Ben Ansell and Sam Freedman have raised the alarm about a radicalisation of commentary on race/immigration. Most such fears are misplaced but they in turn must acknowledge the dramatic scale of change
Sam Freedman, to his credit, has responded to my critique on his substack. See his response below, and my response to his response.
First Sam: Honestly it feels like most of it is beside the point. My argument is simple - the mainstream right are now using, and accepting of, racist language that would have been condemned out of hand 20 years ago.
Saying we should deport all Pakistanis is bad (as you accept); saying a brown person can't be English is bad (which you seem to want to inexplicably defend); approvingly quoting Enoch Powell, as Alison Pearson did yesterday, is bad. These things should be widely condemend by mainstream right publications and politicians and they are not. That is exceptionally dangerous and will, I fear, lead to violence. Maybe you're right that anti-racism taboos are strong enough to withstand this - I really don't want to test that theory.
This is true regardless of what one thinks on immigration, integration or any other policy issue. And it cannot be blamed on what you consider to be failures of policy here. Any more than one could blame anti-semitism in New York on the fact there are a lot of Jews living there.
And now me: Sam, this is not good enough. Yes there is a harder tone to some of the debate, but that is a response to the harder realities for those who worry about immigration/over-rapid demographic change. You are, in effect, saying people are not allowed to be upset/angry about this because you are not. I agree with you about Carswell, and I cannot comment about the Pearson quote as I've not seen it. Obviously there can be unacceptable ways of expressing anger about these big changes, but your over the top response draws lines between the acceptable and the unacceptable in the wrong place and so merely further polarises debate. I challenged you on two substantive points, neither of which you have answered. Your belief that the anti-racism taboo is thin runs counter to all the polling evidence and all the optimistic things that you and others have written about multi-ethnic Britain. And you say that Kisin is obviously racist for saying a brown person can't be English which is what most brown people themselves argued until recently, and most probably still do. For most of my life ethnic minority Brits have identified as British not Engiish. To say Kisin is racist for taking this position is dumb and presumably stems from the belief that he is a conservative of some kind and so when he says Sunak can't be English - he means it in a racist way not in a civic v ethnic way. Have you asked him? I suspect as someone of Russian Jewish ancestry he knows a thing or two about racism. I know both of you a bit (where has the sweet young Prospect intern gone?!) and the fact that you now occupy unbridgeable zones in Britain's political conversation is ridiculous, and you carry some of the blame.
A second, and I suspect, final round in the argument between me and Sam Freedman (on his Comment is Freed substack).
Sam:
Saying someone brown can't be English is the literal definition of racism - "discrimination against a person or group on the basis of their race or ethnicity". I genuinely find it frightening that someone of your intelligence can't see that. The British/English thing is totally specious. English is as much a national identity as French or German and should be treated in the same way.
As I say you might be right that the anti-racism taboo is strong enough to withstand this new vitriol from the mainstream right. I offer polling in my piece to suggest it might be. But I really really don't want to test that and you shouldn't either.
I am not saying people aren't allowed to be upset or angry. I am saying they are not allowed to be racist. This should be a bare minumum standard for political debate in this country that anyone remotely serious can sign up to.
Me:
Your comment perfectly illustrates the problem. You invent an arbitrary definition of racism - and one that completely ignores the long history of argument about the difference between civic and ethnic identities - and declare anyone who doesn't agree with it a racist. In any case I don't think Kisin was proposing to discriminate against Sunak on the grounds that he classified him as British not English. A large proportion of ethnic minority Brits continue to reject an ethnic English identity, preferring a civic British one, does that place them all in the same 'obviously racist' camp as Kisin? I agree racism is the key dividing line but as I argued in my original critique you and Ansell have extended the boundaries too wide, apparently (at least in Ansell's case) including anyone from the ethnic majority who is not ethnicity/way of life blind and fears becoming a minority. The concept of racism is easily devalued and the danger is that too many people won't be listening when we actually need it.
We’re never going to agree on this. Britishness is a red herring. Englishness is a national identity in its own right. To see this (really obvious!) point think about Humza Yusuf. He led the Scottish Nationalist Party. Are you really claiming he can’t be Scottish?! And if can be then Sunak can be English.
What ethnic minorities wish to identify as is also a total red herring. The question isn’t whether they must identify as English but whether they can. My Jewish grandparents, second generation immigrants, certainly identified as English and I would consider it straightforwardly anti-semitic, and discriminatory, to deny them that identity.
The definition of racism I used was from the Oxford English Dictionary. I did not invent it and it isn’t abitrary. It is quite literally what the word means.
Me:
Saying 'we are never going to agree on this' is exactly what you should be saying to Kisin, rather than accusing him of one of the worst sins possible in a liberal society. And, to repeat, Kisin is not discriminating against Sunak he is just labelling him in a way that you don't agree with. (Minorities in Scotland have always identified as Scottish in the way that they haven't in England, not because the English are more prejudiced but because it is itself a minority national identity.)
So, actually this turned out to be the final round:
Sam:
This is so nonsensical. If Yousuf If Scottish because minorities in Scotland have chosen that identity then Sunak can be English because he chooses that identity. The idea that English is the only nationally which cannot be civic is beyond baffling. (And yes obviously denying someone nationality is discriminatory.)
I can only assume you're going down this bizarre rabbit hole bexause you know and like Kisin. If so you'd be better off explaining to him why he's wrong on this one.
Me:
You are the one in the rabbit hole, directing people into the good people or the bad people corner based on which abstract theory of national identity they hold. As I said in my original piece I am pleased that English has ceased, quite recently, to be a purely ethnic identity and that many among the non-white minorities now call themselves English too (it was always easier for white minorities). I suspect Sunak identifies as English (as well as British), indeed I hope he does. The fact that Kisin sticks to the old fashioned ethnic English, civic British view, is not a big deal, and I don't think it would be to Sunak either. That's not discrimination its a theory of classification. Kisin doesn't think he's English himself (a point I should have made earlier)! And I don't think he regards himself as a second class citizen. There are real racists in in our country your energy would be better spent pursuing them rather than hounding someone you have an identity classification dispute with.
