Soft Brexit: some thoughts on Roger Helmer’s analysis

For some time, I’ve been on the mailing list of Roger Helmer, the UKIP MEP. I have quite a lot in common with him. Through state funded scholarships, we both had unusual educations (and some would say “privileged,” though I’d disagree). We were both trained as mathematicians; and we have both rejected the prevailing political orthodoxy.

I’ve only been in the same room as Roger once – at an anti-EU meeting, at which he (and Sean Gabb) spoke, in the Conway Hall back in 2005. And I’m not comfortable with some of his views, notably his religious conservatism. Nevertheless, I regard him as a kindred spirit. So, I read what he writes in his e-mails. And when the moment is right, I’ll respond. Thus, this.

In his June newsletter, which unfortunately doesn’t seem to be on the Internet yet, Roger announces his retirement from politics. (Another rat deserting the sinking ship!) But he also makes the effort to clarify what Brexit is about. And he does it excellently.

Here is Roger’s parting shot, aimed at one Ruth Davidson (of whom I had never heard, until I received the e-mail. I don’t follow party politics).

She wants Britain to stay in the EU’s Single Market and/or Customs Union.

Let’s just think what that would mean:

  1. Remaining under the jurisdiction of the ECJ
  2. Much or most of EU laws, directives and regulations remaining in place
  3. Free movement stays
  4. Probably, CAP & CFP stay
  5. Continuing EU budget contributions
  6. Subject to the EU’s Common External Tariff and unable to make trade deals with third countries

Now, I’m well aware that some Brexiters consider item (3) in the above list the most important; in fact, the only important one. But as I’ve made clear many times, I disagree entirely.

Why did I vote Leave a year ago? To get rid of (2), (4) and (5). I want to see an EU regulations bonfire – and I want to see the environmentalists as the guy. Further: Why should farmers and fishermen be subjected to policies that harm them? And why should I, or anyone else, support a political and bureaucrat class that is a nett disbenefit to me and to everyone around me?

(6) is another I’d have voted for if I’d known about it at the time. (1) is an interesting one – the ECHR and ECJ have made some decent decisions, for example in the British Airways cross case and in declaring interception of our e-mails to be unlawful. Yet, despite these, their power rests on the EU, a corrupt organization that was mis-sold to the people of Britain (and, I suspect, to those in most other European countries too). So yes, the ECJ has got to go.

Which leaves (3). Some Brexiters, and many conservatives, disapprove of immigration on principle, particularly if the individuals are dusky-skinned or non-Christian. But as an individualist, I am utterly opposed to this idea. For me, people deserve to be accepted into or rejected by a society they want to join, not because of what they are, but because of what they do – how they behave. Not only that, but I fail to understand why free movement implies free immigration.

I do recognize that, for practical reasons, permanent immigration into particular areas must be controlled by those who live there; otherwise, the infrastructure will become overloaded, as is very apparent where I live. But that doesn’t mean that people, who want to come for a short period only, should be subjected to draconian formalities.

And most of all, the Irish border should be the test. If you’ve ever been to Strabane, you’ll know that the main town is in Northern Ireland, but it has a sister town across the border. What decent human being would want to subject the people, who live in that town, to controls and even searches every time they want to go to, or come back from, ASDA or Argos?

With all the talk of “hard Brexit” and “soft Brexit,” no-one seems to be putting forward a clear position on what Brexit ought to be. They’re all hedging their bets. But it seems to me that the following might suffice:

  1. Get out from under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
  2. All bad or unnecessary EU laws, directives and regulations to be repealed.
  3. Free movement for visitors, but immigration on a points based system.
  4. Leave Common Agricultural and Fisheries policies.
  5. Stop EU budget contributions.
  6. Start making trade deals with other countries. (Including EU ones). The more, the merrier! And deal with the rest under World Trade Organization rules.

Neil Lock
14 June 2017


  1. “Some Brexiters, and many conservatives, disapprove of immigration on principle, particularly if the individuals are dusky-skinned or non-Christian….”
    Some probably do, but I am confident most do not. For me, the issue is not immigration per se, but the right to control immigration. At the moment we do not have that right. We must regain it.
    I am a resident alien in the United States. To obtain that status you would not believe the stringent tests I had to pass. It distills down to this; my presence has to be a benefit to the country (albeit in some minuscule way) and not a burden on US taxpayers. That is exactly as it should be.

  2. I’m glad Roger Helmer is retiring from politics. Judging by these comments, it couldn’t happen soon enough, since he doesn’t understand anything of the issues he talks and writes about. Then again, that puts him in good company, so he needn’t worry.

    I’m afraid I have become rather tired of UKIP’s empty postures on the immigration issue. We don’t need a points-based system, since we already have one. The UK immigration system is already based on a points assessment, and has been for very many years. Why does Mr Helmer think have a new points-based system would make any difference? Actually, I’ll rephrase that: Where did Mr Helmer come to the notion that we are stupid enough to believe anything he and his misinformed colleagues have to say? We don’t need an “immigration system” at all in this country. We have quite enough people here as it is.

    In so far as we should have incomers at all, they should be people from assimiliable ethnicities who wish to settle here as a result of normal interpersonal relations. In other words, “immigration”, in so far as it should exist at all, ought to be an organic, evolutionary process. For example, Ms. A,. an Englishwoman, meets Mr B, a German man, while holidaying in Baden Baden. They keep up a correspondence and eventually marry. They decide to settle in England. That is what I call acceptable “immigration”. I don’t much care if Mr B is an unskilled warehouse assistant or a top brain surgeon. It matters little. In fact, I don’t much care if Mr B is a criminal. His presence here is of no general import. Mr Helmer, I’m afraid, has got completely the wrong clue about the whole topic. This stems from a conservative belief that, somehow, people from alien minorities can “integrate” into our society, which ignores that any integration that does happen will not be absorption into the majority culture, as it can’t be. What he is actually advocating is race-mixing, which destroys the host culture.

    Helmer doesn’t understand that in order for a society to function there has to be a shared identity, and in order for a society to have a shared identity, it needs to be made up of a people who share an ethnicity (or closely-similar ethnicities, as is the case in Britain). That means….shock horror, hold on to your pearls while I say this…..we have to be…..”racists”. Any civilisation that hopes to survive and be free has to be “racist”, because there has to be a civilisational perimeter. Nobody on this forum, including Neil Lock, or really anywhere I have discussed this, has been able to convincingly respond to that simple and elementary point.

    Roger Helmer is a typical liberal-minded businessman of the boomer generation. He is weak and keen to signal his virtue about “dusky-skinned” people, not understanding the deeper issues, such as the ecological link between a people and a land and the need for cohesion in society, which requires a shared history and so on. The point is obvious, the problem is partly the need for social conformity (not wanting to be seen as a “racist”) and partly that politicians like Roger Helmer are in the pocket of big business.

    The quicker the boomer generation dies out, the better. They must be the worst generation in the history of this country. They get on my nerves (in general, not all of them), not just in politics but in all other aspects of life as well. They have drawn-up the ladder and shafted their own children. All of their arguments are disingenuous. It’s not just the race, borders and immigration issues they are completely wrong about, it is on a range of interrelated issues and problems, including the subject of the role of women. The notion that women are equal to men is self-evidently ridiculous. Admittedly, much of the nonsense was imposed on them as well, but they have taken up the gauntlet enthusiastically and accelerated the process of decline.

    Incidentally, I wonder: is there any chance that Roger Helmer could go and live in a Third World society, now that he’s retired? Perhaps this request could be put to him, from me personally? I certainly think some sex and travel is in order for Mr Helmer. Just what the doctor ordered. I’d like to be rid of him, to be frank, and I think it’s high time he used the extra leisure opportunities open to an affluent retiree living off a public pension to travel a bit more widely and experience the sorts of societies he would like to impose on us younger “racist” folk. Perhaps he could take some of his fellow boomers with him? They could all ship out and go and experience the diversity they love so much for real, leaving us horrible “racist” people to suffer under a white patriarchal national socialist regime – a sacrifice I am quite willing to make.

    • Tom, I’ll give you this quote from Roger Helmer’s own “about” web page: “During the course of his business career he lived and worked in Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and Korea, and ran businesses in the Philippines, Vietnam, Guam and Saipan.”

      And his stated reason for retiring (independent of accusations about misuse of EU money, on which, having no evidence either way, I take no view as yet) is to spend more time with his latest young lady, a second generation immigrant whose parents came from India.

      You are, of course, right that many politicians (deliberately) fail to understand issues they pontificate about. I’m sure Roger Helmer has been guilty of this many times. But there is at least one issue – climate change – on which he is as near spot-on right as just about any politician in this country. I won’t risk de-railing the thread by saying more here on that subject, except that it is something I myself have devoted some time to studying.

      And I think you may have mis-understood me on the subject of points based immigration. I was the one who raised that particular subject, not Roger Helmer. I located his last year’s speech to UKIP’s conference, and what he said on the subject was merely: “We will control our own borders and our own immigration.” Isn’t that exactly what you yourself are looking for?

      • A points-based immigration system has been UKIP policy for quite a number of years. It is stupid and ridiculous, like most things UKIP do, and my comments about it still stand. I am not, or not just, looking to “…control our own borders and our own immigration”, and I have already explained in my previous posts what I actually want.

        I think during the course of Mr Helmer’s retirement, he should go back to those places he lived in previously, with his Indian wife. I don’t want him in my country, and I am no longer willing to tolerate people like him, as it amounts to spitting in my face and asking me to pay for it. I am ashamed to think that men like him represent us. I am still more ashamed that nothing is done against these people and they are allowed to parade around as our representatives.

        What a joke this country has become.

    • Leaving aside the iassue that I think you are being unfair – not to mention unkind – to Roger Helmer, whom I regard as a fine gentleman, I would take issue with this point of yours;
      “This stems from a conservative belief that, somehow, people from alien minorities can “integrate” into our society, which ignores that any integration that does happen will not be absorption into the majority culture, as it can’t be. What he is actually advocating is race-mixing, which destroys the host culture.”
      It is my view that whether those from ‘alien minorities’ can integrate is entirely a question of religion. I have said this before, but I regard the Hindu Indians, to cite just one example, as more British than today’s Britons. There is no conflict between their culture and ours. Muslims, on the other hand…….

