Admittedly, there are certain times within a movement’s history when one has to draw a line in the sand. This is naturally a good thing of course; indicating where one’s limits lie in terms of what is acceptable among the movement not only helps to define it but also allows for the movement to be seen as moderate to weed out any extremist people who may latch onto it; trying to make themselves seem more moderate when they are anything but. This is what I believe among other people within the populist right, is what we need as a movement to do to the identitarian group Generation Identity.
Why is this? There doesn’t seem to be anything inherently wrong with them; they peacefully protest alongside genuine patriots who care about their country, support our side in many of our causes including reducing mass immigration and freeing Tommy Robinson and are heavily proactive most notably in stopping NGO boats escorting economic migrants to Europe. So, what could be wrong with that? The problem is what their main goals are as opposed to the other campaigns they support. The group seemed about as steeped in racial identity politics as your typical Stand Up To Racism idiot or your average Richard Spencer alt-right supporter for reasons of which I’ll discuss shortly.
Now while there is nothing wrong with criticising mass immigration or Islamic terrorism, and one shouldn’t be called racist for doing either. That being said, we shouldn’t at the same time backing people steeped in identitarianism or actual otherwise we are no better than our social justice warrior counterparts on the left, making it a difficult balance at times. I for one regret and felt immensely guilty for bringing up how I was one of the few white British people at my workplace during my first contribution to the Red Pill Factor livestream, especially given how well my fellow colleagues treat me there, of who I deeply apologise to if they are reading this.
It is because I was reducing them to their racial and national traits when I shouldn’t have. It was unnecessary because it didn’t really fit the conversation beyond the fact we were discussing immigration affecting the British workforce as a whole. People are far more than just their race or nationality; they are their character more than anything else. Judging them solely on their race or nationality is inherently wrong.
Hence why us on the populist right cannot support GI. If we claim to be not racist and such, we shouldn’t be associating ourselves with a group who advocates as a main policy ethnopluralism, as established on their website (of which I read so you don’t have to). This idea, first established by French philosopher Alain de Benoist and coined by Henning Eichberg advocates for countries divided by ethnicity. In other words, a fancier way of advocating racial segregation.
The idea had also found favour among the extreme French movement the Nouvelle Droite (meaning New Right in English) and the alt-right in the United States, so much so that even Richard Spencer gave Benoist a platform at one of his events despite the latter distancing himself from such movements. Both have already received much heavy criticism for their openly racist and extreme views, and it’s not like Generation Identity do much to be more moderate on the issue.
After all, they suggest that such a policy would be good because it supposedly ‘warms tensions’ between cultures. This sounds utterly absurd, given that one of the main problems that both Great Britain and Western society has as a whole is how migrant communities are creating tension among the native population by refusing to integrate.
The balkanisation of the West if you will and forgive if I would not rather our glorious isles resemble the former Yugoslavia in the 90s because of such idiotic policies. Having a system like this in place also seems alarmingly racist and akin to other systems of its kind, like say the Apartheid system employed in South Africa for the longest time or racial segregation in the southern areas of the United States during the Jim Crow era. From this, it would seem bizarre why those on the populist right would want to attach ourselves with such a movement at all based on its profoundly illiberal and racist policies, given we claim to stand against both.
Meanwhile, like many other far-right groups, Generation Identity are steeped in historical iconography. Take for example their symbol, of which represents the Lambda, of which King Leonidas used in the Battle of Thermopylae to fend off Persian forces, despite being vastly outnumbered and eventually losing to the latter forces. If that sounds at all familiar that is because it most recently adapted into the 2006 film 300 starring Gerard Butler, and the application of a military conflict to a fight against bad government policies over immigration seem as bombastically absurd as half of the historically inaccurate fantasy in the Zack Snyder film.
Meanwhile, they also pride themselves on Reconquista, whereby they see their fight against the left and their hegemony as akin to how Visigothic kingdoms recaptured the Iberian Peninsula, of which had been conquered by Muslim armies. This again seems laughably absurd given that they seem to be talking of how bringing actual conflict against the left and general immigrant groups as opposed to just using political action to solve their issues. In both cases, we have a group using historical examples of famous battles to not only justify their actions, but imply a war is on their hands and will use any action necessary to win.
That may sound absurd at first, but consider this. They both attempt to block boats carrying migrants from entering ports in countries like Italy for example (not necessarily wrong but shows that this group are willing to go an arguably unnecessary extra mile for their cause) and ITV’s documentary Undercover: Inside Britain’s Far Right (when it wasn’t trying to demonise For Britain leader Anne Marie Waters as a far right Nazi for criticising Islam) revealed how their members often have combat training all the while boost about having self-defence skills. It seems that as opposed to most of the populist right of who peacefully protest and campaign against ideas we don’t like, GI take it a step further and actively prepare for and carry out exercises of which causes actual disruption and confrontation. This clearly isn’t a group based on the non-aggression principle and it seems that they will resort to violence to achieve their aims.
Their general policies beyond the obvious problems with ethnopluralism also should send alarm bells ringing. They discuss the demographic crisis of which Europe is currently facing and then conflates with the conspiracy theory around The Great Replacement (of which isn’t real, but that is an argument for another time). To solve this, they suggest supposedly ‘reconquer’ cultural vacuums inherent in our societies. And while I am all for reasserting national identity into Great Britain, the idea of supposedly doing it by conquering our lands (whatever that means is hard to say even though it sounds worrying) sounds like aggression and fits right in with the more overtly aggressive stance the group is taking on such serious issues.
