Thursday, 30 October 2014

Ann Coffey’s “child exploitation” report only uses the word ‘Muslim’ once


Ann Coffey, Labour MP and (ex)social worker. Coffey looks the part: Leftist fashion-consciousness and conformity at its best.

This BBC News piece – ‘Child sex exploitation “social norm” in Greater Manchester’ – mentions just about everything else but the Islamic and Pakistani nature of what has happened with the sex-grooming gangs all over the UK.

This article is basically a response to the now well-publicised Muslim sexual-grooming gangs in the north of England and elsewhere.

And let’s not forget that – as the title states – this article is specifically about the problems in the Greater Manchester area. Need I say more?


The BBC also uses the near-euphemism “some areas of Greater Manchester”. Even a moron could work out that “some areas of Greater Manchester” is another way of saying those towns and areas which have large Muslim ghettos: Rochdale, Oldham, Bury, Bolton, etc.

What we have here is the same old BBC deceit and obfuscation about these issues.

It must have taken some considerable editorial skill for the writer of this piece (who is, surprisingly, unnamed) not to mention Muslim or Pakistani grooming-gangs a single time. Indeed it must have taken a very high level of ideological bias not to do so.

In other words, the BBC has learned precisely nothing in the last few months.

That’s because the BBC can’t learn anything on this matter because the very mention of the ethnic and/or religious nature of the criminals concerned will necessarily and automatically lead – so Leftist theory has it – to racism and even fascism. And as we learned in Rotherham, the fight against racism is far more important than the lives of young girls.

This pious, zealous and eternal fight against largely fictitious racism has so far meant that:

*) The National Union of Students (NUS) won’t condemn the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria.
*) Parents who are also members of Ukip can’t adopt children.
*) When people express a problem with mass immigration that they are automatically castigated.
*) People are sacked for harmless jokes and membership of political parties.
*) People can’t speak in public (universities, public meetings, on the BBC, etc.).
*) People’s Facebook accounts are closed down.
*) People a thrown into prison for what they think; not what they do.
*) Demonstrations are banned.
*) Academics and politicians are stopped from entering the UK.

Ann Coffey’s Report

Not only does the Labour Party’s Ann Coffey fail to mention the Muslim/Islamic nature of the sexual-grooming gangs, she systematically attempts to place the entire blame elsewhere: whether that be “music videos” or the lack of “training”. (The SWP similarly blamed it all on “cops and cuts”.)


The previous academic report on the Rotherham case, for example, didn’t mention “music videos, sexting and selfies” (even if they are indeed “fuelling the increased sexualisation of children”). Yet these things seem to the basis of Ms Coffey’s own report: ‘Real Voices’.

These are separate issues.

If it were all about videos, sexting or a lack of training, why have these problems been worse in places like Greater Manchester – places with large Muslim populations – than anywhere else?
Muslim grooming-gangs have existed since the mid-1990s and possibly earlier. So Ann Coffey seems to be deliberately trying to fudge the issue here.

That’s not a surprise. Coffey’s own Labour Party is largely responsible for the issue in Rotherham, Greater Manchester and elsewhere. It was Labour Party councillors who believed that racism was the ultimate sin and that anyone and anything could be sacrificed in the fight against it.

Ann Coffey is also quoted as saying that the “prevailing public attitude” blamed children for what happened in Greater Manchester and elsewhere.

No it wasn’t the “prevailing public attitude” at all, Ms Coffey.

It was the “attitude” of people who belong to your party; as in the Rotherham case. It was also the attitude and ideological views of Leftist social workers, Labour councillors and those police chiefs who’ve been hoodwinked by Marxist theology (i.e., theory).

These cases were most certainly not the fault of the “public”.

Indeed various members of the public in Rotherham and elsewhere attempted to do something about Muslim sexual-groomers. And guess what: Labour councillors, Leftist social workers and the police didn’t allow them to do so.

Ms Coffey shouldn’t blame the public at large for the Leftist hegemony we now have in Greater Manchester and elsewhere in the UK.

In fact this BBC piece itself includes a quote from Tony Lloyd (the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner) which states that it wasn’t the public which was at fault at all: it was the “system”. Tony Lloyd says:
For too long their voices were ignored or, worse, dismissed by the system.
Again, Ms Coffey herself implicitly states in her report – despite what she said earlier – that it wasn’t really the fault of the public (or “sexualised videos”, lack of “training”, etc.) at all: it was the fault of “social workers, prosecutors and juries” all of whom “carry [anti-racist or Leftist] attitudes around with them”.


So let’s face facts: Ann Coffey MP has the perfect credentials to be part of the problem: not part of the solution. She’s not that much unlike the SWP social worker Gordon Jelly – formerly an employee of Rotherham Council – who blamed Muslim sex-grooming on “cops and cuts”.

Coffey was also was trained in sociology at the Polytechnic of South Bank, at which she was vice president of the students’ union. She began work as a social worker – like Gordon Jelley – in Birmingham, then Wolverhampton and, finally, in Stockport. She was also Tony Blair’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. (Coffey is now married to the vice-chair of the University of Sussex’s University Council, Peter Saraga.)


As for this BBC News article (rather than the views of Ann Coffey MP), it says, for example, that “girls in uniform were regularly stopped by men outside schools”.

Now I’m willing to accept that on a few occasions non-Muslims have done this. However, in the vast amount of these cases this is being done by Muslim gangs and by Muslim individuals. (I have personal experiences of this happening many times in Bradford.)

And even when the BBC gets more specific, it still doesn’t mention Muslim or Pakistani grooming-gangs. For example, it states the following:

[The report] was commissioned by Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Tony Lloyd to assess the improvements in protecting youngsters after nine men were jailed in 2012 for running a child sex ring in Heywood and Rochdale.
Now it just so happens that the nine men who were jailed for running this “child sex ring” in Heywood and Rochdale were all Muslims. But that’s not a surprise because all the other sexual-grooming gangs – from Rochdale to Oxford to Oslo – have been overwhelmingly made up of Muslim men as well.


