Tuesday, 29 July 2014

The Muslim Council of Britain rejects the “Trojan Horse” reports







The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has rather predictably
said that it


“unequivocally condemns all terrorism and extremism and we have not seen any evidence to date of such activities in Birmingham schools”.*


I say predictably not only because the MCB is a Muslim Brotherhood organisation, but also because it has been directly connected to this Islamisation-of-schools affair itself.



The MCB, for example, produced it's own “plot” for the Islamisation of state schools in 2007 (which was published on its website - more of which later). It also has many direct connections with some of the Islamist plotters.


And despite the negative findings of Peter Clarke's report, as well as the numerous testimonies and details found in many newspaper articles, the MCB is still talking about “allegations”.

So what would need to happen in order for the MCB to stop talking about mere allegations? What sort of evidence would it require? What kind of trustworthy body (to the MCB) would need to be set up to look into these things? (That's if the MCB believes that they should be looked into in the first place.) Perhaps something run Muslims in conjunction with the Respect Party? Perhaps an investigation carried out by the MCB itself?


That Hoax Letter Again


It's unbelievable that the Muslim Council of Britain is still going on about the “hoax letter” which “purports to outline a plot by Muslims to takeover schools” when virtually all the people involved in this affair - including the strongest critics of these schools - have already and often said that it the letter is probably a hoax. Indeed some have said that it is a hoax. And yet out of desperation or deceit (or both), the MCB, Salma Yaqoob, The Guardian et al are still repeatedly telling the public what the public already knows – that this letter was probably a hoax.


The other ironic thing is that a genuine “letter” - or “plot” - was actually written for the MCB itself (back in 2007) by the now well-known Mr Tahir Alam of Park View school (also a “human rights defender” and Chair of the MCB Education Committee), as well as by Muhammad Abdul Bari (who was the Secretary General of the MCB at the time). That document was on the website until a couple of months ago when the MCB website was revamped. (It may have been erased before that.) I have seen it and so have various journalists and many other people. Indeed I provided a direct link to it in a previous article.


In any case, think of the terrible inference involved here. Because a single letter may well have been a hoax, it seems to surprise the MCB that “accusations of an extremist plot still persists”.


Why can't a plot still have occurred even if that single letter was a hoax? Why is everything dependent on that letter? Indeed why is the MCB referring to a “plot” in the singular when - from the details of the many investigations - there were many plots by many people in many schools? In fact it is argued here that these schools could still have been Islamised without the need for a cloak-and-dagger or a behind-the-scenes plot.


The reason why the MCB's focus is on a single plot is because the MCB is still fixated on the hoax letter which outlined a single plot. Yet the Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Times, the Daily Express, The Independent, the Birmingham Mail (though not, of course, The Vanguardian), the various investigators and the many people involved in this case who have offered testimonies have made it clear that if anything there have been various plots by various people at various times. In other words, there wasn't a single centrally-planned plot which followed, to the letter, the dictates of a single (hoax) letter. And that's hardly a surprise.


Evidence of Extremism?





So the MCB says that there's no “evidence of extremism in Birmingham schools”. What can you say to that? There is a very large amount of evidence which has been published by our national newspapers and, indeed, in Peter Clarke's report. This evidence includes dozens of testimonies from teachers, parents, MPs, councillors, journalists and all sorts of other people both directly and indirectly involved in Birmingham’s schools (as well as other schools).


I suppose that it entirely depends on what the MCB means by the words “extremism” and “evidence”.


It can be suggested that because the views of the MCB concur with the views of the Muslims involved in the Islamisation of Birmingham's schools, then, evidently, it won't see any anything that's happened as being extreme.


And it follows that if the MCB doesn't see the report's citations of Islamic extremism as extremism, then it won't accept that there's any evidence of extremism either.


The MCB's position really isn't that complicated.


However, there is one statement from the MCB - as well as from Peter Clarke's report - which is difficult to understand.


The MCB itself quotes Clarke this way:


“Mr Clarke says in his report that 'I have seen no evidence to suggest that there is a problem with governance generally' (10.1)...”


I guess - from what I've read and what Muslim teachers and governors have said - that this means that in terms of the academic achievements of these schools, they've done quite well. The argument must therefore be that because these schools have been relatively successful (academically), then either that means that they shouldn't have been investigated or that academic success itself must mean that there can't have been any Islamic extremism (or plots) in the schools. But that simply doesn't follow.


Think about the admittedly extreme theoretical case of a school run according to a National Socialist (Nazi) or a Stalinist “ethos” (rather than the “Islamist ethos” of Peter Clarke's report). This Nazi or Stalinist school, nonetheless, is still academically successful (as Nazi and Stalinist schools were). Would that automatically mean we should leave these schools alone? Would it also mean that the schools couldn't be be extreme simply because many of their pupils have managed to get so many qualifications?


One Confession?

[Tahir Alam, of Park View school.]




The MCB does deign to admit to one thing (though even this admittance doesn't amount to much).


The MCB writes:


“The evidence Mr Clarke cites, for example of social media conversations exhibiting inappropriate behaviour are indeed very disturbing and may constitute grounds for disciplinary, procedural and legal action.”


This is hardly a confession of guilt. That's because the MCB may argue that what happened on social media can hardly be said to have directly involved Birmingham's schools as such. However, it just happens that these “conversations exhibiting inappropriate behaviour” were carried out by Muslim governors and teachers at Tahir Alam's Park View school. All in all, there were 3,000 messages spaced over 130 pages (all administered by Park View's Acting Principle). These comments included:


i) “highly offensive comments about British servicemen”
ii) “scepticism about the truth of the reports of the Lee Rigby murder and the Boston bombings”
iii) “disparagement of certain schools of Islam” (probably Shia and Ahmadiyya Islam)
iv) “a stated ambition to increase segregation in schools” and
v) “explicit homophobia”.


The MCB wants us to conclude that because what they said didn't literally happen inside the investigated schools, that this somehow makes them inconsequential; or, at the least, less relevant. Indeed Mr Alam - when questioned on Radio 4 (at 8 minutes, 20 seconds) – has said that these extreme comments “need to be looked into” (which doesn't amount to much). Nonetheless, he denied any knowledge of the conversations. Yet, as the interviewer said, all of these comments were written by teachers and governors at his own school. Indeed he knows all of them. What's more - and let's not beat about the bush here, these extremists believe exactly the same things as Tahir Alam himself.


