The White British majority is in sharp decline. Politics is dividing between those who care and those who don't. But can national solidarity survive if ethnic majorities don't?
Running alongside these changes and compounding the complexity of the picture is the change in family structure: fewer children, many born to older parents; many more single-child families; more future pairings of single children whose own child or children will have no aunts, uncles or cousins, and little time with grandparents.
Having lived life at the bleeding edge of what increasingly looks like transformation for the worse, and lacking a decent education, it has been perplexing to discover that while saints and philosophers - Augustine, Aquinas, Burke - have described that which one naturally intuits, policy-making has flown in the face of human nature and quietly undermined our shared foundations.
Such a reasoned and measured piece ought not to give rise to a sense of deep melancholy. I can only hope I’m peculiarly pessimistic and others find some cause for optimism.
"policy-making has flown in the face of human nature"
Which exactly describes ALL left-wing, 'progressive' (Uniparty) nostrums. They aim for a completely unrealizable multi-cultural utopia, and are forced into evermore authoritarian laws and regulations in an attempt to make it fit human nature (which it never will).
Part of the problem with the UK, and especially England, is the high (and increasing) population density and relatively small size of the country. That means any 'majority population' movement away from the big cities (like 'white flight' in the US) is severely restricted (unlike the US).There is a physical limit to how far ethnic British/English can move out, and still feel happier surrounded by their 'own people'. In the same way that culturally homogeneous immigrant populations do in their communities. And of course, some ethnic British may then wish to leave the country altogether...
Back in 2015, when the flow became a flood and Merkel was pressured by the media into throwing the doors open, I conducted an exercise whereby I took each country's GDP as a proportion of the world total and multiplied that by the world population. The reasoning was to assign some kind of 'responsibility' according to wealth. The result was a UK 'responsibility for 271m people. The idea of them all moving to the UK is of course absurd (even the USA, with all its space, would balk at their figure of 1.63b people). So what is a reasonable limit for the UK population?
In my youth the country was already feeling a bit overcrowded, but the population stabilised around 60m, which felt like a comfortable level. In recent years that has surged to 70m, although one of the most ridiculous aspects of this crisis is that nobody actually knows how many people are currently living in the UK. That fact alone is probably grounds for introducing a national digital ID system (although I worry about the misuse a uniparty government could perpetrate).
The competition for space is exacerbated by the demand for services and building land and waste treatment, while agricultural areas and countryside and parks (that help keep the population sane) are under threat as governments keep promising to build more housing.
Given that most of the world's problems over the last 70 years can be attributed to excessive population growth - especially in countries that cannot even take care of the people they have - I find all the calls to increase reproduction rates to be highly irresponsible!
Birds of a feather flock together, especially amongst lower socio economic groups (the Somewheres). This is well documented in US cities, and I think just has to be accepted.
The Australian cafe example is the way forward. Multi ethnic monoculture must become the societal norm and the new dominant majority.
Secularism is also important, and religion must take second place to the above.
Enforcement is divisive and difficult so "nudging" as suggested will be required.
English only as a State language, ban halal meat on animal welfare grounds, ban cousin marriage on medical grounds, etc (pick your own preferred non European practice). Those for whom this is important can voluntarily move elsewhere.
Finally, for those globalist progressives who want to protect minorities, it should perhaps be pointed out that Europeans are a global minority of 750 million, compared to 2 billion Muslims, 1.6 billion Africans and 1.4 billion Indians.
So which ethnic group and civilisational mores need protection?
Encouraging because we have to actually start doing something to shape the future of our society whilst we still can, and David has the status to instigate and take this forward.
However, I worry that we are just nice reasonable liberals talking to each other whilst the tinder to set Rome alight is being imported around us. (A bit like European leaders talking and talking about Ukraine, but not being serious enough about what it takes to get their hands dirty and take real uncomfortable actions).
If current demographic trends continue, white people will become minorities in their own countries, and it seems rational to propose that they could become like Jewish people, a race in perpetual minority with their rights dependent on the goodwill of the majority. How is that working out for them?
Furthemore, if the different groups of this new majority have been educated to believe that the colonial West is responsible for all the world's problems, and continue with anti-racist ideology, it would leave white Europeans in a very insecure position.
It's possible that a handful of countries like Denmark, Poland and Hungary could hold out and become places of white flight and refuge.
This is a very negative and bleak view, but it seems logically possible. I was struck by one particular performance at the Edinburgh festival this year, which had a very diverse cast, railing against the colonial West, and holding signs saying "Eradicate Whiteness" and "The global majority are coming to take over".
The mainly white liberal audience were clapping and nodding along. I wasn't quite so enthused.
On mine and Helen Dale’s Substack I write a lot about immigration, culture and institutions, often in an historical and comparative context. I regularly cite and use your Somewhere versus Anywhere distinction. Once you see that distinction, you cannot unsee it.
Early in Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, his 1999 magnum opus, Jordan Peterson makes the point that we human cognitively map significance not facts. Different cultures generate different maps of meaning, maps of significance. This matters. People from different cultures will behave differently in the same circumstances because, cognitively, they are not the same circumstances. Also, institutions cannot be expected to encourage convergent behaviour if their norms and rules are not enforced.
Economists should—but often don’t—analyse immigration as they do monetary policy: it can be done well, it can be done badly, it can be done disastrously. Social cohesion cannot be taken for granted. The overwhelming majority of armed conflicts since 1945 have been within, not between, states.
And yes, there is a sense in which national identities are created, but they are not created ex nihilo, they are created out of existing cultural patterns.
