The Far-Right and the Fixed Ethnicity Fallacy

Note

What follows is patently obvious, and a few years ago would not need to be reiterated. But we are living in a period of rising racism and bigotry, propagated by some politicians and some political movements.

In contemporary discourse, far-right and racist groups often claim that ethnicity is a fixed, immutable trait. They argue that people belong to discrete, “pure” racial or ethnic groups, and that these groups are inherently superior or inferior. This belief underpins much of their rhetoric about immigration, national identity and social hierarchy. Yet both science and history contradict this premise.

Ethnicity is not simply a matter of genetics. It encompasses cultural practices, language, social upbringing and personal identification. While ancestry contributes to one’s background, it is rarely straightforward. Most individuals, particularly in historically mobile societies, have ancestors from multiple regions. For example, a person may have a Scottish father, a Welsh grandfather, an Indian great-grandfather and a Swedish great-great-grandmother. Reducing such a person to a single ethnic category ignores the complex reality of human ancestry.

Modern genetics confirms that human populations are not discrete, isolated units. Over thousands of years, migrations, trade and intermarriage have created highly mixed genomes. No contemporary population can claim “purity” in any meaningful sense. Attempts to classify people into rigid ethnic categories are therefore scientifically baseless.

The far right belief that ethnicity is stable is not just scientifically incorrect, it has dangerous consequences. It fosters division, discrimination and policies that ignore the lived reality of human heterogeneity. Challenging this fallacy requires emphasising both the scientific understanding of ancestry and the social construction of identity.

Ethnicity is a dynamic, overlapping and socially mediated concept. Recognising this undermines the false foundation of far-right ideology.

'Debunking the Great Replacement Theory' by Ryan Soames—guest blogger

The “Great Replacement” theory alleges that governments or shadowy elites are deliberately engineering the decline of white, European-descended populations through immigration and differential birth rates. Though it has found a foothold in political rhetoric, the claim is baseless—and its consequences are deeply corrosive. In recent years, some GB News commentators and Reform UK supporters have also entertained the theory obliquely, speaking of “demographic change” or “cultural erosion” in ways that echo the language of the so-called “Great Replacement”.

The concept itself can be traced to the French writer Renaud Camus, who popularised the phrase in 2011. Since then, it has circulated widely among far-right networks in Europe and North America, where it has been adopted as a rallying cry for nativist and exclusionary politics. More worryingly, it has inspired acts of terrorism, including the Christchurch mosque shootings in 2019 and the Buffalo supermarket attack in 2022. In each case, perpetrators cited the theory explicitly, presenting ordinary demographic trends as proof of an existential plot.

Supporters of the theory often argue that demographic change has been made to appear “organic” but is, in fact, carefully orchestrated. This claim, however, does not stand up to scrutiny. Migration patterns follow clear economic, political and social drivers. People move to seek employment, safety, or opportunity; conflicts, natural disasters and climate change displace populations; and policy decisions on asylum or labour migration respond to labour shortages and humanitarian obligations. These dynamics are well-documented, transparent and observable—not evidence of a secretive, coordinated plan. Interpreting ordinary social processes as a deliberate plot is a misreading of cause and effect, driven by fear rather than fact.

Concrete data further dismantles the theory. The UK's population is projected to grow by 4.9 million (7.3%) over the decade from mid-2022 to mid-2032, with net migration accounting for the entire increase. In 2024, net migration was estimated at 431,000, a sharp decline from the unusually high levels in 2022 and 2023. However, it remained higher than levels seen during the 2010s, when the figure typically fluctuated between 200,000 and 300,000. Post-Brexit, net migration has been driven by non-EU immigration. In 2024, 69% of non-EU immigration was for work and study purposes. These figures reflect the UK's evolving immigration patterns, influenced by policy changes and global events, rather than a coordinated effort to alter the demographic makeup of the population.

Britain itself has long been shaped by migration, from medieval arrivals to the Huguenot refugees of the seventeenth century, the Caribbean and South Asian communities who helped rebuild after the Second World War and more recent flows from Eastern Europe. These are recurring historical patterns, not unprecedented interventions. Migrant communities also make substantial contributions to the UK’s economy, public services and social life, enriching culture rather than erasing it. National identity is not a static artefact but an evolving tapestry.

The danger of “replacement” rhetoric lies in its capacity to distort perception and redirect anger. By framing migration as an intentional plot, the theory fosters scapegoating, fuels xenophobia and distracts from real policy challenges such as housing, wages, or public service provision. In doing so, it provides a simplistic narrative for complex societal issues, offering fear but no solutions.

At its heart, the Great Replacement is a myth: a conspiracy theory that confuses demographic reality with paranoia. Migration and demographic change are not evidence of orchestrated decline but part of ongoing historical processes. Acknowledging this truth is essential to resisting divisive politics and maintaining a society grounded in fact rather than fear.

The Lack of Detail and Function in Modern Toys

When I was a child, I had lots of Corgi and Dinky toy cars, along with TV series merchandise like the Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet toys, also made by Dinky. What fascinated me about these toys, apart their excellent build quality, was their functionality: doors, bonnets (hoods) and boots (trunks) opened, seats folded, windows wound-down, and some even had working rear indicator lights. And no doubt Toys aimed at girls, also had intricate details and functional parts, making play immersive for everyone.

The Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet toys were just as intricate. The Thunderbird 2 toy had a detachable pod with a door that opened to reveal the Mole, a smaller vehicle used for drilling underground in the TV series. And the Captain Scarlet SPV vehicle toy similarly had functioning parts, mirroring those in the TV series

I also had an Action Man (known in the USA as GI Joe), an action figure with movable limbs: arms, elbows, wrists, knees and ankles could all be moved. It came with detailed clothing covering military, naval and adventure themes, all with functional buttons and zips. Also available as adjuncts were accessories like weapons, tools, walkie-talkies and various other items of adventure equipment.

No longer are such well-crafted and detailed toys available, apart from the occasional collectors’ re-issues, which can be expensive. Modern toy cars, found in Tesco or other supermarkets, are mostly cast in a single mould. They have no functioning parts, and all a child can do is roll them across the floor. Action Man, discontinued around 2006, and had already changed dramatically by then: a muscle-bound physique had replaced the former realistic human form, limb mobility was limited and clothing options were few.

Much of this change comes down to safety regulations, production costs and the speed of modern manufacturing, which make intricate design prohibitive. But I can’t help but feel regret that the tactile joy of interacting with a well-crafted, functional toy has largely vanished.

Modern toys might be safer and cheaper, but the magic of a toy that works like the real thing has long gone.

How Bad Arguments Hide Risky Ideas

Sometimes the most telling examples of flawed reasoning don’t come from articles but from real conversations. Below is a recent exchange I had online that illustrates common patterns of deflection, tokenism and rhetorical flaws that let risky ideas appear harmless. I’ve changed the names to protect identities, but the dialogue remains unchanged

Me: I’m always amazed by how some people from ethnic minorities who support the far right seem to assume that the movement will never turn on them—once their role as propaganda tools has reassured others that the far right isn’t racist, they could easily be discarded or deported at that point.

Onion: Oh behave!!! The point is they are supporters because they know the far right isn't racist. Stop stirring up trouble that doesn't exist. I have 3 black children and we have many friends of colour/race. Time will tell.

Me: I pray that you and your family won't be affected by any of this. I really do. I mean that sincerely. But I think if the far right did get elected in the UK, more extreme elements in the movement will feel empowered to call for total repatriation.

Onion: If the right tried to turn on the people I love and know of colour we will rise against that too. That just won't happen. But the Islamic takeover is a real threat to the west I'm afraid and we need to resist this now before it's too late and the country is lost.

Me: You say "if the right tried then to turn on the people I love and know of colour we will rise against that too" but it will be too late then, as by then the far right will be the government. They will make the atmosphere so hostile that anyone who is not white will be made to feel unwelcome. 

Onion: Stop scaremongering!

Me: I’m not trying to scare anyone, just thinking about the potential consequences. I hope we can both agree that protecting people from harm, regardless of background, is something worth caring about. My concern is about the broader movement and the patterns history has shown. Sometimes individuals or groups think they’ll be exempt, and it doesn’t turn out that way.

Carrot: Shut up you fool!!! I have black, Sikh, Chinese, Japanese, Polish and Russian friends and many of us are the same. It's about the illegals and Islamists that want to take our country, it's nothing about race and never has been.

This exchange shows how easily talking points, personal anecdotes and appeals to loyalty can be used to deflect scrutiny, shut down debate and make risky ideas seem harmless. Sometimes, simply letting the conversation speak for itself is enough to expose the gaps between what people say, what they mean and the real-world consequences of their beliefs.

