'A Riot Is The Language Of The Unheard'

Reading The Messages From Great Britain's Domestic Unrest

English woman says folks like her sick of being told to hate themselves (Source)

What is happening in Great Britain right now is of utmost importance to the United States and Europe. As of this writing, coverage in the Washington Post is far down the digital front page, and in The New York Times not at all. And if you read the Post story, you will see that it is entirely a tale of “far right” yobs causing mayhem. No real context at all. This is the Regime narrative. That’s why you Americans are not hearing about this, or are hearing about it in a narrow, distorted way. Pay attention.

It must be said that the rioting and looting by whites is wrong, full stop, and cannot, and must not, be defended. I’m not just saying that to cover myself. No society can tolerate rioting and looting. No conservative can see this and approve. Attacks on mosques, Muslim-owned shops, and Muslims themselves are indefensible, and must be stopped. The British government is right about this.

But … come on! If you are following this story on Twitter/X, you will have seen many, many videos of Muslim mobs marauding through the streets, threatening and even beating up white English people. In some cases, the police just stand by. Look at this clip of a large, black-clad, masked mob of Muslim men stomping through the streets chanting, “Allahu akbar!” This is an important part of the story — but it’s not being shown in the mainstream.

The two-tier policing strategy is also a two-tier media strategy when it comes to telling the story of these riots. If not for Elon Musk allowing these videos to be posted on X, people in the UK and around the world would be at risk of being deceived by the official story. Think about that the next time you hear politicians denounce Musk and X.

Here is a link to the speech that European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen gave to the World Economic Forum in Davos this past January. Here’s how it started (emphasis mine):

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, dear Klaus, your annual Global Risk report makes for a stunning and sobering read. For the global business community, the top concern for the next two years is not conflict or climate, it is disinformation and misinformation, followed closely by polarization within our societies. These risks are serious because they limit our ability to tackle the big global challenges we are facing. Changes in our climate and our geopolitical climate, shifts in our demography and in our technology. Spiraling regional conflicts and intensified geopolitical competition, and their impacts on supply chains. The sobering reality is that we are once again competing more intensely across countries than we have in several decades. And this makes takes the theme of this year's Davos meeting even more relevant. Rebuilding trust. This is not a time for conflicts or polarization. This is a time to build trust.

It’s Orwellian, isn’t it? The elites want to “build trust” by shutting down any criticism of themselves and their agenda. They believe that the greatest threat is “disinformation,” by which they mean what Steve Sailer calls “noticing” — to be specific, noticing that mass migration is causing overwhelming problems that the state refuses to deal with. Speak out about it, and you are guilty of “disinformation,” and not only that, but you are the kind of person that the EU is most worried about. Not jihadists. Not criminals from a migrant background who harass and abuse. Noticers. Or at least Noticers who open their mouths about it rather than keep silent and do what they’re told.

Martin Luther King once said, “A riot is the language of the unheard.” That seems certainly to be the general case here. Tommy Robinson is a white working-class agitator who is despised by the state. Though Robinson has been clearly calling for peaceful protest against the government’s policies, PM Keir Starmer, in his address to the nation, blamed Robinson indirectly for stoking the riots. The message is clear: in Britain, there is no way to speak out against mass migration and the two-tiered policing (that lets Muslims and foreigners get away with things that get whites arrested) without being blamed by the state for criminality.

That is, you must consent to your own dispossession, humiliation, and abuse, or the full weight of the British state will come down on your head.

Robinson is correct here:

What are British people who have had enough of this supposed to do? The answer is: organize peaceful mass protests, demanding change. I wish they had done so, and that they might yet do so, because that’s the only way things might really change for the better. But in all honesty, do you think that peaceful protest would have gotten the authorities’ attention? Or would those protesters have been denounced by the government, slimed by the media, and put their livelihoods at risk? When it becomes too risky to publicly oppose government policies peaceably, then what you get is violent action by people who feel they have nothing left to lose. This is not a justification for the riots; it is an explanation, or at least a partial one.

Nota bene:

I had no interest in watching Silenced, the Tommy Robinson documentary about how the UK establishment (including the media) work to twist the story of interracial and interreligious clashes in the UK to suit the Regime Narrative. But watching the radical disparity between what one can clearly see happening in video after video posted to X, and what is reported by the mainstream media, and discussed by politicians, sent me to it. Watch it by clicking here.

I don’t know much about Tommy Robinson. Maybe he’s as bad as they say. But I know something about how people in power tell lies to protect and advance a progressive agenda, and how they try to destroy people who challenge them. I had heard about the Robinson documentary, but had decided not to watch it, because I was vaguely aware that Robinson is considered a “far right” thug. But events of the past few days in the UK, and the disparity between what we can see with our own eyes on X, and how the government and the media report it, made me open to listening to what Robinson has to say. Follow him on X yourself for an alternative take on UK events.

