Category: Paul Austin Murphy

Iran vs. America: Today's State of Play


The other point is that if we now have super-hawks, then their predecessors must have been plain old hawks. This means that those on the Left will always see right-wing (or conservative) governments has being made up of hawks (of some description). Indeed, the very act of engaging in any war/intervention at any time over any issue is “hawkish” to those who’re already against “capitalist democracies”.

Interventionism

Perhaps the trick is to take a middle way between knee-jerk interventionism and claiming that whatever happens in foreign countries has no effect at all on what happens in the United States. That is, perhaps it’s best to intervene only when there’s a direct impact on — or threat to — the U.S. That, of course, leaves the big problem as to what’s actually meant by the words “direct” and “threat” here. And these words can be debated until the cows come home.

The extreme interventionist position can be summed up in the often-quoted (i.e., by radical-left sources) pre-Iraq War phrase, “Baghdad today, Tehran and Damascus tomorrow.” (Did any “neo-conservative” ever actually say this or is it simply an Internet meme?) Nonetheless, at the other end of the scale you have the non-interventionist or “isolationist” (which can be said to be the logical conclusion of non-interventionism) view that that the United States should never intervene anywhere outside of the U.S. itself. However, is this position actually held by many on the Right? When it comes to the Left, on the other hand, many do indeed believe that no U.S. intervention at any time and for any reason can ever be acceptable. That’s because it will be a “capitalist state” which will be doing the intervening. In other words, any intervention by a capitalist state will be — by definition — wrong. So, such an intervention will be “all about oil” or at least all about something not stated by the interveners.

It’s also very odd that many of those who speak out against any military intervention also say that “sanctions against Iran don’t work.” That seems to be a roundabout way of saying (as Britain’s Stop the War Coalition has said): “Hands off Iran!” Basically, there are many on the Left who ideologically and politically support Iran. Indeed, many left-wing leaders have also worked for Press TV, Iran’s state-run news outlet. For example, the leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, is one such “radical socialist” who’s worked for Iran’s Press TV. (He can also be found speaking at a demo in the “Hands off Iran” video just linked.)

The Threat From Iran

So what about Iran’s threat to “U.S. interests” (as it’s often put)? That’s hard to quantify. Indeed, the words “U.S. interests” can be stretched so widely that anything that happens in Iran and its satellites can be seen as being a threat to U.S. interests.

Nonetheless, what we have here is the historical threat of what has often been called the “Shia crescent.”

Iran is a Shia state. So now (i.e., after the Iraq war) is Iraq. Syria is also led by a Shia minority.  If we move further afield, we also have a large and powerful Shia population in Lebanon. There are also relatively large numbers of Shia Muslims in Pakistan, India, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Kuwait, Bahrain, Tajikistan, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Qatar

Iran is the “spiritual home” of most Shia. Iran also arms, funds, and trains militia in many counties which have Shia populations. It’s also on very good terms with the political leaders of some of these countries. Thus, in theory at least, we could have a Iranian-led political block of immense power in the region.

Of course, it’s not quite that simple.

There are so many Islamic sects in this part of the world (as well as many non-Muslim minorities) that total Shia power is perhaps unlikely. And even among Shia there are rivalries. Nonetheless, those with minor differences often unite together against those they see as being greater mutual enemies.

For example, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad has little in common with Iran’s theocrats — except, of course, that he’s of the Alawite branch of the Shia religion. In addition, many Shia in Iraq don’t like kowtowing to Iran either. This basically means that no matter how close these religious or ideological groupings are, the very fact that they’re separate political power-blocks means that total Shia unification will prove to be almost impossible.

Invade Iran?

It can be said that whatever action the United States takes against Iran, many will compare it to the situation which occurred just before the intervention in Iraq in 2003. In other words, they’ll say that the U.S. “doesn’t know what it’s getting into.” This is odd, really, because that’s almost true by definition. That is, there’s never been a single war (or intervention) in which those involved could have forecast every detail of the future and therefore known beforehand what they were getting into. Indeed wars, interventions or even economic changes involve so many variables that no one can ever know — in complete detail — what they’re getting into.

All this was of course true of Iraq in 2003.

Post-2003, the omniscient retrospecters condemned George W. Bush and the U.S. government for failing to be excellent futurologists. Nonetheless, it can indeed be said that the Bush government underestimated the danger of tribal Islamic loyalties in the Iraq case. Then again, many on the Left also entirely factored out Islam because left-wingers saw this religion — and still see it — as a mere “epiphenomenon of material and political conditions” (i.e., Marx’s “sigh of the oppressed creature” and all that). So Islam and Islamic rivalries were — and still are — played down by all sides.

Nonetheless, Iran is both directly and indirectly involved in nearly all the wars and conflicts in the Middle East and just beyond.

Of course, the main conflict is in Syria. And Syria is closely allied to Iran.

In more concrete terms, in January this year, the former U.S. Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, said that the U.S. should keep its forces in Syria after the defeat of Isis in order to go on to then defeat Bashar al-Assad. This, he believed, would limit Iranian influence in that part of the world. 

Opposed to the Syrian part of the (Iranian-led) “Shia crescent” is Sunni Turkey. Perhaps Sunni Turkey itself wants to resurrect something like its own historic Sunni crescent — i.e., the Ottoman Empire. Thus, the Turkish army has been pouring into northern Syria over the last few months (specifically after the Kurds suffered a major defeat in Afrin in January). Not surprisingly, Hassan Rouhani, the president of Iran, demanded that Turkey immediately pull out. (The U.S. is allied to the largely secular — i.e., politically secular! — Kurds.)

There’s also the Sunni-Shia war as it’s played out in the Saudi Arabia-Iran war.

This has been recently and graphically shown with what’s been happening in Sunni-majority Yemen. In this case, there’s been Iranian intervention on the Shia side. (Iran provides funding and weapons to the Zaydi Shi’ite Houthi rebels.) And the Sunni states of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar have intervened on the Sunni side.

More clearly of all, a military intervention in Iran would of course impact on neighbouring Shia-led Iraq. So it’s not a surprise that Iraq’s prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, believes that a U.S.-Iran war would actually be fought out in Iraq, not Iran.

There are also tactical (i.e., not political or moral) reasons for not intervening in Iran and elsewhere.

Take the destruction of Iran’s “nuclear capacity”.

The new U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, suggested that it would take “under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity.” Mr. Pompeo believes this to be an acceptable figure (hence the word “under”). Then again, whether or not 2,000 sorties is regarded as a little or a lot, if Iran really is an “existential threat” to the United States and to countries in the Middle East, then if it takes 2,000 sorties to quell that threat — then, surely, so be it!

Paul Austin Murphy writes on politics and philosophy. He’s been published in the New English Review, The Conservative Online, Philosophy Now, Human Events, Intellectual Conservative, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), etc. Murphy’s blogs are Paul Austin Murphy on Politics and Paul Austin Murphy’s Philosophy

There’s a new term for some of the new faces in Donald Trump’s administration: “super-hawks.” In fact another term has also been coined for Trump’s cabinet: the “war cabinet”… Actually, when you look into it, you’ll quickly find (or remember) that the term “super-hawks” has been used a fair few times before! Remember the “neo-conservatives”? The term was used about them just before — and after — the Iraq War of 2003. And if you go back a little further in history than that you’ll also find that some of those in Ronald Reagan’s administration (as well as Reagan himself) were classed as “super-hawks.” In fact the term goes back to the Vietnam War and even well before that.

So, yes, the term “super-hawks” is little more than political rhetoric.

The other point is that if we now have super-hawks, then their predecessors must have been plain old hawks. This means that those on the Left will always see right-wing (or conservative) governments has being made up of hawks (of some description). Indeed, the very act of engaging in any war/intervention at any time over any issue is “hawkish” to those who’re already against “capitalist democracies”.

Interventionism

Perhaps the trick is to take a middle way between knee-jerk interventionism and claiming that whatever happens in foreign countries has no effect at all on what happens in the United States. That is, perhaps it’s best to intervene only when there’s a direct impact on — or threat to — the U.S. That, of course, leaves the big problem as to what’s actually meant by the words “direct” and “threat” here. And these words can be debated until the cows come home.

The extreme interventionist position can be summed up in the often-quoted (i.e., by radical-left sources) pre-Iraq War phrase, “Baghdad today, Tehran and Damascus tomorrow.” (Did any “neo-conservative” ever actually say this or is it simply an Internet meme?) Nonetheless, at the other end of the scale you have the non-interventionist or “isolationist” (which can be said to be the logical conclusion of non-interventionism) view that that the United States should never intervene anywhere outside of the U.S. itself. However, is this position actually held by many on the Right? When it comes to the Left, on the other hand, many do indeed believe that no U.S. intervention at any time and for any reason can ever be acceptable. That’s because it will be a “capitalist state” which will be doing the intervening. In other words, any intervention by a capitalist state will be — by definition — wrong. So, such an intervention will be “all about oil” or at least all about something not stated by the interveners.

It’s also very odd that many of those who speak out against any military intervention also say that “sanctions against Iran don’t work.” That seems to be a roundabout way of saying (as Britain’s Stop the War Coalition has said): “Hands off Iran!” Basically, there are many on the Left who ideologically and politically support Iran. Indeed, many left-wing leaders have also worked for Press TV, Iran’s state-run news outlet. For example, the leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, is one such “radical socialist” who’s worked for Iran’s Press TV. (He can also be found speaking at a demo in the “Hands off Iran” video just linked.)

The Threat From Iran

So what about Iran’s threat to “U.S. interests” (as it’s often put)? That’s hard to quantify. Indeed, the words “U.S. interests” can be stretched so widely that anything that happens in Iran and its satellites can be seen as being a threat to U.S. interests.

Nonetheless, what we have here is the historical threat of what has often been called the “Shia crescent.”

Iran is a Shia state. So now (i.e., after the Iraq war) is Iraq. Syria is also led by a Shia minority.  If we move further afield, we also have a large and powerful Shia population in Lebanon. There are also relatively large numbers of Shia Muslims in Pakistan, India, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Kuwait, Bahrain, Tajikistan, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Qatar

Iran is the “spiritual home” of most Shia. Iran also arms, funds, and trains militia in many counties which have Shia populations. It’s also on very good terms with the political leaders of some of these countries. Thus, in theory at least, we could have a Iranian-led political block of immense power in the region.

Of course, it’s not quite that simple.

There are so many Islamic sects in this part of the world (as well as many non-Muslim minorities) that total Shia power is perhaps unlikely. And even among Shia there are rivalries. Nonetheless, those with minor differences often unite together against those they see as being greater mutual enemies.

For example, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad has little in common with Iran’s theocrats — except, of course, that he’s of the Alawite branch of the Shia religion. In addition, many Shia in Iraq don’t like kowtowing to Iran either. This basically means that no matter how close these religious or ideological groupings are, the very fact that they’re separate political power-blocks means that total Shia unification will prove to be almost impossible.

Invade Iran?

It can be said that whatever action the United States takes against Iran, many will compare it to the situation which occurred just before the intervention in Iraq in 2003. In other words, they’ll say that the U.S. “doesn’t know what it’s getting into.” This is odd, really, because that’s almost true by definition. That is, there’s never been a single war (or intervention) in which those involved could have forecast every detail of the future and therefore known beforehand what they were getting into. Indeed wars, interventions or even economic changes involve so many variables that no one can ever know — in complete detail — what they’re getting into.

All this was of course true of Iraq in 2003.

Post-2003, the omniscient retrospecters condemned George W. Bush and the U.S. government for failing to be excellent futurologists. Nonetheless, it can indeed be said that the Bush government underestimated the danger of tribal Islamic loyalties in the Iraq case. Then again, many on the Left also entirely factored out Islam because left-wingers saw this religion — and still see it — as a mere “epiphenomenon of material and political conditions” (i.e., Marx’s “sigh of the oppressed creature” and all that). So Islam and Islamic rivalries were — and still are — played down by all sides.

Nonetheless, Iran is both directly and indirectly involved in nearly all the wars and conflicts in the Middle East and just beyond.

Of course, the main conflict is in Syria. And Syria is closely allied to Iran.

In more concrete terms, in January this year, the former U.S. Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, said that the U.S. should keep its forces in Syria after the defeat of Isis in order to go on to then defeat Bashar al-Assad. This, he believed, would limit Iranian influence in that part of the world. 

Opposed to the Syrian part of the (Iranian-led) “Shia crescent” is Sunni Turkey. Perhaps Sunni Turkey itself wants to resurrect something like its own historic Sunni crescent — i.e., the Ottoman Empire. Thus, the Turkish army has been pouring into northern Syria over the last few months (specifically after the Kurds suffered a major defeat in Afrin in January). Not surprisingly, Hassan Rouhani, the president of Iran, demanded that Turkey immediately pull out. (The U.S. is allied to the largely secular — i.e., politically secular! — Kurds.)

There’s also the Sunni-Shia war as it’s played out in the Saudi Arabia-Iran war.

This has been recently and graphically shown with what’s been happening in Sunni-majority Yemen. In this case, there’s been Iranian intervention on the Shia side. (Iran provides funding and weapons to the Zaydi Shi’ite Houthi rebels.) And the Sunni states of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar have intervened on the Sunni side.

More clearly of all, a military intervention in Iran would of course impact on neighbouring Shia-led Iraq. So it’s not a surprise that Iraq’s prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, believes that a U.S.-Iran war would actually be fought out in Iraq, not Iran.

There are also tactical (i.e., not political or moral) reasons for not intervening in Iran and elsewhere.

Take the destruction of Iran’s “nuclear capacity”.

The new U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, suggested that it would take “under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity.” Mr. Pompeo believes this to be an acceptable figure (hence the word “under”). Then again, whether or not 2,000 sorties is regarded as a little or a lot, if Iran really is an “existential threat” to the United States and to countries in the Middle East, then if it takes 2,000 sorties to quell that threat — then, surely, so be it!

