How To Deal With UKIP: Yes, Let’s Talk About Immigration

A month ago, I was at a weekend music festival with seven friends, all black (as I’ve explained before, I’ve long been accustomed to the role of token whitey). Misreading a headline on my phone, I announced that Jeremy Clarkson had been sacked by the BBC for – allegedly – mouthing the word “nigger”. My friends’ reaction was an immediate groan: yet another dumb, politically-correct decision made by rich white people in the name of protecting the feelings of black people. It’s not, of course, that black people enjoy being racially abused: but such abuse is, in fact, incredibly rare. There is a huge difference between having “nigger” shouted at you in the street by a stranger and having it said as part of a nursery rhyme. This is a difference that black people tend to understand, and the white middle classes tend not to. Similarly, no black people (to my knowledge) were offended when a radio DJ accidentally played a tune containing the word (for which he was sacked) or when a One Direction band member affectionately called a friend “nig”.

Let’s not be under any illusion: the white media and political establishment has not, all of a sudden, become the champion of black people’s feelings. Indeed, by blurring the lines between genuine race hate and words that they deem to be “racist”, they are setting back the cause of race relations by years. When I attended marches and came face-to-face with the thugs of the National Front, Combat 18, the British Movement and the British National Party, I don’t remember being supported by hordes of Oxbridge-educated BBC executives; and yet today, the white British elite dares to tell me, and others who risked our necks to clear racism from our streets, what words we may or may not use, regardless of the context.

There is no such thing as a “racist word”. There is racism for sure, and there are words that might have racist connotations depending on context, but in their irrational fetishisation of mere words, politically-correct cretins have opened the door wide for racists to operate with free rein. The rise of political correctness – which is itself a politically-correct term for censorship – has been a victory for the far right.

UKIP can thank the white middle-class left for its rise. Nigel Farage must laugh daily at the ease with which he can navigate the rules of political correctness: each time a UKIP councillor says a “racist word”, he expels them. And yet he can easily formulate genuinely racist messages that pass the moronic PC check-list. Whether Farage himself is racist (he probably is) is irrelevant. What’s important is that he has mastered what the Americans call “dog-whistle politics”. He is the master of rallying society’s bigots without breaching the “don’t say naughty words” rules. Can’t say “nigger” or “paki”? No problem – just hint that the “complexion” of our society is changing, or that “somebody” from “somewhere” is taking your job.

What is most perplexing is that the left’s spokespeople on race are those members of society that have the least experience of it. The white middle classes are the most ignorant on racial matters; and yet, because the middle class possesses an immense self-confidence in its own abilities (and quietly scorns the lower classes that it claims to defend), somehow the liberal narrative on race and immigration has been written by those who least understand these issues.

When I was active in the anti-racist movement, it wasn’t like this. The unions formed the bedrock of the mainstream left, and unions (love them or loathe them) were the very bodies that encompassed working people of all races. Long before the ascent of moronic political correctness, the most powerful black man in Britain was Bill Morris, who led the mighty Transport and General Workers’ Union and then the Trades Union Congress.

The Blairification of the Labour Party made the party acceptable to the middle classes, and won it a generation in power; but simultaneously, it removed the party from its bedrock working class support. Now, none of the big parties could understand working class resentments, and now, UKIP has filled the vacuum.

Today, political leaders are being urged to “talk about immigration”: but this is euphemism for accepting the far-right position that immigration has damaged society, and must be reined in. Yes, we must have an honest discussion about immigration if we are to see off the rising threat from the far right: and for that to happen, the moronic censorship rules of political correctness must be stripped away. The narrative must be wrenched away from pompous, privileged commentators and the voices of those who have been most affected by immigration must be heard.

Let’s talk about immigration.

Fact 1: Immigration changes working class communities

When, a century ago, Jews flooded into the East End of London, the locals had never encountered anything like them. They were alien people with strange ways of talking, a bizarre religion, and weird food. Despite being white, they clearly looked different from English locals. The animosity that flared between Jews and locals was hardly surprising. Of course, the upper classes scorned the fascist street thugs; but they also scorned the Jews. The same happened in the 1950s, when certain, poor parts of British cities – such as Notting Hill and Brixton – rapidly filled up with black people. The Notting Hill race riots of 1958 blew up because poor white people were confronted with a culture they had never encountered, and left by the establishment to deal with it. The problem was solved, not by PC language policing imposed from above, but by the community itself. The Notting Hill Carnival (in my humble opinion, the world’s best party) is the lasting result of that. The same happened in Bradford in 2001, when working class communities had to deal with an influx of Asians. Communities can resolve these problems, so long as government responds to ensure that housing, health and education services cope with the new population. Political correctness makes the problem worse: When the sneering PC response is to tell people not to say “Paki”, when they are facing rapid changes to their communities and ways of life, the effect is to drive traditional Labour voters to embrace the far-right.

The message: yes, immigration has directly affected your community. This doesn’t make immigration a bad thing, but the authorities must take heed of your worries and problems.

Fact 2: Non-white people can be racist

Perhaps the single most ludicrous position of the politically-correct elite is to declare that only white people can be racist. This point (rightly) enrages people who live in areas of high immigration, and know from their own experiences that white people can be, and are, the targets of bigotry. It is a statement that can only be made by privileged white people who have had little, if any, contact with black or Asian communities. If any single sentence can be blamed for the rise of the BNP, the EDL and UKIP, it is this one. The truth is simple: some people are hateful morons, and those people exist in every community. To decide that a violent assault is more or less acceptable depending on who threw the punch, and who received it, is the height of idiotic thinking; and yet this appears to be the default position of today’s left. Those white people like me, who have spent much of their lives as a white minority in black communities know that there are a few people who hate us for the colour of our skin, not the content of our minds. When many Somalis migrated to the UK, it was primarily the black British community that resented their arrival, and violence between the groups was common. When I was at school, some black people turned on “Pakis”, pleased to find common cause with white skinheads. Many people in mixed relationships have learned that they experience far more bigotry from black people than from whites. This isn’t the “understandable” result of “racial oppression”, as too many white liberals appear to believe. It’s racism.

The message: No group is free from racial bigotry. Any victim of racism is as worthy of support as any other. This includes white people.

Fact 3: Free speech is ESSENTIAL

As the left has become increasingly dominated by the white middle classes, its messages have become increasingly ludicrous, and irrelevant to society as a whole. The new generation of left-wing journalists is called upon to comment on everything. Privileged white Oxbridge graduates from the shires write comment pieces on every subject under the sun, including race – a subject with which they surely have little direct experience. Even when they attempt to take on board working class views, they come across as patronising and ignorant. When editors select black commentators, they tend to pick those who will repeat the standard white narrative. The banning of “offensive” words has crippled the ability of the left to counter the UKIP threat. I urge those with politically-correct sensibilities to listen to the excellent N Word from the rap artist Greydon Square. As the introduction says: “There is no such thing as the N Word… the word is Nigger… how can we get past the word when we can’t even say it?”

The message: UKIP will not be countered by banning words. Political correctness has been the greatest friend of the far-right. It must go.

Fact 4: Some people have been disadvantaged by immigration

Economists are clear: immigration is a boon to economies. London, by far the greatest home to immigrants in the UK, is also by far the wealthiest city. This is not a coincidence. However, there have been both winners and losers. A bricklayer friend was clear to me that his wages dropped after mass immigration began from Poland. Prostitutes tell a similar story. This is not a reason to stop immigration; but the authorities must respond, identify those people who have lost out, and find strategies to help them. Scrapping university tuition fees for affected groups might be one of many ways to address the problem. One of the many disastrous legacies of Blairism was to close the door to working class people entering higher education.

The message: We accept immigration has not been a win for everyone.

Fact 5: Immigration is a good thing: long may it continue!

And once we’ve dispensed with the mealy-mouthed bullshit that has characterised the race debate for decades, we can make our case loud and clear. Immigration has enriched our culture. Immigration has enriched our economy. Sure, there have been inevitable cultural clashes, but these can be managed, as such clashes have been in the past. Yes, there have been losers, but we are richer as a society, and can afford the welfare state and education system that we need to fix these short-term problems. But ultimately immigration can and will continue, and will continue to make our country a better place to live. Let’s face it: much of the UKIP vote came from people least affected by mass migration. It came from the whitest areas of the country, and the older, more conservative individuals. It is an ultra-conservative reaction to inevitable change. We can sympathise with those who fear change, while pointing out that they’re wrong, they’re ignorant, and they will inevitably lose.

