Ethnonational society v multiracial society

There are many ethnonational countries in the world. These can be defined as countries where all but a small minority of citizens belong to the same racial group. Examples are Japan, South Korea, Hungary, Poland, and all African countries except South Africa. Until the 1950s Britain was also an ethnonational country as over 99% of citizens belonged to the white European race.

At that time British people considered that such a state of affairs was completely natural and normal, and nobody gave the matter any thought. They considered it to be as permanent as the sun rising in the east, or that winter would be cold and summer hot. There was absolutely no demand for this situation to be changed in any way, and most people assumed that it would and should continue indefinitely, just like it always had in the past.

This all changed with the passing of the British Nationality Act 1948 which granted to all Commonwealth and colonial citizens the automatic right of entry into Britain without a visa allowing them to take up permanent residence. It was based on the delusional fiction held by the authorities of the time that the citizens of the UK, Commonwealth and colonies were together, one family of people united in their allegiance to the British crown. The reality was the exact opposite; almost all the colonial countries wanted an end to British rule to allow them to take responsibility for their own governance. Apart from the white dominions, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the majority of Commonwealth countries were both racially and culturally vastly different to Britain. So it must be concluded that the justification for the granting of British citizenship to non-white people from the Commonwealth was a gigantic deceit perpetrated on the British people without their consent or wish.

The implications of this global extension of British citizenship were never explained to the British people. So it came as a surprise when the SS Empire Windrush docked at Tilbury in June 1948 with nearly 500 Jamaican men aboard looking for work. Over the following decade they were followed by hundreds of thousands more from the Caribbean and Indian sub-continent. These people came on their own volition as they sought to better themselves by moving to a country with low unemployment and a relatively high standard of living. It was most certainly not the case that they were encouraged to come to fill the jobs British workers were supposedly unwilling to perform.

Opposition to this development was fairly muted during the early 1950s, the main objections coming from trade unions who feared that their members’ wages would be undercut by the importation of cheap foreign labour. Presciently, a group of Labour MPs voiced their concern that 'an influx of coloured people domiciled here is likely to impair the harmony, strength and cohesion of our public and social life’. Despite these representations, the issue of third world immigration was beneath the radar of the vast majority of British people. This was because the new arrivals began to congregate in their own ethnic ghettos, so that those living everywhere else were largely unaware that a problem was developing.

This complacency ended when the British public were jolted into reality after the Notting Hill riots in the summer of 1958. These clashes between white ‘teddy boys’ and local West Indian residents brought home to an alarmed public just how easily racial conflict could now arise in Britain. As a consequence, the government came under increased public pressure to end the open door policy on Commonwealth immigration and to introduce controls. The Conservative government of Harold Macmillan eventually responded with a half-hearted measure, the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1962, which sought to reduce the number of unskilled workers entering the country. This disproportionally impacted potential black immigrants, which was the undeclared intention, never openly stated, and which nevertheless established the principle of non-white immigration control.

The measures taken by the Conservative government remained insufficient to prevent the continuing inflow of non-white immigrants in significant numbers. The Labour Party leadership in opposition were committed to repealing this ‘racially discriminatory’ legislation believing that ‘every Commonwealth citizen has the right as a British subject to enter the country at will.' However, after Harold Wilson won the 1964 general election, he pragmatically decided to retain immigration controls, probably spooked by the success of the strongly anti-immigrant Conservative candidate in the Smethwick constituency.

Instead of taking firm action to restrict the growth of the non-white population, political parties would start to vilify those who warned of the consequences. This was brought into sharp focus with the furore created by Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in which he spelt out in the starkest terms the long-term disastrous consequences of open-ended large scale third world immigration into Britain. This was unquestionably a historic speech, of incredible boldness, which mercilessly exposed the wilful blindness of successive governments on an issue of crucial national importance.

Powell accurately predicted the potentially unlimited growth of the ethnic population and its distribution into ghettos. He identified the disproportionate concern given to allegations of discrimination against the ethnic population, contrasted this with the near complete disregard of the fears of the indigenous population on the open ended nature of immigration, exposed the naiveté of policy on integration and anticipated the cultural separation of much of the ethnic population from mainstream society. Most importantly, Powell also came forward with the only credible policy for permanently addressing the problem, namely ending all further third world immigration and instituting a well-funded high profile programme offering financial incentives to persuade the ethnic population to return to their countries of origin or ancestry.

