Monthly Archives: April 2011

Whites in the sub-continent and sub-continental Asians in the UK

The more advanced liberal internationalists justify mass immigration into the UK by saying something along the lines of  “We went to their countries when we had an empire, now it is only right they should come here”.  Leaving aside the fact of mass white immigration from the EU to UK which has no colonial implications,  the claim that those from countries colonised by Britain with black and Asian populations are now simply returning the compliment ignores the fact that Britain acted  an Imperial power and mass immigration to the UK can only occur because the British elite permit it and they have done so against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the native population.   Moreover, there is also an awkward statistic which is ignored in the liberal’s false equation: the number of  white Britons in most of the British Empire was very small. The British  Raj in India is the best example of this. 

 The 1921 census  of  the  Indian   Empire  (which  included Burma and the  states  which  became   Pakistan  and  Bangladesh)  showed  a  total  population   of    318,492,480.   The  total  British  (white)  population   was  115,606.  This  represented 0.036% of the population  or  one  white for every 2755 Asians.

The total population of the UK in the 2001 census was 58.8 million  (

This is a graph showing Population of the United Kingdom: by ethnic group, April 2001

The majority of the UK population in 2001 were White (92 per cent). The remaining 4.6 million (or 7.9 per cent) people belonged to other ethnic groups. There were   2,083,759  people of  Pakistani,  Indian  and Bangladeshi origin . This represents  3.5%  of the population of Britain or one subcontinental  Asian  for  every  28  whites.   The  figures must have been significantly  understated because of illegal immigration and the fact  that   the  census relied on self-reporting  of racial  type.   In addition, it is probable  that quite a few of the “Mixed” and “Other Asian” categories – who comprise 924,781 individuals – have some sub-continental ancestry.   The true 2001 total of sub-continental Asians  may well have been nearer 3 million than 2 million.

With another ten years of mass immigration and higher breeding rates amongst those with sub-continental ancestry –  due to differing cultural norms and  the young  population profile of those with sub-continental antecedents –   it  is  not unreasonable  in 2011 to think in terms of a sub-continental population in the UK of  3 million. Indeed, that is probably a conservative estimate. However, even if  the figure is 3 million in a  UK population now estimated  at  around  62 million (,  that represents 5%  of  the UK  population or approximately one sub-continental Asian for every 20 whites.

The  total  subcontinental population of the area covered by the Raj – India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma – is around  1.6  billion   today.  If whites were represented in that population in the same proportion  as  subcontinental  Asians are in the UK population today (assuming 3 million is a good estimate of the UK sub continental derived population) , that would mean   80 million  whites  on  the subcontinent.  Does anyone imagine  that  the  peoples of the subcontinent would accept that?

It  is also true  that the nature of the two  settlements  is  not comparable.  The Imperial  British in the sub-continent  overwhelmingly did  not  spend their whole lives there,  or bring up their children to  expect a life in India. Asians in this country both intend to  stay  here  permanently  and  raise  their  children  in  the   expectation that they will remain here.Settlement on the scale of sub-continental Asians in modern Britain is a form of conquest because the numbers are great enough to allow the immigrant groups to set up culturally separate communities  within Britain, communities which are at best quietly unengaged with British society and at worst actively hostile to it. It is an insidious form of conquest.

The profound impact that post war mass immigration has had on the UK  generally and England in particular is shown most dramatically by the  comparison between Britons in the sub-continent at the height of the Raj and Asians from the sub-continent in the UK now.  But  non-white immigration goes far beyond sub-continental Asians. The 2001 census showed 7.9% of the population as non-white. That was an underestimate because illegal immigrants would not return the census and the question on ethnicity was voluntary.  With higher breeding rates in the non-white population than in the white population of the UK  and continuing mass immigration over the past ten years, it is probable that the percentage of non-whites in the UK population is now in the region of 10-12%. 

The 1991 census showed that “In Great Britain the number of people who came from an ethnic group other than White grew by 53 per cent between 1991 and 2001, from 3.0 million in 1991 to 4.6 million in 2001. In 1991 ethnic group data were not collected on the Northern Ireland Census.” (  If the current percentage of non-whites is 10%,  that would mean there are over 6.0 million non-whites now in the UK, a doubling in twenty years. If the same rate of increase is maintained over the next twenty years, by then more than twenty per cent of the UK population would be non-white. Is that what the native population of Britain really wants?

Nations and Empires

Robert Henderson

The longest lived empires in history, the Roman and the Ottoman, lasted approximately six hundred years; the Jews, a people long without a land and scattered to the four winds, are un-obliterated after two millennia of  persecution. Moral: empires  fall, but nations survive – perhaps the single most important lesson of history.

