Anti-White Buzzwords And Codewords

Thursday, 11 September 2014

Melanie Phillips: Does She Care About British Natives, or Is It About Israel?

by Clare Ellis

Melanie Phillips
Melanie Phillips has gone from the left-wing establishment to celebrity status on the right.

Islamists, Moderates, and a European Alliance to Counter American Hegemony?

Islamist extremist groups, such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hizb ut-Tahir, Indian Mujahideen, Jamaat-e-Islami, the Muslim Brotherhood, and ISIS (or ISIL), among many others, are spreading disorder wherever they exist in the world. From beheadings to terrorist attacks across the globe, to active genocide of Christians and the destruction of ancient villages and monuments in Muslim countries, to the kidnapping and forced marriage of young non-Muslim girls and the pedophile rape gangs of young White girls, to forced conversions, crucifixions, and mass killings of non-believers, 'moderates', and different Muslim sects, to the Sharia occupied territories in Europe, the Trojan Horse plot in Britain, and violent riots, arson, and looting, to demands of religious, legal and cultural accommodations from European majority populations and claims of Islamophobia or victimhood when those demands are not met, to placing severed heads on stakes and gates in Islamist conquered areas in the Middle East such as Syria and Iraq.

Some people call Muslim extremists 'terrorists', others call them 'freedom fighters', still others call them 'barbaric animals' and 'psychopaths' while others call them 'liberators' or 'soldiers of Allah'. Whatever you may name them they are certainly no friend of the European peoples. Like the Leftists, some European New Right thinkers, such as Pierre Krebs, suggest Europeans ought to make an alliance with 'moderate' Muslims in an effort to counter the hegemony of America over Europe and the globe, which is rapidly destroying the diversity of peoples and forcing them to align with the homogenizing utopian New World Order.

To these thinkers 'moderate' Muslims present, as an ethnic group based on religion, a strong identity in opposition to the American implemented and European compliant secular 'brave new world'. They think this strong traditional identity is a matter of admiration and they therefore would make good allies in the fight. Although it is hard to disagree that there is something to be said about the strength of Muslim identity, it is completely illogical that European peoples should become allies, even for just a moment, with Muslims to counter a common enemy. Muslims and their varying strategies of violent and non-violent counter-hegemony (moderate or not) are no better than the Neoconservatives and the Leftists they are fighting against.

Commonalities of Islamists, Leftists, and Neocons: Global Hegemony, Global Homogeneity, and Anti-European

These three ideological groups are all vying for global hegemony. Each one has already decided how the whole world ought to be and how all people should behave. Their worldviews, regardless of their differences, systematize all people into a homogeneous 'humanity' as if all peoples of the world were like some mass-produced shop window manikin, while at the same time they make the Manichean mistake of claiming that if individuals or a people do not comply with their ideology there is something wrong with them — mentally, morally, intellectually, psychologically, or whatever — and split peoples into two moral groups of good and evil, civilized and barbaric, human and subhuman. They all claim they have the 'Truth' that will solve all 'human' problems, and present it as a new enlightening revelation that is good for humanity, but are totalitarian in some way or another, bent on eradicating all opposition to their ferocious appetite for world supremacy and moral superiority. All think that the demolition of existing situations and peoples is necessary to achieve their global aims, whether through direct destruction by war and genocide, or indirect annihilation through cultural, economic and demographic engineering.

While Neoconservatives maintain their warfare policies in the Middle East and middle of the road liberals (The Economist) press on for global markets and cultural standardization against traditional organic life, Islamists sustain their pernicious creed of violent death Jihad against the West and Leftists remain committed to furthering the spiritual nihilism and historical famine of European culture and ethnicity. These three groups are separate but interlinked anti-European ideologies. On the one hand, we have Neoconservatives, corporations, Fox News, Republicans, Sun News, and libertarians fighting European traditional conservatism and Islamism, and, on the other hand, we have Islamists and Leftists fighting American militarism and corporate globalization.

Neoconservatives promote immigration for economic ends and thus indirectly fund the Leftist utopian dream of stripping regular people of their ethnic and national identity for a new global order by spreading abstract man: homo economicus. Although Leftists are supposed to be in opposition to American-led hegemony, they contribute to the corporate agenda by supporting mass-immigration and miscegenation, end of Whiteness, multicultural rights, claims of racism and Islamophobia, and limits on the free speech of majorities. Leftists really are either useful idiots or willfully committing treason.

In addition, although Leftists are supposedly against capitalism, they make alliances with capitalists; many prominent socialist writers and institutes have and are funded by millionaires, such as the Soros Institute, the Frankfurt School, and the Fabian Society. Leftists also use Islamism (not necessarily the violent Islamism of ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliated groups) to counter Western Neoconservative global hegemony. In turn, Islamists employ the Leftist cultural and political discourse of white privilege, white racism, affirmative action, human rights, and collective multicultural rights, so as to gain further ground on all spheres of life in their attempt to counter Western hegemony inside and outside the West and establish a world-wide Caliphate. Although Islamists utilize Leftism for their cause, they ultimately consider Leftists as decadent infidels who produce spiritually and morally vacuous societies and thus ultimately reject them.

Londonistan and The World Turned Upside Down

With these general points in mind, let us now examine a prominent Neoconservative opponent of Islamism: British journalist Melanie Phillips. She has written several books, including Londonistan (Encounter Books, 2006) and The World Turned Upside Down (Encounter Books, 2010).

In Londonistan you find a bunch of material on the history, people, and groups involved in the rise of Islamism, information about London being the hotbed of terrorist activities in Europe, and a relentless critique of Leftism and its destruction of traditional values. However, you would think that from the title of the book you would be reading details of the radical transformation of Britain into a Muslim enclave by mass-Muslim immigration and how the indigenous Brits are suffering as a consequence. But no. Instead, Phillips devotes most of the book to the plight of Israel and the Jewish people in the face of Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism and terrorism.

Although she does address the pernicious effects of Leftism, the ineptitude of the British intelligentsia on dealing with homegrown Islamic terrorism, and the complicity of politicians in the tragedy by seeking the Muslim vote, not once does Phillips meaningfully mention the white working classes, the ethnic identity and interests of the British masses, or how Muslim subversion is affecting them on the day to day level other than a passing comment or two about the demise of their traditions and culture in the face of Islamism. So why call the book "Londonistan" without first and foremost a distinct and wide coverage of the issues everyday native Britons are experiencing?

It seems that Phillips used the title to pay lip service to the issue of the Islamization of Britain so she can get to her primary aim of steering the critical discourse about Islamism in general and elicit Western support for Israel in its conflict with Palestine and the Muslim-Arab world in particular. In this process, she conflates two separate issues regarding Islam – the problem facing the West and the problem facing Israel. But this is necessary for her argument: on the one hand, she dismisses the 'Arab view' (also shared by Leftists) that the oppression of Palestinians by Israel and the alliance of Israel with Neoconservatives is a strategic reason for Muslim aggression against the West; but, on the other hand, her focal point is Leftist and Muslim aggression against the nation of Israel and Israel's main supporters, the Neoconservatives of Britain and America.

Phillips: Muslims Attack Westerners and Jews for Metaphysical Reasons Only

Rather than addressing the Neoconservative foreign policy in the Middle East and Western global hegemony, Phillips claims that the West and Israel are targets of Islamists because Muslims have a religious hatred for the Jews, and as Westerners and Israelites share religious roots — Judeo-Christian roots — they face the same religious enemy, "this hatred lies at the core of the war against the West."1

She also writes:
It is not that Israel's behaviour has inflamed the jihad against the West….It is rather that the jihad, which views the West as a threat to Islam, sees Israel's existence as living, breathing proof of the Western and Jewish intention to rule the planet. The battle with Israel is thus conceived as a metaphysical struggle between good – the Islamic world – and evil – the Jewish-backed Western world [my emphasis]. Israel's struggle to defend itself against this monstrosity is therefore the West's struggle to defend itself against the same monstrosity. Israel's struggle is simply being played out in a unique place where metaphysics and geopolitics have become fused.2
Of course she refers to several other reasons as to why Islamists are aiming their aggression against the West and Israel, which are not wrong, such as the degeneracy of Western culture, the decadence and spiritual vacuity of progressive Leftism, the historical 1400 year war waged by Muslims against Christendom and the Jews, as well as overall Muslim anti-Semitism and anti-Westernism, but she uses these reasons to dismiss the pivotal connection between the geographical fact of land and ideological identity (e.g. Israel and Judaism versus Palestine and Islamism) and thus denies as relevant a vital contributing factor to Muslim violence against Israel and the West. She writes,
It is not a national or territorial conflict but a historical, religious, cultural and existential conflict between truth and falsehood, believers and infidels, prosecuted through jihad until victory or martyrdom [my emphasis].3
There is no doubt that the existence of the territory of Israel is a thorn in the Islamist flesh, but Phillips insists that Islamist terrorism against the West is only a struggle about metaphysical principles, rather than being also driven by the physical existence of Israel and the military support of it by Western Neoconservatives. Although religious factors, which provide a moral imperative for Islamists, are indeed a central influence, Phillips will get nowhere by dismissing the other facts involved in this bloody affair. While she claims that land is not the issue, in The World Turned Upside Down she claims that the territory of Palestine never really existed anyway, that it was a recent invention and thus Palestinians are not really Palestinians as a legitimate racial ethnicity with a long heritage that could defend the legal claim to the land as a 'people', but a mixture of different ethnicities, including Jews, such as "Arab…Greeks, Syrians, Latins, Egyptians, Turks, Armenians, Italians" and so on.4 In any case, she thinks the Palestinians had plenty of opportunities in the past to form their own independent state.

Phillips: Ethno-Religious and Ancestral Origins of the Nation-State of Israel

Phillips' argument of arbitrary national construction however does not apply to Israel, or so she claims. Jews lived in the area prior to its creation in 1948 and, more importantly, Israel is the ancient historic homeland of the Jews, as found in the Old Testament, and is thus determined by racial ancestry. Phillips defends this claim on land as determined by ethno-religious ancestral factors:
The Jews' aspiration for their homeland...derives from Judaism itself, which comprises the inseparable elements of the religion, the people and the land [...] The unique Jewish entitlement to Israel is not just a Biblical story but historical fact. The Jews are the only people for whom the land of Israel was ever their national homeland.5
She further defends this racial-religious factor in the creation of the state of Israel by emphasizing the legal construction of Israeli territory, upheld by the British and bound by international law:
The legitimacy of Israel rests not on the United Nations vote of 1947, which finally established it as a state, but on the setting up of the Palestine Mandate in 1922 by the precursor to the UN, the League of Nations, which paid recognition to 'the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country'.6
This claim of legitimacy by an appeal to the League of Nations, which is now a defunct international organisation, is confusing considering that in Londonistan she repeatedly criticizes supranational organisations such as "the European Court of Human Rights, the European Union, the United Nations or the European Court of Justice" for increasingly becoming the "sole sources of legitimacy."7

Melanie Phillips - Best Pro-Israel Writer

Phillips: Only Israel Has the Legal and Religious Right to Be Ethno-nationalist

Jumping on the Leftist bandwagon of decrying White pride and preservation, Phillips calls White Nationalists, such as the British National Party, the National Front, Combat 18, and the White Nationalist Party, far-right "racists," "white supremacists," "neo-Nazis" or "neofascists" as they attempt to maintain their distinct ethnicity in the face of various forces, such as Leftism and Neoconservative Americanism. And part of the reason why she says this is because some have made an alliance with Islamists, like the Leftists, due to their criticism of the perceived influence of Zionism on American and Western foreign and domestic affairs:
These ultranationalist, racist and anti-Jewish groups saw in the Islamists something beyond their wildest dreams: a global force, armed and trained, committed to the destruction of both Jews and the Western political order.8
Now, as mentioned above, it is not logical for any European Right-leaning counter-hegemonic group to join forces with Islamists in order to combat American global hegemony and Cultural Marxism for they merely aim to supplant one global hegemonic order with a utopian version of their own.

Phillips: Western-Jewish Alliance to Counter Islamism and Leftism

In contrast to accusations that ethnonationalism is racist and must be eradicated, it must be said that every nation should have the right to self-determination, such as independent decision making in accordance with national and ethnic interests, and that every ethnicity should have a homeland that is safe and secure and therefore have the right to defend that territory. However, just because Islamism and Leftism are a threat to the Western nation states as well as to Israel this does not mean that the West has to necessarily form an alliance with the Neoconservative view of Israel in the fight against these pernicious ideologies.

But this is exactly what Phillips appeals to in Londonistan. She tries to promote an inter-religious cooperation between Israel (Judaism) and the West (Christianity) in the face of Islamism and Leftism. She repeatedly and informally, like it is an irrefutable fact, states that the West has Judeo-Christian foundational values based on the Mosaic Code (Ten Commandments) and thus, she claims, Israel and the West are closely united according to these shared values:
Jews were at the very heart of those Western values [and] At the core of those Western majority values lay the Mosaic Code, which first gave the world the concept of morality, self-discipline and laws regulating behaviour).9
She then uses this as a main premise to argue against Leftism and promote a Western-Israeli alliance (the civilized 'free world') against a shared religious and historical threat, the barbarism of Islamism:
As [the Left] took aim at morality and self-restraint, it seized a golden opportunity to pulverize the very people [the Jews] who invented the rules in the first place [and] the far left and the Islamists have become a marriage made in hell...[they] use each other to fight the West.10
Phillips' claim that the West is Judeo-Christian at heart is simply not true. Europe and the West do not derive their core historical values from Judaism; they may share the Ten Commandments but that is about all, and, furthermore, many more foundational morals actually come from the Classical Greeks, Christianity itself, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment. Christianity may have arisen from Judaism but developed independently thereafter, and Judaism was merely one strain of historical influence on the rise of Christianity, others include Greco-Roman religions, Hellenic philosophy, and European paganism. In addition, not only do Christianity and Judaism differ in fundamental ways, such as the rejection of Christ by Jews, but before Europe was known as Europe it was known as Christendom not Judeo-Christendom.

In fact, the West is majority White European by ethnicity and majority secular Christian by ethics, thus the West primarily ought to have an interest in preserving and protecting the European people's native homeland in particular and the European character of the West in general, not Israel. European interests are what matter but Phillips wants these interests to become subsumed by the interests of Israel and its conflict with Islam.

Phillips: Gramsci to Blame for Destruction of Britain by Muslim Immigration

Although Phillips denies that the territory of Israel and British and American pro-Israeli foreign policy are destabilising elements that contribute to the militant strategy of Islamism against the West, the aggravation they elicit from Muslim communities across the world (civil unrest, war, terrorism) is increasingly hard to contest, and this aggression is being transported into the Western world by Muslim mass-immigration, such as seen in the recent, massive and violent pro-Palestinian protests across Europe.

In her criticism of Leftist practices such as mass-immigration of Muslims into Europe, political correctness, the human rights victim culture, and feminism, Phillips suggests that they stem only from the writings of one person. She writes in Londonistan:
During the 1960s, the decade in which so many of our current leaders remain firmly stuck, the most influential thinker was the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci [...] Antonio Gramsci, the philosopher who became the iconic thinker of the 1960s, laid down the blueprint for exactly what has happened in Britain.11
While she is not wrong to claim that the Marxist and Lenin inspired Gramsci was responsible for outlining a pernicious plan to subvert Western civilization by infiltrating all of its institutions, a plan that manifested first with the counter-culture movements of the 60s, it is quite deceptive of her to suggest that Gramsci is solely to blame. Many others contributed intellectually to this subversive plan, and have come to be known as cultural Marxists or Frankfurt School Critical Theorists, such as Felix Weil, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm, Friedrich Pollock, Leo Löwenthal, Otto Kirchheimer, and Franz Leopold Neumann. These theorists centered their anti-Western Cultural Marxism on the philosophy of Karl Marx, and were significantly influenced by Sigmund Freud and George Lukacs. And, in fact, rather than Gramsci being 'the iconic thinker of the 1960s' it was Herbert Marcuse who was considered as the 'guru' of the New Left.

Phillips may criticize the Leftist 'long march through the institutions' but never mentions the Frankfurt School out of which this strategy was further developed, incorporated, and disseminated. She may have no clue about these connections, it does not really matter. What matters is that in her effort to rally support for Israel (and demonize any criticism of its dealing with the Palestinians) there is an obvious misrepresentation of the causes of Western and European cultural demise. On the one hand, she laments and vehemently critiques this degeneration but on the other hand she skips a major cultural force, the Frankfurt School. She rails against Leftism in an attempt to unite Western anti-Islamists with the causes of Israel but she does not acknowledge the seminal contribution of Frankfurt intellectuals to the decadence of the West.

Phillips: Pro-American Corporate Capitalism, Western Global Hegemony, and Third World Immigration

In terms of preserving European ethnicity and culture, Phillips' criticism of Islamism and Leftism does not go far enough. She goes on and on about how Islamism and Leftism are bent on destroying the traditions of the West, which is not wrong, but Islamism and Leftism are only two destructive mounts. Neoconservative globalization is another destructive mount. Phillips is an avid supporter of American corporate capitalism and American-led Western hegemony. She is outright pro-American regarding foreign policy and, even though she is anti-Leftism, she is actually for open borders and mass immigration if it is about minorities assimilating into the majority culture and adopting liberal individual rights and not multicultural rights. It seems she has no problem with Britain and other European countries being swamped with a multitude of non-European ethnicities from the whole World, as long as they don't demand any kind of religious or cultural accommodations.

Her plain support for American-led and British foreign policy in the Middle East (war on terror), and for global capitalism pits her against Leftists and Islamists. But the New Right, although it is also (or mostly) anti-Islamist and anti-Leftist, rejects as well American foreign-policy, the spread of Western values around the world, and economic globalization. It suggests ethno-nationalism as a solution to cultural and ethnic genocide and the preservation of real diversity in the world.

[1] Melanie Phillips, Londonistan, 2006, p. 104
[2] Ibid., pp. 102-103
[3] Ibid., p. 109
[4] Melanie Phillips, The World Turned Upside Down, 2010: 58
[5] Ibid., pp. 55-56
[6] Ibid., p. 56
[7] Londonistan, p. 26
[8] The World Turned Upside Down, p. 217
[9] Londonistan, pp. 118-119
[10] Ibid., p. 119
[11] Ibid., pp. 71, 118


  1. A great article by Clare Ellis. Just one thing, though. It's certainly true that Islamism is not better Leftism or Neoconservatism. However it is important to keep in mind one thing. Muslims are cultural and racial outsiders. They always will be. They make it perfectly clear what they are doing, and who their enemies are. Leftists and Neocons on the other hand, pose as comrades and defenders of the West (however they chose to define it), while at the same time harboring genocidal anti-European tendencies, and worst yet, not many people realize this. This means that Islamists can never pose the same threat to the West as the traitors on the inside. To suggest an alliance between those interested in protecting European peoples and Islamists would be pointless for the simple reason that the former currently have no power, and the latter don't seem particularly interested in reciprocating such good-will. But like Jonathan Bowden said, they have their part of the world, and that's fine with me. No one should have the right to interfere in their domestic affairs, not even us enlightened Westerners.

    1. I agree with you that the anti-European tactics of the Neocons and Leftists are insidious. It is clear that Islamists are much more forthright regarding their plans - the transformation of Europe and European-based lands into Sharia abiding territories - and therefore, due to their explicitness, seemingly pose less of a threat compared to the 'gradualism' of the Neocon and Leftist traitors of the West. However, on another level, I think that Islamists pose a threat to Europe unlike that of the Neocons and Leftists - in the form of fast growing demographics and the gradual, but quickening, infiltration of cultural, political, and economic spheres, which the Leftists are happy to accommodate at the horror of both the Neocons and people like ourselves.

    2. This is my opinion based on what I see:

      In Canada, the massive numbers of Chinese and Indian immigrants pose a greater threat than Muslims. In the United States, the increasing numbers of the Mestizo population from Mexico mostly and Central-America pose a greater threat than Muslims. Europe and Russia will suffer from Islam the most. However, unlike Western leaders who still call Islam the religion of peace and embrace the changing demographics, Putin address the problem about demographic decline and is now attempting to fix it. For example, he ended the promotion of LGBTism in public institutions such as schools.

    3. Not sure what LGBT promotion has to do with Muslim immigration. Care to elaborate?

    4. In reply to Phoenixian Westernia; Islam is a "greater threat" than Chinese or Mestizo immigration because the former has a plan for world conquest while China is pursuing the traditional big power game as a unicultural entity while Mexico merely wants back Texas and California.

  2. A very insightful article, thank you Ms. Ellis.

    I just had a question about the European New Right:

    "Like the Leftists, some European New Right thinkers, such as Pierre Krebs, suggest Europeans ought to make an alliance with ‘moderate’ Muslims"

    I hope not all New Right thinkers are like that. Do you know if Alain de Benoist holds such views? I know for sure Dr. Tomislav Sunic (I read some of his books) doesn't hold that view of such an alliance.

    1. Yes, Sunic does not support such an alliance. I know Guillaume Faye would also not support an alliance with Muslims; he does, however, in his own words, “consider the Jews allies” and supports Zionism. As for de Benoist, he proposes a communitarian model for the different peoples now inhabiting Europe so that it would “spare individuals from being cut off from their cultural roots and which would permit them to keep alive the structures of their collective cultural lives” – in other words, immigrants, including Muslims, would retain their ethnocultural identities within Europe (35, Manifesto For A European Renaissance, 2012, Arktos). Michael O’Meara criticises this type of identitarianism emanating from GRECE because it has borrowed from leftist multiculturalism and has resulted in an ‘abstract defense of identity’ that gives a tacit nod to “the right of non-Europeans to occupy and partition European lands” (104, New Culture, New Right, 2013, Arktos). Here is a link to an informative article:

    2. Much appreciated! Thanks! Actually, I only started reading and subscribing to TOQ since 2010. I really enjoy reading that journal. :)

      And Michael O’Meara's book is on my wishlist at Amazon.

  3. The method by which a very small nation gains supremacy over its much larger enemies is to pit its enemies against one another. Islam has not been an enemy of the West for half a milennium. Judaism has much more in common with Islam than the West has with either. Islam vs. The West is a contrivance that benefits only the Jews.

    The U.S. has no national interest in the Middle East and an argument can be made that Israel itself has no interest in the land it has taken from the Palestinians. Since 1904 when Britain recognized Russian Talmudists as representing all Jewry the Zionists have pursued a program that allowed European Jews with no genetic or historical ties to Palestine to establish, in the guise of a "homeland", a center for world dominion They have used amd continue to use European nations to that end.

    The basis for Israel's much touted "right to exist" is the Torah, not the League of Nations:

    "The Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth . . . The Lord shall establish thee an holy people unto himself . . . And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the Lord; and they shall be afraid of thee. . . thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. And the Lord shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath . . ."

    The Zionist program for world domination is a long-term, multi-faceted, relentless program of destruction that includes two World Wars, interminable smaller wars, massive immigration, and cultural Marxism. They use the same tactics over and over again so we should look closely at their history to tell us how to interpret current events and to tell us what to expect.

    1. For sure there are aspects of Islam that are not and have not been at odds with the West. However, a great part of the history of Islam has been characterised by conquest of Christendom. Islam expanded by the conquest of Christian lands from North Africa to Byzantium, and into Spain and other parts of Southern Europe and involved the practices of killing, conversion, dhimmitude, jizya, and slavery. Since the toppling of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century, there has been a re-politicization of Islam, through such figures as Qutb and al Banna, which threatens the West. This threat comes from the massive infiltration of Muslims into Europe via immigration, facilitated by the hands of cultural Marxists, and the accompanying politico-religious Islamist ideology involving the complete rejection of traditional and contemporary Western identity, values, and norms and the replacement of these with Islamic ones.

      The U.S. does have national interests in the Middle East – the support and protection of Israel. The UK and some European countries also share these interests, and, in addition, a seeming contradiction, they have business interests in the Middle East –involving oil among other things. David Cameron, PM of Britain, wants to make London the world capital of Islamic finance:

  4. This bizarre and absurd reading of my 2006 book Londonistan seems fuelled by a visceral, historically false and deeply prejudiced dislike of Israel and Jews. While it is certainly the case that I think hatred of the Jews lies at the core of the Islamist war against the west, to claim that my book is not about Britain but Israel and the Jewish people is utterly false.

    The book is about the way the British ruling class first ignored and then appeased and facilitated the subversion of Britain by Islamist entryism. Chapter by chapter it covers: the way Islamists were allowed to turn the UK into the centre of the global jihad; how Britain’s human rights culture helped facilitate this; the soft-pedalling of Britain’s intelligence community against Islamic radicals; Britain’s paralysis through the adoption of multiculturalism; the radicalisation of British Muslims; how those in Britain who either dismiss or endorse Islamic Jew-hatred are assisting those who are attacking Britain and the west; how both British leftists and antisemitic paleo-cons have formed a lethal de-facto alliance with the Islamists; how the Church of England has undermined Britain’s defence by appeasing the Islamic world; how the British government has given ground to Islamic extremism; and how all these things amount to a form of British social suicide. To claim, as Ellis does, that I “pay lip-service” to Islamisation in order to elicit western support for Israel is as ridiculous as it is offensive.

    Ellis’s article totally misrepresents other views of mine, such as about open borders and mass immigration and American corporate capitalism – about which I actually say nothing in my book. The core of her muddled reasoning, however, is her ludicrous claim that that the west does not have Judeo-Christian roots. This seems to rest on her deep desire to pretend that Christianity and western civilisation owe nothing to Judaism except for the (to her) minor matter of the Ten Commandments. In fact, Christianity would be an empty vessel were in not for its Judaic roots, and the west would have neither morality, reason nor science were it not for the Hebrew Bible.

    Ellis’s analysis, in short, is not just theologically illiterate and factually ignorant but exudes more than a whiff of a very unpleasant bigotry.

    1. The tone and substance of Melanie Phillip's comment evinces exactly what drove me out of the Neocon way of thinking, which I considered sympathetically for a few years as I was moving out of the Left. There is nothing in Ellis's article that can be categorized as "deeply prejudiced dislike of Israel and Jews". Clare's point is that Phillips does not show much concern about the British Whites who are being dispossessed by mass immigration, not just from Muslim countries but from other areas.

      Obviously the "British ruling class" has facilitated Islamic infiltration, and Clare acknowledges Phillips's critique of this ruling class, except that for Clare the ruling class does not consist of Leftists only but of Neocon-minded Brits who are for open borders. Phillips does not address the complicit role of the "conservatives" in Britain in white dispossession for the simple reason the she is viewing this whole issue solely in terms of the threat that Islamic values pose to the West and Israel. And since the "conservatives" take a pro-Israel stand, Phillips seems quite happy with them no matter how many non-Whites arrive in Britain.

      As Clare points out, for Phillips this is a civilizational struggle between Islam and Judeo-Christianity, which is why Phillips has been an avid supporter of wars against Islamic countries. Despite the massive failure of the Iraq invasion, the absurd expectations of the "Arab Spring" and the failed ideas of Neocons in relation to Syria, Phillips is still pushing for military interventions. The claim that Paleo-Conservatives have formed a "de facto" alliance with Islamists, or that Ellis is calling for such an alliance, is flat wrong. In this article, Ellis clearly rejected any such alliances, as do Paleo-Conservatives.

