The question is simple: Why do the writers at Loonwatch hide their identities?
Monday, 21 September 2015
The question is simple: Why do the writers at Loonwatch hide their identities?
My guess is that Loonwatch writers use fake names for one very simple reason: they have something to hide. Why else would Loonwatch writers use false names?
So are the writers at Loonwatch mainly Muslims with a couple of Trotskyists/communists (nowadays called “progressives”) thrown in for good measure? Or are they mainly Trotskyists/communists with a couple of Islamists thrown in for good measure?
No one knows because every Loonwatch writer uses a fake name.
Indeed it's hard to get your head around the fact that atheist (Marxist) materialists could have so much sympathy and respect for Islam without thereby also becoming (or being) a Muslim. Unless, that is, it's all cynical political opportunism.
Loonwatch's Danios, for example, wrote a book (The J Word: Jihad, Between Hype and Reality) which tells us that jihad really and truly is all about peace, love and cuddles. He's also written many articles defending all things Islamic. So why isn't he a Muslim? If he's a revolutionary International Socialist, perhaps he's doing what many Leftists are doing: attempting to “tap into the revolutionary potential of Muslims” (as the the UK's Socialist Workers Party puts it). In addition, perhaps “the worse it is, the better it is” (Leon Trotsky's mantra) for revolutionaries in that the more violence and conflict Islam brings to the West (along with mass immigration), the more they can make use of such “revolutionary situations” to further their own non-Islamic causes.
As I said, what else can explain this omnipresent and supremely perverse convergence of theocratic Islam and atheistic Leftism?
It seems that Garibaldi has stopped writing for Loonwatch (at least for the time-being). Though how could anyone know that for sure when 'Garibaldi' is a fake name in the first place?
The main writers nowadays are Emperor and Dorado. In fact Emperor seems to write the vast majority of stuff at Loonwatch... or does he? For one, who's to say that Garibaldi and Emperor (or Dorado) aren't the same person? Indeed perhaps Emperor is a collective name used by many Loonwatch writers. The writers at Loonwatch might also have decided to use the same name/s in order to put readers off the scent (as it were).
In any case, Nathan Lean denies being Garibaldi. The solution to that problem (as with Danios) is that Garibaldi should come clean. It really is that simple. What's he hiding? He should give up on the cloak-and-dagger student Leftism/Islamism and tell us who he really is.
Garibaldi did ask why Nathan Lean would use another name when he regularly publishes stuff about counter-jihadists and Robert Spencer in his own name. The answer is again uncomplicated. Nathan Lean's Huffington Post, interfaith, etc. stuff is written in a journalistic style and his books are seen to be academic and objective. However, as Loonwatch's Garibaldi, Nathan Lean can indulge his other persona: a vicious, nasty (red) fascist who's utterly intolerant towards all who dare to disagree with him. He would never get away with such viciousness, student sarcasm and intolerance at, say, an interfaith meeting or event. Only Loonwatch caters for such extreme rhetoric and nastiness. Nathan Lean may simply be letting off steam through his alter-ego: Garibaldi.
Thus Nathan Lean has two personas:
i) A vicious loud-mouthed Leftist.
ii) A cuddly interfaith academic.
The former preaches violence, direct action, hacking and the denial of free speech. The latter preaches religious/political pluralism, peace and equality.
And what I've just said about Nathan Lean will probably be equally applicable to most/all of the other writers at Loonwatch. After all, they use fake names too.
Actually, one Loonwatch writer, Danios, did appear to come clean about who he is when he wrote the following in 2010:
“.... I am currently a post-doctoral fellow at an Ivy League university and instructor at a state university. Coming out of the closet at the present time would pose some logistical problems for me, which is why I have chosen to do it at a later date. Does this answer your question, Spencer?”
However, because Danios also uses a fake name, there's no reason to believe a word of that. Then again, it is, in fact, plausible that Danios is a Leftist “post-doctoral fellow at an Ivy League university and instructor at a state university”. After all, UK and US universities are full of Leftists who have the hots for their free-speech-hating brothers – the Islamists. Despite that, it's also possible that Danios (or Garibaldi/Nathan Lean) works for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). In reality, judging by his prose style, I would go for the Marxist academic option even though it's very difficult to distinguish Leftist totalitarians from Islamist totalitarians nowadays. Or as Mark Humphrys puts it:
“Loonwatch.com - run by leftists or Islamists, it's hard to tell. And isn't that a sad comment on the left!”
These people are so desperate that they even make the claim that people in the “counter-jihad movements” (all those wackos and loons!) also use pseudonyms. So what's the big deal with Loonwatch anonymity?
Take Danios again.
He cites various examples of counter-jihad writers who use pseudonyms; as in the following:
“Nonie Darwish and Nahid Hyde are the same person. 'Sultan Knish' is actually Daniel Greenfield. 'Baron Bodissey' of Gates of Vienna is actually Edward May. 'Bonni' of Bare Naked Islam is actually Bonni Benstock-Intall. Fjordman is actually Peder Jensen.”
So Danios informs us that Sultan Knish “is actually Daniel Greenfield”. Hah! Daniel Greenfield himself tells us he's Sultan Knish on his Sultan Knish website! Similarly, you can find this out within a second if you Google his name. You can't do that with Danios because there's no Wikipedia piece on him.
As for Nonie Darwish, her face can be found all over the Internet.