Very good piece, as ever. The line about religion is spot on; most of what constitutes our 'civilisation' comes from the Bible and Christianity. We appear to be ignoring our history by failing to acknowledge this. My wife, a very religious Nigerian origin lady, has been banging on about this for years (and years...). Both myself and her can foresee a future whereby Christians in the West will migrate to countries such as Poland and Hungary, as those countries still proudly declare their Christian faith. Like many in the UK I have seen my neighbourhood change dramatically over the years, with the problems that brings. However, what I find more annoying is how the Left try and shut down any debate on the issue and are so quick to condemn any who raise valid concerns. That, I believe, is what is driving the recent surge in nationalist fervour, rather than the changes in local demographics.
Lastly, we all used to watch the same TV shows, in the 70s, but gorged on the hundreds of new channels available on all sorts of devices in the decades that have followed. Oh, what choice we have, the population cried. But at what cost? I suspect it will take a war with a foreign power before we find out the real price.
Another dimension to the wilful fragmentation of national identity is the attempt to decentre any sense of a shared story.
"When officials lie time and again, the point isn’t that a single lie becomes accepted truth, but that the story keeps shifting until people don’t know what to trust. And when this happens, citizens cannot deliberate, approve or dissent coherently, because a shared world no longer exists."
"If people are taught that “truth” is always contingent and always tactical, the harm goes beyond misinformation. A confused, distrustful public is easier to manage and harder to mobilize into meaningful democratic participation. It becomes less able to act, because action requires a shared world in which decisions can be understood, debated and contested."
This set of extreme left-wing policies (misleadingly called 'progressive', when in actual fact it is a regression to old fashioned bolshevism) is being pushed all over the western world. El Pais notably exposed the Foro de São Paulo scheme (led by Castro, Chavez and Lula) to transform Latin America into a tropical Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There has been a backlash in Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and El Salvador, but Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil (under Lula's PT) and Nicaragua are resisting and Colombia and Mexico are wobbling (along with several Caribbean nations). Uruguay somehow manages to pursue a more pragmatic form of socialism that actually caters to the well-being of the population.
In this region, capitalism has to deliver on its promises, otherwise there will be a new wave of resentment against social injustice and extreme inequality (people are different, so there will never be equality of outcomes, There should be equality of opportunities and no abuses of economic power.
Spot on. I have never understood why 'lefties' are deemed progressive. However, capitalism is on the verge of collapse as so many of our young feel cut away from the fruits of their labours; unable to buy property etc. This is a big reason why communists encourage migration, as the millions of incoming people have to have an impact on house prices, thus making it harder for youngsters and leaving their immature minds at risk of The Green Death, as Dr Who pointed out in 1974...
Capitalism is facing a severe challenge, because it has to demonstrate its capacity to generate widespread wealth and quality of life. But other forces are acting to concentrate the wealth and increase inequality. Capitalism has to deliver for the population at large, or the socialist promises of a fairer more equal society (despite tending towards totalitarianism) will rise again.
Very true. Money has to go to all, rather than the select few at the top as eventually the population will realise they have been cheated, as Johnny Rotten said in 1978.
The problem with the 'money for all approach' is that effort has to be expended in order to generate wealth and while many will subscribe to the old "give according to one's ability and take according to one's need" there always seem to be parasites who leach off other people's efforts while making little or no contribution themselves.
There is much tolerance, in the case of people who are sick or suffering disabilities, but not for those who are perfectly capable but simply refuse.
For that reason alone, there will always be justifiable inequality - which isn't supposed to be about outcomes anyway, but about opportunities.
I used to work for DWP so I can only agree. If people could see the amount of money that some claimants receive they would give up working on the spot.
I agree. The Left are failing to accept "the moral equality of all human beings and, implicitly, the right of individuals to practice a religion or a distinct way of life wherever they might find themselves" in relation to white social (c)onservatives.
Hence we have a pro-white DEI which incorporates the interests of white majorities and an anti-white DEI which rejects the interests of white majorities.
The former is pragmatic as is attuned to a modern Christianised multi-ethnic social system that works and the latter is racist and is attuned to weaponising the interests of ethnic minorities into segregated voting blocs.
I live in a very Pakistani area. What is going on is simple really. It it the age-old tribal quest for territory and resources. To say these people consider themselves in any meaningful way English is laughable, and they would be offended by the suggestion. To them, this country is a frontier town that's up for grabs, nothing more.
As far as resolving the problem, it will be resolved as these things are in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
This is a vulgar analysis compared to David's very thoughtful and considered piece, but I defy anyone to spend time in dense Pakistani areas and come away thinking anything else.
Exactly what will happen when things unravel, nobody knows. But we safely say that it will be very bad.
A wise and clear-sighted essay: thank you. I've two thoughts.
Firstly, I've been thinking lately that we should rediscover and make use of the term "expatriot" when discussing immigration, to distinguish between those new arrivals who have integrated fully into the native population, or hope to, and those who's attachment to the country is more limited and who want to remain in their own enclaves. We talk about British expats abroad, so it's a non-insulting term that people can relate to, and it might help with general rhetoric.
Secondly, with overall world population now falling it's interesting to think about where we will be in a century's time. It doesn't seem impossible that current majorities will become majorities again over time as later generations of immigrants move back to their families' country of origin and the inward flows dry up.
Unless there is significant remigration (which is a very contested idea), I think the re-emergence of an ethnically British majority is unlikely.
Statistically the future would seem to be black.
Africa's population is currently 1.6 billion, and is the only continent with a positive birth rate. Current projections for the year 2100 is 3.8 billion, and I suspect there will be even more pressure to migrate to Europe.
England, Britain and the west generally are disintegrating in part due to deranged pluralism. Observing this in a detached manner, as the author does, lends credence to the possibility of another outcome. But there is no other outcome. Extrapolate Bradford but with much less of the benefits which currently holds the whole thing together. Further material loss of Englands ethnic core will be an end to England as recognisably itself. What replaces it will obviously be the multi culture we’ve been told so many good things about but as technocratic control breaks down (which for libs really only works white on white - with caveats for anyone else because racism) it will be more akin to competing tribes within an island. More Africa or Middle Eastern than European
This is a very good piece David and I hope it finds it's way into the pages of The Telegraph and Unherd.
