Monday, January 24, 2011

Opening up the Discussion

“Deviationism” was a term of opprobrium employed by both the Stalinist and Maoist flavors of Communism. To be accused of “Deviationism” — or even worse, “Right-Deviationism” — was a passing-bell for the career of a Communist apparatchik. The tiniest variation from Party dogma could bring down the dreaded charge on anyone perceived as a possible threat to those at the top who wielded absolute power.

The Communists have hardly been the only ones to cry “Deviationism!” or one of its modern variants. The Left in general likes to pronounce frequent anathema on those who deviate from the straight path, and the Right is not immune to the same sort of behavior. Being out of power and ineffectual never inhibits the spirit of infighting — someone is always being accused of “hijacking” the cause for nefarious purposes.

Needless to say, the same tendency can be observed among different groups that oppose Islamization and sharia. The British organization “One Law for All” can hardly be tagged as “right-wing”, but it is opposed to sharia, and we would expect it to be on the same side as the conservative wing of the Counterjihad.

However, the group does not seem to reciprocate this feeling, and has made a point of disassociating itself in no uncertain terms from the “racists” of the English Defence League. Aeneas at the International Civil Liberties Alliance has a report on the latest from One Law for All:

Will One Law For All Save The World From Sharia By Creating A Socialist Utopia?

Will the ‘Enemies not Allies’ seminar, due to take place in London on 26 January 2011, organised by a group called ‘One Law for All’ turn into an ideologically driven demonization session against the English Defence League and other components of the Global Counterjihad? The following quote from the ‘One Law for All’ website perhaps suggests that this will be the case:

The One Law for All campaign is holding a seminar to expose how important debates including on Sharia law have been hijacked by the far-Right to promote their racist agenda, and by anti-racist and anti-war groups to defend Islamism, both at the expense of people’s rights and lives. The seminar will focus on: The British National Party, the English Defence League, Stop Islamisation of Europe (also Stop Islamization of America), the Stop the War Coalition, the Respect Party, and Unite Against Fascism.

To imply that the EDL are ‘far Right’ is ridiculous; it has a very diverse group of people in its ranks, including members of ethnic minorities and the gay community — hardly the hallmarks of a traditional ‘far right’ organisation. It seems that left wing groups will always try to demonise anyone who does not share their own particular political viewpoints — ‘far right’ is just a label of demonization when it is casually applied in this way.

In a comment on her blog on 24 September 2009, Ms Namazie states in relation to the EDL:

First off, their name makes the hair on my neck stand up. English Defence League — please. Sounds nationalist and exclusive — and definitely not coming from the rights focused perspective we are.

She goes on to say:

In my opinion opposition to Sharia has to be done within a framework of defending the rights of all — not just the ‘English’.

She really does seem to have a very low opinion of the English, the people who have given her and her fellow refugees such support and succour. It must be remembered that Ms Namazie who is a Central Committee member of the Worker-communist Party of Iran, does not come from a position that is ideologically neutral. Human rights and communism do not have a very good track record of being harmonious bedfellows, so why should we place our trust in people like Maryam Namazie to ensure that we remain free? Despite the left wing’s apparent capture of the human rights establishment, this does not expunge the record of communism and the left in the field of human rights. Can we truly believe that communism has suddenly developed a humanitarian impulse rather than its customary ruthlessness? How many people will end up in the gulags of the future on the orders of communist ‘human rights’ organisations?

To make the claim that groups like the EDL have somehow ‘hijacked’ the campaign against sharia is ludicrous. Perhaps ‘One Law for All’ is concerned that a group like the EDL is having far more success in opposing sharia than it is; perhaps it thinks that only the political left is allowed to have an opinion on important matters of public policy. That would hardly be the approach of a genuinely inclusive and open organisation, would it? We must remember that it is not the EDL that is attempting to exclude people from the debate on sharia!

The EDL is quite clear in its mission statement that it is an inclusive organisation:

The EDL is therefore keen to draw its support from people of all races, all faiths, all political persuasions, and all lifestyle choices. Under its umbrella, all people in England, whatever their background, or origin, can stand united in a desire to stop the imposition of the rules of Islam on non-believers.

It is also keen to link up with people from other countries, whatever their ethnic background:

The EDL is keen to join with others who share our values, wherever they are in the world, and from whatever cultural background they derive. We believe that the demand for sharia is global and therefore needs to be tackled at a global as well as national level, so that this demand will never be succumbed to.

The EDL is clearly an inclusive as well as outward looking organisation.

