The burnt child fears the fire. And so does the burnt Trotskyist. When Britain’s Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) stood for election in 1983, its confident expectations of victory went up in flames. The RCP got almost no votes and has never tried standing for election under its true colours again.
Open borders now!
Before the election, the RCP had published a manifesto and run conferences under the title of Preparing for Power. That title wasn’t a joke: the party seriously thought that working-class Whites would come flocking to its banner once they had absorbed exciting RCP policies like these:
- The rejection of all controls on immigration.
- Free abortion and contraception on demand.
- Complete decriminalisation of homosexuality and lowering of the homosexual age of consent to match that for heterosexuals.
- Removal of import controls to allow foreign workers to compete freely with British workers.
- A ban on police entering black-enriched — and crime-infested — districts like Brixton in London.
RCP chairman Frank Furedi prepares for power with Lenin’s guidance
Could any sane person have thought that any of that would appeal to working-class voters? I don’t think so, therefore I conclude that members of the RCP can’t have been sane. And they weren’t: they were drunk on arrogance, megalomania and their own inflated revolutionary rhetoric. In fact, the party was yet another example of how leftism is often better described as a psychiatric disorder than as an ideology. Leftists don’t want to understand reality and to adapt their political ideas accordingly. Instead, they want power and satisfaction of their psychological needs.
But when you’re talking about the RCP and its various subsequent mutations, only one individual truly matters: the Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi, who was born in Hungary in 1947 but left after the failed Hungarian Uprising against communism in 1956. Furedi founded first the Revolutionary Communist Tendency (RCT) and then the RCP after falling out with his Jewish mentor Yigael Gluckstein, who ran the Trotskyist International Socialists under the revolutionary name of Tony Cliff (a good example of Jewish crypsis). Furedi too once had a revolutionary name: as Frank Richards he followed the standard communist practice of taking recruits disproportionately from minorities with historic grudges against, and desire for revenge on, the majority. He then moulded his recruits very successfully into what might be called cognitive clones. That is, members of the RCP spoke and thought exactly like Frank Furedi, who is therefore a perfect example of the 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.
Fight back with the Party of the Future: An RCP member in the 1980s
As controller of the RCP, Furedi imbued his cognitive clones with a deep love of freedom and individual autonomy. However, he recognized that freedoms sometimes compete and that tough choices have to be made. For example, in Northern Ireland ordinary members of the public wanted the freedom not to be murdered or maimed as they went shopping or visited the pub. Republican terrorists, on the other hand, wanted the freedom to murder and maim whomever they pleased whenever they pleased with whatever amount of high explosive they pleased. Faced with these competing demands for freedom, Furedi made the tough choice to support the murderers and maimers. This is an extract from a letter he wrote to the Times of London:
The Irish Republican Army is the military wing of a national liberation movement. Its objective is to create a united Ireland free from British rule. This is an aim for which it has won widespread popular approval in Ireland.
The Revolutionary Communist Party’s support for the republican movement has nothing to do with its politics. We support the republican movement because it is leading the fight against British rule in Ireland. Because British rule is the central barrier to social progress in Ireland, there can be no unity, no peace and no prosperity in any part of the country until British domination is brought to an end.
We would support the republican movement if it was led by a collection of Catholic priests and nuns, so long as it was leading resistance against British domination.
The RCP will continue to give unconditional support to the republican movement irrespective of its programme, its strategy or its tactics. As long as it remains the leading force in the struggle against British imperialism and the biggest threat to the stability of the United Kingdom, that’s good enough for us.
FRANK RICHARDS, Chairman, Revolutionary Communist Party, BM RCP, London WC1N 3XX. (See image at Twitter)
But perhaps the choice to support the murderers and maimers of the IRA wasn’t so difficult after all, because the tone of that letter seems almost to relish their brutality. The content of the letter is highly selective: Chairman Furedi did not mention that the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland did not share the “widespread popular approval” for the IRA and did not wish to form part of a united Ireland. Irish history is both complex and tragic, but unconditional support for terrorism was never a good way either to resolve the complexities or to end the tragedies.
The second Hungarian uprising
However, Trotskyists like Furedi believe in supporting all movements, however violent or immoral, that undermine the state and give Trotskyists a better chance of coming to power amid the chaos. That’s why Furedi and his clones supported IRA bombing and have never retracted their support. And the RCP tradition of cognitive cloning and chaos-surfing is still alive and well at Spiked Online, the web-magazine where Furedi’s disciples now gather to promote his ideas. Many people write for Spiked, but they all sound uncannily the same as they beat the drum for the greatest possible freedom of the greatest possible number. Spiked is passionately in favour of free speech and open borders, and just as passionately opposed to identity politics and the sad identitarian corruption of what the chief Furedi-clone Brendan O’Neill has called “the noble cause of antiracism.”
Here, for example, is Frank Furedi himself waxing lyrical at Spiked about “The Hungarian uprising against the woke West”:
I have been going to football [i.e., soccer] games all my life. But this was the most intense and uplifting experience I have ever had at a game.
The game is in Budapest. It is Hungary vs France. But it is more than just another Euro 2020 match. As I arrive at the fans’ zone, I see a bunch of guys holding a banner challenging the gesture of taking the knee. The banner has an image of someone taking the knee with a cross through it — a clear statement of rejection of this practice of abasement.
I talk to Gergely and Sanyi, two of the guys milling around the banner. They tell me why they think it’s right to take a stand against the Anglo-American gesture of taking the knee. Sanyi tells me, “We are not like them, we are a proud people who refuse to bend ourselves to anyone.” Standing near us is Orsolya, who says the ritual of taking the knee has nothing to do with being against racism. “It is a new form of piety. It makes us sick.”
Almost everyone I talk to tells me that we Hungarians have decided to take a stand against all this crap. They are still angry that when they booed the Irish for taking the knee in a recent game, the Western press denounced them as racist. They feel that they are continually lectured by the Western media as if they are colonial subjects. And they are not having it anymore.
Talking to these supporters was like being enveloped in commonsense sanity. Their buzz was infectious. I got a really strong feeling that freedom was in the air. (The Hungarian uprising against the woke West, Spiked Online, 20th June 2021)
The hideously White Hungarian soccer-squad for 2021
The heavily Black French soccer-squad for 2021
Furedi waxes lyrical in that article, but doesn’t wax analytical. Why exactly is Hungary resisting “the Anglo-American gesture of taking the knee”? Well, if you’d been at the game yourself, absorbing the infectious buzz with Frank, you would have seen one very big clue. The Hungarian fans and their team are what the BBC commissar Greg Dyke would call “hideously white” (Dyke, who is possibly Jewish, used that phrase of the BBC in 2001 when supporting the recruitment of ever more non-Whites). Unlike the inhabitants of modern France, Britain or America, Hungarians can call themselves a “proud people” because they are a true people, united by shared ancestry, history and language.
No suicide-bombers for Budapest
In other words, Hungary is a true nation — the word “nation” comes from Latin nasci, meaning “to be born.” True nations are founded on shared ancestry and genetics, which makes Jewish propaganda like “nation of immigrants” a complete contradiction in terms. Hungary has not experienced decades of enrichment by non-Whites from the Third World. And so Hungarian cities like Budapest are not vibrant with rape-gangs and suicide-bombers. Those are jobs that native Hungarians won’t do and that Hungarian politicians like Viktor Orbán won’t import foreigners to do.
Instead, Orbán believes in “procreation, not immigration.” The “hideous whiteness” of Hungary explains why subversive, anti-White organizations like Black Lives Matter (BLM) aren’t able to take root and metastasize there. There aren’t enough Blacks and other non-Whites in Hungary to provide fertile soil for pernicious Jewish ideologies like Critical Race Theory (CRT). And so Hungarians are able, in Frank Furedi’s words, to “take a stand against all this crap” of BLM and knee-taking. They’re a proud White people in a way that the Americans and the British no longer are, due to decades of mass immigration into America and Britain.
Third-World people mean Third-World pathologies
But who has fully supported the mass immigration that destroyed “freedom” and promoted knee-taking in the “Anglo-American” world? Indeed, who still thinks that immigration should be increased without limit? Why, it’s the same Frank Furedi who felt the “infectious buzz” of a White Hungarian crowd supporting its almost entirely White soccer-team against the heavily Black French soccer-team. Remember that the RCP, which was always completely under Furedi’s control, stood for election in 1983 with the policy of rejecting “all controls on immigration.” If Furedi and his cognitive clones had had their way, Britain would have even more non-Whites than it presently does. And so the hostile elite would have been even better able to destroy the traditional freedoms enjoyed in Britain, from free speech to free association.
More Muslims = less free speech: Muslims in Britain gleefully burn a copy of The Satanic Verses
Writers at Spiked regularly bewail the consequences of the mass immigration they’ve always so heartily supported. For example, Furedi-clone Brendan O’Neill is aghast at the way a school-teacher in Yorkshire has been driven into hiding after showing his pupils satirical cartoons of the prophet Muhammad during a religious-studies lesson. O’Neill says it’s shocking that “in this supposedly modern, secular nation, a public servant must live in the shadows lest he be physically attacked for the offence of blasphemy against a 7th-century prophet.” But what does O’Neill expect to happen when Britain imports huge numbers of people from decidedly un-modern and un-secular nations like Pakistan, where that “7th-century prophet” has been venerated for many centuries?
“Seize power at the critical moment”
Pakistan has a long tradition of murder in defence of the Prophet against blasphemy, as I’ve pointed out in articles like “Headchopping for Muhammad” and “Martyr with a Machine-Gun.” Decade after decade, Frank Furedi and his clones have supported mass immigration from the most tribalistic and illiberal nations on earth, and are now bewailing the “identity politics” that inevitably followed. Britain should be resisting the scourge of wokeness as Hungary does, Frank Furedi says. But he doesn’t explain why Hungary can do what Britain now can’t. And I don’t think Furedi and his clones have ever been sincere about fighting for freedom. Their real motives were described by the Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski in his magisterial Main Currents of Marxism (1978):
Lenin laid the foundation for the tactics which were soon to become binding on Communist parties: the right course was to support any movement tending to overthrow the system at any point, for any reasons and in the interests of any class: liberation in colonial countries, national or peasant movements, bourgeois national uprisings against the big imperialists. This was a generalization of the tactics he had been preaching in Russia for years: to support all claims and all movements against the Tsarist autocracy, so as to exploit their sources of energy and seize power at the critical moment. The victory of the Marxist party was the final aim … (Main Currents of Marxism, Vol. II, pp. 471-2)
You can see those tactics, and that aim, in an article by the Furedi-clone Ella Whelan that celebrates Trotsky as “The 21st-century Bolshevik” whose revolutionary spirit can, Whelan says, clearly be seen at work in the Brexit vote for Britain to leave the European Union. When the RCP was “Preparing for Power” in 1983, it was perfectly serious. And so is Whelan when she claims that “Trotsky and his Bolshevik comrades were not seeking to stand in the place of the masses, but instead inspired them to seize the reins of power for themselves.”
You might think that Lenin, Trotsky and other Bolsheviks had the reins of power firmly in their own grasp when the masses were being shot, starved, tortured, imprisoned and oppressed after the triumph of the Revolution. But perhaps the masses were masochists and visited those afflictions on themselves. Either way, what’s a little murder, torture and famine en route to the glorious Marxist-Leninist future? Yes, Whelan is also being serious when she applauds Trotsky’s firm distinction between “violence for oppressive means and violence in the pursuit of liberation.”
I don’t know about you, but reading “The 21st-century Bolshevik” made me even happier that the RCP didn’t come to power in 1983. I don’t think unrepentant disciples of Trotsky like Frank Furedi, Brendan O’Neill and Ella Whelan should be trusted with the running of an ice-cream stall, let alone with rule over millions of people. Trotsky was a major force in turning the imperfect but reforming Tsarist empire into a mass-murdering slave-state. The Soviet Union then inspired and assisted the formation of another mass-murdering slave-state in China, before imposing its tyranny on Eastern Europe after the Second World War. But Vox Day has pointed out a huge paradox in communism: it was less bad for nations like Hungary and Poland than so-called “liberal democracy” has been for America and Britain.
Why so? Because, unlike “liberal democracy,” communism did not open the borders to mass immigration by non-Whites. And that’s why the Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi is able to visit overwhelmingly White Hungary today and celebrate its resistance to pernicious Jewish ideologies like Critical Race Theory. Thanks to its recent communist history, Hungary doesn’t have millions of non-Whites living within its borders. And so Hungary doesn’t have the myriad political, cultural and social pathologies that inevitably accompany non-Whites. Of course, Furedi didn’t state those obvious facts and didn’t explain why Hungary is resisting “wokeness” and identity politics so successfully. He didn’t describe the “hideous whiteness” of the Hungarian supporters and their team.
“As much immigration as possible”
This is because Furedi can’t be honest about reality and isn’t sincere about fighting for freedom. But if he were honest and sincere, he would tell his cognitive clone Brendan O’Neill to re-publish an article by a former Trotskyist who has, unlike the RCP collective, repented of his allegiance to the mass-murderer Leon Trotsky. The part-Jewish Peter Hitchens 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)
“Bigots,” “racists,” “fascists,” “nazis” — that’s what arrogant, self-righteous and spiteful leftists are still calling anyone who objects to mass immigration and the pathologies it inevitably spawns. Frank Furedi and his clones have spent decades claiming to be supporters of the working-class and its interests. But anyone who supports open borders is an enemy of the working-class. Frank Furedi says that “freedom was in the air” when Hungary played France in Budapest. But why was that? It’s very simple: because insane or malevolent people haven’t been able to open Hungary’s borders to non-Whites.
Without Third-World people, Hungary isn’t suffering from Third-World pathologies. It isn’t being convulsed by “identity politics” because its identity hasn’t been diluted and subverted by millions of non-Hungarians. Hungary is a true nation whose proud people are in control of their own destiny. In other words: “If you stay white, your future’s bright. With vibrancy, you’ll bend the knee.” Perhaps the freedom-fanatics at Spiked should adopt that as their new slogan.