Anarcho-Tyranny in the UK

Recently the UK denied entry to Brittany Pettibone, Martin Sellner, and Lauren Southern, all of whom are right-wing activists/commentators. Martin and Brittany were going to give a speech at Speaker’s Corner in London, a supposed haven for free speech. Brittany was also going to interview Tommy Robinson, a UK citizen and right-wing activist. Lauren was going to meet with Tommy, Brittany and Sellner. The grounds were as follows:

  • Martin: Member of Generation Identitaire, might disturb “local communities”.
  • Brittany: Going to speak with known “extremist” Tommy Robinson.
  • Lauren: Past “racism” in the UK, consisting of a social experiment in which she distributed flyers saying “Allah is gay” (an attempt to expose hypocrisy).

I don’t know the exact process by which it occurred, but I can make some guesses. Probably “anti-hate” groups (left-wing, of course) informed government bureaucrats and/or politicians that Martin, Brittany, and Lauren were coming to the UK. Then, either bureaucrats or politicians made the decision to exclude them from the UK. The immigration officers then carried out instructions from above, filled out the forms with the required verbiage, etc. That is what I think happened.

Why did the authorities ban these people from the UK? There are two intersecting reasons.

One is that support for immigration and multiculturalism is a required belief — essentially a religious belief. Anyone who questions or opposes mass immigration and/or multiculturalism is a heretic and thus a moral outsider. The normal rules and policies don’t apply to heretics.

The second reason is that the authorities don’t want religious fanatics (Muslims or leftists) to riot over the public expression of such heresies. It is easier to prevent the heretics from entering the country than it is to quell a riot by the fanatics, especially when the fanatics must be handled with kid gloves because they are moral insiders taking a “brave” (completely safe, government and big corporation approved) stand against the evil heretics. The government does not want to appear to side with the heretics against the “good guys”.

In particular, the government does not want to piss off the Muslims, who respond aggressively to any pushback. The UK, like most Western societies, has been following a policy of appeasement rather than standing up to minorities when they misbehave. Rotherham is a glaring example in the UK. This policy of appeasement has a predictable effect: the appeased minority demands more and more.

Why does the government follow this ultimately self-destructive policy? Again, there are two reasons, one ideological and one “practical”.

The ideological reason is that the government cannot crack down on the misbehavior of Muslims or leftists (especially Muslims) without exposing the failure of the social experiment that is the modern West. It’s not just that multiculturalism and immigration are creating a dystopia. It’s bigger than that. The entire worldview of the West is fatally flawed. Huge cracks have appeared in it, and the reaction of many is to double down on the lie rather than face the truth. The hysteria over Trump in the US is part of a bigger phenomenon in the West: the collapsing of the humanist worldview. The terror of this collapse is made worse by the fact that there is no obvious replacement. If the humanist worldview is destroyed, most leftists and liberals will be left staring into the abyss.

The other reason for following the policy of appeasement is simply that it is the easiest thing to do right now. If the government cracked down on Muslims, there would be a huge shitstorm of riots, protests, etc. The government knows that the true right is weaker on the street and has only a few violent members, so it sides with the stronger and more violent force. This is a cowardly tactic, of course. The government is pretending to be in control by cracking down on a small number of law-abiding right-wingers, rather than enforcing the law against more numerous law-breakers. It blames the right-wingers for left-wing and Muslim violence, and it justifies excluding them on the grounds that they might provoke a violent reaction. We have seen this pattern over and over, so it should be familiar by now.

Both the elected politicians and the unelected bureaucrats are managerial in nature. They aren’t thinkers or builders. They are reactive, not proactive. They manage problems rather than solving them. They have no long-term vision and they don’t understand how complex systems work. They just react to issues as they arise, in an ad hoc way. They always take the path of least resistance. And they have no principles of any kind. So, if it is easier now to silence right-wingers than to stop left-wingers and Muslims from rioting, they will silence right wingers.

Just as the ruling class consists of glorified managers, the intellectual class consists of glorified marketers. Don’t expect much from them and you won’t be disappointed. They aren’t capable of pointing out the problems with the humanist worldview of the West, let alone solving those problems. We have no leadership of either kind, political or intellectual. Just managers and marketers.

And that’s why we have the continuing erosion of free speech in the West. For now, it is easier for the establishment to suppress speech than it is to admit the truth and deal with the mess they have created.