When Puss Comes to Dove  - Enforced Silence on Sects and Violence

I can’t understand it.  I just cannot understand it.  I put a cat in with some pigeons last night and when I checked the cage this morning, have you any idea what I found?  You do?  You’re telling me that I found feathers everywhere, all the pigeons dead and the cat looking very pleased with itself?  That’s spookily accurate.  How on earth did you know?  Though come to think of it, some guy did criticize what I was going to do.  I refused to listen.  I thought the cat and the pigeons would recognize that far more united them than divided them: countless features of biology and behavior are the same in the two species.  Have not cats and pigeons eyes, organs, senses?  Are they not hurt with the same weapons, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer?  If you prick them, do they not bleed?

Cat and pigeon – why can’t they just get along?

But despite all those similarities, my critic insisted that cats were innately dangerous to pigeons.  I thought that was a disgraceful thing to say.  How dare he criticize cats for something they couldn’t change?  How dare he suggest that all cats are dangerous to all pigeons?  If that’s the case, how come millions of cats live in the UK and most British pigeons never suffer so much as a scratch?  What was he – some kind of evil anti-cat bigot?  Well, I’m sadder and wiser now and I recognize he was right.  It’s too bad for my pigeons that I didn’t see it sooner, but look on the bright side: I wasn’t hurt myself in the slightest.  So now I’m free to continue work on another project: I’m campaigning for Japan to open its borders and let millions of Muslims and blacks in.  After all, what could possibly go wrong?  Only evil anti-minority bigots would suggest that the vibrant new communities could be innately dangerous to the stale, pale Japanese majority.

And Islam isn’t “innate” anyway.  So even if certain aspects of it cause problems for the non-Muslim Japanese, there’ll be a simple solution: the Japanese can just persuade the Muslims to change using reasoned argument.  Problem solved overnight!  Words rule the world, remember.  That’s why it’s so important to say the right things and silence the wrong things.  Say the right things and the world will change for the better; silence the wrong things and evil will vanish.  These clear and sensible principles are the basis of Britain’s race laws, which criminalize “incitement to racial hatred.” Nasty bigoted whites back in the 1950s and early ’60s were objecting to mass immigration, you see.  They were saying that it would cause huge problems and even lead to the destruction of Britain.  So in 1965 the British government, under the wise guidance of a group who have sadly (and inexplicably) been hated for millennia, introduced laws to silence the evil bigots and stop their hateful opinions poisoning society.

Those laws have been tightened steadily ever since and in 2007 we can now look back and see how well they served the country.  If those evil white bigots had had their way, mass immigration might have been stopped and even reversed.  Where would that have left us by now?  No vibrant Muslim terrorists causing death, disruption and misery up and down the land.  No feral blacks murdering, raping and robbing their way across stale, pale British cities.  No steady dismantling and abandonment of ancient freedoms because of an entirely predictable, entirely avoidable conflict between natives and incomers.

Well, Enoch Powell and many others thought the conflict was entirely predictable, but Britain’s wise rationalist liberals didn’t agree.  Instead, they used the race laws to silence those who wanted to avoid the conflict by ending and reversing mass immigration.  Here’s one of those wise liberals, High Priest Nick Cohen, musing on the foolishness of those who seek to appease “radical Islamism”:

On 23 June 2005, Sir Derek Plumbly, the British ambassador to Egypt, wrote to the Foreign Office’s political director, John Sawers, about his colleagues’ determination to “engage” with the radical Islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood.  Its motto is: “Allah is our objective.  The Prophet is our leader.  The Koran is our constitution.  Jihad is our way.  Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” Hassan al-Banna, its founder, was an admirer of European fascism and its most terrible ideologist, Syed Qutb, inspired the wave of Sunni terror that is sweeping the world. (The Observer, 24th June 2007)

Gosh, it’s sweeping the world!  National borders apparently mean nothing to it, as though it’s some kind of ideological climate change.  But hang on: Japan hasn’t been swept by Sunni terror yet.  So what’s holding that border-disdaining force back?  It’s true that the Japanese translator of The Satanic Verses was stabbed to death in Tokyo, but that’s nothing compared to what Britain has been through, with lots more to come.  So what’s the difference between Britain and Japan?  Well, one difference is that Japan hasn’t been blessed with wise liberals like Nick Cohen, who are proud members of the only race that matters – the human race.  That’s why Cohen & Co.  have always been fervent supporters of both mass immigration and the race laws.  Let ’em all in!  Celebrate our common humanity!  And crush the white bigots who object!

