Monday, 21 February 2011

What if they were White?



This man is a fellow atheist that posts videos on youtube. Like most fellow atheists on youtube, I cannot stand him. I could write for months in a single post on why I often do not associate with the rest of the atheist community that make themselves public through sites like Youtube, but I will keep it short on this issue. In a similar vein to Richard Dawkins, most atheists on Youtube spend a lot of their time decrying people speaking 'irrationally' on topics they are wholly ignorant about, namely; evolution and related religious topics. Most of these same atheists however who are filled to the brink with Bible quotes also spend a lot of their time speaking irrationally on topics they are wholly ignorant about, namely: politics. Two topics that exemplify this particularly well are the abortion and gay marriage debates. These are topics often covered by European atheists despite these two issues rarely appearing in their national discourse, essentially because they have made little effort to properly educate themselves on political topics and therefore most of their discourse is influenced by lazily watching a few videos on Youtube which usually contain a heavily North American bias. Hence, many of their videos relate entirely to a country they do not live in and on topics they are not particularly knowledgeable about. The problem is however, that after watching a few religiously based arguments on these topics, these clever and enlightened atheists think that by knowing that the religious elements of these arguments are wrong, therefore all other related arguments must be wrong and by extension most aspects of the Conservative tradition in any context, because it is often infused with religious justification is therefore entirely wrong. What you often get as a result are incredibly conformist 'independent' thinkers that have all courageously and independently addressed the religious issues they faced in life, while unanimously and blindly buying into the liberal consensus often without much understanding of any of the intellectual traditions and justifications of what actually forms such views. As such we get fairly quick and crappy videos like the above one on complicated issues, with a veneer of research sprayed over them with a few links in the description bar that were acquired through 20 minutes of googling instead of any meaningful or genuine research.

A final quick example I'd like to give of this phenomena is of a user called DarkMatter2525 who I actually find fairly funny. A recent video he made was of a caricature of 'Jesus Neocon' which attempted to display the hypocrisy of the religious values espoused by the religious right in America and the political values carried out under the Bush Administration. On top of the fact that he clearly does not genuinely have much knowledge of the etymology of the term Neoconservatism and what the intellectual movement has entailed, despite claiming to only have views that are 'evidence-based' and 'rational' he made a video a few months ago where he made reference to Jesus Neocon securing the oilfields of the Middle-East in a clear reference to the 'War For Oil' Conspiracy Myth surrounding the Iraq War. Had his opinions genuinely been evidence based and not based on simple hearsay and prejudice he would have known that Iraq's oil is publicly owned and contracts were sold in a free and open market in 2009 with very little going to American contracts thus completely disproving all of the conspiracies that the uninformed little idiot had clearly bought into.

Anyway! The above video is a follow up to a video that was based on David Cameron's speech on Multiculturalism, of which I am pretty sure he did not actually watch the speech in question or at least not all of it, as most of his 20+ minute video was based on a very vague reference to what Cameron had actually said. Regardless, the above video follows a trend of the Youtube atheist community of cleverly rising above most of Western Society's 'prejudice' and 'phobia' towards Muslims and Islam and providing a continuous narrative of rejecting the religion but embracing the people in regards to the introduction of Islam into Western societies. Entirely on their political terms of course. The above video runs an often repeated theme that Muslims are unfairly treated or focused on in our society.

This narrative runs under the basis that the gutter press of the UK in this case can often make outrageous claims about Muslims or Muslim organisations that often turn out to be false. This narrative ignores the fact that there are hundreds of other disadvantaged groups that are not necessarily minorities that are also repeatedly misrepresented and unfairly treated by the media (take single mothers or disabled people on benefits as two obvious examples that come to mind). It also fundamentally ignores the fact that the media is just one aspect of society and using the media as evidence that our society allows loose and discriminatory language about Muslims is so palpably untrue in every other aspect of our culture it renders it such an incredibly irrelevant point. Under the last government, the Labour party were at such pains to not appear anti-Islamic that Gordon Brown stopped calling Islamist terrorism by its name but suggested that we start calling it 'UnIslamic Activity'. Truthfully I could and am about to give hundreds of other examples like this that render the occasional headlines by the Daily Express utterly void, but I won't overstep the crux of the post which is as follows; the point of the above video is that Muslims are treated differently because they are Muslim in our society. I completely agree, we do hold Muslims and their organisations to completely different standards to all other aspects of society. I would posit what the alternative scenarios would be in the following cases if the perpetrators were not Muslim but white men:


  1. The same year that attacks by members of the white community killed over 50 fellow citizens in co-ordinated attacks that targeted Muslims, members of the white community held up placards openly and explicitly calling for the murder of Muslims and other minorities clearly breaking the law over incitement to hatred and the calls for an end to democracy. 
When the same thing happened when it was Muslims that committed these acts the 'institutionally racist' and 'Islamaphobic' police, arrested virtually none of the perpetrators for fear of accusations of racism but, when a similar thing happened again in Luton with protests over returning soldiers again, no arrests were made but the police were quite happy to arrest the white members of the public that launched counter demonstrations in response. 

     2.  Private meetings between mainstream members of the white community (not members of the BNP or EDL) are infiltrated by journalists who uncover quotes such as the following. On Muslims: 'You cannot accept the rule of Muslims. We have to rule ourselves and rule others'. On Women: 'God has created all women even those with PhD's as deficient. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal one of a man'. Makes references to bombing Indian businesses and 'killing Jews physically'. Said that it was acceptable to marry girls before puberty. Saying that women must be covered up and if they refuse to be beaten. States that homosexuals should be thrown off of a mountain. 