After reading this BBC News piece, you may have the feeling that nothing much is going to change when it comes to tackling the nationwide and widespread problem of Muslim grooming-gangs. To the BBC, the fight against racism is the ultimate fight. So much so that the ideology of anti-racism demands that that the writer of this piece never once mentions the word “Muslim”; never mind the word “Pakistani” or even “Asian”.

And if racism is still regarded as the ultimate sin of the early 21st century, then it’s a good bet that many Muslim grooming-gangs are going to carry on doing what they’ve been doing for up to twenty years.

Finally, the only mention I could find of Muslims or “Asians” in Ann Coffey’s report was this:

I visited the Council of Mosques in Rochdale in March 2014. They are concerned that, as a consequence of the media coverage, they are seen as part of the problem and not part of the solution. They are emphatic that the behaviour of the offenders was criminal not Asian, and are concerned that this distinction is not being made by the wider public.

The BBC and Ann Coffey MP are part of the problem.


The Report's References to “Pakistanis” and “Asian”

There are four usages of the words “Pakistani” and five of “Asian” in Ann Coffey's 75-page report; though everyone one of them tells us that it is problematic or simply wrong to think in these terms.

Put simply, Ann Coffey is continuing to make the political and ideological mistakes which were highlighted in the previous report on Rotherham.

These are the references:

1)A small minority of British Pakistani men are criminal sex offenders as in other communities. So it is important to understand why those particular men became criminal sex offenders. The assertion that it was a racial crime in that the girls were targeted because they were white is undermined by the fact that one of the men in the Rochdale case was also convicted of a serious sexual offence on a British/Pakistani girl. We do not know whether these men also abused other British/Pakistani girls.”

The reasoning above is intentionally grotesque. One Muslim (out of well over a hundred who've been convicted), in one gang (of dozens or more) abuses a single “British/Pakistani girl” and Ann Coffey automatically assumes that this can't be a Muslim/Pakistani and an anti-white problem?

2)One British/Pakistani woman who I talked to was concerned about an underreporting of sexual assaults in the community because of the shame it is felt to bring on the victim and the victim’s family.”

3)Part of the problem is that people think of CSE as the Rochdale model of predominately Asian men sexually exploiting white girls so there is a poor understanding of the broader picture.”

4)Sunrise CSE Team in Rochdale..... Rochdale is characterized as being identified with the particular form of child exploitation of groups of predominantly Asian men abusing white girls as a result of widespread media coverage of recent trials. However they report that 85 per cent of the cases they manage are single offenders, many peer on peer.”

Exactly, “85 per cent of the cases they manage” would have been “single offenders” because, as everyone now knows, the Muslims in the grooming-gangs weren't being “managed”: they were being ignored or even enabled to do what they were doing.

5)High-profile court cases, such as Rochdale, have elevated CSE into the public consciousness, but at the same time have left the impression that CSE is only about vulnerable white girls being exploited by groups of Asian men.

"If offenders are always portrayed in a particular way, e.g. Asian males, then the signs in people who don’t look like offenders will be missed and with them opportunities to protect children.”

6)Sian Griffiths... said: 'Being Asian is not an explanation of the motivation for the offending behaviour. There needs to be an understanding of the combination of personal, cultural and opportunistic factors that created the conditions for sex offending.'....”

7)In Rochdale, the nine men convicted of grooming girls with alcohol, drugs and gifts and then passing them round multiple men for sex were predominantly British/Pakistani.”


Tuesday, 28 October 2014

Qatar & the Islamic State (IS) versus Iraq & Syria


David Cameron meets Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani of Qatar.

Many commentators have made much of the possibility – or, some say, fact – that Saudi Arabia is funding, arming and supporting the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq. However, others are suspicious of this claim.

Recently, speculation has focused on Qatar’s role in this conflict. Officially, Qatar has been supporting the US-led military action against IS since September.

Qatar officials have said that they haven’t been supporting the Islamic State. A distinction has to be made here, however, as to whether or not this is about the Qatar’s support of IS in Syria or in Iraq. (This distinction may not amount to much in the end.)

As far as Syria (not Iraq) is concerned, Qatar has admitted to supporting what they and the United States government call “moderate” fighters (or even “moderate militants”). That support is also in cooperation with the CIA and with Western and Arab intelligence agencies.

The support of Syrian “moderates” makes sense because many of those Islamist fighters in Syria are Muslim Brotherhood and the Brotherhood has a strong history and influence in both Qatar society and the state.
In terms of detail, it is known that moneyed people in Qatar have made donations to Islamist (Muslim Brotherhood) groups in Syria. The Qatar government has also given money to these groups. Qatar’s capital, Doha, is also thought to have links to the al-Nusra Front (which isn’t so closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood); which is an arm of al-Qaeda.
Predictably, because Bashar Assad’s regime is Shia (Alawite), the Qatar state (or at least its Director of Intelligence) has said that Qatar has nothing to hide when it comes to its support of Sunni groups attempting to destroy Bashar Assad’s regime.Finally, not only is it the case that some of the “moderate” Sunni groups fighting in Syria aren’t, well, moderate; so some of them have also joined IS, the al-Nusra Front and other outright jihadist forces in the last few years.
As everyone knows, Qatar and Saudi Arabia supply the United States and the United Kingdom with much oil – and that changes everything. Even some British politicians have been open about the political ramifications of this. In early October, for example, British MPs questioned the close relationship between Qatar and the UK.This skepticism about the “special relationship” between Qatar and the UK isn’t surprising. For a start, not only do Britons rely on Qatar’s oil, this Gulf State is also a major investor in the UK. Its “sovereign wealth fund”, for example, has also been the subject of various allegations.

