Excessive Immigration

by Winston C Banks

  The American Perception Institute appears to be genuinely concerned to address problems of racism, racial bias, racial anxiety, and stereotype threat, and to do so by using empirical science and empathic solutions. ‘Our brains like to be right. Our hearts strive to be good’, says the website. Mind science is utilised to show that implicit bias is natural but has to be examined. Racism is real, and the examples of young black men killed by police illustrate this beyond question, but so does research showing that blacks are unintentionally discriminated against in criminal justice systems, in education and health settings, according to Godsil et al. (2014). At the same time, whites want to be fair, and strongly dislike the idea that they may be racist. Blacks tend to feel wary around whites, and whites become defensive around blacks. Common inter-group anxiety can be reduced by encouraging ethically different individuals to meet each other more often and by engaging in training to overcome negative attitudes and behaviour. We can become aware of and change our unconscious aversions and stereotyping tendencies. These strategies hold promise for both blacks and whites but are primarily addressed at whites, and resemble whiteness awareness training. One can indeed imagine that if sufficient numbers of people engaged in such re-education and meaningful contacts, racial anxieties across society might diminish. However, not all interracial problems originate in implicit bias, not all stereotypes are without foundation, and unless remedial individual and inter-group meetings were mandatory (say, by some statutory, jury-like service) this kind of initiative is simply not going to happen on a meaningful scale. I am pessimistic about such proposals but it could be that televised encounters of this kind might make some positive contribution, as the Perception Institute recognises.

  I do not know if I am correct in my perceptions and inferences and I am certainly no scientist or hero. Copernicus and Galileo knew the risks of pushing the theory of heliocentrism against the Catholic Church in their day. Even today, Richard Dawkins runs risks for opposing creationism with science. Among some academics, it is not now taken for granted that Western medicine is superior to shamanism, voodoo, and other ‘magical’ practices (see, for example, Moodley, 2005). Modern multiculturalism and superdiversity appear to be huge and risky experiments that at least some science and much commonsense tells us we should pause to examine and debate. Examples of homogeneous societies like China and Japan show that the Western multiculturalist, accidental experiment is far from inevitable (and see Hood, 2017). People like me probably have some mixed motives for our doubts and warnings. I believe that nature is often cruel and unkind, and the pursuit of truth often leads to unpalatable conclusions. I cannot envisage a fair or functional future world of apartheid or ethnic states but neither could I tolerate a world of politically correct censorship or religious authoritarianism. Douglas Murray often admits that these topics are ‘unpleasant’ to discuss, but necessary, and I concur.

  We should note that all human beings are subject to cognitive bias and error. In making judgements, in seeking evidence, most of us are inclined to want our preferred views to be confirmed; we do not read and compare arguments dispassionately. As we move along certain political, religious or other paths, our beliefs tend to become more entrenched. If you read the Daily Mail all the time, and associate mainly with right-wingers, your views will be reinforced accordingly. But likewise with The Guardian and entrenched leftists. And the more we seek to belong to any group or circle of friends and their beliefs, the more we are pressurised to accept all associated beliefs uncritically, to accept (or pretend to accept) groupthink, instead of retaining our individual, changeable analytical capabilities. Each of us may differ in our views from those of our peers, and across a lifetime each of us may revise our views according to new, incoming evidence. The process is difficult. It is easier to believe that everything you have been taught about race, gender, the Holocaust, patriarchy, or whatever, is correct than to remain open to correction or re-evaluation. On all sides, we can be cognitively threatened in navigating demands for ideological purity, orthodoxy, keeping the faith, staying loyal to the brotherhood, struggling with conceptual and scientific or technical nuances, the lure of conspiracy theories and denialism. Standing alone is extremely difficult. Adjusting intellectually is difficult.

  If I had to label myself and could find a satisfactory label, it might be along the following lines. I am a non-violent, non-interventionist race and territorial realist who believes that uncontrolled mass immigration is undesirable and dangerous. This means that I observe and give an honest, informed opinion on matters that include race, but I try to avoid giving gratuitous offence and absolutely desist from engaging in or inciting violence. Actually, this is not satisfactory because I would still want to question exactly what race means, and I would want to add nuance to the territorial reference above. The concept of ‘race realist’ is already in use, understood and critiqued (Hardimon, 2017; Smith, 2017; Wade, 2014), but ‘realistic about the tensions between different ethnic and cultural groups and pessimistic about outcomes’ would be a little more accurate. SJWs tend to see current society as a racist dystopia where others see an immigration-choked dystopia. Whether differences between races or ethnicities can be explained by genes, culture, or socioeconomic inequality, I cannot ignore what I perceive to be actual differences, and an ‘ethnic hierarchy’ does indeed seem to exist. While Zangwill hoped for a borderless utopia of World Peace, and lamented the ‘mutual irritation society’, I pessimistically (or realistically) think the latter not such a bad compromise. By territorial realism I mean that it is on the whole natural that people who have lived in the same place and with a certain lifestyle for a long time wish to preserve this status. The ‘self-preservation society’ starts with oneself, one’s family and culture, negotiates with reasonable guests, tapers off at self-endangering pathological or naïve hospitality, and ends at physical, violent invasion. But intellectual curiosity and a degree of tact also compel one to remain somewhat open to dissonant ideas and sensitivity of context.

