The EU Elections: A Time of Anxiety for Brown, Muslim Europeans

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, roquefort said:

I would agree with you that politicians love to present easy solutions to complex problems. It's almost the only way they can get elected. But it's not a prerogative of the far right, they're all at it.

 

And yes, certain extreme elements can pose a threat to freedom, democracy and liberty. But that's true at both ends of the spectrum. The communist regimes in the Soviet Union and China in the 20th century killed far more of their own citizens than the Nazis. 

Then we agree on much.

 

Though right now it’s the far right on the march, not the communist.

[herfiehandbag]

The habit these days of labelling conservative politicians, polemicists and even journalists and their journals or various medias as "far right" is a complete exaggeration, but one which serves to demonize those you wish to argue against, in much the same way that howling genocide at Israel does

 

Past regimes of the far right were marked by extreme nationalism, institutionalised racism, the widespread use of extra judicial arrests, indeterminate imprisonment, torture and killings. The Nazis in mid 20th Century Germany, many of the South American military dictatorships of the late 20th Century, and the post colonial tribe dictatorships found in Africa. Perhaps the most egregious example of a far right regime today is the military regime in Myanmar/Burma. Many of the hallmarks of these regimes of course are replicated in those of the "far left", just as it was difficult to find a real difference to life in NAZI Germany or Stalin's Russia, so it is difficult to separate for example the lot of the people's of present day Venezuela and Myanmar.

 

The generation of Conservative politicians around today in Europe are light years away from that - Wilders and Marine La Pen (whilst I do not like much of their politics) are light years away from that) and are not coming to power through street fighting or violent revolution, but by winning votes from an electorate disenchanted by the course taken by the established parties. Ironically , whilst nationalist in terms of wishing to preserve the traditions culture and way of life in their own countries, they are rapidly becoming something of a pan-national grouping within Europe.

 

Suella Braverman, Jacob Rees Mogg,  Douglas Murray, Nigel Farage and others on the conservative tendency in British politics are readily labelled "far right" as if they were fellow travellers of Heinrich Himmler or Julius Stretcher. It is ridiculous; they quite simply are not.

 

To label the Spectator or Daily Telegraph as far right publications is as silly as labelling the New Statesman and the Guardian as far left, - I leave the Economist out of these comments because I can rarely understand it!

 

Robust disagreement and debate is healthy, and essential to proper democratic politics. This sort of perjorative labelling is not. It weakens debate and falsely labels opponents.

 

 

Edited May 30 by herfiehandbag

[Hanaguma]

Interesting to an outsider (non European) how the term "far right" is used. From where I sit, far right politicians generally are not in favor of state run health care, welfare programmes, full funding for universities, etc.  

[JonnyF]

19 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

The habit these days of labelling conservative politicians, polemicists and even journalists and their journals or various medias as "far right" is a complete exaggeration, but one which serves to demonize those you wish to argue against, in much the same way that howling genocide at Israel does

 

Past regimes of the far right were marked by extreme nationalism, institutionalised racism, the widespread use of extra judicial arrests, indeterminate imprisonment, torture and killings. The Nazis in mid 20th Century Germany, many of the South American military dictatorships of the late 20th Century, and the post colonial tribe dictatorships found in Africa. Perhaps the most egregious example of a far right regime today is the military regime in Myanmar/Burma. Many of the hallmarks of these regimes of course are replicated in those of the "far left", just as it was difficult to find a real difference to life in NAZI Germany or Stalin's Russia, so it is difficult to separate for example the lot of the people's of present day Venezuela and Myanmar.

 

The generation of Conservative politicians around today in Europe are light years away from that - Wilders and Marine La Pen (whilst I do not like much of their politics) are light years away from that) and are not coming to power through street fighting or violent revolution, but by winning votes from an electorate disenchanted by the course taken by the established parties. Ironically , whilst nationalist in terms of wishing to preserve the traditions culture and way of life in their own countries, they are rapidly becoming something of a pan-national grouping within Europe.

 

Suella Braverman, Jacob Rees Mogg,  Douglas Murray, Nigel Farage and others on the conservative tendency in British politics are readily labelled "far right" as if they were fellow travellers of Heinrich Himmler or Julius Stretcher. It is ridiculous; they quite simply are not.

