Chomsky -v- Žižek (and Lacan)

July 20, 2013 at 2:18 pm (academe, Beyond parody, Chomsky, cults, intellectuals, jerk, Jim D, language, philosophy, stalinism, strange situations, wankers)

Regulars will know that us Shirazers are not big fans of Noam Chomsky. But back in December 2012 he gave an interview that warmed the cockles of our collective heart, slamming, amongst others, those two verbose charlatans Žižek and Lacan:

Mike Springer (at Open Culture) writes:

Noam Chomsky’s well-known political views have tended to overshadow his groundbreaking work as a linguist and analytic philosopher. As a result, people sometimes assume that because Chomsky is a leftist, he would find common intellectual ground with the postmodernist philosophers of the European Left.

Big mistake.

In this brief excerpt from a December, 2012 interview with Veterans Unplugged, Chomsky is asked about the ideas of Slavoj Žižek, Jacques Lacan and Jacques Derrida. The M.I.T. scholar, who elsewhere has described some of those figures and their followers as “cults,” doesn’t mince words:

What you’re referring to is what’s called “theory.” And when I said I’m not interested in theory, what I meant is, I’m not interested in posturing–using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there’s no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t. So I’m not interested in that kind of posturing. Žižek is an extreme example of it. I don’t see anything to what he’s saying. Jacques Lacan I actually knew. I kind of liked him. We had meetings every once in awhile. But quite frankly I thought he was a total charlatan. He was just posturing for the television cameras in the way many Paris intellectuals do. Why this is influential, I haven’t the slightest idea. I don’t see anything there that should be influential.

via Leiter Reports

Related content:

John Searle on Foucault and the Obscurantism in French Philosophy

Clash of the Titans: Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault Debate Human Nature and Power on Dutch TV, 1971

Jacques Lacan Talks About Psychoanalysis with Panache (1973)

Philosopher Slavoj Zizek Interprets Hitchcock’s Vertigo in The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema (2006)


Oh, goody goody! Žižek has replied…(and makes some fair points about Chomsky’s record), here

Further comment on the spat, at Open Culture

H/t: Norm … who also draws our attention to the John Searl link on Foucault and Obscurantism, above.

Permalink 5 Comments

Yarooh, you cads! Trouble at Redfriars

February 16, 2013 at 5:53 pm (Champagne Charlie, cults, misogyny, spoofs, SWP)

This seems to be some kind of spoof, but I’ve no idea of what…

Billy Delta on the run

Redfriars School was founded in 1877 by its eccentric benefactor Anthony Cliff, as a special fee-paying school for Trotskyists, so that they could enjoy the benefits of a public school education, far from prying eyes.

Since Cliff passed away, Acting Headmaster Algernon Stallinicos has struggled manfully to maintain the school’s traditions, with the help of the Chair of the Governors, Sir Charlie, the Seventh Baronet Kimber.

Billy Delta is the Creep of the Remove. Billy is well-known for being able to peel an orange in his pocket. His appetites are vast. He is always on the prowl, and usually loses his trousers. Billy is waiting for a ten-bob postal order.

The whole thing here

Permalink 6 Comments

Nice Guys of the SWP

January 25, 2013 at 1:02 pm (cults, Feminism, Max Dunbar, misogyny, SWP)

Some of us have been banging on about the misogyny of the left for some time. 2012 was the year it became too apparent to ignore. It became clear during the Assange/Galloway furore that a significant part of the left has no time for feminism, sexual freedom or gender equality, which it regards as irrelevant middle class distractions from the glorious struggle against neoliberal imperialism. This is clear in the SWP’s support for far right Islamic fanatics, and it’s long been my contention that many anaemic middle aged leftwing males would rather like a society where women cover up and do as they are told.

Is it a surprise, then, that when rape allegations are made within the party, SWP members rejected the ‘bourgeois court system’ in favour of a hastily convened tribunal consisting of friends of the defendant (but apparently one of them used to volunteer at a rape crisis centre, which makes it okay)? This is a cult. These people do not believe in the rule of law and it shouldn’t raise any eyebrows that they should try to essentially secede from the UK criminal justice system, and treat a serious criminal matter with a bullshit disputes committee process rightly compared to sharia.

Two objections are generally raised at this point. Members have told me that the complainant explicitly stated she didn’t want to go to the police. Maybe so, and that’s her choice. But we also have a duty to listen to people who know the organisation, and have made the choice to walk out. Tom Walker, experienced SWP journalist, has said that:

It is stated that the accuser did not want to go to the police, as is her absolute right if that was truly her decision. However, knowing the culture of the SWP, I doubt that was a decision she made entirely free from pressure.

Do not underestimate the pressure the SWP can bring to bear on members by telling them to do or not do things for the ultimate cause of the socialist society the party’s members are all fighting for.

Objection two is that these are just allegations. The McAlpine rules apply and you can’t convict Comrade Delta in the kangaroo court of public opinion. True again. But there is going to be no due process in this case because the party has decided that there won’t be. Unless the police make an independent decision to investigate, we’ll never know. Even if Comrade Delta is innocent, the whisper of the political village will follow him to the grave.

All this we know. This story ain’t going away and we have not heard the last of this. There have been further rape allegations and so much insight, argument and commentary that it’s almost impossible to keep up with it (although Jim Jepps does his best). I just want to pick up on something Paul Anderson has touched on: that there has been far too much credit and good faith given to the SWP ‘oppositionists’.

The best known SWP writers in the UK are probably the novelist China Miéville and my old friend Richard Seymour. Neither has quit the party as far as I know. Both of them have written long condemnathon posts at Lenin’s Tomb, and Seymour has set up a new blog, International Socialism, featuring posts from the rank and file. Their denounciations of the SWP leadership are welcome. But these guys have been cadre for years. Why has it taken a leaked committee report for them to speak out?

The SWP has a great talent for hyperbole. One post on Seymour’s blog shrieks that ‘The entire working class has an interest in what happens in the SWP… the SWP remains, for all I’ve said, the best thing the British working class has at its disposal.’ During the crisis, it has fallen back on its reputation. ‘Our record on women’s rights is SECOND TO NONE,’ a paper seller bellowed at me in Manchester. (Second to none? ‘YES’.) This is bullshit, of course. Close examination reveals SWP claims as defenders of feminism to be lies. The initial allegation was followed by the worst kind of Unilad slut-shaming. Laurie Penny writes: ‘not only were friends of the alleged rapist allowed to investigate the complaint, the alleged victims were subject to further harassment. Their drinking habits and former relationships were called into question, and those who stood by them were subject to expulsion and exclusion.’

Clearly there has been a misogynistic canteen culture within the organisation for decades. And Seymour and Mieville only notice this at the moment the leaked report detonated onto the internet? As Omar says in The Wire: ‘Nigger, please.’

Fact is, the SWP can’t come back from this. It is finished. As the Very Public Sociologist put it:

They are the party that lets an alleged rapist off because a committee of his mates gave him a clean bill of health, and no amount of back-pedalling, no ’democracy commissions’ or truth-and-reconciliation procedures can change that. It’s game over, comrades.

The SWP recruit predominantly from universities and it can’t do that as the SWP after this. The young people coming up now (and by ‘young people’ I don’t mean bloggers in their thirties, I mean people born in 1985-1995) are strongly feminist. Think of a popular young writer or blogger – Laurie Penny,  Helen Lewis, Zoe Stavri, Juliet Jacques, the Vagenda team, Sianushka, the Nat Fantastic – and s/he is likely to come from a passionate feminist position. Big grassroots organisations are increasingly feminist and any far left group simply won’t get the numbers without them. The only remaining power play for a far left activist is to disassociate completely with the SWP and set up as some kind of new party that doesn’t have the SWP’s black past. Maybe I’m being too cynical and Richard Seymour really does have the sisterhood’s best interests at heart. But ask yourself: can you really trust a man who writes that badly?

Penny writes that ‘Many of the UK’s most important thinkers and writers are members, or former members’ of the SWP.’ She could have said that most of them became important writers and thinkers after they left the SWP. Paul Richards nails it, in his indispensable essay on the cult:

They sweep up young, idealistic people, take their idealism and energy, and wring them out like sheets of kitchen towel. They turn people off progressive politics for life. They stand alongside decent-minded people, subvert their campaigns, and drive them into the ground.

The problem with the SWP isn’t that it acts on naive, utopian and impractical politics, it’s that it actively crushes and destroys human creativity, idealism, hopes and dreams.

A very big rock has been lifted up. Whether it’s Savile, Cyril Smith or the WRP, this stuff always comes out eventually. Thank god for the internet. It exposes everything.


Permalink 14 Comments

Nooman and “Socialist Unity”: a malignant cult

December 22, 2012 at 5:01 pm (apologists and collaborators, Asshole, AWL, blogging, capitulation, class collaboration, comedy, conspiracy theories, cults, grovelling, Jim D, sectarianism, stalinism, trotskyism)

In his increasingly undignified rightward belly-crawl from the SWP, via Respect, into a sort of incoherent Labourite Stalinism whilst playing the role of tame anti-Trot witch-hunter for unspecified audiences, Andy Nooman at least provides some entertainment this festive season. I was about to say “harmless” entertainment, but his latest ranting on his “Socialist Unity” blog, about the revolutionary left (in this case, the AWL/ Alliance for Workers Liberty) is, by his own  account “a redacted version of something I wrote for another audience.” I wonder who that “other audience” might be?


 My first meme !

Above: Stroppybird’s cat

Nooman’s sub-political tirade is avowedly based upon John  Sullivan’s ‘When This Pub Closes’ which is poor stuff  but at least evinces some political grasp of its subject(s). In fact, Nooman, whether he knows it or not, is more in the tradition of the rank Stalinist ignoramous Denver Walker’s student union-level, scummy little tome ‘Quite Right Mr Trotsky.’

Anyway, there is much to be enjoyed in Nooman’s bile against the revolutionary left and his grovelling to the Labour/TU bureaucracy, but sadly he doesn’t let us link to “Socialist Unity,” so you’ll have to use Google, or copy/paste

The comments are most entertaining as well, including:

* 23.  How inept do you have to be in order to pen a hatchet job that embarrasses yourself more than anybody else? – Patrick Smith

* 123. EDUCATION? DEMOCRACY? ACTIVITY? What a DISGRACE to the left. A disgrace to socialist countries/union leaders/students.

I’m really glad you’ve outed them about all that sexual impropriety.m Who needs facts when you’ve got pure conjecture? I bet they’re all a bunch of filthy deviants. Oh and yes, I heard that Sheffield was particularly bad too. Need castrating, the lot of them – RHuzzah

* 142. Until this article was posted I’d never heard of the AWL, and from reading all the heated posts about occult meetings sexual impropriety and filthy deviants I only have one question.

Where do I sign up? – CJB

* 161. Ok. John [John Wight, Nooman’s antisemitic sidekick – JD] couldn’t care less about someone writing for this blog or its standing among people who used to advocate for it. Andy completely agrees with him. Egal.

A narrowing of vision accompanied by a growing climate of intolerance, abuse and bullying — I for one have seen this movie a couple of times before And know well the last reel.

So no song and dance, just ciao — bella – Kevin Ovenden [former Socialist Unity contributor – JD]

P.S: Check out the attacks on Yours Truly: Nooman can’t even get this attempt at “humour” right, and work out whether I’m Father Ted or Father Jack…

Permalink 20 Comments

Galloway’s Song for Croydon North

December 4, 2012 at 8:29 am (Asshole, Beyond parody, communalism, conspiracy theories, cults, elections, Galloway, gloating, Jim D, Respect)

I thought this was a nasty, racist spoof created by Galloway’s enemies to make him and ‘Honeyglaze’ Jasper look and sound like a pair of total jerks (not that it’s difficult to do that). But apparently it’s genuine. If you haven’t already seen it, brace yourself and prepare to cringe:

Hopefully, the humiliations at Croydon North and Rotherham, coming hard on the heels of the resignation of Salma Yaqoob, will finally kill off the reactionary, communalist vanity project that is/was ‘Respect.’

Permalink 7 Comments

Galloway: “What’s alleged (against Assange) isn’t even a minor misdemeanour in the UK”

August 20, 2012 at 5:49 pm (apologists and collaborators, Asshole, Beyond parody, conspiracy theories, cults, Galloway, Jackie Mcdonough, law, misogyny, Respect, stalinism)

[The remarks occur 21:40 into the video]

Of course, Galloway is not a rape-apologist…any more than he’s an antisemite

Galloway: “I mean not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion. Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you’re already in the sex game with them.

“It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, “do you mind if I do it again?”.

“It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning.

“I don’t believe either of those women, I don’t believe either of these stories.”

