WHY DOES THE UK ESTABLISHMENT CONSTANTLY DEPOLITICISE QUESTIONS OF IMMIGRATION, RACE, ETHNICITY, AND CULTURE?

Allowing you your own thoughts could lead to trouble

by Colin Liddell

It is becoming clear to more people that the British establishment radically depoliticises the questions of immigration, race, ethnicity, and culture.

I first became conscious of this phenomenon when I became a supporter (although not a member) of the British National Party in the late 1990s. I had my reservations about the Party, but, under Nick Griffin, it was actually trying to "modernise" (= move away from stupid shit) while putting difficult but vital issues on the political agenda. All the other parties -- Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, etc. -- had been in steady agreement about removing these issues from the political agenda at least since the time of Enoch Powell. 

Also, back in the 1990s and the Zeroes, Russia was too weak and enmeshed in its own problems to even try subverting what was going on in the West. The BNP was there, in a truly organic sense, trying to focus on a vital part of the political agenda, which the other parties were in agreement about "depoliticising," i.e. removing it from the political light of day. 

On issues of immigration, race, ethnicity, and culture, all we got from the mainstream parties was the occasional "dog whistle."

In 1979, Mrs Thatcher used one particularly famous dog whistle to win the General Election when the Labour Party was still capable of beating her.

After that the Labour Party fell apart for a good few years, so that Thatcher didn't have to bother with another one. More recently, Keir Starmer clearly used dog whistles in the recent election to split the Tory vote and shore up Labour's own vote in the Red Wall contituencies.

But a dog whistle is not politics. It is sub-politics. A politician uses dog whistles when he or she has no wish to openly politicise an issue but still wishes to draw some popularity by letting people think he or she cares about it. 

Anyway, back in the Zeroes, the BNP was clearly being an "awkward customer" by attempting to put questions of immigration, race, ethnicity, and culture on the political agenda.

The solution arrived at was to use subversion, demonisation, intimidation, and lawfare to effectively destroy the BNP as an effective political force. The party was infiltrated by state operatives, the media constantly demonised it, and, with the help of a certain Julian Assange, the entire membership of the party was doxxed, threatened, and in many cases sacked. Yes, real Soviet tactics, merely because ordinary British people (and, yes, a few weird ones) wanted to politicise that which must not be politicised. 

But the British establishment had to do more than just destroy the BNP to solve this problem, because these issues touched on so many things in modern Britain.

The key strategy deployed was to separate immigration from  race, ethnicity, and culture, and to make it into a purely "technocratic" concern; while race, ethnicity, and culture were all sent to the outer darkness, using tabooifying strategies.

Anyone daring to raise these issues or even refer to them was hysterically labelled as "Islamophobic" or "racist," quickly followed by "Nazi," "Neo-Nazi," "Fascist," "Quasi-Fascist," etc. They even went so far as demonising a whole range of, up until then, entirely normal and natural feelings, denouncing people as "haters" often with more of that emotion than those they denounced. 

The depoliticisation of immigration was also favoured by Britain's increasing connections with the EU, which tended to make it a lot less visible than it had been.

Before Brexit, mass immigration was much more "invisible" although not without its stresses and frictions, or its impact on wages and public services. One "good" point about Brexit was that it helped to make the UK's dependence on its "immigration drug" all the browner and thus more visible. The first step to solving a problem is to first admit that you have it. That is essentially what Brexit did -- it made mass immigration more visible and thus repoliticised it. 

Visible = political

As I have written here before, there are real reasons why Britain has mass immigration and even reasons, at least from an economic point of view, why Britain may even need mass immigration. But it is also clear that Britain has been subjected to various forms of immigration that have NOT benefited it at all. The problem is, however, that none of this is open to normal, natural, open, healthy political debate. 

Why is this?

The reason is that immigration, at the end of the day, is not a separate technocratic or economic question about GDP and "growth" that is separate from race, ethnicity, and culture, as the British establishment tries to pretend.

Immigration, race, ethnicity, and culture all go together, and when they are properly politicised -- that is, opened up for debate in the clear light of day, with all the stakeholders notified, and all facts and consequences highlighted -- then all sorts of extremely awkward and existential questions are thrown up.

Among these questions are the following:

☛ "Is Britain, or should Britain be, in perpetuity, a White (majority) country?"
☛ "If leaving the EU was a referendum issue, why were British citizens denied a vote on multiculturalism?"

☛ "What issues are raised by differential birth rates between the races in the UK?"

☛ "Is it right for one cultural, racial, religious, or ethnic group to take more than others from the public purse?"

☛ "How can people who are simply not British in any conventional sense of the word be assimilated?"

☛ "Does assimilation involve some element of cultural subjugation to norms?"

☛ "Is Britain to be forever a country that survives through importing foreigners?"

☛ "If Britain is just something that changes its population every couple of centuries, what is the point of it? Is it just meaningless?"

☛ "If we admit that Britain is a 'meaningless' country, how will that impact present day social cohesion?"   

☛ "If Britain is to survive in a recognizable form, what does that mean for fertility?"

☛ "If British fertility is to be maintained, what impact will that have on the general culture, individual freedom, and especially women's position in society?"

☛ "Can fertility be separated from feminist concerns about female freedom and equality?"

This is just a quick list I came up with on the fly, and it can readily be expanded, but already you can see how instantly divisive and "problematic" these questions would be on a purely societal level, especially with our hysterical, hyper-feminised, emotionally incontinent, low-IQ culture. These questions, just by being asked, threaten the vital interests of many groups in our society and would possibly justify Elon Musk in his prediction that "civil war is inevitable."

But the fact is that all these questions are vital and need to be asked and answered somewhere, somehow, and sometime soon. Maybe not among the teary-eyed masses or out on the streets by angry mobs of people whipped up by toxic garbage on the internet. But to continue depoliticising vital questions like this, is a sign that a society is sliding into the grave that it has dug for itself.

____________________

Follow @cbliddell

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia).