What appears to primarily motivate those who are attracted to the far right is a concern about the detrimental impact on British society of the open ended, apparently unending, immigration from around the world that has taken place since World War II. They fear that the ever increasing presence of culturally different and racially distinct residents in their towns and cities will seriously degrade the cohesion of their communities and traditional British society.
Thus their motivation is clearly one that is racist, so on this point their opponents the political left are correct, although cultural factors also play an important part. Left wing activists consider that the far right’s hostility towards racial minorities and immigration is not merely wrong-headed but positively wicked, claiming that it is motivated by hatred against people who do not look like themselves. The activist left take the opposite view to the far right, declaring that third world immigration has brought much needed diversity and enrichment to our society. So again, it is worth examining the evidence to discover which of these viewpoints is correct.
The far right is clearly correct in concluding that the huge level of third world immigration has had an enormous impact on many neighbourhoods. To begin with these would have been almost entirely white, but gradually many became populated by people of different races and cultures from around the globe. If these numbers were small and evenly distributed there would be no problem. The newcomers would have no choice but to integrate as best they could with the existing majority. But this is not what has been happening; the new arrivals soon started to congregate in their own ethnic enclaves, and when this occurs many of the existing white residents prefer to move away to a more congenial neighbourhood where they will be surrounded by their own kind, a process known as ‘white flight’. This response has been continuing for decades and is clearly motivated by racial and cultural identity, both by whites and also the immigrant communities.
Governments of all political parties have presided over the continuing inflow of ethnic minority immigrants. The Tories have occasionally tried to sound tough about restricting the flow, but in reality have never taken the measures needed to realistically address the problem. The other political parties believe that immigration of this kind brings enrichment and diversity, and so delivers their positive vision of a multicultural society, and thus is a desirable end in itself. The British public has never been consulted on this matter, and opinion polls have consistently shown that a significant proportion of the white population are strongly opposed to the immigration that has taken place.
For governments to allow the inflow of ethnic minorities in such numbers, one might reasonably assume that there must have been clearly identifiable reasons to justify it. However, these have never been clearly stated although some commentators have suggested that they were originally encouraged to come to fill the low paid low skilled disagreeable jobs that it is claimed the white population were no longer prepared to do. However, this is not the case; the immigrants came of their own volition in the hope of improving their material circumstances compared with what they might expect in their home countries. They could do this because the British Nationality Act 1948, introduced by the Labour Attlee government, granted British citizenship to everyone born in the British Commonwealth and colonies.
So what are the benefits that ethnic minorities bring to Britain confidently proclaimed to be ‘enrichment’ by leftist activists? Well, to begin with it appears reasonable to conclude that the contribution of different ethnic groups may vary, so it is necessary to assess each of them individually. Those that seem to attract the fewest problems are the Hindu, Sikh and Far East Asian (Chinese) communities. Although they mostly congregate in their own ethnic enclaves, there is no evidence to suggest that they differ much from the host population in terms of criminal activity and educational achievement. However, for the most part they seem reluctant to become involved in traditional British social and cultural activities, preferring instead to remain loyal to the familiar customs of their countries of ancestry. Moreover, significant numbers of both Hindus and Sikhs marry partners from their country of ancestry, thus contributing to chain migration.
Muslims demonstrate some of the same upsides and downsides as Sikhs and Hindus; a different cuisine that is very popular, but also chain migration due to marriage, social, cultural and religious attachment to their countries of ancestry, together with an even greater sense of separateness from mainstream British social and cultural life. Whilst the majority as individuals cause no serious problems, and some make a positive contribution such as doctors, a vocal and more radical minority have created widespread concern and fear in the white population.
There are a number of reasons for this. The first is terrorism. Islamists, in the name of their religion, have been responsible for several outrages which have killed and injured British people. One issue which has aroused the fury of the white working class has been the grooming gangs of Muslim Asian men targeting young white girls. The treatment and control of women by Muslim men is another area which offends modern mainstream values. So it must be concluded that the continuing growth of the Muslim population presents a serious threat to the cohesion and stability of British society.
The final group to be considered are people of Afro-Caribbean ancestry. Those who follow a religion are mostly Christian, so there is no real problem here, even though many of them prefer to attend their own ‘black led’ churches. Compared with other immigrant groups, there is more social and cultural integration through sport and popular music, although again black people mostly prefer to live within their own racial and cultural communities.
One area where black people have made a positive contribution has been through popular music although most of the best acts are American. Artists such as Nat King Cole and The Platters were immensely popular in the 1950s, although they were heavily dependant on a white music industry. But from the 1950s to the 1970s black performers were able to take full control as shown by Chuck Berry, Motown artists such as The Four Tops and The Supremes, and later the Philly sound of The Stylistics. These were all extremely popular in the white market. But from the mid 1970s onwards the music began to change appealing more to black tastes. This has led in more recent decades to a degradation of black music that mostly ranges from the forgettably bland to the seriously degenerate.