I've been recently meditating on the failings of multiculturalism vis a vis multiethnicity with the conclusion below.
....
My feeling is that multiculturalism is driven foremost by the logic of civic nationalism which operates as a very shallow form of national identity with "citizenship" being the primary cultural conduit of civic nationalism.
This however allows a contested field of secondary cultural mores to prosper with the result that secondary cultural identities become more important than the overarching national "citizenship" which in the main is simply a passport to access State goods and services rather than being a defined identity. Consequently civic nationalism is foremost mediated through the State rather than Society in terms of providing goods and services and ensuring secondary cultural identity protections.
The alternative is ethnic nationalism which to date is largely determined through a narrow racialised lens which in turn largely excludes immigrants even if they have been settled over generations. Hence the emergence of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion as a progressive antidote and one which seeks to displace monoethnic nationalism with multiethnic civic nationalism with the result of starting the cycle above in which an amorphous "citizenship" becomes the means to assert secondary cultural identities leading to national fragmentation in places like Bradford and a reactionary backlash that seeks to reassert the primacy of ethnic nationalism.
Clearly this incessant cycling between monoethnic and multiethnic civic nationalism does not create a stable sense of a coherent national identity with this cycling between monoethnic and multiethnic civic nationalism being the fundamental basis of the modern culture wars.
So perhaps a solution is to dispense with civic nationalism altogether and instead promote a multiracial ethnic nationalism which seeks to displace secondary cultural identities that are often based on an explicit or implicit attachment to a dual national citizenship in which a foreign ethnic identity is asserted via British "citizenship". This means dispensing with ideas of a British Pakistani or a British Asian for example or any other dual nationality/ethnicity identity.
This can be done via informal cultural strictures that seek to "nudge" old and new generations of immigrants to choose between their national/ethnic identities with those choosing a foreign national/ethnic identity being stripped of British citizenship.
Obviously many immigrants may formally renounce their foreign identity whilst informally maintaining it in order to sustain access to State goods and services and protections. But this arrangement puts into sharper focus what it means to be ethnically British. Obviously supporting Pakistan in a cricket match isn't being ethnically British. Nor is sexually segregated public or social spaces as this is an extension of misogyny. Thus the intention of a multiracial British ethnicity is to enforce a clearer sense of cultural mores by Society as a whole rather than a civic national identity that is largely mediated by the State.
......
So perhaps the choice is between a modern multiethnic civic nationalism as you illustrate which is already a feature in many "modern" constituencies and is working perfectly well because it is attuned to a modern Christianised way of life but is unable to make headway into segregated "traditional" constituencies because they are attuned to a traditional Muslim way of life with no guard rails to stop them expanding into stable "modern" Christianised constitutiencies so will always be a source of social friction and national fragmentation.
Or the alternative is a multiracial ethnic nationalism which again largely describes the harmonious "modern" constituency which is attuned to a Christianised way of life with a very large majority thinking of themselves as British no matter the racial profile but sees as problematic segregated "traditional" constituencies that are attuned to a traditional Muslim way of life and don't think of themselves as (ethnically) British except in terms of "citizenship" by which they can access State goods, services and protections. However rather than being unable to make headway into these constituencies for the good of national integration and stability, they can be "nudged" into making a decision about which ethnicity they want to adopt. If they choose a foreign ethnicity, then British "citizenship" will be rescinded in order to deny the full spectrum of State goods, services and protections with the option of supported remigration to their preferred national ethnicity.
Perhaps we can try the former before embarking on the latter but personally I don't see the point since "traditional" monoracial Muslim constituencies show no desire to be multiracial "modern" constitutiencies whatsoever.
Multiracial Englishness/Britishness is an ethnicity which is defined by a liberal way of life underpinned by ancestral English/British history and traditions. It can include a plurality of religions but these religions have adapted/modified to a liberal way of life.
Thus English/British Islam is a liberal form of Islam as is English/British Christianity or English/British Sikhism.
Perhaps the above might describe a venn overlap between cultural ethnicity and biological ethnicity or multiracial ethnicity and monoracial ethnicity.
Therefore the importance of your article for me is the emphasis on a liberal way of life which in turn highlights the contrast with religious constituencies that aren't engaged in a liberal way of life and as such have segregated themselves to protect themselves as such from moral contamination.
However I now see the dilemma of English, Welsh, Scottish, Cornish, Irish ethnicity if treating these as equivalent to British ethnicity which is largely a cultural identity as opposed to a more biological one. So I can see why you use multiethnic English but then that puts us in the trap of treating illiberal traditional constituencies as the same as liberal modern ones which is why I thought it was important to collapse the notion of multiethnic into a multiracial monoethnicity
Overall then, for me the way forward is to treat English, Welsh, Scottish, etc as sub-ethnic multiracial groups which are defined by a liberal way of life and underpinned by ancestral history and traditions with British ethnicity the united kingdom of the sub ethnic multiracial groups of England, Wales, Scotland, NI which is similarly defined by a liberal way of life and underpinned by ancestral history and traditions.
So we can have white British music, black British music and brown British music which are rooted in British soil with references to heritage such as Jamaican reggae as part of the history of black British music but that doesn't make black British musicians Jamaican. If black musicians living in Britain consider themselves Jamaican, then they are not really British and shouldn't really have British citizenship or a British passport.
In other words, people shouldn't be given British citizenship if they don't actually consider themselves British in a meaningful way and especially if they can't demonstrate that they live a liberal way of life.
That is an interesting assessment and I concur wholeheartedly with the last paragraph.
However this is a very complex and emotive subject, and our ability (as the current majority group) to discuss, agree and direct such a process will be extremely contested and may be time limited.
