Tomorrow Belongs to Me.

Part 1

It’s Culture Stupid!

The current trend towards ethno-nationalism (the so-called “eth-nats”) in Britain and the Anglosphere has begun to dominate the discourse. Regrettably, the slide towards ethnicity as a marker of a supposed authentic identity emanates from the same identity politics stable as its left-wing counterpart. It is this development that has presumably given rise to the sobriquet, “woke right.” It needs to be interrogated.

In the left-leaning world, a person can self-identify as anything and commandeer language to cement the new moniker. Yet, as the Bright Young Things (BYTs) commentators are swift to respond, you cannot identify your way into an ethnicity. The BYT’s sly slippage into the realm of identity politics is seriously misguided, and I believe we have far more urgent matters to attend to than this. Yet here we are, dragging out this old hoary spat again.

The problem is not ethnicity, it is culture. More precisely, it is Islam. Even more precisely it is a determined, aggressive Islam that seeks colonisation over integration. Rather than rehearse the trope of the so-called moderate-versus-extreme version of Islam, I would simply point to Danny Burmawi who can explain the strands and mores of Islam far better than I can.

Not to be outdone by their left-wing counterparts, it is as if the BYTs have simply flipped the identity politics of their political enemies. In doing this, they join the left in its pivot backwards to the 19th century. The lefties champion Marx and Malthus – and now the “right” has adopted the old collapse of religious and cultural identity into that of race. This is because in the 19th century “race” was thought of as a new scientific way of expressing one’s prejudice towards the notional “other.” In those days it was invariably hostility towards Jewish people which made visible the shift from religion to race. And now we are being returned again to that horror with seemingly all sides having a “pop” at people they have no reason to hate and should in reality, have every incentive to support.

The thing is, when someone like Suella Braverman is on side and trying to change things for the good, there is no point in obsessing about whether or not it is possible for her to be English. This is because in the view of the BYTs, to be English is to embody a specific “ethnicity.” What exactly is meant by this? How is ethnicity measured? How is it recognised? How is it proven? These are more complex questions that they first appear. Until relatively recently, you were English by virtue of having been born in England. Additionally, the measurement of something called “ethnicity” was impossible. However, now, it is actually possible to view everyone’s ethnic makeup “scientifically” by means of a commercially available DNA test such as that provided by Ancestry. The strands of DNA contain all manner of ethnic “journeys” that may reveal a conglomerate of surprises. But surely, we are shaped by more than this niche information? The question of what shapes us, how we become who we are is one that requires much more reflective thought than the knee jerk reactions we are seeing.

Ah. Identity politics again. As Boomers and Gen Xs, we were brought up to be race blind. Our parents and grandparents experienced some of the horrors of WWII where race and ethnicity came to define who got to live or not throughout Europe. That state of affairs really is still within some people’s lifetimes, and it shapes the thought of the grown-ups in the room. Conservatives are supposed to respect history, tradition and even elders. However, the BYTs have joined their left-wing counterparts in eschewing the olds, including we oldies.

Do I care that this country will be irrevocably changed by current levels of migration? Do I care that my ethnic group will be in a minority within one generation? I am told that if I do, I am already an ethno-nationalist. Yet I am not so sure. And this is the point. I simply do not believe we, that is, my generation and the BYTs, are asking the same questions or even having the same argument. They are fixating upon something they regard as innate, biological even. Whereas we oldies put that aside to consider a person’s character and moral standards. That is simplifying things somewhat, granted. But you get the gist.

The BYTs imagine that their observations will save Britain from her current woes, and that their thoughts are new and fresh, especially when navigating a sea of enforced Multi-Kulti. By that I mean the idea that pure ethnicity is the priority and that we should look to re-migrate those who do not share a (“our”) particular ethnic strain. Yet who “are” “we?” (and then what?)

