The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

This blog once bore the name 'EDL Extra'. I supported the EDL until 2012. As the reader will see, the last post which supports the EDL dates back to 2012. This blog, nonetheless, retains the former web address.

Thursday, 2 December 2010

The Muslim Council of Britain at the Opposing Islamophobia & Racism Conference



One of the main guests at the Opposing Islamophobia and Racism Conference in London on the 11th of December will be the Muslim Council of Britain.

New Labour actually helped create this Islamist organisation. Not even Muslims are happy with it because it is a synthetic organisation specifically government-created to be the conduit between Muslims and the state. But most of the MCB’s leaders didn’t really represent anyone except the Muslim Brotherhood, of which it is a part.

However, New Labour did once cut (close?) links with the MCB... Only to retie those links later. Why? There is a mountain of evidence that tells us that the MCB is not a ‘moderate’ organisation. Sure, it is not as Islamist as the Muslim Association of Britain, whose leader, Azzam Tammini, simply adores the death-cult Hamas. That is because we now have this:

MCB = good Muslim cop
MAB = bad Muslim cop

Yes, you guessed it; the MAB is part of the Muslim Brotherhood as well. So how can the MCB have genuine and real doctrinal and political differences with the Islamist MAB?

The Conservative leader, David Cameron, has said that his party ‘won’t do formal things’ with the MCB, but Ken Livingstone and all the others who are part of this Conference are happy to. This is largely a reaction to the Deputy Secretary of the MCB, Daud Abdullah, who supports Hamas’ terror campaign. (The Hamas campaign is designed to taunt the Israelis into doing something outrageous in front of Western anti-Zionist journalists and cameramen. A dead Palestinian child always does the world of good for Hamas’s cause – which is the annihilation of Israel.)

Abdullah’s position on Palestine is a strange reason to cut links. Cameron will have to understand that very many Muslims here in Britain support the killing machine Hamas. There is one particular distinction politicians need to understand. That is, many Muslims believe in terrorism against the Israelis but not terrorism at home. They couldn’t believe in that; could they? Muslims would hardly get away with saying that they think that terrorism on their own soil is legitimate. That would result in political suicide. And many Muslims are far too clever for that. Let the official loonies, the Bad Muslim Cops, like Islam4UK, Muslim Against Crusades and Hizb ut-Tahrir, hint at the legitimacy of home-grown terrorism. Many of the Good Muslim Cops believe that too. Of course they do not say it. Well, they don’t say it to the Birmingham Mail or on Question Time. Whether they say it in private or not, I will leave it to the reader to decide.

In any case, what exactly is it that Cameron means by the phrase ‘we won’t do formal things’ with the MCB? Not formal things? Private things instead? Like those secret meetings with the IRA in the 1970s and 80s? These non-formal things may well be just as dangerous and anti-British as any direct formal links with the MCB. My advice is:

Don’t give the Islamists, or any offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood like the MCB and the MAB, the oxygen of legitimacy.

Tell that group to get its house in order. And not just for kuffar consumption; but in reality. Until that day, which won’t come, keep away from the MCB. After all, having formal, and even informal, links with the MCB is little better than having links with Class War or Permanent Revolution.

Cameron spoke about ‘other representative bodies’ other than the MCB. Which other ‘representative bodies’? We’ve already seen that the MAB is, if anything, more extreme and Islamist than the MCB. What about the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACUK)? That group has a history of anti-semitism and encouraging Muslim block-voting. Its logic is simple: vote only for Muslim MPs. This explains why many Muslims vote Labour – because Labour has Muslim and Asian MPs. Thus the Conservative’s ‘first Muslim MP’, according to Cameron, can only be a positive thing in the tribal politics of Islam.

What are ‘community leaders’ anyway? Do Christians, Hindus, golfers, etc. have community leaders? Were these Muslim ‘community leaders’ voted in by Muslims (or anyone else)? Of course they weren’t. They are soi-disant community leaders. In a sense, they vote themselves in, as South American dictators used to do. And isn’t having a self-contained ‘community’ itself a divisive thing? Don’t they encourage the atomisation, not the pluralism, of society? Don’t they emphasise the sense of separateness which Muslims already feel? Indeed don’t these community leaders encourage this sense of distance from the kuffar precisely because this is what Islam demands? True pluralism, true interaction with other non-Muslim cultures and communities, would either water down the faith of Muslims or contaminate it. Every Western style or idea is a direct or indirect threat to Islam itself – and thus a threat to each and every Muslim in the UK. The biggest threat to pluralism are these Muslim community leaders themselves because they help build the self-imposed Muslim ghettoes that every non-Muslim (except Trots and Respect) is against. Even if they dare not say so.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CONFERENCE

