The Urge To Call You Names
Further to recent rumblings about progressive racial agonising and the fashionable rush to denounce, this caught my eye:
The problem here is that liberals demand a conceptual coupling that isn’t required and at least in my own case doesn’t exist. I’m not uncomfortable around non-white people. I find most of the individuals I meet from diverse backgrounds to be perfectly nice, kind, interesting, etc.
But I’m also not concealing that I would aim immigration policy at preventing further demographic change.
Immigration policy is not individual relations. How you should treat the individuals you meet and what we should do at the border involve non-overlapping magisteria, so to speak.
There’s nothing further for me to come out and say, nothing about which I need be more honest. The world is bigger than your demand for a coherence that makes sense to you personally.— wanye (@xwanyex) October 7, 2026
For those without X accounts:
But I’m also not concealing that I would aim immigration policy at preventing further demographic change.
Immigration policy is not individual relations. How you should treat the individuals you meet and what we should do at the border involve non-overlapping magisteria, so to speak.
There’s nothing further for me to come out and say, nothing about which I need be more honest.
Such are the travails of dealing with people who can only engage with objections to massive, indiscriminate immigration, and its predictable social effects, in terms of some presumed racial animus. Which can then, of course, be seized upon and denounced in order to elevate one’s own status.
And so – to add a European perspective – if you have visible reservations about this kind of social trajectory, or the prospect of periodic eruptions of lively tribal antagonism, or simply regarding everyday courtesies that can no longer be assumed, then, in their minds, conveniently, this can only be because you dislike people lacking in pallor. No other possibilities being permitted.
As I said here, regarding the evaporation of bus-queue proprieties:
As if the grievance, the stated issue – “queuing means the old, small, and weak are treated fairly” – could only be about the pigmentation of the players, not their actual behaviour, to which attention has been drawn.
And from the same post, this anecdote seems apposite:
The gist of the comedian’s punch line was, “Isn’t it hilarious that people who have concerns about mass immigration and failures to assimilate – the rapid and estranging transformation of their neighbourhoods – now have to be quiet because otherwise they’ll be called racists and possibly lose their jobs. Ha! We won!”
This triumphal non-joke – and it was blatantly triumphal – was deemed incredibly funny, or at least ideologically congenial, and much mannered clapping ensued. Of course, this was aired shortly before the uncovering of events in Rotherham and elsewhere, and before our immensely vibrant age of Congolese machete gangs.
And so, if that nice Mrs Wilson, the old dear two doors down, can no longer get on a bus, and dreads waiting for a bus because of the Third World scuffle that now ensues, and if she no longer feels she can complain about this without being thought racist, then this is totally fine, apparently. Indeed, it’s a basis for triumphal smugness by BBC comedians and BBC studio audiences.
A not dissimilar dynamic.
Also, open thread. Share ye links and bicker.
Clue.
The obstinacy in this matter, the determination not to perceive the obvious, can be quite remarkable. I’d forgotten, for instance, about LBC presenter James O’Brien, who was gushingly moved by scenes in Ceuta, though not in ways that seem sane.