A "no, you", with a "go chase the REAL racists", and a side helping of deciding that Sunak backs your preferred view based on nothing but your priors. This is spectacular stuff.
"The concept of racism is easily devalued and the danger is that too many people won't be listening when we actually need it."
This is an important point, and I believe that to an extent it has already happened.
The tactic of accusing someone you dislike or disagree with of being a racist - and justifying that by taking something they said or did out of context and misinterpreting it, or just because they have perfectly normal views shared by many people, but not by the accuser - has become so commonplace over the last decade or so that people can now just ignore such accusations. And yet genuine racism does exist and should be pointed out. The same could be said about accusations of antisemitism and islamophobia.
The West is overrun with moral entrepreneurs (almost always Leftist intellectuals) who demand we exchange our IS (the reality of humans, states, and societies based on history, biology, anthropology) for their OUGHT, which is usually some idealistic form of egalitarian humanitarianism that has never quite existed except in their imaginations. I think this is mostly based on Christian morality, which seems to have only grown stronger as Christianity itself fades, and also on our deep Protestant roots, where every man gets to be his own priest, preacher, and prophet.
I don't think we'd want to live without an OUGHT, some good-natured idealism is necessary to keep us from being heartless utilitarian materialists, but too much OUGHT, especially the kind that simply dismisses IS as backwards relics of our benighted past, is reckless and often destructive.
Because our class of moral entrepreneurs can't quite see past their own self-regard and warm fuzzy feelings, they never take into account the things any professed reform needs to (if it's serious and responsible): possible negative side effects, unforeseen consequences and the tradeoffs that any policy will require (there's always tradeoffs). Instead all these things are usually written off with the great ideological weapon of our age, the Bigotry Accusation, which destroys debate and makes it impossible for reasonable people to disagree.
Western liberals seem to be the people with the highest in-group hostility (maybe ever) and the most passionate commitment to xenophilia and concern for the Other, but as we've seen, their moral crusade has also led to deep social fissures, lack of social trust, rotting of community bonds, an epidemic of anomie and distaste for nation and nomos, not to mention crime and tremendous political upheaval. Our intellectual/activist class are the people who will saw off the branch they're sitting on (in this case the branch being safe, prosperous liberal democracies), because the branch can't hold everyone who wants to sit on it, and because they believe there must be a higher, better branch. They are simply too religious when it comes to the issue of mass immigration, too emotionally and personally invested, to be trusted or heeded.
Yes. The reason that the arguments of liberal thinkers like Ansell and Freedman on immigration are becoming irrelevant is that they simply refuse to engage with the fact of the rapid and unprecedented demographic transformation we are going through.
They have no answer to this, as to fully acknowledge it would be to harm their own position in the eyes of most of the public.
The demographic transformation is unprecedented not only in terms of numbers but also in terms of the cultural incompatibility, criminality and low skills of many immigrant groups. To put it crudely, there are both quality and quantity issues.
A second, and I suspect, final round in the argument between me and Sam Freedman (on his Comment is Freed substack).
Sam:
Saying someone brown can't be English is the literal definition of racism - "discrimination against a person or group on the basis of their race or ethnicity". I genuinely find it frightening that someone of your intelligence can't see that. The British/English thing is totally specious. English is as much a national identity as French or German and should be treated in the same way.
As I say you might be right that the anti-racism taboo is strong enough to withstand this new vitriol from the mainstream right. I offer polling in my piece to suggest it might be. But I really really don't want to test that and you shouldn't either.
I am not saying people aren't allowed to be upset or angry. I am saying they are not allowed to be racist. This should be a bare minumum standard for political debate in this country that anyone remotely serious can sign up to.
Me:
Your comment perfectly illustrates the problem. You invent an arbitrary definition of racism - and one that completely ignores the long history of argument about the difference between civic and ethnic identities - and declare anyone who doesn't agree with it a racist. In any case I don't think Kisin was proposing to discriminate against Sunak on the grounds that he classified him as British not English. A large proportion of ethnic minority Brits continue to reject an ethnic English identity, preferring a civic British one, does that place them all in the same 'obviously racist' camp as Kisin? I agree racism is the key dividing line but as I argued in my original critique you and Ansell have extended the boundaries too wide, apparently (at least in Ansell's case) including anyone from the ethnic majority who is not ethnicity/way of life blind and fears becoming a minority. The concept of racism is easily devalued and the danger is that too many people won't be listening when we actually need it.
I occasionally reflect on the fact the normans- who were as like Irish people as it’s possible to be, white Northern European Christians- arrived in Ireland numbering in the low 5 figures, and that event is still the subject of political controversy and tension today (see the reaction to “EU year of the Normans” as a recent example) - a thousand year later. Demographic shifts have significant multi-century implications and the breezy way people talk about them is insane, whether you like them or not.
Not quite the same but now that I think of it Pretty sure that studies in the UK have shown that people with Norman surnames are more likely to be members of parliament etc
It’s a sign of how immature our public debates have become that so many people claim there’s no difference between spreading a little bit of jam on your toast and eating the whole jar in one go with a teaspoon.
"It is a cliche of social psychology that when people feel secure and in control they are readier to accept change and difference, the more uncertain and insecure they are the less open they become and the more attracted to the appeal of ‘rage entrepreneurs’ like Donald Trump." One thing I think your otherwise fair and reasoned analysis misses is the economic background to all of this, which is low wage growth, poor public finances, crumbling services and, in London particularly, insane housing costs. All this also means people don't feel the "secure and in control" they would need to feel in order to accept significant change.