Nations  survive defeat,  enslavement and centuries  of oppressions. Empires may mutate as the Russian did from Tsarist to Soviet, but they cannot withstand successful conquest. Then they always die and stay dead.

Why are nations so stubbornly durable in contrast with empires?  The answer is simple: an empire is a political construct, but a nation is an expression of Man’s nature.  Where empires are held together by force or conscious self-interest, nations just exist, organic constructs which evolve  out of Man’s innate tendency to associate in discrete, clearly bounded groups.

The enlargement of human groups

Taking the evidence of history as a whole, it is reasonable to conclude that there is an inherent tendency within human society to attempt to create ever larger units of political authority. It is probably no more than the general tendency of organisms to maximise their position in Nature  by colonising as much territory as possible and then sustaining   the maximum population the territory will bear.

The fact that Man is a social animal with a high degree of self-awareness and intelligence makes human beings  unique as an organism.  These qualities allow Man to extend the group in ways which no other social animal can because the self-awareness  and intelligence permits a psychological enlargement as well as a material one – the advent of farming was of course necessary to allow the human population to expand and form  groups larger than the band or tribe. Nonetheless the process of group expansion is complex and fraught.

In a tribe of 500 it is easy to see how a sense of belonging and identity exists, because everyone will have a personal relationship of some sort with everyone else. In a group of 10,000 that is not possible in any meaningful sense. Nonetheless, in a group of 10,000 the individual can still be practically aware of the group, for example through public meetings. With a group of a million the relationship between the group members becomes intellectual rather than personal or practical. Man can create such an intellectual sense of belonging because he is self-conscious.

To create very large agglomerations of people who see themselves as part of a whole requires a core of values which are accepted by generality of the population. These values may be religious, as in the case of the mediaeval church or Islam. Then the sense of belonging is supranational, indeed supracultural. But such feelings have always bowed before the   demands of family, tribe, feudal lordship and nation. Hence the failure of the mediaeval church’s claim to supremacy; hence the mutual antipathy of many Muslim peoples throughout history.  National identity does not consist of clone like similitude, but it does require a sense of belonging, an instinctive recognition of those included  within  the   parameters of a national group.

The components of national identity

National identity is most commonly presented in terms of such banalities as “national dress” (often a mark of past servitude), food and crafts or in the more demanding but still narrow world of High Art.  Both are inadequate explanations because they touch only a small portion of human  existence.  To find the answer to a people’s national identity one must look to  their general culture which includes at its most sophisticated, science, technology,  politics,  education,  sport, history,  morals,  humour, language.

From the general culture comes what might be called the secondary human personality, which is developed by and is continually  developing the components of  culture.  By secondary personality I mean a nurtured  overlay on the innate personality. The range of basic human traits  –   aggressiveness,  placidity, timidity, extraversion and so forth – are universal.  But those qualities are the mere skeletons of minds. Above them stand the modifications of experience.  From  experience  develops  the  secondary personality. The social context of that experience and the   reflection  of  that experience through  the  secondary personality creates culture, is culture.

The importance of territory

The United Kingdom (UK) is a state really without parallel in the world. It has been a remarkably successful  political entity despite containing four distinct native peoples, the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish.

The UK has worked for Scotland, Wales and England for one simple reason, each people had a territory which they dominated. Scotland might be subject to an English dominated Parliament but a Scot could still live in a land where all about him were his fellow countrymen and women and the   administration  of  the practical government  which  he encountered was in the hands of Scots.

The one place where the UK did not work and does not work is Ireland,  the one part of the UK where there is a division between the native population and the product of large scale settlement from the British mainland.

There is a lesson from the UK experience.  Territory is what people care about most.

The advantages of homogeneity

To live in a homogenous society is a luxury for it removes the great cause of human friction, the clash of cultures.  

Perhaps most importantly, it allows a people to enjoy their own culture both by having ready access to it and by being allowed to celebrate it.

England probably became the prototype of the nation state because it was very homogenous for so long. It is noticeable that even with England’s example very few countries have been able to create anything approaching a true nation state. Those that have come close, such as the French or the Germans, have all shared a high degree of homogeneity.

The multicultural society

A multicultural society is by definition not a nation but an empire.

To live in a multicultural society is to be constantly assailed by considerations which simply do not arise in the homogenous society such as naturally segregated areas and their accompanying tensions.  Elites of course use the opportunity to act in an authoritarian manner but they also act from practical need.  Simply to maintain order, laws and their application must be more restrictive of personal liberty. That is particularly so in the case of free expression.  

Before the post-1945 immigration, Britain did not have any restrictions on free speech beyond those of libel, slander, obscenity and blasphemy (which was very rarely invoked). Now we have a raft of legislation which makes it an offence to incite racial discord, the interpretation of this being ever more narrowly interpreted. These impingements on personal liberty are entirely the result of mass immigration.

