Anthony McRoy and the National Front

Brett on Harry’s Place writes:

So, the former National Front activist re-emerges as an evangelical Christian theologian with a specialty in ‘anti-Zionism’ and Islamist ‘resistance’ movements who attends a conference in Iran that is backed by the Holocaust denier in chief, President Ahmadinejad.

Read it all.


Filed under censorship

17 responses to “Anthony McRoy and the National Front

  1. modernityblog

    Was he really in the National Front?

    I asked that question on Roger Pearse’s blog and am awaiting a reply.

  2. Aslan

    The boycot Israel site In Minds state that:
    Dr Anthony McRoy, an Irish evangelical researcher
    Doesn’t sit right that an Irishman would be in the NF, does it?

  3. Aslan

    I always thought the McRoy we are talking about was a former Roman Catholic who was in his youth a supporter of the IRA, just wondering thats all!

  4. modernityblog

    Isn’t it rather a stereotype to suggest that Roman Catholics all support (or have supported) the IRA?

    Strange as it may seem, but they are BNP supporters living in Ireland, as can be seen from the leaked membership lists, and I suppose that would have applied to the National Front too.

    But I would like some concrete evidence before making a judgement on this, Dr McRoy could clear the matter up quickly.

    Sadly, Roger Pearse is deleting any questions on this topic and I wonder if anyone has Dr McRoy’s e-mail address?

    If so, he could clear it up in a tick.

  5. zkharya

    Aslan, McRoy is a Scots name, not an Irish one. There are plenty of British nationalist types among cultural North Irish Protestants (Richard Seymour comes from a Loyalist background, I believe), and plenty that leave all that, having become born again Christians. McRoy is ex-NF, although Brett observes a possible continuity.

  6. Aslan

    Mod, just repeating what I had heard, not making any judgement.

  7. Anon

    Forgive the holier-than-thou nature of this comment, but as a Christian, do you really think this negative and unforgiving way of criticising people is honouring to God?

    (Ignore Sizer, McRoy, everyone else you may disagree with for now. They have to answer for their own behaviour. Is how you have behaved the right way for a Christian to act?)

  8. Aslan

    Exposing error in the name of God is the reason for the start of Protestantism is it non anon?

  9. modernityblog


    Want to do a small guest post on my blog?

    Your comments at Roger Pearse’s are getting deleted (I know I get them via email) and they are very lucid on these matters.

    I think they shouldn’t be lost, just drop me an email and I’ll put them up later on 🙂

  10. zkharya

    It’s posted below, Mod.

    Another thing I’ve noticed is that in his article on Melanie Phillips, he imputes to her remarks from Wikipedia which are completely unsourced. The Wikisources link back to no writings of Phillip where she said such things. I’m going to change the Wiki entry, shortly, but I thought people might like to read it first:

    Under the Israel section she is alleged to have:

    ‘called the Palestinians “a terrorist population”, and argued that while “individual Palestinians may deserve compassion, their cause amounts to Holocaust denial as a national project”.[22]’

    But the source is not Phillips herself.

    Sizer parrots it wholesale:

    Some of his references are completely bogus, e.g. footnotes 13 and 14.

    ‘As I said, I think the root of the problem between Mr Weissman and myself is our different positions on Palestine. The basis of my position is Amillennial eschatology, plus concern for equal rights for all people, irrespective of race and creed.’

    That is manifestly untrue. If you grant Lebanese Shi’a Islamic resistance quasi-Christian legitimacy, you must also to Jewish. Especially since Christian tradition holds ancient Jewish militant resistance as the antithesis to Christian self-sacrifice.

    You clearly grant Palestinian Muslim and Christian dispossession some measure of right of return and restoration, yet explicitly grant none to Jews. Logically, it seems to me, you must.

    Sizer has a similar problem. While he professes to stick to traditional Christian doctrines, he wholly avoids the inconsistency that arises when one holds to the New Testament and Patristic position that the Jews are dispossessed of temple, city and land as a punishment for their sins, but holds contrariwise when the same thing happens to Palestinian Muslims and Christians. Especially when Palestinian and other Arab Muslims and Christians historically attempted to exclude, dispossess then eliminate Palestinian and other Jews.

    McRoy has not, it seems, commented on this issue specifically, but he often refers to Israel by the Arab and Islamic nationalist code of ‘Zionist regime’, and the tenor of his discourse is highly anti-Zionist i.e. opposed to any Jewish national notion of right of restoration and return. Particularly vicious, as I have observed, is his misrepresenting the martyred saints of Rev 6, 9 as calling for revenge on Jerusalem, as opposed to Rome, for the reasons I state above, and then equating modern Jerusalem i.e. the modern state of Israel with the crucifiers of Christ.

    That is a very primitive and unsophisticated recapitulation of gospel anti-Judaism as anti-Zionism, with the modern state of Israel playing the role of neo-crucifiers, like the Jews of the gospels.

    The New Testament and Patristic forebears of Sizer and McRoy manifestly did not respect Judaism, and held the Jews to be justly dispossessed as a punishment for their rejection of Christ. One consequence of that is that, even in the 19th and 20th centuries, Jews were regarded as more nationally Judean than European or Arab, most being either killed or driven out, before 1914 mostly to America, after 1914 mostly to Palestine or what became Israel. Palestinian Muslims and Christians were among those in the world who most believed Jews to have been dispossessed for their rejection of Jesus and the prophets. Yet they denied Jews a refuge, even from genocide, never mind any kind of right of return or restoration. In addition to their traditional apartheid against Palestinian Jews, they then sought to halt all immigration in the late 19th and early 20th century, then sought to dispossess or eliminate Palestinian (and other) Jews.

    None of this finds mention in Sizer or McRoy, who consistently fail to subject their adopted charges, Palestinian Muslims and Christians, to the same standards they do Palestinian, Israeli and other Jews. There is no acknowledgment in their writings that Jews have been regarded as a nation dispossessed for most of Christian history, making the assertion or implication that Jewish attempts at national return and restoration is illegimate, while the Palestinian Muslim and Christian is wholly just, itself a rather grave injustice. The contrast in attitude between these two national movements is obviously unequal and unfair. How they reconcile this with their notion of Christian justice, I do not know.

    Indeed, as I said, there is rarely an indication in Sizer or McRoy that Palestinian Muslims and Christians have ever had any nationalists or national movement which has has an active role in the choices that have led to their plight e.g. rejecting partition and making war on Palestinian Jews, least of all a moral critique of it. All their moral criticism, usually to rigorous criteria, is reserved almosts soley for Jewish nationalism, nationalists and the Jewish state of Israel.

    This is an obvious bias, where Palestinian Christians and Muslims are let practically off the hook, while only Zionist, Palestinian or Israeli Jews are treated as moral adults with active agency in their and Palestinian Muslims’ and Christians’ fate. This omission resembles certain forms of Orientalism, where Arab Mulisms and Christians are treated as moral infants, with no real agency of their own.

    Manifestly McRoy and Sizer do not subject both or all parties to the same moral criteria, which is clearly an act of injustice in and of itself, hardly in accord with the absolute justice they claim to observe.

  11. Aslan

    OK I’ve just read McRoy’s response on Roger Pease blog, he says “Having repented of my sinful views as a youth, I have spent the last thirty years as embracing Biblical multi-racialism and opposing sectarian oppression, without compromising on the uniqueness of Jesus.” This seems to be confirmation that he was a member of the NF in his youth.

  12. modernityblog

    I got that too, but it is a very round about way of saying it.

    I’d like to know directly and for how long was he a member.

  13. modernityblog

    PS: I got that, I read it as an email follow up (they don’t get deleted) but I was wondering if you want that piece to be published on a wider plane?

    I thought it deserved that, but it is up to you.

  14. zkharya

    It’s quite common for Northern Irish Protestant UVFers or NFers to repent and become born again Christians. I don’t know why you’re making such a big deal of it. Can’t people repent? Brett’s observations aside, hounding someone for youthful indiscretions is a pretty barren policy.

  15. Aslan

    He obviously has turned his back on that ideology and repented. I do however think the analysis on his shifting from right to left but keeping the Jews (Israel) in his academic cross-hairs is fair.

  16. seismicshock

    “He obviously has turned his back on that ideology and repented.”

    Sure? If true, what would you say about this?

    British Muslims could learn a lot from the BNP!

    “”The issue of style is also important in terms of TV appearances. Note how polished and able BNP spokesmen like Griffin and Simon Darby are – articulate, intelligent, credible. Although Muslims do possess some effective spokespeople such as Inayat Bunglawala, Anas Altikriti, and Salma Yaqoob, there are still too many men with Goodness Gracious Me accents dressed in south Asian clothes, struggling with English who appear on TV. Griffin even trounced Jeremy Paxman in 2001 – no mean feat. BNP spokesmen never lose their temper, never rise to the bait, and always come over well. British Muslims could do worse than learn from their example.”

  17. modernityblog

    Doesn’t sound very academic to me, more of an advocacy role?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s