Friday 21 April 2017

Will there always be an England, Europe or America, whatever the origin of their inhabitants?

But today, France’s most read and most discussed popular writers—novelists and political essayists—are conservatives of one stripe or another. They are not concerned, even slightly, with the issues that animate American “mainstream” think-tank conservatism—lowering taxes, cutting federal programs, or maintaining some kind of global military hegemony. Their focus is France’s national culture and its survival.
These words are from an article by Scott McConnell in the latest issue of The American Conservative called The Battle for France, which you should print off and read, whether or not you are interested in France. It is about the future, or lack of one, of Western/Christian civilisation. 

I came across it via Professor Tom Gallagher, the historian and commentator.

It contains a quite astonishing piece of information, which I had seen before.
Because the government does not publish statistics about race, some curious researchers have looked at the number of newborn babies screened for markers for sickle-cell anemia, a test given if both parents are of African, North African, or Sicilian origin. The figure has risen from 25 percent in 2005 to 39 percent in 2015. In the Greater Paris region it has risen from 54 percent to 73 percent.
Gentle reader, I don't suppose you have time or patience just now to read several brilliant articles about the effects on the West of mass immigration from the Third World. 

Still, I wanted to post links to another six 'must read' articles on the subject, which is almost the only important political issue of our days. You might want to bookmark this page or even print them off to read at your leisure. 

Like most nice people, I didn't give immigration from the Third World into Great Britain or Europe much thought until a few years ago. When a man I knew in MI6 tried to tell me about the dangers caused by Muslims in Europe I assumed he did so because he was a very rigorous Low Church Protestant. When Tom Gallagher told me about the late Oriana Fallaci and opened the subject of the 'Islamisation' of Europe with me I thought he was absurdly alarmist. I thought the same at first when Ruth Dudley Edwards talked about Islamisation.

Now, like everyone's, my views have changed, because the world has changed and we have all noticed. Despite the official propaganda. It is not that we become more extreme as we age, though we certainly become wiser and less inhibited. It's the world that has become more extreme.

The trigger for me to start to think about how my country is changing was the 2005 London tube murders, carried out not by foreigners but by Muslim British subjects. I imagined that this would lead to a very animated discussion about whether mass immigration had been a good idea but, to my astonishment, nothing whatsoever was said about rethinking immigration policy.

American writers feel very much freer to discuss the subject of immigration into Europe than do Europeans.

1. A few years ago, the very gifted American writer Christopher Caldwell of the Financial Times wrote an invaluable and startling book on the subject of immigration into Europe, Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West, which I urge you to read. To save time, or to whet your appetite, 
he discusses the ideas in the book in brief here.

2. Please read this one too, by Jewish American Benjamin Schwartz, called Unmaking England: Will immigration demolish in decades a nation built over centuries?

3. Mr. Schwartz also wrote The Diversity Myth that explodes the idea that the USA was multicultural before 1965.

4. Chinese American Hua Hsu wrote this article in The AtlanticThe End of White America?

5. Former editor of The Spectator and authorised biographer of Mrs. Thatcher Charles Moore wrote this elegy for the death of England.

6. Finally, this is another very interesting article by Christopher Caldwell on the ideas of geographer Christophe Guilluy about immigration and globalisation in France. They explain the success of Marine Le Pen.

I sometimes wonder what Churchill, De Gaulle, Evelyn Waugh, Belloc, T.S. Eliot or any of the other great men of two generations ago would have had to say on the subject of mass migration in our day. 

We know, in fact, Churchill's very strongly hostile views. De Gaulle's were similar. Both men were what Bagehot said statesmen should be: men of common opinions but uncommon abilities. Their opinions were almost universally held in their day. But people nowadays always assume that they know better than their ancestors.


  1. "Will there always be an England, Europe or America, whatever the origin of their inhabitants?"

    What is a Roman? Didn't THAT civilization have the same question?

    1. 'If it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change.' (Lord Falkland.) Pro-immigration people say change is necessary because of low birth rates and asylum seekers. Japan thinks otherwise.

  2. No matter what happens on tbe.political scene, the radically changed demographics have ensured that the indigenous French are on.their way to becoming a minority

  3. France is headed for a terrible civil war in the medium term because the French establishments have failed and betrayed their people through cowardice and apathy.

  4. At present France's problems are more manifest than our own, but they do have some politicians and intellectuals willing to address them. In the UK there is simply no high profile public figure that can speak honestly about these issues, which means that what France is now we will be in a decade or so

  5. Based on my experience in Bradford, it would be interesting to know the new make up of the suburban schools. My catholic primary went from a make up of English, polish and Afro Caribbean when I left in 1978 to 98% Punjabi by 1993, 15 years later when I returned for teacher training. Huge change in just 15 years. The whole neighbourhood is completely different now.