  18

  Problems We Want to Ignore

  Some of our problems are embarrassing, ugly and deeply troublesome, and we understandably ignore or deny them. Mass immigration itself was a taboo topic for public discussion in the UK until fairly recently. But these problems don’t go away, they continue to fester, and sooner or later must be faced. Just as we can and should ask difficult questions of ourselves, we must ask them too about social, ethnic and national groups. Let me put it this way, that there are social-historical groups that cause troubles that we have not resolved. We disagree about causes. I cannot here discuss the character and problems of, say, the Global North (which is presumably the logical opposite of the non-white radical academics’ Global South). The Global North consists of ‘the West’ plus Russia, China, Japan and Korea. These four nations appear to have developed somewhat according to cold winters theory: they have strong male leaders and orderly social structures, high levels of demographic homogeneity, currently quite low levels of expansionism, and a strong national identity; and the Chinese, Korean and Japanese in particular apparently have high average IQs. Their own problems are economic and political but not primarily ethnic, as in the West. I therefore leave them and focus here on the West’s problems with people whose origins lie in Africa and the Middle East.

  The Jewish problem. As I have said, Jews are a tiny portion of the world population, and not a huge social problem. They do not represent a dependency culture, nor much of a serious religious problem. They contribute disproportionately to intellectual life. Israel is problematic but highly focused. Perhaps like Hindus, most Jews’ ancient religious origins mean they have mellowed over time and do not seek expansion. However, their financial success and prominence clearly attracts envy and trouble, yet the accusation of stereotyping prevents any serious investigation of this phenomenon. Not being able to criticise any aspect of Jewish culture for fear of appearing anti-Semitic — and by implication on a moral par with Nazis — is a problem for
free speech.

  The black problem. ‘Nigger’ really means only black or dark-skinned and should be no more insulting than ‘pale-face’ (or any other ‘ethnic slur’ — see the related Wikipedia entry). But the term connotes slave, and worthless, or inferior person or race. It hurts because it recalls lynching, segregation, colonisation, and slavery, and perceptions of inferiority. I believe it hurts most because deep down Africans and people of the African diaspora know that they were abused, enslaved, enslavable, forcibly displaced, and were and still are technologically inferior to Westerners. Today’s Africans know how the world perceives them. Many black Westerners know that even in today’s legally equal societies they do not prosper, and some may not have the necessary characteristics to thrive in cultures that require and reward concentrated head-work, agreeableness, and delayed gratification. Yet successful middle-class blacks do thrive, having worked hard, learned and accepted Western ways. Those blacks who do not thrive, or who resort to crime or dependency, join the lower white working classes on low incomes and with poor prospects, but tend to blame their socioeconomic position on their blackness, on racism. Examples of beloved black British (and other Western) celebrities show, however, that blacks who assimilate can do very well. Skin colour is not really the problem: to use another so-called stereotype, it is attitude that is problematic. Tensions and troubles arising from black ethnicity may continue indefinitely, but demands for special treatment will be increasingly resented by whites and other ethnicities. Hankering for revenge is dysfunctional.

  The Muslim problem. Perhaps this was once about ‘Pakis’, another term that draws shrieks of horror from Guardian readers, and traumatic memories for some of Paki-bashing. The ‘Asian invasion’ was resented by many white Brits but is now to a large extent accepted, except in its growing proportions and its perceived religious stridency. It is Muslim identity and demands, I believe, that currently most anger white Brits. Forget the mosques, the medieval attire, the alien customs, and the violent outbursts — get on with the British way of life, and things go better. Stop trying to change Britain and you can prosper, as many liberal Muslims do. The problem here is that the most vociferous Muslims (mainly men) insist on clinging to beliefs and practices that an increasing majority of long-term Brits regard as anachronistic. ‘Anachronistic’ is, to be honest, code for backward, stupid, unscientific, anti-progress, illiberal. Many ethnic Jews are now atheists, as are many nominal Christians. I think many of us see religion today as no more meaningful than Morris dancing, the Freemasons, or a culture of niceness. Even many mild-mannered and non-racist young leftist women are willing to say that they do not believe in ‘organised religion’. Yet many Muslims from rural Pakistan, say, cling to their religious customs, and some second and third generation young Muslims think they are rediscovering and reclaiming their religious heritage, with a few wanting to reassert this via terrorism. What cannot be talked about is that many of us want Islam in Britain to be reduced or to fade away, and no-one knows how to bring this about.

  The European problem. The largely shared whiteness and geographical proximity of this problem make it easier to resolve, and also the connection with work ethic and Christian culture. Brexit may gradually solve some of these problems. But crime and housing, and other cultural and economic issues, remain to be addressed. To a large extent, this problem falls on British governments to resolve. Much clearer industrial and employment policies are necessary, better resourced border controls are needed, as well as better intelligence, firmer laws and policing. There is now little stigma in being an Irish immigrant, and many Europeans sooner or later assimilate well, but the homeless, unemployed and criminal element are a particular problem, and overall population levels still require attention (see Judah, 2016).

