Should we take in Muslims or Poles?

D.J. Webb

The recent terrorist attack in France reminded me to write on the topic of immigration, and particularly on the distribution by national/cultural origin of immigrants. It was not the Poles who committed the outrage at Charlie Hebdo. Yet the UK debate on immigration is focused on Eastern Europeans, whereas the recent demonstrations in Germany against the “Islamisation of the West” show that in Germany it is non-EU immigration that is, much more logically, seen as more problematic.

I start from the point of view that all nations have the right to control immigration in the interests of their own citizens. We shouldn’t wish to be North Korea, with zero interaction with the outside world; but being Hong Kong, with strong trade, investment and tourism links to every other economy, while not allowing incomers to demographically overwhelm the natives, would seem a logical approach. Citizens of most nations do not need visas to visit Hong Kong, as Hong Kong is a free port, but the territory does not offer itself as a locus for welfare immigration, and so, while Bangladeshis may visit without a visa, they don’t stay in significant numbers, and Hong Kong is 97% Chinese. Why couldn’t we have done the same?

Clearly I am not talking about isolating Britain—Hong Kong is not isolated—but about maintaining a high level of contact with all countries, but without seeking population replacement. This has nothing to do with “racial hatred”, but rather with our right to maintain our own country as a haven for our culture and way of life. For example, in your own living room, your own family has its own chosen lifestyle. You would not welcome invasion by tramps. But this doesn’t mean you hate other members of the human race—you probably wish they could find somewhere to live and could manage to sort themselves out, but in their own homes, and not in yours. Britain should be primarily for the British, and we should wish all others well, but without asking them to come and replicate hostile cultures in our midst.

The Anglosphere and the EU

This means, given that there will always be some immigration, that, given the choice, we should choose the more assimilable immigrants. If we, owing to our misguided education policies, do not produce adequate numbers of doctors, dentists and nurses, it is counterintuitive to seek them in Somalia or Afghanistan, nations that have alien and largely incompatible cultures. We should start by looking to the Anglo-Saxon diaspora. There are few skills anywhere in the world that are not found in America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and among the European-descended populations of South Africa and Rhodesia, not to mention Ireland, which was once part of our state. The European populations of these countries approach 250m, and if it be genuinely claimed that we don’t have all the skills we need, we should consider a generous policy of virtually free immigration of European-descended people from the Anglosphere.

This policy would allow a nation of 60m (the UK) to tap a wider labour pool of 250m. It is ludicrous to claim there are skills in Afghanistan that cannot be found in the Anglosphere. However, we are a member state of the European Union, and also of the European Economic Area, including Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, within which free labour migration has been agreed. This is a population pool of around 500m people, over and above the 250m of the Anglosphere. These people are largely racially and culturally compatible with us, people who, if they congregate in large numbers in one area (such as has apparently happened in Boston), might create a problem, but who would in one generation assimilate totally in a way that is not the case with Africans and Asians. So we are now talking of a pool of people of 750m—virtually the entire advanced world (aside from a few places such as Japan and Hong Kong). Who could really believe that we, as an economic necessity, need to look beyond these places for migrants?

Yet the question of EU migration has become high-profile in the UK, to an extent that the (greater) inflows of non-EU migrants are being overlooked. Who are the more problematic migrants? Which population groups have the highest crime rates? Which population groups come for the benefits? Which population groups are likely to foster a terrorist fifth column in our midst?

Do we need Eastern European labour?

The question is complex, to the extent that relatively high crime rates are reported among Poles, Lithuanians and Romanians in the UK. There are frequent media reports of rape and murder by Poles and Lithuanians, and of begging, thievery and anti-social behaviour by Romanians. I don’t believe Eastern European countries to be more disorderly than the UK, and I wonder whether migrant groups naturally contain within them a floating population of the underclass from whatever nation, in the same way that the English population of Spanish seaside resorts probably contains a high proportion of English ne’er-do-wells. As our overriding obligation is to our own nation first, we should deport all foreign criminals, including those from Poland, Lithuania and Romania, and not hold them in our own prisons, and such people who are deported should not be allowed readmittance.