As this majority status gradually diminishes, other ethnic groups will gain more power and may have other ideas.
I agree Alan that it is time limited which is why it is important to consolidate our ideas beforehand or at least narrow the frames of reference.
The complexity as I see it (in terms of identity formation) is between
Multiracial
Monoracial
Multiethnic
Monoethnic
Liberal
Illiberal
So my chosen (at the moment) frame of reference is
Multiracial monoethnic liberal for British identity with ethnicity a cultural/civic construction based on a liberal way of life.
Multiracial monoethnic liberal for English/Scottish/Welsh/NI identity with ethnicity a cultural/civic construction based on a liberal way of life.
Ancestral history and traditions that underpin a liberal way of life to shape the national story whether at a subnational or national level. This can include indigenous or immigrant heritage as long as any contributions underpin a liberal way of life.
I'm not sure that the distinction between state realised civic nationalism and a cultural identity based on traditional cultural and moral norms, rooted in precepts of both Christianity and the Enlightenment, are necessarily incompatible. I don't think they have been historically when, e.g. my parents chose civic nationalism by giving up their Indian passport, it was not only for transactional reasons, but because they had developed an affinity for major aspects of British culture. At the time, British political, social and cultural elite were still able to projects an authoritative common project, which clearly no longer the case. The majority culture and its norms were not seen by most as inherently harmful to minorities, and breaches were subject to specific anti-discrimination law. The idea that it would be harmful to minorities is, imo, a poisoned gift of the elite adopting and enforcing multiculturalism and its turbocharged variant, EDI.
I agree Alka. Bobby Smith above expands on it and I agree, progressive elites weaponised imported cultural differences in order to manipulatively form minority voting blocs. This weaponisation is underpinned by attempts to decentre a shared national story and in turn fragment national identity into warring component parts.
We are all now suffering the consequences of this unabashed quest for power with social destabilisation, social distrust and a breakdown of national cohesion.
In other words, the agenda has been party before country which can be argued is driven by human competitive instincts. Thus a deeper problematic might be the democratic system itself in that competition between political factions becomes more a driving force than cooperation.
I think the root problem is deeper and maybe not directly open to any single solution. But I think an important part of the solution is more democracy, not less. I don't think to much democracy is the reason for the factionalism we see today; more likely to be the hollowing out of substantive democracy in a similar way citizenship has been hollowed out to the merely transactional.
Well, I think cultural differences resistant to a liberal way of life is not a fixed thing. How strong has a liberal way of life been/is today, which could either absorb, or if that's not possible, marginalise, cultural differences that are inhospitable or antithetical to lib way of life? And I think we need to make careful distinctions between what is disagreeable ( e.g. hijab), highly objectionable and maybe meriting coercive legal action (e.g. men only run in a public park) and that which needs to be strongly sanctioned e.g. running for political office on basis of catering to religious interests of local community, sharia law re .marriages etc. I think this opens out to a prior weakening of moral culture which leaves us unable to properly defend our values by enacting them rather than breaching them. But still thinking about this tbh!
I agree it is a tricky one but for me part of the problem is this term "multi-ethnic".
If white, black and brown people choose to permanently settle here and live a liberal way of life, then they are English/British as an ethnicity.
So we might have a multi-racial monoethnic English/British identity based on a liberal way of life but not a multi-racial, multi-ethnic English/British identity that is based on a plurality of liberal and illiberal ways of life.
If white, black and brown people who are permanently settled here don't consider themselves English/British because they don't want to live a liberal way of life, then they are not English/British, they are foreign, even if they have citizenship status.
Excellent analysis. The Melbourne cafe example really nails what's missing from most discussions about diversty. The difference between multi-ethnic (shared norms, diverse backgrounds) and multicultural (separate norms, separate lives) is undertheorized but crucial. I saw this play out in Toronto where certain neighborhoods had high diversity but low integration and the social trust metrics were dismal compared to equally diverse areas with strong common norms.
A bit disappointed that you think I'm focusing on race when the whole point of the piece is that its about common way of life/culture - race can sometimes signify big cultural/value divides but its the latter that matter not the former - and I argue explicitly for a non-ancestry based idea of Englishness
Running like a thread through this piece - Abingdon/Bradford, the David Willetts comment, clan-based abuse of democratic systems, is the unfortunate message that we have imported too many of the wrong sort of immigrant.
The key question is what we do about it.
Stopping importing any more of the wrong sort of immigrant should surely be our first priority?
You're a thoughtful man and a good writer, but it all feels a little like the Japanese soldier who didn't know the war is over; the essay is looking for a soft landing. A balance. The foundation for a compromise.
Which would be nice, but there's nobody to compromise with. The immigration-maximalists have had every chance over the last few decades to compromise, and declined to do so. The "Poles over Pakistanis" idea is coded as blatant racism.
So there will be no compromise. You just can't compromise with someone who will take your concessions but insist they get everything they want. At some point you're just a fool.
And I don't mean that personally - you are no fool. But your (my) position has been taken for a fool. You can only watch someone pick your pocket so many times before they start to think you're happy getting your pocket picked.
I don’t know, it seems to me that you are just skirting around the issue to not seem like a partisan on either side of the discussion around immigration. I believe every European nation should follow Denmark and Sweden’s example on immigration rules. Call me a nativist, but I believe the needs of the native population matter at least as much as that of the minority one.
Running alongside these changes and compounding the complexity of the picture is the change in family structure: fewer children, many born to older parents; many more single-child families; more future pairings of single children whose own child or children will have no aunts, uncles or cousins, and little time with grandparents.
Having lived life at the bleeding edge of what increasingly looks like transformation for the worse, and lacking a decent education, it has been perplexing to discover that while saints and philosophers - Augustine, Aquinas, Burke - have described that which one naturally intuits, policy-making has flown in the face of human nature and quietly undermined our shared foundations.
