The position of minorities. Robert Henderson examines the grim reality of ‘diversity’

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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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.