"Even Carl Benjamin’s suggestion that we send back those who came in the grotesque Boris wave from the past five years rings authoritarian and unjust to me. Ultimately, while I agree that this has absolutely fucked the country, these individuals mostly entered the country legally, often at great financial and personal cost. To then revoke their pass and uproot their lives because we decided that our prime minister(s) made a big mistake wouldn’t be right."
But it's not that our Prime Ministers merely made a mistake. It's that, from 1997, the parties they led had absolutely no democratic mandate to turbocharge net migration in the way they did. (Net migration under the Thatcher/Major government averaged 15k per year. Under New Labour it averaged 200k per year. And under the Tories it averaged a whopping 345k per year.)
Not one of New Labour's manifestos even hinted at a quantam leap in net migration. New Labour DIDN'T pledge to massively INCREASE net migration but they DID. Conversely, in successive manifestos, the Tories DID pledge to massively DECREASE net migration but they DIDN'T.
So from 1997 there's been no democratic mandate whatsoever for a policy that Andrew acknowledges "has absolutely fucked the country". And yet Andrew decrees that the British people simply have to do the decent thing and put up with being fucked over. That hardly strikes me as a satisfactory response.
Andrew might reply that it's hardly satisfactory - at least from the perspective of the Boris Wave - that they be deported. I agree. But someone has to get fucked over. And if the priority is ensuring a homeland for the British people one might argue that, regrettably, the Boris Wave being fucked over is the lesser of two evils.
I'm half Austrian, half English (Mother, Father respectively). Would he let me stay, or do I have to go? What if my mother was Nigerian?
I thought his failure to define exactly who could and couldn't stay was telling. The Nazis had the Nuremberg Laws which tried to sort this out (pure German, Mischling first degree (one parent / two grandparents), Mischling second degree (one grandparent) etc), and it led to some fascinating (academically) attempts to define who was and wasn't German. The German film "the Wannsee Conference" (Kenneth Branagh film "Conspiracy" is almost a word for word English version) explores some of this in Stuckart's attempts to defend protecting "German blood", but Steve can't even define biologically who he does or doesn't want to keep (and why). It just betrays the shallowness of his argument.
So that's my challenge to anyone who wants to defend Steve - give us a precise definition of who does and doesn't stay. If you can't have something that will stand up to scrutiny (even if we disagree with the general idea) your idea is intellectually redundant.
I don't hold Steve's view but I'd support him over any leftist. I'd say if you're 75% English, then you're English. The essence of Englishness is DNA, it is not customs nor food nor culture. If you have 0 English DNA, then you're not English period. Blood purity isn't a main issue, but blood is vital.
A specific genetic cluster that can and is mapped out by DNA testing companies to determine heredity. What do you think DNA testing is? Is this a new concept to you?
I'm not going to get into a biology lesson with you. The English form a genetic cluster that is discrete from others, that is Englishness distilled to its essence.
Your argument is that there is no ethnic DNA that exists, that all DNA is free floating, fluid, and has no boundaries or discreteness. Okay well good luck telling DNA testing companies that. It's just liberal race denial but for ethnicity.
Where did I say there was no ethnic DNA that exists? I don't think I've said that anywhere.
All I'm asking for is a clear way to determine what "75% English" actually looks like. At the moment you can't answer that, so please come back when you can OR drop it as a criteria.
What is important in terms of immigration is not so much ethnicity but whether or not the immigrants are prepared to love this country with its rich and wonderful history and are prepared to uphold its values. Some immigrant ethnicities may not wish to and attempt to stoke disharmony by trying to resorting to violence or subversion of our laws and political life. In doing this they are therefore not conducive to the public good and should be removed.
White jihadis, such as those expelled by the Kalesh tribe of Pakistan, can sneak in with impunity and then allow ISIS and Taliban to gain admission through the back door.
But who's going to sift through all those millions of people? The burocracy alone would take up our entire workforce, never mind enforcement. And theres no distinguishing English DNA from Scots, Welsh, Irish or European.
1. If there's a will there's a way, the specifics aren't what I'm interested in. I'm also not a puritan demanding 100% clean purebloods. Steve overshoots but I'm on his same wavelength generally.
2. Pretty sure English can be distinguished as my DNA tests have shown distinct English DNA as well as distinct Scottish DNA. My stance is more White nationalist rather than ethno-nationalist but Scots and Welsh are other natives of the British Isle, and thus nobody really cares if patriotic 50% English 50% Scots stay in England.
There are white jihadis too, for example those expelled from the Kalesh tribe in Pakistan, who have taken root here posing as Europeans and let their ISIS masters in through the back door.
There are also some Irish who want to blow us sky high.
