I'm not sure what's more appealing, bras or hijabs. Norwegian Sara Azmeh Rasmussen burns her hijab at a public event on International Women's Day:
I don't know much more about it than what's in the YouTube explanation.
Related: Apparently there was a large anti-Sharia demonstration in London which looks very good (I particularly like the signage)...unfortunately (from the comments there), the whole thing is organized by...wait for it...a Communist.
Some communists are anti Jihad and pro-Israel, especially in Europe. Norm Geras is a Marxist, the guys at Harry's Place are lefties. Most Israelis lean very leftwards.
In America, leftists are usually opposed to any form of military self-defense but in Europe, genuine anti-fascists are willing to wage war, or (like Hitchens) stand up to thugs for their beliefs.
Phyllis Chesler wrote a very positive article about the anti-Sharia rally here.
I've mentioned this before but it's worth saying again. The communist activists are way ahead of the curve in Iran. see http://www.wupiran.com/. These people are outspoken and at risk in a way that most so called anti-jihad people would never dare to be.
Also, for background on vigilant freedom, please see LGF on the subject of The Gates of Vienna. Solomon, it's really not your crowd.
This entry of the left into the fray complicates things considerably for the Islamists. They are confronted with intellectual criticism from opposite sides of the political spectrum.
With the One Law for All campaign there are people who will become activists who would not otherwise have done so. If people are more comfortable about confronting Islamisation from the left then that is okay with me.
There is leadership from a more conservative perspective. We at CVF organised a conference in the European Parliament in Brussels some time back which included a key note speech by Bat Ye'or about Eurabia (don't you love the irony of that). That certainly got the attention our opponents and they seemed very worried on the basis of the hassel we got from some quarters.
We have also built up a network that spans the whole of Europe and North America and have contacts in a variety of parliaments. Believe me, the main leadership is from conservatives and the left is playing catch up. I met Wilders in Jerusalem and his party is now number 1 in the polls in the Netherlands. He is a true leader and he's certainly not a communist. The tide is turning and the infrastructure is in place to maximise our advantage.
Notice that the London Demo was publicised by us, and we had nothing to do with organising it. We have the experience and capability to publicise events so they reach the maximum audience and get things translated into multiple languages.
I would caution people to take what they read on LGF with a serious pinch of salt. Much of the dirt that was raked by LGF was refuted by our side at http://counterjihadeuropa.wordpress.com/ LGF is not developing links across the world and having an impact on events but Vigilant Freedom is.
Personally I think that the broader and more diverse the counter jihad movement is the better. The victims of Islamism are of many races, nationalities, political persuasions and backgrounds. Perhaps opposition to Islamist ideology will be something that will bring people together in unity in a way that has never been achieved before.
Our struggle may yet turn our to be a force for progress and good in the world as people join together in a common cause for freedom.
Anyway I don't now Sol from Adam. I just like his blog.
Listen, Aeneas. You know me. You don't know that you know me, but you do. I also know your group inside and out. It's cultish and creepy. It's run by a group of control freaks who view 'counter-jihad' as an opportunity to build a power base and a personal following, and peopled by sycophants who dote upon such leadership. LGF quite accurately exposed the tone and spirit of the group.
LGF is not developing links across the world and having an impact on events but Vigilant Freedom is
If name recognition and the ability to gain attention worldwide were all that mattered in politics, American Idol and Caroline Kennedy would rule the world.
LGF and others are simply wondering - what are the long-term goals of groups like Vigilant Freedom? Why are they making alliances with such questionable groups?
As far as I can tell, it's a political bait and switch. Fighting "Islam" and Sharia law is the bait to bring in the customers. Given your associations, it seems that the eventual switch could be pretty nasty.
Invoking communists as being ahead of the curve in Iran is reminiscent of Marxist/Leninism and the mass murder and genocides they instigated after the October Revolution (OR) - in turn after Nicholas II had already been forced to abdicate after the February revolution and after the democrat Kerensky had been installed.
Not only was Kerensky a genuine lower case "d" democrat, there is an abundance of evidence the OR was not sought by the masses, including both kulaks and lower classes among the peasantry.
So Lenin's genocide, c. 1922, proceeded, later Stalin's genocides and purges, because Russia ended up with Marx/Lenin instead of Kerensky and nascent democratic forms of governance.
I.e. in historic terms, mass murder and genocide committed by one camp is favorable to mass murder and genocide committed by another camp?
Genocide A or Genocide B? Hmmm, such a choice.
Thanks, but no thanks. The heritage of Locke and Montesquieu is to be favored - absolutely and decidedly - over the heritage of Marx/Engel, which latter heritage, via Mussolini's lineage, brought us fascism as well.
