Home >> Europe >> Great Britain
UK SWEEP Racism, EDL, BBC
Paul Austin Murphy - 10/20/2013
I. Manager of the England Team Put on the Anti-Racist Rack
On Thursday various British newspapers reported that the manager of the England football team, Roy Hodgson, told a joke (during a team-talk) about monkey astronauts which was deemed offensive by a player or onlooker. The joke itself is clearly not racist in any way. The complainer, therefore, must have deemed the racism to be a consequence of the joke being told in the presence of black or mixed-race players. To put it bluntly, he must have believed that Hodgson meant black person by the word 'monkey'.
The black player Andros Townsend, one of the players to whom the joke was told, subsequently tweeted the following words:
"I don't know what all this fuss is about. No offence was meant and none was taken!"
The Football Association has given its 'full support' to Roy Hodgson. Nonetheless, many anti-racist professionals, including the human rights lawyer Peter Herbert (Chairman of the Association of Black Lawyers), saw this as yet more racism being 'swept under the carpet'.
Piara Powar, executive director of Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE), also seemed to agree with Peter Herbert; though he stayed clear of accusing Roy Hodgson of outright racism. He told the BBC:
"This was a silly phrase to use in a diverse workforce. I think some players will see it as a reflection of the type of language still used by some coaches and some attitudes that still prevail."
Personally I think that if Piara Powar can't stop himself from associating black people with monkeys, then perhaps he should leave his professional anti-racist job and find work somewhere else.
What we have here is an example of the kind of absurdity and extremity which often happens during an inquisition of some kind. Just as during the witch hunts of the Inquisition, or during the height of 16th and 17th century moral and religious Puritanism, or even during Stalin's infamous purges again 'the enemies of the people', so the fight against racism is rapidly becoming more ridiculous and more and more extreme. As Stan Collymore (a well-known mixed-race football player) put it, the complaint against Roy Hodgson simply 'demeans every anti-racism campaigner'.
What I don't understand is why Roy Hodgson apologised. I've noted this many times before when people who've done nothing wrong nonetheless still feel the need to apologise. No doubt they do so because of the overwhelming pressure they feel from our puritanical guardians in this case, from professional anti-racists. Yet the joke wasn't racist. It wasn't meant to be racist. And it shouldn't have even been taken as racist.
In addition, the idea that the England manager should be careful about using words like 'monkey', as advanced by Peter Herbert, is obscene and frightening. My bet is that the person who reported Hodgson was either a (positive) racist of the Leftist type or a black person who was similarly on the look out for racism. Alternatively, it may have been someone who wants to destroy Hodgson or a person who simply gets pleasure from causing trouble.
As talkSPORT's (a British sports radio station) Adrian Durham put it yesterday, the person who reported Roy Hodgson for racism must come clean. Only then will this ridiculous party-piece be cleared up. Incidentally, all the black and half-caste players of the England team have said that it wasn't racism. So who the hell was it who reported Hodgson in this shameful or perhaps cynical fashion?
Peter Herbert, the Chairman of the Association of Black Lawyers (who was talking on talkSPORT yesterday), seems to take Roy Hodgson's apology as a tacit acknowledgment of his racist guilt. This anti-racist zealot and frequent contributor to The Guardian (who believes that those who belong to the BNP should loose their jobs), could hardly stop himself foaming at the mouth over Roy Hodgson's monkey joke. In one breath he was saying that regardless of whether or not it was genuinely racist, it should still be thoroughly investigated. In the other breath, Herbert was also saying that Hodgson should have been fully aware of what it means, in racial terms, to talk about monkeys. I'm not sure whether he meant that talking about monkeys in the presence of black people is racist or that talking about monkeys at all is racist. Whatever the reality is, Peter Herbert appears to believe that, as anti-racists put it, 'the word has racist implications and repercussions'. This is perverse and absurd.
Peter Herbert makes his money from fighting racism and no doubt he is ideologically/politically motivated as well. This may mean that this criticism of Herbert, as well as criticisms of him by other (white) people, will probably also be deemed racist by him. After all, Peter Herbert is black. And, in today's climate, any criticism of black people, as well as of Muslims, is deemed racist regardless of the fact that it is rarely, well, racist. The racism occurs because of the simple fact that the objects of such criticisms just happen to be black or brown. It really has become that simple and that sick.
It's often as if many or at least some - pious anti-racists are either trying to prove their non-racist purity by citing even more perverse and ridiculous examples of what they take to be racism; or that they are simply racists themselves. That is, it may be many or at least some - of the anti-racists themselves who have racist thoughts. Therefore in order to assuage the guilt they feel about their own racism, they project their racist thoughts into the minds and words of other people.
I've often thought that many anti-racist campaigners and loudmouths are probably the most racist people of all especially the white, Leftist and middle-class ones. Like Nazis, their counterparts, when they see a person they immediately note his or her skin colour if it's not white. And that changes everything for them. They will automatically see that person as 'oppressed' or an as a victim of endless racism. Or, alternatively, as exotica to be patronised or condescended.
The black or brown man will thus become the unwilling victim of the white Leftist's own positive or 'inverted' racism. He will also become an experimental subject of his obsession with race and of his pious and grandstanding fight against every possible act of racism under the sun. Nonetheless, I'm saying all this in the full knowledge that the particular reporter of Roy Hodgson's supposed racism may well not be a Leftist. Despite that, in so many examples in our various anti-racist inquisitions, it's usually a Leftist activist or campaigner who's making all the noise. And he often does so either for his own political/ ideological ends or because, deep down, it is he who is the real racist.
*) The Joke Itself
Nasa decides to send a shuttle into space with two monkeys and an astronaut on board.
After months of training, they put all three in the shuttle and prepare for launch. Mission control announces: 'This is mission control to Monkey One. Do your stuff.'
The first monkey begins frantically typing and the shuttle takes off.
Two hours later, mission control centre announces: 'This is mission control to Monkey Two. Do your stuff.'
The second monkey starts typing like mad and the shuttle separates from its empty fuel tanks.
After another two hours mission control announces: 'This is mission control to astronaut...'
The astronaut interrupts, shouting: 'I know, I know - feed the monkeys and don't touch anything!'
II. BBC Bias Towards the Critics of Islamism and Marxism
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) recently carried out a largely negative coverage of the political reactions to the Daily Mail's a popular conservative British newspaper controversial and widely-discussed article on the political relationship between of Ed Miliband and his Marxist father, Ralph Miliband. (Ed Miliband could possibly become Britain's next Prime Minister in 2015.) The Daily Mail itself then accused the BBC of propagating its own political bias on the very same issue.
Predictably, the BBC has said that it 'ensured both sides had the chance to express their views'. That's a stock response from the BBC. Even the wording remains pretty much identical each time it's expressed or published. This is understandable when you consider how many times the BBC faces the accusation of political bias. Despite that, the BBC is a tax/license-funded 'public service organisation'. That means that different standards should apply to its output when compared to a newspaper like the Daily Mail.
What's strange about this ongoing and long-term debate about 'BBC bias' is that - strangely enough - the BBC has often admitted to it. The BBC has even been explicit about the precise political nature of that bias. In the last decade or so I've heard on the radio - ten or more confessions (as it were) of that political bias from various BBC bigwigs. For example, the BBC has often been described even by its supporters/fans - as being 'liberal' as well as being 'left-liberal'. What's more, the BBC has describe itself in such ways. Despite that, at other times those admissions if that's what they are - of political bias are wholly denied.
Presumably the BBC contains people who are philosophically literate. And because that must be the case, then at least some of its employees must know that it's virtually (theoretically/philosophically) impossible for a news agency and broadcaster not to be biased in some small or large ways.
For example, as many people have put it, bias is shown in the very selection of stories which are covered as well as by those which are deliberately ignored. And even within that context we can add the fact that this bias includes which aspects of these already-selected stories are themselves selected.
Here's my own example of bias. Take the BBC News website in which most of the news pieces are very succinct and deal mainly in quotes and factual detail. In other words, of all the BBC's news output, this website is perhaps the least biased. Yet take the example of Tom Symonds - the BBC's Home Affairs correspondent - and his very subtle and sly editorialising on the departure of Tommy Robinson from the English Defence League or EDL (an anti-Islamist and counter-jihad movement). I'll leave the reader to decide how the following quotes can be construed:
.... marches attended by men and women who say they are working class...
Officially the EDL denies being racist...
Their [Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll] departure has weakened the movement, and its mobilisation of anti-Muslim working class sentiment.
Another personal experience of BBC bias occurred with the well-known BBC journalist and writer Mark Easton. In this instance I heard him pontificate for five minutes or more on the ceaseless and unpolluted glories of (unrestricted?) immigration on BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine Show. I decided to pick him up on what he said by emailing him. To my surprise, he replied. He wrote back saying:
I was not making an argument about the pros and cons of immigration itself...
In fact Mark Easton had done precisely the opposite of that. He didn't offer a single criticism of any aspect of mass immigration. In response to that reply I repeated my criticism in a return email. And, even more surprisingly, he replied again. However, this time the political nature of what he had said was made much more explicit:
I do think it is shocking that, a significant minority of people in Britain dont think immigrants who live and work here quite legally should be able to use the NHS and other public services.