A much better idea than a DNA test would be a mandatory polygraph test before someone assumes a position of power so that we can determine where their loyalties lie.
If we are to have these conversations seriously - and, regrettably, it looks like we must - then FAR more needs to be said about the scientific nonsense of ethnic purity, genetically speaking - and specifically in the English case. 'The English genetic cluster' exists but it is fuzzy, far too fuzzy to legislate upon, and any attempt to actually separate people on these fuzzy lines will lead to endless autocratic intrusions, violent resistance, egregious mistakes, etc etc.
It's completely unworkable but this needs to be shown at root so that we can then move on to more sensible conversations about our immigration mess.
Whenever the British values argument gets brought up there are always a few questions I have that never get asked. Can anyone in these comments help?
1. If 10 British people are asked to independently write lists of all the British values would these lists all be the same or would any of the lists contradict? If the lists aren't all the same would it then be fair to say there isn't a definitive set of British values that we can judge foreigners by?
2. If there is a definitive set of British values and we expect foreigners to apply to them what prevents the foreigners lying to us to attain the legal protections then not living up to the values?
3. If we can incorporate or exclude foreigners based on British values then what does that mean for native people that do not change their own personal values? Should they lose their status? What about long dead Britons who's views would be a product of their time?
4. When British values change what groups should be involved in changing them? Should this only be British natives, or should this include all immigrants that have been incorporated as well?
Basically I like the idea of there being a singular set of British values that we can all subscribe to but I feel that idea is never interrogated and anytime someone is actually asked what British values are they are always quite generic and could be the values of almost any country in theory.
Just nasty people that don’t respect other people and culture don’t like people like that they horrible people I think we need to stop this immigration and migration now our people are getting sick and tired of this thing going on
Did I miss understand you say that if white people are not around anymore, It's okay
It's not okay, just like it wouldn't be okay for us to dispel Jewish people or any other person who has contributed to make our country what it was.
Unless you haven't seen, white people are being told you are a cancer to this world, And it's alright to kill us, Jewish professor telling Muslims in Cyprus that white Westerners are the problem.
I watched this last night. I understand the frustration that causes this think but it's a flawed think IMO. Here in Canada, ppl are starting to have similar discussions largely due to 10 years of a government that threw out what worked for immigration and have been running it like toddlers in a playground out of spite. But once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it`s hard to put it back in. The system he proposes would fail. Where does one draw the line and when his utopia was achieved, where does it stop? Immigrants do contribute to a healthy society when it is done right and by a government who understands how it should work and applies the standards set. Historically, ppl are migratory so who belongs where is grey IMO. I think instilling rules fairly and equally as a nation is a first step. No multilayer rules for thee not for me and numbers of incoming adjusted to keep up with the infrastructures of the country. Those who violate thee laws of immigration and English society and don`t pass the mustard for set immigration standards must be deported but they are the standards most democratic countries apply equally if followed correctly. There also has to be a push for becoming a true citizen of the country you are coming too. Sadly that has been lost in Canada as well over the past 10 years due to a similar immigration and policy practice as has been happenning in Britain. Perhaps our saving grace is our opposition in federal government is strong holding our government to task as well as independent media who is making enough noise that our federal government must now act. However, I think change, real change begins on the ground such as that school lady you have mentioned more than once who teaches British values to the students. My 2 cents. But to end, I admire you for having a debate on such a topic with a controversial view. More of this please. I think our society needs to be having more open dialogue more now than ever.
Really, pass the mustard?? The saying is, 'pass muster.' Unless it's some weird colloquialism that only you understand. WWW really is WW...best to leave colloquialisms out.
Andrew, I am in the beginning of the process to make aliyah, planning to take a year to get my property ready to sell, then make it happen in 2027. I never thought I'd want to leave my nicely remodeled house and my 2.78 acres, with flower gardens influenced by famed British gardener, Monty Don. I am a convert to Judaism (with Masorti rabbis in 1987) which makes it slightly more complicated. I do have sworn affidavits from some of the rabbis who tutored me, attesting to my knowledge of Jewish practice. You are incorrect in assuming that you might be Jewish by heritage but not practice or culturally, and still have the right to return. As you fill out the paperwork for Nefesh b'Nefesh or the Jewish Agency, you are requested for proof of active participation in a religious congregation. Because in my town in the Hudson Valley, we have only a Reform shul involving a female rabbi who thinks she's a man (with the tinny testosterone voice ruining the services) and where the leaders of that shul do not support Israel because they are "self-hating Jews" I can't attend there and ask for that proof. After 7 years of non-observance since I moved here from Brooklyn, I'm now getting involved with Chabad, offering volunteer work to create a garden on their grounds, and finding a way to attend services though I live rather far away, so that Rabbi Hecht will be able to honestly write a statement about my active involvement with Jewish life. It could be that medinat Israel would take you based on your name and history, but I think they'd have this expectation for you, as well. I wonder how your guest, Whats-is-Name would feel about me, a blondish woman with Norwegian and English heritage, taking on Judaism and leaving his imaginary pure utopia?