Sharia, funded by petrodollars, is gaining power in Britain and elsewhere in the world. We appear to have a political class in the West that seems determined to facilitate the ability of sharia to infiltrate and erode our institutions. Sharia, it would appear, is endorsed by the state, and as such it will take a united effort to defeat it. It will mean that groups that differ in other areas of policy will need to work together in solidarity in this difficult quest. Even groups like ‘One Law for All’, that seem determined to fight this battle alone, have a role to play if they are serious about the mission on which they claim to have embarked. To defeat the global sharia movement will take a united front. This united front by necessity will be composed of right and left, it will be composed of people from many countries, and many cultures. The global network is growing, and the EDL is an integral and essential part of that network. It has established international and intercultural links with people who want to stand up to the tyranny of sharia. It has travelled to other countries and met with many people.

In conclusion we might well ask, what does the EDL add to the debate that One Law For All does not? The first thing would be that it tries to open up the discussion, not close it down by making sweeping judgements about others who are standing up against sharia. The EDL does not write people off as extremists, or as racists without good reason. Ironically, it does not do what its detractors are always accusing it of.

Like it or not, the EDL and the Global Counterjihad are here to stay.

15 comments:

Richard said...

During WWII the communist guerrillas in Yugoslavia spend almost as much time attacking the Chetnicks (sp) Monarchists that they ended up driving them to help the Nazi's. In Nam thej communists pushed the non communists to attack the US on the 67 Tet holiday, the non communist guerrillas were destroyed and the communists were left. If they see a chance to do something similar now they will.

doxRaven said...

The One Law for All campaign is holding a seminar to expose how important debates including on Sharia law have been hijacked by the far-Right to promote their racist agenda,

The whole narrative of the left is quintessentially racist - the inherent guilt of the white man. Indeed it is only the white man that can own this guilt, all other people are the victims.

In Australia this racism is legalised through race specific laws:
It recognises that Aboriginal people have rights and interests in their lands and waters through their traditional laws and customs;
Native title recognises that Indigenous people have traditional rights to speak for country

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/alra1983201/s4.html: definition in the act:
"Aboriginal person" means a person who:
(a) is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia,


I wonder what percentage aboriginal DNA a person needs to have to have those rights.

But ok, if the fascists socialists think that is ok, then let the British, the Germans and the French enact similar laws for the indigenous Europeans.

When the left speak of hate - look at the hate in their eye, when they speak of racism hear the racism in their words.

Freyja's cats said...

Here is the Wikipedia article on the Worker-communist Party of Iran.

That site names a lot of party functionaries. I recommend tracking down the links the others of that party have in the West.

Here is the website of the Worker-communist Party of Iran.

I suggest that Europids work to save Europids, and the West work to save the West.

Marya Namazie appears to be Iranian.

Iran is neither Europa or the West.

I would suggest that Ms. Namazie is driving an agenda not compatible with the survival of Europe and the European diaspora.

She certainly does not seem to love the English people and want the Englishmen to survive as Englishmen.

I do not think that the "human rights" for which she is advocating, are mine.

Tommy Robinson and I share common ancestry. His mtDNA and Y-DNA is a much closer match to my parents. He is my cousin.

Namazie comes from the other side of the planet from my European ancestors. While I would wish her a pleasant life, and hope that conditions would improve in Iran such that she could leave England and go back *home,*...

...the truth is that England is NOT her home.

England is Tommy Robinson's home. And the home of his ancestors for at least well over a millenia, if not many more.

Tommy has every right to carry the banner of his ancestors, in his own country.

Maryam Namazie does not.

I would suggest that she return home to Iran, and pursue her communist agenda there.

Freyja's cats said...

Baron: Some of the links you embedded in this piece did not work. Look at the URLs that try to open up, and you'll see why.


Here is the website for One Law for AllEnemies not Allies Seminar.

Quote:

"Bigots and neo-Nazis feigning to campaign for rights… ‘anti-racist’ groups promoting fascism… ‘anti-war’ rallies run by supporters of terrorism and dictatorship… Enough!

The One Law for All campaign is holding a seminar to expose how important debates including on Sharia law have been hijacked by the far-Right to promote their racist agenda, and by anti-racist and anti-war groups to defend Islamism, both at the expense of people’s rights and lives. The seminar will focus on: The British National Party, the English Defence League, Stop Islamisation of Europe (also Stop Islamization of America), the Stop the War Coalition, the Respect Party, and Unite Against Fascism.

Speakers at the seminar are Adam Barnett (One Law for All), Rahila Gupta (Women’s Rights Campaigner), Marieme Helie Lucas (Secularism is a Women’s Issue), Ghaffar Hussain (Quilliam Foundation), Douglas Murray (Centre for Social Cohesion), Maryam Namazie (One Law for All), and Shiraz Maher (International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation), with John Adams (Emeritus Professor at the University of Hertfordshire) to chair."



