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, Philosophy Now, 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 used to be called EDL Extra. I was a supporter of the EDL until 2012. This blog has retained the old web address.


Thursday, 8 August 2013

The Telegraph's Tim Stanley on the EDL & Islam

"By contrast [to the EDL], most Muslims cling on to values that were once definitively English and that we could do with rediscovering. Islam instructs its followers to cherish their families, to venerate women, to treat strangers kindly, to obey the law of any country they are in (yes, yes, it really does), and to give generously. One recent poll found that British Muslims donate more money to charity than any other religious group. ... I hope [Muslims] retain as much of their religious identity as possible – it is vastly superior to the materialist, secular mess that they're being compelled to become a part of."

"... my father – the most working class Englishman I know ... ." – Tim Stanley, writing in The Telegraph
This article, by Timothy Randolph Stanley, is full of the predictable snobbery, arrogance and smugness you'd expect from a critic of the EDL. Apparently, 'Tim' Stanley rationalises all this snobbery by the single fact - if it is a fact - that his dad is "the most working class Englishman" he knows. That excuses him, somehow, of being a posh snob who likes the sound of his own intelligence and culture.

Basically, Tim Stanley criticises the EDL for generalising about Islam, and then he goes right ahead and generalises about the EDL. But far worse than that are his embarrassingly positive and naïve generalisations about Islam itself. So why is it that positive generalisations about Islam, immigration, etc. are either ignored or accepted by the Left and even by The Telegraph, whereas seemingly negative ones are frowned upon? A generalisation is a generalisation even if positive; just as racism is racism even if positive (or, as some people put it, 'inverted').

If The Telegraph, as well as the Conservative Party, believes all that nonsense about Islam - as well about mass immigration, the EU, 'embracing diversity', 'community cohesion', the supposed 'Nazi' reality of all alternative right-wing groups to the Tories, etc. - then perhaps we've already lost against rising Islam and much else.

As the Gramscians and Trotskyists know, the Left has indeed won the 'culture war'. The broad left-liberal social – if not economic – positions of The Telegraph and the Conservative Party show that this is the case. Still, because the Conservative Party has still not gone far enough for the Left (young, self-consciously far-out Leftists will never be satisfied unless there is a deliciously violent and nihilistic revolution), and the economy is still not collectivist, so its 'permanent revolution' will, well, continue. Having said that, many Leftists have now accepted that the economy will never be collectivist in the Maoist, Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, etc. senses and they may not even be that bothered any more (or they may be prepared to wait longer). As long as they can rule many institutions (e.g., large parts of the law, the police, the local media, various churches, the BBC, the rights industry, the race industry, the Islamophobia industry, 'think tanks' on the 'far right', the universities, many councils, etc.) and can partly determine the way people think in the institutions they don't run (e.g., The Telegraph and the Conservative Party), then perhaps the economy no longer matters as much to them as it once did. After all, the Marxist Antonio Gramsci first acknowledged that an old-style, very violent revolution was sadly not possible in Western Europe as far back as the 1920s and 1930s. The conclusion to this wretched fact was that Leftists should "take over the institutions" instead.

But back to the Tim Stanley quote which opened this piece:

i) Muslims "donate more money to charity than any other religious group".

Tim Stanley fails to tell us that nearly all Muslims only donate to Muslim charities. And all Muslim charities only collect for strictly Islamic causes. In addition, many Muslim charities collect for terrorist groups and are well-documented in doing so. Recently a Muslim charity collected 12 thousand pounds from shoppers on the streets in Birmingham city center, money earmarked for al-Qaeda groups, the Taliban, Hamas, etc.

ii) Muslims "cherish families".

Maybe. But what does "cherish" actually mean? It often means hating and persecuting non-Muslim families in the Muslim world. It also means that many Muslim wives are beaten for being disobedient. In addition, many Muslim wives are kept at home so much that they suffer from vitamin deficiencies. (Or is Tim Stanley only talking about the professional Muslims he knows in the posh parts of London? And if that's so, why is it so?)

iii) Maybe because Tim Stanley is a Catholic (today if not yesterday), he's simply giving Islam far too much benefit of the doubt because it too, apparently, is a monotheistic religion. That is, in his fight against the "materialist, secular mess" he says we are in, he will embrace any group – including misogynist, supremacist and fascist (Islamic) ones.

iv) "Islam instructs its followers ... to venerate women."

I cannot even be bothered to criticise that mindless drivel.

v) "Muslims obey the laws of our country."

No they don't! They break it in countless instances: as with the massive sex-grooming scandal (a Muslim community problem, not a problem of individual Muslims), drug-pushing to the kuffar, Muslim block-vote rigging, council corruption, sending money to terrorists, female genital mutilation, etc. In addition, what tends to happen is rather than Muslims accommodating to British laws, British law often – very often – accommodates Muslims! [Note: Though they make up roughly 5% of the UK population, Muslims account for a whopping 13% of the prison population – Ed.]

Finally, Tim Stanley is a big and open-wide fan of Pat Buchanan (who has his very own section in Tim Stanley's blog and he has written a book on him). That's interesting bearing in mind that in the article Tommy Robinson's alleged anti-Semitism is commented upon. And Tim Stanley himself was responding to a previous piece about supposed EDL anti-Semitism. I personally don't know if Buchanan is a Jew-hater because I'm not knowledgeable enough about the man. However, tens of thousands of people certainly do think that he is. And that alone makes Stanley's supposed anti-anti-Semitism suspect - if not downright bogus.

So here's a quote from Wikipedia just to be going on with:

"Buchanan has written about the Holocaust and engaged in the defense of some accused of Nazi war crimes. ... In 1983 he criticized the U.S. Government for expressing regret over its postwar protection of Klaus Barbie. In 1985, Buchanan advocated restoring the citizenship of Arthur Rudolph, an ex-Nazi rocket scientist accused of employing slave labor at a V-2 plant. In 1987, Buchanan lobbied to stop deportation of Karl Linnas, accused of atrocities in Estonia. ... The Anti-Defamation League has called Buchanan an 'unrepentant bigot' who 'repeatedly demonizes Jews and minorities and openly affiliates with white supremacists'. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer said about Buchanan that, 'There's no doubt he makes subliminal appeals to prejudice.'"

Still, at least Pat Buchanan (see right) is not a working-class Englishman, which may really be at the heart of Tim Stanley's distaste for Tommy Robinson and the EDL (despite Stanley's dad's working class credentials).

No comments:

Post a Comment