A Moral Cause

Someone, I forget who, once said “politics is downstream from culture”. There’s a lot of truth in it, as we can see from the “long march through the institutions” which has carried the leftist protestors of the sixties to domination of our western societies. But sometimes it’s a bit more complicated as politics and culture feed off one another to create the dominant ethos of a period.

The dominant ethos of our time is that set in motion by that soft Marxist cultural revolution of the sixties, which in recent months has shown distinct signs of becoming a good deal less soft: people are losing their jobs because they have said the wrong thing, the white Antifa hordes bring lawlessness to the streets of north American cities, armed gangs of black Americans demand secession and their own country (actually not a bad idea), Tommy Robinson’s family are driven out of Britain by an arson attack (but no one says the word “terrorism” because who cares about an advocate for white people?)

Before the Second World War ideas of racial identity and separation –  our ideals –  were general among white people and they were general because they coincided with three things – with common sense, with scientific truth, and with the racial interests and prejudices of white people. But the extreme manner in which these ideas were put into practice during the War by the Germans rendered them morally beyond the pale. Thus when the soft left/liberal ethos of the sixties arrived, presenting itself as being about racial equality, women’s equality, sexual rights, individualism and hedonism, there was no-one to offer coherent resistance with a moral basis. Segregation in the southern United States could not survive this moral collapse nor, in the longer term, could apartheid in South Africa.

Plenty of people grumbled of course, as politicians  – being downstream of culture – facilitated mass immigration, legalised abortion and homosexuality, outlawed “racism”. But now even the grumbles are subsiding, in Britain at least. Examples of the fading away of racialist thinking can be gathered from many recent opinion polls on immigration and related matters; for example, while in 2012 50% thought that “people of a different race” should not be allowed to settle in Britain, by 2018 that proportion had fallen to 26% (European Election Survey). Opposition to racially mixed relationships, long in steady decline, has recently nosedived – from 50% as recently as the 1980s down to 20% in 2013 (National Centre for Social Research) while Ipsos Mori found in June this year that opposition had fallen as low as 4%.

Reasons for this decline are various. Generational change is certainly part of it – older, more conservative, types dying as younger more liberal people ascend the ladder of the years. But there is more to it than simple generational change because older people are themselves becoming more liberal – for example, last year a survey conducted for British Future found that in 2019 only 16% of over 65s think that you have to be white to be English, down from 35% just seven years earlier  (the overall figures were 21% in 2012 down to 12% in 2019).

So why this acceleration in the rate of change? It seems to have begun at and around the time of the Brexit referendum, and part of the cause must surely be that the newspapers, so full of immigration during the years preceding the vote, have almost completely stopped talking about it – except for the channel crossings which, although exasperating, are in trivial numbers compared with those allowed in legally. More important, I suspect, is that minds were focussed by the very considerable attention devoted to immigration in the run up to the vote. Perhaps Remainers concluded that if those Leaver rednecks were against immigration than it must, after all, be a good thing. Perhaps Leavers believed that now they had Brexit they could forget about immigration because the government was bound to reduce it and, anyway, they rather liked their new Polish neighbours and colleagues because they’re very like us –  and not at all like Somalis or Pakistanis . Needless to say, the Leavers are in for a shock when they realise just what the government’s new immigration policy is going to do – many fewer Poles, but many more Asians, Africans and now, of course, Hong Kong Chinese .

The change that I have described is a symptom of the demoralisation of our people, which can be seen in a more extreme form in the “Black Lives Matter” protestors. Those predominantly white, predominantly female, middle class youngsters, the privileged offspring of sixties radicals, have imbibed the belief that the white race is uniquely evil, and therefore a belief in their own personal worthlessness as white people, a worthlessness which they can overcome by taking the side of the angels – of black people and of the left’s clients generally. People want to believe that they are good, that they are on the side of the angels. And when the Left has entirely monopolised the moral argument it is all to easy to believe that it is the Left wing position that has all right and goodness on its side. So we have this steady, and accelerating, erosion of healthy and traditional modes of thought, condemned as “hate”.  In other words, we badly need a coherent moral case for racialism.

The morality of the Left is essentially a belief in equality (perhaps it should be spelt with a capital “E” since to the Left it is sacred) and of course it should be unarguable that a nation’s citizens and subjects should have the same rights, opportunities, duties and prohibitions irrespective of matters which are beyond their control – race, gender, class among them. Thus, should an ultra conservative government wish to impose a ban on mixed-race relationships (we can but dream) it should apply to all the racial groups in the country and not be merely a prohibition on, say, whites marrying outside their race, as was the case in the former South Africa.

But the Left’s dream of equality is not for that kind of simple fairness. It believes in an absolute levelling (“Equality”) in which races, nations, countries disappear, blended into a “one-world village” in which all distinctions are eradicated. Even the horror of 20^th century attempts to realise that “ideal” at the cost of scores of millions of lives does not seem to deter the true devotees.

Then there is the soft left line, which does not deny that one can be proud of one’s country, but only if that country conforms to a view acceptable to modern sensibilities. So we had failed “Conservative” Prime Minister David Cameron telling us that we live in “one of the most successful multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-faith societies in the world” complete with rape gangs, drug dealing, inner city riots, Islamist terrorism and knife crime. Somehow Cameron never mentioned the nasty bits. You can decide for yourself whether you would prefer to be living in Cameron’s Britain or in the strong and successful, racially homogenous Britain which still existed within living memory. Except, of course that we were never offered that choice; Cameron’s beloved multi-racial society was wished upon us – in the words of the late, and great, Enoch Powell “against the will and without the consent of the British people.” Isn’t democracy wonderful?

How can we counter the moral monopoly of the Left? With a better moral case of our own. We don’t have to look very far for that better moral case because it was gifted to us by that great Russian traditionalist, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his acceptance speech for the 1970 Nobel Prize for Literature: “In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the levelling of the nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting pot of contemporary civilization. I do not agree with this opinion, but its discussion remains another question. Here it is merely fitting to say that the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.”

Solzhenitsyn is speaking of the nation in its ethnic sense – a people bound together by kinship. And every nation must have a homeland in which its identity and traditions are secure. In loving the ethnic nation and the homeland which shelters that nation, we respond to one of the deepest calls of nature – to care for our own and to secure their living space. That love is the basis of all true morality and it is the basis of racialism. At root, racialism is nothing more nor less than a conservation movement.  No-one questions that the conservation of plants and animals, of their species, sub-species and races, is a virtue. Strenuous efforts are made to preserve these things, and this extends to human beings when those humans belong to backward and endangered tribes. Oddly, though, the principle of conservation seems not to apply when it comes to the white race where the “strenuous efforts” are directed to its displacement and extinction by cross breeding. And yet of course it should apply, and morally it does apply – what could be more worthy than the conservation of that immense, God given, natural diversity of humankind, Solzhenitsyn’s “wealth of mankind”? What could be more moral than to strain every sinew to avert that extinction?

Our moral cause relies on the virtuous necessity of conserving that which is good, which means that it does not need to rely on notions of racial superiority or inferiority. Racial groups differ; they obviously differ physically but they also differ, on average, in temperament and intellect. It would be surprising if it were otherwise– there is no reason to suppose that the gradual processes of evolution and adaptation which have created the gross physical differences of our human sub-species would have left our minds unaltered. But different abilities do not imply a lesser or a greater humanity, nor is there any place in our ideology for race hatred; only love for our own –  if there is hatred, it should be directed at those, of whatever race, who contrive the loss of that which we love.

So with true morality on our side, the morality of nature, we can begin the long and arduous task of overcoming that deadly demoralisation of our people, and especially of our own young people. For shame at being white and British we can substitute pride in belonging to a race and nation which forged the industrial revolution and the British Empire, and thus gave birth to the modern world without whose wonders the vast majority of “BAME” people alive today could never have existed.

by Frederick Dixon © 2020