 

To label the Spectator or Daily Telegraph as far right publications is as silly as labelling the New Statesman and the Guardian as far left, - I leave the Economist out of these comments because I can rarely understand it!

 

Robust disagreement and debate is healthy, and essential to proper democratic politics. This sort of perjorative labelling is not. It weakens debate and falsely labels opponents.

 

 

 

Great post.

 

Unfortuately there are a handful of prolific posters on the forum (we all know who they are) who are unable to make a coherent argument against many Conservative ideas and therefore resort to labeling everything they disagree with as "far right" or "whateverphobic" or the classic "I will ignore what you typed because I know what you're really thinking".

 

It's lazy, disingenuous and reduces the debate to name calling. 

 

The post directly above yours is a good example. 

[Chomper Higgot]

18 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

No. You were playing the "anyone who opposes Muslim intolerance/homophobia is far right/Islamaphobic/racist" card.

 

But you already knew that. 

I’ve laid out the criteria on which I believe someone to be a bigot and also on which I believe Murray to be Islamophobic.

 

Oddly you don’t challenge my rational, you simply resort to a personal attack.

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve laid out the criteria on which I believe someone to be a bigot and also on which I believe Murray to be Islamophobic.

 

Oddly you don’t challenge my rational, you simply resort to a personal attack.

 

I asked you to provide examples for Murray being Islamophobic.

 

You ignored that request, and repeated the accusation.

 

You have no evidence to back it up. I doubt you even read the book. Easier to trot out the same old "Islamaphobic/racist/far right/bigot" nonsense I suppose. Why break the habit of a lifetime? 😃

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

I asked you to provide examples for Murray being Islamophobic.

 

You ignored that request, and repeated the accusation.

 

You have no evidence to back it up. I doubt you even read the book. Easier to trot out the same old "Islamaphobic/racist/far right/bigot" nonsense I suppose. Why break the habit of a lifetime? 😃

Murray is a bigot and an Islamophobe.

 

As I said earlier I am not in the least bit surprised that disagree.

 

https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-douglas-murray/

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Murray is a bigot and an Islamophobe.

 

As I said earlier I am not in the least bit surprised that disagree.

 

https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-douglas-murray/

Not surprising, George Town is heavily funded by Qatar, even has a satellite unit there, not many Uni's have their own research project on Islamophobia

[candide]

3 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

The habit these days of labelling conservative politicians, polemicists and even journalists and their journals or various medias as "far right" is a complete exaggeration, but one which serves to demonize those you wish to argue against, in much the same way that howling genocide at Israel does

 

Past regimes of the far right were marked by extreme nationalism, institutionalised racism, the widespread use of extra judicial arrests, indeterminate imprisonment, torture and killings. The Nazis in mid 20th Century Germany, many of the South American military dictatorships of the late 20th Century, and the post colonial tribe dictatorships found in Africa. Perhaps the most egregious example of a far right regime today is the military regime in Myanmar/Burma. Many of the hallmarks of these regimes of course are replicated in those of the "far left", just as it was difficult to find a real difference to life in NAZI Germany or Stalin's Russia, so it is difficult to separate for example the lot of the people's of present day Venezuela and Myanmar.

 

The generation of Conservative politicians around today in Europe are light years away from that - Wilders and Marine La Pen (whilst I do not like much of their politics) are light years away from that) and are not coming to power through street fighting or violent revolution, but by winning votes from an electorate disenchanted by the course taken by the established parties. Ironically , whilst nationalist in terms of wishing to preserve the traditions culture and way of life in their own countries, they are rapidly becoming something of a pan-national grouping within Europe.

 

Suella Braverman, Jacob Rees Mogg,  Douglas Murray, Nigel Farage and others on the conservative tendency in British politics are readily labelled "far right" as if they were fellow travellers of Heinrich Himmler or Julius Stretcher. It is ridiculous; they quite simply are not.

 

To label the Spectator or Daily Telegraph as far right publications is as silly as labelling the New Statesman and the Guardian as far left, - I leave the Economist out of these comments because I can rarely understand it!

 

Robust disagreement and debate is healthy, and essential to proper democratic politics. This sort of perjorative labelling is not. It weakens debate and falsely labels opponents.

 

 

Practically, if Frarage is just 'conservative', how would you call mainstream Tories? 

[Chomper Higgot]

36 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Not surprising, George Town is heavily funded by Qatar, even has a satellite unit there, not many Uni's have their own research project on Islamophobia

Do you dispute the quotes and references the article provides?

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Do you dispute the quotes and references the article provides?

Which quotes exactly are you referring to as it depends on if its their opinion or fact

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

Which quotes exactly are you referring to as it depends on if its their opinion or fact

Read the article I linked and tell me which quotes you have a problem with.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Read the article I linked and tell me which quotes you have a problem with.

I read it, you brought up quotes, which ones are you referring to, don't dodge...........

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

I read it, you brought up quotes, which ones are you referring to, don't dodge...........

All of the included quotes and references to Murray’s system and scribbling.

 

The stuff you attempt to disregard en-masse.

 

 

.

 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

All of the included quotes and references to Murray’s system and scribbling.

 

The stuff you attempt to disregard en-masse.

Your question:

 

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Do you dispute the quotes and references the article provides?

My reply

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Which quotes exactly are you referring to as it depends on if its their opinion or fact

I will wait for you to get back to me on that.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Your question:

 

My reply

I will wait for you to get back to me on that.

 

I’ll wait for you to challenge anything written in the article I linked.

[GarryP]

“Brandon wrote that Murray has “represented Muslims as a collective threat,” and described his time worked at CSC as a “constant struggle to “de-radicalise” Murray and to ensure that the centre’s output targeted only Islamists – and not Muslims as a whole.”” 

 

That's the problem though, isn't it? Murray is not radical on this issue; he is logical. When it is not possible to filter out extremists from the many illegal immigrants, and the existing muslim communities, then the only option is to see muslims as a collective threat. Even those muslims who have culturally assimilated (and there are many) are not doing anything (with very few exceptions), despite being in the best position to address what is happening. So, in effect, they are supporting islamic and cultural extremism through their silence, i.e. a collective threat.        

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

 

I’ll wait for you to challenge anything written in the article I linked.

You made a claim which was:

 

"Murray is a bigot and an Islamophobe."

 

You linked to that article. Where in that article does it claim that? 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, GarryP said:

Brandon wrote that Murray has “represented Muslims as a collective threat,” and described his time worked at CSC as a “constant struggle to “de-radicalise” Murray and to ensure that the centre’s output targeted only Islamists – and not Muslims as a whole.”” 

 

That's the problem though, isn't it? Murray is not radical on this issue; he is logical.

the quote you addressed is an example of precisely why Murray is bigoted and not ‘logical’.

 

Targeting all Muslims rather than ‘Islamists.

 

Brandon, who knows Murray and has worked with Murray clearly regards Murray as radicalized.

 

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You made a claim which was:

 

"Murray is a bigot and an Islamophobe."

 

You linked to that article. Where in that article does it claim that? 

 

 

Refer my post directly above.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Refer my post directly above.

An opinion from Brandon makes him Islamophobic then? Perhaps Murray would like to challenge him on that. However a good example of how that Uni operates in its reports.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

An opinion from Brandon makes him Islamophobic then? Perhaps Murray would like to challenge him on that. However a good example of how that Uni operates in its reports.

An opinion expressed by someone who knows Murray and has worked with him that references Murray’s behavior.

 

Your dodging this fact is an insight into how you ‘operate’.

 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

An opinion expressed by someone who knows Murray and has worked with him that references Murray’s behavior.

 

Your dodging this fact is an insight into how you ‘operate’.

 

An opinion is not a fact. Especially when Murray has not been given a voice to respond.

 

31 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Which quotes exactly are you referring to as it depends on if its their opinion or fact

 

 

[GarryP]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

the quote you addressed is an example of precisely why Murray is bigoted and not ‘logical’.

 

Targeting all Muslims rather than ‘Islamists.

 

Brandon, who knows Murray and has worked with Murray clearly regards Murray as radicalized.

 

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

As explained, but perhaps you did not get, when it is not possible to filter out extremists so they may be targeted and ordinary muslims won't do anything about the extremists in their midst (or at least bring them to the attention of the authorities), there is no option but to target the whole.  That is not radical or bigoted. It is logical. Are you suggesting that if we are unable to target extremists, we should just leave the cultural/religious groups they belong to alone? That would be insane. 

[Flyguy330]

I always liked Murray's Youtube videos and writings on Islam. But since the Gaza campaign kicked off he's been acting like a rabid zionist and I've lost all interest in him.

Indeed the same applies to several other Youtubers, like The Apostate Prophet, David Wood, and Christian Prince (if you're familiar with them). They previously stuck to educating the ignorant on the truth about Islam using the Islamic texts to illustrate the insanity of that cult. But now they've all switched to plain old zionist rhetoric and denialism. The funny thing about that is they begin to resemble the very nutters they previously denounced (although, to be fair, without actually killing in the name of God themselves).

 

I'm a centrist mainly, perhaps floating to the right somewhat. I dislike and distrust Islam. But I don't hate every muslim. Many of them are victims of the cult themselves and secretly detest it. Prime examples include numerous muslims in Malaysia who have attempted to renounce their religion and have been dragged through the Courts and 'legally' punished for 'apostasy'. Any cult (religious, political or social) which punishes its recalcitrants by law, is a fake and weak creed, and demands rejection. Muslims need to be empowered to do so. Bombing and killing muslim kids in Gaza does not acheive that.

In fact it has the opposite effect.

[herfiehandbag]

3 hours ago, candide said:

Practically, if Frarage is just 'conservative', how would you call mainstream Tories? 

Farage is to the right of " mainstream Tories" who might be termed right of centre. He is, whilst disliked by many, far from "far right". He advocates limiting immigration, and deporting illegal immigrants. He criticises the utter Horlicks which is the Tory parties record on immigration. His views find considerable support amongst the populace. 

 

As I said he is disliked by many on the left, but he is not a fascist or a Nazi, and does not show the attribute of being part of such " far right" groups.

 

He is, in many ways, the classic example of demonizing conservative figures ( note the small C - he is not a member of the Conservative Party) as " far right". Incidentally, I neither like nor trust him particularly. I agree with some of what he says, disagree with other bits. I personally find the "hail fellow well met" approach off-putting. But despite some of the more hysterical commentaries, he is not a (slimmer) reincarnation of Herman Goering!

Edited May 30 by herfiehandbag

[candide]

16 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Farage is to the right of " mainstream Tories" who might be termed right of centre. He is, whilst disliked by many, far from "far right". He advocates limiting immigration, and deporting illegal immigrants. He criticises the utter Horlicks which is the Tory parties record on immigration. His views find considerable support amongst the populace. 

 

As I said he is disliked by many on the left, but he is not a fascist or a Nazi, and does not show the attribute of being part of such " far right" groups.

 

He is, in many ways, the classic example of demonizing conservative figures ( note the small C - he is not a member of the Conservative Party) as " far right". Incidentally, I neither like nor trust him particularly. I agree with some of what he says, disagree with other bits. I personally find the "hail fellow well met" approach off-putting. But despite some of the more hysterical commentaries, he is not a (slimmer) reincarnation of Herman Goering!

I was not particularly targeting Farage (I am not overly familiar with UK politics), that was just an example. It may be a different case from other parties in Europe.

I would tend to quailfy the Tories, LR in France or CDU in Germany as conservative. So how to call the more conservative or more right parties? 

My other comment is that while the far-right parties have often mutated into far-right 'light' ( ex. Marine Le Pen), they still include the more extreme components. 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, GarryP said:

As explained, but perhaps you did not get, when it is not possible to filter out extremists so they may be targeted and ordinary muslims won't do anything about the extremists in their midst (or at least bring them to the attention of the authorities), there is no option but to target the whole.  That is not radical or bigoted. It is logical. Are you suggesting that if we are unable to target extremists, we should just leave the cultural/religious groups they belong to alone? That would be insane. 

Oh the argument for ‘Collective Punishment’.

 

Now there’s a surprise…. Not.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

An opinion is not a fact. Especially when Murray has not been given a voice to respond.

 

 

 

Righty-o.

 

 

Edited May 30 by Chomper Higgot

[nauseus]

I have to assume that the OP author is a "brown, Muslim European" as well as a so-called "progressive" European. Perhaps if Muslims were to relent from hacking people to death in the streets of Europe, then this "rise of the 'far right' and, 'pervasive racism and xenophobia'" might have not come to the fore. If the majority of Muslims who do not practise these bad acts, which are anything but progressive, were to loudly condemn them, then that would push this rise back even more.      

 

Just, diverse and tolerant civilizations need these values instilled from within each member group.

Edited May 30 by nauseus