Are there just 10% of Western whites who’d give their lives, over the coming decades, to retrieve all that was good of their Western white inheritance, and then act with full force to improve it in various ways, and to re-assert its rightful place as a material and spiritual home fit for heroes and heroines and their blessed children who are raised properly by their parents to continue with the fight that must never cease.

      It’s like that, in my view.

      Or, it’s The Abyss, on whose edge we now teeter.

    • Roger, the four native ethnicities of this land are closed to you, but that does not mean that you cannot love your native British parent’s people and desire their survival and continuity in their own home. It does not mean that you cannot find the politically engineered gene-killing which has been arranged for us deeply hateful and unnatural, and it does not mean that you should not move heaven and earth, of you can, to void it. You should do all those those things, because that is the moral course (you are bound to judge the issue morally, for the other way to judge it is via the instinct of the blood, which is for us natives alone).

      I am a nationalist and I know the revolutionary nature of the struggle in which my English people are now, through no fault or desire of their own, impressed. But I hold out my hand to those who know that struggle to be necessary and righteous, and would hold out my hand, differences notwithstanding, to you if you know that, too.

    • Oh yes, the appeasement of Muslims is bad alright, and costs countless lives.

      Ditto in the case of blacks.

      And actually, in this New Age of Utter Naive Idealism, as fueled by the combination of Affluence and anarchy-inspired Arts & Entertainment & Non-Education, the politicians and the various arms of the civil service have simply given up trying to control violence-

      -and that includes white violence too.

      • Most notably they refuse to police white violence by ‘peaceful’ BLM protestors, but love to order police charges against lockdown protestors or those defending Britain’s statues.

        • Yes Nick, there’s that.

          But also check on length of sentences for convicted white criminals of the violent variety.

          And the numbers of unsolved violent crimes generally.

          It’s too hard for the police to do anything to stop violent criminality in these days of Utterly Naive Stupidity and Totally Asisine Sentimentality About Whose Lives Matter.

          The rights of violent criminals -of any race and of any creed and of any non-creed, exceed that of the victims, esp the white ones.

  3. Catherine, your reference to the falling birth rate amongst native Britons reminds me how much we have, in the fairly recent past, been warned against overpopulation of not only these islands, but of the world.
    It is therefore very ironic that, as we move towards a more sustainable population, we are, by Government policy, being swamped by immigrants from cultures so alien to ours and with birth rates so much higher, that we will be losing our national identities within little more than a couple of generations.
    And this goes for the rest of Europe too.

  4. ‘native Britons becoming a minority in an increasing number of British cities and towns’

    That is true but hardly helped by Ms Blaicklock’s matrimonial choices.

        • Robert Sharpe:

          There is no such thing as “the British race”. If there were such a race, we Saxons, who started arriving here a mere 1500 years ago, wouldn’t be part of it, and ought to be sent back to Anglobongoland.

          • I cannot agree. Despite every denial and denigration, there is a British race. It nobly prevailed in its British homelands for 1000 years until the start of its gradual extirpation in the late twentieth century.

          • Race is genetic variation at the level of the continent. So Europeans are a race of Man. We are Europeans.

            Sub-race is genetic variation at the level of the region. So Northern Europeans (or Germanics) are a sub-race of the Northern race. We are Northern Europeans.

            Ethnicity is genetic variation at the level of the nation. The English, Scots, and Welsh are ethnic groups of the Northern European sub-race of the European race of Man.

  5. When this nonsense appeared about 20 years ago during the 1st Blair government the form we had to fill in with regards to ethnicity of Councillors had me stumped, so I went to seek legal advice from the Council solicitor. Locally, it is well known that during the Crusades a group of Turks came to live on Biddulph Moor. I asked whether or not this counted and the reply was,’ It is what you feel’. Seeing that the Council had no ethnics at that time I was able to give them a flying start by ticking, Other, and now on all government forms. As Catherine Blaiklock says, ‘How far back do you go?’

  6. The case of Matthew Furlong is indicative of modern recruitment. Key to this, is that Mr Furlong only found out that he was being refused a position on racial grounds, because his father, who is a member of the Cheshire Constabulary, was able to ask questions about how recruitment was being conducted. Without that inside knowledge he would never have known.

  7. Is English Heritage racist? Yes. Anti-white racist. Antis ethnic British racist. Anything which promotes anyone from another ethnic grouping ahead of a native British person is ani-white racist.

    Star calling it out publicly in those terms.

  8. All these sorts of things enacted by various “government” entities are to cover up the massive nett costs to productive, law-abiding white groups that are imposed by certain non-white groups, at levels far, far above the nett costs imposed on productive, law-abiding whites by non-productive, non-law-abiding whites, per capita.

    Across the Anglosphere, there is legislation and self-imposed anti-empirical group-think that restrict/prohibit public exposure/discussion of these matters.

    These nett costs are in categories direct and shadow, tangible and intangible, material and spiritual, short-term, and in pertpetuity.

  9. “Is English Heritage being blatantly racist?”

    Do bears blatantly defecate in the woods? As you know, the National Trust, the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides, the Football Association and all other UK institutions are similarly infected.

    “Your offer of training places exclusively to ‘ethnic’ applicants seems to breach anti-discrimination law.”

    Try arguing your case in Tony Blair’s “Supreme Court”, and see how far you get.

    “Martin Luther King looked forward to a time when people would not [be] judged by the colour of their skin.”

    As we know from FBI records, what that evil man most eagerly looked forward to was being supplied by his assistants with women for him to rape. Please don’t quote him as if he were admirable.

    I recently read an article in Le Figaro which suggested that the UN-endorsed abolition of the Kingdom of Nepal hasn’t ended Socialist terrorism there. Is that right?