There is an unwillingness amongst many commentators to acknowledge the Islamic nature of Qatar’s support for the Islamic State (IS). To state what amounts to the obvious: Qatar is a Sunni country; whereas Iraq is overwhelmingly Shia. Not only that: the Shia have almost total control over the Iraqi state. Thus it follows that Qatar supports IS for a similar reason as to why Iran support the Iraqi state. That is, Qatar supports IS because it wants to destroy both the Iraqi and Syrian Shia states; just as Iran supports the Iraqis against IS because it wants to stop the latter from destroying the Iraqi state. (Shia Iran also wants to increase its power in Iraq regardless of the recent episode with IS.)

So when Qatar denies funding and support of IS all that means is that the Qatar state doesn’t officially support it. Other Qatar institutions and individuals are, of course, supporting IS; as the state itself may be doing (though not officially). Something similar is true of Saudi Arabia. Even though the Saudi state isn’t supporting and funding IS, many Saudi institutions and individuals will be doing so.

It may well be the case that the Saudi state has far more to fear from IS than the Qatar; even though the latter’s existence is also at risk. However, one important point is that Qatar doesn’t border Iraq. Saudi Arabia does. That alone may account for any differences there are between Qatar and Saudi Arabia when it comes to the Islamic State. (Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran and Turkey all border – to greater and lesser degrees – Iraq.)

Sunday, 26 October 2014

Gramsci's Dream Came True: We Have a Leftist Ruling Class

I chose James Joll's book's book not only because he has written about Antonio Gramsci, but also because - after having read it - it became clear that he was a fan of the Italian Marxist. Thus it can be said that the text is a fair account of Gramsci's ideas. And if there is any bias in the texts I've chosen, it's bias in favour – rather than against – Gramsci.
It can also be said that James Joll was himself a perfect example of the Gramscian elite. For a start, as Gramsci urged, Joll “took over” parts of at least four “institutions”:Oxford University, the London School of Economics (along with numerous other Marxists), the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University and the British Academy.

 James Joll was educated at Winchester College and New College, Oxford University. He was then elected Fellow of New College, Oxford. He also held the Stevenson Chair of International History at the University of London.
Joll also wrote The Second International 1889-1914 and, appropriately enough, Intellectuals in Politics.
What I've done in the following is partly quote - in full - various passages from James Joll's book, Gramsci. However, I've also included various short square-bracketed additions within the text to update and clarify the content; as well as three short introductions to Joll's quotations.
(Saul Alinsky is a later American version – at least in some important respects - of Antonio Gramsci. See 'What Did Gramsci Teach Saul Alinsky?' at Tavern Keepers.)


“The greatest Marxist writer of the twentieth century, paradoxically, is also one of the greatest examples of the independence of the human spirit from its material limitations.” - James Joll

Because Marxists or revolutionary socialists see everything in terms of “class conflict”, they also see everything in terms of “class power”. For old-style revolutionary Marxists, the natural response to this “material reality” was a violent revolution in which the working class – led, of course, by an elite of middle- and upper-middle-class Marxists (the “vanguard”) - seized power from the “capitalist ruling class”.

However, by the time that Antonio Gramsci began writing (in the 1920s and early 1930s), successful revolutions in Europe and America hadn't been forthcoming. Thus another strategy was called for.

Gramsci effectively gave up on the old Marxist theology (or theory) that “material conditions” (the “modes of production and exchange”) determined what Marxists call “consciousness” (or what most others call mind) and came to acknowledge what everyone else had already acknowledged: that mind – or “consciousness” – has at least some independence for its material environment.

Thus, instead of a violent revolution in which young– and old – revolutionaries could indulge in their violent fantasises of killing “capitalists” and all sorts of other people, Gramsci realised that a revolution could be carried out without violence and storming the barricades. Because mind is indeed free of its material environment, what Marxists now needed to do was to “take over the institutions” and thus create an “hegemony” of revolutionary ideas, theories and values.
Quotes From James Joll

Abu Qatada & Gareth Peirce, private-school girl & Trotskyist "super-lawyer" (ex-SWP, Socialist Action, etc.) who freed Qatada.

“.... Gramsci saw, in a way that few other Marxists have done, that the rule of one class over another does not depend on economic or physical power alone but rather on persuading the ruled to accept the system of beliefs of the ruling class and to share their social, cultural and moral values.” (8)

“The hegemony of [the Leftist and left-liberal] political class meant for Gramsci that that class had succeeded in persuading the other classes of society to accept its own moral, political and cultural values. If the [Leftist and left-liberal] ruling class is successful, then this will involve the minimum use of force, as was the case with the successful liberal regimes of the nineteenth century.” (99)


“... 'hegemony' which explains how a [Leftist and left-liberal] class can establish its cultural and moral superiority independently of its direct political power.... to suggest ways in which a Communist party [or Leftist individuals and groups] might... expand its influence and increase its support even without actual control of the government.” (11)

“'The realisation of an apparatus of [Leftist and left-liberal] hegemony, in so far as it creates a new ideological soil and determines a reform of consciousness and the methods of knowledge... when we [Leftists] succeed in intruding a new morality in conformity with a new conception of the world...” (99)


“... the achievement and maintenance of [a Leftist] hegemony is largely a matter of education: [To use Gramsci's words] 'Every relationship of [Leftist] hegemony is necessarily a pedagogic relationship.' The degree of success of such an [Leftist] educational process will be shown by the extent to which a new [left-wing] consensus or, to use Gramsci's phrase, a 'collective national will' is formed.” (101)

The Leftist Elite & Revolutionary Parties
Seumas Milne, public-school boy, Stalinist, Assistant Editor of The Guardian.

