THE O’FARRELL COLUMN
 
Luke O’Farrell earlier today     2nd July 2006

Naming the Nigger

Probing the Paki, Condemning the Kike



At last an official report into “racism” has pointed the finger where it really belongs. In Britain, as in many other White nations, the most violent and worthless group in prison consists of “monkeys” and “black bastards.” Those are the exact words of the report... but alas it was reporting the truth only to condemn it. White prison officers who use such terms are loudly condemned by the High Court judge “Mr Justice Keith” in his report into the murder of an Asian prisoner called Zahid Mubarak by a White “racist psychopath.” The murder happened in 2000 and if the victim had been White it would long ago have been forgotten. But Mubarak was brown and his murder has been regularly re-visited as Britain’s Jews-media waited hungrily for the report. They then fell over themselves in their eagerness to shriek its findings to the nation and reinforce the message that all racists are White, all Whites are racist, and all racism is “Evil! Evil! Eeeeevil!”

Yep, there is no God but Diversity and anti-racists are its prophets. This means that members of the vibrant liberal community, who pride themselves on their freedom from bigotry and superstition, can plunge headlong into all the medieval delights of heresy-hunting, witch-finding and religious persecution. Racists are heretics and witches, and we must hunt them down and persecute them. Here’s the fat Jewish homosexual Johann Hari, a deeply committed rationalist and atheist, shining the pure light of reason on growing support for the British National Party:

The BNP are a deserving target, but far too easy. It is the right-wing press that has pumped out racist sewage for years. They have no right to act surprised now that swarms of vermin are feeding on it. (The Independent, 23rd April 2006)

Oddly enough, these words remind me strongly of someone who wasn’t a rationalist or atheist at all. In fact, he called reason “the Devil’s greatest whore” (die höchste Hure, die der Teufel hat) and actively encouraged persecution in God’s holy name. Who was he? That hate-filled irrationalist bigot Martin Luther:

Now there is such a swarm of vermin at Rome, all called papal, that Babylon itself never saw the like. ... And so we cannot do anything with the swine who dive headlong into the filth of licentiousness. ... Alas, it cannot be anything but the terrible wrath of God which permits anyone to sink into such abysmal, devilish, hellish, insane baseness, envy, and arrogance!

This irrationalism and bigotry has re-appeared under a new name in modern liberals and their “anti-racism”, which liberals also use as a kind of pornography. Puritanical Victorian newspapers used to titillate their readers with sternly disapproving stories about prostitution and sex-crime; modern liberal newspapers titillate their readers with sternly disapproving stories about racism and hate-crime. Johann Hari’s newspaper, The Independent, regularly beats its breast and wails about “the growing list of victims of racist violence in Britain.” But something very strange happened after the report into Zahid Mubarak’s death. The Independent actually included a White and a non-white killed by non-whites in the “Race killings that shamed Britain.” The black St Stephen Lawrence began the list, of course, and the black St Anthony Walker ended it, but in between were these two murders:

Kriss Donald died Glasgow 2004

Aged 15, he was abducted by Asian youths who stabbed him before setting him on fire. Daanish Zahid, 20, convicted. Kay Hampton, the deputy chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, said: “Racism, wherever it comes from, is always deplorable.”

Isiah Young-Sam died Birmingham 2005

IT worker, 23, murdered during last year’s Birmingham race riots between blacks and Asians. Mr Justice Mackay said: “[He was] set upon because he was Afro-Caribbean and for no other reason. He was killed for the colour of his skin.” (The Independent, 29th June 2006)

Kay Hampton of the Commission for Racial Equality

Neither of these murders can be used to promote the lie that only Whites are racist and that British Whites should welcome the ever-growing invasion of their homeland by aliens. That’s why it’s so strange that they were mentioned in The Independent ’s list. After all, some of its liberal readers may have seen the subtext in the non-white sociologist Kay Hampton’s remark about Kriss Donald’s “deplorable” murder: “Move on! Move on! Nothing to see here!” Those readers may also have asked themselves why the murder has received so little attention from their paper of record and the rest of the liberal media. But the Jews-media often yawn and look the other way even when their ethnic pets are killed in horrific ways:

[T]he mutilated body of [black drug-dealer] Ray Samuels was discovered by a woman walking her dog in Epping Forest. Most of his skin had been sliced from his body and his tongue had been cut out – a sign that his killers believed him to be an informant. It appeared that he had been subjected to a lengthy torture session and finally died when a plastic bag was placed over his head. (The Observer, 26th August 2001)

