“The society which has abolished every kind of adventure makes its own abolition the only possible adventure.” Paris, May 1968


Monday, 27 May 2013

If God existed it would be necessary to destroy him.

After the terrible killing in Woolwich it was inevitable that the EDL would attempt to capitalise on the justifiable revulsion that people feel toward the jihadist wing of Islam and so far they seem to be making a pretty sound job of it. The left on the other hand are stranded out on the usual limb of not wanting to upset Muslims who have to be viewed as an oppressed minority. Why can't we just be honest for a change. Islam is an unpleasant faith with a strong current of social conservatism as a fundamental part of it's agenda. That is not to say of course that individual Muslims are anything other  than the usual mix of thoroughly decent people and total shits, much like individuals from any other faith, but we should at least have the bottle to say what we think, about Islam, religion in general and a host of other things as well. An honest, open-minded look at the complex world around us is the only basis for building any kind of political view, let alone movement. That honesty has to extend to being prepared to admit that we are not sure about something as well.
We live in interesting times. The agenda will not be set by old farts like me but by the state on the one hand and kids on the street on the other. There is a real climate of unease at the moment. Genuine fears about immigration are beginning to take a grip. In the past kids have been able to reach out to each other with a shared interest in music and dope. No such reaching out is likely today. Rosa Luxemburg's slogan of Socialism Or Barbarism seems an ever more likely set of alternatives. Today's anti-Muslim backlash will die down soon enough and we will have the Romanians to worry about; who knows what it will be after that. Against a background of increasing inequality and lack of economic security such concerns are building to a mass neurosis that could lead us anywhere. Never has the call for No Gods and No Masters been more pertinent.

4 comments:

Dr Llarreggub said...

I realy do agree with your post. Here is six pennyworth.
A slight disagreement over religion. There is a difference between mainstream Christianity and mainstream Islam in that centuries of working class activity have tamed the excesses of Christianity such that only a few whacko fundies try to live with a literal interpretation of its texts. Whereas Islam appears to remain with what I have defined elsewhere as literal pietism. Moreover, the evils committed by Christian churches can be combatted within those churches, as the RC church is belatedly denouncing its appalling record of child abuse. Cannot say that for the Muslims who are not sorting out their problems with child abuse, FGM, and more.
Are the left ready to reject the muslims as victims standpoint, which props up their theories of imperialist aggression? The issues with Islamic radicalism are not confned to the UK but are worldwide, as it does seem that the fanatics are in control. As a rule the left here, and in the EU and USA, identify the muslims with the enemies of imperialist/capitalist aggression and in practice support the centre led governments in the imposition of multiculturalism, which like Apartheid and state communism requires draconian laws, people reporting on each other for thought crime, and massive indocrination in schools and nurseries. Whilst I am proud of my record in fighting Powellism, supporting the Anti Apartheid movement and my beliefs inherited from working class parents in a racially colour blind society where all are equal, I am dismayed that the left now see this (post MacPherson) as a form of racism because it does not include sufficient regard for cultural differences. Well, I am a racist who believes in working class traditions and their honourable record of opposing racism. Stuff the left.
And so we must evaluate the EDL. Obviously working class, which pits them against the educated and sophisticated left. But are they fascists? What are their fascist policies? Maybe they have a few former NF and BNP members, but then the left parties have plenty of ex Stalinists and Maoists who were probably more dangerous. Ah. They are said to be fascists because they oppose radical Islam. And this reveals the standpoint of the left. Hence UAF behave like true fascists, disrupting meetings, no platform for this and that, and very rarely providing arguments to support their case - other than defining fascists as people who oppose radical Islam and don't agree with Guardian reporters.
There is a thesis, so ridiculous that it is not worth combatting, that the EDL and UKIP are really there in support of a right wing Tory led state. Pull the other one; this is a fantasy, populist working class activity, left or right, has always been a threat to the state and what Palin has correctly described as the 'crony capitalists'. (Yeah, let the left choke on that).
I note that the Bone Blog has called for discussion on how to get from A to B. A meeting? But I am banned, censored out. So I wil remain on the sidelines. Until there is a commitment to honesty, to rational discussion, evaluation of arguments, rejection on censorship, a few indications of alternative ways of running society, there is no future for the left in working class politics.
One thing I look forward to - hope to mention if you do a piece on the subject of prisoner's rights - is where Hegel, not Marx, is likely to end Mr Cameron's political career. Cameron will be ditched by his party if he has to concede to votes for prisoners. Hegelian jurisprudential theories I am advancing are being taken very seriously in places where it matters, and I am advancing them in a retributionist case for prisoner's votes. Watch out. Cameron's tenure is almost over.

Dr Llarreggub said...

Maybe this is a way forward. Have a cup of tea.Now this is progress.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3640/edl_invited_in_for_tea_and_biscuits_at_york_mosque

Aidan said...

I don't see this as being about Islam at all. It's about two angry alienated young men with zero prospects getting fixated with a particular ideological viewpoint and carrying things to things to their logical (if you accepted the premises of that viewpoint) conclusion. I was immediately reminded of David Copeland and of Timothy McVeigh. Also Anders Behring Breivik.
A commentator (sorry, no link)refered to this being an example of what anarchists used to call propaganda by deed and I wonder if Emile Ravachol,and others, might also be of the same type.
I'm not a psychologist or a trick cyclist and this is only my opinion.

Dr Llarreggub said...

Aidan, Both Cameron and Clegg and others have stated it is not about Islam. I have to disagree. It is about a very conservative form of Islam which adopts what I called literal pietism, taking the scriptures literally. The young man who spoke to the cameras in the unedited version was no deranged psycho but a well educated graduate who know his texts. This is what he said:
“We are forced by the Koran, in Sura al-Tawba, through many ayah in the Koran, we must fight them as they fight us.”
Sura al-Tawba is the Koran’s ninth chapter, home to what are known as the verses of the sword. Time after time, Muslims are instructed to slaughter their enemies. “Kill the polytheists wherever you find them.” “Fight those who do not believe in Allah” until they submit to the law of Islam. “Fight . . . the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness.”
The man is an educated former university student, not a deranged psycho or lone wolf as the Government are presenting it.
My argument is not about combating religion, which is a dangerous step to take, but in combating the conservative and literal interpretations of religious texts. Time was when we could work on social problems with muslims. I have one so, but the left have embraced the conservative fanatics as fellows in the war against western imperialism.

There was an error in this gadget