Enemies of the State

“The fact that hundreds of years later children still celebrate foiling the ‘Gunpowder Plot’ by burning effigies of Guy Fawkes on a bonfire proves how we are conditioned from childhood to dehumanise enemies of the Government” – Laura Stuart

 

Laura Stuart is a convert to Islam who was arrested [i] on a “fishing expedition” last year on Guy Fawkes’ day, November 5. There was no evidence – three months later, the case was dropped. She is active in the Palestine solidarity movement. Perhaps this is why she was harassed by the police.

Several left-wing activists, including the son of Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour, who were imprisoned for participating in various protests, were interviewed by the Guardian [ii]. 

charlie-gilmour

Charlie Gilmour

 

It is instructive to contrast their experience, and Stuart’s, with that of Tommy Robinson, Britain’s second best-known critic of Islam, after Richard Dawkins. His recent biography is entitled Enemy of the State [iii].

Stuart was treated relatively well. She wasn’t threatened – the police just used standard “hard cop, soft cop” techniques to try to get her to talk, and examined the contents of her computer and mobile phone. It’s worth reading her account if you don’t have any experience with the police. 

Charlie Gilmour was pleasantly surprised to be looked after by older inmates, most of whom admired his participation in a protest/riot outside No. 10 Downing St.. 

When Jonnie Marbles was seen on TV throwing a pie in the face of Rupert Murdoch, the inmates at HMP Wandsworth cheered. When he was sent to the same prison, “he was treated like a minor celebrity”. 

20-year-old Chelsea Stafford had it worse. She was evicted from a squat in Liverpool and sent to HMP Styal, where the screws refused to respect her vegan diet. She slashed herself with a knife – a common female reaction to prison. 

But on the whole, because left-wing activists have a lot of support from outside, the Guardian article says “Prison wasn’t exactly a cakewalk, but it’s clear that these activists can enjoy a privileged status within the system.”

This was not Tommy Robinson’s experience. He too had lots of support from outside – from his organisation the English Defence League, and numerous other people concerned about “Islamification”. But, if there’s any truth in his biography, he was treated much worse than the Muslim and left-wing activists listed above.

Although the government has helped protect him and his family against murderous assaults by Muslims by installing “panic buttons”, in their home, etc., it has also deliberately put him in danger many times. 

Robinson usually does his prison time in solitary, to avoid Muslim gangs, but sometimes, the authorities force him into the proximity of people who want to kill him. In 2012, warders locked him in a cell with three violent Muslims, who kicked him unconscious. 

tommy-pic

Tommy Robinson

Robinson has never been convicted of a violent offence. In July 2015, he was recalled to prison for lending money to someone who exaggerated their earnings on a mortgage application. Despite knowing that Muslim extremists wanted him killed, the authorities put him on a wing two cells away from a Somali murderer serving 28 years. He offered money to anyone who would pour boiling water mixed with sugar over Robinson’s head. The sugar would make it stick, and cause permanent damage. Robinson pre-emptively attacked the guy, and ended up being charged for this act of self-defence. 

The aim of the authorities’ collusion with Muslim extremists is to silence criticism of Islam, as Robinson explains a recent Rubin Report interview [iv]. Part of his bail conditions, for a non-political, white-collar crime, included not being involved in politics. Frequently, when he is about to speak to a large audience, e.g. the Oxford Union, he gets recalled to prison. The government also made an amateurish attempt to turn him into a “grass”, thinking he could give them information about violent right-wing extremists. However, as he explains, one of his most onerous political activities has been keeping such extremists at arm’s length, and out of the EDL. 

Why would the state treat a critic of Islam much worse than its defenders? The contrast between the treatment of Stuart and the treatment of Robinson undermines the notion that the British state is “Islamophobic”. The difference between his experience and that of Gilmour and comrades leads to questioning why the “capitalist state” would treat anti-capitalists much better than someone campaigning against Muslim rape gangs [v].

At the time of writing, Robinson is still in danger of being put back in prison with Muslims who want to murder him. There is a fund for his legal defence [vi].