Powell’s speech struck a deep chord with many British people - he claimed to have received over 120,000 letters as a result, the overwhelming majority sharing his concerns. Opinion polls also showed strong support for Powell’s stance. However, the British political establishment, then speedily moving in a liberal direction, denounced Powell as a populist agitator, intent upon stirring up race hatred for his own personal ends. So instead of heeding and acting upon his entirely justifiable warnings, the media, the government and even his own party leadership, denounced him in the strongest terms for the temerity of raising the issue of immigration and fuelling racial tensions.

Most unfortunately, the legacy of Powell’s speech has been the complete opposite of what he hoped to achieve. The uproar it caused galvanised liberals into the creation of a vast race relations industry with intrusive new initiatives to oversee public thought and behaviour, such as the Commission for Racial Equality, race equality officers in the public sector, race monitoring by local councils, 'hate' crimes, public funding of ethnic organizations, all overseen by the self-righteous cant of the politically correct obsessives, which has created a stifling climate in which white people have been silenced from publicly expressing their true feelings and concerns.

So what are the benefits of a multiracial and multicultural society? Well, in reality, there are very few. The most often quoted is the increased variety of cuisine that is now available to the public. Another that comes to mind was the contribution of black artists to popular music between the 1950s and 1980s, although most of the best acts were American. It is pointed out that many ethnic minority people occupy socially beneficial occupations such as doctors, nurses, carers etc. However, neither their ethnicity nor race brings anything to their competence or ability to perform the work involved in these kinds of jobs.

Although the benefits are few the disbenefits are extensive. The ethnic population is not evenly distributed throughout the country but is distributed into ghettos, from which many white residents have felt compelled to leave in order to continue living with their own kind. Many towns and cities have been divided into segregated communities where residents inhabit parallel societies. Statistics show that black people are more likely to be involved in criminal activity. Muslims have been responsible for virtually all the terrorist outrages carried out this century, all done in the name of their religion. In many occupations white people, particularly men, are openly discriminated against in pursuit of DEI objectives. Large-scale open-ended immigration has created a housing crisis preventing millions from accessing the housing ladder. In addition, health and transport services have been placed under severe pressure. TV dramas and advertising now disproportionately feature black actors rendering them annoying and alienating to white audiences. We have a plethora of intrusive laws, regulations and targets controlling many aspects of our lives, resulting in the diminution of personal liberty and freedoms on how individuals manage their day to day lives.

It is clear that the creation of a multiracial and multicultural society has been highly detrimental to the interests of the British people. So why was it allowed to develop despite a huge amount of public opposition? The reason is that governments, both Labour and Conservative, have been far more concerned about appeasing the race relations lobby and interests of ethnic minorities than listening to the concerns of white people, particularly those of working-class background. They feared being denounced as ‘racist’ by the hard left extremist elite who have captured the majority of our national institutions. The only limited opposition has come from a few right of centre newspapers, and even they sounded an uncertain trumpet.

Fortunately, with the arrival of the internet, the traditional gatekeepers of permissible debate have been considerably weakened, and a far wider range of opinions can now be voiced, giving a platform to those challenging the out-of-control immigration racket that has continued unabated for many decades. So far this has not had any impact on the level of immigration, but it has resulted in appreciable support for Reform UK, who are committed to addressing immigration concerns with more determination than has been shown by other political parties.

Reform has a policy of ‘net zero’ immigration and, although this is a step in the right direction, it is still an inadequate response given the scale of the problem, as it will merely freeze the ethnic population at the current level. The only answer, as Enoch Powell warned, is to stop completely the inflow and to enthusiastically promote measures to encourage the outflow. Recent projections have shown that white people in Britain will be in a minority within about 40 years, so the situation is critical if our descendants are to continue to live in a country in which their culture and way of life is preserved.

Are the Tories doomed?

Pundits are claiming that there has been a political earthquake following recent elections in England. Reform UK has captured the very safe Labour seat of Runcorn in a by election, gained nearly 700 county councillors, taken control of ten county councils from the Tories and acquired two elected mayors. The question being asked by many is whether there is now any future for the Conservative Party.

This is not the first time that there has been speculation about the end of the two party system. In the early 1980s the Social Democratic Party (SDP) was created by Roy Jenkins and other former Labour ministers on the right of the party to ‘break the mould’ of British politics. It was a top down elite creation, preaching ‘moderation’ interpreted as pro global capitalism, free trade, welfare state egalitarianism and closer links with the ‘Common Market’ as the European Union project was then known. It attracted a sizeable number of earnest, liberal minded, middle class supporters, and won two sensational parliamentary by elections at Crosby and Glasgow Hillhead on huge swings. However it performed poorly at the subsequent general election and gradually faded away before merging with the Liberals.

So the question that needs to be asked is whether Reform UK will suffer the same fate. Its biggest weakness is that it has been largely under the personal control of the leader Nigel Farage, who appears to take exception to anyone who might challenge his authority, as demonstrated by the recent removal of the MP Rupert Lowe. Consequently he has a near stranglehold on the policy and direction of the party, which increases the risk of conflict with senior colleagues who may have different ideas, and such divisions could lead to a possible loss of confidence by the electorate in the party.

On the other hand, the recent achievements of Reform are largely due to Farage’s communication and campaigning skills. He enjoys wide public recognition and appears to be far more in tune with the concerns of right leaning public opinion than the current Conservative Party leadership.

The Tories since the 1960s have consistently failed to promote anything resembling a right wing narrative. They presided over open ended third world immigration subverting our national identity and culture, they colluded in the destruction of grammar schools, for decades they were cheerleaders for surrendering powers to the European Union, they opposed Brexit, introduced same sex ‘marriage’, endorsed transgender lunacy, imposed an unnecessary covid lockdown and mask wearing regime, promoted the ‘climate change’ hoax, failed to abolish intrusive equality legislation, and as a final straw they encouraged record levels of both legal and illegal immigration leading to the current housing affordability crisis. In other words they shamelessly surrendered completely to the agenda of the cultural Marxist left.

The reason they could get away with this betrayal was because there was no credible alternative party of the right. But with the rise, and now electoral success, of Reform this has all changed. The Conservatives can no longer claim that a vote for any one else will let in Labour. The new reality is that a vote for the Conservatives now risks splitting the vote on the right to the benefit of parties of the liberal left. Trust in the Tories has evaporated; the party is now an empty shell, a busted flush, that will now pay the price for their past arrogant contempt and dismissal of the concerns of their traditional voter base.

Woman defined

During the past decade and more the political left has been captured by transgender agitators promoting the delusional belief that people can become the opposite sex to that into which they were born. As a consequence public and private institutions, sporting bodies and even purely private member associations have been compelled or intimidated into accepting a raft of transgender demands under the guise of equalities legislation.

Until relatively recently there had been very little pushback against this agenda since all political parties, including the Conservatives, were happy to embrace it in order to burnish their ‘progressive’ credentials. However, the overwhelming majority of the public were either sceptical or hostile to this agenda which they could clearly see conflicted with biological reality. The most pernicious outcome of this propaganda campaign impacted confused young teenagers who were pressurised into taking puberty blockers, as the first stage in the misguided notion that they could ‘transition’ to becoming the opposite sex.

Fortunately, the transgender advocates have begun to suffer some serious setbacks. As a result of a recent court case young people under the age of sixteen can no longer be prescribed puberty blockers. Moreover, the Cass NHS review concluded that there was a lack of evidence about the efficacy of such medical interventions, that there was a toxicity of debate creating a climate of fear that prevented the open expression of dissenting opinions, and that many of the youngsters presenting as transgender had other difficulties such as mental health and autism which were not properly investigated.

The Supreme Court has now delivered a further serious blow in unanimously deciding that only biological women are covered by the definition of ‘woman’ in the Equality Act 2010. The case was brought by a group of Scottish women challenging the decision of the extremist devolved Scottish regime, which had determined that men in possession of a ‘gender recognition certificate (GRC)’ could be classified as ‘women’ when appointments are made under ‘gender equality’ legislation to public bodies.

The implications of the Supreme Court’s decision encompass issues wider than just public appointments. It means that single sex spaces such as toilets and changing rooms are intended for use by biological women only. It is likely that sporting bodies could be vulnerable to successful legal challenges if they continue to allow ‘trans-women’ to compete or play alongside biological women in female only sports.

Previous to the Supreme Court decision ‘trans-women’ claimed that they were legally just as entitled to enter women only spaces as biological women, a viewpoint that appeared to gain widespread acceptance. It should be noted that individuals in possession of a GRC do not have to undertake any surgery or hormone treatment and thus are often physically indistinguishable to ‘trans women’ who merely self identify as such. In other words both categories can be physically male in all respects.

Former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption has expressed the view that although the ruling allows organisations to exclude ‘trans-women’ from women only spaces, they are not necessarily obliged to do so. Given how deeply the trans agenda has become embedded in some parts of society, there may well be many organisations that believe on ideological grounds that ‘trans-women’ should continue to be allowed into women only spaces, and adopt policies to this effect.

The Supreme Court’s decision has caused predictable outrage amongst woke activists, who are clearly not going to roll over and admit defeat without a determined fight. For example the Liberal Democrat Voice website bewails ‘the horrendous and mortifyingly scary Supreme Court judgment’ which has ‘removed hard won trans rights’, adding that ‘necessary changes in the law’ will be needed ‘to make sure that woman and man are not determined by biological sex’. Such changes ‘will need careful drafting to ensure that women will include those born as women and those who have changed gender’. So the delusional madness has not gone away.

The necessary response to this subversion must be to repeal all transgender legislation, thus ending absurdities such as gender recognition certificates which conflict with biological reality. Transgender people have always enjoyed the right to express their delusion that they are a different sex to that into which they were born, given that there has never been any law forbidding them making such claims and living their life accordingly. However, the right that they have been foolishly given to browbeat the rest of society to accept their delusion as reality should be taken from them.

A fantasy far right response to the immigration problem.

This blog, in some recent posts, has drawn attention to the problems created in British society by large scale, open ended immigration, of people from around the globe. This has been exacerbated by a guilt ridden, virtue signalling politically correct establishment, which has consistently denigrated British culture, history and achievements, whilst simultaneously uncritically embracing and promoting the values and interests of the immigrant communities.

This incremental process has now reached the point where large numbers of British people, particularly those who are working class, feel a deep resentment about the way they have been marginalised and ignored, on a matter about which they have deep concerns. This is reflected in the recent surge in support for the Reform Party, and the riots which took place in response to the Southport stabbings.

This concern is not new; it was made clearly visible at the time of Enoch Powell’s ‘River of Blood’ speech in 1968. Powell warned that as a country we were sleepwalking into disaster by allowing the inflow of vast numbers of third world immigrants into Britain, who were racially and culturally separate from the indigenous native population. He was denounced by the political establishment of the time, but in contrast he received a hugely favourable postbag from the public, the overwhelming majority supporting his stance.

Powell accurately predicted the potentially unlimited growth of the ethnic population and its distribution into ghettos. Most importantly, he also came forward with the only credible policy for permanently addressing the problem, namely ending all further third world immigration and instituting a well funded high profile programme of offering financial incentives to persuade the ethnic population to return to their countries of origin or ancestry.

However, the British political establishment, then speedily moving in a liberal direction, denounced Powell as a populist agitator, intent upon stirring up race hatred for his own personal ends. This was a moment in time when the British nation was presented with an opportunity to look into the abyss and step back. Instead our political leaders hurled us headlong forward to our almost certain doom.

So, most unfortunately, the legacy of Powell’s speech has been the complete opposite of what he hoped to achieve. The uproar it caused galvanised liberals into the creation of a vast race relations industry with intrusive new initiatives to oversee public thought and behaviour. Powell accurately predicted race riots, ethnic ghettos, civil disturbances, the open ended increase in the numbers of ethnic people, and the ever expanding state apparatus to force race 'equality' on an unwilling population.

So the position now is that we have a situation in which white people can be openly discriminated in employment under the guise of so called ‘equity’ and ‘inclusion’. We are delusionally told, in Orwellian terms, that ‘diversity is strength’, a trope which even appears on our coins. We are led to believe that huge levels of alien immigration bring ‘enrichment’ to our society. We are flooded with greatly disproportionate images of black people in advertising, and in TV dramas, including those set in an all white past. Finally, if we draw attention to any of this manipulation we are denounced as racist bigots promoting hatred. It should not be forgotten that Enoch Powell warned us who would have ‘the whip hand’ in the future, and we have allowed it to happen.

There are also adverse indirect consequences to high level immigration. The most notable is the steep rise in housing costs reflecting the ever increasing demand, with the result that many young people are priced out of owning a home, or even of renting one. A significant amount of social housing is allocated to immigrants as they are deemed to be in greater need, causing immense resentment to those on a waiting list. Immigration also increases pressure on the health service, transport network and education provision.

In contrast, the benefits specifically accruing to this immigration are very limited. The most obvious is the wider range of cuisine which has been introduced to the British public. There was some contribution to popular music by black artists, but all of this is in the past since much of their current output is seriously degenerate, frequently featuring gratuitous obscenities. Some members of the black community have attained eminence in sports such as football and athletics where they appear to have greater natural abilities, but this has mainly given this country’s national teams an unfair advantage over other European countries such as Poland with very few black residents.

So on this issue the British public have been treated with contempt over many decades by successive governments, intent on appeasing the vocal self righteous progressive elite at the expense of the cohesion of British society. This is not to blame the people of ethnic origins who came to this country to improve their economic prospects. Those who were born here have been placed in the extremely difficult situation of being in a visible minority, and notionally British citizens, but not fully accepted as such by many of the white majority because of their race and ethnic identity.

So the British people have a choice. They can continue to accept the narrative of the woke elite which will continue to subvert our traditional society and communities, or they can wake up and take the necessary action to address this issue.

So what should that action be? The first obvious necessity is to repeal all the equality laws (other than those relating to physical disability). These laws were never intended to create a level playing field, but rather to provide a mechanism to ensure that the interests of ethnic people would always prevail over the white majority. This move will signal that the rules have changed and that the majority will no longer accept being passive victims in their own subjugation.

All diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) schemes in the public sector will need to be ended with immediate effect. With regard to private businesses they should be free to recruit whoever they please from those who are resident in Britain, and suffer the consequences if they prioritize identity over talent and ability. Public sector bodies should be banned from requiring private firms bidding for contracts to meet DEI targets. As many local authorities and quangos are likely to continue to operate DEI objectives, it will be necessary that all applicants for white collar employment in the public sector must pass an examination to test their competencies in English, arithmetic, intelligence and computer skills, similar to those operated by the Civil Service for many years. More challenging tests should be required for those seeking promotion to higher posts.

The allocation of all publicly subsidised housing should be confined to those born in Britain meaning that immigrants will have to make their own arrangements in the private sector. This will end the unfairness of new arrivals jumping the social housing queue over British residents. People living abroad should be debarred from purchasing housing in Britain as this prevents British people joining the housing ladder.

The current level of immigration into Britain is clearly unsustainable and it needs to be drastically reduced. A net zero approach as proposed by the Reform Party is inadequate as it allows far too high a level of undesirable immigration. As most immigration is legal there will be a need for drastic action to bring down current numbers. All immigration from outside Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand should be prohibited other than in exceptional circumstances.

It is nonsensical that we donate billions of pounds in aid to developing countries whilst at the same time poaching their most educated and skilled citizens. The health service and care sector will need to stop relying on cheap foreign labour and start to train up British residents. Chain migration through arranged marriages from the Indian sub continent will need to be prohibited. In future such marriages must be confined to those already resident in Britain.

By definition, all illegal immigrants commit a criminal act by setting foot in this country. So they can be legally detained pending deportation. However, large numbers continue to remain here so a deterrent is required to stop them coming in the first place. The policy of the previous Conservative government was to deport illegal immigrants to Rwanda, but it was never implemented as they lost the election. Something similar needs to be adopted. As a matter of principle all immigrants should be ineligible for benefits.

