Pieces of Hate

To get to the point, let’s get to The Point. That’s the name of the newsletter edited by Father Leonard Feeney (1897-1978), a trouble-making American Catholic who wouldn’t stand by meekly as his church and his nation were readied for destruction. Way back in the 1950s, The Point addressed a very important topic:

Should Hate Be Outlawed?

Most Americans, hearing this question, would answer promptly, “Yes, by all means, hate should be outlawed!” Their eagerness to reply can be accounted for all too easily. During the last decade and a half, they have been pounded with a propaganda barrage calculated to leave them in a state of dazed affability toward the whole world. Those advertising techniques that are normally used to encourage Americans to be choosy in matters of soap and toothpaste are now being enlisted to persuade them that there is no such thing as a superior product in matters of culture and creed. On billboards, on bus and subway posters, in newspapers and magazines, through radio and television broadcasts, Americans are being assured and reassured, both subtly and boldly, that “Bigotry is fascism ... Only Brotherhood can save our nation ... We must be tolerant of all!” (Op. cit., July 1955)

“Only Brotherhood can save our nation”? Well, not quite: what the propagandists really meant was that only Big-Brotherhood could save America. What is hate? Hate is thought crime. The Point doesn’t refer to a novel published less than a decade before, but it’s addressing the same topic as George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1948). Between them the Catholic Feeney and the atheist Orwell produced an uncannily accurate prophecy of the totalitarian scientific future. Feeney didn’t, of course, believe in free speech as a general principle or recognize the importance of science and technology, but he had one huge advantage over Orwell. He was prepared to name the group behind the hate crusade and all the other slow, stealthy moves to turn Western nations into police states:

As surely and securely as the Jews have been behind Freemasonry, or Secularism, or Communism, they are behind the “anti-hate” drive. Not that this movement represents the fruition of Talmudic doctrine. The Jews are advocating tolerance only for its destructive value – destructive, that is, of the Catholic Church. On their part, they still keep alive their racial rancors and antipathies. Their Talmud, for example, still teaches that Christ was a brazen impostor, and gives an unprintably blasphemous account of his parentage and birth. And as the Christmas season just past should have taught us, the Jews, for all their Brotherhood talk, have not in the least abandoned their resolute program to make all acknowledgments of Christmas disappear from the public and social life of the nation.

The secret of the Jews’ success is, of course, that they can practice such private hate while promoting public “love”, and not be accused of inconsistency. For, as always, they are running the show mainly from behind the scenes. They get their message across by means of co-operative Gentiles. And there are probably more such Gentiles now available – both the willing kind and the kind willing to be duped – than ever before in history. As a further good fortune, the Jewish directors of America’s entertainment industry can now guarantee that one Brotherhood spokesman, well-placed (e.g., behind a microphone or before a television camera), is able to influence Americans by the millions. And the Jews’ campaign is succeeding. We have every reason to be alarmed at its success. American Catholics, even those not actively taking part in the tolerance talk, are now kept in line by the omnipresent threat of being accused of hate, bigotry, and intolerance.

That threat isn’t strong enough: Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League, under its director Abe “The Snake” Foxman, want not just accusations of hate but arrests and imprisonments for hate. Alas, the First Amendment is still getting in their way. If only the Founding Fathers hadn’t been so foolish as to arm the fallible people against the infallible state! In Britain, however, where there is no constitutional guarantee of free speech, Jewish groups like the Community Security Trust, under its director Mike “Gag the Goys” Whine, have been able to achieve their ideal. Arrests and imprisonments for inciting racial hatred have been taking place ever since the 1960s. And now, much to the dismay of many liberals, we have a new category of thought criminals: those guilty of inciting religious hatred.

But what started fairly slowly is picking up pace and right on the heels of the faith hate law came an announcement from Jack “The Jew” Straw, our hilariously named Minister for Justice, that an even newer category of thought criminal was on its way: those guilty of inciting hatred of homosexuals. Here’s the reaction of Johann Hari, a fat homosexual who is one of Britain’s leading liberals:

It’s always strange and sad when you have to disagree with people who have purely good motives and purely good goals. Over the past week, I have smacked into disagreement twice with friends and allies in the fight for equality for gay people. Both times, the rows have boiled down to one core question: should the people who hate and detest us just because of a trivial and irreversible biological fact – homosexuality – be subject to extra criminal sanctions? (The Independent, 11th October 2007)

Hari both rejects and misunderstands the law. If its motives and goals are “purely good”, then Hari himself will win Slimmer of the Year in 2008. The law is in fact another step in the slow-motion revolution being overseen by Britain’s New Labour party and its friends in the media, academia and state bureaucracy. Homosexuals are like women and non-whites: they were recruited for revolution when the white British working class failed to assist the triumph of communism. By inciting these groups to resentment and hatred of white male heterosexuals, the power-hungry crypto-communists of New Labour have been able to use them as shock-troops in a war that will end, they hope, in a police state under their control. It’s happening all across the West: a slow-motion revolution that is getting less slow and gaining more motion by the year.

