Tag Archives: Racism

The Enlightenment of the Brave Saira Khan

When it dawns on the enlightened Saira Khan that the truth must come out, she really goes for it, and reveals some tragic long held secrets of abuse She surprises herself at the behaviour of Pakistani men (not all, we must inevitably add), and rallies around our shared values for peace and freedom.

I’ve become an admirer of Saira, because it takes some doing for a Muslim women to speak the way she does on Loose Women (UK daytime TV show). I’m sure she’s been influenced and helped by being part of that show, and the result is that she is providing a significant contribution, for the benefit of young girls and women suffering abuse.

This important of voice of hers cannot be under-estimated.

I don’t agree with Saira on all points. It’s nothing to do with religion? Yes it is.

Saira On Islamic Terrorism

We start with Saira’s input on an episode on Islamic terrorism.

Let’s dig into this a little …

Whether you are white or you are Muslim …

There are no white Muslims? There are no non-white non-Muslims opposed to Islam?

ISLAM. IS. NOT. A. RACE.

Islam is a political judicial ideology, as well as a religion – it says so itself. Read the texts.

It’s not only legitimate to oppose Islam, as it is Communism, Fascism, Christianity, or any ideology, … for any liberal, it’s a duty: read the texts of Islam, especially the Quran, which is presented as the ‘inerrant’ word of Allah. What honest liberal would not oppose such an ideology?

Religions are let off the hook far too easily.

We have to feel what we can say without being deemed a racist.

Let that sink in. I ask you to do this, not to pick on Saira, but to point out that to declare criticism of Islam to be racism is a very common defensive stance we see regularly.

Every time there is an issue about Muslims, I’M brought out to talk about it.

Saira! You go on Loose Women and CHOOSE to talk about it. And, now that you are being more honest about it, I’m very glad that you do.

I want Jane to come out, I want you to come out. Because we are united by our values, not by religion. If we live in this country we have to put our hands up and say we are British, and we are all aligned by the same things.

Who would Saira not want to talk about it? White working class men?

Nevertheless, it’s warming to hear Saira say this.

(But, note later, that she also effectively says she IS the sort of person that CAN talk about some issues, because she is ‘part of the community’. Mixed messages like this are common.)

Saira moves on to integration, and how Britain is a well integrated society, an yet so many Muslim children don’t feel integrated …

But we are not integrated. If you go to a school … and your best mate goes on six weeks school holiday and doesn’t come back and nobody asks you, why didn’t your friend come back, you’d feel angry. Who do you talk to? You can’t talk to your family, you can’t even talk to your school.

In 2012 I visited 75 primary schools, and I have to say, some of those schools would have been quite happy as if they were in Afghanistan. How can you have that in Britain? How can you have schools, with white teachers, and fully Muslim kids, and the parents are dictating the agenda?

These are strong words. So, don’t be surprised if Saira gets some flack for this.

And those teachers say to me, we don’t have the powers, we don’t have the resources. We are too scared to say something in case we are deemed racist.

And, with regard to authorities outside the ‘communities’ that Saira refers to, such as schools, social services, police, politicians, there has been this reluctance. And that’s because of the recent history of conflating Islam, culture and ethnicity to the point where any is all too easily labelled as a racist Islamophobe.

Jane asks about Jihadi John …

He came over here from Kuwait. As far as I know he went to a multicultural westernised school. He got our free education, free healthcare. We were nothing but kind to him and his family. Where did that hatred for Britain and all that we represent, come from?

Saira …

It comes from home. It comes from ordinary Muslim families that don’t speak up, who actually hear what’s being said, and don’t make a big deal about it. And that’s why I say today, it is not good enough for the majority of peaceful Muslims living in this country not to come out and speak up and say, not in our name. And these people are using Islam, and Muslims, and it’s branded all over the place. I’m a Muslim. Not in my name

A great sentiment, Saira. Thank you. I agree. It’s not in your name.

But it’s quite counter to what we have been told for years, not only by peaceful Muslims, but by Islamic apologist non-Muslims. Here’s why:

By adopting the narrative of “Nothing to do with Islam”, how can you then come out and say, “Not in our name?”

  • Islamic terrorism clearly does have something to do with Islam.
  • And it’s not in ‘your’ name that they do it, but in the name of Islam.
  • And, Islam isn’t just ‘your’ Islam – remember how diverse Islam is? So we are told.

This is where it becomes a bit tricky for a critic of Islam.

You can hardly use unifying calls to Islam, as many Muslims do, and then deny that unity. We hear about the Caliphate, the Ummah, Brothers and Sisters, ‘Nation of Islam’, ‘Muslim lands’ – there is no doubt that if one claims to follow Allah, Mohammed, and the Quran, and declare you are a Muslim (the shahadah), then you are a Muslim.

Despite that, Muslims around the world are endlessly declaring other Muslims to be non-Muslims, not proper Muslims, not Islamic enough, not authentic, …

If any particular Muslim thinks they are an authentic Muslim, then without some ‘Pope’ to determine otherwise, who is to say who is not a Muslim?

But,  Muslims denounce other Muslims regularly. And “Nothing to do with Islam” has been a huge confidence trick.

And what’s more, the fools on the left are all too eager to join in with this duplicity.

Saira …

I want to see a million people marching in this country, led by Muslims, led by moderate Muslims, to say, this is not in our name. Because I think indigenous people of this country, now, deserve people, somebody looking like me, saying, we are with you.

Wow! But she’s has a point.

However, here’s a contradictory point. You’ll note that indigenous peoples around the world are a common cause for supportive activism, among the left – with the exception of white people.

Of course, the term ‘indigenous’ doesn’t carry the same meaning in a genuinely mixed race multicultural society like ours, and quite rightly. We have many generations of British born people, of various ethnicities, and many children or other descendants of mixed raced relationships. A person with any skin colour could be as ‘indigenous’ as any particular white person. At least in part, my heritage on both sides is Irish from about three or four generations. There will be descendants of other ethnicities with a longer heritage than mine.

But, I hope you see the problem. When Saira thinks there’s a point in mentioning ‘indigenous peoples’ she might feel as though she’s referring to white people, as a majority, but already Saira has declared, and goes on to declare, the issue is about cultural values. It’s not about race – or at least it wouldn’t be, if only the left and much of the press weren’t so keen to make it about race. There’s a lot of race baiting going on, and far less actual racism.

Saira …

Just to let you know, when I say things, I get abused, I’m called a coconut*, .., I’m called a racist.

(*coconut: brown on the outside, white on the inside)

It’s both tragic and amusing how many non-white racists are prepared to call other people racist.

I’m attacked by white British liberals, as well as members of my own community. I don’t care.

Nuff said.

The discussion moves on to parental responsibility, and being aware of the radicalisation of children,

You can’t watch them all the time, but you do have a sense of who their friends are, what they are doing, and how they’re acting.

Fair point.

But I do have some concern for some Muslim mothers. Some of the more pious and misogynistic parts of the Muslim community actually give young sons greater authority over the female family members, both sisters and mothers.

