Like most people, I did not see 9/11 coming. But the moment the Twin Towers collapsed, I realised the West was facing something different from ordinary terrorism or war by one state on another.

This was more akin to a cancer in the global bloodstream. It had to be fought with all the weapons, both military and cultural, at our disposal.

‘This is where the world divides,’ I wrote. ‘Are you for us or against us? Are you prepared to do everything it takes to stand against terror, or are you going to succour it by word or deed?

‘Liberal values will be protected only if Christianity holds the line as our dominant culture. A society which professes neutrality between cultures will create a void which Islam, with its militant political creed, will attempt to fill.’

But I knew the West would flinch from this fight.

It had lost its moral compass. It no longer recognised the difference between good and evil or the validity of preferring some cultures to others, but had decided instead that all such concepts were relative.

It would most likely take the path of appeasement rather than the measures needed to defend itself from the attempt to destroy it. And so it has proved.

As far back as 1989, I’d grasped that the drive towards multiculturalism (the doctrine which held no culture could be considered superior to any other because that was ‘racist’) could well be a threat to liberty. At the time, the Church of England was proposing that the blasphemy law, which applied only to Christianity, should be replaced by a new offence of insulting or outraging the religious feelings of any group in the community.

I had no doubt that this would become a weapon enabling Islamic militants to destroy freedom of expression. In fact, such a challenge was already being mounted.

Just weeks earlier, Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini had issued his notorious fatwa calling for the murder of the author Salman Rushdie for the purported offence to Islam given by his novel, The Satanic Verses. In fear of his life, Rushdie was forced to live in hiding.

The Church’s shameful response was not to withdraw its ludicrous plan to widen the scope of blasphemy laws, but to carry on and, in effect, surrender to a medieval lynch mob.

The Rushdie affair outed other waverers, too. You’d have thought that all decent people in Britain would be united in outrage at a foreign tyranny putting a bounty on the head of a British citizen.

But when Rushdie’s book was publicly burned, a number of Labour MPs took part in this horrifying auto-da-fe, despite its disturbing historical echoes.

They were nervously glancing over their shoulders at their Muslim constituents, worried they might lose their seats.

I was aghast, too, at the ambivalent attitudes of some Conservative MPs, who called on Rushdie to make a gesture to pacify the Muslim world in order to break the deadlock over Americans then being held hostage in Iran. Most of all, I was appalled by the British government’s extraordinary decision not to prosecute anyone for threatening Rushdie’s life, even though two prominent Muslims had stated they would sacrifice their own lives and those of their children if the opportunity arose to kill him.

Almost a quarter of a century on, the Rushdie affair still stands out as a defining moment in Britain’s surrender of its will to survive.

Inevitably there was more to come, and in 1996 I got whiff of another looming disaster when a state primary school in Birmingham, where 70 per cent of pupils were Muslim, started teaching Islam in RE classes.

I duly noted that ‘Islam is the spectre at the woolly liberals’ feast’—because unlike other minorities, many Muslims expected their host culture to adapt to meet their requirements.

This was very pertinent to me. I come from immigrant stock. My parents were from poor Jewish families who arrived in Britain from Russia and Poland at the beginning of the 20th century. My father’s father was given the name Phillips because the immigration officer couldn’t pronounce his Polish name.

The family lived on impoverished streets in East London, which were home to so many immigrant Jews, as they are today to fresh generations of incomers.

Conscious of being outsiders in British society, they kept their heads down and tried to assimilate—which made them very different from some of today’s immigrant communities, whose mission sometimes seems to be to force the rest of us to adopt their religion and culture, not the other way round.

Here is the fundamental dilemma. Because of our core liberal values, we feel obliged to try to accommodate a belief system that rejects them. By its very nature, the doctrine of multiculturalism has called into question whether those liberal values can actually survive.

After 9/11 and 7/7, this issue has become more urgent than ever. Yet the country has seemed to be in denial of Islamic militants who hate Britain and want to destroy it, and who might be thought to constitute an ‘enemy within’.

The appeasement instinct has turned into a real threat to our established way of life.

So, too, has another disturbing aspect of our drift into multiculturalism and relativism—a sinister but pervasive change in attitudes  to racism.

My position is straightforward. Racial prejudice is abhorrent. But some three decades ago, a new dogma of anti-racism emerged with a perversely one-sided view of prejudice—that it can never be perpetrated by any group that designated itself to be victims of the majority.

One of the most dramatic examples of the oppressive and tyrannical nature of what was now called ‘political correctness’ was in the world of social work.

Here, anti-racist zealots had captured the social workers’ central training body and had built into the social workers’ diploma the dogma that society was fundamentally racist and oppressive.

Students reported that marks depended on displaying the ‘correct’ attitude on race—which meant identifying and dealing with ‘racist’ attitudes even where none existed.

This brain-washing propaganda was corrupting social work so badly that countless numbers of the deeply disadvantaged were being abandoned or thrown to the wolves.

In the Nineties I discovered that social workers were becoming too frightened to deal with black families for fear of being thought racist. It was therefore common for social workers to say it was normal—and, by implication, acceptable—for black families to beat their children.

I could scarcely believe this was happening in Britain.

Almost 20 years later, when a gang of Pakistani Muslim men was convicted in 2012 of decades of sexual violence against young, predominantly white girls living in children’s homes, it emerged that complaints to social workers had been ignored because they were petrified of being called racist.

In our schools, this militant anti-racism spilled over into history teaching, where an agenda took over whose aim was nothing less than the dissolution of British national identity and the construction of a new, multicultural ‘narrative’.

Educationists objected in particular to teaching classic English authors or British history to ethnic minority children on the grounds that this was racist. I remember one education lecturer questioning whether there could be any shared values at all.

I was appalled. Did that mean that freedom of speech, parliamentary democracy, the rule of law or monogamy were no longer to be upheld as worthwhile?

Here was the very nihilism which, if unchallenged, threatened to destroy the West. If all common bonds of tradition, custom, culture and morality were destroyed, there would no social glue to keep society together. It would gradually fracture into disparate tribes with competing agendas, and eventually destroy itself.

To my mind, one of the ways in which we  were sleep-walking towards this  self-destruction was in attitudes towards Israel.

I was on the panel of BBC1’s Question Time once when from the audience came the view that Israel was the source of terror in the Middle East.

I replied that, on the contrary, the Palestinians were sponsors of terror and incited violence and hatred daily against Israelis and Jews across the world.

I wondered why people had no sympathy when Israelis tried to prevent themselves from being murdered.

As I spoke, I was aware of a low hissing from the audience. I looked at them and saw faces convulsed with hatred. I said Israel was the only democracy in the Middle East. The audience laughed.

The default belief in Britain is that Israel is the bully in the Middle East, and responsible for the absence of peace with the Palestinians.

Anti-Israel campaigns are conducted by trades unions, the Church of England and the medical profession. University tutors mark down students if they don’t reproduce Arab propaganda about the Middle East.

Yet the Arab and Muslim agenda is to exterminate Israel. Israel is constantly demonised for defending itself while support grows for those Arab terrorists who turned themselves into human bombs to murder as many Israeli innocents as possible.

When I wrote and spoke out about this, I found myself in a new pigeon hole. Formerly damned as ‘Right-wing’, I was now consigned to a fresh circle of hell as ‘Melanie the war-mongering Zionist Jew’.

The really striking thing was that this Israel and Jew-bashing bigotry was strongest on the supposedly anti-racist Left. What was going on was a kind of Holocaust inversion, with the Israelis being demonised  as Nazis and the Palestinians given a free pass as the ‘new Jews’. Sadly, 9/11 fed this madness.

A common reaction in Britain was that the cause of Muslim rage was  Israel’s ‘oppression’ of the Palestinians. But in swallowing and regurgitating lies about Israel and prejudice about Jews, people were swallowing the propaganda from the enemies not just of Israel, but of Britain and the West—while instead treating their defender, Israel, as the enemy.

All this is singularly myopic. Israel is the forward salient of the war to defend Western civilisation—and, although the British do not seem to realise it, that includes them.

My belief is that if Israel were ever to go down, Britain and the West would be next in line.

British liberals need to take their heads out of the sand and understand that supporting Israel is pivotal to the defence of Britain and the Western world.

Topics: , , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • sbuffalonative

    Well, she does seem to have an agenda but I guess we need all the help we can get at this point.

    This woman also seems to be a recovering liberal. She wrote a piece the other day exposing how the left is deliberately destroying stable families:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319192/Why-Left-hates-families-MELANIE-PHIILLIPS-reveals-selfish-sneers-Guardianistas-Left-actively-fosters–revels–family-breakdown-.html

  • steve7789

    This is nonsense. The Jews never assimilated. It was the Board of Deputies of British Jews who first introduced the draconian “incitement to racial hatred laws” and jewish organisations who push us into wars in the Middle East

    • pcmustgo

      I am half jewish. 50% of American Jews marry out. Women included. Most view themselves (and others view them) as White + Jewish. Kind of like Italian or Irish-Americans, real ethnic ones, are White + Italian. Or White + Irish. Or White, then Irish.

      • Triarius

        Yet they they still have a Jew-first (Israel-first) mentality and only recommend other Jews or Jew”ish” people to said positions.

        While Jews are only honestly partial Jews, especially in the US, it does not take away their preference towards one another in hiring or ethnocentrism. This is one way I wish Gentiles were alike with half of you.

      • Please, I am not “White + Irish”. I am Scottish, Welsh, Irish, German, Cherokee and Tuscarora.

    • David Ashton

      Some did, many don’t.
      Once bitten by Hitler, twice shy.
      The JBS lobbying on race laws would not have been so effective if it had not been stimulated by Colin Jordan’s “Hitler was Right” campaign, which incidentally led to Oswald Mosley’s hugely successful Trafalgar Square meetings and others being banned.

  • Oil Can Harry

    Why should Third World invaders assimilate? After all, they’re an invading army.

    I also scratched my head when the author claimed the Tories asked Salman Rushdie to apologize in 1989 so Iran would release its US hostages. Of course those hostages had been released back in January of ’81 during Reagan’s inaugaration.

    • TinySherpa

      Probably meant UK hostages Terry Waite & Roger Cooper

  • David Ashton

    Give Melanie a break. Yes, she is OTT over “Judea, Samaria and Galilee”, but she is OKK over England, Scotland and Wales, and much else. She sticks to her guns on almost every “conservative” issue with all the determination of a West Bank settler. She has long defended the Christian heritage of Britain, family values, strict migration control, etc. The real problem is that the “liberals” cannot respond to her battery of facts, logic and lucidity, without shrieking abuse. “Mad Mel!” is their useless reaction, like “Daily Mail!” (which they never actually read). She may be a Zionist but she has undermined much of our Jewish establishment’s anti-“racism”. Let her arguments do their work.

    • Xerxes22

      She only seems to be against Muslim immigration and that’s only because they are hostile to Jews and Israel. What about third world non-Muslim Immigration? Is she also against that?

      • David Ashton

        I think so but cannot recall or find evidence quickly. What is clear is that she is against multiculturalism in principle (that includes Sikhs and Hindus), and has come close to “racism” in a scathing attack on your narcissistic POTUS. Afro-Asian immigrants in general have no great sympathy for Israel, and the Islamic settlements are the worst examples of colonialism apart from black criminals and superstitious savages.

    • The__Bobster

      Like this argument: “My position is straightforward. Racial prejudice is abhorrent.”?

      • David Ashton

        Strictly speaking, any “prejudice” is undesirable, and no-one can help their race. But she slips in these bromides while making a good case in other respects. Like Coulter she does more for us than against us.

        • OhWaitWhat

          Wow! A jew making excuses for another jew. You don’t see that often.

        • kulak

          “Prejudice is of ready application in an emergency. It previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue, and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, skeptical and unresolved.” — Edmund Burke

    • PesachPatriot

      I feel a lot like this melanie phillips person. I consider myself a pretty well assimilated american….if people of jewish origin take leftist political positions we’re nation destroying communists, if they take right wing positions they’re imperialists/colonialists oppressing innocent muslim people of color. We’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t. If it were up to me america would have very different immigration policies and those two chechens in boston would have been thrown in the slammer or deported as soon as russia asked for intel on them. I am proud to be assimilated in to american society….

      • kulak

        I think it was neocon David Horowitz who wrote about visiting American national monuments and realizing they didn’t really mean anything to him.

        If you take racial pride in, say, the Alamo, then I’d say you’re not really Jewish any more.

        “if people of jewish origin take leftist political positions we’re nation destroying communists, if they take right wing positions they’re imperialists/colonialists oppressing innocent muslim people of color.”

        Jews in power do both. On the one hand, they protect Israel, on the other, they encourage white genocide.

        You can thank Ted Turner and CNN for bringing those two goals into apparent conflict.

        I say apparent because they’re only in conflict if one believes a white U.S. would be more friendly and useful to Israel than a brown U.S.
        A white U.S. might be powerful and hostile.
        A brown U.S. would simply be irrelevant.
        So white genocide it is.

    • Triarius

      Sounds like “Conservative” Republicans in the US that were turn-coats the second they had a solid foundation within the party, known as RINOs.

      When these “Conservative” Jews in the UK have your loyalty they will start preaching tolerance and compromise and will start leaning to the left. Look at McCain and the others in the GOP, which is now all Israel-Firsters.

      • What the hell is wrong with being a Zionist? You begrudge the Jews a small island in the midst of the satanic ocean of Islam? Before you come down on the Jews, come down on the Moors for segregating Mecca, and not allowing non satan worshippers to set foot upon it.

