Posts Tagged ‘North Africa’

RT Footage of Anti-Slavery Protests Outside Libyan Embassy in London

November 27, 2017

This is a very brief clip from RT about a protest against the Libyan slave markets, which was held outside the Libyan embassy in London yesterday, Sunday 27th November 2017. The protesters were mostly Black Africans, and held signs reading ‘Blacks Are Not For Sale’ and ‘White Silence Is Violence’. The captions for the clip state that the protesters linked the re-emergence of the slave markets in Libya with European slavery.

A spokesman states that they’re trying to call attention to the past, as well as what’s happening now. He notes that people have commented that Blacks have enslaved each other, and observes that they’re embarrassed about slavery. Backing their campaign against the Libyan slave markets is a way they can help now.

The attempt to link the slave markets in Libya with European slavery is too glib, and simply wrong. The Arab states of the Maghreb, such as Morocco, Algeria and the Ottoman Empire also enslaved Blacks from Sub-Saharan Africa. Just as they also enslaved White Europeans. Over the centuries it’s been estimated that 1.25 million White Europeans were enslaved in raids on European shipping and coastal communities. It was to put an end to this that a British warship shelled the palace of the Dey of Algiers in the 1820s. The British actually tried to stamp out slavery and the slave trade through diplomatic pressure on the Ottoman Empire, and then directly after we and the French took control of Egypt.

The slave trade in Morocco survived until 1910, however, because we successfully defended that nation’s independence against a planned European invasion.

It’s natural that the protesters should link the re-emergence of slavery in Libya with European slavery, as this is an important topic that still casts a very long shadow over race relations. However, it does show the need for including non-European forms of slavery, including Islamic, in discussing and educating people about the issue, and not just concentrating on enslavement by Europeans and White Americans.

However, there is also a sense in which the protesters are right. This barbarism has re-emerged because of imperialist actions by America and Britain as part of the proxy war to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi.

Advertisements

Jimmy Dore: Taliban Have Surrendered Several Times, Each Time Refused by America

August 26, 2017

Here’s another very important clip from the Jimmy Dore Show. It’s one that should be viewed by everyone interested in what the various wars we’re fighting around the world are really about. Dore and his co-host, Ron Placone, discuss a review of Anand Gopal’s book No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban and the War through Afghan Eyes by Ryan Grimm in The Intercept. And its more of what the mainstream media aren’t telling us about these wars.

Dore starts the show by making the point that mainstream media never reveals the truth about the reasons behind America’s various wars in the Middle East and the Maghreb. They don’t mention the petrodollar, Libya, or the reason why Iran’s now a theocratic state under the ayatollahs. It’s because America – and Britain – over threw its democratically elected prime minister, Mossadeq.

And this is just as devastating. Gopal’s book reveals that the Taliban surrendered several times to America and its allies, only to be rebuffed. It was traditional in Afghan civil wars for the losing side to surrender to the victors. They would, in turn, incorporate them into the new government. Dore makes the point that this is a sensible system for governing a country, where people still have to live together as neighbours after the fighting. The Taliban tried to do this with the Allies, and were rebuffed. Several times. He also points out that the Taliban itself withered away, as its members put down their guns, either going back and vanishing into the rest of the population, or heading over the border into Pakistan.

However, America and the Allies offered rewards for those informing on the Taliban. With the real Taliban having vanished, and al-Qaeda down to a mere handful of people, the venal and unscrupulous amongst the Afghan population used the system to settle personal feuds. They smeared their neighbours as Taliban, for them to be killed or arrested by the US forces, and get the reward money. This naturally has created massively hostility against Allied forces. When America and the Allies first defeated the Taliban, the Afghans were glad to see them go. Now, having had their peace overtures repulsed, and the country reduced to more chaos and warfare, the Taliban have returned with popular backing.

But Dore states, you are not going to hear it from the mainstream news, such as MSNBC and Rached Maddow, because the media automatically backs the American war machine. And that war machine must be kept fed. He notes that Congress, with the backing of the Democrats, has just voted another $100 billion for the defence budget, in addition to what had already been voted for it last year. America already spends more on defence than the next 13 countries on the list combined. And the country and her allies have been in Afghanistan for 16 years. In other four years, the war will get a gold watch and be able to retire.

That’s it. There are absolutely no good reasons anymore for us to be anywhere in the Middle East. I backed the invasion of Afghanistan because I believed that it was a justified response to an act of war by al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies. I heard a few years ago from a friend that the Taliban tried to stop the invasion by offering to surrender Osama bin Laden, claiming that they didn’t know that he had been planning the attack. I wasn’t sure whether to believe it or not. But after this, it looks much more credible.

We’re not helping anyone in Afghanistan by staying there, except perhaps an already corrupt government, propped up by us, western mercenaries, and the opium trade, which has flourished more than it ever did previously. Dore states that the only areas in Afghanistan, which weren’t troubled by fighting, were those where there wasn’t a western military presence.

Of course, there are other, corporate reasons why we’re still there. Trump announced that America would stay in the country to exploit its valuable mineral resources, in order to defray the costs of the invasion. As well as the gas pipeline that was supposed to be built, but wasn’t, as Dore also mentions.

But the humanitarian reasons touted as justification for the invasion have vanished. We’ve long outstayed our welcome. As Grimm’s review concludes, we’re losing to an enemy who’s already surrendered. A hard thing to do. We’re just killing and maiming people for the benefit of the military-industrial complex. And our boys and girls are also being killed and maimed.

They’re coming back traumatized and with terrible injuries, not for defending their country and its allies, as they and we have been told. They’re being mutilated and killed purely for the profit of the big arms manufacturers.

Disgusting.

Dore encourages everyone watching this to pass it on. I agree. We are not going to hear about this from mainstream media, which includes the Beeb.

General Smedley Butler was right. War is a racket. We need to get out, bring our troops back home, and close all the wars and interventions in which we’re currently involved down.

Until then, there will never be peace across the world.

Vox Political on Farage’s Insult to Jo Cox’s Husband and Smear of Hope Not Hate

December 20, 2016

Mike’s put up a post commenting on Nigel Farage’s bigoted, insulting and possibly libellous comments about Brendan Cox, the widowed husband of murdered Labour MP Jo Cox, and the anti-racist, anti-religious extremism organisation, Hope Not Hate, on Twitter and LBC radio this morning. The former generalissimo of UKIP was talking about the murder this morning of 12 shoppers and the wounding of another 48 in Berlin’s Christmas Market, when they were deliberately mown down by a truck. This is being treated as a terrorist attack, and a Pakistani immigrant to Germany has been arrested.

Farage commented that this was ‘no surprise’ and that ‘events like these will be Merkel’s legacy’.

Brendan Cox tweeted back that blaming politicians for the actions of extremists was a slippery slope.

To which the Fuhrage gracelessly responded on LBC that Mr Cox ‘would know more about extremism than me.’

He also said of Hope Not Hate and similar organisations that they “masquerade as being lovely and peaceful but actually pursue violent and very undemocratic means”.

Hope Not Hate has responded:

“We are aware of a serious and potentially libellous statement made about HOPE not hate by Nigel Farage on LBC radio this morning. We have no idea on what Mr Farage bases his outrageous comments. HOPE not hate has a proud history of campaigning against extremism and hatred. We will not be making any further comment until we have had the opportunity to consult with our lawyers.”

Mr Cox simply replied with the commenter ‘Haters gonna hate.’

Mike makes the point that Jo Cox was killed due to the bitter political divisions created by the Brexit referendum, which no-one wanted except a few Tory backbenchers, who threatened to block David Cameron’s programme of legislation. Mike also states that Brendan Cox’s comment on Farage blaming Merkel could be interpreted as warning that this blamed the victims, including his own wife, Jo, for their murders.

He also makes the point that Farage’s attack on Hope Not Hate is probably not at all coincidental, given that the organisation has been attacking UKIP for its perceived racism.

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/12/20/nigel-farages-comment-about-jo-coxs-widower-shames-us-all/

Hope Not Hate have also issued this statement, and are appealing for donations.

This morning, on LBC radio, former UKIP leader Nigel Farage launched an outrageous attack on us, on Brendan Cox, husband of murdered MP Jo Cox, and by association on everyone who believes in HOPE not hate. Our lawyer has just sent Farage a letter demanding he retracts and publicly apologises or we will begin legal proceedings against him.

https://donate.hopenothate.org.uk/page/contribute/farage-to-court

Farage’s comments are disgraceful, as Mike points out. Brendan Cox certainly does have more personal experience of political extremism than most people, simply through losing his wife in a savage act of assassination carried out by one, Thomas Mair. Even though he disagreed with Cox’s views on immigration, simple human decency should have led Farage to choose his words with far more tact, rather than indulge in what could be construed as a dismissive sneer.