Thematic, a large historical sweep and backdrop, but relevant to any presumption of moral superiority as applied to Marxian initiatives in the present on any scale of note. And that doesn't even get into Marx's own anti-Semitic interests per se, which were both germinal and abundantly on evidence - if also largely suppressed in curricula and in terms of being published or promulgated in general.
By ahead of the curve, I meant willing to challenge the authority of Islam as such, and willing to take substantial risks to mount that challenge. I'm not sure what you thought I meant - perhaps something to do with marxist ideology itself - but my point really is just to distinguish between people who are really fighting the regime in Iran and others who are just burbling about anti-jihad for their own self serving purposes.
I honestly don't worry about a full scale communist revolution in Iran. There is also, it's worth pointing out, no genuine democratic movement in Iran that is capable of achieving anything. We are perennially reminded to applaud the liberal leanings of students in Iran, but they never do anything. One needn't worry about the communist wolf in socialist sheep's clothing. There are no socialist sheep.
Adam, I should have been more explicit in terms of what I was addressing (ranting about) and what I was not address - I was addressing the general theme, not your own interests and intent more specifically, which of course I'm not privy to (which is why I didn't address you by name).
My own fault, however, in failing to better clarify that fact, which I'm too often guilty of - no presumption or offense intended, Adam.
I write this in response to people who have criticised those who have participated in a march organised by Iranian communists and who have criticised the strategies that have been adopted by the Centre for Vigilant Freedom (CVF). There are a wide variety of people from various cultures and political viewpoints who oppose Islamisation and Sharia law.
CVF members have no problem with attending marches that are organised by Iranian communists. The Iranian communists are correct in their opposition to Sharia law and have direct experience of it in action. I might not agree with these brave activists on many aspects of their work but they are right on sharia. I welcome the presence of immigrant communities in Britain who are willing to stand up in favour of our most cherished freedoms and respect our traditions. I have great respect for them in their opposition to Sharia and hope that they will integrate fully into British society and contribute to our national life. Their focus appears to be on human rights and civil liberties issues which is also the principle focus of CVF. If they change track and start acting against the liberties that my country has bequeathed to the world then I would cease to support them. I spoke to some of the Iranian activists on the day of the demonstration and I liked them and see them as brothers and sisters in the struggle against Islamic extremism. They are standing up to be counted in their adopted country in ways that the vast majority of natives seem unwilling or are afraid to do. I hope that the Iranians that I met opt to become British citizens rather than return to Iran, we need them and their willingness to defend core British values.
When I entered the counter jihad movement I was still a member of the Labour Party and my ideas were certainly on the left of the political spectrum. My motivation for getting involved was the issue of free expression in the aftermath of the Danish cartoons. I resigned from the Labour Party in disgust when it seemed to abandon its traditional commitment to free expression. My own motivation and that of CVF is to prevent the Islamisation of the Western world. We have an uphill battle because so many of our politicians appear to be acquiescing with the process of Islamisation and there are so few people willing to stand up and oppose it. Our most important consideration is to stop the Islamisation of the Western world. It appears that some people have mistakenly regarded the “alliances” that CVF has established as being alliances with the ‘far right’. As a former activist in the British Labour Party I can understand such concerns but they are completely unfounded.
As a CVF leader I was personally involved in the delegation that was sent to Brussels to meet with Vlaams Belang. I am sure readers will remember that this party was the one that created the most concern to Little Green Footballs. I felt that Vlaams Belang were opposing Islamisation and deserved to at least be given a hearing, this was why I agreed to our face to face meeting with various members of the party leadership. As a recent left wing activist I had my misgivings but as a fair minded person I am always willing to give people a hearing. As CVF we were concerned about some of the accusations that had been made against Vlaams Belang but wanted to make our own assessment of the situation.
My own concern, as a Gentile Zionist, was that Vlaams Belang were against Israel and the Jews. On the basis of our meeting and the detailed questioning of Vlaams Belang officials that took place I was, and still am, convinced that Vlaams Belang are friends of the Jews and willing and eager advocates of the state of Israel. In many regards the Flemish separatists who currently do not have a country to call their own have much in common with the Israelis who founded the Jewish state.
On the basis of our meeting with Vlaams Belang, at which I was one of 3 CVF leaders, my own recommendation was that we worked with Vlaams Belang who were willing to provide logistical support to the conference that we eventually organised in the European Parliament. In this regard, I am personally responsible, at least in part, for the blog war that erupted with LGF. Nevertheless, I am still convinced that the decision to work with Vlaams Belang was the right one and that the charges levelled against them were completely unfounded. In my opinion the mudslinging that has been orchestrated against them was more to do with their desire to split the artificial state of Belgium than with any other considerations. It seems to me that there are powerful people who would lose out if such as split took place and who are willing to resort to underhand tactics to protect their fiefdom. This is not to mention the model that Belgium provides for the EU and the people who have much to lose if that particular gravy train collapses.
