THE O’FARRELL COLUMN
 
Luke O’Farrell earlier today     14 NOVEMBER 2005

Frank’n’Steyn’s Monsters

Why Jews’ Views Are Very Bad News



It is a capital mistake to theorize without data, Sherlock Holmes once said. But it’s also a capital mistake to theorize without understanding the data you’ve already got. Step forward Kenan Malik, one of many non-whites in Britain who earn a comfortable living lecturing Whites on what’s best for them and their country. In February 1989, he traveled to the northern English city of Bradford to investigate the protests against Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses (1988). He chanced on “Hassan, a friend from London”, whom he “had not seen for a couple of years.” Left-wing, prejudice-free Malik asked him what he was doing in “this God-forsaken place” – a typical piece of anti-northern prejudice – and discovered that he was helping “in the campaign to silence the blasphemer”:

“You what?”

“No need to look so shocked. I’ve had it with the white left. I’d lost my sense of who I am and where I came from. So I came back to Bradford to rediscover it. We need to defend our dignity as Muslims, to defend our values and beliefs, and not allow anyone – racist or Rushdie – to trample over them.”

I was astonished. The Hassan I knew in London had been a member of the Socialist Workers party (as I had been for a while). Apart from Trotskyism his other indulgences were sex, Southern Comfort and watching Arsenal [a soccer club in London]. We had marched together, chucked bricks together at the National Front, been arrested together. I had never detected a religious bone in his body. But here he was in Bradford, an errand boy to the mullahs, inspired by book-burners. (“Born in Bradford”, Prospect magazine, October 2005)

He wasn’t the only one who was astonished: I had to read this passage twice when I first came across it. Kenan Malik is supposed to be an expert on politics, and yet he had never noticed the very close parallels between fundamentalist religion and far-left political movements like Trotskyism. The same psychological forces – “alienation”, hatred of mainstream society and the wish to destroy it, longing for clear identity and purpose – drive people into both, which is why it’s so easy for people to move from one to the other. Kenan Malik’s friend Hassan first tried the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party as a vehicle for his hatred of mainstream White society, then switched to Islam. There’s nothing “astonishing” about that and the roots of the two ideologies are in fact the same: both Islam and Trotskyism are mutant forms of Judaism, like so many ideologies that have caused death and suffering down the millennia.

One of the few good things about Islam is that it has never been under Jewish control and still recognizes the harmful nature of Jews, but Trotskyism was invented by a Jew, Leon Trotsky, and is still used by Jews as a tool of manipulation and control. The Socialist Workers Party was founded by a man with the reassuringly White British name of Tony Cliff, but that was just a pseudonym: his real name was Yigael Gluckstein and he was a Jew from the Middle East. Although he called himself an atheist, he behaved just like a rabbi in gathering disciples and exploiting them to win power and fame for himself. Many people left the SWP because they became disillusioned by its authoritarianism and control-freakery – both typically Jewish traits.

Kenan Malik left the SWP too but its authoritarianism and control-freakery don’t seem to have disillusioned him, because he became a member of yet another Trotskyist group called the Revolutionary Communist Party, descended from the International Socialists via the Revolutionary Communist Group. This kind of schism and factionalism is also found in religion, and the Revolutionary Communist Party was certainly religious in other ways:

Within the RCP, a central committee assumed almost priestly authority: “They did a lot of reading of the texts. They had acolytes. It was quasi-religious – that’s the best way to understand it.” Members were required to give up between a tenth and a quarter of their income, and between 20 and 30 hours of their weekly free time. Headquarters, an office in south London, issued a stream of ideological adjustments. (The Guardian, 15th May 1999)

The RCP was founded by a man with another reassuringly White British name – Frank Richards – but that was just a pseudonym too. Frank Richards’ real name is Frank Furedi and he’s a Jew from Hungary. When the RCP predictably failed in its aim of “World Revolution”, he resumed his real name and created a group with the oxymoronic title of Living Marxism. This gave birth to a host of further groups staffed by the disciples he gathered in the RCP and dedicated to the overthrow of mainstream White society in the UK.

Kenan Malik’s motives for following Furedi are obvious: he hates White society because, as someone with dark skin from a Muslim background, he can never feel part of it. But what about White former members of the RCP like Mick Hume and Claire Fox, both prominent today in the British media? Why did they join a Jew-directed attack on the mainstream?

The answer, I’m sorry to say, reflects White disunity and the power of past enmities among Whites, which National Vanguard, the American White nationalist group, rightly calls “Brothers’ wars.” According to the organization LobbyWatch, which has been monitoring the activities of “the Furediites”, Hume joined the RCP in 1981 after being recruited on a “Workers’ March for Irish Freedom.” Claire Fox had joined the previous year, also attracted by its policies on Irish republicanism.

And there’s the explanation for why two Whites have joined a Jew in attacking White Britain: because they don’t feel part of it. Coming from Catholic Irish backgrounds, they feel hostility towards Protestant England, the largest and most powerful country in Britain, and long portrayed – with some justification – as an oppressor of Catholic Ireland. I come from the same background and I think it’s affected me too: if I were an English Protestant instead I would have recognized the truth about Jews and mass immigration sooner. Subconsciously, people like Hume and Fox recognize that truth too, but because they’re irrationally hostile to England they support mass immigration, even though it harms innocent English Whites who bear no responsibility for what has happened in Ireland in the past.