Leftist “intellectuals” and Marxist revolutionaries were – and still are - the people to bring about Gramsci's “hegemony”. As I said, they are to do that by taking over the institutions: primarily the education system; though also the law, regional and national newspapers, rights and race groups, the charities and even churches.
Quotes From James Joll

“... [Gramsci] writes of [Leftist] intellectuals in the usual sense as the intelligentsia who provide philosophy and ideology for the [working class and others] and who enable the [Leftist and left-liberal] ruling class to exercise their hegemony by supplying the system of belief accepted by ordinary people so that they do not question the actions of the [Leftist and left-liberal] rulers.” (90)

“The role of the revolutionary party [the SWP, socialist parties, the Labour Party, the Fabian Society, the Democrats, etc.] and the [Leftist] intellectuals who are its leaders was, in fact, to be much the same as that of the priesthood in the Catholic Church in its prime, when they were able to preserve [in Gramsci's words] 'the ideological unity of the entire social bloc which that ideology serves to cement and to unify'.” (94)

“.... in Gramsci's political thinking, and the task of a revolutionary party [the SWP, parts of the Labour Party, the Fabian Society, the Democrats, etc., as well as revolutionary/radical individuals].... is to establish such hegemony, if necessary by a slow modification of people's consciousness during a period of 'passive revolution' or a 'war of position'.” (98)

The Radical Left Rules, OK?
Alex Callincos: Kings College professor, SWP leader, public-school boy & descendent of a lord..

Quote From James Joll

“.... Communists can perhaps claim that they are well on the way to establishing their hegemony with the collapse of the old hegemonic system. They have achieved a dominant position in local government in many areas and in so far as they attract support not only from organised labour but also from very many intellectuals and professional people, they seem to be establishing their hegemony very much along the lines which Gramsci had suggested.” (110)
Even when Antonio Gramsci was writing (in the 1920s and 1930s), and certainly when James Joll was writing (up to the late 1970s), it was clear that Marxists had already been successful – at least to some extent – when it came to installing their own“hegemony” within Western society. In fact according to Joll, even Gramsci realised that “Marxism was beginning to exercise its own hegemony within the system of traditional culture” (111). That was around 90 years ago. And since the 1960s (some 50 years ago), the march of Leftism has been relentless.
The revolution, it seems, is permanent.

Saturday, 25 October 2014

Unite Against Fascism (UAF) v Tommy Robinson & the Oxford Union


Tommy Robinson and the Oxford Union.

As was to be expected, Unite Against Fascism – in its endless battle against free speech and its defence of a national and total “no platform” policy – protested against Tommy Robinson’s visit to the Oxford Union. However, since UAF is such an elite and middle-class “vanguard”, it only managed to gain 150 signatories in favour of extending the gulagisation of the UK.

What I don’t understand is why councillors, journalists and MPs (who are endlessly fighting and speaking out against “the far right”) have such close relationships with a Trotskyist revolutionary group (i.e., UAF) which basically wants to end “capitalist democracy” through violent revolution. Sure, in certain cases some of these councillors, politicians and journalists may not have very close relationships with Unite Against Fascism. Nonetheless, if it weren’t for UAF activism (i.e., noise), there wouldn’t be a chance in hell that most – or any – of these councillors and MPs would have spoken out against Tommy Robinson being invited to the Oxford Union. What they are effectively doing is boarding the UAF (as well as the SWP) bandwagon in order to parade their “anti-racist” and “anti-fascist” credentials to their fellow travellers. 
Martin Smith (in the glasses): former spokesman of Unite Against Fascism and activist in the SWP. He lost his post in both UAF and the SWP due to allegations of rape within the latter movement. The image shows us the the kind of debate UAF prefers.

One fellow traveller with the Trotskyists of UAF is Sam Hollick: a Green Party Councillor for Holywell. Here he is waxing lyrically about the evils of free speech:
We cannot accept Robinson and the EDL as mainstream. Any suggested benefit of drawing out his offensive beliefs in a debate is far out-weighed by the badge of legitimacy that Robinson would claim from speaking at such a widely known institution like the Oxford Union. The event should be cancelled as a demonstration of our rejection of racist hate.

Basically, Sam Hollick doesn’t trust the plebeians – not even the plebs of Oxford University! – to make up their own minds about Tommy Robinson and what it is he has to say. After all, if the plebs agree with him in any way whatsoever (or if they disagree with Sam Hollick in any way whatsoever), then it must simply be because they have a severe case of false consciousness due to their being “brainwashed by the Media” (or due to not reading George Monbiot, The Guardian, Socialist Worker and Marx).

In any case, the Green Party’s Sam Hollick says that we “cannot accept Robinson and the EDL as mainstream”. Well, the EDL either is or isn’t mainstream regardless of what the middle-class members of UAF and the Green Party think. 

So Sam Hollick is attempting to stop Tommy Robinson and the EDL from becoming “mainstream” – which is fair enough. This must mean that he believes that the more people hear Tommy Robinson speak, the more he will become mainstream. Again, Sam Hollick – like despots and totalitarians throughout history – doesn’t trust the people to make up their own minds. And, of course, the arrogance of this man – and people like him – is nauseating.

The Oxford Union

Yassar Arafat, with his good friend, Saddam Hussein. This was Oxford Union speaker Trotskyists didn’t have a problem with.

The Oxford Union is in favour of free speech. So much so that in the past it has hosted such notable pacifists, anti-haters and anti-fascists as Malcolm X, Yasser Arafat, Gerry Adams, O.J. Simpson, Pervez Musharraf, Sheikh Masina and, last but not least, that Islamist cuddly toy who goes by the name Zakir Naik. 

UAF and other Trotskyists never had any problems with these people being invited despite the fact that – between them – they killed, tortured and blew up literally thousands of innocent people.*

The Oxford Union shouldn’t be mixed up with Oxford University Student Union or the National Union of Students (NUS) generally. Indeed it’s precisely because it’s not part of the NUS that Tommy Robinson was invited on two occasions to speak to the Union. This must surely mean that, according to UAF’s deviant logic, the Oxford Union is itself fascist, racist or at least something with the suffix “ist” on the end of it.

