Monday, 24 May 2010

On the volley


This is the gift that goes on giving.

From the variety of comments it’s received, it seems obvious to me that there’s more to this story that just my usual lazy “Liberals are stupid on account of liberalism is stupid” meme. My views are tentative, exploratory, and also definitely reflect the official views of the management.

Julia muses:

Of course, in Germany, the swastika is banned. Several computer game companies have had to replace their rampaging Nazis with zombies in Oder to sell them in Germany.

What difference has such a ban had? Hard to say, but I can't see them lifting it anytime soon...

Case in point [assuming for the sake of argument that I support a ban on the burqa, which I do].

Between 1939 and 1944 the Nazi State was all-powerful throughout Western Europe and it originated and organised the deliberate murder of around 12,000,000 ‘undesirable’ non-combatants, half of whom were Jews, under cover of the war. That was power; there was much conviction there behind such a monstrous evil, with deep and broad [though far from universal] public support for some of the openly oppressive aspects - the core - of Nazi policy. That’s a big heap of nasty.

Germany was thoroughly de-Nazified during and after WW2 by a process that involved: defeating the fascist powers in a bloody and brutal war; executing their captured leaders down to quite low levels in the hierarchy; running a ruthless propaganda campaign throughout all of Western Europe to make even the slightest expression of sympathy with the Nazis wholly unacceptable, and finally banning all outward sign of the authentic political movements.

Even to talk about nationality and immigration is taboo throughout much of the Continent and even here for fear of something like that happening again. (You can have too much of a good thing, or a good thing goes stale, perhaps.)

There's a ban in several western European countries of Nazi and fascist uniforms and flags and, until it got really crazy with the EU and multiculturalism assaulting all authentic and wholesome European patriotisms, there was precious little in the way of neo-fascism or neo-Nazism beyond the fringes of each country’s politics.

Perhaps the ban worked.

Left-liberals seem to think so, as they rarely attack and usually uphold such laws, though there are some exceptions to this, and so it seems they have some well developed notion that freedom isn’t everything (!) and how right they are in principle.


You want to ban something because some unspecified men may make a female wear the something which she may possibly not care for.
Make sense.

But why were the Nazis reviled so much Anonymous?

Because they killed millions of individual non-resisting people whose race, religion, and politics they didn’t like – read they were pretty nearly uniformly xenophobic.

I’d like to avoid any kind of violence on this matter. Perhaps banning the outward uniforms and symbols of a present enemy that declares and acts upon a belief that people whose race, religion, and politics they didn’t like are abominations and fair game for violence might prevent similar madness taking hold here?

Since Islam’s founder was anti-Semitic and violent promising world conquest and dominion to his followers for all time.

Perhaps, therefore, forbidding the latest – and very nearly nuclear-armed – version of this might help to reduce some of the triumphalism of Islamists in our streets, who manage through a number of techniques to cow freedom-loving and law-abiding people into submission.

I suggest that we should stop tolerating this intimidation; paired as it is with an overwhelming sense of entitlement, as a matter of policy.

As Dumb Jon refers to it, there is, perhaps, no right to wear the enemy’s uniform in wartime.

Oh, and how much voluntarism is there in wearing this new, politically-motivated invention; this all-over-body condom?

I mean: really?

It’s a concern of mine, too, that Muslim women and girls here are being forced into this absurd and sinister costume just as their co-religionists in Afghanistan, Egypt, and Iran have been downgraded to subhuman status over decades of radicalization. I don’t want to risk that for Cheshire girls or Lancashire lasses, and a few angry imams and even more infuriated big brothers can just suck it up or ship it out as far as I’m concerned.

I’m reminded of anti-Abolitionist politicians arguing that black slaves didn’t really mind their chains – and actually preferred the structure and security of plantation life to the warlike existence of African nomads when people talk about Muslim women’s freedom to be ‘covered.’

Craig said...

Some German women undoubtedly choose of their own free will to dress up like Helga from 'Allo Allo' (and damn the discomfort it causes not only many non-Germans but quite a few Germans too), but I bet there are many more, like the fraulein who works at our place, who are told to dress up like that in public and daren't refuse.

A law like the one passed in Belgium would rescue her - and others like her - from all those German men who are still trying to foist their extremist beliefs on her, and on our country and much of the rest of Europe (and, indeed, the world).

Really? If it is still going on like that as that comment seems to indicate, well, it’s never too late to hate and fear fascism in all its forms. And remember that authority can be respected, if at all, inasmuch as it exerts itself to help the weak or even powerless to lead their lives free of bullying on a scale a long way milder than the obvious ones of genocide and slavery.

But my real target is woman-hating Islam, and I’m prepared to be called a fake fascist to protect this country’s less forceful women from the subhuman status that dressing them up like corpses is likely to bring.

Anybody noticed yet the ‘As long as you don’t do it in public and frighten the horses’ deficit in liberals’ tolerant attitude to girlie-head-bagging?

Kinky bondage in private might just be acceptable as long as it’s, well, truly voluntary and mutually respectful (good luck with that) but these poor girls don’t strike me as having much fun at home or outside where they’re exposed to suspicion and (secret I hope) ridicule.

And finally :

James Higham said...

Don't quite know what to make of that one.

I know James – there’s so much stupid to go round in this piece.

But let’s bullet-point a couple of questions, shall we, just for a taster, under the general heading “What the liberal missed”?

From the teacher’s edition, then:

Belgium has a significant minority Muslim population -- about 3 percent of a population of 10 million. Like those neighbors, it has done a poor job of integrating Muslim immigrants, and many cluster in ghettos that can be breeding grounds for extremism.

# So it’s the State’s responsibility to integrate people into the local way of life, is it?

What responsibility, if any, do immigrants have to fit into their new homeland?

# How come the half dozen people I know who are of German descent or of the Nazi German generation or the three who actually served in the Nazi forces are as integrated as all get-out, and why is it that none of their children have decided to rebuild the Third Reich here in England?

All they had to do in 1945 was to obey the laws, put up with some nasty, spiteful comments, and get on with it becoming British. Visits to their native lands for them involved taking food parcels and other western luxuries back out to the East and to attend actual weddings – and never ending up bombed to death at ‘weddings’ in the Black Forest or outside Gdansk by NATO air forces.

Is there something about Islam, perhaps, that promotes inter-generational non-conformity with the adoptive homeland that Nazi Germany lost in a single generation?

I think that there might be.

Still and all, at least the original Washington Post article explains how it is that, of all the countries in the globe, it should be the United States of America that gave the language that well-know expression saying or phrase Dumb-ass motherfucker.

Picture from here.


DJ said...

The only thing I'd add to that post is that, true, some folks want to ban the whole ghastly thing, but 90% of the action doesn't even get that far. Most of the time when Islamofascists jibber-jabber about freedom, what they really mean is the supposed right to wear the regalia of a murderous anti-Semitic death cult, yet still claim victimhood when they're turned down for a job at Cohen, Cohen and Cohen, attorneys at law.

IOW, it's not only not always about freedom, what they want is to crush the freedom of Infidels to discriminate against people who believe they're the sons of pigs and monkeys. Apparently, believing that your boss in an Infidel whore is no reason why you wouldn't make a good lawyer.

North Northwester said...

DJ, too true.
Muslims have - like the socialists before them - done to biting the hand that feeds them what McDonald's did to eating a meat sandwich.
Only with Islam, they punish you for eternity once they've done their business to your mortal remains.

James Higham said...

and why is it that none of their children have decided to rebuild the Third Reich here in England

The hard questions, yes?

TDK said...

I can't find the Laban Tall post ATM but in it he mentions the fact that first generation immigrants in the 1950s-70s did integrate. I think he mentions the purchase of a Burtons suit to be photographed in and sent home.

The fact is identity politics began to dominate in the late 1970s and 80s. And it is from that date that immigrants have ceased to integrate and instead revert to their heritage.

We have gone backwards, and there is little sign yet that the intellectual elite recognise the poisonous path they have taken.

Identity politics demands that people not be treated as individuals (who might have dozens of associations) but rather as immutable members of the identity group. On top of that it grants state money to community leaders to solve grievances, not realising that in so doing they exacerbate divisions. To get state funds demands that grievances are reported, regardless of how much is true, and that creates a mentality of being under permanent siege.

It is no wonder that Muslims take to wearing traditional garb and live in ghettos. That is the route to enrichment for community leaders who can then favour those who conform.

