“The left can be divided into three groups: the stupid, the deluded and the evil.” That’s the best summary of left-wing politics that I know. The only difficulty can be in deciding who on the left belongs where. For example, Hillary Clinton and Merrick Garland are clearly evil. But is the former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn merely stupid or deluded? It’s hard to tell. However, I’m becoming clearer about one of the noisiest groups on the British left: the fearless freedom-fighters who gather under the flag of Frank Furedi at the web-zine Spiked Online.
I used to think that the Spiked collective might be mostly deluded or stupid rather than evil. But their dishonesty gets more glaring by the day, so it gets harder to give them the benefit of the doubt. And their dishonesty is at its worst on the topics of race and mass migration. Spiked grew out of a Trotskyist cult called the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), which had broken away from a larger Trotskyist cult called the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). And just as Leon Trotsky (né Lev Bronshteyn) was Jewish, so were Tony Cliff (né Yigael Gluckstein), the founder of the SWP, and Frank Richards (né Ferenc Füredi), the founder of the RCP. All three men are excellent examples of a long-standing pattern identified by Kevin MacDonald in Jewish intellectual life: that of the charismatic crypto-rabbi-guru who recruits, indoctrinates and closely controls a group of devoted disciples.
In Trotskyism and other branches of communism, the disciples of the crypto-rabbis tend to be either Jewish or drawn from another disaffected minority, like Irish Catholics, that seeks power over and revenge on the racial and religious majority. This attraction to authoritarian leftism may even be partly genetic. For example, the Hitchens brothers, Christopher and Peter, didn’t know that they were half-Jewish until long after both had been members of Yigael Gluckstein’s earlier Trotskyist cult, the International Socialists (IS). The self-important gas-bag Christopher Hitchens never repented his support for the mass-murderer Trotsky. He merely updated it when he became a neo-conservative and cheerleader for Israel-friendly wars in the Middle East. Peter Hitchens, by contrast, has genuinely repented of his Trotskyism and regularly apologized for it. He issued this mea culpa in the Daily Mail back in 2013:
When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible. It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants – from anywhere – as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties. Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly “vibrant communities”. If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots. …
When we graduated and began to earn serious money, we generally headed for expensive London enclaves and became extremely choosy about where our children went to school, a choice we happily denied the urban poor, the ones we sneered at as “racists”. What did we know, or care, of the great silent revolution which even then was beginning to transform the lives of the British poor?
To us, it meant patriotism and tradition could always be derided as “racist”. And it also meant cheap servants for the rich new middle-class, for the first time since 1939, as well as cheap restaurants and – later on – cheap builders and plumbers working off the books. It wasn’t our wages that were depressed, or our work that was priced out of the market. Immigrants didn’t do the sort of jobs we did.
They were no threat to us. The only threat might have come from the aggrieved British people, but we could always stifle their protests by suggesting that they were modern-day fascists. I have learned since what a spiteful, self-righteous, snobbish and arrogant person I was (and most of my revolutionary comrades were, too). (How I am partly to blame for mass immigration, The Daily Mail, 1st April 2013)
In short, authoritarian leftists love mass immigration because mass immigration strengthens authoritarian leftism. Big business loves mass immigration too, because it drives wages down and destroys the cohesion of the working-class. That’s why the highly authoritarian and business-friendly New Labour opened Britain’s borders to both Eastern Europe and the Third World under the malevolent guidance of the anti-White Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche. But another Jewish member of Blair’s government, Maurice Glasman, didn’t share Roche’s love of open borders and hatred of the White British. In 2011, Glasman lamented what he called “a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working-class.” He said of mass immigration: “obviously it undermines solidarity, it undermines relationships, and in the scale that it’s been going on in England, it can undermine the possibility of politics entirely.”
A simple solution to any border crisis
Like Peter Hitchens, the Spiked collective know all about authoritarian leftism and why it supports Third-World immigration. After all, they’re former Trotskyists too (or not so former). But do they ever mention their personal experience during their incessant railing against “Critical Race Theory” and other forms of leftist lunacy? Do they explain why authoritarian leftists are such enthusiasts for open borders and the maximum movement of maximum Muslims into Western nations?
No, they don’t. And not only do they keep quiet about why authoritarian leftism loves open borders: they loudly express their own love of open borders. For example, as the Belarussian tyrant Alexander Lukashenko tried to force migrants across the Polish border, Spiked explained how “The EU has brought the border crisis on itself.” Spiked’s solution to the problem is breathtaking in its simplicity: there would be no border crisis if there were no borders. The European Union should simply accept anyone who wants to come here, thereby removing any opportunity for tyrants like Lukashenko to cause trouble.
The last line of the defence
And if some of the vibrant newcomers then try to commit terrorism, well, Spiked has two responses to that. If the attempt isn’t successful, Spiked will celebrate “the incredible heroism of ordinary people” who “are our last line of defence against barbarism.” That was their rhetoric after a failed-but-never-removed asylum-seeker called Emad al-Swealmeen attempted a suicide-bombing in Liverpool and was foiled by a White taxi-driver called Dave Perry. Spiked didn’t, for obvious reasons, consider that ordinary people would not have to be the last line of defence if the first line of defence – secure national borders – were in place. When you don’t have barbarians entering your country, you have no problems with barbarism.
Spiked have another response when the newcomers successfully translate desire into deed and commit terrorism on a large or small scale. After the mass-murder at the Manchester Arena in 2017 and the mensch-murder of a Tory MP in 2021, Spiked had the same response: we must push aside political correctness and have a fierce and fearless “debate” about Islamism and the terrorism it inspires. For obvious reasons, Spiked never mention that the people who don’t want such a debate are the same people who want maximum Muslim migration. And who are those people? Authoritarian leftists, of course. Unlike Spiked, authoritarian leftists can see how good Muslim migration is for authoritarian leftism and its campaign to censor and control public discourse. Or do Spiked see the truth but refuse to admit it? I’m starting to think that dishonesty is a much better explanation of their behavior than delusion.
The power of “parents”
For example, after the Republican Glenn Youngkin won a “shock victory” in the Virginia gubernatorial election, Spiked attributed his success to “the parents’ movement.” But they neglected to qualify the noun “parents” with a certain crucial adjective. They analyzed Youngkin’s victory under the headline “The parents’ revolt in Virginia,” then explained that “parents have had enough of woke education.” The article used the unqualified word “parents” again and again, and triumphantly concluded that “In Virginia at least, the parents’ movement has defied the sneering and derision to secure its first big electoral upset. More power to them.” But who was directing “sneering and derision” at the “parents”? Why, it was the authoritarian left. However, the authoritarian left weren’t sneering at and deriding them simply as “parents,” but specifically as “white parents.”
And the authoritarian left were right: It was Whites in general and White parents in particular who secured the Republican Youngkin’s victory over the Democrat Terry McAuliffe. As the authoritarian leftist Michael Harriott explained in the Guardian: “Nearly nine out of 10 Black Virginians voted for McAuliffe, as did two out of three Hispanic and Asian voters. Youngkin didn’t simply win the white vote; he won only the white vote.” That was Harriott’s emphasis: “only the white vote.” But Spiked dishonestly concealed that crucial truth. Parents in general aren’t revolting against wokism and Critical Race Theory (CRT): White parents are. If only non-Whites voted in Western elections, wokism would win everywhere. Blacks, Hispanics and Asians don’t oppose wokism. Why would they? Wokism demonizes Whites and deifies non-Whites. It says that Whites are greedy, selfish and oppressive, that all their so-called achievements are the result of theft and fraud, and that non-Whites are the moral superiors of Whites and deserve endless compensation for all that they have suffered from White evil.
Water-pistols at a gun-fight
By being dishonest about the true nature of CRT and the other “excesses” of anti-racism, Spiked are assisting the cause of the authoritarian left. They are freedom-fighting for tyranny. In another article, they’ve announced: “If we are to rediscover a sense of social solidarity, we need to reject racial thinking in all its forms.” In other words, Spiked want Whites to attend a gun-fight armed with water-pistols. Leftists are not going to abandon “racial thinking.” Why would they? It has been very successful in advancing their authoritarian agenda and it appeals strongly to an ever-growing part of Western electorates: non-Whites. Why would Blacks accept responsibility for their own failures when they can blame Whitey? Why would successful Chinese and Indians abandon wokism when it guarantees them more success, more power and more opportunity to import their relatives from abroad?
But Spiked do occasionally (albeit obliquely) admit the truth about the harm caused to social solidarity and traditional Western freedoms by mass immigration and ethnic enrichment. As I’ve described previously, their crypto-rabbi Frank Furedi has praised Eastern European nations like Poland and his birthplace Hungary for successfully resisting “woke politics.” But he doesn’t explain why Poland and Hungary are resistant to an ideological infection that is ravaging Western nations like Britain, America and France. He’s being dishonest, just as he’s trained his disciples to be. He won’t admit that Poland and Hungary resist wokism because they have not been ethnically enriched. They are still true nations whose secure borders contain overwhelming majorities of Whites with a common history, genetics, language, culture and religion.
“Getting real about Islamist terrorism”
Suppose that the European Union took Spiked’s insane advice and solved every “border crisis” by abolishing its borders, whereupon Poland, Hungary and the rest of Eastern Europe became enriched with millions of Muslims and other non-Whites. What would happen? It’s obvious: woke politics would begin to flourish there and so would Third-World pathologies like terrorism and violent crime. And Poland and Hungary wouldn’t be able to follow more of Spiked’s advice and have a fearless “debate” about their newly acquired pathologies. Why not? Because the woke left there would use the same non-Whites who were causing the pathologies to argue that any such debate would be “divisive” and “discriminatory.”