Citizens but not part of the nation

Despite the most strenuous propaganda efforts by liberals, everyone knows in their heart-of-hearts that  having the legal right to carry a passport and reside in a country does not make a person part of a nation.

Adult immigrants are plainly not part of the receiving nation because they lack the cultural imprinting which being brought up in a country gives. But being born and raised in a society does not automatically make a person part of the nation in the emotional sense if they belong to a minority group which sets itself apart from the majority.

The difference between legal nationality and belonging to a nation can be seen in the difference between England and Britain.

Britain is a blend of legal entity, geographical proximity, historical interaction  and a degree of fellow feeling deriving from (by now) shared values and experiences. But it  has always been a second order focus of loyalty, more legal construct than emotional reality.

The essentially legal nature of Britishness was shown rapidly after the votes on devolution occurred. Not only did the Scots and  Welsh  become much less likely to refer to themselves as British, the English, who had long used British as a synonym for English,  soon began to refer to themselves as English rather than British. Claiming to be British suddenly seemed anachronistic. Ironically, and pathetically, the only parts of the population who continue to commonly describe themselves as British are the  Northern Irish  Protestants and the various ethnic minorities.

The fact that the ethnic minorities in Britain almost invariably describe themselves as something other  than English, Scots, Welsh or Irish is very telling.  Although they use British frequently it is rarely un-hyphenated. Rather we find black-British, Asian-British or more specific  constructions such as Chinese-British. Alternatively, they may use a description such as British Muslim.  The  native peoples of Britain have never hyphenated their Britishness.

But many of the ethnic minorities in Britain are even more removed from the native population than that.  They commonly describe themselves as black, Asian, Indian, Bangladeshi, Jamaican Afro-Caribbean, Nigerian, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh or any other racial, national or cultural distinction you care to name.

Nor  are these terms confined to common usage. The 2001 census form offered choices such as Black British, while groups supposedly representing this or that ethnic group commonly  describe  themselves  as  “black”,  “Asian”, “Bangladeshi” and so on, for example, the Association of  Black Police Officers. These groups are recognised by the  government and  not infrequently funded by them.  The principle of multiculturalism has become institutionalised in Britain.

The future

A true nation is a precious thing as a cultural artefact. A nation which forms itself into a true  state is doubly blessed because it is the most effective means of allowing  men to live in security with a minimum of strife. Only a fool would throw away such a luxury.

Much as liberal internationalists would like to imagine that nationality can be put on and taken off as easily as an overcoat. Rather,  it is an adamantine part of being human for it is the tribe writ very large.  Men need have a sense of belonging. Remove their opportunity to feel part of a “tribe” and they will be disorientated.

With ever increasing frequency,  individuals are granted legal status as a citizen or national of a country without being part of the nation. But the process is not even. Countries of the Third World have little immigration – and indeed generally discourage it – while the West is besieged with incomers both illegal and legal.

The greater racial and cultural difference in a state the more it resembles an empire. The more it resembles an empire the greater the risk of civil war and the dissolution of the state.  That is what we in Britain and the rest of the developed world ultimately face, the dissolution of our states and the loss of control of our respective homelands.

How do we explain liberal internationalism as a biological phenomenon?

Robert Henderson

What the liberals have done

The general facts of liberal internationalist elite behaviour are these. They have socially fractured societies which previously enjoyed a high degree of racial and cultural homogeneity by permitting the mass immigration of the racially and culturally different. They have undermined national security and reduced domestic employment opportunities by removing protection for their own agriculture, commerce and industry. They have wilfully suppressed their own cultures through manipulation of the education system in particular and public policy generally. They have engaged in a ceaseless propaganda conducted through the mass media which diminishes the native culture and promotes the interests of minority groups. They have dissolved national democratic control by entrapping their countries in treaties such as those which empower the EU, NAFTA, the WTO and the UN, the consequence of which is to greatly restrict the scope for national action.

Beyond the boundaries of their own countries, these elites have inflated through Aid the populations of Third World countries beyond that which their societies can naturally support. In addition, the traditional social and economic arrangements of these countries are eroded by direct Western political interference and trade rules which encourage cash crops over farming to feed their own people. The consequence of all this is an ever growing number of people in the developing world who have a desperate urge to move to the rich West, something made ever easier by the liberals’ support, tacit or open, for continuing mass immigration into the West.

At the same time, the populations of the liberals elites’ own countries are falling and are ever more vulnerable to the effects of the mass immigration being promoted by the elite. The necessary eventual consequence is the effective colonisation of Western states by immigrants.

