How did patriotism become 'far-right'?
If “Black Lives Matter” was wrong, then “White Lives Matter” is wrong too. So goes the logic of those who are running scared of being labeled “far-right” and who are desperate to retain their mainstream credentials.
And so, those British Whites, the despised “far-right” now on the streets protesting against unfettered immigration, have now been abandoned by every single political party, even Reform UK which owes its measly four Parliamentary seats to four million “far-right” votes.
How did patriotism become “right-wing”? How has fear of invasion become fascism?
Left, Right, and no extremes
The terms “right-wing” and “left-wing” originate in the Paris Assembly, the parliament established during the French Revolution. From the perspective of the Speaker, the aristocracy sat on the right and the bourgeoisie on the left. Aristocrats were generally in favor of maintaining the status quo (and their privileged position) and thus were conservative. The bourgeoisie sought the ability to improve their social status and were thus “progressive,” to use a modern-day hijacked term.
All, however, were patriotic Frenchmen; not one would have admitted to any foreign allegiance even had he felt it. When the question of granting citizenship to France’s Jews came up for discussion, the debate was so fierce that voting was postponed several times. French Jews had no foreign allegiances and indeed were extremely proud to be French. But many wanted them to assimilate entirely, discarding their religion completely, as a prerequisite for citizenship.
Fascists or patriots?
Today, not a single “civilized” country demands such a degree of sacrifice to earn citizenship. Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Today, in the Western world, one can find many parliaments in which representatives of the people openly proclaim allegiance to foreign countries. No one calls them what they, at least potentially, are — traitors — or if they do, they are swiftly silenced and ejected from the debate.
Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, those who proudly proclaim allegiance to their own country and want all their fellow citizens to do the same are branded “far-right” and even “fascists.”
Until recently, fascism was an ideology that excluded the “other” regardless of how the other behaved. Germany's Jews were among the most patriotic people in the country and it made no difference to how they were perceived and treated by the Nazis. Today, in the UK, many attempt to tar Tommy Robinson with the “fascist” brush even though he has stated time and again that he welcomes anyone to the UK who actually wants to become British.
On July 27th, tens of thousands of people filled London’s Trafalgar Square in a celebration of British identity. People of all races and skin colors were there, many holding aloft the nation’s flag. Meanwhile, a nearby “counter-protest” billed itself as anti-fascist and mainstream media trumpeted their viewpoint.
Reform voters betrayed
Two days later, three little girls were brutally slaughtered in a quiet British town. The UK erupted in frustration and fury after years of fear at increasing migration which has changed the face of Britain. Today, 1 in 30 people on Britain’s streets have arrived in the past five years. Surveys suggest that one in three Britons support the protests and one in seven believe they are "completely justified."
Hundreds of arrests have been made of those demonstrating against this migration, against the authorities who have turned a blind eye to the problems they have brought upon society over the past few decades. The vote for Brexit, to leave the European Union, was largely an anti-migrant vote, but in the years since, migration has increased still more.
On July 27th, Robinson asked the huge crowd, “How many of you voted Labour?” The crowd booed. “How many of you voted Conservative?” The crowd booed again. “How many of you voted Reform?” Cheers erupted.
Reform, whose vote share jumped from 4 percent to 14 percent between the last two general elections, but still has just 4 MPs in Parliament (representing 4 million voters, owing to the bizarre and antiquated British electoral system). It is headed by MP Nigel Farage.
What did Farage have to say in the wake of the post-Southport riots?
And as for the Tommy Robinsons and those that do stir up hatred, well, I’ve never had anything to do with them...
Forbidden to protest?
Why not, Mr. Farage? What’s wrong with Tommy Robinson?
I understand the frustrations and the anger. But I do not support street protest, violence, or thuggery in any way, and that’s why for 30 years I’ve fought elections, because I believe that democracy is the peaceful way to solve problems.
Nigel Farage has been fighting for change for 30 years, via the ballot box. He has won 4 million followers — almost half as many as voted for Labour — but no real voice in Parliament. He’s still hopeful for “democratic” change in the 2029 election. Meanwhile, not only “violence and thuggery” is out — so is “street protest.”
Why? Because protests are, according to this view, the tactics of the “far-right.”
False equivalence
Farage, like everyone else in Parliament, uses the same language that places regular people beyond the political pale.
Just to call out the actions of the far-right is to misunderstand two things … as with every major conflict in life there is fault, serious fault, on both sides…
Even Farage, who has in the past dared to speak out about the dangers of radical Islamism, now likens the “far-right” to the threat that radical Islam poses. No matter that radical Islamists have killed dozens and maimed countless more in the UK over the past few decades, while the “far-right” are responsible for only 3 deaths since the year 2000.
1 in 10 British citizens see themselves as 'other'
Farage claims to want to “deal with the problem” and then identifies the problem as “young men, undocumented young males crossing the English Channel,” even though those “young males” seen rampaging through the streets over the past week, even lynching those they called “Whitey” on occasion, are not necessarily undocumented — indeed, many of them are second- or even third-generation immigrants who still regard themselves as primarily “other” rather than British.
How much of a problem is this?
UK government figures show that between the census of 2011 and that of 2021, the numbers of those self-identifying with a “non-UK identity only” rose from 8 percent of the population to 9.7 percent — from 4.5 million people to 5.8 million people.
The figures are not just abstractions; these people’s views translate into deeds whenever they come into conflict with the authorities.
So it was in Leeds a few weeks ago, when the authorities turned up to take four Romanian Roma children into care, for their own protection, and riots ensued. Videos emerged of “community leaders” arguing that the Romanian Roma community should be left alone to deal with its affairs internally — and threatening further riots otherwise.
So it has been this past week, with videos emerging of Muslims, not just youth but also older men, telling police to keep out, that “we can deal with this on our own” (“this” being the mainly white protesters allegedly threatening their wellbeing).
But perhaps the starkest example of non-integration is the grooming and sex trafficking scandal that has devastated many UK towns and left thousands of white British girls with their lives ruined. Several have committed suicide, unable to pick up the pieces following unspeakable abuse. It is clear from numerous accounts as well as official reports that the girls were targeted due to their skin color and race. That is, those who preyed on them never considered themselves British. “British,” to them, was always “other,” even though the perpetrators were not in most cases first-generation immigrants.
Unity, or else
Now the “others” have turned to protesting, some becoming violent, after years of being not only ignored but actually despised. This has thus been many years in the making. After the ISIS bombing at the Manchester Arena in 2017 which left 23 dead and 800 wounded, the British responded with quiet dignity, holding vigils and charity concerts and laying flowers. This was, so they were told, the correct way to react to home-grown terrorism (the bomber, Salman Abedi, was the British-born son of Libyan immigrants). In fact, some media articles actually suggested that reacting strongly would “play into ISIS’ hands”:
Reactions to Manchester bombing show how anti-Muslim bigots are “useful idiots” for ISIS...
If you want to defeat ISIS, listen to former ISIS hostage Nicolas Henin. The group is “heartened by every sign of overreaction, of division, of fear, of racism, of xenophobia … [and] drawn to any examples of ugliness on social media,” the French journalist wrote in November 2015 in the wake of the Paris attacks. “Central to their world view is the belief that communities cannot live together with Muslims, and every day their antennae will be tuned towards finding supporting evidence.”
ISIS wants to drive a wedge between Muslim communities and wider Western society; it wants to pit Muslims against non-Muslims.
43,000 UK Muslims on terrorism watchlist
The above article was far from the only example of effectively blaming the host culture for failing to give an adequate welcome to immigrants, and absolving those immigrants from any responsibility to do their best to assimilate.
Did the advice help? According to official data in the government's Counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST) 2023 report, over the next years, radical Islamists continued to constitute the main terrorist threat in the UK, accounting for,
... approximately 67% of attacks since 2018, about three quarters of MI5 caseload and 64% of those in custody for terrorism-connected offenses.” [They] also account for 80% of the Counter Terrorism Police’s live investigations.
By contrast, what CONTEST calls “Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism,”
... amounts to approximately 22% of attacks since 2018, about a quarter of MI5 caseload and 28% of those in custody for terrorism-connected offences.