Now we are all well aware that if a white member of society even unintentionally uses the wrong word to describe a minority, even if it is in a sentence praising the individual in question, they will be forever demonised and forced to apologise. Nick Griffin rightly received a lot of flack for saying on Question Time that gay couples kissing in public was 'creepy', surely therefore he would be verbally crucified for saying that gays should be thrown off of cliffs? As was the case when it was members of the Muslim community making these comments, not a single charge of incitement of racial or other hatred was brought against those who made such statements, but charges and public condemnation was heaped on those who had simply reported on the statements that had been made. It was also deemed acceptable that saying that gays should be thrown off cliffs and that women should be beaten could somehow be an acceptable statement if one merely heard the full 'context'. As far as I'm concerned the only words preceding statements that legitimise beating a woman or killing minorities that could make such statements acceptable is if they were sentences saying 'the following is not acceptable do not do it'.

     3.  White skinned hate-mongers that preach the murder of Jews and violent war on other minorities attempt to enter the UK and indoctrinate fellow white members of society across University campuses.

We don't even need to remotely speculate on this issue at all. Geert Welders who publicly defends Jews and Homosexuals was denied the right to enter the UK because he wished to simply stop immigration into his country. Representatives from Hamas and Hezbollah repeatedly and continuously under the Labour government, and many to this day are allowed unhindered (a right not even attributed to the Pastor Terry Jones who simply threatened to burn a book - stupid for sure but not the same as actually inciting the murder of Jews) to enter the country and preach to members of the Muslim community in the UK. On that note would a 'white organisation' similar to the East London Mosque, still receive public tax payers money and public congratulation if it invited a White supremacist similar to Anwar al-Awlaki to speak at one of their events through satellite because he was banned from appearing in the UK in person?

    4.  If white skin-heads perhaps from the BNP formed gangs that almost solely targeted Muslim girls for abduction, grooming and rape because they were Muslims and therefore were not considered as precious as girls from their own ethnicity. What do we think the response would have been?

This was the case recently in reverse, whereby Muslim gangs had repeatedly targeted mainly white young girls for grooming and rape with the explicitly stated motive being that they were not considered as worthy as women from their own community. Not only was there very little condemnation of these motives, but every excuse under the sun was presented to whitewash the nature and reasons for these attacks. Dianne Abbott mentioned that the area in question happened to be a mostly Muslim area hence the reason that the majority of attackers happened to be Muslim. Not only did this fly in the face of the fact that it was not idle speculation that suggested the fact that these were intentionally created Muslim gangs that were intentionally attacking non-Muslim white girls as was revealed in the court cases and even from members of the Muslim community themselves, but it overlooked the slightly obvious point that were it the case that the ethnicity of the attackers was purely down to the minority majority demographics of the area, then why on earth were all of the victims not from that ethnicity?! What's more a character by the name of Mohammed Shafiq that I would like to compliment and offer my praises to but unfortunately can't, quite plainly admitted on a recent episode of Newsnight with Douglas Murray that members of the Muslim community that were not involved in the attacks had actively pressured the police and other groups to not release information relating to these attacks in order to protect their community. Further he chastised Douglas for bringing this point up, asking why he was bringing up old facts, as if the years of silence that had produced years of young girls abandoned and raped was 'old news' and just irrelevant now (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMYNU8EKAPk). I will simply leave it up to the imagination of the reader of what the response would be, if white rapist gangs had singled out and attacked the minority Muslim females of their community which accounted for almost all of their victims, admitted in court the reason they attacked them was down to a sense of superiority, and then other white members of the community had actively pressured and stopped this information being released, and then downplayed it's significance after it had finally come out.

It's hard to think of a single mainstream Muslim organisation in Britain that hasn't been linked to the worst stereotypes of the Islamic faith. The Muslim Council of Britain most prominently which refused to attend Holocaust Memorial Day recently and went too far even for the Labour Party when one of its members signed the Istanbul Declaration, essentially advocating terrorism. While we very rarely hear about these groups on the previously mentioned YouTuber's channel, it's interesting that a complicated group like the EDL which contains minorities within it that have attacked innocent asian families going about their day to day life but for the most part is full of law abiding citizens that have non-violently protested and given speeches is instantly condemned and any racist remark by any individual of that organisation is used as evidence of the views and sins of the majority, while the video maker makes every effort to overlook individual cases such as those mentioned from the MCB and screams that we should not generalise about Muslims. I have many other points I could continue on but feel it would be a waste of time. This was a lazy video attempting to make a cheap 'thought-provoking' point on a subject the maker is entirely ignorant of, before I've even addressed the errors of the actual content of the video. I would strongly emphasise that as terrible as the actions of many of the examples of Muslims I highlighted in the above examples are, I am not implying that all Muslims behave this way, and that the government's response should be geared towards the community as a whole on this basis. In fact I often find that the largest source of suspicion towards Muslims is precisely because the government elevates these extremists and refuses to deal with them while idiots like the above video-maker entirely ignore these issues and brushs anyone as a racist that raises them, leaving people incredibly frustrated and confused on the issue of their Islamic communities that would otherwise not exist if we treated these communities and their extremists in the same way as we treat ours. By condemning the extremists and elevating the moderates and more mainstream members of the Muslim community, perceptions of Islam would change overnight. While it is true that everyday Muslims are not doing enough to make it clear that everytime the BBC invite Salma Yaqoob on she does not represent them and the broader Muslim community, or the same thing when the government hires Azzam Tamimi for advice on Islamic terrorism. This notwithstanding, the real people that should take the blame for this are the recent governments for their irresponsible approach to these problems and idiots like the original video maker that provide a smokescreen for these policies that are making things worse.

No comments:

Post a Comment