You are not alone. I am hunting for jobs in Israel & I dream of wearing my Prayer Shawl & leaving a letter in the wall. I feel that I have never belonged in Britain. There is something pulling me to the Holy Land.
.........but he doesn't want to go!! He's British! We wouldn't let him go anyway! Off you pop then. Do you think you might live to regret it when Trump is out of the way and USA returns to some semblance of order.
This piece lands somewhere interesting between principle and pragmatism. The push back against using medical records for ethnic purity checks feels spot-on, that's an authoritarian slippery slope that historically ends badly. What caught my attention is the tension between acknowledging "this has absolutely fucked the country" while also arguing against any reversal for those who entered legally. There's a real trade-off there that doesn't resolve neatly. Practically speaking, halting new immigration while incentivising integration might be the only non-dystopian path forward, even if it leaves some people unsatisfied. I've worked with teams across multiple countries and seen how much civic identiy matters when done right versus when its just performative.
Ethnicity is a rope, stranded together from what came before. English is an Ethnicity born from the merging of Britons, Angles, Jutes, Saxons formalised in 927AD. Your family can live here for a thousand years and still not be English because they have failed to join your strands with the English one.
After 5 generations how many of your forebearers married English people, had English offspring, joining together to be part of the English Tribe? Or did they wear the English Culture as a skinsuit, prospering from the safety and success being here afforded them while safeguarding their own Ethnicity? Be interested to know.
23:30 - Andrew supports progressivism just not "quick progressivism" oh no, he wants the conservative version of progressivism, the one that drives the speed limit. (We don't want to change the essence of the country i.e. the people i.e. the gene pool. The essence of Englishness is the shared genes, the gene pool, the kinship that brings through heritage and commonality, the shared identity)
36:00 - Andrew uses the Barbara Spectre concern trolling again (this is scary for you Steve, do you want me to hold your hand Steve? I'll guide you through this)
36:15 - the essence of Britishness isn't the values, it's the blood. If the values need to be sidelined to preserve the blood, then so be it. There's an existential crisis and emergency powers must be granted to overstep the "trad" values in favour of egoic heroism, stepping outside of good and evil and becoming a man of destiny, a titan that walks the Earth, as Bowden would say
36:30 - it doesn't matter that the values were "perverted", the problem was the ordering and the emphasis placed on them in the first place. Individualism shouldn't come before tribalism, equality shouldn't be a first principle, it should be a lower order principle. Equality is not a right wing value in the first place.
My impression of Bowden is that he was a somewhat strange political figure who could never stick at anything for long, he fell out with people easily, and had extreme ideas, all of which probably stemmed from the fact that he was not the most mentally stable of human beings and therefore not the best person to be guided by.
Here is a timestamp with my rebuttals I posted on that video:
14:00 - Israel is a Jewish state, it's routinely paraded as the "only Jewish state" in the world, it has nation state laws, and politicians routinely work to ensure a Jewish ethnic majority. It also literally colonizes land in the West Bank to conquer outside territory. The character of Israel is clearly Jewish, and the state is undetachable from that reality. They do ancestry tests, they require a Jewish grandparent etc.
14:50 - Andrew undermines pattern recognition by chalking it up to pathologizing defending one's ethnic self interest to "being scared". No Andrew, it just has to do with not wanting to put up with a group of people who work around the clock to subvert and redirect time, attention, and money away from one's own ethnic interests and onto another people's. To Andrew, Steve is scared and in his mental hugbox sucking his thumb.
15:00 - "demographics are changing and it's a really scary thing" you sound like Barbara Lerner Spectre
15:10 - your family is not representative of most Jews and especially not moneyed ones, elite ones, which are the most pivotal players. The elite ones and their institutions counter-signal closed society nationalism for reasons that are totally predictable
16:15 - dumb gotcha by Andrew
17:10 - Andrew uses an argument leftists on Twitter used like 7 years ago about "what about the Aglos, Saxones, Jutes, Vikings, Normans" 17:30 - he says that because unlike you psycho-analyzing Steve as being "scared", he's using an argument rooted in common sense and a basic reading of biological interests, he's say it's in your individual interest and in your wider tribal interest (family, Jewish friends etc) to stay in Britain and not be persecuted, which is logical. It's a basic analysis of human egoism and tribal instinct.