Between 2000 and 2023, 94 people were killed in the UK by “Islamist” murderers, and 1,819 people were injured.
These figures are even more striking considering that Muslims are only around 6.5 percent of the UK population. 43,000 Muslims are on the MI5 watch-list — 1 percent of the UK’s Muslim population.
Forget the victims to keep the 'peace'
Three little girls in Southport may or may not turn out to have been further victims of Islamist terrorism. All that is known so far about the murderer is that he is a British-born son of Rwandan immigrants. Meanwhile, media focus has been almost exclusively not on the tragedy but its aftermath. Societal cohesion, apparently, is not threatened by random murders but only by those who protest such murders (and the lack of effective action by the authorities to avert the next such tragedy).
As the ostensibly right-wing media website Spiked stated,
Peruse the media and you will be left with the distinct impression that the true deviants of 21st-century Britain, the greatest threat to our way of life, are angry working-class men…
The slain girls of Southport risk being forgotten in the media rush to denounce the “thugs,” the “far-right hooligans” and the “fascists” who they say swarmed the streets of Southport and other towns in the aftermath of the killings. Some even fear that the rioters were stooges of Russia — unwitting stooges, of course, given how dim they are…
'White Lives Matter'? You mustn't say that...
Spiked’s editor, however, struck a different note, harking back to the “if only we had been nicer to them, maybe this wouldn’t have happened” complaint:
The multicultural state’s treatment of citizens as members of ethno-religious blocs, to be tiptoed around and addressed only through “community leaders,” has led some minority Brits not to integrate into a shared whole, but rather to hunker down in group identity and communal grievance. [emphasis added]
And he goes on to blame identity politics for all recent significant cases of lack of integration:
The consequences of this have been writ large in everything from the now-memory-holed Hindu-Muslim unrest in Leicester in 2022 to the riots in Harehills in Leeds last month, apparently sparked by social services trying to take some Roma kids into care…
According to Spiked editor Tom Slater, any Muslim migrant who may have rampaged in the U.K., even those who did so with machetes or other swords, iron bars, or just plain knives, and all those who reply in a national census that they see themselves as “non-UK identity only,” could easily be integrated, if only the powers-that-be decided to abandon identity politics.
Fetid talk of “Islamic invaders” and “replacement” by migrants presents the immigration issue in apocalyptic racial terms — of white British “erasure.” Indeed, what remains of the far right is consciously inverting woke identitarian notions of racial peril and repackaging them for their own purposes. “White Lives Matter” is one of its new slogans.
Speak about the threat and you become the threat
It’s the same equivalence that politicians often use — everyone is equally British, no matter how they feel about their country. And anyone who wants to exclude someone else from entering the nation, regardless of the reason, is an extremist, beyond the pale, “far-right.”
People like Slater and Nigel Farage do call out PM Starmer for his failure to apply the full force of the law as equally to hate marchers at pro-Hamas demonstrations, as they have done this past week to hooligans lobbing bricks through windows. But they still don’t seem to be willing to state the fact that a person can be British-born and hate Great Britain and that this may not be the fault of the British at all.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, born a Muslim in Somalia and today a Christian with a unique vantage point from which to view the decline of the West, describes how, in 2023, Lord Pearson asked the UK government to explain,
... what criteria are used to determine whether groups or individuals have a “far right outlook.”
The government’s response was that a “far-right political outlook” means,
... views that Western civilizations are under threat from “non-native” people and ideas.
Implicit in his words is that the government does not believe that Western civilization is under threat from “non-native” people. But this does not necessarily mean that Western ideas are not being challenged by “non-native” ones. It may only mean that the government thinks that introducing “non-native” ideologies is a good thing for the UK.
And what if the natives persist in feeling threatened? Why, then we just brand them “far-right bigots.”
For millennia, patriotism has been one of mankind’s highest ideals. While many wars have been fought between competing groups of patriots in different nations, attempting to abandon the notion of the nation-state remains a pipe-dream unless enough migrants arrive to create a reality in which the old nation states no longer exist with a specific identity different from other nations.
The problem is that our governments are peopled by "dreamers," and they will ruthlessly clamp down on anyone who attempts to awaken them from their folly.