‘Nigel Farage’s Wealth Accumulation History’ by Andrew Price—guest blogger

He began his professional journey in the 1980s as a commodities trader in London’s financial sector. Over the years, he worked at firms including Drexel Burnham Lambert, Crédit Lyonnais Rouse, Refco and Natixis Metals. This period laid the foundation for his financial independence, providing both salary and performance-based bonuses. While not publicly documented, this early career in finance was crucial in establishing his initial wealth.

He entered politics in the 1990s, becoming a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for South East England from 1999 until 2020. He led the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and later the Brexit Party, gaining prominence for his outspoken views on the European Union. While the MEP salary alone was modest compared to private-sector earnings, additional allowances, pensions and political exposure contributed to his financial growth.

His political profile significantly increased during the 2010s, coinciding with the rise of Brexit and UKIP’s influence. This period amplified Farage’s media presence, opening doors to lucrative opportunities outside politics.

Farage’s wealth grew substantially through media engagements. Between 2014 and 2018, he earned roughly $1 million from appearances on Fox News. Later, he hosted ‘The Nigel Farage Show’ on LBC radio, establishing a high-profile platform that further increased his earning potential. But it's important to note that his most significant recent media income has been from GB News, where he has been reported to have earned nearly £400,000 from GB News alone for work since August 2024, paid at a rate of over £2,000 an hour.

In 2023, appeared in ‘I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here!’, reportedly earning £1.5 million. He also monetised his personal brand through Cameo, generating around £135,000 by recording personalised video messages for fans.

In addition to media work, Farage owns a media company, Thorn in The Side Ltd, whose assets increased by £1.25 million bringing its total value to £2.61 million in 2024. He has also engaged in promotional activities, such as endorsing gold bullion and other ventures, contributing further to his income.

His wealth is also reflected in his property portfolio, which has been a subject of significant public debate, and its exact value and ownership details are complex. While his Register of Members' Financial Interests lists him as having multiple properties, including some in Surrey and Kent, the specifics of a recent high-profile purchase have been widely reported.

He has stated he owns properties in Kent and Surrey, including a £1 million family home in the Kent village of Downe and two houses in Lydd-on-Sea, one of which he reportedly owns through his company, Thorn in The Side Ltd.

The property he uses in his Clacton constituency, a near £900,000 house, is not owned by him. He initially said he had ‘bought a house’ in Clacton but later clarified that it was purchased and is solely owned by his partner, Laure Ferrari.

Nigel Farage Expose Video

Here is an interesting video presenting a detailed look at Nigel Farage’s past, including allegations of racism, financial controversies and far-right connections:

'Who is Nigel Farage?'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfyiSk8Rjc8

For those of you in the USA, Farage wants to be the UK's next PM, and is adored by the US far right, who think (because of him) that the UK stifles free speech because it doesn't approve of racist and homophobic comments on social media platforms. 

‘Think Reform UK Only Targets “Illegal” Immigrants? Think Again’ by Adam McCulloch—guest blogger

Reform UK often frames its immigration stance as targeting only “illegal” immigrants. For voters concerned about law and order or border control, this can seem straightforward. But for ethnic minorities who might be considering support for the party, the reality is far more complicated, and potentially alarming.

While the party might present itself as focused only on undocumented migrants, history and political logic suggest that measures aimed at controlling immigration rarely stop at the border. Once in power, parties with nationalist or anti-immigrant platforms often move to introduce policies that affect settled migrants, naturalised citizens, and even their UK-born children, albeit indirectly.

Naturalised citizens in the UK enjoy the same legal protections as those born in the country. Deporting them or their children would face nearly insurmountable legal barriers, including human rights protections and anti-discrimination laws. So, a Reform UK government would likely avoid outright repatriation. But legal impossibility doesn’t mean political neutrality.

Even without formal deportations, governments can create systemic pressures that disproportionately affect migrant communities, such as:

Tighter Citizenship Rules: By raising language requirements, residency periods or fees, the party could make it harder for future generations of migrants to gain full rights.

Family Reunification Restrictions: Limiting visas for spouses or relatives forces existing families to choose between separation or emigration.

Economic and Social Measures: Adjusting benefits, housing eligibility or public services in ways that disproportionately impact migrant communities can create indirect pressure to leave.

Social and Political Rhetoric: Constant messaging questioning loyalty or “fit” can foster hostility, encouraging self-deportation.

Supporting Reform UK solely because of its stance on undocumented immigrants carries hidden risks. Policies that seem limited in scope can evolve into broader, systemic pressures on naturalised citizens and their families. For ethnic minorities, the “deport illegal immigrants only” message may be far from the end of the story.