Oxford Union President, Mayank Banerjee, put the Union’s position in this way:
The Union stands by the invitation to Mr Robinson and we would like to reiterate that an invitation from the Union is not an endorsement of any particular agenda. The Union believes in the principle of freedom of speech and we would encourage all members who disagree with Mr Robinson to question him on his views at the event later in the term.

UAF Inanity, Smugness & Snobbery

Let’s now see what Ian McKendrick – spokesperson for Oxford UAF – has to say on the matter. He told Cherwell (“an independent newspaper, largely published for students of Oxford University”):
We will continue to campaign against the Oxford Union extending an invitation to Robinson, and remain prepared to protest in the eventuality that this or any other invitation to a FASCIST goes ahead.

Such an invitation can only give credibility to Robinson’s RACISM and boost the confidence of RACISTS and FASCISTS in Oxford to be more open, posing a threat to local communities.

You see, there are no arguments there – just Leftist jargon and implied threats.

The bottom line is that once a first-year student adopts the theology of Leftism, from then on he or she doesn’t really need to offer arguments, data or even think for himself. The very fact that he has adopted Marxist/Leftist theology means that he no longer needs to do any hard work. All he needs to do is memorise the party line; as well as learn as much of the jargon (e.g., “racist”, “colonialist”, “imperialism”, “Islamophobe”, etc.) as he can.

Such are the vacuous minds of so many young – and older – Leftists. It’s as if the very fact that they have become socialists, or Marxists, or “progressives”, or “radicals”, makes them think that – by self-definition – they’re automatically intellectually, morally and politically superior to all the millions of “straight” (right-wing?) folks. All those other people who’ve been “brainwashed by the media” and who have “misconceptions about Islam” and about God knows what else.

All those who dare to think differently to these smug, snobby and self-satisfied Leftists simply must suffer from false consciousness. Either that or be evil racists and/or fascists.


*) Only three people have been disinvited from the Oxford Union: John Tyndall, David Irving and Philip Nitschke. The former two were deemed to be suspect because “far right”. Nick Griffin was, however, invited; though, due to left-fascist violence, his talk was effectively stopped.
The moral of this story is that UAF and other Trotskyists have no problem with violence, extremism and even mass murder as long as it’s not right-wing violence, extremism and mass murder. The logic here is brutally simple.

Tuesday, 21 October 2014

Former EDL leader Tommy Robinson thrown into prison ‘for a Tweet’


Former English Defence League (EDL) leader Tommy Robinson Photo credit: Anthony Devlin/PA Wire
Former English Defence League (EDL) leader Tommy Robinson Photo credit: Anthony Devlin/PA Wire

A BBC News subtitle sums up the absurdity and injustice of this most recent example of the political maltreatment and intimidation of Tommy Robinson: “Ex-EDL chief back in jail ‘for Tweet’”.

Tommy Robinson was only released from prison in June.

Supporters of Tommy Robinson – posting on Facebook – have released a statement which said that Tommy Robinson “has been recalled to prison for responding to a threat on Twitter”. That threat was on the lives of Tommy Robinson’s family.

Mr. Robinson’s lawyers said that he has been sent back to prison for a fixed term of 28 days.

According to Mr Lennon (Tommy Robinson) himself:

"I was going to speak this Thursday exposing police persecution and tactics.
"Police are at my house recalling me back to prison for my licence, reason given that I responded to a death threat targeting my family.
"All this to prevent me exposing the facts on Thursday at Oxford Union."

So not only have we the absurd case of someone being put in prison for a single Tweet, it may even be the case that the police put Tommy Robinson back in prison to stop him from talking to the Oxford Union.

The BBC says that Tommy Robinson (who created and then led the English Defence League in 2009) “will not talk at the Oxford Union as he is back in jail”.

The BBC shows its bias here not by blatant politicising; but by what it intentionally leaves out. It says that Lennon “had previously been due to talk at the Union in September last year but the event was cancelled amid security concerns”. What it doesn’t say is those “security concerns” existed because left-fascist groups – such as Unite Against Fascism – threatened violence if the talk had been allowed to go ahead.

What the BBC also doesn’t say is that Mr Robinson probably wouldn’t have been allowed to talk at the Oxford Union anyway because those very same left-fascist groups and individuals were agitating to have him disinvited again.

The Oxford Union itself sent an email to students which said:

"Tommy Robinson has recently been recalled into custody and so is unlikely to be able to speak."

Despite all this, the Oxford Union is still hoping that Mr. Lennon can speak after his release from prison. In fact – despite “security concerns” – the Oxford Union was unhappy that Tommy Robinson’s previous talk was cancelled due to the anti-free speech actions of violent Trotskyist groups.


The Leftist “Hegemony” in the Law
[Gareth Peirce, the Trotskyist "super-lawyer", who once freed Abu Qatada.]

The intimidation and maltreatment of Tommy Robinson by the police and courts has been so systematic, long-running and blatant that it could only have happened because the legal establishment – and even the state – wanted it to happen.

Usually political activists have Leftist lawyers, rights groups, etc. all over them. Though that’s only when they are Muslim terrorists or members of an ethnic minority. Shami Chakrabarti’s Liberty and Gareth Peirce, for example, seem only to be interested in terrorists and Islamists like Moazzam Begg.

You see groups like Liberty don’t really fight for “rights” and “justice” across the board. Did Shami Chakrabarti – or someone like her – defend the former leader of the EDL when his parents had their doors knocked down by the police on more than one occasion?

Leftist lawyers are often only concerned with the rights and freedoms of those Islamists and chosen minorities who will help them further their own political agendas and causes.

These people fight for their non-violent Gramscian revolution through their work in the rights and race businesses. Specifically, they defend “revolutionary subjects” such as Islamists, Islamic terrorists, sexual groomers, rapists, criminals, Leftist activists and so on. The rights of minorities are fought for and given a superior status vis-a-vis what they call the “dominant culture”. That’s why the political intimidation of Tommy Robinson hasn’t even registered on their collective consciousness. Indeed they are at least in part responsible for that political maltreatment.

