Immigration: the time for half-measures is over

Much ire has been directed at Priti Patel today for her vacuous remarks, apparently defending the Tory record on immigration. There's no getting away from it. Her remarks were tone-deaf, wrong, and breathtakingly arrogant. But that's about what I'd expect from Patel. She is a low ability, low intellect politician and the right were fools to ever take her seriously.

What is more insulting, however, is the response from Suella Braverman. Braverman has, to a point redeemed herself in recent speeches, giving the outward impression that she does at least understand why the Tories so comprehensively lost. Today, though, she's thrown all of that in the bin.

She tweeted earlier "The British people do not owe us an apology. The last Conservative Government failed to lower immigration despite promises to do so. I tried but was blocked repeatedly by the Cabinet. Every one of us in the Conservative Party has only one thing to say about our record on immigration: Sorry".

That's it. Sorry. "Sorry, we committed one of the worst acts of demographic vandalism in modern history". Sorry doesn't even begin to cut it. I prefer Patel's unrepentant waffle to "Sorry".

This is compounded by a "rebuke" of Patel by Kemi Badenoch this evening. In response to Dame Priti’s interview, a spokesman for Mrs Badenoch said: “As Kemi said when she committed to a hard cap on visas in November, under her leadership the Conservative Party will tell the truth about the mistakes we made".

There is still no sign of an actual policy from Badenoch. If the Tory party is "sorry" then the bare minimum we need to see is a comprehensive plan to reverse the Boriswave, starting with abolishing Indefinite Leave to Remain. But the most Badenoch can commit to is a cap on visas.

Badenoch can "tell the truth" about the Tory record on immigration in office, but she doesn't get any slack for that. We don't need her to tell us the truth. We know. We see it on our streets every day.

I'm certainly not expecting the Tory party to see the light and call for remigration, nor do I expect Badenoch to match the weasel-worded rhetoric of Rupert Lowe, but we at least deserve some sign that the Tory party recognises the gravity and urgency of the situation we find ourselves in.

I am told that Badenoch would be wrong to publish policy at this point because things can change in four years. But we can say with certainty that public anger is not going to abate, nor the fact that there are millions here with no right to be here, and millions more who shouldn't be here whether they're here legally or not.

With the Reform party having an ambiguous and weak position on immigration, the goalposts are wide open for Badenoch but policy is apparently too much to ask. Instead she can only pledge to "tell the truth", that the Tory party, herself included, completely dismissed public demands for a drop in immigration, and the most they can say for themselves is "sorry". I have a few suggestions as to where Mrs Braverman can place her apology. She and Badenoch are no better than Patel.

___

It’s clear now that unless the Tories can somehow oust Badenough and install Robert Jenrick, there is no future for the Tory party. The polls, for what they’re worth, suggest that Reform is now overtaking them. Badenoch is utterly failing to put a personal stamp on her leadership or outline any vision.

All the same, Reform isn’t fit to govern either. We can only guess whether it will be a party of Rupert Lowes or Tim Montgomeries. I’ve said it many times but there will be no way out of Britain’s malaise until there is an intellectual renaissance on the right. We can say for certain that it won’t come from the Reform end of things, especially while Farage is in control, but it’s not going to arrive on Badenoch’s watch either. Our politicians are universally unserious and the right is no exception.

With that in mind, I’ve pretty much given up on the right. Both parties of the right are afraid to nail their colours to the mast and set out a coherent definition, and neither are brave enough to say what needs to be said. They flirt with the rhetoric of “muscular civic nationalism” but won’t go near any policy that might fulfil it. But even if they did, I still wouldn’t be interested.

I actually concluded during the course of wiring my manifesto that an intellectually coherent civic nationalist party that understands their own shtick about "integration" and "dominant culture" would have to employ radical policies, up to and including remigration of all foreigners who can't and won't integrate, and as such would be little different in policy terms from an explicitly nationalist party.

Surveying the political landscape, however, shows that self-declared civnat parties talk the talk, but they don't have the guts to walk the walk. That is why I joined the Homeland Party. I liked the SDP, and very nearly joined, but at a New Culture Forum meeting, their leader explicitly ruled out remigration. Meanwhile, while Reform can only talk about deporting illegals, which doesn't even begin to address the problems, and as robust as Rupert Lowe is these days, he is counter-signalled by Farage at every turn. British politics now in need of an explicitly nationalist party.

___

Not even a year ago, I was a civic nationalist because I'd essentially resigned myself to mass immigration. I believed reversing mass immigration was neither practical nor ethical. Were it not for the Boriswave, I might still think like that. But this is one of those instances where if you give them an inch, they will take a mile. If you concede to their dogma, that we are a "multicultural success story" (despite the total absence of evidence), they will take it as permission to subsume the British people into their neoliberal morass and make us second class citizens in our own homeland.