In addition, even though these extreme comments were made by governors and teachers at a school in Birmingham (Park View), the MCB still has the audacity to say that we shouldn't “ascribe guilt by association”. That, quite frankly, doesn't even make sense. These extremists were teachers and governors at a Birmingham school which has been under investigation. So how can Peter Clarke – or anyone else - be guilty of ascribing “guilt by association”? 


                        **********************************************

*) It seems that the only ones who've conflated “terrorism” and “extremism” - at least in the case of Birmingham's schools - has been people like Salma Yaqoob and the MCB itself; not Peter Clarke, The Telegraph and the other investigators involved in this affair.)

Sunday, 27 July 2014

David Ward MP: Anti-Zionist?

Mr_David_Ward_MP
David Ward MP (for Bradford East, England)/PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons

Meet the Member of Parliament for Bradford East, David Ward. He’s a well-known serial offender.

Yet again he’s just come in for criticism (from MPs of all parties) for his recent comments on Israel’s attempts to stop Hamas’s relentless rocket attacks.

I suppose the generous amongst us will call him an “anti-Zionist” rather than a “Jew-hater”. However, since he uses the word “Jew” (or “Jews”) as much as he uses the word “Zionist” (or “Israeli”), let’s just say – to put it mildly – that there’s at least some room for doubt here.

Why David Ward Thinks Hamas Fires Rockets



600px-Flickr_-_Israel_Defense_Forces_-_Infographics_-_Hamas_Rocket_Threat
IMAGE CREDIT: Wiki Commons

The most obscene part of David Ward’s latest “vile” (according to his fellow MPs) SWP-like harangue is the part in which he said that if he “lived in Gaza”, he’d “fire a rockets” into Israel too.

So why obscene?

The answer should be staring people in the face.

Israel’s recent actions were a response to months – actually, years – of Hamas rocket-attacks. You know, the kind of situation which no country on earth (including the UK) would put up with for more than, say, a week.

Yet David Ward (MP) seems to be reversing the causal sequence here.

Does he genuinely believe in this case of backwards causation in which Hamas has been firing rockets for years in response to Israel’s very recent actions?

I suppose David Ward may say that Hamas rocket-attacks were in response to previous Israeli actions.

That’s simply not true.

Hamas fires rockets into Israel for three main reasons:

i) To kill Israeli civilians.
ii) To help destroy Israel.
iii) To cause an Israeli counter-attack which will inevitably bring about a virulent anti-Israeli response in the West. (Bingo! That’s exactly what happened!)

In other words, Hamas rocket attacks are most certainly not retaliatory in nature: they are politically strategic.

Another claim that David Ward has made is that Hamas is firing rockets because it is “desperate” and because “politicians in the West are failing them”. Yet any group could say it’s acting from desperation; whether that be al-Qaeda today or the Red Brigade in the past.

In Hamas’s case, it can easily be argued that it alone is intentionally creating this desperate situation. And Hamas is doing so because only desperation, chaos and death will bring about the situation it wants: a strong Western reaction against Israel’s actions (which David Ward hints at) and then, in good time, the destruction of Israel.

Like revolutionary Trotskyists, Hamas requires a desperate situation because only that will make it politically successful and enable it to get what it wants. Hamas, therefore, requires high numbers of Palestinian dead as well as social disintegration. (Trotskyists require high levels of unemployment, social disintegration, etc.)

As Trotskyists put it, extreme situations “radicalise people”. Without extreme situations (of desperation), Trotskyists and Hamas (as with the Nazis in the 1920s and 1930s) wouldn’t stand a chance of getting what they want or gaining the support they require. Hence instability and death are engineered in Hamas’s case.

This case of ugly Realpolitik can be summed up by a phrase which was actually coined to express the revolutionary Trotskyist position; though it also sums up Hamas’s stance:

“The worse it is, the better it is.”

David Ward’s Past Statements



What of David Ward’s previous diatribes against Jews and Israelis?

He was suspended from the Lib Dem parliamentary party in July 2013 for such comments. He also had the whip withdrawn for three months.

Much of what David Ward has said is pretty much student-SWP stuff. For example, he says that Hamas fires rockets and sends suicide bombers into Israel because of the “occupation”. Well, Hamas pulled out of Gaza in 2005 and the West Bank has been run by the Palestinian National Authority for years.

In addition, if the Gazans don’t want to be “occupied”, then perhaps they should persuade Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel.

That is unless David Ward MP means the occupation that is Israel. That is, does he believe that Israel itself is “occupied territory”? Now if he means that, he should say that.

Foreign_Secretary_in_Bradford_(4748090641)
The British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, and Baroness Sayeeda Hussain Warsi at a mosque opening in Bradford/PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons

Is David Ward saying all these things because the vast majority of his constituents are Muslims or because he sincerely believes them? If the former is the case, then the vileness of his comments is compounded by his ugly careerism. If the latter’s the case, his opinions are simply vile.

Mr Ward is an MP for Bradford East, which includes:

i) Little Horton (which has a large Muslim demographic – all its councillors are Muslim)
ii) Bradford Moor (a large Muslim demographic – all its councillors are Muslim)
iii) Bowling and Barkerend (a large Muslim demographic – with 3 Muslim councillors)
iv) Bolton and Undercliffe (a large Muslim demographic)
v) Eccleshill (a small Muslim demographic)
vi) Idle and Thackley (a small Muslim demographic).
Some of those wards have very large Muslim demographics. Indeed in some parts of these wards the population is exclusively Muslim.

Death to Israel!



Houthis_Logo
1st line: “Allah is great.” 2nd line: “Death to America.” 3rd line: “Death to Israel.” 4th line: “A curse upon the Jews.” 5th line: “Victory to Islam.” IMAGE CREDIT: Wiki Commons

Of course David Ward’s problems with Israel go much deeper than Israel’s recent actions. Much deeper. The reality is that if Israel had never counter-attacked against Hamas, he would still be a virulent critic of Israel.

Why?

Because Mr Ward believes that Israel shouldn’t exist. I doubt that he says that to many non-Muslims; though that’s undoubtedly what he believes. In fact he’s actually come pretty close to saying precisely that.

He believes that Israel, for example, is an “apartheid state”.

Yet if David Ward wants to criticise apartheid states, perhaps he should criticise Saudi Arabia, Egypt (especially under the Muslim Brotherhood), Libya, Kuwait, Algeria, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Iran, etc. Indeed ISIS – in conjunction with other Sunni Muslim groups – is trying to ethnically cleanse Iraq of Christiansat this very moment in time. And those Christians who haven’t fled will be subject to the classical dhimmi status that has existed for up to 1,300 years in the apartheid-ridden Islamic world.