The declining birthrates of the West are themselves the fruit of liberal elite decisions to permit abortion on demand, to actively promote the feminist agenda and to create economic circumstances which discourage breeding, for example, it is increasingly difficult for a family in Britain to be raised on a single average male wage. The relaxation of trade barriers weakens their own countries and leave them ever more vulnerable as they become progressively less self-sufficient, while promoting the wealth and self-sufficiency not merely of other states comparable in size, but states – particularly India and China – whose individual populations exceed the combined populations of Europe and North America.

Natural selection and group fitness

Western elites are doing just about everything an organism should not do to protect itself: allowing large numbers of those outside the social group to invade the group’s territory, removing resources from their territory and giving those resources to those outside the group and, most bewilderingly, assisting competitor groups to expand their population whilst restricting their own.

Why are liberal elites exhibiting such ostensibly self-destructive behaviour?? The answer may lie in the fact that elites think of themselves as a separate group, a group which extends beyond national and cultural boundaries. There is nothing new in this. The medieval aristocracies of Western Europe thought themselves part of a chivalric whole.

The putative advantage to the elites of international elite solidarity is that it allows them to weaken their dependence upon their immediate (native) populations.

How elites evolve

England provides a model of how elites can survive through evolution for a very long time. From the 14th Century onwards the general trend was to broaden the elite with, in the long term, the inexorable movement was towards Parliamentary government and from monarchical power. During this development the wishes of the masses were largely but not entirely ignored – the masses made their presence felt through rioting (the historian Lewis Namier memorably described the government of 18th Century England as “aristocracy tempered by riot”)

As the franchise broadened the masses were able to exercise an ever larger degree of democratic control because politics was still national and a political party had to respond to the electors’ wishes. The elite resented this control over their behaviour and looked around for a way to diminish democratic influence. They found the means to do it in internationalism.

In a sovereign country politicians cannot say this or that cannot be done if it is practical to do it. That is a considerable block on elite misbehaviour. So the elites decided that the way round this unfortunate restraint on their misbehaviour was to commit their countries to treaties which would remove the opportunity for the electorate to exercise control over policy. In the British case, the most notable example is the Treaty of Rome and the subsequent treaties which have tied Britain into the EU. Vast swathes of policy are no longer within the control of the British Parliament because of these treaties. Add in the treaties tying Britain to the UN and the WTO and the commitment of every mainstream British party to them, and democratic control has essentially gone. What has happened in Britain is mirrored to a lesser or greater degree throughout the West.

Does liberal internationalism make evolutionary sense?

Assuming the ultimate biological imperative for any organism is to pass on as many of its copies of its genes as possible to future generations, the liberal elites might seem to have a considerable advantage because the richer and more powerful the person the greater the potential for more and better quality mates and consequent offspring. The problem with this argument is that elites in the West do not breed prolifically and, indeed, have on average fewer children than those of the native masses whom they despise. Cultural norms have seemingly subverted biology.

But cultural norms are ultimately an expression of biology, so how has this occurred? I will offer this hypothesis: there is a strong natural selfishness in the individual. This is held in check to a greater or lesser degree by the social arrangements of a society. A society which emphasises tradition will rein in selfishness. Such societies will have a strong sense of “tribe” and frequently a religion which emphasises the need to breed, demands charitable behaviour and threatens punishment in an afterlife. There will also be an absence of any easy means of contraception – and quite probably a religious ban on it – strictly enforced marriage and the lack of a welfare state. All of these things will reinforce social cohesion and the immediate interdependence of individuals on one another.

Such societies are anathema to the modern liberal mind, whose perfect society is one from which national feeling has been leeched and whose members are held together by only a shared sense of “rational” desires such as a fair justice system and a good material standard of living. Having no sense of tribe they will not see it as a duty to breed. Having easy access to contraception they can copulate at will yet have few children. They even have an ideology which tells them that having children is simply a “life choice”. Selfishness is made respectable. A society has been created in which the restraints on selfishness have been loosened too far. The consequence is that the liberal elite behave in a way to satisfy themselves at the expense of their descendants.

What counts as biological fitness in human beings?

All organisms other than Man pass on their genes in the most obvious and straightforward way. The organism breeds and its descendants breed or do not breed. In animals which engage in extensive parental care what might be called cultural inheritance plays a part in the transmission process with members of the species varying in their ability to nurture their offspring. The young of such animals undoubtedly rely on the example of their parents and, in the case of social animals, other adults to acquire many of the behaviours needed to survive.

But even the biologically fittest of the most socially advanced non-human animal cannot pass on an advantage to their offspring which in any way approaches that which a human can pass to their children. Indeed, Man’s behaviour in passing non-genetic advantage from one generation to the next is so radically different from that of any other organism that it may be the biological imperatives which drive the rest of the natural world have been subordinated to this immense ability to pass on non-genetic advantage, an ability driven by the unique nature of Man who consciously identifies how advantage may be gained and passed on. Biological fitness in humans may be predominantly the ability to pass on non-genetic advantage rather than genetic advantage.

