THE NATIONALISM DEBATE

A recent debate, available on YouTube, between a designated civic nationalist and an ethno-nationalist revealed some interesting points. The civic nationalist had previously stated that he did not agree that the English should become a minority in England, and the ethno-nationalist had previously described himself as a racial-nationalist (the point being that the description is important but not gospel).

The moderator of the debate allowed both to set out their stall. An omission was the absence of a definition of what each side considered ethno-nationalism or civic nationalism to be. The same absence applied to being British. The difference between citizenship and nationality was not explored. This was a major drawback.

The moderator intervened at one point to ask as to what each believed was needed. The ethno-nationalist bemoaned the lack of a sense of an English community (‘Where is the English community?’), and wanted a sense of Englishness promoted (NB it is an aim of Frankfurt School ideology to undermine patriotism – the loss of English community spirit signifies the success of cultural Marxism). The civic nationalist considered that there was a need for a more representative political party. Thus a difference in purpose was identified.

At one stage the civic nationalist stated that immigration was necessary to sustain the economy, that it was inevitable, and challenged as to how immigration could be stopped. This was a serious revelation.

The civic nationalist (rightly) rejected the focus on Israel and Jewish people that the ethno-nationalist had a reputation for.

The ethno-nationalist was very concerned at the demographic changes being foisted upon the UK, that would reduce the white British to being a minority in the UK within around 40 years (of more importance is the speed with which the English are being turned into a minority in England – it is England that is mostly affected by mass immigration and the English who rebelled against the EU). The ethno-nationalist was firm that mass immigration could and should be stopped, and that a number of undesirable immigrants (eg terrorists, extremists, and criminals, including illegal immigrants) should be deported.

The debate was conducted in good faith, and both parties are to be applauded for their approach to the matter, given the hostile friction swarming around YouTube between the two broader camps. It was useful that the ideological differences were discussed.

To pick up on the above points, it is untrue that mass immigration cannot be stopped. It can be stopped if there is the will to stop it. What is lacking is the will, and the ascendency of the false morality of political correctness that has imposed a fiction that the policy of mass immigration is an act of compassion and an economic necessity. I have dealt with this in both The Genesis of Political Correctness, in which an entire chapter is devoted to dealing with Jurgen Habermas and his advocacy of civic nationalism; and in The Ponzi Class, in which the consequences of Ponzi economics and globalization are fully explored – including the impact of the policy of mass immigration that has changed the UK from being a property-owning democracy into being a beds-in-sheds lawyers’ dictatorship. There is an estimated £1trillion shortfall in housing. Where is that to come from? Then there is the need for schools, hospitals, roads etc.

Mass immigration is not necessary to sustain the economy. It is only made possible by vast subsidies and the ability of the Ponzi class to draw upon the Welfare State and to leave a trail of unpaid bills for housing etc. The Welfare State is paid for by the English for their own benefit, and is not a facility to provide free housing etc. so that multinational organizations and others can import cheap labour (and voters) to undercut English wage rates.

The Tories have supposedly redrawn the political landscape across the UK as previously safe Labour constituencies voted Tory. That switch in vote goes nowhere near far enough to appreciate that the class structure upon which Marxism is so dependent is no longer applicable. The working class are not downtrodden by the bourgeoisie, but by the Ponzi class.

The repopulation of England with non-English immigrants has economic, social and political consequences. Then there is the breakdown in law and order, and the growth of terrorism. It was notable that the Tories failed to gain seats in the major cities in the general election. Those cities are seriously impacted by the immigrant vote.

England is in the process of being transformed if not destroyed. The civic nationalist tended to be defeatist and offered the option of simply going with the flow, whereas what is needed is a fight back. Such a fight will be at least as much ideological as electoral or one of street protest.