With her four-letter words and direct syntax, Emma West has truly focused the Leftist mind, for one remarkable aspect of the reaction to her critique of government immigration policy in Britain is the sudden regurgitation, in concentrated form, of Leftist clichés in support of the status quo.
For those of us who enjoy analysing those clichés, this reaction has simplified our work, since we now need only to look at any one single source to find them all helpfully collated for our convenience.
It hardly seems worth bothering responding to some of the most common assertions. The idea that Britain has a ‘tradition’ of welcoming every imaginable race because the island was invaded at various times by White folk with differently coloured hair is simply not a matter for serious debate.
So is the notion that being critical of immigrants and of the government-sponsored policy of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism is the product of ignorance, bigotry, and delusional feelings of racial superiority. Like the notion that racial feelings are a disease cured through ‘education and love’, this is pure snobbery—the Leftist’s way of telling you that he thinks himself better than you. (It is always interesting how egalitarians are in fact great believers in hierarchy; the only difference between them and their opponents is that in egalitarianism, egalitarians are king.)
Leftist commentators who make reference to European colonialism in the effort to embarrass their White opponents are far more worthy of attention. When non-White commentators on the Left argue that Britain colonised Africa and Asia, ‘plundered their wealth’, and ‘oppressed’ the natives, they are effectively saying ‘you did it to us, so we’re now gonna do it to you!’, or more simply and accurately, ‘f**k you too!’—which is an interesting admission, is it not, that they are in the business of colonisation.
Equally interesting is the claim that Britain’s survival is to be credited entirely to immigrants, for this is not an argument, but an expectoration, it being simply a polite way of saying that British people are lazy and stupid.
Leftists also deny that there is such a thing as a British identity, or even such a thing as a White race, because of all those White people with different coloured hair that invaded—i.e., not welcomed into—the island over the centuries. These same Leftists would not deny that Indians have an identity, even though what we now call India is diverse and also the product of multiple invasions. When a White Leftist denies White identity, he is expressing self-hatred. When a non-White denies White identity, he is saying that Britain is for him nothing but a wallet—the natives are either a resource or an obstacle: a resource when they give money or change the laws to accommodate immigrants, an obstacle when they complain or prefer their own company.
There is a self-serving, self-reinforcing circularity in the Left’s denial of any European identity. They are quick to point out that the label ‘British’ comprises diverse people of diverse origin. This was true of any European nation state even when the continent was almost entirely White, but it was also the Left who pushed for a degree diversification that eventually rendered the ‘British’ label meaningless beyond a strictly legal sense. In essence, the Left manufactured the proof for its own argument, and then claimed the argument was correct because there was proof.
Circular reasoning characterises the conception of the legal process, contrived by the Left, that disenfranchises critics of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism. A Leftist blogger, in a hate-filled open letter to Emma West, wrote
We have laws against your actions, and laws against your views, precisely because they are unacceptable in a civilised, multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial society. The law sanctions them because they cannot and will not be tolerated in Britain.
This translates into: ‘you’re a criminal because we say so, and we say so because you’re a criminal’.
Self-serving, self-reinforcing circularity and circular reasoning also characterises the Left’s conception of government involvement in race relations: ‘anti-racist’ government policy is treated by the Left as external legitimation of their ‘anti-racism’, but the government is Leftist, ideologically if not nominally, so legitimation is not external but internal: the Left claims legitimacy on the basis that it has legitimated itself.
Much of the pontification from the Left has been hideously self-serving and mean-spirited. At best, commentators have used the incident to push for concessions: the White Leftists want to move forward with their experiment, and flagellate themselves some more; non-Whites want a completely open and unrestricted society where Whites have zero racial consciousness and place zero value on their heritage and identity. At worst, snobbish commentators, even politicians, have publicly gloated and indulged their cruelty by kicking the dog that’s already down.
It bears pointing this out: Emma West has already been publicly insulted and humiliated, arrested, deprived of her child, and remanded into custody; she will spend Christmas and New Years in a cell, where she will be at risk of attacks by coloured inmates. If convicted, she will spend up to two years in prison, after which her conviction will remain on her record for five years, barring her from a number of professions and making employment even more difficult. If she has credit card or other debts, she will face serious financial pressure. Note that not once did she use a racial slur.
Lashing out against random coloured folk on a tram will of course yield negative results. Yet just because some citizens express themselves less well than others, it does not mean their concerns are in all cases illegitimate and to be ignored—the sheer popularity of the video and the volume of commentary it has elicited from all quarters alone attests to the fact that Emma West has voiced what is in the minds of many—including, because she fits their narrative of omnipresent White racism, the non-White media professionals who have commentated on the issue (see here and here). Some working class folk know no other way to communicate their frustrations, and they certainly enjoy fewer options than most in a system where they, and not the Blacks or the postcolonial media commentators, are the subaltern.
Moreover, can those who are in the business of colonising our continent, pushing for permanent structural changes in their favour, including laws that disadvantage the natives, really expect not to experience at least some hostility? Even the diverse White invaders of yesteryear were fiercely resisted, despite being closely related members of the race. This is not to say that throwing cans and shouting slurs at Pakistanis passing by is a good way to behave; we may call such behaviour ignoble—un-Aryan. This is not to say, either, that all of those who do not trace their ancestors to Europe are in the business of colonising the continent; in some cases they, or their fathers, or their grandfathers were born here, and this is all they know. This is to say, rather, that resisting and expressing one’s rage at the present push for colonisation, especially by strangers who despise our culture, harbour historical resentments, and / or have a purely instrumental relationship to our society, is normal, moral, and legitimate, and this may affect not only the White politicians, mediacrats, and academics who are the instruments of colonisation, and who truly deserve our venom, but also those pushing to transform our living space to make it amenable for them. The expectation that Whites be pliant, cooperative, complicit, and enthusiastic about their dispossession and replacement is silly, perverse, and unjust, and we owe it to ourselves oppose it and provide appropriate means of channelling the rage.