Mark Easton also told me about the 'climate of prejudice and xenophobia at that time' (in the 1960s) and that the 'British have a very negative attitude towards immigrants compared to other European nations'. Now that could be classed as a simple after-the-fact elaboration. Nonetheless, those views were still there - if not so explicitly - in the original BBC programme; despite Easton's claims about 'not making an argument about the pros and cons of immigration'. In fact he put a very 'pro' position on immigration in the programme and the following emails only made his political position even more explicit.
None of this is surprising, however. Of course Mark Easton has political biases. In may even be the case that was he said is true or politically valid. So why then hide these biases or political positions through such silly dissimulation? And what is true about Mark Easton is of course true of the BBC as a whole.
It can be said that the BBC is attempting to do the impossible. What I mean by that is at one and the same time the BBC wants to both hide - or disguise - its political bias but also to fully express it. Yet this certainly isn't impossible. There are many ways it can be done. Political academics (like the now deceased Ralph Miliband) often do so by adopting the academic style: by including copious footnotes and references as well as a self-conscious lack rhetoric and polemics. BBC journalists do something similar but also add to all that a biased news-selecting process. Another gimmick, as it were, is to quote the words of the person or group one is politically against. That way the BBC can say, in its own words, that it has 'ensured both sides had the chance to express their views'. Neat. But all that depends on which words the BBC selects or chooses. It could indeed quote, say, a 'racist', 'Islamophobic' or 'far-right' politician. However, it could quite easily quote him saying something deemed extreme or inarticulate and then disregard all the positive or moderate stuff.
More on the Daily Mail
One thing that was largely ignored by the BBC - and utterly ignored by most other media outlets - is the fact that the Daily Mail justified its position both on Ralph Miliband himself and on his (possible) influence on Ed Miliband. Of course the argument that Ed Miliband is himself a Marxist is fairly difficult to justify. Nonetheless, the Daily Mail didn't claim that he's an outright Marxist in the way his father was. It only claimed that Ralph Miliband has influenced his son in specifically political and indeed Marxist ways. Indeed one can endorse certain Marxist theories or views without thereby being a (full) Marxist - as many people do.
Paul Dacre, the Daily Mail's editor, said that the newspaper justified its article in terms of a speech Ed Miliband gave at the Labour Part conference on the 24th of September, 2013. He said that this speech prompted the article.
More specifically, Dacre referred to Miliband's references to land seizures and price fixing two policies characteristic of Marxist regimes (including the Soviet Union). This is not to say that non-Marxist regimes have never carried out such measures. Nonetheless, it can be still argued that even if the government which does so is not Marxist (strictly speaking), the said policies are still Marxist/communist.
Another way in which BBC bias was shown was with its fixation on the Ralph Miliband diary entry written when he was seventeen. It's as if the BBC - and many others - think that Ralph Miliband stopped being a Marxist when he was eighteen. That clearly wasn't the case. He was a Marxist until his death. He even wrote his his last Marxist book, Socialism for a Sceptical Age, just before he died. (It was published in 1994.)
Of course when Ralph Miliband continued to express his Marxist views he didn't do so in the prose style of a seventeen year old. In fact he became an academic. Despite that, he expressed largely the same views only in a different way - in the style of a Marxist academic. That is, in the pseudo-scientific/objective style of any academic trying to propagate and in a sense sometimes disguise - a particular ideology or political position.
I doubt that anyone would have made such a fuss if the Daily Mail had published an academic version of what Ralph Miliband said when he was seventeen. Yet he said and believed almost exactly the same things right up until his death in 1994.
III. The EDL's Tommy Robinson leaves the movement to work with a Muslim organisation
Tommy Robinson, the leader of the English Defence League (a counter-jihad and anti-Islamist movement in England), has just resigned in order to join hands with the Muslim organisation Quilliam; a group which says that its primary aim is to 'fight against extremism in the Muslim community'. (Another twelve senior EDL members have also left.)
Tommy Robinson has justified his decision by saying that he doesn't 'want to lead a war against all Muslims'. It was also partly explained by his fight against open National Socialists (Nazis) within the movement; though not always strictly within the EDL itself. For example, Tommy Robinson's main problem, according to the British National Party (BNP), is to see things in terms of Islam and the behaviour of Muslims (as Muslims) rather than in terms of race. On the BNP website it said:
"As genuine nationalists we have deep ideological differences with the EDL leaders who openly support the ethno-cultural genocide of the indigenous English through mass colonisation and multi-racialism."