Such a reasoned and measured piece ought not to give rise to a sense of deep melancholy. I can only hope I’m peculiarly pessimistic and others find some cause for optimism.
"policy-making has flown in the face of human nature"
Which exactly describes ALL left-wing, 'progressive' (Uniparty) nostrums. They aim for a completely unrealizable multi-cultural utopia, and are forced into evermore authoritarian laws and regulations in an attempt to make it fit human nature (which it never will).
Part of the problem with the UK, and especially England, is the high (and increasing) population density and relatively small size of the country. That means any 'majority population' movement away from the big cities (like 'white flight' in the US) is severely restricted (unlike the US).There is a physical limit to how far ethnic British/English can move out, and still feel happier surrounded by their 'own people'. In the same way that culturally homogeneous immigrant populations do in their communities. And of course, some ethnic British may then wish to leave the country altogether...
Back in 2015, when the flow became a flood and Merkel was pressured by the media into throwing the doors open, I conducted an exercise whereby I took each country's GDP as a proportion of the world total and multiplied that by the world population. The reasoning was to assign some kind of 'responsibility' according to wealth. The result was a UK 'responsibility for 271m people. The idea of them all moving to the UK is of course absurd (even the USA, with all its space, would balk at their figure of 1.63b people). So what is a reasonable limit for the UK population?
In my youth the country was already feeling a bit overcrowded, but the population stabilised around 60m, which felt like a comfortable level. In recent years that has surged to 70m, although one of the most ridiculous aspects of this crisis is that nobody actually knows how many people are currently living in the UK. That fact alone is probably grounds for introducing a national digital ID system (although I worry about the misuse a uniparty government could perpetrate).
The competition for space is exacerbated by the demand for services and building land and waste treatment, while agricultural areas and countryside and parks (that help keep the population sane) are under threat as governments keep promising to build more housing.
Given that most of the world's problems over the last 70 years can be attributed to excessive population growth - especially in countries that cannot even take care of the people they have - I find all the calls to increase reproduction rates to be highly irresponsible!
Another excellent post.
Birds of a feather flock together, especially amongst lower socio economic groups (the Somewheres). This is well documented in US cities, and I think just has to be accepted.
The Australian cafe example is the way forward. Multi ethnic monoculture must become the societal norm and the new dominant majority.
Secularism is also important, and religion must take second place to the above.
Enforcement is divisive and difficult so "nudging" as suggested will be required.
English only as a State language, ban halal meat on animal welfare grounds, ban cousin marriage on medical grounds, etc (pick your own preferred non European practice). Those for whom this is important can voluntarily move elsewhere.
Finally, for those globalist progressives who want to protect minorities, it should perhaps be pointed out that Europeans are a global minority of 750 million, compared to 2 billion Muslims, 1.6 billion Africans and 1.4 billion Indians.
So which ethnic group and civilisational mores need protection?
This article both encourages me and worries me.
Encouraging because we have to actually start doing something to shape the future of our society whilst we still can, and David has the status to instigate and take this forward.
However, I worry that we are just nice reasonable liberals talking to each other whilst the tinder to set Rome alight is being imported around us. (A bit like European leaders talking and talking about Ukraine, but not being serious enough about what it takes to get their hands dirty and take real uncomfortable actions).
If current demographic trends continue, white people will become minorities in their own countries, and it seems rational to propose that they could become like Jewish people, a race in perpetual minority with their rights dependent on the goodwill of the majority. How is that working out for them?
Furthemore, if the different groups of this new majority have been educated to believe that the colonial West is responsible for all the world's problems, and continue with anti-racist ideology, it would leave white Europeans in a very insecure position.
It's possible that a handful of countries like Denmark, Poland and Hungary could hold out and become places of white flight and refuge.
This is a very negative and bleak view, but it seems logically possible. I was struck by one particular performance at the Edinburgh festival this year, which had a very diverse cast, railing against the colonial West, and holding signs saying "Eradicate Whiteness" and "The global majority are coming to take over".
The mainly white liberal audience were clapping and nodding along. I wasn't quite so enthused.
Thank you very much for the long quote, the point of which you, as I would expect, entirely understand. The quote is from this post:
https://www.lorenzofromoz.net/p/my-local-cafe-shows-the-difference
On mine and Helen Dale’s Substack I write a lot about immigration, culture and institutions, often in an historical and comparative context. I regularly cite and use your Somewhere versus Anywhere distinction. Once you see that distinction, you cannot unsee it.
Early in Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, his 1999 magnum opus, Jordan Peterson makes the point that we human cognitively map significance not facts. Different cultures generate different maps of meaning, maps of significance. This matters. People from different cultures will behave differently in the same circumstances because, cognitively, they are not the same circumstances. Also, institutions cannot be expected to encourage convergent behaviour if their norms and rules are not enforced.
Economists should—but often don’t—analyse immigration as they do monetary policy: it can be done well, it can be done badly, it can be done disastrously. Social cohesion cannot be taken for granted. The overwhelming majority of armed conflicts since 1945 have been within, not between, states.
And yes, there is a sense in which national identities are created, but they are not created ex nihilo, they are created out of existing cultural patterns.
Very good piece, as ever. The line about religion is spot on; most of what constitutes our 'civilisation' comes from the Bible and Christianity. We appear to be ignoring our history by failing to acknowledge this. My wife, a very religious Nigerian origin lady, has been banging on about this for years (and years...). Both myself and her can foresee a future whereby Christians in the West will migrate to countries such as Poland and Hungary, as those countries still proudly declare their Christian faith. Like many in the UK I have seen my neighbourhood change dramatically over the years, with the problems that brings. However, what I find more annoying is how the Left try and shut down any debate on the issue and are so quick to condemn any who raise valid concerns. That, I believe, is what is driving the recent surge in nationalist fervour, rather than the changes in local demographics.