However, crime reports are balanced by the apparently strong work ethic of Lithuanians and Poles, and it is claimed, probably correctly, that many English people have been allowed to remain on benefits for too long to be coaxed back into work. For one thing, employers don’t wish to employ the long-term unemployed. I do not believe Eastern Europeans should have access to our welfare system, and so the Lithuanians and Poles should only come for work, and not for any negative purposes, but there is a certain amount of evidence that both unskilled labour of a sort that our long-term unemployed (and supposed “sick”) are reluctant to provide and skilled work in the form of doctors, nurses and so forth is needed to a certain extent in our economy. We should review our welfare and education systems in order to become more self-reliant, but it seems to me that Lithuanian and Polish workers—those who come to work and not to commit crime or tap benefits—should be among our first ports of call (in addition to the Anglosphere) when seeking overseas workers. They certainly are more acceptable than Indians, Pakistanis and Nigerians.

However, the issue is beclouded by resentment at the way in which Eastern Europeans are believed to undercut wages. I believe that in-work benefits (working family tax credit, child tax credit and housing benefit for those in work) play a role in this, in that Eastern Europeans may accept relatively low wages in the UK, topped up by benefits, whereas an Englishman on welfare may calculate that, given the panoply of benefits he is already entitled to on welfare, it is not worth his while to work 40 hours a week for a relatively small increment in his income. In-work benefits should be phased out, to avoid public subsidy of foreign (and domestic) workers working for a low wage. This would lead to higher wages for low-end work in the UK, thus possibly pricing Englishmen on welfare back into the job market. Of course, there are other considerations, such as the value of workers’ remittances once remitted back to Poland, which means a low wage might be considered acceptable to a Pole, and also the way in which economic policies to boost the housing market raise accommodation costs in a way that makes work unviable for many. These issues are worthy of discussion in another article.

However, my general point that we will always need some foreign labour, and should take it from the most assimilable groups, remains valid. No government organisation should provide information in dozens of European languages, and nothing should be done to indicate to Poles and others that there is no need to integrate in our country. Like all immigrants, they should adapt to the local culture, and a firm policy of opposing multiculturalism should assist this.

The bogeyman of racism

It seems therefore that the debate in the UK, which focus on the Poles, requires explanation. If the Poles are more assimilable and have a strong work ethic, why is it that the Poles are mentioned most frequently in discussion of immigration? Why is it that UKIP is building support for an exit from the EU on the need to exclude Eastern Europeans?

It is my belief that nearly everyone who is concerned about immigration and multiculturalism sees 1) crime and constant harping on “racism” by African and Afro-Caribbean groups and 2) crime, religious extremism and terrorism by Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Arab and other Muslim groups as the main threat to our nation. It is not the Poles we are most worried about. I have never met anyone who thought the Poles were more of a problem than the Pakistanis. Yet when it comes to discussing immigration in public, we shy away from discussing race, and focus instead on immigration from white countries. When we wish to say Somalis are unassimilable, we end up talking about Lithuanians! This is done, of course, to fly under radar, to avoid the smokescreen of “racism” erected by our opponents. But we have reached the point where large numbers of people now talk exclusively about the Poles, and sometimes about the Romanians too, when far larger inflows are being received from Africa and Asia, and recent data have shown that non-EU migration is a huge net drain on our economy, while EU migration is a (small) net positive.

In a world where large nations such as China and India are coming to the fore, it is not illogical for smaller countries like the UK and other European nations to band together to defend their interests on the world stage. A broader civilisational identity does overlay our national identity: we are both part of the Anglosphere and also a part of Europe, a continent that once defined itself by its racial identity and its Christian heritage. There is nothing extreme in this. The Chinese see themselves as a racially Chinese nation. Why shouldn’t they? The Nigerians see themselves as black. What is wrong with that? It is only the truth that we are who we are, and we are closely related to nearby nations in a way that is not true of more distant nations. In terms of religion, language, political views and much else, Poland is more comprehensible to us than Cambodia or the Guinea. Why should we pretend this is not the case? The people of the Anglosphere and Europe as a whole are our cousins, or were so in the relatively recent past, and in a more integrated world, we should seek to cooperate, and where necessary draw migrant labour, from nations that are more closely related to us.

