MEDITATIONS ON SIMON ELMER’S BBC AND MINE

I’ve been left with very mixed feelings by a recent long post of Simon Elmer’s on X.

On the one hand, it gladdens my heart to see that not everybody on X still retains that nostalgic affection for the Jack-Dorsey-era word-limit that seems still to be a point of honour among the “proud-to-be-an-oldfag” inner circle around Bronze Age Pervert. Poasters like Elmer here, I see, are now joining me in not just disregarding this word-limit but fucking it brutally in the ass and leaving its bleeding headless corpse for the vultures in the middle of the virtual public square.

On the other hand, I’m left completely baffled by what seems to be being argued in an essay-length effortpoast like Elmer’s, despite - or rather precisely because - it addresses an issue that I’ve often addressed myself - for example, in the Discussion Space which I opened a few weeks ago to respond to an observation on race and human destiny made by a mutual of mine on X and which, it appears, immediately got me “permanently suspended”. (The audio recording of this space is now posted among my podcasts here on Substack).

I’ve come across Elmer’s writing in various contexts - all of which I’ve had reason to be wary of - in the past ten years or so. He used to be one of the core group of regular authors on “OffGuardian” - a platform that took a surprisingly impeccable stance on the bio-securitarian “health tyranny” issue in 2020-22 but which nonetheless consisted, at bottom, of 2005-vintage “Occupy Wall Street”-type “anti-globalists” who agreed with Noam Chomsky on every issue except the scamdemic - that is to say, consisted precisely of the “disillusioned Guardian-readers” that the OffGuardian people were proud to describe themselves as.

It seems that Elmer had a falling-out with them - not surprisingly, once he began offering the lefty liberals at OffGuardian material like THIS to publish. But as far as I can make out, he is still going around calling himself a “communist”.

Perhaps this is why I find what he is saying here so baffling: i.e. so true in parts and glaringly untrue in others. I found my brow wrinkling deeply - not that it lacks wrinkles even when there’s nothing puzzling me - already in the first paragraph, where Elmer says that “for his generation” the phenomenon of white girls doting over feckless, violent, quasi-sub-human negro men, “is inexplicable” - or at least needs wordcel intellectuals like him to provide it with an explanation.

“Inexplicable for his generation?” Elmer, I would imagine was born and raised in the 1980s. I don’t know WHERE in England he was born and raised. But it must have been a very different part of our common native country than the one that I lived in, as a young man, in that decade if he didn’t notice that, by that time, black men had long since established not just a bridgehead but an undislodgeable sexual hegemony in England’s cities.

All the paragraphs that follow in Elmer’s post about how this development is likely due to “thirty years of cultural indoctrination” by the TV and other media also have me thinking that - though Elmer seems to have become by now far too race-realist and re-immigrationist to be welcome any longer in the columns either of The Guardian or even of OffGuardian - this man still seems to be suffering from the culturalist delusions that communists, leftists and liberals have always typically suffered from.

Because though Elmer’s observation that the phenomenon of white women fawning over black men on the streets of London is to be traced back to the influence of the BBC is certainly a true observation, it’s not true in the (acronymic) sense that Elmer intends it. Like so many of the people who write with an air of authority and intellectuality about these matters, Elmer is actually incapable of facing the truth about the primal chthonic forces which are coming to expression here. (This incapacity is especially grave in Elmer’s case, given the wishy-washy, neither-fish-nor-fowl, “dissident-leftist-but-still-leftist” circles he was formed and has flourished in).

His effortpoast is shot through with inconsistencies arising from concessions to progressive feminist ideas that he’s not even aware he’s making concessions to: in one paragraph British women are portrayed as fawning over, and actively seeking out, violent non-white men; in the next, they are portrayed as living in fear of suffering sexual violence from these very people. We are one step away here from the laughable feminist psychology that was used to get innocent men like Harvey Weinstein convicted to long jail-terms: ‘just because a woman was in the habit of sending the man who’d raped her SMSs saying ‘fancy coming out for a cocktail, big boy?’ doesn’t mean she wasn’t living in constant visceral disgust with, and abject terror of, him’.

One egregious expression of this “communist confusedness” of Elmer’s thinking is his confounding together in this long post two things that anyone who has lived in a British city ought to know are completely distinct phenomena that have next to nothing in common with one another: namely, the fawning of London party girls over negro drill rappers at Wardour Street record-store openings and the “grooming, rape and trafficking of upwards of 250,000 British girls by a nationwide network of Muslim rape gangs”.

Not even someone who’s dumb enough to buy Rupert Lowe’s made-up figure of “250,000 British girls” should carry this dumbness so far as to imagine that, on the one hand, some sad lonely South Asian minicab-drivers and corner-shop proprietors wheedling a few petty, ugly, desperately-needed scraps of sexual pleasure out of some fourth-form council-estate hobby whores and, on the other, the veritable Sherman’s March of ruthless, effortless sexual conquest that men of equatorial African descent have carried out through all the swathes and classes of British society in the past thirty - contra Elmer, I’d estimate rather fifty - years represent IN ANY WAY PARTS OR ASPECTS OF ONE AND THE SAME PHENOMENON.

The fact is they’re not parts of one and the same thing at all. The “female Oxbridge undergraduates coming down to Soho on weekends to make eyes at drill rappers” phenomenon no more resembles the “Asian grooming gangs” phenomenon than a seven-foot negro with ten illegitimate children resembles a five-foot-two Pakistani who’s been struggling and failing for years to grow something resembling a moustache. (The resemblance, of course, is diminished still farther by the fact that the “drill rappers fucking debutantes” phenomenon is all too real and the “Asian grooming gangs” phenomenon almost entirely made up).

Intelligent Englishmen have known about these realities this for years. W. H. Auden, though he had in his day relatively little sociological material to work with, captured the essence of the former phenomenon - i.e. the awesome and inexorable movement of one genomic mass into another and the powerlessness of Man and all his “culture” to halt or even slow this movement - in his fine early poem, written in that quasi-comic doggerel style that he later went on to perfect, “Embarrassment”:

It is Saturday morning and grey skies are bent

On my waking and tell of my country’s extent.

Subjectivity’s dome, over cities and fields,

Unmolested by history hangs.

Unencumbered the street seems, unhampered the youth,

Laughing Leroy with Karon and Winston with Ruth.

But they’re bound just the same to two histories each,

One of which is my history too.

For the “was”, “is” and “will be” we cannot but share,

The slow breakings of nations in Nod and Kildare,

Have made theirs what I thought unassailably mine,

And a man’s of my cherished child’s heart.

Knowing bodies by pain with intelligent hand,

To be formed in the bellies of white girls who stand

By themselves by the college in Acton in proof

That to England God’s order extends