I look forward to working with those from all cultures who oppose Islamisation and Sharia law. I have derived great satisfaction from working with people from varied backgrounds and perspectives and feel that our struggle against Islamism will ultimately bring people together and be for the ultimate betterment of humankind and for the proliferation of tolerant and humane societies in all parts of the world.
> Vlaams Belang are friends of the Jews and
> willing and eager advocates of the state
> of Israel. In many regards the Flemish
> separatists who currently do not have a
> country to call their own have much in common
> with the Israelis who founded the Jewish state.
Do you view Zionism as an ethnic separatist movement?
Adam, my support for Zionism is more from a cultural/intellectual rather than ethnic perspective. However, I do see it as a seperatist movement in that it allowed Israel to secede from what I call the Islamic Empire that tends to result in the imposition of Islamic cultural values on non Muslims.
I see nationalism as a tool of statecraft that acts to bring diverse groups together culturally in order to create a stable and well integrated society rather than as something that focuses on genetic origins. This is reflected in my attitude to Zionism.
Like many ‘isms, Zionism means very different things to different people. My own view on this concept is one that sees Zionism as a pro Western intellectual movement that has a focus on the Jewish traditions that are embedded at the core of Western culture. In this sense Zionism can be regarded as a pro Western movement designed to counter the effects of Islamic expansionism and cultural imperialism. What I call the ‘Zionism Project’ has applicability as an instrument of Western policy making in the whole greater Middle Eastern region.
When the British Empire encouraged the development of Zionism in the nineteenth century it was seen by some as a mechanism to expand the sphere of Western progress into the Middle East. The ultimate creation of the state of Israel in 1948 shows how successful this policy was. Israel is now a Western style democracy that is effectively the most advanced productive and tolerant state in the Middle East. It has created a multi ethnic state but one that has unifying principles that bind these various components together. People who currently live in Israel come from all over the world including Orthodox Russia, Christian Ethiopia, Islamic Egypt and many parts of Western Europe and North America. This is a direct product of the pro Western Zionist Project.
The principle weakness of the British Imperial Zionist policy was that those shaping British grand strategy did not appreciate its full applicability as a pro Western revolutionary movement. The Zionist principle should really have been applied to other people who were subject to Islamic cultural imperialism within the British Empire. For instance the Copts of Egypt, the Assyrians of Mesopotamia, and the Dinka of the Sudan. All of these had, and indeed still possess, the potential for non Islamic statehood.
The Two State ‘Solution’ or partition of the State of Israel that has been proposed by representatives of Islamic cultural imperialism is against Western interests and would undermine the progress that has been made in the region. A two state solution gives respectability to the idea that the Islamic empire is the correct status quo in the region and to the idea that interests of minority groups do not have to be respected. It is primarily designed as an assertion of Islamic hegemony in the region. Its aim is to weaken Israel in much the same way as the seizure of the Sudetenland weakened Czechoslovakia in the run up to the Second World War.
The reason the Islamic world has felt so threatened by the Zionist project is it knows that it represents an idea that will eventually result in a decolonisation movement across the Islamic world as other subject peoples follow the example of the Zionists of Israel. Now is not the time to abandon people in the Middle East who have the desire to live in progressive states.
Instead of constant cultural retreat and appeasement in the face of Islamic resurgence, Western policy makers should be developing strategies to expand the reach of Western culture. This will mean opposing the two state solution in favour of a multi state solution that gives self determination to all subject people of the Islamic empire. Instead of undermining it in the heartlands of Western Civilisation they should be expanding its influence so that more members of the human family can enjoy its products and its freedoms. As an engine of human progress, Western Civilisation has its best years still to come. With wise leaders and a new self confidence this assertion will become a reality.
My belief that Western Civilisation is a force for good in the world might appear rather old fashioned and even culturally arrogant. However, the Islamic world is promoting its ideas in the West. As a result I think it is only fair that Western values should be promoted in what is currently regarded as the Islamic world. I also think that if those parts of the world embraced Western values then the people would live much happier and more fullfilled lives.
Instead of constant cultural retreat and appeasement in the face of Islamic resurgence, Western policy makers should be developing strategies to expand the reach of Western culture
What specific strategies would you suggest to expand the reach of Western cultures?
..and what specific strategies would you suggest to deal with Muslim immigrants in Europe?
> allowed Israel to secede from what I call
> the Islamic Empire
Israel didn't secede from anything, nor was it ever part of anything.
> Zionism as a pro Western intellectual
> movement that has a focus on the Jewish
> traditions that are embedded at the core
> of Western culture. In this sense Zionism
> can be regarded as a pro Western movement
> designed to counter the effects of Islamic
> expansionism and cultural imperialism.
Israel (and Zionism) also wasn't "designed" to counter Islamic expansionism. This recasting of Zionist history as being part of some larger war against Islamic imperialism is completely unfounded.