Lastly, we all used to watch the same TV shows, in the 70s, but gorged on the hundreds of new channels available on all sorts of devices in the decades that have followed. Oh, what choice we have, the population cried. But at what cost? I suspect it will take a war with a foreign power before we find out the real price.
Thanks Bobby
My pleasure.
Another dimension to the wilful fragmentation of national identity is the attempt to decentre any sense of a shared story.
"When officials lie time and again, the point isn’t that a single lie becomes accepted truth, but that the story keeps shifting until people don’t know what to trust. And when this happens, citizens cannot deliberate, approve or dissent coherently, because a shared world no longer exists."
"If people are taught that “truth” is always contingent and always tactical, the harm goes beyond misinformation. A confused, distrustful public is easier to manage and harder to mobilize into meaningful democratic participation. It becomes less able to act, because action requires a shared world in which decisions can be understood, debated and contested."
https://medium.com/wise-well/repeated-government-lies-destroy-public-discourse-816a70805207
This set of extreme left-wing policies (misleadingly called 'progressive', when in actual fact it is a regression to old fashioned bolshevism) is being pushed all over the western world. El Pais notably exposed the Foro de São Paulo scheme (led by Castro, Chavez and Lula) to transform Latin America into a tropical Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There has been a backlash in Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and El Salvador, but Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil (under Lula's PT) and Nicaragua are resisting and Colombia and Mexico are wobbling (along with several Caribbean nations). Uruguay somehow manages to pursue a more pragmatic form of socialism that actually caters to the well-being of the population.
In this region, capitalism has to deliver on its promises, otherwise there will be a new wave of resentment against social injustice and extreme inequality (people are different, so there will never be equality of outcomes, There should be equality of opportunities and no abuses of economic power.
Spot on. I have never understood why 'lefties' are deemed progressive. However, capitalism is on the verge of collapse as so many of our young feel cut away from the fruits of their labours; unable to buy property etc. This is a big reason why communists encourage migration, as the millions of incoming people have to have an impact on house prices, thus making it harder for youngsters and leaving their immature minds at risk of The Green Death, as Dr Who pointed out in 1974...
Capitalism is facing a severe challenge, because it has to demonstrate its capacity to generate widespread wealth and quality of life. But other forces are acting to concentrate the wealth and increase inequality. Capitalism has to deliver for the population at large, or the socialist promises of a fairer more equal society (despite tending towards totalitarianism) will rise again.
Very true. Money has to go to all, rather than the select few at the top as eventually the population will realise they have been cheated, as Johnny Rotten said in 1978.
The problem with the 'money for all approach' is that effort has to be expended in order to generate wealth and while many will subscribe to the old "give according to one's ability and take according to one's need" there always seem to be parasites who leach off other people's efforts while making little or no contribution themselves.
There is much tolerance, in the case of people who are sick or suffering disabilities, but not for those who are perfectly capable but simply refuse.
For that reason alone, there will always be justifiable inequality - which isn't supposed to be about outcomes anyway, but about opportunities.
I used to work for DWP so I can only agree. If people could see the amount of money that some claimants receive they would give up working on the spot.
I agree. The Left are failing to accept "the moral equality of all human beings and, implicitly, the right of individuals to practice a religion or a distinct way of life wherever they might find themselves" in relation to white social (c)onservatives.
Hence we have a pro-white DEI which incorporates the interests of white majorities and an anti-white DEI which rejects the interests of white majorities.
The former is pragmatic as is attuned to a modern Christianised multi-ethnic social system that works and the latter is racist and is attuned to weaponising the interests of ethnic minorities into segregated voting blocs.
A very interesting essay, David. Thankyou for publishing it.
I live in a very Pakistani area. What is going on is simple really. It it the age-old tribal quest for territory and resources. To say these people consider themselves in any meaningful way English is laughable, and they would be offended by the suggestion. To them, this country is a frontier town that's up for grabs, nothing more.
As far as resolving the problem, it will be resolved as these things are in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
This is a vulgar analysis compared to David's very thoughtful and considered piece, but I defy anyone to spend time in dense Pakistani areas and come away thinking anything else.
Exactly what will happen when things unravel, nobody knows. But we safely say that it will be very bad.
A wise and clear-sighted essay: thank you. I've two thoughts.
Firstly, I've been thinking lately that we should rediscover and make use of the term "expatriot" when discussing immigration, to distinguish between those new arrivals who have integrated fully into the native population, or hope to, and those who's attachment to the country is more limited and who want to remain in their own enclaves. We talk about British expats abroad, so it's a non-insulting term that people can relate to, and it might help with general rhetoric.
Secondly, with overall world population now falling it's interesting to think about where we will be in a century's time. It doesn't seem impossible that current majorities will become majorities again over time as later generations of immigrants move back to their families' country of origin and the inward flows dry up.
Unless there is significant remigration (which is a very contested idea), I think the re-emergence of an ethnically British majority is unlikely.
Statistically the future would seem to be black.
Africa's population is currently 1.6 billion, and is the only continent with a positive birth rate. Current projections for the year 2100 is 3.8 billion, and I suspect there will be even more pressure to migrate to Europe.
England, Britain and the west generally are disintegrating in part due to deranged pluralism. Observing this in a detached manner, as the author does, lends credence to the possibility of another outcome. But there is no other outcome. Extrapolate Bradford but with much less of the benefits which currently holds the whole thing together. Further material loss of Englands ethnic core will be an end to England as recognisably itself. What replaces it will obviously be the multi culture we’ve been told so many good things about but as technocratic control breaks down (which for libs really only works white on white - with caveats for anyone else because racism) it will be more akin to competing tribes within an island. More Africa or Middle Eastern than European
Indeed. What happens when the Abingdons and Bradfords inevitably meet? We all know the answer.