I suspect that some of the other examples cited by Danios keep their names secret because if they didn't, they'd very likely be killed by the kind of Muslim fanatic Danios defends. Could Danios himself be killed for what he's writing? That would be highly unlikely. In any case, that's not the reason why he uses a pseudonym. He uses a pseudonym for the simple reason that were it known who he is, his job (of enabling Islam and jihad) would be made a whole lot harder. (Danios himself admitted this when he said that “[c]oming out of the closet at the present time would pose some logistical problems for me”.)
The other bizarre thing is that, in one breath, Danios tells us about the counter-jihad loons and wackos who use pseudonyms; and then, in the next breath, he tells us exactly who they are. That kind of defeats the object... doesn't it?
One article, by Sheila Musaji, repeatedly tells us that Robert Spencer (of Jihad Watch) has “avoid[ed] debating with those who are skilled debaters”. The prime example of a skilled debater is, I presume, Danios himself. That's odd. Can you really call a man who uses a pseudonym – and who's never debated anyone face to face - a skilled debater? Can you call a man with no acknowledged tenure or details about his employment history a skilled debater? (Danios and Loonwatch often criticise Robert Spencer's credentials.) Indeed perhaps not all of Danios's pieces are by Danios – how would we know?
“Robert Spencer at first said that I am willing: if 'Danios of Loonwatch' reveals his real name, finds a university willing to host the debate and contracts an impartial moderator, I’m ready when he is. Spencer expanded on the issue of Danios pseudonym saying Sorry, I don’t debate fictional characters or pseudonyms. 'Danios of Loonwatch' can go debate Scot Harvath or Harold Robbins.”
And this is what Danios himself says about Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer:
“It will then be seen if you can defend your own writing, which I argue is a load of sensationalist crock. Will you accept my challenge to debate or cower in fear? My guess is that you 'know [you] can’t refute what I say' and will 'resort to…haughty refusals to debate'...”
That reads like something you'd see in a student Trotskyist rag. Firstly you've got the tabloid “sensationalist crock”. Then the machismo “cower in fear”. This stuff makes Facebook/Twitter seem like University Challenge. I mean after all that Leftist/Islamist vitriol and viciousness, would a debate between Danios and Robert Spencer really be worthwhile?
In any case, you get the feeling that the writers at Loonwatch would like to skin alive the tens of millions (or more) of us IslamophobicNazifascistracistbigots who exist in the world today. Yes, all those millions who dare to have a problem with Islam and its massively murderous impact on the world today.
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 04:42
Saturday, 12 September 2015
We campaign against the Conservative Party because…
THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY IS A RACIST PARTY, particularly targeting Muslims, blacks and the poor with its unfair, racialist and discriminatory immigration and benefits policies. This is a party which has only allowed a paltry two million immigrants into the UK since 2010!
What better proof or racism and bigotry could there be?
The Tories have attempted to stir up Muslimophobia, racistoids and hatred with their bigoted patriotic speeches and asylum policies. They want to divide our communities: the poor from the even-poorer, Muslims from the dirty kuffar, black from the white, and red from brown-types.
They claim to oppose ‘extremism’ but Tory supporters have been filmed saying nasty things about Islam and immigrants.
For example, one member (from far-right Rotherham) said that “Muhammed wasn't that nice”. Another Naziracistfascistbigot said:
“Does Islam really mean 'peace'? Really? Are you pulling my leg or something? So does that mean that the Pope is a Protestant and Weyhayman Bennett is the Lord of Hackney and Tower Hamlets?”
THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY IS RIDDLED WITH FASCISTS. It has had close connections to the National Front going back to the 1560s. In the 1930s it was very closely connected to the German Internationalist Socialist Workers Party (which was, of course, led by Eddie Elizabeth Hitler). Between the 1960s and 1980s, the ultra-fascist Monday Club (which once included our very own Teddy Taylor) was essentially a Tory club. And there were its connections with neo-racist and very-white Rhodesians. David Cameron himself once walked on the same side of the street as Nick Griffin and Mother Theresa May once refused to wear a black dress. Cameron and Osborne also went to the same public school as someone who knew the second cousin of Nick Griffin's pet dog. (We have evidence of this from the SWP's Callinicos and Kimber – who went to the same public school.)
Many more former members of the BNP, the Internationalist Front and the League of Saint Corbett have also been active in the Conservative Party.
Conservative supporters have also frequently been photographed giving Eddie Hitler’s ‘sieg heil’ salute, being critical of Lenny Henry's superlative comedy and refusing to buy delicious halal meat.
THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY IS VIOLENT in its support of endless capitalist wars and the incarceration of Muslim freedom fighters in the torture chambers and concentration camps of Guantanomo Bay - a place in which literally millions of Muslims have been murdered and tortured.
The Tory Party's core supporters are members public-school gangs who've joined forces to form a Capitalist Class to rob poor Leftist professors, social workers and lawyers and give it to the Far-Right Rich.
THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY IS A DANGER TO US ALL. It started by targeting the poor. Now it targets Muslims, immigrants and Marxist professors. It's increasingly aiming its neo-neoliberal violence and neo-fascism at other traditional targets of the Further Right: trade-onionists, anti-aunties, and anti-cuts protestors; as well as at nice Muslim people and black-types. All with the manufacturing of consent that's daily carried out by the Daily Mail and Rotherham Advertiser.
Conservative Party leader ‘David Cameron’ has issued vocal threats to university students protesting about having to pay tuition fees in order to become members of the Leftist Elite.
THE CONSERVATIVE LIES when it claims it has the support of minority groups such as Hindus, Sikhs and Marxists. Its attempts to recruit from these groups have failed miserably and any who do join the Tory Party are Uncle Toms with clinical-diagnosed False Consciousness.
Moderate Muslim organisations (such as al-Qaeda, the MCB and Hezbollah) have all spoken out publicly to condemn the Conservative Party's Muslimophobia and anti-immigration policies.
THE TORIES ARE TRYING TO CREATE A CAPITALIST DICTATORSHIP to terrorise ethnic-minority communities and Marxist professors... as well as the poor.
In the end, Unite Against Fascism believes that the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is the only party which can be trusted. Capitalism and democracy have always caused racism, war and poorness. Thus we call for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat under the rule of Sir Alex Theodore Callinicos, Lord Charles Nicolas Kimber and Weyhayman Bennett.
UAF also calls for a broadening of the “no platform” policy into a Universal Gulag Policy in which all Nazifascistracistbigots will be used as forced labour to feed the tens of millions of immigrants we would then allow into this country.
Make your Community Cohesive.
And Viva la violent Revolución!
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 04:51
Friday, 11 September 2015
Interviewer: “What should happen to the Israelis who live there [in Israel]?”
Pamela Hardyment (InterNazi): “I don't care. They can fuck off, basically. Go into the sea. They're not coming here. We would actually march against Zionists coming here as refugees.”
Interviewer: “So you want the genocide of the Israelis, yeh?”
InterNazi: “Yes. Six million Jews there.”
Interviewer: “So you want another Holocaust?”
InterNazi: “I don't know what the Holocaust is... The Jews... we're fighting them.”
Interviewer: “You do realise that 20% of Israelis are Arabs don't you?...”
InterNazi: “I'm tainted by Zionism.”
Interviewer: “You're a racist.”
InterNazi: [Laughing] “He's calling me a racist! He's calling me a racist!”
Interviewer: “You said that you want six million Jews in the sea.”
InterNazi: “I want them out of Israel.”
Interviewer: “You'll have to kill them all.”
InterNazi: “Then so be it.”
Pamela Hardyment is probably from a leafy part of Islington (London). She'll know lots of other International Socialist (InterNazi) middle-class professionals with exactly the same views about Israel, “Zionists” and Naziracistfascistbigots. Many of whom will also wear the compulsory keffiyeh. It's possible she's a lecturer or mature student at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies) or some other bastion of Leftism (e.g. the law, charities, etc.).
Anyway, as everyone knows, it's logically impossible for an International Socialist to be racist. Only white working-class “knuckle-draggers” and other Nazisracistfascistbigots are racist; as well as “capitalist neo-liberals” in suits and ties.
No; the Pure and Pious Progressive Fighters against Oppression and Injustice are beyond reproach. Without sin. The zelous fighters against racism and all things Western are morally untarnished.
How can a white, middle-class Guardian-reading professional living somewhere in Islington possibly be a racist? The very thought!
In any case, hear that neat and seamless slide from “Zionists” (her first response) to “Jews” (second response).
Pamela Hardyment even comes out with the classic trope: “I'm tainted by Zionism.” Of course it used to be: “I'm tainted by the Jews.” Yes, just by being near supporters of Israel this InterNazi felt herself to be “tainted”.
She even denies the Holocaust. She says: “I don't know what the Holocaust is.” No one should be surprised by communists or Trotskyists denying the Holocaust. This is a tradition which goes back to the 1960s and has become far more prevalent within InterNazi circles in recent years.
"All you [Jews] understand is money"
ZF Video Exclusive: “All you Jews understand is money”When it was announced that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was going to visit the UK, anti-Israel groups organised a protest against him. Within minutes of pro-Israel supporters setting up our own solidarity rally, we were approached by this gentleman. Despite the claims that anti-Israel activists are only motivated by concerns for “justice” and “human rights,” he soon began brandishing a penny at us. “Here’s a penny...that’s all you understand...you understand money!” he said – proving that it was open anti-Semitism, not anything else, which motivated him to be there.We are pleased to report he was later taken away in handcuffs.
Posted by ZF UK - Zionist Federation on Wednesday, 9 September 2015
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 03:57
Saturday, 1 August 2015
Hope Not Hate has just published a report ( 'The Muhammed Cartoons') on a forthcoming cartoon exhibition which will feature the prophet Muhammed. It has also featured this exhibition in a recent website piece (click here).
The exhibition itself is scheduled for the 18th of September and it will take place in London.
This is the main claim of the piece:
“Our report... reveals that while some people are supporting the exhibition out of a strong belief for free speech, others are hoping for a violent reaction from British Muslims in order to prove the incompatibility of Islam in the West.”
You can assume that the stated main worry (as opposed to the real one of being against the criticism of Muhammed) is that counter-jihadists “are hoping for a violent reaction from British Muslims”. As ever, if Muslims do react violently, non-Muslims will be blamed. ( Nick Lowles once blamed Charlie Hebdo for the Islamic violence against it which happened before the recent killings.)
So let's be absolutely clear here: Hope Not Hate wants to ban the exhibition. Nonetheless, Nick Lowles does say that “if the exhibition goes ahead” then his organisation will do X and Y. Though if Hope Not Hate has its way, it will be banned. (My bet is that it will be banned.)