It might be argued that inherited non-genetic advantage will dissipate over the generations and that few families will maintain their privilege over more than a few generations. But the genetic inheritance of a family line is soon dissipated reducing by 50% per generation. In other words, non-genetic inheritance is at worst no poorer a bet in maintaining fitness than genetic inheritance and in some cases a considerably better one because the inherited advantage can be passed through a larger number of generations than any meaningful genetic legacy. There are aristocratic families in England today who descend from nobles who came over with William the Conqueror in 1066. But you do not need to be an aristocrat because the advantage goes down the social scale. In 2010 Prof Gregory Davis of the University of California published a very interesting piece of research which demonstrated that those with Norman descended surnames in England were on average richer than those with artisan origin names (Regression to Mediocrity? Surnames and Social Mobility in England, 1200-2009

If this a correct interpretation of biological fitness in Man, it makes sense for elites to grab as much power, wealth and privilege for themselves. But the haves must create social circumstances which allow them to pass their non-genetic advantages to descendants. It is no good enraging the have-nots to such a degree that they simply kill the haves or take their privileges away or changing the conditions of a society so radically that the elite loses control. The latter is precisely what modern liberal elites appear to be doing.

Can the liberal elite change?

It is undoubtedly true that elites as a group only ever have one settled principle, namely, to do whatever is necessary to secure their power, wealth and privilege. It is also true that liberals have at the personal level long feared the consequences of non-white immigration – vide the way they choose to live in very white worlds themselves – and since 911 have begun to openly acknowledge that heterogeneous societies are a problem. Many probably want change. The difficulty is that by internationalising their ideology through treaties and membership of supranational bodies such as the UN and the EU and a commitment to laissez faire economics, the liberal elites have surrendered control of their own individual national destinies and hence their power to readily change matters.

To this must be added the sheer inertia which is built into an international system which has grown since 1945 into an immense heap of political and bureaucratic power and privilege. An international army of politicians and bureaucrats have the most vested of interests in maintaining the status quo.

Most important is the existence of large populations of unassimilated and probably unassimilatable recent immigrants and their descendants. These populations manipulate the political process through their increasing electoral power and the tacit threat of serious violence to ensure further immigration from their respective groups, to influence foreign policy (including foreign Aid) and to maintain the practice of allowing unimpeded remittances from the host country to the ancestral country.

The liberal elites have seemingly adopted a suicidal strategy which because Man is a creature of culture and the culture of the Western elites has trumped not only the normal biological imperatives, but has led the liberal elites to create circumstances in which the human biological imperative of non-genetic inherited advantage cannot be exercised. By forgetting the importance of the tribe or, rather, mistaking what the tribe is, that is,  their own national group, they have set themselves on the road to oblivion. It might be likened to the evolutionary overshoot of certain of the nautiloids which evolved ever more convolutedly spiralled shells until they became biologically unfit and finally extinct. Evolution is not just about winners.

The position of minorities

Robert Henderson

All our historical and contemporary experience tells us that the more homogeneous a society, the greater its stability and peace. History and our present world also tells us that the common experience of minorities everywhere is persecution. Not all the time nor with the same intensity, but sooner or a later any substantial minority which is seen as radically set apart from the majority will suffer. An uneasy peace may reign for a time, sometimes for generations, but sooner or later racial strife reappears. Ask any Jew about that.

Directly opposed to this reality, is the liberal internationalist theory of Man. Modern liberals ostensibly believe that human beings are blank sheets on which anything may be written and that the “Old Adam” in men which leads them to politically incorrect notions such as a sense of nation is simply a matter of social conditioning.

This profound misinterpretation of Man has led them to develop the pernicious doctrine of multiculturalism. In its most advanced form, this claims that a racially and culturally mixed society is positively superior to the homogenous society. Moreover, the logic of the multiculturalist is that the greater the diversity, the more desirable the society.

The misfortune of the minority

Judged by what actually happens rather than what liberals would like to happen, to be born and raised as a member of a racial or ethnic minority in any society is to be unfortunate. Even where the minority is, exceptionally, the ruling elite, as were the whites in Apartheid South Africa, the members of the minority are always psychologically insecure because they are invariably dogged by a fear that they are resented by the majority population. There is always the knowledge stuck in the back of the mind of minority members that they are outnumbered and that the majority may exert itself at any time against the minority.

Even after fifty odd years of growing liberal internationalist power in Britain, our minorities feel insecure. They know they can antagonise the majority up to a point because liberals are in power. But they also understand at some level that they must not go beyond a certain limit or the game will be up. Thus Asians riot in their own areas not white areas. They instinctively realise that if they did riot in white areas that would drive a fearful liberal elite to act against Asians to placate the indigenous population.