      • I don’t care whether Roger Helmer is a nice person or a gentleman, for that matter. We’re rather past that point now. In fact, I would venture to say that it’s those very qualities we need rather less of. What I want are politicians who are strong-willed, effective and competent. ‘Nice’ doesn’t cut it with me, I’m afraid. We’ve tried being nice, and it hasn’t worked. Anyway, do you seriously think this Helmer gives two monkeys what a nobody like me thinks about him?

        As for your other comment, there is a difference between integration and assimilation. Integration is race-mixing – by definition. People like you, and Roger Scruton, and the late Ray Honeyford (the Bradford headteacher), have no objection to mixing the white British with other races and thereby extinguishing us, which will mean a different culture in this country as we (or rather, our descendants) will be a different people, a mixed people.

        I wish to maintain Britain and its culture (not in aspic, but as an evolving and developing thing) and that means preserving the white British as a people. This in turn means that immigrants must be assimiliable – in other words, they must be people we can absorb. We can’t absorb Hindus or Sikhs because they are culturally too different, and in sufficient numbers, they would drop their ‘nice’ act and adopt explicitly ethnic politics (to a limited extent, they have done so already). I also reject your homily that Hindus are more “British” than the British. I don’t know exactly what you have in mind, since you never spell this out, but I’ve known Hindus myself. What you may be thinking of is that they tend to be quite passive and polite (to generalise) and their attitudes tend to be ideal for upward mobility, all of which makes them fit easily, but what they are doing is aping a quintessential form of ‘Britishness’. It doesn’t follow that should they achieve sufficient numbers and influence, that Britain will stay the same. And apart from that, I still don’t understand why they can’t just go and be “more British than the British” in their ancestral countries? Why do you consider it necessary that we should be displaced in our own homeland, just because you find Hindus polite?

        • “People like you, and Roger Scruton, and the late Ray Honeyford (the Bradford headteacher), have no objection to mixing the white British with other races and thereby extinguishing us,…”
          This is just nonsense I’m afraid. When have I ever spoken in favour of extinguishing the White British? It has been a frequent complaint of mine that at the present rate of immigration and breeding, this country will become an Islamic State in a fairly short time. The name ‘mohammed’ didn’t even figure in the top 35 boys’ names in 2001; seven years later it was number one. And you accuse me of supporting this? Frankly I think an apology would be in order.

          “I also reject your homily that Hindus are more “British” than the British. I don’t know exactly what you have in mind, since you never spell this out…”
          I will happily do so. There is a large Hindu communtiy near me with whom I sometimes have dealings. I remember watching the elegant Indian women in their saris and gold jewellery standing chatting outside the Hindu temple in Preston and thinking how beautiful they looked – they reminded me of a truly ancient culture, which of course is what they are. Then I observed the locals; nihilistic shaven-headed yobs puffing on cigarettes, swilling lager from cans and dragging their knuckles on the ground as they walked past shouting abuse at these delightful people. I know which group I identify with. One of the things I find attractive about the Indians is that they have not lost the art of conversation as we have. They all want to talk, to ask questions, to tell their stories. The only thing the locals can hold a conversation about is football. This is of course a gross generalisation, and indeed largely an exaggeration, but it serves to illustrate my point for you. There are still civilised Britons of course, but they are a dying breed, while the yob culture is in the ascendent, nowhere more so than with the “ladettes” on the distaff side.

          ” Why do you consider it necessary that we should be displaced in our own homeland, just because you find Hindus polite?…”
          I don’t. Tell me why you think I do?

          You appear to believe that the Hindu Indians are just putting on an act and “aping” our culture. I think you are just a sour old cynic. Or sour young cynic perhaps I should say.

            • “What is it with you boomers and this obsession with replacing your own people???!???”
              Er, that is the precise opposite of what I am saying. It really is impossible to conduct anything resembling an intelligent debate with you when you keep doing this. Oh and by the way, I am not “you boomers”. I am me. Thank you.

              • I’m not being like anything. I’m pointing out that you advocate the replacement of your own people, which is exactly what you are doing. In typical boomer fashion, you deny it because you don’t actually argue things in a rational way, instead you argue through your emotional facility and want to be liked and accepted, and you review ‘words’ on a page or computer screen for their social appeal. I could put it differently – and I already have – and point out that by believing Hindus are acceptable immigrants and even “more British than the British”, you seek to mix our people and culture to accommodate Hindus – which amounts to the same thing. I’m just being blunt and reductionist about it.

                • “…I’m pointing out that you advocate the replacement of your own people, which is exactly what you are doing. In typical boomer fashion, you deny it because you don’t actually argue things in a rational way, instead you argue through your emotional facility and want to be liked and accepted,…”
                  I am indebted to you for telling me what I think. I must clearly be mistaken about my own thoughts and policies.

                  “… and you review ‘words’ on a page or computer screen for their social appeal….”
                  I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You’re away with the fairies I’m afraid.

    • Have to agree on the majority of that. UKIP’s promotion of third world/”Commonwealth” immigration is one of its most disappointing, fruitless aspects. I don’t hugely care how “economically valuable” migrants are purported to be, what I would hate to see is European countries muddied and turned into third world “melting pots”, particularly when the rest of the world is maintaining its homogeneous ethnostates and keeping borders shut. Automation can pick up the slack of needed jobs as can training. Are we to believe that India, with its generally much lower average IQ, is going to provide all the doctors, nurses etc. the UK needs? Train up the young sitting around on benefits and stop wasting money on foreign aid, third worlder welfare and futile foreign entanglements, for a start.

      • I’d further add that, as per MigrationWatch’s figures, even on purely economic arguments, third world migration is at least as much of a net drain as intra-EU migration, without even having the benefit of said migrants being ethnically compatible. If UKIP wanted to maintain such a policy between the anglosphere, per se, I’d be a bit less sceptical about it, but really, how much better is an open doors policy with Canada or Australia and their declining European demographics?

        • I don’t think UKIP has ever advocated an “open-door” immigration policy with anybody. UKIP’s policy is to regain CONTROL of our borders. Once we have control, there can then be a debate about whom to admit or not to admit.

          • @Hugo Miller

            It’s extremely naive to think that ‘controlling’ immigration represents a significant step forward. We already control immigration. Even the Labour governments of Blair and Brown had immigration controls. I should know, because in my past I represented people facing deportation and saw some of my (perfectly harmless) clients from places in Africa literally dragged away at the airport and put on the first flight back – that was under Labour, at the height of its modish liberalism.

            But the point is that people learn how to game the system. So you introduce a different points system [even though, puzzlingly, we have one already], and immigrants and their lawyers will learn how to ‘play’ this new system, and nothing will change.

            What is needed is no more immigration. Instead, if an ethnic European decides they would like to settle here, then they may do so provided they fund themselves for a minimum of five years –
            so private health insurance and no welfare benefits other than the emergency social fund until they have sufficient National Insurance contributions – and provided also that their own country offers reciprocity in admitting British people wishing to settle over there on a similar or better basis. That’s a simple, sustainable solution. It’s fair. It is governed by market demand rather than dictats from states. Nobody will starve or do without healthcare when they need it. At the same time, the host country will not be imposed on.

            A small surveillance agency could monitor reciprocal movement arrangements between ethno-European societies and alert the relevant governments when levels of movement are fiscally unsustainable or where there is too much movement in one direction to the extent that it might pose a threat to social stability or the cultural and national identity of the host society.

            I think you need to ask yourself: why politicians like Helmer do not advocate solutions like this.

      • Maurice,

        I ought to make it clear that this is not about liking or disliking immigrants or any belief in the relative superiority or inferiority of one racial group or another. I do happen to think that whites are superior (in general and on the average), but my views don’t depend on that position. I also don’t put much stall in comparisons between populations based on IQ, not least because the superiority of white civilisation is perfectly obvious without having to administer dubious IQ tests. I think the final nail in the coffin of IQ pseudo-science is that the IQ fanatics want us to believe that these tests prove East Asians are superior to white Europeans in native intelligence – a laughable assertion and easily disproved empirically by observing the societies under consideration.

        I also don’t dislike immigrants who settle in this country, at least not on the whole. In fact, many of my best experiences have been among immigrant-heritage populations. For example, in my teens I lived in what was probably the blackest area of Britain, a part of Brixton. It’s now gentrified, but at the time it was very rough and most of the people I knew were involved in gun crime or drugs, and I was pretty much the only white person around most of the time – yet nobody mistreated me. When I have suffered mistreatment, it has nearly-always been at the hands of white people. But this is about the wider interests of society. We can see that multi-culturalism doesn’t work. We can see what the direction of travel is. We’re being turned into a Third World-standard society with whites as a minority in their own homelands. This is completely unacceptable, and if the normal, legitimate concerns of indigenous whites are not heeded, then the response must be violent resistance.

        And that is specifically why my rage at Mr Helmer has still not abated. He is exactly the type of person who would pompously and self-righteously condemn violence, while all the time unconsciously sowing the seeds of violence through his own greed and complacency. When UKIP talk about the economic value of immigrants, what they are talking about is profit. That’s what this is really about. On the Left, the aim is to transform Britain socially and culturally. On the Right, the aim is the maximisation of profits. Both sides are anti-working class, and in particular, they are against the white working class.

        I was willing to support UKIP, and even campaign for them, for as long as they were a viable political machine, but now they are not, I see no need to continue being polite to people like Mr Helmer, or indeed Mr Farage, nor will I put up with their disingenuous nonsense any longer.

        This man is paid a very generous pension out of the public purse, but still he spits on the white working class. Still he betrays them. Still he talks about replacing the white British, which is the effect of his views. Still he puts the needs of business before his country.

        Roger Helmer, like most Tories and most of UKIP’s leadership, is a stupid and hateful imbecile and I want to see him, and all like him, unceremoniously exiled from my country.

  3. I don’t disagree with much of what you say here, but you really are quite wrong in your general – and somewhat daft – view of the ‘boomer generation’. I am of that generation, and I can assure you that most people of my age do not share the view of people like Roger Helmer. Most of us have objected to immigration and multiculturalism for many decades, but our objections have largely been ignored by politicians and the media.

    They have been ignored because there has been a clear agenda to change this country and destroy the host culture. As far back as the 1960s it was virtually impossible to get a letter published in any newspaper that strongly objected to what was happening (and I know, because I wrote many) – and that was virtually the only way we could raise our voices back then. Since those times succeeding generations have been brainwashed by the system – schools and the media – to see multiculturalism as the normal and only way, and now many of them drive the process along with the deranged fervour of the indoctrinated. Many of them would rather told that they have cancer than be called a ‘racist’, or be accused of ‘racism’, such has been the extent of their inculcation.

    So if your clear dislike, even hatred, of my generation is purely down to a belief that we are the force behind mass immigration into this country, then let me assure you that you are barking up the completely wrong tree.

    • Hang on a minute, if boomers are not the force behind these policies, then who on Earth is? Even if we could blame an influential ethnic group for it, they only succeed with the permission of the white people in charge. To me, Roger Helmer represents a certain type of person who is complacent. He can enjoy a comfortable retirement now – at my expense, I might add – and, like most of his generation, he will spend it pontificating about people like me and how we should not discriminate based on “skin colour”. Fuck him. I’ve had enough of it. I want him OUT of my country or put against a wall and shot. Him and all the rest.

      As for blaming every boomer, it ought to be obvious that I’m generalising. I shouldn’t have to explain that in intelligent company.

      • “The quicker the boomer generation dies out, the better. They must be the worst generation in the history of this country. ”

        That sounds pretty specific to me, and you do need to explain why you hold that view – which is not a very intelligent one. My generation are the victims of these policies, not ‘the force’ behind them. We have watched our country being transformed from the best and most peaceful decades ever – 50s and 60s – into the hellhole it is now. And we could justifiably accuse those who came before us for causing it to happen – and your generation (whichever that might be) for accelerating the decline.

        • I’ll tell you who else has watched this decline – the one person who could and should have halted it – Queen Elizabeth II. Compare the country she inherited with, as you call it, the ‘Hell-hole’ it is today. If I were in her shoes I would hang my head in shame. Mind you, she has seen her relatives at each others’ throats twice in her lifetime, and maybe that is what motivates her. I have even heard it said that she it being blackmailed. I don’t know. All I know is that the train wreck that Britain has become has all happened on her watch. And yet people still worship her.

        • Saying my view is not a very intelligent one is not a refutation. I was clearly generalising, and short of drawing you a diagram, I’m not at all sure what else I could have done. If I were to say, “women are stupid”, you’d surely realise that I don’t mean each and every single woman on Planet Earth.

          You can be both a victim and an instigator. I agree that the boomer generation had these ideas handed to them, but now the boomers have been in charge for 30 years in the prominent political roles, and longer than that at the lower levels of the power structure. I think that’s quite long enough, and we’ve still got more of you to come on tap. You could have reversed these ideas, instead you accelerated them and you’re not done yet.

          Not only that, but you (not necessarily ‘you’ personally) have benefited materially from liberal policies and it’s clear to me that the motive force in almost all cases is a combination of money and social respectability.

          Of course, there are lots of other factors, but I think the case against the boomer generation is compelling and I could go into the peculiar reasons why I think it happened, but I don’t have the time.

          • “You could have reversed these ideas, instead you accelerated them and you’re not done yet.”
            Pray tell me how my generation could have reversed these trends? I did my bit by standing for Parliament in 1997, because there was no candidate who reflected my views. Luckily I didn’t give up the day job. Please tell me what I am being criticised for, as I don’t see what else I could have done.
            As for saying “you” (by which you mean my generation) have “accelerated these ideas, and you’re not done yet”. This I’m afraid is just palpable nonsense.

            • @ Hugo Miller

              You need to learn what a generalisation is as you don’t appear to grasp the meaning of the word. The reason you think it’s nonsense is because I am hitting a raw nerve. You’re a typical boomer in some ways, as I will touch on below. This IS a generation thing in part. If what I say really is nonsense, you would not be so defensive about it. Certainly, I can understand this. Blaming an entire generation (in the general sense) for certain social problems, even if having some truth, is unlikely to serve any constructive purpose, except that I can’t help but observe and comment on the facts in front of me.

              The boomer generation, which is still in charge, embodies certain attitudes and socio-cultural mores, which manifest in multi-culturalism, mass immigration and white displacement. I think this arises partly because you were born into a period of widespread affluence and partly because of the Second World War and the propaganda that came out it – “HITLER!!!”, “Naaarrrtzeees”, “Fashishum” – which you had to absorb, and also because your formative years were during a period of British decline, industrial, imperial, social and cultural. These factors have created a very strong undercurrent against national strength and in favour of national weakness and supplication. In extreme cases, it amounts to a psychosis.

              Supplicant boomers still hold the levers of power, and so there is no current sign of the various harmful policies being reversed. That’s not to say things will get better with the next generation (for one thing, they were brought up by boomers), but for now, I’m discussing boomers.

              I don’t say that ‘boomerism’ is the only factor at work here, but evidence of the ingrained views and attitudes of boomers is everywhere, and I’m afraid you yourself embody it with this weird obsession you seem to have about Hindus. You love them for some reason. Let me say, I have nothing against Hindus, or individual Moslems for that matter. Nor do I have anything against Australian aborigines, or lizards from Alpha Centurai. But Australian aborigines have the good sense to stay where they are, as do (so far) the lizards from Alpha Centurai, whereas the Hindus and the Moslems seem to want to set up camp here and demand that I consider them British. When I baulk at this startling imposition and demand to know how they can be considered such and why I should put up with it, I am told by, or it is implied by, people like you that I am “racist”. I repeat, I have nothing against Hindus and Moslems on an individual basis, as I take as I find, but it doesn’t follow that I think they should be permitted to live in this country. That’s because, whether they are good or bad people individually, allowing them to live here in significant numbers has consequences, which you seem utterly blind to, at least in regard to Hindus. I can only think you are in the grip of Stockholm syndrome or you just think that professing to like Hindus is an amulet against accusations of ‘racism’ – or you’re not actually white.

              Among the typical boomer views and beliefs (which is not to say you yourself believe all, or even most, of these things) are:

              a belief in white displacement, or complacency about it;
              Napoleon blindness to the interests of the white working class and the harms done to them by mass immigration and multi-culturalism;
              deep-seated classism and dislike of manual work, and contempt towards the manual working class, even when the boomer is a manual worker himself (an attitude which manifests in the boomer pushing his own children towards university entrance, even when this is unsuitable for them);
              a naive attachment to superficially harmless minorities (e.g. your love for Hindus, a form of Stockholm syndrome, or an amulet against accusations of racism, as I’ve mentioned above);
              use of interracial relationships or the conspicuous adoption of a favourable view towards certain ethnic minorities as an amulet against accusations of racism;
              a belief in ‘culturalism’ and the assertion that human cultures can be essentially free-floating without any biological basis;
              intellectual laziness and incoherence (for e.g. asserting the value of ethnic diversity while seeking to snuff out diversity out by creating conditions under which different peoples mix);
              a disposition of reflexive cultural leftism, even when political allegiance is of the “right” (for example, lots of Tory MPs are now leftist or socially-liberal);
              oikophobia and disrespect for one’s own country and its people (“Hindus are more British than the British themselves” – really???!);
              a dependency on personalisation in political discourse (i.e. so-and-so is ‘racist’), rather than a rational consideration of the argument itself;
              a belief that a country is an economic unit and that business considerations should come first in national strategic decision-making;
              a belief in high public debt; and,
              a belief in prosecuting wars abroad, even when there are no obvious British interests at stake, an attitude that is oddly found alongside a meekness and timidity in dealing with the rest of the world when it comes to negotiating in situations when actual British interests are at stake.

              Typical ‘boomerisms’ include:

              “[Hindus[[Sikhs][Space aliens][insert some other favoured group] are [wonderful][a peaceful people][more British than the British themselves]”.

              “We’re only a middle-ranking power in the world now, so we [must] [can’t] [insert something the boomer thinks we should or shouldn’t be doing as a country]”.

              “We can’t leave the Single Market, as [insert something that does down Britain: an old favourite is something along the lines of, ‘Europe is more importance to us than we are to Europe’].”

              “We can afford to upset [insert the name of some other country the boomer likes or perhaps has been taught he should be scared of].”

              I could go on, but I’m bored. I think people like Dr. Richard North embody the ‘boomerist’ approach to Brexit, which is predicated on the following:

              a belief that business interests come before, or are entwined in, national interests;
              a belief that Britain is not an important country and is to some extent dependent on the EU;
              a generally negotiative approach to national vision and aims, which is characteristically weak and emphasises inclusion; and,
              a general meekness and timidity in negotiation methodologies, an emphasis on ‘how things will look’ to others rather than rightness and principle.

              • Another boomer favourite – and one I find particularly amusing on account of its obvious duplicity and stupidity –

                “We have an ageing population, there we must [insert some policy or measure here that nobody in their right mind should support, just so that boomers have their generous pensions paid for]”.

                Roger Helmer, the very archetype of a dim-witted Tory boomer, is arguing a derivative of this. The myth is that we somehow “need” these immigrants, when in reality we simply don’t. We could manage quite fine without them. It’s just meekness, greed and stupidity.

                If Mr Helmer were more honest, he would put it like this:

                “I need you suckers to pay for my public sector pension, but there aren’t enough of you as so many of you are unmarried and childless, due to the way we messed up your minds with our education policies and feminist nonsense, so we’re going to import loads of foreigners and to damn with the consequences”.

              • “..The boomer generation, which is still in charge, embodies certain attitudes and socio-cultural mores, which manifest in multi-culturalism, mass immigration and white displacement. I think this arises partly because you were born into a period of widespread affluence and partly because of the Second World War and the propaganda that came out it – “HITLER!!!”, “Naaarrrtzeees”, “Fashishum” – which you had to absorb, and also because your formative years were during a period of British decline, industrial, imperial, social and cultural. These factors have created a very strong undercurrent against national strength and in favour of national weakness and supplication. In extreme cases, it amounts to a psychosis….”