Paul Austin Murphy writes on politics and philosophy. He’s been published in the New English Review, The Conservative Online, Philosophy Now, Human Events, Intellectual Conservative, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), etc. Murphy’s blogs are Paul Austin Murphy on Politics and Paul Austin Murphy’s Philosophy



Source link

Jacob Rees-Mogg MP: Victim of Bristol University's Red Guards


One Bristol University student, a William Brown, said:

“These people in balaclavas and sunglasses started shouting, things like ‘Tory fascist’.


“They were quite intimidating actually.


“They were waving their hands around, shouting very loudly.”

This student also stated that a few punches were thrown.

The same student added:

“Jacob went to calm them down, I think he came out of it very well.


“He was encouraging them to speak, without shouting, saying something like ‘I’m happy to talk if you want’.”

One other student, a Sebastian Salton, said:

“It was interrupted by antifascists, I don’t think it was assault, I think people were trying to get him out.


“There was some negotiating.


“He went over to them and said ‘lets not shout them down,’ but they weren’t having any of it.


“They were shouting ‘racist, misogynist, homophobe, sexist’. They were talking about austerity.”

Will Smith, another student, said:

“There were people in balaclavas shouting ‘fascist scum’ and ‘sexist’.


“He was the first to approach them.”

Rees-Moog was stuck bang in the middle of all this. However, he said that he wasn’t “shaken or stirred” by the event. Rees-Moog also said that “they were just rather shouty”; though “all is well”. Despite that, some students described Rees-Moog as “looking shaken up” after the event.

So guess what. These typical students yelled “Tory fascist”, “fascist scum”, “sexist, “homophobe” and “Nazi” at an elected British MP. Now, isn’t that highly original? Not really. You’d think that these students would become a little self-conscious about using these left-wing cliches or soundbites. Though since the left-wing politics of student life is effectively a middle-class Rite of Passage, and because all rites of passage must take the same form, then these actions are hardly surprising.

Most left-wing students dress the same; act the same; and, more importantly, think the same.

As ever, the Marxist Left isn’t concerned with debate. It’s concerned with obliterating alternative political views. It often does that with violence or, sometimes, with the “no platform” policy which has often been in force in British universities. (It has only been applied to the Far Right — never to the Far Left.) This policy was established by the National Union of Students in the early 1970s; under the strong influence of the International Marxist Group (IMG) and the International Socialists (IS). It’s been used to ban a whole host of speakers, groups, and even academics.

What happened to Jacob Rees-Mogg has happened countless times in our universities since the 1960s. It’s been happening since the Left has been attempting to create (sometimes it’s been very successful) a “hegemony” in all these “Gramscian institutions”. All sorts of people have been the victim of left-wing violence, intolerance, and political conformity: academics, MPs, politicians, political parties, political and social groups, individuals, etc.

One example of all this which always stuck in mind dates back to 1978 and concerned the biologist, researcher, and naturalist, E.O. Wilson (who, politically, is a liberal). His case parallels, very strongly, the left-wing intolerance of Steven Pinker (also a liberal who’s apparently donated money to the Democratic Party), the Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology, Jordan Peterson, etc. today.

E.O. Wilson’s book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, was published in 1975. It rekindled the ancient nature-vs.-nurture debate. Predictably, Wilson was accused of racism, misogyny, and even sympathy for eugenics.

Not surprisingly, this led to one incident in November 1978 in which E.O. Wilson was physically attacked (during one of his lectures) by members of the International Committee Against Racism, a front group for the Marxist Progressive Labor Party. Ironically, Wilson said:

“I believe… I was the only scientist in modern times to be physically attacked for an idea.”

What Wilson said is false; as the example of scientists in the Soviet Union, for one, shows. In the 1960s, other American scientists and academics were also victims of left-wing violence and intolerance. (As can be seen in the ‘Political Scientists’ chapter of Steven Pinker’s book, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.) However, Wilson later said that he was very politically naïve at the time and had no idea that he’d be attacked by the virulent and intolerent Marxist Left.

So, bearing all that in mind, I wonder if professors, academics and other left-wing supporters (whether passive or active) of all this believe that it’s a good thing that so many students are politically conformist, intolerant, and violent?

Is it a good thing that being left-wing or a revolutionary socialist is a middle-class Rite of Passage for so many students between the ages of 18 and 22?

Is it a good thing that so many right-wing academics, groups, and individuals have their talks and seminars banned and have also even been the victims of physical violence?

Do they think it’s a good thing that many university departments are effectively Gramscian institutions and that this has been the case going back to the 1960s — for some 60 or so years?

All this is nothing new. It has a history.

In the Germany of the 1930s, Hitler Youth and other young Nazis ruled the roost in German universities. Indeed, all academics were Nazis, although some were only nominally so.

In the 1940s in the Soviet Union, all academics were Marxists/communists. And, again, young students often victimised all political dissidents — even the ones who weren’t political dissidents.

Under Chairman Mao (in the 1960s) we had the young Red Guards who terrorised the university campuses and enforced their political will on all students and indeed even on professors and academics.

And today (in the UK) we have Momentum, Social Justice Warriors, the Socialist Workers Party, etc. who, in their fight for tolerance, peace, and open-mindedness, indulge in extreme intolerance, violence, and closed-mindedness.

Yes, it all sounds terribly familiar. Yet to those deeply embedded in university environments (in which being left-wing — or at least liberal left — is de rigueur), it will all seem so terribly normal and acceptable. Of course it will!

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy.  He’s had articles published in The Conservative Online, Philosophy Now, New English Review, Human Events, Intellectual Conservative, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), etc.  His blogs are Paul Austin Murphy on Politics: http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.co.uk/. And Paul Austin Murphy’s Philosophy: http://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.co.uk/.  His Twitter account can be found here: https://twitter.com/PaulAustMurphy.

The British Conservative MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has just been caught up in the middle of a violent scuffle while giving a talk at a British university. This is the very same Rees-Mogg who’s been tipped to be the next leader of the British Conservative Party.

He’d been speaking at the University of Bristol’s Politics and International Relations Society when it was stormed by left-wing Red Guards.

One Bristol University student, a William Brown, said:

“These people in balaclavas and sunglasses started shouting, things like ‘Tory fascist’.


“They were quite intimidating actually.


“They were waving their hands around, shouting very loudly.”

This student also stated that a few punches were thrown.

The same student added:

“Jacob went to calm them down, I think he came out of it very well.


“He was encouraging them to speak, without shouting, saying something like ‘I’m happy to talk if you want’.”

One other student, a Sebastian Salton, said:

“It was interrupted by antifascists, I don’t think it was assault, I think people were trying to get him out.


“There was some negotiating.


“He went over to them and said ‘lets not shout them down,’ but they weren’t having any of it.


“They were shouting ‘racist, misogynist, homophobe, sexist’. They were talking about austerity.”

Will Smith, another student, said:

“There were people in balaclavas shouting ‘fascist scum’ and ‘sexist’.


“He was the first to approach them.”

Rees-Moog was stuck bang in the middle of all this. However, he said that he wasn’t “shaken or stirred” by the event. Rees-Moog also said that “they were just rather shouty”; though “all is well”. Despite that, some students described Rees-Moog as “looking shaken up” after the event.

So guess what. These typical students yelled “Tory fascist”, “fascist scum”, “sexist, “homophobe” and “Nazi” at an elected British MP. Now, isn’t that highly original? Not really. You’d think that these students would become a little self-conscious about using these left-wing cliches or soundbites. Though since the left-wing politics of student life is effectively a middle-class Rite of Passage, and because all rites of passage must take the same form, then these actions are hardly surprising.

Most left-wing students dress the same; act the same; and, more importantly, think the same.

As ever, the Marxist Left isn’t concerned with debate. It’s concerned with obliterating alternative political views. It often does that with violence or, sometimes, with the “no platform” policy which has often been in force in British universities. (It has only been applied to the Far Right — never to the Far Left.) This policy was established by the National Union of Students in the early 1970s; under the strong influence of the International Marxist Group (IMG) and the International Socialists (IS). It’s been used to ban a whole host of speakers, groups, and even academics.

What happened to Jacob Rees-Mogg has happened countless times in our universities since the 1960s. It’s been happening since the Left has been attempting to create (sometimes it’s been very successful) a “hegemony” in all these “Gramscian institutions”. All sorts of people have been the victim of left-wing violence, intolerance, and political conformity: academics, MPs, politicians, political parties, political and social groups, individuals, etc.

One example of all this which always stuck in mind dates back to 1978 and concerned the biologist, researcher, and naturalist, E.O. Wilson (who, politically, is a liberal). His case parallels, very strongly, the left-wing intolerance of Steven Pinker (also a liberal who’s apparently donated money to the Democratic Party), the Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology, Jordan Peterson, etc. today.

E.O. Wilson’s book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, was published in 1975. It rekindled the ancient nature-vs.-nurture debate. Predictably, Wilson was accused of racism, misogyny, and even sympathy for eugenics.

Not surprisingly, this led to one incident in November 1978 in which E.O. Wilson was physically attacked (during one of his lectures) by members of the International Committee Against Racism, a front group for the Marxist Progressive Labor Party. Ironically, Wilson said:

“I believe… I was the only scientist in modern times to be physically attacked for an idea.”

What Wilson said is false; as the example of scientists in the Soviet Union, for one, shows. In the 1960s, other American scientists and academics were also victims of left-wing violence and intolerance. (As can be seen in the ‘Political Scientists’ chapter of Steven Pinker’s book, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.) However, Wilson later said that he was very politically naïve at the time and had no idea that he’d be attacked by the virulent and intolerent Marxist Left.

So, bearing all that in mind, I wonder if professors, academics and other left-wing supporters (whether passive or active) of all this believe that it’s a good thing that so many students are politically conformist, intolerant, and violent?

Is it a good thing that being left-wing or a revolutionary socialist is a middle-class Rite of Passage for so many students between the ages of 18 and 22?

Is it a good thing that so many right-wing academics, groups, and individuals have their talks and seminars banned and have also even been the victims of physical violence?

Do they think it’s a good thing that many university departments are effectively Gramscian institutions and that this has been the case going back to the 1960s — for some 60 or so years?

All this is nothing new. It has a history.

In the Germany of the 1930s, Hitler Youth and other young Nazis ruled the roost in German universities. Indeed, all academics were Nazis, although some were only nominally so.

In the 1940s in the Soviet Union, all academics were Marxists/communists. And, again, young students often victimised all political dissidents — even the ones who weren’t political dissidents.

Under Chairman Mao (in the 1960s) we had the young Red Guards who terrorised the university campuses and enforced their political will on all students and indeed even on professors and academics.

And today (in the UK) we have Momentum, Social Justice Warriors, the Socialist Workers Party, etc. who, in their fight for tolerance, peace, and open-mindedness, indulge in extreme intolerance, violence, and closed-mindedness.

Yes, it all sounds terribly familiar. Yet to those deeply embedded in university environments (in which being left-wing — or at least liberal left — is de rigueur), it will all seem so terribly normal and acceptable. Of course it will!

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy.  He’s had articles published in The Conservative Online, Philosophy Now, New English Review, Human Events, Intellectual Conservative, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), etc.  His blogs are Paul Austin Murphy on Politics: http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.co.uk/. And Paul Austin Murphy’s Philosophy: http://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.co.uk/.  His Twitter account can be found here: https://twitter.com/PaulAustMurphy.



Source link

British Fantasy Novelists for the European Union


In their attempts to reverse the democratic decision that is Brexit, the imaginations of many Remainers have become quite feverish. Yes, Remainers have resorted to fiction/fantasy about “Brexit lies”, the false consciousness of Brexiteers, and all the monumentally disastrous things which will happen once we leave the European Union.

Basically, some of the claims of Remainers are so outlandish that it’s worth discussing some of the reasons why that may be the case.

Remainers are overwhelmingly left-wing or Lib-Dem. They’re also mainly based in London, the Home Counties and British universities. (Students and professors are generously funded by the EU.) This isn’t the same as saying that “the North voted for Brexit” (as it’s been put) because, according to some accounts, slightly more southerners voted this way. However, that doesn’t stop it from being the case that Remainers are mainly from London and the Home Counties; as well as being disproportionately made up of recent immigrants (again, who’re mainly based in London).

On the whole, these Remainers don’t see the dark sides of the EU. And even when they do, they’re quite happy with what they see.

This means that it’s not surprising that most writers and artists are Remainers too.

Particularly, it’s clear that it’s those infamous Brexit lies which have strongly inspired various novelists and writers. In other words, many of them decided to advance the Remain cause through their fiction or fantasy.

So let’s see what various authors and novelists have had to say on the subject.

Novelists for the EU

An early “post-Brexit” novel was Michael Paraskos’s Rabbitman; which was published in March 2017. This book ties together the election of “a right-wing populist” American president with Brexit. The new American president also happens to be a rabbit (which is, I suppose, hilarious).  Both his victory and Brexit were the results of “Faustian pacts” with the Devil.

This book also chimes in with Remainer end-times’ prophesy because shortly after after the UK leaves the EU, society collapses and — wait for it! — the British people then become dependent on EU food aid! (Really? Germany, for example, depends on us: in 2016 it sold about £26 billion more to us than we sold to it.) I’m surprised that Michael Paraskos didn’t also paint a picture of the UK becoming a Nazi state led by a white-supremacist serial killer who was formerly a member of Brits for Trump. However, the EU food aid is almost as good a touch.

In the introduction I mentioned Brexit lies.

This takes us neatly on to Amanda Craig’s novel, The Lie of the Land; published in June 2017. (Yes, note the title of this book.) In The Lie of the Land we find ourselves in 2026. At this future date, a posh couple from Jeremy Corbyn’s Islington is forced to move (because of “austerity”) from London to Devon (which, the Guardian tells us, is full of “casual racists”). The author sees Devon (which is “poorer than Romania”) as a pro-Brexit heartland. Not surprisingly, Amanda Craig gives a more or less Marxist/Corbynite account of Brexit in which it was the case that “the disparities in society that led to June’s result”. (I don’t know, perhaps, being superior and so utterly nonprovincial, this fictional Islington couple could no longer afford three foreign holidays a year and the fees for their kids’ private school — such austerity!)

