Immigration is a subject that was so contentious through Brexit that the Tories refused to discuss it. In hindsight the Remainers blame immigration (and Turkey) as the chief ‘lie’ that lost them the Brexit vote in the face of a broadly ‘racist’ electorate. Today we stand at a crossroads with the possibility of our Party becoming the party of Anti-Islam and the Tories in apparent retreat over their ‘promises’ of future immigration in the ‘tens of thousands and not the hundreds of thousands.’

I would like to suggest that any discussion of conventional ‘immigration’ as such, and its relevance to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, is broadly irrelevant. It is a smokescreen set up to mask the real debate, which is how a newly liberated UK should engage with other nations through international policy.

The larger and more important issue is not how many of which type of folk should be granted the golden ticket of entry to the UK, although this is important. The larger issue is how should the newly liberated UK approach international relations. Should we fall in line with the current global orthodoxy of ‘transnational progressivism’ and enthusiastically embrace the edicts of supranational organisations such as the UN and the IMF, designed to lead us all towards a New World Order of global homogeneity where we are all Citizens of the World and owe allegiance to nowhere? Or do we continue along the path that we have evolved for ourselves over many hundreds of years, of liberal democracy centred on the Nation State, joining with other Nation States where it serves our national interest or where we have a moral duty, but maintaining our own sovereign identity and national character as sacrosanct.

It is easy for an educated liberal elite to snipe at the idea of ‘angry nativism.’ In the weeks before the Brexit vote the BBC, by its own admission, identified ‘shaven headed, tattooed leavers’ as being typical of those citizens keen to withdraw from the EU. To its credit, Aunty recognised its own prejudice and tried to correct it before the vote.

However, now, afterwards, the commentariat are supporting an effective rear-guard action designed to leave the UK in much the same situation as it was before this historic vote. Why? Because they are poor losers? Because they consider that the population at large does not understand the real implications of leaving the EU? I would suggest that this elite have a broadly different vision of the world that they do not share with the British public at large. Literally. Much of their reasoning is hidden, and deliberately so. If the majority of the general public knew what their political master’s objectives really were, then there would be serious trouble. This is one of the reasons that the Tories, in particular, have been keen to centralise their administration and reduce genuine grass roots participation

As we all suspect, the political establishment is playing with a rigged deck of cards. LibLabCon are all members of the same self-interested club, fuelled by the same lobbyists that are in turn fed by the same global financial and corporate interests. Which is why there is a positive response by the public to ‘authenticity’ in political leaders and their arguments. Nigel Farage, love him or hate him, is an authentic voice who has achieved much in his career to date, without the dubious accolade of being elected a member of the House of Commons. Others, such as Jeremy Corbyn and Jacob Rees-Mogg resonate with sections of the public because they are obviously not taken in, and not apparently part of the Westminster machine.

So where does immigration feature in this? The public understands that there is something fundamentally wrong in them being asked to welcome unprecedented numbers of people from hugely different cultures into their small country, and then being instructed, upon pain of prosecution, to refrain from trying to assimilate their cultures to ‘our way of life.’ This appears to many as cultural suicide, even to a population proud of their tolerance and with a history of humane treatment of refugees and incomers of all descriptions. Only an ‘authentic’ leader will recognise this sad fact and be prepared to address it.

Many who have practical experience of other cultures will have recognised a long time ago that International Geopolitics looks nothing like the propaganda that we are fed through the MSM. In fact, at a high level, world affairs carry on much as they have done for a very long time. Empires rise, empires fall, land is invaded, land is bought and land is sold. The most obvious difference today is the concentration of global resources in ever fewer hands, a phenomenon that has been helped by the step change in technology that we have experienced through the past thirty or forty years.

There are relatively few people pulling the strings of the New World Order, and as the term suggests, their interests are in international matters. For them the Nation State is an inconvenience. So what better way to advance a Global Agenda than by attacking the Nation State. In the EU we see a delivery mechanism for their vision of the future of the world that we all live in, and in ‘immigration’ we see a weapon of asymmetrical warfare.

How should a Nationalist respond to this attack on liberty?

(To be continued in Part 2 in these pages.)

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email