17:50 - per capita Jews push leftism far more than English people
18:15 - Steve notes the crypsis
19:30 - Andrew apes Barbara Spectre again... for some unknown (possibly Jewish) reason
20:00 - i'd rather the risk of it coming to blows rather than accept passive destruction
20:30 - the Iraq war protests reached massive numbers, the war kept going on. the violence would stem from leftist radicals who will riot and lash out whether the number deported it 1, 100, 1000, or 1 million
20:40 - Tommy's grunts are gonna take up arms and storm the bastille (the reason Steve is ascending now and his star is rising is because the frogs are really starting to boil now as the demographics become existential. Give it a few years and things will hit a fever pitch and radicalism on both sides is all but inevitable, it's already happening. Tommy is a weak limp wristed leader, Steve or someone like him will represent a stronger, more virile stance that nets the supporters that Tommy bleeds in the years to come. Just as Ben Shapiro is now bleeding subscribers and Nick is bigger than ever before)
20:50 - the difference is than an ideologue is usually type-casted as a dogmatic and militant communist university student, Steve's "ideologue" status only extends to his basic ethno-racial survival, not the dogma of dialectical materialism and some progressive metanarrative of history and the persona of Marx and deep theory, no it's just basic and natural human self interest
21:00 - the future is going to hell, a reversion to the past is preferable 22:50 - provocations/antagonisms act as an impetus/springboard for the public to rally to the side of mass deportations
23:25 - Andrew brings it back around to the Norman Question for like a third time. Andrew we're not the Normans, that isn't our identity, we're not running around screaming that we're Normans, it's a 1000 year old dynasty that is gone and has trace lineage in the gene pool that's insignificant. The Normans were also White Europeans so it's less of an afront to our dignity. Either way, the Normans are gone, and the foreign peoples of our era are still here.
Some of what you write is is completely wrong. The Jewish state of Israel seeks to maintain the warp and weft of the various interwoven Jewish cultures from northern Africa, from Middle Eastern countries that made themselves "Judenrein" like Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Egypt (a very few still there), Yemen, (there might be one old Jew still in Yemen), all areas of Europe, Ethiopian Jews and now in planning stages, Jews in India, whose roots go back 2,000 years. I'm reading the tea leaves here in NY state, where an overt anti-Semite just got elected in the largest city, and I am working on my aliyah to get away from exactly ideologues like you. Thanks for giving me more impetus.
I’ve had some painful arguments over the holiday with my ethnically not religiously Jewish, classic upper middle class lib-left birth family over whether it’s fair to call Israel an apartheid state ala former South Africa.
As a young leftie who rarely missed a 1980s anti apartheid demo (while they wisely concentrated on building conventional careers) I said, no way, not the same at all, for all the reasons you mention here.
They looked hurt and offended, I believe mainly on behalf of their youngish-adult kids, (not present) who all trumpet the Greta Thunberg views you’d expect.
That's a red herring argument, the point is that Israel is an ethnically based state. It is ethnically conscious of itself and that informs its governance. It routinely expands into the West Bank via colonization. The specifics of apartheid aren't important.
Well as Andrew says Israel is not Just about ethnicity.
My ‘trigger’ if you like is the young pro-Pals and their parents who I think should know better making that apartheid comparison to indicate how far-right-racist Israel basically is. I think it’s misguided, wilfully so in many cases. For the reasons Andrew mentions.
Whether that makes the point a ‘red herring’ . . 🤷🏻♀️?
Israel regularly builds settlements in a nation that isn't theirs, that being West Bank, Palestine. It regularly bombs its neighbours with American bombs paid for by American money. It walls off Gaza entirely and puts up walls all over their settlements.
The apartheid argument doesn't matter to me, just look at what Israel does right now in the current day. Idc if it's motivated by racism or survival, that's besides the point of it happening.
Andrew writes
"Even Carl Benjamin’s suggestion that we send back those who came in the grotesque Boris wave from the past five years rings authoritarian and unjust to me. Ultimately, while I agree that this has absolutely fucked the country, these individuals mostly entered the country legally, often at great financial and personal cost. To then revoke their pass and uproot their lives because we decided that our prime minister(s) made a big mistake wouldn’t be right."
But it's not that our Prime Ministers merely made a mistake. It's that, from 1997, the parties they led had absolutely no democratic mandate to turbocharge net migration in the way they did. (Net migration under the Thatcher/Major government averaged 15k per year. Under New Labour it averaged 200k per year. And under the Tories it averaged a whopping 345k per year.)