In politics, it’s not just the laws on the books that matter—it’s the climate they create. And the climate a nationalist government can foster may affect you, even if you are legally settled in the UK.

'The Irony of MAGA’s War on the New World Order' by Ryan Soames—guest blogger

The “New World Order” (NWO) conspiracy theory has long been a narrative framework for groups sceptical of globalisation, supranational governance and perceived elite manipulation of democratic societies. While the theory has spread across ideological lines, it has been most closely associated with the American far right, particularly militia movements and populist conservative networks.

What is noticeable, however, is the way in which this rhetoric has been absorbed into the political identity of Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement. Trump and his supporters frequently invoke the language of “globalists”, “deep state actors” and “elitist cabals”, portraying the political struggle as one of national sovereignty and popular democracy against unaccountable transnational power. Yet the practical effect of Trump’s politics has often been to erode democratic institutions while simultaneously strengthening the position of corporate and technological elites.

The NWO narrative warns against centralised, authoritarian control that overrides democratic governance. Trump’s actions in office, however, consistently undermine institutional checks on executive power. From attempts to delegitimise electoral outcomes in 2020 to attacks on judicial independence and the normalisation of political violence, Trump’s political project has weakened precisely those safeguards designed to prevent authoritarian capture.

This reveals a fundamental irony: a movement ostensibly dedicated to resisting authoritarianism has embraced a leader whose methods exemplify it.

A second irony lies in the movement’s relationship to economic elites. Trump’s administration has given significant tax cuts to the wealthy, pursued deregulation favourable to large corporations and cultivated links with powerful technology figures such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Far from dismantling elite dominance, these policies entrenched it.

In this respect, MAGA’s anti-globalist populism functions less as a challenge to oligarchic power than as its legitimisation, reframed in nationalist rather than cosmopolitan terms.

MAGA’s nationalist framing (emphasising borders, cultural homogeneity and sovereignty) functions as a diversionary strategy. It directs popular discontent toward marginalised groups (immigrants, minorities and “woke” institutions) rather than toward structural concentrations of wealth and power. This redirection of grievance politics enables elite consolidation under the guise of defending “the people”.

The cult of personality surrounding Trump underscores another paradox. Conspiracy narratives often warn of demagogues who mobilise mass loyalty to centralise power. Yet within the MAGA movement, Trump himself occupies precisely this role, presented as the singular figure capable of defending America from “globalist” control.

The appropriation of New World Order rhetoric by the Trump’s supporters illustrates a paradox of modern populism. A narrative originally constructed to resist authoritarian centralisation and elite domination has been reconfigured into an instrument that enables both. The outcome is an inversion of its original intent: the supposed resistance to a global elite now serves to legitimate authoritarian governance and the consolidation of oligarchic power at home.

‘Why GB News Should Be Taken Off Air’ by Andrew Davies—guest blogger

In a media landscape that prides itself on pluralism and free speech, the line between open debate and dangerous provocation is a delicate one. Yet GB News, a self-styled “anti-woke” broadcaster launched in 2021, has repeatedly crossed that line, and now risks becoming a platform not for free expression, but for the amplification of racial resentment and division. It is time for Ofcom, the UK’s broadcast regulator, to act decisively and revoke its licence.

Since its inception, GB News has cultivated a roster of presenters and guests who often traffic in reactionary rhetoric. While robust discussion is healthy in a democracy, it becomes toxic when it normalises harmful stereotypes or scapegoats minority communities.

Recent segments have included thinly veiled “debates” on whether multiculturalism has “failed”, or whether immigration is inherently linked to crime. These aren’t new talking points, they echo decades of far-right propaganda, but what is new is their broadcast on a national television channel with the veneer of legitimacy.

It’s not about isolated incidents or rogue commentators. It’s about a consistent editorial direction that platforms racially divisive content under the guise of “saying what everyone’s thinking”. This isn't journalism but dog-whistle politics with a studio set.

Under the UK Broadcasting Code, licensees must ensure that "material likely to incite hatred" is not broadcast and that content avoids unjustified offence, particularly on grounds of race or ethnicity Ofcom has already investigated GB News multiple times, including for breaching due impartiality rules. The regulatory body must now consider whether the channel is “fit and proper” to hold a licence.

If the bar for disqualification includes persistent bias and incitement, GB News may well have crossed it. For comparison, Ofcom revoked the channel RT’s licence in 2022 for repeated failures to uphold impartiality, particularly during sensitive geopolitical moments. If state-sponsored disinformation was a red line, why not domestically-produced incitement that threatens racial cohesion?

