by Nathan Smith

What do you call someone who performs the same action over and over, each time expecting a different result?

Whenever I see a new party created by the political right, I shake my head because it only proves the old school Marxists correct when they said the right does not understand power. If you haven’t heard by now, former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe is in the middle of rolling out his own political party called Restore Britain, which he hopes will solve all of Britain’s problems. I am still shaking my head.

Restore Britain is an outgrowth of a pressure/lobby group with the same name. Lowe started the group after being kicked out of Reform UK for being too right-wing. Lowe now wants to use Restore Britain as a vehicle for reducing immigration and mass deportations of non-British peoples, among other peripheral financial, media, infrastructure and fiscal changes. You can read its policy paper on migration here.

The first thing to point out is that the party’s name, Restore Britain, suggests there is an important difference between the UK and Britain as discreet political entities. Britain is not the UK, and neither is Wales, Scotland or Ireland. The idea of “restoring Britain” is much better than “restoring the UK.” In all honesty, for Britain, Scotland, Wales and Ireland to survive, the UK will probably have to die. Lowe seems to implicitly understand that this is the correct political framing.

According to its policy documents, the party aims to reduce immigration by creating a policy system that encourages what it calls the “involuntary returns” of migrants. In pursuit of what it calls the “logistics of mass deportations,” the party will:

• increase immigration enforcement raids sevenfold;
• recruit 10,000 immigration officers;
• train local police under joint powers of immigration enforcement;
• allocate a $30 billion five-year budget for recruitment, training and operatives;
• publicise raids to reinforce deterrence; and
• strengthen the “hostile environment” for foreigners living in Britain (make it harder for migrants to want to stay).

Looking at these measures, I was reminded of the scientist who presents a long and complex mathematical proof on the blackboard. The derivation proceeds until there is a gap in the middle of the equations where the scientist has written:

“Then a miracle occurs.”

After this miraculous step, the proof continues smoothly to the conclusion. Another scientist in the audience raises his hand and politely says:

“I think you should be more explicit in step two.”

While the “logistics” of reducing immigration sound good on paper, I think step two needs to be more explicit: how does Lowe plan to convince the many elites and interests who clearly want mass immigration to continue?

It may very well be that those elites and interests (many of which are not even based in the UK) support mass immigration because they hate British people. Hatred is certainly a strong motivating factor. But it’s also true that mass immigration generates a huge amount of power and money for those elites and interests. Now Restore Britain comes along and proposes to take something away from these elites and interests without offering anything of equivalent value in exchange. Why would they accept Lowe’s terms?

The answer is, they wouldn’t. Should Restore Britain be elected to power in 2029 by some miracle, without solving for that law of equivalent exchange, it will be dead in the water. The entire non-governmental apparatus, along with the full civil service, will fold its arms in revolt or actively undermine Lowe’s legislative process.

On the other hand, if Lowe were to spend the intervening three years campaigning, reaching out to native British people, promising them a better future, and talking to them as if they actually exist (which the elites and interests refuse to do), Lowe could generate plenty of political energy. By promising a future Britain only for British people, Lowe could rally the millions of Britons who will certainly be needed to work with very little pay and lots of personal suffering to “Restore Britain.” The sunny uplands for the British people after mass deportations will be worth the struggle, but it will require a lot of energy to get there.

But there is another glaring gap in Lowe’s equations on the blackboard: what is a British person?

Lowe obviously believes such a group exists because he wants to “restore Britain.” The logic is that the reason Britain is called Britain is because British people live there. Lowe rejects the communist idea that someone who lives in Britain is necessarily British. A nation is not a government or country, but a people. A nation is an extended family group derived from a particular racial makeup. Britain is a nation, and therefore it belongs to the distinct group called the British people.

The crazy thing is that we invented the technology to find out what a British person is many decades ago. It’s called DNA profiling. DNA is the stream of biological code that reveals mathematically why one person (or people group) is different from another. DNA can be measured objectively. There is no arguing with the results of DNA profiling. We have the technology already.

The process of using DNA for political purposes is not difficult or complex. All one must do is set an arbitrary line in the code. On one side of this line will be the group called “British people.” On the other side is a group called “everyone else.” Nothing is wrong or right about any of these two demarcated groups. They all have their places in the world. But if the future of Britain is to be for only British people, the first step is to decide what a British person is. For that, we can use a haplogroup.

A haplogroup is a genetic family line, a group of people who share a common ancestor, identified by specific DNA mutations.

Using haplogroup analysis, a British person is classified as part of the population defined by the paternal haplogroup R1b, particularly the sub-branch R1b-L21, which is strongly associated with Bronze Age population movements into Britain. Other British paternal haplogroups, such as I1, I2, and R1a, reflect older European hunter-gatherer ancestry and later Scandinavian Viking-period influence. On the maternal side, haplogroups H, U, K, J and T are most common in British people, representing ancient European hunter-gatherers and early farmers.

It turns out that a British person is not difficult to describe. Each person living in Britain today either does or does not share these genetic markers. Anyone who shares them in sufficient quantity can stay in Britain. Anyone who does not have them can leave. This is what the scientist in that story was asking for when he pointed out the gap in step two.

So, it is endlessly suspicious why no one ever suggests an immigration policy based on DNA profiling. The technology is extremely robust and reliable, and it would be cheap to set up. Each nation could swab all its inhabitants for saliva, run the samples through a DNA profiler and figure out who is part of the nation and who is a foreigner. Once that is done, the rest of the steps to solve immigration would quickly fall into place. And the best thing is, you wouldn’t need to rip down the government to do it!

We could keep the welfare state. We could keep all the social regulations. We could keep spending every dollar of state assistance. There would be no need to take a chainsaw to any laws and government departments. In fact, you could have everything that currently exists, and public spending on welfare would actually go down.

The moment you prove – not guess, prove – what a British person is, the only change that would be needed is that all welfare, all regulations and all kinds of state assistance can only be accessed by those with the haplogroup called “British people.” The British state works for the British people only. Anyone who is not genetically British gets no state assistance whatsoever.

Watch how quickly the immigration problems solves itself.

If you’re a political insider in Restore Britain and you think citizenship should be contingent on being genetically British, try floating this simple idea at the next strategy meeting. See how fast you get kicked out of the room. Then you’ll see that no one in power is all that interested in reversing the current demographic trends that threaten the existence of distinct people groups that stretch back thousands of years.

Until and unless Rupert Lowe shows the courage to define what a British person is, then he is just doing the same thing over and over, pretending to expect different results. At some point, we must grapple with the realisation that the fecklessness of our politicians isn’t insanity; maybe it’s a controlled demolition.

Originally published on Flat Circle.