The message: It’s time to man the barricades. The right is on the march; it’s time to let Labour die, and create a muscular new left that can counter it.

13 thoughts on “How To Deal With UKIP: Yes, Let’s Talk About Immigration”

  1. To be fair, most of this is pretty obvious (but still needed saying).

    I’d add that today, to my mind, the electoral choice (in economic terms) is between 3 right wing (all apply Thatcherite economic policies) authoritarian parties, run by people who have only ever been professional politicians, and who are lead by focus groups rather than any form of principle. It’s easy to see why people say “they’re all the same”.

    For some reason people then think “the way to freshen this up is to bring in an even more right wing authoritarian party, with a bit of “racism-lite” thrown in”. And all the liberal commentators wring their hands about it, and do sod all.

    Not heard Greydon Square, but (for those of us who are a bit older) Richard Pryor also did a lot of good work reclaiming “nigger”. Like all words, it depends on the context, and who uses the word, and with what intent.

    1. Pryor sure did. What’s remarkable is that the discourse seems to have gone backwards in some ways since then

      1. True. One “Oxbridge educated” (I think) man who was active in the anti racist movement was Peter Hain (in the anti Apartheid movement). It’s interesting to compare the attitude of the police and government in 1970 to the protests which got the cricket tour cancelled (broadly supportive of the protests), to those post Thatcher where all demonstrations are (or appear to be) regarded as “subversive”.

  2. All very well thought through, but I think you have missed the point entirely and fallen into the trap. Politicians say things to make themselves popular. They will literally say whatever the voter wants to hear to get elected. Politicians are professional liars. Now, Farage is a self admitted natural Tory Thatcherite and has been in politics for long enough now to know how this charade works. Can you remember Brown and his ‘British jobs for British people’ well the public didn’t buy it, did they? Can you remember the Cameron pledge to drastically cut net immigration, how’s that going? So when Nigel comes along with UKIP and gets the entire media and political establishment attacking him and his party (the Daily Mail FFS), what do you think the average voter is going to think? Farages game plan is to remove the UK from the EU and if at all possible to destroy the Tory party as it is. His goal is a very simple one and he is playing a very good game so far. It’s not about immigration at all.

    On a side note, how do global warmists square up the mass influx of people from areas of the planet where their carbon footprint is minimal to places like the UK where their very existence requires more energy consumption? No, you can’t have it both ways, not all immigration is good if you subscribe to this theory, is it? Furthermore, some individual immigrants are economically net contributors to the social democratic model we live under, others are not. Leftists, like yourself, enjoy reveling in statistics to back up your claims, how about the UK labour force survey by ethnicity? Obviously to make immigration policy, based on ethnicity is Racist in itself, but facts are facts: some types of people are more likely to be a drain on the STATE than others. Immigration CAN be a force for good, don’t get me wrong, but let us stop fucking around with generalisations?

  3. For some bizarre reason my ISP flagged this blog of yours as being pornographic (got screen shot if you want to see it).Not happened before maybe it’s the N word
    I more or less agree with your posting. I too have had the pleasure of being spat at by National Front supporters luckily nothing worse than that. Though of particular irony when I was spat upon I was marching (demo against immigration rules) behind a number of Sikhs some of who were wearing campaign medals earned in WW2. I wondered how they felt about having to walk past NF morons giving the Nazi salute and chanting “There ain’t no black in the Union Jack”? And I too have been the token whitey a number of times and can confirm racism is not an exclusive white persons failing. I have had Indian friends diss Pakistanis as Pakis, and Pakistani friends get really racist about Somalians. The last time I actually heard the N word used unselfconsciously was by a Punjabi towards a chap from Guyana.. It’s a funny old world..

  4. These are weird electoral times …. and it’s times such as these (for they come around every few years) …. that my DISBELIEVE in democracy rears itself and says whathefuck!!!!!

    A ‘muscular left wing’ isn’t ever going to have a strong position in British politics (bugger!) ……. because we give everyone old enough to wipe their own arse & who is capable of getting out of bed an equal vote …….. why?

    I’m told one vote per voter is sacrosanct in a free world ….. it contradicts too many freedoms hard won in years of oppression to do otherwise …..

