Spain was invaded yesterday. There is no other way to put it. Close to 50,000 foreigners, mostly men, swarmed into Spanish territory and laughed and jeered as they went. Every generation before ours would have called that an invasion, and we should too. The era of euphemism is over. The left’s house of lies has fallen. We can all now see with our own eyes that our nations are being overwhelmed by cocky, often hostile men from afar.
It isn’t only Spain’s sovereign integrity that lies in tatters following the storming of Ceuta – so does the tyranny of euphemism we’ve all been forced to labor under these past few years
The footage from Ceuta is extraordinary – throngs of foreigners, mostly men from Morocco, gatecrashed an enclave of the Spanish kingdom. They scaled fences, kicked down gates, colonized the beach. Some punched the air with glee, clearly delighted with their successful storming of Spanish territory. I dare the left to call this “asylum seeking.”
It isn’t only Spain’s sovereign integrity that lies in tatters following the storming of Ceuta – so does the tyranny of euphemism we’ve all been forced to labor under these past few years. Europe’s rulers have more keenly policed our language than the borders. They savaged every right-winger who used words like “invasion” or “colonization” to describe illegal immigration. Such patrician censure is surely untenable in the wake of Ceuta.
The policing of people’s emotions on the issue of mass immigration has felt staggeringly authoritarian. Watch your words, said a political class that couldn’t even watch the borders. Brits’ anger over the incursion into our country of men from distant, regressive lands was treated as a greater crime than the incursions themselves. Never mind that boat containing 600 men from God knows where – a pleb in the Red Wall has had an opinion about it!
It was ceaseless. There was a time when every colorfully worded blast against the state’s failure to defend our borders was denounced as fascistic speech. Nigel Farage was condemned for using the word “swarm” about illegal immigrants. Hope Not Hate even slammed the tabloid press for using the phrase “illegal immigrant.” Such rhetoric “feeds” the “far right,” it said. Even truth-telling became tantamount to a sin under the thought-policing regime.
Or consider the fury rained on Manchester United boss Sir Jim Ratcliffe when he said it feels like the UK is being “colonized by immigrants.” What “disgusting” comments, said then-chancellor Rachel Reeves. Future generations will marvel at the fact that the same government that surrendered the nation to all-comers had the gall to condemn others for speaking fruitfully about that madness. Them’s the rules: we’re allowed to sacrifice Britain’s sovereignty at the altar of globalism, but you’re not allowed to get fresh about it.
Newspeak was rampant. They forced us to say “asylum seeker” about strong young men who were clearly economic opportunists. We were re-educated to use the term “undocumented migrant” rather than “illegal immigrant” – a cynical effort to veil the truth that the law had been broken. We were gaslit. The small boats contain women and children fleeing war, they said, when we could see with our own eyes that they didn’t.
These jealous efforts to control what we could say and even think on the issue of immigration exposed the ugly truth about political correctness. PC presents itself as a regime of social nicety, devoted to protecting minority groups from offense and violence. In reality it’s about gagging the majority, suffocating our “loutish” dissent on government policy and government failure. It’s a system of political censorship dolled up as a harm-reduction strategy.
Such language control reached its nadir during the rape-gang crisis. Officialdom became so obsessed with shielding minority groups from the “harm” of critical discussion that they played down the threat posed by Pakistani gangs to white working-class girls. It’s not an exaggeration to say that the censorship instinct led directly to the sexual assault of vulnerable girls. Even today you risk being branded racist if you highlight the awful crimes committed by young men who have no right to be in our country, and who would have been expelled under every government prior to about 1997.
The Ceuta crisis cuts like a hot knife through this dictatorship of sanitized speech. Who, now, will reprimand us for saying “invasion?” Who will denounce as “fascists” those who believe passionately in a nation’s right to sovereign integrity, and its citizens’ right to be defended from external forces? Nationhood is not racism. Protecting girls is not fascism. Patriotism is not a sin.
It’s not just Spain – almost 1,500 people landed illegally in Britain over the past seven days. It isn’t bigotry to worry about that. It isn’t a speechcrime to call it an invasion of our lands by problematic men. Sorry if this offends, but the sanctity of our kingdom, and the safety of our women and children, counts for infinitely more than the feelings of the bourgeois speech-police.
Comments