I am not surprised by Farage’s sneers directed at Angela Merkel. From my own experience, many UKIP supporters despise Merkel passionately because of her decision to give the million or so immigrants from Syria and North Africa, who broke into the EU last year, sanctuary in Germany. It’s part of the bitter anti-immigrant stance and rhetoric that has led Hope Not Hate to target UKIP as an extremist party, despite the efforts of its leaders, including Farage, to distance themselves and play down its connections to the blatantly Fascist parties.

As for his comments about Hope Not Hate being violent and undemocratic, it is fair to say that some anti-Fascist activists and organisations are violent. Some of the clashes between Fascists and anti-Fascists were caused by the anti-Fascists attacking first. I have not, however, seen any evidence that Hope Not Hate has ever encouraged or been responsible for physical violence. My impression has been that it uses legal, constitutional means to combat racism and Fascism. This includes the democratic right to express one’s political views through peaceful marches and demonstrations. It has shown itself willing to use legislation to combat Fascist and racist organisations. This can be controversial, as many people do feel that legislation against hate speech contradicts the right to express political opinions, no matter how vile. On the other hand, such legislation is designed to stop the hatred and vilification of minorities, that leads to more serious, violent crimes such as the assassination of Jo Cox and the organised persecution of ethnic minorities, such as the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. It’s why the German Basic Law forbids anti-democratic parties and organisation, and the country has very strict legislation banning the display of Nazi insignia. I also think that Merkel’s grant of asylum in Germany to so many of the refugees last year was also part of her country’s genuine attempts to show that it has put the Nazi era firmly behind it, and is now a pluralist, multicultural democracy like other western nations.

This is an attitude that many Kippers don’t share. And Farage’s comment about Merkel shows that he shares the same bigotry towards Muslims as Donald Trump, viewing them simply as potential terrorists.

The mass murder and malicious injury of 60 people in Berlin this morning is an horrific crime. But it is also disgusting that Farage should use it both to sneer at the victims and spread his own hateful intolerance.

Alt-Right Meeting Celebrates Trump Victory with Cries of ‘Hail Trump’

November 22, 2016

As the Alt-Right starts settling into a position of power through their links to Trump, any pretense that they’re remotely mainstream is rapidly coming off, and their true Fascist face is coming through. In this piece from Sam Seder’s Majority Report, Michael Brooks comments on an Alt-Right meeting at the weekend in which the movement’s leader, Richard Spencer, laid bare the movement as White Nationalism. He declared that White people were the children of the sun, a race of conquerors and creators, who had been marginalised in contemporary America. At the end of the speech, a group of three of his stormtroopers cried ‘Hail Trump’ and ‘Sieg Heil’, with Nazi salutes.

Brooks comments that there are three components to the Alt-Right. One could be described as neo-Fascist, neo-Nazi or neo-Dixiecrat. Another section was people clustered around computer games. And then there was this, which was simply Fascist or Nazi.

He goes on to say that he would like to have Scott Atran on the programme. Atran’s an anthropologist, who conducted research interviewing terrorists, exploring what attracted people to it, and particularly what attracted young men. He’d like to ask him what was attracting young American men to the Alt-Right. He states that some of it is the sense of meaninglessness prevalent in late stage capitalism. He can see how this would attract young people to terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa. It’s more obscure in North America, but nevertheless it’s still a factor.

He also notes the role of sexual frustration. He states that he is not making this comment out of snark, but these men are putting all their emotional and sexual frustration and projecting it on to society. He notes that one of the two men in the photo has ‘hover hands’, the gesture some men make, who would like to touch their female companion, but are afraid to do so. Fascists are afraid of everyone, including women.

This last comment is very accurate. A large section of the Alt-Right seems to be Men’s Rights activists, who are bitterly anti-feminist. And many of them seem to resent the female gender simply because women don’t fancy them. Kevin Logan in his series of vlogs ‘The Descent of the Manosphere’ covers these individuals. Each of his vlog posts is on an individual denizen of the manosphere, who, in his view, is trying to drag our species back into the sea. The series now includes more than 30 posts. Not all of these men are misogynists through sexual frustration, but it accounts for a fair number.