    The consequence of that belief is that we can’t find a route to logic & reason unless we mute the votes of knowledge & science with the votes of moronic thinkers …. .. or put another way ….. we choose & welcome a political system which centers around popularistic tendencies rather than one which delivers what we need…..

    I could understand this …. but for peoples silence on all the other freedoms increasingly imposed on us by gov’ts & their ever watchful agencies / laws / border controls etc etc ……

  5. Pingback: a separation notes
  6. “A bricklayer friend was clear to me that his wages dropped after mass immigration began from Poland. Prostitutes tell a similar story. This is not a reason to stop immigration; but the authorities must respond, identify those people who have lost out, and find strategies to help them. Scrapping university tuition fees for affected groups might be one of many ways to address the problem. One of the many disastrous legacies of Blairism was to close the door to working class people entering higher education.”

    I’m afraid you have fallen into a bit of Blairite thinking yourself, the idea that education, education, education fixes everything. You claim to be a man of the people, yet if someone who is unemployed, or income has been hurt by immigration asks you for your solution, you’re going to say drop tuition fees.

    Immigration has become such a big issue, because, as you point out, discussion of it has been effectively censorred, but also because immigration is manifestation of a bigger problem.

    That problems goes to heart of why education, education, education will never work. Not everyone can be managers, not everyone can have graduate jobs, the majority of jobs in the economy are low paid and low skilled.

    So a combination of unrestricted migration and poor labour market regualtion is toxic. it drives pay and conditions through the floor. It another policy that benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.

    BTW your reasoning for London’s success is very simplistic, especially for a blog called moron watch. The reasons are manifest and complex, and are more than simply high migration levels. Many other parts of the country have had high levels of migration, and have stilled failed economically.

    1. “I’m afraid you have fallen into a bit of Blairite thinking yourself, the idea that education, education, education fixes everything.”

      I wasn’t trying to fix everything, just giving an example of a policy that might help people. The fact is, the world’s changing. Closing our borders would be like sticking our fingers in our ears and singing NANANANANA! You can’t change reality by ignoring it.

      “So a combination of unrestricted migration and poor labour market regualtion is toxic. it drives pay and conditions through the floor. It another policy that benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.”

      If we close our doors to labour the jobs will simply leave the country. UKIP appeals to people who can’t understand this basic rule of economics.

      Come and look at all the building work happening in London. Cranes everywhere. That’s because London is growing at a hell of a rate and people are migrating here, from the UK as well as Europe and the rest of the world.

      If we close our borders, we can say goodbye to all those construction jobs. Maybe there won’t be so many Polish builders but there will be fuck-all work for British ones, nor any taxes to pay for their benefits. The global economy will carry on, whether Britain wants to be involved or not. UKIP sells the myth that somehow we can leave the global economy by still benefit from it.

  7. Your definition of racism is outdated. Racism is no longer “people saying mean things about someone’s race”. We have moved past that and the new issue is basically institutionalized racism. This is why PoC says white people cannot be racists. Because if white people are overrepresented in the media and hold most positions of power in general, white people cannot experience what it’s like to have the system work against them. Don’t get me wrong, PoC can discriminate against white people, we can say mean things about you and treat you badly on a personal level, and YES this is wrong and should not be allowed. But it is not racism. It is wrong to pretend that we are all equally capable of experiencing racial discrimination. We are not. PoC are still a lot more vulnerable and the consequences are by far harsher. PoC are still arrested more often, they are paid less and the treatment they receive as refugees can be horrifying.

    The reason why it is important to eliminate “offensive language” towards PoC is because it works as a way to reinforce the prejudices that allow institutionalized racism to carry on and stay intact. Unfortunately words are not “just words”, especially when there is a historical background of racism attached to it. Whether that historical background is not as relevant today as it was in the past, the fact remains that it is still at the very root of the issue. It is where everything started and it is still part of why PoC are treated as “the other”. Unfortunately old ideas/beliefs have not been completely eliminated. We are currently living in a world where most people are happy to be nice to other people regardless of the colour of their skin. But racial prejudices are still alive and well, and offensive language is one of its most powerful tools. I believe in freedom of speech but allowing someone to promote and validate racial stereotypes doesn’t help anyone.

Leave a Reply