'Our' future ancestors?
British nationalists are still at the amoeba stage. They haven't yet left the primordial swamp of fear, disgust, and easy manipulation by outside forces and grown eyes, legs, or lungs, never mind a brain. Look at them and you might see various twitches and pulses that suggest they want to evolve, but...
So, how far have they got on the grand learning curve of evolution?
Well, they have decided that immigration is a bad thing and must be stopped, but of course they have absolutely no idea how to go about this.
Their recent efforts, supporting a probably Russian-inspired attempt to split the Tory vote by boosting Reform UK, has put in a solid migrant-friendly Labour government for the next five years. And, of course, Reform UK, even when you cut its strings to the Kremlin, is simply a Neoliberal spiv party that believes in "global Britain" on steroids.
Their recent efforts, supporting a probably Russian-inspired attempt to split the Tory vote by boosting Reform UK, has put in a solid migrant-friendly Labour government for the next five years. And, of course, Reform UK, even when you cut its strings to the Kremlin, is simply a Neoliberal spiv party that believes in "global Britain" on steroids.
As for an actual ethno-nationalist party, there is absolutely nothing that can be seen without a microscope, not since the BNP collapsed in the early teens. But even at the miniscule level of British ethno-nationalism that still exists in nano-parties (like PA, Homeland, etc.) or in the anonymous internet culture on Twitter, Telegram, and YouTube, the thinking is still embarrassingly underdeveloped.
The next "big idea" in this tiny world is the idea of "remigration," an idea now being pushed by a range of micro-ethnats.
Not exactly an intellectual breakthrough, as even the 1970s National Front believed in something similar and at a time when it actually made sense. Too bad they wrapped it all up in a Swastika!
In the 1970s UK fertility rates were just starting to dip below the replacement level of 2.1, so in theory remigration would not have resulted in a massively top-heavy population pyramid of three or four old people to one young person, which is more or less what you are looking at now, assuming you could return Britain to "ethnonationalist purity."
As it is discussed, the remigration theory can be made more "palatable" by being broken down into various "easy" stages, starting by just closing the borders, then deporting criminals and illegals, then deporting non-Whites on welfare, then paying non-Whites to leave, and finally forcing them to. None of this is serious.
Why is this? Because economically Britain is a "migranty" country. As I wrote back in January:
Just cutting off the migration tap would immediately destroy our education sector, the NHS, and our tourism sector, while generally pushing up wages to the point where many businesses, already burdened by heavy taxes and regulations, would give up the ghost. This would cause a major financial collapse and a political crisis, which would destroy any government that tried it. It would be like Liz Truss versus the Lettuce on steroids.
In order to shut off the immigration tap therefore, any UK government would first have to radically restructure the economy, and this in a country that struggles to build a high-speed railway between Manchester and London! It is simply not going to happen.
As for repatriating various groups, that also is not nearly as easy as ethnats seem to suppose. This is because there are always two partners in any deportation, the sender and the recipient. Repatriation, where it happens on a big scale, is always a, ahem "voluntary process," with large groups of people usually leaving one Third World country where they are no longer wanted to return to their own Third World country. Usually, these groups are people who have only been in the host country a short time.
Not exactly an intellectual breakthrough, as even the 1970s National Front believed in something similar and at a time when it actually made sense. Too bad they wrapped it all up in a Swastika!
In the 1970s UK fertility rates were just starting to dip below the replacement level of 2.1, so in theory remigration would not have resulted in a massively top-heavy population pyramid of three or four old people to one young person, which is more or less what you are looking at now, assuming you could return Britain to "ethnonationalist purity."
As it is discussed, the remigration theory can be made more "palatable" by being broken down into various "easy" stages, starting by just closing the borders, then deporting criminals and illegals, then deporting non-Whites on welfare, then paying non-Whites to leave, and finally forcing them to. None of this is serious.
Why is this? Because economically Britain is a "migranty" country. As I wrote back in January:
"...the 'anti-immigration' UK is in fact quite 'immigrationy,' and the only way you could stop that would be with the same skillset you'd need to stop water being wet..."
Just cutting off the migration tap would immediately destroy our education sector, the NHS, and our tourism sector, while generally pushing up wages to the point where many businesses, already burdened by heavy taxes and regulations, would give up the ghost. This would cause a major financial collapse and a political crisis, which would destroy any government that tried it. It would be like Liz Truss versus the Lettuce on steroids.
In order to shut off the immigration tap therefore, any UK government would first have to radically restructure the economy, and this in a country that struggles to build a high-speed railway between Manchester and London! It is simply not going to happen.
As for repatriating various groups, that also is not nearly as easy as ethnats seem to suppose. This is because there are always two partners in any deportation, the sender and the recipient. Repatriation, where it happens on a big scale, is always a, ahem "voluntary process," with large groups of people usually leaving one Third World country where they are no longer wanted to return to their own Third World country. Usually, these groups are people who have only been in the host country a short time.
The political culture and architecture of Britain, by contrast, is simply light years away from making those kinds of uprootings and radical demographic changes possible.
To be blunt, Brits are locked into most of the multicultural and multiracial trends that they have themselves created over the last 70 years, mainly by their own decisions to prioritize individual freedoms, welfarism, and gender equality, which of course means that women, who are hypergamous, are disincentivized to marry and breed.
