“Remigration”. “Mass Deportations!” The two slogans have spread from the Identitarians through to most ethno-nationalists, then - when applied to criminals or to Muslims - to the ‘counter-jihad’ civic nationalists.
As the chorus of demands has grown louder, and the appalling criminality of many of the ‘unvetted, military-aged illegals’ has become clear, they have been taken up by populist politicians.
Faced with growing public support for these rivals for the trough, even some mainstream conservative and socialist politicians - Keir Starmer included - have promised deportations. How many should be deported, and how it is to be done, remain moot points, but the basic principle has been agreed: Mass deportations are on the cards.
The problem is that this simply isn’t true. Yes, in the UK, the demands for “remigration” may now be as loud - and are certainly even more widespread - as they were when Enoch Powell gathered mass support for the idea of “financially assisted repatriation”.
The “Remigration” proposals doing the rounds today are more or less identical to the repatriation schemes set out by various amateur policy-makers more than fifty years ago.
They sound as good and reasonably today as they did then but, as I was at pains to point out in my article here yesterday, people can demand whatever they want, but it doesn’t mean they’ll get it. Great plans and heartfelt demands may be the start of real change, but what if they are for things which are impossible to put in practice in real life?
Like Mr. Powell, I can feel “the chorus of excoriation”, all the ‘hardliners’ screaming that “Griffin’s gone soft”. On the contrary, I’m one of the very few approaching this in a hard-headed, adult manner.
I am not here to condemn the people demanding “remigration” and “mass deportations”. A minority of them are fools or worse, but the vast majority are good people. I know some of them, and they are very good people. I am not attacking any of them, I am criticising a dangerous misunderstanding of the situation in which we must all operate. These demands are a well-intended error, not an evil.
As I’ve just pointed out, these demands are essentially the exact same proposals for compulsory repatriation for which Britain’s genuine nationalists, myself included, campaigned from the early 1970s through ‘til 1999, and the financially-assisted voluntary repatriation for which Britain’s genuine nationalists - primarily under my leadership - campaigned into and through the BNP’s headiest days.
So I understand precisely where the advocates of the policy’s latest incarnation are coming from. I am not saying that it shouldn’t be done, only that it will not be done, indeed that - in the cold light of day - it cannot in reality be done. Which means that making it the basis of your aims and demands is childish delusion.
Share
Let us first consider why it is not going to happen. The logical answer is that sincere a and talented people spent more than five decades demanding repatriation, without achieving anything. Why would anyone think that a slight ‘reframing’ of the slgan will produce anything different?
It is self-evident that mass deportation could only happen if the people demanding it attain state power, stay in power for long enough to carry it out, actually intend to do it, and that they are physically able to do so.
If even one of these factors is missing, the demands cannot become reality. Let us being realistic, we are not missing one of them, we are missing all of them.
There is not one white nation in the entire West where ethno-nationalists are remotely near to taking state power. Indeed, the inexorable rise of the populists automatically puts the first even theoretically possible date for such a glorious event back by a full government term.
In reality, the populist block looks set to last for much longer than that. After all, when one set of populists fail to deliver at all (per Meloni) or deliver far less than is necessary (per Trump and Oban), then why would anyone expect this to lead to the public turning instead to demonised ethno-nationalists?
Why would the elite forces which fundamentally use elections as fig leaves nor simply turn to promoting a different set of populists? Why should the failure of one safety valve lead to an explosion, when they can simply create another?
That will take us perhaps twenty years further down the line. Twenty years which will see the entire Boomer generation in coffins or care homes, the continuation of immigration and the continued growth of immigrant-derived populations owing to their lower average age and higher average birth rates.
By the time the second or even third populist safety valve operation has failed, the demographic shift against Gem X, the Millennials, Gen Z and the even smaller cohort produced thereafter will have been overwhelming. There will still be millions of us but, proportionately, there will be many more of them.
Contrary to the gloom of the “it’ll be like South Africa” merchants, ‘they’ will still not be able to get rid of us, but neither will we have the faintest possible chance of getting rid of them.
The arithmetic of general elections in multi-ethnic states isn’t actually that different to that of civil wars: Huge majorities can ride roughshod over small minorities, but when everyone is a minority the only way in which any one minority can get much more than its fair share is if another minority is too disorganised to insist on obtaining its own.
Since genuine nationalists are clearly not going to attain state power in time to impose remigration, the only question is whether or not the populists will deliver it instead.