This realisation occurred to me during a recent trip to Prague. The Czech Republic is a nation of attractive, intelligent people who have made a considerable contribution to Western civilisation, from Jan Hus (the Reformation-era preacher) to Leoš Janáček (the composer) to Milan Kundera (the author). It struck me as totally counterintuitive that if the UK left the EU it should adopt a policy of hostility to Czech national interests. The architecture, including the churches, in Prague leaves one in no doubt that this country is a core part of Western civilisation.

I do not say that the UK should abandon its own national interests to do the bidding of Eastern European nations, but merely that we do have a larger civilisational identity that does embrace other European (“white”) nations that share most of Western culture with us. Yet much of the negative debate around Eastern Europeans is influenced by the behaviour of “Roma” (Eastern European gypsies) in the UK. These people are not of European descent, having arrived ultimately from India in the late Middle Ages, and are noted in most Eastern European countries for a high crime rate. It is worth noting that UKIP’s success in the European elections earlier this year came as as a result of Nigel Farage’s telling the truth when he stated that there was a difference between the behaviour of Romanians (generally not actually white Romanians, but “Roma”, or Romany gypsies) and the behaviour of Germans in the UK. German workers in London are probably a boon; Romanian cashpoint thieves are not. We must draw this distinction in the immigration debate, and this distinction is fundamentally a racial one. White Eastern Europeans are much less likely to prove a problem in the UK.

A pro-European EU?

The European Union would therefore make much more sense to me if it were a union of European states determined to defend their European identity. Yet oddly, we are required to accept “Roma” as Romanian citizens, to accept Arabs as French citizens, to accept Somalis as Swedish citizens, and Turks as German citizens for the purpose of migration of labour. They are required to accept Indians, Pakistanis and Nigerians as British citizens in return. I would suggest that our problems with migration would be largely solved if we allowed free immigration of white Christians from Europe and the Anglosphere, and if the EU nations collectively agreed to prevent non-white immigration into any European nation.

We can go further than this and admit that Russians, Ukrainians and Byelorussians share our civilisational identity, and represent a further pool of more than 200m people who ought to be integrated into the West as the rise of China and India turns into a civilisational stand-off between Europe and unrelated nations. I don’t include Chechens, Dagestanis and others in this, but only the European Christian populations that we could forge into a united force in world affairs. While China and India have large populations each exceeding 1bn, the EU, plus Russia, the Ukraine and Byelorussia, and taken together with the Anglosphere amount to a demographic force of more than 1bn people. We ought to be able to ensure our long-term security and prosperity in a future non-European-dominated world, but instead we are engaged in the madcap policy of alienating Russia and attempting to push her into some kind of alliance with the Chinese (although it is unclear whether the Chinese are interested in this, probably because the Chinese are, sensibly, aware of the racial/cultural distinction between themselves and the Russians). It is possibly the case that immigration from Russia would be a source of crime in a similar manner to the Poles and Lithuanians, but I think in most respects such immigration would still be preferable to Africans and Asians, and serve a long-term objective of integrating the European civilisation into a united political and economic force in world affairs.

Sadly, the prospect of a pro-European Europe does not seem on the cards. We seem to be determined to pursue multiculturalism rather than the defence of Western civilisation, although most of the alleged gains from immigration would be better achieved by adopting my policy, in the place of the importation of alien cultures from Africa and Asia.

This brings me back to the political debate in the UK on the EU. It is constantly pointed out that being in the EU means we can’t control migration from the European Continent. Why does no-one ever point out that nothing is being done to control migration from those parts of the world that are not in the EU? David Cameron could, in fact, make a reasonable offer to people opposed to multiculturalism if he vowed to close off non-EU migration entirely. Why is it that millions of people in India and Africa may come in on “family reunification” visas, reunifying with someone who is himself not European in the first place? Spousal visas, where someone who is not European, but has an EU passport, can bring in a spouse from Bangladesh (often an unknown person, owing to the cultural traditions of arranged marriage), also serve to fuel the increase in the non-European population in the UK and nearby countries. None of this has any positive economic impact. Family members and spouses are not required to show they are “skilled workers”. Refugees are also largely from Africa and Asia, hailing in the main from countries that are breeding grounds for terrorism. What are we playing at, inviting these people to come? The European countries are not the logical destinations for refugees, who ought to go to nearby countries on their own continents, countries where their own cultures are accepted.

If UKIP proposals are accepted, EU migration might be halted (or a moratorium imposed), but the mass immigration of family members, spouses and refugees from Africa and Asia would continue as a “human rights” obligation. UKIP spokesmen even make a great play of claiming that preferring EU migration to the immigration of Indians is “racist”. We are making a terrible mistake in this. I firmly believe all European nations should re-register their citizenship rolls to include only European people (people of mediaeval European descent). We can’t do much about the people already unwisely brought in—maybe they should get Permanent Resident cards, which would not entitle them to free migration in other European states, or to benefits, public-sector employment, immigration of family members or spouses. We ought to insist that those who are here now adapt on the basis of our culture—multiculturalism should be ended, and indeed the promotion of it in the media, in the education system and by local councils should be made a criminal offence. If all European-descended nations did the same, we might find the concept of the EU began to make more sense.

Even if we do leave the EU, we might find ourselves in the European Economic Area, with free migration still offered to other European nations. This would be a better situation than the one we are in now, as we would regain control over our own laws. We would still be part of an alliance of related nations. In any case, we should prioritise relations with related nations, the 1bn people of Western civilisation, over nations further afield. We need to reorient a debate that has been successfully skewed into a discussion of the negative repercussions of allowing hardworking white Poles into the UK into a more logical discussion of the role of Muslim communities, South Asians and Africans, which is much more uniformly negative and one that will eventually destroy our nation altogether at some point in the future if we are too timid to engage in this discussion.

9 thoughts on “Should we take in Muslims or Poles?

  1. I’m not initially sure that I can pick any holes in this at all.

    However, that question of “what the hell are we playing at?” is instantly answered by saying that all this has been brought upon us on purpose by our own ethnically-native Political Class. Its PuritaNazis found they would fail to “improve” us down to their “Model-Being” by Garden-Villages, Churches, Temperance-Halls and (now and then, here and there) Eugenics and Secure Institutions.

    So, rather as Hitler raged and ranted against “The German People” in April 1945, for failing him by letting “his” armies end up being utterly and futilely-defeated (in the face by then of overwhelming force and previously-avoidable ruin) our political masters are I think bent now on destroying us. They’re going to do it culturally in the main.

    This cultural route to Anglosphere-destruction-at-the-source – sort of like “Draining The Swamp” – is the best way for the Enemy that also avoids them being charged with outright genocide, even though it takes so, so very very much longer.

    They don’t care how long it takes, for “it’s not the taking part that counts, it’s the winning”.

    For then (carefully not referring to their simultaneous “education reforms and policies for improvement, for hard-working-children and families of gender or of none” they can blame us, the English People, for our fate. For “laziness”, “lack of drive”, uncuriosity”, “racism against multiculturally-vibrant peoples of vibrant-colour and corruscating-vibrancy” (who would cheerfully vote for British Nazi parties when paid to, or having their postal votes “sorted out for them”), and so forth.

    Until there is a “fundamental step-change” (whatever a “step change” might be, as opposed to a “change”) in the British Political EnemyClass, this problem will remain.