It will be necessary to not just reduce the inflow but to take measures to increase the outflow. This will be achieved by offering financial incentives to ethnic minorities to settle elsewhere, beginning with those who appear to make the least contribution to British society, namely those with a criminal record, or unable to speak English, or with low educational attainment, or on benefits. Many ethnic minorities express how much more comfortable they feel when visiting their ancestral homelands where they are surrounded by people ‘who look like themselves’. So they too would benefit from this initiative.

These suggestions are proposed as a start to address the problem of societal breakdown, but further measures may be required in due curse. For it to work it needs to be implemented as a national priority.

Individual rights vs collective rights

The subject of human rights has been in the news recently. Some right wing commentators and politicians are arguing that Britain should leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). They claim that by doing so we will be better able to control illegal immigration, particularly those who are crossing the English Channel in increasing numbers. Thus it is worth examining the issue of human rights in more detail.

The British Conservative government signed up to the ECHR in the early 1950s. The intention was an honourable one, at a time of heightened awareness that European totalitarian regimes of both right and left were murdering and incarcerating their own citizens in pursuit of their ideological objectives. So for several decades British acceptance of the ECHR was uncontroversial as the perceived intentions and objectives enjoyed widespread support across the political spectrum. It helped to address the fear that ordinary citizens could become helpless victims of arbitrary injustice with the loss of their individual freedoms, by regimes pursuing collectivised politicised objectives regardless of the impact on their citizens’ rights as individuals.

The government of the time believed that signing up to the ECHR would have no impact in this country since, as a parliamentary democracy, we possessed an inbuilt mechanism to safeguard individual human rights that would render the imposition of a totalitarian regime impossible. Nevertheless, in accepting membership for ourselves we could demonstrate our commitment to this European ideal and provide a lead to other countries which in the past had failed to uphold human and democratic rights for their citizens.

So given the uncontroversial nature of ECHR membership when Britain joined there was very little consideration or analysis of what we had signed up for. In reality, the ECHR provides very little protection of human rights since nearly all of the listed ECHR rights include exemptions which governments could use as justification for their actions. For example, there was a right to a private life, but Britain continued to criminalize private homosexual relations between adult men. They could do so because there was an exemption for maintaining public morality, a stance supported by the majority of the public at the time. More recently the British people were locked down in their homes for months at a time at the stroke of the Health Secretary’s pen. The ECHR provided no protection as there is a public health exemption. Still more recently ‘far right louts’ were imprisoned for social media comments, which would be permitted under the public order exemption.

The whole argument for signing up to the ECHR is based on the fiction that the ECHR judges are independent of politicians. But the reality is that their views increasingly converge, and the determining legal body, the European Court of Human Rights, merely rubber stamps decisions which reflect the dominant political narrative of the time. Moreover, human rights have now metamorphosed from the protection of citizens against their government into a vehicle for achieving minority rights at the expense of the collective rights of the majority.

The human rights that receive the most attention are those that relate to favoured minorities. That which has the greatest impact on the nation’s social cohesion concerns ethnic racial and cultural identity, particularly involving Afro-Caribbeans and Muslims. The problem broader society faces is that there appears to be an army of lawyers enjoying considerable but largely opaque sources of funding, who are willing and able to exploit the legal system pursuing individual rights cases of these favoured minority ethnic groups. In so doing the collective rights of the majority remain unrepresented and their concerns are thus overlooked or ignored when these one sided cases are being considered.

The outcome is that the collective rights of the majority white society are gradually being eroded by the cumulative impact of favourable individual human rights decisions brought on behalf of ethnic minorities. The effect of this trend is the increasing anger felt by the indigenous population, particularly the white working class. Their resentment is particularly focussed on the Labour party, which traditionally supported working people, but now despises them for their ‘racism’, ‘homophobia’, anti-feminism and opposition to immigration and Islam. This was graphically illustrated during the riots in the summer in response to the Southport atrocity.

The time will come when a future ‘far right’ government will need to take drastic remedial action, involving the withdrawal of individual rights where there has been overreach, if societal breakdown is to be avoided. In short a conflict is coming between the ‘far right’ majority of ordinary citizens and the activist vocal elite minority proponents of cultural Marxism. Thus it is likely that if we, the overwhelming majority, don’t start coming for these delusional virtue signalling subversives, they will continue to keep coming for us. It is hoped to explore this matter further in a future post.