Remigration anybody?

Saturday’s Daily Mail contained a special report by Paul Bracchi detailing the activities of a dangerous and sinister new extremist group. Members of the group are typically young, white, middle class, well-educated, well-dressed and well-mannered. They don’t go on marches, shout abuse or espouse violence, preferring instead to engage in ‘study circles’. They are the members of Generation Identity (GI UK), the most active far-Right organisation in Britain.

According to the Mail, members of GI believe that that we are being ‘swamped’ by immigrants, ‘our ethnocultural identity’ is under threat, that a ‘great replacement’ is going on in which white people in Britain’s cities are being replaced by people of other ethnicities, that ‘Islamisation’ must be stopped, that the English will soon be ‘nothing more than a footnote in the history books’, and that we need ‘a revival to our culture and our way of life’.

Of course, many will find these views deeply offensive. But there are many others, including, I suspect, a great many Mail readers, who will, judging from the comment section of their website, concur wholeheartedly – at least in private.

Two things cannot be disputed. First, there is a demographic change going on in Britain’s cities (not yet in the towns and villages) which is changing the face of Britain. Second, the change is happening at such a pace that many people are ‘unsettled’ – a phenomenon all parties now recognise; and, therefore, immigration must be better managed. Yet this recognition even among liberals that some people are being ‘unsettled’ masks the central issue. The euphemism ‘unsettled’ is carefully chosen. While a diverse multicultural society is still to be welcomed, immigration must be managed so that ordinary people (the unenlightened folk) can handle the change better – i.e. their irrational fears can be overcome and the transition to a diverse multicultural society, which is superior to a homogeneous monocultural society, effected more smoothly. But do people want to live in a diverse multicultural society? In what sense is a diverse multicultural society superior to a homogenous monocultural society? These questions are forbidden – forbidden by the mainstream political parties and the mainstream media, including the Daily Mail.

Perhaps there are good reasons for this censorship, for to discuss these questions openly is to put at risk the very foundations of the diverse multicultural society our political establishment is trying to fashion. But should we be surprised that ordinary people – these people who are ‘unsettled’ – want to discuss the issues?

There are, I think, two specific aspects of GI’s ‘alt-right’ worldview that need challenging.

First, GI’s association of the English and Englishness with a specific racial or ethnic type, as if culture were a genotype, is both misguided and offensive to those who love England and are not white – as in the case of the Windrush generation, whose attachment to England and its culture ran deep. This justifies their vilification as ‘racists’. As GK Chesterton once remarked, ‘Nationality exists, and has nothing in the world to do with race … it is a product of the human soul … a spiritual product’. Chesterton memorably encapsulated the stupidity of confounding race and nationality: ‘I certainly should not like to have been the officer of Nelson who suddenly discovered his French blood on the eve of Trafalgar’.

Second, GI’s support for ‘remigration’ – to preserve the national and cultural identity of the English – is reminiscent of the ‘voluntary repatriation’ once advocated by the National Front, an openly racist party; and conjures ugly images of people being loaded onto cattle wagons for deportation, or worse. This justifies their vilification as extremists.

Yet aren’t these proponents of a ‘white’ ethnic identity, of ‘racial separatism’ (as their critics would have it), merely the counterparts of those who propose a ‘black’ ethnic identity, of those proponents of multi-culture who would divide us up into minorities – except that these right-wing extremists have perversely arrogated to the indigenous majority a ‘white’ identity? The politics of ‘identitarianism’, then, is an inevitable reaction on the part of members of the excluded majority to the dogma of multiculturalism, inclusion, diversity and minority ‘LGBT’ identity politics. Moreover, is it that far-fetched to imagine a government one day being confronted with a group of British citizens who insist on the right to live separate lives in a closed community, who reject the wider national culture in its entirety, who actively discourage or prevent fraternisation with outsiders, who refuse military service, and so on? Would the government then not be justified insisting on reasonable integration – and offer the alternative of relocation to a more convivial environment? Or conversely, what if a homogeneous community – it might be English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish or Cornish, but it could also be Pakistani, Somali, Sikh or Romanian – elected a council that insisted all newcomers integrate fully into the host community? Would diversification be forced on them? Is compulsory social and ethnic mixing justified?

