Articles

The unsustainability of race-mixing mass immigration

By April 10, 2017February 18th, 2021No Comments

“Somewheres” versus “Anywheres”

Dr Phil Edwards

There’s a new book causing angst and a minor panic amongst Guardianistas and other members of the PC brigade – “The Road to Somewhere; The Populist Revolt” by David Goodhart.

In 2004, writing in Prospect magazine, Goodhart showed that people were naturally disinclined to pay taxes to subsidise the housing, education, or welfare benefits of those whose roots in the society were shallow.

There was shock horror for some as he wrote, “To put it bluntly – most of us prefer our own kind.”

Now in his new book he explores something that we Nationalists have understood for years – the natural benefits which flow from living amongst stable populations with close ancestral ties, and the dangers to our traditional culture and identity of any processes which weaken such ties, such as mass immigration, radical feminism and Islamification.

Goodhart sees a key faultline in Britain (and other places too), which separates those who come from “Somewhere” – rooted in a specific place or community, usually a small town or in the countryside, socially conservative, often less educated – and those who could come from “Anywhere”: footloose, often urban, socially liberal and university educated.

He cites polling evidence to show that “Somewheres” make up roughly half the population, with “Anywheres” accounting for 20% to 25% and the rest classified as “Inbetweeners”.

To determine which one of these “values tribes” you belong to is indicated by your response to the question of whether Britain now feels like a foreign country.

Goodhart cites a YouGov poll from 2011 that found 62% agreed with the proposition: “Britain has changed in recent times beyond recognition, it sometimes feels like a foreign country and this makes me uncomfortable.”

Only 30% disagreed.

A 2014 survey found a similar breakdown when asked if “people led happier lives in the old days”.

So, for Goodhart, “Anywheres” are uneasy with the modern world, have a nostalgic sense that change is loss and a belief that British leaders should put the interests of Britons first.

Sounds about right.

Meanwhile, “Anywheres” are not nostalgic, but egalitarian and meritocratic in attitudes towards race, sexuality and gender and not particularly interested in larger group identities, including national ones.

What combination of genetics and learned cultures creates the character and attitudes of each individual (nature vs nurture) is beyond my grasp or knowledge, but surely, natural Darwinian evolution must favour the formation of the “Somewheres”, just as all other animals have affinity for their own turf, their own territories, which they guard?

That is not to dismiss the enterprise, courage and initiative of individuals who wish to go abroad to seek their fortunes as “Anywheres”, but how much of their rootless cosmopolitanism is unnatural, down to media brainwashing, and how good is it for their health and wellbeing?

Certainly, the enthusiasm many of them appear to have for their “modern” attitudes towards nationhood, race, sexuality and gender seem dangerous to say the least.

Little wonder the Guardianistas and PC brigade are uncomfortable at the revelations of an establishment figure like Goodhart.

Previously published on www.civilliberty.org.uk and reproduced here by kind permission of the author