A British court handed a man eight life sentences Wednesday and jailed two others for 18 years each for an arson attack on a home that killed three generations of a family from Pakistan. Five young sisters along with their mother, uncle and grandmother died when a blaze caused by a grudge fire-bomb attack swept through their house in Huddersfield, northern England. Judge Andrew Smith said that other members of the Chisti family saw and heard their loved ones suffering in the fire. (Agence France-Presse, 30th July 2003)

Non-white murder victims Stephen Lawrence and Anthony Walker, who both died almost instantly, are household names in Britain and constantly re-appear in the mass media. Non-white murder victims Ray Samuels and the Chisti family, who died in far worse ways, were long ago dropped down the memory-hole. Why? Because the former were murdered by witches and the latter weren’t. That is, St Stephen and St Anthony were the victims of evil White racists, and so liberals can thrill with self-righteous indignation and fake sympathy over their deaths.

But they can’t thrill with self-righteous indignation and fake sympathy when blacks are skinned alive by other blacks or Pakistanis are incinerated by other Pakistanis. If those murders had been committed by Whites, they would have received huge attention and still be appearing regularly in the media. Politicians and journalists would have wept endless crocodile tears over them, permanent memorials would have been set up and millions of pounds spent on public enquiries to ensure that the innate evil of Whites was thoroughly analyzed and condemned.

As it is, who cares? BLACKS SKIN BLACK ALIVE. Boring! ASIANS INCINERATE ASIANS. Boring! In other words, liberals don’t really care about non-white death and suffering at all: they care about using their anti-racist religion to feel the thrills of self-righteousness and superiority. They sneer at Christians for allowing irrational superstition and dogma to blind them to the truth, and at the same time they are blinded by their own irrational superstition and dogma. The truth about “racist Britain” is that non-whites, and blacks in particular, are a huge threat to Whites (and other non-whites), not vice versa. After all, if non-whites behave with such savagery to their own kind, how are they going to behave towards us?

Such questions are heretical and cannot be asked by true anti-racist believers. Even when liberals are faced with incontrovertible facts about the harm done by non-whites, their anti-racist religion distorts their thinking. Take this sentence from The Guardian:

Asian prisoners in England and Wales now face more racist bullying and abuse than black prisoners, according to a survey published today. (20th December 2005)

You’d conclude from this that Asians and blacks are both victims of brutal White prison-officers and fellow prisoners. But what are the facts? The same Guardian report goes on to supply them:

The chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, says in a review of race relations in prisons that 52% of Asian inmates [currently outnumbered by other races] say they feel unsafe compared with 32% of whites and 18% of blacks. Her report says that while Asian prisoners face most racist abuse from other inmates, black prisoners felt that they were least likely to be treated with respect by staff. Ms Owers suggests that young black prisoners feel “confident and protected” by the strength of contemporary black youth culture in prisons.

So there’s the truth about life inside Britain’s prisons: Zahid Mubarak’s death was very unusual. The real bullies and thugs are the blacks, who use their vibrant contemporary “yoof” culture to gain that ever-important “respeck” both inside and outside prison. Here’s an example of what they do outside prison when they feel that one of their White oppressors hasn’t supplied respeck:

A man had three fingers cut off and his left arm almost severed by a meat cleaver after rowing with two men about their dogs not being on leads. The victim had remonstrated with the men for failing to control their animals after they started biting him [the dogs, that is]. The man was followed by the pair, who goaded the dogs into attacking him. One of the men produced a meat cleaver and slashed at him, causing deep head wounds. Three of the victim’s fingers on his left hand were severed and one little finger later had to be amputated. His left arm was almost severed at the elbow and there were several cleaver wounds to the backs of his legs leaving him with severe tendon damage to his legs and elbow. (BBC News, 21st April 2006)

Hearing this story on the radio, I thought: “It was niggers.” Sure enough, it was niggers:

His attackers, described as black, about 5ft 7in tall, and in their mid- to late-twenties, fled the scene.

Similarly, when I heard the following story on the radio, I thought: “It was pakis.”

Police have identified the six-year-old girl who died in an arson attack on her Birmingham home. Alisha Begum was trapped in the house on Bayswater Road, Perry Barr, after two men threw petrol through the front door on Friday following a disturbance. (BBC News, 12th March 2006)

Sure enough, it was pakis:

West Midlands Police said the two Asian men, wearing dark clothes, burst into the house and threw a substance, believed to be petrol, into the property. The men, thought to be accompanied by others, then fled.

But naming the nigger and probing the paki in vibrant multi-cultural Britain is a crime under our “race hate” laws. When my racist readers (not you, Special Branch!) ask themselves who created those laws, I’m confident that they’ll think: “It was kikes.” Sure enough, it was kikes:

There does exist, and has existed for some time, a concerted campaign to deny free speech to the cause of British Racial Nationalism as expounded by the National Front; by the “hire” of Red mobs, the production of smear literature, the denial of premises, and “legal action” in the form of Race Laws. At the centre of this campaign lie the two principal Jewish organisations in Britain: the London Committee of Deputies of the British Jews – commonly known as the Jewish Board of Deputies; and the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women, commonly known as “Ajex.” (The Nation Wreckers, 1975)

Alien invaders are causing huge and growing problems in Britain but Whites are forbidden by law to discuss the topic honestly. But let’s give the kikes credit where it’s due: they’re not always against free speech about alien invaders. Here’s the Jewish neo-con Melanie Phillips seething with righteous indignation on the topic:

So we are about to be censored, stifled, gagged, prevented from naming and discussing the greatest contemporary threat to our lives and liberty. All thanks to the cravenness of the Europeans. But there is one country more craven still: Britain. (www.melaniephillips.com, 24th April 2006)

What’s wrong? Mel’s horrified that British politicians “are considering extending the blasphemy law to cover Islam” as well as Christianity. Her proposal? Get rid of the law altogether:

If there is a case for reform it is surely to abolish this law; it serves no useful purpose. To actually extend its reach would be an entirely retrograde step, and raises the spectre that censorship of debate about Islam will be brought in by a different route.

But these new laws are being proposed as an entirely logical extension of the race hate laws. Islam and race are very intimately connected in Europe, because Europe’s vibrant Muslim guests are overwhelmingly non-white: Asians in Britain, Turks in Germany, Arabs and blacks in France, for example. If we have laws to protect non-whites on the ground of their color, why not laws to protect them on the ground of their faith? Conversely, if you oppose laws that censor debate on religion, you should oppose laws that censor debate on race. But what do Melanie Phillips and other Jewish opponents of religious censorship think about the race hate laws? Surprise, surprise: they’re all for them:

Attacking people on account of their race is to attack what they are. Attacking people on account of their religion is to attack what they think. The former is an uncivilised attack on our common humanity. The latter is an integral part of debate in a liberal democracy. (Melanie Phillips)

Those who favour intellectual rigour have always been cagey about treating religion as if it were an unavoidable biological inheritance. Racism, sexism and homophobia are foul because you cannot choose your skin colour, gender or sexual orientation. A religion is a system of ideas that is, or should be, as freely chosen as one’s politics. (Nick Cohen)

All of my instincts set me against the government’s proposed move to outlaw incitement to religious hatred. An admirer of America’s first amendment, I start as an absolutist on free speech: let everyone say what they want. Once politicians or lawyers start deciding what’s acceptable and what isn’t, the trouble begins. But that position would, applied consistently, require me to call for the abolition of the current law banning incitement to racial hatred. And yet, though that law places a limit on free speech, I cannot deny that it has done more good than harm. (Jonathan Freedland)

What Jonny the Jew means is that the law has done a good job of silencing protests by Whites against the destruction of their nation. There’s no logic at work in drawing a distinction between race and religion: being born a certain race doesn’t make everything associated with that race unimportant or harmless. The “common humanity” of Whites and non-whites is like the “common primate-ness” of humans and chimpanzees: from the point of view of bacteria or fungi, these two species are almost completely identical. But the differences are very important from our point of view. Similarly, differences between races of human being – the lower IQ of blacks, the higher ethnocentricity of Jews – are very important too and impossible to reconcile within a single society. That’s why criticism on the ground of race should be perfectly legitimate.

However, the Jew crew aren’t applying logic but following that age-old principle: “Vot’s best for us?” Free speech about Islam is good for Jews; free speech about race is bad for Jews. So Jews support the former and oppose the latter. It’s yet another example of how the noxious growth of anti-racism in White nations has Jewish roots. Non-whites are a huge threat to us, not vice versa, but we’ve been forbidden to speak the truth and discuss solutions to the problem. My solution is simple: Ausländer raus! – “Aliens out!” And even though Jews won’t want to push their way to the head of this particular queue, I think we ought to put them there all the same.

LUKE O’FARRELL


Click here for O’Farrell archive