The homo hate law is part of the war. Like the race hate laws, it’s designed both to reward a privileged minority and to reinforce its privilege in the eyes of the enemy. When Hari calls homosexuality a “trivial biological fact”, he’s actually blaspheming. Like being female or non-white, being homosexual is special. It places one in a privileged category, exalted above one’s heterosexual oppressors, just as females are exalted above their male oppressors and non-whites above their white ones. This is a translation of old communist doctrine based on the saintly proletariat, the oppressive bourgeoisie and the exploitative capitalist. And when you look at New Labour, guess what? There are “ex”-communists everywhere, from Peter Mandelson, one of New Labour’s chief ideologues, to David Aaronovitch, one of New Labour’s chief propagandists, to Trevor Phillips, one of New Labour’s chief ideological enforcers.

There are also Jews everywhere in New Labour, as you might guess from names like Mandelson and Aaronovitch. Tony Blair’s departure and Gordon Brown’s arrival have been a case of “Meet the new boss – same as the old boss.” But Brown isn’t the real boss any more than Blair was: he serves a particular ethnic minority that is always sure to keep its cold and calculating eye on government, making sure of everything and nothing: “Everything for Jews’ benefit, nothing for whites’ benefit.” You can often see this Jewish control mentioned in the mainstream media, though it isn’t described as such. Here’s the magazine Private Eye describing Brown’s “New Kind of Politics”:

Tony Blair, 1997: Appoints former personal adviser Peter Mandelson as cabinet office minister to be his eyes and ears across government.

Gordon Brown, 2007: Appoints former personal adviser Ed Miliband as cabinet office minister to be his eyes and ears across government. (Op. cit., 28th September 2007, #1194)

Mandelson and Miliband are both Jews. What are the odds against members of such a small ethnic minority occupying the same central position under two different prime ministers? Ed Miliband has a brother called David, tipped himself as a future prime minister and presently serving as Foreign Secretary in succession to Jews like Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind. Again, what are the odds against that? It’s certainly not happening by chance, but it isn’t happening simply because of that much-vaunted Jewish intelligence. There is also a lust for power and control that augurs very ill for the goyim in a Jew-dominated nation: remember the early Soviet Union. And guess what again? The Milibands are sons of a Marxist refugee called Ralph Miliband. He raises another question. How often are anti-Semites mocked for their “contradictory” belief in Jews’ being behind both communism and capitalism?

Well, Ralph was one of those not-so-strange oxymorons: a Marxist millionaire. Maybe the money he left explains the smug smiles that flicker so often across his sons’ faces. Or maybe they’re just glad to be realizing Daddy’s Dream as they help turn Britain into a communist police state. And it isn’t just me who finds them both smug and sinister: step forward the journalist Rod Liddle, who, like John Prescott, appears to be one of those goys who are anti-Semitic without realizing it. He’s been abusing Peter Mandelson for years:

It has been a long-held view of mine that most of the evil in the world today can be traced back, somehow, to Peter Mandelson. People tell me that this is irrational and warped. And yet, as the Burmese soldiers sprayed those protesting monks with tear gas and bunged them in the back of paddy wagons to be taken God knows where and for God knows how long, the EU Trade Commissioner’s spectral form once again swam towards me from inside my television set. (The Spectator, 26th September 2007)

This is what he’s said about David Miliband in an article on the fallibility of DNA testing:

I’m no expert, but I would have thought that my own DNA would also provide at least an 80 per cent match with [the crime victim] Madeleine [McCann]’s, along with Vladimir Putin’s, [the NuLabourite] Ruth Kelly’s and indeed that of a polecat, honey badger or a fruit-fly. In fact, so far as I’m aware, there is almost nothing on this planet which doesn’t share 80 per cent of its DNA with Madeleine McCann; maybe some rocks, certain lichen, KFC chicken nuggets and David Miliband. (The Spectator, 12th September 2007)

There’s a racial antagonism at work there: the predatory alien nature of Jews is disturbing and repulsive to goys, who respond by characterizing them as evil, spectral and abhuman or by giving them sinister nicknames: Richard “Prince of Darkness” Perle in the US, for example, and Michael “Dracula” Howard (né Hecht) in the UK. I feel this repulsion when I look at pictures of Herbert Marcuse, the Jewish Freudo-Marxist who was hard at work when Mandelson, Aaronovitch and Phillips were starry-eyed student revolutionaries. There’s an excellent summary of Marcuse’ work in volume three of Leszek Kolakowski’s Main Currents of Marxism (1978). Kolakowski lived in communist Poland and had a deep insight into what lies at the heart of Marxism and other Jewish ideologies: the lust for power and control. Like the egomaniac Marx, like the egomaniac Trotsky, like all the smaller Jewish egomaniacs following in their wake, Marcuse wanted to create what is, for Jews, an earthly paradise: a police state of goyim under Jewish control.

