More Thoughts on Emma West

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 216
5th December 2011

Thoughts on Emma West:
How to Argue with the Ruling Class
by Sean Gabb

One of the ways in which a ruling class keeps control is its insistence on rules of debate that place opposition at a regular disadvantage. I cannot think of any time or place where opposition voices have been listened to on fully equal terms. In modern England, however, the ruling class and its various clients and useful idiots are particularly rigid in their shepherding of debate. This is so not only because England is an increasingly totalitarian place, but also because the main legitimation ideologies are all obviously false and cannot be exposed to open criticism. Therefore, while speech mostly remains free in the legal sense, it will only be listened to when expressed in terms that privilege the ruling class.

Some of the rules of debate in England are linguistic. For example, if you refer to someone as a homosexual, you will be told that he is gay. Or you will be told that the Indian cities of Bombay and Calcutta must be called “Mumbai” and “Kokata;” or that the native population of England must be called the “white majority;” or an immigrant a “migrant,” or a failed suicide a “self-harmer,” or a mongol a Downs syndrome sufferer. If you persist in using the now disapproved words, you may be dismissed as ignorant: you may be denounced as some kind of bigot. Sometimes, the words keep changing, or different words must be used depending on the audience – therefore, Ethiopian became person of colour, and then negro, and then Negro, and then coloured, and then black, and then Afro-Caribbean, and may still be any of these except possibly the third. In many cases, names are changed merely when something pejorative is replaced by something neutral – obviously so in the instance just given. More often, though, the changes are made to humble those outside the naming elite. Whoever must follow the other side’s naming conventions loses any claim to equality of status, and will at least tend to lose any debate. This is so when the shift of name is mostly verbal – for example coloured to black. But it is specially so when the shift involves an acceptance of new facts. See again the shift from “native English” to “white majority.” The former implies that a particular territory is historically the possession of a self-defined group, and suggests that this group has a right to continue in possession. The latter simply implies that one group among many has what may be a passing numerical weight. Equally, “migration” is so much softer and less threatening than “immigration.” Quibbling over words may sound petty. But to control the words usable in debate really is to have a very great if subtle advantage in debate.

A similar advantage is had by taking real or pretended offence, and calling on an opponent to apologise. When those crying out in horror have numbers or the power of government on their side, they can avoid the danger of arguing with an opponent by smashing his reputation. People are led to believe that he is a bad person. Often the person himself can be brought to agree. We saw how this can work last week. Speaking on a BBC programme that lies on the border between news and light entertainment, Jeremy Clarkson said that strikers in the public sector should be shot. No one but a fool could believe he intended this as other than a joke. But it raised a storm of synthetic outrage. The BBC gave in at once and apologised for any offence caused. Mr Clarkson may or may not have apologised, but certainly did not stand his ground. His enemies are now circulating rumoursthat his mind is unbalanced, and the credibility of a prominent non-conformist may have been destroyed.

Or there are demands for “historic apologies.” The Celtic peoples are rather good at this. So are the Indians. Peter Tatchellmade an effort last month to get the Prime Minister to apologise for the criminalisation of homosexual acts throughout the British Empire. He failed. But demanding apologies for alleged ill-treatment in the past is a good way to advance present interests. It smooths the way to actual financial or legal advantages. Or – as with the Irish – it just wins battles in a long-term vendetta.

Or there is the hiding of rights violations behind the grief of victims. Last week, for example, I put out my annual call for the repeal of the laws against drinking and driving. My argument is that the dangers of drinking and driving are much exaggerated – the published statistics are puffed up by including cases where drunken pedestrians or cyclists have got themselves knocked down. The present law is only enforced by stopping drivers at random and breathalysing them. This is a breach of the old common law rule against interference with individuals except with probable cause. Most of the people stopped do not test positive. Most of those who do test positive were not driving erratically. Enforcement also takes the police away from their – admittedly casual – protection of life and property. It would be better, I say, to punish drivers who are caught driving without proper care and attention, or who have hurt others, and to make sure that the punishments are harsh enough to deter.

I may be wrong about this. Perhaps the current law is the only way to keep the roads as safe as they are. Whatever the case, I nearly always find myself going on the wireless to debate with the grieving relatives of people killed by drunken drivers. Many years ago, I gave a blunt response to one of these people – that, while private grief must always be respected, it has no claim to respect when dragged into debates over law or policy of state. This sent everyone else in the studio into a self-righteous frenzy, and got my microphone turned off. My favourite response is to sympathise, and to show that, if I were given my way, the guilty driver would have been locked away for life, or even hanged. Usually, this gives me the advantage of surprise. Even so, I still have to ask for the moral endorsement of someone who is arguing for a police state.

And this brings me to what I really want to discuss – which is the demand for argument by supplication. Last week, Emma West was filmed swearing at a tram filled with black people. She was immediately punished by having her life destroyed. For those who, for whatever reason, have not heard about her, this brief statement of mine gives the main story:

Emma West is a white working class woman who got into an argument with some black people in a South London Tram. You can see the video here:

Miss West has now been arrested for her opinions and locked away, and her children have been taken away by the social services.

Of course, if she had been wearing a headscarf and screeching about the “kuffar” who were killing her brothers and sisters in Iraq/Afghanistan, the authorities would have looked the other way.

For a woman to have her children taken away because she expressed opinions disliked by the ruling class means we have come as close as doesn’t matter to a totalitarian police state. I note that this has happened under a “Conservative” Government. Where are all those “Tory” MPs who like to preen themselves on how libertarian they are? Don’t ask.

My view is that every single politician and official involved in this arrest of a dissident and legalised kidnapping of her children should be punished after the collapse of the present regime – not only sacked and deprived of pension rights (because they all will be in the disestablishment of the ruling class), but also made jointly and severally liable for compensating Miss West and her children for whatever they may have suffered.

I have quoted this in full not only because it gives the main facts of the case, but also because it brought a response that I was hoping to provoke someone into making. It came last Friday:


While the punishment meted out to this racist idiot is indeed unacceptable what is remarkable is that you should spring to her defence without disassociating yourself clearly from the contemptible views she espouses.More remarkable still is that you propose that every politician and official involved should be punished, deprived of their pension rights and held liable for compensating Miss West

Scratch a “free market anti-statist” and you will invariably find a statist lurking within

For non-market anti-statist socialism

Xxxxx Yyy

Now, the writer of this is not a member of the ruling class. He may or may not be one of its clients. But he certainly comes into the category of useful idiot. Leave aside his assumption that a society can hold together by any other means than voluntary association or compulsion by the State – what interests me is his outrage that I did not join to my defence of Miss West’s rights a denunciation of what she said. Increasingly, you are only allowed to defend those persecuted by the ruling class by abasing yourself before the ruling class. Somewhere in what I said, I should have added a variant on the following:

I bow to no one in my utter revulsion of what this evil young guttersnipe said. Being myself a transgendered black lesbian, I have had more than my share of hate-filled bigotry. And I celebrate the immense patience shown by those poor abused people. That no one was driven to violence against West is proof of how strong our diverse and multicultural society has become. All this being said, it is only out of an old-fashioned, and therefore possibly misguided, liberalism that I beg for her not to suffer the full consequences of her totally abhorrent crime against humanity.

Well, I knew that I was expected to come out with this kind of dirt-kissing exercise, and I refused to comply. I refused, because it is inhuman to spit on someone who has already been brought down. I refused because a defence of someone’s rights is often compromised by adverse comment on what he has done. The paraphrase on Voltaire – “I disagree with what you say, but would defend to the death your right to say it” – is all very well when arguing with someone on the other side of a dinner table. My own view, when someone is lying on the ground, is to skip the disagreement.

This has always been my practice. In 1991, I wrote the first and one of the best defences of the “Spanner 15”– that is, of the homosexual men who were tried and punished for consensual acts in private: one of them was convicted of “aiding and abetting an assault on himself!” Not once in any of the essays I wrote or the speeches I made did I insist that I was not myself a leather-worshipping sado-masochistic homosexual, or that I would not like someone to drive a four inch nail through my penis. I got some very funny looks for this omission. But I refused then to distance myself from powerless and ruined victims of injustice – and I refuse now.

I also refuse because what is demanded of me is an endorsement of a legitimising ideology. Here – and for the sake of clarity alone – I will explain what I think of Miss West’s actions. She was vulgar in her speech and uncharitable in her sentiments. But I do not for a moment think that, except for her and people like her, what has been made of my country would be a vibrant love feast without end. While modern commerce and modern technology almost cry out for some mixing of peoples, state-sponsored mass-immigration has been made an excuse to destroy the internal cohesion of my people and to free my rulers from practical accountability. That a quarter of this country’s population may now be strangers, who have been encouraged neither to adopt nor even to respect our ways, is a problem to which I can think of no satisfactory answer. But I refuse, when speaking out against their growing intolerance of disagreement, to bow my head to the people who rule this country. They are not good people led astray by bad ideas. They do not occupy any moral high ground. Until such time as they grow more tyrannical than they have yet become, I will avoid arguing with them on their terms. What they have done to us is evil in itself, and, because it is highly unstable, it will almost certainly lead to greater evils. The least bad outcome will be a swift collapse of the regime they have created, and their punishment with some regard given to due process. And they deserve no less. They are in a position to know exactly what they are doing. If they have chosen not to make the obvious connections of cause and effect, their ignorance is culpable.