Zionism, intellectually, is a product of the uneven development of the European enlightenment. In the late 19th century Jews responded with radical ideas, as did everybody else, to the failure of the Russian enlightenment. Its birth as an intellectual and as a social movement had nothing to do with Islam.
> When the British Empire encouraged the
> development of Zionism in the nineteenth
> century it was seen by some as a mechanism
> to expand the sphere of Western progress
> into the Middle East. The ultimate creation
> of the state of Israel in 1948 shows how
> successful this policy was.
By whom was it seen in this way? Can you give an example?
Early British support for Zionism was in part a humanitarian response to the brutality of Russian oppression, and in part a move to slow the tide of Jewish refugees coming out of Russia and into the west. There was certainly a religious element to that support as well as a respect for the Jews for having survived from antiquity.
But maybe I'm going too far back. If you want to talk about the Palestine Mandate, it was not a shining example of British idealism, nor was there consistent support for Zionism. Support as on again off again, but always reluctant.
> The principle weakness of the British
> Imperial Zionist policy was that those
> shaping British grand strategy did not
> appreciate its full applicability as a pro
> Western revolutionary movement. The Zionist
> principle should really have been applied
> to other people who were subject to Islamic
> cultural imperialism within the British Empire.
Shall I let this odd bit of sophistry stand alone?
No. Zionism is not a "pro western revolutionary movement", nor was Israel ever subject to any (modern) Islamic empire. see secession comment above.
Israel is certainly pro western. That's not in dispute. But it's (A) not a revolutionary movement and (B) not by definition at war with Islamic imperialism. That Israel is in fact at war with Islamic imperialism is also not in dispute, just your odd claim that this war is in any way at all what gives Zionism its identity.
> The reason the Islamic world has felt so
> threatened by the Zionist project is it
> knows that it represents an idea that will
> eventually result in a decolonisation
> movement across the Islamic world as other
> subject peoples follow the example of the
> Zionists of Israel.
Really. It isn't. The Saudis, for example, have little to fear of decolonization movements. Iran, though ethnically quite diverse, is in no danger of losing its national identity. The Lebanese have not managed to draw any strength at all against their oppressors by the Zionist example on their border. This argument has no grounds at all.
> Now is not the time to abandon people in
> the Middle East who have the desire to live
> in progressive states.
"I think there is much truth to the idea that "the wretched of the earth" often express misery through violence and that reducing poverty, ignorance, hopelessness and disease can indeed create a better world."
Then the Gaza blockade, and then the Shi'a and Hezbollah - with Iran's (and Syria's) "magnanimous" aid in Lebanon - etc., etc. As well, Hitler's own economic stabilizing initiatives in 1930's Germany.
Responding again to the theme and not singling out any one person's views, and to admittedly indulge some pedantry, the following:
Yes to all of it.
No to all of it.
The most basic problem with an exaggerated and presumptive or habituated sympathy for Fanon's Marxian, "wretched of the earth" sensibility is two fold,
1) typical of many, many leftist sensibilities in general, it presumes and arrogates to itself moral and analytic superiority that no contending outlook can conceivably surpass - it essentially suggests, "we care more about the underprivileged and the oppressed than anyone else" and that greater virtue, along with the social/intellectual analyses that underlies that greater virtue, is what allows us to sympathize with and in fact applaud systematic and ideologically supported violence, and, as such,
2) it therein coercively undermines or entirely supplants what otherwise might be a much better underlying social ethos, i.e. classical liberal and broadly conserving in nature - classical liberal and conserving within strains originated by Smith, Locke, Montesquieu.
Misery and oppression often express themselves through violence, yes. But, 1) what causes misery in the first place is often not or is not primarily as conceived within a Marxian or neo-Marxian analytic and 2) social/political violence, however rationalized, is often rooted in other factors entirely, retrograde cultural, psychological at intrapersonal and interpersonal levels, other factors still - obviously enough.
As to the "genetic" origins of such symptoms and underlying rationales, a perusal of the following can be instructive:
(I've long been aware of Marx's own anti-Semitic and anti-Judaic sympathies, in addition to his anti-religious views in general, but the above is the only source I've found on the web that comprehensively brings it under review. Being more consciously aware of those views, and just how prominent and even pivotal they were in Marx's own psychologies and thinking, can in fact be illuminating. Many are entirely unaware of just how extensive those sympathies were.)
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Not everyone at the London demo were communists. I was there with some fellow British Center for Vigilant Freedom activists and we are not communists.
Oh no, of that I'm sure. It's just sad to see a good looking movement lead by the wrong person. Set us straight on that if it's not the case, please.
Some communists are anti Jihad and pro-Israel, especially in Europe. Norm Geras is a Marxist, the guys at Harry's Place are lefties. Most Israelis lean very leftwards.