In some places, like Saudi, there are widowed women who are under control of their young sons, their ‘guardians’, that prevent the women going out alone. They may even require the son’s permission to take up employment. This Islamic male domination reaches out to other Muslim communities too.

With regard to the Pakistani Muslim community, when Pakistani model Qandeel Baloch was killed by brother, many British Muslim young men were on social media declaring they’d have done the same had their sister dishonoured the family.

This is how messy it is, and though I agree with Saira that parents should take more note, there are cultural and religious influences that prevent that happening.

Saira is also asked whether parents should ‘shop’ (expose, report to authorities) radicalised children.

I’ve shopped my own cousin who came to this country on a sponsorship form and disappeared within fifteen days. It was all pre-planned, I had not idea about it. Am I not going to shop him in just because he’s my cousin? No. I’m going to shop him in because he went against my British values of honesty, decency and respect.

Honest? Decency? Respect? Respect for the law?

This is worth noting, because there are so many people on the left that actually condone illegal immigration. It doesn’t matter that honest legal immigrants are prevented from coming here, or that illegal immigration cannot vet those arriving for their intentions.

Even ex-Muslims and fanatic for  ‘open doors’, Maryam Namazie doesn’t want to avoid proper vetting:

But, back to a leaving remark from Saira ..

I say to people in my own community, if you don’t like it here, go and live somewhere else. I want you to own it. I want you to stop cowering behind “Oh, I’m too scared to be racist.” If you want to have a conversation, and you want to put people on the spot, then you own it and you say it, you are not a racist.

That’s quite a statement. Well done Saira.

Abuse in Pakistani Muslim Families

Bear with me on this aside, you’ll get the point. … Some time ago, atheist Richard Dawkins collected and published on his site some of the many examples of abuse and death threats he received through various channels, from lovely religious people that didn’t appreciate his atheism. He made light of it. The messages were hilariously stupid.

Mayor of London, sad Sadiq Khan (no relation to Saira) didn’t quite take the same tack. He made a racist meal of it, and wallowed in his Muslim victimhood as he read out the abuse he received. … Except …

One of the examples he read out was a mere question, from the daughter of Muslim father and non-Muslim white mother. It was from none other than Shazia Hobbes, author of The Gori’s Daughter.

This was the ‘hate speech’ that Sadiq Khan read out:

If you use a knife to mutilate your daughter’s vagina will the full force of the law be brought down on you? Asking for a Muslim. Thanks.

Given that at the time this was written there were thousands of recorded incidents of FGM, and zero prosecutions, it seems like a reasonable question, especially from a daughter of a Muslim. For more context, here’s Shazia’s letter in response.

This is the context of ‘hate speech’ and the fear of being called a racist, that Saira has been talking about above, with the other context of Islamic terrorism.

And so, it was with some surprise, and great admiration, that I heard Saira broaching this subject, again on Loose Women. …

Saira begins by telling this story …

In June 2002, Mukhtār Mā’ī was the survivor of a gang rape as a form of honour revenge, on the orders of a tribal council of the local Mastoi Baloch clan that was richer and more powerful as opposed to her Tatla clan in that region. See here.

Saira …

She [Mukhtār Mā’ī ] then went on to set up a charity in Pakistan to help women like that. … She was put on a fashion show in Pakistan, which shows that progress is being made, slowly. The designer said that she wanted her to be a symbol of hope and for women’s rights.

Picking up Saira’s earlier point, “I’m attacked by white British liberals“, we find this sort of attack on one’s intentions happens so often if non-Muslims try to support Muslim women at all.

Yes, as a Humanist I oppose all religions, and yes, I find Islam to be particularly bad. But that doesn’t negate my support for women, even Muslim women, especially Muslim women, that are oppressed by cultural norms that are perpetuated by Islam.

Now, specific cultures may result in different specific brutal and misogynistic practices, but you will still find that much of the justification comes from the religious modesty and honour system. I’d like to see anyone justify these acts of abuse using the Humanist Manifesto. Old religious texts perpetuate old misogynistic values into the present.

And it’s here I’m guessing we’d still see Saira reacting negatively to comments on Islam, despite her earlier statement, “Because we are united by our values, not by religion.” Yes, we should be, and religion should not be let off the hook so easily.

But, to continue, at 2:10, we come to Saira’s brave revelation …

… at thirteen years old, sitting in my bedroom, a male member of my family – he’s died now – came in, and did things …

Please, listen to Saira’s story directly, in her own words. She struggles to hold it together, but does manage to do so.

I’ll pick up points salient to the wider message. …

It is wrong. It is not culturally acceptable. It is not religiously acceptable.

Correct. It is not acceptable. But note that Saira points out that it is unacceptable both culturally, and religiously.

For those that want to protect the religion and say, “It’s not the religion, it’s the culture,” well, it is both, and is unacceptable as both.

The culture in Pakistan is a mixture of older traditional culture and religion. The religion and the culture ARE used to justify these behaviours, because in both, women are second class citizens.

How on earth can a religion be excused, when it endorses: taking a woman’s testimony to be worth half that of a man; beating of wives; … Of course such a religion will perpetuate the misogyny and ‘toxic masculinity’ that was present when it arose – in Islam’s case, 1400 year old misogyny.

Culturally we can’t talk about it [abuse], because we [women] are seen as the ones that inspired it, there’s no help.

Quite. And this aspect of the culture is right there in the religious texts, and encouraged by the modesty rules that see women as the provokers of men’s uncontrollable lust.

It is not JUST the culture. Because this attitude remains prevalent across many cultures that are intertwined with Islam. And with other religions (e.g. conservative Christianity in the USA).

On the Fusion of Culture AND Religion

Let’s hear more from Saira, on another Loose Women episode, about a visit to Pakistan, because that will reveal more about the cultural AND the religious acceptance of the abuse of women.

I was sent to Pakistan by the BBC to do a documentary … There was one day where the prophet Mohammed’s birthday was to be celebrated. I had an all-male British team with me. We went to this square, and there were just thousands of men, and there wasn’t a woman in sight. And my director was quite nervous, and I said, look, we need to get into the heart of this, we need to find out what the atmosphere’s like.

And my Pakistani fixer was, like, there’s no way you can do that. And I just looked at him, why not, I want to do it. A was wearing traditional chemise, I had my head covered, because it was a spiritual day, they were celebrating the prophet’s birthday, and I thought, what’s going to happen to me. And I didn’t want to believe ….

And I didn’t want to believe ….” – and that, I’m afraid, is what drives a lot of opposition to the criticism of Islam. It’s what drives many interactions with Muslims.

They will close their eyes and flat out tell you it’s night, when it’s clearly day, if only they’d open their eyes and look.

I’m attacked by white British liberals” – Well, yes. because they too don’t want to believe there’s a problem with Islam.

… with everything my parents told me about men from those cultures, I thought, no, it’s not true, I’m going to prove to them them that it’s not true..

Denialism is a powerful psychological force, and it controls many a religious mind. Saira had the courage to face hers.

They’re going to respect me as a woman. … I went down, into the crowd, and only on the sidelines, and within moments I’d been bustled into the middle of a group of men … it was horrific

… my boobs were touched, my bottom was touched, my legs were touched .. I was just shaking “Get me out, get me out, get me out.”

… My fixer came in, and grabbed me.

… I dread to think what would have happened. I believe I would have been raped.

… I was so angry. … No one would have helped me [had the British camera crew not been there]

That’s an astonishingly brutal awakening. Bear in mind that Saira isn’t some wet lefty that has a couple of Muslim acquaintances that wear the hijab and claims, “But my Muslim friends are lovely,” as if to explain why these stories couldn’t possibly be true.

Saira is, as she says, part of the Pakistani Muslim community (or one of the variety of those). And her parents warned her. And she knows of the honour culture, the treatment of women …

Denialism is a powerful psychological force, sustained only by cognitive dissonance. You WANT to believe, and when faced with stories, the stories must be racist lies … or so the conversations often go.

There’s more …

We have to accept, that when we are bringing in migrants, asylum seekers, people from different cultures, they have a very different upbringings. Their societies, their political systems, …

Islam is the bedrock of the social and political features of these cultures, and often contributes to the judicial system too, and the misogyny in Islam informs it, as does the behaviour of many of the men. Young boys are taught to both respect women, but also devalue them, to the point where if a woman is a victim, it must be her fault for bringing it upon herself, for shaming her family, … for shaming Islam.

… what they think is normal in their country is not normal in our country …

Sadly, many of those ‘liberals’ that attack you, Saira, are post-modern relativists, who ask who we are to judge their culture, their religion. And many Muslims pick up on this and ask, who are YOU to tell me about MY religion.

And, also sadly, many think it should also be normal behaviour in this country, and act as if it is, … which it can seem, in a closed community.

… and we have to do that to protect ourselves, and to also protect them …

You can see why racist Muslims talk of Saira in terms of ‘coconut’ … I’m surprised she hasn’t been called a white supremacist, for daring to suggest these behaviours aren’t up to our British value standards.

But, of course, Saira is dead right. Spot on.

Our standards of equality, across race, religion, gender, are significantly better than any that privileges one race, religion, gender over another other.

We may not succeed in achieving this equality (and no thanks in small part to religions that perpetuate the inequality – looking at you CofE, not just Islam), but in law, and mostly in practice, we are all equal.

It’s quite common to see these faults as the domain of the white racist misogynist male xenophobic bigot – aka Nazi – but that is engaging in precisely the false accusative rhetoric that Saira has been opposing in these programmes.

No. Some of the highest privileges we have go to religion. The Church of England is the state church, and we have unelected bishops … and child abuse. The Roman Catholic Church is even further behind … and child abuse. And Islam is virtually untouchable, despite Islamic terrorism … and child abuse by grooming gangs now appearing in our newspapers regularly.

As Andrew Norfolk said, after publishing his Times report on grooming gangs, his PC and fear of being thought of, of thinking himself, as a racist, made him sit on the story, while who knows how much child abuse continued.

Ruth Langsford chips in …

We all have this fear of being labelled a racist,
or you can’t talk about somebody’s religion
… this is not a religious thing, this is a cultural thing

What???

Have you ANY idea what that sounds like? Let me spell it out. It sounds like this:

You can’t talk about somebody’s religion, so let’s not talk about religion, even though I just did, because I don’t want to blame religion, so let’s blame their culture …

And let that sink in for a while. You’d rather throw whole rich and potentially adaptable cultures under the bus, rather than even contemplate that it’s related to the temporally closed and persistent impact of the religion on those cultures?

And this, remember, is in a context where Saira is talking about sexual abuse occurring right in the middle of a  festival dedicated to the celebration of prophet Mohammed’s birthday, where there was absolutely ZERO conflict in the minds of those that abused Saira?

What???

Jane Moore has a stab at excusing religion … but then, after Saira’s, interruption goes on to say …

Explain to me, surely there is not a culture, your experiences aside, where a couple of these assaults we’re talking about do extend to rape, I mean, obviously, white men commit rape as well, but surely there is no culture in the world where it is acceptable to rape a woman who is a stranger to you.

Wow! That needs some unpacking.

  • They have just decided that it’s the culture, not the religion.
  • Now Jane wants to make sure there is no culture in which it is acceptable to rape a women who is a stranger to you.

The point here, regarding culture, AND religion, is that some cultures, or even sub-cultures, DO condone rape, of any women, because they see women as a lower value than men. AND, that perspective is all over the Islamic texts.

Jane is confusing two points that Saira has already managed to be pretty clear about, … but I’ll help out with the third one:

  • It’s not acceptable TO US that ANY culture should condone this.
  • But it IS accepted in some cultures
  • And it IS accepted in some religions.

And very clearly so, if THEY find it acceptable to molest Saira in the middle of a religious festival dedicated to the birthday of the prophet Mohammed. It really is accepted in the religion.

You can keep on playing around with words all you like, but it’s right there in front of you.

Saira responds …

You’re right , it is unacceptable, but rape, in many cultures, goes unreported, because men can get away with it, because it’s not seen as a serious crime.

So, Jane, how is that not clear enough to you. SOME cultures DO see rape as acceptable behaviour by men towards women.

But, again, I have to disagree with Saira and the panel. It very clearly IS acceptable in the Islamic texts. As is slavery, as is sex slavery. The Quran has passages that excuse various behaviours, regarding one’s wives, and ‘those that your right hand possesses’, which is usually referring to slaves, and female slaves. Mohammed married one of his female slaves, to which the excuse it usually, “Oh, she became a Muslim first.” Was that an ‘Offer you can’t refuse‘, from the Islamic godfather.

Saira …

I was taught that as a woman, if I ever got raped, or if anything happened to me, it was going to be my fault. What were you doing in that situation? Why were you on your own? What were you wearing. I was brought up with that mentality.

And the Quran has plenty to say about modesty and women covering themselves.

Blame culture?

No. Cultures adapt. Cultures don’t both persist ancient codes of conduct, and resist modern improvements, without some strong underlying encoded system that traverses generations, even skips generations and re-emerges. Religion fits he bill.

We have seen 1970s westernised Afghanistan, and Iran, with women in the mini skirts that were fashionable at the time. Cultures adapt to the times. In both cases it was the oppressive religion that re-asserted itself.

Blame religion? A BIG YES. It’s no coincidence that the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Ayatollah in Iran swept away the modern cultural adaptation to more liberal values, and dragged both those countries back 1400 years.

Come on, Saira, you can’t keep excusing the religion.

Jane again …

Is the issue here then, mass uncontrolled immigration, where everyone arrives at once and there’s no expectation of integration? Because surely, you growing up in Britain, you must know lots of law abiding men from your culture who would never behave like that.

Saira …

Yeah, we’re not talking about Britain, because they’ve been brought up in Britain, with Western values, with British values, who know that you cannot do that, that women have equal rights, … [End of clip]

Notice here that Pakistani heritage men, who have been brought up in a British culture, … well, not them, obviously. And yet we are often told how most sexual abuse in Britain is committed by white men.  There are some confused messages that emerge when you’re focus is to explain something and yet not blame a religion. You are bound to tangle yourself in knots.

I’m sure there are many decent people in Pakistan and in other cultures that know that the cultures they’re in, on the whole, don’t treat women well … and, yes, Britain has been like that too.

As I said, cultures can adapt.

But hold on there Saira, they do do it in Britain. That was the point of your brave exposition on your misfortune.

Let’s look at this next clip to clear this up …

Christine Lampard …

They’ve also told us of a noticeable rise in calls [about abuse] from Asian women

Another aside …

You have to be careful when the media use the term ‘Asian’ regarding abuse and grooming gangs. It is used so often to mask a more specific identification, such as in the case of Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs, or grooming gangs generally. This is a really weird and dishonest narrative.

First, after years of insisting that if anyone starts a critical view with “Muslims, …” they are immediately tarred as racist Islamophobes, because, well, “Not all Muslims”…

But, when they are talking about Pakistani Muslims, they prefer to use ‘Asians’. Surely “Not all Asians” should apply here. Are they Asianphobic racists?

Well, I’d certainly say using ‘Asian’ is more racist than being specific. If “Muslims …” unfairly implicates all Muslims, then surely “Asians …” implicates all Asians, and is racist towards even more people.

I think they are going for the angle that if you implicate an ever wider range of people, then you are not being a specific racist. Maybe that’s better, I don’t know entirely how this left PC mind-set works.

But, in truth, this is a total fraud, because this never happens to Chinese, or Koreans – they would be identified by their original ethnicity.

We know this is only used to protect Islam, to avoid criticising Muslims.

You should spot this when referring to grooming gangs, because though most are Pakistani Muslim, some are Muslims from other cultures, including African.

Back to Christine’s main point …

They’ve also told us of a noticeable rise in calls from Asian women who suffered abuse in childhood, and the main perpetrator is usually someone from their own family …

I remind you again of Shazia Hobbes’ story.

It just sounds shocking, but this is not even surprising to you, Saira, from the stories you’ve heard.

Saira …

We had the fight for the girls in Rochdale, and I think we now need to put a real fight up for the girls that can’t be seen or heard, because they don’t have representation in society.

That’s another devastating statement. Let that one sink in too. Nobody in their community will represent them? Are social services able to operate in these communities? What are the police doing?

I’m afraid that what we’ve learned from Rochdale, Rotherham, Telford, Oxford and other places, is that if the police won’t act for child victims from outside the community, they sure as hell won’t act for children inside those communities – and one suspects, given some of Saira’s comments above about schools she visited, they wouldn’t find much cooperation if they tried.

Look, I can talk about it because I come from culture, I come from a community, and I’m talking about the Pakistani community.

Bear in mind that Pakistan is substantially occupied by Muslims, and that most British Pakistanis are Muslims. Pakistan was, after all, created as a nation for Muslims. It is a Muslim nation. What does that tell you about the ‘community’? It’s not merely a Pakistani community. It’s a Pakistani Muslim community. Currently, I know of no Pakistani Humanists that would or could use Humanists texts to excuse their abuse of women.

Well, as I said, the problem is that these closed communities will not allow outsiders, non-Muslims, to investigate. This is the non-integrative isolated community that reeks of bad Multiculturalism – Multiculturalism will fail, if we are not more discriminating about which cultural/religious practices we will tolerate – some, as Saira has said, are not acceptable. And though we mouth off about FGM … there have been no successful prosecutions. It’s very un-PC to investigate the inner women’s business in such a community, and your average non-Muslim PC plod isn’t up to it, and I doubt many Muslim PC plods would dare expose problems in heir communities.

Note that my objection to Islam does not mean banning or not tolerating Islam. Part of our ‘British values’ that Saira subscribes to is freedom of belief. You can believe what you want.

But if you turn your beliefs to actions, and those actions contravene basic human decency, and/or the law, then they need dealing with and must not be left to fester, the way the Muslim grooming gang problem has, and, according to this episode of Loose Women, the way abuse has within those communities.

I have to say that this isn’t based on religion, this is culture, and the culture I was brought up in is, keep your mouth shut, and make sure you do not bring dishonour on our family, you must not bring shame.

Except it is religion. Various religions. Bringing shame through the behaviour of children, especially girls, is pretty standard across many religions, including Christian conservatism of the USA, and has been in Roman Catholicism, such that it resulted in the Magdalene laundries of Ireland.

So, again, we have Saira desperately trying to avoid blaming Islam. Why is that?

Because that would bring down even more wrath upon her head, if she dared blame the religion of Islam. It’s that simple.

Saira’s perspective might be induced by her own indoctrination, so that she really believes that what is blindingly obvious, is not so.

Or, …

It might be self preservation. Because to blame Islam would be blasphemous. A very dangerous game, in Islam.

… you must not bring shame. And what that means, as a young girl, .. or a young boy, growing up, you’re too scared to talk. If terrible things happen to you, you are too scared to talk.

There is no representation, because it’s such a tight knit community. There are other things that go on in the culture that basically mean you’re isolated.

I have sat amongst a group of people, and I have heard stories of a young girls being raped in the family, of a young girl being abused, or a young boy being abused.

And I’m sat there thinking, why doesn’t anybody do something, please.

And when asked, why don’t they, …

Because, there is no one to talk to. Most of the elected community members are men …

Religious men. Muslim men. Do they elect atheists, or Christians? Are Pakistani Christians allowed to exist in the ‘community’?

No, I’m sorry, Saira, but your fantasy has to be shattered. These leaders are religious men. Good Muslims.

.. and they know that you can’t just go and snitch on your family …

Bear in mind how Saira had no trouble with HER British values, with regard to snitching on her cousin’s bunking off. But this is child abuse we’re talking about. Or not talking about, depending on your ‘culture’. So, you’d think that a British Pakistani community that isn’t suffering the misogynistic throwbacks of Pakistan would be more forthcoming in solving this problem. Apparently not. More like Pakistan than is good for us … or rather than is good for the children.

When asked whether a young girl could speak to her mother …

You are so brainwashed into what shame means and what dishonour means.

In these communities, rape in a marriage is not recognised …

Again, I refer you to Shazia Hobbes who has been resoundingly castigated, as an Islamophobe, for saying these very same things. Do read her book.

Culturally, you can marry somebody that’s thirteen years old. You can do it back in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, you can do it in India.

Except, of course, it is endorsed by the example of the prophet Mohammed, and his marriage to his six year old wife, and in some places they take that specific age even more seriously. And, even if the state doesn’t allow it, oddly enough the religious do it.

See here: Marriageable Age. Note that most state determined ages are 15 – 21, but some allow younger than the self-consent age, with parental/judicial approval. Given that many marriages are forced anyway, parental approval will often apply. It’s self-determination that suffers.

Note also, from that page, the table lower down, on religion, and the various sects of Islam. Hanafi and Jafari Islam: age 9 for girls. These are the sects of Islam of Pakistan and Iran, where child marriages occur.

Still nothing to do with Islam, Saira?

When that’s acceptable, you think that’s normal.

They are taboo subjects anyway, but in this culture they are even more taboo.

Once you bring shame to your family, that’s it.

The consequences are, you could be killed, you could be ostracised.

Killed??? In the UK, you might be killed, for honour. We know of several cases that have made the news.

I wonder how the rest of the Loose Women panel are taking this. They are the ‘liberals’ that would shoot down as a racist any non-Muslim that said this (despite Saira’s insistence they should not) .

But, this is general knowledge.

NOT ALL MUSLIMS – Yes, we know. But enough. Too many.

Literally, the whole family splits up. When I came on here to talk about me, it was a family member. It took me years to come out and say it. I think I just did it spontaneously on Loose Women. The repercussions on my family have been horrendous. They didn’t believe me. They had a go at my mum. …

But wait … this is important

It went all the way back to Pakistan and the family there.

This is what a lot of liberal lefties don’t get.

They see our lovely British Muslims like Saira, or their hijabi friend at school, and they are totally clueless about the extent to which these ‘unacceptable’ cultural practices are so easily imported to the UK, whether it’s this topic now, or abuse, or the earlier one, of Islamic terrorism. They have no idea what their nice Muslim friends are NOT telling them.

The left just don’t get it. Labour just don’t get it. Jermey Corbyn just doesn’t get it. That’s why he’d rather nudge Sarah Champion, MP, off the front bench, for daring to say, “Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs“, and leave the gangs to continue grooming.

The Conservative government hasn’t been much better. But, just this week, we had …

Another very important point coming up …

They did a study at Hull university, and the research in 2015 found out that “Official police data suggest that incidences of sexual violence among South Asian women are low, however, this new research suggests it is happening, but not reported.

As you would expect from a close knit community.

I want to say that, if there is anybody, in the South Asian community, or any community for that matter, please note that there are help lines, and you can talk in confidence. Even if you don’t want to take it any further, or get something off your chest, please do so. I’ll tell you something, that happened to me at thirteen, and that affected the rest of my life.

Now, here comes Jane Moore, working her way up to the patently obvious,  …

They are saying that the increase [in reporting] from the Asian community has increased since the broadcast of the Three Girls**, because that was largely, but not all Asian men.

(** Rochdale’s infamous an dramatised case of the prosecution of a Muslim grooming gang abusing young white girls)

I think what Jane should have said was, they were largely but not all Pakistani [some British born but Pakistani families] Muslim men, because some were Muslim men from other Muslim backgrounds. I’m not aware any were non-Muslim. To be specific:

Nine men were convicted, of whom eight were of British Pakistani origin and one was an Afghan asylum-seeker. – from Rochdale child sex abuse ring.

They were all Muslim.

And here comes the obvious …

The majority of perpetrators of organised abuse are white. And the second largest group are Asian. Now that may be because a lot of it goes unreported. We should also point out that it happens in white families.

The conflation of issues here is astounding.

  • It’s not white v Asian. The significant figures are Pakistani Muslim v everyone else.
  • Of the ‘family’ child abuse, those numbers differ so much you’d expect an absolute figure to be greatest among the largest group you’re identifying, whether that’s white, non-white (including black, for example), specifically Asian (including Sikhs and Hindus, for example), even more specifically Pakistani Muslim, or Muslim. This matters.
  • Muslims are only a small percentage of the UK population, and Pakistani Muslims even smaller (Saira’s concern) .
  • Again, you’d expect a largest absolute figure in other groups.
  • You’d expect a similar rate (%) among all groups, except, with lower reporting in Pakistani Muslim communities, the numbers should be lower.
  • Jane is also conflating in-family abuse, with the grooming gang abuse.
  • Of this particular type of grooming, it is public, under the noses of the community, local police and social workers

From a story based on information from Haras Rafiq, from Quilliam

A think tank has claimed that 84 per cent of people convicted of child grooming-gang offences since 2005 were Asian.

Type 1 offenders work in groups such as grooming gangs to target victims based on vulnerability, while Type 2 offenders form paedophile rings to carry out abuse because of a specific sexual interest in children.

Jane …

The whole thing that props this up is the conspiracy of silence …

And you continue to be silent on the religion. But, on the specif c problem of abuse, no matter what the cause, I’ll leave the final word with Saira …

The only thing that I would say, is that whereas those girls [Three Girls case] did go to the sexual health worker to get condoms, and the social worker was involved, there was a pattern, so it could be traced. In an Asian household, these girls aren’t seen.

They can never be detected, unless somebody from the community or a member of the family puts their hands up bravely and says we’ve got a problem here.

Best of luck with that.

A Problem for Islam

Muslims generally don’t want Islam to be criticised at all – I mean really don’t want it to be criticised. This is all to do with the depth of conviction they are induced into, indoctrinated into.

Many will even throw other aspects of their own identity and the identities of others under the bus, in order to save face for Islam, to save the honour of Islam. Characters like Miqaad Versi, of the Muslim Council of Britain, seem to devote much effort to writing to editors of newspapers to point out how racist and Islamophobic they are for any headline of piece that tarnishes the name of Islam.

The BBC have been so cajoled into submission that all ‘Asians’ are smeared, by a refusal to make a more specific identification of the culprits in some case or other. They refuse to identify culprits as Pakistani Muslim, when they clearly are, and instead identify them as Asian, as if spreading the blame around a bit is somehow less racist.

We’ve seen this instinctive protection of Islam many times following Islamic terror attacks. This is how it often goes:

  • Islamic terrorist commits some heinous act, and declares it to be in the name of Islam.
  • The press report it as an Islamic terror attack (if ever more reluctant to do so).
  • Islamic organisations cry out, “Nothing to do with Islam! … Islamophobia!” Because the good name of Islam is the most important thing in such a situate.
  • Eventually the same organisations get around to expressing sorrow for the loss of life … but they don’t really see why they should need to, since it’s nothing to do with Islam or the many peaceful Muslims who wouldn’t dream of doing such a thing.
  • Watch how quickly these organisations take the opportunity to point out the white far right when a far more rare non-Islamic terror attack occurs.

Basically, Muslims have talked themselves into a corner, in order to defend Islam.

They could have been straight from the beginning:

  • Yes, there are some uncomfortable aspects of the religion which are too easy to take literally.
  • Yes, the Quran is inerrant and that makes it difficult to move on away from the value systems that were prevalent at the time the religion emerged.
  • Yes, we need a reformed Islam … WHAO! NO!!!!

Of course, this is basically what the Ahmadi Muslims did. They invented another prophet. They even went to the trouble of getting round the thorny issue of Mohammed being the supposed last prophet, by declaring Mohammed was indeed the last prophet of revelation and their later prophet came along to help interpret Islam so that it was truly a religion of peace.

And look how they are persecuted for it. In Pakistan they are unable to call themselves Muslims. Their mosques are attacked.

The problem with all, even the Ahmadi version, this is that it’s a massive fudge.

And as much as I admire Saira Khan’s efforts to deal with some of these problems, I can see the conflicted position she is in.

Islam has influenced cultures for so long that those cultures are Islamic ones – the people of those cultures say so themselves … Muslim lands. And yet, there are aspects of those varied cultures that remain unique and visible. And this is what the apologists for Islam latch on to. They will throw many of these diverse cultures under the bus, in order to safe the honour of the one common factor: Islam.

I say all this is a problem for Islam. But of course it’s actually a problem for Muslims. And more recently has become a problem for non-Muslims.

Bursting The White Supremacy Bubble

I was asked what Richard Spencer said that was wrong in the interview with Gary Young.

THE KLAN IS BACK

Where do I start. Well, let’s start right here – and this alone has many things wrong with it:

“Africans have benefited from the experience of white supremacy”

No. On many counts. If this rambles a bit, it’s because there is so much wrong with it and the notions its built on.

Starting with those living at the time of slavery, there were zero benefits and lots of negatives to being a slave, … or do you not think so? Slavery was a system of supreme power and cruelty. Not really something our slave owning ancestors can be proud of. Slavery showed no intrinsic sign of superior intellect. Many working hands on slave ships might have been pressed into service and will have been dumber than many slaves. Many slave owners survived by their capacity for cruelty, not their intellect. But sure, some cruel and intelligent slavers made a good living. All of which begs the question, is intellectual superiority enough, or even necessary, for power supremacy?

So, let’s have a look at ‘supremacy’ more generally. We know from the way the white supremacy narrative goes that they think the power superiority of Europe derives from a greater intelligence, so I’ll try to focus on power and intelligence.

Not all modern self-made millionaires are the brightest people. They make their money by being hard working, persistent, good at making money off the work others put in, or luck.

There are many rich crooks that earn their money by being just clever enough to outwit the competition in their sphere, and just clever enough to steal from the less clever, and need not be particularly bright in other respects. Crooks can also make money off people far brighter than themselves. All it takes is the capacity to break a trust, to engage in fraudulent and corrupt practices.

There are some really clever people, with high IQs, that don’t have the capacity for empathy that others have, and are quite able to manipulate their way to power. We call them sociopaths, or psychopaths (clinical details of terminology aside) – they are not all mad killers. Oddly, the most empathetic people we have can have no empathy in common with someone that has no empathy, and so we find that many very empathetic people have none to spare for the sociopath. Someone with a high empathy drive, but without the intellect or interest to think things through, will even see these fellow humans, that didn’t choose to have the brains they have, as being non-human monsters. And, conversely, the natural sociopath with an intellect can learn the skill of appearing to have empathy while feeling none. Some sociopaths might be ruthless and selfish in business, while others might make great contributions because they are single minded in their focus on what interests them, rather than dedicating time and energy to feeding their feelings towards others. It’s and odd world.

So, with this, and many other factors that lead to power, in a society as a whole, and members of a particular society, what does it mean to be ‘supreme’, to be a ‘white supremacist’ in particular. This ‘supremacy’ attribute is a pretty complicated thing.

The power superiority of European nations came from fortunate circumstances in Europe. At one time other parts of the world were way ahead of Europe. There hasn’t been enough time in a few short centuries for evolution to have an impact to make white Europeans suddenly smarter. There’s a certain irony here in that many white supremacists are idiots that reject much of evolutionary theory, yet seem able to figure out that ‘something’ made white Europeans smarter, all of a sudden. Round about 1500, maybe? Or 1700? Who knows when we lucky whites became supreme, but I know that for some time, in what we call ‘the dark ages’, we weren’t.

The strange truth is that centuries ago, any bell curve difference on intellectual supremacy was already there when Europe was a dumber civilization. If Europeans got smarter, it wasn’t some sudden genetic brain boost.

If anything history would suggest that mixing of cultures made Europe ‘superior’ in power. A single stable culture that works well in a stable climate setting with sufficient resources has little pressure for technological change. Warring small nation states with lots of trade, and exchange of ideas and peoples stimulates change. The Renaissance, the Enlightenment, science, philosophy, if they come together they can create massive progress, as they did in Europe. The introduction of Arabic works, the re-introduction of Greek works, they all boosted a Europe that was awakening in the ruins of Rome, looking back on a civilization that had been way ahead in its prime. Then, once technical progress is under way, it takes off quickly – which in itself is a massive story, involving many famous people, most of which were ‘white’ because, like religious persuasion, they happened to be born where they were. Any bright African, Indian, Asian in Europe at that time, free of an racist persecution, could join in as well as any white person – except that for many of our famous early scientists, privilege gave them the capacity to do the work they did. That’s why much European science history is ‘white’, not because of any innate white supremacy.

Social change that’s unnecessary in small tribal systems becomes crucial in a more complex mercantile trading and technical societies. Wars and revolutions do much damage. Democracy works better. But democracy doesn’t work so well if many are actual or effective slaves. First the barons wanted a greater say. Aristocratic elites still ruled, but the money of mercantile power started to speak. Actual slaves, the non-elites, women, they all eventually wanted the freedoms the elites enjoyed. Education increased, increasing the diversity of opportunity with it. With luck, a bright kid from some slum could break out, end up at university, and become a great engineer, while his intelligent counterpart in a South American tribe has no chance or learning any of the mathematics and science his European brother is exposed to. Privilege begets privilege, unless the privileged and powerful are prepared to share what they have.

All this comes together in Europe, and by fortune of circumstances, both dumb and bright white people, far from supreme, living in slums in the cities of the west, start to demand fairer conditions. Social change comes along with the greater voting franchise. A better understanding of biology, health, suffering … all these inspire many bright people to be better towards their fellow humans, to demand change. What amounts to a supremacy of power, money, technology, science, brings European states into competition, war, world domination, at the very time social improvements are afoot at home.

Not all these changes are smooth or balanced. While a good man might be helping the poor in slums back home, his brother might be in India beating down an uprising of oppressed and starving people. The power supremacy that can bring good continues to bring much harm in parallel. This is the messy world of the reality or Empire, not the simplistic ‘white supremacist’ world that idiots like Richard Spencer have in their minds. There are many dumb, evil and far from supreme people among the supreme European race, and many very bright and genuinely superior intellects among the people oppressed by this European superiority.

Don’t get me wrong. Empires have come and gone in the past. It was mostly shear good or bad fortune that determined whether you were a thicko with power in the supreme echelons of the white European culture, because your aunt was bedded by some duke, or whatever, or you were a brown genius trying to figure out how to get this white European oppression out of your country, while still having to deal with cruel idiots in your own culture that make money off the back of the oppressors and help them maintain the oppression.

This is a very messy history with so many strands that it’s impossible to do them all justice here. But it should be clear enough that ‘white supremacism’ is one of the dumbest notions you could dream up, if only for the fact that so many white supremacists are thick. What the heck is supposed to be supreme about them?

The big joke is that by around the time Europe becomes a supreme power base, we are already mixed race. Apart from some isolated families that protect their ‘blood lines’, whether for race or mere genealogical reasons, we have been screwing our way around the world for several hundred years, and many people that think they are true blood white are not.

How about all white supremacists subject themselves to DNA tests and ANY ‘non-white genes’ gets you rejected from the master race. Good luck with that. Many will be rejected. The thing is, this definition of ‘white’ that’s supposed confer supremacy is such that a) doesn’t exist; b) certainly doesn’t confer supremacy (again, have you seen some of these dumbos).

But, let’s go with it. Let’s play Bell Curve. Suppose you can identify categories of peoples, that are identifiable by ‘race’, and that some category bell curves on intelligence show Group A is higher than group B on some measure. What does that mean? …

It means in the overlap there are some seriously unintelligent people in both A and B. So, what do I want, if YOU insist we must split society?

I’ll tell you. I want to be in the group of white, black, brown, yellow, purple, any colour, as long as they are the smart non-racist ones. Those smart Jews that are top of the charts? I want to be in their camp, not stuck with knuckle dragging racist morons – even smart ones.

The thing is, statistics can be helpful. Identify a group and see that there is a group tendency to have some health deficiency, and you can target treatment better. But even here, individuals still count. Not all people in a statistically identifiable genetic group need have the condition your looking at – and that has serious implications if you get the targeted treatment wrong. If group A has a tendency to have the condition more than those in group B, so you target only group A, you leave those in group B with the condition to suffer. Such a statistical difference can only benefit everyone if limited resources are distributed according to the relative number of people in the groups, and the relative occurrence of the conditions. You have to do a lot of Baysian stuff to be effective. You can’t simply say, “Oh, group A has a high statistical bias for this condition, we’ll target only group A.”

And this is what the ‘white supremacists’ don’t get about the bell curves that they rely on for intelligence and supposed ‘supremacy’. It’s more complicated than just ‘race’ – and their’s isn’t even just about actual race, but apparent race, because, at least until they have prepared the internment camps where all the forced genetic testing can be done. They can’t tell who’s white and who isn’t, outside a very simple stark difference in colour. You could have a fine blood line going back to mad King George, but if your great gran got too friendly with a slave, you’re out of the master race.

On so many grounds, these ‘white supremacists’ don’t really know what they are talking about.

But, hey, those bright Jews? If it’s genetic, why don’t we dumber white folks want what they have? If some Jews are so bright, how seriously dumb was Hitler. Exterminated or exported a minority people, because he could. And yet they could have helped Germany recover from the devastation that resulted from its previous screw up of WWI.

But those Jews, those philosophers, scientists that survived, helped make America great, not the dumb white supremacists in the south. One of my heroes, Erik Kandel, left Europe in his youth to escape extermination, and went on to contribute to neuroscience of memory. I’m sure most sensible people will happily name their own great Jew. If what the the ‘white supremacists’ think is true, can you give me a genetic injection of Jewish intelligence please. If, as many antisemite will tell you, the Jews are really ruling the world, because they are so good at it, then instead of exterminating them, why don’t we work towards making ourselves that bright? Why make the world dumber, by killing off the intelligent ones? This ‘white supremacism’ simply doesn’t make sense by their own standards or reckoning.

Getting back to Spencer’s claim. No. Africans Americans didn’t benefit from ‘white’ supremacy. They suffered under white idiocy and cruelty coupled with technological supremacy. They suffered at the hands of Christians men and women that failed to live up to the principles that a Jew supposedly taught them. The number of ironies to the ‘white supremacy’ stupidity is astounding. Thankfully, enough decent Europeans saw things differently, and just as they fought injustice that befell the ‘white inferiors’ at home, they opposed slavery. The African and Middle Eastern world under Islam continued with slavery long after Europe came to its senses. Europe banned slavery. It just took some time and a civil war to convince some thickos in America.

And, of course, winning a war on slavery and persecution doesn’t end it. It exists everywhere in the world. It’s odd that the white supremacists in the USA look to Europe, the place that has done most to end racism, that is the least racist place on earth. This is not an idle claim.

Check our Russia, China, Japan, South Africa, Middle East, India … These are not the mixed race societies. These are not non-racist societies. Why is there a ethnic cleansing occurring every now and then? Because one ethnic group doesn’t like another – they are racists. Why are there multicultural problems in Europe with Islam? Partly because of Islam’s own version of supremacy – it’s Islam or nothing. But also partly because of racism – there are Arab, Pakistani, Turkish, Indonesian and other Islamic sub-cultures within Europe, and they won’t even intermarry among themselves as Muslims. Pakistanis are well known for keeping their ties with Pakistan. There are Pakistani families in the UK, screaming to high heaven about white racism, and yet they’d kill their daughter if she tried to marry a non-Muslim or non-Pakistani.

Again, we have to be clear, that this is messy. Many white, brown, black people get along fine, and mix socially, and marry, and have children. Europe is the least racist place on earth – even with our racists, of every colour and cultural origin. Has racism been ousted from Europe? No. Too many white Europeans are racist… but I’d hazard a guess that proportionally there are more POC racists in the UK than white racists.

So, what is Richard Spencer thinking when he talks of his superior white European heritage? Well, it’s not the whiteness that’s superior. He’s referring only to the coincidences of history that made Europe powerful, that then allowed it to dominate the world, for a time.

Political ideas are far more important than skin colour or race – in fact I can’t think of anything that requires differentiation based on race or skin colour other than the beneficial statistics that can help target healing of genetic conditions – and even then, there are genetic differences within what Spencer would think of as a race that are just as important to health. Race is simply a really bad demarcation that mostly leads to great harm. Racism is a bad political idea.

To think in terms or racial superiority is so bad that it has caused a double whammy of hate. First, there are the racists themselves. Second, and more recently, in response to white racism, we have seen a SJW backlash that has become so toxic we have who knows how many white people actually hating their own race.

Pause … Let than sink in for a moment: … those that campaign vociferously against racism, that declare race isn’t important, see their own race as the only source of racism, and actively want an end to white people.

But, on the bright side, at least they provide yet more evidence that white people can be as dumb as anyone of any other skin colour.

Time to get back to the Richard Spencer quote. Let’s suppose he accepts that white supremacy was cruel and unjustified (I dont know that he does). What does Richard Spencer mean when he says African Americans have benefited? Maybe Spencer is thinking, hey look at ‘shithole’ Africa, compared to great lives African Americans have. He’s wrong there too. Centuries of persecution, with legal persecution stopped only decades ago, and social persecution still active (that’s what Spencer is engaged in) are not benefiting African Americans now, but still hindering.

Can many African Americans have successful lives, better than many whites? Sure. That’s what equal opportunity should result in. And great lives too, if only they could avoid idiots like Spencer. Again, don’t get me wrong. There are stupid racist black Richard Spencers among groups like BLM – we’ve seen them. We’ve seen the idiots in Africa that think some of their ancient tribal practices are somehow superior to ‘white science’ – as if science is ‘white’.

But, to take Spencer’s line of reasoning: that all that suffering in slavery, and post-slavery racist laws, and post-racist law racist persecution, … all that has given current African Americans the great reward of living in the soon to be great again USA.

There’s a trivial ironic truth to this point of view. Oscar speech time …

I’d like to thank all the people that made me what I am today. I’d like to thank Hitler, and all the dead Jews in the Holocaust, for bringing my mother and father together, post-WWII, which led to my lucky existence – oh, and thanks to my dead uncle that was killed in the war. And I’d like to thank those that contributed to the Irish famine that drove my recent ancestors, on both sides, to leave Ireland and come to England and marry some English people. A special thanks to the invading Normans that persecuted others in my family tree that were mere serfs … oh, and my other ancestors that were Normans that persecuted them. A great big thank you to Julius Caesar, for without his invasion and killing of so many people we wouldn’t have some of the lovely straight roads that I enjoy today. I don’t know who you are, but thank you Neanderthal woman for being raped by my other early human ancestor. And thank you Africans starving and migrating to Europe in search of a better place – twice – you really made the effort form which I now benefit. And thank you, African ape mother of all humans today. Thank you all.

Any history that humans have gone through that has been objectively bad for some people and good for others, in terms of material reward, security, health, social status, self determination, has resulted in the people we are now. So, is a black guy in America now better off because his recent ancestor was brought over in a slave ship?

It’s actually a dumb question, and a dumb point from Richard Spencer.

First, that person would not have been present in Africa today had his ancestor not been a victim of slavery. Any number of things might be different without European slavery. Islamic slavery was present in Africa long after it was stopped in Europe, so maybe his ancestor would have been a slave after all. Or maybe his tribe would have become slavers themselves in turn. Maybe if decent European explorers had brought only benefits of European progress to Africa … but hold on, before we get too far into this, remember that much of the technical and mercantile progress in Europe was made on the back of Africa and other places. Mmmm. Tricky.

And now the ironic aspect of the Richard Spencer quote. The problem is that if you play the same game as Richard Spencer, and try to say that African Americans benefit now from the cruelty of past white Europeans, then he could be letting himself in for a whole pile to grief. White people, as defined in the simplistic terms of Richard Spencer, are actually a minority in the world population. Suppose all non-whites made slaves of whites for a century or so, it wouldn’t be that bad, would it? After all, in a few more centuries there’d be a black Richard Spencer saying, …

“Whites have benefited from the experience of black supremacy”

Enough of the ‘white supremacy’ stupidity.

How about Identitarianism, White Seperatism, and the other BS terms that mask a white supremacist agenda?

It’s simple:

If you want to marry and mate with someone of your own ethnic background, then go for it. Nobody is stopping you. As white separatists point out, there are many self contained ethnic groups that value their heritage, white can’t white people? Yeah, fine, again, go for it.

Here’s the problem – and it’s one I touched on above. What if I, as a white person, doesn’t want that? What if I am friends with and enjoy the company of people of all backgrounds? What we want to get together and make mixed race babies? What’s your problem? Only I can tell you our problem is – YOU.

And it’s not just the Richard Spencers – and here’s where I depart form the current white hating SJW loons. Many ethnic groups insist on their own ethnic purity, just as Spencer does. So, where they insist that applies to all their children, we have a problem, again, and it’s the problem caused by the separatists, of any colour or culture.

There are Muslims and Hindus in India that will each kill anyone of the other religion that tries to marry their daughters. There are Pakistani heritage British men (get this, they are actually English by birth) that will kill their sister if she tries to marry outside their race and religion. Many of us are supporting the Kurds, and the Yazidis, and the Christians that have been persecuted by ISIS – and yet there will be those among those groups that will be seperatists and will not let their culture die, and will persecute those of their own that try to stray.

It’s not just race. My Catholic mother married my Protestant father, and she converted. My mother’s Catholic priests damned her children to hell. Well, I am an atheists, so I guess he got his wish. My wife’s Baptist wife, on first hearing my name asked asked her, “He’s not Catholic, is he?”

There are those that fear the loss of their race, culture or religion. But I’m afraid they are only entitled to perpetuate those in as much as they can personally, with like minded people. They are not at liberty to demand that their children should too. They are not at liberty to protect their racial, cultural and religious ideology through separatism.

So, to Richard Spencer specifically, the rest of us don’t want your racist BS.  Tough shit.

The White European Culture Fallacy

White supremacism! Eurocentrism! Murticulturalism! Western Values! …

Endorse, deplore, assert, denounce, support any of these, vociferously, emotionally? Want to promote freedom and equality without stumbling over these dilemmas? Read on.

Richard Spencer is an ‘Identitarian’, in his own terms – though not all ‘Identitarians’ are quite like Richard Spencer. He’s a white separatist; white nationalist; whatever he wants to call it; but, it’s about being white. He values ‘White European’ values.

His ideas are based on a fallacy, because what we really value, what Spencer pretends to value, is not whiteness, or anything associated with the rather poor attribution of being white. His is really an ancient tribalism, something that we acknowledge the human race went through naturally, but not something that’s worth hanging on to.

The origins of the ‘Identitarian movement‘ suggest something more specific than just being white, but rather the desire, one which many ethnic groups aspire to, to have an ethnicity and culture remain intact. Other ethnicities cling to their ‘ethnic identity’ without receiving any push back. White Identitarians (and Jews) do seem to take a lot of flack for expressing what other ethnicities do.

I’m not a ‘white Identitarian’. As you’ll see when I get to the thought experiment later. I can understand some of the concerns – they are mostly related to opposition to the political ideology of Islam. Now, that I do oppose.

The problem I have with the ‘White Identitarian’ movement is the specificity of the ‘white’ aspect. I know, it arose arose in opposition to the perceived non-white Islamification of France. However, it erroneously conflates a difference that matters, culture, with one that does not, ethnicity. I doubt very much the ‘White Identitarian’ movement would be much of a thing (outside Richard Spencer’s tiny mind) had it not been for Merkel’s open door policy. But, let’s put that aside, and focus on the fallacy of the ‘whiteness’.

When Spencer uses the qualifier ‘White European’, when referring to culture, he’s doing so to pretend to loftier things, but he’s really about nothing more than base tribalism.

What’s worth valuing is something else other than racist ‘whiteness’; or even anything specifically ‘European’, despite Europe being historically the most localised origin of what we do value … and here I presume ‘we’ value freedom and equality, though I recongnise some do not.

Continue reading The White European Culture Fallacy