      It is rather unscholarly to accuse someone of "bigotry" for not accepting the claim that the West = Judeo-Christianity. I too question the simplistic equation of the West with "Judeo-Christianity", which Phillips enjoys doing without exhibiting a minimal knowledge of the history of the West, or even of this term "Judeo-Christianity" which is relatively new, coming into common usage only in the last two or three decades, and is not even accepted by many Jews who prefer to keep Judaism separate. It is a Neocon term intended to promote a moral war with Islam as such, rather than protect our borders from mass immigration and follow George Kennan's old style defense of one's national interests.

    2. I have to say that it is quite unfair of you to claim I have a ‘deeply prejudiced dislike for Israel and Jews’. As I made quite clear in my article, I thoroughly support the right of nation states to protect their sovereignty, ethnic interests and borders – this applies to Israel as a nation-state and the Jewish protection of their ethnic interests. You are also quite wrong that I claimed your “book is not about Britain” – I rather said that your book is not about the British people per se.

      My claim is that your book does not deal appropriately with the effects of Islamism and Leftism on the British masses and their ethnic identity and interests. You focus your critique on the intelligentsia and do not pay attention to the outcome Islamism and the traitorous Left have had for the ordinary Whites of Britain. Instead, as I said, you seem distracted by the interests of Israel and the Jews in the face of Islamism, not the natives of Britain.

      In regards to your statement that I claim you “‘pay lip-service’ to Islamisation”, I actually said you “used the title to pay lip service to the issue of the Islamization of Britain”. In any case, why is it “ridiculous” and “offensive” to say that your book is primarily about eliciting “Western support for Israel in its conflict with Palestine and the Muslim-Arab world in particular”? I would like to read your argument that defends those statements. I read your book three times so to get an adequate understanding of what you were saying and it is quite clear that this was your intention, and there is nothing wrong with doing that. There are many authors that take on the interests of other groups in order to win support for their own groups.

      In regards to your claim that I misrepresent your views I would like to ask: if you are neoconservative then do you not support American corporate capitalism and mass-immigration into the West? In addition, to claim that the West would not have “reason nor science were it not for the Hebrew Bible” is quite indefensible, considering the Classical Greeks were critical of religion and introduced the first glimmerings of philosophy and natural science, which are vital to the character, morals, and values of the West.

      Your persistent ad hominem attacks suggesting I am “prejudice”, “factually ignorant”, “theologically illiterate”, and ‘bigoted’ because of my analysis of your books has no basis in reality and violates standards of professionalism.

    3. I have to agree with Ellis. The old conservative line that Western Civilization derives from biblical Christianity is disingenuous given that a) Western uniqueness was already apparent long before Christ, and b) other parts of the world adopted Christianity either before, or at the same time as Europe, without being considered part of European/Western civilization.

    4. "In fact, Christianity would be an empty vessel were in not for its Judaic roots, and the west would have neither morality, reason nor science were it not for the Hebrew Bible. "

      These comments are a perfect example of why mainstream intellectuals are very weak; you can tell that Ms. Phillips doesn't argue with with her peers - probably because they all must agree on everything or be ostracized by the current establishment.

    5. "This bizarre and absurd reading"

      Very telling, right from the start, of the vitriol often directed at scholars who openly criticize their peers. I found nothing but unnecessarily negative
      comments from Ms. Phillips.

      Probably because Ms. Philips cannot defend her thesis.

    6. Here is a recent interview of Melanie Phillips on Sun News that demonstrates her perspectives, as aptly described in the above article:

  5. Typo. In the headline, too: Melanie Philips: Does she care about British natives, or is IT about Israel?

  6. This article and the comments below remind me of a question I have long desired to ask of Duchesne and Ellis, whether they fear retribution against their careers in academia as punishment for mounting a serious intellectual challenge to the highest, the most holy, the most sacred alters of PC Dogma and the cherished modalities of the enforcers?

    1. Elsewhere Phillips correctly criticizes the misuse of "Islamophobia" against critics of Islam, but then reacts in a similar manner against Ellis's critical assessment of her ideas, as if Phillips's views on the West, Israel, and immigration are beyond dispute.

      Unfortunately the academic world is possibly the least open minded place for the exchange of ideas, and it now comes naturally as everyone who goes through the system starting as a student "learns" not to think beyond a certain point, or in a manner that is truly investigative, critical, and dialogical.

      I started paying a price soon after I began to move away from the Left, but there is no way around it, we need an open debate; the views that Phillips expresses are associated with endless wars; it is very revealing that Neocons can keep repeating the same views after being responsible for possibly the biggest mistake in American foreign policy: invasion of Iraq. They have a relatively easy time with the Left, but can't handle views that call for fairness, no double standards, and that reflect concern and loyalty towards European peoples.

  7. While I do not side with Phillips in the debate about the role of Judaism in the West, and I do not think she states her case well, some of her notions on this topic, especially her moral interpretations, do have a distinguished intellectual predecessor in Matthew Arnold, in his writings about the comparative influence of "Hellenism" and "Hebraism" on the West. So for the sake of a better debate, if Clare Ellis wishes to counter Phillips on this topic, she should address Phillips along with the best in the Arnold tradition and, then, attack the entire tradition from there, rather than allow the omission of this reference to intellectual history give rise to an impression that the opposing view is without resources.

    1. Before we consider the influence of Judaism on the West we should ask about the influence of Greek thought on Judaism. One of the required books for a course I am teaching this semester is Rodney Stark's How the West Won, published a few months ago, and in chapter two, after outlining the many-sided inventions of the Greeks in chapter one, Stark considers the role of Judaism and Christianity. These are some of the things he says: "Greek philosophy had a profound impact among the Jews."

      "It was Hellenized Judaism that influenced early Christianity..." "The majority of Jews living in Hellenized western cities were quite assimilated. Moreover, the Diasporan Jews read, wrote, spoke, thought, and worshiped in Greek" (p.33-34).

      Stark considers the peculiar contributions of Judaism as Judaism, which pertain to its way of thinking about God. There is no denying that the Hebrew Bible is a very important source in Western thought. But Phillips is way off mark in saying that without Judaism there would have been no reason, science and freedom in the West. Judaism came into the West as a Hellenized religion, and then Christianity came, which constitutes a break with Judaism in some crucial respects. Then Christianity too was further Hellenized, Romanized, and Germanized in the centuries after. Meanwhile, Judaism on its own evolved into Talmudic thinking, and stayed that way for centuries without playing any role in Western thought.

    2. Very interesting, And I will make it my goal to continue exploring those domains of consideration.

  8. @Awake: Neo-conservatists use the term 'Judeo-Christianity', a term with no historical basis whatsoever, in order to create the impression that we are united together in a battle against Islamism. I very much doubt that Phillips or her colleagues draw upon any distinguished intellectual legacy at all. Rather, they take it as granted that the West is synonymous with Biblical Christianity (and thus by extension Judaism), because it serves their purpose politically. Before any debate on the importance of Abrahamic monotheism versus Pre-Christian European civilization begins, that fact has to be taken in account.

  9. Our dear government are attempting to get control over our Internet again. First there was PIPA and SOPA, then the lie claiming to "fight against pedophilia", and now they want to "end cyberbullying":

    Oh look, they even shut down their comment section so no one can reply! They just proved themselves to be anti-free speech!

    1. @Anonymous
      No government can possibly filter out ALL dissident data and/or bandwidth. This is economically unfeasible.

      Indeed, law enforcement would do better to stick to conventional methodology in dealing with our societal ills such as prostitution, drug dealers, thieves, murderers, rapists, and yes, even terrorists.


  10. Radical Islam is a Zionist creation. It is not the revivification of the centuries-old Muslim conquest of Europe, nor is it an abiding hatred of Christianity, it’s not even a reaction to the impertinence of the Jewish state, but rather it is the “enemy” that Jews, in their quest for global control, have devised to use against Europeans.

    Two key elements of this contrivance are false flag terrorism and massive Muslim immigration into Europe. Both have been necessary to bring the “reality” of Muslim terror home to Europeans so they would misidentify their enemy and be willing to expend blood and treasure in support of a Jewish state that itself was created through violence and terrorism. Immigration is also used to fracture and destabilize European nations with a foreign element whose very real menace is amplified by the media.

    It is a mistake to view Muslim immigration in isolation from false flag terrorism – they have the same author and the same goals. Not only the Zionist perpetrators, but their liberal, fellow tribesmen are in a precarious position because exposure of their authorship of a single false flag event can bring down the whole nefarious construct. It makes liberal Jews – the cultural Marxists - very nervous, and Melanie Phillips is expressing her anxiety by throwing in with the triumphant Likud and doing her part to keep the focus on Islam as archenemy and Judaism as Europe's best friend.


The opinions of our commenters do not necessarily represent the opinions of CEC or its contributors. Please follow the netiquette.

Latest Articles
Duchesne`s Gab Our Gab Our Gettr Our Twitter Our Youtube Our RSS feed