    • Yes, of course, you’re right DD. Cameron, had he wanted to, could have unveiled plans to cut back on or restrict non-EU migration, but clearly they don’t want to – even though the government’s own figures show non-EU migration is a huge drain on the economy.
      They keep on repeating “we need their skills” as they suck in people from African and Asian countries with no skills who sit on benefits, because this is part of a wider project of cultural change being planned over decades.
      In a way, it’s impressive how such a long-term plan can be adhered to for decades: China planned its population in terms of the one-child policy; the UK has planned its population in terms of a cultural and demographic shift to an Asian-dominated future.

  2. Well obviously no immigrants, from anywhere, should have access to taxpayer funded benefits – I think everyone would agree with that principle.

    However, Mr Webb is quite correct – Poles do not tend to have any hostile intent towards this country or the West generally, And followers of Mohammed (for what they consider good theological reasons) does hold that the world, being the creation of Allah, should belong to his followers.

    Friends should be let in the city gates (as it were), but foes should not – and that is not an insult to the foes, it is simply taking them seriously (if anything it is not a insult – it is the COMPLEMENT of taking them at their word, taking them seriously).

    I find the attitude of the establishment, that a belief system that has been attacking the West since the 7th century is just a silly little thing that does not matter, utterly baffling.

    Islam is not some sort of Christianity in fancy dress, it is a theological and philosophical (and POLITICAL) system in its own right. Historically the great rival of the West. Nor is Islam obsessed with a tiny corner of the world (about the size of Wales) – Islam is a global, a world, religion. Its aim is universal.

    The followers of Mohammed must be taken seriously – as a serious power, which they are. A Jew who became (say) Mayor of New York City would be considered insane (by his fellow Jews) if he tried to impose Jewish religious law on the city – a Muslim who became Mayor of New York City would be considered a traitor (an apostate – worthy of death) by his fellow Muslims, if he did not work to expand the religious power of Islam in the city. And, as every good soldier knows, deceiving the enemy (in this case the “infidels”) is a necessary part of war. To lie for personal advantage is a disgusting to do (Islam teaches this as much as other religions do) – but to lie for the cause of Islam is, for a follower of Mohammed, a noble thing (to be praised and honoured). To promise peace and then to attack by surprise was a tactic that Mohammed himself – and a tactic used with great success (it was part of his genius to be able to convince people of his peaceful intentions – and then destroy them).

    This is NOT a matter of a few folk dances or happy songs. This is a matter of a very serious (and hostile) power indeed. Mohammed was a politician and soldier of genius – and many of his followers, down the centuries, have also been political and military leaders of genius – and it is the duty of all Muslims (great and small) to do their best to expand the frontiers of Islam. Which they have done by more than a thousand years of on-off WAR – as outlined by Gladstone and Winston Churchill and so many other commenters (before it became semi illegal to discuss these matters honestly).

    And numbers are important. Again, as every good soldier knows, it is folly to attack if one is hopelessly outnumbered – but as one’s numbers rise (either via immigration, or via conversion, or via child birth) so the military situation changes. Indeed if one becomes overwhelming powerful in numbers ordinary battle may not even be needed – as the old saying goes “to win without fighting is the apex of skill”.

    It is not “treating Muslims with respect”, as the “liberal” establishment claim, to deny all this this – it is to treat believing (not nominal) Muslims with great DIS respect to deny it. They are a warrior faith – prepared to do anything, anything at all, to win the world for Allah. And they are as willing to sacrifice their own lives, if necessary, as they are to kill other people. I say again, Islam is NOT a matter of a few folk dances and happy songs. The patronising “liberal” establishment that refuses to learn anything, shows radical DIS respect for Muslims when it treats Islam as if it was nothing important.

    When the armies of Islam (and the armies of Islam have often worn civilian dress – again since the time of Mohammed himself) approach the gates of the city they must be treated with respect – the respect of keeping the walls manned and the gates firmly closed.

  3. As for the “New Left” plan to deliberately encourage Third World immigration to Europe, including Britain.

    Yes it does exist and it does go back decades – Mr Webb is correct about that.

    However, the “Progressive” establishment have miscalculated – and miscalculated very badly indeed.

    The “enemy of my enemy” is NOT my friend.

    Just because, for example, the followers of Mohammed are enemies of the old Christian “capitalist” West, does NOT mean they will prove to be friends of “cultural Marxism”.

    On the contrary – they are, eventually, likely to kill the male leftists and take the female ones as slaves. As is already done in Syria, Iraq and so on. Indeed even the male leftists may well be quite docile slaves – if a little operation is done.

    “But that can not happen now – not in the 21st century”.

    My dear Progressives – you must free yourselves from Hegel (which is where Karl Marx got the thinking from) the date does not matter, not in these matters, there is no “spirit of the age” or “historical stage”, not in “historicist” terms anyway.

  4. Paul Marks makes some excellent points about how treating “enemies” seriously shows more respect than post-modern “liberals” show with their endless condescension and snivelling apolgetics.

    “Islam is not some sort of Christianity in fancy dress, it is a theological and philosophical (and POLITICAL) system in its own right.”

    This is very well said.

    The UKIP obsession with Eastern European immigration – and especially the way in which the party has taken to saying that discriminating in favour of people of European ancenstry is “racist” – goes to show that in its own way UKIP is as cowardly as the mainstream. Two thirds of immigration into Britain is from countries outside of the EU. It should be perfectly possible to make the case for greater controls on the numbers who arrive and are allowed to remain. One is not talking about individuals and personal animosity but groups and group dynamics at a national policy level.

  5. I think this is a wonderfully sane and logically thought out article. To forgetfully butcher some historic quote: stating the truth of things has now become a revolutionary act.

    The problem seems to be that there are too many vested interests that hold the levers of power who will not entertain what is being proposed. Call me paranoid, but I think there is some kind of agenda to make sure it never happens.

    Another aspect is the inability of the political class – or mainstream culture – to admit defeat or admit mistakes. This, tragically, leads to a “doubling down” on insanity.

    Teresa May was in the newspapers the other day, suggesting that without all this different communities here (Muslim, Sikh, African, Jewish, etc) Britain would not be Britain – and how marvellous a contribution they have made to our nation.

    What is this based on? Nothing. There is no real evidence of this as far as I can tell. Furthermore, if Britain only became Britain in the advent of the 1950’s, what was it before then? We could have done perfectly well on our own and have been much better of for it today too.

    But now that these people have the demographic power to swing elections, now that they are approaching 20% of England and Wales, now that they are second, third, fourth generations – and often the “lazy unemployed Brits” that new Eastern Europeans are coming to fill the shoes of – and now that they are embedded into institutions, parties, every nook and cranny of British life…..

    … would the establishment ever hold their hand up and admit they have made a mistake, that, you know, this mass immigration and racial/cultural displacement of the hosting nation is not really working out very well, is very volatile, not worth the reams and billions of pounds worth of effort to keep stable, that it actually hasn’t been any real boon, but in fact extremely costly to boot?

    They can never do it. They cannot and will not slap millions of people in the face and insult them, even when it is justified to question these things and to propose a future policy aimed at rectifying mistakes and changing course.

    The course will not be changed by them. In fact, in order to prove that the current systems and lines of thought are working, they will “double down” on the madness and import more. After all, it is “dynamic” and “vibrant” and “essential to the economy” and has “enriched” our little Island no end. So why not just keep adding to this?

    This is assuming that our leaders actually have freedom to do anything, and that it is not orchestrated as part of a wider plan for all European nations and indeed, the wider world, to be irredeemably mixed up and eventually generic. There are many quotes from influential people who allude to the desire to undermine and destroy homogeneous nation states, and I happen to take them seriously at their word and their intentions.

    Hopefully I am wrong. Hopefully more people will come to see the common sense applied in this article and push for it. Once again, I appreciate the piece and hope it gains some traction in future discourse throughout this country and other European/Occidental nations.

  6. Pingback: The Libertarian Alliance in the Slovak Media | The Libertarian Alliance Blog

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s