That is, ultimately, what multiculturalism demands. In order to "tolerate" other cultures, must must compromise our own norms and values. It would perhaps be a different story if those other cultures were compatible but ultimately we're being asked to live with primitive third world tribalism.

Immigration on this scale is not immigration. It is replacement. It is colonisation. It is an extinction level event for British culture and the British people. To say that reversing mass immigration is unfair, unethical or impractical is to consign a thousand years of civilisation to the dustbin of history. It is an abnegation of our obligation as custodians.

To say that remigration is impractical is just laziness. If the political will exists it can be done. It will be contentious, at first. It may even be expensive, at first. It is likely to be disruptive. But it is necessary all the same. Our survival as a nation depends on it.

I take the view that it's only a matter of time until ethno-religious conflicts in faraway lands spill out on to our own streets. The signs are already apparent. This is an intolerable national security threat. The longer we delay remigration, the more dangerous it is going to be, and our cities will become war zones.

The model of multiculturalism we were sold in the nineties turned out to be the greatest lie of all time. We do not have collaborative, coexisting communities. We have ethnic enclaves, tribalism and sectarianism. It could have been managed and tolerated had immigration been controlled, but the state washed its hands of that obligation. What replaces a high-trust, cohesive society is an ungovernable, corrupt and violent anarchy.

As such, remigration is an essential component of reasserting Britain as a homeland. We have parties such as Reform and the SDP, and to an extent, the Tories, who are now borrowing the rhetoric of nationalism, but they repeatedly reject remigration (the only policy guaranteed to work). They instead talk about "integration" and "muscular civic nationalism" without saying what that entails. That is their fundamental dishonesty. We are left to guess. And we can safely assume that means more hand-wringing and procrastination. These are weasel words.

The bottom line is that millions must be deported. We are told this is extreme, but if that's true, they are saying enforcing the law of the land is extreme. There are at least two million illegal immigrants in Britain. They have no right to be here. We do not need them, we do not want them, and they contribute nothing.

But we cannot stop at just deporting illegals. This does not address the problem of garbage immigration. The majority of parasitic migrants who drain our welfare systems and burden our infrastructure are here legally. We never consented to their presence. We have every right to demand their removal. They will never integrate, they don't want to be integrated and their culture is so alien that they couldn't even if they wanted to. They are a danger to the welfare and security of the country.

Any political party that rejects remigration is essentially saying "we know this is bad but we can't do anything about it". But we can. And we must. Any party that pretends to take this issue seriously but won't take the necessary action is deceiving you. They are totally insincere and they're selling you out. We are past the point of half-measures. Accept no compromises. Remigration and only remigration will do.

___

In other news, The final final draft of the Homeland Party housing policy has gone in today and is scheduled for publication early next week. It takes a different tone to the approach I outlined in my manifesto in that there is a greater emphasis on social housing and building strong communities. Overall, the policy is well balanced.

At just under five thousand words, I think we've covered most of the bases. We are all agreed that new buildings must meet high living and architectural standards and there can be no repeat of the past by building shoddy rabbit hutches. We also spell out the need for comprehensive planning reforms and the need to re-imagine our towns and cities as livable spaces.

As you might expect, the policy favours British people over foreign born citizens and emphasises the need for community continuity and cohesion.

As of next week, we are turning our attentions to health policy. Nothing is agreed as yet but the general approach is towards more community-based healthcare, moving away from the model of large centralised hospitals. We are agreed that the NHS should remain free at point of need, though we do not rule out a high level of private sector involvement where marketisation and economies of scale can deliver better value of taxpayers. I can't say more than that, but I can promise you it will be innovative.

We've already published our immigration and remigration policy, which is more comprehensive than anything presently on offer from any of the other parties, and by year's end, we are likely to have the backbone of a full manifesto, which will surpass anything else in circulation. Though admittedly, with such an intellectually threadbare politics in Britain, that's not a high bar to reach.

In any case, in just a few months, albeit with delays, we've accomplished more in policy terms than Reform has since its inception, or is ever likely to being that Refrom doesn't recognise it has a problem. They are entirely satisfied with their hastily cobbled together collection of soundbites, tropes and slogans.

We do not believe in this cock-eyed notion that we should "keep our powder dry". Voters deserve to know what we stand for, and what we would do with power. We do not expect voters to guess what our policies are, or triangulate them from a series of tweets. We do not care if our policies are popular. We will go with whatever is right, and we will go out there and argue our case. That's how politics should be done. Unprincipled policy by focus group is how we got into this mess to begin with. All you'll get from Reform is slogans and half-baked gimmicks.