Britain's nationalist dilemma

I unexpectedly ended up on an X Space (live conference) for several hours last night, debating the nuances between ethnonationalism and civic nationalism. Civil debate with people you vehemently disagree with is always worthwhile. Debating refreshes my ideas and definitions.

Leaving aside my reservations about ethnonationalism, the debate always ends up with protracted spider-web theories about the influence of Jews, and anti-Israel rants that sound no different to what leftists say on the matter.

I'm a pragmatist on that issue. Whether or not Israel has a right to exist, it does exist, it existed before I was born, possession is nine-tenths of the law, and what it's doing in Gaza now is preferable to the alternative of leaving Gaza under Hamas occupation. I don't see how blockades can be eased otherwise.

As to the substance of the debate, I'm still firmly in the civic nationalist camp. It has always been my view that Britain can successfully integrate incomers, and immigration from similar, compatible cultures is, on balance, a good thing, if limited to sustainable numbers.

But to remain a viable society it has to be confident about defining and upholding its own values. It cannot make concessions for alien religious sensibilities. Give an inch, and a mile is taken. The more you compromise on your own values, the you descend into the sectarianism of multiculturalism, and on a long enough timeline, end up giving rise to nativist identarian politics. If there is a growing "far right" in Britain, it is a wholly predictable consequence of multiculturalism.

I take the view that robust defence of national values is the primary defence against ethno-nationalism. Multiculturalism has allowed immigrant communities to live in parallel, and multiculturalist policies have encouraged and reinforced separatism. We have made too many compromises to alien religious sensibilities in fear of offending, and that has set a dangerous precedent. It has allowed Islamic extremism to thrive.

The cornerstone of civic nationalism is one law for all and equal application of the law without fear or favour. This principle has gradually collapsed over the last two decades. Two-tier policing is endemic. The Met Police kneels for BLM but doesn't hesitate to deploy in riot gear when it comes to policing the white working class. Consequently, nobody should be remotely surprised that nativism is making a come back. It's directly to do with politically correct policing, marinated in multiculturalism dogma, and in more recent times, American inspired wokery.

This is further exacerbated by politicians who believe mass immigration is a shortcut to economic growth, and continue to inflict unprecedented change on the public without their consent. Due to the inadequacies of our electoral system and the metropolitan bias of the BBC, distorted agendas of minorities are vastly overrepresented in politics and media.

If any of this is to be corrected, the Britain must reassert boundaries on what it will tolerate. To that end, it must curtail religious freedoms. The philosophers who promoted the ideal of religious freedom did so with a view to ending sectarianism among Christians. They never envisaged having to incorporate stone age cultures and alien religions based on political and demographic conquest.

Ultimately, a liberal democracy cannot remain a liberal democracy if it tolerates the intolerable. If the authority of the state is not used in defence of its own values, the majority will organise on ethnic lines eventually. That, more than anything, explains the rise of the far right in Europe.

A confident liberal democracy is one that asserts the majority values, and says to incomers that they are welcome if they leave their alien customs at the door. If living devoutly according to different rules prohibits you from abiding with the law, then you're not welcome and you don't belong, and if you won't go, we'll make you.

Unfortunately though, we have a government that simply turns a blind eye to Islamic extremism. It will do the bare minimum to prevent a terrorist atrocity, but will sit on its hands as our cities become ungovernable competing ethnic enclaves who will end up warring with each other and attacking the host majority.

At this point, the ethno-nationalist arguments are powerful. Demographics is destiny they say. Britain risks a process of Lebanonisation. Minorities exert their power by voting and organising on ethnic lines while the rest of us bicker in a state of division, and the only way to correct the problem is mass deportations.

On that score, I start to lean in their direction. I certainly believe we are within our rights to deport the 2m illegals in this country, and we should certainly create a hostile environment for migrants who make zero effort to integrate and probably don't have the capability of integrating. At this point, the distinction is where the lines is drawn. The ethno-nationalist freely admits they'll deport on ethnic criteria. Gradually, then all at once. That path, I feel, leads to unspeakable evils.

