Sunday, 13 April 2014

Gramsci's Middle-Class, Leftist Hegemony




One explicit way in which Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) stated that he believed that no revolution would be forthcoming in Europe was when he said that power is not something which you can “seize” in a revolution. In other words, Gramsci never talked about the “seizure of State power”. Despite that, in a certain sense he did believe in seizing state power; though not through violent revolution. Instead, to use his words, he talked of “becoming State”. That is, the middle-class Marxist vanguard - on behalf on the working class (of course) - would become the state. Alternatively they would “take over the institutions” of the state (the police, the law, political parties, the civil service, councils, etc.) and even the institutions which are not ordinarily deemed to be directly part of the state (e.g., the churches, charities, regional/national newspapers, the universities, schools, the BBC). (Rudi Dutschke called this the “Long March through the Institutions”. )
Rudi Dutschke on a Long March through a university.



Gramsci wanted to create a (new) Leftist “hegemony”. That was to be achieved by middle-class Marxists “becoming State”. Or, more correctly, a new non-capitalist hegemon was to be created by a middle-class Leftist vanguard/elite. That new middle-class Leftist hegemony should then imposed upon the working class via the schools, universities, the BBC, local councils, the law, etc. (just as Marxists believe that the capitalist-state hegemony was imposed on the working class).


The notion of hegemony is very important to Marxists/Leftists. Just as they believed that the capitalist class is an hegemony (or, is “hegemonic” in nature); so too they believe that the the working class - or Muslims today - must be hegemonic in nature.


More concretely, without an hegemony, the working class - or Muslims today - would remain 'particularistic' or individualistic. And that is useless for the middle-class Leftists who want radical change, if not revolution. After all capitalists,a ccording to Leftists, form a 'hegemonic class'. Therefore the working class - or Muslims today - must form a hegemonic class too. That is, according to Gramsci, the working class - care-of the middle-class Leftist elite of which he was a part - should think exclusively in class, not in individualistic terms.



In his own day, Gramsci didn't believe that the working class had a collective will, unlike the capitalists. Instead that collective had to be created – by middle-class Marxists such as himself. However, despite the abstract reality of the working class, it is still made up of a “plurality of demands, political initiatives, traditions and cultural institutions”. That plurality is inherently unstable, from a Marxist perspective. And, again, this is where Gramsci and the Gramscians step in. It is up to them to provide a sense of stability to that plurality by creating a determinate class-consciousness - or a new hegemon - for the working class. And, in Gramsci's case, that could only be done by “taking over the institutions” (or “becoming State”), not through the classical violent (Marxist) revolution.


However, traditional Marxists believed that such a hegemonic consciousness (or class consciousness) would come naturally to the working class as capitalism inevitably lead to the increasing polarisation of society. The more polarised, or poor, the working class became, the more class-conscious they would become. But, of course, that didn't happened. There was no necessarily increased polarisation and even the depression was only a blip in the history of capitalism. Thus the working class didn't become more class-conscious, hegemonic or revolutionary.


This is where the Gramscians, again, stepped in.


If economic alienation and polarisation didn't automatically make the working class more class-conscious (or if “pauperisation” didn't occur), then Gramsci and other middle-class Marxists would make the working class class-conscious instead. As I said, according to Marx's “natural laws of capitalism”, the failures of capitalism would inevitably raise the consciousness off the working class and turn them into revolutionaries. That didn't happen. Therefor middle-class Marxists had to alter the consciousness of the workers to make the best of Marx's failed prophesies.



In other words, middle-class Marxist had to provide the “hegemonic articulation” of what was best for the working class. Capitalism itself, or its increased polarisation, didn't do that.


This means that the Gramscian position effectively turned the Marxist base-superstructure model on its head. Instead of the “modes of production” generating consciousness (or class-consciousness), here we have Gramscians attempting to generate consciousness instead. In a sense, Gramsci had returned to Hegel's position; which, of course, Marx himself had inverted.


Now how best to create a new working-class - or Muslim today - consciousness? Simple: take over the institutions in which ideas, rather than “material conditions”, are primary. Or, alternatively, only by “becoming the State” - not by violently seizing the state (as in a revolution) - could the consciousness of the working class - or Muslims today - be changed in the ways middle-class Leftists wanted it to change.

Saturday, 12 April 2014

Conspiracies ain't Conspiracy Theories






One of the latest conspiracy theories seems to be that Mick Jagger murdered L'Wren Scott. For example, one article asked its readers the following question: 'Did Mick Jagger get away with L'Wren Scott's murder?'. Perhaps this website simply raised the possibility of her murder – it's hard to tell with these things. It's also hard to tell if some of these conspiracy websites are pastiches because they're often indistinguishable from the real thing.




One vital piece of suspicion (or evidence), apparently, was expressed by the editor in this way: “HUH? 6'3' gal hung herself from 4' doorknob?” Yes, that's very odd... if true. But, then again, so is murdering someone in that way... but what the hell?
Another victim of Mick Jagger.


Conspiracies & Conspiracy Theories





Often the critics of conspiracy theories are accused of denying the existence of conspiracies. However, conspiracies and conspiracies theories aren't the same thing. Critics of conspiracy theories don't actually need to deny the existence of conspiracies – how on earth could they? What they do have a problem with is is the nature of most - or even all - conspiracy theories.


No one should ever automatically reject a theory just because it's about some kind of conspiracy. People should reject it if it sounds like a typical conspiracy theory: with all the hallmarks these things seem to have.



Conspiracies exist, sure – many of them and they're all over the place.



Theories can be good things too – in and outside of science.

Conspiracy theorists also often cite conspiracy theories which proved, in the end, to be true. The thing is, various conspiracies have been shown to have happened; though not all – or any – of the conspiracy theories about these conspiracies proved to be correct.


In fact what conspiracy theorists often cite to be conspiracy theories which have been shown to be true were not actually conspiracy theories in the first place. They betrayed none of the “paranoid style” of most or all conspiracy theories. These theories often included evidence, argumentation, data and all sorts of collaborative and conformational detail that wasn’t conspiracy-theory-like at all.

Despite all that, what people must note is that just because a theory isn't widely accepted, that doesn’t make it a conspiracy theory (with all the faults of typical conspiracy theories). There was a wide non-acceptance or rejection of the various theories that the earth is not the center of the universe. They were largely scientific theories – not a conspiracy theories. On the whole, they had all the hallmarks of the scientific theories of the time.




Even if a scientific theories aren't widely accepted, which is true of all of them (at least at first), they should still nonetheless be scientific in nature. They should still involve observations, experiments, tests, the use of established laws of nature, successful predictions, explanatory successes and whatnot. In terms of scientists themselves, the majority of them are part of a community. They abide by all sorts of scientific and academic requirements or procedures.

And it's not just scientific theories which are perfectly acceptable: the same can be true of philosophical, journalistic, literary, historical, etc. theories. They too rely on evidence, academic rigor, argumentation, observation, data, past records, research, etc.

There's also a strong interplay between the non-theoretical aspects of theories and the purely theoretical parts. There should always be an interplay between theory and evidence.


With conspiracy theories, on the other hand, the theory side of the equation runs free of evidence and/or logical/philosophical argumentation. The average conspiracy theorist is rarely a scientist of any description (though he's often writer of some description). Indeed many conspiracy theories begin as the work of individuals. Despite that, it is indeed the case that support for – or belief in - the theory widens (sometimes massively) over time. That single individual’s theory later spread like a disease to encompass literally millions of believers. The theory was passed on largely without any scientific or academic scrutiny. That didn’t matter. Once the virus spread, it kept on spreading. And, again unlike scientific theories, that theory probably wasn’t subject to any critical scrutiny by the vast majority of its believers.



We also have to take into account the fact that different conspiracy theories about X or Y mutually contradict each other (e.g., many of the theories about 9/11 do so). This effectively means that there's nothing to decide which theory to accept. What could possibly decide the issue if nearly all the conspiracy theories about X or Y rely almost exclusively on unseen forces or events?


In addition, what Marxists/Leftists conspiracy theorists, for example, tend to do is that if reality (or what is the case) doesn't square with prior Marxist theory, then Marxists will make damn sure that it does so. What you'll usually get, then, are innumerable Marxist “auxiliary hypotheses” which simply explain away the equally innumerable inconvenient facts.



In conclusion, I mentioned journalists a moment ago. You'd think that if all - or some - of these conspiracy theories had so much meat on them, then our super-journalists (or even the lesser ones) would be keen on showing the world that they are true. After all, if these journalists did this, then they'd quickly become both rich and famous. But of course the conspiracy theorists will have yet more neat and tidy conspiracy theories (or auxiliary hypotheses) to explain why this isn't the case. For example, they'll say that journalists (all of them?) are in cahoots with the conspirators. Either than, or the conspirators have warned journalists (all of them?), on pain of death, not to open their mouths. (When has that ever stopped our best journalists?)


Conspiracy Theories ain't Really Theories at All



There are indeed many conspiracies which have actually occurred. Yet the true theories about these conspiracies weren't at all based on spooky unseen forces or events at work behind the scenes. The forces could be seen or known – even if sometimes only in principle - even if governments, businesses, etc. tried to suppress all outside knowledge of them.


