The torching of migrants’ homes in Belfast by masked thugs last week must have been terrifying, both for the innocent victims and their neighbours. But in a deprived community where sectarian tensions remain high after ‘the Troubles’, and large numbers of asylum seekers have been dumped without consultation, it could hardly have come as a surprise. What did Starmer and his friends expect after Monday’s horrific knife attack – that locals would hold hands and chant ‘Diversity is our strength’?
For thirty years or more, the indigenous population, the white British, have had the ideologies of ‘anti-racism’, critical race theory, white privilege, diversity, inclusion and multiculturalism rammed down their throats by a righteous liberal elite, their national culture proscribed as institutionally racist by a theology which recasts the history of the world as one of white oppression and black victimhood. To atone for their purported historic sins, they have been subjected to mass immigration without consent in the name of creating a diverse, multicultural, ‘post-national’ society in which their role is to celebrate the cultures and identities of others. Their own destiny is to be erased from history. And while the working class has been relegated to the scrapheap, replaced by cheap migrant labour, the virtue-signalling elite has prospered, enjoying its privileges from the safety of its boutique enclaves.
Indoctrination in our schools, institutions and mainstream media concerning the unquestioned benefits of a diverse multicultural society has been relentless. The branding of any dissent from the official ideology as far right, cultural nationalist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, racist etc. has been highly effective in silencing the masses – as has the institution of hate crimes and hate incidents, which allow members of ‘protected minorities’ to accuse anyone else of bias against them, smearing the reputation of the alleged perpetrator in the process.
But there is only so much people can take. How did elite liberals expect the indigenous population to react to the murder of Henry Nowak, handcuffed and allowed by the police to bleed to death because a knife-wielding Sikh had accused him of being a racist. Or the latest rape by Afghan migrants; or the Southport rampage; or the flagrant double standards we are seeing in policing and sentencing; or the mass rape of white English girls by Pakistani Muslim men, covered up by the authorities so as not to inflame ‘community tensions’. Not to mention Christian preachers accused of hate speech for quoting from the Bible, nurses accused of hate crimes for suggesting that sex is immutable, or victims of serious assaults accused of hate crimes for using inappropriate swear words – the list goes on.
Unfortunately for the ruling elite, the carefully orchestrated official narrative has been shattered by social media, which is serving as an outlet for decades of pent-up anger. The calls for calm, for police investigations to ‘take their course’, the suspiciously official-sounding statements produced by victims’ families, are falling on deaf ears. Two things stand out on social media: the anger at Muslims, who are seen as colonizing invaders enforcing an alien culture – and the anger at the police, who are now widely regarded as the enemy, servants not of the people (least of all the indigenous population) but of a state-enforced ideology. The recurrent themes are ‘Patriots unite’ and ‘Deport’. The invective is savage. The cartoons go beyond anything Charlie Hebdo has ever printed.
A fringe of dangerous extremists? The support for the ‘populist’ parties of the right, and a surge of support for Restore Britain, who advocate mass deportations, suggests otherwise – as does the social and cultural conservatism, notably on immigration and cultural change, of a significant number of Labour voters, especially in the North. In these circumstances, to attempt to censor social media – Starmer’s last resort – will merely inflame people more. The state security police will come down with growing force and brutality on law-biding citizens while real crime goes uninvestigated and unpunished – the scenario of ‘anarcho-tyranny’ first described by Samuel T. Francis in the 1990s. The authorities will continue to blame ‘the far right’ for ‘stirring up hatred and division’, and for demonizing Muslims and migrants. But the country is already divided. The usual platitudes ring hollow. The battle lines are being drawn.
David Betz, Professor of War at King’s College, London, has identified the major determining factors of civil war as these: the descent into factions, where tribal loyalties take precedence over political and ideological differences; the indigenous majority’s sense that their identity is under threat; and the indigenous majority’s sense that the institutions of the state no longer serve to protect them.
If Betz is right, the omens are not good.