Freedman flags Douglas Carswell's call for "Mass deportation of Pakistanis from Britain. I don’t care how long you’ve lived here. Out" [1]. And whilst David disagrees with much Freedman says, he agrees that Carswell's remark is "clearly...appalling".
But I do think it's worth exploring what's behind remarks such as Carswell's. And I'd begin by noting that I think it's relatively uncontentious to say that, for those who have concerns about immigration, many (including me) believe Muslim immigration to be the most problematic.
As a general principle, immigration should surely only occur if we're confident that the benefits will outweigh the costs. But it seems to me that the opposite is true with regard to Muslim immigration: the costs massively outweigh the benefits. By costs I have in mind things like terror attacks, grooming gangs, first-cousin marriage, attempts to enforce blasphemy laws (from Rushdie to the Batley school teacher), parallel communities, massive over-representation in the prison population, non-stun halal slaughter, FGM, honour killings, a much higher percentage living in social housing than in the overall population, the lowest rates of employment compared to those of other religions or no religion. And so on.
And whilst I find it easy to rattle off the (massive) costs of Muslim immigration, I find it rather more difficult to list the benefits. And, even if there are benefits, it seems to me that they don't remotely offset the costs. On this analysis, it doesn't seem particularly contentious to suggest that Muslim immigration to the UK has been an absolute disaster (i.e. a huge net cost).
And if it were possible to set up a system of polling where respondents felt entirely certain that their anonymity would be protected, I wonder what percentage of native Brits would agree with statements such as "Britain would have been better off without Muslim immigration" or "Britain would be better off without Muslims". I suspect it might be pretty high.
For those who believe that Muslim immigration has been an utter disaster for this country, it's perhaps not surprising that some might see forced return (deportation) and/or incentivized voluntary return as necessary to protect the way of life of ethnic Britons.
Of course, Carswell wasn't calling for the deportation of Muslims, only the deportation of Pakistanis - presumably because grooming gangs are largely composed of Pakistanis. But the same sorts of arguments apply.
(And it's worth noting that Pakistanis are not only over-represented in grooming gangs, they're over-represented in the three most serious types of child sexual abuse [2] and in the prison population. And "the UK Biobank...found that levels of incest (father-daughter, siblings etc) were significantly higher in the British Pakistani community than the wider population" [3]. Also, almost 20% of the Pakistani population speak little or no English [4].)
Two possible responses to those advocating remigration (i.e. forced and/or voluntary return) are as follows. The first is to argue that Muslim immigration isn't the huge net cost some claim. And it seems to me that David might have been taking this sort of line when, in March last year, he wrote in the Times that
"given the scale of change in the past 20 years, one could also argue that we have not done badly. There are occasional flare-ups, usually involving Muslim sensibilities. And the colour-blind melting pot is largely confined to the higher professions, the affluent suburbs, and the most successful minorities — Chinese, Indian and some Africans. But we adapt" [4].
For the reasons set out above, I don't believe that, with regard to Muslim immigration, we can say that "we have not done badly".
The second is to concede that Muslim immigration has been a huge net cost but to argue that, nevertheless, remigration would be immoral (and/or possible only at a very high cost - such as civil war) and that the problem of Muslim immigration can be solved by taking a robust approach to integration that has been singularly absent in British policy-making to date. Pete North makes a robust and unvarnished argument in this X post [5] as to why integration of large parallel communities of Muslims such as in Bradford is a pipe dream. Here are the first two paragraphs.
"In inner city Bradford, there is nothing discernibly English to integrate into. There is no muscular integration policy that could ever work. Bradford has been ethnically cleansed of native English. The only native English still left are the ones who can't afford to get away - but would if they could. And there's a reason for that. The Pakistanis are absolute vile people with repugnant behaviour. When the grooming scandal broke, absolutely no white Bradfordian was remotely surprised. Bradford is a Pakistani mafia run city.
Not at any point have these people integrated. From the days of their arrival they set up ghettos, and they've grown ever since - and they are squalid - even by West Yorkshire standards. When they move into an area, they colonise it. They don't dress like us, they don't speak our language, they do not participate in white cultural events. They have entirely separate politics - to the extent of election candidates distributing election material in a foreign language. It is an apartheid city."
Richard North, who has commented in this thread, also makes an interesting contribution to the debate [6].
I suspect that undertaking a sober cost-benefit analysis of Muslim/Pakistani immigration is simply too contentious for the state, most politicians and think tanks. Which perhaps explains, for example, why the Home Office, in a reply to a parliamentary question from Rupert Lowe, felt compelled to open with the bromide that "We recognise and appreciate the great contribution of Pakistani people to the diverse culture of the UK" [7]. And why Nick Timothy's answer to this question about Muslim ghettos in UK towns and cities was so vague and lightweight [8].
I agree with some of this - Pakistani immigration is probably the least successful of the larger groups - but Carswell’s comments are still appalling and damaging to the more general restrictionist cause, you can’t just pick on an entire group like that, it would only happen if Britain really had taken a terrifying, authoritarian turn. Carswell no longer lives in the UK and I think his dumb comment is evidence that he no longer really cares
Even if Carswell's remarks are appalling, I'd argue that what's more appalling - by several orders of magnitude - is the abject failure of the British state over decades to meaningfully deal with issues of Pakistani/Muslim immigration - such as criminality, cultural incompatibility and lack of interest in integration.
Carswell's suggested one solution, namely deportation. And he's entitled to ask:"well, if you find my proffered solution abhorrent, what's yours?" Such a question's particularly salient given arguments put forward by the likes of Pete North that integration is now simply impossible in places like Bradford.
Responses like that of Nick Timothy don't get remotely close to beginning to cut the mustard. We've known about the problems associated with Muslim immigration for decades. And yet the best Timothy could come up with in 2024 was that "one of the conversations we're going to need to have" is about "the integration of different diaspora groups". In a desperate attempt to be positive, one might, I suppose, say better late than never. But, really, it's beyond pathetic that this is where the Conservatives are at in the mid-2020s.