There's also a distinction to be made between the conspiracy being uncovered and the conspiracy theories which attempted – or claimed - to do that uncovering.

Sometimes actual/real conspiracies and the conspiracy theories about them have become massively out of sync. In fact many conspiracy theories were never in sync with any real conspiracies in the first place. They are literally made up. Either that or simply the imaginative or paranoid creations of their inventors. This can even be the case when the conspiracy theorist doesn’t even realise he’s making the whole thing up. (Psychologists have done much work on this facet of human nature; so it’s no surprise to anyone, except, perhaps, the conspiracy theorist, that conspiracy theories are so common.)


Two writers on conspiracy theories and theorists, James McConnachie and Robin Tudge (in their excellent Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories), offer their own list of conspiracies (not conspiracy theories) which turned out to have occurred after all. Believing in these governmental - or otherwise - conspiracies doesn’t make you a conspiracy theorist. It's often been the case that the theorists or journalists (e.g., Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in the case of the Watergate Scandal) offered data and argumentation and, perhaps more importantly, a systematic and critical style of thought which put them at odds with the average not-too-much-thought-please conspiracy theorist.

Anyway, this is what James McConnachie and Robin Tudge said about the real conspiracies (not conspiracy theories) which they argue actually occurred:

“Of course there are a few exceptions… the politically-motivated plots to kill Fidel Castro, the ‘Iran-Contra’ affair, the barely legal rigging of the US presidential elections in 1876 and most heinously, the Nazi conspiracy to murder millions of European Jews.”



The problem here, though, is that the final clause of this passage won’t appeal to many conspiracy theorists. Here again we have that simple distinction between conspiracy and conspiracy theories: the distinction between the National Socialist conspiracy to annihilate every European Jew and the numerous conspiracy theories of denial which followed.

So it’s doubly ironic that the a conspiracy that has literally millions of separate bits of data and evidence to show that it really did occur, is precisely the one that many National Socialist - and other - conspiracy theorists claim didn't happen! It’s almost as if these conspiracy theorists prefer their conspiracies to work solely as unseen forces or events. In the Holocaust example, much of the evidence - most of it! - was seen, catalogued, filmed, recorded, written-down, etc. - and yet many conspiracists still don't believe it. Instead they believe conspiracies about the Jews, or Freemasons, or bankers, or the Illuminati, aliens, etc. that are not seen, written down, filmed, catalogued, recorded, etc. And perhaps this is precisely how many conspiracy theorists like their conspiracies to be. If the conspiracies didn’t or don't happen behind closed doors and perpetually remain behind closed (as it were), then they simply wouldn’t be sexy enough for them.




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

Notes on Readers' Comments

1) The strange thing about political conspiracy theorists is that they appear to have tapped into a Marxist – or at least quasi-Marxist – view of both history and society/politics. Marx told us that both history and politics aren't essentially about ideas and certainly not about “great leaders”; they are primarily, or even solely, about the spooky unseen forces which are the economic “substructures” and therefore also the class-based underpinnings of society and history. Of course the relations of economic production and exchange can be seen. Nonetheless, what can’t be seen, the Marxist tells us, are how these economic processes or facts causally affect society’s ideas, ideologies and even its religion/s. This is a distinction between what Marxists could and still can see and what the rest of us couldn’t and still can't see. This was, in fact, a rendition of a classic trope in philosophy (though in a new guise): that great distinction between “reality and appearance” so favoured by philosophers as varied as Plato, Descartes and, of course, Marx’s very own Hegel.


Other conspiracy theorists have seemingly dispensed with the Marx’s own particular take on the philosophical reality-appearance paradigm. Instead of economic factors (i.e. capitalism and its “modes of production”) constituting the unseen forces, conspiracy theorists will substitute their own which are at work behind the scenes. Despite that, what some non-Marxist conspiracy theorists see – and we don't - is still often economic and therefore political. They too talk about banking conspiracies (often run by Jews), the power of multinationals (often run by Jews), and how money (often Jewish money) and the (often Jewish) platonic Media affects sociological reality and even what it is we believe.



In fact these conspiracy theory variables are often fused by conspiracy theorists in that Jews, Freemasons, the Illuminati, etc. are often actually deemed to work in union – with the Jews, of course, on the top of the pyramid. Thus this makes the unseen-forces model even neater and easier to digest, intellectually speaking.



In terms of “superstructural” Leftist/Marxist conspiracy theories, they will include stories about bankers conspiring together, or Zionists conspiring together, or oil magnates conspiring together; or, even, as previously, bankers and Zionists and oil magnates all conspiring together.