Now what about Douglas Board’s Time of Lies; published, again, in June 2017?

This is perhaps the most over-the-top of the lot. In 2020, Douglas Board has it that a retired football hooligan wins the election! (He wins it in a “populist power grab”.) Not surprisingly, there then follows an almighty clash with the “pro-European Union metropolitan political elite.” I suppose that all the peaceful and extremely tolerant Remainers were put in concentration camps too; in which they were forced to read Mein Kampf and the Daily Mail.

One piece of fiction which occurred after the Brexit result was that “hate crimes” immediately increased. On close inspection, this was shown to be, at worst, false; or, at best, extremely speculative. That didn’t stop politicians, anti-racists and Remainers going on about this ostensible “spike” in hate crimes. (See this account of these “hate crimes.”)

The novelist Mark Billingham might have picked up on all this Brexit hate when he wrote his book Love Like Blood (published, yet again, in June 2017).

Love Like Blood charts Brexit and the subsequent rise in “xenophobic hate crime”. (The Guardian talks about “Little Englanders” in relation to this book.) What I never understood about this supposed spike in hate crimes is that if Brexit was seen as a positive result when it came to the amount of immigrants coming into the UK from oversees, then why would that cause an increase in racist crimes? Surely if the result had been negative (i.e., in favour of remaining in the EU), then that would have caused rage and then an increase in racist crimes. If British racists found out that there would be fewer immigrants coming into the UK in the future, then why the increase in hate crimes?

However, forget the crimes of those racist Brits (basically, all non-left-wing whites): what about conspiracies about a government quango?

In David Boyle’s The Remains of the Way (yes, published in June 2017), Brexit was brought about not by the votes of 51.89% of British voters; but by an old government quango which, miraculously, still worked within Whitehall. It gets worse. This quango was set up by Thomas Cromwell under King Henry VIII. What did this quango want? It wanted a “Protestant Brexit.” In addition, after Brexit the UK suffers famines and general destitution. However, I’m not sure if the EU then supplied the UK with “food aid”, as with Michael Paraskos’s Rabbitman.

On a very similar theme, we also have Stanley Johnson’s Kompromat.

According to this work of fiction (replicated by some Remainers), Brexit was the responsibility of “Russian influence” on the referendum. (But what about that Protestant quango?). However, thank God that Stanley Johnson believes that his book is “just meant to be fun!”

In their attempts to reverse the democratic decision that is Brexit, the imaginations of many Remainers have become quite feverish. Yes, Remainers have resorted to fiction/fantasy about “Brexit lies”, the false consciousness of Brexiteers, and all the monumentally disastrous things which will happen once we leave the European Union.

Basically, some of the claims of Remainers are so outlandish that it’s worth discussing some of the reasons why that may be the case.

Remainers are overwhelmingly left-wing or Lib-Dem. They’re also mainly based in London, the Home Counties and British universities. (Students and professors are generously funded by the EU.) This isn’t the same as saying that “the North voted for Brexit” (as it’s been put) because, according to some accounts, slightly more southerners voted this way. However, that doesn’t stop it from being the case that Remainers are mainly from London and the Home Counties; as well as being disproportionately made up of recent immigrants (again, who’re mainly based in London).

On the whole, these Remainers don’t see the dark sides of the EU. And even when they do, they’re quite happy with what they see.

This means that it’s not surprising that most writers and artists are Remainers too.

Particularly, it’s clear that it’s those infamous Brexit lies which have strongly inspired various novelists and writers. In other words, many of them decided to advance the Remain cause through their fiction or fantasy.

So let’s see what various authors and novelists have had to say on the subject.

Novelists for the EU

An early “post-Brexit” novel was Michael Paraskos’s Rabbitman; which was published in March 2017. This book ties together the election of “a right-wing populist” American president with Brexit. The new American president also happens to be a rabbit (which is, I suppose, hilarious).  Both his victory and Brexit were the results of “Faustian pacts” with the Devil.

This book also chimes in with Remainer end-times’ prophesy because shortly after after the UK leaves the EU, society collapses and — wait for it! — the British people then become dependent on EU food aid! (Really? Germany, for example, depends on us: in 2016 it sold about £26 billion more to us than we sold to it.) I’m surprised that Michael Paraskos didn’t also paint a picture of the UK becoming a Nazi state led by a white-supremacist serial killer who was formerly a member of Brits for Trump. However, the EU food aid is almost as good a touch.

In the introduction I mentioned Brexit lies.

This takes us neatly on to Amanda Craig’s novel, The Lie of the Land; published in June 2017. (Yes, note the title of this book.) In The Lie of the Land we find ourselves in 2026. At this future date, a posh couple from Jeremy Corbyn’s Islington is forced to move (because of “austerity”) from London to Devon (which, the Guardian tells us, is full of “casual racists”). The author sees Devon (which is “poorer than Romania”) as a pro-Brexit heartland. Not surprisingly, Amanda Craig gives a more or less Marxist/Corbynite account of Brexit in which it was the case that “the disparities in society that led to June’s result”. (I don’t know, perhaps, being superior and so utterly nonprovincial, this fictional Islington couple could no longer afford three foreign holidays a year and the fees for their kids’ private school — such austerity!)

Now what about Douglas Board’s Time of Lies; published, again, in June 2017?

This is perhaps the most over-the-top of the lot. In 2020, Douglas Board has it that a retired football hooligan wins the election! (He wins it in a “populist power grab”.) Not surprisingly, there then follows an almighty clash with the “pro-European Union metropolitan political elite.” I suppose that all the peaceful and extremely tolerant Remainers were put in concentration camps too; in which they were forced to read Mein Kampf and the Daily Mail.

One piece of fiction which occurred after the Brexit result was that “hate crimes” immediately increased. On close inspection, this was shown to be, at worst, false; or, at best, extremely speculative. That didn’t stop politicians, anti-racists and Remainers going on about this ostensible “spike” in hate crimes. (See this account of these “hate crimes.”)

The novelist Mark Billingham might have picked up on all this Brexit hate when he wrote his book Love Like Blood (published, yet again, in June 2017).

Love Like Blood charts Brexit and the subsequent rise in “xenophobic hate crime”. (The Guardian talks about “Little Englanders” in relation to this book.) What I never understood about this supposed spike in hate crimes is that if Brexit was seen as a positive result when it came to the amount of immigrants coming into the UK from oversees, then why would that cause an increase in racist crimes? Surely if the result had been negative (i.e., in favour of remaining in the EU), then that would have caused rage and then an increase in racist crimes. If British racists found out that there would be fewer immigrants coming into the UK in the future, then why the increase in hate crimes?

However, forget the crimes of those racist Brits (basically, all non-left-wing whites): what about conspiracies about a government quango?

In David Boyle’s The Remains of the Way (yes, published in June 2017), Brexit was brought about not by the votes of 51.89% of British voters; but by an old government quango which, miraculously, still worked within Whitehall. It gets worse. This quango was set up by Thomas Cromwell under King Henry VIII. What did this quango want? It wanted a “Protestant Brexit.” In addition, after Brexit the UK suffers famines and general destitution. However, I’m not sure if the EU then supplied the UK with “food aid”, as with Michael Paraskos’s Rabbitman.

On a very similar theme, we also have Stanley Johnson’s Kompromat.

According to this work of fiction (replicated by some Remainers), Brexit was the responsibility of “Russian influence” on the referendum. (But what about that Protestant quango?). However, thank God that Stanley Johnson believes that his book is “just meant to be fun!”



Source link

Facebook Banned Me for Tying Islamic Terror to…Well, Islam


Facebook’s Community Standards

Facebook firstly told me (see image) that

“[i]t looks like something you posted doesn’t follow our Community Standards”.

They aren’t “community” standards at all because the users of Facebook don’t formulate them. Facebook itself does. (This is Facebook’s Community Standards page.)

And then Facebook stated its position this way:

“We remove posts that attack people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability.”

One can argue that one’s race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, and disability are things one simply can’t do anything about. However, that’s certainly not true of one’s “religious affiliations.” As adults, we choose (or should choose) our religious affiliations; just as we choose our politics. And that’s why — I presume — the category political affiliations isn’t included on Facebook’s list. Despite saying that, Facebook’s clause against “attacking religious affiliations” is something that most newspapers and other institutions (in the US and UK) uphold, especially if those religious affiliations are Islamic.

The other thing is that it’s simply not true that Facebook removes all the posts which “attack people based” because of their “race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability.” If they did, then huge numbers of posts would be “removed”. Indeed — depending on how words like “attack”, etc. are defined/interpreted — such a strict policy would probably put an end to political discussion on social media. This means that Facebook is in practice extremely choosy about which posts it removes and which people it bans.

For example:

i) Facebook won’t remove posts which are critical of Americans.

ii) It won’t remove posts which are critical of whites.

iii) It won’t remove posts which are critical of heterosexuality or what’s called “patriarchy”.

iv) It will rarely (if ever) remove posts which are critical of Christianity.

Thus Islam — as almost everyone who’s familiar with Facebook knows — gains extra-special protection. And this unhealthy situation is added to by the large army of Muslims (along with their left-wing foot-soldiers) who always report the most effective criticisms of Islam to Facebook… I say “the most effective criticisms” because the mindless ones (or the ones which are genuinely racist or full of swearwords) often escape scot-free. This is because they aren’t seen as being a real political threat by Muslims and their left-wing lackeys. It’s the comments which are factual and argument-based that are more quickly and most often reported to Facebook — and for obvious reasons.

To return to Farnaz Javed and the banning.

Farnaz Javed (like many other Muslims on Facebook) doesn’t really do debate at all — at least not when it comes to Islam and her fellow Muslims. She lies and does Islamic Da‘wah instead. Indeed, sometimes her lies are so brazen and obvious that one wonders why she bothers. Actually, I know why she bothers. Taqiyya is written into Islam. So too is Da‘wah. This means that every time she lies (or sells Islam) to non-Muslims, she must believe that this will take her one step closer to Islam’s Paradise.

As for some of the left-wingers helpers of Islam on this page and others like it, they won’t mind Farnaz Javed’s lies simply because they believe that by ignoring them this will help their fight against what they see as racism/Islamophobia. And like Islamic taqiyya, left-wingers also have their own notions of “lying for Justice” and “by any means necessary.”

Anyway, what Farnaz Javed is doing is what Muslim countries have been doing since the time of Muhammed: she’s attempting to enforce sharia blasphemy law.

The Comment Itself

Now let’s look at the comment which led to the banning.

The comment (see image) doesn’t uses swear words, profanities or any gratuitous insults. It may indeed be that the post is slightly rhetorical. However, there are no lies in it. In any case, rhetoric can often be fused with fact and argument.  Except that, of course, pointing these facts out will be seen — by definition — as being “offensive”, “insulting” or an “attack” — at least to Muslims; and now, it seems, to Facebook too.

In addition, the comment never says that “all” or “every” Muslim is a terrorist; or even that every Muslim is a “supporter of terrorism.” It even acknowledges the possibility of “Christian terrorists” (such words were used by Farnaz Javed and indeed others on this page) when it says, “I am prepared to accept that there been some recent Christian terrorists”. It even states that “there are WHITE/CHRISTIAN killers.”

However, I find my own statements on Christian terrorism (in retrospect) to be conceding too much.

On one hand, left-wingers and Muslims consistently and deliberately conflate the notions of killing for Christianity and killers who just happen to be Christians. On the other hand, when Muslim terrorists kill, they kill for Islam and in the name of the Prophet.

In any case, Timothy McVeigh, for example, was a self-described “agnostic” who didn’t believe in Hell and who said that science was his religion.

As for Norway’s Anders Breivik. He described himself as an “agnostic” and only a “cultural Christian.” Not only that: he also believed in abortion, prostitution, and vampires. Indeed even Andrew Brown (a writer on religion for the left-wing Guardian newspaper) said that ‘Anders Breivik is not Christian but anti-Islam’. In addition, in a Huffington Post article (‘”Is Anders Breivik a Christian Terrorist?”) there’s a quote which says that Breivik

“classed himself as a ‘cultural Christian’ with no religious feelings or views”.

That same article then quotes Anders Breivik himself saying:

“I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a mono-cultural Christian Europe.”

It can hardly be said that a Muslim killer of Western soldiers or civilians would ever come even close to saying that he’s “not an excessively religious man“; that he’s “foremost a man of logic”; and that he’s an “agnostic” who doesn’t believe in Hell.

To get back to the comment.

The point, again, is that most of the post is factual:

i) It’s a fact that “very many Muslims [not all, obviously] are terrorists and are killing on a massive scale throughout the Muslim world and even in Europe and the US”. 

ii) It’s a fact that “Muslims have killed dozens of thousands of people in the last twenty years”.

iii) Finally, it’s a fact that many of them did so “in allegiance to Islam and the life and works of the Prophet Muhammad”.

To repeat. The death, oppression and persecution of non-Muslims in the Muslim world is a factual reality — to those who care to look! And everyone knows that we have a problem with Islamic terrorism in the West.

The “removed” comment tried to account for all that.

Conclusion

As it is, we can say that there are so many Muslims on the planet – and that Islam has lasted for so long — precisely because of actions like Farnaz Javed’s. That is, for 1,350 years Islam has disallowed literally all criticism of Islam, Muhammad, and the Koran. That is truer today than it was a hundred years ago.

One other reason for Islam’s longevity and demographics is that Islam is passed on from generation to generation within this very context of complete “submission” and universal blasphemy law.

That’s why Islam has survived and has large numbers of believers.

And this censorious and oppressive Islamic reality is what Farnaz Javed wants to bring to Facebook. The big problem is, Facebook seems very happy to enable Farnaz Javed’s Islamic mission.