For the record, I will concede that it is plausible that “we” as a population are being subjected to a wide-ranging globalist “plan” to mix up ethnic groups, to force upon the general population an elitist fantasy of multi-culturalism, or even to punish Caucasians for perceived past crimes, thereby admonishing any notion of personal responsibility for wrongdoing. The forceful speed of the demographic change coupled with a demonstrable two-tier legal framework, alongside the obvious downgrading of locals’ needs in preference to those of strangers, has built deepening resentments. Some incomers have committed sickening acts of sexual violence, theft and murder against the indigenous population, which has only led to further frustration and tangible suffering. To point out these things is to be labelled a bigot, further fuelling anger, resentment and frustration. These manifestations dovetail with the globalist project for sure. And yet these trends must be seen in the light of low birthrates, the implicit and active encouragement of abortion, the international western push for euthanasia and the increase in secular liberal self-ism. It is a truism that we are ridding ourselves of ourselves and that this may well be tacitly encouraged by a lifeless, soulless cult of death we continue to name “liberal” that now feels anything but “free.”

Additionally, excuses are frequently made but not substantiated about how we “need” migration, and why this migration just happens to comprise of fighting age Muslim men who despise us and our way of life. Furthermore, the murmurings extend to why we cannot, nay, must not, refuse any of these men, and why we must provide succour to those who would colonise our world. Strong words? Perhaps. Yet Muslims, and it is they who form the majority of our newest incomers, have form in this direction. We should be under no illusion that their broad and unuttered aim is a Caliphate. Additionally, that when the chips are down, the moderates will acquiesce to the extremists. Moreover, we know we are being lied to at every turn. But there is little we as ordinary people can actually do within current legal and political frameworks. And it would seem that we are not yet ready to fall into the trap of defying the law only to be set upon by the authorities. It would be fair to claim that I understand only too well what we are up against.

The BYTs’ response is to turn to figures with seductive tones, amplified no doubt by the BYTs’ own hot febrile enthusiasm. We now hear openly of proposals of forced remigration, ethnic tests, the spiteful removal of the right to observe religious dietary laws under the guise of “animal rights.”[1] Additionally, the killing theme extends to supporting state killing in the form of the death penalty (seriously, would any sane person trust any modern government to undertake that responsibly?) and the euphemistically named “assisted dying” – or suicide bill. As a result of giving these matters some thought, I agree that Matt Goodwin is correct in his summation. These are not the sorts of things that play well on the typical British doorstep. People simply will not vote for them, certainly not in any substantive numbers. Nigel Farage’s party is regarded as “extreme right wing” so those positioning themselves to the right of Reform are unlikely to garner serious levels of support on the kind of scale required for national politics. Maddeningly, the result of these deathly flirtations and emotive voices will be a split in the right-leaning, broadly conservative vote.

The frequency of new media daily postings and podcasts, each vying for attention, has magnified the hysteria to the point where, via repetition and chorusing, people really do assume that they “know” things they simply do not. It must be remembered that the BYTs are vying for “clicks” and “likes” on social media. The terrain is crowded and the shriller and more sensational get attention. Every “share” reaches a bewildered and exhausted audience increasingly experiencing the world in a highly mediated and second-hand fashion. Notoriety is what gets you noticed and so, however incongruous, it is back to the 19th century we go.

In real terms, ethnicity only tells us so much. Time and place also shape a person’s character, outlook and understanding of the world. I happen to come from the Northwest of England and, hailing as I do from Liverpool, I am typical of the region’s make-up in the sense of having a mixed ethnic background.

Liverpool’s ethnicity is an interesting case study for so-called British ethnicity. There is a trend amongst some Scousers to proclaim oneself “Scouse, not English.” Doubtless many British southerners would find the prospect of having to deport the majority of scousers for not being sufficiently “English” rather amusing. Yet there is some truth to the “Scouse not English” moniker. Scouse comes from the various iterations of Lobscouse or Lobscows (Welsh), Labskaus (German) and Lapskaus (Nordic) a maritime “stew” – usually made with lamb or beef. (And in Liverpool, the poorest would eat “blind Scouse” which is Scouse without any meat). It seems to me that to be “Scouse” is to take on the character of a hearty, slowly cooked, mixed stew.

