Snobbish Liberals and `Racism`
This “racism” business is difficult, isn’t it? Obviously a Catholic, or any other Christian, is obliged to love their neighbour as themselves, and that includes immigrants. But does that mean we have to rejoice when a hallal slaughterhouse opens for business in our street? Or when we lose our job because someone from abroad is willing to do it more cheaply than we are? Or when the West Indians in the flat above insist on blasting out hip-hop music 24 hours a day? Or when the street we have lived in since childhood comes to resemble a slum in downtown Lagos?
To those of a left-wing bent, even to pose such questions is evidence of racism. But people in England are becoming increasingly reluctant to accept the transformation of their country into something they never envisaged, and about which they were never consulted. And I’m quite sure that the same will apply in Ireland, if ever the rate of immigration rises to cross-channel levels.
The truth is that mass immigration impinges far more harshly on working-class people than on the bourgeoisie. This is a point well understood by Sunday Telegraph columnist Janet Daley who notes that “liberal” figures in all the major political parties in Britain are arguing that expressions of anger and concern about immigration should be ruled out of public discourse altogether:
Not just criticised or disputed, mind you–but derided and regarded as beneath contempt…The hysterical opprobrium that has been dumped not only on Ukip, but on anyone who suggests that anxiety about unlimited migration and loss of Britain’s control of its borders might have any legitimate (which is to say, non-racist) justification has been a startling phenomenon. What is most shocking is the level of personal animus–which goes way beyond the bounds of rational argument–towards anyone who defies what are now clearly taken to be the limits of acceptable debate. And contrary to what the exponents presumably believe about themselves, the imposition of these limits is peculiarly snobbish, socially divisive and self-serving. You would think, given the venom with which the anathematised opinions were being smeared that they were positively murderous in their intention: that, at the very least, lynching or armed vendetta was being urged against immigrant neighbours rather than simply a rejection of the political arrangement that appears to be disadvantaging some of the indigenous population. In fact, there has been more denunciation directed at what is an entirely law-abiding challenge to a policy that has serious consequences for vulnerable communities, than to more obviously dangerous kinds of antisocial behaviour such as the recruitment of Islamist terrorists.
So the question needs to be asked: how is it that the worries of –let’s not mince words–working (and lower-middle) class people can be treated with such open disgust?
It may be, as Janet Daley says, that such worries are not shared by the majority. They are certainly not shared by the most influential or the most powerful. But that doesn’t make such worries contemptible. “Trampling over the interests of non-conforming minorities is not democracy, it is mob rule.”
I had meant, in this post, to discuss David Abbott’s book Dark Albion: A Requiem for the English, but the above will have to serve as an appetiser for it. I hope to examine Dark Albion tomorrow or the next day, but in the meantime some of Mr Abbott’s chapter titles will give you a flavour of it. “Demonic Demography Eurabian nights“. “Out of Africa Macabre customs, barbaric superstitions, HIV, crime, dangerous driving“. “You Are Welcome to Bristol One coconut and some Somalians.” “Bangladosh Currying favour in the East End“. “Ken Livingstone A nightmayor“. “Flying the Union Mohammed Jack’s not all right“. “William the Conquered 2066“. And finally (forgive me) “What a Load of Ol’ Shiite Islam speaks“. I don’t necessarily agree with his general tone, but he’s a brave and patriotic man–an old-fashioned Labour supporter.