On the downside the principal concern is the level of crime committed by the black population. The political establishment is remarkably coy about providing the public with accurate statistics on this. However, the same establishment is vocal in condemning the ‘disproportionate’ level of black people stopped and searched, those who are in prison, and those who are convicted in the courts. So despite debate on this matter in the mainstream media being discouraged, anecdotal evidence inescapably leads to the conclusion that black criminal activity is considerably disproportionate to their numbers. There is also the problem of fatherless families leading to family breakdown and lack of discipline and adult role models.
Many white people have worked with those of ethnic ancestry and in the experience of this blog the most problematic colleagues are invariably other whites. So it is worth following the advice of Martin Luther King that a person should be judged on their character, not the colour of their skin. The problem is less with minorities as individuals, but more the fear of a collective group threat over which the indigenous population has no control, principally the transformation of neighbourhoods, the greater level of crime and the creation of parallel societies.
So the difficulty for mainstream politicians, parroting their ‘diversity is strength’ delusion, is that the far right include many more people than the ‘thugs’ involved in the recent disturbances. Evidence for this is the over four million votes cast for Reform UK which was achieved from a standing start, despite being denounced by the other parties for its focus on immigration. Although self selecting, the public comments on websites discussing the issue of immigration show almost unanimous resentment about the current level of migrants entering the country, and there is particular hostility to the illegal immigrants crossing the channel. So it appears that huge swathes of British people reject the establishment line that immigration brings enrichment and that diversity is somehow beneficial to our society.
It is not just the level of immigration that is causing anger, but several other factors also. The politically correct establishment that controls nearly all our institutions has an obsessive concern for the rights of minorities, perniciously coupled with a disdain for Britain, its culture, history and traditional values. They flagellate themselves over the evils of slavery, colonialism and empire. They stigmatise white achievement through ‘critical race theory’, they take the knee over ‘black lives matter’, lecture employees on the iniquity of ‘white privilege’, indoctrinate school children with a fantasy narrative in ‘black history month’, fill our screens with black actors masquerading as middle class whites in TV programmes and advertisements, which now extends to the rewriting of history through dramas about the past.
So for all these reasons there is mounting anger in the broader white population, who are becoming increasingly aware that they are being controlled and manipulated by a hard left virtue signalling elite. Although these activists form a relatively small proportion of the population they have over several decades, gradually and incrementally taken over the levers of power in most of our institutions, including universities, schools, most of the media, public sector unions, advertising, and the public sector generally, and this influence is now extending to the private sector. So anyone entering these sectors now has to publicly conform to a woke set of values, or face hostility that can be career damaging. Thus we are living in a form of soft totalitarianism that is being imposed on the majority by a vocal and determined ideological elite minority.
Electorates throughout Europe have started to wake up to what has being going on and an increasing number are voting for right wing ‘populist’ parties. This is the only legitimate response that citizens can make, given the entrenched position held by highly motivated, hard left activists exercising power and influence over society. They try to insinuate guilt by promoting slogans such as ‘white privilege’ and attempt to silence opposition through accusations of ‘white supremacy’. In this respect it is worth remembering that the overwhelming number scientific inventions and discoveries have been made by people of European ancestry, and virtually none by Afro-Caribbeans. There is also no reason why anyone should need to apologise for being white or for promoting the interests of their race.
So what measures would a future far right government be likely to introduce in order to roll back the woke policies that they would face. To begin with a far right government would have to identify precisely what is the source of public concern. It is not immigration itself which gives rise to public fears, but the nature and number of the immigrants. Recently tens of thousands of white Ukrainian women have been welcomed into the homes of British families. This contrasts with the response to the illegal immigrants crossing the English Channel in small boats, who are overwhelmingly young dark skinned males from outside Europe.
So there appears to be little concern about the arrival of those who are racially and culturally similar to the white majority, but much concern about those who appear alien by reason of their different race or culture. This is where the problem lies and there is no point in pretending otherwise. So for much of the British public, the introduction of racial and cultural diversity is considered to be a most unwelcome development, especially to those belonging to the working class. This explains the existence of parallel communities in the more diversely populated towns and cities.
Given that race and culture are the source of the problem this is where the focus needs to be. In his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech Enoch Powell identified the remedy namely ‘stopping the further inflow and promoting the maximum outflow, of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population’. This is what a far right government would seek to implement. It would be achieved by a variety of policies involving both carrot and stick. This could involve generous resettlement grants coupled with measures to directly favour the white indigenous population. Given that (as outlined in the previous post), the political establishment has been rigging the system to benefit the ethnic population over many decades, this would merely reverse the beneficiaries of an already accepted policy. There would no doubt be howls of protests against these measures by the activist left , but if their demonstrations turned violent those responsible could be treated in the same way as the recent ‘far right louts’ through the handing down of stiff prison sentences.
If a far right government ever did come to power in Britain these are the kinds of policies that are likely to be implemented in order to prevent the cultural and racial destruction of the country.