But Cohen & Co.  didn’t think their principles through very well, even if we assume that those principles weren’t just a mask for communist subversion.  If the white bigots had got their way, they would have preserved what they claimed to hold dear: Britain’s status as an autonomous white nation.  Cohen & Co.  did get their way and have thereby helped to undermine what they claimed to hold dear: Britain’s status as a liberal secular state.  What happens when a liberal secular state lets in huge numbers of Muslims?  Will Muslim influence be good or bad for liberalism and secularism?  The question either didn’t occur to liberal secularists or was ignored as ideologically incorrect.  So was the question of whether the laws against racial hatred, which are so dear to all good liberals, might open the way for laws against religious hatred, which are so abhorrent to all good liberals.  Here’s High Priest Cohen on the topic:

There are all kinds of principled arguments against this dunderheaded and dangerous idea.  There’s a difference between a race, which you don’t choose, and religious ideas which you do.  If you are going to pretend that hatred of religious ideas is the same as racism, you might as well go the whole hog and ban the incitement of hatred of political ideas, such as Blairism.  At the very least, you have to confront the problem that the sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all contain incitements to religious hatred and should presumably be banned. (The Observer, 13th March 2005)

But the sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity and Islam also contain incitements to racial hatred, as anyone familiar with the history of these three religions will know.  Trust me, the rabbi who proclaimed that “a million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail” did not base his theory on Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man.  So Cohen’s argument collapses there, as it does on the question of religious choice.  Cohen has a pretty strange concept of religion.  How many people genuinely choose or reject it?  Do Muslims wait for their children to reach the age of reason before calmly and quietly presenting them with the case for Islam?  Are the children then allowed to make up their own minds?  Like Jahannam they are.  That’s the Muslim Hell – the place Muslim children are told, well before the age of reason, that they’ll go if they reject Islam.  But there are earthly punishments for apostates too: execution under strict Muslim law, assault, abuse and ostracism elsewhere.  Similar things once happened to those who abandoned Christianity, but Britain slowly and painfully left all that behind.

To Cohen & Co.  the weakening of Christianity’s grip on society was a Good Thing.  They realized long ago that religion is pernicious and dangerous, you see.  They’d looked at history and seen all the conflict and suffering it had caused in Britain alone – and then they turned back to the present and enthusiastically supported the growth of an aggressive new religion in Britain.  More members of that religion, Islam, are arriving here every day, ensuring that the huge problems it’s already causing will increase.  But liberals like Cohen oppose any attempt to restrict or reverse Muslim immigration as racist and xenophobic.  Liberal policy has been to let them in and then spend huge sums of money trying to solve the problems they cause, without any guarantee that those problems are in fact soluble.  One of the problems is Muslim resentment of the war in Iraq.  I think the war was not in Britain’s interests.  But if it had been, Muslims here would still have resented it, because they don’t care about Britain’s interests.  In other words, the presence of Muslims in Britain makes our foreign policy much more difficult and dangerous.

As it happens, Nick Cohen was an enthusiastic supporter of the war in Iraq.  Saddam Hussein was a fascist, after all, and what nobler cause could there be than overthrowing a fascist?  David Aaronovitch, another of Britain’s wise and influential liberals, thought the same about the war, just as he thinks the same about racial hatred laws being Good and religious hatred laws being Bad.  Melanie Phillips and Michael Gove wouldn’t call themselves liberals, perhaps, but they’re very influential too and they thought the same about the war and the laws.  Johann Hari introduces a note of discord: he disagrees about the racial-hatred laws.  He doesn’t agree with racial hatred, of course, but to his credit he says the laws should be abolished, though he doesn’t say it very loudly or very often.  But he was all for the war and like Cohen, Aaronovitch, Phillips and Gove, he got his way: the war was launched; it toppled the fascist; and it turned Iraq into a disaster zone.

The disaster in Iraq continues as I write and British soldiers will continue to return either in coffins or seriously injured and traumatized.  That’s one reason I’ve always been reluctant to support British involvement in foreign wars.  I don’t like the idea of sending other people to die and be maimed for my principles.  Cohen & Co.  didn’t feel any of those qualms.  “Topple the fascist!” they shouted.  “Topple the threat to Israel the free world!” And so British troops were sent to fight and continue to come back dead or missing the odd body-part.  Cohen & Co.  are all still alive, so what about their body-parts?

The hawks loudly incited the war...

...and other people continue to die in it

Yes, Cohen & Co.  have suffered as little from the Iraq war as they’ve suffered from mass immigration.  Their hawkish message was loud and clear: “Send British troops to overthrow Saddam Hussein while we cheer them on from a safe distance!” And the curious thing is that at least three of the five hawks are Jewish, while Michael Gove is an enthusiastic neo-con and Johann Hari an enthusiastic supporter of mass immigration and other causes dear to Jewish hearts.  The five hawks incited war and got war, but haven’t had to pay any personal cost.  Except embarrassment that it hasn’t turned out so well after all, that is.  And the embarrassment hasn’t stopped Gove and Phillips from continuing to incite war against Iran.  Will that be in Britain’s best interests?  Nope, but Britain’s interests aren’t what Gove and Phillips are worried about.  They’re worried about the interests of Israel and the Jews, and they’d be quite happy to destroy Britain in pursuit of them.

Some people would call that “incitement to racial hatred”, which is supposed to be illegal in the UK.  In fact, it’s only illegal to “incite hatred” of certain races: Jews, blacks or Asians, for example.  Inciting hatred of whites is not only permitted, it’s a central part of government and media propaganda.  That’s why Stephen Lawrence, a black killed without premeditation and without great suffering by whites, has a permanent and prominent place in liberal martyrology and was the subject of a highly expensive and highly influential public enquiry.  But Kriss Donald, a white killed with definite premeditation and with very great suffering by Asians, has no place in liberal martyrology and will never be the subject of any enquiry, even though police failings led directly to his death.  Isiah (sic) Young-Sam, a black killed with similar premeditation by Asians, is in the same category as Donald.  His murder can’t be used to portray whites as uniquely racist and malevolent, therefore it was long ago forgotten by the mainstream British media.

But can you imagine how the British media would react to a white gang that used the rape of black women as an initiation ritual, while addressing their victims as “black bitches”?  The shrieks of horror and outrage would ring out for weeks and the white gang would find a permanent and prominent place in liberal demonology.  But you don’t need to imagine how the British media react when the races of that scenario are reversed: this story was long ago dropped down the memory hole:

Jamaican Gang That Used Rape As Its Initiation

Immigration chiefs faced fury last night for allowing a member of a sordid Jamaican rape gang to make South London his hunting ground.  Sheldon Stewart, 26, was said to be part of the Buckles mob – a violent criminal outfit responsible for a spree of vile attacks in the Caribbean.  Their hallmark is said to be a sickening initiation ceremony where new recruits are instructed to abduct and rape.  Inner London Crown Court heard how Stewart attacked a 15-year-old girl at gunpoint and dragged another woman into his flat in Peak Hill, Sydenham, after calling her a “white bitch.” He and the scar-faced friend threatened to “burst” or shoot the first victim on November 25, 2004, if she didn’t submit to their sordid demands.  The girl had been lured into Stewart’s car on the promise of cannabis and a lift.  Instead, both men took turns to rape her as a gun was held to her head.

Stewart targeted a second victim on December 30, 2004, first trying to chat her up, then bundling her into a car on the Tulse Hill Estate.  He called the 25-year-old a “white bitch” and drove her back to the Sydenham flat, where the accomplice was again waiting to pounce.  Stewart held a 7” knife to the sobbing woman’s throat, but she kept calm and fooled the pair into letting her go to the toilet from where she fled.  Judge Lindsay Burn described Stewart’s indifference towards his crimes as “extraordinary.” Sentencing the killer to eleven years for the sex attacks and a further year for witness intimidation, the judge added: “It’s evident to me that you thought you could behave towards women in this way and get away with it.  There was no remorse whatsoever expressed by you for what you have done.” (icSouthLondon, 18th April 2006)

Right across the West, non-white minorities murder and rape the white majority not just at higher relative rates than vice versa, but at higher absolute rates.  When whites are in the minority – and they soon will be if present trends continue – the murder and rape will amount to all-out war.  But pointing that out is “incitement to racial hatred” and liberals like Nick Cohen are firmly against it.  After all, mass immigration by non-whites is a Good Thing.  But Cohen doesn’t want any laws against “incitement to religious hatred.” After all, religion is a Bad Thing.  So what he calls “liberal principles” amount to granting people the right to say what Nick Cohen agrees with.  Those are the sort of “liberal principles” Stalin believed in.

But Cohen’s contradictions don’t stop there.  He’s also a supporter of George Bush’s war against “Islamism.” Dubya thinks America is under attack because “they hate our freedoms.” Absolutely central to those freedoms is the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech.  Does Dubya believe in the First Amendment?  I doubt it.  Does Nick Cohen believe in it?  Nope.  If he did, he would oppose the British race laws.  Liberals like him should be able to demonstrate from America the pernicious consequences of “incitement to racial hatred”, because Americans are free to indulge in it.  I’ve never seen any British liberals attempt the exercise, but then again, why should they?  The British race laws aren’t about protecting minorities but about suppressing dissent to liberalism and its wise stewardship of government and media.  Rather like an electric fence, the laws scare people off the topic of race.  You have to actually touch an electric fence to get a shock, but people don’t like even going near one.  Similarly, the race laws mean that people don’t go near the topic of race and racial difference.  When you need to protect a topic by law, either you’re lying or you don’t want people to make up their own minds or both.  In the second case, you don’t believe in democracy.

Cohen & Co.  certainly don’t believe in democracy, because if the majority had had its way in Britain, mass immigration would never have started, let alone been allowed to continue for so long and with such bad effects.  So we know Cohen & Co.  are anti-democratic.  The only question that remains is whether they’re liars too.  I think they are.  I think lying is characteristic of Jews like Cohen and of shabbas goyim like Tony Blair.  What is truth, after all?  Truth is what’s good for Jews.  That’s why the race laws in Britain, the “Holocaust denial” laws in Europe and the stealthy dismantlement of the First Amendment in America are supported so enthusiastically by Jews.  Anyone who thinks that Jews aren’t very bad for free speech has a simple task to perform: Produce a single Jewish organization anywhere in the world that opposes those laws, backs the First Amendment and wants free debate on racial difference and the Second World War.  I don’t think it can be done!  And if it can, the organization will be a straw in the illiberal gale that blows from the Anti-Defamation League, the Board of Deputies and all the others working to destroy free speech across the West.

LUKE O’FARRELL