Because, more than is usually the case, it is founded on lies and violence, the present regime must eventually collapse. I have no inclination to join some future equivalent of storming the Bastille. Something I can do, though, is to look these people in the face, and refuse to observe their rules of debate. The purpose of these rules is to restrain a debate that would otherwise turn dangerous. No revolution has ever succeeded except after there had been a withdrawal of consent. Let this be withdrawn, and the secret of all power is laid bare – that we are many and they are few. There is little else I will do. But, however small it may be in the overall scheme of things, this much i have done already.

84 responses to “More Thoughts on Emma West

  1. Very interesting article Sean. The use of changing language to put opponents on the back foot coupled with pressure to ‘confess’ and conform takes me back to the critique by Dennis et al(2000) of the McPherson investigation into the police handling of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. -Sir Paul Condon being asked to think of Winnie Mandela at the Truth and Reconciliation Commision.
    The Commission adviser, Dr Stone ‘questioned’ Sir Paul- “it seems to me,Sir Paul, that the door is open, when Winnie Mandela was challenged by the Truth commission”. “She just did it and suddenly a whole burden of weight..melted away”…I say to you now,just say,”Yes I acknowledge institutional racism in the police”..

    Further on in the enquiry, further pressure was exerted to get officers to confess to ‘unconscious’ racism on the part of fellow officers. The commission was finally confirmed in its assumptions of rampant racism by the revelation that officers used outdated words such as coloured, or Negro, and confessed to treating everyone the same without realising some people found it offensive.

    The conclusions of that report brought on our heads the whole gamut of state regulation concerned with P.C. thought crime.

    I think you are right not to cave in to always qualifying what you want to say to avoid censure. To do so can actually make you sound guilty. It’s like the phrase people often start with-(I’m not racist but) because they know something is controversial and they don’t want to get in trouble. Doesn’t work though. But it’s increasingly difficult to go out on a limb.

    I can’t imagine the type of questioning the girl on the tram has been subject to.

  2. Good article Sean, but I do now think that it is incorrect, or at least incomplete, to try to explain this by a political analysis. I think a religious analysis better applies. What has happened over the past couple of centuries is that a new religion has arisen, and has now achieved hegemony and, as is common in such situations, is ruthless against heresy.

    In this context, Ms. West is a religious prisoner of a theocracy, not a political prisoner of a poltical totalitarianism.

    We shouldn’t blame ourselves too much. The Roman pagans lost their battle against a new religion gaining hegemony too. It’s a very hard thing to prevent. By the time the danger is clear, it’s already too late to stop it.

    Anyway, Ms West is the Western verson of those arab women you see on Youtube getting beaten with sticks by the Mutaween. For all the Christian era, England was never a theocracy. It is now. That’s the battle, sadly.

    Carthago thingummybob.

  3. Nothing to do with Carthage – we need another Julian the Apostate!

  4. Indeed, though Gore Vidal did a good one, I’ve often felt inclined to write a novel about Julian.

  5. ExPat, Brussels

    Are we really so many and they so few? When I try to discuss the matters that concern me at work or with friends, I feel isolated by the stifling cloak of political correctness to which you allude above. Are the scales tilting after 60+ years of Gramscian influence in our schools?

  6. thank you all, very good stuff, keep up the good work Bryan

  7. Pingback: Attack the System » Blog Archive » Thoughts on Emma West: How to Argue with the Ruling Class

  8. A great post, Sean.

    Actually the article says she pleads “Not Guilty”. I don’t know why the DM’s webaddress says “guilty”…do you?

  10. Pingback: deimus | Pearltrees

  11. The Daily Fail is a despicable rag. Its greatest crime is that it is a merciless propagandist for PuritoRomantoMarxoGramscoFabianNaziWoo, while maintaining a facade of opposition to defuse that opposition. Its supposedly anti-Wooness is no more real than Tony Blair declaring he likes a plate of fish and chips washed down with a bottle of stout to appeal to “teh workers”. It is probably the most ruinous propaganda rag on the newsstand, worse by far than the Guardian, which is at least honest about what it is.

    Julian was assassinated wasn’t he?

  12. Ammianus Marcellinus, who was there, says he was wounded in battle. Claims that he was stabbed in the back by a Christian are a late claim.

  13. Pingback: Tram Woman - Page 42 - Stormfront

  14. OK in the penultimate paragraph, Sean.

    I do not know whether a “society” can be held together by voluntary means. But a people cleaves to itself through and for ethnic genetic interest. The most powerfully authentic (and, therefore, liberating) social expression is always ethnic.

  15. Excellent writing.
    As to my political stance I’m not a libertarian, but am probably three quarters in agreement with Sean, particulary as to the evils of the regimes.
    My worry is the genocide of my and Ms. West race is being pursued by the left. Their goal is the elimination of whites by mass immigration an blending us from existence, which explains why they’ve not bothered Japan with immigration.
    Here in the U.S. the only decent candiate standing is Mr. Ron Paul, a quasi libertarian whom I support.
    Thanks for this excellent article.

  16. Pingback: Is this the England we want? | Orphans of Liberty

  17. Pingback: Is this the England we want? | Orphans of Liberty

  18. Pingback: Being rude about foreigners in Britain will end you up in prison for a month if you are white | i Patriot - Hub

  19. “Detention for your own safety” should be illegal. Someone should only be remanded in custody if there is a likelihood he will abscond – in this case, with a child in tow, the likelihood of Emma West disappearing was zero. Detention for your safety – ignores the fact that it is the job of the police to prevent violent crime. If Emma West is going to be assaulted by people encouraged to do so by the media coverage, then the police have to make sure to arrest those people in a way that does not prevent her from living her life.

  20. Compare Emma West’s treatment to this case:

    Muslim women who attacked an English woman, stamping on her while shouting “kill the white slag” – walked free from court, because the judge ruled their religion meant they weren’t used to alcohol and so were not responsible for their actions while under the influence of alcohol. Emma West by contrast did not physically attack anyone … but she did belong to the ‘wrong’ ethnic group.

  21. Sean, you may not welcome any comments from me, but a remark you made in this piece is one that should not be allowed to pass.

    The reason why the words “Down Syndrome Sufferer” are used instead of mongol by many people is not just because of Political Correctness, as far as I can tell. The severity of the condition varies enormously; some with DS are in such a bad state they cannot survive without 24-hour care and attention; others are more able to live an independent existence. As scientific knowledge advances, it makes sense to amend language by not lumping all people into the same category, particularly in those cases where the term carries certain connotations. I don’t think it is a sign of ideological brainwashing to adjust language in some cases where our knowledge improves or changes.

    As for the rest of the article, I agree that this is a public order matter, nothing more. There is no need to make martyrs out of such loudmouths, from whatever side of the fence they happen to be. I was on the train the other day and several football supporters were on it, behaving in a rowdy manner. I doubt any of them will get their collars felt.

  22. Great article Sean. Very good analysis.

  23. “Great article Sean. Very good analysis.”

    Thanks for that, Tom. I should explain why the Libertarian Alliance is so selective in its coverage of rights violations. Unlike other supposedly libertarian organisations in this country, we have no corporate or one-remove state funding. We therefore concentrate our limited resources on those cases that would otherwise be ignored by “libertarians.”

    As said in the main article, we did a lot 20 years ago to defend the 15 homosexual sado-masochists convicted of beating each other up in private. Today, we defend people accused of hate crime and thought crime. We also find ourselves increasingly defending Christians – not something we ever thought might be necessary! In this time, we have not shifted our ground in the past quarter century – merely our front.

    This is a strategy that is frequently misunderstood. It is also, I regret, often misrepresented by other “libertarians.”