In America, leftists are usually opposed to any form of military self-defense but in Europe, genuine anti-fascists are willing to wage war, or (like Hitchens) stand up to thugs for their beliefs.
Phyllis Chesler wrote a very positive article about the anti-Sharia rally here.
I've mentioned this before but it's worth saying again. The communist activists are way ahead of the curve in Iran. see http://www.wupiran.com/. These people are outspoken and at risk in a way that most so called anti-jihad people would never dare to be.
Also, for background on vigilant freedom, please see LGF on the subject of The Gates of Vienna. Solomon, it's really not your crowd.
This entry of the left into the fray complicates things considerably for the Islamists. They are confronted with intellectual criticism from opposite sides of the political spectrum.
With the One Law for All campaign there are people who will become activists who would not otherwise have done so. If people are more comfortable about confronting Islamisation from the left then that is okay with me.
There is leadership from a more conservative perspective. We at CVF organised a conference in the European Parliament in Brussels some time back which included a key note speech by Bat Ye'or about Eurabia (don't you love the irony of that). That certainly got the attention our opponents and they seemed very worried on the basis of the hassel we got from some quarters.
We have also built up a network that spans the whole of Europe and North America and have contacts in a variety of parliaments. Believe me, the main leadership is from conservatives and the left is playing catch up. I met Wilders in Jerusalem and his party is now number 1 in the polls in the Netherlands. He is a true leader and he's certainly not a communist. The tide is turning and the infrastructure is in place to maximise our advantage.
Notice that the London Demo was publicised by us, and we had nothing to do with organising it. We have the experience and capability to publicise events so they reach the maximum audience and get things translated into multiple languages.
People who want to become more active in the counter jihad movement might also be intersted in getting involved with SITA: http://beernsandwiches.blogspot.com/2008/12/sita-kit-part-i-theory-part-ii-practice.html
I would caution people to take what they read on LGF with a serious pinch of salt. Much of the dirt that was raked by LGF was refuted by our side at http://counterjihadeuropa.wordpress.com/ LGF is not developing links across the world and having an impact on events but Vigilant Freedom is.
Personally I think that the broader and more diverse the counter jihad movement is the better. The victims of Islamism are of many races, nationalities, political persuasions and backgrounds. Perhaps opposition to Islamist ideology will be something that will bring people together in unity in a way that has never been achieved before.
Our struggle may yet turn our to be a force for progress and good in the world as people join together in a common cause for freedom.
This is Sam Solomon mentioned in #4 above (I presume Sam is the person who was being referred to): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxjpqOOaxdQ His 'A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding' is certainly worth a read: http://counterjihadeuropa.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/europecharter.pdf
> This is Sam Solomon
posting under Aeneas?
Anyway I don't now Sol from Adam. I just like his blog.
Listen, Aeneas. You know me. You don't know that you know me, but you do. I also know your group inside and out. It's cultish and creepy. It's run by a group of control freaks who view 'counter-jihad' as an opportunity to build a power base and a personal following, and peopled by sycophants who dote upon such leadership. LGF quite accurately exposed the tone and spirit of the group.
Adam. I don't know where you get your ideas from about CVF, but you are quite wrong about it.
I oppose communism, but I wouldn't want to march with national socialists against communism.
Any fascist group that tries to piggyback on an anti-sharia law march should be ostracized.
The tipping point the for adoption of Sharia Law in the UK has been passed.
Even the British Navy couldn't/wouldn't stand up to Iran when it kidnapped British multi-cult/alternate lifestyle sailors.
LGF is not developing links across the world and having an impact on events but Vigilant Freedom is
If name recognition and the ability to gain attention worldwide were all that mattered in politics, American Idol and Caroline Kennedy would rule the world.
LGF and others are simply wondering - what are the long-term goals of groups like Vigilant Freedom? Why are they making alliances with such questionable groups?
As far as I can tell, it's a political bait and switch. Fighting "Islam" and Sharia law is the bait to bring in the customers. Given your associations, it seems that the eventual switch could be pretty nasty.
Invoking communists as being ahead of the curve in Iran is reminiscent of Marxist/Leninism and the mass murder and genocides they instigated after the October Revolution (OR) - in turn after Nicholas II had already been forced to abdicate after the February revolution and after the democrat Kerensky had been installed.
Not only was Kerensky a genuine lower case "d" democrat, there is an abundance of evidence the OR was not sought by the masses, including both kulaks and lower classes among the peasantry.
So Lenin's genocide, c. 1922, proceeded, later Stalin's genocides and purges, because Russia ended up with Marx/Lenin instead of Kerensky and nascent democratic forms of governance.
I.e. in historic terms, mass murder and genocide committed by one camp is favorable to mass murder and genocide committed by another camp?
Genocide A or Genocide B? Hmmm, such a choice.
