The peoples of Europe are being subjected to genocide by their own governments. The mad project on which our elites have embarked - repopulating Europe with Africans and Asians against the wishes of its ancestral inhabitants - is the greatest crime in the history of the world. Tyrannical hate speech laws prevent Europeans even talking about what is being done to them, much less opposing it through democratic political processes. Polls show that majorities in many major European countries think Islam is incompatible with their way of life and sizeable minorities would ban Muslim immigration entirely. Yet these people have no representation whatsoever in the public conversation that constitutes our democracy.
Such is the oppressive power of the Establishment that anti-immigration parties must pretend to be pro-immigration in order to survive. UKIP, for example, unquestionably derives most of its support from people concerned about immigration. Yet, publicly, it claims to be pro-immigration. In the EU referendum debate, its spokesmen have argued that leaving the EU would allow us to admit more brown-skinned, non-EU immigrants instead of white-skinned Europeans. Most people who vote UKIP assume this is just a pretence. Maybe they're right; maybe not. But what does it say about our democracy that an anti-immigration party has to pretend to be pro-immigration? It says we don't have an authentic democracy at all.
Any public opposition to immigration has to be framed in abstract terms through talk of "pressure on resources" and the like. No specific groups of immigrants may be singled out as especially problematical. And no one is allowed to say that immigration is bad because it erodes the identity of the ancestral British peoples, an identity that is both cultural and genetic. These are the rules of the game. It is this denial of their right to participate in the democratic conversation that, it seems to me, drives people like Anders Breivik and Thomas Mair to commit the crimes that they do. The wonder is not that it happens. The wonder is that it doesn't happen more often.
But politicians are predictably responding to the Jo Cox murder by intensifying their efforts to suppress freedom of speech further. Women politicians, assisted by the Guardian and its anti-free speech "The Web We Want" campaign under its new female editor, have seized on the chance to advance their pre-existing, anti-free speech agenda.
Maria Miller, the Conservative MP and chair of the women and equalities select committee, is one of the women behind it. “What I want to see is a more honest and open conversation about what is and isn’t acceptable behaviour online,” she says. “I think at the moment people simply accept online abuse that verges on criminal behaviour without really questioning whether that is acceptable. The concern I have is the chilling affect online abuse can have on free and open debate. Members of parliament, like anybody else, don’t want to be involved in discussions that become aggressive and violent in their nature. My concern is not just for MPs, but others as well, that they are able to use social media without fear of violent verbal attacks.” The internet, she says, “sometimes … brings out the worse in people”.Source
Here we have the sinister idea that "online abuse", by which she means other people expressing their opinions, can have a chilling effect on free and open debate. So, according to this bizarre formulation, people engaging in free and open debate can have a chilling effect on free and open debate.
Most of what are described as threats, if you look at them in detail, are clearly not threats. They are very unpleasant remarks. There is no question of that. But saying "hope you get raped" is not a threat. It is not an intimation of an intent to carry out future violent action. And characterising unpleasant expressions of dissent as "threats" is just a step towards demanding their criminalisation. In effect, these politicians, overwhelmingly women, are trying to reinstate the offence of Lèse majesté, when people could be charged with crimes for insulting their rulers. The Web They Want is one where the plebs can't talk back.
Cameron, too, has joined in on the act, saying this while laying a wreath for Saint Jo.
We do have peace, we do have stability, we do have a measure of economic wellbeing better than other countries obviously still to be spread far more widely. And it is all underpinned by tolerance. So where we see hatred, where we find division, where we see intolerance we must drive it out of our politics, out of our public life and out of our communities.Europeans' valuation of their own culture and identity - their peoplehood - is, of course, "hatred". Their urge to resist domination by aliens is "intolerance". So, in the name of opposing this intolerant wish of the British people to exist, Cameron is proposing a vicious new intolerance of his own.
EU partisans have shamelessly seized on Jo Cox's death for propaganda purposes. The despicable Gordon Brown also calls for a totalitarian crackdown on dissent.
The referendum was always about more than Europe; it was always about what kind of Britain we are and what we aspire to be. But some have attempted to hijack a decision on the future of Britain in Europe and turn it into a vote on immigration, and then on immigrants and those who support immigrants.
Unless we strive for a culture of respect to replace a culture that does too little to challenge prejudice, we will be learning nothing from what happened to Jo. We have to be honest that calling for tolerance, while welcome, is not enough: we cannot just revert back to a status quo still filled with prejudice and discrimination without recognising the hurt that has been done and the need to address these injustices head on.
Only by tackling the prejudice and hate that killed her can we do justice to the meaning of Jo Cox’s life.Recall the contrast with the death of Pim Fortuyn the Dutch politician murdered in 2002 by a leftist animal rights campaigner. Fortuyn was not just an obscure politician - and, let us be honest, whatever is being said about her now, Jo Cox was an obscure politician almost no one would have recognised. Fortuyn was the leader of political party expected to win 20% of votes in the next general election and, as such, on track to potentially be prime minister of the country. He had warned of the dangers of immigration and islamisation and was being decried as a new Hitler by the establishment press. The leftist who murdered him was no doubt inspired by this inflammatory rhetoric. Was there any talk then of the dangers of stigmatising those who are worried about immigration? Of the need to combat the "Hate" of the left? To achieve a new tone? Not a bit of it.
The Remain side has enjoyed a fillip in the polls following the murder of Saint Jo. Already this is giving rise to conspiracy theories. It's certainly hard to understand why any genuine, sane supporter of Brexit would launch an attack that could only damage his cause at such a sensitive time. Giving his name as "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain" indicates an obvious inflammatory intent. If the Remain side manage to eke out a narrow victory, the Jo Cox murder might well become an object of future obsession, one of the great might-have beens of history.
But whether Thomas Mair is a stout British patriot, a nutter or a Manchurian candidate, the fact is that the British and European peoples have tamely allowed themselves to be shepherded to destruction by their own ruling class. The question is not whether Thomas Mair is sane. The question is whether the rest of us are.