There is, in other words, a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the official dogma of multiculturalism: how can diverse cultures and ‘ethnicities’ flourish alongside each other without there being a significant element of separate development? Without the cultivation of ‘difference’, there cannot be ‘diversity’. But then, what is there to hold communities and societies together? A shared love of diversity? The great Canadian experiment in multi-culture, or state-sponsored cultural apartheid, is currently unravelling for precisely these reasons, as Neil Bissoondath has eloquently documented in Selling Illusions.

Yet the Mail seems content to vilify these misguided patriots as dangerous extremists without analysing why these young people have been led astray, and without proposing an alternative. It is not as if the Mail had been at the forefront of promoting the fashionable orthodoxies of multi-culture, diversity and inclusion. On the contrary, it has ceaselessly mocked them – for which efforts it has earned the loathing and contempt of liberals, and the grateful appreciation of everyone else. But could it not be that it is the Mail, with its endless parade of thuggish looking migrants, East-European criminals and gang-masters, its stirring tales of Spitfire pilots and World War veterans, its exposés of illegal immigration (by land, air and sea), demographic change, child-beating madrassas, closed Muslim ghettos, political correctness and great English traditions under threat, that has stoked the sentiments that have prompted these young people to join GI in the first place?

GI, it would seem, is merely following on where the Mail has left off and does not dare to tread. Since the mainstream political parties and the media are wedded to the orthodoxy, and no mainstream politician dares publicly question it for fear of being branded ‘racist’, it is left to those outside the mainstream to fill the vacuum. If not multi-culture and diversity, then what? Or, indeed, if multi-culture and diversity, then what? The Mail leaves us none the wiser.

Free speech isn’t free – Make a donation to the Salisbury Review

20 Comments on Remigration anybody?

  1. Sorry, but your article betrays two things; first, that The Salisbury Review is moving to the centre, like The Telegraph, secondly, that you are disdainful of a newspaper that still has well over a million readers. Of course our culture and history are under attack, and I would have expected this periodical to acknowledge and attack this trend, rather than be protesting about those immigrants who were allowed into this country a couple of generations ago, and whom you seem to think, as as English as everyone else. This is this is the mentality that allows the demand by students at Oxford University that everyone reading history at that once great university take a module in Black history, a mentality that thinks it fine to set up BAME orchestras, but infra dig for white English people even to contemplate this sort of thing for white folks. Another media outlet taken over by the left and the soft headed ‘liberals’.

    • Thanks, but no disdain intended at all. Rather, annoyance at the Mail’s gutlessness in not questioning the orthodoxy of multi-culture, instead retreating under cover of PC ‘British’ values. I thought I’d been arguing against the BAME stuff and for assimilation into the host culture – maybe not clearly enough in this contribution. Where I disagree with you fundamentally is the idea that multicultural is synonymous with multiracial, that English necessarily means ‘white’ or ‘Anglo-Saxon’ – hence the Chesterton point. The late Sir Richard Body, a great patriot and true Conservative also emphasised the point in his England for the English.

      About the Windrush generation: They considered themselves English, and England the mother country. Many had served it during the War. Perhaps a thorough colonial education in English culture and literature had much to do with it. Sadly, all too many met with naked colour prejudice when they arrived on these shores. What a pity more recent waves of migrants have not shared (or have not been permitted to share) their sentiments of attachment to England.

      • I am not so sure about the benevolence of the ‘Windrush Generation’. Great numbers of their children and grand-children seem to be hostile to white British people. It’s hard to believe this hostility would be so virulent if it had been forbidden, or at least discouraged, in the home.

      • I doubt very much that the Windrush people considered themselves ‘English’ rather than West Indian, which is what they were and are. To be English is to belong to an ethnicity, just as (say) being Japanese or Korean is.

        It’s not enough to think oneself a member of a tribe or a people. One becomes one if and when the tribe or people accepts one as such, and not before. As it happens, most English people would not I suggest accept West Indians or Pakistanis, for example, as English.