Minorities also fear in their heart of hearts that “multiculturalism” is a sham and will last, even as a public sentiment, only for as long as the liberal elite retain their power.

The loyalties of minority groups

The loyalty of a first generation immigrant is at best split between the receiving country and the country of origin. That is natural enough, for however willing the immigrant is to assimilate into their new society, any adult human being will bear for life the cultural imprint of his or her childhood.

The situation of the immigrant’s children and any subsequent generations is entirely different. Whereas the native population may be tolerant to a point of the immigrant’s difference, they are understandably intolerant of those born and raised in the country who nonetheless insist on remaining separate from the cultural mainstream.

All minorities are not equal

Legal definitions of nationality based on birth or residence are practically irrelevant in the context of nationality for the instinctive emotional commitment and sense of oneness, which are an essential part of a coherent nation, cannot be gained so mechanically. And that is often true even where a conscious decision to migrate has been made by a person’s parents.

A sense of national place is demonstrably not simply derived from living in a country – as Wellington said to those who insisted on calling him an Irishman, ‘If a man is born in a stable it does not make him a horse.’

The natural criterion is surely the sense a man has that he is naturally part of a nation, What is it that gives a man such a sense of place and a natural loyalty? There are, I think, three things which determine this sentiment: parental culture/national loyalty, physical race and the nature of the society into which the immigrant moves. Their relationship is not simple and, as with all human behaviour, one may speak only of tendencies rather than absolutes. Nonetheless, these tendencies are pronounced enough to allow general statements to be made.

Where an immigrant physically resembles the numerically dominant population, the likelihood is that his children will fully assume the culture and develop a natural loyalty to their birthplace. For example, the children of white immigrants to Australia and New Zealand will most probably think of themselves as Australian or New Zealanders. However, even in such a situation, the child’s full acceptance of their birthplace community will probably depend on whether his parents remain in their adopted country. If the parents return to their native land, their children, even if they have reached adulthood, often decide to follow and adopt the native national loyalty of their parents. Where a child’s parents (and hence the child) are abroad for reasons of business or public service, the child will almost always adopt the parent’s native culture and nationality as their own.

Where the immigrant is not of the same physical type as the dominant racial national group, his children will normally attach themselves to the group within the country which most closely resembles the parents in physical type and culture. Where a large immigrant population from one cultural/racial source exists in a country, for example, Jamaicans in England, the children of such immigrants will make particularly strenuous efforts to retain a separate identity, a task made easier by their physical difference from the dominant group. Where a child is the issue of a mixed race marriage he or she will tend to identify with the parent who comes from a minority group, although this tendency may be mitigated if the father is a member of the racially dominant national group.

The rational behaviour for minorities

Multiculturalism encourages behaviour in minorities utterly at odds with their long-term welfare. It combines advocacy of the behaviour which has always led to persecution of minorities, deliberate cultural separatism, with something new – the promotion of the interests of minorities over those of the majority. This is done by the passing of laws such as the Race Relations Act, and the incessant promotion of the creed of multiculturalism by politicians of all the Parliamentary parties, through Government policy in areas such as education and a general support for the idea within the mainstream media.

The pernicious general consequence of multiculturalism for minorities is that they are given grossly inflated expectations of what they should expect from society. Constantly told that they are living in a racist society, they develop a sense of being discriminated against even in circumstances where they are demonstrably favoured, for example in their considerable over-representation (in relation to their proportion of the population) in the British legal and medical professions.

The sane behaviour for any member of a minority is to recognise what everyone in their heart of hearts knows, namely, that any minority will suffer a degree of discrimination and resentment simply because that is Man’s tribal nature. Those who can achieve it have an obvious path to follow if they choose to take it: assimilate to the point where they are indistinguishable from the native population.

Where assimilation is impossible for whatever reason, the minority’s obvious best course is to keep as low a profile as possible to avoid inflaming the resentment of the majority population or the jealousy of competing minority groups in the society.

The bottom line for any member of a minority is this, he or she must judge whether the experience of being a member of a minority in a particular country is a better bargain than living in a country where he or she is in the racial and/or cultural majority. The vast majority of those from ethnic minorities who were born in Britain or who have come to Britain as immigrants vote with their feet by staying. If their experience of racial discrimination was really intolerable they would have emigrated to places such as the sub-continent. An unsurprising choice because Britain with a bit of discrimination is a vastly more attractive proposition than the Third World with its war, poverty, political turmoil and hard-core racial strife.

