The alt-right, PC speech and Islamic extremism

#1
True but it's more than that even. It also plays into the current Zeitgeist and the rise of the alt-right.... I would contend that the main malefactors you describe here also share characteristics of Islamophobia, racism and various other toxic manifestations. Skepticism (and atheism) is just the mode of expression they choose as a carrier-wave.
Some might call me Alt-Right - I certainly cheered when President Trump was elected. People aren't so much Islamaphobic, as 'phobic' of some of what Muslims do - the extreme curtailment of women's rights - up to and including female genital mutilation (FGM), and of course the extremism.

David
 
#2
Some might call me Alt-Right - I certainly cheered when President Trump was elected. People aren't so much Islamaphobic, as 'phobic' of some of what Muslims do - the extreme curtailment of women's rights - up to and including female genital mutilation (FGM), and of course the extremism.

David
Interesting. I always find the alt-right paradigm to be an equivalence of the atheist mindset. By that I mean that there is a kind of strawman constructed "Religion is the cause of war" say and then the massed robotic ranks fall into lockstep, chest panels flashing into meltdown as they advance fitfully towards all detected threats, their scanners bleeping wildly as they seek to neutralise any source of differing opinion.

Just as you can't reason with atheists and say some religious people do this or (God help us), 'war is a human phenomenon and religion is also so....' then likewise I have yet to encounter an alt-right person who is nuanced about Islam. Replace the verboten "some religious people do this" with "some Muslims do this" and you'll get the same result.

You did it yourself btw above - you didn't say "what some people claim is Islam" you said "'phobic of some of what Muslims do"

Same thing no?

Can't see a difference myself. That's what I call Islamophobia.

Crap... just realised who I'm talking to.... am I in danger of the ban hammer? lol!
 
#4
You did it yourself btw above - you didn't say "what some people claim is Islam" you said "'phobic of some of what Muslims do"
Well the real problem is that it is awfully hard to be nuanced about words when a Muslim man reportedly prayed hard, strapped on explosives laced with bolts to cause maximum injury , and went to a pop concert in Manchester for mainly early teen girls and blew himself up, causing massive death and injuries to the girls and their parents.

This is not an isolated incident - indeed our security services are having to prioritise cases in order of severity. This man was thought to be low risk!

I agree, there are some positive responses from the Muslim community - but I'd like to see a lot more.

The real folly here is the very term 'Islamaphobia' - which presupposes that all religions are somehow fundamentally harmless. That obviously can't be true - think if you like of the Reverend Fred Phelps, a US Christian minister who would rejoice over US deaths in Iraq because they were supposedly a penalty imposed by God for the fact that the US tolerates homosexuality! Or, if you like, think of the Witch burnings in the UK and US. Whether indeed these girls did dabble in witchcraft, or not, what the Church did to them, is too awful to contemplate.

Religions can become pretty damn awful at times - whether Christian or Muslim. I am fairly sure that if you went back to the times of the Crusades, it was the Christians that committed the atrocities, and the Muslims (plus many other Christians) that suffered as a result. I don't imagine the Muslims back then split hairs when talking about the invading Christians!

The effect of PC-speak is not so much to avoid over generalisation, as to blunt all discussion to the point where it becomes meaningless.

David
 
Last edited:
#5
Well the real problem is that it is awfully hard to be nuanced about words when a Muslim man reportedly prayed hard, strapped on explosives laced with bolts to cause maximum injury , and went to a pop concert in Manchester for mainly early teen girls and blew himself up, causing massive death and injuries to the girls and their parents.
Why is it hard to be nuanced? Seriously? Recently here in the UK a Britain First right-wing nut drove a car into a mosque injuring 11 and killing 1. As much as I despise racism and the Right (not to mention Islamophobes) I don't find it hard to be nuanced at all. I would never say "this is what the Right do" - that would be irrational. It's what one nutter did. Just like what Daesh do is what a number of nutters do. Granted, there's more Islamist nutters right now but that could well change. What won't change is the central fact that people who do this do so because they are crazy, not because of any belief system.

This is not an isolated incident - indeed our security services are having to prioritise cases in order of severity. This man was thought to be low risk!
So what? What's the point there? Why not call it what it is - why does it have to expand to Islam as a whole?

I agree, there are some positive responses from the Muslim community - but I'd like to see a lot more.
Why though? What is it to do with them? They're not doing anything. I don't ask you (or other Alt-Right supporters) to stop the excesses of racist attackers. Why would I?

The real folly here is the very term 'Islamaphobia' - which presupposes that all religions are somehow fundamentally harmless. That obviously can't be true - think if you like of the Reverend Fred Phelps, a US Christian minister who would rejoice over US deaths in Iraq because they were supposedly a penalty imposed by God for the fact that the US tolerates homosexuality!
I think we need to define terms here. For me, a vegetarian is someone who does not eat meat. If you see someone eating meat and calling themselves a vegetarian I am pretty sure you'd say they were lying.

Phelps: God Hate Fags
Jesus Christ: Love your neighbour. Love your ENEMIES
Christianity: the fruits of the spirit are love, joy and peace.

Exactly the same thing can be said about Islam.

So, condemn ISIS/Daesh and all Islamists as psychopaths all you want - I'll join you and work against them. Try to say this is what Islam is or Muslims are and we have a problem. Not with me - I don't care one way or another and people have a right to think and do what they want if it doesn't hurt anyone else - but a problem in terms of actually fixing things.


Religions can become pretty damn awful at times - whether Christian or Muslim. I am fairly sure that if you went back to the times of the Crusades, it was the Christians that committed the atrocities, and the Muslims (plus many other Christians) that suffered as a result. I don't imagine the Muslims back then split hairs when talking about the invading Christians!
I'm going back to my above points - the 'Christians' in the Crusades could not have been followers of the teaching of Jesus. Muslims perhaps different as they are allowed to engage in defensive wars but I don't think it's splitting hairs. It's more a case of defining terms.
 
#6
True but it's more than that even. It also plays into the current Zeitgeist and the rise of the alt-right.... I would contend that the main malefactors you describe here also share characteristics of Islamophobia, racism and various other toxic manifestations. Skepticism (and atheism) is just the mode of expression they choose as a carrier-wave.

If you want another example of the process check out Red Ice Radio which went full White Power in the course of 6 months. Actually I think Alex should maybe do a show on this (if he's interested) would be a great topic: the alt-right infiltration of alternative and 'conspiracy' media. On second thoughts he might not want to as you'd need to throw Pizzagate in the mix and we don't to go there do we?! ;)
I perceive the problem as militant liberalism, a mashup of aggressive anti-traditionalism, scientism, class war and a kind of undirected utopianism. MLs insist they are a beleaguered minority fighting for a future unfettered by beliefs of any kind, and are blinkered to their own authoritarianism. Something like the mood that lead to the French Revolution.

It isn't conspiratorial in the way the right often is, it's enemies are in full view, not shadowy false flag black ops and global bankers, AKA Jews. Their enemies are those of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, anyone out of step with the march of clean-sheet progress. It's Neitzscheanism, and world peace will only be delivered when the Ubermensche are in charge. Militant liberalism is relativism as a philosophy, political stance and lifestyle.1984 as an aspiration instead of a warning.
 
#7
I perceive the problem as militant liberalism, a mashup of aggressive anti-traditionalism, scientism, class war and a kind of undirected utopianism. MLs insist they are a beleaguered minority fighting for a future unfettered by beliefs of any kind, and are blinkered to their own authoritarianism. Something like the mood that lead to the French Revolution.

It isn't conspiratorial in the way the right often is, it's enemies are in full view, not shadowy false flag black ops and global bankers, AKA Jews. Their enemies are those of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, anyone out of step with the march of clean-sheet progress. It's Neitzscheanism, and world peace will only be delivered when the Ubermensche are in charge. Militant liberalism is relativism as a philosophy, political stance and lifestyle.1984 as an aspiration instead of a warning.
I agree there is such a group with those characteristics yeah. Kind of ball a bit at defining them as Liberals. But the US meaning of the word versus European might fly I guess.
 
#8
MLs insist they are a beleaguered minority fighting for a future unfettered by beliefs of any kind, and are blinkered to their own authoritarianism. ....It's Neitzscheanism...
Wouldn't Nietzsche have identified the SJWs or MLs as "the herd" developing their own arbitrary herd morality attempting to bring the world down to their mean level of mediocrity rather than aspiring ubermensch?


But anyway... isn't this thread supposed to be about who was disinvited to the dinner party and why?
 
#9
I agree there is such a group with those characteristics yeah. Kind of ball a bit at defining them as Liberals. But the US meaning of the word versus European might fly I guess.
Most of us in the West are liberals in the classical sense, but it doesn't say much about the detail. Like people who used Christian as a euphemism for nice, " very Christian of you" before the term became problematized. Problem is the liberals are no longer sandal and sock wearing, tweed toting, pipe smoking duffers out of Bletchley.
 
#10
Wouldn't Nietzsche have identified the SJWs or MLs as "the herd" developing their own arbitrary herd morality attempting to bring the world down to their mean level of mediocrity rather than aspiring ubermensch?


But anyway... isn't this thread supposed to be about who was disinvited to the dinner party and why?
I'd class myself as a Nietzschean of sorts. Been pretty hardcore for 30 years (well, less so now as I get long in the tooth lol!) but I don't recognise the authentic voice of his philosophy in that. But yeah...we're off-topic! But it's more interesting so let's keep going!
 
#11
Wouldn't Nietzsche have identified the SJWs or MLs as "the herd" developing their own arbitrary herd morality attempting to bring the world down to their mean level of mediocrity rather than aspiring ubermensch?
Ever heard Dawkins sound off about progress? Not killing Down's children is irresponsible? Can't condemn murder on moral grounds? Science is the sole arbiter of ethics? Not much wishy-washy warm and cosy stuff there. Imagine if he had the common touch?
 
#12
Most of us in the West are liberals in the classical sense, but it doesn't say much about the detail. Like people who used Christian as a euphemism for nice, " very Christian of you" before the term became problematized. Problem is the liberals are no longer sandal and sock wearing, tweed toting, pipe smoking duffers out of Bletchley.
Doesn't matter. I'm going to say that if vegetarians no longer avoid meat (could happen these days) then I'm still going to call them on it and never accept their changing of the goalposts. Especially if I am a real vegetarian.
 
#13
Ever heard Dawkins sound off about progress? Not killing Down's children is irresponsible? Can't condemn murder on moral grounds? Science is the sole arbiter of ethics? Not much wishy-washy warm and cosy stuff there. Imagine if he had the common touch?
Dawkins is unbalanced though. He's an atheist!
 
#14
I'd class myself as a Nietzschean of sorts. Been pretty hardcore for 30 years (well, less so now as I get long in the tooth lol!) but I don't recognise the authentic voice of his philosophy in that. But yeah...we're off-topic! But it's more interesting so let's keep going!
Well I only recently listened to "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and I was only half paying attention, so... I have no idea how true to spirit the video portrays Nietzsche... the video does turn Nietzsche's ideas into a club to beat down SJW's, so for that I like it. :)
 
#15
Dawkins is unbalanced though. He's an atheist!
Dawkins lack of balance isn't informed by his atheism, erroneous as I believe it to be. He's got that glint in his eye. He's a man on a mission. Imagine getting Dawkins pissed and asking him about the endgame. No limits. He'd fill the House of Lords with professors and have the Commons answerable to them. A man more utterly devoid of self knowledge and irony is difficult to imagine.
 
#16
So what? What's the point there? Why not call it what it is - why does it have to expand to Islam as a whole?
I think it has to expand to a much larger part of Islam than the extremists that actually commit these crimes. Clearly Muslims are taught that teenage girls should not be offered the same freedoms as other British girls enjoy. Going to an event like a pop concert - possibly in mildly revealing clothes - is completely off limits for Muslim girls (possibly technically still a generalisation, but surely not much). This form of teaching must implicitly set up the idea that Westerners that permit such things are breaking God's laws and are sinful. The extremists are just taking that reasoning one step further. Something of this mindset presumably drove the awful crimes in Rotherham and elsewhere.

The real problem with PC speak, is that it tries to silence discussion of topics that should be discussed, by splitting hairs in the way you are doing. I mean, the problem of the vastly different moral values between Muslims and all the other communities is rarely if ever discussed on the BBC, and yet it is obviously a major driver of the hatred that these men who have spent their entire lives in Britain clearly feel.

David
 
#17
I think it has to expand to a much larger part of Islam than the extremists that actually commit these crimes.Clearly Muslims are taught that teenage girls should not be offered the same freedoms as other British girls enjoy. Going to an event like a pop concert - possibly in mildly revealing clothes - is completely off limits for Muslim girls (possibly technically still a generalisation, but surely not much). This form of teaching must implicitly set up the idea that Westerners that permit such things are breaking God's laws and are sinful. The extremists are just taking that reasoning one step further. Something of this mindset presumably drove the awful crimes in Rotherham and elsewhere.
This is not actually the case. People in the West have been taught to believe it is the case. I will explain why and how if you want to ride along with me a bit.

List of countries where - to my personal knowledge - the things you mention above don't/didn't apply:

List One
Syria: been to many rock concerts there back in the day. Alcohol freely available. Girls where wore what they want - have photos of this but I won't bore you ;)
Turkey: Ditto but take it to 100%. Very liberal and extremely hedonistic in Istanbul at least. Alcohol - check. Sex available - check. Western lifestyle - check.
Iraq under Saddam - same but to lesser extent. Not because of laws but because of cultural aspects.
Lebanon - oh my God. Party central.
Jordan - again... well, you know the drill.
Indonesia - yep. Again.
Afghanistan pre-Russian Invasion: well... you get the picture

So - let's look at the other side of the coin. One example will suffice - we can call this List Two.

List Two
Saudi Arabia.

So, now let's expand the canvas a little. Who is the West's #1 ally? Clue: it's the same State that is one of the world's most egregious human right's violators and extremist rogue states. Bonus clue: It's in List Two.

Question: which list - 1 or 2 - embodies what you think of when you think of 'Islamic extremism'? Or even when you think of 'Islam'? I'm going to bet it's a country on List Two.

Supplementary Questions: Which countries from a list are being oppressed and eradicated by a country on the other list? Which country from a list claims it is 'True Islam'? Which country from a list has convinced the West that this claim is true?

Bonus: What will happen to the countries on List One when they are taken over or 'Iraqified' by the Western-backed extremists on List Two? I'll answer this one: they will become "Islamic States" and people in the West will shout 'see that's what Islam is!!!' all the while ignoring what they were for 1500 years before the program of 'cultural reform' got under way.

The sad fact is that it is the Saudis who are the extremist fanatics and this was never what Islam was - their sect was only founded (with the West's help yet again) in the 18th century. Ie 1200 years after Muhammad. Because they now have the money and the West's unquestioning support, they can spread their doctrine all over the world.

It is their doctrine you think of when you speak of Islam and you are right to oppose it - I do myself - but it's not Islam. And their ideas are not Islamic. You might think it hair-splitting but millions and millions of Muslims don't - especially when they're getting killed and persecuted by Wahabis like Daesh.

The real problem with PC speak, is that it tries to silence discussion of topics that should be discussed, by splitting hairs in the way you are doing. I mean, the problem of the vastly different moral values between Muslims and all the other communities is rarely if ever discussed on the BBC, and yet it is obviously a major driver of the hatred that these men who have spent their entire lives in Britain clearly feel.
"PC Speak". What does it really mean? As far as I can see it means "I want to be free to insult, to degrade, to mock - and I want to do this to the disadvantaged, the week, the disenfranchised and ethnic minorities".

But if you think it really means 'speaking your mind' I can do that as well as anyone - especially regarding Islamophobes. The irony is of course that if I did that right now in my 'street speak' I'd be as un-PC as it gets. And I'd also be banned which heaps on the irony as this whole discussion started off about people who WERE banned. So there's that. But that's a digression! Lol! Back on topic. You say this:

it tries to silence discussion of topics that should be discussed, by splitting hairs in the way you are doing.

Which is patently untrue and disingenuous. What I am doing is arguing that when the word 'Muslim' or 'Islam' is applied to 2 billion people arbitrarily due to the actions of - say - perhaps 200,000 radicals max, then that needs pointing out. I am up for a discussion on these topics 24/7. Strangely it never seems to happen. What happens is what happens with the atheists when you try to discuss religion with them.

But what happens when these things are pointed out is always informative. If it's a Britain First or other quasi-racist type that the pointing out is directed at then they will ignore this - because of their own bias, stupidity or perhaps inability to process.

If it's a rational person then they will process that information and perhaps adjust - after all, I am as against Wahabis, Daesh, Suicide bombers, general religious fuckwits as they are. So we have common ground.

But there's a spectrum and I often find that there are people in between the rational person and the BF neanderthal knuckle-dragger who also refuse to accept this info and keep on labelling all Muslims as terrorists (though implicitly of course) and Islam as equating virtually to the Daesh manual of Jihad. I have my own opinion of why this might be - such people are always, without exception, on the Right of the political spectrum, for example - but perhaps I should keep quiet about it.
 
#18
"PC Speak". What does it really mean? As far as I can see it means "I want to be free to insult, to degrade, to mock - and I want to do this to the disadvantaged, the week, the disenfranchised and ethnic minorities".
PC speak is a series of linguistic snares from which to deduce the moral virtue of the other. It's a way of reducing all human relationships to the political by problematising communication. Political correctness is a Band-Aid on the real problems of cultural pluralism, which are nothing to do with race, colour and sex, though they've been hijacked to its service, and the imposition of shared values where such values do not exist.
 
#19
Tarquin,

There is some truth about what you write, but unfortunately that doesn't help in considering the immediate danger for Britain. Here is a slightly more comprehensive list

List One

Syria: been to many rock concerts there back in the day. Alcohol freely available. Girls where wore what they want - have photos of this but I won't bore you ;)
(this was true) Turkey: Ditto but take it to 100%. Very liberal and extremely hedonistic in Istanbul at least. Alcohol - check. Sex available - check. Western lifestyle - check.
Iraq under Saddam - same but to lesser extent. Not because of laws but because of cultural aspects.
Lebanon - oh my God. Party central.
Jordan - again... well, you know the drill.
Indonesia - yep. Again.
Afghanistan pre-Russian Invasion: well... you get the picture

So - let's look at the other side of the coin. One example will suffice - we can call this List Two.

List Two
Saudi Arabia.
Qatar
Iran
Britain
Turkey seems to be changing to be more hardline, and not because of US pressure.


The point is, that Trump was and maybe still is, in favour of a lot less foreign wars, and I totally agree that those wars created much of the present situation.

PC speak is a series of linguistic snares from which to deduce the moral virtue of the other. It's a way of reducing all human relationships to the political by problematising communication. Political correctness is a Band-Aid on the real problems of cultural pluralism, which are nothing to do with race, colour and sex, though they've been hijacked to its service, and the imposition of shared values where such values do not exist
Precisely!

David
 
#20
PC speak is a series of linguistic snares from which to deduce the moral virtue of the other. It's a way of reducing all human relationships to the political by problematising communication. Political correctness is a Band-Aid on the real problems of cultural pluralism, which are nothing to do with race, colour and sex, though they've been hijacked to its service, and the imposition of shared values where such values do not exist.
And yet those who use the words 'PC' are invariably the same people who want the freedom to mock and denigrate.

I have yet to hear someone actively engaged in debate use these words. This is because there ARE many people actively involved in debate against extremism and Islamism so - by definition - they don't need to claim PC stops them as they are actively doing it.

The only thing PC prevents anyone from doing really is being insulting. And that's not a freedom that's worth much though, I agree, people should have that right. As I should have the right to abuse them back. I just don't want to do it first or make it my main modus operandi like they do.

It's a moot point anyway as 'freedom of speech' is a fiction for the sheep.
 
Top