  24. Pingback: An Anarcho-Communist Writes | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  25. David McDonagh writes:

    England is becoming increasingly totalitarian, and political correctness [PC] is a major factor in this. It has always been so in principle. Totalitarianism is just the state interfering in every aspect of life. I fear many people today tend to think it is an unwelcome tyranny but it might be welcome politics. Indeed, when the college students say that all life is politics, really, they are unwittingly accepting the increasing activity of the state in every aspect of life as if it was a perennial fact. Are they thereby welcoming it as such in the future? Was it welcome in Germany in the 1930s?
    It is not so easy to tell. Bertrand Russell wrote of his first visit to Japan that everyone was smiling and he thought they were a happy people but later he found out that if they did not smile they might be punished. Then he was not so sure. Something like that went on with the Nazis. And something like it is the case with race relations in the UK today.
    In the eighteenth century liberals accepted the right of the state to interfere with every aspect of life in principle, that the state had this authority, but they then argued that the state should not exercise this right but instead to have a very limited state. PC is totalitarian. Other signs of the state have been increasingly exercising that right is the state activity on smoking and obesity over the recent years. Where is politics going to go next? It needs to be pushed back.
    As long as there is free speech then the bias in any debate does not matter much but the state bans free speech in PC matters of race, sex, and on inequality in general.
    An ideology is no good at legitimating what does not look legitimate to others. It needs to look realistic to anyone who accepts it. Most ideology never legitimises anything but is an end rather than a means, as are all the great religions. The idea that Marx had that religion aided the ruling class is as hopelessly unrealistic as his class ideas themselves.
    This idea Sean has, that we listen to what favours the ruling class, seems to be very clearly false. It is on par with the unrealistic idea of Richard Dawkins that children believe whatever their parents say, thus that religion is child abuse. Both over-rate the power of authority. Children have to think for themselves, as do subject of the Crown, and one problem they have is in understanding what their parents say, especially on religion. Children are not likely to believe it even if they do repeat it.
    As we can arbitrarily classify things as we like, we are free to say there is a class that rules, but that is better logic than it is either sociology or political theory. There is a current common sense and one of the widely accepted ideas today is that we need a state. Another is that the market is where we need to beware but, despite the recent discrediting of MPs on expenses, the state dodges risk and it still seems safe to most people today. But PC is laughed at. It is not accepted but it is nevertheless respected. In this it is like the state regulations on health and safety in that it is thought to be well over the top but it is still accepted as the law and conformed to as such.
    PC does privilege the so-called minorities of women, non-whites, homosexuals, cripples and others who PC holds might be discriminated against. Healthy white males are made thereby the underprivileged servile class. All those PC laws need to be repealed if we are ever to be free.
    Sean is right that the PC fans want to impose their terms onto all people as the correct ones. Steve will most likely meet this in the future. I have done so, many times, and I have responded much as Steve is highly likely to do in the future. PC cant will not work well on liberal propagandists. PC propagandists do not seem to do well against liberals in my experience. Note that they see those labels as a sort of magic thus that the label PC worked on the PC propagandists as well, or almost as well, as “racist” or “sexist” were supposed to work on the general public when it emerged in the late 1980s. The reaction of the silly PC propagandists was to automatically deny that they were really PCers! Steve and I have seen Green propagandists denying that they were Greens at ASU meetings in the past. Many people just fear labels.
    Whether we win a debate depends on whether we get others to see truths that refute their case. Bias cannot affect that opportunity very much. The thing is to get people into debate. It is held to be unfriendly, so most people seek to dodge debate in the first place; even propagandists do, unless they think that the opposition is weak. But once we get the debate going then any bias matters little. Once in debate, terms too matter little and we are free to use our own terms anyway, as Steve says.
    Of course Clarkson says sorry rather than risk his BBC job. Ditto footballers do the same. This public apology aspect is leaning towards totalitarianism, even if it still has a way to go to get to the show trials of the late USSR.
    In the 1950s, many men used to commonly say this or that man ought to be shot. Someone could be heard saying it nearly everyday and no one took it seriously. It was common hyperbole. Clarkson said it was a joke and it might have been but it seems more like hyperbole. He has since rightly said that suicides ought to be considerate of others and not use the railways to jump under a train as it causes hold-ups but many PCers have attempted to say this is yet another gaff, but it is clearly quite sound.
    I think the changes to the common hyperbole by Clarkson were just to dodge cliché, Steve.

    The strikers need to be encouraged into a debate about trade unions with liberals and then told how the unions are against other workers, as Robert Owen rightly said in the 1830s.
    Cant apologies should be ridiculed, as Sean tends to suggest.
    The picking on alcohol and tobacco is overdone and it is one of the things that the state might cut back on to ease their debt.
    Steve is right that many of those things should be left to firms.
    Real debate will not often take place on air with all the sterile rules to stop progress. A good investment might be to realise this and get at some PCer in real debate after the formal airing of the programme, maybe by mail or E-mail.
    This is not so much the ruling class ruling us so much as ideological PC that leads to the silly PC laws. The ruling class too will be broken by them as the elite colleges were interfered with by stupid Gordon Brown, who wanted working class students in there. PC wants blacks, cripples and others in there too. That is not in the interests of the ruling class but owing to what Richard Dawkins calls memes but he errs in thinking them not subject to reason. They made their way by reason. Dawkins, like so many others, overlooks that the rule of assumption is the most basic rule in logic.
    Emma West was speaking out on as bus for some reason, most likely because she feels oppressed. She risked being attacked and one man in the background seemed to have been calmed down by his girlfriend. The most that would have been apt would have been to put her off the bus. But that is not the norm, today, when others make similar scenes. A fine would not have been fair given society today. I have heard many such attacks by blacks on white on Birmingham buses while I have been on them and that would fill the courts up in fining the lot of them. She was just giving the blacks a bit of abuse for a change. It was, near enough, merely free speech. A fine would be unjust. So is the aftermath reaction of the state.
    Sean seems to be wasting words by inserting ruling class every second sentence. PC is not pro-state or pro ruling class but ideas as ends in themselves, like the chief idea of PC viz. equality. That daft ideal is clearly dysfunctional. As Dr Johnson pointed out, any society requires some subordination. As he will let us know in his due LA talk, Sean is wrongheaded on class.
    That is not to deny that some of the very rich do gain even extra by taxation. I am not saying that Sean has nothing whatsoever in the case that he might make but that PC will not be soundly related to the ruling class does seem clear even before he has put his case.
    I repeat, Steve looks biased towards most similar offenders in saying that this one should be fined. Maybe he has not been on the buses lately. If she had been put off, as I think is apt, that would be more than what happens on many Birmingham buses but it is what should occur every time; a fine in the already wasteful and dysfunctional law courts? No.
    I see no reason why modern commerce or technology requires some mixing of alien phenotypes. Liberty does, if ever that is what the phenotypes want.
    I think we have to admit that PC is in some ways a distortion of liberalism. Equality has been thought of as a liberal ideal both before and after the sea change of the 1880s.
    It is not clear why Sean imagines some due collapse, or any punishment of failed politicians even should there ever be such a collapse. As Adam Smith rightly said, there is a hell of a lot of ruining in a great society.
    What looks way more realistic is that PC might go too far with the public such that it gets not only laughed at but also ridiculed too as the shameful cant that it is This did happen in the 1950s and ‘60s at the hands of the comedians but there emerged the PC alternative to comedy, as Bob Monkhouse rightly called it that championed PC in the 1970s and that remains in fashion today. When they finally get laughed at then real comedians may return and PC will then have lost a major source of support.
    Revolution is the stuff of Romantic myth.
    The cuts may well cut the tolerance amongst the public of daft PC, as Steve suggests.


    The recent video of a woman in the UK identified as Emma West, venting her frustration with non-White minorities aboard a Tram has generated worldwide attention. Unfortunately, she has been arrested since the video went viral and now she will truly feel the wrath of the Marxists that have utterly destroyed the UK with their genocidal immigration and multicultural policies. In the UK it is illegal for Whites to express their frustration over the fact that their country has quickly become a non-White hellhole by design. If a White mother is frustrated over the destruction of her homeland and is willing to vocalize it on a public tram filled with non-White immigrants, surely many other Whites in Britain must share her frustration but are obviously too fearful of expressing it. Emma West can see the future for her little boy in the UK and it scares her to death. Hopefully, her children are not subjected to re-education programs that will teach them to hate their own kind in order to progress the Judeo Marxist agenda that so many of our White youth have already been subjected to.

    Enemies of the White race are portraying Emma West as mentally unstable because she openly vocalized her opposition to White genocide aboard a Tram filled with the people who have turned the UK into a non-White dumping ground. By attempting to portray Emma West as someone who has mental problems, our enemies are trying to convey a message that it is morally wrong for White people to openly oppose their own genocide. It is that simple. White people have two choices. They can sit back and watch their homelands get destroyed or they can stand up for their people and risk getting insulted, threatened, and possibly imprisoned.

    Notice how all of the people who are attacking this White mother are completely ignoring the fact that non-White immigration has turned the UK into a non-White cesspool. It is not debatable. White people know what is going on but are simply too afraid to do or say anything about it. What is truly appalling is that many Whites are calling for violence against her and even her death. This just proves how much our people have been poisoned by the Jew. Aryans have been poisoned so deeply and effectively by the Jews and their Marxist/Communist agenda that they have actually trained us to fight each other when we fight back against those who wish for our destruction. This must end.

    If our enemies are willing to jail a White mother for vocalizing her opposition to the genocide of her people there is nothing that our enemies will not do to destroy each and every one of us. Those of you who denounce National Socialism and shun Hitler but still call yourselves Nationalists need to open your eyes and stop playing the Jews game thinking that you will be safer while winning the White masses over at the same time.

    When more and more Aryans are treated like Emma West and they begin to fully realize the scope and magnitude of the situation they are in, they will yearn for another Hitler, and they will get him. The greatest disgrace on that Tram that day were the numerous Whites who attempted to look busy, texting, looking away, or rushing over to comfort the non-whites, when in reality they agree with everything Emma West said.

    Ryan J. Murdough
    National Political Director
    National Socialist American Labor Party

  27. You’ve come to the wrong place, Mr Murdough. This is a libertarian blog, and is run and used by people committed to the ideas of Jewish non-whites like Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. I’ve no doubt you will even have noticed pictures of Jews on our masthead.

    Our interest in Emma West is connected to the violation of her rights – not her alleged status of white martyr. Though we are too polite to take your long and thoughtful posting down, we do suggest that you are posting on the wrong blog.

