By David Yorkshire:
One of the seminal texts of left-liberalism is John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. In it, Mill speaks of what he terms “the tyranny of the majority” within an ostensibly democratic society, whereby minority groups who do not fit within the norms of society established by the majority are oppressed by that majority: “…the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority: the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this as against any other abuse of power.”
What we are being faced with now, and largely because of those who have taken this dogma to the extreme for one reason or another (we will look at this later), is a tyranny of the minorities. One sees this every day, whether it be Trevor Phillips imposing more anti-White legislation through the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) onto the native populace of Great Britain, or the forcing through parliament of homosexual marriage laws.
Two incidents on the continent have seen an escalation in the vehement anti-White nature of this tyranny of the minorities. The first comes from Italy, where Whites suffer the usual crimes associated with black sub-Saharan Africans, women in particular increasingly becoming the victims of the evil crime of rape. The Minister for Integration there is one Cecile Kyenge - not the most Italian – or even European-sounding surname. As one would expect, Ms Kyenge is indeed African and was born in the ironically-named Democratic Republic of the Congo. She has consistently used her position in parliament to bring ever more Africans into Italy and give them Italian citizenship.
Ms Kyenge has also been very dismissive of the penchant for rape of her African brethren and has repeatedly attempted to hide the issue by accusing others of ‘racism’. The minister for the Lega Nord party, Dolores Valandro had understandably become incensed at probably the most heinous crime against women and, on her Facebook page, after yet another attempted rape of an Italian woman by two African males, wrote: “Why does no one rape her [Kyenge], so she can understand what the victim of this atrocious crime felt? Shame on her!”
However, what almost all the media reported was merely that Valandro had called for the rape of Kyenge. Gone were the context and the direct quotation that reveals she did not mean it literally. Nevertheless, the Lega Nord expelled her from the party.
This is not the first minister to be expelled for criticising Ms Kyenge. Earlier this month, the Minister for the European Parliament, also from the Lega Nord, Mario Borghezio, was also expelled for comments made in reference to Kyenge.
Borghezio was ejected from the party for stating that Kyenge wished to impose tribal traditions on Italy. He was thus ousted for telling the truth. Kyenge, after all, promotes Congolese culture through her ‘Association for Intercultural Dawa’ - ‘dawa’ in any case being a Kiswahili word meaning ‘medicine’. Her medicine for us would appear to be the transformation of Europe into Africa and all that entails, and anyone who dares speak up loses their job.
The second comes from France, where Negress Rokhaya Diallo, a so-called ‘antiracist activist’ who seems to be as ubiquitous in France as Kyenge is in Italy, has been promoting her new book Comment parler du racisme aux enfants. Part of her child indoctrination programme is advocating that black-on-white racism does not exist. We have, of course, seen this before, as the leftist toad-like creature known as Jo Brand also came out with this line of leftist groupthink a couple of years ago. Diallo uses exactly the same line about whites having power and privilege in European countries.
However, it is quite convenient for Ms Diallo to say that; after all, it serves the interests of her and her own racial group. This will, inevitably, be to the detriment of ours. One could mention the genocide of the Afrikaners in South Africa or the Copts in Egypt, or the fact that Whites have power in privilege in Europe because it is our native continent, but people like Diallo are not interested in that; the whole racism narrative is merely a stick with which to beat the white man into ceding ever more power to the black. She has also been very vocal in supporting Ms Kyenge and now claims that she herself has received threats of rape on Facebook. This seems to be terribly convenient.
After she defended Muslims against Europeans on racial grounds (the word ‘race’ being ever reinvented to encompass discourses pertaining to delineate even anything culturally European and non-European) one interviewer did indeed mention the Copts. “Oui, mais non,” was the reply, before admitting she had not concerned herself with their plight. Diallo has expressly stated that anti-White racism is an invention of the Front National.
The extreme left (which have now taken the mainstream) have not only allowed this to happen, they have positively encouraged it. The question remains: why? There are several interrelated reasons. The first is that contemporary leftism embraces both militant egalitarianism and internationalism. Whites are naturally inclined to building up nation states and tend towards intellectual and creative pursuits largely beyond the capabilities of certain other races - in particular those to which Diallo and Kyenge belong. It is important to remember that I am talking about general truths here, and that I am quite aware that there will inevitably be exceptional individuals.
The second is that the left, in its commitment to egalitarianism, has always been concerned with the plight of those they deem to be powerless and oppressed by the powerful. Again, we see this in our quotation from J S Mill. This discourse started with the working classes and women, neither of whom had the vote, but moved on to non-Whites under imperial rule, who were deemed to be victims of White oppression. The obsession with ethnic minorities is a legacy of this discourse: post-colonialism, as it is called. The discourse of oppression has also come to include abnormal sexual preferences since the 1920s, when the Freud-based psychological discipline of sexology appeared, led by the likes of Magnus Hirschfeld and Havelock Ellis.
The third is that the very Weltanschauung to which they subscribe (which we have come to term ‘left-liberalism’) is itself partly non-European in origin. While their two strands of thought (socialism and liberalism) originally come from a tradition started by White Gentiles, Jews in the nineteenth century realised that the underpinning ideas that tended towards and were influenced by Christian notions of egalitarianism and universality, could easily be manipulated into subserving Jewish interests.
Despite collaborating with his Gentile disciple, Friedrich Engels, and acknowledging the forerunners that came before him, Karl Marx was the principal ideologue behind communism - an extreme branch of socialism. Communism is now synonymous with Marxism. Marx, of course, was a Jew and his theory is a template for the destruction of Western society. Simultaneously, Marx, in his Zur Judenfrage, critiqued Jewry and yet called for their political emancipation. Why was that? The critique was to disarm his readers and make them more amenable to his point regarding their emancipation. Interestingly, 1848, the year the Communist Manifesto was published, was also the year the first bill to allow Jews to enter the House of Commons appeared, so that MP Lionel de Rothschild might take his seat. It was passed in the Commons, but rejected in the Lords.
On the liberal side of the left, the Jewish financier and economist David Ricardo had already begun to synthesise elements from socialist philosophies with classical liberalism (which was based on mercantile ideals of free trade) earlier in the century. The aforementioned John Stuart Mill then took this on further in his Chapters on Socialism. The leftist hypocritical doublethink that embraces both the excesses of capitalist inequality and militant socialist egalitarianism was set on its current trajectory.
The major changes came much later in the century, first with Disraeli as Prime Minister and then with mass Jewish immigration. In his biography of H G Wells, The Invisible Man, the historian Michael Coren states: “Late-Victorian Kent contained few Jews, and in the London of the 1890s the Jewish population was most noticeable for its novelty and recent arrival. Between 1890 and 1905 the major pogroms of Ukraine and Poland sent hundreds of thousands of Jews to Britain, the majority settling, as have all waves of immigrants to the British capital, in London’s East End dock area. The Jewish influence on socialism was immediate and fundamental. Jewish radical movements were established, employing East European ideas in an English ambience, and reflecting the left-Zionist and Bundist or mainstream Jewish socialist ideas. As Jews became more assimilated, and more interested, in the host culture, they became active in the Independent Labour Party, the Labour Representation Committee and the Fabian movement.” (p213)
As his surname suggests, Michael Coren himself is a Jew and sees nothing wrong with what he has stated here. What he has revealed is that Jews began to frame the discourse of the left in Britain upon their arrival, undermining the mainstream socialist movement and making sure it benefitted them. In doing so, he also uncovers the reasons for the aforementioned pogroms in Poland and the Ukraine. These Jews had come to realise that they could band with and lead other allegedly oppressed sections of society to bring down and replace the ruling elite, promising their Gentile helpers the power they craved at any cost. One of their first missions was to bring in ever more ‘ethnic minorities’ to use towards this end, the Board of Deputies having boasted of their role in transforming Britain into a multicultural (read multiracial) society.
Coren is also interesting because he, a Zionist like Melanie Phillips (Coren is a regular visitor to Israel and has advocated nuclear strikes against Iran in the past), has gone on to frame the discourse of the right. He converted to Roman Catholicism, only to start lobbying for reform within the church. He also interviewed Paul Weston, the pro-Zionist then-leader of the British Freedom Party over a year ago on his Arena programme on Canadian television. Weston has been pretty vocal of late with yet another new party and his ‘I am a racist’ video. Perhaps that should read: ‘I am a racist, but not an anti-Semite.’
This brings me to the next news article. On 5th June in France, the Parti de Gauche reported on its website that a left-wing, so-called ‘anti-fascist’ activist, Clement Meric, had been beaten up and killed by skinheads. Cue the usual press hysteria about neo-Nazis, the ‘far-right’, skinheads hiding under the bed at night, and so on. It turned out, according to eye-witnesses, that Meric had been the one, along with others from his communist group, Action antifasciste, who had instigated the fight.
Serge Ayoub, the leader of the right-wing group Jeunesses nationalistes revolutionnaires (JNR) was originally implicated by the media, before it was admitted that he had nothing to do with it. Ayoub defended the skinheads’ right to self-defence against communist thugs in the media, although the incident was nothing to do with the JNR. Nevertheless, it did not stop Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault from calling for the JNR to be banned. He did not, of course, call for the violent extreme left group Action antifasciste to be banned.
What has this got to with our main subject? Well, the thing that struck me when I first heard the surname Ayoub was that it is not French, nor even European. A quick look at a historical database of surnames in France showed me that it did not exist there before the twentieth century. This was curious, I thought. Ayoub’s origins were first not mentioned, before some reports said they were Lebanese. I found out that Ayoub is a Semitic name and variants exist among both Arabs and Jews.
Ayoub has always steered the JNR towards supporting the Arab side of the Arab-Israeli tensions; one would assume, then, that he is an Arab, although Jews are notorious for creating false dichotomies. Yet it is of little consequence; the fact that this Semite of whatever culture is the leader of this group shows yet again how Whites are finding themselves governed and used as pawns by ethnic minorities. One thinks of our own Zionist EDL in this respect, clashing with the pro-Muslim UAF (although equally having Jews at their head).
The whole situation is somewhat reminiscent of James Fenimore Cooper’s Last of the Mohicans, in which the Hurons and Mohicans are used by the French and British in their struggle for supremacy in North America. The native Indian tribes lost a continent playing the game of the conquering Europeans. Similarly, across the West, Jews and Arabs (both Semites) are framing the discourse of both the left and right wings of politics and creating ‘sides’. For the white European, there is no possibility of a winning outcome be picking either side, for the same people who created the sides have rigged the system of political correctness to snare the white European either way: if he chooses the Arabs’ side, he is an anti-Semite; if he takes the Jews’ part, he is an Islamophobe.
Jews in particular have been very good at keeping the discourse within certain boundaries by framing political debate. In France, this is to be seen quite clearly in the two leading intellectuals: Alain Finkielkraut (right) and Bernard-Henri Levy (left), who ostensibly argue with each other in public debate. It is pure theatre: the pair founded the Institut d’Etudes Levinassiennes together in Jerusalem in 2000. This framing technique stops Whites from thinking beyond the narrow scope given to them, a scope which remains beneficial to Jewish interests. Racial self-identification is beyond the pale for Whites, so to speak, but not for non-Whites, who are privileged over and above the native populace of Europe.
The left has been playing this game for decades now and the modus operandi of the left has become clear: the creation of a global tyranny via the destruction of Europe with non-European groups. We of the right must not fall into this trap. The ironically-named Freedom parties of the likes of Weston, Wilders and others must be rejected in favour of something racially-based, otherwise our fate is that of the Huron and Mohawk, fighting wars for the benefit of foreign powers while losing our own living space and ever dwindling in number. We must be masters of our own destiny and no longer be mere players in the destinies of other peoples.
By David Yorkshire © 2013
# # # #