Kenan Malik observed the change

When I was growing in the 1980s, for instance, there existed a strong secular movement within British Muslim communities which challenged both racism and traditional Muslim values. It helped establish an alternative leadership that confronted traditionalists on issues such as the role of women and the dominance of the mosque. But this tradition became expunged in the late eighties and early nineties. Why? Partly because policy makers and government institutions decided to create links with mosques and mosque leaders, to afford them greater political leverage and in the process establish their views, and only their views, as 'authentically' Muslim.

It is identity politics that has to go, not the garb that Muslims choose to wear. The former empowers the "authentic" Muslim and dis-empowers those who have made efforts to integrate. The argument is: if you dress wrong, you drink in the pub, or hang around with "kafirs" then you can't be a true representative of Muslims.

North Northwester said...

TDK, I agree with your understanding of the history behind it, though there is a lot of evidence to say that first and especially the second generation immigrants [and this works for people moving into class and income brackets as well as nationality] rebel or otherwise go against the assimilationist first generation.
It may be that the Grandson of Jamal from Islamabad would have done something other than trying to buy his own garden centre uisnf his father [the doctor's] spare cash to do it, assuming that Jamal worked all hours to get his son through school and university.
The unparalleled depth and the antiquity of Islam's xenophobia and imperialistic political teachings, however, seem to ensure that Jamal's grandsons [and hence his granddaughters] are doing something other than protecting unique coppiced woodlands where a motorway needs to be, or collecting for the Terrence Higgins Trust.
Symbols matter; we are a visual species.
Still and all, this summer it's possible to wander round the supermarket in desert cammo and Cross of St. George T-shirts while the silly bints wear their second-class status as a weird kind of pride.
Thing is, their pals are killing the real thing overseas, and taking them down a peg or two might draw the high mark of dhimmitude in this country.

Realistically, we're miles off any such thing, the Cameroids and their illiberal chums being what they are.

But a boy can dream.

TDK said...

I don't think there's anything special about Muslims (viz-a-viz integration) except the special circumstances that exist now.

The first is identity politics, which encourages division and resentment. The second is the worldwide Muslim revival.

During and after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the dominant ethos was Nationalism. A European import, it stressed modernity. This dominated everywhere in the Muslim world except a few undeveloped areas. So we see Atatürk in Turkey, Nasser in Egypt, Bathists in Syria and Iraq, Jinnah in Pakistan, Libya, Algeria etc. driven by a primarily secular vision of how society should be ordered. That vision has been replaced or sidelined by Islamists only in the past 40 years. I think there are several reasons.

1. The triumph of Israel in 1948-73 over the united Arab forces ranged against them discredited the nationalist ideologies.

2. The rise of oil wealth occurred in countries that were previously undeveloped and consequently untouched by modernity. That gave Islamic traditionalists the power of propaganda.

3. Associated with (2) is the appeal of success. That was contrasted with the failure of "modernist" Arab societies to become wealthy. Think Egypt.

4. Nationalism was one reaction to the recognition that Islam had fallen behind the Western World - a desire to return to Islamic roots is another.

5. The victory of Islamists in Iran and the humiliation of America

The conjunction of identity politics and Islamic revival creates the problem. Without the latter, Muslim malcontents would be as dangerous as Lee Jasper. Without the former then we might emphasis the things we have in common and avoid the resentment. Identity politics tells "them" that they are or have been oppressed by our inferior society. It prevents us asserting the superiority of our own culture over cultures like that in Saudi.

It's worth reminding ourselves that prior to the Rushdie affair there was a perception that Pakistanis were "good" immigrants compared to West Indians. Discussion at the time amongst Tories assumed that whereas West Indians would gravitate to Labour, they might win the Asian vote. That's a mark of how out of touch they were concerning what identity politics was doing.

There's no point in banning the Burka unless we challenge identity politics. To do the former reinforces the sense of being under siege without any substantive gain. It attacks the symbol but leaves the ideology.

Let me put it a different way. Without identity politics we might feel free to hold Muslim beliefs up for ridicule just like Christian beliefs. Then the wearing of the Burka becomes irrelevant. She will be just a stupid woman wearing a silly costume, deserving of scorn or pity. It is precisely because we treat Muslims as being different, a class in need of special consideration, that wearing a Burka is viable. It's the protected status that has to go, not the things they do with that protected status.


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner