Early this year, pre-lockdown, Ash Sarkar appeared on BBC Question Time. This episode was particularly memorable for a clash between her and a member of the audience, who, in an impassioned tirade, gave a brutally honest appraisal of the current state of the NHS and in a broader sense the nation’s infrastructure crisis under the weight of mass immigration; culminating in Fiona Bruce, the show’s presenter, turning naturally to Sarkar for a response, which was two-fold: emotional and economic. Regarding the latter, she just asserted that immigration is a net economic benefit, informing the lady in question that:
“Facts don’t care about your feelings.”
However, Sarkar’s statement wasn’t factual. Despite the numerous limitations and variations in methodology in collating the data, all of the major studies conclude that immigration from outside of the European Economic Area (EEA) is a net negative running into the Billions. The only sense that Sarkar’s assertion could have had any validity is if we look exclusively at immigration from the wealthier EEA states, wherefrom incoming numbers are actually dwindling. But clearly neither the lady in the audience nor Sarkar, citing her Bangladeshi grandmother as an example, were arguing about this particular demographic.
As a literature graduate from UCL, Sarkar’s economic illiteracy could be excused, but it was not by mistake that she made this fallacious claim. She, like Owen Jones (see my previous article) is an ideologue, thus distorts reality to fit her own world view. In truth, her emotional appeal to open borders, in effect, was a “human case” only not in the unilateral way that word is invoked to assert the higher moral ground but human in the sense her sentiment comes from a place of resentment. Sarkar is not only anti-British, its history, its traditions, but more profoundly the indigenous people themselves and in this respect with explicit racial overtones.
I can’t remember hearing anything she has said about British identity in a positive light. This especially applies to any institution or characteristic prior to the current multi-cultural epoch. She described God Save the Queen as:
“Not the catchiest of National Anthems”
“But Duncast, what does this prove; lots of people don’t well up with national pride when this tune is played over the airwaves. And absence of evidence of her saying anything positive about the nation outside of overdetermining the contribution made by ethnic minorities is not evidence of absence.”
Well, this would be a valid defence if we saw this ostensibly innocuous remark, in a vacuum, totally devoid of who made it, but in Sarkar’s case we don’t need to. Her views on the state of our nation are transparent even under scrutiny. In a discussion with Dan Wooton on Talk Radio he asked her should we be ashamed of Britain’s recent history. Interestingly, she did demonstrate a little cognitive dissonance here drawing breath before diplomatically re-framing the question into pros and cons. On the pros side was immigration, referencing the Windrush generation, and on the negative side was our role in slavery. I don’t think I would be enlightening any of our readership here by pointing out that we should be proud of our role in slavery being without exception the main reason that the practice practically ceased, a practice that Islam wholeheartedly embraced. Sarkar is not interested in the actual historical record though only in a revisionist one that confirms and legitimises her resentment towards our nation and its indigenous peoples. Thus, when she talks of our colonial past she is not including herself in the collective sense of national responsibility.
Massacre of British Settlers
YouTuber, Daughter of Albion made an excellent video a while back highlighting Sarkar’s admiration for her great-great aunt, Pritilata Waddedar, a Bangladeshi terrorist who massacred British settlers inside a club by setting the building on fire and then firing indiscriminately into the crowd along with her fellow terrorists. This ability to oscillate between a British identity and one that can identify with Bangladeshi nationalism when it is politically advantageous could be defined as an actual ethnic privilege, not one that is attributed to your political enemies without any substance, as with White privilege.
What is more, in light of Sarkar’s prase in The Guardian for her relation’s slaughter of our ancestors, it should have not come as a surprise to her that she received such a public backlash for her championing of our demographic replacement in her critical response to Ted Cantle’s predictable findings of the lack of integration in the UK along ethnic lines: “We are winning lads.”
Yes, Ash, I know you were being ironic but that veneer of lacking true sincerity is becoming increasingly less veiled. Besides I can go directly to the horse’s mouth so to speak. Sarkar informs us that:
“The presence of white people automatically means the presence of racism.”
…and that White people can never really grasp what it feels like to be on the receiving end of racism.
Now let’s revisit her seemingly non-biased remark she made about the national anthem (a remark that could have been made by anyone), – or the flippant way she dismissed the legitimate concerns of the lady on Question Time – or the I-was-only-be-ironic “we are winning” affront she made to the indigenous racists. What must become increasingly self-evident here is multiculturalism can not work. Sarkar sees the native people as the Other and beyond that either as racist opposition or as allies who are less racist. About her boyfriend of the time and the other white people in her life she said:
“It takes time to develop [inculcate] the tools of racial literacy … My partner is getting there.”
The mindset Sarkar demonstrated here is cultural Marxist in character: white oppressor/non white oppressed, even if we are talking about dear great-great aunt Pritilata. Therefore, integration is only possible, for her, if we specifically accept this world view as absolute, ignore reality even when it comes from the Left in the form of Cantle who, although founding the Institute of Community Cohesion, must be purged for wrong think, too, because Sarkar is not a liberal. She may like to mask her authoritarian outlook in morally sanitising terms like ‘libertarian’, perhaps even from herself, and virtue signal support to ideas like freedom of speech or of thought, but, make no mistake, her cultural Marxist worldview is absolute and shows up for her as objectivity. Hence she will be at the front of the mob when it comes to censoring our voices and in advocating for illiberal laws and policies that discriminate against the indigenous people and force them to attend diversity training in the workplace, in order to be indoctrinated with “race literacy.”
Visit To Barking
Oh, well you are not completely accurate there, Duncast. Ash went into Barking to interview the local people, including indigenous people in a video entitled The Unbearable Whiteness of Brexit.
Ah! yes. I stand corrected – that is where she interviewed the young, inarticulate West Ham fan. Watch the video and note how for him there is a surreptitious jump cut to assist in making him look stupid. Yes, she will give a platform to nationalists like this young man all day, because it doesn’t matter if his sentiment is right, he cannot express himself well so he can be foregrounded, she wouldn’t debate PA or nationalists like myself for instance.
Bearing all this in mind, it would be easy, human even, to despise Sarkar. It was a painful task wading through all the pseudo-anti-establishment, meta-political speak that she parrots, all whilst being platformed by the same system that privileges her worldview. But, conversely, believe it or not – I don’t. You see, the anti-nationalist mentally she epitomizes was inevitable. When Enoch Powell prophetically said that:
“We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of … dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.”
It was not mere hyperbole. What else does anyone who has studied history or thought there is such a thing as human nature supposed to conclude would happen? Sarkar’s family and wider community were probably even more nationalistic towards their Bangladesh homeland than the actual natives, which is often the way amongst expatriate communities. And she probably did receive racial abuse growing up in Palmers Green (which I don’t condone); albeit, some of that may have come from the large, Greek Cypriot population that lives there, demonstrating another crack in her Marxist framing of indigenous people racist: ethnic minorities non racist, reductio ad absurdum. If it wasn’t bad enough that our treacherous elites pulled the Trojan horse through the gates, they then indoctrinated its offspring with cultural Marxism in our universities; universities that ensured we would have an entire generation that would share in the anti-national sentiments that the ethnics minorities would likely to harbour.
What was really striking about Sarkar’s clash with the member of the audience on Question Time was where did the true power lie? The audience was uncomfortably silent as the lady spoke not because they necessarily disagreed with her but because what she said was politically incorrect. Sarkar could then claim the high moral ground without any push back from the panel or the host because they were also bound by these shackles of self-censorship. In this moment the Trojan horse was looking the public in the eye – no long waiting in the dark as it could open the gates to immigration in the broad daylight.