The problem of minorities for the majority

The mass non-European immigration since 1945 has introduced a wholly alien racial tension to Britain. To control the situation our elite has introduced laws which have no place in a free society, robbed our children of their history and cultural confidence, suppressed public outrage about immigration through their control of the mainstream media. In the process they have removed from Britain of what it had only half a century ago, namely, a sense of security in its cultural and physical territory. This pattern is repeated throughout the historic nations of Europe.


The elephant in the room that no mainstream politician will openly acknowledge is the fact that large minorities within a country ensure psychological separatism and lay the eggs for everything from racial discord to treason to hatch.

Our elite is presently desperately trying to square the circle of ensuring national cohesion and safety whilst still calling for tolerance of other cultures within our midst. The two are mutually exclusive.

Generally, elites in the West do not know what to do and veer between preaching an ever more frenzied multicultural gospel and engaging in anti-immigrant rhetoric in a hopeless raging against a poisonous situation which they have created.

If Western elites suddenly saw that their only hope of survival was to embrace homogeneity, could they, with the full power of the modern state behind them, save the situation by stopping all further mass immigration of those who are difficult or impossible to assimilate and restart the assimilation train successfully enough to mitigate the effects of the divisions their societies already suffer? I would hope it could be done but I fear that it may be too late, for the minorities have now reached a size where  they cannot be meaningfully controlled in terms of loyalties and culture. They are now self-sustaining cultural entities.

Fifty years ago Britain had no race-relations problem, now it is traumatised and dominated by the consequences of post-war immigration. It is a self-inflicted wound.

What the nation state owes you and what you owe the nation state

In its purest form liberal internationalism holds that a man may live anywhere he wishes and owe no particular allegiance to any people, place or society. In theory, although not in practice, it is a an imagined universe in which the individual is supreme in his atomistic and egotistical desires and the nation state no more than an administrative adjunct to his life.(In practice, the liberal internationalist says that you may behave as you wish provided your behaviour meets politically correct “absolute” values.) 

If liberal internationalism was merely the eccentric philosophy of those without power it would be no more than another utopian curiosity. As it is the present ideology of Western elites it is a positive danger. Through their control of politics and the media they have sufficiently  translated into reality this fantasy of the world as a place of undifferentiated settlement to the point where it has severely disrupted every Western society.

The engines of the disruption have been immigration on a grand scale of peoples unwilling or unable to assimilate, “globalisation” of trade and industry and an elite propaganda regime, totalitarian in its scope and intent, designed to decry native Western cultures and de-culturalise native Western populations by denying them knowledge of their past, whilst promoting the interests and cultures of the immigrant. To these ends Western elites have abused their control of the law, the media, public policy and state education. They have created a situation  whereby no one may hold a public position without at least paying lip-service to their creed.

Why is liberal internationalism is so dangerous?

The liberal internationalist view of the world is vicious because it is completely at variance with the social instincts of Man, which invariably express themselves in some form of tribal organisation, whether that be a band of fifty people roaming the plains of Africa 10,000 years ago or a modern nation of many millions. Men have an absolute need to feel part of a community with which they identify naturally and ideally wish to possess a territory which they can call their own. That is why empires invariably decay and nations are virtually indestructible, short of an act of genocide.

In short, treating a country simply as no more than a convenient place of residence is a short and certain route for social disaster. Ultimately a nation state only exists because its inhabitants both have a shared sense of identity (the nation) and a willingness to defend the interests of the  country, including in extremis fighting for the country. Destroy that and you destroy the integrity of the nation state. The ultimate consequence of no sense of place is no place.

The value of the nation state

A homogeneous society, a true nation, engenders a natural loyalty amongst its members: a society in which ethnic groups compete for space, the type of “multicultural heaven” envisaged by the liberal elite, results invariably in a first loyalty to the ethnic group.

Beyond the natural sympathy and cultural sharing which glues together a nation, the nation state is also the only social vehicle for delivering a degree of democratic control to large societies. Such democratic control in turn allows the nation to retain its integrity by such measures as  restricting immigration.

Citizenship and nationality

As a society becomes ethnically fragmented it loses its natural ballast. Citizenship becomes the only thing which liberal internationalist governments can hold to as a unifying force. But citizenship is a conscious human construct and is no substitute for the natural loyalty  engendered by the tribal loyalties of the true nation.

Citizenship and nationality are often treated as synonymous. This is an error. A man or woman may be both a citizen of a state and a member of a nation. But he or she can equally be a citizen without belonging to either the nation or nations that comprise a state and may be a member of a nation which either has no legal status within the state, for example English, or is a nation situated outside the state of which the person is a citizen, for example, an Indian immigrant to the USA or Britain.