 

i  Laura Stuart, My arrest: it could happen to you, April 2016 – http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/4/3/my-arrest-it-could-happen-to-you

 

ii ‘It makes you want to fight back’: activists on life after prison, the Guardian, 28 May 2016 – http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/28/activists-life-after-prison-charlie-gilmour

 

iii Tommy Robinson, Enemy of the State, December 2015 – http://www.amazon.com/Tommy-Robinson-Enemy-State/dp/0957096496

 

iv Dave Rubin, the Rubin Report interview with Tommy Robinson, February 5, 2016 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQOkrwJXRFQ

 

v Jay Knott, How Anti-Fascists Helped Muslim Grooming Gangs in the UK, September 2014 – https://thejayreport.com/2014/09/18/how-anti-fascists-helped-muslim-grooming-gangs

 

vi Liam Deacon, Tommy Robinson defence fund, Breitbart News, 13 April 2016 – http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/13/tommy-robinson-supporters-raise-24000-for-top-defence-qc

 

The Labour Party: Israeli-occupied territory

ken-livingstone-reporters

Ken Livingstone under siege, after accurately commenting on Nazi/Zionist co-operation

The British Labour Party has been under a lot of pressure from Jewish racial supremacists recently, to purge all critics of Israel from its ranks. In particular, those who somehow can’t see the “legitimacy” of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, on which the Jewish state’s existence depends. If those driven out of their homeland in 1948, plus their descendants, were allowed back into Israel, they would outnumber the Jews.

This pressure has taken the familiar form of allegations of “anti-semitism”. This includes what I just said above – denying the “legitimacy” of Israel.

It even includes pointing out that the Nazis and the Zionists collaborated before World War II. This is what veteran leftist leader Ken Livingstone has been suspended for. There is overwhelming evidence of this collaboration. Before they decided to try to kill them, the Nazis were in favour of the Jews moving somewhere outside Europe – Palestine, for example. This coincided with the aim of the Zionists, so they worked together.

One example of this co-operation was the Havara Agreement [1], signed in August 1933 by the Nazi government and the Zionist Federation of Germany, to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine.

Zionists were still collaborating with the Nazi government in 1944, when the attempted genocide of the Jews was in top gear, arguing against resistance. They allowed the murder of 450,000 Hungarian Jews in return for a few hundred being allowed to escape to Palestine, according to chapter twenty-five of Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (PDF) [2], “Hungary, the Crime Within a Crime”. This is just one example from many of Nazi/Zionist collaboration from Brenner’s detailed historical masterpiece.

Labour has responded exactly as I predicted – by capitulating. It is expelling long-standing comrades for telling the truth, and they are apologising. They don’t seem to realise that throwing scraps of food to the wolves at the door only encourages them. The Labour Party is Israeli-occupied territory.

  1. The Havara Agreement, Wikipedia, retrieved April 29, 2016: https://archive.is/PvFJa.
  2. Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, Lenni Brenner, Lawrence Hill publishing, 1983. Retrieved as a PDF file April 29: http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres/LBzad.pdf.

Gad Saad’s dissonance re. Islamophobia and Anti-semitism

Gad Saad is one of the “vloggers” (Youtube bloggers) who defends good stuff like freedom of speech and evolutionary psychology, and opposes bad stuff like radical feminism. He’s in roughly the same league as Lauren Southern and Milo Yiannopoulos.

Among the illusions these “cultural libertarians” are trying to dispel is the usefulness of the term “Islamophobia”. In a recent interview with Irish atheist Michael Nugent, Saad agrees with Nugent’s statement that rational people should give up “the silencing word ‘Islamophobia'”. Nugent goes on to argue that the word

conflates bigotry against Muslims as people, which is a bad thing, with criticism of Islam, which is a good thing

But Saad, who is Jewish, takes a completely different view of the phrase “anti-semitism”. In another recent video, instead of denouncing it as a political tool, as he does with the term “Islamophobia”, he uncritically accepts a report by the Anti-Defamation League, on “Global Indices of Anti-Semitism“.

He gives examples of the questions the Anti-Defamation League asks to establish if someone is “anti-semitic”. One of them is

Do you think it’s probably true that Jews have too much control over the US government?

Without irony, Saad lists the West Bank and the Gaza strip, which are either occupied by the Israeli army, or regularly bombed by planes bearing the star of David, as having the highest rate of “anti-semitism” in the world. He then goes on to list all the other countries with a high rate of “anti-semitism”, and they’re all Muslim.

It’s unfortunate that someone so clear on the political use of words like “Islamophobia” and other nonsense-terms invented by social justice warriors, should be so blind to the obvious analogy with the use of the phrase “anti-semitism”. It’s a clear example of Jewish double-standards. But we know what the Anti-Defamation League would call that observation.

Social Justice, Cultural Marxism, and Jewish Power

Jewish Power

Famous lawyer Alan Dershowitz was in the forefront of critics of the left-wing attacks on freedom of speech which spread across US campuses during 2015. But he and other Zionists use the same techniques as the totalitarian left to try to censor campus critics of Israel.

When two moderate critics of Israeli policies, Omar Barghouti and Judith Butler, were invited to speak at Brooklyn College in February 2013, in support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, Dershowitz called it a “hate orgy”, and some Jewish students used the argument that the discussion would “contribute significantly to a hostile environment for Jewish students on our campus” i.

