Following my last piece, I wanted to briefly address a topic that recently did the rounds on social media. This saw several prominent figures from Britain’s media and political elite effectively denying that ‘white English’ exists as an ethnic identity. Fraser Nelson, former editor of The Spectator, stubbornly insisted that anyone who was born in England is automatically English, denying that English identity has an ‘ethnic undertone’.
The ensuing debate revealed how liberal elites pretend that ethnicity has nothing to do with ancestry - at least when it concerns white-coded identities - even though it is arguably the defining component. More importantly, it exposed their denial of a fundamental natural right: the right of a group’s existing members to determine its own boundaries. This right applies to all groups, including ethnic ones.
This media narrative usefully illustrates a term coined in my last post. When people pretend that an ethnicity like ‘white English’ doesn’t exist, or is purely an invention of ‘racist’ deplorables, they are promoting a discursive practice of conceptual genocide. Because when something is erased in language, it is erased in thought; and this is a precursor to its erasure as social and biological reality.
Before a people can vanish from the page of history, they must first be erased conceptually: denied as a coherent, self-evident entity. Some will argue that all ethnic or national identities are, to some extent, constructed. But this is a sleight of hand. The fact that social categories develop over time does not make them arbitrary. The English have recognized themselves as a distinct people for centuries, just like every other enduring group. Just because an identity develops historically, this does not mean it can be redefined at will.
Conceptual genocide is devastatingly effective as a rhetorical tactic because it disarms resistance at the deepest level. If a group cannot name itself, justify its own continuity, or assert its own moral right to exist, then it has already lost.
This is why attacks on identity are always framed as rational, procedural, or ‘anti-racist.’ The claim that ‘white English’ (or any other group) is an invention of oppression isn’t just an argument - it’s an act of aggression which delegitimizes the very possibility of attachment to that identity. And since identity is grounded in language, severing that linguistic foundation makes long-term survival in the real world almost impossible.
This is also why conceptual genocide is far more insidious than traditional forms of attack. It operates not through direct confrontation, but by making resistance itself feel illegitimate. The victims are not even supposed to recognize what is happening, let alone push back. According to liberal rationalism, that would be ‘racist’. The sheer dishonesty of the approach - waging discursive war while claiming to fight for peace, and verbally erasing a people while denying that they ever existed - makes it uniquely destructive.
This is not about physical extermination, but the erasure of group identity through linguistic and ideological means. It challenges the right of a people to exist as a coherent category in thought and language. It is part of the process by which peoples are rendered fungible and interchangeable. And it is characteristic of a managerial class whose modus operandi is to deny that it engages in suppression while ruthlessly enforcing it.
The fact is, there is a sense in which defending the boundaries of any category - including an ethnic one such as white English - is necessarily exclusionary. This should be embraced, not denied; otherwise, ethnic groups could not exist at all. And this is also exactly why it is intolerable to the liberal-rationalist, managerial elite, who can only accept abstract, universal standards. They do not simply oppose acts of prejudice or exclusion; they seek to dissolve the categories that make concepts like exclusion, belonging, or attachment meaningful in the first place..
To be clear, conceptual genocide should not be framed as a conspiracy or a plan, but as an emergent process of managerial control. It is sustained by ideological mechanisms rather than direct, coordinated action. It doesn’t rely on conscious intent. A managerial system cannot tolerate strong, self-sustaining identities because they create friction against administrative control. The ideal subject of managerialism is atomized, interchangeable, and infinitely adaptable - responsive to policies rather than bound by inherited ties. Conceptual genocide is not an accident of liberal rationalism but a structural necessity for a system that depends upon deracination.
And yet, residues of group-persistence are hard to eradicate. The moment a people reclaims the right to name itself, the process reverses. Once attachment is reasserted in language, the groundwork for real-world resurgence is laid. This is why the struggle for speech is not just about liberty: it’s about survival itself. Either a people asserts its right to define itself, or it is defined out of existence by others.