  The white racist thug problem. As was often suggested in 2017, Britain contains an active and sometimes violent far-right movement that is composed of lower class, usually low-income young men (mainly), who often have criminal records. It is easy for the leftist press to conflate this quite small group (historically drawn from Teddy Boys, skinheads, violent football supporters, and chavs) with anyone from outside London who voted for Brexit, who is a UKIP supporter and poorly educated. The PC media like to characterise as ‘white van man’ anyone who is traditionally macho and vociferous about disliking immigrants. There are real problems here, and they are probably linked with so-called ‘disgust racism’ as well as resentment and envy: refugees, for example, sometimes receive attention, help, kindness, housing and other benefits that violent racist whites (the so-called ‘left-behind’) never receive. There is a growing awareness that some poor whites have been forgotten educationally and economically, even more so than some BAME people; yet it may be a problem we will always have.

  Cultural appeasement, head-in-the-sand, and diversions and delays calling for surveys and reports have been the strategies of choice for successive British governments and the PC establishment, and it all amounts to a grand failure. A majority of the British public have been patient and tolerant but will not endure indefinitely the demands for special treatment of black activists or the assaults of Muslim fundamentalists. The right of the dominant culture to reassert itself must be rediscovered. This is not fascism or xenophobia. The alternative to this is capitulation to multicultural mayhem, social conflict and possible eventual submission to Islamisation; in any case to the irreversible, negative cultural and economic transformation of the UK. Unfortunately, PC xenophilic leftists will apparently never agree that mass immigration is a problem, or that extensive multiculturalism cannot work effectively in Britain. They scoff at the idea that any significant ‘Islamisation’ is happening. Black citizens cannot change their skin colour but are increasingly integrated. Muslims can, if they choose, modify their religion. In principle governments could demand changes in outward religious displays but this would contravene the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 9. As I have said elsewhere, there is a stand-off between this position and the sincere beliefs of many atheists that religion is irrational, superstitious and sometimes life-threatening. We try to ignore this problem.

  We mostly ignore, or suppress public discussion of, those problems that are highly embarrassing and likely to arouse conflict. Braun (1990) doubts however if ‘the unpalatable can be made palatable’. The greatest hot-button issues here are probably racial differences, IQ, regressive religious beliefs, terrorism, claims for reparations and positive discrimination, freedom of speech, border controls, immigration and population policy, and legitimacy of strong governmental reactions. SJWs hysterically but successfully cast all discussion of these issues as racist and fascist. Some mild pushback is occurring, for example in some small corners of academia and in voting patterns. However, leftist misinformation and conflation of controversial political matters still seems to maintain high levels of resistance among the young to any civilised debate about these problems. To date, anti-CM white intellectuals and politicians have been extremely reluctant to speak out on these topics and to insist on rigorous attention being paid to them. Epstein (2014) notes that due to the ‘thorny issue of race’, academic scientists tend to avoid the subject, and Epstein even cites one case of a scientist possessing ‘data on ethnic differences with respect to a particular physiological trait’ that he would never publish because it would be too controversial. Such is the evasive climate in academia we have come to accept.

  Most of us find it difficult to admit to errors of judgement. Governments do not readily recognise misjudgements, and yet we can see that effective immigration policy has almost certainly been lacking, or plain wrong, or implemented incompetently. No police officer, reacting in panic to a perceived threat and shooting a suspect, is likely to confess to making a mistake, given the consequences. Wilson et al. (2017) claim to show that young black men are frequently perceived by non-blacks to be bigger, taller, and more threatening than they objectively are. Our responses to immediate challenges may indeed trigger incorrect evaluations and eve
n disastrous actions. But the same is true for immigrants — that their decision to migrate legally or not, to assimilate or not into an alien culture, to blame British society and history or not, for their misfortunes, may be mistaken. Mass migration and its undoubted stubborn problems seem inevitable and long-lasting, and some of the ingredients probably are a result of unintentional misjudgements. Even if we can arrive at the point of acknowledging that multiculturalism doesn’t work, no-one can face up to what should come next.

  The emotional reasoning of and manipulation by white SJWs and non-white activists, sometimes utilising black sermonic tradition or pseudo-religious rhetoric to intone their demands, has drowned out the legitimate views and voices of those with well-founded objections to mass immigration. We have learned to ignore, for example, the very possibility of discussing and pinning down differences and inequalities in intelligence, although Haier (2016) is approaching a definitive statement. We have accepted diversionary tactics on the real nature of the Quran’s teachings in spite of some scholarly warnings as to its intrinsic aggression towards infidels. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of God but we can assess core Islamic views of and intentions towards non-Muslims. But currently our position appears to be that these are too incendiary and difficult, we must accept an embarrassed impasse at best, and in addition continue to believe that the least movement of enquiry and free speech in these directions is racist, xenophobic and fascist. The alternative we fear is, of course, that sooner or later passive impasse and evasion will proceed to active but hostile public argument and from there to riots or some form of civil war.