Senator Dianne Feinstein is trying the same thing at the University of California. Glenn Greenwald explains what is happening (The Intercept, September 26, 2015) ii.

If you google the phrase “hostile environment for Jewish students”, you can find other examples of Jews trying to use politically-correct language to undermine the freedom of campus critics of Israel. These critics are often part of the p.c. left, so it becomes a competition to see who can use crybaby tactics most effectively.

Social Justice

At the time of writing, Canadian graphics designer Gregory Alan Elliott is being threatened with prison for criticising feminists iii. He’s also been banned from the internet, which means he has no income. His crime was to defend, on Twitter, a man who created a video game in which you could punch a feminist in the face. Another feminist accused him of “criminal harassment”, and he was arrested, although the arresting officer said in court his tweets were not threatening. A typical example: “Methinks the lady doth snark too much“.

In 2012, a member of a bike co-op in Portland, Oregon, whom I call “comrade X”, was driven out of his job by a group called “Anti-Racist Action”, ostensibly because he had contacts with so-called “white supremacists”, but in reality, because he campaigned for a boycott of Israeli goods. I describe their campaign in my article “Zionist Bullying in the West Coast Co-op Movementiv. I don’t defend every aspect of the article today – for example, I no longer condemn “Islamophobia”.

But I was right to call the persecutors of comrade X “Zionists”,

  • because the effect of their persecution was to undermine his attempt to persuade the co-operative movement to boycott Israeli goods,
  • because they list “antisemitism” as a major problem in the USA today, and
  • because their successful campaign to have X fired had a chilling effect on discussion of the Jewish Lobby.

This is good for Israel, whose influence in the USA depends on people being afraid of talking about this issue.

However, as well as being, consciously or otherwise, friends of Israel, they are part of a wider movement which is not subordinate to Jewish supremacy. Its members are known to their detractors as “social justice warriors”, or SJWs.

Anti-Racist Action’s SJW credentials can be seen in their language and behaviour:

  • they advocated a “safe space policy” in the co-ops
  • they said comrade X should be “held accountable” for exercising his freedom of speech
  • they offered to re-educate him on “antisemitism in the left”

They called for

  • firing comrade X
  • a public apology
  • “a meaningful anti-oppression policy” at his co-op, including anti-oppression re-education

X did in fact publicly apologise, but of course, this only encouraged the SJW bullies.

In August last year, a man who has also experienced a SJW hate campaign, but who has beaten it, Vox Day, published a book which examines the issue of Social Justice in great detail. It’s called “SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police” (Castalia House, August 2015) v.

He sums up the fight against Social Justice as follows: it’s the Western ideals Truth, Liberty and Justice versus the SJW notions Equality, Diversity, Tolerance and Progress. He deconstructs each of these four fine-sounding slogans.

He goes into some recent examples of Social Justice in action.

The book explains #GamerGate, a phrase I’d heard a lot, but didn’t know what it was about. It’s a successful campaign against a feminist attack on the freedom of video game writers. One of its consequences was the ouster of SJW Ellen Pao as CEO of Reddit.

The example I found most comprehensible, because I know a lot about the subject, is the section about the Ruby Programming Language Users Group at Barclays Bank in London. It quotes an SJW in Human Resources explaining how they changed the recruitment process so they don’t review the software written by a potential recruit on github.com, because most of it is written by “cis white men”! (‘Cis’ means ‘cisexual’ – the opposite of transexual).

I’ve written software at Barclays, I program in Ruby, and I have a Github account which I use to demonstrate my skill to potential employers. As Vox Day relates in great detail, similar things happen at Google and other US corporations. I knew universities, most of the media, and government are deeply infested with SJWs, but I didn’t realise they had actually made “the long march through the institutions” (see below).

For good measure, Vox Day throws in an introduction to Logic and Rhetoric, showing how to apply Aristotle’s 2400-year-old insights to combatting Social Justice today.

Toward the end of 2015, Social Justice exploded in universities on both sides of the Atlantic. Among the incidents:

  • In October, a Nobel Laureate, Tim Hunt, was fired from London University after a feminist tweeted about a joke he made about women in laboratories at a conference in South Korea. When he got back to the UK, he thought he’d landed in North Korea vi.
  • At Dartmouth College, on November 12, a crowd of left-wing “anti-racist” activists invaded the library and shouted obscenities at white students vii.
  • During November, #BlackLivesMatter activists at the University of Missouri stood in front of the university president’s car, and one falsely claimed to have been struck by the car. Instead of disciplining the students, he resigned viii.
  • On 30 November, Islamic extremists disrupted a speech at London University by an atheist ex-Muslim, and were supported both by the college’s feminist society ix and its LGBT society x.
  • In December, a lecturer at Yale was driven out of her post because she wrote an email refusing to agree to advise students not to wear Halloween costumes which are examples of “cultural appropriation”. I’m not making this up xi.