The Nazi and Fascist movements considered themselves to be male, anti-feminist movements. They appealed to men of extreme right-wing views, who felt threatened by feminism. The Futurists, an artistic movement of militantly techno-Fascists, which celebrated the car, the aeroplane, the new machine age, speed and violence, declared in their manifesto that they advocated ‘scorn for women’. Ludwig Theweleit, a German historian, has gone further in the case of Nazism, arguing in his book, Male Fantasies, that it had a very strong homosexual component. This has been taken up in its turn by the American Right, who have argued that Nazism was militantly gay. 75 per cent of the SA were homosexual, but they were wiped out by Hitler during the internal purge of the Night of the Long Knives, and male homosexuals were interned in the concentration camps during the Third Reich. I think Sir Ian MacKellen acted in play about the imprisonment of gays by the Nazis in the 1980s, called Bent. In the case of the American Right and the Republican party, the homosexual element in the Nazi party is used to smear gays and the gay rights movement. The argument seems to be a simple syllogism: the Nazis were all gay, therefore, all gays are Nazis, or gay rights is a Nazi plot. It’s specious rubbish, like most of the stuff the Right spouts. Nevertheless, it’s believed.

Regardless of their sexuality, the Alt-Right is now a growing menace in America, and their potential to harm millions of people, and empower similar movements on this side of the Pond, is immense and terrifying. We need to stop them. Now.

Counterpunch on the Putin’s Non-Existent Threat to the Baltic States

July 14, 2016

Anti-Nato Headline

Russian anti-US Cartoon

Anti-Nato Headline (top) and cartoon against escalating American militarism (bottom). Both from the Russian political magazine, Novoe Vremya, for 17th December 1982.

Last week, NATO began sending reinforcements into Poland and Estonia, and began a series of manoeuvres close to the Russian border. The supposed reason for this is to send a warning to Putin against a possible invasion of those countries. The Russians have been attempting to fly military planes over Estonia. Actually, this isn’t anything particularly new. They’ve been trying to do it to us every week since the beginning of the Cold War. Usually what happens is that we send a couple of our jets up to intercept them just as they’re approaching Scotland. The Russian flyboys then take the hint, and fly off back to the former USSR. It clearly ain’t a friendly gesture, but it’s been going on so long, that’s it not sign of an imminent invasion either. It’s just business as usual.

Except that the build up of NATO troops in eastern Europe clearly isn’t business as usual. It looks very much like a return to the Cold War of the early 80s, when Thatcher and Reagan ranted about the USSR being ‘the evil empire’, and the world teetered on the brink of nuclear Armageddon. There were at least three occasions before the Fall of Communism, when the world really was almost a hair’s breadth away from nuclear war. Nearly three generations of people grew up in it’s shadow. I can remember the way it terrified my age group, when we were at school at the time. Hence the two illustrations at the top of the page, taken from a Russian language magazine at the time. One’s a headline for an article attacking NATO, the other’s a cartoon against advancing American militarism.

The American left-wing magazine, Counterpunch the other day published an article attacking the supposed rationale for the NATO manoeuvres. These aren’t just in Poland, but also include Lithuania and Romania. According to the article ‘Putin’s “Threats” to the Baltic: A Myth to Promote NATO Unity’, by Gary Leupp, the manoeuvres are a response to the book, 2017: War with Russia, by the deputy commander of NATO, Sir Alexander Shirreff. Shirreff predicts that by May next year, Russia will invade the eastern Ukraine and Latvia. Leupp argues that the prediction of a Russian invasion of the Baltic states, with Latvia singled out as a particular target, comes from Putin describing the collapse of the USSR as a ‘catastrophe’ and tensions between the Russians and the now independent Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Putin, so it is believed, is a new Stalin aiming at the revival of the USSR. The also point to the Russian war with Georgia in 2008, and events in Ukraine two years ago in 2014, to show that the threat from Russia is real.

Leupp’s article argues that it is nothing of the sort. The Russians have denounced NATO expansion up to their borders and held manoeuvres of their own, but have also continued with offers of co-operation and referred to the NATO nations as ‘our partners’. He argues that the tensions with Russia in the Baltic states are due to the stripping of the Russian minority in these countries of their rights as an ethnic minority, and increased anti-Russian nationalism, after the states gained their independence from the former Soviet Union in 1991. Russia certainly sees itself as the protector of ethnic Russians elsewhere, including the Baltic and Ukraine, but points out that this does not mean that it is planning an invasion. It is also much smaller and weaker, militarily, than NATO. NATO forces comprise nearly 3 1/2 million squaddies, compared to Russia, which has just under 800,000. NATO spends nearly $900 billon on defence, while Russia spends $70 billion.