Not one of New Labour's manifestos even hinted at a quantam leap in net migration. New Labour DIDN'T pledge to massively INCREASE net migration but they DID. Conversely, in successive manifestos, the Tories DID pledge to massively DECREASE net migration but they DIDN'T.
So from 1997 there's been no democratic mandate whatsoever for a policy that Andrew acknowledges "has absolutely fucked the country". And yet Andrew decrees that the British people simply have to do the decent thing and put up with being fucked over. That hardly strikes me as a satisfactory response.
Andrew might reply that it's hardly satisfactory - at least from the perspective of the Boris Wave - that they be deported. I agree. But someone has to get fucked over. And if the priority is ensuring a homeland for the British people one might argue that, regrettably, the Boris Wave being fucked over is the lesser of two evils.
Well said Andrew.
I'm half Austrian, half English (Mother, Father respectively). Would he let me stay, or do I have to go? What if my mother was Nigerian?
I thought his failure to define exactly who could and couldn't stay was telling. The Nazis had the Nuremberg Laws which tried to sort this out (pure German, Mischling first degree (one parent / two grandparents), Mischling second degree (one grandparent) etc), and it led to some fascinating (academically) attempts to define who was and wasn't German. The German film "the Wannsee Conference" (Kenneth Branagh film "Conspiracy" is almost a word for word English version) explores some of this in Stuckart's attempts to defend protecting "German blood", but Steve can't even define biologically who he does or doesn't want to keep (and why). It just betrays the shallowness of his argument.
So that's my challenge to anyone who wants to defend Steve - give us a precise definition of who does and doesn't stay. If you can't have something that will stand up to scrutiny (even if we disagree with the general idea) your idea is intellectually redundant.
I don't hold Steve's view but I'd support him over any leftist. I'd say if you're 75% English, then you're English. The essence of Englishness is DNA, it is not customs nor food nor culture. If you have 0 English DNA, then you're not English period. Blood purity isn't a main issue, but blood is vital.
So please define "English DNA". Once you've done that, please define what "75% English DNA" is.
A specific genetic cluster that can and is mapped out by DNA testing companies to determine heredity. What do you think DNA testing is? Is this a new concept to you?
No, I know what DNA testing is - I'm married to a Doctor of Biochemistry.
What I want from you is the biochemistry of "English DNA". What are the specific markers etc?
I'm not going to get into a biology lesson with you. The English form a genetic cluster that is discrete from others, that is Englishness distilled to its essence.
Your argument is that there is no ethnic DNA that exists, that all DNA is free floating, fluid, and has no boundaries or discreteness. Okay well good luck telling DNA testing companies that. It's just liberal race denial but for ethnicity.
Where did I say there was no ethnic DNA that exists? I don't think I've said that anywhere.
All I'm asking for is a clear way to determine what "75% English" actually looks like. At the moment you can't answer that, so please come back when you can OR drop it as a criteria.
I fear that sadly, his intellect can't support his passion, even though I feel it too.
I couldn't support his cause, because he can only fight with 'street' talk and you need to know how to speak like a politician to be effective.
What is important in terms of immigration is not so much ethnicity but whether or not the immigrants are prepared to love this country with its rich and wonderful history and are prepared to uphold its values. Some immigrant ethnicities may not wish to and attempt to stoke disharmony by trying to resorting to violence or subversion of our laws and political life. In doing this they are therefore not conducive to the public good and should be removed.
Thanks for a fascinating broadcast. It is vital that these discussions are brought into the light of day.
How will they know who is English and who isn't?
White jihadis, such as those expelled by the Kalesh tribe of Pakistan, can sneak in with impunity and then allow ISIS and Taliban to gain admission through the back door.
0% English DNA, not English. 2% English DNA, not meaningfully English. 50-75% is meaningful.
But who's going to sift through all those millions of people? The burocracy alone would take up our entire workforce, never mind enforcement. And theres no distinguishing English DNA from Scots, Welsh, Irish or European.
1. If there's a will there's a way, the specifics aren't what I'm interested in. I'm also not a puritan demanding 100% clean purebloods. Steve overshoots but I'm on his same wavelength generally.
2. Pretty sure English can be distinguished as my DNA tests have shown distinct English DNA as well as distinct Scottish DNA. My stance is more White nationalist rather than ethno-nationalist but Scots and Welsh are other natives of the British Isle, and thus nobody really cares if patriotic 50% English 50% Scots stay in England.
There are white jihadis too, for example those expelled from the Kalesh tribe in Pakistan, who have taken root here posing as Europeans and let their ISIS masters in through the back door.
There are also some Irish who want to blow us sky high.
Insignificant and low priority, idc deport them.