                You have here. and further along in your post, correctly identified many of the probalems that have plagued this country all my life. But where you veer from reason to outright hysteria is when you lay the blame for all this at the door of the ‘boomers’, and in your un-shakeable belief that anybody such as myself must have absorbed these tenets and support them. This is, to use the scientific term, utter tripe, which is beyond any intelligent response.
                For what it’s worth, my father was in Hitler’s SS, although I don’t see what that has to do with the price of fish. But you brought up the subject of Hitler and the Nazis.
                Just one sentence on Hindus – there is an Indian family in Essex who converted a room in their hom to a Hindu temple. They always conclude their ceremonies with prayers for England, the county of Essex and for Queen Elizabeth. Muslims prefer to march with placards threatening to cut our throats. When they’re not actually mowing us down, that is. I don’t think you should mention the two in the same sentence. The local Hindus I deal with have manners and a politeness reminiscent of those adopted by British adults in my youth, which have all but disapeared among the White British. That is what I mean when I say they are ‘more British than the British’. Ok, five sentences then.

          • How about telling us how long you’ve been around, and precisely what you’ve done in that time to combat what is happening? And please don’t count the acres of words you’ve written to the tiny audience here.

            • @ Brian Jenkins

              I am making a generalisation about a group in society. I was not making generalisations about YOU. I know that education standards declined somewhat for your generation, but I’ve already given you enough latitude. What I do or do not do from time-to-time is of no relevance to my point, which is that the supplicancy of the boomer generation is partly responsible for our national decline. I note that you yourself have conceded in an earlier post that I am essentially correct, you just don’t like that I apportion the blame (or some of the blame) where it should go. I therefore fail to see why you continue with this dispute? Or is this just another example of boomer reasoning, where we discuss how upset you are that I’ve raised an uncomfortable truth?

              • Of course you’re making a generalisation, but the objection is that it’s a sweeping and stupid one. Clearly you’re very angry and just want to lash out and, following the mark of the true coward, you want to lash out at the easiest target. Apart from being cowardly, blaming a whole generation is nonsensical. It’s cowardly because when you are challenged by a member of the group you have so venomously maligned you try the old get-out, ‘I wasn’t talking about YOU, you stupid person, but about the others’.

                But actually you were talking about me. I belong to – and very much identify with – this group that you and others choose to call ‘Boomers’. So a broad-brush attack on the entire generation is an attack on all of us. Try going out into the world loudly declaring something like ‘blacks are stupid’, and see how far your defence of ‘of course I only mean some of them’ gets you.

                Yes, I did agree with a lot of what you said earlier on, I am as angry as you are about what mass-immigration has done to my country, and with those who are responsible for it, probably more so, but unlike you I know where the true blame lies – and am prepared to say so.

                Some weeks ago, someone here was also prepared to say where he thought the true blame was, and he was told he would be banned for doing so. If I recall correctly he wasn’t banned, but instead chose to stop making comments here of his own volition. Your response, again if I remember correctly, was to say that you too would have banned him because – while you largely agreed with him – you disagreed with his right to say it. What a very brave and principled response in defence of our nation and free-speech!

                I also note your reluctance to state your age and tell us exactly what you have done in the cause of the great anti-immigration, anti-multicultural, campaign you think others should have taken up more vigorously. It is of no relevance, you say, even though it very much is, but in fact you have told us. Not your age, and what ‘blameless’ generation you attach yourself too, but what you have actually done.

                You viciously attack the likes of Roger Helmer for being a ‘stupid and hateful imbecile’, and for being ‘disingenuous’, on the matter of immigration. You then tell us that in the past you ‘represented’ people from Africa facing deportation (presumably being paid for it too).

                Now let’s get this straight. You strongly object to immigration, – we don’t need any immigrants you say – and you castigate the likes of Roger Helmer for not doing enough to oppose it, but you were employed opposing the Blair Government’s (a government not exactly known for being anti-immigration) plans to deport people whom it had decided had no right to be here!

                Now, that’s what I call ‘disingenuous’, although I could think of many stronger words!

                • I don’t have time to address your silly post fully and it’s boring anyway. I have already made clear why a generalisation is relevant, and why your generation is materialistic and supplicant. I don’t need to expand on what has been said. I work seven days-a-week to pay for your fat boomer pension, so you’ll excuse me if I decline an invitation to engage in a tedious and tiresome point-by-point debate, where I just go over the same old points with you because you’re hurt by my attack on [boomers][wimmin and kiddies][Hindus][aliens from outer space][whatever is the favoured group].

                  But let me just address one or two things that stand out and that perhaps haven’t already been covered.

                  You seem to suffer from Hugo Miller Syndrome: you use words without understanding what they mean. In this case, the infelicity concerns the word ‘disingenuous’. It is not disingenuous to learn from experience. Learning from experience is something we should all do. My experiences are very uncommon and outside the range of ordinary people, and are very important to me. They have shaped who I am and my views about the world have changed in light of these experiences. The experience you refer to relates to a period in my early 20s, when I also supported the Labour Party. It is as a result of this experience that I now criticise Roger Helmer, because I realise that he IS being disingenuous.

                  I’m not sure what else to add, since it just seems singularly stupid to criticise me for learning from my own experiences and I could (and perhaps should) have left your stupidity unremarked on, but you disingenuously (again, note my usage of the word, double-check with your dictionary, if unsure), insinuate that I should not criticise Roger Helmer, a mature man, because when I was a very young man I had a job and I also (quite separately) had different political views.

                  My criticism of Roger Helmer is maintained. I think he has no business living in this country because he quite clearly thinks that we should put up with Third World immigration. Sorry but at some point we have to put our foot down. It’s offensive and outrageous and he should know better. I DO NOT accept he has done his best. He has shown in the relevant comments that he does not prioritise immigration as an issue and he does not understand it. It now develops that he also has a personal vested interest in maintaining non-white immigration into this country. It’s outrageous and it’s not good enough. I want to know when he will be retiring and leaving this country for good. I want him out. NOW.

                  I’m afraid that the age of deference, when we doffed our caps to people like Mr Helmer and called him a “gentleman”, is now over. Things are going to start getting vicious. We no longer trust these people and more will be openly challenge their views, regardless of whether the politician is Labour, Tory, UKIP or whatever.

                  I’ll also deal with your comment about “free speech”. I think you must be referring to discussion of Jews. Again, this is a disingenuously silly point you make. I think Jews should be discussed, but the owners of this site don’t want the topic discussed here. I have decided to respect their wishes, and I also think that anybody who egregiously ignores this rule should be banned. I hold this view for two reasons – because it shows a disrespect for the wishes of the owners of this site, and because most people who want to discuss Jews are quite obsessive about the topic and don’t put their points across very well.

                  • Well, you would know about that, wouldn’t you. All you are doing is indulging in unpleasant and unfounded personal attacks upon anybody and everybody. I find this most unsavoury.

                    • He’s clearly an idiot, Hugo, an immature and arrogant one at that. Hardly worth the time that has been wasted on him already. He’s best left alone with his green ink fountain pen.

                    • Sadly I have to agree with you. I am all for lively debate and the exchange of ideas, but there is an unpleasantness about Mr Rogers’ posts which I find very wearing, frustrating (because it adds nothing to the debate), and downright depressing!

    • “They have been ignored because there has been a clear agenda to change this country and destroy the host culture. As far back as the 1960s it was virtually impossible to get a letter published in any newspaper ….”

      It goes back much further than that – the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan, which is what I assume these theories are based on, dates back almost a hundred years.

      • He’s a child, Hugo, an intellectually immature child. A child whose balls have hardly had time to go in a southerly direction, yet he spouts off as if he’s supporting the word on his puny shoulders. I love the way he claimed to be working seven days a week to support my ‘fat boomer pension’. Even though I worked almost fifty years to get, what I can assure him is, a very meagre pension, I somehow have to feel grateful to this ‘whippersnapper’ – who seems to have spent much of his probably less that twenty years in the world of work doing nothing more useful than campaigning for the right of unwanted aliens to remain in this country – for my very existence. You really couldn’t make it up.

        • I actually think he’s just a troll. But I don’t want to hi-jack this thread by analysing his motives. He’s already taken up enough of my time to no good purpose – which was probably his intention from the start.

  4. To Tom Rogers,
    copies to Hugo, Brian, Maurice and Sean (in his moderator hat):

    As the instigator of this thread, it falls to me to sum it up. Tom Rogers, you have gone beyond the bounds of reason in what you have said here. Your accusation that Brian Jenkins, as a “baby boomer,” is responsible for what a whole generation has done is absurd. (Regardless of whether or not I agree with what he wants). It’s like blaming me for everything Tony Blair has done, because I was born in the same week.

    And you have on several occasions tried to “wind up” Hugo Miller, and then failed to respond to his valid comments, citing tiredness or lack of time.

    Oh, and Roger Helmer isn’t a “boomer.” He was born in 1944.

    Even I – and I’m the least conservative individual around here! – am starting to lose patience with you. If you want, you could start by apologizing to Brian for what you said to him.

    • Thank you, Neil, your comments are much appreciated. However, I don’t want Tom Rogers to apologise to me, not that I think it’s likely, because I wouldn’t value it in the slightest.

      I would much prefer that he apologised to Theresa May for saying (in another thread) that he would have fully supported the mob that surrounded Grenfell Tower if they had ‘charged in and lynched her’. I didn’t vote for her, and I don’t support her in the slightest, but that was an appalling comment to make, and I think one that can only have been made by someone on the very edge of sanity.

      • I didn’t see that comment, fortunately. I am all in favour of provocative comments and lively debate, but this is just bile, isn’t it.

      • Brian,

        As far as I’m aware, Tom Rogers has only made one comment about Grenfell Tower on this site, and that said nothing about Theresa May.

        Can you enlighten us further?

        • From the thread ‘Sean Gabb: Speech to Conservative Future, 2009’.

          “Another nail is in North Kensington. The Grenfell Tower fire is an appalling outrage in which, astonishingly, the government itself is complicit. The mobs that surrounded Theresa May’s car were remiss: they should have charged in and lynched her. They should then have occupied the council offices and declared themselves the new democratic authority for that locality. I would have fully supported them.”

  5. Thanks Neil for your broadly supportive comments. But I’m vaguely surprised to be accused of religious conservatism, when I don’t have a religion. OK, I have a cultural attachment to the Church of England (at least as it used to be). But you can call me an agnostic Anglican.

Leave a Reply