        The reason is that they are too different culturally and religiously, but especially racially. However, white Europeans who are racially, culturally and religiously closely allied to the native English, would usually be accepted as English after living here for probably two generations. They can be easily assimilated and would be indistinguishable, at least at first acquaintance, from the natives.

        The Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia were only the latest Empires in Europe to disintegrate and when they did, they fractured along ethnic lines. Other trends are surfacing in Spain and Italy,to name but two.

        The UK is the last English Empire and that too is beginning to disintegrate. Scottish nationalism is driven by an ethnic gut dislike of the English, and the there is the ethnic divide in Northern Ireland….

        Some people may be offended by the existence of ethnic or racial affinity, but it is dishonest to dismiss or to try to belittle its importance when it comes to social cohesion and identity. It has been a most significant factor throughout human history and it is not going to stop being so now, just because there are those who wish it so.

        • I have encountered West Indians who have complained about the numbers of Polish people coming into Britain. Such a thing isn’t meant to happen in the progressive liberal worldview. One West Indian said: ‘these Polish, they are all bad drivers!’ It seems that stereotyping, like hatred, isn’t a one-way street.

          One Sikh of my acquaintance says that she isn’t English. That wasn’t said with any malice or contempt. It’s just a reality. Though she was born in India she is troubled by mass immigration.

        • In Korea and Japan there has been little or no immigration for a very long time. Culture has developed in these regions by the inhabitants sharing common experience. Culture is always local. But because the population hasn’t changed significantly this culture has become confused with race.

          In the 19th century there was considerable Japanese emigration to Brazil. The descendants of these people have not retained any Japanese culture to speak of.

          The theory of evolution has it that differences in animals arise because a population group becomes isolated. So with culture, which is always a local product. This is why the American author, Patrick J Deneen, describes multiculturalism as anti-culture.

          • Culture hasn’t been confused with race. It is the race that has produced the culture.

            The isolation of Korea and Japan, very like the isolation of Britain as an island, has certainly made for a distinctive culture. But had an entirely different race supplanted the native Japanese, say the Congolese, whilst working with the same fundamentals of geography, climate Confucianism etc, the result would have been a different culture. (Despite appearances, specifically Buddhism and Shintoism, Confucianism is the dominant philosophy / religion of Japan).

            One good reason is that the specific geographical character and historical isolation of Japan have moulded the Japanese. These include the co-operation or conformity created by the nature of rice growing because of such features as the allocation available water supplies. Over many generations, this will have bred out those who were less given to conformity and cooperation.

            Likewise, Confucianism will have bred out those who were less respectful of their elders and of authority.

            Then there is genetic inheritance. As northern peoples who experienced ice-age selection, East Asians including the Japanese have a high mean IQ; 105 where the white Europeans mean is 100.(Lynn 206p 138,139) The mean IQ of the Congolese, likely affected by nutritional issues is in the region of 64-73. Even if allowance is made for better nutrition and intellectual stimulation, this mean is unlikely to get higher than around 80. The figure for non-Mathematical African University students in South Africa is 72-84.(Lynn p38,39).

            Clearly IQ has a serious impact on the kind of culture a people are capable of producing.

            Ice age selection will also have produced different physical characteristics contributing to culture apart from the obvious in terms of stature, colouring etc. These include such aspects as late infant maturation, late sexual maturity, number of children etc.

    • John Bull, The Telegraph is losing readership faster than an amputee without a tourniquet. The Barclay brothers have sacked a large number of good journalists for having ideas of their own. They rely on the number of hits on an article and if it falls short of a number they sack the writer. The result is herd newspaper for that great mass of frightened Tories deluding themselves that their cosy world will never change

  2. In theory, you could argue that national identity shouldn’t necessarily be linked to ethnicity, but it is nonetheless the case when we acknowledge that there simply are differences between racial groups: the Voldemort hypothesis.

    It is not prejudicial to acknowledge that whites as a group possess a superior IQ level in comparison to blacks; nor is it racist to acknowledge that east Asians as a group possess a superior IQ level in comparison to whites. Both are simply facts, no matter how unpleasant some may find them.