Meanwhile, they also advocate rebuilding an ethno-cultural identity without as they say ‘falling into xenophobic reflexes’ which seems impossible given that the inherent policy pushes race above everything else. Also, they stress that they want to determine political discourse through ‘meta-politics’, whereby they outline the determined discourse for ‘direct and concrete’ political decisions later on. This seems slightly authoritarian and again against the more liberal outlook of the populist right movement which accepts people and isn’t planning to determine how political discourse is carried out among our movement, provided the content isn’t extreme.
Finally, discussing general identity, they seem to further establish segregation by suggesting that the only way to maintain our own culture is to reject other cultures mixing with it whatsoever, of which again sounds authoritarian as while there are inherent problems with multiculturalism, completely rejecting and not allowing it at all seems to be extreme in the other direction, and ignore some of the benefits it can bring. The fact that their political outlook is not only authoritarian but makes me sound like your typical social justice warrior can’t be a good thing indicating the inherent problems in the ideology of GI.
Meanwhile, their spokespeople are not ones to inspire confidence in this movement either. Most notably this applies to Martin Sellner of who is arguably the face of GI, all the while being the head of the Austrian affiliation. Now while I will protect Sellner’s right to free speech and heavily criticise his banning in the UK earlier this year (of which I defended his right to speak his ideas in a speech I made at The Liberalists UK’s Count Dankula march) I can still heavily criticise his ideas because of the problems they have. Not only does he apouse a lot of GI’s bogus ideas (mainly The Great Replacement at talks like his Traditional Britain Group back in 2017) but also used to be heavily involved with the Nazi scene in Austria too, of which he was a part of until 2011. And while now it seems that he has claimed to have changed his tune, it seems that his views haven’t changed much at all, given the identitarian politics of GI.
Meanwhile, other supporters have been bluntly open about the racism within GI. Melanie Dittmer of Rhineland Idenitarians has said such wonderful thoughts such as ‘if you throw all the colors together, you end up with brown’ and when asked by a German-Arab reporter as to what the difference between her and Dittmer were, the latter proudly (and unironically) replies with ‘the blood!’. And while one may argue I am simply using the guilt by association fallacy, my response would be that the inherent ideas of GI are bad as it is, so it’s not like the movement were already beyond the pale before having cranks like Sellner and Dittmer metaphorically s*it the bed. Meanwhile, the fact that they are faces of this movement also indicates that the group of GI aren’t terribly bothered by having these cranks be the spokespeople for their movement either.
So, their constant clinging on to us, whether it be through marching with us with their flags or banners or standing shoulder to shoulder with us during campaigning is a massive problem. Not to mention how many of the moderate voices on our side have seemingly bought into their message hook line and sinker. For example, Canadian journalist Lauren Southern hangs around with the likes of Sellner quite a bit, and is now joining him in suing the UK over their recent ban there. Meanwhile, the youth branch of UKIP Young Independence initially invited him to speak for a talk, of which was decisively cancelled after much outcry. Both Southern and UKIP are some of our more famous and moderate voices, which makes their hanging around of guys like these worrying, especially with the former having expressed sympathy with the alt-right before. Their association to us only gives fuel to the fire of the left who hate us and will use any tactic to silence us.
After all, they are a racial identitarian group of who espouse illiberal policies all the while bizarrely constantly comparing historical conflicts to nowadays, indicating that they are willing to use violence and intimidation to get what they want. And finally, they seem more bothered by racial separation, of which is not only inherently racist and discriminatory, but also creates more of a problem with racial and national segregation in our society of which is already creating enough tension within our communities as it is.
In short they are no different to far right parties or groups like the British National Party or the National Front in that sense (their pseudointellectualism and slicker presentation meaning that they aren’t fully far right, of which is common among the alt-right), they are no different to the intolerance of left wing identitarian movements and their use of history to push ethno-nationalist propaganda is no better than the likes of Nazi Germany who pushed the greatness of the Aryan race or the Greek party Golden Dawn pushing the Battle of Thermopylae and the image of the Spartans down their voting bloc, especially given GI’s inherent illiberal values being similar across the board.
So, what can we do?
We do need to start distancing ourselves from GI. After all, doing such an act can be good for our movement. UKIP were decisive in kicking out various Nazi types who tried to join. Tommy Robinson struggled for years to remove actual racists from the English Defence League of which kept them out later on. General conservatives in America started to distance themselves from the alt-right once it became clear how extreme they were. And Anne Marie Waters blocked GI’s Jordan Diamond from attending her events when his position became clear. If we stand by our principles distancing ourselves as much as possible from GI will be a good start. Because if we don’t, all we are doing is playing into the left’s hands of who will smear us over these fringe individuals infiltrating our movements. Don’t think this is a small issue either.
Remember all the nonsense they gave us over the video of Ali Dawah being attacked by the Democratic Football Lads Alliance at the Day For Freedom? Or their whinging about Stefan Molyneux’s connection to that event too given his statements about black people in the past? They will jump on any opportunity to sink us. We can’t give it to them. We need to distance ourselves from GI as much as we can. After all, if we endlessly rightly criticise the left for supporting identitarian lunatics like Black Lives Matter and Stand Up To Racism, surely we should be setting an example. That is why the populist right needs to distance ourselves from Generation Identity. If we don’t, we will suffer slowly but surely once their true intentions become clearer and clearer by the day.
(Articles reflect the views of the author, and not necessarily those of Luke Nash-Jones, The Red Pill Factory, or Make Britain Great Again.)