Galloway later defended his remarks on Twitter, claiming that what constitutes a sexual offence in Sweden would not be considered such a crime in the UK:

George Galloway@georgegalloway
George Galloway

@andybolton I think the allegation is that she was asleep Andy. After having consensual sex with him whilst awake. Do keep up
George Galloway@georgegalloway
George Galloway

@BADVOKBASIL were you there? In the bed with them I mean? You do know he hasn’t been charged let alone convicted right?
Zahid Ul-Hassan@zahid1980
Zahid Ul-Hassan

@georgegalloway allegedly raping a woman while she sleeps isn’t a real crime?
George Galloway@georgegalloway
George Galloway

@forwardnotback what Assange is actually alleged to have done isn’t even a crime in the UK. A mere fact I know…
George Galloway@georgegalloway
George Galloway

@12colin64 rapist? He hasn’t even been charged. He’s not accused of rape. What’s alleged isn’t even a minor misdemeanour in the Uk.

Former Monty Python star Terry Jones has also taken to Twitter to defend Assange:

Terry Jones@PythonJones
Terry Jones

The Guardian says Julian Assange is accused of “serious sexual assaults”. Not wearing a condom is not a crime in this country. Sweden it is.

A spokesman for Rape Crisis said: “It is clear from George Galloway’s comments that his legal understanding of rape is factually incorrect.

“Having had consensual sex with someone once does not mean a woman has forever forfeited her right to withdraw or refuse her consent to further sex with that person.

“Sex without consent is rape. Mr. Galloway’s description of sexual violence as ‘really bad manners’, as well as his apparent ignorance of the law, is offensive and deeply concerning.”

Extracted from Huffington Post

Permalink 12 Comments

The sub-Stalinist cult of Bob Crow (a total cult himself)

March 14, 2011 at 1:08 am (cults, Jim D, stalinism, twat, unions)

Crow’s a posturing twat, anyway…

Bob Crow's right-hand man hit Tube strike breaker on picket line My phone was hacked, says Tube union chief Bob Crow Fat-cat bashing Bob Crow’s £10,000 pay rise from RMT Union boss Bob Crow accused of ‘diabolical’ abuse at football match

Above: portraits of a fake-left twat

Dave K writes:

At the Sheffield Demo yesterday the RMT contingent where carrying a banner with a huge picture of Bob Crow on it, with the slogan- Bobs right Bollocks to the Cuts. I attached a picture of a T-Shirt with the same image. This isnt the first time I have come across the Bob Crow cult. At Vestas we had that stuff about hiring a helicopter and I heard a RMT official telling the workers that ordinary members can ring up Bob anytime of the day or night on his mobile and he will deal with their issues.  
I dont know whether this official RMT merchandising or one particular star struck branch. But I think as a group whose inflence in the RMT is strong need to be clear how Bob’s cult of personality is destructive to a rank and file movement in the RMT. It also isnt helpful when workers see the answer to their unions problems is to elect a Bob Crow type demagoge. We want accountable trade union leaders willing to organise and lead there members, not all powerful barons who see the fight against the governement as a personal war and the members as there willing battalions.
Otherwise where will we end up next- Icons of Sewotka on demonstrations? A maoist Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin/Mao style banner with past leaders of the T&G/Unite (with Jack Jones as Lenin)? 

Permalink 9 Comments

Hearsay, pure and simple

March 13, 2011 at 11:02 am (anti-semitism, cults, internet, Rosie B)

Here’s John Pilger really pissed off with the liberal press:-

On 3 March, the Guardian announced that Steven Spielberg’s DreamWorks would be making “an investigative thriller in the mould of All the President’s Men out of its book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy. I asked David Leigh, who wrote the book with Luke Harding, how much DreamWorks had paid the Guardian for the screen rights and what he expected to make personally. “No idea,” was the puzzling reply of the Guardian’s “investigations editor”. The paper paid WikiLeaks nothing for its treasure trove of leaks. Assange and WikiLeaks – not Leigh or Harding – were responsible for what the Guardian’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, has called “one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years”.

[To do these parasites justice, they did have to read masses of fragmentary documentation and make some kind of sense of it.]

The Guardian has made it clear that it has no further use for Assange. He is a loose cannon who did not fit Guardianworld, who proved a tough, unclubbable negotiator. And brave. In the Guardian’s self-regarding book, Assange’s extraordinary bravery is excised. He becomes a figure of petty bemusement, an “unusual Australian” with a “frizzy-haired” mother; he is gratuitously abused as “callous” and a “damaged personality” who was “on the autistic spectrum”. How will Spielberg deal with this childish character assassination?

[Actually, the book says a lot about Assange’s courage, brilliant brain and indifference to comfort and material possessions.  When I’d finished reading it I admired Assange more than I had before.]

On the BBC’s Panorama, Leigh indulged hearsay that Assange did not care about the lives of those named in the leaks.