He also argues that the war between Russia and Georgia wasn’t a simple case of Russian aggression either. They went into defend South Ossetia and Abkhazia, small countries that had been forcibly incorporated in Georgia, and which wished to break away. He compares it to the NATO dismantling of Serbia, when Kosovo was taken out of Serbian control. This was against international law, but justified by Condoleeza Rice against protests from Spain, Greece and Romania.

He also states that the support the Russians have given to their ethnic fellows in the Donbass region in Ukraine, against the Fascist-backed Ukrainian government, hardly represents an invasion.

He also argues that the existence of NATO, and its supposed necessity is never discussed or questioned, with the exception of a recent piece in the Boston Globe by Stephen Kinzer, a senior academic at Brown University. He didn’t argue that NATO was unnecessary, only that we needed less of it. This was followed by a piece by Nicholas Burns, a member of George W. Bush’s administration, and now a lecturers in diplomacy at Harvard. Burns states that NATO is necessary for four reasons: defence against Russian aggression; the fragmentation of the EU following Britain’s decision to leave; violence from North Africa and the Israel-Syria region spreading into Europe, and to counter the lack of confident leadership in responding to these issues from Europe and America.

Burns and General Jim Jones, a military advisor to Obama, believe that NATO should station permanent troops in the Baltic, the Black Sea region, the Arctic and Poland, and be ready to send American forces in to help the Poles defend themselves. Burns also argues that NATO is needed because of the growing threat of isolationist forces – meaning Trump – in the US. He finally concludes that it seems to be an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, who has, in contrast to Trump, been very keen to bomb Libya, support the invasion of Iraq, and now wants to bomb Syria.

See the article at: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/12/putins-threats-to-the-baltics-a-myth-to-promote-nato-unity/

Meanwhile, the prospect of a real, lasting peace between the West and Russia, which began with the thaw between Reagan and Gorbachev, is now threatened by a new generation of militarists, including the hawkish Shrillary. It’s another reason, apart from her bloody legacy when she was in charge of Obama’s foreign policy, why she should not get in the White House any more than Trump should.

Secular Talk: Iranian Cleric Claims 60 Per Cent of American Women Prefer to Have Sex with Dogs

February 3, 2016

This piece of sheer lunacy comes from Iran. It’s a piece from Secular Talk in which the host, Kyle Kulinski, talks about a piece in the Daily Beast by Shima Sharabi, in which she talks about the propaganda she and other Iranian young people were exposed to from the mullahs in the Strategic Centre for Chastity and Modesty. This was a section of the Iranian theocracy devoted to encouraging women and girls to wear the hijab. One of these clerics, Mehdi Bayati, declared that feminism in the west was due to western women not wearing the hijab, and that this is why sixty per cent of American women ‘preferred to sleep with dogs rather than men’. He also claimed that not wearing the hijab also reduced general sexual desire in the surrounding society. Although he saw many couples kissing each other when he was in America, they did so ‘without heat’. This was because they were too used to seeing women’s hair that men were no longer aroused by it, despite having kissed 94 people previously.

Kulinski makes the point that this says more about the mullahs in Iran and their perverted little minds than it ever does about the west. He states quite forcefully, and with good reason, that he has never thought about women having sex with dogs before now, and neither have most people, before they heard this piece of prize nonsense from Bayati. He also makes the point that while men may admire a particular haircut on a woman, they don’t find it sexually arousing. But this, he states, is a result of the repressed society like Iran, where women have to be covered up from head to toe, so that the merest hint of hair is seen as arousing.

The Sex Assaults in Germany and Birmingham

I’m reblogging this because it says much that’s very important about official prejudices towards the west in Muslim and Middle Eastern societies, prejudices that contribute to the wave of sexual assaults that took place in Germany and other countries last month, and similar incidents that have been committed in Birmingham according to the British politician, Jess Philips.