A much better idea than a DNA test would be a mandatory polygraph test before someone assumes a position of power so that we can determine where their loyalties lie.
Being blown up is low priority? This is why we're in this mess in the first place.
If we are to have these conversations seriously - and, regrettably, it looks like we must - then FAR more needs to be said about the scientific nonsense of ethnic purity, genetically speaking - and specifically in the English case. 'The English genetic cluster' exists but it is fuzzy, far too fuzzy to legislate upon, and any attempt to actually separate people on these fuzzy lines will lead to endless autocratic intrusions, violent resistance, egregious mistakes, etc etc.
It's completely unworkable but this needs to be shown at root so that we can then move on to more sensible conversations about our immigration mess.
Whenever the British values argument gets brought up there are always a few questions I have that never get asked. Can anyone in these comments help?
1. If 10 British people are asked to independently write lists of all the British values would these lists all be the same or would any of the lists contradict? If the lists aren't all the same would it then be fair to say there isn't a definitive set of British values that we can judge foreigners by?
2. If there is a definitive set of British values and we expect foreigners to apply to them what prevents the foreigners lying to us to attain the legal protections then not living up to the values?
3. If we can incorporate or exclude foreigners based on British values then what does that mean for native people that do not change their own personal values? Should they lose their status? What about long dead Britons who's views would be a product of their time?
4. When British values change what groups should be involved in changing them? Should this only be British natives, or should this include all immigrants that have been incorporated as well?
Basically I like the idea of there being a singular set of British values that we can all subscribe to but I feel that idea is never interrogated and anytime someone is actually asked what British values are they are always quite generic and could be the values of almost any country in theory.
Just the whole thing is creepy
Woman moment. Saying a political position is "creepy" is just an attempt to socially shame it instead of refuting it on principle.
Just nasty people that don’t respect other people and culture don’t like people like that they horrible people I think we need to stop this immigration and migration now our people are getting sick and tired of this thing going on
Did I miss understand you say that if white people are not around anymore, It's okay
It's not okay, just like it wouldn't be okay for us to dispel Jewish people or any other person who has contributed to make our country what it was.
Unless you haven't seen, white people are being told you are a cancer to this world, And it's alright to kill us, Jewish professor telling Muslims in Cyprus that white Westerners are the problem.
I watched this last night. I understand the frustration that causes this think but it's a flawed think IMO. Here in Canada, ppl are starting to have similar discussions largely due to 10 years of a government that threw out what worked for immigration and have been running it like toddlers in a playground out of spite. But once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it`s hard to put it back in. The system he proposes would fail. Where does one draw the line and when his utopia was achieved, where does it stop? Immigrants do contribute to a healthy society when it is done right and by a government who understands how it should work and applies the standards set. Historically, ppl are migratory so who belongs where is grey IMO. I think instilling rules fairly and equally as a nation is a first step. No multilayer rules for thee not for me and numbers of incoming adjusted to keep up with the infrastructures of the country. Those who violate thee laws of immigration and English society and don`t pass the mustard for set immigration standards must be deported but they are the standards most democratic countries apply equally if followed correctly. There also has to be a push for becoming a true citizen of the country you are coming too. Sadly that has been lost in Canada as well over the past 10 years due to a similar immigration and policy practice as has been happenning in Britain. Perhaps our saving grace is our opposition in federal government is strong holding our government to task as well as independent media who is making enough noise that our federal government must now act. However, I think change, real change begins on the ground such as that school lady you have mentioned more than once who teaches British values to the students. My 2 cents. But to end, I admire you for having a debate on such a topic with a controversial view. More of this please. I think our society needs to be having more open dialogue more now than ever.
Really, pass the mustard?? The saying is, 'pass muster.' Unless it's some weird colloquialism that only you understand. WWW really is WW...best to leave colloquialisms out.
Andrew, I am in the beginning of the process to make aliyah, planning to take a year to get my property ready to sell, then make it happen in 2027. I never thought I'd want to leave my nicely remodeled house and my 2.78 acres, with flower gardens influenced by famed British gardener, Monty Don. I am a convert to Judaism (with Masorti rabbis in 1987) which makes it slightly more complicated. I do have sworn affidavits from some of the rabbis who tutored me, attesting to my knowledge of Jewish practice. You are incorrect in assuming that you might be Jewish by heritage but not practice or culturally, and still have the right to return. As you fill out the paperwork for Nefesh b'Nefesh or the Jewish Agency, you are requested for proof of active participation in a religious congregation. Because in my town in the Hudson Valley, we have only a Reform shul involving a female rabbi who thinks she's a man (with the tinny testosterone voice ruining the services) and where the leaders of that shul do not support Israel because they are "self-hating Jews" I can't attend there and ask for that proof. After 7 years of non-observance since I moved here from Brooklyn, I'm now getting involved with Chabad, offering volunteer work to create a garden on their grounds, and finding a way to attend services though I live rather far away, so that Rabbi Hecht will be able to honestly write a statement about my active involvement with Jewish life. It could be that medinat Israel would take you based on your name and history, but I think they'd have this expectation for you, as well. I wonder how your guest, Whats-is-Name would feel about me, a blondish woman with Norwegian and English heritage, taking on Judaism and leaving his imaginary pure utopia?