That’s how it works in Britain and all other ethnically enriched Western nations. The more non-Whites you have, the less you are able to “debate” the pathologies caused by non-Whites. But suppose that we could somehow have such a debate. According to libertarian Spiked, “We need to get real about Islamist terrorism.” There are serious problems festering in our vibrant Muslim communities thanks (they claim) to mistaken leftist policies. So what can the solution be except much stricter policing and monitoring of Muslims and much more interference in their lives? It seems that Spiked want us to strengthen the authoritarian security and surveillance state. I don’t think Muslims will react well to that. And I myself don’t want to police and monitor Muslims more strictly. I don’t want to police and monitor them at all.
No Third-World people, no Third-World pathologies
I want to do what Hungarians and Poles do: admire Muslims and their vibrant behavior from afar. That is, I want Muslim immigration to end and all Muslims currently on Western soil to return where they belong. As Hungary and Poland clearly demonstrate, when you have no Third-World people on your soil, you have no Third-World pathologies and no justification for authoritarian leftists to maintain an aggressively anti-racist, anti-White security state. Just as it’s impossible to make omelettes without eggs, it’s impossible to justify “Critical Race Theory” and “Islamophobia Awareness” when there are no vulnerable non-Whites to be protected from White oppression. When Spiked simultaneously support limitless liberty and maximum Muslim migration, they are supporting an obvious contradiction. And it becomes harder and harder to believe that they don’t realize this. Take these stirring words by the Spikedster-in-Chief Brendan O’Neill, as he explains “why the elites are so desperate to avoid discussing radical Islam”:
At root, they want to protect their ideology of multiculturalism from serious democratic interrogation. And thus they must quell, with distraction and dire warnings, any kind of public scrutiny of how divided and tense Britain has become under this system of cultural and ethnic separatism, to such an extent that religious violence is now a fairly regular occurrence in our society. (David Amess and the terrorism amnesia industry, Spiked-Online, 29th October 2021)
O’Neill must be well aware that “the elites” began evading “serious democratic interrogation” way back in the 1950s, when mass immigration from the Third World was imposed on the unwilling White majority. After the far-sighted Enoch Powell spoke out against the Third-World invasion in 1968 and prophesied the ever-growing conflict it would cause, he became the most popular politician in the country. But traitorous politicians in all the mainstream parties vilified Powell as a “racist” and refused to listen either to him or to the White majority that supported him. The former Labour deputy-leader Roy Hattersley has openly boasted that “For most of my 33 years in Westminster, I was able to resist [my White constituents’] demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all [Third-World] immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union.”
Supporting what they oppose
And New Labour, the most woke and authoritarian British government to date, opened the borders precisely because, in Maurice Glassman’s words, it “was hostile to the English working-class.” The elites wanted Third-World immigration to advance an authoritarian, anti-White agenda. And their plan has worked perfectly. The same people behind the “multiculturalism” so passionately opposed by O’Neill and his comrades are behind the mass immigration so passionately supported by O’Neill and his comrades. Spiked claim to support ordinary people and to oppose the elite and its wokism. In fact, they are enemies of ordinary people and allies of the elite and its wokism.
O’Neill has also said this: “Solidarity is incredibly important in people’s everyday lives, as are the communal networks that tie people together. Anything that threatens solidarity is incredibly dangerous.” If O’Neill looks at any ethnically enriched Western nation, he will will see that nothing does more harm to “solidarity” and “communal networks” than mass immigration by non-Whites practising radically different cultures, speaking unintelligible languages, following alien religions, and committing far higher levels of violent and acquisitive crime. But solidarity-supporting O’Neill doesn’t oppose solidarity-destroying immigration: he passionately supports it.
This leads me to apply some simple logic. There are three possibilities: either Brendan O’Neill and his comrades are stupid or they’re deluded or they’re evil. I don’t think they’re stupid and they aren’t deluded when, among many other examples, they deliberately conceal the true nature of the “parents’ revolt” in Virginia. So I conclude that Spiked are evil.
I also conclude that I was stupid ever to think otherwise. After all, Spiked are unrepentant disciples of the mass-murderer Leon Trotsky. If they’d come to power as the Revolutionary Communist Party, they would have created the same horrors as the freedom-fighting Bolsheviks created in the Soviet Union. And you can be sure that if the mass-murdering tyrants Lenin and Trotsky were alive today, they would be passionate supporters of open borders. After all, nothing is better for authoritarian leftism than Third-World immigration. Why else do authoritarian leftists love open borders so much?