Another retort to Anthony Browne's pamphlet
The Sharpener: Quaking under the jackboot of political correctness. Or not
Recently a hawkish hack writer in the Times and Spectator, among other places, published a pamphlet through Civitas, entitled The Retreat of Reason* ([1], [2]), in which he argues that "truth" comes in two forms - the factually correct and the politically correct, which may be entirely different. So the "politically-correct" truth is that the rise in AIDS is because teenagers have too much unsafe sex, whilst the "factual" truth is that it is because of African immigration. The whole thing strikes me as a one-sided reply to a one-sided view: it's not teenagers who are at fault, but African immigrants; it's not skinheads who are behind the rise in anti-semitic attacks, but Muslim youths; the idea that the truth is actually a mixture of both doesn't seem to occur - if not to Anthony Browne himself than to whoever wrote this press release (and to Melanie Phillips, who parrots it.) The complete text is available in PDF format here, hat tip: The Bewilderness.
More: Talk Politics, Robert Sharp.
Comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4603296.stm
I wonder if this attack was carried out by muslim youths?
Posted by: Shamil | January 12, 2006 1:08 AM
Having read the book, no I don't think it does occur to him but then that's the beauty of free speech - he can freely claim that its all down to Muslims and we can freely demonstrate that he's wrong with evidence and then call him a reactionary quasi-fascist twat.
Simple but effective.
Posted by: Unity | January 12, 2006 1:44 AM
Shamil,
You know killing Jews is Christian Europes time honored tradition. It is interesting and rather ironic that some in Europe who are friends of Isreal and the Jewish people also want Europe to go back to its Judeo-Christian roots, whatever that may mean whilst not considering that when Europe was christian it was wildly and violently anti semitic.
Even if you consider that the German Nazis werent really Christian, the German people were which would make you wonder how much of the Nazi propaganda did they need in order to scape goat the Jews in Germany.
In any event whatever crime happens at the hands of Muslims should be warned against. When the Muslims follow the kufar in whatever ideological endeavor, it means trouble for the youths.
Posted by: Bikhair | January 12, 2006 4:20 AM
Fear of the Bolsheviks intensified anti-Semitism in Central Europe. Most of the original Russian revolutionaries were Jewish (understandable, given the vicious anti-Semitism of the Tsarist regime), as were the founders of the ill-fated Bavarian Soviet Republic. It was therefore easy for the Nazis and other fascists to portray Communism as a Jewish plot to destroy Christian civilization.
Now it seems like the disease of anti-Semitism has infected the Muslim world (popularity of Mein Kampf, Protocols of the Elders of Zion etc). Why do Muslims seem so good at aping the worst aspects of Western civilization?
Posted by: George Carty
|
January 12, 2006 9:03 AM
Interesting points George. I dont buy that the books mentioned are sold heavily in the Muslim world. This is a fantasy scenario created by the usual suspects. I doubt those on the receiving end of zionist terror need a book to reach a conclusion on jewish extremism. Why are attacks on Arabs, the largest group of semetic people on earth never deemed "anti-semetic" ?
Posted by: DrM | January 12, 2006 11:02 AM
My point about Russia was connected to the idea that there is a "New Anti-semitism".
The people who promote this idea like to attack leftist academics and muslim immigrants but they seem to never talk about anti-semitism in Eastern Europe which is clearly coming from far Right groups and politicians.
This whole idea of a "New Anti-semitism" started around late 2001. The premise is that criticism of Israel is just a cover for anti-semitism.
As has been suggested by others this in my opinion is just a way of silencing critics of Israel. These incidents in Russia have been going on all through the nineties and no one made a big deal of it. Yet people in western europe and america start criticising Israel and suddenly this is evidence of some kind of new esoteric anti-semitism.
I find it quite telling that Melanie Phillips has no rant about this incident on her website today.
Posted by: Shamil | January 12, 2006 12:13 PM
Why are attacks on Arabs, the largest group of semetic people on earth never deemed "anti-semetic" ?
For the same reason why "conventional current" flows from positive to negative, even though the electrons actually flow from negative to positive. The word "anti-Semitism" was invented in Germany, with the meaning of "anti-Jewish racism". It didn't matter that worldwide most Semites are Arabs, as most Semites in Germany were Jews.
Posted by: George Carty
|
January 12, 2006 1:59 PM
Another question, do you buy the theory put forward that the reason why Ahmadinejad and other Islamists espouse holocaust denial is not because they wish to repeat the Holocaust (the motive of neo-Nazi holocaust deniers), but because they want to portray Zionism as a western conspiracy against Islam, and persecution of Jews by Western Christians doesn't fit with this view of Zionism?
Posted by: George Carty
|
January 12, 2006 2:02 PM
"Another question, do you buy the theory put forward that the reason why Ahmadinejad and other Islamists espouse holocaust denial is not because they wish to repeat the Holocaust (the motive of neo-Nazi holocaust deniers), but because they want to portray Zionism as a western conspiracy against Islam, and persecution of Jews by Western Christians doesn't fit with this view of Zionism?"
Partly but in Ahmadinejad's case I think it's just a matter of attention seeking.
By the way Yusuf why wasn't my other post posted?
Posted by: Shamil | January 12, 2006 2:17 PM
As-Salaamu 'alaikum
Shamil: most likely, because I didn't see it before logging off to go to Kingston this afternoon. George Carty has his comments auto-posted because he has a TypeKey. (The same is true of my comments - if I didn't, I'd have to moderate my own comments.) If you got one (they are free), the same would be true of your posts.
Posted by: Yusuf Smith
|
January 12, 2006 4:58 PM
George,
Shiaism is a Zoraostrain conspiracy against Islam.
Posted by: Bikhair | January 12, 2006 7:52 PM
Shiaism is a Zoroastrian conspiracy against Islam.
IIRC this is a common viewpoint among Salafis, but I don't understand this argument. Shi'ism did not become principally associated with Iran until the Safavid dynasty, over 800 years after the Sunni/Shi'a split.
Before then, the main Shi'a state was the Fatimid Caliphate centred in Egypt - an area which was badly oppressed by the Persians in its pre-Islamic history, and would therefore likely have had little sympathy for Zoroastrianism...
Posted by: George Carty
|
January 13, 2006 8:40 AM
Understood, but the times have changed and so have the targets of anti-semetism.
Posted by: DrM | January 14, 2006 6:13 AM
Understood, but the times have changed and so have the targets of anti-semetism.
Well, commonly used terms for hatred, particularly those ending in "phobia", are very often inaccurate anyway. Anti-Semitism was invented to refer to Jew-hatred but is equally valid to refer to Arab-hatred; Islamophobia (and indeed "homophobia") are often hates rather than fears.
Posted by: Yusuf Smith | January 14, 2006 10:58 AM
Carty,
I was only kidding.
"IIRC this is a common viewpoint among Salafis..."
I have never heard a salafi say this. I just thought it was too funny. Shias are funny.
Posted by: Bikhair | January 14, 2006 8:44 PM
Understood, but the times have changed and so have the targets of anti-semitism.
Hence my mention of "conventional current". The direction of electric current flow within a circuit was arbitrarily defined as being from positive to negative, and all the literature on electricity was written based on this convention. By the time it was discovered that electric current actually consisted of electrons travelling from negative to positive, the convention was so strongly established that it could not be changed without re-writing millions of books.
Similarly, if the meaning of "anti-Semitism" was changed from "anti-Jewish racism" to "anti-Arab racism", millions of books would have to be re-written.
Posted by: George Carty
|
January 15, 2006 12:10 PM