Now I doubt that David Ward’s many Muslim constituents would want to hear all that coming from their MP.

And just as the UK media’s favourite Islamo-Trotskyist Salma Yaqoob said that Israel’s “days are numbered”, Ward has also said that the “Zionists” are “loosing the battle”. Perhaps he’s right. After all, he too is trying to bring about the end of that “battle”.

A Lesson in Semantics



Yes! Yes! Yes! Semantically it is indeed the case that the words “anti-Zionism” and “Jew-hatred” are not synonyms. That is, “anti-Zionism” doesn’t mean hatred of Jews.
The problem is that most of the “anti-Zionists” I’ve read about – and talked to –  either started out as good old-fashioned Jew-haters (then rather predictably became anti-Zionists); or they somehow fused their Jew-hatred and anti-Zionism from the very beginning.

This must surely mean that these semantic debates about the difference between between being a Jew-hater and being an anti-Zionist don’t really matter that much. They don’t matter because the fact still remains that nearly all anti-Zionism is driven by a pre-existing Jew-hatred. Indeed such a debate simply ends up being an entirely linguistic affair. (The sort of thing English analytic philosophers might have engaged in the 1950s.)

Let’s put it another way:

Jew-haters believe the same things about Israel as anti-Zionists. And indeed most anti-Zionists believe the same things about Jews as Jew-haters.

Consequently, the more semantic we get about this issue the more we move away from the political (as well as psychological) reality and the more we move towards verbal bullshit.


                                      **************************************













Friday, 25 July 2014

Salma Yaqoob's Birmingham




[Image above: Salma Yaqoob, possibly when she was instigating the Birmingham Muslim Riot of September 2009. Not long after her rant, in which she repeatedly said, 'Whose streets? Our Streets! Whose streets? Our streets!...", Muslims rampaged through the city-center streets of Birmingham attacking any non-Muslim they could find.]


This is what it says on the Wikipedia tin about Salma Yaqoob:


“Salma Yaqoob (born 1971) is the former leader, and former vice-chair of the Respect Party and a former Birmingham City Councillor. She is also the head of the Birmingham Stop the War Coalition and a spokesperson for Birmingham Central Mosque.... In 2006, Yaqoob received the Lloyds TSB Asian Jewel Award for Public Service Excellence while Harper's Bazaar magazine named her in the top thirty list of British women... In 2008, she was voted to eleventh place in the Birmingham Post's Power 50 list of the most influential people in the city.... she was also included in The Daily Telegraph's annual list of 'Top 100 left wingers'.... According to The Gaurdian newspaper, Yaqoob is 'the most prominent Muslim woman in British public'....”


The information which follows is in marked contrast to the sycophancy portrayed above. It seems that to many of the positive/inverted racists of the Left, if someone hits the prize of being both brown (or a Muslim) and a woman at the same time, then she can effectively say and do just about anything she likes without fear of reprimand and or even mild scrutiny.


The real Salma Yaqoob



[A meeting of the Respect Party. Apparently, Respect isn't "communalist".]

*) Salma Yaqoob was once the leader of the UK's Respect Party. This party, early in its career, quickly came under the influence of the revolutionary Trotskyist group, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). It was also strongly endorsed and supported by two Muslim Brotherhood organisations: the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and the Muslim Association of Britain (the latter, particularly, is strongly connected to Hamas).


Respect has been called a 'communalist’ (i.e., Muslim) party by some commentators; and the “UK branch of [Pakistan's] Jamaat-e-Islami” by others.


*) Salma Yaqoob seems to have begun her political career, in 1998, as spokeswoman for the ‘Justice for the Yemen Seven’ campaign to free seven men from Birmingham who had been convicted of terrorist activities in Yemen. This was three years before Yaqoob was ‘spat at’ in 2001. Yaqoob said that the spitting was in response to the 9/11 attacks. Yaqoob also said that this spitting incident (if it happened) “politicised” her; even though she'd been an activist for Muslim/Islamic causes – as just stated - since at least 1998.



Some of the terrorists she campaigned for were related to both Abu Hamza (the notorious Muslim cleric) and Salma Yaqoob herself.


*) Since 1998, Salma Yaqoob has talked about the “hype around terror alerts” (2011) and said that Israel's “days are numbered”.


*) In 2011, Salma Yaqoob refused to take part in a standing ovation for Afghanistan veteran Lance Corporal Matt Croucher.


According to Yaqoob herself, the “ovation was just a big public show, it was false patriotism”.


In response, Liberal Democrat councillor Martin Mullaney accused Yaqoob of wanting to see Britain become an Islamic republic. Mullaney said:


“If Coun Yaqoob had her way, she would be implementing Hadood Law, with hands cut off and stonings.”


He continued:


“I can only assume that if one of the failed 21/7 London suicide bombers had been in the council chamber, Coun Yaqoob would have been demanding the council applaud the failed suicide bomber for their past heroic actions.”


Mullaney also provided a link to an article written by Coun Yaqoob entitled 'The Islamic Republic of Great Britain'. Yaqoob has claimed that this piece is ironic. It is ironic. In fact it's a piece that conveniently allowed her to express her many kuffarphobic and Islamist views under the guise of irony.



[What happened after Salma Yaqoob's speech in Birmingham.]


*) On the 5th of September, 2009, Yaqoob addressed a crowd made up of mainly Muslims, SWP students and SWP lecturers at Birmingham's Bullring. She is on video shouting: ‘Whose streets? Our streets! Whose streets? Our streets!...’ (As can be seen on this video.) Not long after that, hundreds of Muslims rampaged through the streets of Birmingham city center attacking random shoppers and anyone else who was non-Muslim. (Douglas Murray's report on this Muslim riot can be read here.)





[Image above: Salma Yaqoob's "reprisal attack" in London.]


*) Salma Yaqoob's very latest political role is as the leader of the Hands Off Birmingham's School campaign. This time, rather than defending right of Islamic terrorists to carry what Yaqoob called “reprisal attacks” in the UK, now she's defending the right of Islamists to take over state schools. Incredibly, according to Yaqoob there's not a shred of evidence that there were any Islamist plots to take over British schools. Instead, it's all a question of the “political motives” of both the critics and investigators of the schools as well as Michael Gove deliberately attempting to increase “fear and suspicion between Muslim and non-Muslims in the city [of Birmingham]”.