Assange‘s indifference to the lives of those named in the link turns up on p111 of the book.  The Afghan war logs in Wikileaks’ possession mentioned “names of informants or those who had collaborated with US troops. . .”

I [Declan Walsh, one of the Guardian team sifting through the leaks] told David Leigh I was worried about the repercussions of publishing these names, who could easily be killed by the Taliban or other militant groups if identified. David agreed it was a concern and said he’d raised the issue with Julian, but he didn’t seem concerned. That night, we went out to a Moorish restaurant, Moro, with the two German reporters. David broached the problem again with Julian. The response floored me. ‘Well, they’re informants,’ he said. ‘So, if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it.’ There was, for a moment, silence around the table. I think everyone was struck by what a callous thing that was to say.

In the event the names were redacted.

As some commenters in the thread point out, Pilger misuses the word “hearsay“.  David Leigh heard these remarks of Assange with his own ears.   It wasn’t reported to him by someone else, which is what “hearsay” means.  There were three other witnesses there who heard this as well, and in the thread David Leigh names them.  However Pilger has been indulging in “hearsay” himself since he presumably is going by what Assange has told him what was said at this dinner.

As always with Assange and Wikileaks, there is a lovely irony in this.   The creed of St Julian says “We believe in raw data, unmediated and unchannelled.  Cover us with data, oh Lord, so we can save our souls.”   In this instance Leigh is the man who holds the raw data bleeding and dripping in his hands, Pilger has had it cooked and processed.

Pilger also says:-

As for the claim that he had complained of a “Jewish conspiracy”, which followed a torrent of internet nonsense that he was an evil agent of Mossad, Assange rejected this as “completely false, in spirit and word”.

[Pilger, once a courageous reporter who would travel  to war zones, evidently hasn’t been around the internet much.  It’s perfectly possible that you will be attacked as an evil agent of Mossad because your leaks don’t deal much with the insanity-inducing obsession, Israel, while you agree with a view that has a fairly broad consensus, that the world is ruled by a Zionist entity via its partner, the USA.]

Pilger does not address the most damning charge against Asange’s political and moral judgement in the Panorama programme,  his dealings with the obsessive anti-semite and general loon, Israel Shamir.  A useful summary of this association can be found here by Nathalie Rothschild, though no doubt many will find her surname suspect.

The words “Julian Assange” are as reliable a nutter magnet as “Israel and Palestine“.  In the Liberal Conspiracy thread on Private Eye’s revelations about Assange’s belief in a Jewish media conspiracy people turn up to say that (a) Private Eye must have been hoaxed or is telling lies; (b) Assange was only saying what’s true anyway.  The same calibre of commenter turns up at John Pilger‘s thread saying (a) David Leigh was telling lies; (b) what’s wrong with killing informants anyway?

Permalink 11 Comments

Galloway on Sheridan: us good looking blokes don’t go with ugly birds

December 29, 2010 at 4:16 pm (cults, Galloway, Jackie Mcdonough, misogyny, populism, Respect, scotland, Sheridan, Socialist Party, stalinism)

A new low even for Galloway, defending his mate Tommy “good looking” Sheridan:


Above: Phwoar! Control yourselves, girls!

“No one knows what’s going on in other people’s bedrooms. It’s possible that the Tommy I’ve known for nearly 30 years deceived me as to his true character but I don’t think so. As a good looking young man, sure, Tommy would have legions of female admirers. I was that soldier once! He may have slept with some, even many of them, though he never breathed a word of it to me.

“Maybe he even cheated on his wife Gail, as fragrant and graceful a wife as any man could ever have. With Anvar Khan? But I doubt it. At least I have “reasonable doubts” about it. Which is why the verdict came as such a shock. And why I hope this verdict is appealed.”

Note the “I was that soldier once“… he just can’t resist, can he? What a tosser…

Read the rest here.

H/t: Dave

Permalink 2 Comments

Acceptable in the 2010s

August 5, 2010 at 6:18 pm (anti-fascism, cults, Islam, islamism, Max Dunbar, religion, religious right, sectarianism)

In a fascinating piece in the New Yorker, Timothy Garton Ash discussed Orwell’s famous list of names, written in the last isolated year of his life at the request of his friend and flame Celia Kirwan, who had just started work at a Foreign Office department that produced anticommunist propaganda. Orwell came up with some potential names to write for the unit, and also included thirty-eight intellectuals who ‘in my opinion are crypto-communists, fellow-travellers or inclined that way and should not be trusted as propagandists’.

