Skip to content

The roots of Hate Crime?

The BBC are currently ‘celebrating’ the 100th anniversary of the “Russian” Revolution during which the first cousin of King George V (father of our Queen Elizabeth), Tsar Nicholas 11 of Russia and his family were brutally murdered by the Bolsheviks.

One individual who was close to these events was Winston Churchill – writing in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of February 8th 1920 under “Zionism versus Bolshevism : A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People” – he wrote: “There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews…”

Almost 100 years on, writing in The Times, Melanie Phillips observes that: “Despite causing appalling suffering, Marxist views are tolerated in a way far-right extremism is not”.

Speaking of the Jewish Marxist Eric Hobsbawn she went on:

“Had he still been alive [today], the Marxist professor Eric Hobsbawm would almost certainly have been asked for his thoughts on the centenary of the Russian revolution. His views would have been treated with respect if not admiration. He might even have been asked to write a few words for some high-minded publication”.

Phillips went on to have a small thought experiment: “Imagine that Hobsbawm was a committed fascist and to the end of his life refused to remove his support and admiration for Hitler. Would such a Hobsbawm have been sought out for his reflections on the anniversary of Hitler’s accession to power? Wouldn’t he have been considered to be utterly beyond the pale as an apologist for mass murder and treated as a social pariah?”

No. And yes.

By some mysterious force, it has been arranged that Hitler is always to be seen as uniquely evil when compared to Communist dictators like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot who individually were responsibly for more death and destruction than was Hitler.

A damning piece of evidence against Hobsbawm came in an interview he gave to Michael Ignatieff on the BBC in 1994.

Following an evasive answer by Hobsbawm to a question about the liquidation of the Kulak class and the millions who perished in the gulags during the Soviet experiment of the 1930s, Ignatieff confronted Hobsbawm: “So what that comes down to saying is, had the radiant tomorrow [communism] actually been created, the loss of 15-20 million people might have been justified?” Hobsbawm answered, “Yes”.

Phillips muses that “…the philosopher Nietzsche and Italian dictator Mussolini believed communism was the force that would bring about the destruction of society necessary to usher in a new civilisation” (curiously, how Marxist inspired Political Correctness is currently doing to western societies!).

Mussolini thought, however, that the proletariat would not create Marx’s socialist utopia. Instead, the revolt by a Nietzschean “superman” would destroy bourgeois institutions. Thus fascism was born.

Malanie Phillips asks why communist ideology, which caused the deaths of so many millions, does not provoke the horror and revulsion that bar fascist supporters from a place in public discourse, and proposes that fascism “only became seen as unconscionable after the holocaust linked it to genocide”, which might explain why the holocaust appears (unlike most historical events) to be gaining increasing publicity as the years pass by.

Thus, force feeding the holocaust to current generations whilst at the same time as conflating nationalism and the “alt right” with “fascism” (and “neo nazism”) seems a smart move by those who wish to control the forces of globalisation and mass immigration.

Take former Labour MP Ed Balls writing in the Times (October 24 2017): “The new Holocaust memorial will remind us where unchecked hatred can lead”.

Balls, now a board member of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, says the Foundation is planning a new National Holocaust Memorial and co-located “learning centre”, to show “unequivocally that Britain will never forget the holocaust” and it will “…be a design for a new national landmark that will become an internationally-recognised statement against hatred.”

At the front of the queue for remembrance, says Balls, will be “the six million Jewish men, women and children who were murdered in the holocaust” but there will also be a mention for “..other victims of Nazi persecution, including Roma, gay and disabled people”.

Its co-located learning centre will explore anti-Semitism, extremism, Islamophobia, homophobia and other forms of hatred and prejudice in society today.


Balls says he is “proud to be part of a nation that wants to put this story right in the heart of its own democracy”, but not everybody welcomes its appearance in Tower Gardens, next to the Houses of Parliament.

The Ghanaian-British architect who won the competition to design the £50m memorial, Sir David Adjaye, has failed to placate opponents of the scheme one of whom labelled his proposal “a silly hill” and a “split-apart ribcage”.

Tory MP Sir Peter Bottomley became the latest critic to voice his opposition to the project and promised to investigate how the site had been selected. “I think the sensible thing would be to go back a stage and allow the public to come to a judgment over the proper location,” he said.

Sir Peter questioned why building in the park was necessary given that the Imperial War Museum, which is less than a mile away, had offered to host the memorial when it was first mooted and was now planning to build substantial galleries dedicated to the subject as part of a £33 million expansion backed by the Duke of Cambridge.

The over arching question is why should there be such a monument (and co-located learning centre) built at all, anywhere in the UK, bearing in mind the holocaust was none of our doing – indeed we went to war with Germany partially over it with all the waste that incurred – and these historical events occurred in eastern Europe almost a century ago?

If “hate crime” in Britain is rising, as Balls suggests, perhaps for the first time we should be allowed a free and open debate about the fundamental causes of such a problem.