Islamic Birmingham


This are just some of the stories from Birmingham’s recent Islamic history.


Terror in Birmingham


*) In a report a few years ago, MI5 said that there were 80 known terror cells and 35 suspect Islamic groups in the West Midlands region - more than twice as many as London.


*) In 2006 there was a plot to behead a British solider, it led to arrests in the city. The Muslim responsible plotted to behead the British soldier "like a pig" and film the killing in a lock-up garage. Parviz Khan then planned to broadcast footage of "the ghastly death" in an attempt to spread panic among the armed forces and the public.


*) The Tipton Taliban’ (an area in Birmingham) were imprisoned after being captured in Afghanistan.


*) In 2011, a group of 12 Muslims were held in police custody on attempts to commit “mass murder”. The plot was to kill at least 2,000 non-Muslims with nail-bombs and other devices. Seven of the group confessed and were charged and the remaining are still facing trial. Two of the Islamic terrorists were from Salma Yaqoob's Sparkbrook and Sparkhill.


*) Five Muslims from Birmingham (one from Sparkhill) admitted to a plot to bomb an EDL demo in 2012.


*) Wounded soldiers in Selly Oak were harangued by Muslims in 2010.


The “Spy Camera” Affair


As a result of the above, West Midlands Police decided to install CCTVS (or what Muslims and their Trotskyist enablers called ‘spy cameras’) in various Muslim areas of Birmingham, such as Sparkbrook and Washwood Heath.


Not long after this, there was a campaign against the CCTVS by various Muslims, Islamists and radical Leftists. This culminated in a public debate at Sparkbrook (6.7.2010) in which the police promised to remove the CCTVs.


In that debate Lord Nazir Ahmed threatened ‘civil unrest’ (this can be seen here) if the cameras weren’t immediately taken down. (Lord Ahmed has been suspended twice from the Labour Party: once for placing a bounty on George W. Bush's head and the other time for talking about Jewish conspiracies. He also once threatened to "bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the Lords if the campaigning anti-Islamist Dutch MP Geert Wilders was allowed to speak" at a broadcast of the film Fitna.)


At the same meeting Salma Yaqoob also said:


“If the police do not remove them, will you join me this Summer to take every single one down?”


This too is on video.


Only a short while after West Midlands Police promised to take them down, West Midlands Police told the Birmingham Mail (31.10.2010) that it was expecting a “Mumbai-style attack on the city [Birmingham]”.


Just a few weeks later, West Midlands Police did begin to take the CCTVs down.


Birmingham Schools (Before the Trojan Horse Affair Became News)


*) In November 2010, the Education Secretary Michael Gove warned that schools in Birmingham have been targeted by Islamic extremists trying to infiltrate the education system. (This was four years before what Salma Yaqoob started talking about “hype” and “witch-hunts” regarding Birmingham's schools.) He told MPs there were “genuine dangers” due to extremist influence in state schools.


*) The Daily Mail published a feature on a Birmingham Islamic schools. Darul Islamic High School School, Small Heath (Birmingham), was also featured. As a result of this, the Daily Mail (14th Feb, 2011) said that Muslim teachers had “met with police chiefs”.


Mosques


*) A Channel 4 ‘Undercover Mosque’ program (2007) revealed the widespread preaching of jihadist doctrine in Birmingham. (See also 'Undercover Mosque: The Return'.)


*) In early 2011, Channel 4‘s Dispatches programme (‘Lessons in Hatred and Violence’) broadcast a feature on Birmingham’s mosques and Islamic schools. It showed, with a hidden film, that such mosques were rife with Islamic extremism. A preacher/teacher is on film saying “the disbelievers are the worst creatures”.


Another film showing a preacher/teacher talking about Hindus:


“The Hindus do, they drink piss... Do they have any intellect? No.”


Birmingham Lib-Dem MP, John Hemming (Yardley) defended Green Lane mosque by saying:


“If Channel 4 thinks this is a school where racism and intolerance is accepted in any way, they have got their facts seriously wrong.”


End-comment


On the 20th January, 2011, The Telegraph published a feature on Birmingham. In it there's a quote from a Belgium Muslim who had moved to Birmingham. He was quoted (by the Telegraph’s Ed West) as saying:


“Everybody knows. Birmingham - best place in Europe to be a pure Muslim.”


The same article stated that “a large Taliban flag fluttered daily on a house near St Andrew’s football stadium ]Birmingham City] for some months”.

 

Tuesday, 22 July 2014

Two contradictory reports on the school-takeover plot?




 
Two reports into the “Trojan Horse” Islamist plot to take over various schools in Birmingham have just been published.



The problem is that they're said to “contradict” each other. In actual fact, however, it's more a case that several of the people involved in the affair have said that the two reports contradict one another. That may simply mean that the dissimilarities between the two reports have been overplayed for political reasons.


Take the case of a Shabina Bano, the Chair of Oldknow Academy Parents' Association. (Oldknow Academy's all-Muslim – bar one recent and token councillor - set of governors “drove out”, according to The Telegraph, its last non-Muslim governor some months ago.)


Shabina Bano said:


"The Birmingham city council report totally contradicts what Peter Clarke is saying. The authorities need to pull their socks up. I've lost complete faith in Peter Clarke.”


I suspect that Shabina Bano never “lost complete faith in Peter Clarke” simply because - judging from what I've read of her views - it's far more likely that she never had “faith” in him in the first place.


So what of that report written by Peter Clarke?


One can understand Shabina Bano's problem.


Clarke's report states that there was a “co-ordinated effort” to bring about an “Islamist ethos” is some of Birmingham's schools.


As for Birmingham City Council, it also commissioned a report. That report was written by Ian Kershaw of Northern Education.


Ian Kershaw has been quoted as saying that there's “no evidence” of a “conspiracy”.


As we shall see, all this depends on what exactly is meant by the word “conspiracy” and on whether or not this denial of an outright Ian Fleming/Bond-like conspiracy actually amounts to anything.


Nonetheless, despite Ian Kershaw saying there's no evidence of a conspiracy, he did, rather vaguely, state that “key individuals” had been “moving between schools”.


Now I hope it's not crude to say that it was Birmingham City Council which appointed this “independent Chief Advisor” to look into the affair; and that it just so happens that this council-appointed investigator has produced a report about schools which were run by Birmingham City Council itself. In other words, this report being less critical (or simply more vague and diplomatic) than Peter Clarke's isn't that much of a surprise.