If the established policy community is so outraged by Carswell, it seems to me it's incumbent on them to come up with some serious, carefully-thought-out proposals of their own.
I think there is a great deal of deflection going on with Ben Ansell and Sam Freedman and more recently with John Merrick and his recent Guardian opinion piece - The right wants us to think Britain is on the verge of ethnic conflict. The truth is worse than that.
It's not so much a radicalised narrative that is the issue, whether within ethnically homogeneous cultural spaces or ethnically heterogeneous cultural spaces in which a friend of mine was recently called a white bast*rd, the deeper issue is ethnically driven assortative mating that actively seeks to maintain hard (or radical) biological levels of ethnic segregation which cannot be remedied by State action through diversity, equality and inclusion policies and nor can it be remedied with liberal moral masturbations that seek to define the science of population ecology as a form of racism.
This lack of biological miscegenation within the UK creates a low trust weak empathy society because reproductive discrimination actively reduces the flow of deep intimacy between different ethnic communities. In turn, the interethnic shallowness that defines British multiculturalism does not endear a deep sense of belonging in one another's communities.
Hence, essentially we are rapidly becoming an island of biologically demarcated strangers which does not in any meaningful sense engender interethnic cooperation except through the forceful actions of the State which only leads to distrust and accusations of two-tier ethnic favouritism of which Ben Ansell and Sam Freedman are a moralistic part.
Ultimately, a lack of ethnic miscegenation will create parallel ethnic communities, each with their own values, norms and expectations. However, Ben Ansell and Sam Freedman actively seek to deflect from these biological and social truths because they are not motivated by stability and cohesion but are motivated by power.
They wish to hierarchically position themselves as the professional managerial liberal elite that mediates the social conflicts that arise from ethnically driven heteropatric speciation so it is in their interests to avoid the nuances of population ecology and avoid the consequences of ethnically driven assortative mating whilst at the same time name calling anyone that is actually interested in these important themes a racist.
Unfortunately you can't really get anymore uneducated, irrational and anti-intellectual than that.
I think there is a great deal of deflection going on with Ben Ansell and Sam Freedman and more recently with John Merrick and his recent Guardian opinion piece - The right wants us to think Britain is on the verge of ethnic conflict. The truth is worse than that.
It's not so much a radicalised narrative that is the issue, whether in ethnically homogeneous left behind areas or ethnically heterogeneous left behind areas in which a friend of mine was recently called a white bast*rd, the deeper issue is ethnically driven assortative mating that maintains hard (or radical) biological levels of
ethnic segregation which cannot be remedied by State actionthrough diversity, equality and inclusion policies and nor can it be remedied with moral masturbations that seek to define the science of population ecology as a form of racism.
This lack of biological miscegenation creates a low trust weak empathy society because reproductive discrimination actively reduces the flow of deep intimacy between different ethnic communities. In turn, the interethnic shallowness that defines British multiculturalism does not endear a deep sense of belonging in one another's communities.
Hence, essentially we are rapidly becoming an island of biologically demarcated strangers which does not in any meaningful sense engender interethnic cooperation except through the forceful actions of the State which only leads to accusations of two-tier ethnic favouritism of which Ben Ansell and Sam Freedman are a moralistic part.
Ultimately, a lack of ethnic miscegenation will create parallel ethnic communities, each with their own values, norms and expectations. Ben Ansell and Sam Freedman actively seek to deflect from these biological and social facts because they are motivated by power not stability. They wish to hierarchically position themselves as the professional managerial elite that mediates the social conflicts that arise from ethnically driven heteropatric speciation so it is in their interests to avoid the nuances of population ecology and avoid the consequences of ethnically driven assortative mating whilst at the same time name calling anyone that is actually interested in these important themes a racist.
Unfortunately you can't really get anymore uneducated and anti-intellectual than that.
Of course part of the issue here is the old problem that while it may not necessarily be racist to feel differently about immigration from one region versus another, or to use terms like "white British", it is also true that everyone who *is* racist is definitely going to have those views and use that language. So it's entirely legitimate to judge commentators like those mentioned partly by whether they're sometimes willing to explicitly disavow racist supporters/followers or not.
So a perfectly mainstream Labour voter who worries about high immigration and their neighbourhood changing too fast should be categorised together with a member of the BNP, because they are both mass immigration sceptics? I think this is exactly the problem with the Ansell/Freedman approach and it is very damaging to our politics.
No although possibly I wasn't clear. My point is that racists do very much talk and think that way, even if talking and thinking that way doesn't make one a racist. Therefore it would be extremely salutary for the health of this debate if various commentators would more explicitly distance themselves from the racists who otherwise excitedly seize on their remarks (as the comments on virtually any Twitter posting etc demonstrate). You do that in this post re: Carswell, so that is excellent.
There’s room for nuance that’s for sure. Kisin didn’t say brown skin was some kind of deal breaker. He said a brown skinned Hindu of obvious and avowed Indian heritage could be British but not English. He also noted that when Sunak became PM it was celebrated by the Indian commentariat as a win for their team.
Sam Freedman, to his credit, has responded to my critique on his substack. See his response below, and my response to his response.
First Sam: Honestly it feels like most of it is beside the point. My argument is simple - the mainstream right are now using, and accepting of, racist language that would have been condemned out of hand 20 years ago.
Saying we should deport all Pakistanis is bad (as you accept); saying a brown person can't be English is bad (which you seem to want to inexplicably defend); approvingly quoting Enoch Powell, as Alison Pearson did yesterday, is bad. These things should be widely condemend by mainstream right publications and politicians and they are not. That is exceptionally dangerous and will, I fear, lead to violence. Maybe you're right that anti-racism taboos are strong enough to withstand this - I really don't want to test that theory.