So, again, why has the legal establishment (or at least the large parts of it which are Leftist or at least Left-Liberal) more or less ignored the systematic political intimidation of Tommy Robinson? The answer to that can be expressed in this simple way.

Muslim terrorists and radicals are deemed innocent – by Leftist lawyers – until proven white and/or right wing. That is, Muslims and various ethnic groups can only ever be “oppressed” or victims. They can never be guilty or even in the wrong.

The Leftist Hegemony in the Universities

As stated above, the SWP-UAF has attempted to get Tommy Robinson disinvited from the Oxford Union again. (That was before he was thrown into prison.) The same Trotskyist group got him disinvited before because he was the leader of the EDL. And now it has attempted to do the very same again even though he’s no longer in the EDL.

The SWP-UAF – along with many other “radical” groups – has a strong grip on the universities; especially on students. Almost every university in the UK has a Socialist Worker Student Society.

Our universities are also over-populated with SWP professors and lecturers. When I say that the SWP has a strong grip on English universities, I don’t mean that in any overly-conspiratorial sense. However, if you have loads of student automatons willing to hold demos and sit-ins (as well as harass those who dare to think and say the wrong things), then that’s how the SWP expresses its political power in our universities – through endless activism and often through violence.

In other words, the SWP-UAF’s student automata behave in exactly the same kind of way that young National Socialists behaved in the universities of Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1939.

A Short List of Actions Taken:

  • His parents’ house was raided three times; even though Tommy Robinson had left home some four years before.
  • Arrested and stopped from going to many demos.
  • Arrested on many charges which were all subsequently dropped.
  • Bans from demonstrating, using the Internet, emails and texting dating back to 2009.
  • Police went after his brother and his mother for supposed financial crimes.
  • Police conduced a 3 year “tax evasion” investigation (which failed when it went to court in late 2012). Throughout the investigation, Robinson and his family were only allowed to spend £200 per week of his own money (the rest was impounded by the police).
  • He is awaiting prosecution for having gone over his designated time-slot at the last Tower Hamlets demo (the police held up the demo for 15 mins at the start, so I understand that they manufactured the situation where he would exceed his time-slot).
  • He was arrested for trying to do a charity walk through 5 boroughs (when he entered Tower Hamlets).
  • After receiving 100′s of death threats from Muslims (aimed at him, his wife, his kids, his mother), he was re-tweeting them, and even printed them out and went to the police. The police did not arrest a single one of the aggressors, but threatened to prosecute Robinson if he continued to re-tweet them.
  • The last conviction for mortgage fraud was for an offense committed by Lords & MPs and the financial backers of the major parties in the UK, with none of them were prosecuted, never mind convicted. My understanding was that Robinson pleaded guilty in order to stop his dying mother from going to court (she was being persecuted to get at him) – even thought it’s estimated 1 million people in the UK have committed similar mortgage fraud.
  • Whilst in prison the screws allowed him to be attacked (by locking him in a room full of Muslims). He was subsequently locked up for 23 hours of every day.
  • When Robinson told the police of his home address, gangs of Muslims would turn up and attack his home. In later years, he refused to let the police know where he was living.
For more details on this short period, see this link – ‘The Persecution of Tommy Robinson

Other Links:

*) ‘Tommy Robinson’s appearance at the Oxford Union is cancelled’ (12th September, 2013), at Liberty GB:

*) ‘Socialist Worker Students’ (Facebook page):

Monday, 20 October 2014

Reza Aslan's Marxist Account of Islam

Reza Aslan effectively provides us with a perfect Marxist (or at least materialist) analysis of Islam (if not of other religions). Or at least Aslan does so when he's rationalising or explaining the systematic and large-scale violence done by Muslims almost every single day in at least two dozen countries.
Aslan essentially argues (without using these precise words) that Islam is a mere "epiphenomenon of material conditions" (as Marxists once put it).
Basically, the argument is this: all the violence actions carried out by Muslims in the Muslim world and in Europe have absolutely nothing to do with Islam. It's all really to do with economics, colonialism, ethnic conflict, the malign influence of the West... anything as long as it isn't Islam.
So why would a Muslimbe saying that Islam is a mere epiphenomenon of material conditions? The answer to that is simple. A Muslim would need to say such a thing in order to excuse Islam of all the negative and violent actions done in its name.
Does Reza Aslan also apply his Marxist analyses of Islam to all the positive deeds and actions which are carried out by Muslims? For example, when Muslims criticise the Islamic State (as mentioned by Aslan and others recently) or give to charity (though only to fellow Muslims – which is something we aren't often told) are they merely responding to material conditions or to Islam? Or is it that only the negative or violent deeds and actions of Muslims yield to such a Marxist/materialist analysis?
So it can be said that when Reza Aslan claimed that Bill Maher, for example, is “not very sophisticated in the way that he thinks” about Islam, he basically meant that Maher doesn't offer us a Marxist (materialist) analysis of the religion similar to his own. Reza Aslan has also said pretty much the same thing about Sam Harris. Indeed Aslan says something similar about all the critics of Islam.
Clearly Aslan is partly playing on his academic credentials here (some of which have been classed as bogus by various commentators). And as everyone knows, every academic on the planet offers nothing but profoundly sophisticated and unbiased accounts of every subject they tackle. It's also highly elitist and even dangerous to say (as Reza Aslan does) that if you're not an academic specialist on Islam, you should keep your mouth shut. Except, of course, that he never questions people's academic qualifications when they say positive things about Islam.
The Islam-Culture Binary Opposition

Muslims and their Leftist defenders often tell us that we mustdistinguish Islam from the independent cultures in which Islam is the main religion.
Reza Aslan himself is at his most Marxist (or materialist) when he reiterates that very common binary opposition (Jacques Derrida's term) between Islam (or religion) and culture. Aslan, for example,states:

"It is really the single most basic idea about religion, that it marries itself to whatever culture it comes into contact with.”