And so, the truth of the matter is demonstrated in the “mixed stew” that is the ethnic make-up of Liverpudlians which is, at the risk of seeming cliched, very “diverse.” This is due to its former days as a major port with its historic Atlantic trade routes, the British Empire and shipping and seafaring in general. There is, of course, a strong ethnic influence from Ireland, but also a Celtic one from North Wales, in addition to eastern European influence - in particular, Poland and, of course, Jewish.

All of this has helped form and shape me, my family and neighbours in terms of our outlook and attitudes. This is not something in itself that is biological or rooted in skin colour, hair texture or facial features. It is rooted in a shared and inherited cultural and human history, one of human choices made by individuals in the main, who made Liverpool their home. These varied textures have evolved over time, gradually, organically. Granted, some of this will have felt more forced due to changing conditions, but the point I am making is that it was not directed by globalist technocratic fantasies in the way that current migration appears to be now.

Even English ethnicity itself is not so cut and dried. England comprises of Anglo Saxon, Norse (Viking) and Norman (French speaking) ethnic groups with later arrivals from Ireland, Africa, China along with Jewish migration.

Part 2

The Concept of the Nation.

The BYTs have confidently expounded upon their ideas of ethnicity which seem to be more emotionally motivated than driven by research or facts. At least one of the BYTs is Catholic. He has frequently bemoaned that Jews (whom he struggles to define as English) have “somewhere to go” whereas he as an Irish-English Catholic does not. (Clearly this is not true as he would be surely welcomed in both Ireland and America with his heritage). What he does not see is that for many a British Jew, this would be as difficult as it is for him because Jews and their families before them have been a part of Britain for generations. Some Jewish families might even have been in Britain for a longer duration than this BYT. His reading is also a fundamental misconstruing of what it is to be a nation. If he sees himself as part of an English and a British nation, then all thoughts need to be focused upon defending it, building it up and not looking for somewhere to run. And the point must be made. There is a big difference between the “state” and the “nation.” It is the overbearing “state” that troubles us.

In all of the tumult, what we all seem to be missing here is the very idea of the nation, what it is and how it evolved. The understanding of this is key to progress in the real sense of the word.

The nation as we understand it emanates from a Biblical concept – and this is one reason why I suspect the globalists want to destroy it, or at least most semblances of it. We see this destructive tendency in the obnoxious European Union, the United Nations, the World Health Organisation - just look at the sheer pretence in the words: ‘union,’ ‘united,’ ‘world,’ hiding in plain sight. What we are witnessing, is the destruction of the nation and the installation of a one-world technocratic Babelesque governing entity where everyone has the same language, uses the same words and thus thinks the same thoughts. However, mixed ethnicity is not the cause of our woes. Ideology is. One might hope that the BYTs’ enamoured regard for their European Christian heritage would enable this concept to be present to them. Sadly, I do not believe that it is.

Throughout the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, the concept of the nation comes to the fore as a desirable and necessary construct for human flourishing. Its first validation emerges even before Abraham makes his initial appearance in Genesis.

The command to “love the stranger,” however, forms the basis for the fudge that many church leaders make in their anxiety to appear good and Jesus-like but not to be good and Jesus-like. A less charitable person might see this is as a power game they have joined in with along with the politicians.

The New Testament’s narrative of universality has been hijacked by current politics to suggest an endless “give” from our direction and a substantial “take” on the part of (illegal) migrants. Yet the sentiment has been slyly misconstrued. Jesus may have instructed his disciples to go forth, baptise and spread the good news among the nations. However, there was no intention to dismantle the nations nor the concept of nationhood.

At home, we have already calculated that we, despite being pale of skin and living not many miles from our northern English birthplaces, would not survive any strict auditing of English ethnicity. We would certainly “pass” as English by appearance and speech, yet for the first time in my life, the prospect arises that I may, we may, not be English enough. I concede that it is unlikely that it would come to anything drastic. However, we have mulled the idea over and find present trends disturbing.