This is true regardless of what one thinks on immigration, integration or any other policy issue. And it cannot be blamed on what you consider to be failures of policy here. Any more than one could blame anti-semitism in New York on the fact there are a lot of Jews living there.
And now me: Sam, this is not good enough. Yes there is a harder tone to some of the debate, but that is a response to the harder realities for those who worry about immigration/over-rapid demographic change. You are, in effect, saying people are not allowed to be upset/angry about this because you are not. I agree with you about Carswell, and I cannot comment about the Pearson quote as I've not seen it. Obviously there can be unacceptable ways of expressing anger about these big changes, but your over the top response draws lines between the acceptable and the unacceptable in the wrong place and so merely further polarises debate. I challenged you on two substantive points, neither of which you have answered. Your belief that the anti-racism taboo is thin runs counter to all the polling evidence and all the optimistic things that you and others have written about multi-ethnic Britain. And you say that Kisin is obviously racist for saying a brown person can't be English which is what most brown people themselves argued until recently, and most probably still do. For most of my life ethnic minority Brits have identified as British not Engiish. To say Kisin is racist for taking this position is dumb and presumably stems from the belief that he is a conservative of some kind and so when he says Sunak can't be English - he means it in a racist way not in a civic v ethnic way. Have you asked him? I suspect as someone of Russian Jewish ancestry he knows a thing or two about racism. I know both of you a bit (where has the sweet young Prospect intern gone?!) and the fact that you now occupy unbridgeable zones in Britain's political conversation is ridiculous, and you carry some of the blame.
A second, and I suspect, final round in the argument between me and Sam Freedman (on his Comment is Freed substack).
Sam:
Saying someone brown can't be English is the literal definition of racism - "discrimination against a person or group on the basis of their race or ethnicity". I genuinely find it frightening that someone of your intelligence can't see that. The British/English thing is totally specious. English is as much a national identity as French or German and should be treated in the same way.
As I say you might be right that the anti-racism taboo is strong enough to withstand this new vitriol from the mainstream right. I offer polling in my piece to suggest it might be. But I really really don't want to test that and you shouldn't either.
I am not saying people aren't allowed to be upset or angry. I am saying they are not allowed to be racist. This should be a bare minumum standard for political debate in this country that anyone remotely serious can sign up to.
Me:
Your comment perfectly illustrates the problem. You invent an arbitrary definition of racism - and one that completely ignores the long history of argument about the difference between civic and ethnic identities - and declare anyone who doesn't agree with it a racist. In any case I don't think Kisin was proposing to discriminate against Sunak on the grounds that he classified him as British not English. A large proportion of ethnic minority Brits continue to reject an ethnic English identity, preferring a civic British one, does that place them all in the same 'obviously racist' camp as Kisin? I agree racism is the key dividing line but as I argued in my original critique you and Ansell have extended the boundaries too wide, apparently (at least in Ansell's case) including anyone from the ethnic majority who is not ethnicity/way of life blind and fears becoming a minority. The concept of racism is easily devalued and the danger is that too many people won't be listening when we actually need it.
OK, what I hope is the final round.
Sam:
We’re never going to agree on this. Britishness is a red herring. Englishness is a national identity in its own right. To see this (really obvious!) point think about Humza Yusuf. He led the Scottish Nationalist Party. Are you really claiming he can’t be Scottish?! And if can be then Sunak can be English.
What ethnic minorities wish to identify as is also a total red herring. The question isn’t whether they must identify as English but whether they can. My Jewish grandparents, second generation immigrants, certainly identified as English and I would consider it straightforwardly anti-semitic, and discriminatory, to deny them that identity.
The definition of racism I used was from the Oxford English Dictionary. I did not invent it and it isn’t abitrary. It is quite literally what the word means.
Me:
Saying 'we are never going to agree on this' is exactly what you should be saying to Kisin, rather than accusing him of one of the worst sins possible in a liberal society. And, to repeat, Kisin is not discriminating against Sunak he is just labelling him in a way that you don't agree with. (Minorities in Scotland have always identified as Scottish in the way that they haven't in England, not because the English are more prejudiced but because it is itself a minority national identity.)
So, actually this turned out to be the final round:
Sam:
This is so nonsensical. If Yousuf If Scottish because minorities in Scotland have chosen that identity then Sunak can be English because he chooses that identity. The idea that English is the only nationally which cannot be civic is beyond baffling. (And yes obviously denying someone nationality is discriminatory.)
I can only assume you're going down this bizarre rabbit hole bexause you know and like Kisin. If so you'd be better off explaining to him why he's wrong on this one.
Me:
You are the one in the rabbit hole, directing people into the good people or the bad people corner based on which abstract theory of national identity they hold. As I said in my original piece I am pleased that English has ceased, quite recently, to be a purely ethnic identity and that many among the non-white minorities now call themselves English too (it was always easier for white minorities). I suspect Sunak identifies as English (as well as British), indeed I hope he does. The fact that Kisin sticks to the old fashioned ethnic English, civic British view, is not a big deal, and I don't think it would be to Sunak either. That's not discrimination its a theory of classification. Kisin doesn't think he's English himself (a point I should have made earlier)! And I don't think he regards himself as a second class citizen. There are real racists in in our country your energy would be better spent pursuing them rather than hounding someone you have an identity classification dispute with.
A "no, you", with a "go chase the REAL racists", and a side helping of deciding that Sunak backs your preferred view based on nothing but your priors. This is spectacular stuff.
"The concept of racism is easily devalued and the danger is that too many people won't be listening when we actually need it."
This is an important point, and I believe that to an extent it has already happened.