  6. Robin Lustig formerly of the BBC World Service commented:

    The logic of your position is that my (non-Christian) refugee parents should not have been granted entry to the UK in 1939 because they would have threatened the UK's Christian heritage. They would then have been killed in Hitler's gas chambers. Have you ever visited the Alhambra in Granada? The Mesquita in Cordoba? Or the synagogue in Trieste? To me, they are all part of Europe's heritage, as indeed they are to such Christian religious leaders as Pope Francis and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Unlike you, I celebrate diversity and welcome the mix of cultures that make Europe such an exciting and vibrant continent. That's probably why I live in London and you don't.

    1. I replied:

      I love London and like multi-ethic places like Brick Lane a great deal. Much more than the drearier sort of all white dormitory town. I'd enjoy living in the East End. But it's about numbers and an ancient country like ours ceasing to be an English-Welsh-Scottish-Irish ethnic state.

      Immigrants are great. I am one. But they are like salt. Some are needed for flavour but too many spoil the soup.

      In 1939 there was no danger of the soup being over-salted. Since then the nature of invasions and defence threats has changed completely and the nearest we have to a fascist threat (the parallel is inexact) comes from Muslim extremists (and I certainly do not refer only to the terrorists or men of violence).

      However my views are not important as I live abroad. But why not ask the people - in a referendum?

  7. Re the American Conservative article:

    “But there has emerged also a growing sense that this new France, redeemed, as it were, of all the provincial, nationalist, and petty racist sentiments that suffused both Vichy and Gaullism, now threatens French Jews in very concrete and undeniable ways. The Jewish population of France is roughly half a million, less than 1 percent, but its weight is larger in the French intellectual and cultural worlds. And many French Jews, for very understandable reasons, have developed sensitive social antennae for perceiving the advent of societal danger.”

    So then why do Jewish groups fanatically oppose Le Pen and any return to a modicum of immigration sanity? Why are Moshe Kantor and the European Jewish Congress the driving force behind Stalinist "hate speech" laws that cripple native European resistance to third world immigration? The only reason that France has 10m Muslims squatting on its soil is because its heavily Jewish intellectual and cultural elite wanted them there to destroy homogenous White Christian France. It's the indigenous French have been the principal victims of mass immigration, not Jews who can always move to their own expansionist ethnostate.

    “Finkielkraut is not part of the populist right, nor does he consider civil war inevitable. He advocates reforms designed to save France, particularly in the schools. These include putting French history, language, and culture at the center of the curriculum in the immigrant suburbs. But there isn’t much chance any of this actually will be implemented.”

    And it would be a stupid waste of time if it were, like teaching cats to bark. Culture is downstream from race. Change the genetic makeup of a people and you change their culture. Finkelkraut is acutely aware of this. He advocates such reforms because he knows it *won’t* save France. Would he propose the same for Israel? Absorb the Palestinian territories and just teach the children Israeli history and culture? To ask the question is to answer it.

    Le Pen cannot save France either. At the most she will slow immigration. But without mass deportations of Africans and Muslims that are already French citizens, France is doomed. Slowing or stopping immigration is like sticking a plaster on a severed head.

  8. Just reading the refreshingly honest Schwartz article. He doesn't hesitate to name the immigrant communities that are causing the greatest problems for the English working class and the country in general.

  9. All countries that exist now will one day cease to exist. Many countries that exist now did not exist 100 years ago. Cultures develop, come, go, new cultures emerge. We can enjoy and celebrate it all.

    1. Countries in peacetime have always evolved organically. The DNA of people in England changed remarkably little between 1100 and 1950. What we have seen since 1950 is not an organic natural development of an ancient people but that people being invaded. As you say our country will cease to exist. It will happen in 2 or 3 generations unless we raise the drawbridge and maybe get ready the cannons.

    2. “The human need to belong is best met at a ‘tribal’ level, and the best way to avoid such tribalism leading in turn to clashes with other tribes is to encourage its realization at the level of a genuine nation-state, particularly one whose dominant political elite regard their primary duty as being to mind their own nation’s business and looking after their own people. This half-way house between the expansionist Empire and the nihilistic football gang is the best hope for peace.”

      Hard to tell if this is current Tory rhetoric or actually a quote from the BNP's 2005 manifesto.


  10. No of course not all nations civilizations , cultures come and go . Hittites , Kurgans , Caribs . gone .
    Empires , Persian , Egyptian , Hapsburg , Inca , Aztec , Ottoman gone .
    Europeans have expanded across the planet widely enough to survive .
    Christianity will survive .
    Classical Greek and Roman literature , probably yes .
    But modern western culture?


  11. Very simple, sharp salt analogy. Claire

  12. Good links. A bit odd to see Evelyn Waugh's name in your list of great men! It depends on what you mean by England. We were a tough little country that feminized itself and is now living on borrowed time. English literature and architecture both have some chance of surviving, what we think of as Englishness surely not? Christopher