As it stands, the statement above contains some truth. Nonetheless, it also has to be said that it is Islam(or the Koran, hadith, sharia law, etc.) which “marries itself to whatever culture it comes into contact with”. After all, it's not atheism or astral travelling which does so.
So no matter what differences these Muslims cultures may well display, nearly all of them still practice (to various degrees) jihad, female genital mutilation, stoning to death, honour killings, death for apostasy, etc. It's all fare enough for Reza Aslan to point out differences when similarities such as these are far more noticeable. Reza Aslan, for example, cites the case that Saudi women aren't allowed to drive cars; though they are, I assume, in Turkey. However, perhaps no law is needed in, say, Pakistan because - outside of rich political families, etc. - Muslim women will simply accept that they're not allowed to drive cars. As for Turkey, liberality when it comes to women driving cars has occurredin spite of Islam, not because of it. In other words, it has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with the secularisation of Turkey which began some 90 year ago (in 1923).
And what of this Islam-culture binary opposition itself?
This is strange because for decades Marxists were at pains to tell us that religion is a cultural and therefore material phenomenon. Then all that changed with the rise of Muslim demographics in the West and the concomitant rise in Islamic terrorism and and Muslim radicalism. As a response to all this, Leftists - in order to “tap into the revolutionary potential of Muslims” - had to invent a divide between Islam and culture in order to excuse Islam itself of all its responsibility for misogyny, violence, etc.
Aslan puts his own twist on this Islam-culture duality by saying that all critics of Islam have an genetic “inability to understand the difference between a cultural practice and religious belief”. That shameful inability to offer a Marxist or materialist analysis of Islam is “shocking among self-described intellectuals”.
There are other problems with this neat and convenient Islam-culture distinction.

In terms of honour killings, for example, the main problem is that Islam - or, more correctly, the Koran, the sunnahand the hadith - are full of references to 'honour' and the concomitant need to abide by the 'principles of honour'.

In sharia law there's also the notion of 'ird. This applies to the honour of the individual Muslim. Abdul Wahid Hamid (in his
Islam the Natural Way), for example, writes that

"preserving honour... is the goal of... sharia laws that punish sexual relations outside marriage'. In addition, the 'severe punishments' of Sharia Law are there to 'protect honour and chastity (125)”.

In Islam it's also said that a Muslim becomes a mukallaf at the age of puberty onwards. After that, each Muslim has many duties to fulfil and obey. One of those duties is 'maintaining honour' through chastity and in various other ways.
So yes, Islam, or sharia law, may wellrespect “local laws and customs”. Though there's still a big but here. Islam, according to Wahid Hamid, respects various customs only as “long as these are not in conflict with the Qur'an”. Thus, if anything in a given Muslim culture is in conflict with the Koran or sharia law, it must be stamped out. It must surely follow, then, that FGM, honour killings, jihad and whatnot must be in accordance – at least to some extent - with Islam otherwise such practices would have been stamped out.
One other point is is that many Muslim populations, such as Saudis or Arabs generally, Pakistanis, Egyptians, etc. have been Islamic for up to 1,400 years (or at least their cultures and traditions have). Therefore after such a long period of Islamic history, how valid can the distinction be between culture and Islam?
Generalisations About Islam & Muslims?
Reza Aslan also relies on thegeneralising-about-Islam/Muslimstrope. And guess what, he too is a super-generaliser when he talks about all the critics and criticisms of Islam. This is the case, for example, when he assumes - or pretends - that all such critics and criticisms are “not very sophisticated”. (This is also aLoonwatch idea,along with the ad hominems that all critics of Islam are “loons”, “fascists”, “racists”,“pseudo-intellectuals”, “self-described intellectuals”,“bigots”, “haters”, whateverists, etc.)
You can also say that it is a perfect case of generalisation to argue that virtually all the negative and violent acts carried out by Muslims have nothing to do with Islam itself.
Reza Aslan, for example, has recently said (in response to Maher and Sam Harris) that the

"problem is that you’re talking about a religion of one and a half billion people, and certainly it becomes very easy to just simply paint them all with a single brush”.

Now I don't think I've ever heard any single commentator or writer generalise about the “one and a half billion”Muslims on this planet. Sure, some people on Facebook may well do so. However, I doubt that Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Robert Spencer, Gert Wilders, etc. have ever done anything like that because they don't need to do that. Criticisms of Islam – to state the obvious –simply don't need to be about every Muslim on the planet. Indeed just as one doesn't need to account for every Nazi, Communist or Liberal Democrat in order to criticise Nazism, communism or the Liberal Democrats, so one simply doesn't need to account for every Muslim on the planet in order to offer a criticism of Islam.



1) ".... Islam is largely a process of Arabization, so to speak. The teachings and practices of Islam stem from those of the Arab desert culture from which Mohammed came...."

True to a point. Islam is still indeed Arabic. Though Arabic culture became Islamised too in that it can't be denied that Muhammad brought things to the Arab tribes which they would have been unfamiliar and unhappy with.

So Muhammad "married" himself to Arab culture. (He couldn't help but do so - he was an Arab.) Then he created an Arabic-Islamic culture and society. From then on, all Muslim societies married themselves to Arabic Islam; rather than the other way around, as Reza Aslan suggest.

After all, it's 2014 and the vast majority of non-Arabic Muslims still have both Arabic first names and Arabic second names. Many still wear Arabic clothes. Allah is a monoglot who only speaks Arabic. And the Koran "can only be truly understood in the original Arabic"... and all that's to miss out the many abominations of Arabic sharia law.

2) "Rather, the truth is that Islam affects local culture and local culture affects the practice of Islam."