The tactic of accusing someone you dislike or disagree with of being a racist - and justifying that by taking something they said or did out of context and misinterpreting it, or just because they have perfectly normal views shared by many people, but not by the accuser - has become so commonplace over the last decade or so that people can now just ignore such accusations. And yet genuine racism does exist and should be pointed out. The same could be said about accusations of antisemitism and islamophobia.
The West is overrun with moral entrepreneurs (almost always Leftist intellectuals) who demand we exchange our IS (the reality of humans, states, and societies based on history, biology, anthropology) for their OUGHT, which is usually some idealistic form of egalitarian humanitarianism that has never quite existed except in their imaginations. I think this is mostly based on Christian morality, which seems to have only grown stronger as Christianity itself fades, and also on our deep Protestant roots, where every man gets to be his own priest, preacher, and prophet.
I don't think we'd want to live without an OUGHT, some good-natured idealism is necessary to keep us from being heartless utilitarian materialists, but too much OUGHT, especially the kind that simply dismisses IS as backwards relics of our benighted past, is reckless and often destructive.
Because our class of moral entrepreneurs can't quite see past their own self-regard and warm fuzzy feelings, they never take into account the things any professed reform needs to (if it's serious and responsible): possible negative side effects, unforeseen consequences and the tradeoffs that any policy will require (there's always tradeoffs). Instead all these things are usually written off with the great ideological weapon of our age, the Bigotry Accusation, which destroys debate and makes it impossible for reasonable people to disagree.
Western liberals seem to be the people with the highest in-group hostility (maybe ever) and the most passionate commitment to xenophilia and concern for the Other, but as we've seen, their moral crusade has also led to deep social fissures, lack of social trust, rotting of community bonds, an epidemic of anomie and distaste for nation and nomos, not to mention crime and tremendous political upheaval. Our intellectual/activist class are the people who will saw off the branch they're sitting on (in this case the branch being safe, prosperous liberal democracies), because the branch can't hold everyone who wants to sit on it, and because they believe there must be a higher, better branch. They are simply too religious when it comes to the issue of mass immigration, too emotionally and personally invested, to be trusted or heeded.
Nicely expressed
Thanks!
Agree, I touch on costs a bit in my London piece which so aggravated Ben Ansell
Yes. The reason that the arguments of liberal thinkers like Ansell and Freedman on immigration are becoming irrelevant is that they simply refuse to engage with the fact of the rapid and unprecedented demographic transformation we are going through.
They have no answer to this, as to fully acknowledge it would be to harm their own position in the eyes of most of the public.
The demographic transformation is unprecedented not only in terms of numbers but also in terms of the cultural incompatibility, criminality and low skills of many immigrant groups. To put it crudely, there are both quality and quantity issues.
A second, and I suspect, final round in the argument between me and Sam Freedman (on his Comment is Freed substack).
Sam:
Saying someone brown can't be English is the literal definition of racism - "discrimination against a person or group on the basis of their race or ethnicity". I genuinely find it frightening that someone of your intelligence can't see that. The British/English thing is totally specious. English is as much a national identity as French or German and should be treated in the same way.
As I say you might be right that the anti-racism taboo is strong enough to withstand this new vitriol from the mainstream right. I offer polling in my piece to suggest it might be. But I really really don't want to test that and you shouldn't either.
I am not saying people aren't allowed to be upset or angry. I am saying they are not allowed to be racist. This should be a bare minumum standard for political debate in this country that anyone remotely serious can sign up to.
Me:
Your comment perfectly illustrates the problem. You invent an arbitrary definition of racism - and one that completely ignores the long history of argument about the difference between civic and ethnic identities - and declare anyone who doesn't agree with it a racist. In any case I don't think Kisin was proposing to discriminate against Sunak on the grounds that he classified him as British not English. A large proportion of ethnic minority Brits continue to reject an ethnic English identity, preferring a civic British one, does that place them all in the same 'obviously racist' camp as Kisin? I agree racism is the key dividing line but as I argued in my original critique you and Ansell have extended the boundaries too wide, apparently (at least in Ansell's case) including anyone from the ethnic majority who is not ethnicity/way of life blind and fears becoming a minority. The concept of racism is easily devalued and the danger is that too many people won't be listening when we actually need it.
I occasionally reflect on the fact the normans- who were as like Irish people as it’s possible to be, white Northern European Christians- arrived in Ireland numbering in the low 5 figures, and that event is still the subject of political controversy and tension today (see the reaction to “EU year of the Normans” as a recent example) - a thousand year later. Demographic shifts have significant multi-century implications and the breezy way people talk about them is insane, whether you like them or not.
Not quite the same but now that I think of it Pretty sure that studies in the UK have shown that people with Norman surnames are more likely to be members of parliament etc
Am I missing something or did Sam not address most of your main points? Anyway, an excellent piece David. Thank you for sharing it.
It’s a sign of how immature our public debates have become that so many people claim there’s no difference between spreading a little bit of jam on your toast and eating the whole jar in one go with a teaspoon.
"It is a cliche of social psychology that when people feel secure and in control they are readier to accept change and difference, the more uncertain and insecure they are the less open they become and the more attracted to the appeal of ‘rage entrepreneurs’ like Donald Trump." One thing I think your otherwise fair and reasoned analysis misses is the economic background to all of this, which is low wage growth, poor public finances, crumbling services and, in London particularly, insane housing costs. All this also means people don't feel the "secure and in control" they would need to feel in order to accept significant change.
I am personally a lot less accepting of the Blairite settlement than I was just a few years ago.
An excellent response to Ansell and Freedman.
Freedman flags Douglas Carswell's call for "Mass deportation of Pakistanis from Britain. I don’t care how long you’ve lived here. Out" [1]. And whilst David disagrees with much Freedman says, he agrees that Carswell's remark is "clearly...appalling".
But I do think it's worth exploring what's behind remarks such as Carswell's. And I'd begin by noting that I think it's relatively uncontentious to say that, for those who have concerns about immigration, many (including me) believe Muslim immigration to be the most problematic.
As a general principle, immigration should surely only occur if we're confident that the benefits will outweigh the costs. But it seems to me that the opposite is true with regard to Muslim immigration: the costs massively outweigh the benefits. By costs I have in mind things like terror attacks, grooming gangs, first-cousin marriage, attempts to enforce blasphemy laws (from Rushdie to the Batley school teacher), parallel communities, massive over-representation in the prison population, non-stun halal slaughter, FGM, honour killings, a much higher percentage living in social housing than in the overall population, the lowest rates of employment compared to those of other religions or no religion. And so on.
And whilst I find it easy to rattle off the (massive) costs of Muslim immigration, I find it rather more difficult to list the benefits. And, even if there are benefits, it seems to me that they don't remotely offset the costs. On this analysis, it doesn't seem particularly contentious to suggest that Muslim immigration to the UK has been an absolute disaster (i.e. a huge net cost).
And if it were possible to set up a system of polling where respondents felt entirely certain that their anonymity would be protected, I wonder what percentage of native Brits would agree with statements such as "Britain would have been better off without Muslim immigration" or "Britain would be better off without Muslims". I suspect it might be pretty high.
For those who believe that Muslim immigration has been an utter disaster for this country, it's perhaps not surprising that some might see forced return (deportation) and/or incentivized voluntary return as necessary to protect the way of life of ethnic Britons.
Of course, Carswell wasn't calling for the deportation of Muslims, only the deportation of Pakistanis - presumably because grooming gangs are largely composed of Pakistanis. But the same sorts of arguments apply.
(And it's worth noting that Pakistanis are not only over-represented in grooming gangs, they're over-represented in the three most serious types of child sexual abuse [2] and in the prison population. And "the UK Biobank...found that levels of incest (father-daughter, siblings etc) were significantly higher in the British Pakistani community than the wider population" [3]. Also, almost 20% of the Pakistani population speak little or no English [4].)
Two possible responses to those advocating remigration (i.e. forced and/or voluntary return) are as follows. The first is to argue that Muslim immigration isn't the huge net cost some claim. And it seems to me that David might have been taking this sort of line when, in March last year, he wrote in the Times that
"given the scale of change in the past 20 years, one could also argue that we have not done badly. There are occasional flare-ups, usually involving Muslim sensibilities. And the colour-blind melting pot is largely confined to the higher professions, the affluent suburbs, and the most successful minorities — Chinese, Indian and some Africans. But we adapt" [4].
For the reasons set out above, I don't believe that, with regard to Muslim immigration, we can say that "we have not done badly".
The second is to concede that Muslim immigration has been a huge net cost but to argue that, nevertheless, remigration would be immoral (and/or possible only at a very high cost - such as civil war) and that the problem of Muslim immigration can be solved by taking a robust approach to integration that has been singularly absent in British policy-making to date. Pete North makes a robust and unvarnished argument in this X post [5] as to why integration of large parallel communities of Muslims such as in Bradford is a pipe dream. Here are the first two paragraphs.
"In inner city Bradford, there is nothing discernibly English to integrate into. There is no muscular integration policy that could ever work. Bradford has been ethnically cleansed of native English. The only native English still left are the ones who can't afford to get away - but would if they could. And there's a reason for that. The Pakistanis are absolute vile people with repugnant behaviour. When the grooming scandal broke, absolutely no white Bradfordian was remotely surprised. Bradford is a Pakistani mafia run city.
Not at any point have these people integrated. From the days of their arrival they set up ghettos, and they've grown ever since - and they are squalid - even by West Yorkshire standards. When they move into an area, they colonise it. They don't dress like us, they don't speak our language, they do not participate in white cultural events. They have entirely separate politics - to the extent of election candidates distributing election material in a foreign language. It is an apartheid city."
Richard North, who has commented in this thread, also makes an interesting contribution to the debate [6].
I suspect that undertaking a sober cost-benefit analysis of Muslim/Pakistani immigration is simply too contentious for the state, most politicians and think tanks. Which perhaps explains, for example, why the Home Office, in a reply to a parliamentary question from Rupert Lowe, felt compelled to open with the bromide that "We recognise and appreciate the great contribution of Pakistani people to the diverse culture of the UK" [7]. And why Nick Timothy's answer to this question about Muslim ghettos in UK towns and cities was so vague and lightweight [8].
[1] https://x.com/DouglasCarswell/status/1934690056972927353
[2] https://unherd.com/newsroom/are-pakistani-muslims-overrepresented-in-sexual-abuse-of-girls/
[3] https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/silence-on-cousin-marriage-is-the-unspeakable-face-of-liberalism-870z5rpmf
[4] https://www.thetimes.com/article/no-wonder-britain-is-so-divided-were-too-diverse-f9q6d7wpd
[5] https://x.com/FUDdaily/status/1941879833392226500
[6] https://x.com/FUDdaily/status/1941858684767731847
[7] https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/1879222300622344537
[8] https://www.youtube.com/live/KsjIEY7NbXs?si=nBGxFYve2ET69hP_&t=2794
I agree with some of this - Pakistani immigration is probably the least successful of the larger groups - but Carswell’s comments are still appalling and damaging to the more general restrictionist cause, you can’t just pick on an entire group like that, it would only happen if Britain really had taken a terrifying, authoritarian turn. Carswell no longer lives in the UK and I think his dumb comment is evidence that he no longer really cares
Thanks for your response, David.
Even if Carswell's remarks are appalling, I'd argue that what's more appalling - by several orders of magnitude - is the abject failure of the British state over decades to meaningfully deal with issues of Pakistani/Muslim immigration - such as criminality, cultural incompatibility and lack of interest in integration.
Carswell's suggested one solution, namely deportation. And he's entitled to ask:"well, if you find my proffered solution abhorrent, what's yours?" Such a question's particularly salient given arguments put forward by the likes of Pete North that integration is now simply impossible in places like Bradford.
Responses like that of Nick Timothy don't get remotely close to beginning to cut the mustard. We've known about the problems associated with Muslim immigration for decades. And yet the best Timothy could come up with in 2024 was that "one of the conversations we're going to need to have" is about "the integration of different diaspora groups". In a desperate attempt to be positive, one might, I suppose, say better late than never. But, really, it's beyond pathetic that this is where the Conservatives are at in the mid-2020s.
If the established policy community is so outraged by Carswell, it seems to me it's incumbent on them to come up with some serious, carefully-thought-out proposals of their own.
I think there is a great deal of deflection going on with Ben Ansell and Sam Freedman and more recently with John Merrick and his recent Guardian opinion piece - The right wants us to think Britain is on the verge of ethnic conflict. The truth is worse than that.
It's not so much a radicalised narrative that is the issue, whether within ethnically homogeneous cultural spaces or ethnically heterogeneous cultural spaces in which a friend of mine was recently called a white bast*rd, the deeper issue is ethnically driven assortative mating that actively seeks to maintain hard (or radical) biological levels of ethnic segregation which cannot be remedied by State action through diversity, equality and inclusion policies and nor can it be remedied with liberal moral masturbations that seek to define the science of population ecology as a form of racism.
https://www.britannica.com/science/population-ecology
This lack of biological miscegenation within the UK creates a low trust weak empathy society because reproductive discrimination actively reduces the flow of deep intimacy between different ethnic communities. In turn, the interethnic shallowness that defines British multiculturalism does not endear a deep sense of belonging in one another's communities.
Hence, essentially we are rapidly becoming an island of biologically demarcated strangers which does not in any meaningful sense engender interethnic cooperation except through the forceful actions of the State which only leads to distrust and accusations of two-tier ethnic favouritism of which Ben Ansell and Sam Freedman are a moralistic part.
Ultimately, a lack of ethnic miscegenation will create parallel ethnic communities, each with their own values, norms and expectations. However, Ben Ansell and Sam Freedman actively seek to deflect from these biological and social truths because they are not motivated by stability and cohesion but are motivated by power.
They wish to hierarchically position themselves as the professional managerial liberal elite that mediates the social conflicts that arise from ethnically driven heteropatric speciation so it is in their interests to avoid the nuances of population ecology and avoid the consequences of ethnically driven assortative mating whilst at the same time name calling anyone that is actually interested in these important themes a racist.
Unfortunately you can't really get anymore uneducated, irrational and anti-intellectual than that.
I think there is a great deal of deflection going on with Ben Ansell and Sam Freedman and more recently with John Merrick and his recent Guardian opinion piece - The right wants us to think Britain is on the verge of ethnic conflict. The truth is worse than that.
It's not so much a radicalised narrative that is the issue, whether in ethnically homogeneous left behind areas or ethnically heterogeneous left behind areas in which a friend of mine was recently called a white bast*rd, the deeper issue is ethnically driven assortative mating that maintains hard (or radical) biological levels of
ethnic segregation which cannot be remedied by State actionthrough diversity, equality and inclusion policies and nor can it be remedied with moral masturbations that seek to define the science of population ecology as a form of racism.
https://www.britannica.com/science/population-ecology
This lack of biological miscegenation creates a low trust weak empathy society because reproductive discrimination actively reduces the flow of deep intimacy between different ethnic communities. In turn, the interethnic shallowness that defines British multiculturalism does not endear a deep sense of belonging in one another's communities.
Hence, essentially we are rapidly becoming an island of biologically demarcated strangers which does not in any meaningful sense engender interethnic cooperation except through the forceful actions of the State which only leads to accusations of two-tier ethnic favouritism of which Ben Ansell and Sam Freedman are a moralistic part.
Ultimately, a lack of ethnic miscegenation will create parallel ethnic communities, each with their own values, norms and expectations. Ben Ansell and Sam Freedman actively seek to deflect from these biological and social facts because they are motivated by power not stability. They wish to hierarchically position themselves as the professional managerial elite that mediates the social conflicts that arise from ethnically driven heteropatric speciation so it is in their interests to avoid the nuances of population ecology and avoid the consequences of ethnically driven assortative mating whilst at the same time name calling anyone that is actually interested in these important themes a racist.
Unfortunately you can't really get anymore uneducated and anti-intellectual than that.
Of course part of the issue here is the old problem that while it may not necessarily be racist to feel differently about immigration from one region versus another, or to use terms like "white British", it is also true that everyone who *is* racist is definitely going to have those views and use that language. So it's entirely legitimate to judge commentators like those mentioned partly by whether they're sometimes willing to explicitly disavow racist supporters/followers or not.
So a perfectly mainstream Labour voter who worries about high immigration and their neighbourhood changing too fast should be categorised together with a member of the BNP, because they are both mass immigration sceptics? I think this is exactly the problem with the Ansell/Freedman approach and it is very damaging to our politics.
No although possibly I wasn't clear. My point is that racists do very much talk and think that way, even if talking and thinking that way doesn't make one a racist. Therefore it would be extremely salutary for the health of this debate if various commentators would more explicitly distance themselves from the racists who otherwise excitedly seize on their remarks (as the comments on virtually any Twitter posting etc demonstrate). You do that in this post re: Carswell, so that is excellent.
As I understand it it, Kisin is saying Sunak cannot be English because he has brown skin. That sounds like racism to me.
I disagree, most minorities identify as British not English.
There is obviously more than one view on this topic.
There’s room for nuance that’s for sure. Kisin didn’t say brown skin was some kind of deal breaker. He said a brown skinned Hindu of obvious and avowed Indian heritage could be British but not English. He also noted that when Sunak became PM it was celebrated by the Indian commentariat as a win for their team.