Simon Elmer is Now Fighting Woke With His Own Noxious Brand of Identity Politics – Part II: Britain Under the Yoke of Ethnic Neo-colonialism

Hester Thrale, Welsh-born diarist and author, writing in 1802

In Part I of this two-part essay, I discussed what I see as a deeply flawed argument put forward by Simon Elmer linking the effects of immigration and ‘woke racism’ to the Great Reset. In Part II, I explain why, contrary to Elmer’s assertion, Britain has not been colonised by four second-generation immigrants “of another ethnicity” in the Government’s cabinet. I’ll also tackle how Elmer’s narrative implicitly (possibly explicitly) excludes second/third/fourth-generation immigrants from ever becoming British. I’ll also discuss whether “White British” culture is a red herring in staving off the Great Reset, and whether cultural homogeneity is something to embrace.

---

Part I of this two-part essay ended with Elmer’s conclusion that:

“if any non-European country had such a high proportion of senior politicians of another ethnicity and religion in its government… we’d call this colonialism.” [emphasis added]

Putting aside the fact that it isn’t such a high proportion because the proportion is actually lower than the census data demographic percentage, here is my no-nonsense response to the claim that having “such a high proportion of senior politicians of another ethnicity and religion in its government” constitutes colonialism: utter, unmitigated, tripe.

Apart from the brutality that frequently accompanied land theft, resource theft and economic subjugation (discussed in Part I), there is another feature of ‘textbook’ historical colonialism that most effectively demolishes Elmer’s claim of any equivalence with the situation in Britain today. It’s something we need to explore to ascertain whether the White British majority really have been disenfranchised by people of “another ethnicity and religion”. Referencing the kind of colonialism that occurred in Africa, that feature is direct voter disenfranchisement of majority indigenous populations.

But first, in the interests of comprehensively debunking Elmer’s claim to colonial oppression, let’s look at the recipe for baking a colonial cake; and then let’s see if we have the necessary ingredients here in ‘colonised’ Britain. So, you start with generous dollops of guns, germs and steel. You add a lot of land theft, resource theft and economic subjugation of the indigenous population being colonised. Then, in addition to numerous other imaginative methods of oppression that will vary according to the particular local circumstances and the sadistic creativity of the oppressors, you keep stirring in copious amounts of voter disenfranchisement to ensure the locals don’t get any silly ideas about putting political representatives in office who might change things a bit in their favour.

Rhodesia, the creation of that famous architect of African colonialism, Cecil Rhodes, makes for a good case study. With variations on the theme, that was the story of colonialism in Africa. Within a few years (less than ten) of Rhodes' pioneer column trundling into Mashonaland in 1890 to establish Fort Salisbury, the colonists had brutally suppressed a series of rebellions by the indigenous people against the alien invaders. Ring any bells? Jamestown, Cape Town? That’s the guns and steel bit, which of course continued right up to the year of majority rule 90 years later, when White minority rule was defeated by a combination of armed resistance and strategic political imperatives.

Land and resource theft followed the initial colonists’ blows, and was legalised with the 1930 Land Apportionment Act. The whole nightmare should have ended in the early 1960s with Britain’s determination to grant independence to its colonies. However, once Ian Smith had decided that “the white man is the master of Rhodesia… [he] has built it and intends to keep it”, and once he had made moves to further disenfranchise an already oppressed Black majority in order to counter Britain’s move to grant majority rule to its African colonies in the early 1960s, it then became a forgone conclusion that his White conservative Rhodesian Front party would go on to miraculously win every single election (conducted for the benefit of a White minority that was very attached to the spoils of colonial rule) and that he would appoint an all-White cabinet to rule the country in which Whites were outnumbered by Blacks 22:1. That’s some proper colonial chutzpah.

So that’s the theft, subjugation and disenfranchisement bit. In the interests of brevity, I’m obviously glossing over much of the horror and indignity that spanned 90 years of colonial rule, but this should suffice as a cursory characterisation of such rule and its consequences. The war of resistance to colonial rule that ensued after the White minority’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1965 cost 30,000 lives, most of them Black civilians and freedom fighters. Real freedom fighters, fighting real colonialism, not ‘freedom’ fighters bashing away at laptop keyboards and wearing the mantle of cultural-colonial oppression because the government of the day contains too many non-White faces.

None of that horror story is a feature of Elmer’s ‘colonised’ Britain. Crucially, every single “second-generation immigrant” cabinet member of the current UK Conservative Party government won their seat in a free and fair election under universal suffrage and, based on the demographics, the majority of most MPs’ votes would have come from “White British” voters. They were not imposed on the “75% White British” voters by systematic colonial disenfranchisement, or any other form of colonial oppression.

The conclusion that Britain is colonised because of the skin colour of the cabinet, whether that proportion is 17% or 12.5%, is just ludicrous. More worryingly, it is in fact scapegoating, a vile practice that tends not to end well. The Government is captured by the institutions of global capital. It is not captured because it has “a high proportion of senior politicians of another ethnicity and religion”. Even if the entire cabinet had been “of another ethnicity and religion”, under universal suffrage and free and fair elections, it would be an interesting phenomenon worthy of study, but it would still not be colonialism.

Even more perplexing (and frightening) than the claim itself is that significant swathes within the so-called Freedom Movement are lapping up this narrative. Elmer’s piece was published in the UK column so one has to assume that it passed review by an editorial team there. Which is frankly quite stunning, but it is testimony, in my view, to the power of ideology – the ideology of cultural purity and its dependence on ethnic homogeneity.

Ideologies are called ideologies because they are not based on universal human values. For that reason, they are intellectually and morally corrupting and bankrupt. Ask me why I am anti-Zionist. The answer is easy – the ideology of Zionism led to the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 people from their homes in 1948 and is now resulting in the genocide of 2.3 million people, as it was destined to from its inception. Ask me why I am against an ideology of cultural homogeneity. You will have got a hint of that already, but read the final section of this essay for a further explanation of my views on the perniciousness of pursuing this goal.

Elmer’s conclusion about colonialism manifesting in a “high proportion of senior politicians of another ethnicity and religion in…government” is certainly one of the low points of what is effectively a propaganda piece in which real historical colonialism is insidiously conflated with the capture of Western governments by corporate interests to further a narrative that locates Western decline in White ethnic dissolution by immigration. To the extent that a form of colonialism is in operation, it may be that the same driving animus of historical colonialism – conquest and exploitation – is now driving the fall of Western democracy, such as it is. Its spirit lives on and has ‘come home’ to devour the populations it had previously spared when it was expanding globally in the 18^th and 19^th centuries. But the entity that is doing the devouring is Western financial capital, not immigrants. What we are now seeing is a technocracy-driven totalitarianism, not a colonialism of old. Whereas historical colonialism eyed vast expanses of land and markets for exploitation and was driven by the imperatives of economic growth, today’s totalitarianism is driven largely by the imperative to manage financial collapse.   

Elmer’s piece is a form of propaganda because it wouldn’t work unless it was laced with some truth. The truth is that our governments are captured by the OCGFC, and the facile parallel between this capture and historical colonialism isn’t, on the surface, too far-fetched. But the lie Elmer propagates is that this ‘colonialism’ is founded on the “high proportion of senior politicians of another ethnicity and religion in its government”. That lie is getting traction. UK Column and its readership are lapping it up. Containing a speck of truth as it does, will Elmer’s narrative be swallowed by confused and angry White British people?

I can see why it’s such a seductive path to wander down. Woke politics relies heavily on evoking racial guilt and, as Elmer rightly points out, people are getting tired of being told they’re racist. I sympathise with the majority who aren’t. But Elmer’s narrative invites them to redirect their anger towards the ‘enemy’ within – the “second-generation immigrants”. The reality is that a significant proportion of the 81.7% White ethnic group (or the 74.4% White British group) are infected by the woke virus of identity politics. If Elmer wants to play the game of scapegoating based on ethnicity, my advice to him would be to look in the mirror, so to speak.

Are the “second-generation immigrants” in high office British?

Another perspective that completely escapes Elmer, who is seemingly obsessed with colour as a proxy for culture, is that the people in high office who he lists are very, very British indeed. They are the products of the British class system which for centuries has ensured that “our betters” decide the fate of us idiots who think that voting makes a difference. They are in fact venal careerists, opportunists and liars, no different from their White counterparts like Hancock and Johnson, except that they are desperate to graduate from Elmer’s suffocating colour blanket and into the top echelons of the British political establishment. And to prove they are worthy of that high honour, they are prepared to do extraordinarily evil things like sanctioning the racist genocide of 2.3 million people in Palestine – exactly the same things their White counterparts are doing.

Woke is a political force and a powerful one at that. Khan, Yousaf et al are playing the roles assigned to them by woke politics, using woke as a political tool. If Yousaf and Khan didn’t jump on the woke bandwagon in the way they have, they wouldn’t be 21^st century politicians.

The reasons to be hostile towards Yousaf and Khan and the second-generation immigrants in the cabinet are the same reasons why we should be hostile to Jeremy Hunt, David Cameron, Grant Shapps or any MP who walks out when a debate on vaccine injuries starts. Elmer acknowledges this only fleetingly because he is at pains to emphasise that the real reason the second-generation immigrants hate the White British working class is because they themselves aren’t really British. His begrudging acknowledgement that they are “British citizens” is to let you know that having legal status does not make you British. Which of course raises the question of how and when these second/third/fourth-generation immigrants will ever become British, a question I will discuss in the last section of this essay.

It’s irrelevant whether Yousaf and Khan believe the rubbish they spout when weaponising race in the service of Great Reset agendas. Weaponising race to pursue climate agendas or vaccination programmes is nauseating, but it can be attacked and deconstructed without resorting to alienating a group on the basis of their ethnicity. I myself attacked the Black British establishment for weaponising race narratives in the service of vaccine evangelism, and I attacked the BBC for hosting vaccine agitprop promoting ‘vaccine equity’ in Africa. But obviously I attacked the actors in both situations because their positions were inherently immoral and stupid, not because they were Black. And I believe I was able to expose the moral bankruptcy of weaponising ethnicity for political gain, without falling into the trap of accusing them of moral bankruptcy because of their ethnicity.

Having decided to home in on the “second-generation immigrant” status of miscreants in high office, Elmer then puts up a shield to pre-empt criticism of his ridiculous posture on the grounds that it's woke to attack him for being brave and radical enough to tackle Great Reset race issues head-on. But he’s not tackling Great Reset race issues head-on. He’s saying a bunch of people who are born and bred here are reflexively victimising the White British public because they (the second-generation immigrants) aren’t British. This is wrong and disturbing.

So bloody what if Rishi Sunak said he experienced racism growing up? Maybe he did. Should he shut up just to please the likes of Elmer? I don’t feel especially sorry for Sunak – he’s more than done alright thanks very much. But going to an expensive public school is not a magical force field against racism. I can tell Elmer in all sincerity that I have listened to people of colour my age who grew up in 70s and 80s Britain and, based on their testimony, I am not joking when I say that I am actually glad I grew up in Rhodesia and not here from years 3 to 12. The UK is of course a very different place now and I can say hand on heart, in all the 20 years I have been here, I cannot recall a single disturbing incident affecting me personally.

Yes, it’s nauseating that Ugo Monye wants rugby to tackle its culture of ‘heavy drinking’ and ‘laddishness’ in order to attract Muslim and gay players. All sensible people know that rugby’s only obligation is to attract the best talent from all corners of the country, and sexual orientation or religion simply cannot form part of that strategy. It isn’t that hard to confront that silliness when you put your mind to it, so why does Elmer think it’s particularly clever or relevant to point out that Monye:

“is a man whose father abandoned his family and returned to Nigeria when he was young, and was raised by his single Black mother on a London council housing estate. In this respect, Ugo Monye’s upbringing was representative of second-generation Black Britons in the UK. 57% of Black Caribbean families and 44% of Black African families in England and Wales have single parents, compared with 22% of White British families; and 90% of these single parents are women. Partly, but not wholly, as a consequence, 48% of Black Britons live in social housing”.

Analysing all the reasons for these ethnic/socio/economic disparities would be fascinating, but what is the relevance of it all to the Great Reset? Zero, as far as I can tell.

What is White British culture? Does it matter for the Great Reset?

A question I am left asking after reading Elmer’s piece is: exactly how and when do “second generation immigrants…of another ethnicity and religion” become British? How and when do my nieces, born and raised in London, offspring of a Zimbabwean/British mother and Dutch/British father, become British? How do they pass Elmer’s unspecified British culture test? What is the test? These aren’t questions he even begins to broach since it would entirely spoil the flavour of the vitriolic soup he’s cooked up in which ethnicity is the proxy for Britishness. Those who rend their garments over the erosion of culture never cease to amaze me with their inability to define what the culture is. If something is being lost and replaced by something else, you’d think it would be pretty easy to identify the thing lost and the thing replacing it. Yet I haven’t seen it done.

What is this thing called British culture? Is it cricket and warm beer, the Royal Family, Empire, Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, Shakespeare, Auden, Donne, Orwell, fish and chips, football for the working class and rugby for the toffs, Morris Dancing, the Beatles, saying sorry when you’ve done nothing wrong and not saying sorry when you have? If this is ‘the list’, or even a bit of it, how much of it do you have to tick off to pass the culture test?

What about religion? Sure, there’s the crude cry of “Islam out of Europe”. But is that it? Religion? Surprising, because neither Britain nor the rest of the West has a religion. Christianity is a badge that some wear but most don’t understand. I would never be so bold as to claim that I myself fully understand, much less practice, real Christianity but if you’ve read the New Testament (as I had to in order to pass ‘O’ Level Religious Studies), and you then read what Elmer wrote about “second-generation immigrants”, all you have to do is ask yourself: “What would Jesus have written in response to a 10% decrease in British Whiteness?” And I will be so bold as to declare that He wouldn’t have written that. And He probably also wouldn’t write the reply I’m typing now. But I am trying to remain calm and rational in the face of what is a pretty disappointing piece of ideological propaganda from a quarter I least expected it.

I searched for the term ‘White British’ in Elmer’s piece and it appeared 10 times. I searched for the term ‘Black British’ in Elmer’s piece and it appeared zero times. The term ‘Black Briton’ appeared three times, but prefixed once by “second-generation” to demarcate that they’ve still got an undefined distance to travel to get to ‘full’ British. So ‘Black’ and ‘British’ for him are mutually exclusive. As far as Elmer is concerned, there is no chance that David Lammy, whose politics are no less and no more obnoxious than his White British peers Keir Starmer or Boris Johnson, could be Black and British. If he accepted that, 75% of the premise of his article would just wither away because the relevance of colour and immigrant status to the success or failure of Great Reset policies would fade into nothing.

Ian Smith, Rhodesia’s final Prime Minister who just couldn’t bring himself to accept that Blacks should be treated as equals in Africa, was proud to call himself a White African. And I haven’t met a Black Zimbabwean who would deny him that identity. Because like him or hate him, that’s what he was. 

I’m going to do something that Elmer couldn’t do, because he’s not an immigrant. I’m going to offer a tiny snippet of an immigrant’s experience in moving from Africa to Britain. It should be taken with a pinch of salt because it is just one person’s experience – mine – but to the extent that it has any value at all, that value may lie in its potential to illustrate two things: (a) as Elmer knows, many, if not most, immigrants come from Britain’s former colonies, and so they know more about British culture than Elmer realises or cares to admit, and; (b) they don’t come here out of a feeling of hate for the British culture they are familiar with.

I went to a school in the middle of Africa called St George’s College. The St George’s cross which, to woke sensibilities, might signify White working-class racism, was part of our blazer crest. If I have red-cross phobia, it’s because I associate it with my school days. Religion? I remember being beaten for bunking out of Mass which was a full allocated lesson period every Friday morning. It wasn’t the beating that really bothered me, it was the denial of religious freedom. I wrote school exams (‘O’ and ‘A’ levels) which were set and marked here in the UK. My favourite Shakespeare play is Hamlet, but I’m no Shakespearean scholar, so please don’t test me.

British television shows like ‘Love Thy Neighbour’ and ‘Yes Minister’ were beamed into homes in Rhodesia and then Zimbabwe. We marvelled at how the Brits managed to make racism funny. I’m probably right in saying only the Brits could do that, and I suspect that colonialism ironically had something to do with it. We guffawed at the combined ineptitude and cleverness of Sir Humphrey’s very British civil service, and thought: surely that can’t happen. The revelation for me is that the reality is at times far worse but only occasionally almost as funny as Yes Minister.

I am obviously not commending colonialism, but it is more complicated than Elmer portrays it. Immigrants, many of whom are from Britain’s former colonies, know Britain before we arrive and better than Elmer thinks. We aren’t as foreign as he makes us out to be. And we don’t come here because we hate British culture. I had opportunities to end up in New Zealand or in the US. In 2004, the choice before me was New York or London and one of the reasons I chose London was that I sensed that people of all hues here were rubbing along much better than they were in the US. I believe that is as true now as it was then. Above all, it was familiar, and I felt more welcome. Despite Elmer’s claim, we aren’t animated by hatred; we’re here because we want to be.

I categorically reject Elmer’s projection of what seems to be his own unprocessed vengefulness, even if it means I have to explain (not apologise for) the behaviour of politicians I despise. The difference between me and Elmer is that I despise them for what they do, not for where their parents were born.

It’s also clear that Elmer believes he can deflect criticism of his ethnic scapegoating by pre-emptively attacking what he termed the “knee-jerk reactions to [his] argument from those on the Left who, in strict obedience to the orthodoxies of woke, regard the use of the word ‘immigrant’ or any reference to the ethnicity or religion of a person as some sort of hate crime”. Nice try, but must do better. This underhanded attempt to deflect criticism does not mitigate:

-          the abject failure to make a logical link between immigration, decreases in whiteness and the implementation of Great Reset policies like Digital ID, CBDCs, lockdowns, and coerced vaccinations.

-          the lazy labelling as ‘colonialism’ of the presence of “a high proportion of senior politicians of another ethnicity and religion in [the] government”, when they were voted into office under universal suffrage by the entire UK electorate, including its 81.7% White portion.

-          the foul taste left in the mouth seeing every single member of the cabinet who isn’t White defined as Indian, Pakistani, Guyanese, Jamaican – anything but British.

-          the failure to acknowledge that these venal politicians are very British and that, as fully endorsed members of the political establishment, they reflect the aims and goals of a very British establishment. To deny that is scapegoating.

Ultimately, the obsession with wokeism and the culture wars is a serious waste of energy, and it tends to attract those who are obsessed with the illusion of culture. The battle for freedom is not going to be won on arguments about Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) clauses in the international treaties being signed to hand over power to the unelected global public-private partnership machinery working for the OCGFC. It’s going to be determined by whether people comply with the next set of pandemic measures designed to enslave, not protect. It’s going to be determined by whether the financial mafia succeed in pulling off a false flag cyber-attack to install digital ID and CBDCs. These are the concrete issues that will determine freedom or slavery, not wistful longings for a bygone era of British culture.

In short, I’m not entirely sure I know what British culture really is, but I’m damned sure Elmer doesn’t either because if he did, he’d have to admit that a huge portion of “White British” people have thoroughly incorporated woke ideology into their culture. As a consequence, I’m now very impolitely telling him to get his  gun out of my face and point it in a different direction.

Should you embrace cultural homogeneity, if such a thing exists?

As for cultural homogeneity, homogenisation is a process of achieving sameness, the corollary of which is obviously eliminating difference. That desire for sameness is driven by a fear of difference. But if we are not free to think differently, we are obviously not free. Those whose ideas or ‘culture’ (whatever that means) have been suppressed in the service of cultural homogeneity will not respect your freedom if you rob them of theirs. Ultimately, the aim is for all of us to be able to think differently but for those differences not to impinge on the freedom of others. That can be done if common sense prevails.

Taking cultural homogeneity to its most brutal logical conclusion, if certain groups of people with cultural practices and ideas different to the desired homogenous state happen to all be of a particular ethnic background and they won’t abandon their different ideas, then the only way to get rid of differences is to get rid of the people causing them. The desire for homogeneity stems from  the same impulse animating the very things we are fighting – censorship legislation to silence and punish anti-vaxxers, climate change ‘deniers’ and all manner of ‘hate’ crime offenders. So what good can possibly come of embracing that impulse by vilifying and alienating all “second-generation immigrants” on the grounds that a handful of them in high office are talking rubbish? Did Elmer not trust his intellect to be able to attack the rubbish itself for being inherently stupid?

Elmer has seen some dots and tried to connect them, albeit lazily and haphazardly. Bludgeoning the reader needlessly with reams of census data percentages about the colour of Britain does not compensate for the lazy dot-joining. It just makes it more irritating. There is a dot called British Whiteness, a second dot called British Culture and a third dot called the Great Reset. And the first two dots, in his confused estimation, lead conclusively to the third. To put it in more scientific terms, he has noted a decrease in British whiteness leading up to 2020, correlated it with the launch of the Great Reset and unscientifically concluded that correlation is indeed causality.

I’m going to suggest that Elmer has made a serious category error. He has mistaken a growing values deficit for a cultural deficit. And the key value missing is courage – the courage to say No to government policies that are clearly a violation of natural law and basic human values. And that absence of courage is exacerbated by another category error on the part of a majority of British citizens: mistaking the state for a group of people that can be trusted – mistaking the state for a collective of people that have their interests at heart. Toby Rogers reminds us of the obvious error here:

“The state does NOT know best. It cannot because the state does not know anything. The state is just a collection of rich and powerful interests — ‘we the people’ ain’t one of them. The state is not a person and it is not capable of determining facts. It exists to manage interests.” [emphasis added]

Fighting for freedom on the basis of avoiding these two errors alone makes the whole ‘culture’ issue  completely redundant. Ironically, the obsession with culture and cultural homogeneity is an extension of identity politics and therefore a form of oppositional wokeism. The fight for freedom can be boiled down to the fight for universal rights and values, and recognising the state for what it really is.

Knowing how Elmer likes a turgid list, I will try to best him with a list of some of the ‘fruits’ of Western culture, of which Britain is at the vanguard. Most of the items in the list are mentioned in his ode to the ‘colonisation’ of Britain, but he’s too busy scapegoating to realise the real implications of Western or British culture and its causal relationship to the Great Reset. Here are some fruits of Western culture: the World Economic Forum; the World Health Organization; the Bank for International Settlements; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; the United Nations; North Atlantic Treaty Organization; World Bank; International Monetary Fund; BlackRock; Vanguard; Quantitative Easing; Pfizer; Moderna; GAVI The Vaccine Alliance; Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI); Central Bank Digital Currencies; Digital ID, smart phones; the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); 15-minute cities; Agenda 2030; technocracy; mRNA vaccines; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (that effectively owns the WHO); the Bilderberg Group, and; the Council on Foreign Relations.

A perfectly rational conclusion to draw about the link between the Great Reset and culture, insofar as the fruits of Western culture are concerned, is that if Britain is being colonised, it is being colonised by Western culture and not by “by second-generation immigrants who… hate the White British working class, our indigenous culture and social customs.” And the thing he calls ‘British culture’ isn’t going to halt the Great Reset because British culture is now woke. And neither colour nor immigrant status is a good predictor of wokeness. Class, on the other hand, might be.

In light of Elmer’s violent and unexpected veering into the ditch of identity politics, the bitter irony of my anti-woke stance is that, should the anti-immigrant pogroms begin, fuelled by the kind of distasteful rhetoric I saw in his piece, it may just be the woke mainstream Left that saves my bacon. In any event, Simon Elmer (our wannabe White British Secretary of State for Cultural Homogeneity) will be pleased to know that Rusere Shoniwa (our wannabe Black Zimbabwean Secretary of State for Peace, Love, Understanding and Sniffing out ‘Freedom Movement’ Bullshit) has left Elmer’s ‘Freedom’ Movement. It stinks.

Is it possible to end on a lighter note?

Vaccinators to the Left of me
Xenophobes to the Right
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

What the hell, we may as well have some music to go with that…