Outside observers must find it baffling that Britain cannot police its own borders. We are, after all, surrounded by the sea. However, the smugglers and their customers cross the Channel, not just unmolested, but abetted by the UK Border Force. The Channel serves as no barrier at all, because the migrants are carried across it by the riptide of our own pathological altruism.
Western instincts tend towards kindness. That’s for the better; we’ve built some of the highest trust societies the world has ever known. But we cannot surrender ourselves to that draw without reservation. Unrestrained altruism is as much a destructive force as its polar opposite. It’s not said for nothing that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Kindness cannot be issued on a blank cheque. There is an economic reality that imposes limits on who we help and how much we help them. If every time you passed a homeless person, you turned over your monthly salary—and after all, why not? They need it more than you—you’d soon find yourself rattling a cup at passersby.
But it’s not just a question of pragmatism. It’s a moral necessity to be discerning in our generosity. We must discriminate in favour of our children, family, friends, community, and nation before we look to the world. Prioritising these relationships is an ethical and societal imperative. We made our children, and it’s incumbent on us to put them first. Our nation has educated us, protected us, treated us well, and so we must give back to those who came before and those who will follow afterwards.
Liberal assumptions do not respect these delineations. For them, each person is as deserving as the last. All people are owed, and owe the same to each other, by virtue of them being people. An Albanian who has illegally entered the UK is as entitled to draw on state benefits and be housed as a pensioner who has spent 50 years paying into the pot. There are countless people who could claim asylum in the UK—the entire population of Somalia for a start—and liberals would say that’s quite right. All are welcome, for this isn’t a nation; it’s just a piece of land which humans inhabit. One population is the same as the next, and this ground is the same as the rest.
This is why they use slogans like ‘no person is illegal.’ It’s not a crime in their eyes to transgress a national barrier. For them, the boundary between one country and another is as arbitrary as the difference between a man and a woman. It’s as unremarkable as the difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage. It’s as unimportant as the difference between one religion and another. We’re all humans; love has no boundaries; gender has no limits; nations have no meaning.
We aren’t bound to a prior order of values that moors us; our obligations are understood outside of history and without regard for our future. In this liberal paradigm, history is only remarkable when it compels us towards radical humanism: to give more money, to take in more migrants.
Only the worst excesses of Britain’s historical misdeeds are factored into the equation, never the Englishmen who bled on this earth so that a great civilisation for their children would grow out of it. In the United States, the open-borders advocates argue that as a nation of immigrants, it would be regressive to pull up the drawbridge now. They also claim that enabling mass migration is penitence for the original sign of America’s founding. Here in the UK where Europeans are the native people, they tell us it is our just desserts for colonialism. Their faux concern for native cultures is a sly excuse that melts away the moment it becomes inconvenient.
Invented Distinctions
Paul Mason, former BBC journalist and current prospective Labour MP, was recently caught complaining that the problem with Wigan, a virtually all English-and-Irish town, is that there aren’t enough black people there. In remarks branded bizarre by the town’s MP, he said that: “There are no students, if you move the students department there from say Salford, and they wouldn’t want to go. That is because there are no black people or migrants.”
It’s not a rare thing that extreme affection for those outside the nation goes hand in hand with hatred for those within the nation. For these people the Soviet creche and the collective farm didn’t go far enough: egalitarianism must conquer the world. This kind of thinking is perfectly reasonable if you start with the assumption that the only distinctions between people and nations are the ones we invent.
In this regard, Mason and Miliband have far more in common with the likes of George Bush than they do with the pro-worker policies they purport to represent. The feeling that your own people don’t deserve protection and that all are equal, makes everyone equally worthless. This stems from the idea that the only distinction between peoples are the ones we invent to justify destruction at home as well as abroad. A 20-year war in Afghanistan, a million dead in Iraq, Libya destroyed, these are prices worth paying so that women can wear miniskirts and public libraries can host drag-queen story hour. They assume that other nations are like them, or can be made to be. It’s as wrong in foreign policy as it is in domestic policy.
Over hundreds of generations our people fought in wars, resisted colonisation, and sailed the seven seas for posterity. They did it to make Britain great, their communities prosperous, and their families proud. They didn’t live and die so that the borders of their country could be thrown open to the world. Our troops didn’t pay with their lives at Waterloo for European self-determination so that we could discard it in a blink of an eye. Our lads didn’t go over the top in World War I so that their grandchildren could be thrown out on their ear and have their housing repurposed for a stranger.
It’s true that to whom much is given, much is required. Between billions in foreign-aid payments, hundreds of thousands of legal refugees, and extraordinary support in Ukraine and other crises around the world, Britain meets and exceeds the requirements. But the liberal pathology to prefer the out-group and to direct all our altruistic vestment upon them knows no bounds. Recently former Labour leader, and current shadow secretary of state for climate change and net zero, Ed Miliband, has called for the UK to pay climate reparations to Pakistan. The nuclear power needs our money, he argues, because they have suffered loss and damage as a result of the climate crisis, and it’s time for us to shell out.
Ed Miliband, like his fellow traveller Paul Mason, has no allegiance to our country. They don’t revere the family, except their own who they insulate from the fallout of their policies behind tall walls and electric gates. They are Frankensteins who will never meet their monster. And they don’t care about reality; they are only concerned with their own truth.
The Elites and the Masses
But in the liberal’s refusal to adhere to reality lies a distinction, a border, that they can appreciate: the boundary between the knuckle-dragging masses and the ruling elite. It’s not that they’re deluded into thinking that giving Pakistan endless financial support to pay for their weather is popular; they just don’t care. Their will must triumph over the unwashed masses.
It’s always jarring for the liberal when the harshness of reality interrupts their fantasies. A humanist friend of mine travelled the continent to help refugees, only to become dispirited by what he experienced. He returned with tales of gun-wielding Kurdish gangsters, violence between the far Left and far Right, and a conspicuous lack of Syrians who he had ventured there to help. For the free thinking these experiences will disabuse them of their lofty ideals. But our elites aren’t free thinkers; they are totalitarian in their liberalism. The problems our nation faces are to be ignored or waived away as consequences of material inequity, colonialism, or systemic racism. There are either no problems, or the problems are entirely our fault.
Just as a child raised without discipline will be spoilt, so will a nation. And our noble instincts are weaponised against us in order to curtail the administration of order and discipline so as to ruin our country. Fake news is carefully cultivated to play on our heart strings. Remember the so-called kids in cages on the Mexico border? The same trick was deployed here in the UK when the Metro newspaper published an image of children pressed up against a chain-link fence on their front cover, an image that they said shames Britain. The reality is that these pictures were taken at a processing centre where illegal entrants are kept for 48 hours, though this has in recent times taken as long as three weeks due to the backlog. Those children are being housed, fed, and are allowed to play outside in areas surrounded by a chain-link fence that can be scaled with ease.
It’s tragic that irresponsible parents bring their children—who make up a tiny fraction of all arrivals—into this situation. But what are we supposed to do? Build a Disneyland resort to process them? If you think even for a moment these people are being hard done, consider that in just five months in 2022, the border force spent 40,000 pounds of taxpayer money buying Domino’s Pizza for them. Unrestrained altruism is a pathology, not a virtue. It is the most self-destructive posture a society can adopt, a fast track to civilisational suicide. Put another way, it is extreme naivety, delusion, and stupidity. It takes in one poisonous snake after another and feigns surprise as each new bite follows the last. It’s taking pity on a shivering fox by putting it in the chicken coop. There is an obvious and clear distinction between the refugees we invite into our country and those who invade it, between those who are deserving and those who are not. And because we have failed to make that distinction for more than 30 years, our high-trust societies—from one end of the European continent to the other—are plagued by Islamism, drug dealing, foreign gangs, and international and historic blood feuds. That is the cost of unrestrained ‘compassion.’
The patriotic instinct of European peoples has been framed as backwards. The elite classes have made the good and natural urge to defend the family and community something to overcome. They have decided that the ‘primitive’ mode of the masses needs to be reprogrammed with sufficient education; and if it can’t be eradicated, imported voters will replace them. They think that the native electorate are too entrenched in their provincial ways, too wedded to archaic concepts like loyalty and solidarity, too stupid to see the bigger picture. But the truth is the reverse: feeding other people’s children before your own is the uncultured position. It’s an arrangement so unreasonable that only our 21st-century pseudo-reality could entertain it. In any other age, advocating it would prompt an ostracism or a spell in the stocks. Inviting those who hate you into your home is neither intelligent nor benevolent; it is antithetical to everything we know about reality. But like the hundred genders, quadruple masking, or defunding the police, the liberal mind believes it has ascended to a height capable of reshaping reality. Unfortunately, for those of us who live under their yoke, they are dead wrong.
The British Invasion, Part II
A dramatic view of the Seven Sisters, a series of white chalk cliffs by the English Channel. They form part of the South Downs in East Sussex in southern England.
Outside observers must find it baffling that Britain cannot police its own borders. We are, after all, surrounded by the sea. However, the smugglers and their customers cross the Channel, not just unmolested, but abetted by the UK Border Force. The Channel serves as no barrier at all, because the migrants are carried across it by the riptide of our own pathological altruism.
Western instincts tend towards kindness. That’s for the better; we’ve built some of the highest trust societies the world has ever known. But we cannot surrender ourselves to that draw without reservation. Unrestrained altruism is as much a destructive force as its polar opposite. It’s not said for nothing that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Kindness cannot be issued on a blank cheque. There is an economic reality that imposes limits on who we help and how much we help them. If every time you passed a homeless person, you turned over your monthly salary—and after all, why not? They need it more than you—you’d soon find yourself rattling a cup at passersby.
But it’s not just a question of pragmatism. It’s a moral necessity to be discerning in our generosity. We must discriminate in favour of our children, family, friends, community, and nation before we look to the world. Prioritising these relationships is an ethical and societal imperative. We made our children, and it’s incumbent on us to put them first. Our nation has educated us, protected us, treated us well, and so we must give back to those who came before and those who will follow afterwards.
Liberal assumptions do not respect these delineations. For them, each person is as deserving as the last. All people are owed, and owe the same to each other, by virtue of them being people. An Albanian who has illegally entered the UK is as entitled to draw on state benefits and be housed as a pensioner who has spent 50 years paying into the pot. There are countless people who could claim asylum in the UK—the entire population of Somalia for a start—and liberals would say that’s quite right. All are welcome, for this isn’t a nation; it’s just a piece of land which humans inhabit. One population is the same as the next, and this ground is the same as the rest.
This is why they use slogans like ‘no person is illegal.’ It’s not a crime in their eyes to transgress a national barrier. For them, the boundary between one country and another is as arbitrary as the difference between a man and a woman. It’s as unremarkable as the difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage. It’s as unimportant as the difference between one religion and another. We’re all humans; love has no boundaries; gender has no limits; nations have no meaning.
We aren’t bound to a prior order of values that moors us; our obligations are understood outside of history and without regard for our future. In this liberal paradigm, history is only remarkable when it compels us towards radical humanism: to give more money, to take in more migrants.
Only the worst excesses of Britain’s historical misdeeds are factored into the equation, never the Englishmen who bled on this earth so that a great civilisation for their children would grow out of it. In the United States, the open-borders advocates argue that as a nation of immigrants, it would be regressive to pull up the drawbridge now. They also claim that enabling mass migration is penitence for the original sign of America’s founding. Here in the UK where Europeans are the native people, they tell us it is our just desserts for colonialism. Their faux concern for native cultures is a sly excuse that melts away the moment it becomes inconvenient.
Invented Distinctions
Paul Mason, former BBC journalist and current prospective Labour MP, was recently caught complaining that the problem with Wigan, a virtually all English-and-Irish town, is that there aren’t enough black people there. In remarks branded bizarre by the town’s MP, he said that: “There are no students, if you move the students department there from say Salford, and they wouldn’t want to go. That is because there are no black people or migrants.”
It’s not a rare thing that extreme affection for those outside the nation goes hand in hand with hatred for those within the nation. For these people the Soviet creche and the collective farm didn’t go far enough: egalitarianism must conquer the world. This kind of thinking is perfectly reasonable if you start with the assumption that the only distinctions between people and nations are the ones we invent.
In this regard, Mason and Miliband have far more in common with the likes of George Bush than they do with the pro-worker policies they purport to represent. The feeling that your own people don’t deserve protection and that all are equal, makes everyone equally worthless. This stems from the idea that the only distinction between peoples are the ones we invent to justify destruction at home as well as abroad. A 20-year war in Afghanistan, a million dead in Iraq, Libya destroyed, these are prices worth paying so that women can wear miniskirts and public libraries can host drag-queen story hour. They assume that other nations are like them, or can be made to be. It’s as wrong in foreign policy as it is in domestic policy.
Over hundreds of generations our people fought in wars, resisted colonisation, and sailed the seven seas for posterity. They did it to make Britain great, their communities prosperous, and their families proud. They didn’t live and die so that the borders of their country could be thrown open to the world. Our troops didn’t pay with their lives at Waterloo for European self-determination so that we could discard it in a blink of an eye. Our lads didn’t go over the top in World War I so that their grandchildren could be thrown out on their ear and have their housing repurposed for a stranger.
It’s true that to whom much is given, much is required. Between billions in foreign-aid payments, hundreds of thousands of legal refugees, and extraordinary support in Ukraine and other crises around the world, Britain meets and exceeds the requirements. But the liberal pathology to prefer the out-group and to direct all our altruistic vestment upon them knows no bounds. Recently former Labour leader, and current shadow secretary of state for climate change and net zero, Ed Miliband, has called for the UK to pay climate reparations to Pakistan. The nuclear power needs our money, he argues, because they have suffered loss and damage as a result of the climate crisis, and it’s time for us to shell out.
Ed Miliband, like his fellow traveller Paul Mason, has no allegiance to our country. They don’t revere the family, except their own who they insulate from the fallout of their policies behind tall walls and electric gates. They are Frankensteins who will never meet their monster. And they don’t care about reality; they are only concerned with their own truth.
The Elites and the Masses
But in the liberal’s refusal to adhere to reality lies a distinction, a border, that they can appreciate: the boundary between the knuckle-dragging masses and the ruling elite. It’s not that they’re deluded into thinking that giving Pakistan endless financial support to pay for their weather is popular; they just don’t care. Their will must triumph over the unwashed masses.
It’s always jarring for the liberal when the harshness of reality interrupts their fantasies. A humanist friend of mine travelled the continent to help refugees, only to become dispirited by what he experienced. He returned with tales of gun-wielding Kurdish gangsters, violence between the far Left and far Right, and a conspicuous lack of Syrians who he had ventured there to help. For the free thinking these experiences will disabuse them of their lofty ideals. But our elites aren’t free thinkers; they are totalitarian in their liberalism. The problems our nation faces are to be ignored or waived away as consequences of material inequity, colonialism, or systemic racism. There are either no problems, or the problems are entirely our fault.
Just as a child raised without discipline will be spoilt, so will a nation. And our noble instincts are weaponised against us in order to curtail the administration of order and discipline so as to ruin our country. Fake news is carefully cultivated to play on our heart strings. Remember the so-called kids in cages on the Mexico border? The same trick was deployed here in the UK when the Metro newspaper published an image of children pressed up against a chain-link fence on their front cover, an image that they said shames Britain. The reality is that these pictures were taken at a processing centre where illegal entrants are kept for 48 hours, though this has in recent times taken as long as three weeks due to the backlog. Those children are being housed, fed, and are allowed to play outside in areas surrounded by a chain-link fence that can be scaled with ease.
It’s tragic that irresponsible parents bring their children—who make up a tiny fraction of all arrivals—into this situation. But what are we supposed to do? Build a Disneyland resort to process them? If you think even for a moment these people are being hard done, consider that in just five months in 2022, the border force spent 40,000 pounds of taxpayer money buying Domino’s Pizza for them. Unrestrained altruism is a pathology, not a virtue. It is the most self-destructive posture a society can adopt, a fast track to civilisational suicide. Put another way, it is extreme naivety, delusion, and stupidity. It takes in one poisonous snake after another and feigns surprise as each new bite follows the last. It’s taking pity on a shivering fox by putting it in the chicken coop. There is an obvious and clear distinction between the refugees we invite into our country and those who invade it, between those who are deserving and those who are not. And because we have failed to make that distinction for more than 30 years, our high-trust societies—from one end of the European continent to the other—are plagued by Islamism, drug dealing, foreign gangs, and international and historic blood feuds. That is the cost of unrestrained ‘compassion.’
The patriotic instinct of European peoples has been framed as backwards. The elite classes have made the good and natural urge to defend the family and community something to overcome. They have decided that the ‘primitive’ mode of the masses needs to be reprogrammed with sufficient education; and if it can’t be eradicated, imported voters will replace them. They think that the native electorate are too entrenched in their provincial ways, too wedded to archaic concepts like loyalty and solidarity, too stupid to see the bigger picture. But the truth is the reverse: feeding other people’s children before your own is the uncultured position. It’s an arrangement so unreasonable that only our 21st-century pseudo-reality could entertain it. In any other age, advocating it would prompt an ostracism or a spell in the stocks. Inviting those who hate you into your home is neither intelligent nor benevolent; it is antithetical to everything we know about reality. But like the hundred genders, quadruple masking, or defunding the police, the liberal mind believes it has ascended to a height capable of reshaping reality. Unfortunately, for those of us who live under their yoke, they are dead wrong.
The British Invasion, Part I was published on January 22, 2023.
READ NEXT
Jaguar: All Virtue, No Vehicle
Mazan Affair: A Trial of Moral Misery
Milei Disrupts the Cosy Consensus at the G20