What else would Hope Not Hate ban if it had the political power to do so? After all, the banning of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from the UK was a direct response to Hope Not Hate activism. (Here is Hope Not Hate itself claiming victory!)
Hope Not Hate's Position
Nick Lowles's position is ridiculous anyway. If acted upon, it would render almost all demonstrations, acts, groups, parties, etc. illegal simply because some of the people involved in them may be planning illegal acts elsewhere and at other times.
So let's bring this argument closer to home.
There will be many Hope Not Hate and Unite Against Fascism (UAF) supporters - and indeed leaders - who believe in violent revolution; that 'bankers', 'Tories', etc. should be strung up; and that “racists” and “fascists” should be imprisoned for what they believe, not for what they do. Many supporters of Hope Not Hate and UAF will have also indulged in violent political acts. Indeed, although Hope Not Hate is less violent than UAF, the violence of Hope Not Hate supporters is well documented (as can be seen on the Nope, Not Hope website).
Thus, by his own reasoning, Hope Not Hate exhibitions, demos or activities should also be banned. Indeed since Hope Not Hate has called for the banning of political parties, groups and individuals (as well being the main force behind the omnipresent Leftist “no platform” policy), it can be said that Hope Not Hate itself should be banned because of its communist or totalitarian inclinations.
“We believe in free speech... but...”
Nick Lowles rather ridiculously says that Hope Not Hate's
“opposition to the cartoon exhibition is not an attempt to curtail free speech....”
… You can hear it coming, can't you?... “but”! Yes, Nick Lowles continues by saying “but to prevent a clear incitement to violence” the exhibition should be banned.
In any case, it all depends on what Lowles takes the words “incitement to violence” to actually mean. To him and to others socialists/”progressives”, many varied things will be seen as incitements to violence: critical remarks about Islam, Muhammed or the Koran; critical remarks about immigration; EDL demos; and so on. Indeed the very existence of patriotic parties and groups will be deemed as incitements to violence by Lowles and Hope Not Hate. And that's one of the reasons why Lowles's socialism or communism always leads to totalitarianism.
You can also see how Nick Lowles uses the old trick of “guilt by association”. He connects Anne Marie Waters (of Sharia Watch), for example, with all sorts of bogeymen. Nonetheless, the majority of these bogeymen have never carried out a terrorist attack; never condoned terrorist attacks; don't believe in violent revolution; and are committed to democracy and free speech. Their only real sin, then, is to criticise Islam. And because many followers of Islam have brown skin, that is indeed a sin to Hope Not Hate. After all, as many people know, Hope Not Hate is a racist organisation that has different moral and political standards for people of different colours.
The other strange thing is that just after mentioning Tommy Robinson and Anne Marie Waters, Lowles writes that counter-jihadists “make little or no distinctions between moderate or hardline followers of the religion”. Yet Tommy Robinson and Anne Marie Waters have made precisely that distinction. What happened to them? They were heavily and violently criticised by both Leftists and the Muslim community for doing so!
That must mean that if you make a distinction between hardline and non-hardline Muslims, you loose. And if you don't make such a distinction, you also loose.
Despite all that, some counter-jihadists do believe it's possible for some “Muslims and non-Muslims to get along peacefully” (to use Nick Lowles's words). Nonetheless, it's suicidal to place all our eggs in that basket. Because there are far too few Muslims who can be classed as moderate or reformist (discounting nominal or tribal/family Muslims), it would be madness to do so. Indeed look around the world to see which kind of Muslim is gaining the upper hand at present.
Perhaps there are more seemingly moderate Muslims in the UK simply because Muslims are currently a minority. But what's going to happen once the Muslim population increases? As it is, Muslims on the whole are far more radical and extreme than they were twenty or even ten years ago.
Nick Lowles's touchy-feely stuff (which is insincere anyway) about “Muslims and non-Muslims getting along peacefully together” isn't going to become a self-fulfilling prophesy any time soon.
The fact is that a civil war is very likely to occur in the UK whether or not there are any counter-jihadists or “far-rightists” egging it on. How do I know that? Well, Muslims have already caused civil conflicts in the UK dating back to 1989 and most notably in 1996 and 2001. (E.g., riots in Dewsbury, Bradford, Oldham, Burnley, Birmingham, London, etc.) There have also been Muslim riots in Paris, Oslo, Malmö, Marseilles, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Gothenburg, Stockholm, the Hague, Dijon, Tours, Orleans, Nantes, Grenoble, Toulouse and so on. And then there were the Islamic terror attacks in Europe: in Madrid (2004), Paris (1995, 1996), London (2005), Copenhagen (2015), Brussels (2014), Toulouse (2012), Montauban (2012), Frankfurt (2011), Stockholm (2010) and so on.
Now we can think globally and see what happens when Muslims live next to non-Muslims in the Philippines, southern Thailand, Burma, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Indonesia, Armenia, Albania, Chechnya, the Sudan, Libya, Nigeria. Israel/Gaza and so on. The list, basically, includes every country in which Muslims live next to non-Muslims. In virtually all cases, there is violence – often mass violence.
Civil war in the UK (rather than civil conflict) will be entirely dependent on Muslim demographics. In order for full-scale civil war to ensue (rather than civil conflict – which could occur tomorrow), the Muslim population would need to have reached a certain level – a certain critical mass.
Now when it comes to certain demographers on the Left, by 2050 the Muslim population would have only increased by one or two people. Some on the Right, on the other hand, have forecasted a British Muslim population of 100 million by the same period... As you can see, I'm joking. So all I can do here is cite the lowest possible figure of around fifteen million Muslims by 2050. However, the lowest estimate I've seen – by Channel 4 News - puts the Muslim population at 10% by 2050. (It doesn't give the numbers; though the percentage must mean that at least ten million Muslims will live in the UK by that date.) The Commentator, on the other hand, argues that Muslims will be the majority by 2050.
Consequently, Hope Not Hate and Lowles's fluffy (if insincere) words and anti-free speech actions will ultimately lead to more violence, not less.
1) Nick Lowles knows that every single banning, act of censorship or imprisoning that's ever occurred has been carried out under noble rationales not too dissimilar to his own. In other words, no one simply bans, censors or imprisons for the hell of it. Every banner or censurer in history has given a whole host of impressive reasons for doing so – just like Nick Lowles. It still ends up with the same result – banning, censorship or imprisonment.
So carry out this act of imagination. Imagine what would happen if Nick Lowles and Hope Not Hate had total/complete political power. I'm pretty sure that thousands of people (probably more) would need to be imprisoned and virtually all right-wing parties would be banned. Perhaps the Conservative Party wouldn't be... at first.
Of course this scenario is far-fetched in that even I can't see it happening. But the best way to stop such a thing happening is to understand the true nature of Nick Lowles and Hope Not Hate's politics. The more people who are fully aware of that, the less chance this totalitarian will have his way. And, luckily, many people do realise all this – even a couple of Conservative MPs probably do so. Having said that, HnH has the full support of the Mirror, various trade unions, all Labour MPs, most councils, the Guardian, the Independent, large parts of the legal establishment, the universities (at least at the official level) and so on.
2) Nick Lowles is a communist; though, for publicity reasons, I would guess that his preferred term would now be 'socialist'. Of course it's hard to establish Nick Lowles's views in terms of documentary evidence because the Guardian, the Independent and even right-wing newspapers have rarely interviewed him or even discussed him, let alone asked him what his political views are on issues not directly related to “fighting racism and fascism”.
And just as Lowles frequently attempts to besmirch people by associating them – however tangentially – with Nazifascistbigots, so we should do the same with Nick Lowles himself. For example, he can be linked to the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Communist Party of Britain and various extremely violent “anti-fash” groups in the 1980s and 1990s. (Matthew Collins, Lowles's second-in-command, began life as a black/Nazi fascist and is now a red fascist.)
What does Lowles think about, say, capitalism, “public ownership of the means of production”, what causes racism, the nature of the United States foreign policy, the Conservative Party and so on? He must have views on all these issues. And, indeed, some of his political and theoretical views on these things will determine to some extent his position on the nature of racism and fascism and what to do about them. So, again, other than being against racism and fascism, what does Nick Lowles believe? Is any Guardian or Independent journalist ever going to ask him these questions? After all, they scrutinised and quizzed the EDL's Tommy Robinson until the cows came home. Is Nick Lowles an untouchable simply because he's a Leftist rather than “far right”?
3) Some supporters and activists within Hope Not Hate and Unite Against Fascism yearn for such violence as much as Nick Lowles claims the “far right” does. After all, every communist/socialist revolution in the 20th century only occurred after much violence and political turmoil. “The worse, the better.”
4) The thing is that laws already exist “to prevent a clear incitement to violence”. (Though they're very rarely used against Muslims.) You can't ban simply on the whim of a theoretical interpretation of a future event or a set of words. And you can't ban before there is any actual incitement to violence.
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 22:22
Tuesday, 28 July 2015
The British government must face facts. Whatever action it takes to counteract Islamic extremism in the UK is bound to (as the BBC puts it) “attract criticism from parts of the British Muslim community”. So let's simply take that for granted.
In other words, the government will always be seen as “alienating Muslims” or “putting all Muslims in the same basket”. This will be the case whether or not what David Cameron does is forceful or pathetic. Any action whatsoever will produce criticism from Muslims; as well as from left-wing groups and individuals.
Prime Minister David Cameron
Despite all that, in that last few days David Cameron has said (yet again) that he hopes to encourage “Muslim reformists” and “moderates”. The problem with that is these genuine reformists and moderates (the few that there are) are always violently criticised by a whole host of other Muslims. Basically, the genuine Muslim moderates are seen as Muslim Uncle Toms by the bogus moderates and by large sections of the Muslim community.
That means that the small number of Muslims who do speak out are immediately pounced upon by a much larger group of pseudo-moderates; as well as by many Islamists and radicals who don't even pretend to be moderate.
Nonetheless, Cameron has said he'll set up a “community engagement forum” which will be designed to provide a voice for Muslims fighting extremism within their own communities.
Cameron has previously talked about getting Muslim moderates to speak up. Back in 2007, for example, he said that the “hardline members” of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) were “crowding out more moderate voices”. (The MCB is a sleek and sly Islamic advertising campaign aimed primarily at non-Muslims.)
And as recently as January 2015, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles wrote a letter to more than 1,000 imams and Muslim leaders asking them to publicly condemn the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket in France. Guess what, the MCB and nearly all other Islamic groups criticised the letter with the usual rhetoric about “criminalising an entire community”.
This is the catch-22.
When forces outside of the Muslim community take action against Islamic extremism, Muslims resent that precisely because it's outsiders who are taking the action.
However, when Eric Pickles asked the Muslim community itself to tackle Islamic extremism, the reaction was just as negative. As I said, the MCB still talked about “stigmatising Muslims” despite the fact that Pickles and the government were attempting to work with elements within the Muslim community.
Mr Pickles reacted to this in the only way he could.
If outside action against Islamic extremism is castigated by the Muslim community, and inside action is also given the same treatment, then it wasn't a surprise that Pickles concluded by saying that some/many Muslims had “a problem”. And he was dead right!
In any case, David Cameron has fluctuated (depending on which way the wind is blowing) between being a touchy-feely fan of every aspect of multiculturalism to being a strong critic of its vices.
In a speech in Munich in 2011, for example, Cameron talked about a new "muscular liberalism". He went on to say that "the passive tolerance of recent years" had to make place for a more open and vocal defence of “British values” (i.e., in order to stem of rise of Islamic extremism in the British Muslim community). Indeed he said that one consequence of our free-for-all multiculturalism and zelous tolerance was that many Muslims – in dozens of British Muslim ghettos - no longer really belonged to British society.
Does any of that sound familiar?
Moments after the London bombings of 2005, the Labour Prime Minister of the time, Tony Blair, had the idea of setting up a commission to look at multiculturalism. Blair said that "the rules of the game have changed" because of that Islamic terror attack. He went on to say that there
"are people who are isolated in their own communities.... That worries me because there is separateness that may be unhealthy”.
Blair suggested various programmes to counteract Islamic extremism in the UK. They included plans to deport foreign Muslim clerics without appeal; the banning of extremist Islamic groups; and the shutting down of “radical mosques”. These plans remained precisely that – plans.
Muslims and left-wing groups reacted to Blair's ideas in predictable ways. In fact there was so much noise from Trotskyist “super-lawyers” and suchlike that hardly anything was actually done.
So many previous plans to “combat extremism” were anything but that. In fact they ended up being actions to advance Islam instead.
After the London bombings of 2005, again, Tony Blair and the Labour government said that “anti-terror strategies” had to change. So what happened? A “rapid rebuttal unit” was set up to fight “Islamophobia”. Just before the bombings, in 2004/5, the Labour Party had also proposed laws which would have effectively criminalised the criticism of Islam. That legislation was blocked by the House of the Lords. Nonetheless, a watered-down version did become law in 2006. It is now known as the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006.
Action was also taken to make sure that Islam became a bigger part of the National Curriculum in British schools.
Now what had all that to do with fighting Islamic extremism?
In 2013, however, Abu Qatada was eventually deported to Jordan to face trail. Before that, in 2012, Abu Hamza was extradited to the United States and faced trial there in 2014. None of this was thanks to the Trotskyist lawyer and Socialist Workers Party-supporter Gareth Peirce (who, at various times, defended and freed both Hamza and Qatada) and other members of the Leftist (legal) establishment.
Mohammed Dilly Hussain
Mohammed Dilly Hussain (the Deputy Editor of the website 5 Pillarz) exemplifies the problem the British government and authorities have with Islamic extremism.
This is the guy who referred to Ahmadis as being less than monkeys; liberals as “drunken, pisshead liberal garbage”; and moderate Muslims as “coconut sellout[s]” (not Uncle Toms). He has also criticised the persecuted (by the Islamic State) Yazidis of Iraq. On the positive side, he praises the Islamic Caliphate and can't bring himself to criticise the Islamic State. (You can see his obnoxious tweets here.)
Basically, Hussain is at war with non-Muslims. Yet this man has frequently appeared on the BBC, he's written for The Huffington Post and he once claimed that he was going to start working for The Independent.
Dilly Hussain exemplifies the problems the government has in two ways.
One, in the way the the government itself, the BBC and other authorities keep on relying on Islamic extremists to “tackle Islamic extremists”. Two, in the way that Hussain himself exemplifies the attitude that many Muslims have towards genuine Muslim moderates and reformists.
Dilly Hussain firstly puts the case for the pseudo-moderates. In the Middle East Eye he writes:
“Like his predecessor, Cameron is refusing to engage with Muslim organisations with grassroots support in tackling extremism, be it the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) who the Prime Minister dismissed as 'having a problem' over extremism, or Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND) that was tarnished by The Telegraph as 'entryists' with an Islamist agenda during the run up to the general election.”
Since Dilly Hussain is a fan of the MCB and MEND (though they may not be “radical” enough for him), it won't be a surprise to anyone that he's not a fan of Quilliam. This is what he said about that organisation:
“I guess the greatest irony of Cameron’s crusading speech was that Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation helped put it together.... this is the same individual who outraged the Muslim community for posting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad [they weren't caricatures at all] .... It was former Metropolitan chief superintendent Dal Babu who highlighted the highly problematic choice of allocating taxpayers money to the Quilliam Foundation, which he said was viewed with deep suspicion, and had minimal or no support in the Muslim community.”
Hussain is right when he says that Quilliam has had almost zero support from Muslims. Why? Primarily because it's not an Islamist or a “radical” Islamic group. Thus it's basically seen, by many Muslims, as an organisation for Muslim Uncle Toms.