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy.  He’s had articles published in The Conservative Online, New English Review, Human Events, Think-Israel, Intellectual Conservative, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), etc.  His blogs are: Paul Austin Murphy’s Philosophy and Paul Austin Murphy on Politics.

A week or so ago I was banned (again!) by Facebook for critical comments I made about Islam. I was reported by a Muslim female called Farnaz Javed. This Muslimah frequently carries out Islamic Da‘wah on a Facebook discussion page called “The Great British Political Debate.” In other words, she does very little politics; and what politics she does do is always connected to Islam in some way.

I’ve been reported — and subsequently banned — by Facebook before, either by Muslims or by their left-wing enablers. Indeed, I’ve been previously banned after debating with this very woman.  I also know other people who suspect that it was this woman who reported them to Facebook. Who knows how many other people Farnaz Javed has reported over the months.

Facebook’s Community Standards

Facebook firstly told me (see image) that

“[i]t looks like something you posted doesn’t follow our Community Standards”.

They aren’t “community” standards at all because the users of Facebook don’t formulate them. Facebook itself does. (This is Facebook’s Community Standards page.)

And then Facebook stated its position this way:

“We remove posts that attack people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability.”

One can argue that one’s race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, and disability are things one simply can’t do anything about. However, that’s certainly not true of one’s “religious affiliations.” As adults, we choose (or should choose) our religious affiliations; just as we choose our politics. And that’s why — I presume — the category political affiliations isn’t included on Facebook’s list. Despite saying that, Facebook’s clause against “attacking religious affiliations” is something that most newspapers and other institutions (in the US and UK) uphold, especially if those religious affiliations are Islamic.

The other thing is that it’s simply not true that Facebook removes all the posts which “attack people based” because of their “race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability.” If they did, then huge numbers of posts would be “removed”. Indeed — depending on how words like “attack”, etc. are defined/interpreted — such a strict policy would probably put an end to political discussion on social media. This means that Facebook is in practice extremely choosy about which posts it removes and which people it bans.

For example:

i) Facebook won’t remove posts which are critical of Americans.

ii) It won’t remove posts which are critical of whites.

iii) It won’t remove posts which are critical of heterosexuality or what’s called “patriarchy”.

iv) It will rarely (if ever) remove posts which are critical of Christianity.

Thus Islam — as almost everyone who’s familiar with Facebook knows — gains extra-special protection. And this unhealthy situation is added to by the large army of Muslims (along with their left-wing foot-soldiers) who always report the most effective criticisms of Islam to Facebook… I say “the most effective criticisms” because the mindless ones (or the ones which are genuinely racist or full of swearwords) often escape scot-free. This is because they aren’t seen as being a real political threat by Muslims and their left-wing lackeys. It’s the comments which are factual and argument-based that are more quickly and most often reported to Facebook — and for obvious reasons.

To return to Farnaz Javed and the banning.

Farnaz Javed (like many other Muslims on Facebook) doesn’t really do debate at all — at least not when it comes to Islam and her fellow Muslims. She lies and does Islamic Da‘wah instead. Indeed, sometimes her lies are so brazen and obvious that one wonders why she bothers. Actually, I know why she bothers. Taqiyya is written into Islam. So too is Da‘wah. This means that every time she lies (or sells Islam) to non-Muslims, she must believe that this will take her one step closer to Islam’s Paradise.

As for some of the left-wingers helpers of Islam on this page and others like it, they won’t mind Farnaz Javed’s lies simply because they believe that by ignoring them this will help their fight against what they see as racism/Islamophobia. And like Islamic taqiyya, left-wingers also have their own notions of “lying for Justice” and “by any means necessary.”

Anyway, what Farnaz Javed is doing is what Muslim countries have been doing since the time of Muhammed: she’s attempting to enforce sharia blasphemy law.

The Comment Itself

Now let’s look at the comment which led to the banning.

The comment (see image) doesn’t uses swear words, profanities or any gratuitous insults. It may indeed be that the post is slightly rhetorical. However, there are no lies in it. In any case, rhetoric can often be fused with fact and argument.  Except that, of course, pointing these facts out will be seen — by definition — as being “offensive”, “insulting” or an “attack” — at least to Muslims; and now, it seems, to Facebook too.

In addition, the comment never says that “all” or “every” Muslim is a terrorist; or even that every Muslim is a “supporter of terrorism.” It even acknowledges the possibility of “Christian terrorists” (such words were used by Farnaz Javed and indeed others on this page) when it says, “I am prepared to accept that there been some recent Christian terrorists”. It even states that “there are WHITE/CHRISTIAN killers.”

However, I find my own statements on Christian terrorism (in retrospect) to be conceding too much.

On one hand, left-wingers and Muslims consistently and deliberately conflate the notions of killing for Christianity and killers who just happen to be Christians. On the other hand, when Muslim terrorists kill, they kill for Islam and in the name of the Prophet.

In any case, Timothy McVeigh, for example, was a self-described “agnostic” who didn’t believe in Hell and who said that science was his religion.

As for Norway’s Anders Breivik. He described himself as an “agnostic” and only a “cultural Christian.” Not only that: he also believed in abortion, prostitution, and vampires. Indeed even Andrew Brown (a writer on religion for the left-wing Guardian newspaper) said that ‘Anders Breivik is not Christian but anti-Islam’. In addition, in a Huffington Post article (‘”Is Anders Breivik a Christian Terrorist?”) there’s a quote which says that Breivik

“classed himself as a ‘cultural Christian’ with no religious feelings or views”.

That same article then quotes Anders Breivik himself saying:

“I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a mono-cultural Christian Europe.”

It can hardly be said that a Muslim killer of Western soldiers or civilians would ever come even close to saying that he’s “not an excessively religious man“; that he’s “foremost a man of logic”; and that he’s an “agnostic” who doesn’t believe in Hell.

To get back to the comment.

The point, again, is that most of the post is factual:

i) It’s a fact that “very many Muslims [not all, obviously] are terrorists and are killing on a massive scale throughout the Muslim world and even in Europe and the US”. 

ii) It’s a fact that “Muslims have killed dozens of thousands of people in the last twenty years”.

iii) Finally, it’s a fact that many of them did so “in allegiance to Islam and the life and works of the Prophet Muhammad”.

To repeat. The death, oppression and persecution of non-Muslims in the Muslim world is a factual reality — to those who care to look! And everyone knows that we have a problem with Islamic terrorism in the West.

The “removed” comment tried to account for all that.

Conclusion

As it is, we can say that there are so many Muslims on the planet – and that Islam has lasted for so long — precisely because of actions like Farnaz Javed’s. That is, for 1,350 years Islam has disallowed literally all criticism of Islam, Muhammad, and the Koran. That is truer today than it was a hundred years ago.

One other reason for Islam’s longevity and demographics is that Islam is passed on from generation to generation within this very context of complete “submission” and universal blasphemy law.

That’s why Islam has survived and has large numbers of believers.

And this censorious and oppressive Islamic reality is what Farnaz Javed wants to bring to Facebook. The big problem is, Facebook seems very happy to enable Farnaz Javed’s Islamic mission.

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy.  He’s had articles published in The Conservative Online, New English Review, Human Events, Think-Israel, Intellectual Conservative, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), etc.  His blogs are: Paul Austin Murphy’s Philosophy and Paul Austin Murphy on Politics.



Source link

Metro says 'Allahu Akbar' means 'Hug one another'


Well, that’s an improvement because many non-Muslims (at least those involved in the Church of Interfaith) usually translate it as “God is great”; as does one tweet used in the article itself. Of course, that means that such an innocuous translation loses a very important aspect of this Islamic phrase.

It’s this accurate or genuine translation which gives the game away. That is, the phrase is comparative to other gods and religions. The Muslims who use it are effectively saying: Allah is greater than your god! That’s how it was originally used some 1,400 years ago and that’s how it’s used today. Thus, the words “Allahu Akbar” are a statement of Islamic supremacism and war. And that’s the case no matter how many times Metro willingly allows itself to be hoodwinked by various Muslims. (Presumably Metro does this because it believes it will help the fight against racism/Islamophobia.)

Metro also claims that

“many Muslims have been speaking out to reclaim a key part of their religion from extremists who have given it that negative connection”.

How can the word “Allahu Akbar” have been misappropriated by extremists when it was first used by the Prophet Muhammad himself in the Battle of Badr, which is itself classed as “the first battle in Islam”? 

If we jump forward to the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, it was then proclaimed from the rooftops as a form of Islamic “revolutionary” action.

Now let’s move to the 9/11 attack in New York. These words were found in Mohamed Atta’s suitcase:

“When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.”

Now for Iraq in 2004. In Nick Berg’s beheading video the Muslim killers can be seen and heard shouting “Allahu Akbar.” Then, in 2009, the Fort Hood killer, Nidal Malik Hasan, also shouted “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire and killing 13 people. It can also be seen that all the Muslim participants in the Syrian civil war — from the pseudo-moderates to the Islamic State — shouted “Allahu Akbar” after a killing or a successful bombing. Even the Free Syrian Army (officially designated a “secular” outfit by Westerners) shouted “Allahu Akbar” when a killing was made.

Metro’s PC Version of “Allahu Akbar”

Metro also interviews a Muslim woman (called Rabia Chaudry) who says that the words “Allahu Akbar” have

“no inherent political/violent connotation meriting instant terror diagnosis”.

In a sense, that can also be said of the words Sieg Heil. After all, it just means “Hail Victory.” Thus, a sportsman could say it. Nonetheless, like “Allahu Akbar”, it is historically associated with totalitarianism, violence and war. In the context of “Allahu Akbar”, it’s innocent usage doesn’t stop it being a fact that it’s always used by Islamic terrorists. And it doesn’t erase the parallel fact that the “role model” of these Islamic terrorists is the Prophet Muhammad’s own violence.

In any case, I’ve never personally heard a Muslim use it in any other context other than war or conflict (unlike, say, the word InShaAllah).  So it’s unlikely to be used in the context of an interfaith meeting or during an anti-racism/Islamophobia demonstration organised by Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party.

So it’s also strange how oddly Metro comments on the words “Allahu Akbar” when its says that

“some people believe it’s code for a terror attack, because that’s the only context they have heard it reported in”.

Some people? I would suspect that all non-Muslims see the phrase that way. Indeed, I even suspect that even this pious anti-racist journalist (Jen Mills) does so too; though, of course, she’ll probably never say that when she attends London’s dinner parties or in other Metro articles on “Muslim issues”.

The word “code” seems slightly patronising (or at least judgmental) too.

The phrase “Allahu Akbar” isn’t “code for a terror attack” — it’s part of an Islamic terror attack! It’s a vital part because it shows victims, other non-Muslims and the terrorists themselves exactly why they’re doing what they’re doing. That is, they are blowing people up because Allah is greater, not because Allah is great.

Two Typical Muslims?

Rabia Chaudry, according to Metro, also says she states it “like 20 times a day.” Wajahat Ali, on the other hand, trumps Rabia Chaudry by saying that he states “’Allahu Akbar’ out loud more than 100 times a day.”. Really? Well, Mr. Jeremy Hussein Akhtar says it 1000 times every hour while simultaneously fighting racism, attending interfaith meetings, and hugging Jews.

Do Rabia Chaudry and Wajahat Ali really say it between 20 to 100 times a day? How would Metro readers know that to be true? Should we believe them? And how would we know that thoughts of “Islam’s ultimate victory” aren’t also on their minds –- at least some of the time?

The thing is, even if Metro‘s choice specimens are indeed ultra-moderate, it doesn’t make much difference anyway. No doubt had Metro been around in the 1930s it could have found very moderate Nazis or communists too. That wouldn’t have made much of a difference either. The fact is that when Nazis used the phrase Sieg Heil (or communists say “smash capitalism”) we know what they mean. And we know what “Allahu Akbar” really means too, despite the dissimulation and obfuscation.

Conclusion

Finally, Metro really takes the biscuit when it decides to indulge in some Islamic Da‘wah itself. It recounts a Muslim saying:

“But if we’re blessed enough ALLAH can easily turn them into the most amazing of life’s moments.”

Still, if by selling Islam to the non-Muslim British public, Metro helps the fight against racism/Islamophobia, then so be it. Metro’s anti-racist piety (or gullibility) is worth it. Perhaps allowing in another five million Muslim immigrants into the UK or imprisoning all critics of Islam will also help the fight against racism/Islamophobia. After all, anything goes in that sacred fight; including dissimulation and lies about Islam’s battle-cry — “Allahu Akbar.”

The “UK’s fastest-growing newspaper”, Metro, in an article titled ‘Muslims want to reclaim “Allahu Akbar” from extremists’, tells us that

“’Allahu Akbar’ means ‘God is greatest’.”

Well, that’s an improvement because many non-Muslims (at least those involved in the Church of Interfaith) usually translate it as “God is great”; as does one tweet used in the article itself. Of course, that means that such an innocuous translation loses a very important aspect of this Islamic phrase.

It’s this accurate or genuine translation which gives the game away. That is, the phrase is comparative to other gods and religions. The Muslims who use it are effectively saying: Allah is greater than your god! That’s how it was originally used some 1,400 years ago and that’s how it’s used today. Thus, the words “Allahu Akbar” are a statement of Islamic supremacism and war. And that’s the case no matter how many times Metro willingly allows itself to be hoodwinked by various Muslims. (Presumably Metro does this because it believes it will help the fight against racism/Islamophobia.)

Metro also claims that

“many Muslims have been speaking out to reclaim a key part of their religion from extremists who have given it that negative connection”.

How can the word “Allahu Akbar” have been misappropriated by extremists when it was first used by the Prophet Muhammad himself in the Battle of Badr, which is itself classed as “the first battle in Islam”? 

If we jump forward to the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, it was then proclaimed from the rooftops as a form of Islamic “revolutionary” action.