The thought that we could be become classified as some sort of “less than” even if fractionally, by the BYTs seems farcical unless and until you take their claims seriously. The German National Socialists once had a word for such persons in their midst. It was Mischling (mongrel). This is no joke. Charts were constructed to demonstrate the degree to which a person was tainted. Survival depended upon having no more than one great grandparent with the wrong ethnic mix. All manner of confusions ensued as people followed the twists and turns of family trees and often less than accurate paperwork and documents. However, these days, documents are irrelevant in the time of Ancestry and the like where millions of people have been surprised by their actual ethnic make-up as opposed to the one the paper-trail had always suggested. Anecdotally, I do not know anyone who has not had at least one surprise after taking that test. It might be an idea for the ethno nationalists to obtain their own ethnicity results before marching to the seductions of the sectarian drumbeat.

Whilst it might be wise to slow down (or even stop) inward migration, a simplistic ‘remigration now!’ policy of deporting everyone with dark skin (along with Jews whom the left insists benefit from “white privilege,” paradoxically) forms a catastrophic overreach that will not solve our nation’s significant problems one iota. Where will people be “deported?” How will it be carried out? These questions are always batted away as policy to be determined at some future point.

Given the plethora of problems we face, there appears to be a resolute determination to avoid some of the more obvious causes that underpin our woes. Examples include but are not limited to: the shutting down of our economy knowing that it would result in absolute disaster, the breaking of the Nuremberg Code, bribing, persuading and threatening people to take untested medical procedures resulting in significant harms and deaths. A similar playbook operates for the so-called “trans” phenomenon. The dismantling of democracy by allowing a “blob” of unelected organisations and civil servants to dictate policy overriding the work of elected representatives. The climate cult, never to be questioned, which is responsible for the highest energy prices in the world, thereby stymieing business and employment opportunities not to mention the destruction of the environment. The massive borrowing to service humungous amounts of debt thereby enslaving young people for decades to come. Two tier justice, the enshrining of lies as truths by order (take your pick there). Not to mention the increasing digitisation of everything including the encroaching mass surveillance and the threat of digital identity systems.

There is so much to consider here, that to make ethno-nationalism the cornerstone of policy is to fail even to approach the right questions. Either that, or it is a deliberate distraction away from them. The problems we have allowed to proliferate are problems inflicted by a corrupted state whereas it is the nation that must be saved. And a nation is not to be a monoculture if anyone even begins to understand the Biblical origin of the concept. The clergy get it wrong as we know so clearly. But the right of politics also gets it wrong, and if “our” Christian values and culture is to be preserved, we had better begin to understand that.

The problem is not ethnicity, it is Islam. The issue is not skin colour, it is character. And one that is formed in the cradle of the covenant with God.

Tomorrow Belongs to Me.

The sun on the meadow is summery warm.
The stag in the forest runs free.
But gather together to greet the storm.
Tomorrow belongs to me.

The branch of the linden is leafy and
Green,
The Rhine gives its gold to the sea.
But somewhere a glory awaits unseen.
Tomorrow belongs to me.

Now Fatherland, Fatherland, show us the sign
Your children have waited to see
The morning will come
When the world is mine
Tomorrow belongs to me
Tomorrow belongs to me
Tomorrow belongs to me
Tomorrow belongs to me

Songwriters: John Kander / Fred Ebb, Tomorrow Belongs to Me lyrics © Alley Music Corp., Times Square Music Publications Company, Trio Music Co., Inc.

[1] [And this from those who shoot animals for hunting, entertainment or euthanasia purposes. The sanctimony emanating from people who eat meat from animals who are gassed, electrocuted or shot through the head is likely misplaced. This is because pre-stunning is not entirely done for an animal’s benefit. Rather, a significant reason for it is to make the process of killing more efficient, quicker and easier for the abattoir staffs].

“If, as one people, with one language for all, this is how they have begun to act, then Nothing that they propose to do will be out of their reach.”

Thank you for reading. Please feel free to comment and share. If you find my writing interesting and worthwhile, I would be glad to receive one-off donations through the Buy me a Coffee scheme. Do subscribe if you haven’t already, subscribing alone supports my work.

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/SidewaysThm

I also edit the New Culture Forum Locals | Substack which you might also find interesting and enjoyable!