You are not alone. I am hunting for jobs in Israel & I dream of wearing my Prayer Shawl & leaving a letter in the wall. I feel that I have never belonged in Britain. There is something pulling me to the Holy Land.
oto hadavar. Find me at my youtube channel, Trans Widow Ute Heggen. contact details in the notes. You will need to be active in a congregation.
.........but he doesn't want to go!! He's British! We wouldn't let him go anyway! Off you pop then. Do you think you might live to regret it when Trump is out of the way and USA returns to some semblance of order.
This piece lands somewhere interesting between principle and pragmatism. The push back against using medical records for ethnic purity checks feels spot-on, that's an authoritarian slippery slope that historically ends badly. What caught my attention is the tension between acknowledging "this has absolutely fucked the country" while also arguing against any reversal for those who entered legally. There's a real trade-off there that doesn't resolve neatly. Practically speaking, halting new immigration while incentivising integration might be the only non-dystopian path forward, even if it leaves some people unsatisfied. I've worked with teams across multiple countries and seen how much civic identiy matters when done right versus when its just performative.
Ethnicity is a rope, stranded together from what came before. English is an Ethnicity born from the merging of Britons, Angles, Jutes, Saxons formalised in 927AD. Your family can live here for a thousand years and still not be English because they have failed to join your strands with the English one.
After 5 generations how many of your forebearers married English people, had English offspring, joining together to be part of the English Tribe? Or did they wear the English Culture as a skinsuit, prospering from the safety and success being here afforded them while safeguarding their own Ethnicity? Be interested to know.
My rebuttals continued from the video:
23:30 - Andrew supports progressivism just not "quick progressivism" oh no, he wants the conservative version of progressivism, the one that drives the speed limit. (We don't want to change the essence of the country i.e. the people i.e. the gene pool. The essence of Englishness is the shared genes, the gene pool, the kinship that brings through heritage and commonality, the shared identity)
36:00 - Andrew uses the Barbara Spectre concern trolling again (this is scary for you Steve, do you want me to hold your hand Steve? I'll guide you through this)
36:15 - the essence of Britishness isn't the values, it's the blood. If the values need to be sidelined to preserve the blood, then so be it. There's an existential crisis and emergency powers must be granted to overstep the "trad" values in favour of egoic heroism, stepping outside of good and evil and becoming a man of destiny, a titan that walks the Earth, as Bowden would say
36:30 - it doesn't matter that the values were "perverted", the problem was the ordering and the emphasis placed on them in the first place. Individualism shouldn't come before tribalism, equality shouldn't be a first principle, it should be a lower order principle. Equality is not a right wing value in the first place.
My impression of Bowden is that he was a somewhat strange political figure who could never stick at anything for long, he fell out with people easily, and had extreme ideas, all of which probably stemmed from the fact that he was not the most mentally stable of human beings and therefore not the best person to be guided by.
Do you have a point?
Yes a Bowdenian state of mind is not a sensible perspective to be guided by.
That’s not a refutation.
In my opinion it is.
Okay your opinion doesn’t mean anything to me.
Here is a timestamp with my rebuttals I posted on that video:
14:00 - Israel is a Jewish state, it's routinely paraded as the "only Jewish state" in the world, it has nation state laws, and politicians routinely work to ensure a Jewish ethnic majority. It also literally colonizes land in the West Bank to conquer outside territory. The character of Israel is clearly Jewish, and the state is undetachable from that reality. They do ancestry tests, they require a Jewish grandparent etc.
14:50 - Andrew undermines pattern recognition by chalking it up to pathologizing defending one's ethnic self interest to "being scared". No Andrew, it just has to do with not wanting to put up with a group of people who work around the clock to subvert and redirect time, attention, and money away from one's own ethnic interests and onto another people's. To Andrew, Steve is scared and in his mental hugbox sucking his thumb.