    Athenian democracy, the Magna Carta, The Renaissance, the Enlightenment, etc. All products of white civilization. Whilst we are fallen creatures, there were prolonged periods of time throughout history where the people of the West were able to restrain and curtail their inherent vices to produce works of wonder and beauty to better advance the world.

    What is the legacy of Africa, South America or the post-Christian Middle East in comparison? Those lower IQ groups do not possess to the same extent the capacity to postpone instant gratification for greater returns in the future. The results sadly abound to this day: terror, incompetence, famine.

    Importing the dregs of humanity into what once were the beacons of prosperity in the world, that “city upon a hill”, will inevitably lead to their demise. The statists who brought these immigrants and so-called refugees into the country cannot alter their course now, lest these new voting blocs they contrived to establish and manipulate to their own ends turn on them and they lose their grip on power. Once you grab a tiger by the neck, you cannot let it go.

    We in the West are following the same path which the Roman Empire took to its downfall (kudos to the publication of Andy Fear’s wonderful article “Synesius of Cyrene” here). It is hard to know what the correct path to take is at this stage.

    Who is John Galt?

    • ‘These new voting blocs they contrived to establish and manipulate’ will indeed turn on the political parties who set them up in due course.

      The Muslims have their own political organisations already in certain districts of our major cities and these will morph into separate political parties in due course, when their numbers, swelling rapidly, become great enough.

      When that happens, the mainstream parties which have orchestrated this are in for a very nasty shock. As are liberals, who will be the first to suffer under the coming regimes.

      If I were young enough, I would without question try to leave this country if I could identify a destination which would have me and which would be friendly to people of my ethnic background rather than hostile to them, as are the political parties in this country.

      I would urge any young British person to realise that the UK is finished in every important particular and to get out of it if they possibly can. They should do so before the rush, which is certainly on the cards at some point.

    • Oh dear!

      There are differences in IQ between different groups at different periods for a host of historical and cultural reasons. Are there physiological or genetic causal factors too – or are current differences primarily the result of environments differentially suited to cognitive development? Herrnstein and Murray (The Bell Curve) advise caution (p. 566) on interpreting the data.

      Thomas Sowell’s chapter on Race and Intelligence in Intellectuals and Society is required reading here. Genetic (as opposed to cultural) explanations of black-white differences would, for example, be hard-pressed to explain why mental test scores of white soldiers from Southern states during the First World War were lower than the scores of black soldiers from Northern states.

      But surely the more important fact is that individual intra-group differences dwarf inter-group differences. So, one can be black and brilliant, just as one can be white and what used to be termed severely retarded. Of the four most brilliant mathematicians I ever taught, two were white and two were black. Which proves nothing except that both blacks and whites can be brilliant.

      • Genetic (as opposed to cultural) explanations of black-white differences would, for example, be hard-pressed to explain why mental test scores of white soldiers from Southern states during the First World War were lower than the scores of black soldiers from Northern states.

        Well, possibly blacks from the northern states were more likely to have white ancestry than those from southern states. Or that blacks from the northern states were simply more familiar with paperwork and form-filling than good ol’ southern (white) farm boys.

  3. The American author, Patrick J Deneen, has argued that multiculturalism is really anti-culture.

    Even Chesterton seems to have been slightly confused. There’s no such thing as blood of a particular nationality. He should have referred to the officer’s ancestry. That ancestry – blood, race, ethnicity – can be set aside, Millicent Fawcett describes in her memoir, citing several examples in the Great War of the activities of English women who had married Germans.

    In what could be seen as a bit of disinformation a genealogy website claims that ‘only’ such-and-such a percentage of British people’s DNA is British.

    English people were ‘unsettled’ by large scale Irish immigration in the 19th century. ‘Unsettlement’ is an accurate word to use since large scale immigration over a short period of time has undone the English settlement of the previous 1500 years.

