To my mind you are describing, in effect if not directly, the end of Britain and Europe. Britain and Europe becoming, by sheer force of numbers, socially, culturally, politically and economically a seamless extension of the Middle East and Africa and Africa in particular where the population is estimated to triple to 4.5 billion by 2050. Some may think this is a good thing, although it seems to me no better than any other precious indigenous culture ceasing to exist and the very antithesis of global diversity. But I suspect some believe it to be our due and Europe is too complacent to worry about this and eventually even being not complacent will be insufficient to stop the transition. Hopefully none of this is true.
Support for open borders is more widespread than you might expect, at least here in America. (Could be different in the UK.) Pretty much every young left-libertarian or DSA type is in favor of it.
Yarvin in this clip has a funny take on open borders. "Ever been to Lagos? You don't want to go to Lagos."
I think a great number of ordinary people do understand the situation pretty well. The frustration is that so many MPs, academics and experts don't (or pretend not to), and of course they're the ones driving policy and implementation. The situation feels somewhat similar to the destruction of our cities and towns by planners in the 60s and 70s - a consensus emerging among an administrative class that ends up wreaking enormous and irreparable damage, at which future generations can only wonder at how it was all allowed to happen.
I'm pessimistic that anything can be done to halt the process now, for all the reasons you outline. The political system is structurally hostile to radical parties of any stripe (and meaningful immigration control is now a radical notion). In addition, I don't see a person or party of sufficient charisma and competence capable of making the very difficult reforms that would be necessary. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear the juggernaut is fully self-sustaining now.
May I say how impressed I was, in the midst of this perturbed analysis, by the clause, "Of course, people must do what they feel to be right." One of the truly admirable features of your writing is your willingness to assume that your ideological opponents are acting from decent motives. So few commentators seem to share that generosity these days; it's one of the main reasons I subscribe to your Substack.
There are not many countries that have made contributions to the material, technological and moral progress of the whole of humanity.
The UK is one of them. If we extinguish it by population replacement then we don't just extinguish it for the British, but also for everyone worldwide who would have benefitted.
Don't "say" it often enough, but TY for all Your articles, Sir.
Sad story. Sad, but almost certainly true. And You say it's unstoppable in the U.S.? A rare occasion for me to feel lucky I won't be around long. TY again.
Haven't been able to find the tweet, but someone said recently that the core issue of the 21st century will be that there are around 30 countries in the world that are rich and in which it is basically pleasant to live, and 160-odd which are fundamentally poor and dysfunctional in some way, and that a huge number of those living in the latter wish to live in the former.
One thought that occurs to me is that the call for infinity migrants is linked to national prestige: the fact that so many hundreds of thousands want to live here gives us the impression of being a fundamentally important country, which is clearly of some psychological importance, even to the outwardly oikophobic commentariat.
Ed, I'd like you to write a post on how much this feeling of 'Britain's done for and there's no going back' is due to general immigration and how much to specific immigration from certain toxic places. Though things would undoubtedly be better, would everything really be fine if all our immigrants were polite, law-abiding Hindus? Or would even they, simply by dint of seeming not of our tribe, undermine social cohesion? And no, I'm not trying to get you cancelled.
The irreversible nature of immigration is what should make it a key priority for any nation/government. Once let in, very tough to kick people out, unless brutal and on some level, immoral, actions are taken to reverse course.
Problem is also compounded by fertility differentials between natives and migrants. Just a 5-10% migration intake can result in 50% non-native demographics within 50 years.
Unfortunately repatriation may be the only feasible option to save Britain for its natives. That would be position i'd reluctantly support had it been my country in this dire situation. Not sure if the British electorate will have the stomach for it.
Can't say I fancy either of the choices on offer: (a) shoulder-shrugging declinism; (b) 'a new Department of Immigration staffed by true believers' - believers in what, one wonders. The alternative is to stop the problem at source.
There are only two ways, or types of way, to do this: (a) to bribe those in power in the source countries; (b) to act to reform the source countries along the lines of the Asian tigers (South Korea. Taiwan etc).
The problem with 'a' is that too many of the source countries' rulers are incapable of controlling their citizens, or find it easier to pocket any benefits we may offer and then dissemble. This leaves 'b' but given that the available data for the world's most dysfunctional countries shows that our best efforts in the post 1945 period, known as foreign aid, have failed dismally, one is driven to a straightforward if slightly disturbing conclusion.
If we, (Western liberal democratic capitalism) are to survive, then the only rational international policy is what used to be called liberal imperialism. I find myself suddenly attracted to those worthy Victorian adventurers.
Both the major parties long ago (I guess starting with Blair) decided either deliberately or through lack of awareness, that immigration is not to be restricted. Labour is not going to be more restrictive than the Tories, and anyway, the ship has sailed, this is simply not the same largely homogeneous country that it was 50 years ago. I don't know much about Brazil but that could be the future for us as well I suppose. It's not the end of the world - I mourn the loss of the England of Waugh and Tolkien and Kipling, but that England probably never really existed, did it?
Ed,
To my mind you are describing, in effect if not directly, the end of Britain and Europe. Britain and Europe becoming, by sheer force of numbers, socially, culturally, politically and economically a seamless extension of the Middle East and Africa and Africa in particular where the population is estimated to triple to 4.5 billion by 2050. Some may think this is a good thing, although it seems to me no better than any other precious indigenous culture ceasing to exist and the very antithesis of global diversity. But I suspect some believe it to be our due and Europe is too complacent to worry about this and eventually even being not complacent will be insufficient to stop the transition. Hopefully none of this is true.
Support for open borders is more widespread than you might expect, at least here in America. (Could be different in the UK.) Pretty much every young left-libertarian or DSA type is in favor of it.
Yarvin in this clip has a funny take on open borders. "Ever been to Lagos? You don't want to go to Lagos."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnaVRpfHTxU
As ever, an excellent summary. Agree completely.
I think a great number of ordinary people do understand the situation pretty well. The frustration is that so many MPs, academics and experts don't (or pretend not to), and of course they're the ones driving policy and implementation. The situation feels somewhat similar to the destruction of our cities and towns by planners in the 60s and 70s - a consensus emerging among an administrative class that ends up wreaking enormous and irreparable damage, at which future generations can only wonder at how it was all allowed to happen.
I'm pessimistic that anything can be done to halt the process now, for all the reasons you outline. The political system is structurally hostile to radical parties of any stripe (and meaningful immigration control is now a radical notion). In addition, I don't see a person or party of sufficient charisma and competence capable of making the very difficult reforms that would be necessary. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear the juggernaut is fully self-sustaining now.
Inshallah this signals the end of the Tories and the emergence of something that can effectively replace them, before it’s too late
May I say how impressed I was, in the midst of this perturbed analysis, by the clause, "Of course, people must do what they feel to be right." One of the truly admirable features of your writing is your willingness to assume that your ideological opponents are acting from decent motives. So few commentators seem to share that generosity these days; it's one of the main reasons I subscribe to your Substack.
There are not many countries that have made contributions to the material, technological and moral progress of the whole of humanity.
The UK is one of them. If we extinguish it by population replacement then we don't just extinguish it for the British, but also for everyone worldwide who would have benefitted.
But perhaps the well is already run dry.
Don't "say" it often enough, but TY for all Your articles, Sir.
Sad story. Sad, but almost certainly true. And You say it's unstoppable in the U.S.? A rare occasion for me to feel lucky I won't be around long. TY again.
Haven't been able to find the tweet, but someone said recently that the core issue of the 21st century will be that there are around 30 countries in the world that are rich and in which it is basically pleasant to live, and 160-odd which are fundamentally poor and dysfunctional in some way, and that a huge number of those living in the latter wish to live in the former.
One thought that occurs to me is that the call for infinity migrants is linked to national prestige: the fact that so many hundreds of thousands want to live here gives us the impression of being a fundamentally important country, which is clearly of some psychological importance, even to the outwardly oikophobic commentariat.
Ed, I'd like you to write a post on how much this feeling of 'Britain's done for and there's no going back' is due to general immigration and how much to specific immigration from certain toxic places. Though things would undoubtedly be better, would everything really be fine if all our immigrants were polite, law-abiding Hindus? Or would even they, simply by dint of seeming not of our tribe, undermine social cohesion? And no, I'm not trying to get you cancelled.
"there has been a colossal brain drain from the east, dwarfing those of 1933 from Germany and 1453 from Constantinople."
Did a single tear roll down your cheek as you typed about 1453 and Constantinople?
The irreversible nature of immigration is what should make it a key priority for any nation/government. Once let in, very tough to kick people out, unless brutal and on some level, immoral, actions are taken to reverse course.
Problem is also compounded by fertility differentials between natives and migrants. Just a 5-10% migration intake can result in 50% non-native demographics within 50 years.
Unfortunately repatriation may be the only feasible option to save Britain for its natives. That would be position i'd reluctantly support had it been my country in this dire situation. Not sure if the British electorate will have the stomach for it.
Can't say I fancy either of the choices on offer: (a) shoulder-shrugging declinism; (b) 'a new Department of Immigration staffed by true believers' - believers in what, one wonders. The alternative is to stop the problem at source.
There are only two ways, or types of way, to do this: (a) to bribe those in power in the source countries; (b) to act to reform the source countries along the lines of the Asian tigers (South Korea. Taiwan etc).
The problem with 'a' is that too many of the source countries' rulers are incapable of controlling their citizens, or find it easier to pocket any benefits we may offer and then dissemble. This leaves 'b' but given that the available data for the world's most dysfunctional countries shows that our best efforts in the post 1945 period, known as foreign aid, have failed dismally, one is driven to a straightforward if slightly disturbing conclusion.
If we, (Western liberal democratic capitalism) are to survive, then the only rational international policy is what used to be called liberal imperialism. I find myself suddenly attracted to those worthy Victorian adventurers.
Both the major parties long ago (I guess starting with Blair) decided either deliberately or through lack of awareness, that immigration is not to be restricted. Labour is not going to be more restrictive than the Tories, and anyway, the ship has sailed, this is simply not the same largely homogeneous country that it was 50 years ago. I don't know much about Brazil but that could be the future for us as well I suppose. It's not the end of the world - I mourn the loss of the England of Waugh and Tolkien and Kipling, but that England probably never really existed, did it?
Does anyone know where I can find a graph of the decline of White British over time, up to the 2021 census? Curiously such a thing is hard to find.
Me, an idiot: I no longer need alcohol because I have a subscription to Ed West's substack.
Very Zen and one must be in the end. And things rarely/never play out as one thinks.