I hope I didn't come across as going too far in the opposite direction to Reza Aslan - completely denying local culture or "material conditions". Marxists called that position both "idealism" (the philosophical position) and "voluntarism" (i.e., the - complete? - psychological freedom from material conditions).


Saturday, 18 October 2014

Does Reza Aslan or the Islamic State (IS) Speak For Islam?


Reza Aslan via The Guardian
Reza Aslan via The Guardian

Prominent Islamic scholar Reza Aslan says that no one Islamic group or Muslim individual can ever be deemed to have the last word on Islam. Thus the Islamic State (IS), for example, can’t be deemed to be definitive of Islam.

It follows from this that when Aslan says that IS promotes a distorted version of Islam, then Aslan’s own position – that IS distorts Islam - can’t be deemed to be the last word on Islam either. In other words, Muslims have no more or less reason to accept Reza Aslan’s interfaith-materialist account of Islam (presuming it’s not all smoke and mirrors: taqiyya or “lying for Justice”) than to accept IS’s or al-Qaeda’s.

Yes, there is no central authority in Islam. So that means that the utterances of people like Reza Aslan might have had almost zero effect on the vast majority of Muslims. Indeed that’s certainly the case. No doubt there are a handful of Muslims in American and European universities (such as Georgetown University) – as well as Muslim members of the Church of Interfaith – who buy Reza Aslan’s version of Islam. The problem is, can we put all our eggs in their basket or would that be suicidal?

Though, of course, I may think all this simply because I’m a “pseudo-intellectual”…. or a “loon” or an “Islamophobe” or a “hater” or a “bigot” or “far right”.

Reza Aslan, as with Loonwatch, will often inform the Leftist “tribe of independent minds” that many – or all – academics who are also critics of Islam are either “pseudo-intellectuals”; or, as Aslan himself puts it, “self-described intellectuals”… What? I can’t think of a single critic of Islam – academic or otherwise – who has christened himself an “intellectual”. As everyone knows, the word “intellectual” has always been a self-description that Marxists, structuralists, post-structuralists, post-modernists, etc. have used about themselves. Thus it seems seem that in order to be a true intellectual, one has to be a Leftist or a “progressive”. If you’re not, then you’re either a “pseudo-intellectual”…. or a “loon” or an “Islamophobe” or a “hater” or a “bigot” or “far right”.

Reza Aslan’s Academic & Materialist Elimination of Islam

The thing about Reza Aslan’s version of Islam – that’s if it’s sincere – is that it effectively negates or erases Islam from the picture.

In one breath Aslan will apply his Marxist (or materialist) analysis of Islam. In the next breath he will erase or negate Islam from the picture in another way by saying, for example, that people don’t “get their values, their morals from their scripture”. Instead, you “bring your morals and your values to the scriptures”.

Now Reza Aslan – according to Reza Aslan (not me) – is a Muslim. So let’s rewrite that statement:

Muslims don’t get their values and their morals from the Koran, the hadith and the sunnah. Instead, Muslims bring their morals and their values to the Koran, the hadith and the sunnah.

Again, why would a Muslim like Reza Aslan be saying things like that? I will tell you why. He will say things like that when the subject under discussion is Islamic extremism – whether that be terrorism, jihad, female genital mutilation (FGM), honour killings, sexual-grooming gangs, death for apostasy, stoning to death, the killing of gays, etc.

However, when the seemingly positive things about Islam – as well as the positive actions of Muslims – are being discussed, then Aslan’s materialist analyses of Islam (or his eliminativism as regard Islam) are simply dropped from the debate.

Reza Aslan tells us that his own position on Islam – as stated above – is something you “learn… on day one of the study of religion”. That may well be true. So I suggest that Aslan – as a Muslim – tells his fellow Muslims that. I suggest that Aslan tells them that Islam is a mere “epiphenomenon of material conditions” (not his own words) and that the “morals” and “values” which devout Muslims uphold existed before any reading or study of the Koran.

Surely such radical views would be deemed as apostasy just about everywhere in the Muslim world; and even in the United States.

The Islam-Culture Binary Opposition

On Twitter (October 11th) Reza Aslan stated the following:

If you think female genital mutilation, which predates Islam by about 2000 years, is a ‘Muslim practice’ you’ve already lost the argument.

Just about all critics of Islam have acknowledged that FGM existed in other cultures and existed before Islam. However, simply because that’s the case, it doesn’t follow from that that it’s not an Islamic practice. For example, many Christian practices and rites pre-date Christianity. That doesn’t stop them from being Christian.

Despite all that, since Islam has sanctioned and endorsed FGM, honour killings, stoning to death, jihad, etc., and since Islam has existed in the Muslim world for up to 1,400 years, then surely we can ask why all these things still exist in Muslim countries and cultures.

Why, for example, is the FGM rate in Egypt 91%? Why is it 0% in Western states (if you discount the Muslim populations) and even fairly low in those African and other states which aren’t Muslim?

The fact is that even though FGM may pre-date Islam (is this even true?), it has still become an Islamic practice. After all, Muhammed and the early Muslims borrowed – or stole – almost all their principles, rites and practices from other religions and other cultures. That means that Reza Aslan’s position that FGM pre-dates Islam can be applied to many other aspects – the seemingly positive ones – of Islam too. But he doesn’t. He is, of course, as highly selective about Islam and its texts as he accuses all the critics of Islam of being.

Sharia Blasphemy Law or the Leftist “No Platform” Policy?

Finally, what did Reza Aslan mean when he said (during an interview with Salon) the following? -

I think that people have had enough of this kind of rhetoric [referring to the critics of Islam], and they’re just not going to put up with it any more.


*) ‘Reza Aslan on Bill Maher’s anti-Islam crusade’, published by Salon:
*) ‘Loonwatch and Islamophobia Watch: Why Leftists are Islamophiles’, published by Brenner Brief: