The coming change?
By D. J. Webb
We seem to be witnessing the rebirth of nationalism across the Western world, but it is not an uncomplicated nationalism. How could it be now that our societies have all become multicultural? In the days when there were few immigrants about, nationalism could appeal to the vast majority of the population. Now it could only ever appeal to a section (i.e. part of the “White” electorate), and many “liberals” choose (with a heavy dose of malice and virtue-signalling) to interpret nationalism as fascism, as some kind of menacing threat to minorities already here.
You can’t ever really turn the clock back, and so the chances of creating monocultural societies are vanishingly low. We’re saddled with the legacy of decades of rather stupid policies. These policies were introduced in a manner that specifically sought to change demographic realities in a way that would frustrate any attempt to overturn the “liberal” dispensation.
The result is political confusion. In the UK, the form our nationalist pushback is taking is demanding exit from the EU lest Poles and Lithuanians arrive in greater numbers. I fear this is not well-thought-through. Although a decent education and benefits policy should ensure we needed few migrants, discouragement of our own working class (sitting on the dole and on the “sick”) and an educational policy that churns out millions of people with degrees in political propaganda but nothing useful in the workplace means that we are likely to need a great deal of both skilled and unskilled migration for the foreseeable future. Which migrants should we take?
The think-tankers and wonks (Carswell, Hannan etc) are trying to revive the Anglosphere/Commonwealth. Maybe the Anglosphere means something, but the Commonwealth is not identical to the Anglosphere, and swapping even greater numbers of migrants from the New Commonwealth countries in the place of Poles and Lithuanians is a rather foolish policy, and not one that can make the slightest sense in nationalist terms.
Reading recently that India sees an opportunity to push for more Indian students graduating from UK universities to be allowed to take up work in the UK as the price of freer trade between a post-Brexit Britain and India underlines the folly of this all. Theresa May, in India at the moment, has refused to relax visa rules on Indians as the price of a trade deal, but she has reiterated that nine out of ten applications for immigration from India are already accepted and has stated that the UK intends to continue to source “the brightest and the best” from India. Gasp! Of course, India realizes that the Asianization of Britain is in its long-term interests.
It seems Brexit can be handled by the British elite in a way that leads to greater multiculturalism and not less. Given the fact that Britain will decline as a percentage of the global economy throughout the century, the only decent response to the rise of the non-white world is for the European countries to advance their interests jointly on the world stage. If America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were to abandon their current multicultural policies and redefine themselves as European societies that aimed to retain a European majority, then the Anglosphere and Europe could forge an even better and stronger alliance that could on a sustainable basis defend the rights of all the European countries on the world stage. At present, this outcome seems remote.
A nationalism that fails to recognize the decline of the white world and the common advantage of white nations in forging an alliance simply won’t work. The EU and NATO as they are presently conceived are outdated concepts, ultimately based in the Cold War and US attempts to rally wider European support behind it against Russia. Even today, both of these institutions see anti-Russianism as a key part of their outlook on global affairs.
No one has sat down and asked the question: what will the world look like in 2100? Do we intend any countries to have a European majority by then? Should Western (i.e. European) civilization be maintained at all? Are the common interests of European countries based in a joint promotion of non-Western migration and cultural change? Or should we insist that the non-White world can trade with us, but must accept our rights to our portions of the globe, just as they have theirs?
The US is, of course, the source of the problem, in that a decision was taken in the 1960s to wrap up America as a European country and to encourage all of its allies in Europe to do the same thing. With a majority of births in the US now to non-White mothers, a change is already baked in. America could follow long-term policies of Europeanization, by deporting all illegals who come to the attention of the authorities, deleting all programmes for non-White migration (including family unification, spousal visas and asylum) and by encouraging European migration to the US. But such policies would need to be followed consistently for decades to yield results. What is our strategy for dealing with a France that will once day be majority Muslim? We can’t even discuss these problems, given the continued dominance of the anti-racist narrative in our culture, a dominance that is becoming ever more coercive.
It was always likely that political attention would finally focus on these issues only when the final end-result was already set in stone. Yet if a minority of black people in the US manage to defend their interests by means of racial solidarity, there is no reason why 200m White Americans could not reconceptualize themselves as a racial community with a common identity. From the point today where political discussion is all on how to get black support or Hispanic support, the political parties could be forced into the situation of having to compete for the support of a White community that openly interpreted politics in terms of the advantages to it as a community too. It seems therefore that there is a possibility that the Trump movement could forge a long-term movement for White identity in America. Those who oppose identitarian politics need to explain why identitarianism is fine only when it is restricted to non-White minority groups.
In the UK, the wonkish issue of withdrawal from the EU functions as a nationalist cause, but one that is not explicitly geared to the preservation of European culture in Europe (including Britain). The referendum on Brexit should be followed by one on immigrexit. I want to “exit” the policies of immigration and multiculturalism too.
The Conservative Party is in the way, just as the Republican Party is in the way in the US. Theresa May is thinking of hijacking nationalism and converting it into support for a new and more destructive wave of globalization. I am left hoping that political instability as the existing party structure is openly acknowledged not to suit the current circumstances will play a positive role in all European countries. Yet UKIP’s collapse since June shows that no outfit is yet ready to or even attempting to garner support among the White working class for nationalist policies that go beyond Brexit.
There are two key points underlying all of this. Firstly, that globalization was an outlook that ultimately stemmed from the period of US hegemony in Western politics. The old era is going, and those who are wedded to globalization, including Mrs May’s Asianization policies, may eventually find themselves on the wrong side of history, just as imperialists who tried to hold on to scraps of territory East of Suez were fighting a losing battle. Secondly, Brexit and Trumpism reflect the fact that even the Establishment is not sure of its policy of globalization any longer. In any society, a united and confident ruling class can generally carry all social debate. Somehow society has noticed that the old policies are not working any longer. While many Establishment voices actually oppose EU membership, and even multiculturalism if you listen carefully, and while elite support in the US for Trumpism is greater than might be apparent through a reading of the media, large numbers of officials and large numbers in the professional middle classes who have for decades received their cue from the globalizing elite are trying to hold their existing line.
We need to be clear. Nationalism and opposition to immigration are not divisive. They are potential societal unifiers. It is immigration and multiculturalism that are divisive. But in a world where non-White economies are rising quickly in influence, nationalism only works in the context of a joint European, and preferably Euro-American, enterprise to preserve Western civilization. This is an idea whose time has come, but one-world triumphalism, a legacy ideology, still stands in our way. The anti-Establishment movement at present remains too inchoate to give birth to the general agreement on European survival that is our only way forward—if we get to have a way forward, that is.