It won't help Birmingham City Council's case that Ruby Kundi - a Headteacher of Highfield School in Birmingham (which was investigated in one of the reports) - has said that Ian Kershaw has


“played some of the findings down, though he did suggest the council are not really giving the full picture and are too frightened to upset Islamists or Muslim people”.


Conspiracy or Plot?


In the end it much of this discussion boils down to the terms which Ian Kershaw uses in his report. In fact much of what he says is quite vague. Sure, that vagueness may well be dissipated if the report is read in full. However, perhaps the vagueness (or delicate diplomacy) was at least partly intentional.


Firstly, Ian Kershaw says that there is "[n]o evidence of a conspiracy to promote an anti-British agenda, violent extremism or radicalisation in schools".


That all depends on what Kershaw takes a conspiracy to be.


For example, say that the Islamist school-plotters did everything they did in the open (so to speak). Now would that automatically mean that there weren't any conspiracies or plots? It may just mean that these Islamists didn't think what they were doing was wrong. Alternatively, they might have believed that they'd never be investigated. This means that they might not have conspired or plotted in a Ian Fleming/James Bond-like manner. They planned, sure; though they didn't conspire. In other words, they didn't meet in dark rooms and then burn the transcripts of their various plots and plans.... 


Of course they didn't! One of the plotters ( Mr Tahir Alam) published his “plan” on the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) website.


One other reason for Mr Kershaw's rejection of a conspiracy seems to be that the plotters - or even the conspirators - worked alone or in twos (or in threes, or in...). That means that according to Ian Kershaw, for something to be a conspiracy or a plot it must involve groups of people (not individuals) working together.


Yet what Kershaw writes elsewhere in the report does seem to suggest group-cooperation as well. For example, his earlier denial of any conspiracies seems to be contradicted by the following words:


"There are a number of key individuals who are encouraging and promoting certain Islamic principles in schools in the Birmingham area, and we have noted a pattern of these individuals moving between schools in the area."


Despite the above, according to Kershaw “a number of key individuals” who were “encouraging and promoting certain Islamic principles in schools in the Birmingham area” doesn't itself constitute a conspiracy or a plot. As I noted earlier, is that because it wasn't a secretive promotion and encouragement of “Islamic principles”? Or is it that promoting and encouraging something as seemingly benign as Islamic principles simply can't constitute a conspiracy?


Nonetheless, what these Muslim governors and teachers did might still have been wrong. And it might still have been some kind of conspiracy or plot - even if it was all, so to speak, out in the open. Indeed it would have been out in the open because, at that point, no one was investigating these schools. Or, alternatively, the individuals involved might have believed that any possible investigation that did occur would never come to anything. And since some Muslims, Leftist councillors and Islamism apologists are still questioning the evidence (as well as the investigations themselves), it's not a surprise that the plotters didn't need to conspire in any overtly Bond-like manner.


Ian Kershaw also “noted a pattern of these individuals moving between schools in the area”.


Again, is this a non-conspiracy (or non-plot) because it wasn't carried in secret? In other words, is it the case that simply because the individuals involved didn't hide anything, that this automatically means that there were no plots?


Anti-British?


It also depends on what Mr Kershaw takes to be “anti-British”. After all, since most establishment figures believe that Islam is pro-British (or at least not explicitly anti-British), then having mono-religious assemblies and anti-Christian chanting, or banning music, Christmas festivities, Easter eggs, three-dimensional imagery, discos, etc. may not be taken by Kershaw - and others - to be “anti-British”. In fact he may not take anything that Muslims do to be particularly anti-British. All this will depend on Ian Kershaw's politics and what he thinks about Islam.


As for promoting “violent extremism”: that depends too. It's clear that Muslim governors and teachers wouldn't be suicidal enough to explicitly teach violence towards non-Muslims or propagate what others would quickly see as blatant “Islamic radicalism”. (At least not in front of any adult non-Muslims.) However, there's a lot of evidence that some of these schools did invite scholars, imams and speakers who did indeed explicitly promote Islamic violence and radicalism. (Actually, some of the teachers - such as Park View's Monzoor Hussain - have done this too.) Thus this Islamic extremism and propagation of violence was largely done by proxy. This, when you think about it, is quite a clever move.


Pathological Anti-Racism


As was the case with the widespread sexual grooming of young girls up and down the country (as well as the investigations into Islamist activities and Islamic terrorism in the UK), Birmingham City Council didn't “address these problems”, according to Ian Kershaw, because “there was a risk it may be accused of being racist or Islamophobic”. Here again the fight against racism trumped all other concerns, standards and values – quite literally.


When this obsessive desire to to fight all manifestations of racism (actual, possible and fictional) is taken to its logical conclusion (which indeed it has been on many occasions), what happens is that no matter what Muslim individuals and Islamic groups do, they will never be investigated just in case the investigators - whether the police or councillors - are “accused of being racist or Islamophobic”. This effectively means - and has actually meant in the past - that many Muslims have been able to do exactly what they like. Or at least that was the case until roughly 2010/11 in the Muslim grooming-gangs case (after twenty or more years of positive/inverted racism from councillors, police, journalists, etc.). And in the case of the Islamisation of some British schools, Muslims teachers and governors have effectively been given a free reign until recent months.


Indeed even now the investigations have been held back and questioned by Muslims and their Far Left apologists. Yes, after all the articles, investigations and personal testimonies relating to the Trojan Horse affair and similar cases, it's still the case that a Birmingham Headteacher (Ruby Kundi) thinks that Birmingham City Councillors “are not really giving the full picture and are too frightened to upset Islamists or Muslim people”.


This fear and trembling about real, possible and often fictional racism has meant that all sorts of British people – from all walks of life - have been let down by the authorities. In all these cases, the supreme and (self)righteous fight against racism has taken first place in the pecking order of politics.


The permanent revolution that is the fight against racism has often become fanatical, extreme and puritanical. Anti-racism, it seems, takes no prisoners and permits no compromise. And neither does it follow the principles of fairness and justice. What I mean by that is that it's often the case that many other rights, values and standards are saacrificed in order to cleanse society of not only real and possible racism; but often fictional racism too. You only need to read the testaments of Oldknow Academy's Shabina Bano (as quoted in Socialist Worker) for evidence of that.


                              **************************************
Note


1)The Ian Kershaw report doesn't completely or categorically deny the plots and the Islamisation of Birmingham's schools (as some have made out). In fact it may only be the wording of the two reports that's different.


