In November a 34-old woman Emma West was recorded on a tram in Croydon (near to London) expressing her very no-pc views of the effects of immigration on England even though she was surrounded by ethnic minorities. Since her public complaints were recorded by a passenger and put on YouTube other instances of such behaviour have come to light, the most recent to hit the national media being another youngish white woman (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097142/Woman-filmed-hurling-racist-abuse-Tube-passengers-ANOTHER-video-rant-London-transport.html#ixzz1lgvuUjuO). I put a few URLs for videos of such behaviour from England at the end of the article. The examples are all of people who are under the age of 40. Nor does it take long for instances of such behaviour in the USA to be found on media hosting sites. This goes against the oft made claims by liberals that what they term racial prejudice is restricted to the older generation, who it is implied “don’t know any better”, while the young are race-blind.
Such outbursts are surprising because of the risk they carry of assault by the ethnic minorities listening to them. They are doubly unexpected because present day England (and Britain) is rigid with political correctness. As Emma West’s case vividly shows, the authorities are ever more penal in their repression of dissent. After her arrest in December 2011 Miss West was kept for weeks on remand in a high security prison for what the authorities coyly called “her own protection” http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/emma-west-immigration-and-the-liberal-totalitarian-state-part-2/) . She has since been charged but not as yet tried (she appears at Croydon Crown Court on 17 2 2012) with a serious criminal offences which carry a potential jail sentence of two years. (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/emma-west-immigration-and-the-liberal-totalitarian-state-part-3/). All of that for simply expressing her anger at the consequences of mass immigration.
But even if people are not charged with criminal offences, to be publicly labelled a racist in England is to risk the loss of a job or accommodation if rented, a campaign of media abuse and social ostracism. The risk of losing a job is particularly high for public service employees. In extreme cases such as those accused of the murder of Stephen Lawrence the persecution may be officially generated and sustained and last indefinitely and include the holding of trials which are manifestly unfair because of hate-campaigns conducted against the accused by both politicians and the mainstream media. (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/stephen-lawrence-gary-dobson-david-norris-and-a-political-trial/).
With these very considerable disincentives to expressing honest views about race and immigration under any circumstances, what is it that drives people to express them uninhibitedly in situations which objectively place them in physical as well as legal danger? After all the instinct for self-preservation lies at the core of human behaviour and people are generally media savvy enough these days to realise that anything they say in public is likely to be recorded and placed on sites such as YouTube. So why do people like Emma West ignore all these formidable barriers to behaving in this way? Drink or drugs you may think, yet the noteworthy thing about most of the examples caught on mobile phones is that they show no signs of being seriously intoxicated by either. These are people who are doing it in the full knowledge of what they are doing and its likely effects. But even if they were intoxicated with drink or drugs all that would mean is that the brakes of sobriety were removed and the true feelings of the person released.
A clue to what is happening can be found in the fact that their complaints gather around the same theme: that England is being invaded and colonised to the point where, in places such as parts of London, it scarcely seems to be England in anything in name. Their complaints are not about the particular ethnic minorities with which they are surrounded when they make their public complaints or against individual immigrants generally, but the general effects of mass immigration.
These people are suffering from what I call the claustrophobia of diversity. They feel that they are being oppressed by immigrants, that the land which is ancestrally theirs is being colonised to the extent that parts of the country seem no longer to belong to England. Worst of all they see themselves as helpless to prevent it because the colonisation is being facilitated and encouraged by their own elite who all, whatever their ostensible political colour, subscribe to the treason and viciously support the suppression of dissent to the betrayal. This mixture of the act of elite-sponsored colonisation by foreigners, the failure of democracy through the tacit conspiracy of the political elite to ensure that no meaningful alternative policy on immigration is offered by any party capable of forming a government and the inability of the native population to even voice their protest at this betrayal of their most pressing interests in the mainstream media produces an ever growing sense of rage, a rage made all the more terrible and onerous by the feelings of impotence engendered by the ever more oppressive restrictions on public expression which British governments have imposed.
These feelings are with the English all the time. If someone English lives in an area which does not have a large ethnic minority population the anger and frustration may remain bubbling below the surface most of the time, although they will be exacerbated by reports of their fellow county men and women elsewhere being harassed and bullied by the liberal elite into towing the multiculturalist line while ethnic minorities are pandered to ever more grotesquely with bizarre interpretations of what constitutes a human right and the constant growth of interest groups which cater solely for ethnic minorities, for example, the Refugee Council (http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/about/board).