The leading critic of Jewish power, Gilad Atzmon, recently published an article about censorship at London University xii – but only Jewish censorship. I disagree with his emphasis.

Here’s why. At the same university, professor Tim Hunt was fired after a feminist denounced him. Muslims at another branch of the university tried to censor an ex-Muslim, claiming the woman’s views would violate their “safe space”. These are further examples of the same tactic, feelings-based politics, used to suppress academic freedom, but neither of them are examples of Jewish power. As the examples with which I began this article show, Social Justice can be used either to defend, or oppose, the Jewish state – the phenomenon is independent of Jewish power.

Cultural Marxism

However, there is a good case that Jewish intellectuals were overrepresented among the originators of Social Justice. Kevin MacDonald’s “The Culture of Critique” (Praeger, 1998) xiii gives a survey of intellectual movements dominated by self-identified Jews, who explicitly recognized that the ideas they promoted would serve Jewish ethnic interests, by undermining the self-confidence of the white European nations. Among these are Boasian anthropology, the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, and some left-wing political organisations.

Another popular collective term for what these movements have in common is “Cultural Marxism”. It’s not an entirely satisfactory phrase, but it has stuck, so I’ll try to explain what it means. The idea is, communist intellectuals were disappointed in the failure of the proletariat to overthrow Western civilisation.

Some of them claimed the reason had something to do with psychology, and produced books like “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” (Wilhelm Reich, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1933) xiv and “The Authoritarian Personality” (Theodor Adorno et al, Harper and Row, 1950) xv. This contributed to the emergence of the feelings-based politics which dominates modern leftism, especially in the USA. They looked for alternative groups of oppressed people to combat the worst (and best) aspects of Western civilisation. They chose third-world peasants, members of minorities such as gay and black people, and women. They substituted these groups for the working class.

Cultural Marxism encourages

  • women to blame male privilege
  • minorities, including Jews and Muslims, to think they are oppressed by white privilege
  • lesbian and gay people to believe they are oppressed by straight male privilege
  • support for “national liberation struggles” in “the global south”
  • feelings-based politics, in which objective facts are unimportant

The critics of Cultural Marxism also seized on a phrase by German student activist Rudi Dutschke, “the long march through the institutions”, attributed it to Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, and amalgamated it into the concept “Cultural Marxism”. The idea is, if the major organisations of the West cannot be overthrown, they can be undermined from within.

Cultural Marxism began its life as a primarily Jewish creation. But the monster has left the lab, and its creators no longer control it. To give a concrete example, perhaps, as Kevin MacDonald argues, American Jewish organisations have promoted mass immigration from non-white countries in order to undermine white dominance. But Muslim immigration is not in Jewish interests. Neither do Jews benefit from black activism today – Jews may have been overrepresented in the Civil Rights movement, but they didn’t foresee hate groups like the New Black Panthers – in fact, Jewish organisations condemn them.

Change is in the air. The contemptuous phrase “social justice warrior” has gained much traction since #GamerGate. Anti-feminists like Lauren Southern effortlessly and humorously demolish SJW lies, for example, gaining widespread publicity for holding up a sign in the middle of a feminist rally saying “There Is No Rape Culture In The Westxvi – a triply offensive slogan, because

  • it’s true
  • it says feminists are lying
  • it specifically mentions something that’s good about the West, and implicitly, not so good about various other places

The SJWs’ Islamist allies are also helping the coming downfall of Social Justice. By trafficking underage girls in Britain xvii, murdering cartoonists in France xviii, and organising gangs to sexually assault women in Germany xix, to mention a few recent incidents, some (not most) Western-born Muslims, and some of the recent arrivals, are making their co-religionists unpopular.

The SJW response continues to encourage Muslim bad behaviour, by claiming “Islamophobia” is as bad as that behaviour. For example, Ralf Jaeger, the interior minister for the area including Cologne, said, of the New Year’s Eve 2015/16 outbreak of assault, rape and robbery by Muslims, that freedom of speech is at least as bad as sexual assault:

“What happens on the right-wing platforms and in chatrooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women,” he said. “This is poisoning the climate of our society.” (BBC News, 7 January 2016) xx.

Muslim sex crimes, media cover-ups, and the inadequate response of politicians, police, and social workers, leads more and more decent people to question mass immigration. This is not the result that SJWs want.

The opponents of Social Justice are confident the rebound will continue. 2016 will be a good year for truth, liberty and justice, and a bad year for equality, diversity, tolerance and progress.


A challenge to my view of Islam

is-tol-border

In reaction to the massacre of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists by Islamists in January 2015, I wrote “The difference between my culture and Islam is not relative. It is absolute.” Reading the new book “Islam and the Future of Tolerancei, a discussion between leading American atheist campaigner Sam Harris, and British ex-Islamic extremist Maajid Nawaz, has made me rethink a bit.

But, like Harris and Nawaz, I still reject the term “Islamophobia”, and the regressive leftists who use it to provide cover for Islamic prejudice and violence. (See my articles).

The book starts with Harris recollecting his first discussion with Nawaz, in which he said that Islam isn’t a religion of peace, and the so-called ‘extremists’ are seeking to implement what is arguably the most honest reading of the faith’s actual doctrine.

It’s difficult to argue with Sam Harris, but Nawaz rises to the challenge.

He starts with how he became an extremist. He claims there was a lot of “racism” against people like him when he was young. This caused an “identity crisis”, which led Nawaz to join a group which tried to persuade army officers in Muslim countries to stage coups. As luck would have it, he landed in Egypt to campaign for this group on September 10th, 2001. He ended up being tortured, and serving five years in jail, after which Amnesty International rescued him, and he founded Quilliam, which tries to persuade young British Muslims not to blow themselves up on trains.

At this point, it’s time to define some terms. Nawaz lists four rough categories of Muslims:

1. Jihadists, who want to impose strict Islamic law by force

2. Islamists, who want Islamic law, but won’t use force to achieve it

3. Conservative Muslims, who believe in Islamic law, but don’t want to make everyone else obey it

4. People who just happen to have been born into Muslim families, and have a “Muslim” identity

Nawaz and Harris agree that the majority of the world’s Muslims belong to group three. Though they don’t plant bombs, they do consider it may be right to cut off the hands of thieves.

Harris adds the statistic that, in the wake of the bombings in London on July 7, 2005, a poll found 68% of British Muslims believed that citizens who “insult Islam” should be arrested and prosecuted. Harris seems unaware that that is not far from existing British law against “incitement”. At least as shocking is a poll in 2009 which could not find a single British Muslim who thought it was OK to be homosexual ii.

Nawaz believes “Islamism must be defeated”. He says he’s trying to persuade all people, Muslim and infidel, to adopt secular values. He makes it clear that “secular” doesn’t mean “atheist”, it means “the strict separation of state and religion”. He wants to end the mutually-reinforcing trap whereby Western people think that Islam is a religion of war, and make war against it, and Muslim extremists use this to promote their view that the West is against Islam.

Despite Harris having once insulted Nawaz by saying he was being dishonest about the nature of Islam, Nawaz was big enough to answer politely that Islam is a religion neither of peace nor of war. He says

Religion doesn’t inherently speak for itself; no scripture, no book, no piece of writing has its own voice. I subscribe to this view whether I’m interpreting Shakespeare of interpreting religious scripture.

But Harris has no difficulty demolishing this argument. Islam can’t be interpreted to mean it’s OK to serve bacon sandwiches at a gay wedding reception. Personally, I have found Muslims have more difficulty in understanding secularism than any other religious people I’ve come across.

Before that, Harris takes another detour into exposing Islamic chutzpah. He points out that Muslim extremists complained when the West didn’t intervene to save Bosnian Muslims from Serbian militia, but when they attacked secular dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime, they said this was an attack on Muslims. I’d add that the perpetrators of September 11th forgot the aid they’d received from America in “liberating” Afghanistan from the Russians in the eighties. Harris says there were many good reasons to oppose the Iraq War – but “the West is attacking Muslims” was not one of them.

Harris and Nawaz both reject with contempt the “social justice warrior” apologists for Islamic extremism. They say the p.c. left is exercising a form of racism – it says that non-white people can’t help reacting to oppression irrationally. Unlike the left-wing apologists, Harris argues for taking the extremists at face value – when Muslims say they are murdering cartoonists for insulting the prophet Mohammed, they are not really protesting against drones or “white privilege” iii.

Western apologists for Islamism aren’t limited to the p.c. left. The problem goes right to the top. President George W Bush said “Islam is peace” six days after 9/11 iv, and more recently, Barack Obama said “ISIL is not ‘Islamic.’ No religion condones the killing of innocents.” v.

Nawaz admits that, though most Muslims oppose the Islamic State, many of them believe in “honour killings”, where a girl can be murdered for flirting with someone not chosen by her parents. There are thousands of examples of “honour violence” each year in the UK alone, several of which result in death.

But Nawaz points out that, in fact, religious people draw any number of conclusions from the scriptures. Which would mean that some Muslims interpret the scriptures as saying “rape under-age kufr girls”, and some think they say “don’t rape under-age kufr girls”. Islam is a broad church.

There are Islamic theologians undermining the worst aspects of Islamism by re-reading scripture. For example, Nawaz’s ally in Quilliam, Dr Usama Husan, has managed to argue plausibly that apostasy from Islam is not a crime. If a large number of Muslims can be persuaded that that’s what the scriptures mean, then that is what they mean.

I’ll admit that until reading this book, when I heard Islamic “moderates” downplaying the least palatable aspects of their faith, I just thought it was “taqiyah”, or lying. Having skimmed various Muslim religious books, I thought I’d detected that Islam leads to

– violence toward non-believers

– the oppression of women

– hatred of homosexuals

Islam and the Future of Tolerance” made me slightly moderate my opinion.

There are four reasons for this.

1. If it’s good enough for Sam Harris, it’s good enough for me

2. Nawaz is such a good arguer, if you kept calling his arguments “taqiyah”, you’d have to be impervious to reason

3. Like most religions, Islam is so vague and contradictory, it’s possible to draw a wide range of conclusions from it

4. Other religions also advocated crimes against humanity, but their modern followers have given up most of them.

Even if Islam did “logically” lead to throwing gays off buildings and crashing aeroplanes into them, since religious people are, by definition, illogical, why should they follow the logical consequences of their religion? The Church of England hasn’t done that for decades, and even the Pope of Rome has been forced to make concessions to the achievements of the more advanced societies of the global north.

In short, maybe Islam can be reformed. This will not be achieved by bombing Middle-Eastern countries. Nor by statements like my “The difference between my culture and Islam is not relative. It is absolute.” Neither will it be achieved by apologists such as 9/11 truthers and left-wing fellow-travelers.

This reform, if it can be achieved at all, will be achieved by rational unbelievers listening to the fearless criticism of people who know what they’re talking about, such as Maajid Nawaz.


Let’s stop giving credit to the latest thought-crime invented by the left – “Islamophobia”

weir-blumenthal-quote

Gilad Atzmon and Alison Weir are major critics of the elephant in the room – the Jewish Lobby. Both have helped us break from the approach, led by left-wing gatekeepers such as Noam Chomsky, which assumes that unconditional support for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine is in the interests of Western capitalists. In fact, as I showed in my article “Faithful Circle”, support for Israel is against the interests of the vast majority of the West’s inhabitants, rich and poor i.

Atzmon and Weir have both been subject to attempted censorship by groups within the Palestine solidarity movement on both sides of the Atlantic (but not in the Gaza Strip nor the West Bank). These groups try to persuade people not to book Atzmon and Weir to speak on the Palestine question. Atzmon is deliberately provocative, and the humorless left takes everything he says literally. Weir is more careful. Everything she says and writes is well-researched and referenced. It was more difficult to invent a case against her, but eventually Jewish Voice for Peace discovered that she once gave an interview to an obscure radio show run by a guy called Clayton Douglas, whom they claim is a “white supremacist” ii, and started trying to persuade peace groups and Palestine solidarity organizations not to work with her.

That’s not the real reason they don’t want you to listen to Weir. No-one would have heard of Douglas unless JVP had publicized him. A more plausible reason is the success of Weir’s recent “Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the United States Was Used to Create Israel”, iii whose title speaks for itself. Weir’s opponents don’t want us to find out that the main reason for American support for Israel is the Lobby, because this realization might lead to weakening that support. It would also make Jews in the USA feel less comfortable, and Jewish Voice for Peace is more concerned about that than it is about dead Palestinian children.

Despite my respect for Atzmon and Weir, I think it’s illogical when they help spread the latest left-wing debate-stifling accusation – “Islamophobia”. Atzmon thinks Jewish organizations are responsible for stirring up “Islamophobia” iv, whereas I find that these groups often use the word to try to manipulate white guilt to undermine discussion of the negative aspects of Islam. For examples, go to the Anti-Defamation League’s website and search for the word “Islamophobia”. I regard this as homologous with the effort to suppress Weir’s and Atzmon’s arguments on the grounds that they are “anti-semitic”. These allegations are part of the assault on our freedom known as “political correctness”.

Max Blumenthal is an influential gatekeeper, working tirelessly to maintain Jewish control of the Palestine solidarity movement. Despite his vitriolic attacks on her v, Weir generously says his “Great Islamophobic Crusadevi which claims “Nine years after 9/11, hysteria about Muslims in American life has gripped the country” is “an excellent articlevii. In effect, Weir says to Blumenthal “I support your use of hyperbole to exaggerate anti-Muslim sentiment, but I object when you use the same p.c. leftist techniques to smear me as anti-semitic”.

I don’t deny there is some irrational prejudice against Muslims in the West. A 14-year-old Sudanese American boy was arrested in Texas in September 2015 because his teachers thought the clock he brought to school might be a bomb. But look at the reaction. The story rapidly spread on Facebook and Twitter, became front-page news around the world, professional victims were able to make plenty of political capital out of it viii, and the boy was invited to the White House ix. The country is not “saturated with anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamophobia”, as Linda Sarsour claims.

Consider that president George W Bush said, shortly after September 11th 2001, that “Islam is peacex.

Consider how often the media and politicians condemn “Islamophobia” as if it is a thing, but call ISIS the “so-called” Islamic state, as if they want to protect the religion from association with its unpalatable expressions.

Consider the reaction of Australians to the terrorist attack of December 2014. Thousands signed up to #IllRideWithYou, offering Muslims protection against a backlash xi.

Finally, consider that the fear of being accused of “Islamophobia” was one of the reasons the authorities in Britain ignored Muslim gangs raping and trafficking hundreds of under-age girls for decades xii.

We should be free to think critically about Islam and its consequences, without worrying if we are being “Islamophobic”. I am not convinced, as Atzmon is, that Muslim atrocities are likely to be “false flag operations” xiii, nor that Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League stir up irrational dislike of Muslims, as Weir believes.

In conclusion, if we want to appeal to the mass of people, most of whom have every interest in ending Western support for the Jewish state, we need to abandon the accusatory, debate-stifling language of the leftist thought police.


i Jay Knott, Faithful Circle, Dissident Voice, September 2010 – http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/09/faithful-circle/

iii Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment, February 2014 – http://www.powells.com/biblio/9781495910920

iv Gilad Atzmon, The Jewish Division, April 2010 – http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-the-jewish-division.html

v Alison Weir, video response to Max Blumenthal’s statements against me, September 2015 – http://alisonweir.org/journal/2015/9/15/video-response-to-max-blumenthals-statements-against-me.html

vi Max Blumenthal, The Great Islamic Crusade, Huffington Post, May 2011 – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/the-great-islamophobic-cr_b_799277.html

vii Alison Weir, ADL, Hate Group – Why many people call the “Anti-Defamation League” the “Defamation League”, May 2015 – http://alisonweir.org/journal/2015/5/20/adl-hate-group-why-many-people-call-the-anti-defamation-leag.html

viii Linda Sarsour, Ahmed Mohamed is just one example of the bigotry American Muslims face, the Guardian, September 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/16/ahmed-mohamed-clock-bigotry-american-muslims

x George W Bush, “Islam is Peace”, says President, September 2001 – http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html

xi ‘I’ll ride with you’: Australians offer to ride home with Muslims on public transport to counter fears of backlash, Daily Mirror, December 2014 – http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/ill-ride-you-australians-offer-4813308

xii Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (1997 – 2013), August 2014 – http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham

Anti-fascist logic undermines Palestine solidarity

what-the-splc-really-wants

This is a response to Spencer Sunshine’s article for Political Research Associates, Drawing Lines Against Racism and Fascism, 1. I argue that it doesn’t oppose racial discrimination, rather, it defends one form of it by greatly exaggerating another.

There are a few factual errors in the article. As an example of a passage which I could pick apart, because I directly experienced the events in question, but don’t think it’s worth the effort, here’s Sunshine’s account of the reasoning behind the successful efforts of Jewish leftists to oust a Palestine activist from the co-operative movement:

Pacifica Forum members attended Occupy events in Eugene and Portland, Oregon, attempted to use a left-wing bookstore in Portland to host an antisemitic speaker, and one was a board member at an annual co-operative conference.

But that’s not the main problem. More important is to explain the hidden cause of Mr Sunshine’s logical errors.

The above sentence follows from a passage in which Sunshine asserts, without explanation, that anyone who tolerates the airing of what he labels “far right” ideas, should be treated the same as someone who actually believes these ideas. This is subject to a logical contradiction. Suppose you adopt Sunshine’s prescription, and treat anyone who tolerates any “far right” ideas in the same way as people who actually hold those ideas. What about someone who tolerates people who tolerate “far right” ideas, but doesn’t herself tolerate those ideas? Do you treat her in the same way as those whom she tolerates, who tolerate “far right” ideas? Where do you draw the line?

Whereas most of us might be concerned about how how true or false a given proposition about the world is, Sunshine’s position involves adopting a complex classification system, in which some ideas are classified as “far right”, and some as “progressive”. His elaboration of this classification makes it clear he cares primarily about “anti-semitism”. He uses this term very broadly, to include anyone who challenges Jewish interests.

Apart from the logical absurdity of Sunshine’s position, it could lead to violence.

I’ve written some articles which, while generally what Sunshine would call “progressive”, utilize some “far right” ideas. This is one of them: Invention, Imagination, Race and Nation 2.

Part of Spencer’s anti-fascist front uses violence against peaceful “far right” meetings (see my 2012 article on the incident at Tinley Park 3). So, if generally “progressive” people who make use of some “far right” ideas are regarded as being as bad as these “far right” activists, some of Sunshine’s friends might try to disrupt our meetings. This could lead to a tragedy.

So far, in my experience, anti-fascist harassment has only led to one Palestine solidarity activist getting fired, because he worked at a co-op which was easily persuaded by Jewish activists that he believes “far right” ideas. The real reason was that he was trying to persuade the co-op movement to boycott Israeli goods.

Why take anti-fascism seriously? Sunshine’s article includes warning of “a revival of fascist influence within countercultural music scenes”, and the influence of the “far right” among environmental activists.

The article becomes more serious when Sunshine says the president of the Palestinian rights advocacy group, If Americans Knew, Alison Weir, is “crypto-antisemitic”, because she talks and writes about the power of the Israel Lobby. Since it can be shown that the Lobby is the main reason for American support for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, suppressing discussion of this issue helps it continue (see my article, Faithful Circle 4).

His attempt to discredit Weir is the most obvious giveaway of Sunshine’s real aim – thought-policing the left in the interests of Jewish privilege. Alison Weir is liberal to a fault. Her message of support for the victims of Jewish supremacy is becoming increasingly heard. That’s why Jewish racialists within and without the left are slandering her more than ever.

Another clue as to Sunshine’s covert racialist aims is his attempt to amalgamate any critique of any aspect of Jewish over-representation, in positions of power and influence, with Nazism:

The same goes for those who repeat traditional Nazi-era antisemitic conspiracies, such as that Jews control the government, banking system, or the mass media… while repeating classical antisemitic narratives, deploy code words such as “Zionists,” “Jewish neocons,” or the “Frankfurt School” — instead of “the Jews.”

He wants us to believe that if you attribute the notorious pro-Israel bias in the US media to Jewish over-representation in its ownership, or criticize a large section of the Jewish community for its support for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, or mention the role of the neo-conservatives in persuading the US government to massacre the inhabitants of Arab and Muslim countries in various wars since September 11th 2001, while noting that the majority of the neo-cons are self-identified Jews, you are in the same league as the murderers of Anne Frank.

The degree of Jewish control of the media, and whether or not it matters, are empirical questions. We shouldn’t care at all whether or not a theory conforms to a “classical antisemitic narrative”. Objecting to a position because it sounds like Nazi propaganda is illogical; just because the Nazis claimed the Soviet government murdered the Polish officer corps 5, doesn’t mean it’s not true.

Chutzpah is a Yiddish word meaning “breathtaking hypocrisy”. Sunshine alleges

Allowing Far Right participation can also pose a security risk. Far Right actors may use such opportunities to collect personal information on progressive activists and information about their organizations. This has been an ongoing problem, in particular for antifascist and other groups that monitor the Far Right.

But this is at least as true of allowing anti-fascist participation in progressive movements. The Portland 9/11 Truth Alliance has had its members’ details publicized, because, of the wide range of conspiracy nuts hosted by the group, one or two of them mentioned the idea of Israeli involvement in September 11th. Overt Zionists are copying what anti-fascists do – “doxxing” (publishing the names etc.) of Palestine activists, hoping employers will take notice, while remaining anonymous themselves.

For example, The Canary Missionis publicizing the identities of pro-Palestinian student activists to prevent them from getting jobs after they graduate from college. But the website is keeping its own backers’ identity a secret” 6.

As a result of its chutzpah, the anti-fascist left is immune to irony. Sunshine’s piece treats the Southern Poverty Law Center as if it is an authority. The SPLC describes a group as a hate group if it spreads ideas about some other group of people which inspire a person, or persons, to commit violence against that second group. But the SPLC’s labeling of the Family Research Council as a hate group led a man to shoot a security guard at the group’s headquarters with a 9mm Sig Sauer semi-automatic pistol – which means, using its own criteria, the SPLC is a hate group. The attacker can be heard on this Youtube video admitting to the police that he found the FRC via the SPLC 7.

“Anti-semitism” is one form of racial discrimination which has never been very important in the US. You can tell this by looking at statistics for lynchings – if a particular minority has been seriously discriminated against in US history, you can be sure some of its members will have been murdered by mobs. What the SPLC and its allies mean by “anti-semitism” is opposition to a minority using its privileged position to oppress others. Logically, genuine opponents of racial privilege would surely prioritize undermining Jewish supremacy, rather than exaggerating the danger of white nationalism. The role of anti-fascists like Spencer Sunshine is to try to prevent us from drawing that logical conclusion.