15:00 - "demographics are changing and it's a really scary thing" you sound like Barbara Lerner Spectre
15:10 - your family is not representative of most Jews and especially not moneyed ones, elite ones, which are the most pivotal players. The elite ones and their institutions counter-signal closed society nationalism for reasons that are totally predictable
16:15 - dumb gotcha by Andrew
17:10 - Andrew uses an argument leftists on Twitter used like 7 years ago about "what about the Aglos, Saxones, Jutes, Vikings, Normans" 17:30 - he says that because unlike you psycho-analyzing Steve as being "scared", he's using an argument rooted in common sense and a basic reading of biological interests, he's say it's in your individual interest and in your wider tribal interest (family, Jewish friends etc) to stay in Britain and not be persecuted, which is logical. It's a basic analysis of human egoism and tribal instinct.
17:50 - per capita Jews push leftism far more than English people
18:15 - Steve notes the crypsis
19:30 - Andrew apes Barbara Spectre again... for some unknown (possibly Jewish) reason
20:00 - i'd rather the risk of it coming to blows rather than accept passive destruction
20:30 - the Iraq war protests reached massive numbers, the war kept going on. the violence would stem from leftist radicals who will riot and lash out whether the number deported it 1, 100, 1000, or 1 million
20:40 - Tommy's grunts are gonna take up arms and storm the bastille (the reason Steve is ascending now and his star is rising is because the frogs are really starting to boil now as the demographics become existential. Give it a few years and things will hit a fever pitch and radicalism on both sides is all but inevitable, it's already happening. Tommy is a weak limp wristed leader, Steve or someone like him will represent a stronger, more virile stance that nets the supporters that Tommy bleeds in the years to come. Just as Ben Shapiro is now bleeding subscribers and Nick is bigger than ever before)
20:50 - the difference is than an ideologue is usually type-casted as a dogmatic and militant communist university student, Steve's "ideologue" status only extends to his basic ethno-racial survival, not the dogma of dialectical materialism and some progressive metanarrative of history and the persona of Marx and deep theory, no it's just basic and natural human self interest
21:00 - the future is going to hell, a reversion to the past is preferable 22:50 - provocations/antagonisms act as an impetus/springboard for the public to rally to the side of mass deportations
23:25 - Andrew brings it back around to the Norman Question for like a third time. Andrew we're not the Normans, that isn't our identity, we're not running around screaming that we're Normans, it's a 1000 year old dynasty that is gone and has trace lineage in the gene pool that's insignificant. The Normans were also White Europeans so it's less of an afront to our dignity. Either way, the Normans are gone, and the foreign peoples of our era are still here.
You might want to edit this so that each timestamp is a new paragraph. Would make it rather more readable!
Yeah sorry I just copy pasted it, I'll reformat
Some of what you write is is completely wrong. The Jewish state of Israel seeks to maintain the warp and weft of the various interwoven Jewish cultures from northern Africa, from Middle Eastern countries that made themselves "Judenrein" like Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Egypt (a very few still there), Yemen, (there might be one old Jew still in Yemen), all areas of Europe, Ethiopian Jews and now in planning stages, Jews in India, whose roots go back 2,000 years. I'm reading the tea leaves here in NY state, where an overt anti-Semite just got elected in the largest city, and I am working on my aliyah to get away from exactly ideologues like you. Thanks for giving me more impetus.
I’ve had some painful arguments over the holiday with my ethnically not religiously Jewish, classic upper middle class lib-left birth family over whether it’s fair to call Israel an apartheid state ala former South Africa.
As a young leftie who rarely missed a 1980s anti apartheid demo (while they wisely concentrated on building conventional careers) I said, no way, not the same at all, for all the reasons you mention here.
They looked hurt and offended, I believe mainly on behalf of their youngish-adult kids, (not present) who all trumpet the Greta Thunberg views you’d expect.
I wrote about it here:
https://sarahgellner.substack.com/p/all-apartheids-are-not-the-same?r=pcfqu
That's a red herring argument, the point is that Israel is an ethnically based state. It is ethnically conscious of itself and that informs its governance. It routinely expands into the West Bank via colonization. The specifics of apartheid aren't important.
Well as Andrew says Israel is not Just about ethnicity.
My ‘trigger’ if you like is the young pro-Pals and their parents who I think should know better making that apartheid comparison to indicate how far-right-racist Israel basically is. I think it’s misguided, wilfully so in many cases. For the reasons Andrew mentions.
Whether that makes the point a ‘red herring’ . . 🤷🏻♀️?
Israel regularly builds settlements in a nation that isn't theirs, that being West Bank, Palestine. It regularly bombs its neighbours with American bombs paid for by American money. It walls off Gaza entirely and puts up walls all over their settlements.
The apartheid argument doesn't matter to me, just look at what Israel does right now in the current day. Idc if it's motivated by racism or survival, that's besides the point of it happening.