I encourage you all to look at the speaker bios on that website.

Most of those individuals are not really English. Their ancestors weren't English. These are transplants from the other side of the planet.

These are foreigners pursuing communist and foreign agendas on British soil.

We need to find out who demanded that these individuals be let into the country in the first place.

I suggest we research these names in depth, and map the connections.

Baron Bodissey said...

Freyja --

Thanks. Yes, that's what I get for using Word for the HTML -- it messes up quote marks.

It should be fixed now.

gsw said...

I said they should call themselves English Democratic League", but then sometimes, I wonder whether the "not lowering ourselves to their level" crowd realised that the true enemy is not so chivalrous.

EscapeVelocity said...

I wonder what she thinks about the name and organization, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Does that sound racist and exclusive?

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

This is an attempt by the left to subvert the counter-jihad, the old trick good apparatchik bad apparatchik.

For some reason in the UK the people do not have the political critical thinking skills to counter this simplistic tactic.

In the UK you can fool most of the people most of the time.

sulber nick said...

"This is an attempt by the left to subvert the counter-jihad..."

One Law For All has a leftist agenda but is far more 'honest' in its attutude to Islam and Sharia than is the rest of the left - the majority of which gives the impression of a willingness to align itself with Muslims.

One Law For All is essentially multiculturalist and in this sense is seeking to undermine the counter-jihad - but it is also attempting to undermine the jihad because that too leads to the demise of multiculturalism.

In other words OLFA is somewhere between a rock and a hard place. And few will take much notice when the inevitable happens...

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

Baron,

Maybe not deviationism but the old Scottish socialists favourite entryism.

Freyja's cats said...

4Symbols said:

For some reason in the UK the people do not have the political critical thinking skills to counter this simplistic tactic.


Baron posted on Jan 24 a news article sent in by Gaia. Here's a quote:

"Last week, I reviewed a book by John Gross about growing up Jewish in London 70 years ago...Much of the book’s interest lies in the encounter between Jewishness and Britishness. The young Gross was well educated – much better than most Gentiles – in the history and culture of the country his parents had adopted. Jewishness and Britishness intertwined, each benefiting the other."

That article is here.

I would suggest that folks chew on that a bit. Perhaps that has something to do with the reason.

And, also a reason why, in the photo in that article, one sees a multi-culti, multi-color sea of Muslims celebrating Eid in Tralfagar Square, while the text of the article bemoans the inability or unwillingness of a large fraction of the British Muslim population from integrating and assimilating.

Two thoughts: read this and this.

The first is about the wealthy Jewish Rothschild banking family, and discusses their involvement in establishing a Jewish National Home in Palestine and attaining the Balfour Agreement.

The second is about the history of Marxism and Communism in Britain.

Then consider this:

Marxism is an economic and socio-political worldview that contains within it a political ideology for how to change and improve society by implementing socialism. Originally developed in the early to mid 19th century by two German émigrés living in Britain, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Marxism is based upon a materialist interpretation of history.

Britain has had the unfortunate distinction of having harbored both Karl Marx and Friederich Engels.

Much of their ideological development work was done in Britain.

Read this biographical sketch of Marx, so that you can see where Marx was, and when.

On one hand, you have the Zionist Jews influencing Britain to take Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and to use British military power to do it.

A lot of greasing of the palms transpired in the process. (I recommend reading a book by Martin Gilbert called Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship.)

Unfortunately, Churchill was unwittingly putting the grease in his palm above the long-term interests of the English, and of Europe as a whole.

Churchill was also putting in place the mechanism that would spiral into today's intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On the other hand, you had the Jewish Marxists working on the British working classes, and as Lenin came to power you had the Marxist-Leninists.

The combination of political corruption of the British elite, including the influence of the Zionists, whose hearts were obviously wanting to be somewhere else than Europe, plus the manipulative warping of the minds of British commoners by Marxism and communists, set the English people sliding down a slippery slope, from which they are not likely to ever completely recover, if at all.

These are uncomfortable truths.

Anonymous said...

Freya's Cats: why do you go on about Marx being Jewish, when apparently Engels wasn't? Aren't you giving too much "credit" to the ethnic Jew, who BTW, wasn't a zionist? What about Engels? Is he exempt from blame for Marxism, merely because he wasn't Jewish and didn't have a catchy one-syllable name? (Marx-Engelsism?) Engels had a lot to do with creating Marxism.

Also, you wrote,

... including the influence of the Zionists, whose hearts were obviously wanting to be somewhere else than Europe...

Hertzl started out as a German nationalist. After the Dreyfus affair, he gave up on Europe because he understood the real position of Jews in Europe. It wasn't so much that his heart was elsewhere, as that his love of Germany wasn't returned. This is probably the case for many early and current Zionists. I myself came to Zionism in a complicated way. I remember stating on this board a couple years ago that I identified as a European. It saddens me to acknowledge that this is not reasonable.

If I had the money I would move to Israel right now, not because I care for anything in the Middle East or its 10th rate culture, but because it's the only Jewish state there is. I would have preferred Israel to be elsewhere, and have stated that on this board, too. If you read the personal blogs of Ashkenazim, you will see this occasionally. I'm not the only one.

In fact, an article I saw linked from Drudge yesterday was about young Israeli Jews who are moving to Germany to escape the political situation in Israel. This is not about anyone's "heart," it's just sane people who want to be left alone, but still want to be who they are, and not pretend to be something else, for instance, of Christian heritage.

Instead of attributing malign motives to Jews who do this or that, consider that these are people who don't have a place to go where being Jewish isn't an issue, even in the Jewish state, because of the neighbors.

Jews, Marxists, and many others (non-Jews and non-Marxists) have caused our current problems. You are overstating your case.

Anonymous said...

FC: and you have also used the typical anti-semitic tactic of not actually naming Marx as a Jew, but of linking to an article in which the first paragraph discusses Marx's Jewish origins. This has the effect of giving you and the others who use this tactic plausible deniability, since Marx's ethnicity isn't even mentioned in your comment, only in the linked article.

The silver lining here is that I learned from the article that Marx's father converted to Protestantism. Now, in my view, Karl Marx is still a Jew, because I think ethnicity is more important than religion. But that's just me.

Couldn't it also be said that Marxism was created by two men of Christian German heritage? If it's legitimate to blame an ideology on the ethnic, national and religious origins of its founders, wouldn't it make as much sense to blame Marxism on Protestantism, or conversion to Protestantism, or German-ness, or ...

Thanks for the article, though, I really had no idea Marx was a Protestant.

Anonymous said...

latté island: NB that Marx's mother converted to Christianity and Marx himself was baptized as a child.

Although Marx was undoubtedly Jewish, i.e., his mother was Jewish, it is indeed overstating the case to claim that Marxism is somehow a direct product of Judaism. Marxism was developed by a German and the child of apostate Jews in Western Europe--not in Poland, Morocco, Turkey, Iran, or any other region with a substantial Jewish community--yet somehow it is dubbed to be particularly Jewish ideology.

FC simply can't seem to admit that Europeans have any responsibility for anything that he doesn't like in modern Western culture. He has charged Jews with propagating, for example, "gayism", although homosexuality was and is condemned in the strongest terms in Jewish law; European pagans, on the contrary, had varying degrees of acceptance toward such activity.

Blaming Jews for all of Europe's woes is neither novel nor productive.

Hesperado said...

latté island and nonsubhomine,

Yes, Marx's father converted to the Lutheran church and baptised Marx as a boy (if not as a baby).

However:

"Although Marx was undoubtedly Jewish, i.e., his mother was Jewish, it is indeed overstating the case to claim that Marxism is somehow a direct product of Judaism."

We are not dealing with rational people here, with Freyja's cats: she conceives of Jews in a metaphysical or supernatural sense, not in rational terms whereby if a person only had a Jewish mother, and his father converted to Lutheranism then baptized him into Lutheranism, then as he grew up he became more or less an atheist -- then it is doubtful that "Jewishness" is a factor in his pathology. For Frejya's cats, however, Marx forever remains a Jew, because if a person has any Jewishness in them, they are prone to participate in the grand dastardly Macchiavellian plot which Jews are metaphysically hard-wired to engage in, in order to .... I'm not sure what the Jewish end-game is, in the fevered minds of people like Freyja's cats: Are Jews machinating in order to conquer the world? Or are Jews machinating just so they can wickedly ruin the world and foment perpetual chaos and misery among all the rest of us non-Jews? Either way, Jews are ontologically evil and by nature assiduously plot and plan against us. And, in addition, Jews are endowed with some evil preternatural power and talent to be able to pull strings all over the world, to create governments here, topple governments there, foment unrest here, ruin the economy there, change the opinions of multitudes of the population throughout the West through insidiously influential tampering in education and mass media; etc.

That's the starting point for Freyja's cats: all else -- the copious research, the citation of a jungle of meticulous factoids, the complex structures of theory -- are just the obsessive-compulsive marshalling of data to support the axiom already assumed from the start.

The Hesperado