Pornography, Bogus Statistics and Anti-American Propaganda

Firstly, it’s undoubtedly true that the figure for American women sleeping with dogs is completely bogus. It’s something that Bayati pulled out of thin air. And he did it deliberately to arouse disgust. The idea that anyone would want to have sex with animals is revolting enough, but dogs are considered unclean in Islam. It’s his way of claiming that American women, and by extension all western, non-Muslim women, are particularly dirty and disgusting. It’s a product of his filthy mind. And if he did live anywhere in America where it actually went on, there’s the question why he didn’t call the cops. That type of figure sounds like it comes from the lowest, vilest, degrading pieces of pornography. This kind of stuff is illegal, as he should know if he lived in America as he claimed. So if he was encountering this material, why didn’t he alert the police to get the people producing and selling it busted? The reason is either that he actually got turned on by it, and was actively seeking it out, or that it is just propaganda. This is far more likely. It reminds me of the similarly bogus statistics the Soviets used to put out about crime in America during the Cold War. These included completely spurious factoids about the numbers of robberies and murders committed every minute or so in the Land of the Free. They were supposed to show that capitalist America was a vile cesspool of violence, robbery and murder. This was in contrast to the tranquillity of the Communist bloc, where violence and mass murder was strictly a state monopoly.

Last month in Cologne in Germany, and other countries in northern Europe, including Finland, there was a spate of rapes and sexual assaults carried out by gangs. The rapists were described as being of Middle Eastern and North African appearance, and a majority of the suspects arrested were indeed Arabs and others from that part of the world.

Jess Philips, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, and Sex Assaults in Birmingham

Then last week, Jess Philips caused a storm of protest when she claimed that assaults like these occurred every day on one particular street in Birmingham. Civic minded Brummies, full of wounded pride, and others subjected her to a tirade of abuse on social media. Among other things, she was denounced as racist.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, the Indie’s long-time correspondent specialising in racial issues, actually defended her in a piece in Monday’s edition. Alibhai-Brown stated that Philips’ piece was actually reasonable and measured, and certainly not a racist rant. She said that only some – but certainly not all – Muslim men were responsible, and compared the assaults and the sexist attitudes behind them to those of the British during the Empire.

Mullahs Repeating the Same Racist Attitudes of European Imperialists

And Philips and Alibhai-Brown are exactly right. During the heyday of European imperialism, the nudity of some of the indigenous peoples was seen as an indication both of their lack of civilisation and culture, and their own sexual depravity. It added spice to the lurid tales of cannibalism and human sacrifice. Blacks in particular came to be seen as highly sexualised, and so entirely deserving of the abuse and sexual exploitation Black women were subjected to on the slave plantations. And if they weren’t seen as highly sexualised, they were viewed as the opposite. There’s a piece in Elliot Rose’s sceptical study of European witchcraft, A Razor for a Goat, for example, which reveals the attitudes to indigenous societies at the time the book was first written in the 1950s. Reviewing the sado-masochistic elements that were supposedly practiced in Western witchcraft, he compared them with the extreme sexual practices of primal peoples outside Europe. These peoples did not have the same sexual vigour as Europeans, and so needed flogging and other such acts to properly stimulate them for the sexual act. It’s rubbish, of course, and says much less about real conditions and attitudes amongst the world’s indigenous peoples than it does about the weird and prurient attitudes of the sexually repressed European society at the time.

Just as Mullah Bayati’s rantings about the perverted tastes of western women and the lack of sexual desire in western society says nothing about the west, and everything about officially approved Islamic attitudes. It’s the same sneering about supposedly degenerate, naked inferior peoples, that the British and other European colonial powers did, and for pretty much the same reason. It was to bolster their sense of superiority, and stop any members of their ruling elite from going ‘jungly’ and adopting the customs and attitudes of the people around them.

Muslim Anti-Western Propaganda as Contributing Factor to Sex Assaults by Muslims in West

I’m not saying all Muslims have these attitudes, by a long chalk. I know women, who married Iranian Muslim husbands and said that, in contrast to some indigenous British men, they treated them like ladies. But with mullahs like Bayati bellowing at their congregations across the Middle East, on TV, the radio from the pulpit in the mosques, that women, who don’t wear the hijab or chador are lewd, promiscuous whores, and it’s only to be expected that some will act on it. Criminals, who don’t know how to behave, and believe such women deserve to be raped and assaulted, because, by their standards, they’re worthless tarts. Such attitudes aren’t confined to Muslim men, by a long way. I don’t doubt at all that most rapists, and those who commit other forms of indecent assault are White. But attitudes like Bayati’s and the rest of the Iranian mullahs on this don’t help, and contribute to the problem.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown was concerned that feminism was being sacrificed to anti-racism. Of course, she’s right, though it goes far beyond feminism, back to the basic level of proper decency and respectful behaviour. The ravings of the Iranian mullahs and their Strategic Centre for Chastity and Modesty show just how necessary the Slut Walks that took place around the world are. No woman deserves to be raped or assaulted, simply because of the way she dresses. Just as the reverse is also true, and no woman should be insulted, attacked or killed, as some women have been, simply because they wore the chador or hijab.

Berman on the Nazi Origins of Modern Militant Islamism

January 11, 2016

Berman Flight Intellectuals

Yesterday I posted up a very informative piece by Michelle Thomasson, on the origins of modern militant Islam, based on McHugh’s book, A Short History of the Arabs. This sees the origins of modern Islamic militancy in the work of the Muslim reformer, Rashid Rida, and the alliance of Muslim religious and political leaders with the Nazis following the foundation of the state of Israel during the British Mandate in Palestine.

The left-wing American journalist and writer, Paul Berman, says much the same in his book, The Flight of the Intellectuals (New York: Melville House 2010). This is partly an investigation into the career and ideas of the contemporary French Muslim writer and philosopher, Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan’s a highly controversial figure, as while many have found him an admirable spokesman for interfaith dialogue and on social questions like poverty, others consider that far from being a liberal modernist, Ramadan instead preaches a very hard-line, intolerant Islam concealed under a veneer of liberal verbiage. He has, for example, been championed by Ian Buruma of the New York Times, who sees his philosophy, based on traditional, universal Muslim values, as offering an escape from violence. Many of Ramadan’s opponents are liberal Muslims and women, shocked at what they see as his anti-feminism. Another of his opponents is the Lebanese historian, Antoine Sfeir. In addition to stirring up intellectual controversy, Ramadan has also been investigated by the Spanish authorities for possible terrorist connections.

Ramadan’s grandfather, Hassan al-Banna, was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the leading organisations in the modern Islamic revival, and a nationalist campaigner against the French and British occupying powers. The Muslim Brotherhood taught discipline, obedience and adulation of al-Banna as their Supreme Leader. It also aimed at throwing out the British and other European colonialists, and reviving the former Islamic empire and caliphate. this would include all the nations and countries ever conquered and ruled by Islam, including modern peoples, who had also converted. Al-Banna’s ideas spread from his native Egypt to Palestine, Syria, Sudan and North Africa. They were introduced into Iran in Shi’ite form by the Ayatollah Khomeini and Ali Shariati. They were then exported from Iran to the Shi’a in Lebanon, and then into India and Pakistan by Abul Ala Mawdudi. In Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood became Hamas, a political party which has used suicide bombers against the Israelis, although al-Banna’s supporters have always defended him from accusations of terrorism. The Muslim Brotherhood has also produced a number of splinter groups, one of which is al-Qaeda. Ramadan has written books presenting his grandfather as a democrat wanting to create a genuine national assembly free of British influence. However, some of his writings suggest he really wanted to create a theocracy, in which Egypt would be governed by Islamic scholars, though after consulting the general public. Other Muslim scholars also believe that al-Banna wanted the establishment of an authoritarian, anti-democratic state. These include Bassam Tibi, a German-Egyptian liberal Muslim, and the Iranian scholars Ladan and Roya Boroumand. Tibi sees al-Banna as the creator of a modern totalitarianism at variance with the traditional teachings of Islam.

Critical in the creation of modern Islamic anti-Semitism was Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. al-Husseini was at various times the head of the Supreme Muslim Council in Palestine, and chairman of the Arab Higher Committee. He was one of the leading figures in the resistance against the foundation of the nascent Jewish state. In the 1920s, he organised several attacks against both Zionist settlers from the West, and traditional, indigenous Jewish Palestinians, culminating in a pogrom in 1929. He was also partly responsible for Rashid Ali al-Gaylani’s pro-Axis coup in Iraq in 1941, and the launch of a Farhoud, or pogrom, against the Jews in Baghdad. He met with Mussolini and proposed the creation of an Arab Fascist state comprising Iraq, Syria, Palestine and Trans-Jordan.

And in 1941 he met the Nazis, including Ribbentrop, Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Goebbels. He set up the Handzar, or ‘Sabre’ division of the SS, to fight against the Serbs and the anti-Fascist partisans in the former Yugoslavia, as well as exterminate Bosnian Jews. The Nazis employed al-Husseini and Rashid Ali in their Revolutionierungspolitik, or policy of stirring up internal revolutions in order to bring down their enemies from within. The most famous example was during the First World War when Germany sent Lenin into Russia on the sealed train with large sums of money to spark the Bolshevik revolution. The Mufti was charged with translating the Nazis’ anti-Semitism from Europe to Islam. He therefore combed the Islamic scriptures to present a Muslim version of the stupid and murderous conspiracy theories about the Jews circulating in Europe. He therefore created a vast conspiratorial view of Muslim history, in which the Jews had been trying to destroy Islam and the Arabs from the very beginning of Islam to the 20th century.

The Jewish state was initially extremely small, and Berman argues that there was little support for it in the Jewish populations of the Islamic world, except here and there in small pockets. Nevertheless, in al-Husseini claimed that the Zionists were aiming to create a gigantic Jewish homeland that would stretch from British Palestine to Egypt and the Persian Gulf. He also claimed that this new Jewish state would also include the north African Arab nations of Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. Or they were going to create two homelands, one of which would be the former north African Arab states. These would be colonised by the Jews. The second Jewish homeland, in north Africa, was to be established through the efforts of America, which was already dominated by the Jews. This homeland was to be colonised by Jews and Blacks from America. Britain was also under Jewish control, and, as with Nazism, the Jews were blamed for the creation of Communism. In their propaganda broadcasts on the radio, the Mufti and his followers urged the Arabs to rise up and kill the Jews and their children. Al-Husseini was personally responsible for sending 20,000 Jews to the gas chambers when Himmler wanted to release them as a publicity stunt. The Nazis were also planning the extermination of Egypt’s Jews if Rommel had won. Mercifully, he didn’t, and Montgomery stopped him.

Berman also states that traditionally, Western Jews regarded Islam as being far more welcoming and much less oppressive than Christianity, and cites Graetz’s history of the Jews of c.1900 of such scholarship. He notes that this view has been challenged more recently by others, who have seen the Islamic world as just as hostile to Jews as the Christian West. Other scholars consider that, while there has been anti-Semitism in traditional Islamic society, it was not as severe as in Christianity. In this case, contemporary Islamism and its poisonous anti-Semitism is essentially the creation of al-Banna, al-Husseini and the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s simply a Muslim version of Nazism, with the irony that the Nazis also regarded the peoples of the Islamic world, the Arabs, Turks and Persians, as racially inferior. Hitler even referred to them in one of his speeches as ‘painted apes who long for the whip.’

If there is ever to be peace, then this poisonous, last reflection of Nazism must also be tackled and destroyed.

Gulzabeen Afsar, UKIP and Nazi Anti-Semitism

April 26, 2015

Earlier today I reblogged Tom Pride’s piece, reporting a tweet from the Tory councillor Gulzabeen Afsar that she would never support ‘al Yahud’ Miliband. Al-Yahud is Arabic for ‘the Jew’. It’s a blatant statement of anti-Semitism.

Her statement is somewhat ironic, as Ed Miliband has been criticised by some British Jews for not being as pro-Israel as they feel he should. Moreover, there are initiatives by the Jewish and Islamic communities in Britain to overcome prejudice and extremism and establish good relations between them. There was a section about this on the Beeb’s One Show a few weeks ago.

And it hasn’t just been in Britain. In Norway about a month ago Muslims formed a protective shield around a local synagogue against attack by Fascists during a neo-Nazi demonstration.

Afsar’s anti-Semitism seems to come from the bizarre conspiracy theories that were deliberately imported into the Islamic world by the Nazis in their attempt to find allies in the Middle East and North Africa during the Second World War. Before then, the Islamic world was much less anti-Semitic than Europe.

And anti-Semitism is hardly confined to parts of the Tories, or sections of the British Muslim community. A very high percentage of Kippers stated that they did not want a Jewish prime minister. And the meme below is directed against one Kipper politico, who has made statements showing he believes all the anti-Semitic conspiracy bilge claiming that the Second World War was deliberately created by the Jews. He also denied the Holocaust.

Kipper Holocaust Denial

The Kippers are, of course, horrendously Islamophobic. There’s hardly a week goes by with some Kipper, somewhere, saying something monstrous about Muslims. Both Afsar’s and this joker’s views ultimately come from the Nazis. And they have absolutely no place in 21st century Britain, regardless of the colour or faith of the person saying them.