Tidligere marxist innrømmer sitt hat

Posted on april 6, 2013


Vi som argumenterer med at vi bør kalle våre motstandere anti-hvite, selv om de selv skulle kalle seg marxister, anti-rasister eller sosialister, fikk for noen dager siden nok en bekreftelse på at anti-hvit er det riktige ordet. Denne gangen er det den kristne halvjøden Peter Hitchens, som forteller om sin tid som revolusjonær marxist.

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.

Revolutionary students didn’t come from such ‘vibrant’ areas (we came, as far as I could tell, mostly from Surrey and the nicer parts of London).

We might live in ‘vibrant’ places for a few (usually squalid) years, amid unmown lawns and overflowing dustbins.

But we did so as irresponsible, childless transients – not as homeowners, or as parents of school-age children, or as old people hoping for a bit of serenity at the ends of their lives.

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.

Det er ikke vanskelig å se at hva Hitchens forteller om godt kunne omhandlet Norge, Sverige eller Danmark, da de anti-hvite også her har oppført seg på samme måten. Enhver som protesterte på at innvandringen ødela lokalsamfunnene. førte til mer kriminaliet eller senket arbeidernes lønninger, ble stemplet som en rasist, selv om det ikke lå rasisme bak bekymringene.

Selv om Hitchens ber om unnskyldning for hva han har gjort, er det ikke folkemordet på de hvite han ber om unnskyldning for, det er at de innvandrerne de forsvarte var ennå mer sosialt konservative enn de hvite. Tungt for denne halvjøden er det også at innvandrerne liker jøder ennå mindre enn de hvite.

I have learned since what a spiteful, self-righteous, snobbish and arrogant person I was (and most of my revolutionary comrades were, too).

I have seen places that I knew and felt at home in, changed completely in a few short years.

I have imagined what it might be like to have grown old while stranded in shabby, narrow streets where my neighbours spoke a different language and I gradually found myself becoming a lonely, shaky voiced stranger in a world I once knew, but which no longer knew me.

I have felt deeply, hopelessly sorry that I did and said nothing in defence of those whose lives were turned upside down, without their ever being asked, and who were warned very clearly that, if they complained, they would be despised outcasts.

And I have spent a great deal of time in the parts of Britain where the revolutionary unintelligentsia don’t go.

Such people seldom, if ever, visit their own country.

Their orbits are in fashionable London zones, and holiday destinations.

They are better acquainted with the Apennines of Italy than with the Pennines of their own country.

But, unlike me, most of the Sixties generation still hold the views I used to hold and – with the recent, honourable exception of David Goodhart, the Left-wing journalist turned Think Tank boss who recognises he was wrong – they will not change.

The worst part of this is the deep, deep hypocrisy of it.

Even back in my Trotskyist days I had begun to notice that many of the migrants from Asia were in fact not our allies.

They were deeply, unshakably religious.

They were socially conservative.

Their attitudes towards girls and women were, in many cases, close to medieval.

Many of them were horribly hostile to Jews, in a way which we would have condemned fiercely if anyone else had expressed it, but which we somehow managed to forgive and forget in their case.

We have recently seen this in the distressing and embarrassing episode of Lord Ahmed’s outburst against a phantom Jewish conspiracy.

But I recall ten years ago, in a Muslim bookshop in the backstreets of Burnley, seeing on open display a modern edition of Henry Ford’s revolting anti-Jewish diatribe The International Jew, long ago disowned by Ford himself.

It is unthinkable that any mainstream shop in any High Street could sell this toxic tripe.

Many of these new arrivals, though we revolutionaries welcomed them, knew and cared nothing of the great liberal causes we all supported. Or they were hostile to them.

Many on the Left still lie to themselves about this. George Galloway, the most Left-wing MP in Parliament, owes his seat to the support of conservative Muslims.

Yet he voted in favour of same-sex marriage.

It would be interesting to be at any meetings where Mr Galloway discusses this with his constituents.

Of course, all political parties are compromises, but there is a big difference between splitting the difference and flatly ignoring a profound clash of principles.

This sort of cynicism has been at the heart of the deal.

Immigrants have been used by those who wanted to transform the country.

They have taken the parts of them they liked, and made much of them.

They have ignored the parts they did not like.

Som den respektable konservative Hitchens er, må selvfølgelig rasister fortsatt bekrives som onde eller dumme, og han mener fremdeles at målet må være å smeltedigen, som vi kan se av avslutningen.

It couldn’t have been more obvious that ‘race’ wasn’t the problem.

The thing that made these new residents different was culture – language, customs, attitudes, sense of humour.

Rather than them adapting to our way of life, we were adapting to theirs.

This wasn’t integration.

It was a revolution.

Yet nobody – especially their elected representatives – would listen to them, because they were assumed to be Powellite bigots, motivated by some sort of unreasoning hatred.

I now believe that the unreasoning hatred comes almost entirely from the liberal Left.

Of course, there are still people who harbour stupid racial prejudices.

But most of those concerned about immigration are completely innocent of such feelings.

The screaming, spitting intolerance comes from a pampered elite who are ashamed of their own country, despise patriotism in others and feel none themselves.

They long for a horrible borderless Utopia in which love of country has vanished, nannies are cheap and other people’s wages are low.

What a pity it is that there seems to be no way of turning these people out of their positions of power and influence.

For if there is to be any hope of harmony in these islands, then it can only come through a great effort to bring us all together, once again, in a shared love for this, the most beautiful and blessed plot of earth on the planet.

les hele


Steve Sailor har også kommentert samme artikkel, og det er mange gode kommentarer der for de som skulle ønske å lese hvordan andre oppfatter Hitchens Mea Culpa.


Posted in: ukategorisert