The cartoonist Ronald Searle expressed the difference during a recent interview. Searle has lived in France since the 1960s, yet when asked whether he would take French citizenship if it was the only way of remaining in France he replied: “If they said you can only stay in France if you become French I’d say, ‘Not possible’. It’s like saying P G Wodehouse should be French. You can’t simply put on a nationality like a jacket. I remain extremely English whatever happens.” (Sunday Telegraph 28 9 03)

The nation is the totality of individuals within a given shared community, the natural sociological expression of the individual will. Citizenship is merely a legal ticket to exist and reside in a place.

Why the nation state should favour its own members

It makes moral and prudential sense for any society to both secure the loyalty of its people with guaranteed privileges which are not extended to foreigners and to reduce the opportunities for social friction. In a free society where the individual has to decide to give his or her loyalty, the utility of such privileges is much greater than it would be in a dictatorship. In a democracy it makes not merely sense for a government to secure and better the condition of its people, it is a necessity.

How loyalty is destroyed

The modern industrialised nation state that is Britain confers great privileges on those who are part of it. It provides a secure environment based on the rule of law, a decent material standard of living, healthcare and education free at the point of use and, in the form of the welfare state, a safety net for those who fall on hard times. It is, in short, a very efficient life support system which most people in the world are desperate to become part of by hook or by crook.

But these benefits have been steadily eroded over the past fifty years by mass immigration, the movement towards free trade and the growth of international treaty obligations, most notably Britain’s membership of the European Union. The effect of these changes has been to increase social discord by (1) introducing foreign and unassimilated elements into  British society, (2) exporting jobs and (3) passing effective  political control on many major issues from Westminster to bodies such as Nato and the WT0 or the EU Commission. The nation state has failed the British in these matters. Thus, we can see that the state owes more to its citizens than such things as maintaining order, defending its borders and providing welfare provision. It must provide the social structure within which they can be achieved.

If either immigration or the export of jobs – both under the control of governments – make a man redundant or force down his wages, the affected individual can scarcely be blamed for feeling that his government is not merely failing to represent his interests but is actively damaging them. What incentive does that man have to feel an absolute commitment to his own society? He will be bound by his ties of family, friendship and cultural imprinting, but what he will not feel is any sense that he is something more than a human atom within a society which has no particular interest in him at best and is actively hostile to him at worst. This will produce ever greater selfishness and unwillingness to engage in social support because instead of the welfare state providing help  for those with whom a natural affinity exist, it begins to be seen as simply a feeder of competing ethnic groups. Where, as often happens, ethnic minority groups are seen to be taking more than a proportionate share of the welfare or, in the case of adult immigrants,  receiving welfare when they have contributed nothing the resentment is greatly increased.  

More fundamentally, if an elite constantly tells the mass of people that their culture is worthless and their history shameful, whilst constantly promoting the interests of immigrant peoples and cultures, it inevitably has the effect of creating disorientation in the mass of people and weakens national cohesion.

What the Nation State owes its members

The primary duty a democratic government owes is to those it represents, that is those who vote it into power and their dependent children. If the interests of these clash with the interests of foreigners, whether resident in the country or abroad, the interests of foreigners must fall.

How is a democratic government to meet this duty? It must strive to create the circumstances in which a society is most prosperous, peaceful and secure, both physically and psychologically. I suggest these are the ideal requirements:

–    To maintain a clear distinction between natives and foreigners. That requires a strict control of immigration.

 – To protect the industry and commerce of the country sufficiently to   both provide employment and for the strategic reasons of self- sufficiency in vital goods and services.

 –    To spend taxes in ways which only benefit the country and its members directly.

   – To ensure the maintenance of democratic institutions, in particular by avoiding entanglement in international treaties which emasculate democratic control.

 –    To facilitate the promotion of a knowledge of the country’s culture and history above all other cultures and histories.

 What the individual owes the nation state

 Conversely, there are ideal requirements of the member of the nation state, viz:

 –    The individual should feel himself to be a natural member of the nation.

 –    The individual should not see himself as part of a group which owes its first loyalty to that group rather than the nation.

 –    The individual should give preference to his fellow countrymen.

 –    The individual should defend his nation against foreign abuse.

 –    The individual should be willing to sacrifice his own interests where these clash fundamentally with the interests of the nation – most dramatically he should be willing     to fight and die if the homeland is attacked.

 –    Generally, the individual should always act to protect the interest of the nation. The interest of the nation can be normally determined by simply reducing any given national choice to the analogy of a personal choice in the individual’s private life and asking what the individual would do in such circumstances.

An ideal to which to aspire 

The obligations of government and the individual described above are the ideal for the security of a nation state. Of course, no society will ever achieve such perfection, but the nearer a society approaches the ideal the more secure the society and the happier its members will be. Conversely, the further it strays from it, the closer to civil war and  fragmentation will come.

%d bloggers like this: