Segregation is a necessary and moral response to xenophobic populism in Europe

The rise of the ‘populist’ parties in western Europe is a significant shift, in the generally stable system of political parties. It is not the populism itself that is new, it is that an unrepresented section of the population has acquired a political voice. The new European ‘populist’ parties and movements are anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-EU, and culturally nationalist. They include parties such as Geert Wilders’ PVV in the Netherlands, the Front National in France, the UKIP in Britain, Vlaams Belang in Flanders, and some ‘street movements’ such as the EDL in Britain and Golden Dawn in Greece.

These parties can not be explained by the political process itself, or by economic circumstances. They exist because a section of the population is nationalist, eurosceptic and xenophobic. The parties are a symptom, not a cause. Xenophobia itself is autonomous, and not responsive to political process or government policy. It is probably genetic in origin, and it can be explained in terms of evolutionary biology. The underlying problem is that a section of the population is biologically incapable of living in a multi-ethnic society. When that is imposed on them, they become frustrated and angry.

The new ‘populist’ parties express that anger and frustration, but cannot remove its cause. Instead they distort the political process, causing established parties to make endless concessions to the xenophobic voters. The concessions are never enough, and that causes more frustration: it is a vicious circle.

What do these voters want? Essentially, a mono-ethnic and mono-cultural nation-state. Geert Wilders’ supporters in the Netherlands want to live in Dutch neighbourhoods, inhabited by Dutch people, where Dutch is spoken on the street, and where Dutch police officers keep order. They want Dutch schools with Dutch teachers, where Dutch children learn Dutch culture and history. They want Dutch shops with Dutch staff, Dutch hospitals with Dutch doctors and nurses, and they want to work with Dutch colleagues, for Dutch employers.

Similarly, typical UKIP supporters in the United Kingdom want to live in British neighbourhoods, inhabited by British people, where English is spoken on the street, and where British police officers keep order. They want British schools with British teachers, where British children learn British culture and history. They want British shops with British staff, British hospitals with British doctors and nurses, and they want to work with British colleagues, for British employers.

From these aspirations, the policy follows logically. Society must be structured, so that they can live with each other as much as possible, free from the foreign elements which distress them, and contradict their aspirations. That requires a historically unique form of separation. The details would differ from country to country: the Netherlands, for instance, has a historical model of separated communities, the verzuiling or pillarisation.

Those who do not want to live separately from foreigners, would simply not choose to do so. That is an obvious difference with historical segregation in the United States or South Africa: they had no multi-ethnic option.

Segregation has a bad name, and it would contravene national anti-discrimination laws, which are derived from international treaties. Those laws must therefore be repealed. The greatest obstacle to the introduction of segregation is however, the integrative nationalism of the elites in western Europe. Their goal is a homogenous population, a traditional nationalist ideal: they respond to migration by demanding the assimilation of migrants. Segregation would be an admission of failure for them, and indeed a failure of the nation-state itself.

Segregation begins with recognition of the xenophobic and nationalist segment of the population as a distinct group. They must get a specific name – not ‘xenophobe’ because it is too negative, perhaps ‘national-patriotic’. The ‘national-patriotic’ population must get their own education system, from primary school to university. They must get their own healthcare system, with their own separate hospitals. Public broadcasting must be broken up, and a separate national-patriotic media sector created.

These national-patriotic facilities must be legally empowered to refuse access to foreigners, otherwise it would be pointless. In effect they will be white schools, white universities, and white hospitals, even if they do not carry that label. ‘White’ in this case means the indigenous ethnic majority in each nation-state, not the whole white race. The UKIP hospital and the PVV hospital would employ no Polish staff and treat no Poles, even though Poles are white.

Equally the rest of the population, and their institutions, would be empowered to refuse access to national-patriotic individuals. The segregation must be consistent: parents who send their children to a national-patriotic school, must themselves use the national-patriotic health service.

In the private sector, any business could register as ‘national-patriotic’, and would then be empowered to refuse employment to foreigners and minorities. That status would be public, and the entrepreneur must accept any resulting loss of business. Other businesses would be entitled to register as multi-ethnic, and refuse employment to national-patriotic individuals. That status too would be public. The result will be a gradual segregation of the economy, with the emergence of a separate ‘white sector’.

These policies would encourage the formation of a parallel society – allowing the national-patriotic segment to gradually isolate itself from the rest of the population. That is not a morally abhorrent proposal: it is similar to the earlier suggestion of a parallel society for women, as a state response to feminism.

A parallel society would be insufficient without residential segregation. White flight must be recognised, legalised, and facilitated. National-patriotic residents should be allowed to select their neighbours by ethnic origin and culture. There would be a certain threshold – for instance, that the majority of residents in a neighbourhood or housing development are already national-patriotic. On designation of a neighbourhood as national-patriotic, migrants and ethnic minorities would be rehoused, and their homes allocated to national-patriots. As immigrants leave, the signs of their presence (mosques, for instance, or ethnic shops) will also disappear.

Equally, residents of other neighbourhoods and housing developments will be allowed to refuse residence to the national-patriotic population. That could be enforced by demanding prior consent to a multi-ethnic neighbourhood, or by checking whether residents used national-patriotic health care or education.

The result will be an accelerated internal migration along political and ethnic lines, and reinforcement of existing ethnic segregation in housing. That is not in itself the goal of the policy: the point is what happens inside the national-patriotic areas. The pre-immigration ‘white community’ will be restored, at least at local level, and that is the aspiration of the xenophobic segment of the population. After segregation, the blacks are gone, the Asians are gone, the North Africans are gone, the Turks are gone, the Muslims are gone, the mosques are gone, and everyone speaks the national language again.

If the neighbourhood level is insufficient to restore a pre-immigration national community, then the scale of segregation should be enlarged, to municipality and borough level, and if necessary to regions. In turn that will create the conditions for further institutional separation: a national-patriotic police, separate national-patriotic courts, and national-patriotic laws. It will facilitate the transition to a separate national-patriotic economy in these areas, where national-patriotic firms do business with each other, and supply goods and services to national-patriotic customers. Again, this is very similar to the earlier suggestion of a complete parallel society for women.

I know that many people will dislike the idea of segregation and parallel societies. The international community would be enraged. What is the alternative, however? A frustrated, bitter, angry, and increasingly radicalised minority inside the indigenous population, that cannot be placated by any political stance of the elite. And then: more Breiviks, random killings of immigrants (as in Germany), bomb attacks on mosques, a competition in migrant-bashing between the main political parties, and ultimately some form of pogrom or forced repatriation. That is the logical end point of current trends: segregation is a better alternative.

Advertisements