In the end it seems that Islamists and radical Muslims (as well as their left-wing enablers) win no matter what happens.
If the actions of the government are forceful and strong, then such actions will be deemed to be “forcing Muslims into extremism”.
If the government does next to nothing, then Muslims are free to become as extreme as they like. Indeed some Muslims even end up being free to commit violent acts.
However, the situation has got markedly worse precisely because the government and other agencies have done next to nothing to combat Islamic extremism in the UK. Oh, I forgot, they have indeed funded and publicised “moderate” Muslim groups which were in fact anything but moderate.
One can only assume that Muslim groups such as the MCB - as well as left-wingers of various persuasions - don't want any action to be taken against Islamic extremism. And that can only mean that they want such extremism (i.e., Islamism) to increase.
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 03:37
Monday, 20 July 2015
Marxists (or revolutionary socialists) were against Western “capitalist democracies” because they created and then allowed poverty and inequality. Then, in the 1950s and 1960s, many Marxists were against capitalist democracies because they created and then allowed affluence (or “materialist consumerism”).
Many contemporary Marxists are against capitalist democracies because they don't allow sexual freedom, rights for ethnic minorities, free speech, etc. Other Marxists are also against capitalist democracies because they do allow these things.
Take the case of the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek. According to Jennifer Wallace (during an interview with the philosopher), Žižek believes that capitalist democracy “allows sexual freedom, grants rights to ethnic minorities, and upholds free speech” (page 311).
However, a Marxist like Žižek isn't happy with all that because “we actually live within a regime of self-imposed, hidden, and eroticised prohibitions”. Or to use Žižek's own words:
“Precisely by dwelling in this postmodern world, effectively your life is much more regulated.”
Žižek continues by saying that “beneath the appearances of free choice, it's a much more severe order because it terrorizes you from within”.
Marxists like Žižek have glided effortlessly from arguing that capitalist democracies impose their “prohibitions” on people; to arguing that such prohibitions are “self-imposed, hidden, and eroticised”. Of course that may still mean that it's capitalist democracies which are – indirectly - doing the imposing of such prohibitions; even if people are now seemingly doing it for themselves. That may be because the subjects of capitalism have “internalised” (Chomsky's term) such prohibitions. That is, many people still suffer from that old malady which all non-Marxists suffer from - “false consciousness”. (One variation on the Marxist notion of false consciousness is Noam Chomsky's “manufacturing of consent”.)
None of this should be a surprise. After all, Žižek's still a revolutionary socialist and anti-capitalist. And all this pseudo-freedom still occurs within capitalist democracies. Thus, almost by definition, Žižek sees dark in the light. That's his job. He's a Marxist.
It's not only the case that “sexual freedom”, “rights [for] ethnic minorities” and “free speech” are simply not enough for Žižek, it also seems to be the case that these peripheral matters end up becoming counter-revolutionary in nature. Indeed Žižek hints at this when he states the following:
“In the old days of essentialism.... the left focused too much on simple economic issues and the primacy of the class struggle. Now the days of essentialism are over and instead of the one struggle, you have plurality, gay rights, ecology, ethnic identity, whatever.”
Žižek becomes more explicit when he concludes by saying:
“I nonetheless claim that the price paid for this apparent plurality is that something has been excluded. Nobody on the left really thinks about a global alternative to capitalism.” (pg. 314)
Since Žižek himself mentions Marxist “essentialism” (he also uses the phrase “the left focused too much on simple economic issues and the primacy of the class struggle”), that would appear to suggest that Žižek is against such a thing. However, when you actually read his work, it doesn't seem that way at all. Indeed it doesn't even seem that way when you read the full passages in which these claims about essentialism are made.
For example, Žižek repeats his idea of “apparent plurality”. That must mean that such plurality is unreal simply because it occurs within capitalist democracies. But how does that follow? Why can't these things be real and yet still occur within capitalist democracies? Is Žižek such an zealous anti-capitalist that he rules that out by definition?
It's clearly the case that Žižek believes that “plurality” can only be real (not “apparent”) within a “global alternative to capitalism”. In other words, “gays rights, ecology, ethnic identity”, etc. mean almost nothing if they occur within capitalist democracies. They will all remain apparent or unreal. Though how and why are they unreal? It's not enough to say it's because they all occur within capitalist democracies. We need to be given reasons as to why Žižek holds this view.
Žižek explains his position thus:
“... today's capitalism, rather, provides the very background and terrain for the emergence of shifting-dispersed-contingent-ironic- and so on, political subjectivities.” (page 108)
You'd think that Marxists would argue that capitalism works against “the emergence of shifting-dispersed-contingent-ironic- and so on, political subjectivities”. Yet Žižek is saying the exact opposite. It seems, then, that capitalist democracies are criticised for not allowing “political subjectivities” and they're also criticised for allowing them! Žižek is admitting that it's capitalist democracies themselves which allow “political subjectivities” to flower and flourish – and he doesn't like that.
Žižek goes into detail as to why capitalist democracies - rather than stopping the expression of “subjectivities” (or “hybrid entities”), have, in fact, enabled them or even brought them about. And Žižek, as I said, isn't happy with this.
Žižek has a problem with capitalism's enabling of Difference and the Other.
Žižek says that capitalism
“has created the conditions for the demise of 'essentialist' politics and the proliferation of new multiple political subjectivities. So, again, to make myself clear.... [capitalism] creates the very background against which 'generalised hegemony' can thrive.” (319)
Let me put that in plain English.
