Thoughts on Britain’s “Rwanda Plan”
“It seems fair to conclude that Jewish organizations have uniformly advocated high levels of immigration of all racial and ethnic groups into Western societies and have also advocated a multicultural model for these societies.”
Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique
On April 14, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson outlined a remarkable immigration agreement with the nation of Rwanda. Under the agreement, “everyone who enters the UK illegally will be considered for resettlement to Rwanda,” where their asylum cases, should they wish to make one, will be processed. Even if a migrant is granted asylum, he or she will be encouraged to remain in the east African nation for at least five years. If their application is refused, Rwanda will offer them permanent residence, prompting Johnson to speak of “tens of thousands” of migrants who will be permanently removed from Britain in the years ahead. In return for taking Britain’s unwanted migrants, the UK government has offered Rwanda an initial payment of £120 million in cash and investment. It’s the kind of policy that would have prompted Enoch Powell, who always championed a policy of incentivized repatriation, to nod in agreement.
Despite its surface level appeal, however, those furthest to the right have expressed suspicion of the measure as yet another conservative sop, intended to mask spiralling legal migration and the fact the UK’s new points-based immigration system seems designed to keep numbers high. I agree with this suspicion. I also believe, however, that the Rwanda scheme is important in terms of setting a precedent that can eventually be built upon. We should be absolutely clear here that, at the level of first principles, what is proposed by Johnson is a step forward in population removal and the rejection of the idea that non-White migrants have a fundamental right to live among Europeans. To employ the well-worn Lenin adage, our ideas must probe with bayonets: When they find mush, we should push. I believe it is worthwhile pushing the Rwanda scheme. Concurrently, when the bayonet meets with strong resistance, we should pause and examine the nature of the obstacle.
One of the most outspoken opponents of the Rwanda plan in recent weeks is Larry Bottinick, an American Jew and the UN Refugee Agency’s current envoy to the UK. Bottinick’s lack of ties to the British people hasn’t prevented him from prolific and outspoken interference since the announcement of the plan. His main point of attack seems to be accusations that the plan will become “eye-wateringly expensive” and that it could “violate international law.” He told the Associated Press “There’s nothing in international law that says you have to ask [for asylum] in the first country you encounter. UNHCR understands the frustration of the U.K. government on that, and is not in favor of Channel crossing, of course. We think there’s more effective ways and more humane ways to address this.” By “effective and humane” he means doing nothing at a time when “more than 4,500 migrants have crossed the English Channel from France to Britain in small boats … four times more than the total this time last year.” Bottinick’s real fear seems to be that these migrants will never be allowed to settle in the UK, telling one skeptical interviewer that his understanding of the Rwanda plan is that “Once they’re in Rwanda they won’t be brought back to the UK. … You’re trying to deter them from coming.”
Bottinick has claimed that the Rwanda plan, the primary aim of which is to prevent migrant crossings of the English Channel in small boats organized by smugglers, won’t do anything to prevent people smuggling. I suppose it might be a coincidence or the simultaneous deployment of the Royal Navy to patrol the Channel for migrant boats, but in the nine-day period immediately after the plan became public knowledge, there were no migrant crossings in the English Channel. It’s clear that such attempts to enter Britain will seem radically less attractive to migrants if they result not in walking the streets of Notting Hill, but rather those of Kigali or Muhanga. This relates to the truth that the ultimate goal of the vast majority of even genuine asylum seekers to the West (to the extent that they do in fact originate in a country experiencing violent conflict or where they personally experience persecution) is not to find peace and security, but to take advantage of the chaos in their country in order to fulfil their pre-existent material ambition of living among Europeans and deriving any benefit that might entail. The basic principle of international refugee law contains, and approves, this ambition implicitly. It is the unspoken enshrinement of what we might call the international right to live among White people. This is why we see the widespread phenomenon of so-called asylum seekers passing through a dozen or more perfectly safe and welcoming countries in order to reach their chosen Northwest European destination, selected from the global map in the same way you’d pick your prize at a fairground. It’s also why we see the outlandish examples of Africans crossing an ocean, trekking across Latin America, and presenting themselves in the United States where they claim asylum.