First of all, a firm distinction must be made between Tommy Robinson's motives for joining hands with Quilliam (which will be honourable) and what he's actually doing. It may be that what he's doing is simply wrong or misguided even if he does think it will be beneficial - in the fight against Islamism and the increasing Islamisation of the UK - in the long term. In addition, the best way to fight the Nazis is surely to fight the Nazis; rather than to link up with - or even join - a Muslim organisation. (Our English National Socialists are the exact counterparts of their equally totalitarian International Socialist enemies - Hope Not Hate, Unite Against Fascism and the SWP. These red fascists and their straight fascist twins are also equal haters of democratic capitalism: hence their long and boring mutual scrap over the same anti-capitalist and totalitarian bones.)
For a start, the simple fact is that Tommy is joining hands with a Muslim organisation; regardless of whether or not it is genuinely moderate or 'fighting against extremism'. Members of Quilliam, on the other hand, are not working with the EDL to discuss matters - it's the other way around. In other words, Tommy is entering the lion's den even if some of those lions may be friendly. Quilliam could, at least in theory, run rings around Tommy. Not because Tommy is stupid; but simply because they are Muslims who have become experts in defending Islam. In other words, they may persuade Tommy that Islam itself has absolutely nothing at all to do with Islamism and Islamic terrorism; let alone with Muslim sexual grooming and increasing sharia law in the UK. Yet this is almost equivalent to saying that Hitler's National Socialism had nothing at all to do with the Second World War and the Holocaust.
That scholarship, or pseudo-scholarship and taqiyya (depending on how you look at things), may well pay dividends for Quilliam. In Nicky Campbell's interview with Tommy yesterday (on the BBC), Campbell talked about Quilliam's 'Islamic scholars' in hushed and admiring tones as if he were talking about a great mystery or some holy persons. Everyone feels intimidated by scholars. Actually, we are probably more intimidated by the words 'Islamic scholar'? But no one should be intimidated by any Muslim 'scholar'. These people were Muslims before they were Islamic scholars and they were still Muslims through and after such scholarship. The scholarship itself was never even a tiny challenge to their faith. It fact such scholarship reinforced and strengthened their faith that's what it's for. Yet there are literally tens of thousands one on every street corner in some places - of 'Islamic scholars' throughout the world who are often little more than Islamic automatons whose only skill is that they can memorise Islamic texts and the Islamic party line (as it were). Being intimidated by the average Islamic scholar is almost like being intimidated by someone who can memorise the names and numbers of a phone-book. This is something that Tommy Robinson should bear in mind when he has discussions with Quilliam.
The Muslim and Leftist Enemies of Quilliam
Quilliam may well be taqiyya supreme. Alternatively, it may be manned by Muslims who are banging their heads against an Islamic brick wall or who are trying to put moderate square shapes into immoderate round holes (just as the 'feminist Muslim', Irshad Manji, is). Nonetheless, people must at least face the possibility that some Muslims are sincere about their moderation. If they don't, then they may well come across as bigots.
Despite saying that, moderate Muslims even if they exist in numbers- are not wining out in the Muslim world or even here in the UK. On top of that, many officially moderate Muslims - such as the BBC's Mo Ansar and Inayat Bunglawala (to name only two) - are not actually moderate at all.
And there is also another problem: the Quilliam Foundation is hated by both extreme Muslims and by those who claim to be moderate including, again, Mo Ansar and Inayat Buglawala.
Quilliam is also under attack from the usual Leftist suspects, such as the Stalinist fanatic Seamus Milne, the professional Islamophiles Jonathan Githens-Mazer and Robert Lambert, as well as the Islamo-Trotskyist Yvonne Ridley.
So Trotskyists, Communists and progressives are just as against Quilliam as some in the counter-jihad movement are. Why? Because, as white middle-class Leftists, they prefer their Muslims to be Islamists. After all, in their perverse world-view, Islamists are basically Trotskyists/ Communists/progressives with brown skin. And like them, they are out to destroy the West and capitalism. Thus this support of Islamist totalitarianism, from totalitarian Leftists, is no surprise at all. In follows, at least to these middle-class and white Leftists, that all non-Islamist Muslims are essentially 'Uncle Toms'; just as these white Leftists also once believed that all black people who didn't like rap or support the Black Panthers were Uncle Toms.
Consequently, even if Quilliam is a moderate organisation, it will probably not win out in the end. Most Muslims hate it and only non-Muslims such as Tommy Robinson! - seem to have any time for what it says and does. And that's precisely why most Muslims hate it. This means that Quilliam's battle against Islamic extremism may have been lost even before it began.
|Paul Austin Murphy lives in the north of England (Bradford). His articles were published by American Thinker, Human Events, Intellectual Conservative, Think-Israel, Liberty GB, The New English Review, Faith Freedom and other outlets.