At this point, those who persist on gazing skywards to howl at the moon should, while they’re wasting their time, watch out for flying pigs. Again, we must be realistic - populist rhetoric about opposition to immigration is driven by its electoral value, not by principle.
Tory Hoax
Nigel Farage’s great political hero is Margaret Thatcher, the woman who won power in 1979 on the back of a single phrase about immigration: “I understand how British people feel they are being swamped”. she made no actual promise to stop us being swamped so, to technically, she broke no promise when, within six weeks of being elected with the help of a million votes stolen from the National Front, she let in 22,000 ethnic Chinese ‘boat people’ from Vietnam - a place with which Britain didn’t even have any historical connection.
Nigel’s electoral success has been built on a similar verbal deception, beating down the BNP by being thought to be opposed to all immigration, when in fact he only ever spoke out against immigration from the white, Christian countries of Eastern Europe.
He’s playing the same trick now, making strident demands against illegal immigration, against the 10% maximum who come in illegally, allowing the public to believe that getting rid of them will “give us our country back”.
This populist dishonesty on immigration is by no means confined to Farage. Italy’s Giorgia Meloni was elected on an anti-immigration ticket. Since then, she’s made a lot of noise about Islamists and talked a lot about turning back the illegals.
She has indeed done that, with irregular arrivals by sea down 64% since she took power in October 2022. She’s cut taxes and undone some of the damage done to Italy’s economy by socialist greed and envy. But her regime has also issued a staggering 452,000 work permits. Indians, Africans and their families are pouring into a country whose indigenous birth rate is even lower than ours.
It’s the Great Replacement in action, the tough talk abut illegals fooled the public long enough to enable the populists to do more to change the face of Italy than any of their supposedly pro-immigration predecessors. Any resemblance to Boris Johnson is not coincidental in the slightest, and Meloni is a model and inspiration for Farage.
I know some of my American readers love Donald Trump and, to be fair, his ICE raids against illegal immigrants look as though he is at least trying. But looks alone can be deceptive
The populists are being supported by a section of the old capitalist elite because they are seen as the most likely way to complete the dismantling or privatisation of what is left of the post-1945 social democratic welfare state, and to deliver a new ‘big bang’ of deregulation on behalf of the global corporations.
In as far as populists have a political ideology and an economic position, they are fundamentally pro-capitalist.
They may throw the occasional old socialist bone to the working classes and to middle class voters who’ve found from bitter experience that privatising natural monopolies such as electricity, water and railways has been a looting operation which has hit their pockets as much as it has blue-collar job security.
But when it comes down to it, the Farages and the Trumps of this world are pro-capitalist by instinct, ideology and financial self-interest. They are of the bosses, and by the bosses. And the bosses need cheap labour. Even where robots are cheaper than humans, they still need consumers, people to buy the things the robots make.
Based as it is on fiat currency, created as an interest-bearing debt, capitalism has to keep growing, or it collapses in on itself. Since contraception, feminism, house prices, abortion, the cost of living, LGBTQ+ sterility and forever chemicals in the water have all (roughly in that order) combined to plunge us into Demographic Winter, capitalism demands an endless supply of new immigrants.
So the populists will supply it. That’s why Trump, for all the ICE raids, has deported millions fewer illegals than Biden and Obama, why Meloni is flooding Italy with immigrants, and why Farage has openly admitted to planning to continue mass immigration - provided only that they come in only to take our jobs and our houses, not benefit payments.
Indeed, the populists are being groomed already to go even further than that on behalf of big money. Tech guru billionaires are funding the development of pseudo-intellectual Neo-Reactionary and Accelerationist ideas, precisely in the hope that they will guide populist movements into becoming shills for the replacement of deeply flawed democracy with utterly tyrannical techno-feudalism.
Populist anaesthetic
The mission of the populists is not to save the nations of the West, it is to deliver to them a new anaesthetic, to convince their restive masses that the battle for popular sovereignty and ethno-cultural pre-eminence is effectively won, and that the ‘menace of Islam’ has been pushed back - while the technocrats flood us with Indians and Africans and impose the surveillance state shackles of a gov-corp neo-feudalism upon us all.
It gets worse. Let us pretend for a moment that one populist party really is different. That they manage to come to power with a secret agenda which really does aim to impose remigration through mass deportations. First they get rid of the criminals and the recently arrived spongers.
That’s so relatively simple that even Nigel & Co. might just go some way down that road. As it happens, such a move would be supported even by quite a few of the settled immigrants. The criminality of many of the new wave is nearly as much of a threat to them as it is to us. Those who pay taxes feel the same resentment as we do when they see people who haven’t paid in a penny being mollycoddled by the current ruling elite.
But there is a world of difference between getting tough with criminals and benefits-spongers, and trying to deport millions of people whose communities have roots which go back several generations. People who own homes and businesses here. People who do jobs which contribute to society. People who now have friends and even family relations with our community.
People, furthermore, who don’t want to go. People who would resist being forced to go, and whose resistance would be supported by the whole of the current political elite, the civil service, the entire organised left - both in the unions and on the street - the corporations and the whole of big business.
People, in the case of the Muslim and Hindu communities, who have extensive ties to homelands dominated by extreme Islamist or nationalist forces. People who belong to communities which - recent flag protests notwithstanding - are very much more cohesive, organised and militant than our own. People whose religion already dominates most of Britain’s heavily armed drugs gangs, underground weapons market, import/export businesses, and prisons.
Does anyone seriously believe that such people can be shipped out, or will leave, simply because a few hundred populist MPs create a piece of paper saying they’ve got to go? Let’s sum this up: A serious attempt to impose remigration wouldn’t give us our country back, it would plunge us into civil war.
At some point I will write a piece for those who think that a civil war is winnable and a good thing an explanation as to why it would be neither. For now, I’ll just say this to those who don’t believe me: If you really think that civil war is inevitable or desirable, then stop wasting your time promoting ridiculous slogans on social media or banner drops on Snowdon. Stop pretending that being able to bench-press your own weight will be the slightest use once the knives, guns, IEDs and suicide drones come out - as Prof. David Betz assures us they will.
Stop all this nonsense. Go and join the Army Cadets or the Army Reserves, and get some basic but proper military training legally and at Rachel Reeve’s expense.
The “Cutting Their Benefits” Fallacy
“Oh”, say the remigration enthusiasts at this point, “it won’t come to that. All we have to do is to cut off their benefits and they’ll all go home.”
How comforting. How convenient. And how untrue!
It isn’t just the entrepreneurs, the landlords, garment factory owners, restauranteurs, wholesalers, shopkeepers and so on.
We’ve had decades of ‘positive discrimination’, their young people have a far higher rate of educational attainment than the white working class, They are well on their way to dominating the law, lower level media, the civil service, politics, and so on. They pay their taxes, and benefits cuts wouldn’t effect them at all. It’s a shame to have to admit it, but the benefits class in modern Britain has a higher proportion of lazy, obese, uneducated, low-IQ, white parasites than it does non-whites.
What about the extremely high rate of unemployment in certain northern towns? They’re all spongers, surely? Well, they are and they aren’t. Yes, there’s a lot of them on benefits, but that doesn’t mean they’d be terribly put out if they were cut off.
Unlike the white spongers who live their lives slumped on sofas drinking cheap lager and smoking weed, the immigrant unemployed are generally claiming benefits while working. They sign on, but they also drive minicabs, work in Uncle Asif’s warehouse, wait in the family curry house, ship drugs, supply smuggled cigarettes to corner shops, man the currency exchange office. A hundred and one jobs in the parallel black economy.
Claiming a few extra quid from our system is simultaneously a bonus - boosting their income and getting one over the people who once ruled their homeland - and cover for their real work. They’d complain and plead poverty if the benefits were cut off, but it wouldn’t make them go back to the places their grandparents came from.
As for the illegals, the ones living it up at all our expense in the hotels and HMOs are quite low in numbers compared to the million plus who have vanished into the black economy. They don’t pay tax, but they don’t claim benefits either. They’re delivering Just Eat and driving Ubers, growing cannabis, washing dishes or laundering drugs money in barbers’ shops. Even though they’re on low wages, they’re better off here than they were back in Lagos, Tirana or Kabul, so they’re not leaving either.
Put all these factors together and I trust that, by now, you understand that demanding “remigration”, and making campaigning for it a key part of your political work, is as ridiculous as the child of a drug-using single mother on benefits writing a letter to Santa asking for a trip to Disneyworld for Christmas.
So why do people do it? Many, to be fair, simply because they haven’t thought this through. The slogan sounds great, and it helps to ease the pain and sooth the anger that decent people naturally feel every time another uninvited migrant rapes a young girl or stabs an innocent young man.
The demand separates genuine nationalists who understand the real danger of mass immigration from the cowardly civnats who pretend that its enrichment which has just gone a bit far. The problem is not that this ‘solution’ is wrong, because in truth it is a legitimate demand. The problem - as we will examine in greater detail shortly - is that it is unattainable.
A big part of the appeal with the call for remigration is that is getting a pot of support; it’s popular. In fact, although its nationalist supporters decry populists, ‘remigration’ is actually a classic populist demand. Something that appeals to the masses, but which cannot and will not be delivered.
What it does deliver, however, is cheering crowds at conferences of the powerless, It gets likes and shares on social media. Repeating empty slogans doesn’t help our people one iota, but it does rack up the income from monetised YouTube and X accounts.
There are a lot of good and very sincere people currently calling enthusiastically for Remigration. As I said earlier, I used to do so as well. But it is now nearly thirty years since I did a speaking tour of all the BNP’s main branches, telling them that we had between twenty and twenty-five years left before demographic change would make it impossible to reverse our drift towards becoming a minority in our own country,
Well, we tried our best, and we failed, albeit in doing so we inadvertently panicked the BBC into turbo-charging populism. But the twenty five years are more than up. It is now too late. So we need to plan for that reality, rather than continuing to send political begging letters to Santa.
Giving people hope is a wonderful thing if you are also giving them genuine reasons for realistic and achievable hopes - and there are plenty to work on. Selling people false hope, giving them slogans instead of real life solutions, is another matter entirely
Some of those encouraging these outdated pipedreams are doing it not because they believe it is possible, but because they find it profitable. To them, slogans aren’t meant to lead to constructive action, but to bring in Buy Me a Coffee donations, or to sell memberships to tiny, powerless parties.
The ambitions of these types may range between eking out their disability benefits through to buying a new high performance German (natch) car every couple of years, but every last one of them is a grifter.
Hiding in plain sight among these people is another equally despicable and dangerous group - those who are working not just for themselves but actively for our enemies.
Getting people to campaign for the impossible and thus to lose is a classic way to disrupt radical movements. Along with pushing ugly and self-defeating extremism, it is an old but all too effective weapon with which to neutralise and demoralise nationalist efforts.
Only a small number of those pushing such ideas are actually bad. The ones who start them, or the ones who give less-than-smart ‘leaders’ the ideas and encourage them up the dead-end alleys, are the bad ones. Good people do bad things by mistake, but the fact they are good doesn’t entitle them to a free pass. Criticism is deserved and needed. Hence this admonition.
I do not for one moment expect this piece to stop the populists conning the masses with their sly insinuations that “mass deportations” of criminals will “get our country back”. Frankly, I am not greatly interested in the masses - the majority of whom will be dead within three or four decades - or in the populists who will excite, exploit and then fail them. I am interested in the nationalists, in the small but serious minority whose properly directed efforts can actually make a serious long-term difference.
So What CAN Be Done? Plenty!
This article is a direct follow-up from yesterday’s piece on anti-white racist violence. So having explained why the knee-jerk response calling for “mass deportations” is futile, it is fitting to end it with a short look at practical responses which can actually do some good.
There is no magic wand; I’m not going to try to sell you a silver bullet. I’m not going to tell you that there is any point asking the politicians - either the current crew or their populist challengers - to do anything about it. I will simply set out some basic realities and practical things that can be done.
First, rather than selling false hope that things will magically be put right, we need to tell our people the truth: That multicultural areas are dangerous, especially when they contain recent arrivals from countries in which rape and extreme violence are the ‘cultural’ norm.
So get the hell our of Dodge! Put the protection of distance between yourself and your loved ones, and the threat. It really doesn’t matter what it costs in financial terms, money is worth jack compared to staying alive.
especially to young men with brains, health and a bit of drive, I say you have a choice: You can stay in a big city, working long hours to try to keep an overpriced roof over your head, (meeting over-educated, feminist, graduates rather than normal girls, by the way, although that’s a different story altogether) trying to climb a white-collar career ladder that’s probably about to be swept away by AI or one of Keir and Nigel’s Indians, and then being worried to death every time your kids go out onto streets run by feral ‘youts’.
Or you can get yourself a blue collar trade, move to a depressed, but still overwhelmingly white. town in the North East of England, in the South Wales valleys, in Cumbria or in Northern Ireland. With a hands-on skill demographics finally work in your favour, because large numbers of the men currently working in such trades are on the point of retiring, or keeling over with Covid jab side effects.