By distinguishing reality from appearance in these ways, conspiracy theorists appear to be the political duplicates of those sects which, according to the sects themselves, have unique access to reality, truth and much else. And, of course, the only way you can find Reality and say goodbye to Appearance is by joining one of these sects (whether a Marxist, Nazi or a religious sect). Or, alternatively, just read the sect's literature instead.

2) One commentator said that a “theory must agree with the facts, but it can be wrong". However, I don't think that even in science there's a determinate and universally-accepted definition of the word “theory”. But I take his point.

Some people make a distinction between an hypothesis and a theory. An hypothesis, as in Charles S. Peirce's abductive hypothesis, is supposed to be an almost literal stab in the dark used, nevertheless, to explain a given fact or given observation. But what would be the point of a hypothesis which is completely free-standing? It must already have some basis in prior facts, experience, observations, tests, laws, etc. otherwise it would serve no purpose.

3) One reader told me of one of the many conspiracies carried out by Barack Obama. He said:

You didn't address the one issue most often used to label (libel) fans of this site as conspiracy theorists - Obama's birth records.... There is an 80 page affidavit chock full of evidence by a local law enforcement agency, yet it is dismissed by most as a conspiracy theory.”

All can say is just as people’s politics and ideological predispositions can help determine which theories they accept, and even which ones they formulate; so too can people's politics help determine which theories they reject – as in this Obama example. I personally don't know the ins-and-outs of this example. However, if there is a 80 page affidavit, etc., then I wouldn't class this theory as a conspiracy theory. And since I too have seen tons of evidence that Obama is a compulsive liar, I think the theory may well be true.

The commentator went on:

“Identity theft is not rare. The only thing rare about Obama's fraud is his audacity and lack of shame.”

Saying that “identity theft is not rare” is far from being conspiratorial. And I agree about Obama. That's why I didn't include any conspiracies in the article which I personally think occurred because readers would class me as being biased, etc.

Basically, I'm just asking questions about the nature of many conspiracy theories. Surely people have to agree that many of them are just so damn wacky. Either that, or completely politically motivated.

In fact Obama was mentioned again by another reader. He said:

"What is not a conspiracy is that Obama is working against the American people as agent for Iran and Russia..."

That's a conspiracy (I've never heard this Iran-angle) and it's also a theory about a conspiracy. A sceptic about conspiracy theories doesn't deny all conspiracies. He's just sceptical about the mindlessness of most conspiracy theories and I explain why that is so in the article.

One of my points is simple: because there are nth new conspiracy theories before each breakfast, and even two new ones about X, how do conspiracy theorists deal with the conspiracy theories which they themselves think are silly or unfounded? More relevantly, how do they deal with the conspiracy theory which says not-X, when their theory says X? What arguments do they use when almost by definition the "facts are hidden", or "denied by those in power", etc? These rival theorists are saying the same thing as they are about “hidden facts”, “government lies”, etc.; but their theory contradicts the conspiracy theorist's theory.

4) I myself have been accused of being a conspiracy theorist because I've shown a degree of scepticism towards (aspects of) the anthropogenic global warming theory. Nonetheless, my critics have said that when none of what I've have said was really a rejection of the theory (as such).

I think that only fundamental theories (say, in physics) can be true in any absolute sense. And even here the notion of truth is rejected by many scientists. When it comes to a non-basic and new science like climatology, let alone the even newer "science of global warming": what it encompasses is so broad and contains so many variables that it cannot really be classed as either true or false. Only single propositions or statements can be true or false; and even that position can be qualified.

5) I write an article called 'Conspiracies ain't Conspiracy Theories' and I was accused, a few times, of denying that conspiracies exist.

I think that one of the main motivating forces for many conspiracy theories is prior politics. The theories are usually tailor-made to advance or gel with prior ideologies or political belief-systems. Thus whatever conspiracy theory about, say, 9/11 a person believes may well be determined almost entirely by his politics.

There are of course other reasons for believing or concocting conspiracy theories. Nonetheless, I believe that politics, not only psychology, is a strong motivating factor. For example:

i) Many Muslims believe that 9/11 was a Zionist/Mossad plot to gain support for Israel.
ii) Many libertarians believe it was a plot to increase American state power.
iii) Many Leftist believe it was an excuse to go into Afghanistan and steal its oil or at least guarantee an oil pipeline.
iv) David Ike believes it was carry out by alien lizards.
v) Hippies believe it was a means to destabilise cosmic karma and thus create an increased need for the drugs of the Pharmo-Militray-Industrial Complex.

The problem for the conspiracy theorist (as can be seen above) is that for every seemingly legitimate conspiracy he cites, there will be another twenty which will contradict it.

