Wednesday, 13 April 2011

The SWP defends Muslims' ‘right’ to further the Trot revolution...oh, and wear the burqa as well





[Top: 'Defend... cultural freedom'! Are these Muslimah Islamists taking the piss out of us? Well, not out of the EDL. But they're certainly taking the piss out of the SWP and various gullible liberals. Is that the type of 'cultural freedom' that's practiced in no Muslim or Islamic state? Is that the cultural freedom that Iran, Pakistan, the Taliban's Afghanistan, Hamas's Palestine, etc. have crushed? Stop taking the piss. Stop the blatant taqiyya. This is is just like Islamists using human rights talk. Save it for Shami and Liberty and the SWP. Right: female subjugation is the new SWP feminism. It is Brown Exotic feminism - better than the White variety.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDL Extra comments on the Socialist Worker Online article, 'Stop Islamophobic attacks on the veil', 16th April, 2011. (Comments are in red.)


“[t]he vast mass of workers will be liberated from their religious illusions not by arguments, pamphlets or books, but by participation in the revolutionary struggle, and beyond, in the building of socialism. In such a situation it is incumbent on the party to ensure that religious differences, or differences between the religious and the non-religious, do not obstruct the unity of working class struggle.” - Chris Molyneux (SWP) willingness to seize opportunities to draw individual Islamists into genuinely radical forms of struggle alongside them’. - Chris Harman (SWP)

Covering your face in public in France is now illegal. Muslim women in France who choose to wear a niqab, or face veil, in public face arrest and a fine of 150 euros. French president Nicolas Sarkozy says this is about liberating women and integrating Muslims into French society. But Sarkozy has never been concerned with women’s oppression. Instead he is worried about the electoral threat from the far right. [Neat little Trotskyist take on what’s happened and why it’s happening. The SWP likes it simple. That’s why its keen on loads of conspiracy theories, especially the ones which include Zionists or Jews. But any will do to make the world simpler and thus more amenable to a Trot revolution which can only be fired by such simplifications. (Everything I have just said also applies to the far right and Islamism.)]


A recent poll showed that Marine Le Pen of the fascist Front National Party is ahead of Sarkozy by two points. [If this analysis is correct, then Sarkozy is no more cynical, opportunistic and power-mad than the SWP - probably less so. After all, just as Sarkozy may well be exploiting ‘anti-Muslim sentiment’, so the SWP is itself trying to use Muslims and Islamist issues to further its own revolution.


After all, two of its leaders largely formulated the SWP position on Islam and Muslims. Chris Molyneux said that the ‘revolutionary potential of Muslims’ and Islamists ‘could be exploited’. (Sorry! It’s actually the reverse of this - Muslims are actually exploiting the SWP.)


Chris Harman wrote ‘The Prophet and the Proletariat’ in which he tried to find some common ground between atheistic and materialist Marxism and theocratic Islamism. Nevertheless, he never went as far as the current SWP is going in its enabling and patronisation of all things Muslim and Islamic. He seemed to recognise, or admit to, the essential conservative and theocratic nature of both Islam and Islamism.]


Instead of standing up to Le Pen, Sarkozy is shifting ever rightwards. He sees attacking Muslims as a vote winner. [Just as the SWP is patronising Muslims - not as a ‘vote winner’, but as a means to its revolution and to ‘radicalisation’. That is, making things worse for everyone outside the tiny world of the SWP and the very large world of Muslims.


Again, the pure opportunism and cynicism of the SWP’s attitude to Islam, Islamism and Muslim is staggering - or at least it would be if the SWP hadn’t been as opportunistic and cynical as this many times before (but on different issues).]


Increasing “social integration” is another lie. If some Muslim women want to cover up when in public, a ban will simply push them to stay at home. [Everything the state and ‘the right’ say is a ‘lie’ to the party which believes in ‘lying for Justice’.] The French ban is just the latest example of the dangerous rise in Islamophobia across Europe. Muslims are seen as the enemy at home and in the imperialist wars abroad. [Doesn’t the SWP realise that Muslims have had massive ‘imperialist’ and expansionist empires over the last 1, 300 years? Muhammed himself started it all off by conquering and destroying surrounding empires and civilisations. Doesn’t the SWP realise that Muslims more or less invented mass slavery and that their empires were built on slavery and plunder? (All this far outdid anything Western ‘imperialists’ ever did.)


The fact is. Yes, many SWP will know this. But that doesn’t matter because stressing the imperialist and racist nature of Islam and its past doesn’t work, politically, for the SWP. And that’s all that really matters to the SWP - what works, politically,for the SWP.]


No wonder many Muslim women see wearing the hijab or the face veil as an expression of resistance to racism and pride in their religious identity. [So it’s not about ‘modesty’ after all. A Muslim woman told me only yesterday, on a Face Book site, that it's all about ‘modesty’. I said that the burqa and hijab are symbols of Islamism. The SWP, here, comes fairly close to that by stressing its political nature and not mentioning at all the lie that it’s all about modesty.


Still, the SWP is Marxist therefore all its interpretations of Islam and Muslims must be political. There is a problem, however. The Queen Bitch of Anti-Zionism, Sue Blackwell (at Birmingham University) says in one breath that she’s a Marxist and an atheist. In the next breath that she ‘admires Muslims and Islam’. Does she tell these Muslims (whom she admires and some of whom are her friends) that she really thinks that their religion ‘is a mere epiphenomenon of the socio-economic substructure which underpins it’? Of course she doesn’t! But how does the SWP and Sue Blackwell sustain this deeply cynical and opportunistic attitude towards Muslims and Islam?


On one hand, their religion is ‘mere empty superstructure’, and their religious words simply ‘disguise deeper socio-political realities’. But on the other hand they pretend that they admire Muslims, their religion and their spiritual ‘fight for Justice’?


I’ll tell you how this conjuring trick is pulled off. It is pulled off because Muslims and Islamists are doing exactly the same kind of things to the SWP and to other Leftists. They too are using the Trots to further their own agenda (just as Muslims and even Islamists use ‘rights organisations’, and the language of human rights, to fight for Islam). This is a game in which both groups are using each other. Indeed it is a game in which most members of each party know that they are using each other. But that doesn’t matter to the SWP because ‘any means necessary’ are acceptable to bring forward the revolution. And that doesn’t matter to Islamists and Muslims because anything goes if it brings about the enlargement of the Abode of Islam, the installation of more Sharia law and of more Islamic states throughout the globe.


The final point of this cynical and opportunistic ‘relationship’ is the sad fact, sad to the SWP, that Muslims and the Islamists are going to win by a long shot. And just as in Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Algeria, and many other Arab and non-Arab Muslim countries from the 1950s onwards, Muslims and Islamists have put their Leftist enablers up against many walls and shot the sad stupid fuckers dead!]


They want to show they are refusing to be cowed. Socialists should reject those on the left who support the veil ban because they support France’s claim to be a non-religious, secular society. [No. Trotskyists, not socialists, should ‘support’ Islamists because such an opportunist and cynical support may pay them revolutionary dividends. That support is anything but altruistic or even sympathetic. It is cynical to the last degree. But, then again, what’s new? We are talking about Trots here and what makes a Trot a Trot is that they will say anything (or lie about anything), do anything, and support anything if these things will help ‘radicalise’ and bring about the middle-class professional and student Trot revolution.]


France isn’t secular. Christianity is the dominant religion. And the French state isn’t targeting religion in general but Islam in particular. [This ‘analysis’ is just plain pathetic! Being SWP, and thus theory-intoxicated, these people cannot distinguish between the simple fact that most French people are indeed Christians and the fact that that this country is still nonetheless secular in theory and in practice. It’s almost as if the SWP has swallowed vast swathes of Islamist and Muslim ‘political theory’ which has told them that there is no difference between religion and the state, and that there should be no such difference.


Thus you get the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACUK), for example, saying that the Jewish religion has so-and-so ‘representatives in Parliament’, when what they actually mean is that this so-and-so number is simply the number of Jews in Parliament. To them, and to Inayat Bunglawalah, Jewish MPs must represent the Jewish religion, just as they must represent Israel - the ‘Jewish State’ (actually, a state for Jews).


So this tribal mentality of the vast majority of Muslims is now reflected in SWP ‘theory’. They too cannot see past the Christian majority that makes up the French nation, as well as the religious impetus they impose on the ‘Christian-Zionist invaders’ (something the SWP has clearly stolen from their new-found Muslim and Islamist friends).]


Some feminists argue for a ban because they say covering up is a sign of women’s oppression. [But not SWP 'feminists' who now believe that arguing against the burqa, and even against genital mutilation and stoning, is a sign of believing in ‘Western imperialism’ against the Brown Exotic Oppressed; whom can never do wrong to Trots (who think that everyone one of them is but a child to be patronised and even to be fought for).] But for women’s liberation to have any real meaning, women must have the right to wear what they choose. [The old-fashioned Leftists and Trots never said that about working class women wearing short skirts, or choosing to work in the porno industry, or wanting to cook for their husbands, etc. But they were White, not Brown and Exotic. And thus because the Brown Exotic is childlike, they must abide by another set of rules or even by no rules at all.]


Women’s bodies have long been a battleground. Women have been condemned both for showing too much flesh and too little. [Yes, and many Leftist feminists were the ones who slagged many women - white ones, of course! - for showing off ‘too much flesh’. Now the Brown Exotic wants to subjugate herself, even if she’s not forced to do so, then that’s fine because anything she does is fine and to think otherwise is to be ‘racist’ and ‘imperialist’. Actually, to think otherwise is to work against the use of the Brown Exotic by neo-colonialist Trots who are playing a very similar game to that which their forebears played. Instead of treating the Brown Exotic as bad children, they treat them as children who are never responsible for what they do, even when they blow innocent civilians up. This is racism, even if an ’inversion’ of the racism of many of their colonialist forebears.]


Laws that punish women for their choice of dress or religion do not liberate them. They are an instrument of oppression and prejudice. History shows that politicians often use racist scapegoating in times of crisis and falling popularity. What is happening in France should be a warning to us all. [You see again? In one breath they believe (but rarely say nowadays) that religious ‘activism’ or words are ‘merely an epiphenomenon of socio-economic realities’. Or, in this example, an epiphenomenon of ‘times of crisis’. Yet on the other hand these Trots also have to patronise Muslims by pretending they respect Islam and the spiritual words of Muslims.


Hypocrisy. Opportunism. And pure cynicism! That is Trotskyism. That is the SWP.]

No comments:

Post a Comment