Thanks, but no thanks. The heritage of Locke and Montesquieu is to be favored - absolutely and decidedly - over the heritage of Marx/Engel, which latter heritage, via Mussolini's lineage, brought us fascism as well.
Thematic, a large historical sweep and backdrop, but relevant to any presumption of moral superiority as applied to Marxian initiatives in the present on any scale of note. And that doesn't even get into Marx's own anti-Semitic interests per se, which were both germinal and abundantly on evidence - if also largely suppressed in curricula and in terms of being published or promulgated in general.
Michael,
By ahead of the curve, I meant willing to challenge the authority of Islam as such, and willing to take substantial risks to mount that challenge. I'm not sure what you thought I meant - perhaps something to do with marxist ideology itself - but my point really is just to distinguish between people who are really fighting the regime in Iran and others who are just burbling about anti-jihad for their own self serving purposes.
I honestly don't worry about a full scale communist revolution in Iran. There is also, it's worth pointing out, no genuine democratic movement in Iran that is capable of achieving anything. We are perennially reminded to applaud the liberal leanings of students in Iran, but they never do anything. One needn't worry about the communist wolf in socialist sheep's clothing. There are no socialist sheep.
Adam, I should have been more explicit in terms of what I was addressing (ranting about) and what I was not address - I was addressing the general theme, not your own interests and intent more specifically, which of course I'm not privy to (which is why I didn't address you by name).
My own fault, however, in failing to better clarify that fact, which I'm too often guilty of - no presumption or offense intended, Adam.
I write this in response to people who have criticised those who have participated in a march organised by Iranian communists and who have criticised the strategies that have been adopted by the Centre for Vigilant Freedom (CVF). There are a wide variety of people from various cultures and political viewpoints who oppose Islamisation and Sharia law.
CVF members have no problem with attending marches that are organised by Iranian communists. The Iranian communists are correct in their opposition to Sharia law and have direct experience of it in action. I might not agree with these brave activists on many aspects of their work but they are right on sharia. I welcome the presence of immigrant communities in Britain who are willing to stand up in favour of our most cherished freedoms and respect our traditions. I have great respect for them in their opposition to Sharia and hope that they will integrate fully into British society and contribute to our national life. Their focus appears to be on human rights and civil liberties issues which is also the principle focus of CVF. If they change track and start acting against the liberties that my country has bequeathed to the world then I would cease to support them. I spoke to some of the Iranian activists on the day of the demonstration and I liked them and see them as brothers and sisters in the struggle against Islamic extremism. They are standing up to be counted in their adopted country in ways that the vast majority of natives seem unwilling or are afraid to do. I hope that the Iranians that I met opt to become British citizens rather than return to Iran, we need them and their willingness to defend core British values.
When I entered the counter jihad movement I was still a member of the Labour Party and my ideas were certainly on the left of the political spectrum. My motivation for getting involved was the issue of free expression in the aftermath of the Danish cartoons. I resigned from the Labour Party in disgust when it seemed to abandon its traditional commitment to free expression. My own motivation and that of CVF is to prevent the Islamisation of the Western world. We have an uphill battle because so many of our politicians appear to be acquiescing with the process of Islamisation and there are so few people willing to stand up and oppose it. Our most important consideration is to stop the Islamisation of the Western world. It appears that some people have mistakenly regarded the “alliances” that CVF has established as being alliances with the ‘far right’. As a former activist in the British Labour Party I can understand such concerns but they are completely unfounded.
As a CVF leader I was personally involved in the delegation that was sent to Brussels to meet with Vlaams Belang. I am sure readers will remember that this party was the one that created the most concern to Little Green Footballs. I felt that Vlaams Belang were opposing Islamisation and deserved to at least be given a hearing, this was why I agreed to our face to face meeting with various members of the party leadership. As a recent left wing activist I had my misgivings but as a fair minded person I am always willing to give people a hearing. As CVF we were concerned about some of the accusations that had been made against Vlaams Belang but wanted to make our own assessment of the situation.
My own concern, as a Gentile Zionist, was that Vlaams Belang were against Israel and the Jews. On the basis of our meeting and the detailed questioning of Vlaams Belang officials that took place I was, and still am, convinced that Vlaams Belang are friends of the Jews and willing and eager advocates of the state of Israel. In many regards the Flemish separatists who currently do not have a country to call their own have much in common with the Israelis who founded the Jewish state.
On the basis of our meeting with Vlaams Belang, at which I was one of 3 CVF leaders, my own recommendation was that we worked with Vlaams Belang who were willing to provide logistical support to the conference that we eventually organised in the European Parliament. In this regard, I am personally responsible, at least in part, for the blog war that erupted with LGF. Nevertheless, I am still convinced that the decision to work with Vlaams Belang was the right one and that the charges levelled against them were completely unfounded. In my opinion the mudslinging that has been orchestrated against them was more to do with their desire to split the artificial state of Belgium than with any other considerations. It seems to me that there are powerful people who would lose out if such as split took place and who are willing to resort to underhand tactics to protect their fiefdom. This is not to mention the model that Belgium provides for the EU and the people who have much to lose if that particular gravy train collapses.
I look forward to working with those from all cultures who oppose Islamisation and Sharia law. I have derived great satisfaction from working with people from varied backgrounds and perspectives and feel that our struggle against Islamism will ultimately bring people together and be for the ultimate betterment of humankind and for the proliferation of tolerant and humane societies in all parts of the world.
> Vlaams Belang are friends of the Jews and
> willing and eager advocates of the state
> of Israel. In many regards the Flemish
> separatists who currently do not have a
> country to call their own have much in common
> with the Israelis who founded the Jewish state.
Do you view Zionism as an ethnic separatist movement?
Adam, my support for Zionism is more from a cultural/intellectual rather than ethnic perspective. However, I do see it as a seperatist movement in that it allowed Israel to secede from what I call the Islamic Empire that tends to result in the imposition of Islamic cultural values on non Muslims.
I see nationalism as a tool of statecraft that acts to bring diverse groups together culturally in order to create a stable and well integrated society rather than as something that focuses on genetic origins. This is reflected in my attitude to Zionism.
Like many ‘isms, Zionism means very different things to different people. My own view on this concept is one that sees Zionism as a pro Western intellectual movement that has a focus on the Jewish traditions that are embedded at the core of Western culture. In this sense Zionism can be regarded as a pro Western movement designed to counter the effects of Islamic expansionism and cultural imperialism. What I call the ‘Zionism Project’ has applicability as an instrument of Western policy making in the whole greater Middle Eastern region.
When the British Empire encouraged the development of Zionism in the nineteenth century it was seen by some as a mechanism to expand the sphere of Western progress into the Middle East. The ultimate creation of the state of Israel in 1948 shows how successful this policy was. Israel is now a Western style democracy that is effectively the most advanced productive and tolerant state in the Middle East. It has created a multi ethnic state but one that has unifying principles that bind these various components together. People who currently live in Israel come from all over the world including Orthodox Russia, Christian Ethiopia, Islamic Egypt and many parts of Western Europe and North America. This is a direct product of the pro Western Zionist Project.
The principle weakness of the British Imperial Zionist policy was that those shaping British grand strategy did not appreciate its full applicability as a pro Western revolutionary movement. The Zionist principle should really have been applied to other people who were subject to Islamic cultural imperialism within the British Empire. For instance the Copts of Egypt, the Assyrians of Mesopotamia, and the Dinka of the Sudan. All of these had, and indeed still possess, the potential for non Islamic statehood.
The Two State ‘Solution’ or partition of the State of Israel that has been proposed by representatives of Islamic cultural imperialism is against Western interests and would undermine the progress that has been made in the region. A two state solution gives respectability to the idea that the Islamic empire is the correct status quo in the region and to the idea that interests of minority groups do not have to be respected. It is primarily designed as an assertion of Islamic hegemony in the region. Its aim is to weaken Israel in much the same way as the seizure of the Sudetenland weakened Czechoslovakia in the run up to the Second World War.
The reason the Islamic world has felt so threatened by the Zionist project is it knows that it represents an idea that will eventually result in a decolonisation movement across the Islamic world as other subject peoples follow the example of the Zionists of Israel. Now is not the time to abandon people in the Middle East who have the desire to live in progressive states.
Instead of constant cultural retreat and appeasement in the face of Islamic resurgence, Western policy makers should be developing strategies to expand the reach of Western culture. This will mean opposing the two state solution in favour of a multi state solution that gives self determination to all subject people of the Islamic empire. Instead of undermining it in the heartlands of Western Civilisation they should be expanding its influence so that more members of the human family can enjoy its products and its freedoms. As an engine of human progress, Western Civilisation has its best years still to come. With wise leaders and a new self confidence this assertion will become a reality.
My belief that Western Civilisation is a force for good in the world might appear rather old fashioned and even culturally arrogant. However, the Islamic world is promoting its ideas in the West. As a result I think it is only fair that Western values should be promoted in what is currently regarded as the Islamic world. I also think that if those parts of the world embraced Western values then the people would live much happier and more fullfilled lives.
Instead of constant cultural retreat and appeasement in the face of Islamic resurgence, Western policy makers should be developing strategies to expand the reach of Western culture
What specific strategies would you suggest to expand the reach of Western cultures?
..and what specific strategies would you suggest to deal with Muslim immigrants in Europe?
> allowed Israel to secede from what I call
> the Islamic Empire
Israel didn't secede from anything, nor was it ever part of anything.