It can even be said that even though Ian Kershaw's language is more diplomatic (therefore vague), it says many of the same things as Peter Clarke's report. In other words, because Kershaw was commissioned by Birmingham City Council (as well as the fact that he works within the education system), he couldn't be too explicit or strong with his words.


Nonetheless, Kershaw does talk about plots (if in a roundabout way); he does say that Birmingham City Council was scared of being classed as 'racist'; and he did think there was an Islamisation process - just not a 'conspiracy'...


The thing is that schools in Birmingham were Islamised without the need for any melodramatic conspiracies. That's simply because no one, at that time, was keeping an eye on what was going on. There was never any need for these Islamists to plot in dark rooms because Birmingham City Council (as a whole) didn't really care about what these Islamists were doing. Either that, or it was unprepared to tackle them for fear of being classed as 'racist'.


And anti-racism is a supreme virtue in many councils. So much so that the young victims of Muslim grooming gangs were left to suffer. And that's why the Birmingham CCTVs were taken down. It's also why places like Alum Rock (or parts thereof) are virtually self-ruling Muslim "enclaves" (as the Parisian police call Muslim ghettos).


Not "offending" Muslims is, as always, the prime imperative.


... And guess what: the investigation has indeed been classed as "racist' and 'Islamophobic'.






 



Why no demos about the ethnic cleansing of Christians in Iraq?

Flag_of_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_svg
Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shām via Wikimedia Commons


In a week in which we’ve seen many demonstrations over the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza, perhaps we should spare a thought for the hundreds of thousands of Christian victims of the large-scale ethnic cleansing and persecution which is going on throughout the Muslim world: whether that be west Africa, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, or, in this case, Iraq.
WorldWatchlist2011-OP
Map of the countries/areas in which the persecution of Christians is at its worst. (Note that that the red covers the entire Middle East and the larger Muslim world.)/IMAGE CREDIT: Wiki Commons


The other point that’s worth making here is that whereas the Israelis have gone out of their way to attack Hamas (a group that hides amongst civilians to guarantee civilian causalities – which is precisely what Hamas wants), in the Muslim world Christians are killed and persecuted solely because they are Christian; not because they are firing rockets into civilian areas or plotting terrorist attacks against Muslim civilians.


Yet, of course, there hasn’t been a demonstration recently over the plight of Christians in the Muslim world. In fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen one.

Mugshot_of_Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of ISIS (In the days before he looked like a pious Muslim cleric.)/PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons


ISIS’s recent persecution and ethnic cleansing of Christians in Iraq is keeping up an old Islamic tradition. Indeed, ISIS has deployed many classic Islamic rationales for persecution and ethnic cleansing.


For example, two great themes of the historical persecution of Christians by Muslims have been forced conversion and dhimmitude.


In the latest flowering of the ancient war of Islam against all that is non-Islamic, ISIS has forced Iraqi Christians to flee from the city of Mosul.


ISIS – at its most stark, though Islamically bone fide - has threatened to kill Christians if they don’t convert to Islam. Either that, or Christians can pay the Islamic “protection tax” (jizya) and thus become a second-class citizens in Islam’s global apartheid regime.


The group is not hiding its ethnic cleansing of Christians, publicly reading the proclamation at all of Mosul’s mosques – giving Mosul’s Christians until midday on Saturday (yesterday) to abide by their Islamic rules or face execution.


All of this, it needs to be said, is in full harmony with both Islam and the Koran.


(I say “ethnic cleaning” because if Christians refuse to convert to Islam or pay the dhimmi tax, ISIS will then ethnically cleanse them from Mosul; and possibly, in the future, from the whole of Iraq and then Syria.)


The ISIS statement read:
We offer them three choices: Islam; the dhimmi contract – involving payment of jizya; if they refuse this they will have nothing but the sword.”
Muslims make much of the beneficence of the jizya “protection tax”.


But from whom do Christians and other non-Muslims need protecting?


Yes, that’s right: from Muslims.


This effectively means that many of the Muslims who are offering such protection – thus also earning money from such a “protection racket” – are the very same Muslims who would otherwise be attacking or persecuting the non-Muslims.


This also means that Muslims – the ones who are so graciously offering a dhimmi (apartheid) status to non-Muslims under their control - are effectively saying:


If you pay the jizya we will protect you. But if you don’t, we will either – at worst – kill you, or – at best – persecute and oppress you.”
(Editor’s note: Not only that, if they do accept dhimmitude they only live at the pleasure of their Muslim neighbors. Even the Mafia offers a better protection scheme in return for shaking down its victims.)
Mosul is not the only city to be ethnically cleansed of Christians. ISIS has also applied its Islamic demands – last February – in the Syrian city of Raqqa. In that instance, the required jizya for Syrian Christians was an ounce of pure gold.


In response to the demands in Mosul, an Iraqi Christian cleric by the name of Patriarch Louis Sako, said:
Christian families are on their way to Dohuk and Irbil [in Kurdistan]. For the first time in the history of Iraq, Mosul is now empty of Christians.”
The Patriarch also went on to say that 10,000 Christians have fled Mosul since ISIS captured the city at the beginning of June.


Louis Sako also told reporters that ISIS was tagging Christian houses with the letter ‘N’, which stands for Nassarah. This is a term from the Koran which refers to Christians.

Latin_Church,_Mosul_1980s-1
Latin Church, Mosul, Iraq (1980s)/PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons


Historically prior to 2003, Iraqi Christians numbered about 1.4 million (5% of the Iraqi population). Now the number is less than 200,000. After the start of the Iraq War of 2003, the number of Christians immediately fell to 800,000 from that previous number of 1.4 million.


However, Iraqi Christians have fared better than Iraqi Jews in this respect.


In 1948 there were roughly 150,000 Jews in Iraq. By 2008, there were 10 (yes, ten). The number of Jews in Iraq today must be almost zero.

Sunday, 20 July 2014

Steven Rose & the Anti-Sociobiology Marxists







Sociobiology, as the name suggest, is the scientific application of biological theories and data to (human) social phenomena. Indeed is is deemed to be a branch of both biology and sociology which incorporates - amongst other sub-disciplines - genetics, zoology, evolution, anthropology and ethology.



Sociobiology also integrates the relatively new fields of evolutionary psychology and human behavioural ecology. In terms of the details within these fields, sociobiology investigates such things as pack hunting, territorial fights, mating patterns and the hive activity of social insects.



The term 'sociobiology' itself dates back to the 1940s. However, it didn't become widely used - both within and outside of science - until Edward O. Wilson's book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis was published in 1975.



E.O Wilson himself once described sociobiology as the “extension of population biology and evolutionary theory to social organization”.



Ad Hominems against the Anti-Sociobiology Marxists



The philosopher Philip Kitcher has said that when people mention the Marxist beliefs of anti-sociobiology - or “not in our genes” - scientists it effectively amounts to an ad hominem attack. (Well an analytic philosopher like Philip Kitcher - who's also a critic of sociobiology and a colleague of Richard Lewontin at Columbia University - would say that, wouldn't he....umm?)



In other words, rather than tackling the scientific arguments and evidence of these scientists, people like myself rely on ad hominem arguments/attacks instead.



So, I suppose, the following piece is one large ad hominem.



Nonetheless, why can't we do the ad hominem bit (if that's what it truly is) of mentioning, say, Steven Rose's virulent Marxism; and then get on with the arguments against his scientific positions?



It's not as if I'm going to be saying the following:



Steven Rose, who was part of the 'radical science movement', is a Marxist. Therefore I won't even bother reading what he has to say about genetics and sociobiology.



In addition, when I say that Steven Rose is a Marxist, is that strictly speaking an an argument “against the man” (ad hominem)? After all, Rose classes himself as a Marxist and Richard Lewontin (one of the founders of “against sociobiology” group) has freely admitted that his ideological views have influenced his scientific work.



What Philip Kitcher must also realise is that most people (Left, Right and center) can't deal with the fine detail of genetics, sociobiology or evolutionary psychology because they aren't qualified to do so. (They aren't qualified to speak on the “a priorior other esoteric areas of Kitcher's analytic philosophy either.) Yet surely that doesn't mean that all of us non-professionals should keep our mouths shut on all these issues. Indeed is Steven Rose himself qualified - a neurobiologist, not a political scientist or economist - to pontificate on “capitalism” and the “Tory government”, as he sometimes does?



Nonetheless, if I were a scientist working in the field of genetics, neurobiology or psychology, then perhaps my mentioning the fact that these people are Marxists simply wouldn't be cricket. Similarly, if I were a student or professor at a philosophy departmental seminar (at Philip Kitcher's Columbia University) and I mentioned Steven Rose's prior Marxism, then I know full well that such a thing would certainly be taken to be a sacrilegious act against argument and philosophical debate.


It may also be the case that these people have done some good science. However, perhaps any genuinely good science they have done was simply a result of their not seeing seen any direct - or even indirect - political implications of that science. When politics or ideology impinged on their work, on the other hand, then it's very reasonable to assume (according to what they have said themselves) that politics/ideology will have been paramount; whereas science would have simply been its servant. And that may still be the case even if much of their academic - though still politicised - scientific work is chock-a-block with scientific jargon, charts, graphs, innumerable references and footnotes and all the other trademarks of academese (which, I'm suggesting, can sometimes hide or disguise deep ideological/political bias).



Consequently, surely it's conceivable that the prior Marxist theories of these anti-sociobiology scientists are actually extremely relevant to arguments and philosophical debates about sociobiology, genetics and the like!



So despite all those caveats, I would say that if you aren't a scientist (or a professional philosopher of science), then extreme scepticism about the views of these political-activist scientists is very wise indeed.



Biography (or Ad Hominem)



Even Steven Rose's fellow Leftists at the UK newspaper The Guardian have described him as a “polemicist of the left”. Another fellow scientist, Patrick Bateson, said that Rose “may be the last of the Marxist radical scientists”.



By almost anyone's standards, the Socialist Workers Party's Steven Rose is a fanatical ideologue. (The SWP is a self-described “revolutionary anti-capitalist party”.) Indeed Rose could hardly disagree with the fact that he, according to Richard Dawkins, gives “ideology priority over truth”.



That statement shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who understands even a little bit about Marxism.



According to most - or even all – Marxists, it is the case that ideology, politics and power can never be separated from science or indeed from truth itself.



And that fundamental Marxist position, no doubt, explains why Steven Rose sees politics and ideology in the work of so many other non-Marxist scientists: scientists who, on the whole, haven’t - unlike Rose himself - been activists in political groups and movements for most of their lives.



Thus is all this simply an example of one individual (Steven Rose) psychologically “projecting” his own ideological and political obsessions into the minds of other scientists?



Now for a small amount of words on two of the other well-known anti-sociobiology scientists.


Richard Lewontin has also described himself as a “Marxist”. Indeed he has happily admitted that his ideological views have affected his scientific work.



Gould Jay Gould (who died in 2002) said that he was “brought up by a Marxist father”. He described his own politics as “left of center”. Gould also said that Noam Chomsky's books had a great influence on him.



(Interestingly enough, Noam Chomsky once - sort of - came to the defence of sociobiology; though he did so only by committing exactly the sin I'm accusing his fellow Leftists of committing. Chomsky argued that there may, after all, be some room for sociobiological positions; though only because he thought that “it was important for political radicals to postulate a relatively fixed human nature in order to be able to struggle for a better society”.)


Some Science







The Politics of Science



The philosopher Julian Baggini (in his What Philosophers Think) commented on the political misgivings (about sociobiology) of the anti-sociobiology group. He wrote:



“… Steven Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin… noting… that theories that attempted to establish a biological foundation to social behaviour provided an ‘important basis… for the eugenic policies which led to the establishment of gas chambers in Nazi Germany’; and E.O. Wilson himself was drenched in water by protesters at a meeting…” (65)



Of course science can be political; or at least scientific theories can become politicised.



Racial science” is obviously connected to the Nazi movement. However, that doesn’t mean that sociobiology will lead to Nazi policies or gas chambers.



So let's put the boot on the other foot.



What about science as practised and endorsed by left-wingers or Marxists? Should we, for example, keep a firm check on the scientific research of Steven Rose and Richard Lewontin as well? It could, after all, lead to Stalinism; or to a regime or set of policies like that of the Khmer Rouge or Chairman Mao's Red Guard; or even to the filling of a future Gulag with “Islamophobes”, “bigots”, “racists”, “reactionaries”, patriots, nationalists, “xenophobes”... and sociobiologists. (Think here of Soviet science and how nonconformist scientists were treated.)



And what if Steven Rose and Richard Lewontin (or Marxist scientists like them) scientifically show that the best form of society is a socialist one and that we should bring such a society about – by force if necessary? (Marxism itself was deemed a science; until that view became largely unfashionable in the 1960s.)



Now let's get back to “right-wing” sociobiology.