The broader implications of racially inflammatory content are not abstract. Hate crimes in the UK have risen significantly over the past decade, particularly after periods of heightened anti-immigration rhetoric in media and politics. The 2016 Brexit referendum, for example, was followed by a spike in hate crime reports

When a television network lends credibility to narratives that “the country is being overrun”, or that minority communities are somehow incompatible with British values, it feeds a cycle of suspicion and hostility that has real-world consequences. In this environment, GB News is not just a broadcaster but a catalyst.

Critics will no doubt cry censorship. But freedom of expression is not absolute. With a broadcasting licence comes a responsibility to uphold public standards and contribute constructively to civil discourse. GB News is not a pub conversation, it is a regulated entity with access to potentially millions of households, despite its current modest viewing figures.

When a platform persistently pushes content that stigmatises, marginalises or vilifies based on race or ethnicity, it stops being a news channel and becomes a megaphone for division. That cannot be protected under the banner of free speech; not without undermining the very social fabric that speech is meant to serve.

Ofcom’s duty is not to protect broadcasters but to protect the public interest. In the face of growing evidence that GB News is fanning the flames of racial division, a failure to act sends a dangerous message: that hate, dressed in the language of opinion, is tolerable in the mainstream.

GB News has had ample time to course-correct. Instead, it has doubled down. The question now is not whether the channel can change, but whether it wants to. The answer, it seems, is no. And that leaves Ofcom with a choice: continue to issue mild rebukes, or take serious action.

For the sake of social cohesion, broadcasting integrity and minority safety, GB News should be taken off air.

‘Bev Turner’s Political Journey into Right Wing Populism’ by Rob Miller—guest blogger

Bev Turner once seemed an unlikely figure to become a darling of Britain’s populist right. A respected sports broadcaster in the late 1990s and early 2000s, she built her reputation in mainstream journalism: ITV’s Formula One coverage, lifestyle shows and a book exposing sexism in motorsport. She was, by most measures, part of the liberal-minded media establishment.

And yet, two decades later, she sits at the centre of GB News, hosting programmes that echo talking points from the populist right and railing against the very institutions she once worked for. How did this shift happen?

Turner’s early career showed flashes of independence, but not ideological extremism. Writing about Formula One in The Pits, she cast herself as a feminist critic of a macho culture. Later, on BBC Radio 5 Live, she fronted shows about pregnancy and family life, offering support and solidarity to women navigating new parenthood. It was work that placed her firmly within the mainstream of British broadcasting.

The turning point came not in the 2000s, but during the Covid-19 pandemic. As the government imposed lockdowns, promoted vaccines and tried to steer the public through crisis, Turner positioned herself as a sceptic. On This Morning and Jeremy Vine, she clashed with colleagues and public health experts, voicing doubts that resonated with a minority audience but also spread confusion. This was the opening right-wing voices had been waiting for.

Turner’s scepticism did not exist in a vacuum. During the pandemic, a well-organised ecosystem of right-wing commentators, YouTubers and media outlets amplified dissenting voices and encouraged them to push further. Anti-lockdown platforms welcomed Turner with open arms. Social media algorithms rewarded contrarian soundbites. In this climate, Turner was not merely offering “balance” but was being drawn into a feedback loop: validated with attention, booked as a guest, and soon indispensable to outlets keen to exploit Covid as a wedge issue. Her move to GB News was the logical endpoint of this process: a network that thrives on converting dissent into a culture-war brand.

Turner herself insists she has not changed—that she simply stands for free speech in a censorious age. But this framing misses the point. The right-wing media machine thrives on recruiting formerly mainstream figures, presenting them as brave dissidents, and using them to launder fringe positions into everyday debate. Turner is a textbook case. What began as scepticism about pandemic policy has morphed into a steady stream of culture-war commentary, closely aligned with populist talking points.

Turner’s journey from respected broadcaster to GB News provocateur is more than a personal evolution—it reflects a pattern of political repositioning. The pandemic created fertile ground for distrust, and right-wing media actors seized the chance to encourage sceptical broadcasters and integrate them into their ecosystem. 

Bev Turner’s shift to the right is not just her own story—it is a cautionary tale. It shows how quickly respected voices can be absorbed into the machinery of outrage, and how a public health crisis became the staging ground for Britain’s ongoing culture wars. Turner may believe she simply stood still while the world moved. The truth is more troubling: she was drawn in, validated and encouraged by right-wing media actors eager for credibility and controversy.