Multiple political subjectivities are a problem for Žižek because he doesn't want them: he wants the working class (as a whole) to fight capitalism. Or, at the very least, Žižek wants all the other subjectivities to unite behind the “hegemony” that is the working class. This multiplicity of “hybrid identities” simply muddies the water that is the ancient (Marxist) class war.
Žižek puts his case more explicitly by arguing against the Argentinian “post-Marxist” philosopher Ernesto Laclau. The latter believes that “all elements which enter into hegemonic struggle are in principle equal”. However, according to Žižek, “there is always one which, while it is part of the chain, secretly overdetermines its very horizon”. That “part of the chain” is of course class. This must also mean that “economic, political, feminist, ecological [and] ethnic” struggles (or what Žižek calls “antagonisms”) are all peripheral to the class struggle. Indeed, as a Marxist, Žižek evidently believes that.
You see, what postmodernists, post-structuralists, multiculturalists, etc. don't realise is that all this
“playing with multiple, shifting personas... [simply] tends to obfuscate... the constraints of social space in which our experience is trapped” (103).
In other words, all this “playing” occurs within capitalist democracies. It really is that simple. Therefore it's all an example of “playing” because it's all carried out with the domain of capitalism “in which our experience is trapped”.
I don't suppose that Žižek ever out-rightly says that all this playing is utterly pointless because I suspect that such an explicit statement - or absolutist stance - would work against his image as a hip and radical philosopher (even a “dangerous” one). Nonetheless, he comes pretty close to saying that!
No Alternative to a Marxism Revolution
Žižek is showing his 'totalist' credentials in that, like all Marxists, he will never be happy until the whole of society - not just his own academia and other Gramscian “institutions” - belong to Marxists like himself.
Žižek knows as well as anyone else that many – probably most – postmods, post-structuralists, etc. have problems with capitalism (even if they don't essentialise it as Žižek himself does). Their problem, according to Žižek, is that they aren't outright Marxists who believe in (violent) revolution. Similarly, they don't see everything in terms of “class antagonisms” either. However, it doesn't also follow from all this that they see capitalism as being “the only game in town” (as Žižek claims they do).
Again and again Žižek argues against any position (or any “subjectivity”) which works against total Revolution. Despite that, it's of course the case that Žižek must (in a sense) support these “subjectivities” otherwise he'd be classed as a reactionary (or even a fascist) by some non-Marxist radicals. However, Žižek's support for these subjectivities is violently qualified. In fact he's fundamentally against the dilution or dissolution of the class war.
The bottom line, then, is that postmods, poststruts, etc. aren't outright revolutionary Marxists (or old-fashioned Marxist fundamentalists). The apostasy of the postmods, etc. is their “silent suspension of class analysis”. Žižek also believes that “class antagonism is disavowed” (97) in postmod, post-structuralist, etc. analysis and theory. And that's a great sin against Marx and the Revolution.
Žižek not only accuses the postmods, etc. of being counter-revolutionaries: he also gets personal. He argues that because postmods, etc. aren't in favour of violent revolution (as he appears to be), then they must of necessity pay “somewhat 'excessive' attention to” such things as “sexism [and] racism” (97). Now that sounds like a terrible thing for such a trendy philosopher to say. It could easily be seen as, God forbid, reactionary. Žižek, of course, has an easy answer to that blasphemous accusation. It's this:
Instead of paying excessive attention to racism, sexism, ethnic identity, ecology, etc. you postmods, post-structuralists and whatnot should look at the true causes of sexism, racism and indeed of all evils – capitalism. You're simply focusing on the symptoms rather than on the true cause.
This is why Marxist (especially Trotskyist) collaborations with feminists, blacks, gays, Muslims, etc. are only ever half-hearted; or, more accurately, opportunistic and cynical. In the black-and-white mind of the Marxist there always lurks the idea that postmods, gays, Muslims, blacks, etc. should be agitating for total Revolution; not putting plasters on the wounds of capitalism. In other words, all this newfangled “human rights, ecology, racism, sexism” (97) nonsense simply gets in the way of real change. And that real change, of course, can only be brought about by Revolution.
The problem, according to Marxists, is that not only have these groups and individuals got it all wrong: they're actually working against Revolution and, ultimately, in support of capitalism.
Žižek alternative to pluralism (as well as to multiculturalism) is uniformity – Marxist uniformity. Marxists like Žižek have always seen Marxism as a “universal” ideology or belief-system. Or as Žižek himself puts it:
“The only way to break out of this deadlock is to propose and fight for a positive universal project shared by all participants.”
That “universal project” is one which includes the “fight for emancipation” and the “struggle against neocolonialism”. That Grand Narrative is Marxism. In other words, what will tie the so-far warring tribes, religions and even classes together - within a multicultural or pluralist society - is a joint commitment not to patriotism or shared civic, social and political values/traditions, but the sharing of Marxist theory, Marxist ideology and Marxist causes.
Slavoj Žižek, 'Rotherham child sex abuse: it is our duty to ask difficult questions', published in the Guardian, 1st September, 2014.
Predictions: 30 Great Minds on the Future (1999), edited by Sian Griffiths, 'Slavoj Žižek: Closing the Gap' (interview by Jennifer Wallace).
Posted by Paul Austin Murphy at 00:18