Now let’s move to the 9/11 attack in New York. These words were found in Mohamed Atta’s suitcase:

“When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.”

Now for Iraq in 2004. In Nick Berg’s beheading video the Muslim killers can be seen and heard shouting “Allahu Akbar.” Then, in 2009, the Fort Hood killer, Nidal Malik Hasan, also shouted “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire and killing 13 people. It can also be seen that all the Muslim participants in the Syrian civil war — from the pseudo-moderates to the Islamic State — shouted “Allahu Akbar” after a killing or a successful bombing. Even the Free Syrian Army (officially designated a “secular” outfit by Westerners) shouted “Allahu Akbar” when a killing was made.

Metro’s PC Version of “Allahu Akbar”

Metro also interviews a Muslim woman (called Rabia Chaudry) who says that the words “Allahu Akbar” have

“no inherent political/violent connotation meriting instant terror diagnosis”.

In a sense, that can also be said of the words Sieg Heil. After all, it just means “Hail Victory.” Thus, a sportsman could say it. Nonetheless, like “Allahu Akbar”, it is historically associated with totalitarianism, violence and war. In the context of “Allahu Akbar”, it’s innocent usage doesn’t stop it being a fact that it’s always used by Islamic terrorists. And it doesn’t erase the parallel fact that the “role model” of these Islamic terrorists is the Prophet Muhammad’s own violence.

In any case, I’ve never personally heard a Muslim use it in any other context other than war or conflict (unlike, say, the word InShaAllah).  So it’s unlikely to be used in the context of an interfaith meeting or during an anti-racism/Islamophobia demonstration organised by Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party.

So it’s also strange how oddly Metro comments on the words “Allahu Akbar” when its says that

“some people believe it’s code for a terror attack, because that’s the only context they have heard it reported in”.

Some people? I would suspect that all non-Muslims see the phrase that way. Indeed, I even suspect that even this pious anti-racist journalist (Jen Mills) does so too; though, of course, she’ll probably never say that when she attends London’s dinner parties or in other Metro articles on “Muslim issues”.

The word “code” seems slightly patronising (or at least judgmental) too.

The phrase “Allahu Akbar” isn’t “code for a terror attack” — it’s part of an Islamic terror attack! It’s a vital part because it shows victims, other non-Muslims and the terrorists themselves exactly why they’re doing what they’re doing. That is, they are blowing people up because Allah is greater, not because Allah is great.

Two Typical Muslims?

Rabia Chaudry, according to Metro, also says she states it “like 20 times a day.” Wajahat Ali, on the other hand, trumps Rabia Chaudry by saying that he states “’Allahu Akbar’ out loud more than 100 times a day.”. Really? Well, Mr. Jeremy Hussein Akhtar says it 1000 times every hour while simultaneously fighting racism, attending interfaith meetings, and hugging Jews.

Do Rabia Chaudry and Wajahat Ali really say it between 20 to 100 times a day? How would Metro readers know that to be true? Should we believe them? And how would we know that thoughts of “Islam’s ultimate victory” aren’t also on their minds –- at least some of the time?

The thing is, even if Metro‘s choice specimens are indeed ultra-moderate, it doesn’t make much difference anyway. No doubt had Metro been around in the 1930s it could have found very moderate Nazis or communists too. That wouldn’t have made much of a difference either. The fact is that when Nazis used the phrase Sieg Heil (or communists say “smash capitalism”) we know what they mean. And we know what “Allahu Akbar” really means too, despite the dissimulation and obfuscation.

Conclusion

Finally, Metro really takes the biscuit when it decides to indulge in some Islamic Da‘wah itself. It recounts a Muslim saying:

“But if we’re blessed enough ALLAH can easily turn them into the most amazing of life’s moments.”

Still, if by selling Islam to the non-Muslim British public, Metro helps the fight against racism/Islamophobia, then so be it. Metro’s anti-racist piety (or gullibility) is worth it. Perhaps allowing in another five million Muslim immigrants into the UK or imprisoning all critics of Islam will also help the fight against racism/Islamophobia. After all, anything goes in that sacred fight; including dissimulation and lies about Islam’s battle-cry — “Allahu Akbar.”



Source link

Fake Disgust at Gove's Weinstein joke


The British Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael Gove, has just been summoned  before (or hauled off to) the Politically-Correct Inquisition for his sinful faux pas (i.e., joke) on BBC Radio 4. Indeed the very wording of some of newspaper reports show this to be the case. One newspaper, for example, wrote:

“Michael Gove has been forced to apologise after making a crass Harvey Weinstein joke.”

Note the word “forced.” Yes, Michael Gove MP has been forced to repent for his sin.

So what was Michael Gove’s joke? This:

“Sometimes I think that coming into the studio with you John [Humphrys] is like going into Harvey Weinstein’s bedroom.”

What hasn’t been much commented upon is that the British Labour Party’s very own Lord Kinnock also got in on the act by adding: “John [Humphrys] goes way past groping.” Not only that: the audience laughed at — and applauded — the joke!  It’s also strange that Lord Kinnock hasn’t also been summoned to the Politically-Correct Inquisition.

For those who have no sense of humour, or who don’t know anything about John Humphrys and Radio 4: Michael Gove’s joke was a reference to John Humphrys (a BBC journalist) and his confrontational (or “in-depth”) style of interviewing.

Gove’s joke is moderately funny. It’s not a stroke of comedic genius, sure. Then again, he’s not a comedian and he wasn’t at a comedy club. In fact, if he had been a comedian he’d have got away with this joke. That’s because moral grandstanders and political activists wouldn’t have been able to make any political capital out the joke had it been made by a comedian.

Thus it’s very hard to believe that anyone was truly “furious” or offended. It’s hard to believe that the comment — joke — was “crass”. And it’s hard to believe that the joke was “clumsy.”

So what I believe is that people who are politically against Michael Gove anyway used the joke as an excuse to have a go at him.

In any case, Gove has predictably apologised. Indeed, he got on his knees and apologised “unreservedly.” More concretely, he tweeted:

“Apologies for my clumsy attempt at humour on R4 Today this morning — it wasn’t appropriate. I’m sorry and apologise unreservedly.”

We should have very little respect for those people who later apologize for what they, at the time, didn’t see as a sin or a political faux pas. Gove and others should have the courage of their convictions. Having said that, I can see that such ritual self-flagellation is required in order to save one’s career. So perhaps we’d all do the same thing if we were put in the same position. The problem is that if people keep on apologizing for pretty harmless jokes, words, or actions, then our Puritan Left-wing Age will become even more puritan and pious. So should we feed the crocodile which will eventually eat us?

Of course, the joke wasn’t “clumsy” at all. It was a joke which was said off-the-cuff. However, there is one way in which the joke can be seen a clumsy. Namely, it was clumsy because Gove should have known that political activists and moral grandstanders would have jumped on this joke to further a political cause, have a go at a politician they don’t like, or to morally exhibit themselves. Thus the fact that Gove didn’t foresee all of this did make his comment clumsy in that he clumsily threatened his own career (if only in a very small way) when he made this otherwise harmless joke.

In any case, the confession won’t be enough for those who’ve only cried crocodile tears.

One politician who used Gove’s joke for her own ends was the Labour MP Jess Phillips. (Phillips once said that the equivalent to the mass sexual assaults by Muslims in Cologne occurred every week –- by white men —  in a single Birmingham city-center street.) She’s well-known for being purer than pure when it comes to these issues. That is, she virulently anti-“Tory” and also a massively self-conscious feminist and self-selling politician. She wrote:

“Michael Gove just left the studio without his dignity.”

In other words, Gove’s joke has been used for political ends and/or for moral grandstanding.

The main problem here is that we live in a Puritan Age. Our Politically-Correct Puritan Age is the way it is primarily because of left-wing morality and theology (i.e. theory). True, political correctness can sometimes run free of its left-wing grounding (or source); though left-wing morality and theology essentially brought about political correctness.

The Puritan Age’s ultimate sin is to offend any “identity group” or designated victim class. However, some groups can be offended without even an eyebrow being raised — and such groups aren’t always “majorities.” Namely, whites, men, right-wingers, conservatives, Christians, patriots, nationalists, American “rednecks,” “white-van man,” Brexiteers, “provincials,” those north of Watford Gap, etc. The list is long. Thus, politically correct and incorrect groups are selected according to left-wing theology. That theology decides who or what we can offend.

The British Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael Gove, has just been summoned  before (or hauled off to) the Politically-Correct Inquisition for his sinful faux pas (i.e., joke) on BBC Radio 4. Indeed the very wording of some of newspaper reports show this to be the case. One newspaper, for example, wrote:

“Michael Gove has been forced to apologise after making a crass Harvey Weinstein joke.”

Note the word “forced.” Yes, Michael Gove MP has been forced to repent for his sin.

So what was Michael Gove’s joke? This:

“Sometimes I think that coming into the studio with you John [Humphrys] is like going into Harvey Weinstein’s bedroom.”

What hasn’t been much commented upon is that the British Labour Party’s very own Lord Kinnock also got in on the act by adding: “John [Humphrys] goes way past groping.” Not only that: the audience laughed at — and applauded — the joke!  It’s also strange that Lord Kinnock hasn’t also been summoned to the Politically-Correct Inquisition.

For those who have no sense of humour, or who don’t know anything about John Humphrys and Radio 4: Michael Gove’s joke was a reference to John Humphrys (a BBC journalist) and his confrontational (or “in-depth”) style of interviewing.

Gove’s joke is moderately funny. It’s not a stroke of comedic genius, sure. Then again, he’s not a comedian and he wasn’t at a comedy club. In fact, if he had been a comedian he’d have got away with this joke. That’s because moral grandstanders and political activists wouldn’t have been able to make any political capital out the joke had it been made by a comedian.

Thus it’s very hard to believe that anyone was truly “furious” or offended. It’s hard to believe that the comment — joke — was “crass”. And it’s hard to believe that the joke was “clumsy.”

So what I believe is that people who are politically against Michael Gove anyway used the joke as an excuse to have a go at him.

In any case, Gove has predictably apologised. Indeed, he got on his knees and apologised “unreservedly.” More concretely, he tweeted:

“Apologies for my clumsy attempt at humour on R4 Today this morning — it wasn’t appropriate. I’m sorry and apologise unreservedly.”

We should have very little respect for those people who later apologize for what they, at the time, didn’t see as a sin or a political faux pas. Gove and others should have the courage of their convictions. Having said that, I can see that such ritual self-flagellation is required in order to save one’s career. So perhaps we’d all do the same thing if we were put in the same position. The problem is that if people keep on apologizing for pretty harmless jokes, words, or actions, then our Puritan Left-wing Age will become even more puritan and pious. So should we feed the crocodile which will eventually eat us?

Of course, the joke wasn’t “clumsy” at all. It was a joke which was said off-the-cuff. However, there is one way in which the joke can be seen a clumsy. Namely, it was clumsy because Gove should have known that political activists and moral grandstanders would have jumped on this joke to further a political cause, have a go at a politician they don’t like, or to morally exhibit themselves. Thus the fact that Gove didn’t foresee all of this did make his comment clumsy in that he clumsily threatened his own career (if only in a very small way) when he made this otherwise harmless joke.

In any case, the confession won’t be enough for those who’ve only cried crocodile tears.

One politician who used Gove’s joke for her own ends was the Labour MP Jess Phillips. (Phillips once said that the equivalent to the mass sexual assaults by Muslims in Cologne occurred every week –- by white men —  in a single Birmingham city-center street.) She’s well-known for being purer than pure when it comes to these issues. That is, she virulently anti-“Tory” and also a massively self-conscious feminist and self-selling politician. She wrote:

“Michael Gove just left the studio without his dignity.”

In other words, Gove’s joke has been used for political ends and/or for moral grandstanding.

The main problem here is that we live in a Puritan Age. Our Politically-Correct Puritan Age is the way it is primarily because of left-wing morality and theology (i.e. theory). True, political correctness can sometimes run free of its left-wing grounding (or source); though left-wing morality and theology essentially brought about political correctness.

The Puritan Age’s ultimate sin is to offend any “identity group” or designated victim class. However, some groups can be offended without even an eyebrow being raised — and such groups aren’t always “majorities.” Namely, whites, men, right-wingers, conservatives, Christians, patriots, nationalists, American “rednecks,” “white-van man,” Brexiteers, “provincials,” those north of Watford Gap, etc. The list is long. Thus, politically correct and incorrect groups are selected according to left-wing theology. That theology decides who or what we can offend.



Source link

What Is 'Democratic Socialism'?


This piece is also set within the context of the rise of the British “radical socialist”, “democratic socialist” and Leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn MP. (According to his followers, Corbyn “almost won” the British election in June 2017.)

Democratic socialism itself must also be seen within the context of 20th century communism and Stalinism.

What I mean by that is that there has been a brazen attempt to separate socialism and even communism itself from Stalinism — and from all the other forms of socialism which have led to dictatorships or totalitarianism. Interestingly enough, even Trotskyists have also almost entirely defined themselves in opposition to Stalin and the Soviet Union. Of course, virtually no kind of socialist/communist is ever going to explicitly commit himself to dictatorship or totalitarianism and hardly any socialist/communist ever has. (Even the National Socialist Adolf Hitler and the International Socialist Josef Stalin never explicitly committed themselves to totalitarianism.)

At one point in history, even self-described communists began to recognise the Problem of Stalin. In actual fact, they really recognised the Problem of Communism. This meant that Stalin became communism’s very-convenient scapegoat. In the end, it was all down to Stalin and to no one else! Marx, for example, had absolutely nothing to do with oppression, dictatorship, and even the victims of “class war.” Indeed, many socialists have also claimed that Lenin, Trotsky, and many other Marxist/socialist oppressors were entirely blameless. As I said, Stalin became — and still is — the ultimate bogeyman and scapegoat for many — though certainly not for all (e.g., the British Labour Party’s Seumas Milne and Andrew Murray) — socialists and communists.

Yet even the “radical” French structuralist and philosopher, Michel Foucault, thought otherwise. 

“In the Gulag one sees not the consequences of any unhappy mistake, but the effects of the ‘truest’ of theories in the political order [i.e., Marxism/communism].”

Despite the above, Mikhail Gorbachev still described his own perestroika as a “new, humane and democratic socialism.” It was partly because of this that many other communists and Marxists suddenly began to class themselves as “democratic socialists”.

“Democratic socialism”?

The basic thing is that no matter how the word “democratic” — in “democratic socialism” — is defined or used, it’s still deemed to be an aspect of socialism. That is, socialists believe that “the means of production”, education, transport, all the public services, the utilities, the (entire?) media and probably much more should be owned by the state. (Or, as its sometimes inaccurately — or even deceitfully — put by the followers of Corbyn, all these things should be “socially-owned”/“publicly-owned”.)

So now let’s update to 2017 and the United Kingdom.

With the rise of the British “Shadow Prime Minister” and Member of Parliament, Jeremy Corbyn, there’s been a strong emphasis on the words “democratic socialism”. This is a relatively new emphasis; though the words “democratic socialism” do date back decades.

Indeed, some of Corbyn’s followers have also had the audacity to claim that Corbyn is a “social democrat” who believes in “social democracy.” This means that the supporters of Corbyn are intentionally – perhaps cunningly — fusing democratic socialism with social democracy. Corbynites even cite the Scandinavian countries as being an influence on Corbyn. However, there’s a small and inconvenient fact here: no Scandinavian government is democratic-socialist, let alone outright socialist. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are all parliamentary (representative) democracies with constitutional monarchies; with two Kings and a Queen as heads of state. These countries are also run by Social Democratic, Liberal, and Conservative parties.

So what, exactly, is democratic socialism and how does it differ from plain socialism and communism?

The Democratic Socialists of America

Take the Democratic Socialists of America, which was formed 1982 and is still with us today. In the past, the DSA has endorsed Jesse Jackson, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama and, more recently, Britain’s very own Jeremy Corbyn.

I mentioned earlier that many of Corbyn supporters state that Corbyn is a “social democrat” who believes in “social democracy”. So it’s worth noting that the Democratic Socialists of America has its roots in a split with the Social Democrats, USA. The SDUSA was deemed to be too “right-wing.” The group which arose from the split was called the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC); and that group led to the Democratic Socialists of America.

The Democratic Socialists of America endorse what Michael Harrington called the “left-wing realism” which is “found today in the Democratic Party.” Similarly, many Marxists, Trotskyists and communists back the left-wing realism which is found in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party.

What about the politics of the Democratic Socialists of America?

The following is the DSA’S view of democratic socialism:

“We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power… We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution… We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest between those sectors with enormous economic power and the vast majority of the population.”

We can see that this passage might have come straight out of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto — if in a slightly updated form.

That means that when it comes to the Democratic Socialists of America (at the least), the term “democratic socialism” firstly means acknowledging and then winning the class war. It also means the total control of all “resources and production”; alongside complete “economic planning”. Doesn’t all this sound very familiar to you?

So where, exactly, is the democracy in the DSA’s democratic socialism? The Democratic Socialists of America’s answer to that will no doubt be as simple as this:

No state or government which allows capitalism — in any shape and form — can be truly democratic precisely because it allows “gross inequalities”, “alienated labour” and the “conflict of interests.”

Quite simply, the Democratic Socialists of America believes that democracy will not exist until socialism — in its complete form — is put in place.

And like the activist group Momentum within the Labour Party (which once said that it “exists to build on the energy and enthusiasm from the Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader campaign”), the DSA places its cards on the table in this way:

“Much of progressive, independent political action will continue to occur in Democratic Party primaries… democratic socialists will support coalitional campaigns based on labor, women, people of color and other potentially anti-corporate elements… Electoral tactics are only a means for democratic socialists [my bold]; the building of a powerful anti-corporate coalition is the end…”

In the United Kingdom, this is called “entryism.” That word is defined in this way:

“Entryism is the infiltration of a political party by members of another group, with the intention of subverting its policies or objectives.”

Indeed, the overall role of the Democratic Socialists of America (just like Momentum in the British Labour Party) is to “realign” the Democratic party and make it, well, outrightly socialist/Marxist.

There are other democratic socialists who believe in such non-electoral radicalism too.

The “socialist activist” and Marxist, Hal Draper, for example, actually used the words “revolutionary-democratic socialism” as a term for his own political position. And we mustn’t forget here that many communist regimes in the 20th century classed themselves as democratic. (E.g., the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, the Democratic Government of Albania, Democratic Kampuchea, etc.)

Conclusion

Thus these — and many other — socialists don’t see any conflict at all between outright revolution/”radicalism” and democracy. Indeed, they don’t see any conflict or contradiction between their democratic socialism and revolution. All this must surely mean that such people simply can’t be believers in social democracy (in the Scandinavian or European sense) in any historical or meaningful sense of that term. In other words, the word “democratic” in “democratic socialism” is pretty much a pretense. Indeed, most of the history of socialist states, ideology and practice shows us that very clearly.

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy. He’s had articles published in The Conservative Online, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Think-Israel, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc. His philosophy blog can be found here.  His blog on politics can be found here.

How do we make sense of this statement made by the Democratic Socialists of America (The “the largest socialist organization in the United States,” according to itself)?

“Electoral tactics are only a means for democratic socialists.”

This piece is also set within the context of the rise of the British “radical socialist”, “democratic socialist” and Leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn MP. (According to his followers, Corbyn “almost won” the British election in June 2017.)

Democratic socialism itself must also be seen within the context of 20th century communism and Stalinism.

What I mean by that is that there has been a brazen attempt to separate socialism and even communism itself from Stalinism — and from all the other forms of socialism which have led to dictatorships or totalitarianism. Interestingly enough, even Trotskyists have also almost entirely defined themselves in opposition to Stalin and the Soviet Union. Of course, virtually no kind of socialist/communist is ever going to explicitly commit himself to dictatorship or totalitarianism and hardly any socialist/communist ever has. (Even the National Socialist Adolf Hitler and the International Socialist Josef Stalin never explicitly committed themselves to totalitarianism.)

At one point in history, even self-described communists began to recognise the Problem of Stalin. In actual fact, they really recognised the Problem of Communism. This meant that Stalin became communism’s very-convenient scapegoat. In the end, it was all down to Stalin and to no one else! Marx, for example, had absolutely nothing to do with oppression, dictatorship, and even the victims of “class war.” Indeed, many socialists have also claimed that Lenin, Trotsky, and many other Marxist/socialist oppressors were entirely blameless. As I said, Stalin became — and still is — the ultimate bogeyman and scapegoat for many — though certainly not for all (e.g., the British Labour Party’s Seumas Milne and Andrew Murray) — socialists and communists.

Yet even the “radical” French structuralist and philosopher, Michel Foucault, thought otherwise. 

“In the Gulag one sees not the consequences of any unhappy mistake, but the effects of the ‘truest’ of theories in the political order [i.e., Marxism/communism].”

Despite the above, Mikhail Gorbachev still described his own perestroika as a “new, humane and democratic socialism.” It was partly because of this that many other communists and Marxists suddenly began to class themselves as “democratic socialists”.

“Democratic socialism”?

The basic thing is that no matter how the word “democratic” — in “democratic socialism” — is defined or used, it’s still deemed to be an aspect of socialism. That is, socialists believe that “the means of production”, education, transport, all the public services, the utilities, the (entire?) media and probably much more should be owned by the state. (Or, as its sometimes inaccurately — or even deceitfully — put by the followers of Corbyn, all these things should be “socially-owned”/“publicly-owned”.)

So now let’s update to 2017 and the United Kingdom.

With the rise of the British “Shadow Prime Minister” and Member of Parliament, Jeremy Corbyn, there’s been a strong emphasis on the words “democratic socialism”. This is a relatively new emphasis; though the words “democratic socialism” do date back decades.

Indeed, some of Corbyn’s followers have also had the audacity to claim that Corbyn is a “social democrat” who believes in “social democracy.” This means that the supporters of Corbyn are intentionally – perhaps cunningly — fusing democratic socialism with social democracy. Corbynites even cite the Scandinavian countries as being an influence on Corbyn. However, there’s a small and inconvenient fact here: no Scandinavian government is democratic-socialist, let alone outright socialist. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are all parliamentary (representative) democracies with constitutional monarchies; with two Kings and a Queen as heads of state. These countries are also run by Social Democratic, Liberal, and Conservative parties.

So what, exactly, is democratic socialism and how does it differ from plain socialism and communism?

The Democratic Socialists of America

Take the Democratic Socialists of America, which was formed 1982 and is still with us today. In the past, the DSA has endorsed Jesse Jackson, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama and, more recently, Britain’s very own Jeremy Corbyn.

I mentioned earlier that many of Corbyn supporters state that Corbyn is a “social democrat” who believes in “social democracy”. So it’s worth noting that the Democratic Socialists of America has its roots in a split with the Social Democrats, USA. The SDUSA was deemed to be too “right-wing.” The group which arose from the split was called the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC); and that group led to the Democratic Socialists of America.

The Democratic Socialists of America endorse what Michael Harrington called the “left-wing realism” which is “found today in the Democratic Party.” Similarly, many Marxists, Trotskyists and communists back the left-wing realism which is found in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party.

What about the politics of the Democratic Socialists of America?

The following is the DSA’S view of democratic socialism:

“We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power… We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution… We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest between those sectors with enormous economic power and the vast majority of the population.”

We can see that this passage might have come straight out of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto — if in a slightly updated form.

That means that when it comes to the Democratic Socialists of America (at the least), the term “democratic socialism” firstly means acknowledging and then winning the class war. It also means the total control of all “resources and production”; alongside complete “economic planning”. Doesn’t all this sound very familiar to you?

So where, exactly, is the democracy in the DSA’s democratic socialism? The Democratic Socialists of America’s answer to that will no doubt be as simple as this:

No state or government which allows capitalism — in any shape and form — can be truly democratic precisely because it allows “gross inequalities”, “alienated labour” and the “conflict of interests.”

Quite simply, the Democratic Socialists of America believes that democracy will not exist until socialism — in its complete form — is put in place.

And like the activist group Momentum within the Labour Party (which once said that it “exists to build on the energy and enthusiasm from the Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader campaign”), the DSA places its cards on the table in this way:

“Much of progressive, independent political action will continue to occur in Democratic Party primaries… democratic socialists will support coalitional campaigns based on labor, women, people of color and other potentially anti-corporate elements… Electoral tactics are only a means for democratic socialists [my bold]; the building of a powerful anti-corporate coalition is the end…”

In the United Kingdom, this is called “entryism.” That word is defined in this way:

“Entryism is the infiltration of a political party by members of another group, with the intention of subverting its policies or objectives.”

Indeed, the overall role of the Democratic Socialists of America (just like Momentum in the British Labour Party) is to “realign” the Democratic party and make it, well, outrightly socialist/Marxist.

There are other democratic socialists who believe in such non-electoral radicalism too.

The “socialist activist” and Marxist, Hal Draper, for example, actually used the words “revolutionary-democratic socialism” as a term for his own political position. And we mustn’t forget here that many communist regimes in the 20th century classed themselves as democratic. (E.g., the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, the Democratic Government of Albania, Democratic Kampuchea, etc.)

Conclusion

Thus these — and many other — socialists don’t see any conflict at all between outright revolution/”radicalism” and democracy. Indeed, they don’t see any conflict or contradiction between their democratic socialism and revolution. All this must surely mean that such people simply can’t be believers in social democracy (in the Scandinavian or European sense) in any historical or meaningful sense of that term. In other words, the word “democratic” in “democratic socialism” is pretty much a pretense. Indeed, most of the history of socialist states, ideology and practice shows us that very clearly.

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy. He’s had articles published in The Conservative Online, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Think-Israel, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc. His philosophy blog can be found here.  His blog on politics can be found here.



Source link

A Lesson from Cambridge University: 'All White People Are Racist'


A black student at Cambridge University has just said that “all white people are racist”. (This was in response to Saturday’s riots in Dalston, east London.) His name is Jason Osamede Okundaye. He’s also the President of the Black and Minority Ethnic society at the University.

Okundaye wrote:

The other fantastically ironic thing is that he also claimed that “middle-class white people” have “colonised” Dalston. In full:

Of course, if white people had claimed that Dalston was formerly colonised by black people, they’d have been classed as racist by anti-racists. Though since blacks can’t be racist (they don’t “have the power”), then this statement can’t be racist either. Nothing a black person says or does can be racist. This is according to the standards of the many and various anti-racist theorists and academics who exist today; some of whom will teach at Okundaye’s Cambridge University.

Predictably, once the news spread outside of the Students’ Union and the University itself, a spokesperson from the University said: “The College is looking into this matter and will respond appropriately.”

However, if blacks can be racist, then what can Cambridge University do about this? Jason Osamede Okundaye has done nothing wrong. That is, according to many theorists and academics at Cambridge University, he’s done nothing wrong. He’s black and therefore he can’t be a racist. He’s only a victim. Not a suspect or even a free agent. He’s a black man. A man infantilised by anti-racist theory and anti-racist activists.

According to Trinity College [Cambridge] Students’ Union website:

“BME, Black and Minority Ethnic, is a term used in the UK to describe people of non-white descent.”

Thus, the Black and Minority Ethnic society seems to think that all people who aren’t white have something in common. That’s from middle-class African blacks (like Jason Osamede Okundaye?) to deprived Indians who’ve been given a scholarship. So this institution is racist for the simple reason that it places an absolute emphasis on race and colour. What better definition of racism can there be? After all, racism can be both positive and negative. Presumably, the BME sees itself as practicing and promoting positive racism; though it won’t use the word “racism” about itself.

For example, at Cambridge University there are academic courses which teach that “all white people are racist”. They won’t, of course, use the same inflammatory “discourse” which Jason Osamede Okundaye uses. Nonetheless, he’s the logical/political conclusion of such theoretical and academic anti-white racism.

There have also been a series of seminars on Critical Race Theory in July this year at Cambridge University. The University also featured “research” under the headline: ‘Racism in the US runs far deeper than Trump’s white supremacist fanbase’. (It was written by Nicholas Guyatt, a Cambridge University lecturer.) More relevantly, the University of Cambridge published a piece which states that it’s wrong to single out or “demonize” the “white working class for racism”; when, as a matter of fact, all white people are racist. (This, I presume, is class prejudice.)

So I wonder if Jason Osamede Okundaye will win one of the “award categories” which Cambridge University Students’ Union (CUSU) has just announced as part of its “anti-racism campaign.” After all, what better way is there of being anti-racist than being racist against all whites?

Jason Osamede Okundaye is digging his own grave anyway; even if he is a student at Cambridge University. If “all white people are racist”, then that must be some kind of racial fact. A fact about white DNA, perhaps. And if that’s the case, there’s nothing white people can do about it. Therefore, condemning white racism is pointless. It’s racial. It’s genetic. It’s a given. So why the political and moral outrage? Changing white racism would be like changing the colour of one’s skin or how many fingers one has.

It’s also ironic that this black racist is a member of a Cambridge University “equality group”. Although only black and brown people can be members, many white middle-class Trotskyists, communists, and progressives will support it to the hilt. And these are the very people aiming Jason Osamede Okundaye is aiming his racist words at.

This is a variation, of course, on the more polite and theoretical anti-white racism of academics and people like Diane Abbott MP (the British Shadow Home Secretary); who, predictably, has stuck her own nose into the Dalston riots. From her previous statements, she believes more or less the same as Jason Osamede Okundaye. For example, in 2012 she wrote:

“White people love playing ‘divide and rule’ We should not play their game.”

In 1988, when, at a black studies conference in Philadelphia, she claimed that “the British invented racism”. She also made a racist comment about white Finnish nurses.

Jason Osamede Okundaye is the logical/political conclusion of academic “anti-racism”. So we’ll have to reap the harvest.

A black student at Cambridge University has just said that “all white people are racist”. (This was in response to Saturday’s riots in Dalston, east London.) His name is Jason Osamede Okundaye. He’s also the President of the Black and Minority Ethnic society at the University.

Okundaye wrote:

The other fantastically ironic thing is that he also claimed that “middle-class white people” have “colonised” Dalston. In full:

Of course, if white people had claimed that Dalston was formerly colonised by black people, they’d have been classed as racist by anti-racists. Though since blacks can’t be racist (they don’t “have the power”), then this statement can’t be racist either. Nothing a black person says or does can be racist. This is according to the standards of the many and various anti-racist theorists and academics who exist today; some of whom will teach at Okundaye’s Cambridge University.

Predictably, once the news spread outside of the Students’ Union and the University itself, a spokesperson from the University said: “The College is looking into this matter and will respond appropriately.”

However, if blacks can be racist, then what can Cambridge University do about this? Jason Osamede Okundaye has done nothing wrong. That is, according to many theorists and academics at Cambridge University, he’s done nothing wrong. He’s black and therefore he can’t be a racist. He’s only a victim. Not a suspect or even a free agent. He’s a black man. A man infantilised by anti-racist theory and anti-racist activists.

According to Trinity College [Cambridge] Students’ Union website:

“BME, Black and Minority Ethnic, is a term used in the UK to describe people of non-white descent.”

Thus, the Black and Minority Ethnic society seems to think that all people who aren’t white have something in common. That’s from middle-class African blacks (like Jason Osamede Okundaye?) to deprived Indians who’ve been given a scholarship. So this institution is racist for the simple reason that it places an absolute emphasis on race and colour. What better definition of racism can there be? After all, racism can be both positive and negative. Presumably, the BME sees itself as practicing and promoting positive racism; though it won’t use the word “racism” about itself.

For example, at Cambridge University there are academic courses which teach that “all white people are racist”. They won’t, of course, use the same inflammatory “discourse” which Jason Osamede Okundaye uses. Nonetheless, he’s the logical/political conclusion of such theoretical and academic anti-white racism.

There have also been a series of seminars on Critical Race Theory in July this year at Cambridge University. The University also featured “research” under the headline: ‘Racism in the US runs far deeper than Trump’s white supremacist fanbase’. (It was written by Nicholas Guyatt, a Cambridge University lecturer.) More relevantly, the University of Cambridge published a piece which states that it’s wrong to single out or “demonize” the “white working class for racism”; when, as a matter of fact, all white people are racist. (This, I presume, is class prejudice.)

So I wonder if Jason Osamede Okundaye will win one of the “award categories” which Cambridge University Students’ Union (CUSU) has just announced as part of its “anti-racism campaign.” After all, what better way is there of being anti-racist than being racist against all whites?

Jason Osamede Okundaye is digging his own grave anyway; even if he is a student at Cambridge University. If “all white people are racist”, then that must be some kind of racial fact. A fact about white DNA, perhaps. And if that’s the case, there’s nothing white people can do about it. Therefore, condemning white racism is pointless. It’s racial. It’s genetic. It’s a given. So why the political and moral outrage? Changing white racism would be like changing the colour of one’s skin or how many fingers one has.

It’s also ironic that this black racist is a member of a Cambridge University “equality group”. Although only black and brown people can be members, many white middle-class Trotskyists, communists, and progressives will support it to the hilt. And these are the very people aiming Jason Osamede Okundaye is aiming his racist words at.

This is a variation, of course, on the more polite and theoretical anti-white racism of academics and people like Diane Abbott MP (the British Shadow Home Secretary); who, predictably, has stuck her own nose into the Dalston riots. From her previous statements, she believes more or less the same as Jason Osamede Okundaye. For example, in 2012 she wrote:

“White people love playing ‘divide and rule’ We should not play their game.”

In 1988, when, at a black studies conference in Philadelphia, she claimed that “the British invented racism”. She also made a racist comment about white Finnish nurses.

Jason Osamede Okundaye is the logical/political conclusion of academic “anti-racism”. So we’ll have to reap the harvest.



Source link

1498460069_at-painter-og-image.png

Tabloid Critical Race Theory


Metro (or Ashitha Nagesh) tells us:

“On Monday a national newspaper, the Herald in Ireland, published a story about Romelu Lukaku — a Premier League football star who just got signed to Manchester United for millions of pounds. But instead of a photo of Lukaku, the paper used a massive photograph of Stormzy — who, for anyone who didn’t know, is a grime star, and not a footballer.”

The other sin is to find this mix-up a joke. After all, racism is no joke.

From her pulpit, Ashitha Nagesh tells us that “[m]ixing up people of the same race isn’t cute or funny, it’s racist”. (I thought that Left and the Liberal-Left didn’t believe in the existence of races.)

Yes, “it’s racist”! In other words, it’s a fact that it’s racist. Yet there often aren’t any genuine facts when it comes to what is (or what isn’t) racist. Thus, racism is often — though not always — in the eye of beholder.

Ashitha Nagesh also gets personal (after all, “the personal is the political”) when she writes:

“For as long as I can remember I’ve been constantly mixed up with other brown people who happen to be in the same place or doing the same thing, or have had people call me by a totally random other name and expect it to be okay.”

We can’t help getting other people mixed up. It’s not a sin to do so. If people are unfamiliar with a particular race, then there’s more chance that they’ll get people of that race mixed up. Chinese and Japanese people often find it difficult to make distinctions between white Europeans. Older Muslims in England, for example, often get the few whites they know mixed up.

Ashitha Nagesh’s anti-racist puritanism gets even more extreme when she castigates her former lecturers for pronouncing her name incorrectly. This too (surprise, surprise) is racist. She writes:

“At my graduation, the dean at my university seemed to have a weird brain malfunction upon seeing my ethnic name and announced me as ‘Rashreetri Nragreeshri’, despite making us all spell our names out phonetically before the ceremony.”

All the above isn’t just plain racism. It’s more about the buzzword: “casual racism” (or, technically/theoretically, “microaggression”). One’s first impression of the term “casual racism” is that it must be minor (or insubstantial) racism. However, according to Critical Race Theorists, that’s not true. The reason is that if the racism is indeed casual, then that makes it worse than explicit — or intentional — racism. In other words, nonintentional racism is deemed to be worse than intentional racism. And that’s why jokes which involve blacks — and Anne Marie Morris’s “nigger in the woodpile” — have been pounced upon by the anti-racist vice police. (I wonder if Ashitha Nagesh picked up all this theory when she studied at the University of London, where this kind of thing is rife.)

Ashitha Nagesh cites another example of casual racism (or microaggression) when she writes:

“For example, when Sir Lenny Henry was knighted in 2015 for, ironically, his services to diversity in the media, ITV News broadcast his achievement with a clip of Ainsley Harriott.”

Nonetheless, “ITV apologised almost immediately afterwards”. That didn’t matter because “the damage was done”. What “damage” was that, exactly?

Now everyone has experienced exactly the same thing with white people. I’ve seen and heard different white people being mixed up with each other on TV and in print. But that wasn’t racist because they were white! That’s how anti-racism often works. Many anti-racists look for racism 24/7. Not surprisingly, they also find a lot of racism. That’s the job — sometimes literally the job! — of many anti-racists.

Here’s another example from Metro:

“And in January, the Guardian illustrated its front page interview with rappers Rae Sremmurd with a photo of two completely different rappers, Bre-Z and Gizzle.”

Nonetheless, a “correction was later printed, and the proper photo used online.” Despite that, “people were still left wondering how such a huge mistake could be made”. Really? A “huge mistake?” Is Ashitha Nagesh being serious here? Or is she competing for the prize of Supreme Anti-racist?

This might have happened simply because there are so many black rappers on the scene! But, as I said, because these rappers are black, then the mistake must have been because of casual racism.

Ashitha Nagesh finishes off with some more Critical Race Theory. She writes:

“It’s as though our names, our identities, just aren’t important enough to remember — regardless of who we are or what we’ve achieved.”

No; it’s because people make mistakes. The difference is that white people aren’t allowed to make mistakes when it comes to blacks and Asians like Ashitha Nagesh. Sure, there might have been (some) racism involved in all the examples she cites. However, there’s absolutely no concrete evidence that there was any.

The alleged racism comes straight out of Critical Race Theory. In other words, CRT makes non-racist actions and non-racist words racist. The theories themselves transform one thing into another thing. Thus, in the process, CRT also achieves its primary goal — “progressive political change”. Anti-racism is a “progressive” weapon in the armoury of Critical Race Theorists. It’s designed to bring about radical changes to society.

All this is similar to the case against joking about people who happen to be black. However, it’s mainly the case that jokes which involve blacks aren’t racist. Despite that, the very fact that the joke involves a black person and it’s meant to be funny means that it simply must be racist. For white people to show black people in comedic contexts is to be racist. Unless, of course, it’s black people themselves who’re involved in the comedy (or joke) or the comedy (or joke) is entirely positive.

There’s also the very recent case of the British MP Anne Marie Morris and her “nigger in the woodpile”. These cases are also deemed to be racist by the anti-racist vice police. But they aren’t deemed racist by the majority of people. Not even by many blacks.

Intent matters.

In order for something to be racist, the accused must see his acts or words to be racist (even if he doesn’t class himself that way). The racist acts or words must be motivated by a clear hatred of a particular race. Sure, some racists deny being racists. (There’s no denying that.) Though it’s still the case that if a person hasn’t deliberately singled out a person because of his/her race, then his intent can’t be racist. Of course, Critical Race Theory doesn’t care about intent. It cares about the definitions of racism which it has supplied to literally thousands of students, lawyers, and academics. Racist words and acts are deemed racist by stipulation. By fiat.

Thus Critical Race Theory and its theories of race and racism are but means to bring about radical/progressive political change.

Viva la revolution! Viva la anti-racism!

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy. He’s had articles published in The Conservative Online, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Think-Israel, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc. His philosophy blog can be found here. His blog on politics can be found here. Murphy is based in the county of Yorkshire, England.

On the 11th of July, the strained and puritanical tone (even though tabloid in style) of the British online news outlet, Metro, went one step further in its fight against the politically incorrect. (In an article called ‘Mixing up people of the same race isn’t cute or funny, it’s racist’.) What we had was a pious and simplified piece of Critical Race Theory for the public’s consumption. Clearly Metro sees “casual racism” (or “microaggression”) as one of the worst crimes on earth.

What was at the heart of this moral outrage? The fact that an Irish newspaper — The Herald — mixed up two black people. In fact, the main charge should really be against The Herald‘s photo editor. It was he who got two black people — or two photos of black people — mixed up.

Metro (or Ashitha Nagesh) tells us:

“On Monday a national newspaper, the Herald in Ireland, published a story about Romelu Lukaku — a Premier League football star who just got signed to Manchester United for millions of pounds. But instead of a photo of Lukaku, the paper used a massive photograph of Stormzy — who, for anyone who didn’t know, is a grime star, and not a footballer.”

The other sin is to find this mix-up a joke. After all, racism is no joke.

From her pulpit, Ashitha Nagesh tells us that “[m]ixing up people of the same race isn’t cute or funny, it’s racist”. (I thought that Left and the Liberal-Left didn’t believe in the existence of races.)

Yes, “it’s racist”! In other words, it’s a fact that it’s racist. Yet there often aren’t any genuine facts when it comes to what is (or what isn’t) racist. Thus, racism is often — though not always — in the eye of beholder.

Ashitha Nagesh also gets personal (after all, “the personal is the political”) when she writes:

“For as long as I can remember I’ve been constantly mixed up with other brown people who happen to be in the same place or doing the same thing, or have had people call me by a totally random other name and expect it to be okay.”

We can’t help getting other people mixed up. It’s not a sin to do so. If people are unfamiliar with a particular race, then there’s more chance that they’ll get people of that race mixed up. Chinese and Japanese people often find it difficult to make distinctions between white Europeans. Older Muslims in England, for example, often get the few whites they know mixed up.

Ashitha Nagesh’s anti-racist puritanism gets even more extreme when she castigates her former lecturers for pronouncing her name incorrectly. This too (surprise, surprise) is racist. She writes:

“At my graduation, the dean at my university seemed to have a weird brain malfunction upon seeing my ethnic name and announced me as ‘Rashreetri Nragreeshri’, despite making us all spell our names out phonetically before the ceremony.”

All the above isn’t just plain racism. It’s more about the buzzword: “casual racism” (or, technically/theoretically, “microaggression”). One’s first impression of the term “casual racism” is that it must be minor (or insubstantial) racism. However, according to Critical Race Theorists, that’s not true. The reason is that if the racism is indeed casual, then that makes it worse than explicit — or intentional — racism. In other words, nonintentional racism is deemed to be worse than intentional racism. And that’s why jokes which involve blacks — and Anne Marie Morris’s “nigger in the woodpile” — have been pounced upon by the anti-racist vice police. (I wonder if Ashitha Nagesh picked up all this theory when she studied at the University of London, where this kind of thing is rife.)

Ashitha Nagesh cites another example of casual racism (or microaggression) when she writes:

“For example, when Sir Lenny Henry was knighted in 2015 for, ironically, his services to diversity in the media, ITV News broadcast his achievement with a clip of Ainsley Harriott.”

Nonetheless, “ITV apologised almost immediately afterwards”. That didn’t matter because “the damage was done”. What “damage” was that, exactly?

Now everyone has experienced exactly the same thing with white people. I’ve seen and heard different white people being mixed up with each other on TV and in print. But that wasn’t racist because they were white! That’s how anti-racism often works. Many anti-racists look for racism 24/7. Not surprisingly, they also find a lot of racism. That’s the job — sometimes literally the job! — of many anti-racists.

Here’s another example from Metro:

“And in January, the Guardian illustrated its front page interview with rappers Rae Sremmurd with a photo of two completely different rappers, Bre-Z and Gizzle.”

Nonetheless, a “correction was later printed, and the proper photo used online.” Despite that, “people were still left wondering how such a huge mistake could be made”. Really? A “huge mistake?” Is Ashitha Nagesh being serious here? Or is she competing for the prize of Supreme Anti-racist?

This might have happened simply because there are so many black rappers on the scene! But, as I said, because these rappers are black, then the mistake must have been because of casual racism.

Ashitha Nagesh finishes off with some more Critical Race Theory. She writes:

“It’s as though our names, our identities, just aren’t important enough to remember — regardless of who we are or what we’ve achieved.”

No; it’s because people make mistakes. The difference is that white people aren’t allowed to make mistakes when it comes to blacks and Asians like Ashitha Nagesh. Sure, there might have been (some) racism involved in all the examples she cites. However, there’s absolutely no concrete evidence that there was any.

The alleged racism comes straight out of Critical Race Theory. In other words, CRT makes non-racist actions and non-racist words racist. The theories themselves transform one thing into another thing. Thus, in the process, CRT also achieves its primary goal — “progressive political change”. Anti-racism is a “progressive” weapon in the armoury of Critical Race Theorists. It’s designed to bring about radical changes to society.

All this is similar to the case against joking about people who happen to be black. However, it’s mainly the case that jokes which involve blacks aren’t racist. Despite that, the very fact that the joke involves a black person and it’s meant to be funny means that it simply must be racist. For white people to show black people in comedic contexts is to be racist. Unless, of course, it’s black people themselves who’re involved in the comedy (or joke) or the comedy (or joke) is entirely positive.

There’s also the very recent case of the British MP Anne Marie Morris and her “nigger in the woodpile”. These cases are also deemed to be racist by the anti-racist vice police. But they aren’t deemed racist by the majority of people. Not even by many blacks.

Intent matters.

In order for something to be racist, the accused must see his acts or words to be racist (even if he doesn’t class himself that way). The racist acts or words must be motivated by a clear hatred of a particular race. Sure, some racists deny being racists. (There’s no denying that.) Though it’s still the case that if a person hasn’t deliberately singled out a person because of his/her race, then his intent can’t be racist. Of course, Critical Race Theory doesn’t care about intent. It cares about the definitions of racism which it has supplied to literally thousands of students, lawyers, and academics. Racist words and acts are deemed racist by stipulation. By fiat.

Thus Critical Race Theory and its theories of race and racism are but means to bring about radical/progressive political change.

Viva la revolution! Viva la anti-racism!

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy. He’s had articles published in The Conservative Online, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Think-Israel, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc. His philosophy blog can be found here. His blog on politics can be found here. Murphy is based in the county of Yorkshire, England.



Source link

199189_5_.png

Racist vs. Racist?


Meet the first (possible) racist.

He’s an architect by the name of Pawel Uczciwek. This man is accused of having “racially abused a woman” and then of “trying to pull off her hijab” in a London Tube station.

Yet the accused man (or “Islamophobe”) also said that his black girlfriend was under a “racist attack from three other random females”.

Pawel Uczciwek also said that the allegation against him is “completely false.” He continued:

“I would like to confirm I never hit or attacked anyone I simply defused the situation by separating them.”

What’s more, Uczciwek stressed his own anti-racist case by stating the following:

“The police is fully cooperating with me and will be able to obtain CCTV footage showing the three women attempting to attack my partner because we are in an interracial relationship.”

Perhaps the Muslim woman — Aniso Abdulkadir — didn’t like the idea of a black woman going out with a white man. And that’s why she verbally attacked her. That’s certainly what Uczciwek hints at. The means that Aniso Abdulkadir bit off more than she could chew. That is, she verbally abused Uczciwek’s black girlfriend and then he did indeed physical attack her.

Another possibility is that, as a Muslim, Aniso Abdulkadir didn’t like the fact that Uczciwek’s girlfriend was wearing a short skirt.

So here an attack on a Muslim has been classed as “racist.” Yet even if there was physical contact, that doesn’t automatically mean that it was racist simply because the victim (if she is a victim) is a Muslim.

It’s certainly the case that’s there’s been a hell of Muslim-on-non-Muslim (or Muslim-on-white) violence in the UK. Some of it has even been featured in our newspapers. In addition, according to many sources, black-on-white violence (as in America) is higher than white-on-black violence.

Now meet the second (possible) racist: Aniso Abdulkadir.

This Muslim woman wasted no time at all in advertising — on Twitter — the alleged attack.

Aniso Abdulkadir posted an image of the man who attacked her. She wrote:

“This man at Baker Street station forcefully attempted to pull my hijab off and when I instinctively grabbed ahold of my scarf he hit me.”

She continued:

“He proceeded to verbally abuse my friends and I, pinning one of them against the wall and spitting in her face.”

Not surprisingly, this tweet earned more than 24,000 retweets by Sunday afternoon.

It also seems that she already had a strong political position on racism. Or at least her friend Lux had. The latter also tweeted the following words:

“Racism is a real thing people choose to ignore, we really do live in a pathetic society where people are all talk and completely useless.”

A British Transport Police spokesman said the incident is being investigated. It’s being investigated as a “hate crime” rather than a simple fight or physical attack. The spokesman said:

“Behaviour like this is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated.


“This incident has been reported to us and we’re investigating.”

One wonders why the British media seems to have taken Aniso Abdulkadir’s side. After all, there is equal evidence on both sides. For one, it’s hard to class a white man as “racist” if he has a black girlfriend! And why (as yet) hasn’t the media done any research on the Muslim black woman who claims to have been attacked?

Judging by her name and photo, I’d say that Aniso Abdulkadir is of an African — rather than an “Asian” — background; possibly Somalian.

Not to put too fine a point on it, African-heritage blacks (including Muslim blacks) have a reputation for violence in the United Kingdom; especially in London. (This is particularly true of Somalians.) This reputation also includes black women. However, unlike the case of the architect, the news pieces I’ve read haven’t provided us with any details about Aniso Abdulkadir.

Many have said (in various ways) that anti-racism has been demeaned by many anti-racist policies and actions. There’s also the omnipresence and overuse of accusations of “racism”. When people state these things, however, pious and puritanical anti-racists either laugh or foam at the mouth. They claim that the people who say such things are racists anyway therefore such a claim simply must be bogus.

This is certainly the reaction to the claim that anti-racism often causes racism. Yet these knee-jerk reactions simply prove the point!

One aspect of the eternal war against racism is that any criticism whatsoever of that war (or its anything goes tactics) is also deemed to be racist. Thus, the war will carry on and become more extreme and more puritanical. It will continue in this manner until the endless war against (often-fake) racism implodes in some way. Or it’ll continue until anti-racists begin to eat their own children. In fact, this is already happening!

In addition to all that, anti-racism is a primary weapon in the armoury of left-wingers. It’s also a means to further one’s career or to sell one’s pure credentials. It is everything to everyone.

This story highlights the problem. Both sides claim that the other side is “racist”. Thus, what we often have is this:

I’ll place my anti-racism against your anti-racism.

Who wins? Both sides? None?

We also have the I’m-more-anti-racist-than-thou competition which white left-wingers seem so keen on. As I said, the anti-racism revolution is eating its own children.

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy. He’s had articles published in The Conservative Online, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Think-Israel, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc. His philosophy blog can be found here. His blog on politics can be found here. 

Meet the first (possible) racist.

He’s an architect by the name of Pawel Uczciwek. This man is accused of having “racially abused a woman” and then of “trying to pull off her hijab” in a London Tube station.

Yet the accused man (or “Islamophobe”) also said that his black girlfriend was under a “racist attack from three other random females”.

Pawel Uczciwek also said that the allegation against him is “completely false.” He continued:

“I would like to confirm I never hit or attacked anyone I simply defused the situation by separating them.”

What’s more, Uczciwek stressed his own anti-racist case by stating the following:

“The police is fully cooperating with me and will be able to obtain CCTV footage showing the three women attempting to attack my partner because we are in an interracial relationship.”

Perhaps the Muslim woman — Aniso Abdulkadir — didn’t like the idea of a black woman going out with a white man. And that’s why she verbally attacked her. That’s certainly what Uczciwek hints at. The means that Aniso Abdulkadir bit off more than she could chew. That is, she verbally abused Uczciwek’s black girlfriend and then he did indeed physical attack her.

Another possibility is that, as a Muslim, Aniso Abdulkadir didn’t like the fact that Uczciwek’s girlfriend was wearing a short skirt.

So here an attack on a Muslim has been classed as “racist.” Yet even if there was physical contact, that doesn’t automatically mean that it was racist simply because the victim (if she is a victim) is a Muslim.

It’s certainly the case that’s there’s been a hell of Muslim-on-non-Muslim (or Muslim-on-white) violence in the UK. Some of it has even been featured in our newspapers. In addition, according to many sources, black-on-white violence (as in America) is higher than white-on-black violence.

Now meet the second (possible) racist: Aniso Abdulkadir.

This Muslim woman wasted no time at all in advertising — on Twitter — the alleged attack.

Aniso Abdulkadir posted an image of the man who attacked her. She wrote:

“This man at Baker Street station forcefully attempted to pull my hijab off and when I instinctively grabbed ahold of my scarf he hit me.”

She continued:

“He proceeded to verbally abuse my friends and I, pinning one of them against the wall and spitting in her face.”

Not surprisingly, this tweet earned more than 24,000 retweets by Sunday afternoon.

It also seems that she already had a strong political position on racism. Or at least her friend Lux had. The latter also tweeted the following words:

“Racism is a real thing people choose to ignore, we really do live in a pathetic society where people are all talk and completely useless.”

A British Transport Police spokesman said the incident is being investigated. It’s being investigated as a “hate crime” rather than a simple fight or physical attack. The spokesman said:

“Behaviour like this is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated.


“This incident has been reported to us and we’re investigating.”

One wonders why the British media seems to have taken Aniso Abdulkadir’s side. After all, there is equal evidence on both sides. For one, it’s hard to class a white man as “racist” if he has a black girlfriend! And why (as yet) hasn’t the media done any research on the Muslim black woman who claims to have been attacked?

Judging by her name and photo, I’d say that Aniso Abdulkadir is of an African — rather than an “Asian” — background; possibly Somalian.

Not to put too fine a point on it, African-heritage blacks (including Muslim blacks) have a reputation for violence in the United Kingdom; especially in London. (This is particularly true of Somalians.) This reputation also includes black women. However, unlike the case of the architect, the news pieces I’ve read haven’t provided us with any details about Aniso Abdulkadir.

Many have said (in various ways) that anti-racism has been demeaned by many anti-racist policies and actions. There’s also the omnipresence and overuse of accusations of “racism”. When people state these things, however, pious and puritanical anti-racists either laugh or foam at the mouth. They claim that the people who say such things are racists anyway therefore such a claim simply must be bogus.

This is certainly the reaction to the claim that anti-racism often causes racism. Yet these knee-jerk reactions simply prove the point!

One aspect of the eternal war against racism is that any criticism whatsoever of that war (or its anything goes tactics) is also deemed to be racist. Thus, the war will carry on and become more extreme and more puritanical. It will continue in this manner until the endless war against (often-fake) racism implodes in some way. Or it’ll continue until anti-racists begin to eat their own children. In fact, this is already happening!

In addition to all that, anti-racism is a primary weapon in the armoury of left-wingers. It’s also a means to further one’s career or to sell one’s pure credentials. It is everything to everyone.

This story highlights the problem. Both sides claim that the other side is “racist”. Thus, what we often have is this:

I’ll place my anti-racism against your anti-racism.

Who wins? Both sides? None?

We also have the I’m-more-anti-racist-than-thou competition which white left-wingers seem so keen on. As I said, the anti-racism revolution is eating its own children.

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy. He’s had articles published in The Conservative Online, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Think-Israel, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc. His philosophy blog can be found here. His blog on politics can be found here. 



Source link