MIGRATION WATCH UK
It is amazing what journalists and commentators will pretend not to understand for the sake of creating a story. On Radio 4 this week Nick Robinson pressed Rupert Lowe on whether the King qualifies as a White Briton. While Fraser Nelson dismissed the whole notion of the White British becoming a minority as “a trope designed to go viral on social, to be repeated uncritically by shysters“. The implication: the term White British is meaningless, so pointless even to discuss it.
Except it isn’t meaningless. White British is a formal category in the UK census, and, as often as not, you’re invited to ascribe one to yourself when completing most official forms – remember the pandemic and the vaccine queues? You had to answer every question, including declaring your ethnicity. This is how our chairman, Alp Mehmet, responded to Mr Nelson on X: “What does the ONS mean by ‘White British? It also refers to ‘other White’ groups and other ethnic groups including: Asian British, Black, Black British, Black Welsh. All tropes? Prof David Coleman + other demographers have for over 15 yrs pointed to 2065.”
It is why Migration Watch uses the term capitalised, as that is how it is written in the census. And on that official, census-tracked measure, the trend is not in doubt. In 2021, 74.4% of people in England and Wales described themselves as White British, down from 80.5% in 2011 and 87.5% in 2001.
As Alp said, Professor David Coleman, Emeritus Professor of Demography at Oxford University, projects white Britons would fall below half the population around the 2060s. Professor Matt Goodwin similarly projects a crossover point in the 2060s.
Messrs Robinson and Nelson, of course, know all this full well. Their confusion is purely performative. It is a tidy way to dodge the real issue, that Britain is being transformed by rapid mass immigration faster than at any time in its history, despite government after government promising to address the causes of rapid demographic change.
The demographic change Fraser Nelson alludes to, far from being a trope, is not only real but threatens the future stability and economic wellbeing of our country. Rapid transformation on the scale we are now experiencing strains public services, housing affordability and, above all, the cohesion engendered by a common history, a shared heritage and values inculcated in us by families and communities over generations.
There are those who say, White Brits becoming a minority will have no effect on our country or that we shouldn’t care either way. Others say not to worry, diversity is our strength. Remember this by Anthony Browne in the Guardian some 25 years ago:
“Jasper felt the process would strengthen Britain. ‘Diversity strengthens a country. It makes it more exciting. We have hundreds of languages spoken, when we go out to eat we never eat English, we eat Thai or French or Indian. It makes London a very cool place to live and work.’”
You may recall Migration Watch commissioned polling into what the public actually thinks about all this. The findings were not surprising – half of the population consider White Brits becoming a minority to be a very negative development for Britain.
So the pretence collapses on contact with the public. Ordinary people do not find “White British” baffling – they know exactly what it means. For some reason, it is only in the radio studio or the editor’s office that a plain census term becomes a riddle. Britain deserves better than a debate in which words in the title of the debate are off limits. This is both absurd and senseless.
SOURCE: Migration Watch UK newsletter
See Related Article Below
The Necessity of Identity
Condemning all group self-awareness as equally invalid is absurd.
JUPPLANDIA
We have all heard the phrase identity politics and we know it’s negative connotations. When we hear the term we think of ethnic minority narratives of perpetual grievance, and unjust DEI policies and race quotas, and an obsession on racial or sexual orientation or gender and cultural background differences that puts everyone in competing groups with no shared interests.
We think of identity politics as wokeness and hypocritical race hate and all the other stupid modern impositions, largely from the Left, that tear society apart and divide people by race or other innate differences.
More recently people like James Lindsay have argued that figures from the Right do this as well. Lindsay has looked at people like Tucker Carlson or Candace Owens or Nick Feuntes and said these people, too, are advocates of identity politics. He’s called them the Woke Right because, the argument goes, they too are obssesed with identity and judge groups on the basis of identity-of race, religion, and sexual orientation.
The simple Centrist and classical liberal idea here is that all extremists are the same, and that the reason that a radical Left woke person and a Jew hater like Candace or Tucker once thought to be on the Right or a Stalin and Hitler fan like Fuentes are extremists is because they are obsessed with identity.
And the only way out of that is to be a classical liberal centrist who avoids all identity advocacy or identity consciousness altogether.
The trouble with that formulation is that it tells people what they aren’t and don’t want to be without telling them who they are.
The things that form classical liberal political identity are actually quite threadbare. They may be important, but they certainly aren’t specific or emotive.
This is reflected in every classical liberal or centrist attempt to define their own values. Most of the things which are asserted as classical liberal values, other than ‘not being extremists’, are not even values-they are operational and institutional features which describe how the politics within a nation is organised, not what the people in that nation emotionally and philosophically and theologically admire, value and respect.
Thus for instance we get school kids being given a list of ‘British Values’ that reads like this:
- We respect all cultures
- We have a free press
- We have Democracy
- We have the rule of law
- We are kind to others
Not one of these is specifically British.
The first is modern ideology that is vapid and automatically false. If all cultures are to be respected equally, then you have no culture of your own because you are refusing to insist thar any one thing is better than another in any way. A culture of child rape is equal to a culture of hard work. A culture of misogyny or misandry is no worse than a culture of gender equality. Cannibalism is a cultural practice that must be respected in the same way we respect being quiet in a library.
‘We respect all cultures’ is an inherently pathetic and ridiculous ‘value’, because it is actually expressing a refusal to consider any values more important or beneficial than others. And it’s certainly not how ANY culture actually approaches the world, let alone being specifically British.
I’ve seen this precise ‘value’ being taught in British schools.
And what it’s saying is that Britishness is defined by not being British. Britishness is defined by refusing to judge anything as better or worse than anything else.
This is quite obviously not a real value, not even a thought with ANY value, and not something that people can emotionally and morally invest in and find meaningful.
Real national values are principles with emotional weight and historic background that people can cohere around because they feel an innate connection to them. They are not saccharine generalities that could apply anywhere at any time and that contradict themselves.
The other commonly listed ‘British Values’ aren’t much better. A free press, democracy and the rule of law are all generally good things, but they aren’t values. They are the core organisational aspects of a classical liberal democracy….that is, of ANY classical liberal democracy. Certain national values underneath these things strengthen and protect them and keep them to their original purpose, but they aren’t values (or even valuable) in themselves and purely as labels or nouns.
A Socialist Democratic Republic of the old USSR announced itself as democratic, but wasn’t. Today, some of the people who invoke Democracy as a noun or claim to champion it as a principle, have done so while stealing and rigging elections, enacting tyrannical measures, persecuting political dissidents and rejecting and refusing to accept referendum and election results they don’t like.
Germany claims to be a classical liberal democracy and no doubt puts up similar lists for its schoolchildren as ‘German Values’. The political Establishment there has so much respect for democracy that they are trying to ban the most popular party in the country and 1,000 German lawyers have just signed a public letter demanding that the AfD be banned.
In other words simply claiming to possess a free press, a democracy, and the rule of law might all have become false claims anyway, but either true or false refer to institutional and constitutional arrangements rather than to values specific to a particular nation.
Similarly an expression of value such as ‘we are kind to others’ might be a good thing to express to very young children during disputes about who gets to play with a toy, but doesn’t represent a national value that an adult can supply as an emotive, guiding political principle. Not unless that adult is some kind of simpleton. An adult recognises for instance that being equally kind to everyone is rather stupid and gullible and will quickly be exploited by the malign….or at least an adult should recognise that.
Millions of adults today don’t, which Gad Saad calls suicidal empathy.
What this tells us is that a good moral lesson for three year olds might not be a good moral lesson for grown men and women. Reality requires adults to be a little more sophisticated, specific and discerning than innocent children are.
When we look at this list of values then, we aren’t getting anything that actually qualifies as a value. And we definitely aren’t getting anything specifically British. At best we get vague ‘niceness’ which works well enough when reminding a child to share toys but is hardly sufficient to define a nation and get adults to feel that there is an underlying and profound reason for them to, for example, obey the law.
The truth is that centrism is pretty empty. It sits in the middle saying ‘I’m rational’ and ‘I’m moderate’…..but what is it? What is it really for? Who is it really for? Who is it itself? Really it’s defined only as an absence. It says ‘I’m not this’ and ‘I’m not that’ and sometimes ‘a plague on both your houses’.
This is not enough to make life meaningful. This is not enough to make people want to be loyal to it. This is not an identity itself, and a nation must have an identity to hold together.
In Britain’s case we refuse to define ourselves.
We refuse to say, which is the very first thing we should say, that Britain is the nation of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish.
James Lindsay would say that being very firm in asserting this is a form of identity politics, especially if you express pride in the specific ethnic origins of each of these identities.
He and many classical liberals would revolt at ethnic self consciousness intruding on or taking a place alongside abstract values.
But Britishness wasn’t built by the nice rules that order the behaviour of three year olds in a controlled classroom.
It was built by Englishmen refusing to be conquered by Danes, because those Englishmen were very sure that Englishness was more precious and valuable than Danishness.
And it was built by a Welsh Tudor dynasty being accepted by the English, and a Scottish Stuart dynasty being accepted by the English, and by Northern Ireland Protestants sharing a Dutch King in William of Orange as yet another dynastic ruler the (supposedly oppressive and racist) English accepted too.
Then it was forged and hardened in these four seperate but related peoples, connected in long history, connected by blood both spilled and shared, connected by mutual successes of a spectacular degree, becoming one of the most successful nations in human history.
And the values underlying that were not that everyone and everything should be equally respected, but that hard work was more valuable then idleness, that patriotism was more valuable than self-hatred, that courage was more valuable than cowardice, that success and ingenuity and determination were all to be respected and that freedom and liberty were worth fighting for. British success and British values came from recognising that our ethnic identities were REAL and worth protecting. English calm and courage, Welsh passion and poetry, Scottish cleverness and stubbornness, and Northern Irish grit and determination were all to be celebrated rather than to be denigrated.
THAT is what people could understand was worthy of loyalty and respect.
And ironically too, it is an ethnic core that is proud of itself that gives a far more meaningful thing for OTHERS to respect.
Nobody respects weaklings. Nobody admires someone who hates themselves. Nobody feels I want to be like them when the people they are looking at don’t even know who they are, what they have achieved, or why they matter.
And nobody falls in love with vague sentimental ‘niceness’ that is weak, ineffectual and could come from anywhere, either.
People don’t fall in love with a person saying ‘I apologise for my existence’. They treat that with pity or contempt. It attracts either condescension or exploitation, laughter or bullying.
And what is there to offer anyone else as an attraction in such empty, non emotive assertions as ‘we have elections’. The elections must be meaningful and offer actual choice. They aren’t the purpose or the identity of the nation. They are just a means, supposedly, of allowing a say and a participation in decision making.
Only identity creates loyalty.
Only identity binds people together.
Only strong identity gets respect from others.
Nations that forget their core identity (which is always some form of ethnic group and their culture) fail. Nations that have no core identity fail. Nations that are ashamed of their core identity fail.
Nations that pretend their original people either don’t exist or that knowing they exist is evil….fail spectacularly.
We don’t teach our kids who they are. We don’t give them meaning or pride in who they are, we actually tell them to hate themselves. All while offering nothing better than ‘there’s a free press you know’ while the free press does nothing but lie. Or ‘respect everyone’ as if that isn’t idiotic.
We would be far better off telling our children to demand respect for ourselves, first and foremost.
When we don’t, we get this:
Migrants who have never integrated and have forged entire industries out of hating us and lecturing us on our supposed evil.
While their co-religionists from the same imported ethnic background rape our children.
It was ‘tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs’ without recognition of threat or crime that allowed pure evil into our country.
If our leaders actually knew and loved our identity, if they valued the White British at all, they would never have allowed either the disrespect of the first (published hatred of us) or the horror of the second (the mass rape of our children).
It would be good to tell our children therefore that the British don’t need to apologise to anyone, that the British built an Empire because we were smart, determined, courageous and brilliant, and that anyone and everyone claiming to be British or claiming a right to be in Britain should be proud of our history.
If they aren’t, they should of course fuck off to some other nation that suits them better. Complete loyalty and respect is a requirement of settlement by anyone else.
The centre cannot hold when the centre is empty.
The nation cannot survive when the people are weak and guilt ridden.
Our woes begin with forgetting who we are. They are solved by remembering it before our final end.
We need identity, real identity, more than ever.
••••
••••
••••
••••
(UKR)