    After what was called the Tottenham Outrage, the Edwardians became concerned at what to them was uncontrolled immigration, though it was tiny by today’s standards. In an investigation into how many immigrants were questioned on entry into the country as they should have been under the Aliens Act, one newspaper, the Leamington Spa Courier, described English people as having the habit of treating foreigners as pets.

    It’s unsettling that people today are just as obsessed by race as people were in the Third Reich. So long as people are classified by any racial designation, no matter how well-intentioned the present-day classifications are meant to be, they can never be fully seen and appreciated in terms of their own character.

  4. ‘English people were ‘unsettled’ by large scale Irish immigration in the 19th century. ‘Unsettlement’ is an accurate word to use since large scale immigration over a short period of time has undone the English settlement of the previous 1500 years.’

    Unless I am mistaken, research confirms that British and Irish DNA are pretty much identical, just like their respective cultures. This explains why Irish people, like the Scots and Welsh, merge so quickly and painlessly into the wider British population.

  5. Many of the Windrush generation are just as horrified as the indigenous English at the behaviour of many of their descendants. They were decent, loyal, and kind people who were surprised at the antagonism of the white majority. But they will always support the Windies as third generation Indians will support India. I asked a young Turkish woman who had just got her German citizenship whether she considered herself Turkish or German. “Turkish, of course!” she replied. I guess most of us would now reply English, Scottish, Irish, or Welsh rather than British.

  6. Agreed that race does not fully determine nationality, let along intelligence, but it certainly complicates the issue. To start with, race denotes ancestry and all the deep loyalties which go with it. This can, of course, exist alongside a love of your current nation, but it can also militate against it – especially if – unlike traditional European minorities – you originate from a large, settled and sometimes hostile foreign culture. Second, whilst nations are indeed cultural achievements, not racial characteristics, they happen to have been constructed around races in almost every case. For that reason, Britannia, Hans, Marie France, Mother Russia et al were depicted as white; more, they were depicted as representing particular European peoples – John Bull was a redhead, Marie France a brunette, Hans a blond and so on. Finally, your reliance on Chesterton is misguided. He, like all his contemporaries from Kipling to D.H.Lawrence believed that there was an English “race”, a French “race” and so on; so, incidentally, did Disraeli – who thought of himself as in alliance with the English, not as one of them. Indeed, Chesterton, because of these views – which he applied in exactly the same way as Disraeli – is now widely considered an “anti-Semite”, despite his protestations against those who first made the accusation in his declining years. Just because race is a relatively superficial biological phenomenon, we should not deny its emotional power and cultural potency; but alas we are forced to do so by the powers that be.

    • Points on race well taken. But just on Chesterton: I don’t know what he said elsewhere on the subject but in Heretics (‘Celts and Celtophiles’), he mocks those who ‘play the silly game of the science of races’, who speak of the ‘Anglo-Saxon race’ in relation to England and the ‘Celtic race’ in relation to Ireland. Nationality, he argues is ‘a spiritual product’.

      Interestingly, Chesterton says of Kipling that he is at heart a cosmopolitan who ‘does not belong’ to England, ‘or to any place’, and has only a superficial understanding of it: ‘He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English’.

  7. I’m a *norteamericano*. I recall when the distinction between our 3 nations was expressed thusly: Canadians were proud of their *Cultural Mosaic*, whilst Americans were proud of their *Melting Pot*, and Mexicans loved swimming/walking across the Rio Grande.

    I can understand why all three of these peoples felt the way they did. 50 years later, I’m not sure which of their ways of life is going to prevail, or even which one is best.

    50 years ago, I was sad not to have been born American. Now, not so much, but that’s possibly because their old *Melting Pot* ideal has been abandoned in favour of the *Mosaic* one.

  8. Paragraph breaks on blogs should occur every 4 lines – 5 at most – unless you guarantee that your longer comment is not to be missed. I’m guilty of offending this rule sometimes, but it’s a good one, especially for those of us who comment below the fold, but also for ones above.

    I recognise – insofar as replies to comments are concerned – the dimensions of the comment area change; and so exceptions (that one and others) can be made. Still, commenters risk losing readers when they fail to edit their contributions into bite-sized chunks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*