What happens is that a person's prior ideologies or prior political positions will either determine the theories he accepts, or the theories he develops. This will effectively mean that if a "right-winger" believes theory X about, say, 9/11, a Leftist or Muslim will believe theory not-X about 9/11. The theories, in most but not all cases, simply back up the theorist's prior political/ideological world-view. And that's why just about anything goes when it comes to conspiracy theories. There is a conspiracy theory about X to suit every political position.

6) One interesting possible conspiracy is that of the Free Masons here in the UK.

Despite that, the 'power' of the Free Masons isn't 'hidden', is it? There are thousands of articles, books and websites devoted to the power of the Free Masons. I would bet that there are seminars and colloquiums too.

The question is, then, how that massive un-hidden nature of Free Mason activities and schemes squares with their (hidden?) power. Why hasn't all that research and all those blogs and articles had any effect on the supposed power of the Free Masons? Or is this where another theory comes in to explain that massive anomaly between Free Mason power and the fact that just about everybody knows about Free Mason power?

I don't have that much knowledge of English Free Masons. How much power do people think that they have? For example, what about the Old Etonians' Club: do Free Masons have more power than that considering that the Conservative Party is full of Old Etonians? (Unless Old Etonians are also Free Masons.)

So nothing is essentially “paranoid” about believing that secret and not-so-secret clubs exist.

Again, does the vast critical knowledge of the Free Masons have no effect on their continued power? And if that's the case, then what they are doing may only be vaguely powerful or secretive. It's like Arab culture, throughout the Middle East, in which just about everything is determined by which clan or tribe you belong to. But, then again, I don't think any of that is very secretive.

The man who had knowledge of English Free Masons went on to say:

"Any personal experience of such a conspiracy is bound to be 'subjective'. Try and find someone who you know is a mason. Ask them about masonry. Watch them avoid and dissemble, as they are told to do...why are they so reluctant to discuss it all?"

I wouldn't disagree with any of that. Nonetheless, if so many people know about Free Masons, and the fact that they all "dissemble", how do they get away with what they do on such a large scale? Or is it just a small scale?

He continued:

"When I took a solicitor's practice I was invited to become a mason, wholly out of the blue. I just know I would have received a lot more contracts, conveyancing work etc., had I agreed. I sometimes wish I had..."

That doesn't sound very secretive to me. It sounds like every solicitor ( at that firm) is automatically asked to become a Free Mason. That also sounds like a version of the Old Boys' Network. And, I suppose with the Old Boys' Network, or Old Etonians, it's not really that secret either. Having said that, not being secret doesn't lessen the power that these clubs genuinely have.

7) I don't have a foolproof method for distinguishing genuine theories from conspiracy theories. However, because of the multitudes of conspiracy theories which there are on the market, even on a single subject, I think scepticism is a very good thing. What's wrong with suggesting ways to sort the wheat from the chaff?

8) One point I would make is that since many global conspiracies have been occurring since the beginning of the 20th century (if not before), then why haven't all these conspirators (or only some of them) already achieved 'world domination' and complete control? Unless they already have!?

From what I know about human nature, and the nature of political and ideological differences, as well as the inevitable clash of egos, how on earth do all these entities - let alone individuals - manage to cooperate on their schemes of global domination? Even if they are all sharing the cake of global power between themselves, isn't that still a recipe for major conflict within this global conspirators' group/s? How do they pull off so much ideological and political cooperation even if they all do want the same thing? History and psychology shows that such massive cases of global cooperation between seemingly different groups, or even between similar groups, is highly unlikely.

What's even more miraculous is how it's all hushed up. I say hushed up even though the many believers in these global conspiracies do talk about these things a lot. Nonetheless, all that talk appears to have zero impact on the ongoing success rate of these global conspiracies.

Friday, 11 April 2014

Fiyaz Mughal (Tell Mama) Fails Again in the British Courts



Left-to-right: George Whale, Tim Burton (center), Jack Buckby to his right & Aaron Brian.


I've written a couple of articles for American Thinker on Fiyaz Mughal's Tell Mama; as well as on the fact that Mr Mughal took a British man, Tim Burton, to court for calling him a "mendacious grievance-mongering taqiyya-artist" . That court appearance was on Tuesday (8th April): Tim Burton was acquitted.

Birmingham Magistrates Court


The judge summed up the trial by saying that “the prosecution had manifestly failed to meet the bar required". Tim Burton himself said the verdict was “a wonderful result for free speech in this country”.



And on the steps outside the courts, Jack Buckby (Outreach Officer for Liberty GB), said:



“We now have taqiyya – the concept of lying in the name of Islam – embedded in British courts and  recognised.”



Far Right?



The one thing I immediately noticed about Fiyaz Mughal was his aggressive manner when he came under any critical questioning. (Mughal's intolerant nature was of course at the heart of the case anyway.) It was also noticeable how aggressively intolerant he was of all his critics. So much so that he used two oft-used techniques when talking about them: defamation and the ad hominem argument (which are connected)


It was also clear that Fiyaz Mughal (not unlike the BBC's 'Mo' Ansar and Oxford University's Tariq Ramadan) is very well-versed in the jargon of the academic Left. For example, he never once used the word “religion”. Instead he always spoke of “my faith” or “faith”. I presume that's because religion, rather than faith, was always deemed an old-fashioned and destructive type of thing by the Left. However, with the increase of Muslims demographics in the West, a more positive and innocuous term had to be coined now that the religious were mainly brown-skinned and not white: “faith”.



Mr Mughal also talked a lot about Islam being “part of [his] identity”. Again, the academic Left, as well as many postmodernist and post-structuralist theorists, has also been obsessed with identity since the 1960s. In addition, Mughal often used the multi-cult classics “community cohesion” and “interfaith work”. You see, jargon and soundbite rule in this business. Both are effectively a substitute for thought.


As for the ad hominems: Mughal systemically attempted to defame Tim Burton by the tried-and-tested technique - often used by Leftists - of tying him in with what he predictably called “far right” groups and individuals. The prime way he did this, in Tim Burton's case, was to tie him to the English Defence League (EDL).


Mughal also categorised Robert Spencer (of Jihad Watch) and Pamela Geller as “far right”; as he did with Atma Singh (a Sikh political activist, writer and defender of Israel) and Ambrosine Chetrit (a Jewish woman and defender of Israel) .These are two other critics whom Mr Mughal attempted to sue for libel in the British courts. He failed on both occasions. 
 

The judge, or Tim Burton's defence, could have asked Fiyaz Mughal two simple questions: 
 

i) Mr Mughal, can you name me a single critic of either yourself or Islam who you wouldn't deem to be far right?

ii) Can you also cite a single critical point about Islam, or yourself, that you wouldn't find Islamophobic or far right? 
 


Fiyaz Mughal's Friends: MPACUK & CAIR





As I said, Mr Mughal connected Tim Burton to the EDL, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller. He also talked about the fact that the British Government banned these two Americans from British soil. Yes, that's true. But what Mr Mughal didn't say is that the British Government did so largely in response to the pressure put on it by Muslims like Fiyaz Mughal himself; as well as by far-left groups like Hope Not Hate.

MPACUK has "got" various MPs over the years, either for being Jewish or for being critical of Muslims.


So perhaps Tim Burton's lawyer should have also connected Fiyaz Mughal to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACUK) and other Islamist groups and individuals. (He did connect him to MPACUK and an Islamist lawyer.)


What I didn't know (before the trial) is that Fiyaz Mughal had written an article for MPACUK: an extreme Islamist and Jew-bating group which is banned from university campuses by the National Union of Students (NUS). He also had another later article published by MPACUK. However, Fiyaz Mughal claimed, at the trial, that the Islamist organisation had simply used his words: he hadn't actually written the article for the group. 
 

Despite that, if MPACUK is now deemed extreme by Fiyaz Mughal, why didn't he deem it extreme when he wrote the original article? 
 

This is what I think might have happened. 





MPACUK had the same views when Mughal wrote for them as it does today. However, after Mughal wrote for them, MPACUK began to develop a reputation for being the extremist organisation that it is; though, like the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR and Hamas, it is keen to ab/use the democratic system. And of course when MPACUK's reputation went public, Mughal (being a very public figure) quickly realised that he could no longer be connected to the group. Yet despite that, as I said, MPACK's views haven't changed since Mughal wrote the first article. (MPACUK has existed since 2004.) So why did Mughal only register MPACUK's extremism after other public groups and individuals had done so?



Mother-son bonding: Hamas-style
Tell Mama also provides links to America’s Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and has featured its work. CAIR is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Hamas. (Indeed Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood.) There are also numerous links between CAIR and Islamic terrorism: from surreptitious funding to more direct involvement and support.


The Telegraph's Andrew Gilligan






During his court appearance, Fiyaz Mughal again rejected all Andrew Gilligan's claims against him - as published in two articles for the British national newspaper, the Telegraph. (Andrew Gilligan is a well-known British investigative journalist. ) Of course Mr Mughal didn't also call Gilligan “far right”. He wouldn't have dared to do so. On the other hand, it's cheap and easy to class outsiders like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller as “far right” (as well as the EDL). It's not so cheap and easy to do the same thing to a Telegraph journalist.


Since Andrew Gilligan has done serious damage to Fiyaz Mughal; calling the the former “far right” would be a very bad move on Mughal's part. In fact it would almost be political suicide. Nonetheless, on the day of the trial (the 8th of April) an article did appear in Fiyaz Mughal's Tell Mama which rejected all – and I mean all – Andrew Gilligan's claims; though wisely (for Fiyaz Mughal) it neither mentions Gilligan nor his articles. This is strange really because on that very same day, yet again, the Telegraph made it known that the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) had rejected all Fiyaz Mughal's complaints about Andrew Gilligan. That effectively means that the PCC believes that Mughal had indeed exaggerated the scale of anti-Muslim attacks.


Taqiyya




Since Fiyaz Mughal versus Tim Burton has been classed as “the taqiyya trial” by some, the concept of Islamic taqiyya featured strongly in the court proceedings.


Fiyaz Mughal's basic argument (or defence) about taqiyya is the there are two ways of using the term: 
 

i) The way the “Islamophobic” critics of Islam and Fiyaz Mughal use it.

ii) The (correct) way in which Muslims (like Mr Mughal) use it. 
 

The problem was that Fiyaz Mughal lied about taqiyya during the trial. Or, to put that another way, he applied taqiyya to taqiyya (or meta-taqiyya). 
 

The classic lie (or piece of taqiyya) about taqiyya (from Sunni, not Shia, Muslims) is that it's a “Shia phenomenon”: and, lo and behold, Fiyaz said, in the trial, that taqiyya “was given to the Shia community a thousand years ago”. Now that is simply and conclusively false (see this article on Sunni taqiyya). The thing is, Fiyaz Mughal must know it's false. And even if he didn't know it is false, say, six months ago when when taqiyya was first connected to his name, he must certainly know now. 
 

Now if Mughal is saying things he knows to be false, then he is a liar. And that also means he he lied (in court) to protect and advance both himself and Islam. And what better description of taqiyya could you have? 
 

This means that in order to defend himself against the charge of using taqiyya, Mughal perversely used taqiyya to do so. 
 

Strangely enough, if I were a Muslim defending myself against charges of taqiyya, I wouldn't do so by lying about taqiyya. Then again, it can be argued that because taqiyya is most definitely a vital part of Islam, and literally anything goes (from libel actions to terrorism) when it comes to protecting and advancing Islam (“by any means necessary”, in other words), then lying about taqiyya shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. 
 

Finally, it might also have been the case that when Fiyaz Mughal incorporated a prominent gay activist (Peter Tatchell) and a Jewish man into the structure of Tell Mama (coincidentally, I'm sure, in the week leading up to the Birmingham trial), these actions were nothing more than strategic pieces of Mughalian deceit and dissimulation, if not outright taqiyya.

Sunday, 6 April 2014

Newcastle councillor, Dipu Ahad, investigated for anti-white racism






A Muslim councillor in Newcastle, by the name of Dipu Ahad , has been (informally) questioned by the police about a Twitter message he posted which referred to all the supporters of the EDL as 'white' and 'thick'. (Dipu Ahad has been classed as an 'anti-racism campaigner'.)



As for the actual message itself: it's an image of a loaf of bread which contains the words 'white and 'thick' on its packaging and which was aimed at all supporters of the EDL.



Now if this message has nothing to do with race, why did Dipu Ahad use the word 'white' at all?




The message is also bigoted in the arrogant and smug way it simply assumes (as snobby Leftists also do) that all EDL supporters are 'thick' as well as white. Now that kind of racism and bigotry simply won't be very good for Community Cohesion, will it? And what about Embracing the Diversity that is the EDL? Or is that the wrong kind of Diversity?



Anyway, it's about time the police started to note the large amount of anti-white racism which occurs on our streets, as well as in our universities, mosques, council offices, etc. It's also about time that people realised that, believe it or not, whites can be the victims, not just the perpetrators, of what are now called 'hate crimes'.



A spokesperson for Northumbria Police said:



“We are investigating a complaint from a member of the public about a message on social networking site Twitter.



“We can confirm we have spoken to several parties about this message and enquiries are on going to determine if any offence has been committed.”



Despite all that, “investigating a compliant”, as well as acknowledging that the police has “spoken to several parties” on the subject, is in no way (as yet) a formal investigation. In fact it could quite easily result in no action whatsoever from the police. Indeed it probably will result in no action whatsoever... but who knows.