In fact, they support not simply mass immigration but unlimited immigration. This is Hume writing on Spiked, his propaganda website:

The murder of a Turkish asylum-seeker in Glasgow has re-ignited the debate about how to resolve the UK’s asylum “crisis.” The answer always seems to be the same: tighten the rules, close the loopholes, raise the bar, shut the door. This ignores the fact that the real problem is not asylum-seekers, but Britain’s immigration laws. The only possible solution is to create a climate in which we can open the borders and welcome the free movement of people as readily as the authorities now champion the free movement of trade and investment. (“Asylum: the immigration laws are mad”, 10th August 2001)

His judicious summing-up of the situation was: “We cannot have a free society so long as people are not free to come and go”; and his “Let ’em all in” line, also enthusiastically followed by Kenan Malik, has been regularly repeated on Spiked. In 2005, for example, Josie Appleton, another of Furedi’s disciples, wrote a pro-immigration article that began with the claim “Britain is coping just fine with its new arrivals, and could take more still.” She continued:

The UK government has finally come clean on illegal immigration. Right now, admits the Home Office, there are up to 570,000 illegals living in Britain. Which raises the question: what’s the problem? If there are half a million – one per cent of the population – and the country is coping just fine, why not take more? (“570,000 ‘illegal immigrants’: so what?”, 1st July 2005)

Note the date: six days later four not-so-new arrivals murdered dozens of people in London with suicide-bombs. Spiked hasn’t been calling so enthusiastically for unlimited immigration since then, but it’s continued with its old argument that Britain’s problems with race and religion are caused by multi-culturalism, which promotes difference and competition rather than shared values and a common culture.

But just as its arguments on the benefits of immigration were destroyed by the London bombs, so its arguments about “shared values” and a “common culture” have been destroyed by the riots in Paris and many other French cities. France has tried exactly what Spiked wanted: to ignore race and cultural background and treat all its citizens the same. Just like its opposite, multi-culturalism, this approach has failed miserably. Why? Because different races can never be equal. There will always be minorities that fail and they will always blame the majority for their failure, not themselves.

It makes no difference that failure in Britain and France means unimaginable luxury by the standards of immigrants’ homelands. The Muslim suicide-bombers in London hated White Britain because they could not feel part of it and share in its history and success: their grievances about Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Palestine were excuses, not real causes. In fact, they were very similar to Kenan Malik and Mick Hume in their RCP days: alienated young men in an irrational cult that sought to destroy White society. But when Malik and Hume have written about the suicide bombers, these parallels, understandably enough, have passed them by. Hume criticized a memorial service for the victims of the bombs like this:

It was an advertisement for the disproportionate impact that four losers with rucksacks and a grudge can apparently have on our society, getting half the Cabinet and Opposition leaders into the cathedral for a mourning television show fronted by the Queen. What an invitation to any other wannabe celebrity suicide bombers who fancy becoming famous through the X-plosive Factor. (The Times, London, 4th November 2005)

Calling the bombers “losers” was both disingenuous and dishonest. There are plenty of losers in the UK, but the only ones who want to commit mass murder by blowing themselves up have dark skins and worship Allah. One of the suicide bombers also came from a successful family and drove a Mercedes. But money and material possessions weren’t enough to compensate him for his existential suffering as an alien in a White nation where he didn’t belong.

So he attacked that White nation in the most direct and violent way he could. Anti-White and anti-English Kenan Malik, Mick Hume and their allies have attacked Britain in other ways, first through Trotskyism, now through propaganda in the media. But they’re still being controlled and coordinated by someone from the race that is Britain’s deadliest enemy of all: the Jew Frank Furedi. His wife Ann Furedi is part of the attack-squad too, and in a especially disgusting way. She heads the innocently named British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which helps women get abortions, and she was involved in a controversy over the fact that she was guiding British women “more than six months pregnant to a Barcelona Clinic for abortions that are illegal under both British and Spanish law” (www.LobbyWatch.org). In other words, she was facilitating the deaths of White children up to the moment of birth.

But Britain isn’t unique in having a network of former Trotskyists, Marxists, and their fellow-travelers working busily to weaken its White majority and destroy its history and traditions. In the United States, the “neo-conservatives” who smile on mass immigration by non-whites and send White soldiers to die for Israel in Iraq are run and supported by Jews like Paul Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, and Christopher Hitchens, all with a background in radical left politics or disciples of the machiavellian Jewish philosopher Leo Strauss. The neo in “neo-conservative” seems to be a prefix meaning “not”, and just like Frank Furedi and his disciples, they have the characteristic Jewish arrogance of knowing what’s best for the world and setting out to do it, whether the world wants it or not.

The attack-dog of the American neo-cons is the famous Mark “I’m Not A Jew” Steyn, who churns out articles and essays for newspapers and magazines all over the world. As I’ve pointed out before, Steyn’s shtick is to denounce liberalism and political correctness without ever pointing out who invented liberalism and political correctness. He and his British equivalents, like the shrill Melanie Phillips, bewail the dangers of Euro-Islam but never remind their readers of who allowed dark-skinned Muslims to invade Europe and who created “anti-racist” laws to stop White Europeans protesting against the invasion.

Steyn and Phillips are pulling the wool over the eyes of millions of Whites all on their own, Frank Furedi is doing the same through his network of deluded White disciples, and all three of them are excellent examples of why Jews should not be allowed power or influence in White societies. Jews use words as weapons and because the pen is mightier than the sword – or the suicide bomb – they’re much more dangerous to us than Muslims. Muslims are only a symptom: Jews are the original disease and Whites need to start taking their anti-Jewish medicine now.

LUKE O’FARRELL


Cowards and Conspiracy TheoriesSpiked bite back!


Click here for O’Farrell archive