    Sean Gabb

  28. I agree that Mr Murdough is posting at the wrong blog. But setting aside his attachment to palingenesis – a non-realisable ambition – and to the Single Jewish Cause of our racial immiseration, there is a sense in which his critique of Jewry is mete here.

    It is that libertarian individualism, as an abstraction from the behavioural trait of individualism that is so particular in the European psyche, is fundamentally a Jewish prescription for the gentile. The common dynamic of Jewish thought within the liberal canon (that is, Jewish thought of right and left liberalism) obtains despite the apparent incompatibility of the libertarian individualist model with the kind of universal object that the Marxisms make of Man, and does so in the “perfect” separation from our ethnic roots that both effect.

    This separation, and the self-estrangement, deracination and dissolution that flows from it, is the perfection of the European gentile in Olam Ha-ba. Second-wave libertarianism is simply another modus of achieving this.

    Meanwhile, individualism really does exist in the European psyche. But it is not, by Nature, at odds with our ethnic genetic interests, our sense of belonging, or, indeed, our other great and salient psychological trait of altruistic moralism. A true political philosophy which cognised our wholeness, which allowed us to know ourselves and to give expression to that knowledge would be a wondrous thing, and would not look like the gentile in any Jewish-authored philosophy.

  29. Hmm … I’ll improve on that last sentence:

    A true political philosophy would, by definition, not model or represent European Man or attenuate any of his traits, but would licence his self-expression as a whole being. The result – an authentic European life – would not look at all like the gentile of any Jewish-authored philosophy.

  30. The problem with calling libertarianism a Jewish philosophy is that, while 20th century Jews did much to revive and popularise it, the philosophy itself was pretty well set before any Jews took interest in it.

    Let’s leave Mr Murdough out of this. He is ideologically a dead end, and I do suspect that people like him are simply employed by their local state as agents of provocation and for kiss or death attacks. This argument that libertarianism is part of the Jewish attempt to undermine white civilisation is better expressed by Kevin MacDonald. Even he, though, makes no real effort to refute libertarianism as a system of ideas. All he does is make dodgy assumptions about atomisation, and then pass to how Jews might benefit from this.

    You could prove, far beyond reasonable doubt, that Ludwig von Mises was a Jewish supremacist who bathed daily in the blood of gentile children – it would have no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the propositions in Human Action.

    However, this thread is connected with Emma West. I suggest we should get back to this matter.

  31. As you wish, Sean. I should point out that you will not obtain a critique of libertarianism from Kevin MacDonald. He is, as you know, an evolutionary psychologist and not a philosopher, and that carries the penalty of a certain narrowness. Within the Charles Martel Society, Michael O’Meara, my friend Tom Sunic and, perhaps, Jonathan Bowden are best placed to offer such a critique. There are others without, of course. One of the least is me.

    The weakness of “human action” as the basis of human action is that it requires a model of Man as self-willed, decisive and conscious, and presumes that the only available alternative to these is mechanicity. In other words, there is no theory of absence or unconsciousness here and, therefore, no theory of human presence and consciousness to being. The Austrian model deprives Man of his most human moment. Of course, one would struggle to make a system of such a thing, but without it you have a slave … or, certainly, a neoliberal life that demeans the by no means inconsiderable name Man.

    Even Emma West, in all her humility and mental anguish, understood something about this when she said “My Britain is fuck all.” She instinctively (ie. not by choice) understands that there should be something in which she shares which is great. This striving to find the great is a particular preoccupation of nationalist thought, and that alone sets it apart from Jewish contemplation of the gentile (which, as I have already said, never adds to his stature, his freedom, his self-knowledge.

  32. Perhaps that’s our problem with Libertarianism and the Austrain style view of human action as understandable. It’s just too scientific and rational. It doesn’t appeal to the desire to obfuscate and complexify.

    Look at this theory of “the great”. There is no such thing. There are some recognisable human behaviours which are entirely understandable and do not need appeals to a Platonic otherness. For instance; humans tend to form collectives for mutual benefit. Humans tend to prefer those genetically closer to themsleves than those further away (“tribalism”). Humans have a strong instinct for dominance hierarchies (“follow the leader”). And, put all that together and those at the top of the dominance hierarchy tend to use a justification for their position that “we’re all in this great thing together”. It’s not difficult. But it strips away the mythologising that we all find aesthetically appealing, so people reject it. Which is also a human action itself that we can understand.

    Human beings are the only sentient species on the planet. We are the only creatures capable of understanding the universe. The problem is, the truth about that universe is rather harsh; we are all temporary physical arrangements who will perish. My cat is lucky. She does not know that she will age, that she will die, that she will vanish from the Earth. Humans do.

    As a means of coping with thus incovenient truth, we invent all manner of nonsenses to justify our existence. Most of philosophy is various attempts to justify those nonsenses (all of which are, in fact, smashed to ruins by Hume’s Guillotine anyway).

    Praxeology dares to say that we can understand human action in simple, repeatable terms, without all that gobbledegook. That is, for reasons explained above, unbearable to very many people. So, the gobbledegook remains popular.

    We are all mechanisms. There is nothing else. We are also self willed. That is a mechanical function. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Everything else is make believe.

  33. Ian,

    I am a Heideggerian, not a Nietzschean. I fully concur with the non-existence of the “great” in the fascistic or palingenetic sense . But there is a greatness or beauty or very high human value in the life of the people, by which I mean the ethnic group. Second-wave libertarianism scorns this as “collectivism”, and excuses it only if it is voluntary. The problem here is the libertarian and, indeed, liberal ignorance of our real psyche, of our genetic interests, indeed simply of the human heart. Specifically, the problem is adherence to a false model of Man.

    In this respect, liberal philosophy does not begin at the beginning but further on, in the view that a notional subject, an already created, single life, moves forward from some undesignated square on the board. It does not acknowledge what is prior in terms of the creation of the board or the subject or the possibility of its movement. In philosophy, what is prior is investigated through ontology. In science, what is prior is investigated increasingly (but not solely) through population genetics. Priorness is necessary to the existence of Man, and this is the difference between him and the liberal subject. We are not notional. We have a prior aspect … a history towards which we orient as much as we orient towards futurity.

    If you think for one moment about the free will requisite to natural selection, it should be apparent that we are not machines. This does not mean that we are full-time conscious actors. It means that consciousness is, if you like, on a rheostat … it has a base level beyond which it must be attentionalised, something Heidegger called “the step back”.

    I understand that you may find this statement “gobbledygook”. But that is your failing.

    By the by, in good ontology is/ought tends to be replaced by is/must. Also, you would profit from understanding that Nationalism is not part of the liberal thought-world, but is external and a competitor to it. The defining characteristics of Nationalism are not found on the horrid little compass of Messers Adorno, Reich et al. It has its own quite distinct axiality.

  34. I want to start by picking up on this bit here-

    If you think for one moment about the free will requisite to natural selection, it should be apparent that we are not machines.

    I’m taking the word “requisite” to mean “necessary to [natural selection]”. If that is what you mean, it is a profound misunderstanding. The whole point of natural selection is that it is a blind, dumb process without will that acts as a crude filter on reproduction. That which succeeds is successful. That is all.

    It should be “apparent” to you that we are machines. We are an arrangement of phytsical parts which operate according to physical laws. THat is all there is. I keep saying that, but that is all there is. We can discern by study what some of the properties of this machine are. For instance-

    But there is a greatness or beauty or very high human value in the life of the people, by which I mean the ethnic group.

    Stripped of the poesy, we can say, yes, we are herd animals who tend to compete with other herds. There’s no mystery to it. What is very plastic is the definition of the herd in each mind; it might be your family, your tribe, your co-religionists, your nation, or other windsurfers or trainspotters. The human herd mechanism is well developed and allows application to multiple herds in different contexts. But it doesn’t need flowery language about “greatness” to explain it. It’s just a mechanism we evolved.

    Talking of flowery language-

    it has a base level beyond which it must be attentionalised,

    I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean. I have never heard the word “attentionalise” and neither does it appear anywhere on the internet, according to google, except for one girl on a dating site saying “i get a cranky jelious and i hate not being attentionalised hahaha but dont we all “ so I think you’ve just made it up. You’re in a discussion, so please attempt to use clear language.

    “Priorness is necessary to the existence of Man, and this is the difference between him and the liberal subject. We are not notional. We have a prior aspect … a history towards which we orient as much as we orient towards futurity.

    We do? Most humans have had very little concept of history, living in the “now”. Maybe a creation myth or two, but no historians, and no care for history. It’s famous how when westerners arrived in Egypt, the locals neither knew nor cared where the pyramids came from, could not read the hieroglyphics and knew nothing of their ancestors at all. History is largely a recent European fetish.

    So anyway, the point is this. You as a nationalist have a particular appreciation of reality which you think is “normal” and everyone who doesn’t share it to the same degree is abnormal. I, myself, have a certain nationalist feeling and sympathise with Emma West. But the attempt to derive a deep philosophy from the notoriously obfuscatory mitherings of German philosophy are doomed to failure. It’s just all a rather simple mechanism for preference for one’s immediate fellows, and fully explicable in terms of scientific analysis of the human mechanism.

    You particularly create a false dichotomy in pretending that liberals, as individualists, deny the existence of any of this. Rather, we just have different personal priorities, and are as different among ourselves as we are from you. Some are very nationalits, some are not nationalist at all. I’m somewhere in the middle of that. It all comes down to the personal feelings generated by the human mechanism, which are different in each individual.

    Which is the whole basic point. Individualism is the only philosophy that recognises that we’re all different, which is why it is right and everybody else is wrong; everybody else is just insisting that their personal feelings are the ones that are correct. We on the other hand are saying, “you’re all correct for yourselves, so you shouldn’t impose on each other”. And you ignore us, of course, but that is what we are saying. Hey ho.

  35. Got bored, eh, with the anarcho-communist?

  36. Oh, I’ll get around to him as time permits, you know. :)

  37. Ian,

    Natural selection is the second great trick (after reproduction) acquired by Life under the conditions of Time/entropy. To exist as such, natural selection requires a certain force, a certain resistance, and a certain external circumstance in the same way that an explosion requires a certain combination of materials and ignition. I understand why you would try to attach purposivity to the word “requires” in the context of this discussion, but to do so “requires” a certain resistance in you that is ungenerous and unhelpful.

    If you are going to analyse my language be sure not to assign only the meanings to it that suits your purpose.

    Now, you make a gesture towards the voluntary herd, which you appear to place on the same level as, say, tribe. This is to be expected after three centuries of liberalism. It is our foundational intellectual wellspring, and it is is poisoning us. Well, I have to break the news that wind-surfers and trainspotters are not Man, but petty behavioural fractions, existential flyweights sans gametes, sans instinct, sans love, sans truth. I mean, really, “multiple herds in different contexts” … what utter Jewish twaddle! Surely you have some appetite for the profound? Is there no point at which you quit this spineless reductionist thinking and turn to holisticism, to the search for the whole Man true to himself?

    You understand? He is “the great”. “To be” … to have a true relation to self … is already to be great, as all peoples throughout history who had such a relation were greater than we creatures of “choice” and “liberty” are without it today. As my English sister Emma said, “My Britain is fuck all.”

    You will not apprehend the utility of attention unless you have what I might call a working knowledge of human consciousness. It is a tool – the tool, actually – of detachment. The principle, however, being a human truth, is scaleable to the field of ideas. I have it in mind to demonstrate sometime that it appeared in National Socialist thought as the Fuhrer Principle, and was responsible for this sort of behaviour:

    … which is hysterical, of course. But any vivifying focal point can generate virtuous action. Manifest Destiny, for example, arguably did so in the years preceding Civil War in America. Nationalism must find the means to do so today because it has upon its shoulders the whole burden of the survival of our race.

    Your defence of individualism I have already dealt with in the second paragraph of my comment of 10 December, 2011 at 1:00 am. I will do so again, more directly.

    We are not “individuals”. We are men. We have a trait of individualism, but it is merely a part of us. It can never be more. Further, we are not ordinarily conscious actors – that is, our ordinary waking consciousness is a state of absence characterised by mechanicity. Consciousness, when generated (by attention) does not, in fact, refer to human action at all. This is von Mises great error. Consciousness refers to human being.

    These are not “personal feelings” that I “insist” are “correct”. These are human truths on which something real is to be founded. That something will either free European Man and cause him to live, or it will not. If not, people like you will go on twittering about the abstraction of the unfettered will for a time. One day you will fall silent long enough to look around and find that Emma was right and the nationalists were right after all.

  38. I am not a man of many words Sean, but I believe that every word in your article to be spot on.

  39. The real exploiters of Emma West are the “nationalist” types who presume to know and understand her thoughts and who are using a woman with history of mental illness to symbolise some ideas they have never discussed with her:

  40. Actually, there are some who claim to be nationalists who are exploiting Emma’s situation. The name of the organisation doing this is Britain First. Most nationalists seem to be of the view that this is a business operation, not a political group.

    Nationalism as an evolving political demand is focussed on the natural interests and rights of the English people, and most particularly on the right to life and land. Whatever the provocation she suffered, whatever her mental state or her immediate motive, Emma articulated the rage of a dispossessed people. Among political persuasions, only nationalism articulates this rage.

    I don’t know what your problem is with that fact. But you do nationalists an injustice when you elide our commentary on Emma West to the claim that we “know what she is thinking”. Your prejudice is showing.

  41. Concerned Briton

    I cannot pretend to understand the back and forth between Ian Bland (who I suspect is not the electronic musician of the same name!) and GuessedWorker, but I thought I would just comment on something that always tends to cross my mind on these things.

    Although I do classify myself as an avowed British Nationalist and am also swayed heavily towards libertarianism (although I do appreciate that it may not be compatible as a whole) I do think that we are at risk of sitting cleverly discussing such theories and concepts whilst Rome burns.

    I may be completely wrong, and probably a bit extreme in my views on these matters, but I do suspect that the proponents of the ideals of libertarianism are going to be an increasing endangered species when we are having a massive population change destroying our heritage and these kinds of principles.

    Forgive my bluntness, but I seriously doubt that many of the new citizens here and their offspring will be happily joining or supporting these kinds of concepts and websites. It does not seem to be in their DNA or rooted in their own heritage to the degree it seems to be in ours.

    I think the more we indigenous (“white”, AngloSaxon, whatever) people who probably came up with these ideals (and who have tried to uphold them) are made demographically into minorities, so too will these things disappear with them.

    I also think that the more society fragments during this process, the less people of wide-ranging backgrounds and cultures are likely to afford and support these kinds of principles when extending them to other groups.

    I suppose I have come to believe that many libertarian ideals can only operate in what is a rather homogeneous society.

    That is just how I see it going, although I suspect that I may well be alone on that! lol.

    The very fabric and atmosphere in this country is being transformed very rapidly. I think that as the population changes, so too will the notions we once used to hold and cherish. The kind of civilisational ties which bound our forefathers to ourselves are being severed.

    We have a hard enough time upholding them now, or winning the support from the native British, so I cannot see it really getting much better in the future.

  42. Lots of nonsense in this article.

    Bombay and Calcutta changed their names to Mumbai and Kolkata (not Kokata). It isn’t surprising that they would like to be referred to by these names. How many people called Beijing Peking nowadays? Not many at all.

    Emma West has been taken away from her children and not the other way round. She is in custody charged with racially aggrevated offence. Therefore there is no option other than for her children to be taken into care.

    I h ave never heard of people encouraging calling a failed suicider a “self harmer”. Probably because a self harmer is someone who, in most cases. cuts themselves on their arms or legs. It isn’t an attempt to kill themselves.

    “Ethiopian became person of colour, and then negro, and then Negro, and then coloured, and then black, and then Afro-Caribbean”

    Nonsense. An Ethiopian is an someone from Ethiopia. Either Africans or Black Africans is fair description. Nothing to do with the Carribean.

    • PJD, I think perhaps you’re missing the point about Emma West, which is why a woman who did nothing more than mouthing off on a tram is in custody at all. Her “racially aggravated offence” was being mouthy on a tram. She did not attack anyone, or steal anything, or commit rape, or arson. The sum total of her “offence” was, at most, being rude. Why the fuck is this woman in prison?

      Seriously. A sane society does not put somebody in prison for being mouthy. Does it?

  43. A fair enough article, though your argument is a little overblown at points. I particularly enjoyed your description of Jeremy clarkson as a “leading non-conformist”! lol He’s about as conformist as you can get…

  44. Though I agree that her being in custody is contentious, there is nothing to suggest that she shouldn’t have been charged with racially aggravated harassment, alarm or distress.

  45. ” there is nothing to suggest that she shouldn’t have been charged”

    What does that sentence actually mean? “Nothing to suggest”? The discussion here is not about what the law is but what the law ought to be or rather, what it ought not to be.

    Consider, thirty or indeed fewer years ago, two men kissing outside a London gay bar. They are arrested under the gross indecency law. There is then a discussion about it in which libertarians argue that they had committed no crime.

    In that scenario there would be “nothing to suggest they shouldn’t have been charged with gross indecency” either. The issue under discussion would be whether this was a just law, or this law is an ass. Do you see?

  46. Um, sorry, just realised I’ve got two browsers on different PCs posting as different names, hadn’t noticed. Ian Bland and Ian B are the same person. Me, that is.

  47. “there is nothing to suggest that she shouldn’t have been charged” means that there is no evidence in the video or anywhere else suggesting that EW has been wrongly charged.

    Ok so you are saying it should be lawful to shout racist abuse at people going about their daily business on a tram?

    Two people of the same sex kissing is not really the same is it.

  48. Ok so you are saying it should be lawful to shout racist abuse at people going about their daily business on a tram?

    Well, it used to be, didn’t it? There are several points here. She wasn’t actually abusing anyone, but making general comments about immigration and the state of her country, in the patois of the urban peasantry. Her opinons might have caused offense, yes. But so might expressing the opinion that Rangers are better than Celtic, or that disco music is crap.

    But you see, your definition of “abuse” is actually the expression of opinion. One can see a case for the police interveninng of somebody is actively, threateningly, verbally attacking somebody as a likely precursor to violence. But she was doing none of that. Merely expressing an opinion.

    Two people of the same sex kissing is not really the same is it.

    In fact it is very similar. The same kind of law, imposed upon us by the same movement, for the same reason. That is, to prevent offence. The gross indecency law was brought in by liberal radicals of the social purity movement, with the intention of making society “better”. People should not be subjected to lewdness and depravity should they? It’s just not right. Same thought process behind it, same people behind it.

    We are currently in a second Victorian Era, in which the full force of the state and society are being brought to bear on endless moral crusades orchestrated by zealous moralists. The targets are sometimes different- gays are now protected, when last time they were despised, and tobacco is now primary evil drug when it was liquor last time, though they’re back on the Temperance wagon now as well, as we know. But the same people are doing it, because they believe that it is the job of power to enforce morality upon everyone else.

    Emma West committed no crime. But she offended the hegemonic morality of the ruling class, and as such will be given no mercy. Just as a homosexual a hundred, or even fifty, years ago would be shown no mercy. It really is entirely the same thing.

  49. She may not have been abusing anyone inparticular, but there were many people present who were obviously offended by her.

    Liking Celtic, Rangers or disco music is a choice. You cannot choose your race. Therefore abusing someone due to their race is an offence while saying Donna Summer or Chic are rubbish to a fan isn’t.

    I think your gross indecency analogy is a total non-sequitir. The gross indecncy law replaced the Buggary act.

  50. Liking Celtic, Rangers or disco music is a choice. You cannot choose your race. Therefore abusing someone due to their race is an offence while saying Donna Summer or Chic are rubbish to a fan isn’t.

    Ah, so that’s interesting. A criterion for what you can say and what you can’t. What about if she’d shouted off her mouth about fat people? That’s at least partly genetic. And, even if she said, “Rangers fans are lice, they should be put in camps and gassed.” Well, still okay because of this curious criterion. Why do you think that’s defining?

    I don’t think you really know. THe answer is quite interestng. European “progressives” believe what they do because the modern progressive morality was imported lock, stock and barrel from America in the 1960s, along with the music, clothes, and general radical culture. America had a race problem, so Europeans copied it and invented one where none had ever been; Britain had no ex-slave class, no Deep South, no institutional Jim Crow laws. But, British radicals just copied American ones and imported the whole narrative.

    So, American Civil Rights legislation focussed on things you are “born as” and the Supreme Court applied it that way, so that’s where you get this “born as” criterion from. You’re copying American legal definitions. It has no greater meaning beyond that. That’s why we all pretend people are born gay these days, silly as that is. And, do you know why everyone talks about “Diversity” as a slogan? Well, the US Supreme Court ruled that positive discrimination is unconstitutional, but institutions could hire people from certain backgrounds to enhance “diversity”. And there we go, now we all say it.

    So really what it coems down to is that you’re repeating a bunch of American-derived radicalism without, I would wager, a moment’s thought as to where it comes from. Copying their narratives on race, gender, sexuality and so on. And you end up with this idiocy that you can call somebody every name under the sun if they “chose” to be something, but not if they’re born that way. As if that makes any difference.

    Religion is a choice btw, so presumably she’d be fine slagging off muslims, right?

    I think your gross indecency analogy is a total non-sequitir. The gross indecncy law replaced the Buggary act.

    It vastly extended the Buggery Act, from a particular act to anything that the police or state might decide to be a bit camp. Hence, raids on clubs where men could dance together or kiss, or whatever. And, be clear here, it was progressivist legislation brought in by Liberals against complaints by conservative types; because gays were the paedophiles of their day. No legislation too extreme, no treatment too brutal, no defence allowed. Yay, “progress”!

  51. “Ok so you are saying it should be lawful to shout racist abuse at people going about their daily business on a tram?

    “Two people of the same sex kissing is not really the same is it.”

    Autres temps autre merde

  52. violent people like emma should stay in prision
    britian needs real patriots who fight real fights and love other cultures.

  53. Kathleen Garner

    Oh dear, people were offended by what Emma West said. Gosh, how many times have I been offended by what people said? I do not advocate sending them to prison. I have been in the same sort of situation as Miss West in the same town’s transport system and I could easily have been led into a similar tirade if I had not been fully aware of the fact that that was just what these people wanted.
    What I find very worrying about this case is the fact that Gavin Barwell MP has called her behaviour “disgusting” and says that we can do without such people in this country. Not only is the case presumably sub judice but he is Miss West’s constituency MP and has not only commented on the case before it comes to trial but has made it plain that he will not be helping his constituent in any way.
    The Russians put people in prison and took away their children and said they were mad when they disagreed with the government.

  54. Congratulations Sean, for a powerful, important article.

    Many of the responses have been way too sophisticated for my taste, in relation to a simple, clear-cut case of gross abuse by the authorities of the principle of freedom of speech.

    It is a typical Orwellian trait of PC warriors like Gavin Barwell MP and PJD to claim that their desire to use coercion to enforce current PC thought codes is defending freedom.

  55. I found David McDonagh’s commentary interesting but confused. He said in part, “In the eighteenth century liberals accepted the right of the state to interfere with every aspect of life in principle, that the state had this authority, but they then argued that the state should not exercise this right but instead to have a very limited state.” States do not have rights. Only individuals have rights and these rights are universal. States have powers. In the United States the founders recognized these truths, legitimizing the concept of limited powers derived from the consent of the governed in the ninth and tenth amendments to the United States Constitution. In the above quotation I suppose McDonagh is speaking of European 18th century liberals. Certainly, 18th century American liberals did not accept the power of the State to “interfere with every aspect of life in principle, . .[although present day Progressives ardently pursue non-Constitutional powers while asserting that the governed must adhere to the politically correct] .” I cover the concept of individual rights in my essay, The Philosophy of the Declaration of Independence. Ask Sean for a copy.

  56. This is the first time I’ve read this blog and I don’t have anything clever to say, but it’s a very interesting read. It seems the state is going to make an example of Mrs West “to encourage the others” as it were. I feel very sorry for her. Her life has been ruined and for what? I don’t understand my country any more.

  57. dumb fuck, she didnt get into an argument, she started the argument. Stupid white ppl

  58. “Liking Celtic, Rangers or disco music is a choice.”

    No it’s not a choice, you’re born with it. I can’t chose to like that music, I just don’t. I have no idea what Celtic or Ranger music is, being an American, but it sure sounds horrible if it’s in the same sentence with disco.

    And you did import America’s racial problems, and it’s solutions, congratulations morons.

    Next stop in this joyride: South America. yahooo! Put your hands in the air!

  59. Presumably Gavin Barwell MP “says that we can do without such people in this country” because he has to suck up to the ethnics with whose votes he was elected. That was, after all, the main point of mass immigration, wasn’t it? To ensure everyone vote Labor for ever more?

    But, maybe Emma West and other Brits suffering “the rage of dispossession” should take Gavin Barwell up on his comment about doing “without such people in this country” and have him work for their transportation to some place where they could have their own country.

    What’s needed is a second Balfour Declaration. I guess as a destination Palestine’s out, but perhaps the Russians would provide space for a self-contained British homeland.

    Not that everyone will want to go, of course. Some seem entirely content to see their fellow indigenes replaced by people from elsewhere. As This Is My England, for example, says:

    So is our culture likely to be worsened or improved by adding the influence of [i.e., mass immigration of] people with the gumption to get off their arses and seek a better life through hard work, thrift and initiative? Perhaps the truth lies somewhere between the two. Perhaps Britain’s culture will simply become different in some ways. Neither worse nor better. Just different. It’s hard to see how CanSpeccy and his fellow travellers can be so sure, particularly when being so vague about the supposed ill-effects that they predict.

    So screw the English, screw democracy [which if it existed would end mass immigration immediately]. Though as Sir Thomas Moore remarked “it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world… but for chicken tandori? “

  60. This is what I think Emma West represents to Western Civilisation.
    Britain is officially a regressionist civilisation. It has become recognised as the poster nation for post-modern post-civilisation society. It is experiencing the advent of WW3 and most inhabitants don’t realise it yet.
    To understand what’s happening one needs to look at the disturbing parallels in the disturbing behaviour of the British people now – and in the years immediately prior to WW2. In the thirties they were confronted with the greatest threat of the twentieth century and they steadfastly refused to recognise it, talk about it or allow people to talk about. Winston Churchill warned them time and time again and it just made them angry with him. His own electorate committee called a meeting to try to censure him for his criticism of Hitler. Then Hitler invaded Poland and they had an overnight mind change. How stupid they were to wait so long.
    But in their defence the British people, with few exceptions, from highest to the lowliest in society gathered behind their leader and became an amazing and formidable force. They showed qualities of courage, determination and ingenuity that will stand forever in the history of mankind and created illustrious national and personal stories that bring tears to the eyes of the toughest men.
    Now in 2011 – 2012, as in the nineteen-thirties, they face a test so great to be one they will almost certainly loose.
    So I watch with interest and trepidation the decline of Great Britain from its place in history as a primary first world nation and example to all, to its new position as the most obvious example of post-civilisation – or perhaps more accurately, “post-modern-civilisation”. From my position in the outermost reaches of the Internet I watch the goings on in Britain in much the same way as any other alien. From my place in the universe I don’t need to constrain myself with politically correct attitudes or opinions that now shackle the British people as much as leg irons, iron collars, chains and handcuffs would. What is clear to all with open eyes is that Britain is in trouble and it is now too late to reverse the trends. The dye has well and truly been cast. You all need to face the inevitable. Even if immigration is brought under control this very afternoon, the faster breeding rates of these third world ethnicities already in Britain will swamp the civilisation within a couple of decades. So does this mean it is therefore superfluous to comment on it? Perhaps not – perhaps other first world countries might learn from the decline and fall of this once great empire as it moves inexorably toward its own dreadful apocalypse. Also, its decline and destruction is a vital part of post WW2 History and as such should be carefully studied. Lessons learned here as the civilisation is destroyed will be textbook to future generations.
    My thoughts about this today, December 2011, are formed by watching within hours of each other, a documentary (History Channel) about outstanding British courage and perseverance in WW2 and a news clip (Youtube) about a frustrated woman on a tram venting her frustration to a hoard of non-English people sharing the tram with her.
    Emma West. I think she is a hero.
    The documentary on WW2 showed clearly the unflinching resolve, the astonishing courage, the astute intelligence and the highly experienced integrity and honour of the British people as they rose to defeat the second most evil regime in the history of modern western civilisation, (the first being Communism.) Those who dispute this characterisation please see the numbers of human lives destroyed by them and left wing ideologies in general.
    The British people should be proud and take heart in the way they acquitted themselves as their nation stood as the only bastion against a hugely powerful force bent on their destruction – but is was a close thing. In the early days of the war the American civilisation actually debated about whether they should get involved or simply provide arms to both sides. Even great American heroes like Charles Lindberg supported Hitler and campaigned vigorously to keep the USA out of the war, and in Britain there were many supporters of Oswald Mosley and his blackshirts who campaigned hard to get Britain to capitulate to Hitler. Fortunately for mankind and civilisation the indomitable British spirit rose to support their nation and the worst war in history was eventually won. The history of this period will stand for all time as a story of great courage and strength against adversity. As I said earlier – it will continue to bring tears of pride for generations into the future.
    Back then Britain was at the forefront of civilised behaviour, scientific exploration and achievement, decency in government and education, humanity in medical and social programs and most of all in representative government.
    No more. Those days are gone.
    Then there is that angry woman on the tram. Emma West. I am proud of her. This woman is one of the broken-hearted millions of English and European people all over the planet who have lost their most precious thing – their culture – a culture that was once the greatest in human history. Now that is a sad thing. She is like the British people in 1939, alone and courageously facing hoards of invaders. If the rest of the British people had her courage the world would be a better place – for all. But their decency, their pride and their courage have left them.
    We should all feel for Emma West and understand the unbearable loss faced by her and her child. But there she is alone on a bus. In her defence – we didn’t see what preceded her outburst. Do we believe it just came unprompted from her reaction to being surrounded by aliens at that moment on the bus? I don’t believe that. I think something happened to cause her to react that way. I judge her by her child who looks healthy and well cared for, better than the millions of third-world waifs and strays and criminals inhabiting British streets now. She is the voice of the gagged and silenced. She knows that the cultural protection laws provided for the invading army of cultures in her country are not extended to her or her son. She knows that politically correct laws and regulations that have been enacted to protect the cultural identities of many other people living as parasites in her land do not consider her culture to have any value. This woman is alone on a tram – but she represents huge numbers of culturally English people now stirring and being shaken from their lethargy. It seems a reckoning is at hand and it will be ugly.
    So what should we think about this? Should we wonder at the quality of the British education system that helped create this person who can only express herself with two all-purpose words – “fuck” and “fuckin’.”
    Should we consider that communication in Britain has degenerated to the point where these words are the only ones that can actually express a strongly held position to a wide audience?
    What about her courage? I thought she was very brave. There she was alone and grossly outnumbered and she challenged them. She challenged them loudly enough for her message to get to all on the tram. She asked them what they were doing in her “English” country. I think that is an entirely reasonable question. Those heroes of WW2 would come out of their graves to vigorously defend her right to speak out, her right to feel her strength in her English culture, and her right to be outraged by what her modern leaders have done to her home, her country her culture, her pride and her future.
    All left leaning liberals would extend understanding to a Somali or Pakistani finding their culture threatened – so why not to her? Is she less valuable because she’s white? Is she less valuable because she is alone and surrounded by aliens? Is she less valuable because she said fuck too many times?
    So, Multiculturalism. Seems to me that the committee of whatever form, that coined the term multiculturalism and thought it was a good idea or concept, must have considered that it was OK to sacrifice a culture somewhere to create it. So the only culture on the planet that was powerful enough, progressive enough, thoughtful enough, tolerant enough, intellectual enough and stupid enough to come up with it was modern European/American culture. Our social engineers have performed an experiment on us that is every bit as sickening as the experiments performed by Nazi doctors on helpless prisoners. You think the comparison is odious? Wait till the fighting in your streets starts in earnest. Sadly, our culture, the culture this travesty was foisted upon, was the most advanced culture on the planet. (Don’t like that last bit? Tell me one that is or was greater.)
    Every step further into multiculturalism is a step backwards for modern western global civilisation – each step closer to a global apocalypse.
    I believe the result will make WW2 seem like a walk in the park.

  61. Oh please – tell all this to my grandmothers and my various great aunts who lost their men in that fraudulent bloodbath. It’s preceisely because of the second world war that we’re in this mess. The deal Churchill made in 1940 was that he got the crusade against Germany he’d been preaching since the 1900s, and the lefties got control of England. The rest of us have been paying ever since then.

  62. Somebody ought to write an alternative history novel about what would have happened if we hadn’t fought WWII. I bet it would be a cracking read.

  63. Whatever. If you don’t like it Mr. free speech – just delete it.

  64. Now you mention it, somebody HAS written such an alternative history novel. Have you bought a copy? I believe it’s only a few clicks away on Kindle.

  65. What Emma displayed was verbal violence.
    If someone with a terrible odour should sit next to me, I could not start complaining against that person, I would simply move.
    On the other hand should my children be taken away from me if I did?

  66. From Sean’s last comment here, I begin, dimly, to understand, what he’s been getting at, all these years. There is something is what is said. I’m not sure I quite agree about Churchill though. The Kaiser was bad, really bad. he had to be stopped, and as George V said, sadly one day…”My dear chap. I really do not see what else we could have done”.

  67. I can’t help feeling that the idiotic Treaty of Versailles virtually guaranteed a re-match.

    I think we might have kept out of WW1 – maybe the then German chancellor had a point about the “scrap of paper”, but having been involved first time around, and given the ridiculous treaty, keeping out of the second would have been tricky to say the least.

  68. History shows and we all know that the Treaty of Versailles was a thoughtless and emotional reaction to winning WW One and imposing the winner’s stupidity on the looser. Of course it was a crock. That’s all impossible to change and no reason why we should not open our eyes to the problem existing now now now. WW Two ended a different way – with the victors applying lavish first aid to the looser. But it is pointless looking back and ignoring what actually happened in favor of what you think should have happened. There is no doubt that Hitler was out of control and was clearly going to go on in a worsening way. I think he was a genius – but his lack of sanity and the nastiness of his regime was clearly demonstrated in what he did to his own people – not to mention all the other poor buggers living in Europe – and also not to mention the vandalism wrought on the cultures and heritage.
    It was clear that the British people didn’t recognize the danger of their position until it was dropped on their heads by the invasion of Poland. Then they declared war on Germany when neither they nor the French had a common border from where they might defend Poland. Hence the “Phony War.” What was all that about? But I can see it is the same now. Britain and Europe are under siege and interestingly Germany is on the front line and about to suffer the same fate as Britain and France and so many people are just playing it down – including the amazingly dishonest BBC. Can someone comment on how my scenario won’t come true – and make it believable and convince me I am wrong?
    And Emma West, she is still my hero and she reacted with the kind of language the British schooling system and her social group taught her. She was never going to express herself like Princess Anne – or for that matter – the Duke of Edinburgh. She’s not my hero because of her language, but because she had the balls to speak her mind and say something that all sensible people know is actually true and are afraid to say. And I did ask what happened to precede the infamous video? SO??? TELL ME. DO WE THINK SHE JUST LOOKED UP AND STARTED RANTING?
    Excuse me for shouting.
    So English people – do you wait until you are actually forced to comply with your invaders or get out of your homeland? As a resident in New Zealand – one of the nations you are all fleeing to in droves – I say its time to find your courage and common sense and stop talking academic nonsense.

  69. Dear Ms West’s supporters, would you call Joseph Conrad or the guys from 303 Polish Fighter Squadron ‘a load of fucking polish’?? Would you tell them: ‘go back where you came from’?? If you don’t know who am I talking about, read this:

  70. Don’t need to. I know about them, I have known about them since I was a kid and have the deepest respect for them. Are you deliberately missing the point? Emma West wouldn’t know about them though, because they have been wiped out of the British school Curriculum and available history in favour of the history of some African tribes. I have interviewed British School teachers who don’t know about the abdication, let alone the Polish contribution to the battle of Britain. Get real.

    • I’m not missing the point, I know what you mean and I even agree with most of the article and much of what you expressed in your comments. I don’t think Ms West should suffer so much because of her stupid tirade, she shouldn’t have been arrested. But, she should by no means be considered ‘a hero’. What I wanted to point out is her remark about polish people. ‘a load of fucking polish’. Ignorance is no excuse. Everyone in western countries has easy acces to knowledge. Every individual is responsible for themselves, throwing responsibility of someone’s foolishness to state institusions is somewhat socialistic thinking, but of course you’re right about the education system.
      This is another example of ‘a load of fucking polish’:
      If you are a ‘history fanatic’ please read this wikipedia article about a man, which a british historian, professor M. Foot in his book ‘Six faces of courage’ counted among the bravest of the resistance movement during the WWII. After reading this, are you still sure that SHE is a hero? No negative emotions towards her attitude? ‘a load of fucking polish’…
      And you are NZ resident, so close to Australia, a country that gave shelter to my father, a polish POW, liberated from german camp by americans, who didn’t want to go back to his homeland because it was already taken by communists… for almost 50 years. Yes, my father was part of ‘a load of fucking polish’ according to Ms West.
      And talking about Australia here is another example of polish scum:
      Have you heard about Mount Kosciuszko, the highest mountain in Australia?
      Too many fucking polish, don’t you think? What the fuck were they doing in anglo-saxon world, Your Britishness?
      Take care

  71. I can see that you got hurt by that part of her tirade and I see that you realise that it is out of her ignorance. As for me, I went to school with a mob of Polish refugees and from them I developed my interest in the war, history and history repeating itself. I met kids without parents who had numbers tattooed on their forearms. My first Girlfriend was named Stana Stavraf (I know, spelled wrong) and she had the tattoo. I have nothing against Poles or Dutch or Germans or whatever. I do however see a frustration building among people I meet here from Britain and yes I have been there and all over Europe.
    I had written this below as an addenda to what I had already written and I think that you see one problem in all this and I see another, and below is mine. I regard the issues outlined below as the reason why Emma and others have a problem they can not speak of. That is why everyone is so upset – she said the unsayable. I also believe that soon the Poles and the Brits and the Germans and other European peoples will realise that what they share is their “Europeanness” and they might come to value it because there’s this:
    The Indians and the Pakistanis hate and kill each other, (and threaten each other with Nuclear Weapons.) The southern Afghans and the Northern Alliance hate and kill each other. (Can’t remember the tribal names.) The Tutsis and the Hutus hate and kill each other. The Zulus and the Bantus hated and killed each other. (See necklacing.) Zimbabwe, a former prosperous colony is a hotbed of tribal and political violence and killing – a situation set up by academics and leftist political activists in the West. I could go on all day. — In fact ethnic violence and killing is rife all over Africa and the Middle East, and has been since way before colonisation. Muslims hate and kill Christians and soon I dare say, the favour will be returned. The tribal hatred is re-emerging in the Middle East in the wake of the so-called “Arab Spring,” now that brutal Dictators no longer fix law and order in place. Then of course the Sunnis and the Shi’ites hate and kill each other with gay abandon – Oh – and don’t mention “Gay” in the presence of either – and all these people have been imported into civilised Europe, many without education or personal capital and they move into the neighbourhoods of the low-income, ill-educated English, French, Germans etc. etc. – and these Europeans, including the sad and slightly pissed and bedraggled Emma West, are expected to be paragons of virtue and tolerance and love them all?????
    Don’t worry about your Poleishness – worry about where this is all going to end.

  72. To D.Hall: I agree with all that you have said here. Also, I admire your literacy. Because you put so many valid points across regarding the mess Britain is in, I just wish our government ministers could read what you have put in print.
    I, and – I am sure – millions of British folk agree with much of what Emma said, though would not have expressed it in quite the same manner. I blame Blair & company for much of what is wrong with Britain, and one way or another I hope that anti – British wretch is going to burn in hell for what he has done.

  73. Thank you Jim. But you can’t blame this on any one Government. It has been an evolutionary process tied in with leftist ideology, politically correct thinking and the apparent reluctance to make people go to work – therefore necessitating the importation of cheap labour. The British people have brought this on themselves and they are the ones who need to lift it back off again.

    Another thought on the Polish aspect of this discussion. Poland is part of the great European culture and civilization and their history is part of that -and not part of African history. I suspect that in Poland today the same invasion from the third world might be taking shape. My principal interest in history is that people forget what happened and they do repeat it. The human dynamic of denial that was abroad in the thirties is alive and very well now. And also for Matthias, and I say this not to get up your nose but to inform you of changing attitudes, denial and blindness to reality.
    When Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia in September 1938 Poland took a bite as well – of Czechoslovakia. On September 27, seeing Czechoslovakia in crisis as Germany prepared to invade, Poland issued an ultimatum demanding that Czechoslovakia give up its Tesin district. They – like all of the European nations, were too tied up with ambition, appeasement and their own petty jealousies to see what was only just around the corner.
    And BOOM!
    And something else about Poland in 1938 – at that time they had a bigger Air Force than the United States of America. Check it out.

    • I didn’t know about those air force proportions, it seems unlikely, could you cite your source that provides such knowledge? Are you sure it wasn’t NZ? You still have no military aircraft I suppose. As to the rest, you are perfectly right, I know about that Czechoslovakia 1938 case and I absolutely wasn’t trying to say that Poland is pure like Virgin Mary. I just wanted to point out that Poland is part of the culture that we both seem to love so dearly. Thank you very much for admitting this.
      Yes, that polish part of Ms West’s ‘speech’ made me a little sad, I couldn’t even say it upsetted me.
      Polish mass immigration to the UK might seem disquieting but as far as I know it is now at the level of about 500 000 and is not rising, so perhaps it has been the worst the native British can expect from polish hordes :) unemployment among the poles in the UK is about 5% (above 7% in general population), they have good work ethics, polish people assimilate, absorb into the culture, they often seem at first to have slightly different cultural mindset but I think it is because of language barrier and disappears as they become fluent. And first of all if they decide to stay in the anglo-saxon society, which happens rather rarely (according to gov. statistics) they are LOYAL to the country they reside in.
      Poles have long been present in the English language culture, just like Joseph Conrad, a pole that became one of the greatest authors of English literature.

  74. I agree with all of that. As for the size of the Polish Airforce in 1939, I cite Winston Churchill’s “History of the Second World War” and also “The White House Papers” cant remember the author. I still say that Ms West represents one of the voiceless in her own society because there is so much that she cannot speak – while the muslims and various other ethnicities can say whatever they want – even if it is untrue, nasty and inflammatory. They are excused because the Western culture affords them “Sensitivity” that they don’t allow themselves. To her Poles would just represent space taken up in her neighborhood. Without all the “Obvious” immigrants the Poles would be invisible because as we both know, they are part of the great European culture. .
    Although we only have a couple of clapped out old Hercules aircraft now I think you will find that New Zealanders were well represented in the Battle of Britain and in all theaters of the war – because we were slavish adherents to whatever Britain wanted and loved a good stoush.
    It is also a fact that we had many Polish refugees in the late forties and many of them were orphans (almost all catholic I think).
    I wish you well.

    From Blogmaster:
    Your comment is very interesting, and I thank you. I didn’t know about the Polish refugees who went to yours. Many of courrse stayed here in the UK, for there was – as one put it to me in the 1990s – “is nothing for us left in home”.

  75. An anecdote that may be of interest-

    Couple of years ago, can’t remember quite how long, I went into my local petrol station where I knew the staff a bit on sight, to say hello to, and the girl behind the desk was in a bit of a strop and I got a bit of a tirade about foreigners, particularly Poles, who she described as coming in in the middle of the night, drunk and rude, and demanding “WODKA”. She then also opined very strongly that when you go into the town centre, “you don’t know what country you’re in any more, nobody’s speaking English”. So it went on a bit like this, and then two policemen came in for Kit-Kats, and we both shut up like we were planning a heist or something.

    The girl who works in the petrol station is a dark skinned second or third generation Indian.

  76. I agree we have a totalitarian state it’s much to do with the EU and ‘political correctness’ which we did not vote for. We also did not vote for a political union with Europe, we fought two world wars to keep these people landing on our shores, now we drop all borders to let them in.

  77. Jacqueline Dyson

    The white, indigenous British race is at peril from the onslaught of lesser races. These lesser races seek to stamp their footprint on white British culture which has been developed over the course of three thousand years. Our little island is being swamped by sewage and those who speak out against this tide of filthy sewage, like the brave Emma West, are ostracised and marginalised. When will the white British patriot FINALLY say ” Enough is enough, to hell with political correctness, I’ll say what I bloody choose to say” ???

  78. To idolize proud ignorance is despicable and unlibertarian.


  79. Very well said, Jacqueline Dyson. If only we could rectify the situation..

  80. You’re such a knob. The theory is that people like you have a low disgust threshold (ewww!), but you’re turned on, sexually, by disgust. Look it up. Sad.