Some argue that unspeakable evils are necessary evils when it's a matter of demographic/cultural survival. Perhaps that's true if we're talking exclusively in ethnic terms, but the last eighty years has seen Britain successfully integrate people from all over the world, who have no affinity with, knowledge of, or loyalty to the country of their ethnic origin. Ethno-nationalism is just a little too rich for my blood.

But it's worth asking why they think what they think. It's certainly true that we have ethnic minority MPs with a foot in both camps, and Muslims MPs who represent only their Muslim constituents, and care more about the war in Gaza than NHS waiting times in their own backyard. This is what you get with ethnic bloc voting and the corruption of the postal vote.

The debate last night extended that concern, questioning the influence of Jews in our politics, and loyalties to Israel. That's where the spider web conspiracy theories creep in, being that Jews are heavily represented in civil society organisations, law and media. Is that the reason Britain unwaveringly supports Israel? They say it is. I say meh.

They say Israel is intent on cleansing palestinians from Gaza and directing them to Europe. I don't think that is the case, and we're not obliged to take them. Gazans remain entirely Israel's problem. Unsurprisingly NGOcrats in Britain would welcome Gazans with open arms to our shores.

That many NGOcrats are Jewish, I think, is neither here nor there. The Holocaust is deeply imprinted on the European Jewish psyche. Of course they're going to be left leaning in that respect. They simply haven't adapted their thinking to the modern world. People generally don't. Our politicians are still marinated in cold war dogma and WW2 mythology. That Jewish NGOcrats are inviting in people who would gladly slaughter them just for existing is typical of endemic suicidality of the modern left.

I have always found ethno-nationalists to be skilled debaters. They very often employ interrogative debating techniques that resemble hard sales tactics, as though they're trying to induct you into a cult. They want you to believe that multiculturalism and the erosion of Western civilisation is a deliberate Jewish conspiracy, and that the Jew presents a greater threat to us. Ethno-nationalism and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories seem to go hand in hand.

Civic nationalism in my view, is essential pragmatism for the preservation of functioning, high trust societies. We necessarily have to be intolerant of separatism, and alien customs and attitudes that threaten our national cohesion. Civic nationalism is national self-confidence and robust defence of the nation state as the foundation of community and democracy.

This has been undermined by the cowardice and indifference of our politicians, most of whom are still entrenched in post-war liberal internationalist dogma, who are squeamish at the idea of any brand of nationalism - to the point where they'd even abolish their own nations under supranational constructs such as the EU. This is why Brexit was fundamentally necessary. The progressive liberalism the left values simply cannot exist without definitive moral, social and physical borders. ie. Nations.

It's interesting to me that ethno-nationalists hate civic nationalist probably more than they hate anyone else. They regard us as traitors. I'm sure they're calling me a "goy boy" right now. This is because civic nationalists and ethno-nationalists are not bedfellows. They are not interchangeable ideologies.

There are superficial similarities in that they share a nationalist component, and to a point civic nationalism favours the native majority, so there is also an implied ethnic component to civic nationalism, but ultimately, if you're talking about the destination being ethnic homogeneity, and ethnic survival being contingent on dealing with "the Jewish problem", then you don't get to deny that you're far right. You're about as far down the rabbit hole as you can get.

What I fear, though, is that we have already made too many compromises. Civic nationalism is the ideal normative state, but mass immigration may have undermined British society to such an extent that far more robust corrective action must be taken.

Sooner or later, we may have to practice ethno-nationalist policies in respect of non-integrating Muslims, or we end up becoming an Islamic state. Right now, the biggest ethno-nationalist party of them all is the Muslim caucus. It requires an equal and opposite reaction. Election after election, the Muslim power base increases, and we risk losing everything we value. If Britain is to survive as a functioning democratic society, we need to act now.