But those who live in an area which is heavily populated by ethnic minorities will face constant triggers for the anger and frustration to come to the forefront of their minds. Every time someone in such an area walks the streets they will be reminded of how the demographic balance has changed and is changing. Every time a native English parent seeks a school for their children they will be faced often enough with choices of schools where many, quite often a majority, of the pupils are from ethnic minorities. A visit to their GP or hospital will find them sitting in waiting rooms outnumbered by ethnic minorities. When they go for a job, especially if it is low-skilled or unskilled, they are likely to find themselves being asked to work, if they can get such work at all, in a situation where they are in the ethnic minority and English is not the common workplace language. If they go into a shop, cinema or café they are increasing likely to find themselves being served by foreigners with inadequate English for the job.
Everywhere the white English man or woman in an area with a large ethnic minority population looks it seems that their world is being changed utterly and that they can do nothing about it because of the elite complicity in what has happened and is happening. That is why the public outbursts of frustration such as that of Emma West occur. They are the bursting of the emotional dam. The fact that the episodes recorded so often occur on public transport is unsurprising because it is here that the proximity with those who trigger the feelings of rage and betrayal is greatest and there is the least opportunity to escape from these reminders of the surreptitious elite-sponsored conquest of England. The physical claustrophobia of being on a crowded train or bus marries with the social claustrophobia of diversity.
The people recorded in the urls at the end of this essay are white working class Englishwomen. They of course are from the class who had to and have to suffer the main brunt of mass immigration. They live cheek-by-jowl with the immigrants and their descendants. They send their children to schools where their child may be the only white English child in their class. They live in the tower blocks where they are the only white English family in the block. Not for them the middle class white liberals escape through white flight to the suburbs or countryside or the gentrification of once working class areas such as Islington. It is small wonder that people such as Emma West should feel deserted and betrayed and eventually lose all patience with public silence.
But uninhibited racial language and complaint is not restricted to those without status, wealth, influence and power. Two well know and recent examples are the fashion designer John Galliano (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CQO8q3FSH0) and the actor and director Mel Gibson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50_qMJSPtqY&feature=relatedso – go in at 1 minute 17 sec). There is far more to these public displays of anger at the fact of mass immigration and the behaviour of the political elite than simple desperation. It is entirely natural behaviour. Public expression of dissent can be partially successful but it will never be entirely complete. Even in extreme autocracies such as the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany there were still voices raised in opposition. The English have been subject several generations of ever greater elite propaganda and censorship of dissent about immigration and its effects but this has not made them race or ethnicity blind, merely increasingly reticent, fearful and stressed about immigration and its consequences. Not only that, but the oppression arising from mass immigration is different in quality from the oppression of a native elite which merely tries to enforce its will on the masses. The effects of mass migration are around people all the time. There is no respite.
When people are asked to suppress their normal feelings stress occurs. Where the suppression of feelings relates to the most fundamental social and psychological structures stress is at its greatest. That is what happens when an elite tries to recreate society by asking the population to override the behaviour which makes a society strong and stable.
Social animals have two universal features: they form discrete groups and within the group produce hierarchies – although both the group and the hierarchy vary considerably in form and intensity. Why they do this is a matter of debate but it is a fact that this what invariably happens. Human beings are no exception; whether they are hunter-gatherers or people populating a great modern city they all have a need to form groups in which they feel naturally comfortable and within that group form hierarchies.
But the sense of being separate, of belonging to a discrete group with identifiable characteristics is of a different order of complexity than it is for any other social animal because homo sapiens is high intelligence, self-awareness and most importantly language. Where an animal may simply accept another member of the species as part of the group through simple and obvious triggers such as scent, markings or imprinting, human beings judge by wide variety of criteria who is and is not part of the group, the most potent of which are racial characteristics and cultural differences. In some ways that makes acceptance of the outsider easier – at least in theory – but in others much more difficult than it might be for an animal, for there are many more reasons for human beings to accept or not accept someone into the group than there are for a non-human social animal.
Social animals form hierarchies almost certainly because otherwise there would be no way of the society organising itself to accommodate the differing qualities and abilities of individuals which arise in any species. Societies which consist of various human groups that see themselves as separate from each other disrupt the creation of a healthy hierarchy. Instead of there being a single hierarchy within an homogenous group (defining homogenous as a population in a discrete territory which sees itself as a group), there are hierarchies formed within each group and a further overarching hierarchy formed from the various groups themselves with each group hierarchy competing within the population as a whole.
Man is also a territorial being. Homo sapiens need the security of a homeland. Remove that and insecurity is perpetual. That is why mass immigration is the most fundamental of treasons. That which is called racism by liberals and their ethnic minority auxiliaries is simply political protest of the most fundamental kind. When someone resorts to complaint based on race, ethnicity or nationality in their own country they are saying “This is my land, you will not steal it from me without a fight”. The time to worry is when there are no public demonstrations of dissent to the policy of mass immigration and its consequences.
The package of emotion transmuted into conscious thought we call patriotism is an essential part of maintaining a society (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/patriotism-is-not-an-optional-extra/). A society which forgets that is doomed.