Rather disingenuously (or deceitfully), Newcastle's Chronicle says that Newcastle City Councilor Dipu Ahad was simply guilty of “mocking the English Defence League”. That's funny. Racial smears against blacks or against brown Muslims aren't usually deemed to be simple cases of 'mocking'. Yet calling all EDL supporters 'white' and 'thick' is simple mockery? How does that work, exactly? If I were to say that every Muslim is brown and thick, would that be seen as mere mockery too? Of course not! What if I said that all black footballers are black and thick?... Do I need to answer that?


The Chronicle also says that the racist message “is alleged to have been shared on social media”. Either the Chronicle is being legally-minded, or it's being biased again. Hundreds of people have seen this message: so why the word 'alleged'? Simply placing it on Twitter means that you have shared it – full stop. In fact Dipu Ahad re-tweeted his message to his 538 Twitter 'followers'. That means that at the very least 538 people have seen his message.



Newcastle Council has actually received complaints from the public on this issue. That's not a surprise because Dipu Ahad's racist message conflicts with his role as a Councilor of Community Cohesion, Diversity & Anti-Racism. However, because his racism is aimed at whites, rather than Muslims or blacks, there is, as yet, no formal investigation into the matter.



It seems, then, that both the police and Newcastle Council (or at least the Labour Party section of it) have fully embraced the vague, biased and indeed racist Marxist theory that whites can only ever be racists, not the victims of racism.




For someone who may have well committed a 'hate crime' against whites, it's also ironic that Dipu Ahad himself has made an official complaint to the police about online racist abuse... against himself. (Does Fiyaz Mughal's Tell Mama know about this?) Then again, according to Marxist theory, if whites can only be racists, never the victims of racism, then he's on pretty secure (Marxist) legal ground. In fact Dipu Ahmad is so secure about (Marxist) legal theory that he has given evidence (about being a victim, not a perpetrator, of racism) to the police.



Of course Ahad has received support from Leftists. For example, Tony Dowling, a representative of the largely Trotskyist run and controlled National Union of Teachers (which isn't  to say that all the members of the NUT are Trotskyists), has said that Ahad



“works extremely hard to create community cohesion. I think it’s outrageous he has been questioned by police about it.”



Ah! I was wondering when that abstract god, the god called Community Cohesion, would be mentioned.



Now, as I said, being racist towards whites isn't a good way to bring about Community Cohesion, is it? Though if Tony Dowling is a Leftist (Marxist), which he probably is, he will think that there's no such thing as racism towards whites. It will follow - at least to Tony Dowling it will follow - that what Ahad said simply couldn’t have been racist: by (Marxist) definition! How convenient.


And don't think for one moment that this left-wing snobbery and anti-white racism is only aimed at EDL supporters – it's not. Leftists groups like Hope Not Hate, UAF and the Labour Party itself have already got UKIP supporters firmly in their sights; just as they did with all supporters of the Conservative Party in the 1980s and 1990s. (Since there has been a rise in the number of alternative right-wing and patriotic groups in recent years, the Left has taken its sights off the Conservative Party. It has also done this because the Tory Party is now almost indistinguishable from the Labour Party; save on certain economic issues.)



Now all (non-Leftist) white people in the UK, who numbers literally millions, could be the possible victims of such Leftist racism and bigotry. You can be sure of that. Large sections of the Left (the further Left you go the more this is the case) have always hated the white working class. And now that Muslims have come on the scene, so to speak, and the revolutionaries have (partly) given up on the revolution (as led, of course, by them), there's an outpouring of this previously bottled-up Leftist (middle-class) snobbery towards the white working class. The thing is, they will try to pretend it's all focused on EDL and BNP supporters; but since they've already focused on UKIP supporters, we know that's not true.
She'll be classed as an Uncle (or Auntie) Tom by white, middle-class Leftists.



It's funny really: the Left has been agitating for a “genuinely working-class movement” for decades. And now that there is one, the EDL, they hate it with a perfect and snobby hate. Why? For two main reasons:



i) The EDL isn't a Leftist (Marxist) movement.

ii) More importantly, middle-class Leftists aren't in control of it.



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



It's also worth noting that Dipu Ahad has previously agitated to ban EDL demos in Newcastle and no doubt beyond.




Incidentally, Ahad’s ‘hero’ is the Muslim supremacist and black racist Malcolm X. The official Muslim story is that Malcolm X was a black racist until he embraced Islam. But since when has being a Muslim stopped, for example, Arabs and many other Muslims from being racist? Now I know that Malcolm X wasn't an Arab. Nonetheless, there's a strong and long tradition of black (or anti-white) racism in America which seems to be getting worse by the day. But, like Dipu Ahad's message, it can't be racism, can it? Well, according to (Marxist) theory it can't be racist! But who cares about Marxist theory?