Renaud Camus asked: "Can you join a people? You can, though the bar is high. Individuals who so wish can always join a people out of love for its language, literature, its art de vivre or its landscapes. But, you can’t do this at scale: “peoples who remain peoples cannot join other peoples. They can only conquer them, submerge them, replace them.”
We either support the sensible policy of Remigration advocated by the Homeland party or we balkanise under the uniparty and civil war ensues. It’s as simple as that. There is no civic nationalist middle ground where anyone from anywhere can suddenly become British, this ideology has lead us to ruin.
"Migrant" and "migration" means no borders apply so I don't see how remigration or remigration can work the way its advocates intend ie a permanent return from whence they came.
Balkanisation and civil war won't happen either because white British kowtow to non whites individually and collectively and there are so many half castes and quarter castes already anyway.
It’s not a forced process from day 1. The majority will deport themselves over time once the welfare ends. Normalising deportation of illegals is the first step. Trump has already helped put this in the public conscience. From there a dedicated government could use referendums as further legal mandate. The people will support it as we descend into further decline.
In its discussion of assimilation I think the piece misses that the original definition of assimilation referred to the (i) adoption of the majority identity and perception of oneself as part of the majority community (ii) intermarriage and dissolution into the British gene pool, rather than anything to do with ‘lifestyle preferences’ or the adoption of certain ‘social attitudes’ or ‘values’. This is a more robust definition, but it doesn’t strengthen the argument that Britain is an ‘integration miracle’.
We can see most migrants fail the first test of integration, identifying more strongly with their countries of origin and ethnic community than they do with the UK or the white British community. And the ‘dissolution’ into the British gene pool through intermarriage is literally impossible in the context of mass migration. The process assumes a ‘one-way’ exchange, where the descendants of migrants are culturally, visually, and genetically unrecognisable from their immigrant ancestors, but are too few in number to meaningfully change the composition of the majority population. This is less challenging when the immigrant population is relatively similar to the native population, and in the British context the Hugenots provide a paradigmatic example.
But if the minority population is too large it is unlikely that rates of outmarriage will be sufficiently high for the original immigrant community to disappear. And even if they were, the new community would meaningfully change the original majority population, so the result would be demographic or cultural transformation not ‘assimilation’ or ‘integration’. This is why people like Nelson discussing ‘integration’ without any mention of numbers or arithmetic is nonsensical.
These all sound like good ideas that, similar to e.g. Pete North's manifesto, would probably do a good job of making everything Basically Fine within a decade or so, if only we had a class of moderately skilled politicians and civil servants who were interested in carrying them out. But that 'if only' depends on - what? Farage wins in four years, and suddenly swerves a long way to the right? The Tories win, suddenly swerve right, and gain the 10-20 average IQ points they would need to run a bakery? Or Musk, Lowe and Cummings swoop in and pull some rabbit out of a hat?
All of these democratic outcomes seem to me extremely unlikely, and therefore not worth wasting energy on. Better to prepare instead for Zimbabwefication, then gradual rebuilding from outside the traditional centres of power. Litter picking with your local Homeland party is more useful than elaborate theory-crafting of policies that will likely never be used, in this regard.
A strategist who was seriously concerned with the possibility of a "collapse" scenario might seek to answer some of these questions:
Which areas of the country will be able to provide for themselves in terms of food, energy, and manufacturing in the event of e.g. a National Grid collapse? Of these future power centres, which has the highest density of young British people? Do I live in one of these areas, or do I in fact live in an area that will collapse immediately into chaos and violence when deprived of constant shipments of food?
Therefore, where are the most likely organizational centres of future revolutionary governments? Can we expect to see a trickle of right-wing young men upending their lives and moving out to these more future-proof areas? If not, what's stopping them?
How can locals work to buttress their area against the ravages of multiculturalism, for example by blocking the construction of mosques and migrant centres? Does this containment need to be strategically triaged across the country - where should we focus our efforts?
What laws could be changed now to help with the goals of damage containment and future rebuilding? In South Africa for example, the Boers secured concessions from the government before the end of Apartheid that now form the legal basis of Orania.
