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 tell us that
the common experience of minorities everywhere is persecution.
Not all the time nor with the same intensity, but sooner
or 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 knowledgeknowledge
stuck in the back of the mind of minority members that they
are outnumbered, that the majority may exert itself at any
time against the minority. Even after 50 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 point, or the game will be up. Thus Asians riot
in their own areas, not white areas.
They realise that if they did riot in white areas that
would drive the 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 élite retains its 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 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 immigrants
children and any subsequent generations is entirely different.
Whereas the native population may be tolerant to a point
of the immigrants difference, they are understandably
intolerant of those born and raised in the country who nonetheless
insist on remaining separate from the cultural mainstream.
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 successful national side,
cannot be gained so mechanically. And that is often true
even where a conscious decision to emigrate has been made
by a persons 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
However, even in such a situation, the childs full
acceptance of his birthplace community will probably depend
onwhether 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 childs parents (and hence the child) are abroad
for reasons of business or public service, the child will
almost always adopt the parents native culture and
nationality as their own. Where the immigrant is not of
the same physical type as the physically dominant 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
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 Mans 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 minoritys
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 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 placessuch as the sub-continent. This
is 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 and generally robbed Britain of what it had half a
century ago, a sense of security in its cultural and physical
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.
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, élites in the West do not know what to
do at present, 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 élites 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 difficulty posed by minorities has now
reached such a magnitude that they cannot be meaningfully
controlled in terms of loyalties and culture. Fifty years
ago Britain had no race-relations problems; now it is traumatised
and dominated by the consequences of post-war immigration.
It is a selfinflicted wound.