But Marcuse faced a problem: establishing the paradisical police state would take a lot of work. There was false consciousness to smash, an existing society to transcend, the very structure of present reality to destroy:

But who is to do all this when a majority of the people, and especially of the working class, are absorbed by the system and are not interested in the “global transcendence” of the existing order? The answer, according to [Marcuse’] One-Dimensional Man, is that “underneath the conservative popular base is the substratum of the outcasts and the outsiders, the exploited and persecuted of other races and other subjects, the unemployed and unemployable. They exist outside the democratic process...” It appears, then, that lumpenprolitariat of the racial minorities of the United States is the section of humanity ordained above all others to restore the unity of Eros and Logos, to create the new qualitative science and technology, and to free mankind from the tyranny of formal logic, positivism, and empiricism. However, Marcuse elsewhere explains that we can also count on other forces, namely students and the peoples of economically and technically backward countries. The alliance of these three groups is the chief hope for the liberation of mankind. (Op. cit., “Herbert Marcuse: Marxism as a totalitarian Utopia”, pg. 411)

That is the wisdom absorbed by Britain’s modern rulers in their student days: recruit outsiders for revolution. Mass immigration from “economically and technically backward countries” into Britain has created one set of revolutionary warriors; homosexuals are another set. Both are now privileged with special laws over the counter-revolutionary white heterosexual majority, but there’s a big contradiction between mass immigration and “gay rights.” Johann Hari unwittingly revealed it when he spoke of how gentle gays are oppressed by hateful heteros:

This February a 28-year-old gay man called Robert Goddard got on the bus to East London after a long night working in a West End club. He was knackered and rested his head on his boyfriend’s shoulder when suddenly a group of five big, aggressive lads began to shout at them. “You fucking batty-boys! We’re going to smash your head with a brick. We’re going to follow you off the bus and kill you,” they declared. Rob called the police, but they refused to come. The gang broke Rob’s nose and badly beat his boyfriend too. (The Independent, 11th October 2007)

Batty-boy? That’s Jamaican slang for bum-bandit! Surely Hari isn’t letting slip that one oppressed minority, namely blacks, can turn on another oppressed minority, namely homosexuals? Well, yes, he is. The “lads” may not have been black, but either way they were influenced by black “homophobia”, which, like Muslim homophobia, is much more vicious and violent than anything the white British dish out. Jamaica, Pakistan and Bangladesh are far more homophobic than Britain. They’re also far more misogynist and rape-inclined. By allowing mass immigration from these countries, the self-proclaimed defenders of gay and women’s rights are ensuring more and worse violence against gays and women. There’s a blatant contradiction, isn’t there?

Well, no, in fact there isn’t. New Labour have no real concern for their shock-troops and will happily see them suffer in pursuit of what does matter: power for themselves. Laws against hate speech are not meant to benefit the alleged victims but to give the state another whip to lash down dissent. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats want to get their hands on the whip too. Have they promised to repeal the new hate laws if they win power? Nope. And note that our traitorous politicians have no objection to hate when it’s directed against whites or men, because those are the groups that threaten their revolution. In fact, there is a huge state apparatus working to promote hate against those groups. The point is that everyone must think what the state decrees. Kolakowski again:

Marcuse’s system depends on replacing the tyranny of logic by a police tyranny. This is corroborated by all historical experience: there is only one way of making a whole society accept a particular world-view and the Marcusian union of Eros and Logos can only be realized in the form of a totalitarian state, established and governed by force; the freedom he advocates is non-freedom. If “true” freedom does not mean freedom of choice but consists in choosing a particular object; if freedom of speech does not mean that people can say what they like, but that they must say the right thing; and if Marcuse and his followers have the sole right to decide what people must choose and what people must say, then “freedom” has simply taken on the contrary of its normal sense. In these terms a “free” society is one that deprives people of freedom to choose either objects or ideas except at the behest of those who know better. (Op. cit., pg. 418-9)

Those who know better. Isn’t that the self-definition of NuLabour in the UK and the neo-cons in the US? Of liberals in general? We know better and you will obey. You will say, do and think what we tell you. The homo hate laws say: “Love Big Bugger!” Behind Big Bugger is Big Brother. Big Sister too. But behind all of them is Big Jew. In Treasure Island, Long John Silver hid treachery and gold-lust behind a smiling face; in the modern West, Long John Sheeney hides treachery and power-lust behind compassion and concern for oppressed minorities. As he pretends to help them, he’s really working to help himself. First take away free speech about race, then about religion, then about homosexuality, because as free speech dies something else is born. Vive la révolution!

LUKE O’FARRELL

---

• Should Hate Be Outlawed? – The Point ’s prescient and insightful article on the Jewish crusade against “hate.”