These we can loosely term "the problems of modernity."
British ethno-nationalism, such as it is, has almost zero awareness of these factors or how to deal with them, except for the occasional call of a return to antiquated "Christian morals" or "family values." In reality, there is no such thing as "morals" or "values" as these are simply the outgrowths of economic and political conditions, which are historical and therefore no longer exist.
What is needed is a modern approach to these problems. Sadly, this is something that ethno-nationalism is incapable of taking. But why is this? One reason is that ethnats are already struggling under an enormous burden of vituperation and unpopularity. Demanding, say, that feminism be reversed and women pushed into a social position of Victorian inferiority would just add to the toxic unpopularity. You need real political capital to take something like that on.
The slightly more evolved ethnat minds seem to realise the impossibility of changing things through mere politics, which is why they are inclined to hang their hopes on the possibility of a social collapse that would probably kill most of them.
Among the various opinions expressed in this area is the belief that an increasingly Third World Britain will at some point break down in chaos, allowing the radical demographic changes to occur and reassert "good old fashioned" British demographics in some nebulous way.
Really, they are just using LARPy memes to cope, because here too we find some rather crude and untested assumptions. For example, social breakdown might not favour the atomised and more elderly ethno-British population as much as one assumes.
Also, social breakdown is a lot harder than you may suppose, because the closer a society gets to it, the greater are the incentives become to avoid it. Rather than have the lights go out and the supermarkets run empty, "Brits" of all races and cultures would rather find a way to rub along together quite a bit longer.
There is no denying that British society, like all societies touched by modernity, is on a downward, aging, browning, deathward spiral. And of course, immigration doesn't even change the fundamental equation, as migrants start to behave like natives, becoming workshy, welfare-addicted, and low-breeding too, thus requiring more migrants who then follow the same trajectory.
But really addressing the issue is not a democratic political option, as the initial costs are simply too high.
The costs would even be high for a dictatorship, which ultimately has to maintain a certain degree of popularity as well. Thus, Western democracy has no chance of solving <1.5 fertility, unless it starts breeding population in artificial wombs, something that ethnats or just advocates of healthy demographics should be looking at.
Unfortunately, all produced by Musk sperms
Beyond that the best hope lies with various authoritarian or totalitarian states. Russia (1.42 fertility rate) is clearly failing at demographics, as is China (1.18), but interestingly North Korea (1.79) is doing a LOT better than South Korea (0.78).
Overall, it looks like demographically we are headed to an increasingly "Africanised" planet that will, as some ethnats hope, eventually break down in "redemptive chaos." The only problem is that such chaos will come much, much, much later than would be optimal for the revival of the British and European ethnos.
But in this future "hell world" of racial replacement by the most ante-modern elements is there any hope at all?
Perhaps. The world of a few hundred years hence might actually look a lot like the world of several hundreds of thousands of years prior. Then too there was no such thing that we would recognize as the "White man." That still lay in the distant future, through eons of evolution in the cold hard North.
While "re-Whiting" Britain by remigration may be a pipe dream, "re-Whiting" Britain by re-evolution might not be.
____________________
Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. As there is absolutely zero reward for honest content like this, support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia). or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.
Why would there be a financial collapse from merely ending immigration? I understand how this could happen if you immediately deported all foreigners, but I don't think it would happen upon closing the borders.
ReplyDeleteAlso, a birthrate of 2.1 would be easier to achieve if housing was more affordable, which is caused in part by the importation of millions of foreigners. Iceland and Ireland had such birthrates not too long ago. A less diverse society could also improve birthrates.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4881921
Over the last few decades increasing amounts of fragility have been inserted into the UK economy through excess debt, tax, and an inflated public sector. It is a complex balancing act to maintain this while keeping the soft power assets paying. The collapse of several key sectors combined with a general labour shortage would create all sorts of negative knock-on effects that would not descend into outright chaos but would definitely cause a LOT of immediate economic pain and prove toxic for any political leaders. British birthrates tanked in the 1970s when rents were considerably cheaper. This was due to the increased individual freedom that people (especially women) had.
DeleteThanks for the detailed reply.
DeleteI guess the UK is a bit different with regard to immigration than here in America's topping, Canada.
Canadians have historically supported immigration and have a very flimsy identity, which is only being discovered now as we lose it to the multicultural masses.
Opposition to immigration here is fairly unpartisan and recent, with no significant populist parties to make it unattractive. Liberal, Tory and even NDP supporters (to a lesser extent) are becoming an increasingly hostile to newcomers.
Part of the reason this is happening is that our government brings over people with skills we need, but without proper accreditation. So, doctors become taxi drivers and engineers hand me my coffee at Tim Horton's.
And while home prices are not the only contributor to our pathetic fertility rates, they aren't helping.
Finally, the funniest part of the whole thing is that it isn't just a white person thing. Sikhs and Hindus are fighting each other while Indians of all types can't stand Filipinos and vice versa.
The Cognitively Dissonant Right in Britain is utterly clueless. Even a complete 5-year halt on all immigration would require an authoritarian zero-Covid-style approach. As for mass remigration, we have not the army/navy, nor the systems to put such measures into practice- esp. since we have become even less of a superpower since Boris took over.
ReplyDelete