On the 25th January 2025, I published this article on the Southport murders. On the 3rd February 2025, Tom Rogers replied to this as follows:
Mr Wang,
You state this:
You allude, I think, to the “Cricket Test” suggested by Norman Tebbit—that immigrants’ loyalty to Britain can be judged by which cricket team they support. Let me be honest: I don’t know which side I would support as a general rule.
Norman Tebbit’s Cricket Test is a load of rubbish. Politicians like Norman Tebbit were part of the problem, not the solution. Like the controversial teacher Ray Honeyford, they believed that mass immigration could work, it was just that immigrants had to be better integrated. Theirs was a critique of mass immigration and the social model it resulted in, not a rejection of it.
The only criterion for whether someone is British or English is racial. Were you to belong to a kindred ethnicity of northern European descent, it would be possible to accept you as an integrated civic Briton and your children as English and British proper. That is not the case with you.
An East Asian cannot be accepted in this way. You belong to an alien race. You can never be British, nor can your children. You may obtain a passport that suggests otherwise, but that only makes you British on paper and there are lots of us who will quietly resent you for it and silently seethe about it and wait for the day when all of this nonsense can be swept aside.
It is nothing personal against you and we have no quarrel with the Chinese. You are very welcome in this country as a guest and visitor and, as far as I am concerned, you can stay as long as you like, but you are not British or English and never will be, nor will any children of yours ever be, and you should not be permitted to vote in our elections or hold prominent positions in fields that could influence the public, such as politics, local government, broadcasting, journalism and law.
Sorry.
I did write a response, but this is rather long, so I will publish it here as a separate blog entry.
Dear Mr Rogers,
Thank you for taking the time to read my article and for expressing your views so clearly. While I do not agree with you, I fully support your right to hold and articulate your opinions. Indeed, I oppose any laws that would seek to restrict your ability to state your beliefs in even stronger terms than you have done here.
That said, I must take issue with your core assertion—that membership of a nation is purely a matter of race. I do not believe that nationality is simply about possessing a passport, nor do I subscribe to the idea that it is defined solely by adherence to a list of abstract values. However, neither do I accept that it is determined exclusively by genetic descent. In reality, membership of a nation is a messy, organic process, involving an interplay of ancestry, culture, language, and historical continuity. I freely acknowledge that much of this balance tilts towards genetic propinquity, but I do not believe it to be the sole or even necessarily the most important factor.
You reject this position, and that is your right. However, we are not dealing with a question of mathematics or science, where propositions can be proven by deduction or empirical verification. We are arguing about national identity, which is not a fixed and immutable law of nature but a matter of what people collectively believe and accept over time. If everyone in Britain were to believe that an unlimited number of outsiders could arrive, go through a bureaucratic process, and immediately become as British as you are, then I agree that the concept of Britishness would be utterly devalued. There would, in effect, be no nation left. However, the reality is more nuanced. Most people are willing to accept that, over time, a small number of outsiders may enter and assimilate. The nation changes, but it does not disappear. Some may see this as an unacceptable dilution, but if enough of the population is willing to tolerate it, and if the newcomers integrate rather than behave as a hostile presence, then the reality is that this process will continue.
You state categorically that I can never be British and that neither I nor my children can ever be accepted as part of the English nation. I must, with respect, point out that you do not speak for all Britons. There are many who would disagree with you, just as there are others who might share your view. I make no special plea for recognition, nor do I seek to persuade you to accept me as something I am not. But I will say this: history provides many examples of outsiders who, through long residence, contribution, and loyalty, have become accepted members of nations that were not originally theirs by birth. This does not happen overnight, and it may not happen in every case, but it is not impossible.
You say that you have nothing against me personally and that I am welcome as a guest in your country. That is a position I can at least understand, though I do not agree with it. But you also state that I, and others like me, should not have the right to vote or to hold any position of influence in public life. This, I would argue, is where your position becomes difficult to sustain. There have been individuals of non-English ancestry who have contributed significantly to British life—whether in the arts, sciences, politics, or military service. Some, you may say, should never have been here in the first place. But the fact remains that they were here and, in many cases, were accepted by their peers and by the public. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, then British nationality must be denied even to those who have lived in this country all their lives, born of parents and grandparents who have done the same, speak only English, and consider themselves as British as anyone else. You would create a category of permanent outsiders, people who are expected to contribute to the country but denied any say in its governance. This is not an arrangement that has ever been sustainable in the long term.
In the end, these questions are not resolved by abstract theorising but by the slow and often untidy process of national evolution. I do not demand that you change your mind. I ask only that you recognise that your view, while sincerely held, is not the only one, and that the country’s future will not be decided solely by those who share your perspective.
Indeed, I even suggest that this is one of those few issues that can be decided by counting heads. If enough people agree with you, I shall be a metic. If enough people do not agree with you, I shall be something else.
Yours sincerely,
Sebastian Wang
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have no idea if you really are Sebastian Wang or this is another of the Lord Protector’s alter egos. Perhaps you could confirm before I respond?
I must admit I had entertained the possibility that Mr Wang, and also Mr Mercadante, might be long-lost relatives of Mr Bickley.
Hugo Miller
I think I meant Richard Blake.
I stated in a previous comment that even if we manage to encourage an outflow of the ethnic minorities, we will never be 100% white again, and being like Hong Kong with a STABLE and NOT GROWING minority of 3% would be fine. To that extent, the odd well-disposed ethnic minority is fine. I stand by that. But Tom Rogers is absolutely right: such people are not English or British. Our citizenship rolls should be re-registered. British passports should be withdrawn from the minorities and replaced by Permanent Residence cards (with no access to social security, pensions, jobs in government, the judiciary, the police, the armed forces, and no right to take part in the media or political party funding). This forms part of my strategy to encourage most of the minorities to self-deport. No benefits would be a big incentive to just go. And, as Sebastian will realise, this is exactly the system in force in China. You can’t get a Chinese passport, or become a policeman or judge, or journalist or any of those things in China as a foreigner.
The worst thing in Sebastian’s reply is “While I do not agree with you, I fully support your right to hold and articulate your opinions”. It is not a question of our having to obtain the agreement of the ethnic minorities. This is an argument to be had exclusively among English people. When I lived for four years in China, I did not spend my time there telling Chinese people that I didn’t agree with their right to maintain their country for themselves.
It is self-serving for a member of the ethnic community to assert that racial descent isn’t part of national identity. Er… tell that to the Chinese government! When Sebastian states that Tom Rodgers doesn’t speak for all British people, he is appealing to Cultural Marxism and to the fact that a traitorous liberal element among us (=our real enemy) will always take the side of incomers.
“If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, then British nationality must be denied even to those who have lived in this country all their lives, born of parents and grandparents who have done the same, speak only English, and consider themselves as British as anyone else”. Yes, that is exactly what should happen. Note the phrase “consider themselves British”. National identity isn’t about considering yourself a member of a nation, but rather that nation accepting you in a non-forced and organic way. And in the end, the accusation of “racism” admits that most members of the ethnic minorities are reminded on a daily basis by English people that they are not regarded as part of us. It may be only a look or a glance in the street – but probably every single ethnic person in Britain is reminded of this every day. They kind of just brazen it out, knowing they are not really wanted here. The Left call this “racism”, but it is actually a healthy expression of our sense of being colonised. I expect the Han Chinese in Tibet are looked at askance by the Tibetans, and if drawn into conversation on the topic would argue that “they consider themselves as belonging to Tibet”, etc, and that it is “racist” for the Tibetans to take another view, and after all they were born there, yada, yada, yada.
This is not opposition to Sebastian personally. I have made that clear. But I think he should drop the line that he can voluntarily choose to be an Englishman. This is basically the same stance I took in the article Whose nation is is really? published by the Libertarian Alliance in 2015 (https://libertarianism.uk/2015/02/21/whose-nation-is-it-really/), when I had never heard of Sebastian, so this is not a personal thing. I consider that one of my best articles. I have enjoyed all of Sebastian’s articles on Artificial Intelligence policy and other topics, and so he is clearly a great “find” by the director of the LA.
I disagree with your interpretation of this: “The worst thing in Sebastian’s reply is “While I do not agree with you, I fully support your right to hold and articulate your opinions”. It is not a question of our having to obtain the agreement of the ethnic minorities. This is an argument to be had exclusively among English people. When I lived for four years in China, I did not spend my time there telling Chinese people that I didn’t agree with their right to maintain their country for themselves.”
Sebastian is not making some patronising assertion of privilege in debate. He is expressly disclaiming it and repeating his case, made everywhere else, that he believes in complete freedom of speech. Since we are friends, I will make this point rather than let him go to the trouble. For what it’s worth, I’d rather have Sebastian as my fellow countryman than most of the people in my school. The adults have given the country away. The teenagers think it was the right thing to do. Any post-revolutionary reconstruction must involve a cold look at the right of most people to vote. For the moment, I can’t feel any commonality with them.
It depends what we mean by English and British. From Wang’s usage, I understand him to mean a fully fledged member of a political community who has the same legal rights as any other and is considered part of that community.
If Britain was an Empire (within itself, not the British Empire) then Mr Wang could just be integrated as another ethnic group amongst many. However Britain is not an empire, due to its historic ethnic make-up being very similar since the end of the Viking invasions. There’s a stronger genetic link to the political community here (obviously we did have effectively foreign rulers since 1066) that said the genetic difference of the Normans (or Northmen) is far smaller than between Mr Rogers and Mr Wang.
Consequently, I don’t think Mr Wang could be considered English/British and preventing him from obtaining certain political offices would be reasonable to help ensure loyalty to the community (this would help avoid split loyalties amongst the ruling elite).
That said Mr Wang could still be very well integrated resident alien and partake in the national life in most aspects. Additionally, if he were to marry an English girl, his children could probably be counted as English and if not his children, his grandchildren could be assuming they were 1/4 Chinese and 3/4 English.
This is my response to you, Sebastian:
Sebastian:
I agree with virtually all you say, the difference between us is one of interpretation of certain basic sensible ideas.
(i). You rightly state that national identity is not merely a matter of genetics, it is a confluence of varied things. I agree, but we must acknowledge that genetics is a part of it. A white northern European can integrate into British society and become accepted as a civic Briton because, while he is not and cannot ever be British, he is of the same race and shares the broader cultural and civilisational pedigree of the true Briton, will display the same broad understanding of certain everyday things, and having the same skin colour and racial appearance, he can pass for one of us in most ordinary situations, so his presence is not a threat to social stability. All of this is possible because he is genetically close to the British.
An East Asian, on the other hand, is racially different and comes from an entirely different civilisation. He can integrate to an extent, but he can never be completely integrated or accepted as a Briton. He is only British on paper. This problem arises as a consequence of a much more distant genetic link between him and the British.
I think you acknowledge the truth of all this when you state: [quote]”In reality, membership of a nation is a messy, organic process, involving an interplay of ancestry, culture, language, and historical continuity. I freely acknowledge that much of this balance tilts towards genetic propinquity, but I do not believe it to be the sole or even necessarily the most important factor.”[unquote]
Whether or not it is the most important factor in the sense of being the largest factor is impossible to rationally determine and probably not a fruitful line of discussion; what we can say is that genetics is an underlying or upstream factor in human behaviour and in some situations comes to the foreground. If we were to propose to two parents that their young children should be swopped for someone else’s young children, who they will have to bring up from that point, while their real children are carted off to China to live with the Wang family, we would expect to encounter aggressive protests and objections. But why? Why should it matter which children we bring up from one day to the next? Why not swop children from week to week, so that everybody gets a go at parenting? I think the answer is that parenting as a legal and social concept has an underlying genetic basis. What if I have no children but I want to identify as a parent on Wednesdays and Thursdays? Shouldn’t I be allowed to care for your children on those days, so that I get a turn? You will protest but your position as a parent has no rational basis to it. Why not just bring up all children in dedicated parenting communes, leaving the ‘breeders’ to work in factories for the good of the economy? Wouldn’t that be more rational and deliver better results on the economists’ graphs? Of course, this is all wrong because being a parent has a moral basis to it in natural rights and human rights and all sorts of other things such as human emotions, but these moral, legal and emotional claims are rooted ultimately not in reason or any sort of rational case, but in genetic propinquity. I would submit to you that a genetic argument, while irrational, can be better than a rational argument that can only be sustained by notions in people’s heads.
(ii). You go on to state: [quote]”Most people are willing to accept that, over time, a small number of outsiders may enter and assimilate. The nation changes, but it does not disappear. Some may see this as an unacceptable dilution, but if enough of the population is willing to tolerate it, and if the newcomers integrate rather than behave as a hostile presence, then the reality is that this process will continue.”[unquote]
This is not what has happened, so what you raise is entirely moot. Your reasoning is also quite redundant on its own terms, since any nation will change over a sufficient period of time and people will of course come to accept this. Just over 300 years ago, Britain did not exist as a political state, then there was a unification of England and Scotland. I don’t recall reading about the parliaments of the two countries taking a plebiscite to confirm popular consent for this, it happened over their heads and most people came to accept it as the normal state of affairs, but that was because England and Scotland were close nations sharing the same islands, with commercial, political, social and familial interrelationships (indeed, they were already under the same crown at the time of unification). The point is that the newcomers have not entered the country as part of some evolutionary process of migration, they have entered as part of a revolutionary process of mass immigration, much of it little more than labour dumping and people trafficking, and intended to line the pockets of business people and serve a social and ideological agenda to change the demographic make-up of the population. This has been done over the objections of the native population and without their consent.
(iii). You state: [quote]”…history provides many examples of outsiders who, through long residence, contribution, and loyalty, have become accepted members of nations that were not originally theirs by birth. This does not happen overnight, and it may not happen in every case, but it is not impossible.”[unquote]
I have no objection to you and people like you becoming accepted and liked here as guests and permanent residents, and you are welcome to enjoy a happy and fulfilling life here with most of the same rights as any native Briton. You should be treated with courtesy and dignity and not be discriminated against in most areas of life. I am not advocating for some sort of bigoted racism. What I am saying is that as a racial alien, you cannot be a member of the political community or be permitted to hold any influential role or participate in subversive activity, and any government that allows this is clearly committing treason.
(iv). You go on to remind us that plenty of non-British people have contributed to the British way of life. I entirely agree and in no way do I dispute this or complain about it. I welcome it, but there has to be a red line in which you and others like you understand clearly that you are permanent guests, not one of us, and you have no say or sway in the political direction of our society.
(v). You state: [quote]”In the end, these questions are not resolved by abstract theorising but by the slow and often untidy process of national evolution”[unquote]. I agree, but with a caveat. You are expressing the classical liberal view that a society or civilisation is its people and they determine its future. I take this in hand but must insist on adding the Schmittian insight that civilisations can only be sustained through confidence in their mission and identity. Rome fell because the Roman fell. It is necessary that we define who our people are and aren’t.
As for my views not representing everyone, as Minister for Yorkshire and Minister for Women’s Affairs and having challenged you on the white cliffs of Dover to a final showdown for the future of Britain, I think you’ll find that my views are held in considerable esteem and taken seriously.
Dear Mr Rogers,
Thank you for your considered response. I appreciate the opportunity to continue our discussion on national identity and the complexities introduced by immigration.
You rightly point out that the mass immigration overseen by the ruling class of the grossly unsuitable has led to challenges in defining national identity. This influx has, understandably, prompted you and some others to advocate a stricter association between nationality and ethnicity than would once have seemed reasonable. I suggest that these questions would not have arisen before the 1950s. I also realise that these questions will become more pressing, and more demanding of hard answers, the longer the present course is maintained.
Further to this, I acknowledge that the current situation may render my aspirations to be fully accepted as an Englishman overly optimistic. The dynamics of national identity have evolved in ways that neither of us can control, influenced by historical events and policy decisions. If I do not personally like the possible outcome of this evolution, there is nothing I can do about it.
However, the final resolution of these issues remains undetermined. While you advocate a clear delineation between ethnic identity and nationality, I still hope for a more inclusive understanding. You mention the differences between the indigenous nations of the United Kingdom, and how these were forced together into political unions against their will. Something you do not fully discuss is the extreme ethnic hatreds between the English and the Scottish, and then between them and the Irish. Of course, there was a genetic similarity between all these groups that did allow for a semblance of final reconciliation. But this was not a reconciliation that may have seemed likely in the 1690s for the Irish, and for fifty years earlier with the Scottish.
Indeed, if you look behind all the propaganda and empire-building, there is a tendency among mankind to a more inclusive understanding of our common humanity. I fully agree with you that open borders at the moment – especially with the kind of people now in charge – are not a good idea. But the future does not need to be like the past, and ethnic boundaries that look at the moment to be immutable may not be that forever.
As we’ve discussed, questions of nationality are settled not by deductive or inductive investigations, but by the perceptions of large majorities. The future in this regard is open, and the collective will of society will shape the final outcome.
Yours sincerely,
Sebastian Wang
This reads like a press release. Is Sebastian Wang a sophisticated new Chinese AI programme?
I don’t think press releases use periodic sentence structure. As for Deepseek, I am still trying to register.
[…] Keith Preston on February 5, 2025 • ( Leave a comment ) 3 February, 2025 Sebastian […]
Here’s a great article on the model minority fallacy: https://counter-currents.com/2025/02/naxalt-yaxalt/