This is a very good piece David and I hope it finds it's way into the pages of The Telegraph and Unherd.
I've been recently meditating on the failings of multiculturalism vis a vis multiethnicity with the conclusion below.
....
My feeling is that multiculturalism is driven foremost by the logic of civic nationalism which operates as a very shallow form of national identity with "citizenship" being the primary cultural conduit of civic nationalism.
This however allows a contested field of secondary cultural mores to prosper with the result that secondary cultural identities become more important than the overarching national "citizenship" which in the main is simply a passport to access State goods and services rather than being a defined identity. Consequently civic nationalism is foremost mediated through the State rather than Society in terms of providing goods and services and ensuring secondary cultural identity protections.
The alternative is ethnic nationalism which to date is largely determined through a narrow racialised lens which in turn largely excludes immigrants even if they have been settled over generations. Hence the emergence of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion as a progressive antidote and one which seeks to displace monoethnic nationalism with multiethnic civic nationalism with the result of starting the cycle above in which an amorphous "citizenship" becomes the means to assert secondary cultural identities leading to national fragmentation in places like Bradford and a reactionary backlash that seeks to reassert the primacy of ethnic nationalism.
Clearly this incessant cycling between monoethnic and multiethnic civic nationalism does not create a stable sense of a coherent national identity with this cycling between monoethnic and multiethnic civic nationalism being the fundamental basis of the modern culture wars.
So perhaps a solution is to dispense with civic nationalism altogether and instead promote a multiracial ethnic nationalism which seeks to displace secondary cultural identities that are often based on an explicit or implicit attachment to a dual national citizenship in which a foreign ethnic identity is asserted via British "citizenship". This means dispensing with ideas of a British Pakistani or a British Asian for example or any other dual nationality/ethnicity identity.
This can be done via informal cultural strictures that seek to "nudge" old and new generations of immigrants to choose between their national/ethnic identities with those choosing a foreign national/ethnic identity being stripped of British citizenship.
Obviously many immigrants may formally renounce their foreign identity whilst informally maintaining it in order to sustain access to State goods and services and protections. But this arrangement puts into sharper focus what it means to be ethnically British. Obviously supporting Pakistan in a cricket match isn't being ethnically British. Nor is sexually segregated public or social spaces as this is an extension of misogyny. Thus the intention of a multiracial British ethnicity is to enforce a clearer sense of cultural mores by Society as a whole rather than a civic national identity that is largely mediated by the State.
......
So perhaps the choice is between a modern multiethnic civic nationalism as you illustrate which is already a feature in many "modern" constituencies and is working perfectly well because it is attuned to a modern Christianised way of life but is unable to make headway into segregated "traditional" constituencies because they are attuned to a traditional Muslim way of life with no guard rails to stop them expanding into stable "modern" Christianised constitutiencies so will always be a source of social friction and national fragmentation.
Or the alternative is a multiracial ethnic nationalism which again largely describes the harmonious "modern" constituency which is attuned to a Christianised way of life with a very large majority thinking of themselves as British no matter the racial profile but sees as problematic segregated "traditional" constituencies that are attuned to a traditional Muslim way of life and don't think of themselves as (ethnically) British except in terms of "citizenship" by which they can access State goods, services and protections. However rather than being unable to make headway into these constituencies for the good of national integration and stability, they can be "nudged" into making a decision about which ethnicity they want to adopt. If they choose a foreign ethnicity, then British "citizenship" will be rescinded in order to deny the full spectrum of State goods, services and protections with the option of supported remigration to their preferred national ethnicity.
Perhaps we can try the former before embarking on the latter but personally I don't see the point since "traditional" monoracial Muslim constituencies show no desire to be multiracial "modern" constitutiencies whatsoever.
Yes I talk about Englishness being an open ethnicity which perhaps overlaps with your idea of a multiracial ethnic nationalism
Yes I think it does, very much so.
I'd perhaps modify my position somewhat in that..
Multiracial Englishness/Britishness is an ethnicity which is defined by a liberal way of life underpinned by ancestral English/British history and traditions. It can include a plurality of religions but these religions have adapted/modified to a liberal way of life.
Thus English/British Islam is a liberal form of Islam as is English/British Christianity or English/British Sikhism.
Perhaps the above might describe a venn overlap between cultural ethnicity and biological ethnicity or multiracial ethnicity and monoracial ethnicity.
Therefore the importance of your article for me is the emphasis on a liberal way of life which in turn highlights the contrast with religious constituencies that aren't engaged in a liberal way of life and as such have segregated themselves to protect themselves as such from moral contamination.
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691203744/liberalism-as-a-way-of-life
However I now see the dilemma of English, Welsh, Scottish, Cornish, Irish ethnicity if treating these as equivalent to British ethnicity which is largely a cultural identity as opposed to a more biological one. So I can see why you use multiethnic English but then that puts us in the trap of treating illiberal traditional constituencies as the same as liberal modern ones which is why I thought it was important to collapse the notion of multiethnic into a multiracial monoethnicity
Overall then, for me the way forward is to treat English, Welsh, Scottish, etc as sub-ethnic multiracial groups which are defined by a liberal way of life and underpinned by ancestral history and traditions with British ethnicity the united kingdom of the sub ethnic multiracial groups of England, Wales, Scotland, NI which is similarly defined by a liberal way of life and underpinned by ancestral history and traditions.
So we can have white British music, black British music and brown British music which are rooted in British soil with references to heritage such as Jamaican reggae as part of the history of black British music but that doesn't make black British musicians Jamaican. If black musicians living in Britain consider themselves Jamaican, then they are not really British and shouldn't really have British citizenship or a British passport.
In other words, people shouldn't be given British citizenship if they don't actually consider themselves British in a meaningful way and especially if they can't demonstrate that they live a liberal way of life.
That is an interesting assessment and I concur wholeheartedly with the last paragraph.
However this is a very complex and emotive subject, and our ability (as the current majority group) to discuss, agree and direct such a process will be extremely contested and may be time limited.
As this majority status gradually diminishes, other ethnic groups will gain more power and may have other ideas.
I agree Alan that it is time limited which is why it is important to consolidate our ideas beforehand or at least narrow the frames of reference.
The complexity as I see it (in terms of identity formation) is between
Multiracial
Monoracial
Multiethnic
Monoethnic
Liberal
Illiberal
So my chosen (at the moment) frame of reference is
Multiracial monoethnic liberal for British identity with ethnicity a cultural/civic construction based on a liberal way of life.
Multiracial monoethnic liberal for English/Scottish/Welsh/NI identity with ethnicity a cultural/civic construction based on a liberal way of life.
Ancestral history and traditions that underpin a liberal way of life to shape the national story whether at a subnational or national level. This can include indigenous or immigrant heritage as long as any contributions underpin a liberal way of life.
I'm not sure that the distinction between state realised civic nationalism and a cultural identity based on traditional cultural and moral norms, rooted in precepts of both Christianity and the Enlightenment, are necessarily incompatible. I don't think they have been historically when, e.g. my parents chose civic nationalism by giving up their Indian passport, it was not only for transactional reasons, but because they had developed an affinity for major aspects of British culture. At the time, British political, social and cultural elite were still able to projects an authoritative common project, which clearly no longer the case. The majority culture and its norms were not seen by most as inherently harmful to minorities, and breaches were subject to specific anti-discrimination law. The idea that it would be harmful to minorities is, imo, a poisoned gift of the elite adopting and enforcing multiculturalism and its turbocharged variant, EDI.
I agree Alka. Bobby Smith above expands on it and I agree, progressive elites weaponised imported cultural differences in order to manipulatively form minority voting blocs. This weaponisation is underpinned by attempts to decentre a shared national story and in turn fragment national identity into warring component parts.
We are all now suffering the consequences of this unabashed quest for power with social destabilisation, social distrust and a breakdown of national cohesion.
In other words, the agenda has been party before country which can be argued is driven by human competitive instincts. Thus a deeper problematic might be the democratic system itself in that competition between political factions becomes more a driving force than cooperation.
I think the root problem is deeper and maybe not directly open to any single solution. But I think an important part of the solution is more democracy, not less. I don't think to much democracy is the reason for the factionalism we see today; more likely to be the hollowing out of substantive democracy in a similar way citizenship has been hollowed out to the merely transactional.
In the main I agree especially that I don't really want to dispense with democracy per se. So I am curious what you see as the deeper root problem.
I can only imagine that being the importation of cultural differences that are actively resistant to a liberal way of life.
Well, I think cultural differences resistant to a liberal way of life is not a fixed thing. How strong has a liberal way of life been/is today, which could either absorb, or if that's not possible, marginalise, cultural differences that are inhospitable or antithetical to lib way of life? And I think we need to make careful distinctions between what is disagreeable ( e.g. hijab), highly objectionable and maybe meriting coercive legal action (e.g. men only run in a public park) and that which needs to be strongly sanctioned e.g. running for political office on basis of catering to religious interests of local community, sharia law re .marriages etc. I think this opens out to a prior weakening of moral culture which leaves us unable to properly defend our values by enacting them rather than breaching them. But still thinking about this tbh!
I agree it is a tricky one but for me part of the problem is this term "multi-ethnic".
If white, black and brown people choose to permanently settle here and live a liberal way of life, then they are English/British as an ethnicity.
So we might have a multi-racial monoethnic English/British identity based on a liberal way of life but not a multi-racial, multi-ethnic English/British identity that is based on a plurality of liberal and illiberal ways of life.
If white, black and brown people who are permanently settled here don't consider themselves English/British because they don't want to live a liberal way of life, then they are not English/British, they are foreign, even if they have citizenship status.
Excellent analysis. The Melbourne cafe example really nails what's missing from most discussions about diversty. The difference between multi-ethnic (shared norms, diverse backgrounds) and multicultural (separate norms, separate lives) is undertheorized but crucial. I saw this play out in Toronto where certain neighborhoods had high diversity but low integration and the social trust metrics were dismal compared to equally diverse areas with strong common norms.
A bit disappointed that you think I'm focusing on race when the whole point of the piece is that its about common way of life/culture - race can sometimes signify big cultural/value divides but its the latter that matter not the former - and I argue explicitly for a non-ancestry based idea of Englishness
Running like a thread through this piece - Abingdon/Bradford, the David Willetts comment, clan-based abuse of democratic systems, is the unfortunate message that we have imported too many of the wrong sort of immigrant.
The key question is what we do about it.
Stopping importing any more of the wrong sort of immigrant should surely be our first priority?
You're a thoughtful man and a good writer, but it all feels a little like the Japanese soldier who didn't know the war is over; the essay is looking for a soft landing. A balance. The foundation for a compromise.
Which would be nice, but there's nobody to compromise with. The immigration-maximalists have had every chance over the last few decades to compromise, and declined to do so. The "Poles over Pakistanis" idea is coded as blatant racism.
So there will be no compromise. You just can't compromise with someone who will take your concessions but insist they get everything they want. At some point you're just a fool.
And I don't mean that personally - you are no fool. But your (my) position has been taken for a fool. You can only watch someone pick your pocket so many times before they start to think you're happy getting your pocket picked.
I don’t know, it seems to me that you are just skirting around the issue to not seem like a partisan on either side of the discussion around immigration. I believe every European nation should follow Denmark and Sweden’s example on immigration rules. Call me a nativist, but I believe the needs of the native population matter at least as much as that of the minority one.