        • Triarius

          Nothing is wrong with zionism, for zionists in Israel. I do not want my representatives in US govt being zionists, though. The Moors are irrelevant considering they do not exist, that would be like trying to blame the Fatimids. Look who helped the Moors invade Visigothic Spain and ran their administration…interesting.

          And I did not come down on the Jews, I just pointed out what they do in other countries time and time again. Truth hurts.

  • cb

    If her ancestors from Russia and Poland never came to Britain, I’m sure Britain wouldn’t be the PC multiculti disaster it is today.

    • David Ashton

      Maybe, maybe not. But a lot happened in the intervening decades. And the question is what decent, well-informed and intelligent strategy white Gentiles should develop today successfully to deal with the main problem which also disturbs many Jews.

      • pcmustgo

        Britons felt guilty for all that colonizing and imperialism. Apparently the French do too.

    • Cannot Tell

      It’s interesting that you blame Eastern European immigrants to Britain for that country’s adoption of multiculturalism. Most Eastern Europeans are incredibly racist.

      • So CAL Snowman

        He wasn’t talking about the blue-eyed, fair haired Eastern Europeans, more like the Khazars

    • brengunn

      You give the Jews too much credit. It may be half true in America but it’s certainly not the case in Britain.

  • smells_just_like

    We should hate assimilation.

    Why let the rising tide of color use assimilation to trick us?

    I don’t want voodoo to be hidden- let it show itself as it really is. I celebrate the “natural” nappy wool that so many of the hideous black girls are wearing now, especially on TV. I’m enriched into anxiety when I see their true natures. These times call for extreme anxiety. We need to declare it a Hate Crime against White taste when blacks dress all preppy up en heeah.

    • Katherine McChesney

      I always get a chuckle when I see blacks wearing preppy clothing. It’s prevalent on British television programs. The UK is gone…the White population has been brain-washed to accept them as British instead of “African-English”.
      I simply cannot stand to watch movies with blacks as the leading or character actors. I noticed in one Poirot movie, the setting being in the 20’s, a black played the part of a maitre’d in a five star restaurant. I’m sure this is coming in American programming.

      • smells_just_like

        Let’s look forward to the day when the White community en masse adopts the “you don’t need to act White around me” response to any encounter with “articulate, clean cut” blacks.

      • gemjunior

        Recently there was a series on here in the US called “The Bible”
        and it was really great. Except when it came time for someone to carry the cross, a big black buck was picked from the crowd of people in ancient Jerusalem, and he carried the cross. So was Simon really black or was it another stupid diversity ploy? Disgusting. Like having blacks in Robin Hood and Thor, as if. I can probably think of about a million more examples but what’s the point? We all know what we have to do. It will continue until somebody puts on a Guy Fawkes mask. A media takeover is what’s necessary.

      • Triarius

        I know what you mean. I always get a chuckle when I see a black in a suit. Like Sub-Sahara Africa made any clothing whatsoever. I always think of them as things “playing” civil.

        • Shifter

          But majority of people will blame them, if they wear tribal dress in western society. They’ll complain, that they can’t assimilate. You can’t have it both ways, you know.

      • Funruffian

        Blacks are not only over-represented in Cinema, they are unrealistically represented. Just becuse a Black actor can memorize lines and dialogue doesn’t mean they understand the content necessary to invoke the thought or internal emoting to occur naturally. It’s always mandatory for TV or movies to portay the Black as cool, experienced and strong while the White is weak or lame. These myths have been stirring in celluloid for so long that i think some people actually believe the subliminal message.

    • The__Bobster

      Frankly, I don’t want to be part of the Borg.

    • pcmustgo

      White males who date Black women apparently like’em as dark as possible and with “natural hair”.

      • gemjunior

        I think that must be a fetish. Sort of like the people who smell feet to get sexually excited?

      • Triarius

        I have met only two guys that like black women. One was from Germany and the other a Polish American. Both liked them light-skinned and found dark ones or “Amistad” blacks to be revolting.

        The Saxon-German guy that was large with blond hair and blue eyes married a light skinned black girl that hated other blacks and refused to talk to any. Go figure.

      • Jefferson

        As a White guy, if I were to date a Black woman I would choose the lightest skin Black woman I could find. Like the Lena Horne and Suzanne Malveaux types who look heavily mixed with Caucasian blood and do not resemble a pure Sub Saharan.

  • The__Bobster

    When I wrote and spoke out about this, I found myself in a new pigeon hole. Formerly damned as ‘Right-wing’, I was now consigned to a fresh circle of hell as ‘Melanie the war-mongering Zionist Jew’.
    ___________

    In America, Melanie would be a garden variety neocon.

  • Jaego

    Jews control the Anti-Jihad Movement in Europe. They wont allow us to have Anything of our own, ever. Whites think they have to choose between Jews or Muslims. They don’t. The right answer is Neither.

  • I agree with her. The Muslims want white British to accept their cultural mores such as honor killing and forced marriage. This is not part of a free, democratic society.

    • NYB

      And Jews want whites to accept ethnic pluralism in our lands, to distract attention way from gentile/ Jew conflicts of interest.

      Meanwhile, they maintain a Jewish ethno-state for themselves.

      Whites can’t even have a private discussion about race or conservatism without Jews trying to interject and make themselves part of the conversation.

  • brengunn

    Jesus. How did she crowbar is this nonsense about Israel into an article about multiculturalism in Britain? She was making some halfway coherent points and then went off on a rant about Israel? Talk about conforming to stereotypes!

  • NYB

    Israel is like a crusader outpost in the Middle East, bleeding us in blood and treasure.

    Whites should cut their ties to Israel. Let their many billionaires fund the project.

    Instead of falling, white countries would undoubtedly become stronger without Jewish influence.

  • Fredrik_H

    The “liberal values” IS the reason why we have lost all sense of direction.

  • Melanie Phillips is a well known “cul-de-sac” journalist of the tribe that cannot be mentioned. She often raises very valid points and good arguments, but at the same time, eternally misses the fundamentals.

    Dealing with multiculturalism (read Multiracialism too) better is not the issue. Islamic fundamentalism is not the issue. Israel and attitudes towards it in Britain is not the issue. It is typical that this woman can use the plight of the English being ethnically cleansed from England and turn it into an issue about integration, muslims, and Israel.

    Peter Hitchens is another one. He writes some very good articles and makes some well cased points, but he always misses the target on racial matters. Again, there is an alleged reason for this, but I think it may more be him being a product of his time.

    They are cul-de-sac journalists to me because they lead people into an issue, then drive them right back out the other side again without actually getting anywhere.

    • David Ashton

      I’m sorry but I think they both do much more good than harm. We are better off with them than without them across a range of issues other than Israel. Hitchens opposes neocon interference in the Muslim world.

      • My position is that nationalists have to use them for what they are, but they should never, ever, concede to their weakness or purposeful blind spots.

        I have bought three of Hitchen’s books, but like with Melanie Phillips, I will never count them as being on our side as they are incapable of being so. They are not friends of ours and never will be.

        “Grist to the mill” is their purpose as far as I go. We have to take their arguments and fill in the necessary gaps.

  • Roy Henry

    Can someone enlighten me. Why do people like Phillips and Glen Beck insist that if Israel is destroyed the “West” will follow.

    • PesachPatriot

      I’m not a huge glen beck fan(crying on national television is kind of ridiculous and unbecoming a serious personality) and this article is the first I have ever heard of this melanie phillips person. I think their reason for thinking this way is that if Israel goes down and every last jewish citizen and the christian clergy in the old churches there is given the standard convert to islam or die choice, apocalyptic fervor will flood the muslim world and swell the ranks of the jihadists. They won’t be happy that they finally conquered their ancient tribal enemy, they will be emboldened to reclaim spain,greece, the balkans and probably try to conquer all of europe and maybe even america. No one was concerned about Hitler abusing and mistreating the jews of germany until he started attacking his non-jewish neighbors like Poland, Russia and France.

      • David Ashton

        Some people were concerned about the treatment of Jews in Germany, and in Poland, just others were concerned about the treatment of Christians in Russia and Spain. The question was and is whether war would have helped or made matters worse, apart from the sovereignty question that mattered in the 1930s. During that decade Stalin killed more Jews, and non-Jews, than Hitler.

        • PesachPatriot

          Stalin was definitely bad news for everyone, although I think Mao actually had the biggest corpse pile in the 20th century….if there was an internet in the 1930’s I don’t think american and british left wingers would have been so supportive of him. It seems that every revolution on mainland europe since the french one in 1789 had an anti-clerical element. If people learn anything from the years between 1914-1945 maybe it is that political extremism and violence as the solution to economic problems doesn’t always work out well for anyone.

          No matter what germany did I don’t want to see them under the boot of sharia, nor do I want muslims conquering any other euro country. I also feel badly for the common people over there who are suffering from the lingering after effects of 2008’s GFC while their leaders keep compounding the mistakes that got them into trouble in the first place. My grandfather was a big fan of german and russian literature, but I love the literature of the british and americans….I’m looking forward to reading my daughter all the works of JRR Tolkien, Mark Twain, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Edgar Allen Poe,