We know that most of these latter names were vocal Stalinists, and that one, Peter Smollett, was an actual Soviet agent – ironically, he had blocked the publication of Animal Farm. Still, the dying Orwell had stained a perfect reputation at the eleventh hour. When you examine the facts closely, as Garton-Ash did over a half-century later, the controversy fades:

Some writers today suggest the IRD’s anticommunist activities were Britain’s equivalent of the McCarthyite witch-hunt. If so, then one is struck by how mild it was by comparison with the American McCarthyism which prompted Arthur Miller to write The Crucible and Charlie Chaplin to flee back to Orwell’s Britain.

Kirwan herself said that ‘everybody thinks that these people were going to be shot at dawn. The only thing that was going to happen to them was that they wouldn’t be asked to write for the Information Research Department.’

In today’s Guardian, Inayat Bungawala comments:

This is just like something straight out of a Stasi manual. The advice from Quilliam is frankly appalling and incredibly self-serving. This is a truly shocking document, and it is little wonder that the Quilliam Foundation marked it as being not for public disclosure. In effect, Quilliam – a body funded very generously by the government through Prevent – are attempting to set themselves up as arbiters of who is and is not an acceptable Muslim. Their document specifically contains a McCarthy-type list of large and established Muslim organisations that they regard as suspect and smears them as being ‘Islamists’.

What is he talking about? Well, the Quilliam Foundation, a policy unit that argues for secularism and democracy, has contacted Charles Farr, director of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, with recommendations on counter-terrorism policy. The report was for his eyes only but has been leaked.

The report itself is uncontroversial, a swirl of: ‘What’s the problem?’ In the document Quilliam outlines an analysis of the last government’s Prevent counterterrorism programme, where it went wrong and what the new government can do differently. It draws a clear separation between Islam the faith and Islamism the political ideology, and it points out that whenever Islamist movements gain power, blood and horrors follow, as sure as night follows day. The authors also make a point that can’t be emphasised enough: that when Islamist parties stand for election, they’re generally defeated.

It is the appendix that is the problem for Bungawala. It constitutes a list of UK Islamic organisations. This isn’t a blacklist of peace-loving innocents. It’s an ID line of fanatics. There’s the Muslim Council of Britain, a Jamaat i-Islami front which claims a risible four to twelve percent of British Muslim support. The Muslim Association of Britain promoted pro Al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. The Federation of Student Islamic Societies hosted him in 2003, and presented him as a ‘distinguished Islamic scholar’. The Cordoba Foundation used Prevent money to provide a platform for the fundamentalist Hizb ut-Tahrir. The Islam Channel provides digital brainwashing courtesy of a Tunisian Islamist. There’s the truly Orwellian creation of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, the Khomeinist front which organises the annual Al-Quds day dipshit parade. George Galloway, also on the list, is famous most recently for having crossing the desert to give a load of money to Hamas:

I, now, here, on behalf of myself, my sister Yvonne Ridley, and the two Respect councillors – Muhammad Ishtiaq and Naim Khan – are giving three cars and 25,000 pounds in cash to Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. Here is the money. This is not charity. This is politics.

You can go on. The East London Mosque hosted Awlaki at an event called ‘The End of Time: A New Beginning’ and advertised the talk with a poster depicting New York in flames. Under its deranged chair Dr Mohammed Naseem, Birmingham Central Mosque has promoted 9/11 deniers and anti-semites. There’s the Muslim Safety Forum, which recently elected Azad Ali: ‘a senior official of the fundamentalist Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE), which works, in its own words, to create an Islamic state under sharia law in Europe.’ After a Dispatches undercover reporter filmed him rhapsodising the sharia, Ali responded with a threat on the IFE’s radio station: ‘We’ve got a picture of you and a lot more than you thought we had. We’ve tracked you down to different places. And if people are gonna turn what I’ve just said into a threat, that’s their fault, innit?’ A prince among men.

Thing is, you would know nothing of this from the Guardian article, or the op-ed from Brian Whittaker, who makes a great deal of Quilliam’s government funding without finding space to mention the MCB’s own government funding or indeed, the lobbying and Whitehall tin-rattling of that and other fundamentalist organisations. Whittaker says that ‘Islamist ideology certainly needs to be challenged. The question is whether its nonviolent form should included in an anti-terrorism strategy’.

Translation: keep on working with fascists, as long as they only promote fascist ideology, and haven’t yet got round to putting it into practice.

Permalink 2 Comments

« Previous page · Next page »