Speak out against racism and Islamophobia
Register your place online today here

NATIONAL CONFERENCE

Saturday 11 December
10am–6pm
Mary Ward House
5/7 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SN

Ken Livingstone
Chair, One Society Many Cultures
Doreen Lawrence OBE
Shabana Mahmood
Shadow Home Office Minister
Jack Dromey MP
Shadow Minister for Communities and Local Government
Anas Altikriti
Spokesperson, British Muslim Initiative
Sir Geoffrey Bindman
Christine Blower
General Secretary, National Union of Teachers
Mathew Bolton
London Citizens
Kay Carberry
Assistant General Secretary, TUC
Rt.Rev Stephen Cottrell
The Bishop of Chelmsford
Dr. Edie Friedman
Executive Director, Jewish Council for Racial Equality
Dr. Jonathan Githens-Mazer
Co-Director, European Muslim Research Centre (EMRC)
Billy Hayes
General Secretary, Communication Workers Union
Diana Holland
Assistant General Secretary (Equalities), Unite the Union
Talha Jamil Ahmad
Muslim Council of Britain
Bruce Kent
Vice President, Pax Christi
Jean Lambert MEP
Green Party
Claude Moraes MEP
Labour Party
Lisa Nandy MP
Labour Party
Peter Oborne
Daily Telegraph’s chief political commentator
Ismail Patel
You Elect
Kanja Sesay
NUS Black Students’ Officer
Martin Smith
Love Music Hate Racism
Hywel Williams MP
Plaid Cymru
Salma Yaqoob
Leader, Respect Party
London Citizens

Conference themes include:
• Reversing the tide of reaction – racism and Islamophobia today
• Muslims under siege
• No racist concessions to the BNP and EDL
• Defending our freedoms – no to religious bans
• One Society Many Cultures

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'How the term "Islamophobia" got shoved down your throat', from Jihad Watch

I've maintained for years that the term "Islamophobia" was a politically manipulative coinage designed to silence critics of Islamic supremacism. Now Claire Berlinski explains how Islamic supremacists devised it for precisely that purpose. "Moderate Muslim Watch: How the Term 'Islamophobia' Got Shoved Down Your Throat," by Claire Berlinski at Ricochet.com, November 24 (thanks to Creeping Sharia):

Now here's a point you might deeply consider: The neologism "Islamophobia" did not simply emerge ex nihilo. It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia. If that name dimly rings a bell, it should: I've mentioned it before, and it's particularly important because it was co-founded by Anwar Ibrahim--the hero of Moderate Islam who is now trotting around the globe comparing his plight to that of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. "This loathsome term," he writes,

"is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics."

In another article concerning the many moderate Muslims whose voices have been drowned out by Saudi-financed Muslim Brotherhood front groups, Muhammad describes the strategy behind the word's invention:

In an effort to silence critics of political Islam, advocates needed to come up with terminology that would enable them to portray themselves as victims. Muhammad said he was present when his then-allies, meeting at the offices of the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) in Northern Virginia years ago, coined the term "Islamophobia."

Muhammad said the Islamists decided to emulate the homosexual activists who used the term "homophobia" to silence critics. He said the group meeting at IIIT saw "Islamophobia" as a way to "beat up their critics."

Really imagine that scene: a bunch of Islamists admiring how astutely the queers--people who in their ideal world would be served with the lash or hanged--had portrayed their critics as mentally disturbed. Brilliant. Let's take a leaf from them and then kill them. The association of anti-Islamism--the noblest form of liberal anti-totalitarianism--with gay-bashing rednecks in the grip of a psychosexual panic was not just one of those linguistic accidents of history, in other words. These guys were sitting there in Virginia and really thinking about the best way to exploit the weaknesses of the Western psyche. They came up with this word--and admit it, it's clever; I challenge you to find a better one if you want to yank the West's chain--and they marketed it with petrodollars, and now it truly does drive public discourse and policy the world over. I was asked when I was recently on a Turkish television news show whether the Tea Party was "Islamophobic." That's what they're hearing here in Turkey, thanks to the IIIT. It's not an indigenous Turkish concept, I assure you....

No comments:

Post a Comment