There you will find work (even depressed areas have posh bits where the civil servants and other middle class customers live), down-to-earth girls who still want a decent man and children, and a decent house which you can afford on your income. If you can’t afford a deposit to start with, then go somewhere with a canal and live on a boat, or live in a caravan, or a rented slum. Just for a couple of years.
Do whatever you have to do, but get away from places dominated by creatures who hate you and your family because of the colour of your skin.
Since even paces like that are increasingly subject to infestations of Labour imports, you need even there to come to terms with the fact that we live in a low trust society. So instead of feminist platitudes, teach your girls that there are some places they just can’t go, some sorts of man they should never trust at all.
The same is true for your lads too. And all of them should learn to watch out for their siblings and their mates. To travel in groups, to organise car shares.
Even if you do manage to settle in a still overwhelmingly indigenous area, you may find that drugs and crime are still a problem. This may mean you need to find a group of fathers and older brothers who will join you in a community patrol. The rich are allowed to pay for theirs. The Jewish ones are praised. The Muslim ones are tolerated. Why shouldn’t decent working class white areas have them too?
Don’t ask permission. Don’t make a song and dance about it. Keep politics out of it completely. Just get on and do it. It’s a hundred times more constructive and genuinely nationalist than forming a group to go and lift weights and admire each other’s muscles.
If you live in a place where ‘multiculturalism’ is in fact just two sides, ‘us’ and a tight-knit Muslim population, much of the above still applies, but other needs and opportunities are also opening up as our two communities continue to move apart.
Just One Example
Their local economy, and the ability of grooming gangs to target our girls, is largely based on minicabs and take-aways. Instead of complaining or fantasising about “mass deportations”, it’s time to get practical. Stop using theirs and set out to establish ours. “The only way to deal with these people is not to deal with them”.
Such initiatives will take effort, and there will be problems to overcome. Setting up a legal minicab operation involves not just manpower and capital but also police checks, licences, mastering radio regulations and so on.
But the cost is likely to be below the expense of setting up a gym, which seems to be the only other suggestion out there among nationalists at present. And, if it can’t be set up as a business within the rules at present, then a “by our people, for our people” local minicab service can surely be set up as an unofficial local club or network.
Failing to comply with the bureaucracy and rules on minicabs is, in any case, nothing like as dangerous as setting up physical training operations for young nationalist men, which automatically and immediately bring all those involved to the very edge of Britain’s public order laws against alleged preparations to use physical force for political ends.
Furthermore, a gym for nationalists would have a desperately small potential customer base. But imagine a town where the minicab drivers are all Muslims, but most of their customers - somewhere between 40% and 80% of the population - are white.
Now consider what local residents are going to feel about using cars run by ‘them’ if the ‘counter-jihad’ crew manage to spark the serious civil unrest and communal violence which their financial backers are so keen to see.
Even before then, consider how much appeal a minicab service where young girls or their parents who book cabs for them know that your Company B guarantees an older, local woman driver for them after dark and on their way home after drinking. In any place with a known current or historic grooming gang problem, this is a guarantee of business.
To get such an operation licenced in such a town might well have been impossible for years now, but June’s local council elections just made success very much more likely. Any county or major borough council can issue minicab licences which are valid anywhere in country. If your local council is still Labour, you simply need to go to one of the serious councils now run by Reform and apply there instead.
What if the authorities centrally get involved, claiming that the operation breaks Equality laws? The fuss over it, and the manifest unfairness, would be the very best advertising you could possibly have. They might be able to stop you running it as a business and paying taxes, but how on earth are they going to stop individuals giving neighbours lifts in exchange for donations’?
Longer term, needless to say, nationalists need to campaign to get such anti-white laws changed. We must secure the right to set up our own institutions, community services and charities.
The fact that we do not have this at present is so blatantly unjust that it is a golden opportunity for a rising populist party to embarrass and expose its old party rivals as anti-indigenous bigots. The days when such unfair laws could be imposed without serious push-back are coming to an end, their time is numbered. Sooner or later, this is a door we are going to kick, and find that it swings open far more easily than we still dare to imagine.
This forms an integral part of the overall plan I am setting out in the series What Is To Be Done? so we will be returning to this issue shortly.
“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.! 1 Corinthians
Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale is an important asset in the effort to provide an effective and coherent strategy for nationalists in the age of populism. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