To be clear, I’m not endorsing Tommy Robinson, or everything he says. What I am doing is saying I have absolutely no confidence that the mainstream media will tell the truth, or at least give a balanced take on these horrific events. Again, readers, if you are not on X following various accounts, you are not getting the whole story, but rather getting a version of the story that people in power want you to accept as true.

An important point in all this: if Tommy Robinson has credibility among a lot of nationalist-minded English people, it is in large part because for 14 years, the Tory Party, which is supposed to represent these people and their concerns, did nothing to address their concerns.

Conservative writer Ed West, at his gloomy best, wrote over the weekend about the miseries in store for Labourite Britain. About the migration issue, West wrote:

High-level immigration will remain the norm, on the grounds that the economy cannot grow without it, even though we have tested this theory to destruction for two decades. The university visa mill will continue, because the alternative is too immediately painful, and struggling towns depend on higher education institutions to bolster a local middle class. They’re also going to make it easier for migrants to bring spouses, will allow students to bring their dependents and have increased the pathways for more arrivals from Afghanistan.

They have also dropped the Rwanda scheme, an imperfect but so far the only deterrent to illegal migration. This is already costing £8m a day and expected to rise, since Labour has abandoned the only possible deterrent to arrivals, and already small boat arrivals have reached a record high. Their plans to tackle illegal migration seem wildly naïve and inadequate.

The number of people who intend to make Britain their home if we don’t stop them is so unfathomably large that it will bring not only immense financial costs but will further destabilise our society - and yesterday’s thuggish racist violence will only make it harder to argue against these changes being forced upon us.

That destabilisation was seen with a recent general election carried out in an atmosphere of intimidation, with Labour MPs so scared of pro-Palestinian extremists that they even changed Parliamentary procedure.

As I said over the weekend in this space, I expect the British government to stitch these rioters up. The lasting effect of this violence will not be to change government policy, but probably to strengthen the State against its own people. The British Empire is now reborn as a project to colonize Britain, and subject Englishmen to imperial rule.

Meanwhile, this headline from a Telegraph story last December:

There haven’t been this few soldiers in the British army since the Napoleonic Wars.

After what is being revealed about the British state and its Ruling Class, why would any patriotic young Briton volunteer to serve under arms for a government that sees its own people this way? Why should they risk their lives to defend a social order that dispossesses them, and expects them to consent to second-class citizenship in the country of their ancestors? Who wants to kill or die on behalf of a State that hates them?

What’s true for Britain is true for the United States as well. The X commenter Labrador Skeptic takes note, saying that young white males in America are probably watching what’s happening in the UK right now. Excerpts from his thread:

The UK - like the US - already has major recruitment issues. The UK is also becoming a joke due to lack of functioning weapons system, their ships often can't sail even as many planes don't fly These videos are likely to destroy most of what remains of UK military recruitment

Even if it's another nation, I think the imagery is likely to be powerful for young men in the US. The current generation of young men- in sharp contrast to young women - is the most conservative that the nation has seen, at least in terms of how they politically identify.

Scenes of young white men being attacked while immigrants freely rampage are visually compelling. Now, like most Leftists, Starmer isn't thinking long term. He just wants to punish & control right now. Any claim that he has to be listened to outside of his island are rapidly fading away. Now, you may say he will just recruit immigrants to be the new military. What he would then get is a 3rd world military, which nobody outside the country is particularly afraid of.

The contrast of the UK with Hungary is striking. From a prominent UK conservative commentator who was just in Hungary speaking at an ideas festival:

You all must be tired of me banging the drums for Hungary, but man, I tell you, when you look from my perch in Budapest westward to Britain, you instantly grasp the common sense of the Orban government, and the Hungarian people in general. They completely reject multiculturalism and mass migration as a threat to social and cultural cohestion. As Orban said in his recent speech:

…Westerners believe that nation states no longer exist. They therefore deny the existence of a shared culture and a shared morality based on it. They have no shared morality; if you watched the Olympic opening ceremony yesterday, that is what you saw.

This is why they think differently about migration. They think that migration is not a threat or a problem, but in fact a way of escaping from the ethnic homogeneity that is the basis of a nation. This is the essence of the progressive liberal internationalist conception of space.

This is why they are oblivious to the absurdity – or they do not see it as absurd – that while in the eastern half of Europe hundreds of thousands of Christians are killing one another, in the west of Europe we are letting in hundreds of thousands of people from foreign civilisations.

From our Central European point of view this is the definition of absurdity. This idea is not even conceived of in the West. In parenthesis I note that the European states lost a total of some fifty-seven million indigenous Europeans in the First and Second World Wars. If they, their children and their grandchildren had lived, today Europe would not have any demographic problems.

The European Union does not simply think in the way I am describing, but it declares it. If we read the European documents carefully, it is clear that the aim is to supersede the nation. It is true that they have a strange way of writing and saying this, stating that nation states must be superseded, while some small trace of them remains. But the point is that, after all, powers and sovereignty should be transferred from the nation states to Brussels. This is the logic behind every major measure. In their minds, the nation is a historical or transitional creation, born of the 18th and 19th centuries – and as it arrived, so may it depart.

For them, the western half of Europe is already post-national. This is not only a politically different situation, but what I am trying to talk about here is that this is a new mental space. If you do not look at the world from the point of view of nation states, a completely different reality opens up before you. Herein lies the problem, the reason that the countries in the western eastern halves of Europe do not understand one another, the reason we cannot pull together.

What’s happening right now in Britain is a vindication of Orban’s conception of society and nationhood. And it is why the US, UK, and EU elites demonize Orban: he has their number. He and his country must be seen as pariahs, otherwise people in Britain and Europe may start to ask troubling questions of their own governments.

In Britain, the poison pill was served to the British people by Tony Blair, who came to power in 1997, and continually administered by subsequent governments — including Tory ones. Read this. Excerpt:

Economic globalisation was presented as an irreversible fact of life, and a natural development of capitalism that could not be controlled. According to Blair, the only “rational response” to globalisation was “to manage it, prepare for it, and roll with it”. Blair’s 2005 speech to the Labour Party conference perfectly encapsulated this pitting of the losers versus winners of globalisation. He said:

I hear people say we have to stop and debate globalisation. You might as well debate whether autumn should follow summer.

Labour claimed there was simply no alternative to globalisation. This logic trickled down to shape the objectives of many public policies. With immigration being “the human element of globalisation”, it was assumed to be both inevitable and intrinsically positive by the leading faction of the party.

Well, they got what they wanted, and they got it good and hard. Now, to deal with the mess they have made, Britain’s Ruling Class will sovietize daily life. All those closed-circuit cameras will be connected to facial-recognition software. Soon enough, a social credit system will be introduced to put some firmness into Starmer’s soft totalitarianism. My book Live Not By Lies comes out in a UK edition on November 4 (UK readers can pre-order here); depressingly, I expect it will do better than I could have imagined a week ago.

I began today’s newsletter by saying that UK events are hugely important to the US and Europe. They’re more important to Europe, which has large migrant populations in many countries, and where the social tension over crime, housing, and other issues is nearing the boiling point. (Indeed, I imagined France is where we would first see white working-class riots, not Britain.) What’s happening in the UK could easily spread on the Continent, because the grievances are the same. Now would be a very good time to read Renaud Camus’s essays on “The Great Replacement”. If, like me until earlier this year, you avoided them because the term “Great Replacement” was coded racist-right, then you must know that you have been manipulated. Camus’s concept is not what you have been told it is by the media. You don’t have to agree with it, but you should know what Camus is saying — and why it matters. The gaslighting the legacy media have been engaged in for so many years around migration and multiculturalism is a big reason why these problems have gone unaddressed, and at last the people whose voices have been suppressed and derided for all this time are turning to violence. However wrongly, they believe this is self-defense.

It matters to the US because even though America doesn’t have migration problems to the extent the Brits and the Europeans do, the same contemptuous attitude of governing, media, and academic elites towards the Deplorables (chiefly white working-class people, but not only them) is the same. Call them weird, call them bigots, call them racists, call them transphobes, Islamophobes, homophobes, whatever — just so long as you psychologize away their political views. Anything to keep yourself from having to recognize that they have legitimacy.

Liberal democracy depends on the consent of the governed. Gaining the consent of the governed requires a majority of people agreeing that they live in an order that delivers justice most of the time. This is why elite failures, not rioting yobs, are the chief threat to democracy. The British state, the media, the Eurocrats, and the rest are going to do their dead-level best to suppress discussion of these inconvenient facts. But these facts will remain a bone in the public’s throat until they are dealt with honestly — or liberal democracy morphs into a postliberal internal imperialism, in which the conquered peoples are the ones in whose name their governments rule.

When Tommy Robinson returns to Britain from his family holiday, I imagine they will throw him in jail, as a lesson to others. It will be a lesson, all right. Watch and learn.