Even if scientists or geneticists do come to certain conclusions about social behaviour, nothing necessarily follows from that unless we, as political cultures and democracies, allow it to. (Marxists such as Steven Rose have never trusted either the people or democratic processes.)



In any case, obviously there is “a biological foundation to social behaviour”; whether or not it provided an “important basis for the eugenics policies which lead to the establishment of gas chambers in Nazis Germany”. Surely Lewontin, Rose and the rest can’t be denying this. So if they aren’t, then they must be saying - or implying - that even if there are biological foundations to social behaviour, we mustn’t say that there are. Thus these Marxists are saying that sociobiology is not a fit subject of scientific research.



And that, surely, is a very radical position to uphold. Indeed it was Stalin's position! (It's like a scientific version of the Left's “no platform” policy: this time for sociobiology rather than for “far right” political groups and individuals.)



In other words, should we allow political activists (who also happen to be scientists) to stop certain – or many! - areas of scientific research? Should scientists like Steven Rose and Richard Lewontin ever be allowed to determine what scientists should and shouldn't do?



Gene for....



Let's see what problems Steven Jay Gould , Steven Rose and Richard Lewontin had with sociobiology:



In the eyes of the critics of reductionism, such a strategy results in the claim that complex behaviours are straightforwardly genetically determined. For example, Steven Rose, Leon Kamin and Richard Lewontin assert in Not in Our Genes that ‘sociobiology is a reductionist, biological determinist explanation of human existence'.”



E.O. Wilson has never talked about – or even hinted at - the “inevitable manifestations of the specific actions of genes”. Indeed there is very little that is necessary or inevitable in the world (outside logic and mathematics).



And who says that sociobiologists, or E.O Wilson in particular, claim that “complex behaviours are straightforwardly genetically determined”? Steven Rose et al say that; though not the majority of – or any – sociobiologists. As scientists, sociobiologists would say that nothing complex is straightforward. If it were straightforward, then they wouldn’t need to study it for years. We’d all know the sociobiological facts.



Nonetheless, even if sociobiologists don't say or claim such things, it's clear that these Marxist scientists think that sociobiology itself is reductionist and determinist.



Here's one sociobiologist, E.O Wilson, speaking for himself on this matter:



... all biologists speak of the interaction between heredity and environment. They do not, except in laboratory shorthand, speak of a gene 'causing' a particular behaviour, and they never mean it literally.”



Behaviours are indeed ‘genetically determined’; though not ‘straightforwardly’ so. Is Steven Rose simply saying that this is false? Or is he saying that it's a politically dangerous idea?



If E.O Wilson didn't emphasis the “interaction between heredity and environment”, he would be laughed out of court by just about every other scientist. Indeed it's hard to even make sense of genes being solely responsible for all social behaviour regardless of the environment. Does that thesis even make sense?



What E.O. Wilson may say, along with philosophers of science such as Helena Cronin, is that this is a false dichotomy in the first place.



It's not a case of genes or environment. It isn't even a case of a 50/50 split between genes and environment. The (human) environment, or society, is itself a product of our genes (at least to some extent). There would be no society without pre-existing genes for social (as well as anti-social) behaviours.



Reductionism& Determinism?



Steven Rose and the rest of the anti-sociobiology group often (very often!) use two scare-words in relation to sociobiology: reductionism and determinism (“vague terms of abuse”, according to Steven Pinker).



Are these scientific positions and methodologies plainly false? Or are they, again, simply deemed to be politically dangerous by Marxists?



E.O. Wilson himself puts his position on scientific reductionism it this way:



Major science always deals with reduction and resynthesis of complex systems, across two or three levels of complexity at a step. For example, from quantum physics to the principles of atomic physics, thence reagent chemistry, macromolecular chemistry, molecular biology, and so on – comprising, in general, complexity and reduction, and reduction to resynthesis of complexity, in repeated sweeps.”



This shows the importance of reductions in most or all the sciences: not just between the sciences; but also within them.



But now let's turn the tables on Mr Steven Rose.



It can quite easily be argued that Rose is a reductionist himself, as well as a determinist. Isn't he, in fact, a Marxist determinist who believes that everything is the outcome of (not his words) “class struggle and the “material economic realities” which underpin such “superstructural manifestations as belief-systems, religions and ideologies”? (All belief-systems and ideologies which aren’t Marxist, that is.)



So whereas Steven Rose claims that all sociobiologists are reductionists when it comes to genes; he, as a Marxist, may well be a reductionist when it comes to class and socioeconomic realities. These are seen, by Marxists (even by the sophisticated ones), to underpin all things. Indeed no one has ever been more of a reductionist than Marx himself. Marx saw almost everything in terms of the various historical “class struggles” which grew out of the socioeconomic “material conditions” of each age. And If I am caricaturing Marxism (which I don't think I am), then perhaps Steven Rose has similarly caricatured sociobiology; as well as E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker and other scientists.



Conclusion



Some people may be willing to accept that E.O. Wilson and other sociobiologists are right-wing or conservative. (Even that claim can be disputed in E.0. Wilson's case. Wilson is a fan of Obama, a keen warmist and environmentalist and he once described himself as a “liberal”.)



However, it can't have endeared E.O. Wilson to Steven Rose, Richard Lewontin, etc. when in a discussion about communism and socialism he said:



What I like to say is that Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species. Why doesn't it work in humans? Because we have reproductive independence, and we get maximum Darwinian fitness by looking after our own survival and having our own offspring.”



Nonetheless, saying that doesn't make E.O. Wilson a Nazi or a racist. And yet this is precisely the label he was tarred with by these Marxist scientists. Despite that, Steven Rose and other Marxists would no doubt say that it simply doesn't matter if E.0. Wilson is a Nazi or a racist. What matters is that his views and research can still be used and quoted by Nazis and/or racists. And this position precisely mirrors the situation in which other Marxists – and no doubt Steven Rose himself - claim that the words of the non-racist and non-fascist critics of Islam and some Muslims are also dangerous because they too can still be quoted and used by what they call “fascists” and/or “racists”.



And the consequence of this is... what? That both sociobiologists and the critics of Islam should remain silent? Or even that they should be silenced?



All this is very strange when you consider the fact that according to many people the exact left-wing equivalent of Nazism or fascism (especially Nazism) is revolutionary Marxism – and that's precisely what these critics of E.O. Wilson and sociobiology are. Indeed Steven Rose has been an active member of the the UK's Socialist Workers Party (SWP) for decades.



Now are these extreme Marxists the best people to listen to or read if you want to discover the truths and falsehoods of sociobiology?