> Zionism as a pro Western intellectual
> movement that has a focus on the Jewish
> traditions that are embedded at the core
> of Western culture. In this sense Zionism
> can be regarded as a pro Western movement
> designed to counter the effects of Islamic
> expansionism and cultural imperialism.
Israel (and Zionism) also wasn't "designed" to counter Islamic expansionism. This recasting of Zionist history as being part of some larger war against Islamic imperialism is completely unfounded.
Zionism, intellectually, is a product of the uneven development of the European enlightenment. In the late 19th century Jews responded with radical ideas, as did everybody else, to the failure of the Russian enlightenment. Its birth as an intellectual and as a social movement had nothing to do with Islam.
> When the British Empire encouraged the
> development of Zionism in the nineteenth
> century it was seen by some as a mechanism
> to expand the sphere of Western progress
> into the Middle East. The ultimate creation
> of the state of Israel in 1948 shows how
> successful this policy was.
By whom was it seen in this way? Can you give an example?
Early British support for Zionism was in part a humanitarian response to the brutality of Russian oppression, and in part a move to slow the tide of Jewish refugees coming out of Russia and into the west. There was certainly a religious element to that support as well as a respect for the Jews for having survived from antiquity.
But maybe I'm going too far back. If you want to talk about the Palestine Mandate, it was not a shining example of British idealism, nor was there consistent support for Zionism. Support as on again off again, but always reluctant.
> The principle weakness of the British
> Imperial Zionist policy was that those
> shaping British grand strategy did not
> appreciate its full applicability as a pro
> Western revolutionary movement. The Zionist
> principle should really have been applied
> to other people who were subject to Islamic
> cultural imperialism within the British Empire.
Shall I let this odd bit of sophistry stand alone?
No. Zionism is not a "pro western revolutionary movement", nor was Israel ever subject to any (modern) Islamic empire. see secession comment above.
Israel is certainly pro western. That's not in dispute. But it's (A) not a revolutionary movement and (B) not by definition at war with Islamic imperialism. That Israel is in fact at war with Islamic imperialism is also not in dispute, just your odd claim that this war is in any way at all what gives Zionism its identity.
> The reason the Islamic world has felt so
> threatened by the Zionist project is it
> knows that it represents an idea that will
> eventually result in a decolonisation
> movement across the Islamic world as other
> subject peoples follow the example of the
> Zionists of Israel.
Really. It isn't. The Saudis, for example, have little to fear of decolonization movements. Iran, though ethnically quite diverse, is in no danger of losing its national identity. The Lebanese have not managed to draw any strength at all against their oppressors by the Zionist example on their border. This argument has no grounds at all.
> Now is not the time to abandon people in
> the Middle East who have the desire to live
> in progressive states.
At least we agree on that.
"I think there is much truth to the idea that "the wretched of the earth" often express misery through violence and that reducing poverty, ignorance, hopelessness and disease can indeed create a better world."
Then the Gaza blockade, and then the Shi'a and Hezbollah - with Iran's (and Syria's) "magnanimous" aid in Lebanon - etc., etc. As well, Hitler's own economic stabilizing initiatives in 1930's Germany.
Responding again to the theme and not singling out any one person's views, and to admittedly indulge some pedantry, the following:
Yes to all of it.
No to all of it.
The most basic problem with an exaggerated and presumptive or habituated sympathy for Fanon's Marxian, "wretched of the earth" sensibility is two fold,
1) typical of many, many leftist sensibilities in general, it presumes and arrogates to itself moral and analytic superiority that no contending outlook can conceivably surpass - it essentially suggests, "we care more about the underprivileged and the oppressed than anyone else" and that greater virtue, along with the social/intellectual analyses that underlies that greater virtue, is what allows us to sympathize with and in fact applaud systematic and ideologically supported violence, and, as such,
2) it therein coercively undermines or entirely supplants what otherwise might be a much better underlying social ethos, i.e. classical liberal and broadly conserving in nature - classical liberal and conserving within strains originated by Smith, Locke, Montesquieu.
Misery and oppression often express themselves through violence, yes. But, 1) what causes misery in the first place is often not or is not primarily as conceived within a Marxian or neo-Marxian analytic and 2) social/political violence, however rationalized, is often rooted in other factors entirely, retrograde cultural, psychological at intrapersonal and interpersonal levels, other factors still - obviously enough.
As to the "genetic" origins of such symptoms and underlying rationales, a perusal of the following can be instructive:
A Comprehensive Look at Marx the AntiSemite
More extensively still, Hitler as Socialist
(I've long been aware of Marx's own anti-Semitic and anti-Judaic sympathies, in addition to his anti-religious views in general, but the above is the only source I've found on the web that comprehensively brings it under review. Being more consciously aware of those views, and just how prominent and even pivotal they were in Marx's own psychologies and thinking, can in fact be illuminating. Many are entirely unaware of just how extensive those sympathies were.)