Rwanda has three times the intentional homicide rate of the UK, low by African standards, but not quite the asylum seeker’s desired prize. If the Rwanda plan was put into full effect, migrant crossings of the English Channel would become almost non-existent — a fact that seems to deeply alarm Mr. Bottinick. Bottinick’s ideas on the outcome of the Rwanda plan aren’t just wrong, of course, they’re also deeply hypocritical. In previous employment, according to one legal document, Bottinick worked as a “Senior Resettlement Officer,” in Tel Aviv, during which time he participated in a working group designed to “work to facilitate the departure to third countries to be determined of some 16,000 Eritreans and Sudanese under various programmes, including sponsorship, resettlement, family reunion and labour migration schemes.” Under Bottinick’s watch at least 4,500 Africans were removed from Israel to third-party nations, apparently without the process becoming “eye-wateringly expensive” or resulting in an increase of illegal immigration or asylum applications.
Another significant objection to the Rwanda plan has been raised by Enver Solomon, Chief Executive of the UK’s Refugee Council. Solomon’s name has the air of a Dickensian villain, which is about the only English connection he really has since he’s the son of a Jewish father and a Muslim mother. Shortly after the plan was announced Solomon wrote:
We are appalled by the Government’s cruel and nasty decision to send those seeking sanctuary in our country to Rwanda. … Sending people seeking asylum to be processed abroad will do absolutely nothing to address the reasons why people take perilous journeys to find safety in the UK. It will do little to deter them from coming to this country, but only lead to more human suffering and chaos – at a huge expense of an estimated £1.4 billion a year. Far from enabling people to rebuild their lives, we know from where this has been done by other countries, it only results in high levels of self-harm and mental health issues and can also lead to people ending up back in the hands of people smugglers. We urge this Government to immediately rethink its plans, which are in such stark contrast to what every Conservative Prime Minister since Churchill has sought to do by providing a fair hearing on British soil for those who claim asylum. Instead, the Government should focus on operating an orderly, humane and fair asylum system, and developing safe routes such as humanitarian visas, rather than harming lives and destroying our reputation as a country which values human rights.
I must applaud Mr. Solomon for his literary talent in crafting mendacious, manipulative propaganda. Every trick in the book is present here. Consider, for example, the emotive language “cruel and nasty.” Look also at the many diversions, like it “will do absolutely nothing to address the reasons why people take perilous journeys to find safety in the UK.” Is it the responsibility of the UK to address internal stability in every nation on earth? Isn’t the presumption that some people are incapable of governing themselves “imperialist thinking”? Apparently not when you can use to it pry open borders. He then proclaims that sending migrants to Rwanda will lead to “high levels of self-harm and mental health issues.” Why? The missed chance to see Buckingham Palace or the Beatles Museum? Aren’t these people fleeing war zones and death threats? The UK government has stressed that Rwanda is a “fundamentally safe and secure” location, perfectly suitable for the relocation of people in genuine distress. If you are thrown into distress because you missed out on Piccadilly Circus and instead find yourself in another situation in which you will be safe and cared for, then perhaps you weren’t in that much peril and need in the first place. Finally, and predictably, there is the coup de grâce — an appeal to abstract values so near and dear to the the British (and completely missing among Jews re Israel): “our reputation as a country which values human rights.” And yet Solomon himself has previously described Britain not as a country which values human rights but which is typified by “empty rhetoric” and “nationalist posturing.” Mr. Solomon is indulging in a cynical and petty moral blackmail.
Following in the footsteps of Enver Solomon’s screed, the Guardian published an open letter by a collective of “rabbis and members of the British Jewish community,” spanning Orthodox, Reform, Masorti, and Liberal sects of Judaism. The offended postmodern Israelites complained that
we are utterly appalled by the government’s inhumane plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for offshore processing. Such a policy flies in the face of Jewish values, and would be a cruel, moral failure to those in urgent need of protections. It is particularly disturbing that such plans have been announced shortly before our community celebrates Passover, a festival where Jews recall our journey to safety from Egypt. As we prepare to read the story of Exodus, it is deeply unsettling that the government is seeking to deprive the opportunity of freedom to those fleeing modern-day tyrants. Such proposals also bring to mind unpleasant memories of the overseas internment of Jewish refugees in the second world war. This policy was a grave error: we urge the government to learn from this historic mistake, uphold international refugee law and ensure all those seeking safety in the UK are treated with dignity and respect. If the government is serious about preventing small boat crossings, it should act to introduce safe and accessible routes to sanctuary in the UK. Seeking to replicate Australia’s disastrous offshoring system in Rwanda, a country frequently condemned for its appalling human rights record, would be a terrible abdication of responsibility. We urge the government to instead stand up, fulfil its moral duty, and protect, not punish, those fleeing conflict and persecution.
Oy vey indeed. Our Hebrew friends are deeply distressed that the Rwanda plan reminds them of ancient stories that involve talking shrubs, sticks magically being transformed into snakes, and self-parting oceans. It’s almost criminal that Britain’s civil servants hadn’t considered this possibility when drafting the plan. In all seriousness, however, we see here precisely the same rhetorical tactics employed by Bottinick and Solomon. Again we see the emotive language, “cruel” and “inhumane.” It’s disparaged as a “moral failure,” and a “terrible abdication of responsibility” and “moral duty.” It’s an affront to “Jewish values” — values that are somehow missing in Israel which has deported thousands of African refugees to Canada against their will.
It’s cynical and petty moral blackmail another illustration of the power of moral imperatives in making Westerners act against their self interest. Cynical because, try as I might, I can’t find these same people issuing similar statements in the aftermath of Israel’s eviction of its Africans under Bottinick. You might argue that that’s because these are “English Jews” concerned with what’s happening in England, but that doesn’t add up either. The main author of the Guardian piece is Edie Friedman, who’s from Chicago, in yet another example of an American Jew bleating shamelessly about values she feels native Britons should adhere to.
In fact, much as with the American situation, almost everywhere one looks in the context of British refugee and migrant organizations, Jews are found in leading roles. The executive director of British Red Cross is Zoe Abrams, who has said she is “profoundly concerned” about the Rwanda plan and, echoing Bottinick, Solomon, and the Guardian complainers, added that “the financial and human cost will be considerable.” She wants the UK to accept “at least 10,000” migrants, and claims “We’re an island, but we can afford to be more generous, and as Global Britain — we should be.” Boris Johnson recently complained that refugee policy in the UK in recent years has been bogged down due to opposition from an “army of politically motivated lawyers,” but unmentioned is the fact that most British “refugee lawyers” filter through the University of London’s Refugee Law Initiative, founded and directed by the Jew David Cantor, and led academically by “Senior Lecturer in Refugee Law” Sarah Singer.
Aside from Jews, outspoken nonsense has also gushed forth from the Church of England, in the form of its abysmal Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. I’ve previously written of Welby:
At the heart of this disease is the Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the Church of England, Justin Welby, a man who looks like ten minutes of manual labor would actually kill him. He is the definition of all that is wrong in modern Man. Setting aside his uninspiring physical presence, Welby is a literal bastard, his mother Jane Portal having cuckolded her husband, the alcoholic Jew Gavin Welby (born Bernard Weiler) with her boss, Sir Anthony Montague Browne. The result of these chaotic origins is that Archbishop Welby/Weiler/Browne has fled entirely from any sense of meaningful identity, asserting in 2016: “I know that I find who I am in Jesus Christ, not in genetics, and my identity in him never changes.” If Welby limited himself to personal genetic oblivion there might not be a problem. A problem does, however, emerge, when Welby uses his position and influence to attack those who do pursue their interests. In 2016, when Nigel Farage told the press that sex attacks by migrants were “the nuclear bomb” of the EU referendum, Welby/Weiler/Browne told MPs in the home affairs select committee that he “utterly condemned” Farage for an “inexcusable pandering to people’s worries and prejudices, that is giving legitimization to racism.” If that wasn’t bad enough, Welby/Weiler/Browne, who has confessed to struggling with his mental health, appears to have an almost Freudian desire to replace the Jewish father he thought he had with the current Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis. Welby/Weiler/Browne has taken to accompanying Mirvis on numerous excursions, echoing the Rabbi’s sentiments on almost every subject.
For once, however, Welby seems to have taken the lead. While Mirvis has yet to say a word on the Rwanda plan, Welby has decided to speak for his deity, announcing that the plan is “the opposite of the nature of God.” I personally think Welby’s motivations for opposing the plan might be a little more earthly than heavenly. A recent London School of Economics study found that while native Britons are spending less and less time in Welby’s churches, “Migrants into the UK are more than three times more likely than natives to attend a religious service weekly, or to pray daily.” Welby probably thinks he’s boosting his pious flock, but it’s not quite so simple. It was reported by The Week last November that the Church of England was merely helping asylum seekers “game the system” by converting to Christianity. A Home Office source was quoted as describing the way in which asylum seekers would “show they are committed Christians” and can then “argue that their new faith would put them at risk in their home country.” The Telegraph reported that “thousands” of asylum seekers had been “welcomed into the Anglican faith in recent years, with clergy even given written guidance on how to navigate the Home Office system.”
Several newspapers pointed to a tribunal decision on an anonymous asylum case in 2017 that suggested an “improbably large” number of Iranians attending the Liverpool Anglican Cathedral cast doubt on whether they were all “genuine converts.” In other cases, asylum was granted after conversions were deemed authentic — normally after evidence of the very regular church attendance of the kind described above (three times more than native Brits). Modern British Christianity exists only as a left-wing immigration assistance body. It’s most notable conversion in recent years is that of Emad Al Swealmeen. He was denied asylum in 2014, then had a sudden road to Damascus moment which resulted in his baptism a year later. In 2017 he was “confirmed” to the applause of hundreds of idiots in Liverpool’s Anglican Cathedral. Four years later this confirmed Christian prematurely detonated a bomb in the name of Allah, intended for a military remembrance event in the heart of Liverpool. I wonder if Archbishop Welby considers whether assisting such people, and making a mockery and a fraud of his religion, is “the opposite of the nature of God.”
Surrounded by hostile forces, there is a temptation within our camp to adopt contrarian stances towards almost everything emanating from mainstream politics. There is a lot of context around the Rwanda plan which is far from ideal and is in fact contemptible. The Rwanda plan has been introduced by Home Secretary Priti Patel, who recently sought after the interests of her own ethnic group by signing the Migration and Mobility Partnership (MMP), a deal that has been instrumental in the dramatic rise of Indian immigration to Britain. The immigration profile of the UK since Brexit has been transformed, with a huge drop in east European migration, and a large increase in non-EU migration, especially from India and China. Much of this migration is in the form of student visas for Chinese and Indian students, which might lead commentators to assume that this is a “temporary” migration problem that doesn’t result in long-term settlement. A comprehensive study of the relevant figures in 2015, however, found that trends consistently show “a majority of students were not going home. For the past three years the estimated inflows of students has been significantly higher than the number of self-reported former students estimated to be leaving.”
Britain has a massive legal immigration problem, and the Conservative party seems to be cynically playing to its audience. The party is traditionally the choice of rural England, while Labour is the choice of the industrial heartlands and the major cities. By curbing east European migration through Brexit, the Conservatives removed visible migration from rural areas where these migrants were occupying jobs in agriculture and food production. Legal migration is less visible to rural England, since it tends to flow in large part to the universities and workplaces of the major cities, which are regarded as fully multicultural anyway. As such, simply through geography and demography, Boris Johnson and Priti Patel can increase migration while giving the opposite impression to their key voters. The Rwanda plan is in many respects another part of the ploy, since it gives off an air of being hardline and appeals to the instinct of Conservative voters to want to tackle illegal immigration.
Those of us looking on at this charade from a radical Right perspective have a difficult choice to make. Do we support such charades knowingly and opportunistically, in the hope that it is something that could be built upon culturally and politically? Or condemn it honestly as a legislative hoax, and make no inroads at all in terms of the political landscape? I suggest probing with bayonets, but without getting your hopes up.