What else can be done to prepare for a chaotic future in terms of local level community building, infrastructure and politics?
Imagining a recognised status of “Anglo-Celtic” as the primary peoples of this country does have the interesting implication of isolating the Guelph’s, the Grosvenor’s and the other rulers and rent-takers of the land. I wonder how they would react and how much actual political and cultural sway they would have against such a move.
- why would we want to assimilate people we never wanted here in the first place?
- Israel is a terrible comparison as it is a nation established through conquest, we are not, at least not since the various invasions of Ireland and some centuries ago, Wales. Do you really think we shiuld emulate her?
We've always been prepared to accept tiny, tiny numbers of foreigners. Disraeli was both a Jew and one of our great PMs.
The awkward fact to which you allude is that they will all have to go back. We have tried sorting through the foreigners and been unsuccessful. Far easier for anyone non-British (in the true sense) to go back
Israel is a good comparison because it seems to be the only country that is fighting back against the horrible trends described in the article. Israel stands out because it has a dominant core population that refuses to be overrun. We could learn something from them.
I would argue that the Japanese example is better - accept lower living standards and remain their own people or employ temp workers from nearby countries who are at least superficially culturally similar and can be removed once their usefulness has expired. Then again, Germany tried the latter with the Gastarbeiters and the Turks haven't gone
With Ireland having the 3rd highest trade surplus in the world of 164 billion because of its corporate tax haven status it shows what a phoney Brexit negotiations really were and thus the whole exercise itself.
“…totemic recognition to the idea that the primary purpose of the state is the collective actualisation of the will of the native British people.” Or, common sense …?
I was at Manchester Station over the weekend and saw, for the first time with my own eyes, a swarm of people forcing their way onto an arriving train without letting others off first. It was like being temporarily transported to Mumbai. "Explicit instruction" (of the aggressive kind) is the only way such imports will ever integrate; "organic imitation" is simply beyond them.
Yes, ethnicity is about having a common history, common culture and common 'race', roughly, and then you have a people group to whom you belong. Of course it is a construct but it should not be unravelled, otherwise the demos necessary for a democracy dies, so the case for super ethnic majority in regards to immigration is well made. Our delinquent political class, both the economic right and the rainbow cultural left just don't care. For them any boundaries of any kind don't apply and in the process England becomes Multiracial-land. It's then worth asking that if they are active in this , in what is actually the theft of a national identity and a national community - where we have things in common - is this not a kind of reverse racism? It's something the ethnic minorities are complicit in as well, even if encouraged. Perhaps they need to ask if their countries would put up the mass immigration we have, and if their excuse is they are still poor and developing, what will they do when they become rich and advanced, as they will? Will India have a Chinese prime minister or an African leader of the opposition? I think a lot of unconscious bias needs attending too.
Agreed with your points generally, but I would avoid conceding ideological ground to the enemy by referring to "reverse racism" and "unconscious bias". If India did accept an ethnic Chinese PM, it wouldn't for one second mean that we should give up our own ethnic national basis.
Is Covid and the knock on effects of lockdown not the largest reason for the young people 18-30 apathy, pessimism and dissatisfaction? And you can’t pin that on immigration. (As much as I agree large scale immigration is bad for cohesion and wellbeing).
Some interesting and sensible proposals, but these ideas can surely be connected to a wider aim of mass deportations? If one can implement these policies, one can surely also combine this with an effort to build more public support for mass deportations? There is already a desire for deportations of foreign criminals, so the question is to what extent the outrage about the rape gangs can be utilised to building a consensus about deporting the communities that aided and abetted those crimes?
Renaud Camus asked: "Can you join a people? You can, though the bar is high. Individuals who so wish can always join a people out of love for its language, literature, its art de vivre or its landscapes. But, you can’t do this at scale: “peoples who remain peoples cannot join other peoples. They can only conquer them, submerge them, replace them.”
We either support the sensible policy of Remigration advocated by the Homeland party or we balkanise under the uniparty and civil war ensues. It’s as simple as that. There is no civic nationalist middle ground where anyone from anywhere can suddenly become British, this ideology has lead us to ruin.
"Migrant" and "migration" means no borders apply so I don't see how remigration or remigration can work the way its advocates intend ie a permanent return from whence they came.
Balkanisation and civil war won't happen either because white British kowtow to non whites individually and collectively and there are so many half castes and quarter castes already anyway.
It’s not a forced process from day 1. The majority will deport themselves over time once the welfare ends. Normalising deportation of illegals is the first step. Trump has already helped put this in the public conscience. From there a dedicated government could use referendums as further legal mandate. The people will support it as we descend into further decline.
Spot on analysis. But how long before we get a party prepared to take these radical measures?
In its discussion of assimilation I think the piece misses that the original definition of assimilation referred to the (i) adoption of the majority identity and perception of oneself as part of the majority community (ii) intermarriage and dissolution into the British gene pool, rather than anything to do with ‘lifestyle preferences’ or the adoption of certain ‘social attitudes’ or ‘values’. This is a more robust definition, but it doesn’t strengthen the argument that Britain is an ‘integration miracle’.
We can see most migrants fail the first test of integration, identifying more strongly with their countries of origin and ethnic community than they do with the UK or the white British community. And the ‘dissolution’ into the British gene pool through intermarriage is literally impossible in the context of mass migration. The process assumes a ‘one-way’ exchange, where the descendants of migrants are culturally, visually, and genetically unrecognisable from their immigrant ancestors, but are too few in number to meaningfully change the composition of the majority population. This is less challenging when the immigrant population is relatively similar to the native population, and in the British context the Hugenots provide a paradigmatic example.
But if the minority population is too large it is unlikely that rates of outmarriage will be sufficiently high for the original immigrant community to disappear. And even if they were, the new community would meaningfully change the original majority population, so the result would be demographic or cultural transformation not ‘assimilation’ or ‘integration’. This is why people like Nelson discussing ‘integration’ without any mention of numbers or arithmetic is nonsensical.
These all sound like good ideas that, similar to e.g. Pete North's manifesto, would probably do a good job of making everything Basically Fine within a decade or so, if only we had a class of moderately skilled politicians and civil servants who were interested in carrying them out. But that 'if only' depends on - what? Farage wins in four years, and suddenly swerves a long way to the right? The Tories win, suddenly swerve right, and gain the 10-20 average IQ points they would need to run a bakery? Or Musk, Lowe and Cummings swoop in and pull some rabbit out of a hat?
All of these democratic outcomes seem to me extremely unlikely, and therefore not worth wasting energy on. Better to prepare instead for Zimbabwefication, then gradual rebuilding from outside the traditional centres of power. Litter picking with your local Homeland party is more useful than elaborate theory-crafting of policies that will likely never be used, in this regard.
A strategist who was seriously concerned with the possibility of a "collapse" scenario might seek to answer some of these questions:
Which areas of the country will be able to provide for themselves in terms of food, energy, and manufacturing in the event of e.g. a National Grid collapse? Of these future power centres, which has the highest density of young British people? Do I live in one of these areas, or do I in fact live in an area that will collapse immediately into chaos and violence when deprived of constant shipments of food?
Therefore, where are the most likely organizational centres of future revolutionary governments? Can we expect to see a trickle of right-wing young men upending their lives and moving out to these more future-proof areas? If not, what's stopping them?
How can locals work to buttress their area against the ravages of multiculturalism, for example by blocking the construction of mosques and migrant centres? Does this containment need to be strategically triaged across the country - where should we focus our efforts?
What laws could be changed now to help with the goals of damage containment and future rebuilding? In South Africa for example, the Boers secured concessions from the government before the end of Apartheid that now form the legal basis of Orania.
What else can be done to prepare for a chaotic future in terms of local level community building, infrastructure and politics?
<Blue Jumper comment incoming>
Imagining a recognised status of “Anglo-Celtic” as the primary peoples of this country does have the interesting implication of isolating the Guelph’s, the Grosvenor’s and the other rulers and rent-takers of the land. I wonder how they would react and how much actual political and cultural sway they would have against such a move.
Excellent analysis. If only…
A few questions:
- why would we want to assimilate people we never wanted here in the first place?
- Israel is a terrible comparison as it is a nation established through conquest, we are not, at least not since the various invasions of Ireland and some centuries ago, Wales. Do you really think we shiuld emulate her?
We've always been prepared to accept tiny, tiny numbers of foreigners. Disraeli was both a Jew and one of our great PMs.
The awkward fact to which you allude is that they will all have to go back. We have tried sorting through the foreigners and been unsuccessful. Far easier for anyone non-British (in the true sense) to go back
Israel is a good comparison because it seems to be the only country that is fighting back against the horrible trends described in the article. Israel stands out because it has a dominant core population that refuses to be overrun. We could learn something from them.
Ok good points.
I would argue that the Japanese example is better - accept lower living standards and remain their own people or employ temp workers from nearby countries who are at least superficially culturally similar and can be removed once their usefulness has expired. Then again, Germany tried the latter with the Gastarbeiters and the Turks haven't gone
Nobody knows what the native people want, we’ve never been asked, let’s have a referendum on the matter do we want them here or not.
We already know the answer and after Brexit we'll never be granted another plebiscite. Plus, coloured immigrants will be able to vote
I know it will never happen, but the referendum would be for natives only,
Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.
With Ireland having the 3rd highest trade surplus in the world of 164 billion because of its corporate tax haven status it shows what a phoney Brexit negotiations really were and thus the whole exercise itself.
That won't last. Trump has his eye on returning those companies' tax listings to the USA so they can be taxed in the usual way.
What??
“…totemic recognition to the idea that the primary purpose of the state is the collective actualisation of the will of the native British people.” Or, common sense …?
It's Remigration or balkanization
Great article.
I was at Manchester Station over the weekend and saw, for the first time with my own eyes, a swarm of people forcing their way onto an arriving train without letting others off first. It was like being temporarily transported to Mumbai. "Explicit instruction" (of the aggressive kind) is the only way such imports will ever integrate; "organic imitation" is simply beyond them.
Yes, ethnicity is about having a common history, common culture and common 'race', roughly, and then you have a people group to whom you belong. Of course it is a construct but it should not be unravelled, otherwise the demos necessary for a democracy dies, so the case for super ethnic majority in regards to immigration is well made. Our delinquent political class, both the economic right and the rainbow cultural left just don't care. For them any boundaries of any kind don't apply and in the process England becomes Multiracial-land. It's then worth asking that if they are active in this , in what is actually the theft of a national identity and a national community - where we have things in common - is this not a kind of reverse racism? It's something the ethnic minorities are complicit in as well, even if encouraged. Perhaps they need to ask if their countries would put up the mass immigration we have, and if their excuse is they are still poor and developing, what will they do when they become rich and advanced, as they will? Will India have a Chinese prime minister or an African leader of the opposition? I think a lot of unconscious bias needs attending too.
Agreed with your points generally, but I would avoid conceding ideological ground to the enemy by referring to "reverse racism" and "unconscious bias". If India did accept an ethnic Chinese PM, it wouldn't for one second mean that we should give up our own ethnic national basis.
Is Covid and the knock on effects of lockdown not the largest reason for the young people 18-30 apathy, pessimism and dissatisfaction? And you can’t pin that on immigration. (As much as I agree large scale immigration is bad for cohesion and wellbeing).
Update 18 April: Camus blocked from coming to the UK as he would not be "conducive to the public good". WTF?!?
Some interesting and sensible proposals, but these ideas can surely be connected to a wider aim of mass deportations? If one can implement these policies, one can surely also combine this with an effort to build more public support for mass deportations? There is already a desire for deportations of foreign criminals, so the question is to what extent the outrage about the rape gangs can be utilised to building a consensus about deporting the communities that aided and abetted those crimes?