Disqus - Latest Comments for CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy)

Re: Racist mob attack: who to blame?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:45:06 -0000

But sadly, a sh*tty place to live. Why? Well I believe that a society is created by the effect of the people living in it. And however nice Iranians are individually, I believe that together, they create a sh*tty society. And ultimately, it is their culture and values that shape the society they create.

If Iran is full of 'generous and friendly people', "Reza", as per your statement here....

Iran has a lot going for it. Generous and friendly people.

.....and a country whose culture includes exemplary displays of kindness and hospitality, as per your statement here.....

a level of kindness and hospitality that even in Iran was astonishing

.....then that would have a direct positive impact on the culture and society of the country as a whole. Furthermore, it means that a) Shia Islam doesn't necessarily have a negative influence on people, or b) that the 'generous and friendly', 'kind and hospitable' people in Iran aren't exlusively or predominantly influenced by Shia Islam, and c) that correspondingly, Iranian culture and society isn't inherently a "sh*tty place to live" as a homeland whose "culture and value system have been destroyed by Islam".

As always, too many logical and factual contradictions in your assertions, "Reza". Far too many.

And as for those Zoroastrians which you're shedding so many crocodile tears for, you're forgetting that, historically, many of them were given asylum in India and were successfully integrated into the subcontinent's social and cultural fabric specifically because of the millennia-old multireligious, multiethnic and multicultural nature of India, concepts which you like to sneer at so dismissively and which you like to quote back at me now and then, since I've specifically used those terms in conjunction in previous occasions.

Ravi Naik is spot-on. Your entire attitude and behaviour is exactly like those historical individuals who attempted to impose religious homogeneity on Persia (and condemned people like Hafez and Attar as heretics, or ignored the humane teachings of Rumi and Sa'adi), along with the more recent corrupt mullahtocracy which has arisen there since 1979.

And as we've seen, your bigotry isn't restricted to "Islam the religion" as opposed to "Muslims as a people", regardless of your claims to the contrary. In fact, it's not even restricted to Muslims, as indicated by this disgusting statement which I'm going to quote yet again:

So that’s your answer isn’t it? Race replacement. Only when the indigenous British become a minority can your bitter, revenge-motivated Utopia come to pass. Then you’ll get even. For colonialism. For the fact that the culture and values of your parents or grandparents weren’t the ones that created this advanced society. For the fact that this country is a far better place to live than the backward sh*t-holes most of your ancestors hail from.

Bear in mind that this paranoid, hysterical statement was addressed towards Asians en masse, irrespective of the specific individuals and their respective attitudes and backgrounds, irrespective of whether they're Muslims or not, irrespective of the fact that the subcontinent has included huge numbers of Muslims who had far more in common with Rumi, Sa'adi, and Hafez than with the orthodox mullahs and warlords, irrespective of the fact that the extensive historical contact between India and Persia resulted in the latter's "generous, friendly, kind and hospitable" culture also exerting an influence on Indian society, irrespective of the fact that the historical links and similarities between India and Persia go back thousands of years, and irrespective of the fact that this not only includes those elements of Persia's history and heritage that you claim to be so proud of but also extremely influential figures who had a huge amount in common with Cyrus the Great (someone you've previously claimed to admire so much). And the latter includes some of India's greatest Muslim Mughal rulers as well as leaders from other backgrounds.

Emotive rhetoric and ignorant, misinformed, propaganda-laden hyperbole are pointless when "wilful myopia clouds reality" and completely warps one's mind far beyond the limits of reason and rationality. Most of all when the primary motivator driving you is blind, psychopathic, fanatical hatred.

But then it's easy to blame the targets of one's racist bigotry rather than taking responsibility for one's clinical psychiatric disorders. As an example of your true state of mind, that final deranged quote above says it all, "Reza".

Re: Asian caste discrimination still rife in UK

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:22:44 -0000

Shamit,

There are Muslim officers in Security Services as well as the Armed Forces who wear this country's uniform and put their lives in danger to protect us -- and you castigate all Muslims.

I just don't get you.

Something everyone should remember whenever “Reza” starts attempting to scapegoat Muslims and promote his paranoid conspiracy theories about them is the following quote:

“We bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there it's the thing they can understand. It's the thing the newspaper editors sell newspapers with. If we were to attack some other ethnic group — some people say we should attack the Jews … But … we've got to get to power. And if that was an issue we chose to bang on about when the press don't talk about it … the public would just think we were barking mad. They'd just think oh, you're attacking Jews just because you want to attack Jews. You're attacking this group of powerful Zionists just because you want to take poor Manny Cohen the tailor and shove him in a gas chamber. That's what the public would think. It wouldn't get us anywhere other than stepping backwards. It would lock us in a little box; the public would think "extremist crank lunatics, nothing to do with me." And we wouldn't get power.”

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=12696...

Re: Racist mob attack: who to blame?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:04:38 -0000

Trust me, "Reza", on both a personal and a professional level my parents have had a far more positive, far-reaching and indeed life-changing impact on large numbers of white British people in this country then you will ever manage in your entire lifetime.

And shame on you for referring to people's parents in an attempt to further your agenda. There was of course a recent precedent for that kind of behaviour on a certain edition of Question Time involving a certain Holocaust-denying political leader.

However, since you've decided to bring people's parents into the equation.....

And are you really telling me that you didn’t grow up with stories from your parents and grandparents of all the terrible things the British did to your countries? Everything they stole from you? That the only reason your countries are wretched is because of the British?

Are you telling me, "Reza", that your parents brought you up to believe that Iran is inherently and irrevocably a 'sh*tty place to live', that you should eradicate any traces of Iranian cultural influence and heritage from your identity or behaviour in order to ingratiate yourself with racists who may otherwise single you out for it, that you should be a complete coward about the matter, that Iranian culture and history has absolutely nothing positive to offer the rest of the world, that the same applies to all non-white people and majority non-white countries, that you should feel so ashamed and embarrassed by your alleged background that you should completely disassociate yourself from absolutely everyone else who is non-white and that you should indeed shout from the rooftops how much you despise them, that you should target Asians in particular, that you should in fact spend day and night writing sneering, internally-contradictory, explicitly racist comments to anonymous non-white people on internet blogs ?

In that statement, I’m presenting an analysis of the mindset of some second and third generation immigrants hailing from the Indian Subcontinent, Africa and the Middle East. The mindset that results in a resentment and envy of indigenous British people, their history, culture and values and the desire to change, undermine and and even destroy them.

Since you've been hypocritically making references to your views about people's "mental health", here's a suggestion for you: Why don't you take that specific paragraph I've just quoted, along with the entire comment addressed to Sunny which included the statement you 'liked so much you posted it again', and every other comment on this blog where you've mentioned the terms "assimilable", "multiculturalism", "multi-culti", "indigenous", "foreigner", "host nation", "client state", "parasite", and "race replacement", and show them to your GP so that he/she can evaluate your remarks from a professional psychiatric perspective.

Re: Racist mob attack: who to blame?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:34:13 -0000

I’d be glad to send you (and your buddy Jai) a tin-foil hat to prevent right-wing brainwaves from controlling your mind.

Perhaps, in return, someone should send "Reza" a KKK white hood and a complementary burning cross, since the following statement by him earlier today.....

Then you’ll get even. For colonialism. For the fact that the culture and values of your parents or grandparents weren’t the ones that created this advanced society. For the fact that this country is a far better place to live than the backward sh*t-holes most of your ancestors hail from.

....proves without a shadow of a doubt what a disgustingly racist piece of work "Reza" really is.

Re: Asian caste discrimination still rife in UK

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:25:52 -0000

Even the BNP have an idea of how their Utopia would be established, how it would look and they are willing to explain or defend their ideas.

Completely false. The whole world now has access to dozens of publicised answers from the BNP, formally authorised by the BNP's senior leadership, in response to forensic policy-related questions supplied to them by eGov Monitor.

The answers are full of denial, accusation, criticism, and conspiracy theories. And in conjunction with the BNP's most recent election manifesto, the limited number of proposed solutions are politically, socially, economically and militarily completely unworkable. Not to mention the huge number of cases where there have been outright refusals to give a straight answer or indeed any answers full-stop.

The consistent theme is that everything is based on 'multiculturalism' and 'immigration'.

'Intellectual bankruptcy' is the perfect description of both the BNP's deliberate scapegoating of certain groups for being the alleged source of the 'problem' and the BNP's subsequent 'solutions', such as they are.

And I think that "Reza's" posts demonstrate his true sympathies and attitudes to anyone looking in.

Re: Racist mob attack: who to blame?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:21:24 -0000

a good understanding of Shia Islam, modern Iran, ancient Persia

False. "Reza's" understanding of all of the above has been repeatedly exposed as being very poor indeed.

I doubt many BNP members would have.....the ability to speak Farsi.

Irrelevant. Enoch Powell was fluent in Urdu, for example. And posting random comments in Farsi, along with dropping random references to Persian food and locations, does not prove anything about one's own background. It is very easy to obtain such information from second-hand sources -- anyone with access to the internet can do it, for example.

So that’s your answer isn’t it? Race replacement.

According to his own logic, "Reza" himself has actively contributed to this, considering that he claims that he is Iranian, his wife is "Central European", and he allegedly has mixed-race children.

And "race replacement" is yet another addition to the very long list of specific BNP terms he has repeatedly used.

So that’s your answer isn’t it? Race replacement. Only when the indigenous British become a minority can your bitter, revenge-motivated Utopia come to pass. Then you’ll get even. For colonialism. For the fact that the culture and values of your parents or grandparents weren’t the ones that created this advanced society. For the fact that this country is a far better place to live than the backward sh*t-holes most of your ancestors hail from. For all the sins of ‘whitey’. You’ll get even.

That explicitly racist, neurotic rant exposes "Reza's" BNP credentials most of all. The mask inevitably falls off, as it always does.

Re: Event: What is radical politics today?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:09:17 -0000

A definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Indeed. This would also include obsessively and opportunistically posting neurotic monomaniacal comments about "multiculturalism" on discussion threads where it is irrelevant to the main topic.

And following on from that, another definition of stupidity would be dismissing & ignoring any counterarguments and/or information which undermines one's bigotted, misinformed agenda, and stubbornly repeating the same questions, hyperbole, strawman accusations and faulty rhetoric over and over again until one hears the answer one wants.

Re: ///////////

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:36:50 -0000

what? when did i say that, and spell al qaeda wrong?

Re: Big T-Mobile Annoucements & The Mysterious “Project Black”

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:45:02 -0000

I work for tmo as well and i have heard about this but no one seems to know what in the world its about, makes me nervous honestly.

Re: Obama commits another 40,000 troops to Afghanistan

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:36:04 -0000

No one has successfully occupied Afghanistan, not even Alexander the Great,

Galloway wasn't correct. Alexander the Great found it difficult to conquer Afghanistan but he did eventually manage to do it; his successors took control of the region as Alexander's empire fragmented after his death, and founded the Seleucid Empire. The Greek influence in the region lasted for centuries. Large areas of the southern half of Afghanistan also became part of the (Indian) Mauryan Empire, most famously under Emperor Ashoka.

More recently (relatively speaking), the Mughals also successfully conquered and annexed most of Afghanistan.

Re: The kind of people who want to stop ‘Islamification’ of Britain

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:07:31 -0000

I came here in 1973.

One example (out of numerous others) of a quote by "Reza" about the matter:

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5857#co...

"I’ve lived in London for 20 years. I came here from a Muslim background and an Islamic country."

Cherah in karah mikoni? Khodet mariz mikhoni, jahnam. Man fehk mikonam toh divoonehi.

"Reza" has also claimed that he believes "it's very rude for foreigners who live here to to speak their own language" -- see http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6037#co... -- along with the claim that his father drilled into him that it is bad manners to speak a foreign language in the presence of other people who will not understand you ("like the middle of an online debate"): http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6431#co...

Re: The kind of people who want to stop ‘Islamification’ of Britain

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:34:07 -0000

I came here from Iran as a child.

"Reza" has previously claimed repeatedly that he came here from Iran 20 years ago; he has also stated that he was at university in 1982. Which means that, according to that version of his story, he was in his mid/late-twenties when he came here and was therefore certainly not a "child" at the time.

Re: A Leeds report: stand-off between EDL and UAF

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:59:05 -0000

Great article, TCH. Very informative.

Re: Melanie Phillips and her columns

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:36:29 -0000

Jai

There’s a Simpson’s episode where Marge says to Lisa, “Remember when I made fun of Homer’s Sherlock Holmes hat? He sulked for a week then closed his detective agency.”

That’s what you remind me of.

Good for you, "Reza".

You remind me of a certain person recently on Question Time when he repeatedly denied making a certain speech in the US in front of David Duke even though the event was caught on video, then claimed he'd been "misquoted", and then came out with a ridiculous excuse when his exact words were quoted back at him.

Or, to give another example, you remind me of a saying from the northern half of the Indian subcontinent, which roughly translates as a person stubbornly continuing to insist he's still standing up even though he's fallen over in front of everyone.

Of course, it's pointless to expect familarity with South Asian culture and society from someone who claims to be Iranian but attempted to promote outright lies such as "Pakistan is ethnically and culturally homogeneous" and "Muslims in India haven't assimilated in even a thousand years" despite the long history of interaction between the subcontinent and Persia and the fact that modern-day Iran is the immediate western neighbour of Pakistan.

Hubris is a major character flaw, "Reza". So is being pathological liar.

As several people here have noted, you're continuously lying so much that you can't even keep track of your own lies. The really ridiculous thing is that you think anyone still believes your cover story in relation to your background, sympathies and motivations.

Which pretty much sums up your activities on this website from start to finish. I see that you really do believe that if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually believe it. Unfortunately for you, other people are frequently a little smarter than you presume them to be.

Re: Melanie Phillips and her columns

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:01:54 -0000

Persephone,

Its quite funny when he makes a faux pas without realising it. The reverse of the Coopers in Goodness Gracious Me when they try to act British.

Very true on both counts. What's even more ridiculous is how he ignores people identifying his numerous faux pas and blindly carries on, obsessively pursuing his Trojan Horse agenda, even after he's been repeatedly exposed as a pathological liar.

Of course, that's the kind of intellectual incompetence you'd expect from the type of people who go on Question Time and ramble on about "17,000 years of history involving indigenous Britons after the end of the Ice Age" in front of millions of viewers, even though the last Ice Age actually ended 12-13,000 years ago. They can't even get that basic fact right.

Or make ludicrous outbursts the next day about how London was "no longer a British city" and has been "ethnically cleansed of English people", even though nearly 70% of London's population was confirmed to be white (including nearly 60% white British) during the last ONS census three years ago.

I guess some people believe hyperbole, distortion and emotive rhetoric override reality when they have an agenda to push. Something "Reza" knows all about, of course.

Re: Melanie Phillips and her columns

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:29:09 -0000

I’m a regular visitor to Iran.....Even among my relatives and the educated metropolitan elite of North Tehran,....

Would it surprise you that I often hear repeated, the conspiracy theory that Ahmadinejad is being propped up by Jews to divide or discredit Islam and justify an attack on Iran?

Would it shock you that many, many people I’ve spoken to believe that Hitler was supported by Zionists as a conspiracy to create the ideal conditions for the establishment of Israel?

Would it disgust you just how many Iranians believe that the Holocaust was either a lie or grossly exaggerated?

It neither surprises nor shocks me that "Reza" would make such anecdotal claims based on his alleged inside knowledge.

Considering that "Reza" has already been caught out repeatedly lying about how many years ago he allegedly emigrated to Britain from Iran along with his alleged age at the time (and he keeps changing the story), his statements about Iran and the Iranian people have little credibility. Let alone his motivations for making them.

But I put it to you, if millions of Iranians came to England from Iran, would you expect them to simply leave those views behind and embrace this country’s values?

"Reza" has previously boasted about how well integrated and assimilated his alleged Iranian relatives in the United States are, a country which did indeed successfully absorb a large number of Iranians after the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and has an extremely successful and well-integrated first-and-second generation Iranian population, particularly in Los Angeles. In fact, in his own words, "Reza" has claimed he has "many relatives in LA" and that "Iranians in the US are, by and large, true Americans". (see: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5857#co...).

Yet more inconsistences and contradictory statements by "Reza", who has added the BNP term "alien cultures" to the long list of recognisable BNP buzzwords he's already used.

That "assimilated Iranian" halo hasn't just slipped awry, it's continuing to be exposed as a fake and is lying shattered on the ground.

Re: Melanie Phillips and her columns

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:02:29 -0000

Persephone,

Not only is Reza challenged by history, genetics, balanced debate, multiculturism, the iranian language but it also seems timeline as to his age. Theres a name for such a condition. Its called being a habitual porkie pie teller.

Exactly.

However, I’m intelligent enough to realize that this diminishes the debater and his or her argument.

But apparently he’s not intelligent enough to realise or acknowledge when he has lost the argument time and time again, or the persistent inconsistencies, distortions, contradictions and factual errors in his own assertions, or the way this persistently exposes the lies in his "cover story", or the fact that not everyone contradicting him is a "leftie", or the transparent "divide & rule" tactics he's deploying in relation to Muslims vis-a-vis Hindus, Jews and Sikhs, or the fact that "prophesying" is not an interchangeable term for "proselytising" (and that "prothletising" is not the correct spelling of the latter, unless he's 'typing with a lisp'), or the fact that most of his pronouncements are meaningless rhetorical soundbites that usually bear little relation to reality and rarely withstand proper scrutiny.

“Reza” could be politely described as "misinformed", except for the fact that his continuous dismissal of detailed counterarguments in matters ranging from history to politics to religion to ethnicity implies that his actions are actually deliberate and calculated. You and I both know that the accurate description "habitual porkie pie teller" would be just one of several terms for such a person.

Either way, I think someone grossly overestimates his own intelligence and grossly underestimates everyone else's. Not that we would expect much more when someone starts dropping the veneer of using "saleable" terms and instead blurts out terms such as "host nation", "client state", "parasite" and much else besides.

Eventually, the mask always slips and, as you said, the truth always comes out.

Re: Melanie Phillips and her columns

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:34:25 -0000

Refresh, Sunny,

Does he not remind you of Amir?

Jai – you know who Reza reminds me of? Remember ‘Amir’?

He reminds me of a number of people, some of whom are in the public eye and others who have previously commented on PP using various pseudonyms. The two groups are obviously not necessarily mutually exclusive.

It's also interesting that, for someone who claims to be such a highly qualified, wealthy and busy professional man, "Reza" has such an inordinate amount of free time to comment all day on practically every PP discussion thread going, day after day, week after week, month after month. Certainly compared to most of us who really do work in the private sector and who fall into the 40% income tax bracket. He's by far the most prolific commenter on this blog.

It's almost as though pushing his agenda on PP is "Reza's" real full-time job.

Why do we always get the nutters who claim to be ‘ethnic’ and then spout the same crap as the BNP?

Because they assume it's an effective "Trojan horse" technique.

As for the following gem from his post #16:

It’s bad manners. It’s something my father drilled into me as a child.

There was of course another recent incident involving a BNP member on Question Time making a similar immature, inappropriate, playground-style reference to people's fathers.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence…..

Re: Melanie Phillips and her columns

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:19:11 -0000

To be fair, I only believe that it is rude to speak a foreign language in the presence of people who don’t understand you. Like in the middle of a online debate.

Only if someone was speaking to you in Farsi and expecting a reply in the same language. The exact situation involved you being asked to translate something into English. Which bears absolutely no relation to the scenario you've just described.

If you’re convinced that I’m an imposter who comes to an online blog to lie about being born in Iran and pretends to have kids in private school then surely I’m not worth debating with. Just ignore me.

Almost identical words to a BNP member who had an identical writing style to you, voiced practically identical views, and was similarly prolific in commenting on this blog a few months ago. Interesting.

“Jai, it all suggests he was born c. 1982.”

I wish! Mind, some people do say I look young for my age. I was at Uni around that time.

Which means that you certainly weren't "too young" at that time to be able to remember how to read/write Farsi if, as you claim, you emigrated to the UK about 20 years ago. It would mean you were in your mid/late-twenties in 1989.

Re: Melanie Phillips and her columns

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:02:57 -0000

Persephone,

Reza, when did you emigrate to the UK?

According to previous comments on this blog, "Reza" claims that he emigrated to the UK about 20 years ago. He also claims that he was very young at the time and is therefore unable to read/write Farsi, although he claims to have a conversational level of proficiency in the language (and apparently believes that speaking any language other than English in the UK is some kind of abomination, based on his horrified reaction when asked to translate a simple line of Farsi poetry).

However, he has also repeatedly claimed that his children attend private school and he has used this assertion to support some of his arguments -- but they would still be very young (pre-adolescent, at a guess) if he is indeed telling the truth about the previous two matters. Very big "if", of course.

Re: 1984 massacre: still waiting for justice

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:19:26 -0000

Romans were not allowed to marry non Roman citizens or foreigners”

The exact quote from that website is "Romans were not allowed to marry non Romans citizens, foreigners". I see that some of the syntax results in it being open to misinterpretation.

Meaning, the term "foreigner" (and the term “non Romans citizens” [sic]) refers specifically to people outside the territory of the Roman Empire and who were not Roman citizens. If someone resided within the Roman Empire, they were not regarded as a "foreigner".

If you’re interested in reading more credible sources about Roman society, I suggest Rubicon by Tom Holland as an initial primer. It’s based on about 150 academic references along with numerous authenticated historical records from the Roman period itself.

As for "interbreeding", numerous high-profile examples include the fact that Julius Caesar himself had a son by the distinctly non-Roman Cleopatra and (more pertinently) the fact that at least four of the later Roman emperors were of North African ancestry.

There was a considerable amount of intermarriage which occurred between large numbers of individuals from various groups as they fell under Roman rule and whose members were granted Roman citizenship.

Re: 1984 massacre: still waiting for justice

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:25:56 -0000

the Romans (who ironically forbade ‘interbreeding’).

As an example of an outright lie, that's on a par with Reza's previous assertions about how "Pakistan is an ethnically and culturally homogeneous country" and "Muslims in India haven't assimilated in even a thousand years".

Re: 1984 massacre: still waiting for justice

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:53:27 -0000

If the people are ‘assimilable’ then they can be added as long as the rate is low enough and slow enough for those people to have time to assimilate. If that doesn’t happen then you end up with parallel societies.

If the people aren’t ‘assimilable’

The use of the term 'assimilable' is specifically from the BNP's 2005 General Election Manifesto.

Again, some people might read something into that, "Reza".

Re: 1984 massacre: still waiting for justice

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:18:55 -0000

Oh dear. To try to find examples to refute my observation you have to go back to the 13th century and the Roman period.

Some people might read something into that.

On the other hand, Reza, to try to find examples to refute the assertion that internally diverse societies are not necessarily inherently more prone to conflict and that internally homogenous societies are not necessarily inherently more peaceful, you have to completely ignore any counterexamples from all over the world stretching back not only centuries but millennia. And you have to completely ignore the fact that, according to your hypothesis, your own presence in Britain, as an allegedly "ethnic Iranian", is disrupting the peace and internal cohesion of British society.

And, of course, you have to claim that you're of Iranian origin and that you "hate the BNP" whilst promoting the BNP's own arguments, claiming that the basis for your stance is "culture" and "identity", not "race" -- something which Nick Griffin has been deliberately using as a Trojan horse for his agenda and which he has been caught on camera admitting to, as per that speech to the American Friends of the BNP in the presence of KKK leader David Duke which was quoted to him verbatim on Question Time.

Some people might read something into that, “Reza”.

Re: 1984 massacre: still waiting for justice

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:17:11 -0000

Oh dear. To try to find examples to refute my observation you have to go back to the 13th century and the Roman period.

Some people might read something into that.

Re: 1984 massacre: still waiting for justice

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:52:31 -0000

Multiculturalism is a fact of life –

Something Reza should be well aware of, as someone who claims to be such an ardent admirer of the historical Persian emperor Cyrus the Great.

I don´t think I need to give you a history lessson here

Before any assumptions are made about Reza not needing history lessons, bear in mind that Reza believes Pakistan is an "ethnically and culturally homogenous country", and that "Muslims in India haven't assimilated in even a thousand years".

Re: 1984 massacre: still waiting for justice

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:47:44 -0000

TajUK,

Reza is being sarcastic. He claims to be an ex-Muslim person of Iranian origin who regards himself as "fully assimilated and integrated" into British society, and is -- somewhat ironically -- obsessively opposed to any kind of internal ethnic, cultural or religious diversity either in the UK or in any other countries in the world.

Reza,

However hard I look, I just can’t seem to find any evidence that multi-ethnic/cultural/religious societies are more peaceful, cohesive and harmonious than homogenous ones.

In which case, as someone allegedly of Iranian ethnicity, your very presence in the UK is undermining the peace, cohesion and harmony of British society, is it not ?

Re: Happy Diwali

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:20:03 -0000

Happy Diwali everyone.

Re: BBC Question Time panel confirmed

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:42:49 -0000

Adnan,

Good to see you back on PP.

A quick off-topic note: there was recently a two-part article here which you should hopefully enjoy reading:

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6127

continued at: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6149

Re: Its “lack of depth was…. inexcusable”

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:59:56 -0000

“…repeatedly quoting from American Renaissance…”

What????

I’ve never heard of the organisation. When did I quote from it?

Reza, you have recommended the website and its contents on two occasions, here: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6150#co...

and here: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6150#co...

Re: Its “lack of depth was…. inexcusable”

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:35:04 -0000

The BNP represent the votes of over a million British people, and I suspect the views of many more.

It was under a million people. "Reza", you have been corrected about this before; on the previous occasion, the exact figure was provided to you, including the specific source of the number.

Persistently attempting to inflate the number of people who voted for the BNP will not assist your efforts to counteract continuing suspicions about your motivations and your real identity, regardless of your claims to the contrary.

For that matter, neither will repeatedly quoting from American Renaissance in an attempt to support your arguments (as you have done on several recent occasions), a website/magazine devoted to white supremacism and with ties to the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, and promoters of racial genetics.

And as for the following remark:

The only fascists I see are those attempting to silence debate.

The fact that you would make such an assertion regardless of all the facts you are already aware of possibly unmasks your true identity and sympathies more than anything else.

Trojan Horses are frequently identified and exposed, sooner or later.

Re: Daily Mail attacks BBC over Radio 1’s BNPgate

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 05:14:01 -0000

It’s interesting to read the Mail-reader’s comments at the bottom of the article. Every ‘Best Rated’ comment is sympathetic of the BNP, and every ‘Worst Rated’ comment is critical.

The same article also makes the following statement:

".....it is common BNP practice to mobilise members to post supportive messages on websites whenever their party is in the news."

Re: Is the English Defence League reaching out to Hindus, Sikhs?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:22:58 -0000

Christopher Caldwell: Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West

In which case, I have another book to recommend to you: White Mughals, by William Dalrymple.

Is it really that relevant?

Yes, Reza, because your experience of India has clearly been very limited, both in duration and in relation to the specific places you visited. For reasons which would be obvious to anyone from the northern half of the subcontinent or at least with a decent level of knowledge of the region, an individual with a very limited familiarity with the north is in no position to credibly comment on the nature of multiculturalism in India or the level of success of the concept in that country, especially if it going to be accompanied with references to "fragile peace" and whatnot.

And I accept Jai, that pluralism does exist there. However, I don’t believe that the majority of Indians would invent their multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious society if it didn’t already exist.

Pluralism is built into Indian society and culture because of the size of the region, the number of people residing there, and the fundamental basis of the civilisation going back thousands of years. Diversity is not a new concept in the subcontinent. It was already multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious thousands of years ago.

The reason that, historically, both Jewish people and Zoroastrians found a safe haven in India is because of this. As someone who apparently has roots in Iran, presumably you will appreciate the latter in particular.

Re: Is the English Defence League reaching out to Hindus, Sikhs?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:51:55 -0000

My main point is that there is no tangible evidence that increasing a nation’s diversity is a ‘strength’.

There certainly is -- about 13,000 years' worth of global history. Read Professor Diamond's book for extensive details, as recommended in #64.

You base your faith upon an ideal that has no historical precedent and is so far unproven.

Incorrect. Historical precedents include the following:

- The Roman Empire.
- The empire of Cyrus the Great.
- The Mughal Empire under Akbar the Great.
- The Khalsa under Guru Gobind Singh.
- The Sikh empire under Maharajah Ranjit Singh.
- Delhi and the remaining Mughal territories under Bahadur Shah II.

Re: Is the English Defence League reaching out to Hindus, Sikhs?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:12:07 -0000

Reza,

I am not criticising India. That nation is a result of migrations, invasions, wars and religious conversions over millennia. It does a brilliant job of functioning given all these complex factors.

Correct.

However, to repeat:

Exactly which part(s) of India did you visit, during your six weeks there ?

But if you can give me a tangiable example of why deliberately increasing a society’s ‘diversity’ is of benefit to that society, then I’d be open to your arguments.

Read the Pulitzer-prizewinning book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, a professor at UCLA, and you will receive a comprehensive answer to your question.

Re: Is the English Defence League reaching out to Hindus, Sikhs?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:26:48 -0000

I’m not an expert on Indian history. But I did spend six weeks there (taking in Sri Lanka). And yes, it does seem to muddle along with its disparate populations. However, as you accept, it has had its share of religious and ethnic conflict. Today, we have Hindu extremists warning of the demographic growth of Islam and supporting attacks on the Muslim community. We have Muslim imams telling Muslims to have as many children as possible in order to win the demographic war in India. And we have Sikh separatists, Hindu separatists, Islamists. A political system governed along ethnic and religious lines.

So yes, India does a remarkable job of functioning as a country, given its multi-religious, multiethnic and multicultural demographic, but it exists in a fragile peace that erupts from time to time in inter-ethnic or religious violence and death.

I don’t know about you, but the thought of British society ‘evolving’ to resemble India’s leaves me with nothing but dread.

Reza,

Recycling verbatim posts you previously addressed to other commenters -- http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6149#co... -- will not assist your credibility, and will add further weight to suspicions that your motives are insincere and that you have an underlying hidden agenda to push.

I’m not an expert on Indian history. But I did spend six weeks there

If you're claiming to speak as some kind of "voice of authority from a non-Indian perspective", six weeks doesn't quite compete with -- for example -- Mark Tully's 22-year tenure as the BBC's India Correspondent and his continuing residency in India for many months every year; or the historian William Dalrymple, who has lived in New Delhi for most of the year during the past 20 years.

Exactly which part(s) of India did you visit, during your six weeks there ?

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:40:40 -0000

I must have failed to be sufficiently clear that you continue to miss the point I’m making,

Let me be a little clearer too: I am a Sikh, not a Muslim. I have absolutely no interest -- vested or otherwise -- in "proving" anything about Islam as a formal, organised religion, whether it involves the question of Mohammad genuinely being the "final" messenger of God and his revelations genuinely being of divine origin, or the authorship, credibility and divine origin of the Quran in its final compiled form, or the historical accuracy and credibility of the Hadith, or the "correct", "true" interpretation of any of the above, or anything else which has resulted from this in terms of the infrastructure and paraphernalia of Islam in its various versions as an organised religion.

No more than I have any interest in "defending" or "proving" the "true nature" of Hinduism or Christianity, whether it involves (for example) the question of whether Krishna really was an incarnation of God who revealed the reality of his identity to Arjun on the battlefield of Kurukshetra and whose conversation with the latter forms the contents of the Bhagavad Gita (and which, like the Quran, is therefore also regarded by many devout Hindus as the literal "word of God" in terms of the words attributed to Krishna); or whether Jesus's life, identity, and message were accurately described in the New Testament of The Bible, as compiled during the reign of Emperor Constantine and as selected from the range of documents and texts on the matter which were available at the time.

Therefore, what constitutes “orthodox Islam” is immaterial, or is at least of greatly diminished secondary importance. The same applies to the claims of the orthodox clergy (and, incidentally, they are hardly likely to support, for example, various famous, popular and influential historical “contrarian Sufis” who opposed both the orthodox ulama of their time and the interpretation of Islam, religion and spirituality in general which they themselves may promote).

What matters is how other Muslims interpret Islam and what they believe. It’s the difference between “theory” and “real-world practice”. The two are not necessarily analogous – no more than they are in the cases of any other formal religions and people affiliated with them, either by belief or by birth. The “mainstream” version of a religion is what the majority of its adherents believe and how they practice it.

A person can dissect and denigrate the tenets of “orthodox Islam” as per their perception of it ad infinitum; it makes no difference, because what matters in the real world is what the people associated with it think and how they put their interpretation & beliefs into practice.

The main article, in its two parts, was not motivated by any kind of desire to “defend orthodox Islam” (regardless of whatever that may consist of), but to demonstrate that people immediately associated with Islam, ie. Muslims, certainly do not automatically consist of the caricatures promoted by both the Islamist extremists and the racists with an axe to grind against Muslims en masse. Far from it, in fact, as demonstrated by the numerous examples given in the main articles and to some extent the quotes provided in this thread in particular. Ultimately, it’s the human beings who have to deal with the repercussions of being stereotyped and misrepresented, not an ephemeral, inanimate theological construct called “Islam”.

The bottom line, once again, is that this article was specifically and deliberately about Muslims, not Islam. Hopefully the reason for that is now clear.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:34:16 -0000

What matters is the characterization of Muslims as a whole.

More accurately, what matters is the characterisation of the huge numbers of Muslims who do not fit the description of hyperorthodox, hyperconservative, or the various other negative adjectives listed near the start of Part 1 of the article.

Again: Islam, like any other religion, is a series of abstract theological concepts, with an associated ideology. It's an inanimate construct.

It is not a living, sentient entity. As human beings, however, Muslims are.

So, if fingers need to be pointed and issues need to be addressed, single out the specific individuals and organisations which are problematic and genuinely fit the various negative characteristics described.

Slandering and harassing individual Muslims or Muslims en masse purely by virtue of their religious affiliation and irrespective of the specific nature of their beliefs is lazy, oversimplistic, and in the worst instance disingenuously malicious.

And, to paraphrase what Ravi correctly said in #43, the stereotyped caricature promoted by both Islamists and bigots with a grudge against Muslims en masse is demonstrably false and grossly inaccurate, both historically and in the present day.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:23:42 -0000

Reza,

What was your motivation for starting this discussion?

Evident in the main articles.

Was it to prove that there are ‘nice’ Muslims?.....Well you’ve done that. But did you need to? Surely everyone accepts those assertions as given.

No, they do not. Not by a long shot. See the selection of quotes at the very start of Part 1, for example.

What you haven’t done is demonstrate that those ‘nasty’ Muslims have got it wrong and that ‘nasty’ Islam is an illegitimate interpretation of Islam.

That's neither the point nor the priority. As I keep saying, "it's about the people, not the religion".

And whenever you have a population of Muslims, you can be sure that some of them will be guided by the ‘nice’ bits and others by the ‘nasty’ bits.

Which makes them no different to members of any other organised religion, whether it's Christianity or Hinduism or anything else.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:00:36 -0000

Bananabrain,

i think they’re some of the most interesting articles i’ve read in a while. just wanted to say.

Thank you very much. I hope they've been informative too (and that the rest of the team at The Spittoon has enjoyed them).

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:56:08 -0000

Jai, I think you did a pretty good job in demonstrating that Islam is indeed diverse, and not just the caricature that Islamophobes and Islamists like to present.

Thanks, Ravi. (A caveat, though: it's been more about demonstrating that Muslims are diverse when it comes to their interpretation of Islam and their attitudes towards it. As I keep saying, "it's all about the people, not the religion").

I hope you enjoyed the articles.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:42:42 -0000

Jai, you are trying too hard to score points.

The same charge could be levelled at you, Qidniz, considering that you have written not one but two posts pedantically targeting my use of the terms “hyperorthodox” and “hyperconservative”.

To repeat, the authority of the ulama has never been questioned in Islamic polities.

I’ve already given you numerous examples contradicting this, whether it’s the spiritual instructor of the nominated heir to the Mughal Empire being a senior member of the Sufi Qadiri Order in Lahore (not a member of the ulama); or Hafez being buried with full Muslim rites -- despite the objections of the ulama -- due to his popularity and influence amongst the masses; or the last Mughal emperor of India, Bahadur Shah II, who was himself regarded as a Sufi pir and taught initiates, clashed repeatedly with the more orthodox members of the ulama, and spent far more time visiting Sufi shrines than mosques during his own lifetime.

Unless a country or empire is a theocracy (like modern-day Iran), the ultimate authority in Islamic polities has been the monarch (or equivalent), not the ulama.

If Baba Farid’s songs were not recognizably Islamic, then bringing him (or his songs) up as an example of Islamic “influence” was misconceived. So, which is it? I’m genuinely curious.

You are the one who referred to “the collision with Islam”, not “the collision with Muslims”. It’s a curious phrase to use; it’s similar to terming India’s colonial era as “the collision with Christianity”, considering that, from the Victorian period onwards, Christian Evangelism was an extremely significant factor in defining and driving British imperial policies & attitudes towards the subcontinent and its inhabitants.

At the risk of stating the obvious: Islam is not a flesh and blood, living and breathing, sentient entity.

What matters is the people who were Muslims and acted on their respective interpretations of religion and spirituality. Similarly, this is what matters in the present day.

I’ve given you a series of very famous and influential historical examples, consisting of, respectively, Muslims who were not involved in proselytising Islam “as defined and promulgated by the orthodox ulama”, Muslims who were involved in promoting universal humanitarian ideals with the aim to inspire and unite people rather than divide them according to sectarian identities, and Muslims who actively opposed the ideas of the orthodox ulama to the extent of being condemned as heretics.

Sufis, not being a homogenous group, certainly did include individuals and formal Sufi orders which were involved in proselytising Islam “as defined and promulgated by the orthodox ulama”.

It also included extremely well-known Muslims and formal Sufi orders who were either proselytising a very different interpretation of Islam or were proselytising certain ideals, not Islam itself. In fact, given the fact that many of the most influential and venerated Sufis of all as far as the masses (and frequently the aristocracy) in both the Indian subcontinent and Persia were concerned actually fall into this group, I do not see what the problem is.

Finally, since you seem to be a fan of Google, you may want to look up the term “negative sentiment override”. Its origins lie in a particular area of psychology and counselling, but it still has relevance in relation to possibly influencing your current stance towards Muslims.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:38:10 -0000

You would still have to demonstrate that the people you cite are also cited by Islamic authorities as leading exponents of tasawwuf in the subcontinent.

Qidniz, it's interesting how you are using "Islamic authorities" as the benchmark for such matters, not least because many of the Muslims I have cited actively opposed the actions and interpretation of religion promoted by the orthodox ulama they clashed with.

It reminds me of the efforts of members of the BNP (obviously not Muslims themselves and ostensibly implacably opposed to Islam as a religion and Muslims as a group) who have used, for example, the Hadith as "smoking gun" ammunition to support their arguments, and (extremely ironically) apparently believe in the credibility, authenticity and historical accuracy of the texts' contents.

And ironically, you're allying yourself with the ultraorthodox Islamic clergy (and their modern-day supporters) that opposed the aforementioned liberal Muslims who challenged their legitimacy and moral authority. And, similarly, you're allying yourself with the orthodox ulama and their supporters who emphasise the Sufis who were involved in proselytising Islam "as defined and promulgated by the orthodox ulama" and de-emphasise the famous Sufis who were not.

By the same logic, presumably you believe that Hinduism has always been defined by the formal Brahmin priesthood and they have been the ultimate arbiters of dharma, and not, for example, the various individuals associated with the Bhakti movement in medieval India who undermined their legitimacy by rebelling against areas such as caste distinctions and Brahmin ritualism and ultimately became extremely influential.

Incidentally,

Which potted histories have you been reading?

.....your own claims about the prevalence and (particularly) timeframe for the spread of Bhakti ideas in the subcontinent are also incorrect. In northern India, the movement flourished during the medieval era, specifically during the past 1000 years, and was not dominant during the period before "the Islamic intrusion" (as you put it).

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:35:30 -0000

Sonia,

Thank you for your kind words. It is an extremely interesting topic and, as the main article says, may challenge a lot of stereotypes and preconceptions.

Asians are obviously familiar with Mirza Ghalib, Bulleh Shah etc (and it's a similar situation with Persians -- and, again, many Asians -- in relation to Rumi, Hafez etc), but a lot of people are not. As I said earlier on this thread, there's far more to the history of Muslims (and the respective cultures that arose) than solely the historical ideological predecessors of Taliban Afghanistan and Wahhabi Saudi Arabia.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:55:39 -0000

Correction to #30:

Should say:

".....any number of examples from Mughal India (right up to the last emperor, Bahadur Shah II) where the emperors ignored or overrode the wishes of the orthodox ulama when it came to their own political and religious policies and any moral-based judgements or decisions they made".

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:51:44 -0000

The basic point is that “Muslim” does not automatically equal “hyperorthodox hyperconservative Islam”

It never did. That’s a straw man of your own invention (for reasons that are obvious, of course.)

On the contrary. It's a straw man currently being promoted by numerous individuals and organisations who claim that Muslims are "hyperorthodox, hyperconservative", fundamentalist and extremist by definition, regardless of whether the individual concerned is a devout Muslim, the extent to which they are "devout", and the specific interpretation of Islam (and the specific beliefs in general in matters of religion) that the Muslim concerned may have.

In a nutshell, it's the erroneous conflation which is the issue. In some cases the conflation is based on ignorance.....but in others it is disingenuous and completely deliberate, of course.

The title of this article is not "Islam, Modernity and the West". It’s not a coincidence.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:48:26 -0000

(E.g., are Baba Farid’s songs specifically Islamic in content? i.e. is it obvious that a Muslim wrote them, expressing characteristically Muslim ideas?)

Let's flip this around: Are they unIslamic in content, as per your understanding of "mainstream Islam as authoritatively defined and promulgated by the ulama" ?

You are obfuscating this basic truth of Islamic polities, that the ulama have always been conceded the moral high ground,

Once again, historically completely incorrect. Many of the most famous and influential Sufi mystics in both India and Persia clashed repeatedly with the ulama and certainly did not "concede" the moral high ground to them, whether it was (for example) Bulleh Shah's condemnations of the orthodox ulama's Aurangzeb-sanctioned attitude towards non-Muslims at the time; or Attar being tried and convicted for heresy by the ulama and subsequently banished from his home city of Nishapur in Persia; or Hafez's continuous conflicts with the orthodox ulama throughout his life, to the extent that upon his death they initially refused to allow his body to be buried as a Muslim.

And politically your assertion is similarly incorrect, whether it involves (for example) the historical popularity of wine amongst the inhabitants of medieval Shiraz, supported by the rulers regardless of the objections of the orthodox ulama, or any number of examples from Mughal India (right up to the last emperor, Bahadur Shah II) where the emperors ignored or overrode the wishes of the orthodox ulama when it came to their own political and religious policies and any moral .

and on the other, some Sufi sects appropriated while “going native”.

Again, historically incorrect. The musical element, "Sema" as you referred to it, originated in Persia and migrated to neighbouring South Asia in the 11th century. Later on, Amir Khusrau fused both Indian and Persian traditions to create the musical form known as "qawwali".

I thought the langar was Guru Nanak’s innovation (that some Sufi shrines thereafter copied.)

The langar system was already in place in some Sufi shrines in the 12th and 13th centuries and is traced to the Persian tradition.

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Langar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langar_(Sufism)

Mainstream Islam — as authoritatively defined and promulgated by the ulama — is the problem.

If huge numbers of Muslims do not practice "mainstream Islam" as per the "authoritative definition promulgated by the ulama", and as far as the Indian subcontinent and Persia are concerned, never have, throughout history, then why is it "the problem" ?

If the specific theology involved is "problematic", then -- as with any other organised religion -- it has no teeth if the average Muslim doesn't practice it that way (and, in many cases, may not even believe in it, either in part or in its entirety).

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:53:24 -0000

the Sufis were proselytisers.

Numerous examples contradicting this highly generalised assertion. Such as:

Attar, a Persian mystic who was a strong influence on both Rumi and Hafez:

"When neither Blasphemy nor Faith remain,
The body and the Self have both been slain;
Then the fierce fortitude the Way will ask
Is yours, and you are worthy of our task.
Begin the journey without fear; be calm;
Forget what is and what is not Islam.”

Also, as quoted in the main article:

”Whoever sets foot firmly forward in love
Will go beyond both Islam and unbelief.”

*********************

Bulleh Shah, Punjab's most famous Sufi:

”Neither Hindu nor Muslim,
Sacrificing pride, let us sit together.
Neither Sunni nor Shia,
Let us walk the road of peace.
We are neither hungry nor replete,
Neither naked nor covered up.
Neither weeping nor laughing,
Neither ruined nor settled,
We are not sinners or pure and virtuous,
What is sin and what is virtue, this I do not know.
Says Bulleh Shah, one who attaches his self with the Lord.
Gives up [the exclusive embrace of] both Hindu and Muslim.”

And an extract from one of his most well-known poems:

”Not a believer inside the mosque, am I
Nor a pagan disciple of false rites
Not the pure amongst the impure

...

Not an Arab, nor Lahori
Neither Hindi, nor Nagauri
Hindu, Turk [Muslim], nor Peshawari.”

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:50:08 -0000

The implicit notion that Islam Is “what Joe Muslim on the street makes of it” is a complete crock. (Try it with the imam at the nearest mosque.)

Historically inaccurate. You are exaggerating the alleged influence of orthodox imams or other members of the ulama, especially in regions where the influence of liberal Sufism was at least as (if not more) prevalent than orthodox mosques and madrasas. Ultimately it frequently came down to what the dominant ruler believed and his willingess to ignore or override the objections or aspirations of the orthodox clergy in relation to his political policies for governing the population and the religious and/or secular attitudes the royal court promoted.

The practice and interpretation of Islam has not automatically been synonymous with Taliban Afghanistan and Wahhabi Saudi Arabia (and their historical equivalents), especially in the subcontinent.

Pandering to this myth serves only to obfuscate that Islam, not Muslims, has always been the problem.

If "Islam is the problem", with the caveat that "Islam is what the hyperorthodox, hyperconservative ulama claim it is", then it is up to Muslims themselves to resolve that. Major differences of opinion in matters of religion and spirituality between orthodox members of the clergy and ordinary Muslims (indeed, Muslim aristocrats and royalty too) in both India and to some extent Iran/Persia has an extremely long history.

The basic point is that "Muslim" does not automatically equal "hyperorthodox hyperconservative Islam". And neither has anything and everything to do with the culture, beliefs and behaviour of Muslims originated from the latter -- especially where the subcontinent, its inhabitants, and people originating from it have been concerned.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:30:30 -0000

Shamit,

Thanks mate, I'm glad you liked it. Indian history has a lot of positive lessons, and obviously Iranian history is more nuanced than the current stereotypes too.

Reza,

I agree with Shamit, your points in #2 are actually very accurate; you should read Part 1 of the article too if you haven't done so already -- it discusses several aspects of the history & impact of Sufism in India, and a lot of it also touches upon the points you've made. This has been a long-term issue (and one which many well-known historical Muslims in the Indian subcontinent and its neighbouring regions have also tried to deal with), although, as Shamit correctly said, it's not an issue unique to Islam.

By the way, Reza, I am not a Muslim. I am, however, obviously of (British) Indian ethnicity, and my ancestry lies in various northern regions of India which were more heavily influenced and dominated by Sufism than most of the rest of the subcontinent. The cultural and religious impact on those regions and their respective inhabitants for nearly 1000 years has been considerable.

I am familiar with Ziauddin Sardar; his views on Islam are also accurate, especially in relation to the reality of its historical practice in India.

As I said in the first half of my article, India has an extremely long history of multireligious, multiethnic and multicultural populations coexisting with each other; this doesn't mean that Indian history hasn't had its share of religious conflict and strife, but there have still been a lot of positive lessons which were learned during the past thousand years of Hindus, Muslims, and later Sikhs interacting with each other in large numbers on both social and religious levels. You should probably read up on all that if you're not familiar with Indian history.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: the Great Deception (part 1)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:33:34 -0000

Update: For anyone who's interested, the Star Plus channel (on Sky Channel 784) is showing a special programme tomorrow night about Rahat's recent live concerts in the UK -- basically it's going to be a televised version of one of his concerts. I believe it's on at about 10.30pm.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: the Great Deception (part 1)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:24:12 -0000

No problem, Persephone. I hope you liked Part 2 of the article too.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: the Great Deception (part 1)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:00:41 -0000

Ismaeel,

I have never written or edited any Wikipedia articles. And no, I am not interested in providing any references to you beyond what has already been supplied -- it's not my job to convince you of anything and I have no interest in doing so. If you disagree with anything I have written, that's your prerogative, but I think it is best if you let the matter go.

Your priority should be considering if your actions assist in reducing bigotry, prejudice and hatred towards other Muslims, or actually make matters worse and play right into the hands of both anti-Muslim racist groups and extreme Islamist groups who want to promote certain stereotypes about Muslims for their own ends. More than anything else -- including arguing with me -- that should be your primary concern.

We can either be part of the problem or we can be part of the solution. I suggest you go and do some thinking about that, as there are far bigger issues at stake.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: the Great Deception (part 1)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 08:12:58 -0000

Rumbold,

Correct.

(By the way, I've just sent you a quick email so please check that when you have a minute).

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: the Great Deception (part 1)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:58:31 -0000

are you just reading from selective Hindu and Sikh renditions of history.

No.

Also, a great deal of information is also derived from Persian and Urdu records from the period, and both the original writers and the subsequent sources have absolutely nothing to do with either Hindus or Sikhs.

Incidentally, I have relatives who are formal members of Sufi orders in India.

rather he recommended the Guru not to attack Muslims.

Bulleh Shah did no such thing -- the very extract you have supplied contains zero information implying that. Banda Singh was not a Sikh Guru.

And Bulleh Shah specifically said (again, in the same extract you have supplied) that he opposed murder and revenge -- something, incidentally, which is exactly in line with the teachings and actions of the Sikh Gurus themselves. You should also do some research on exactly why Bulleh Shah referred to Guru Tegh Bahadur as a 'ghazi'.

************************************

Beyond that, I think we should now amicably agree to disagree and leave it at that. I hope your affiliation with the Naqshbandi Order is working out for you.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: the Great Deception (part 1)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:18:46 -0000

Amrit, Persephone, Shamit, Refresh, Rumbold,

Thank you for your kind words. The second half of the article is now available, so do check that out when you have some spare time.

******************************************

Persephone,

Are there are examples of women from that bygone era who were noteworthy? I know it was a male dominated world but did not any break through, albeit in a small way?

My article focused more on religious issues, but on a political level Muslim women like Noorjahan (one of Emperor Jahangir's wives) were often very much "the power behind the throne" (some say she was the de facto ruler of the empire). Much later, Umrao Jaan was obviously renowned for her skill as a poet as well as her fame as a courtesan. And there were influential non-Muslim women such as Ahilyabai Holkar -- the "Philosopher Queen" -- along with Meerabai, Akbar's wife Jodhabai, the Queen of Jhansi etc.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: the Great Deception (part 1)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:02:53 -0000

Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani Ahmed Sirhindi (RAA) who denounced Akbar and his religion din-e-ilahi (Naqshbandi Sufi Order)

Ahmed Sirhindi was effectively ejected from the Mughal court because of his extreme bigotry and his opposition to Emperor Akbar's policy of promoting peaceful coexistence, tolerance and secular equality with non-Muslims, especially the Hindu majority. And given Sirhindi's poisonous anti-Hindu tracts in response to Emperor Akbar's numerous reforms (including abolishing the 'jizya' poll tax for non-Muslims), not to mention Sirhindi's virulent anti-semitism (eg. his statement "Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam") despite no evidence of him ever having come into contact with any Jewish people, the breakdown of his relations with Akbar was fully deserved and none too soon.

Some examples of Sirhindi's writings, from his numerous books and letters:

In letter no. 163 Sirhindi wrote: “The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims.....The real purpose of levying jizya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.”

After the Sikh Guru Arjan had been tortured and killed upon the orders of Jahangir, Sirhindi wrote in letter no. 193 that “the execution of the accursed kafir of Gobindwal is an important achievement and is the cause of the great defeat of the Hindus."

And so on and so forth. Even Aurangzeb thought that some of Sirhindi's writings were so extreme that he considered banning their distribution in the Mughal empire.

Fortunately, Aurangzeb ultimately rejected that kind of mentality towards non-Muslims, and as I stated in the main article, the Naqshbandis are not representative of mainstream Sufism as far as India is concerned. The Chishtis are far more popular and influential. The influence of the Naqshbandis declined considerably after the death of Aurangzeb (although their ideology was a major influence during the creation of the problematic Deobandi school of political & religious thought).

By the time of the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah II, the Chishti Order was once again most closely affiliated with the 19th century Mughal imperial court and the liberal, tolerant culture and interpretation of Islam which the latter epitomised and promoted.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: the Great Deception (part 1)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:52:15 -0000

Jai, you linked to Wikipedia as your reference to Bulleh Shah and yet it almost completely contradicts what you are claiming for him:

On the contrary. That entire extract matches exactly what I said -- as would be confirmed by anyone who has a comprehensive understanding of Bulleh Shah's life, message, affiliation with the Sikh Gurus, the lives, message and actions of the Gurus themselves (especially Guru Tegh Bahadur and Guru Gobind Singh), and the actions and eventual fate of Banda Singh Bahadur.

Including the late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, incidentally.

Go see Aurganzeb’s sword see what is inscribed on it-

What's inscribed on his sword is irrelevant (and it also depends on exactly how and when Aurangzeb came into possession of the sword). Aurangzeb was affiliated with, and most strongly influenced by, the Naqshbandis (and Ahmed Sirhindi's writings in particular) for most of his life.

However, at the very end of his life, as confirmed in his own memoirs and letters to his sons, Aurangzeb deeply regretted his previous actions, renounced the particular interpretation of Islam he’d previously believed in, and ceased all hostilities with the Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious groups he’d spent his life persecuting -- a fact that those who admire him for his previous activities conveniently forget or ignore.

And as far as Qadiri Sufis in India were concerned, they (particularly Hazrat Mian Mir) supported Dara Shukoh, and therefore opposed Aurangzeb and his attitude to religion.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: the Great Deception (part 1)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:46:58 -0000

and bear in mind I am a Brealwi-Sufi myself

That's an interesting assertion. Ahmad Raza Khan, the founder of the Barelvis, issued fatwas (with the support of numerous members of the Muslim clergy in the subcontinent and Mecca) against the Deobandis and the Wahhabis, accusing them of 'takfir'.

And modern-day Barelvis have continued to forcefully oppose Deobandis and Wahhabi-Salafis, both in terms of organising mass protests and rallies against the "Talibanisation" of South Asia and in terms of having suffered extreme violence at the hands of Deobandi-affiliated terrorists and activists aiming to seize control of Barelvi-affiliated mosques.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: the Great Deception (part 1)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:51:00 -0000

A brief update to my post #16:

We are currently investigating if "Ismaeel" is Munir. If his identity is confirmed as such, his comments on this thread will be deleted as per the normal procedure regarding banned commenters.

Readers are therefore requested to refrain from responding to his comments on this thread until the matter is resolved, as any replies to him many also be deleted.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: the Great Deception (part 1)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:25:49 -0000

Incidentally, a general public notice, based on numerous precedents involving this topic:

If "Munir" attempts to participate on this thread using his usual username or any aliases, he should bear in mind that not only is he permanently banned from this website (which will result in his comments being deleted), but by attempting to circumvent the ban he will be breaking the law and may therefore be liable to criminal prosecution.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: the Great Deception (part 1)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:21:24 -0000

Mughal Emperor Aurganzeb(Qadiri Sufi Order)

Aurangzeb was very heavily influenced by the ideas of Ahmed Sirhindi, of the Naqshbandis.

and bear in mind I am a Brealwi-Sufi myself

The correct spelling is "Barelvi".

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: the Great Deception (part 1)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:07:41 -0000

Jai I was being sarcastic…

I know, Ismaeel -- I was just clarifying that for the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with the people/groups mentioned in the article, and who may therefore take your tongue-in-cheek comments literally.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: the Great Deception (part 1)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:39:51 -0000

Thanks to everyone who has responded positively (there plenty of music clips in the article as well, so do check those out from home). There is a lot more in the second half tomorrow, so hopefully that should also be of interest.

**********************************

Anas,

The article was already fairly long so I did not include information on Amir Khusrau (amongst others), although originally I did intend to; the list of people mentioned in the article is not meant to be exhaustive. You are of course absolutely correct about his considerable contribution to northern Indian classical music.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Khusro

************************************************

the Naqshbandis are a sect of Muslims not a Sufi order

Incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism_in_India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naqshbandi

Re: The Du Beke non-apology

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 06:38:15 -0000

Rumbold,

Could you please put the URL link currently under "Lakhwinder" under the previous phrase "this is a wonderfully uplifting song by them" instead.

Apart from that, everything is fine now, thanks for sorting it out mate.

Re: The Du Beke non-apology

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 06:08:15 -0000

Rumbold,

Could you please check your email when you have a spare minute.

Re: The Du Beke non-apology

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:03:00 -0000

Dalbir: Unlike the Asian community, where a majority would never date a black man.

Marvin, if you seriously believe that British Asian women don't date black men, especially in major cities like London, then I'm afraid your ideas are about 20 years out of date.

Re: Anton Du Beke: context matters in racist jibes

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:52:45 -0000

Dalbir,

I’ve also noticed that it is much more acceptable to use the word paki to refer to the brown skinned than it is to use the equivalent nigger, for black people. I wonder why this is?

Good question. Might have something to do with the American cultural influence in recent times, ie. using n*gger has become extremely offensive and unacceptable in the US (in "polite society", anyway), and because of all the cultural and media links, the same attitude has made its way into British society too. Plus black people have a higher visibility than Asians, again particularly due to the American influence.

Conversely, "Paki" is something specific to Britain and, unlike the n word, is relatively recent. N*gger has a very long history on both sides of the Atlantic; and, incidentally, during colonial times it was also an insult used by racist Brits to describe Indians (as well as black people).

Re: Anton Du Beke: context matters in racist jibes

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:44:00 -0000

Based on various reports in the media, Laila was sufficiently insulted by the fact that Du Beke casually used this term (and in front of a large group of other people present who were shocked into silence) that she immediately packed up her belongings and went home.

Although Du Beke was aware of Laila's Moroccan ancestry, it looks like he didn't know about her Indian mother, hence the "look like a Paki" remark. Regardless of his apology and claims not to be a racist, the fact that he would presumably use such terminology while making a "joke" to someone if they didn't have an Asian background (let alone someone like Laila who obviously does have Asian ancestry) says quite a lot about the reality of his attitudes, and not in a good way.

It's the equivalent of him casually "joking" to Alesha Dixon, "You look like a n*gger", and then claiming that he's not racist and that no offence was intended.

Re: Sayeeda Warsi criticises ’state multi-culturalism’, English Defence League

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:57:07 -0000

Equally certain is that these colonial troops made no significant contribution, to the “defeat of fascism” in Europe.....Troops from India would have played a more significant role in the Asian theatre, but then that is not in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_in_World_War_II

"The Army of India was one of the largest Allied forces contingents which took part in the North and East African Campaign, Western Desert Campaign and the Italian Campaign....

...The Middle East and African theatre

Main articles: Western Desert Campaign, Anglo-Iraqi War, Syria-Lebanon Campaign, East African Campaign (World War II), and Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran

The British government meanwhile sent Indian troops to fight in West Asia and northern Africa against the Axis. India also geared up to produce essential goods such as food and uniforms. Pre-Independence India provided the largest volunteer force (2.5 million) of any nation during World War II.

The 4th, 5th and 8th Indian Divisions took part in the North African theatre against Rommel's Afrika Korps. Furthermore, the 4th and 5th Indian Divisions took part in the East African campaign against the Italians in Somaliland, Eritrea and Abyssinia.

In the Battle of Bir Hacheim, Indian gunners played an important role by using guns in the anti tank role and destroying tanks of Rommel's panzer divisions. Maj PPK Kumaramangalam was the battery commander of 41 Field Regiment which was deployed in the anti tank role. He was awarded the DSO for his act of bravery. Later he became the Chief of Army Staff of independent India in 1967.

....The invasion of Italy

Indian forces played a significant part in liberating Italy from fascism. The British Army of India contributed the 3rd largest Allied contingent in the Italian campaign after the US and British forces. The 4th, 8th and 10th Infantry Divisions and 43rd Gurkha mechanised Infantry Brigade were involved, notably the former two at the famous Battle of Monte Cassino and all of them in the torrid fighting on the Gothic Line in late 1944 and 1945."

Re: Inayat Bunglawala sticks up for gay Muslims

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:19:06 -0000

Maybe Inayat caught "Dostana" when it was shown on one of the South Asian satellite/cable channels here in Blighty a few weekends ago.....

;)

Re: BBC editor replies to Radio 1’s BNP-gate

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:41:16 -0000

"Reza" (assuming that's your real name),

I'll make it simple for you.

1. You ignore the fact that the two largest democratic nations in the world, whilst indeed having a dominant majority culture in both cases, are not internally ethnically or culturally homogenous. I'm referring to the United States and (particularly) India. The latter's post-independent ethos is essentially the same as that of the US, ie. "out of many, one". And on the whole, it has been successful.

Even Iran, while less diverse than India, certainly isn't homogenous, either culturally or ethnically. If you really are Iranian, you should know that. If.

2. Islam, which you claim has an "awful belief system and ideology", isn't represented solely by mullahs, Wahhabis, Islamists, terrorists or warlords, either historically or in the present day. This certainly hasn't been the case in historical Iran in particular (or neighbouring South Asia, for that matter). If you really are Iranian, you should know that. If.

3. You claimed that Pakistan is "culturally and ethnically homogenous". It isn't. Given the extensive historical and cultural links between Persia and the northern half of the subcontinent (along with Hyderabad in the south), not to mention the immediate proximity of the two regions, if you really are Iranian then you should know that. If.

4. You claimed that "Muslims in India haven't assimilated in even a thousand years". This assertion is factually and historically completely false. If you really are Iranian then you should know that. If.

5. One more thing, since you're so adamant about becoming "fully English" and mirroring the worst aspects of bigotry towards Asians, and Muslims in particular: The latter is predominantly a relic of Victorian-era Evangelism, the culturally corrosive effect of imperial conquest, and the extensive degree of calculated social re-engineering and historical revisionism which was systematically implemented from the early/mid-19th century onwards. Prior to that, English people in general, and specifically those who had extensive contact with South Asia (most of all, those who actually lived in the subcontinent) did not have any of those attitudes.

In fact, I expect you'd be shocked at the level of cultural assimilation and even conversion to Islam which was prevalent amongst a surprisingly large number of English men and women living in India, right up to the events of 1857. And at the time, the interpretation of Islam in the major political and cultural centres, coupled with the associated culture itself, had little in common with the "Islamists" or the stereotypes you're referring to.

But again, if you really are Iranian, you should know that. If.

Which leads us to two possible conclusions: Either you're not actually of Iranian origin at all and you're masquerading as such in order to present an "acceptable" face to racist attitudes -- knowing that, as someone claiming to speak as "an individual originally from the other side of the fence and with inside knowledge", in some cases it would decrease the likelihood of your attitudes being challenged; or you're someone of Iranian origin who has psychologically disconnected himself from (and renounced) his own ethnicity and ancestry to such an extent that you have a level of bigotry and ignorance about Iran and the Indian subcontinent which would be expected more from a racist non-Iranian/non-Indian person who has had practically zero experience or knowledge of either regions and their respective peoples, culture and history.

Re: BBC editor replies to Radio 1’s BNP-gate

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:14:19 -0000

I am guessing he suffered racism when he was growing up, and he became deeply ashamed of his Iranian ancestry to the point that he completely erased it. Remember when you asked to translate a verse, and he said it was rude to speak a foreign language? I have laughed at Goodness Gracious Me characterisation of such people, but it is very sad to see that they exist in real life.

Reza/Amir wants to be a good little Englishman, and he looks at the BNP (which personifies the racists that taunted and excluded him) as a way to feel fully accepted in this society.

Ravi, you're absolutely right. And the Coopers/Kapoors GGM sketches did occur to me too.

It's interesting how much Reza seems to have internalised matters, to the extent that he now identifies with (and emulates) the racists themselves rather than their targets (the latter includes himself, whether he acknowledges it or not). It's as though he's trying his utmost to be "more English than the English", in a desperate urge to "fit in", deflect any potential bigotry away from himself, and diassociate himself from anyone who could be labelled "the Other".

The phrase "zeal of the converted" comes to mind; it's like someone who converts to a particular religion and takes his interpretation of it to the maximum possible extreme (far more than those who were born into it), and -- worse -- feels tremendous contempt and superiority towards those he believes to have "left behind" and no longer identifies with; to the extent that he does his utmost to publicly diassociate himself from them and reinforce his declarations of allegience and sympathy towards the "new group" that he now wishes to accept him.

It's textbook.

Assuming, of course, that he's telling the truth about being of Iranian origin.

Re: BBC editor replies to Radio 1’s BNP-gate

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:30:32 -0000

Nothing those BNP supporters said was factually wrong.

Reza, as someone allegedly of Iranian origin, your own alleged marriage to your allegedly European wife is something "those BNP supporters" forcefully oppose, as per their nonsensical analogies with pandas and whatnot.

If you do not think they are "factually wrong" in their assertions about mixed-race relationships and the children that result from them, then it raises questions about how you psychologically reconcile your domestic situation with your political sympathies and (if you do indeed agree with the BNP on the matter) your views on mixed-race relationships.

A person of Iranian ethnicity, married to a white woman, with mixed-race children, who supports the BNP's opposition to such relationships, on-the-record assertion that they are neither "moral" nor "normal", and claim that the children who result are "tragic victims". Something doesn't quite add up there.....

Re: The BBC continues pandering to the BNP

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:34:32 -0000

So if they are unorthodox, unconservative/progressive why do they do something they do not agree with?

Emotional blackmail, obligations, emotional ties etc.

The rationale as to living under the same roof for economy in a lot of cases breeds dependency upon one’s ageing parents. Why get married to continue such a dependency

Correct.

And if you get married surely a persons priority and focus should change and your partners wishes become paramount, otherwise why get married?

Correct.

Re: The BBC continues pandering to the BNP

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 06:34:50 -0000

It could be argued that they are orthodox/conservative/backward to be so influenced/pressurised in doing something so long term that is counter to their own thoughts on their life.

No. One would not argue that women being "encouraged" or explicitly coerced into arranged marriages by their parents against their own thoughts on their life are necessarily orthodox/conservative/backward themselves.

The same logic applies to men.

And joint/extended families are part of that same orthodoxy/conservatism/backwardness.

Correct. Unless they're all voluntarily living in the same house because pooling their resources results in a bigger property and a higher standard of living, and it doesn't involve any elements of ongoing patriarchal/matriarchal top-down control over the adult sons and their wives. The latter is of course the main problem, especially when intergenerational cultural differences are involved, as naturally occurs here in the West in particular.

But it can’t be that orthodox/conservative if the very parents who dictate their sons future left their own extended families to live in a different country but do not want their son & (future & existing) daughter in law to live separately in the same country, or sometimes even in the same town because of what others who are similarly orthodox/conservative/backward will say etc..

Also correct. However, human beings are not immune from exhibiting double-standards.

Its easy to ask another to live in such a situation but different if you have to yourself.

Correct.

How many Asian men want to live with their mother in law in such a scenario?

Perhaps more accurately, how many Asian parents would want their son to live with his in-laws in the latter's house after marriage.

Re: The BBC continues pandering to the BNP

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:35:40 -0000

Given that Asian women are incredibly successful at degree level, why do you think Asian men retreat to the sub Continent for a spouse?”

Although the word "Asian" has been used, I'm going to speak only for the Indian contingent in this instance.

- The majority of 2nd-generation British Indians in 2009 do not "retreat to the subcontinent for a spouse". It does still happen, enough to be noticeable, but it's increasingly less common these days.

- Of those that do end up going to India to find a wife, more often than not it's because of parental pressure involving what kind of a daughter-in-law they want, rather than what kind of wife the man himself wants. So the reason is "strict parents pressuring their sons, overriding their preferences and restricting their options" rather than "orthodox/conservative/backward sons", basically.

It's a bigger deal in the cases of joint/extended families, obviously (ie. where the son is expected to live under the same roof as his parents even after marriage) -- this doesn't apply to all British Indians these days, especially amongst the more affluent types -- although it can still be a factor to a lesser degree due to the relatively close-knit nature of Indian families. The latter isn't something unique to Indians, incidentally -- it's prevalent amongst Mediterranean societies and in Latin America too.

Not that any of this has anything to do with this thread's main topic, by the way.

Re: The BBC continues pandering to the BNP

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:31:24 -0000

And non-white horses born in stables, are they horses as well?

Well said, Ravi.

Also, horses are not so stupid that they think other horses are actually rats and cockroaches.

Unlike some of our fellow humans, it appears.

Re: EDL rulers revealed

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:35:57 -0000

Jai, Saadi, right?

بنی آدم اعضای یک پیکرند

Human beings are members of a whole?

Very good, Mr Don.

Re: EDL rulers revealed

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:30:39 -0000

Reza,

A polite off-topic request. Could you please translate this for me into English ?

بنی آدم اعضای یک پیکرند

Re: The Polanski case

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:16:34 -0000

Katy,

FYI: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6008#co...

Re: The BNP on Question Time

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:59:22 -0000

Thanks 5cc.

Re: The BNP on Question Time

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:20:02 -0000

5cc,

As far as I know, so far only those two sets of questions have been formally presented to the BNP by the intermediary.

However, during the weekend I did present another opportunity for responses to two further sets of questions from the full list, as indicated here http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6008#co... and here http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6008#co... .

As you can see, no answers were forthcoming.

*******************************************************

On a separate note, for future reference, is there a way to confidentially contact you offline via email or via your blog ?

Re: Glenn Beck can’t define white culture

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:02:09 -0000

Well in over 1000 years Muslims in India haven’t ‘assimilated’.

Apart from the fact that the majority of Muslims in modern-day India are descendents of Indians as opposed to immigrants from outside the subcontinent, implying that those Muslims whose roots lay elsewhere (both amongst the aristocracy and amongst the masses) were not influenced by various aspects of Indian society and culture, and that there was little or no cultural syncretism and assimilation during the course of the last 1000 years, betrays an astonishing level of ignorance of both historical & contemporary Indian Muslim culture and the history of the subcontinent itself.

Or Pakistan? Of course it won’t. Those countries will remain ethnically and culturally homogenous.

I expect the residents of the provinces of Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir, Baluchistan and the North-West Frontier respectively might disagree with being described as "ethnically and [particularly] culturally homogenous". To say the least.

As would anyone else with a familiarity with Pakistan.

In fact, given the proximity of Iran with the subcontinent, and the extensive cultural and historical links between the two regions during the past thousand years, especially from the Mughal era onwards (involving most of northern India and Hyderabad in particular in the south), someone whose origins apparently lie in Iran should be well aware of all this.

Re: Glenn Beck can’t define white culture

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:45:12 -0000

Druidism, Odinism, the traditionalist Church of England and Celtic Christianity

All colonists of all races, religions and creeds must be deported.

Assimilate or leave……All British children must become culturally British.

As I have stated the christianity of Britain is Celtic Christianity and the Church of England, both unique indigenous variants of the Christian faith

The statements above by Lee John Barnes in relation to the BNP's stance on religion are relevant to the following questions:

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4869

Religious impact of a BNP government

74. During an interview on Sky News with Adam Boulton in June 2009 shortly after the relevant elections, Nick Griffin clearly stated that he would use the current Saudi Arabian policy on non-Islamic places of worship as a guideline for official policies towards non-Christian places of worship under a BNP government, thereby effectively turning Britain into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, upon the election of a BNP government, will it be legal to build new non-Christian places of worship?

75. Will it be legal to maintain existing non-Christian places of worship or will they be a) allowed to fall into disrepair or b) destroyed?

76. What will be the official BNP policy towards non-Christian white/Caucasian British citizens who have adopted other religions (eg. Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam or any others) or are the children of such individuals?

77. Will the individuals described in point 76 be “encouraged” to re-convert to Christianity or will they be subject to either voluntary or compulsory repatriation?

78. If the answer to the first question in 77 is “Yes”, exactly what measures will be taken by relevant authorities under a BNP government to “encourage” non-Christian white/Caucasian British citizens to re-convert to Christianity?

79. What will be the official BNP policy towards Christian, agnostic or atheist white/Caucasian British citizens who wish to convert to a non-Christian religion – will this be explicitly prohibited or “discouraged”?

80. Exactly what measures will be taken by relevant authorities under a BNP government to “discourage” conversion to non-Christian religions amongst the individuals described in point 79?

81. Under a BNP government, exactly what will be the punishment for apostasy amongst Christian white/Caucasian British citizens?

82. What will be the response of a BNP government if the execution of any of these policies in the name of Christianity is objected to by Queen Elizabeth II or (upon her death) her successor in her/his formal capacity of Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith?

83. What will be the response of a BNP government if the execution of any of these policies in the name of Christianity is objected to by any members of the clergy comprising the Church of England?

Re: Glenn Beck can’t define white culture

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:37:59 -0000

Druidism, Odinism, the traditionalist Church of England and Celtic Christianity

As I have stated the christianity of Britain is Celtic Christianity and the Church of England, both unique indigenous variants of the Christian faith

All colonists of all races, religions and creeds must be deported......

Assimilate or leave.....All British children must become culturally British.

The statements above by Lee John Barnes are relevant to the following questions:

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4869

Religious impact of a BNP government

74. During an interview on Sky News with Adam Boulton in June 2009 shortly after the relevant elections, Nick Griffin clearly stated that he would use the current Saudi Arabian policy on non-Islamic places of worship as a guideline for official policies towards non-Christian places of worship under a BNP government, thereby effectively turning Britain into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, upon the election of a BNP government, will it be legal to build new non-Christian places of worship?

75. Will it be legal to maintain existing non-Christian places of worship or will they be a) allowed to fall into disrepair or b) destroyed?

76. What will be the official BNP policy towards non-Christian white/Caucasian British citizens who have adopted other religions (eg. Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam or any others) or are the children of such individuals?

77. Will the individuals described in point 76 be “encouraged” to re-convert to Christianity or will they be subject to either voluntary or compulsory repatriation?

78. If the answer to the first question in 77 is “Yes”, exactly what measures will be taken by relevant authorities under a BNP government to “encourage” non-Christian white/Caucasian British citizens to re-convert to Christianity?

79. What will be the official BNP policy towards Christian, agnostic or atheist white/Caucasian British citizens who wish to convert to a non-Christian religion – will this be explicitly prohibited or “discouraged”?

80. Exactly what measures will be taken by relevant authorities under a BNP government to “discourage” conversion to non-Christian religions amongst the individuals described in point 79?

81. Under a BNP government, exactly what will be the punishment for apostasy amongst Christian white/Caucasian British citizens?

82. What will be the response of a BNP government if the execution of any of these policies in the name of Christianity is objected to by Queen Elizabeth II or (upon her death) her successor in her/his formal capacity of Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith?

83. What will be the response of a BNP government if the execution of any of these policies in the name of Christianity is objected to by any members of the clergy comprising the Church of England?

Re: Glenn Beck can’t define white culture

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:35:57 -0000

The INNATE culture of Britain has been replaced by GLOBALISM AND CONSUMERISM and alien cultures – that is why the INDIGENOUS cultures of Britain need to be taught to our kids so they have a British cultural identity rather than the one where they have now which is a plastic liberal cultural identity where the consumer tribes of reebok and nike listen to american rap and talk in a fake jamaican patois.

The fact is that films are from hollywood. the books published by global corporations. the history peddled by leftists and liberals fixated with PC and multi-culturalism. Festivals run for profit by corporations. These are all cultural poisons ingested by our people. There has been technological progress but cultural contamination.

Why the hell would I support jazz, free love and rock and roll. They are alien and degenerate cultural forms, symptoms of a dying British culture. They are cultural poisons. Immigration combined with multi-culturalism = colonisation. Technology in an endogenous culture creates a progressive British culture. Technology in a multi-culutural society and colonisation equate to the death of Britain and British culture.

Multi-culturalism should be scrapped and assimilation made compulsory.....Those who are Naturalised British Citizens must surrender their dual nationality status, if they have it, and assimilate totally into British culture.....

All colonists of all races, religions and creeds must be deported.

Assimilate or leave......All British children must become culturally British.

All British children have a consciousness of being culturally British that transcends religion, class, race or ethnicity.....Ethnic British children must be as culturally British as Naturalised British children.

These statements by Lee John Barnes are relevant to the following questions, especially questions 65-73.

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4850

Social and legal impact of a BNP government (cont…)

55. What percentage of a non-white British citizen’s legal testimony will be deemed equal to the testimony of one white/Caucasian British citizen?

56. Will non-white British citizens have the legal right to prosecute white/Caucasian British citizens, and if so, under what specific conditions/restrictions?

57. Will non-white British citizens have the legal right to defend themselves against prosecution by white/Caucasian British citizens, and if so, under what specific conditions/restrictions?

58. Exactly how would a BNP government enforce first preference being given to white/Caucasian candidates over non-white candidates for job vacancies in the private sector?

59. Exactly how would a BNP government enforce first preference being given to white/Caucasian employees over non-white employees when individuals are being assessed for promotion, team composition, or workload assignment in the private sector?

60. Exactly how would a BNP government ensure the continued viability and competitiveness of British private companies nationally and (subject to global sanctions and trade embargoes) internationally if the primary criteria in relation to points 58 and 59 is race, rather than qualifications, background, skillset and performance?

61. Exactly how would a BNP government enforce first preference being given to white/Caucasian clients/customers over non-white clients/customers when professional services are being provided by individuals and companies in the private sector?

62. Exactly how would a BNP government ensure the continued viability and competitiveness of British private companies nationally and (subject to global sanctions and trade embargoes) internationally if the primary criteria in relation to point 61 is race, rather than business & financial benefit?

63. Exactly how would a BNP government enforce first preference being given to white/Caucasian patients over non-white patients in relation to healthcare professionals (doctors, nurses, dentists and pharmacists) in both the public and private sectors ?

64. What level of formal & informal monitoring and direct involvement by a BNP government would be required in order to facilitate and enforce the policies referenced in points 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63?

65. Upon the election of a BNP government, exactly what kind of formal, organised nationwide protocols does the BNP have planned in order to manage the severe impact on British popular culture as a result of the United States terminating and prohibiting the transmission or import of any American services or products pertaining to the American media or entertainment industries?

66. Correspondingly, will a BNP government impose a pre-emptive or retaliatory ban on the viewing, import or acquisition of any literature, films, music, or other media from the United States and other countries hostile to the BNP’s policies and ideology?

67. Will a BNP government ban members of the British public from reading, viewing or listening to any literature, films, music, or other media involving and/or produced by non-white people in Britain, the United States, or any other countries?

68. If the answers to points 66 & 67 are “Yes”, exactly what level of government involvement in the private lives of British citizens does the BNP foresee in order to enforce these prohibitions?

69. Upon the election of a BNP government, will any existing material in the private possession of British citizens which falls within the categories described in points 66 & 67 need to be compulsorily surrendered to the government and related authorities?

70. Will a BNP government destroy any existing material currently in the public & private spheres and/or archived documents, artefacts and/or evidence if the aforementioned items are deemed to contradict or undermine the BNP’s policies and ideology?

71. Will a BNP government re-write any historical, academic and/or scientific material deemed to contradict or undermine the BNP’s policies and ideology, specifically in relation to a) British, European and global history during the recent, medieval, classical and ancient periods, b) race, and c) genetics?

72. Will a BNP government declare any literary, artistic, journalistic, academic, scientific, or corporate material produced by non-white people in Britain, the United States or other countries prior to the election of a BNP government as being intrinsically without merit in its respective fields, and if the answer is “Yes”, will this material subsequently be destroyed?

73. Exactly how will a BNP government implement and enforce the huge levels of surveillance and intervention which will be required in order to prevent any kind of electronic communication domestically or (especially) with counterparties based in international locations involving British civilians which potentially involves discussions and/or the transmission of material contradictory to the BNP’s policies and ideology?

Re: Glenn Beck can’t define white culture

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:10:45 -0000

If you do, you seem shy of giving it.

Lee John Barnes certainly seems very shy about clarifying the specifics of his alleged legal credentials and explaining the reasons that he is not registered with the Law Society, as indicated by his conspicuous silence in response to the series of questions by Don and Persephone which were quoted in comment 28.

Re: Glenn Beck can’t define white culture

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 07:32:20 -0000

Lee John Barnes LLB (hons)

This website's audience is still waiting for you to clarify your alleged 'legal credentials', as per these questions recently presented to you on a previous thread:

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#co...

Are you a lawyer?

Are you gainfully employed?

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#co...

Are you a qualified – you don’t seem to be on the roll with the Law Soc?

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#co...

You havent answered why you are not on the roll of the Law Society as all qualified solicitors have to be listed. If you are not I am fairly sure that it means

a) you are not a qualified solicitor or
b) you have been struck off by the Law Society

Either answer begs the question as to why you are giving legal advice to the BNP?

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#co...

I take it from the lack of response to a simple question of being adequately qualified to do a job that the BNP were not able to recruit any half way decent qualified solicitor to be their legal adviser.

It begs the question why not.

It also negates any credibilty of the so called reportededly “legal adviser”

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#co...

Lee John Barnes, Legal Adviser to the BNP

To add to the post @ 32 as to a few other reasons why a person may not be admitted as a solicitor by the Law Society:

- no law firm has employed you successfully as a trainee solicitor AND you have not passed the Legal Practice Course (an academic qualification such as a BA in Law or LLB does not suffice though in some few cases you may have worked for a substantial time in a relevant role)

- activity or background that conflicts with being a solicitor eg criminal activity

- mental issues

- conflict with professonal rules of conduct for eg Rule 6 is pertinent here see http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduc...

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#co...

Use of the term Legal Adviser to the BNP:

Reported references to Lee Jone Barnes as the legal adviser to the BNP is misleading but is used when the person is not a solicitor, barrister or lawyer. The majority of jo public commonly mistake the term legal adviser as meaning that a person is a fully qualified solicitor or lawyer or someone in the legal profession but that is not the case.

The Law Society watchdog (Solicitors Regulatory Authority) give the following explanantion of which terms can be used:

1. Lawyer

Means a member of one of the following professions, entitled to practise as such:

a) the profession of solicitor, barrister or advocate of the UK;

b) a profession whose members are authorised to practise by an approved regulator other than the Solicitors Regulation Authority;

© an Establishment Directive profession other than a UK profession;

d) a legal profession which has been approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for the purpose of recognised bodies in England and Wales; or

e) any other regulated legal profession which is recognised as such by the Solicitors Regulation Authority;

2. Lawyer of England and Wales;

Means a solicitor with a current practising certificate or an individual who is authorised to practise in England and Wales by an approved regulator other than the Solicitors Regulation Authority, but excludes a member of an Establishment Directive profession registered with the Bar Standards Board under the Establishment Directive;

3. Legal profession – means a profession whose members are lawyers as defined in this rule

From the above rules (of the country you espouse to be a true member of) you are not even in the legal profession but have to use the term legal adviser to get around that fact. I wonder if BNP members & wider public know that very important distinction?

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#co...

” The day I submit my blog postings as case arguments to a court is the day I will worry about spelling mistakes.”

Thats not the only thing you, the BNP & members need to worry about.

Under what regulator/authority are you submitting case arguments in Court? Are you also conducting (unqualified) advocacy for the BNP? What about ‘legal’ advice given behind closed doors? The latter is a nebulous area & may depend on your word against Nick’s – am sure he can be trusted to do the right thing in such a predicament

I hope the BNP have kept up to date with their Professional Indemnity insurance premiums … that is if the cover includes advice by a non legal professional … if not that may mean members fees may have to cover litigation costs

Re: Glenn Beck can’t define white culture

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 07:17:27 -0000

Lee John Barnes LLB (hons)

This website's audience is still waiting for you to clarify your alleged 'legal credentials', as per these questions recently presented to you on a previous thread:

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#co...

Are you a lawyer?

Are you gainfully employed?

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#co...

Are you a qualified – you don’t seem to be on the roll with the Law Soc?

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#co...

You havent answered why you are not on the roll of the Law Society as all qualified solicitors have to be listed. If you are not I am fairly sure that it means

a) you are not a qualified solicitor or
b) you have been struck off by the Law Society

Either answer begs the question as to why you are giving legal advice to the BNP?

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#co...

I take it from the lack of response to a simple question of being adequately qualified to do a job that the BNP were not able to recruit any half way decent qualified solicitor to be their legal adviser.

It begs the question why not.

It also negates any credibilty of the so called reportededly “legal adviser”

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#co...

Lee John Barnes, Legal Adviser to the BNP

To add to the post @ 32 as to a few other reasons why a person may not be admitted as a solicitor by the Law Society:

- no law firm has employed you successfully as a trainee solicitor AND you have not passed the Legal Practice Course (an academic qualification such as a BA in Law or LLB does not suffice though in some few cases you may have worked for a substantial time in a relevant role)

- activity or background that conflicts with being a solicitor eg criminal activity

- mental issues

- conflict with professonal rules of conduct for eg Rule 6 is pertinent here see http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduc...

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#co...

Use of the term Legal Adviser to the BNP:

Reported references to Lee Jone Barnes as the legal adviser to the BNP is misleading but is used when the person is not a solicitor, barrister or lawyer. The majority of jo public commonly mistake the term legal adviser as meaning that a person is a fully qualified solicitor or lawyer or someone in the legal profession but that is not the case.

The Law Society watchdog (Solicitors Regulatory Authority) give the following explanantion of which terms can be used:

1. Lawyer

Means a member of one of the following professions, entitled to practise as such:

a) the profession of solicitor, barrister or advocate of the UK;

b) a profession whose members are authorised to practise by an approved regulator other than the Solicitors Regulation Authority;

© an Establishment Directive profession other than a UK profession;

d) a legal profession which has been approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for the purpose of recognised bodies in England and Wales; or

e) any other regulated legal profession which is recognised as such by the Solicitors Regulation Authority;

2. Lawyer of England and Wales;

Means a solicitor with a current practising certificate or an individual who is authorised to practise in England and Wales by an approved regulator other than the Solicitors Regulation Authority, but excludes a member of an Establishment Directive profession registered with the Bar Standards Board under the Establishment Directive;

3. Legal profession – means a profession whose members are lawyers as defined in this rule

From the above rules (of the country you espouse to be a true member of) you are not even in the legal profession but have to use the term legal adviser to get around that fact. I wonder if BNP members & wider public know that very important distinction?

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5775#co...

” The day I submit my blog postings as case arguments to a court is the day I will worry about spelling mistakes.”

Thats not the only thing you, the BNP & members need to worry about.

Under what regulator/authority are you submitting case arguments in Court? Are you also conducting (unqualified) advocacy for the BNP? What about ‘legal’ advice given behind closed doors? The latter is a nebulous area & may depend on your word against Nick’s – am sure he can be trusted to do the right thing in such a predicament

I hope the BNP have kept up to date with their Professional Indemnity insurance premiums … that is if the cover includes advice by a non legal professional … if not that may mean members fees may have to cover litigation costs

Re: Glenn Beck can’t define white culture

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:30:11 -0000

Let me put it in a more succinct way. If you ask an Indian (or someone of Indian origin) to define "Muslim culture", in many aspects the description you will get will probably be very different to the response from an Arab person, for example. Beyond the basic religious trappings involving the Quran, Mohammad as a prophet etc, of course.

It's one of the dangers of attempting to "define" geographically widespread and numerically very large populations, especially if the reference point is religious affiliation. An accurate analogy would be using the term "Catholic culture"; beyond commonalities involving the Pope, the Bible, Jesus and the Virgin Mary, the actual real-life, on-the-ground culture of the people involved will frequently be very diverse in relation to Catholics from Dublin, Rome, or Rio respectively.

*******************************

.....and taking this back to the main article, it goes without saying that "British culture" in 2009 is in many ways very different to what it was in 1909, especially the huge American influence in recent times. Unless someone wants to claim that "British culture" is fundamentally what it was prior to the increase in American influence from the mid-20th century onwards (and it appears to have accelerated during the past few decades).....but even that would be inaccurate, because Britain was not exactly isolated from the rest of the world at the time and it also makes the false assumption that, historically, British culture was static prior to that point.

Re: Glenn Beck can’t define white culture

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:42:52 -0000

Muslim culture can be defined to a large extent by the injunctions on behaviour imposed by the quran, hadith and traditional interpretations of them.

Not always. If you're referring to the "culture of Muslims" as opposed to "culture originating specifically in Islam", then the two aren't necessarily synonymous.

The culture of Pathans is as heavily influenced by what is known as "Pashtoonwali" as it is by their interpretation of Islam, for example.

And the historical culture of many Muslims in northern India and some parts of neighbouring Pakistan is heavily influenced by Sufism, which (in those regions) was in turn frequently influenced by centuries of cultural and religious interaction with non-Muslims in the subcontinent, and also often had a very different position when it came to the Hadith, Shariah etc.

Not to mention various aspects of "Indian Muslim culture" (especially those of aristocratic origin) which were specifically influenced by elements of Persian culture rather than directly by the Quran, the Hadith, and traditional interpretations of them.

I appreciate Roger's basic point, and as a broad generalisaiton it's a relevant one, but from a historical and geographical perspective it's a lot more complicated than that, especially when you add local traditions & practices (often either pre-Islamic, non-Islamic, or "not-exclusively-Islamic"), cultural and religious syncresis, and various other localised and foreign cultural influences to the mix.

However, I agree completely with the rest of Roger's post #3, ie:

However, British culture would only be a subset of white culture, if such a thing exists, and only if British culture is exclusively white. That obviously isn’t true- the music of the Rolling Stones, strongly influenced by black American musicians, probably is a more important aspect of contemporary British culture than traditional British folksong, presumably almost entirely Caucasian in its origins.

Re: Time for festivities again

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:09:59 -0000

Happy Rosh Hashanah to our Jewish friends and Ramzan Kareem to our Muslim friends.

Re: Rod Liddle makes his blogging debut

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:48:02 -0000

But he doesn’t know any ‘history’. What he means is this:

“Nationalists value national historical myth, because it tells the nation why the nation exists (even if it’s a lie). The national past shows us exclusively how the nation got here, while ignoring everything else. The nation learns only about national society and national events, ignoring all societies and events – because that might undermine national unity. Individuals count solely for the impact they had on the nation, and that is the only valid reason to include any foreign types in our national history books.”

Carlyle, Ruskin, Gladstone and Disraeli are just as much politically correct group-identity totems as Mary Seacole. The British national identity is just as narrow-minded and petty, as the national identities on The Continent and other foreign parts. British national history is just as much a fiction and a myth, as the national history in ‘foreign dictatorships’. It is a mark of Rumbold’s nationalism, that he can’t see that he is a nationalist, just as with Rod Liddle. (I don’t live in Britain, so I never heard of Rod Liddle either). The nationalist can’t recognise his one-sided nationalist perspective for what it is – a mirror image of the chauvinism he despises in enemy lands.

As the Pickled Politics editorial team would confirm, given the extent to which Rumbold actually has a truly global perspective on human history and the depth of his knowledge which is glaringly lacking in prejudicial "nationalist" attitudes, I can't even begin to describe the number of ways in which Paul's various assertions about him in #38 are utterly, utterly wrong.

To use the term "cognitive dissonance" would be the understatement of the decade.

I guess eloquence is clearly not an adequate substitute for psychological clarity or verbal coherence.

Re: Rod Liddle makes his blogging debut

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:48:14 -0000

Rumbold,

I get the impression that Rod would have liked being a White Mughal because of the women. Just so long as he didn’t have to learn about their history and culture.

Well, one of the characteristics of the 'White Mughals' was that, apart from intermarriage, they dived into local cultures, customs and lifestyles to an extent which would probably horrify the sort of person who is outraged by Mary Seacole's alleged inclusion in the national curriculum.....

Re: Rod Liddle makes his blogging debut

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:28:29 -0000

let’s assume that Mr. Liddle’s historical knowledge doesn’t extend to actually knowing anything about those whom he lists.

Amusingly put ;)

And excellent article, Rumbold.

Perhaps someone should sneak a copy of White Mughals by William Dalrymple into Mr Riddle's christmas stocking this year. Assuming that subsequently reading it doesn't cause his head to explode by New Year's Eve.

Re: Alan Johnson refuses to share platform with fascists

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:18:52 -0000

Rather than predicting civil war I see this period as the growing pangs of globalisation – which may be anathema to those with an island mentality or who think of themselves as supreme both racially & culturally.

Concisely stated and very accurately described by Persephone. Her points are spot-on.

Re: Alan Johnson refuses to share platform with fascists

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:16:34 -0000

But Jai, it doesn’t matter what the culture is. Multiculturalism is the problem and it is all a question of numbers.

History and current events have demonstrated that whenever you have two, culturally distinct groups of people, who are similarly large and ethnically, religiously or culturally different, occupying the same space, they begin killing each other.

It is possible to keep a lid on things through totalitarianism and a police state, but eventually, people kill each other.

India is a multicultural, multiethnic, multireligious country; it's as though the whole of Europe or Latin America were combined into a single nation-state, but with even larger numbers.

Apart from sporadic disturbances in the decades since independence, on the whole the country holds together pretty well. India has not disintegrated into mutually-hostile warring states.

Even before the colonial period, internal conflicts within the subcontinent were generally motivated by political concerns involving territory and power rather than the presence of "implacably hostile and intrinsically irreconcilable" communities (even though some of the rulers did use religion to justify their actions).

Different groups eventually starting to kill each other is one possible outcome of the scenario described in #38. The alternative is that, in order to prevent mutual destruction or the annihilation of the weaker and/or smaller population by the stronger and/or larger group, a degree of constructive adjustment and syncretism occurs on both sides. India's own history has included both of these reactions, but overall the latter became predominant.

The considerable legacy of cultural fusion, cultural adjustment and religious syncretism is still present in Indian society, especially in the north and most of all in the northwest.

Reza, if you're not aware of the details already, I think it would be a good idea for you to familiarise yourself with the history of Muslims in India during the past 1000 years, up to the present day. It hasn't been without its share of conflicts, but there are still a lot of positive lessons for everyone.

And you should definitely go to one of Rahat Fateh Ali Khan's impending concerts too, because his family's message and the ideals of their historical role models are perfect examples of the positive legacy of multiculturalism, the positive things that Muslims can bring to the table, and indeed what interpretation of Islam is best placed to function effectively in a diverse, comparatively liberal wider population.

Re: Alan Johnson refuses to share platform with fascists

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:51:26 -0000

Reza,

I’ll answer your question soon, on the original thread.

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. If you have any knowledge of the aforementioned individuals, presumably you are aware that the answer isn't exactly rocket science.

Re: Alan Johnson refuses to share platform with fascists

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:20:08 -0000

Reza,

We're still waiting for an answer to the following question addressed to you yesterday afternoon:

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5857#co...

Quote:

"Reza, do you believe that the writings and philosophies of Rumi, Saadi, Hafez and Omar Khayyam would be destructive influences on British society ?

How about Rahat Fateh Ali Khan’s impending series of major concerts in the UK ? Do you feel that his (and, especially, his late uncle Nusrat’s) music and message — considerably influenced by historical predecessors such as Bulleh Shah — are dangerous “multicultural” influences which should be discouraged at the very least and ideally actively opposed ?

What about the examples and message of other historical figures such as Baba Farid, Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, Nizamuddin Auliya, and the music based on their teachings ?

Or the writings of people like Mirza Ghalib, Mir Taqi Mir, Zauq, Bahadur Shah Zafar ?

The individuals above are all Muslims, of course — I can name numerous others from various other backgrounds (including non-Muslim South Asians), but for the purposes of this discussion let’s focus on Muslims, since they’re currently the primary target of the SIOE, EDL and BNP’s hostility — a stance you appear to support and regard as justifiable.

So, again, should the presence, message and influence of works related to all of the above individuals be minimised, discouraged or (if already present) eradicated from British society ?"

Re: Alan Johnson refuses to share platform with fascists

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:45:08 -0000

“Refusing to accept the democratic will of the British people is fascism.”

So if the majority of "the British people" wanted all Muslims currently in this country to be rounded up and executed, would you support that, as "the democratic will of the British people" ?

By your own definition, refusing to act according to their wishes in this scenario would be "fascism".

Re: Now the BNP claim Owain Glyndwr

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:22:26 -0000

I don’t think they have a unified view of history beyond the notion that non-whites are foreigners. They struggle to reconcile a British nationalism based on racial purity with the fact that most Britons are of immigrant stock in some shape or form.

It's all about being able to "pass for white".

So, for example, the British-born (and now living in the US) blonde actress Nicollete Sheridan of "Desperate Housewives" fame, who actually has some fairly recent Indian/Punjabi ancestry via her maternal grandmother, would be deemed "acceptable". Ditto for the late Freddie Mercury, as long as his Parsi ancestry was swept under the carpet and he didn't use his real name either.

As for numerous other examples of mixed-race or non-white Brits.....obviously not.

Yes, it really is that shallow and superficial.

"If you look white, you're alright", as Chris Rock would no doubt say about the BNP's stance.

Re: Was it al-Muhajiroun that turned Harrow nasty?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:42:33 -0000

Jerome Taylor,

@Jai – Thanks Jai, I’ve been following PP’s very dogged pursuit of pinning down exactly what the BNP’s policies are and have read their answers with interest. In fact, there’s a saved version on my hard drive to go back to and check wheh Griffin and other BNP leaders speak to see if they remain consistent.

Thank you for your reply; I'm glad to hear you've been following matters so closely. Some of the BNP's responses were fairly predictable; others, however, were very eye-opening, and in many cases confirmed numerous suspicions about their agenda and goals.

I get the feeling that many members of the general public on both sides of the fence aren't necessarily aware of the details or real-life negative ramifications of the BNP's ideology and policies (not to mention the staggering lies, distortions and flaws involved on their part, as mentioned earlier). Beyond a certain point, there certainly doesn't seem to have been a detailed discussion in the mainstream media about the kind of specific issues and implications which the two series of questions posed to the BNP and their subsequent answers have revealed.

It would definitely be very constructive if The Independent and The Times could do anything to increase an awareness of all this in the wider public domain, especially as we've now obtained detailed responses in writing from the BNP's senior leadership.

Re: Was it al-Muhajiroun that turned Harrow nasty?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:21:38 -0000

Jerome Taylor,

Quick off-topic message to yourself as a representative from The Independent. Ideally this message should also be conveyed to Fiona Hamilton from The Times (or any of her colleagues there who may be interested in the matter).

Pickled Politics has been given access to several dozen answers from the BNP’s senior leadership in response to two batches of policy-related questions recently supplied to them by eGov. The questions were a selection from a total of 85 (the full list can be accessed via this webpage: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4869 . This article lists the final section, and there are URL links for the previous sections at the bottom of the article).

The answers were provided by Lee John Barnes, who was formally authorised to speak for and represent the BNP in this matter, and confirmed this in writing to eGov. I strongly recommend that you and Fiona also read the subsequent comments threads detailing the multiple logical, factual and statistical errors in the BNP’s answers.

First series of questions, answers and counterarguments: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4889

Second series of questions, answers and counterarguments: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5057

I think you and your counterparts at The Times will find this extremely interesting reading. The BNP's responses -- and the conclusions that can subsequently be drawn from them -- not only show the true face of the BNP regardless of their recent PR efforts, but (in terms of the second batch in particular) expose the reality of their endgame.

Amongst other aspirations, they're effectively aiming to turn Britain into an apartheid state, with non-white people completely stripped of any human rights legislation currently protecting them from harassment, discrimination, or deliberate misrepresentation (ie. negative propaganda), including areas such as employment and the provision of professional services to customers/clients.

Again, staff at The Independent and The Times should bear in mind that the answers were formally provided on behalf of the BNP and were authorised by the party's senior leadership.

Re: Was it al-Muhajiroun that turned Harrow nasty?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:49:25 -0000

This immigrant understands their pain of the white working classes.

Exactly which country are you an immigrant from, "Reza" ?

Re: These fights do no one any good

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:27:07 -0000

Reza,

You'll get your answer if you compare the specific backgrounds (local & subcontinental) and environments of South Asian Muslims in Britain with South Asian Muslims in the US. The latter, as you know, are certainly not "very poorly integrated into American society".

There are some specific dynamics at play in each situation -- just like, for example, there are some specific dynamics involved in the situation of many British Sikhs (generally well-integrated, law-abiding, aspirational, increasingly affluent) compared to the situation of many Canadian Sikhs (disproportionately high involvement in gang activities and organised crime).

On a more general note, you should also read the following post by me on the other thread where I replied to you:

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5896#co...

Re: These fights do no one any good

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:06:31 -0000

Multiculturalism in Britain is stymying integration.

No, it isn't. Bear in mind that there are other non-white, non-Muslim populations in Britain which don't necessarily have major problems with integration, especially in the case of people at higher socioeconomic levels.

And if you think that all the problems would be solved if only everyone became identical in attitudes, tastes, customs and behaviour to whatever you believe is the average white British person, then that's a very naive and simplistic view to have. Integration is a two-way street.....and as I keep saying, in many cases people's objections are frequently about race rather than culture, regardless of what they may claim.

Re: These fights do no one any good

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:59:55 -0000

The answers depend on the specific individuals and, most of all, on their income level and socioeconomic bracket.

The example of Iranians in the US, and the connection to their level of affluence, is very relevant indeed. As is the issue of exactly which immigrant populations are less integrated in the US, and the average income level involved. All of which reinforce the point that "being Muslim" isn't necessarily an intrinsic problem -- it depends on the specific interpretation of Islam one believes in and (if the interpretation is a barrier to effectively functioning in a majority non-Muslim society) the extent to which one practices its tenets. The same as any cultural and/or religious background and influences originating in a different country to the one a person happens to live in. Although I certainly think that the US does a better job of promoting a shared national & cultural identity and thereby integrating immigrants compared to the UK.

But, again, it's predominantly about class before it's about religion or race.

Re: These fights do no one any good

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:43:51 -0000

(I'm posting the message again with the formatting corrected).

Reza,

Given the fact that the United States has a Muslim population of numerically larger size compared to Britain, the analogy and the hypothetical sequence of events doesn’t necessarily hold true. Presumably you’re also aware of the large (and very well-integrated) Iranian population in Los Angeles and the Arab population in Detroit, for example. And the average income level and overall standard of affluence of American Muslims is higher than the American average.

“A question of numbers” ? Maybe. But it’s still worth bearing in mind that Muslims still only account for 3% of the total population of people in England and Wales. Scare stories about birth rates should be taken with a huge pinch of salt, because a) birth rates for immigrant populations tend to align with that of the majority population, and b) socioeconomic level is a major factor in determining birth rates, irrespective of the ethnicity or religion of the people concerned.

As I’ve said previously on PP, it’s often predominantly about class, not race or religion.

No Jai I don’t. And despite feeling that like all religions, Islam has ugly aspects which we should be able to criticize freely, I don’t even believe that Islam is necessarily a destructive influence on British society.

I love Muslim culture. I love Iranian culture. I am immersed in it whenever I visit Iran (which I do regularly). I’ve travelled extensively or worked in many Muslim majority countries; Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, and the UAE. Fascinating, interesting places with wonderful people.

So the basic point is that it’s not actually “multiculturalism” which is the problem, but which elements of the “foreign” culture one is adding to the mix. If the “addition” is positive and enriches the majority culture, then I don’t see any justifiable reasons to object.

Incidentally remember what I said yesterday about how the greatest “non-British” cultural influence by far is actually American, as far as the UK is concerned; this country is already multicultural in nature irrespective of the presence or influence of Muslims or non-white people in general.

There is another point I need to make in relation to your remarks (on another thread) about the apparently inevitable conflict between different populations, but I’ll post that on the thread concerned.

However, to reiterate something I recently said: It’s very important that you remember that when many people object to “multiculturalism”, what they really mean is that they object to the presence of non-white people. Which means that you personally are included as a target of their bigotry and a part of a “problematic demographic” too.

Re: These fights do no one any good

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:38:58 -0000

Reza,

Given the fact that the United States has a Muslim population of numerically larger size compared to Britain, the analogy and the hypothetical sequence of events doesn't necessarily hold true. Presumably you're also aware of the large (and very well-integrated) Iranian population in Los Angeles and the Arab population in Detroit, for example. And the average income level and overall standard of affluence of American Muslims is higher than the American average.

"A question of numbers" ? Maybe. But it's still worth bearing in mind that Muslims still only account for 3% of the total population of people in England and Wales. Scare stories about birth rates should be taken with a huge pinch of salt, because a) birth rates for immigrant populations tend to align with that of the majority population, and b) socioeconomic level is a major factor in determining birth rates, irrespective of the ethnicity or religion of the people concerned.

As I've said previously on PP, it's often predominantly about class, not race or religion.

No Jai I don’t. And despite feeling that like all religions, Islam has ugly aspects which we should be able to criticize freely, I don’t even believe that Islam is necessarily a destructive influence on British society.

I love Muslim culture. I love Iranian culture. I am immersed in it whenever I visit Iran (which I do regularly). I’ve travelled extensively or worked in many Muslim majority countries; Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, and the UAE. Fascinating, interesting places with wonderful people.

So the basic point is that it's not actually "multiculturalism" which is the problem, but which elements of the "foreign" culture one is adding to the mix. If the "addition" is positive and enriches the majority culture, then I don't see any justifiable reasons to object.

Incidentally remember what I said yesterday about how the greatest "non-British" cultural influence by far is actually American, as far as the UK is concerned; this country is already multicultural in nature irrespective of the presence or influence of Muslims or non-white people in general.

There is another point I need to make in relation to your remarks (on another thread) about the apparently inevitable conflict between different populations, but I'll post that on the thread concerned.

However, to reiterate something I recently said: It's very important that you remember that when many people object to "multiculturalism", what they really mean is that they object to the presence of non-white people. Which means that you personally are included as a target of their bigotry and a part of a "problematic demographic" too.

Re: These fights do no one any good

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:39:04 -0000

You give a picture of there being nothing of value or anything positive in such cultures. Why?

That's an excellent point by Persephone. Due to Reza's understandably negative experiences in modern-day Iran it's also clear that he has some "issues" with Islam as a religion and Muslims as a group.

**************************************************

Reza, do you believe that the writings and philosophies of Rumi, Saadi, Hafez and Omar Khayyam would be destructive influences on British society ?

How about Rahat Fateh Ali Khan's impending series of major concerts in the UK ? Do you feel that his (and, especially, his late uncle Nusrat's) music and message -- considerably influenced by historical predecessors such as Bulleh Shah -- are dangerous "multicultural" influences which should be discouraged at the very least and ideally actively opposed ?

What about the examples and message of other historical figures such as Baba Farid, Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, Nizamuddin Auliya, and the music based on their teachings ?

Or the writings of people like Mirza Ghalib, Mir Taqi Mir, Zauq, Bahadur Shah Zafar ?

The individuals above are all Muslims, of course -- I can name numerous others from various other backgrounds (including non-Muslim South Asians), but for the purposes of this discussion let's focus on Muslims, since they're currently the primary target of the SIOE, EDL and BNP's hostility -- a stance you appear to support and regard as justifiable.

So, again, should the presence, message and influence of works related to all of the above individuals be minimised, discouraged or (if already present) eradicated from British society ?

Or, as common sense dictates, should people focus on the specific groups which are problematic, out of the long list I supplied in #117 ?

Re: These fights do no one any good

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:18:32 -0000

In Iran a woman must wear the hejab by law. That’s what, in my opinion, the majority of Iranians want.

Not if those massive protests in Iran earlier this year were anything to go by, especially if one believes the assertions about vote-rigging and Ahmedinejad stealing the election.

And like it or not, over a million people voted for the BNP.

Actually it was under a million, specifically 943,598 votes, ie. 6.4% of the total -- meaning that 93.6% did not vote for the BNP.

Best to get the precise statistics right if one is going to quote them to support one's arguments.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/...

We do have a cultural identity and cultural norms. And I left the country of my birth to join that society and to live with those norms.

One which is actually very heavily influenced by American cultural norms these days, especially im major cities like London.

Incidentally, according to the BNP's 2005 manifesto, they are are explicitly "hostile to American cultural imperialism", although I don't see them or any of their fellow ideologues holding protests outside retailers selling American entertainment products, or cinemas showing American films, or various American fast-food restaurants, or the London offices of CNN and Fox News, or satellite television channels transmitting American programmes, films and music.

All of which have been far, far more influential in changing British culture during the past few decades than "multiculturalism" involving Britain's resident non-white population.

If one is opposed to multiculturalism per se, then presumably one is forcibly opposed to the biggest multicultural influence of all as far as the UK is concerned, namely the influence originating in the United States.

And that's before we address the numerous white people in Britain whose roots lie in other countries in the West, or the various influences on aspects of British culture from those countries as a result of relatively cheap foreign travel.

But I think we all know that, despite claims to the contrary, this is actually more about race than culture.

Re: These fights do no one any good

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:03:55 -0000

Bananabrain,

@jai #117:

oh, my goodness. that is such a useful post i have saved a copy and will use it to beat both islamists and islamophobes about the face and neck.

b’shalom

bananabrain

No problem, glad it's helpful. You may also find it useful to read my various comments (and the associated URL links I supplied) on the "Popular names non-story" thread too -- post #19 onwards. (http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5818#co... ).

Re: These fights do no one any good

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:57:37 -0000

If you want to find a new way to move on and find a new way to create a cohesive nation out of our rapidly fragmenting society which includes everyone, please do do.

As he is apparently someone who originally hails from the land of great historical individuals such as Rumi, Omar Khayyam, Saadi and Hafez, all of whom had a very different concept of Islam, spirituality and humanity as a whole compared to the current mullah-dominated theocracy in Iran, I would hope that Reza would believe it would be a more constructive course of action to promote and support their humanitarian message.....both to counter the activities of various problematic Muslims in Britain and also to counter the efforts of various far-right groups to stigmatise Muslims en masse.

Also, unless Reza is physically able to "pass for white" and intends to change his name to something more European in origin, it would be worthwhile if he bears in mind that as far as groups like the SIOE, EDL and BNP are concerned, his own continuing presence in the UK is as much of a "problematic demographic" as the "staggering statistics about British Muslims" he's been quoting, regardless of his attempts to disassociate himself from them and his suggestion that one should engage in a dialogue with the far-right.

It's not just "multiculturalism" which is a problem in their view, it's the very fact that Britain is a multiracial society -- and that means that you too are a target, Mr Reza, whether you declare yourself to be an "ex-Muslim" or not.

Re: These fights do no one any good

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:47:36 -0000

I came here from a Muslim background and an Islamic country.

Which Islamic country specifically, "Reza" ?

Let’s hear what the SIOE, the EDL and the BNP have to say.

This website has already been given access to several dozen answers from the BNP's senior leadership in response to lists of policy-related questions supplied to them, a selection from a total of 85.

If you're unfamiliar with the details of the BNP's official responses, provided by a member of their "inner circle" who was formally authorised to speak for and represent the BNP in this matter, I suggest you take some time out to read through the relevant material before you go any further. Make sure you subsequently read the associated comments threads detailing the multiple logical, factual and statistical errors in the BNP's answers too.

First series of questions and answers: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4889

Second series of questions and answers: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5057

Re: These fights do no one any good

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:09:18 -0000

SOIE (no, not the EDL or the BNP) organized the demo to protest against what they perceive as the ‘islamification’ and the demographic growth of Islam in the UK.

What version of Islam ? Which interpretation ? Which sect ?

The Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, or Hanbali schools of Islamic law ?

The Ash'ari, Maturidi, Murji'ah, Mu'tazili, Athari or Zahiri schools of belief ?

The Barelwi, Deobandi, Muslim Brotherhood, Jammat-e-Islami, Jamaat-e-Muslimeen, Wahhabi or Salafi movements ?

The 'Twelver', Zaidi or Ismaili branches of Shia Islam ? The Usuli, Alevi, Akhbari, Alawite, or Shayki groups within the 'Twelvers' ? The Nizari, Mustaali, Taiyabi, or Hafizi groups within the Ismailis ? The Dawoodi Bohras, Sulaimani Bohras, Alavi Bohras, Hebtiah Bohras, the Abta-i-Malak (subdived further into the Abta-i-Malak Badra and Abta-i-Malak Vakil groups), or the Druze ? The Ibadi Kharijite sect ?

The Qadiri Sufi order ? The Bektashi Sufi order ? The Chishti Sufi order ? The Naqshbandi Sufi order ? The Oveyssi Sufi order ? The Suhrawardiyya Sufi order ?

The Ahmadiyyas ? The Mahdaviyas ?

Which contemporary Muslim figures ? Those involved in or supporting Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Al-Muhajiroun, and/or HuT -- or also (for example) the Imam Ajmal Masroor from that mosque in Harrow or even Rahat Fateh Ali Khan and his impending concerts tour ? Bearing in mind the fact that (for example) the Fateh Ali Khan family and their various historical role models not only have a level of prestige, respect and influence amongst Asians worldwide (both Muslims and non-Muslims) that people like Anjem Choudary can only dream of, but also that their interpretation of Islam & spirituality coupled with their attitude towards non-Muslims has been forcefully & diametrically opposed to the bigotted, bureaucratic, fanatical version which the extremists believe in ?

***************************************************

If the SOIE's answer the above is: "They're all equally problematic and we're opposed to all of them";

or "we're not aware of any differences between them";

or even "as far as we're concerned, the similarities outweigh the differences and we're therefore still opposed to all of them".....

.....then it betrays a level of gross cultural, theological and historical ignorance at best and (despite claims to the contrary) outright racism against Muslims en masse at worst.

Re: These fights do no one any good

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:15:30 -0000

The really ironic thing is that the imam of the mosque concerned, Ajmal Masroor (who may be familiar to many from his numerous appearences on "The Big Question"), has little in common with the Anjem Choudary/HuT/Abu Hamza types in terms of his interpretation of Islam and his attitude towards non-Muslims.

If the EDL and SIOE protestors were aiming to camp outside a mosque (or any other location) where "hate is being preached" (as claimed by the organisor from SIOE interviewed on one of the satellite news channels yesterday), they didn't exactly pick the right target. Not even close.

*********************************************

Stop Islamisation of Europe

Given current rising concerns about the resurrection & growth of racist fascism, perhaps someone should create a group called "Stop the Nazification of Europe".....

Re: Popular names non-story

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:13:02 -0000

Look at it this way, Douglas. Sometimes (for example) the Scottish aspect of your identity will come to the fore, sometimes it will not, and most of the time what you say, do or think about any given topic will depend on you as an individual.

The same as most other people in the world, except for those who really are inordinately fixated on what they believe to be the bureaucratic dictates of their racial/ethnic, national, regional, religious, denominational, class or professional identity.

As for Muslims/Islam in general, they have different sects and individual & group-based interpretations of their religion just like most other major faiths in the world, and it goes well beyond the Shia/Sunni divide.

Just because the Wahhabi/Salafi, and to some extent Deobandi types, with their historical ideological predecessors in the Naqshbandis (in India, anyway) and other contemporary and historical groups with a similar interpretation of Islam have been/currently are problematic, it doesn't mean that they should necessarily be taken as representative of "the average Muslim" or be assumed to reflect the definitive beliefs and attitudes of the majority of ordinary Muslims. As with most things, it depends on the specific location, the specific region of origin, the specific individual, and even the specific point in history.

No more than one should ignore the very large number of sects and interpretations within Christianity today and historically, or take the actions of European colonialists (including the British during the Victorian era in particular) who believed they had a God-given divine right to forcibly impose their rule on the rest of the non-Christian human race by any means necessary, or many Christian members of the Confederacy in mid-19th century America who believed they had a God-given right to own slaves, or the modern-day "Christian" KKK and St George's flag-waving BNP, to represent Christianity and Christians as a whole, regardless of what they may claim.

(I know that you're already aware of this, Douglas; my remarks are for the benefit of the wider audience).

The moral of the story is that, fundamentally, people are just people at the end of the day, and our common humanity should come first and foremost. Which, as those familiar with the matter will already know, is what Rahat Fateh Ali Khan, his family, their message, their supporters, and their particular ideological Sufi predecessors are all about.

As were Bulleh Shah, Mian Mir, Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, Baba Farid, Rumi, Saadi, Hafez, Omar Khayyam, and numerous other influential historical Muslim figures in India and Iran, for example.....and if anyone reading this doesn't have a clue who I'm talking about but claims to have an accurate understanding of Muslims and Islamic history, coupled with apocalyptic warnings about Muslims' alleged "incompatibility" with modern life and universally-acknowledge civilised, humanitarian values...well, I guess you have some more research to do.

Re: Popular names non-story

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:46:38 -0000

Douglas,

Yes I think Soru is right.

As for "seeing oneself essentially as Muslim", well I'm not a Muslim myself and as far as I know neither is Qidniz, so we're not really in a position to speak directly for members of that faith.

However, people have different composite aspects to their identities (which become dominant -- or not, as the case may be -- depending on the specific situation) and Muslims in and from many parts of the world where there is a minority or indeed majority of Muslims are no different. It's been that way for a very long time.

Re: Popular names non-story

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:07:44 -0000

I suggest you do some research on the history of Islam in general and Sufism specifically in both the Indian subcontinent

In fact, Soso, since you appear to be a proponent of the notion of "Islam is Islam and the West is the West, and never the twain shall meet", it would probably also be a great idea for you to read White Mughals by William Dalrymple.

Since it's an exhaustively-researched historical non-fiction book describing the experiences of various real-life Western residents in India, predominantly British and to a lesser extent also people from mainland Europe and even America, at a time when the Muslim influence in the areas of the subcontinent discussed was dominant, I think you'll find it very enlightening reading.

Summary and reviews here: http://www.amazon.com/White-Mughals-Betrayal-Ei...

and here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/White-Mughals-Betrayal-...

Re: Popular names non-story

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:49:07 -0000

Soso,

1) Britain is never going to become a 'Muslim-majority' state. Soru's explanation in #28 is pretty accurate.

2) Islam is not a homogenous, monolithic religion, as I mentioned earlier -- certainly not where the Indian subcontinent is concerned (and people with roots in that region who now live overseas). To a great extent this also applies to the history of Islam in neighbouring Iran/Persia, irrespective of the efforts of the modern-day religious orthodoxy there. Your objections about its "incompatibility" with various "western enlightenment values" could just as easily apply to Christianity if one was similarly going to make false, generalised assumptions about that religion and its adherents. And since you've mentioned Pakistan, perhaps you didn't notice the defiant public protests in the country's Punjab and Sindh provinces against the Taliban earlier this year -- both regions of Pakistan where Sufism has historically been extremely influential amongst the masses.

3) Finally, rather than ranting at me, I suggest you do some research on the history of Islam in general and Sufism specifically in both the Indian subcontinent and Iran; you should also read through those links I supplied above; and most of all, if you agree that it's a good move to base one's opinions on direct first-hand experience, I suggest you book a ticket for one of Rahat's concerts next month.

Once you've done all that, you'll be in a genuine position to get back to the rest of us and discuss this matter properly.

Re: Popular names non-story

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:45:53 -0000

Douglas,

Qidniz has obviously already kindly done the honours with translating Rahat's song. Regarding the "qawwali" by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan -- the lyrics are basically about Heer & Ranjha, the most well-known Indian equivalent of the Romeo & Juliet story. The song is in the first-person as though Heer was singing it about her lover Ranjha. However, it's simultanously about a lot more than that too.

A full English translation of the lyrics can be found here: http://www.angelfire.com/poetry/sweets/poetry4/...

As you can see, it's quite passionate stuff, and is also a forceful condemnation of false piety and an adherence to empty religious ritualism and orthodoxy.

The lyrics are attributed to the late 17th/early 18th century Sufi Bulleh Shah who you may have noticed me mention a few times previously on PP. Wikipedia has a summary of his life and message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulleh_Shah

Re: Popular names non-story

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:29:05 -0000

Qidniz,

Thanks for the clarification -- you're right, of course. I was referring more to the general style of the music rather than the lyrics. Getting momentarily distracted by the brief shot of the lovely Mini Mathur might have had something to do with it too.

For people unfamiliar with Indian cinema, the song is from a film called "Omkara" a couple of years ago, which was basically the Indian version of "Othello" (the director had already released an Indian version of "Macbeth" called "Maqbool" a few years previously). Both films were extremely successful and also very popular for their music.

In any case, readers will presumably be aware of the basic plotline of "Othello" so the song obviously fits in well with the way the tragic love story develops.

Re: Popular names non-story

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:14:40 -0000

Douglas,

I’ve plugged these clips on PP before, but since you’re regrettably going to miss out on the ‘live’ experience, here are some examples of what I’m talking about:

- This is a slow, romantic, very mellow number by Rahat. The clip is from a televised concert in India.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ueUsrIrCMM

- And this is a form of traditional Sufi music known as a “qawwali”, sung in this instance by his late uncle Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, and a fantastic example of the type of music which Rahat’s impending concerts will predominantly focus on (since they’re dedicated to his uncle).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt-j7cojBg4&... continued at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DtX_2ZxN8I&...

It’s very, very different to the miserable, austere, belligerent and extremely bigotted message that people like Anjem Choudary and his fellow ideologues have been trying to push. In fact, it would completely blow apart some of the negative stereotypes about Muslims which have unfortunately become prevalent in some quarters of British society and the associated media in recent years. And as you can see from the audience in the clips, there isn’t any compulsory ‘veiling’, gender segregation etc either.

I wish the concerts would get some decent coverage in the mainstream media (ideally as much as possible); Rahat Fateh Ali Khan and his family are very well-known figures amongst South Asians, and his late great uncle in particular was tremendously respected. Especially when you consider how much undeserved exposure people like Choudary get and the extent to which they’ve hijacked the public image of Islam and the perception of Muslims here in Britain.

I think it would open a lot of people’s eyes.

Re: Popular names non-story

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:31:46 -0000

The Common Humanist,

Given their very progressive, liberal left backgrounds they just cannot see how having more muslims in the country is progress and they see it as a threat to go back to what they describe as 50s attitudes – homophobia, religions communalism and, crucially, rampant sexism and mysogny.

Perhaps one way to rectify this stance would be for you to explain to them that Islam is not a monolithic, homogenous religion, and neither are Muslims as a group -- no more than Christianity and Christians are, for example.

In fact, the famous Sufi singer Rahat Fateh Ali Khan is holding a series of major concerts in the UK next month as a tribute to his even more famous uncle, the late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, and will be accompanied with a 75-piece orchestra. Maybe you and your parents should check it out -- the concerts are being held at a number of prestigious venues, including the Royal Festival Hall in London.

More details, including dates, prices and booking facilities here: http://www.asiansinmedia.org/2009/08/20/nusrat-...

These are pretty high-class affairs and the audience usually consists of people from a wide range of backgrounds (ie. not just Muslims). The atmosphere at these events is usually very friendly, easygoing and inclusive, and the overall vibe -- thanks to the music and the message that's being conveyed -- is very uplifting and inspiring.

And in terms of the interpretation of Islam and the attitude towards people of different faiths (or none), it's about as far as you can possibly get from the hardline Islamist stereotype.

If people really do want to see a very different side to Muslim culture -- one that has absolutely nothing to do with the AQ, Wahhabi, Al-Muhajiroun, HuT and Taliban types, and has historically been far more influential amongst the masses in northern India and Pakistan in particular -- then they should definitely attend one of Rahat's impending concerts.

I think it would challenge quite a few preconceptions.

Re: Popular names non-story

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:14:44 -0000

It seems fantastically na’ve to suppose that many of these newcomers – or even their children born here – will start reading Jane Austen

That's a "fantastically naive" statement for Hastings to make, considering how well-read a lot of UK-born British Asians tend to be. If he'd spent any significant time with the educated professional contingent in particular then he'd be aware of the tendency of the 2nd-gen crowd to be avid bookworms.

Re: BNP to appear on Question Time

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:42:39 -0000

Brilliant investigative work, Persephone. Well done.

Re: More reasons why we can’t give up on Afghanistan

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:41:12 -0000

How is it that Islam (with its commitment to brotherhood) throws up fanatics like the Taliban?

The same way that Christianity (with its commitment to compassion, love and brotherhood) did, and in some parts of the world still does.

Re: EHRC v BNP on all-white membership is an own-goal

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:33:36 -0000

Let me modify my previous comment. Let's say that the BNP's constitution is amended so that non-white people are indeed allowed to join the BNP, as per various rumours. (See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/... ).

Griffin has stated his organisation's "purpose" is to "secure a future for the true children of these islands".

In that case, the various groups I listed in #11 would, logically, not be included. If they are included, then Griffin is still contradicting himself, particularly if he's adamant about "12,000 years of shared history" -- because, by that definition, Scandinavians, Anglo-Saxons, etc etc are not the "true children" of the British Isles and do not fall under the umbrella of his stated "purpose".

Re: EHRC v BNP on all-white membership is an own-goal

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:18:52 -0000

Actually, let's analyse the following remark by Griffin for a moment:

to secure a future for the true children of our islands.”

So, presumably, anyone with any Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon/Germanic, or other European ancestry from outside the British Isles within a particular timeframe (eg. 12,000 years, since Griffin likes to mention that specific figure) should not be allowed to join the BNP either.

Multiple independent DNA tests would go a long way towards confirming a person's ancestry in this regard.

Either way, if -- upon the amendment of the BNP constitution -- these restrictions do NOT apply to the individuals listed above, then Griffin is contradicting himself. Not just logically, but from a legal standpoint too.

Prosecuting lawyers should take note.

Re: EHRC v BNP on all-white membership is an own-goal

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 05:46:06 -0000

If the rules change and Griffin goes on television and declares that he’s not racist, merely standing up for British culture, what can journalists obviously point at to illustrate the party’s racism?

Well, not necessarily. Griffin himself has said that the aim is purely to re-word the BNP's constitution in order to remain within the boundaries of the law, and that he has absolutely no intention of changing the core racist focus of his organisation.

In his own words (from the Guardian link in the main article):

"I have no doubt that it is possible to redraft our constitution so as to ensure we comply with the new law while at the same time holding true to our core principles and most important of all to our purpose – to secure a future for the true children of our islands."

Re: Now Jim Fitzpatrick MP wants a ban on ’segregation’

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 05:26:38 -0000

Before I say anything, let me emphasise that I don't think men and women should be forcibly segregated during weddings, irrespective of the religion concerned (this practice isn't restricted to Muslims).

And yes, that includes Sikh weddings too -- although it's worth mentioning that men and women only sit separately during the ceremony itself, not during the rest of the event outside the room where the ceremony occurs, and even during the ceremony itself they sit in two groups right next to each other in the same room (ie. not out of sight of each other). If overcrowding results in the male and female groups spilling over into each other to some extent, generally nobody kicks up a fuss. Everybody mixes freely during the rest of the wedding, including during any communal meal (ie. "langar") which the wedding party and the guests may eat on the temple/gurdwara premises. Also, there are are Sikh temples/gurdwaras in India where men and women don't sit separately at all, either during weddings or during visits to the gurdwara in general.

However.....

(I am not trying to play devil’s advocate here, merely work out what I think)

Well, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate. Bear with me.

1. If this is about misogyny or inferiority, what about non-Christians objecting to -- for example -- the notion of a father "giving away" his daughter to the groom at a Christian wedding, even if the act is largely symbolic these days ?

2. Similarly, what about the custom of brides wearing white in order to signify "purity" (originally literally virginity), even though some women may wear off-white instead these days (in the spirit of being more realistic) ? Furthermore, let's not forget that the groom wasn't expected to similarly wear white.

3. And, if we're talking about people objecting to religious practices, what if -- completely hypothetically -- someone from a highly conservative non-Western background (especially from the older generations) objected to the whole "you may now kiss the bride" custom, considering that in some quarters of some parts of the world, such public acts of intimacy have traditionally been considered extremely inappropriate (even obscene) in front of other people and especially at events with sacred/religious overtones such as weddings ?

In all three examples above, would the offended party have a right to ostentatiously walk out, kick up a huge fuss afterwards, and even agigate for such activitites to be made illegal in Britain ?

Or would a different reaction be deemed more appropriate ?

Re: New report on young Muslims, missing a trick

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 05:11:10 -0000

I agree that knowledge of the Byzantine Empire is not as widespread as it deserves to be.

The book Byzantium by Judith Herrin is excellent, and Millennium by the historian Tom Holland also includes a lot of information about the empire and that period in general.

Re: New report on young Muslims, missing a trick

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:56:27 -0000

You know, in the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries Constantinople was the world’s largest city and housed what was at the time humanity’s oldest university.

.....Check out “The Pandidakterion”, also knows as the University of Magnaura that existed in Constantinople. It was founded by the Emperor Theodosius II in 425 AD ( after the collapse of The Western Roman Empire), had 31 chairs for law, medicine, philosophy, mathematics geometry, astronomy, music, rhetoric etc, etc, and it existed right up until 1453.

"Oldest surviving university" might be a better description.

The universities at Nalanda (427 AD to 1197 AD) and Taxila (6th century BC to 5th century AD), both located in the Indian subcontinent, were also renowned and attracted international students.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxila

Other ancient centres of learning in the subcontinent are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Universiti... .

There are also examples of ancient universities in China, including (for example) the institution at Nanjing, originally founded in 258 AD, and still in existence as a functioning university.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_University

China had numerous other formal institutes of higher education, known as Guozijian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guozijian

Re: New report on young Muslims, missing a trick

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:01:59 -0000

Sunny,

At one point India and China were about a quarter of the world’s economy (as they will be again eventually).

It was even more than that -- during the height of the Mughal era, India and China combined accounted for about 50% of the world's economy.

But, to expand on your point, India and China were indeed global heavyweights for thousands of years, including long before the subcontinent's Islamic period. So was Persia in particular.

I also agree completely with your view that a broader, "big picture" understanding of global history would be much more beneficial than focusing on one narrow group, both in the interests of accuracy and also to enable people to gain an understanding of how interconnected large chunks of the world have been for an extremely long time.

And ultimately, ideally it would have the benefit of facilitating a grasp of everyone's common humanity and shared history, whether the "student" is European, Muslim (or both), or from any other background.

Re: Utterly bizarre

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:37:16 -0000

Rumbold,

You should post an abbreviated version of your excellent rebuttals and factual corrections on Hitchen's Daily Mail comments thread too, I think.

****************************************************************

Douglas,

Thanks (I think !).

I've made some further brief related points on the Enoch thread (here: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5693/co... ).

Incidentally, that book "Fatherland" I mentioned depicts Nazi Germany as having nuclear weapons and as having effectively defeated the US in WW2 by detonating a long-range missile above New York, thereby scaring America into submission.

The Wikipedia link I supplied in #11 goes into quite a lot of detail about the different course that WW2 had taken in both the "western" and "eastern" theatres of war, along with the global political and cultural ramifications, so check that out when you have some spare time.

*******************************************************

A general thought: What's really disturbing is that Hitchens and his online supporters are so openly and unashamedly talking about the moral basis for Britain's opposition to the Third Reich and what they stood for (beyond purely territorial self-preservation) as being a "mistake". There are even some people on that thread talking about how it would have been better for the British to be "allies with Hitler". And the Holocaust is mentioned only briefly and essentially swept under the carpet.

Until relatively recently, apart from the really hardcore BNP types and neo-Nazi wingnuts, it would have been unthinkable for a mainstream British publication and an associated writer/journalist to say all this so publicly, in a country which has always been so proud of its fight against the Nazis in WW2, the moral righteousness of its struggle against an enemy that needed to be defeated not just for Britain's sake but for the sake of the whole world, and its champion in the form of Churchill (who hated Nazis so viscerally that he wanted captured Nazi leaders to be summarily executed, a stance that the Americans had to talk him out of pre-Nuremburg).

The article itself and the level of support it's receiving amongst some of the Mail's commenting audience is very disturbing reading. Like I said, it's unimaginable for this to be happening in the Britain I grew up in.

Shocking. At some level I'd even define it as treasonous.

Re: Utterly bizarre

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:32:11 -0000

Hitchens also has a related article on his own blog (accessible via the Daily Mail article). He takes matters further there, including exaggerating the role of Bose in India's independence movement.

I've just posted a couple of comments on the Daily Mail comments thread; they have a pre-publish moderation policy so I don't know if or when my comments will be made available, but here's what I said anyway:

(First comment):

Peter Hitchens,
It would be worthwhile if you read the excellent novel "Fatherland" by Robert Harris, since the story focuses on the aftermath of a German victory in WW2 and (amongst other matters) the impact on a British Empire which survives largely intact into the 1960s, the decade during which the novel is set.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_(novel)

Some responses to your assertions:

- Nazi Germany would have developed nuclear weapons irrespective of the United States. Germany already possessed a nuclear research programme and the rapidly advancing nature of its rocket technology at the time is well-known.

- A "neutral" Britain would have been 'tainted' by not having acted to stop the total extermination of Europe's remaining Jews despite having the strength of a global empire at its command. So much for the Empire being a 'force for good'.

- Bose WAS completely eclipsed by Gandhi & Nehru. Bose’s impact on Indian independence was inconsequential.

************************************************************************

(Second comment)

A couple of further points to supplement my previous comment:

- The Nehru-led Congress in India had rejected proposed dominion status for India by 1930. They wanted full independence, long before the events of WW2.

- Bose's involvement in securing Indian independence, both in this article and (particularly) in Peter Hitchens' associated blog article, has been considerably exaggerated. Yes, there are some in India who admire him -- due to his aim to secure Indian independence, not because he allied himself with the Axis powers -- but, as I said earlier, the impact of his actions was ultimately inconsequential.

- And let's not forget that the "British PoWs marched off by the Japanese" included large numbers of Indian soldiers.

It's worth bearing in mind that, out of 2.54 million Indian soldiers involved in WW2, only 40,000 under Bose joined the Axis powers, ie. 1.6%.

98.4% fought for the Allies, a full 2.5 million soldiers, the biggest volunteer army in recorded history.

Re: Enoch Powell wasn’t racist because…

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:48:18 -0000

I'm sure Al Qaeda and their various supporters also think they're "doing the whole world a favour" via their aspirations to impose the supposed benefits of a global caliphate on the rest of us against our will.

Of course, something else they have in common with many Victorian-era colonialists in particular is the fact that AQ's leaders also suffer from the illusion that they belong to the (right interpretation of the) right religion and are doing God's will, regardless of the wishes of -- and impact on -- the targets of their agenda and regardless of how much they break their religion's humanitarian ideals & principles in the process.

Re: Enoch Powell wasn’t racist because…

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:06:39 -0000

Douglas,

Like Mr Hitchens and some of his supporters (re: the Daily Mail article via the other thread), I get the feeling that some Brits are happy with the basic concept of imperialism and view it as a positive thing as long as Britain is the imperial power concerned, ideally the most dominant imperial power of all.

If anyone else is an imperial power and Britain itself is hypothetically on the receiving end of the aggression, domination and subjugation involved, then of course the other party is "evil".

There's a little bit of a contradiction there, I believe.....

Re: Enoch Powell wasn’t racist because…

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:04:06 -0000

Even if, up until it was time to hand-over, the British Raj, far from being “evil”, was demonstrably one of the best things to ever happen to India

So the British Raj was evil Sunny? I suppose it depends how you define evil…

Let's try the following:

1. Invading and subsequently annexing other people's territory due to a deliberate policy of imperial expansion, achieved via a combination of Machievallian inteference in local politics & governments, an explicit policy of "Divide & Rule", and military aggression.

2. Draining the target territories of wealth for several centuries.

3. Being directly responsible for millions of famine-related deaths due to administrative mismanagement.

4. From the start of the 19th century onwards, initiating a series of calculated policies to create distance between British officers in the subcontinent and the local population, in order to prevent integration, assimilation and intermarriage involving the British officers and to deliberately foster a sense of "us and them".

5. From the start of the 19th century onwards, being motivated increasingly by a combination of racial theories and Christian evangelism. We are all still having to live with the legacy of those racist attitudes today.

6. In many cases, being motivated by an assumption of being "the new Romans" and emulating some of their more malevolent imperial policies & attitudes, whilst simultaneously claiming to be acting in the name of a religion a) whose followers were persecuted by the Romans until the reign of Constantine and b) whose ideals (especially the teachings of Christ) the imperialists were grossly contradicting.

7. Forcibly subjugating the local population directly or via proxies, and thereby ruling against their will. Not exactly democratic.

8. Numerous human rights violations against civilians involved in working towards Indian independence and/or involved in peaceful protests. Not to mention what was done to large numbers of captured Indian soldiers involved in revolutionary fighting during the events of 1857.

I could go on, but I think this will suffice for now.

Or is it cos I’s racist? :-0

If you would have been happy for Britain to have been annexed by the Germans, the USSR, or any future superpower (China being the obvious example at this stage), against the wishes of the local British population and with the British government, military and civilian population treated in exactly the same way that their Indian counterparts were treated during the establishment, expansion and enforcement of colonial rule, then your stance may have some merit. If not, then....well, hypocrisy is not a positive character trait.

Re: Daily Telegraph goes for naked racism

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:18:02 -0000

Re: 98

Apologies Don & Rumbold, the URL for the first link didn't appear correctly. Copy & paste the whole thing (including the part which isn't in blue) and you should be able to access the article.

Re: Daily Telegraph goes for naked racism

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:04:26 -0000

Don,

You'll love the following article from the current edition of The New Statesman -- it's basically a synopsis of a book called "The Next 100 Years" which is apparently going to be published shortly.

The article is quite long but stick with it, it's worth it. Fascinating reading. It might be a big coincidence, but given the author's repeated remarks about geography impacting the level of power and influence a nation has -- especially some of the specific terminology he uses -- I wouldn't be surprised if he's familiar with Diamond's work too.

(Rumbold, if you're reading this, you'll find this article extremely interesting too).

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2009/...
japan-poland

....followed by a detail Q&A with the author about his predictions: http://www.newstatesman.com/international-polit...

Re: Daily Telegraph goes for naked racism

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:15:12 -0000

Don,

Very quick off-topic note -- I finally bought "Guns, Germs & Steel" recently as per your recommendation a while back. I haven't read all of it yet but I'm aware of the basic premise and the general arguments that Professor Diamond has made (Wikipedia also gives a very good overview of the book's contents -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_S... -- along with links to the major analyses & critiques by other parties).

His basic point is sound, although there are a couple of areas I disagree with, especially where some of the subcontinent's history is concerned.

I found the following two critiques to be particularly good, especially the first one:

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/3...

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/diamond....

They're generally highly positive but (like myself) politely disagree with a few areas. Nevertheless, as long as they're read in conjunction with the book and with the "clarifying counterarguments" kept in mind, I think Professor Diamond's overall hypothesis and worldview is excellent. He fully deserves the Pulitzer Prize he was awarded for his book.

Re: Daily Telegraph goes for naked racism

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:39:00 -0000

Marvin, you're absolutely right (thanks for the correction -- I can't open the table from the computer I'm using).

The Daily Express have been highly selective in the list of countries they've supplied -- they haven't provided the names of the countries responsible for the other 11.9%.

They appear to be deliberately trying to skew their readership's perceptions -- and given the fact that the "hard copy" of the article and the table itself is accompanied with a picture of a Muslim woman wearing a full niqab and pushing a baby in a small pram, it's not exactly going to do much to alleviate paranoid stereotypes about Muslims either.

Re: Daily Telegraph goes for naked racism

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:31:24 -0000

And in relation to the list in #27 above, the total figure in relation to births as a result of immigrant mothers comes to 12.2% -- but today’s Daily Express is repeatedly stating it is 24.1%, supplemented by statements such as "1 in 4 births to foreign mothers" and the headline "Immigrant Baby Boom".

The detailed statistics (which they've also supplied in a table in the newspaper, albeit not in the associated website article) contradict their claim. Someone there seems to have made a huge error in their calculations.

Re: Daily Telegraph goes for naked racism

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:21:48 -0000

Which means that mothers who are British-born citizens, ie. not immigrants, were responsible for 90.8% of all babies born here last year.

Correction:

Which means that mothers who are either British-born citizens (irrespective of race) or white immigrants were responsible for 90.8% of all babies born here last year.

It's still not a case of "non-white immigrants" causing the rise in population, regardless of the picture some people apparently want to paint.

Re: Daily Telegraph goes for naked racism

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:06:31 -0000

Well, since terms such as "Anglo-Saxons", "Somalis", "ethnic groups" and so on have been mentioned, let's take a look at the actual figures in detail:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_po...

Mother's country of birth, followed by % of all UK live births in 2008:

Pakistan: 2.7%
Poland: 2.3%
India: 1.8%
Bangladesh: 1.2%
Nigeria: 1.0%
Somalia: 0.9%
Germany: 0.7%
South Africa: 0.6%
Ghana: 0.5%
Sri Lanka: 0.5%

So, mothers born in the subcontinent accounted for just 6.2% of all births in the UK last year. 93.8% had absolutely nothing to do with them.

Even if you add the African countries, that still means that non-white mothers born outside the UK were responsible for just 9.2% of all births in the UK last year.

Which means that mothers who are British-born citizens, ie. not immigrants, were responsible for 90.8% of all babies born here last year.

Puts a different spin on matters, doesn't it.

Re: Why it is wrong to praise Enoch Powell

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 06:44:32 -0000

the Eastern one would survive, in various forms, until 1453.

Correct, aka the Byzantine Empire.

Re: Why it is wrong to praise Enoch Powell

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 06:14:07 -0000

Quick note:

the emperor Marcus Aurelius

For those who are unfamiliar with him, this was the Roman emperor portrayed by Richard Harris in the film Gladiator -- the one who favoured the (fictional) Maximus but was murdered by his son Commodus. In reality, he did choose Commodus as his successor but the specific reasons are unclear, and (like his depiction in the movie) Commodus really was extremely egotistical and unstable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius

Re: Why it is wrong to praise Enoch Powell

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 06:05:06 -0000

You’re right about the effects of a classical education, though. Those who see the modern world through Greek and Roman eyes have a strange perception. It makes for fine poets- Powell wrote some good poems- but- except for Gladstone perhaps- appalling politicians.

Apart from being entertaining reading/viewing, the classical period is also very interesting for recognisable "power politics" and the way people behave in certain situations -- some things never seem to change, regardless of the time period or the geographical location. Both the Greeks and (later) particularly the Romans were also far ahead of the rest of Europe in most aspects; it took about a thousand years for northern & western Europe to reach the same level of development after the Roman Empire collapsed, for example.

There are also many excellent -- and still highly relevant -- points about "the human condition" in the philosophical writings of people like Seneca and the emperor Marcus Aurelius, or the observations of the senator/orator Cicero, amongst others.

However, I think problems occur when people with a "classical education" (or an awareness of the period via other means) learn the "wrong" lessons from this part of history.

And there is huge irony in British imperialists identifying with the Romans and, along with the positive aspects, unfortunately also emulating some of the nastier aspects of their culture in relation to attitudes towards subject peoples & targets of conquest when the Romans themselves did not exactly have a high opinion about how "civilised" the Britons of the time were (even after the second, and successful, major invasion and subsequent annexation of most of Britain into the empire, only approx. 15% of Britons were culturally "Romanised" during the centuries of Roman rule afterwards). Even more so when you consider that Christian evangelism was a major driver in justifying imperialism from the Victorian era onwards, despite the fact that a) Christians were a persecuted minority in the Roman Empire until the reign of Constantine, and b) Roman-style imperialism completely contradicted Christ's teachings and example.

"Stockholm Syndrome" on a grand scale, perhaps.

Re: CifWatch: Idiots with too much time on their hands

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 07:25:19 -0000

Katy, Chairwoman,

It's basically an attempt to needle Sunny rather than saying anything negative about either of you (on the contrary, in fact).

But it's still probably best if I don't translate that comment.

Re: CifWatch: Idiots with too much time on their hands

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:11:16 -0000

The Common Humanist, Bananabrain, Chairwoman,

“me” (or is this munir/blah, back under a new alias,

Yes it’s Munir yet again, as is "Ahmed" and as was the now-deleted "Nas", "Asif", and rapidly approaching two dozen other aliases Munir has used since he was banned from PP. Ironically, it correlates very well with the second part of this thread's title.

Considering that Munir has obsessively persisted in attempting to comment on this blog so many times despite being told directly by PP's editors that he has been banned and despite the fact that nearly all of his subsequent comments have been deleted, it should tell you something about what kind of person he is (on top of everything else we already know about him) and whether such an individual deserves any kind of response by other participants on this website.

Unless – for some reason -- Munir believes that any “inconvenient” restrictions of the British legal system don’t apply to him personally and therefore has no problems with publicly and repeatedly breaking the law in this manner, it's also interesting how he is ignoring the fact that persistently contacting others via electronic communication methods (including blogs) when the recipient (in this case, PP's editorial team) has clearly told him to stop constitutes a criminal offence in Britain, and thereby provides PP's owners with grounds to prosecute him if they wished to do so. Given Munir’s extensive online history of repeatedly making racist comments about Jews, Hindus, and Sikhs, coupled with the explicit threat of making similar statements about Christians, I’m sure the police would find the matter extremely interesting for that reason too.

Re: Let’s out-smart the BNP instead

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:25:55 -0000

There's an expanded version of Lucy James' article in The Guardian. Many of the subsequent comments are excellent too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/au...

Re: Let’s out-smart the BNP instead

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:59:47 -0000

Some further information to supplement my previous post #39:

In terms of being a “nationalist” (as per the BNP definition of the term) Gandhi was about as far from Griffin as it is possible to be; that dubious honour falls to the racist psychopaths who were responsible for assassinating him.

.....because they thought Gandhi was "too tolerant, sympathetic & compassionate" towards Muslims.

Again, I doubt anyone with an accurate grasp of Gandhi's life, beliefs and actions could mistake him for an ideological predecessor to Griffin. Not even remotely.

Re: Let’s out-smart the BNP instead

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:58:03 -0000

Some further information to supplement my previous post #39:

In terms of being a “nationalist” (as per the BNP definition of the term) Gandhi was about as far from Griffin as it is possible to be; that dubious honour falls to the racist psychopaths who were responsible for assassinating him.

Re: Let’s out-smart the BNP instead

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 05:58:32 -0000

but this Griffin, he has opinions we don’t like so we can’t have that can we. Quite amusing really.
Those Nationalists;-
First they decide that they don’t like foreign influence or foreign governments.
Then, they start to preach against those foreign things.
Next thing you know, they have a following.
Then the following grows.
Then come the civil disobedience campaigns and before you know it, there’s an upheaval and they toss out the foreigners.
Of course, I’m referring to the Nationalist Ghandi, not the Nationalist Griffin.

Nice attempt, but ludicrously far from the truth. Gandhi was purely opposed to foreign political & military rule, specifically in relation to imperialism.

He had no issues with "foreign influences" and certainly was not interested in "tossing out the foreigners". And he was actively opposed to any kind of hostility or bigotry towards ordinary non-Indians in general, including -- most importantly, in this specific situation -- ordinary British people. In terms of being a "nationalist" (as per the BNP definition of the term) Gandhi was about as far from Griffin as it is possible to be; that dubious honour falls to the racist psychopaths who were responsible for assassinating him.

Incidentally, if one is going to try to misappropriate historical figures in order to draw false comparisons with Griffin, it's best to spell their names correctly: "Gandhi", not "Ghandi".

Re: Let’s out-smart the BNP instead

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:43:13 -0000

Lucy James,

Excellent article.

I therefore took 10 of the key accusations directed against Islam and British Muslims by the BNP and systematically deconstructed them by highlighting their intellectual inconsistencies and factual weaknesses.

Such arguments are easily undermined using proper statistics, and historical and textual evidence.

We don’t need to panic. Instead, members of British society, Muslim and non-Muslim, desperately need to start intellectually reclaiming the debate and systematically challenge the BNP’s racist and inaccurate arguments.

Exactly. Hopefully you've been following the lists of questions eGov/PP have been directing at the BNP too, along with the detailed counterarguments to their subsequent responses.

Well done anyway for your own efforts.

Re: Far-right protests in Birmingham

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:57:06 -0000

Munir,

Its a great site,one of the best on the web, what can I say.

And yet you show zero respect for the decision of Sunny and PP's other editors to ban you from this website.

Worse, you're still attempting to trick them by using fake aliases in order to try to circumvent the ban.

And now you're pretending to be "Bulbul" too -- http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5477#co....

Oh dear, Munir. Not only do you have no respect for the people who run this website (who have told you explicitly that you're not welcome here), you obviously don't have any respect for yourself either. What kind of pathetic person repeatedly keeps trying to gatecrash a party under multiple false identities when the people running the show have already repeatedly thrown him out and told him to stop coming back ?

Desperate stuff, Munir. It really is.

Re: Far-right protests in Birmingham

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:39:23 -0000

Rumbold,

So Barack Obama is mixed-race. It might be that he sees the black part as having more of an impact on his thinking, which is fine, but it doesn’t change the fact that he is mixed-race.

Obama's autobiography "Dreams from my Father" goes into a lot of detail about his experiences and the development of his concept of his own racial identity, so that would probably be the best source of reference in the first instance.

Also, the cultural & social legacy of the "one drop rule" in the US is also a major factor in why Americans with one black parent generally self-identify (and are identified by others) as black themselves, rather than mixed-race, and correspondingly why less emphasis seems to be placed on the white (or non-black) part of their parentage.

Re: Far-right protests in Birmingham

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:33:33 -0000

Suzy,

bilal, I cannot account for the madness of your impressions. Please make an appointment with your GP – he can direct you to a psychiatric nurse for help.

"Bilal" is the banned racist Munir in yet another one of his online incarnations (how many fake aliases has he used since he was banned -- 8 or 9 so far ?).

And this is despite the fact that he's been told directly by PP's editorial team that he's no longer allowed to comment on this website, along with the specific reasons why he's been banned. I guess some people really do have a problem with the word "No" -- along with respecting the decision of the people who actually run and own this website, for that matter.

Re: War by any other means

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:32:53 -0000

Sunny,

Mate I don't have much to add because, well, I could email you offline if I really wanted to say anything ;), but also because I think Ravi's already made the point perfectly. His remarks in #3 are particularly accurate.

Don't worry. Live and learn, and then keep going.

Re: Racial abuse in Luton and media reporting

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:25:22 -0000

Because ‘abdullah’ is Munir.

He's now pretending to be "Asad" on the Daily Mail thread. Even after his comments under the username "Ahmed" and "Abdullah" have just been deleted.

I think his intention is to carry on doing this until PP's editors become tired of identifying his random aliases and subsequently removing his comments. It doesn't exactly display a great deal of respect towards this website's editors if he's simply going to ignore the ban and continue to try to "outwit" Rumbold, Leon, and Sunny, despite the fact that it's been made explicitly clear to him by PP's editorial team that his participation on PP is no longer welcome and any further comments will be deleted. I’d actually define it as an example of an ongoing attempt by Munir to bully the editors into submission.

*********************************************

Back to this thread's main topic:

Yes it's absolutely disgraceful that this incident has apparently been ignored by most of the mainstream media in the UK. I wouldn’t be surprised if most people in this country still don’t know about it.

Re: Blog wars!

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:26:14 -0000

Don & Amused,

"Bashir" is the banned racist thug Munir. It's not worth replying to him, both because of the source of the comment and because it'll inevitably end up getting deleted by PP's editors as per their statement in the recent 'Comments policy' article specifically in relation to Munir.

Persistent, isn't he ? That's over half a dozen fake aliasis by Munir on a near-daily basis since last week, despite the fact that he's been told directly by PP's editorial team that he's banned from this website and despite the fact that almost all of his subsequent comments have been deleted.

I guess he's quite the obsessive stalker as far as Pickled Politics is concerned.

Re: Blog wars!

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:12:00 -0000

I wish we could find a common coherent and non-simplistic narrative that explains how a tolerant Britain elected two MEPs that are so extreme that the hard right European parties do not want anything with them.

Ravi's point above hits the nail on the head.

I think that, depending on the specific individual, the people constituting the approx. 1 million Brits who voted for the BNP either agree with the BNP's racist extremism, or they're unaware of the full scale of it, or for one reason or another they don't care.

But it's interesting that nearly every single person who admits to supporting the BNP and can freely express their views anonymously via various media turns out to be a racist. I wonder how many of the aforementioned 1 million BNP voters would exhibit similar behaviour if their own anonymity was assured.

Re: Blog wars!

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 05:15:02 -0000

The only group who benefits from all of this the BNP.

The level of risk of the above should always be the primary guideline when considering an appropriate action, response or counter-response in relation to anything concerning the BNP.

Incidentally, "Ahmed" and "Abdullah" on this thread and others concurrently on PP is very obviously the banned racist Munir, although I expect most regulars will have realised that already. Apparently the statement by PP's editors "Munir is banned from PP" isn't clear enough for him, irrespective of how many fake aliases he conjures up on a daily basis in an ongoing attempt to circumvent the ban.

Re: Banned for anti-war protests?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 05:06:16 -0000

I would love to escape to no man’s land, but where the hell is that? These stupid concepts of nationality and so on are so pervasive that they are bloody inescapable!

.....

Show me some land where I can go, build my own house, grow my own food, look after my family in peace, and perhaps even co-operate with other people who have had enough of all this

I hear that 18th century North America is quite nice at this time of year.....

On a slightly more serious note, regarding #52 -- Dave, read up on the history of European settlement and expansion in America and you'll get the answers to all your questions, both positive and negative.

Failing that, I recommend you do some Googling and find out exactly why many viewers with extremely rigorous scientific academic backgrounds objected so much to the implausibility of the ending of the recent re-imagined "Battlestar Galactica" series, where the heroes were portrayed as "going back to a simpler life" in exactly the same way that you suggest. You'll receive a comprehensive answer to your question to Don about why the numbers comprising the human population would subsequently plummet.

Re: Cricket for Iranian workers

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:32:00 -0000

Good luck Sunny. Hope the weather doesn't sabotage the match.

Re: Does more immigration cause BNP support and racism?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:25:02 -0000

Shamit,

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if those images seen in Sci-Fi flicks became a reality — where the world came under attack from aliens. Then suddenly, what would happen to the divisions of religion, ethnicity, etc etc – may be then myopic visions would go.

It's a tricky one. There would be many who would indeed "see the light". Unfortunately, based on countless precedents throughout history and across the world in relation to armed invasions by fellow humans, there is a horrible possibility that there would also be people who would be more than happy to submit to the principle of "Divide and Rule", and would therefore be more focused on collaborating with the hostile force and selling other people down the river (especially those they have a grudge against) due to their own narrow selfish, self-centred interests.

Re: Does more immigration cause BNP support and racism?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:19:25 -0000

Jai seems to think vituperation and abuse is as good as any measured response.

"Edna", it's a very appropriate response indeed to your persistent use of the abusive and derogatory term "fuzzy wuzzy" in reference to native Fijiians.

Unless you now want to be described as a "cracker" and a "redneck" at each and every convenient opportunity, it would probably be in your own best interests to desist.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:39:05 -0000

If you’re arguing that Sikhism owes some of its present form to the encounter with Islam, you’re probably right. But calling this “positive” is only in the sense that antibodies emerging in the body to counter antigens is “positive”. One could do without the affliction in the first place.

Considering that (for example) a well-known Sufi affiliated with the Qadiri Order was invited to lay the foundation stone of Harmandir Sahib, 130 sloks along with a number of hymns by Baba Farid were incorporated into the Guru Granth Sahib, both Sikhism and most (not all) versions of Indian Sufism include an emphasis on music and its role in enabling the singer/listener to connect with God, and the langar/free community kitchen system which originated in Sufism, I think that the Gurus may well have disagreed with you about that.

Thoroughly exaggerated. Behind the often syncretist reflection of Bhakti ideas (and cooptation of Indian tropes of sainthood, as in “pir-ism”)

Bhakti ideas were certainly heavily influential during the subcontinent's medieval period and to some extent paralleled the development of Sufism in India; they have also certainly been more prevalent in regions like Rajasthan and Gujarat. However, to imply that the same applies to (for example) Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir, even Delhi is an interesting assertion to make.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:37:10 -0000

So, what is this “Great Deception” so grandiloquently announced in the title?

That people aren’t aware of how they have everything all wrong — that Islam is really this mondo cool thing called Sufism

No. It's that huge numbers of Muslims have had very different beliefs and attitudes in life compared to their more hardline orthodox counterparts, especially in India and obviously in some of its neighbouring regions too. The question isn't about "what Islam really is"; it's all about the people, not the religion.

***************************************

Anyway.....

There's quite a lot of archived material shedding more light on the colourful personality of Mirza Ghalib, India's greatest Urdu poet. It does raise a smile (although many people of Indian origin will already be aware of Ghalib's reputation). He was certainly quite a roguish individual, and his sense of humour comes across too.

The following are extracts from The Last Mughal by William Dalrymple:

p109

"There are seventeen bottles of good wine in the pantry", he [Ghalib] wrote to one friend, descibing his idea of perfection. "So I read all day and drink all night."

p41

(A letter written by the womanising Ghalib to one of his griefstricken friends after the latter's mistress had recently passed away).

"I don't like the way you are going on. In the days of my lusty youth a man of perfect wisdom counselled me, 'Abstinence I do not approve: dissoluteness I do not forbid. Eat drink and be merry. But remember that the wise fly settles on the sugar and not on the honey.' Well I have always acted on his counsel. You cannot mourn another's death, unless you live yourself...Give thanks to God for your freedom, and do not grieve...When I think of Paradise and consider how if my sins are forgiven me and I am installed in a palace with a houri, to live forever in the worthy woman's company, I am filled with dismay and fear...How wearisome to find her there -- a greater burden than a man could bear. The same old palace, all of emerald made; the same fruit tree to cast its shade. And -- God preserve her from all harm -- the same old houri on my arm. Come to your senses, brother, and take another."

Also on p41:

After someone praised the poetry of the pious Sheikh Sahbai in his presence, Ghalib shot back, "How can Sahbai be a poet ? He has never tasted wine, nor has he ever gambled; he has not been beaten with slippers by lovers, nor has he once seen the inside of a jail."

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:03:46 -0000

I can’t think of any “positive lessons” from the encounter of the subcontinent with that religion.

Sikhism.

The cultural influence of Sufism in the regions it was prevalent.

For example.

More to the point, the "positive lessons" ran in both directions. It hasn't just been about non-Muslims learning to get along with Muslims; the reverse has also been the case.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 06:49:39 -0000

Qidniz,

I think you'll find the discussion thread for Part 1 of the article to be interesting reading too.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:03:59 -0000

Absolutely, Reza.

Re: Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception (part 2)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:35:31 -0000

Kismet,

Jai, you make me think. It doesn’t happen often, so I thank you

No problem at all. Plenty of information for you to chew over, I think.....

Reza,

Those extremists have been the minority, both historically and in the present day. Yes there have been eruptions of conflict, especially when bigots have reached (or seized) some kind of position of power or influence, but that's still been the exception rather than the norm. That's the whole point. The majority of Indians aren't itching to slaughter people from different backgrounds to themselves, and at the moment India itself is going through an extremely positive period of integration and positive cultural transformation.

I don't want to repeat myself, so let me just recommend again that you do some research on Indian history, especially involving those regions where there has been a large mixture of people living in the same areas for a long time. Don't take the exception to be the norm -- there has been far more integration, multilateral syncretism and positive cultural fusion than you may think.

The glass is three-quarters full as well as a quarter empty, remember.

Re: Does more immigration cause BNP support and racism?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 05:03:04 -0000

^^Note: Despite the paragraph I've quoted in red, I'm not actually talking about "progressives". Just in case it needed clarification for anyone's benefit.

Re: Does more immigration cause BNP support and racism?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 05:00:52 -0000

Why I wonder do the progressive generation not seek to liberalise and expand their world-view? Why do they remain so narrow in their focus?

If I may make a tangential point, that's actually the fundamental problem with racists and bigots of all stripes. It's an inability -- or unwillingness -- to take those feelings of basic indentification with, and empathy towards, their "group" (whatever that may specifically be, from their own perspective -- ethnicity, nationality, religion, etc etc) and extrapolate that to the entire human race.

This is basically where it all stems from, irrespective of whatever excuses and rationalisations they may make in order to justify their attitude and their subsequent behaviour towards the targets of their bigotry.

Re: Does more immigration cause BNP support and racism?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 04:35:50 -0000

I tell you, that Ghandi fella has a lot to answer for….

Especially when the man's surname was actually spelt "Gandhi".....

The native fuzzy-wuzzy Fijians

That kind of casual racism and denigration may get you a chortle amongst your cross-burning cracker redneck buddies on the sub-Stormfront cesspit that is "American Renaissance", "Edna", but to the rest of the world it makes you look like an obsolete dinosaur and a bigotted social misfit who has been spending excessive time on the internet.

It's the 21st century. Get with the programme. 1957 was a looooong time ago.

Re: Does more immigration cause BNP support and racism?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:10:32 -0000

kimonos all the type

"time", not "type".

Re: Does more immigration cause BNP support and racism?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:09:36 -0000

Britain has, or ought to have, a cultural identity as distinct as that of Japan or Rajasthan or Greece

a) Impossible, considering the extent to which Britain is involved with globalisation in both international trade and culture, along with its diminished place as a global (previous) superpower and its extremely strong ties with the United States. If anything, the dominant external cultural influence on British society is American, especially via the media. (The BNP, of course, are explicitly "hostile to American cultural imperialism", as stated in their 2005 General Election manifesto).

b) Modern-day Japanese people do not exactly go around wearing kimonos all the type, with the descendents of samurai carrying katanas in their daily lives like Uma Thurman in "Kill Bill". And in terms of Japanese popular culture, particularly amongst the young, the American influence is absolutely huge.

c) Rajasthan's culture is primarily a combination of the legacy of Rajputs, the Mughals, and local "folk" groups from multiple religious backgrounds. But even then, the average modern-day kshatriya who can trace his ancestry to the armies affiliated to one of the royal clans is not exactly riding around the urban streets of Jaipur and Jodhpur on horseback, armour glistening in the sunshine, while brightly-turbaned folk musicians leading their camels sing of the latest battle with the Mughals and join the caravanserai on the silk trade route through the desert.

d) Greeks have an very long history with multiple internal & external influences based on the local culture, their Mediterranean neighbours, and (more recently) the Ottomans.

e) And if you think this is a relatively recent development, with little/no bilateral cultural exchanges between -- for example -- both the Romans and the Greeks and the subcontinent, then you need to brush up on your knowledge of ancient history. Much of the most advanced and heavily populated parts of the world has been far more interconnected than Britain was until the start of the colonial period a couple of centuries ago (except for the Roman interlude, and even then it took a thousand years to recover afterwards), a long time before Britain and the rest of northern Europe decided to join the "global community". Unless you think the fact that all the Indian alphabets along with the Hebrew, Arabic and Latin alphabets are all originally derived from the Phoenician script is a huge conspiracy.

Re: Does more immigration cause BNP support and racism?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:06:57 -0000

There was no “racism” before the immigrants arrived – it didn’t exist – that’s obvious.

That's false and historically completely inaccurate.

If you're talking specifically about racism towards non-white people (at least Asians) on the part of white Brits, it was far less prevalent before the start of the 19th century. For example, 1 in 3 East India Company officers in the subcontinent had at least one Indian wife, and completely diving into local customs, attire, cultures and lifestyles over there was very much the norm. Lord Liverpool was also known to be of mixed Anglo-Indian ancestry, he certainly didn't hide it and often made references to it, and it wasn't a problem in terms of his experiences in British society at the time or his successful election to the role of Prime Minister.

Unfortunately, matters took a considerably nastier turn almost exactly 200 years ago. Racism towards non-white people as we understand it today was a result of several developments:

- The systematic policy of the East India Company in terms of its officers stationed in the subcontinent from the early 19th century onwards, specifically in relation to a series of measures which were gradually rolled out in order to prevent and terminate assimilation and integration into the rest of the subcontinent's society, including marriages with local women, the attitudes towards children resulting from such unions, and so on. To a great extent this was motivated by the recent loss of the American colonies; the British authorities at the time subsequently decided they didn't want the same thing to happen in India as a result of ex-pats and their children (both white and mixed-race) being primarily loyal to the subcontinent and its inhabitants, and thereby posing a threat to imperial rule from London and potentially risking US-style independence.

- The rise of Victorian-era evangelism, with the associated attitudes.

- The rise of dubious theories about race during the 19th century, both in terms of "the divisions of man" and superiority/inferiority.

- The superiority complex which arose as a result of successful imperial/colonial expansion.

- And that's before we even get to the issue of slavery in Britain's previous American and Caribbean colonies along with the transatlantic slave trade in general, even though Britain eventually abolished it, or the wavering & hesitation that occurred during the American Civil War in relation to which side to support.

Re: Does more immigration cause BNP support and racism?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:26:21 -0000

no sane country would welcome Somalis except possibly as donors or corneas, kidneys and hearts …

I'm going to have to formally protest at the statement above. Implying that any ethnic, national or religious group -- whether Somalis or anyone else -- are intrinsically worthless as human beings except as being a potential source of "spare body parts" is an absolutely disgusting statement to make.

It's chilling to speculate about what is going on inside the mind of such a person who is so unable -- or, perhaps, unwilling -- to perceive and register their targets' common humanity that they think it's appropriate, correct, or even "normal" to make such depraved remarks about them, whether in real life or on a website.

Re: Does more immigration cause BNP support and racism?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:56:10 -0000

Don,

Freaky isn't it ?

Re: Does more immigration cause BNP support and racism?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:45:55 -0000

No. Only amongst people who are already predisposed towards racism, which may be triggered or exacerbated by immigration (or any number of excuses).

Re: Comment policy restated

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:18:12 -0000

Anobody,

I guess that the very first sentence of my post #46 hasn't registered with you, but to reiterate:

Rumbold has clarified the issue and I consider the matter closed.

With regards to your own points:

I have asked you two specific questions around ethnicity and affinity? These are not loaded questions. I want to know because I don’t see the importance of ethnicity or having affinity towards an ethnic group. I was hoping you could provide an alternative to my own thoughts on the matter.

You're oversimplifying and decontextualising what the problem was in the specific case of this individual. However, it's interesting that, out of a very long list, you either signficantly downplayed or completely ignored all the other examples of Munir's entrenched hatred, hypocrisy and bigotry, along with his total lack of respect for other people in general.

And if you're going to take a religious angle on this, the fact that much of his behaviour which had allegedly been conducted in the name of Islam (whilst deliberately and repeatedly violating many of the religion's humanitarian ideals and injunctions) was not only heavily & repeatedly condemned by other practising Muslims on this blog, but apparently also resulted in PP's editors receiving formal complaints from Muslims offline because of it, should all tell you something.

I do not wish to discuss Munir and his problems any further. Most of us here have had enough of that arrogant, racist, bullying thug who also happens to openly support the Taliban's violence towards women, and was attempting to push an explicit agenda to impose his own extremist interpretation of Islam on other Muslims and simultaneously exploit this website as a medium for malevolent racist propaganda by trying to whip up as much hatred as possible towards Jews, Hindus and Sikhs.

Oh really? I suppose you’ve sharpened up a pencil and are halfway through page one of your A5 pad already.

That would be based on the erroneous presupposition that I felt you were a worthwhile use of my time ;)

.....And just to make my primary point yet again, in case there is still any confusion about the matter:

Rumbold has clarified the issue and I consider the matter closed.

Cheers.

Re: Comment policy restated

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:21:07 -0000

Anobody,

Rumbold has clarified the issue and I consider the matter closed. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you feel the need to persist in obsessively defending Munir and to continue attempting to deflect attention away from his abhorrent behaviour -- indeed, to excuse and justify it -- despite the fact that an extensive list of examples of Munir's extremely offensive remarks and ideas (many in his own words) has been provided.

Or, perhaps, you simply agree with Munir's attitude towards Hindus, Jews, Sikhs and women of all backgrounds and his subsequent treatment of them, along with his own interpretation of Islam and his attitude towards Muslims who disagree with him. Given the fact that PP's editors have received multiple formal complaints about Munir offline, possibly that is the simplest explanation. In which case, you should have the guts to admit it, rather continuing to try to excuse and defend the indefensible, and taking the somewhat transparent step of trying to point any accusatory fingers of blame towards myself.

But at least we all know where you stand now.

********************************************

Rumbold,

Thanks for #45, mate. Very well said.

Re: Comment policy restated

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:39:47 -0000

Imran,

the hysteria generated by members of your community

"Time out", as they say across the Atlantic.

Imran, before you go any further (and bear in mind that most of the time I think you're a very decent guy and make some brilliant points -- and you're a far, far, far better example and role model as a practicing Muslim than Munir is) -- exactly which "community" do you think Leon is a member of ?

I think you might be making some erroneous assumptions based on his name, but I'll let you answer the question first.

Re: Comment policy restated

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:37:11 -0000

Shamit, Sofia,

Though I would miss some of his more humourous and intelligent comments — but as many have said they were becoming too few and far between.

Finally…I think it’s so sad when people like Munir who had the capacity to debate, often chose to insult, degrade, condemn and belittle people. He was given enough of an opportunity to get his points across in a civil manner…

Munir is a tragic example of someone whose out-of-control arrogance, extreme sadism, and dehumanisation of anyone who opposes or disagrees with him has effectively destroyed his capacity for decency and has completely twisted his considerable intelligence, not to mention his sanity.

He's also made it extremely clear that not only does he feel absolutely no common human empathy or affinity towards Asians in general, but the only fellow human beings in the world that he gives a damn about at all are other Muslims, and even then, only if they're "the right type of Muslim" and never "dare" to question, contradict or oppose him, otherwise they're as much of a "justified" target for his hatred and sadism as everyone else. It's identical to the kind of mentality & attitude that the worst, most fanatically extreme racist white supremacists often have towards non-white people and Jews.

What a horrific, tragic waste of intelligence. What a horrific, tragic waste of potential. And what an absolutely nightmarish, disastrous, horrific waste of a life.

Re: Comment policy restated

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:51:39 -0000

- And Munir's support of the Taliban's public whipping of women as "appropriate punishment" for alleged "transgressions".

Re: Comment policy restated

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:48:36 -0000

Let’s just remind ourselves of a selection of Munir’s activities,

Actually we can also add the following (out of numerous others):

- Munir's gleeful stereotyping of all Hindus as being "rat and monkey worshippers".
- Munir's sneering remark about "Sikh piety" consisting of "being forced to have a certain name, carrying a knife with you at all times, and wrapping a rag around your head".
- Munir's repeated "jokes" about Guru Tegh Bahadur's torture, attempted forced conversion to Islam, and subsequent execution by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, a sequence of events which Munir condones and supports.

Re: Comment policy restated

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:21:37 -0000

Where munir lacked a bit of tact, he provided a balance to a lot of the rancid opinions held by some commmentators here. He will be missed.

Let's just remind ourselves of a selection of Munir's activities, since he is being described as merely "lacking a bit of tact" along with "providing balance", and accusations are being made about other commenters holding "rancid opinions". Given Munir's very long history of deliberately lying as much as possible (including deliberately making false statements about the alleged backgrounds and opinions of a very large number of commenters), the latter should of course be taken with an extremely large pinch of salt if Munir' own remarks and fabricated allegations are being used as a basis for such opinions.

From a recent comment by me, the second part of which was addressed directly to Munir:

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5287#co...

Jai: Munir is a textbook example of what can eventually happen to a person’s mental state in extreme cases when they exploit religion (particularly when placing an overemphasis on “academic theological knowledge” and an ostentatious adherence to some of the rudimentary ritualistic aspects, whilst conveniently ignoring any religious injunctions to behave with respect, empathy and basic decency towards others) as a source of egotism and an attempt to hide & compensate for their own fundamental lack of any redeeming character traits, resulting in the development and manifestation of clearly-identifiable psychiatric illness.

Munir: Like some of the Sikh Gurus you mean

*****

Jai:

- Your continuous use of profanities (even in comments where you’re simultaneously quoting sacred Islamic religious texts), often to the point of extremely explicit gutter terminology,
- Your continuous “poison pen letter”-style personal attacks across the internet against random commenters who are actually complete strangers to you,
- Your continuous violation of the Islamic injunction to refrain from lying and to treat people with courtesy, kindness and respect,
- Your continuous usage of your “adversary’s” alleged behaviour as a guideline (in fact, a convenient excuse) for your own disgusting behaviour towards them, irrespective of the actual Islamic teachings on appropriate conduct in such situations and frequently irrrespective of the fact that the perceived “insult” only exists inside your own head.
- Your verbal abuse, bullying and harassment across the internet of anonymous women like Sofia, who you don’t even know and have never met,
- Your continuous belittling and harassment of anonymous women like Chairwoman who is actually in her 60s,
- Your persistent labelling of Jewish people as being “racist” by default, along with persistently and obsessively finding the flimsiest pretexts to insult Judaism and Jews in general when they have absolutely nothing to do with the main discussion,
- Your claims about a widespread “Jewish conspiracy”,
- Your remarks to Ravi about Hindus such as “why don’t you wear a red dot and burn yourself to death”,
- Your subsequent remark that you would use “anti-Christian” insults against him next time,
- Your constant references to “Hindu India” despite the fact that the country has one of the world’s 3 largest Muslim populations,
- Your comment stating that you “feel no affinity towards Asians and actually don’t give a shit about them”,
- Your remark that Sikh and Hindu policemen in Britain would “probably rape Muslim women if they were approached by them”,
- Your comment to Amrit (another woman who is effectively an invisible stranger to you) where you called her parents “genocidal freaks”,
- Your suspicious and extremely incriminating silence in response to my ridiculously easy questions about the history of Sufism in South Asia, (Note: -- despite the fact that Munir had repeatedly claimed on previous occasions to be somewhat of an expert on the subject)
- Your complete silence in response to my questions about your grasp (or lack of) high-level Urdu, Farsi, Punjabi and Sindhi along with your knowledge (or lack of) extremely famous Muslim Sufis and/or poets from both South Asian and Persian history, (Note: -- see previous point)

-- Along with persistently and deliberately lying, and repeatedly pretending to be multiple commenters despite PP's own systems confirming this to be the case and despite repeated warnings from PP's editors to desist.

Assuming, of course, that anyone defending Munir does not actually condone, agree with and support any of Munir's own views & activities in relation to the above (all of which PP's editors are fully aware of and condemn) and his corresponding behaviour towards multiple other participants on this website, including people who actually run the blog.

Re: Comment policy restated

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 06:21:31 -0000

Good move, Rumbold. And keep an eye out for Munir trying to post under different aliases in order to circumvent the ban and pretending to be multiple commenters again. He's pulled that stunt here countless times before.

Re: The ‘expose’ – from embarrassing to downright stupid

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:41:36 -0000

As a side-note, I will admit that when PP posted the first article about Medhi Hasan, initially I thought it was about his near-namesake Medhi Hassan, the legendary Pakistani ghazal singer, until I actually read the full article. Momentarily very confusing for those of us who are into the ghazal genre.

Other South Asians here on PP, especially the Pakistani crew, will know what I mean.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehdi_Hassan

Re: The ‘expose’ – from embarrassing to downright stupid

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:44:53 -0000

But isn’t there the implication that by being Sikh and being enlightened to this mindless ritualism, you’re no longer cattle?

The implication is that, by being enlightened to this mindless ritualism irrespective of one's religious affiliation, one is no longer cattle.

And "cattle" with regards to mindless ritualism specifically; it doesn't necessarily mean that the person concerned is an example of "cattle" per se.

Re: The ‘expose’ – from embarrassing to downright stupid

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:01:26 -0000

Correction: Or an expression of praise, perhaps more accurately.

Eg: Someone hears a nice song.
They subsequently react with "Subanallah".

"Mashallah" is another one too, although it has a slightly different meaning.

Unless the person concerned is being sarcastic, of course. Which also sometimes happens.

But generally these expressions are used with positive connotations.

Re: The ‘expose’ – from embarrassing to downright stupid

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:57:15 -0000

Douglas & TCH,

To my understanding it's usually just used as an expression of surprise, as far as I know.

Re: The ‘expose’ – from embarrassing to downright stupid

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:54:13 -0000

TCH,

Is that the better translation of Subhanallah?

It basically means "Glory be to Allah" or "Glorious is Allah".

The origin is Arabic, but amongst South Asians it's also used in conversational Urdu, along with Farsi/Persian in Iran, Afghanistan and South Asia.

Re: The ‘expose’ – from embarrassing to downright stupid

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:43:51 -0000

In fact in the Sikh scriptures there are verses to the same effect – that unthinking people (who follow ritual) of whatever religion are like sheep or cattle. The point is not that they’re animals or sub-human, but that they don’t think for themselves.

The caveat here is that it explicitly applies to all people equally, irrespective of their religious beliefs or affiliation. The underlying principle is not asserting that someone is automatically "sheeplike or cattlelike" if they are not a Sikh.

Re: BNP got pwned in Norwich North

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:19:06 -0000

You also state that I am mentally ill/disturbed (perhaps I could sue you for this).

Go ahead, "Munir". It would entail you having to come out of the closet and divulging your real name & identity to the public, with the associated scrutiny from the national media along with lawyers, doctors, and the police -- and given the extensive history of your behaviour and assertions on this website, particularly in relation to Jews, Hindus and Sikhs, that is where things would get really interesting.

Re: BNP got pwned in Norwich North

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:51:19 -0000

Don,

A lot of what he says is actualy quite reasonable, but he just can’t stop abusing people who disagree, and then abusing their particular faith.

You and I both know that it's a foregone conclusion that Munir will completely ignore your last two sentences above, seize upon the first one, and attempt to use it as an example to "vindicate" himself and/or retaliate against me.

In any case, engaging with people who are genuinely mentally disturbed in this way is a pointless exercise (examples of previous PP commenters exhibiting near-identical behaviour were Colin Brown and the short-lived "Guessedworker"). The appropriate response should be formal diagnosis and the initiation of appropriate corrective treatment (if feasible) by a suitable medical team who knows (or can find out) who he is in real life, not people continuing to talk to such individuals on websites and thereby feeding their compulsions by giving them a ready-made online playground consisting of invisible, anonymous, dehumanised punchbags on whom to project their hatreds, assumptions & prejudices and vent their own psychiatric problems.

The issue of prosecution is a separate (albeit overlapping) issue. Thanks to Munir's extensive participation on PP over a course of many months, there is certainly a mountain of written evidence available if the relevant authorities wished to escalate matters and initiate formal proceedings against him.

Both of the above are obviously contingent on the position of PP's editorial team on the matter, but given the gravity of the issue and the obvious confidentiality involved as a result of this potentially involving both medical and/or legal escalation in the real world, it would obviously not be prudent for PP's editorial team to divulge their stance here on the blog itself.

In any case, if they want to ban Munir, for his own sake as much as the rest of PP's readers' and commenting audience's sakes, as I said earlier I think the editorial team now needs to make a very serious decision about it.

Re: BNP got pwned in Norwich North

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:36:02 -0000

Rumbold, Sunny, Leon, Chairwoman,

Munir has a pathological problem with a lack of basic, intuitive empathy towards other people (especially non-Muslims and “the wrong type of Muslim”), which persistently manifests in the following:

- Near-continuous “psychological projection”, to the level of psychopathology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_proj... ),
- Massive cognitive impairment, frequently to the point of psychosis,
- Clinical paranoia,
- A homicidal level of hatred towards “The Other” or anyone that ‘dares’ to contradict or criticise him,
- A near-obsessive addiction to hurting other people to the maximum degree possible (mostly using greatly exaggerated or completely fabricated pretexts),
- A mental & emotional state constantly veering from superciliousness to grievance-driven rage (or both),
- Pathological lying,
- Memory blackouts.

Munir attempts to rationalise and explain this by shifting the blame externally to his targets, but we all know that (with the exception of sporadic genuinely-Islamophobic trolls) the problem is actually internal.

It’s either something neurological (eg. a hyperstimulated amygdala) or psychological/behavioural, or both. It would obviously require a formal medical investigation to identify the root cause(s), but Munir is definitely exhibiting clear symptoms of clinical psychopathy.

In fact, given his history of repeatedly switching between the usernames “Munir” and “Blah” (amongst others) whilst denying any knowledge or responsibility for this despite the fact that PP’s own IP-tracking systems have confirmed it, including incidents where he has actually posted “replies” to himself using the aforementioned alternate usernames, you can probably also add multiple personality disorder and/or schizophrenia to the mix if he’s genuinely experiencing memory blackouts or “hearing voices” during these “episodes”.

To my knowledge, this renders Munir a viable candidate for action under the Mental Health Act 2007. I believe there have also recently been successful criminal prosecutions of bloggers/commenters for deliberate incitement of hatred via the internet, which makes PP’s possession of Munir’s IP details very handy indeed, irrespective of whether he’s been posting under the username “Munir” or his most frequent alias “Blah”.

I expect there will be BNP-style protests about “freedom of speech” from him (and incidentally, exactly like Munir, the most extreme white supremacists & racists are also frequently obsessive anti-Semites and enthusiastic “Zionist” conspiracy theorists), but given the fact that Munir’s mentality, behaviour and modus operandi are actually identical to Nick Griffin and (particularly) L.J Barnes, not to mention their counterparts Omar Bakri, Abu Hamza, and most of all Anjem Choudary, I don’t see why Munir should be treated any differently or indeed shown any mercy whatsoever.

Re: BNP got pwned in Norwich North

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:30:11 -0000

Well, I see that our Anjem Choudaryesque friend Munir has been as charming and sane as ever during my absence, both on this thread and on the “Jagdeesh Singh” thread…..

I’m going to briefly respond further to Munir’s earlier post #73 (his self-serving, paranoid, guesswork & assumption-riddled hallucinatory rantings in #80, 81 and 84 above, along with the “answer” (such as it is) to my posts on the “Jagdeesh Singh” thread don’t deserve a response), and then I think PP’s editorial team needs to make a concrete decision on the viability of continuing any dialogue with Munir on PP full-stop and possibly also permanently terminating his ability to participate here, since there are obvious limitations to constructively engaging with individuals suffering from untreated psychiatric illnesses.

Something else to consider is the fact that Munir is reinforcing nearly every piece of propaganda and negative stereotyping about Muslims that the BNP are aggressively trying to promote, and that he is therefore effectively doing their dirty work for them. By virtue of his own moral depravity, hypocrisy and viciousness, and his prolific near-daily demonstration of this on a globally-accessible blog such as PP (which, incidentally, is actively monitored by the BNP and their supporters, who are only too happy to exploit any suitable comments contained therein as convenient ammunition to further their own Islamophobic agenda) Munir is as much of a liability for the British Muslim population as his psychological doppelganger Anjem Choudary is.

***************************************************

This along with your obession with Aurangzeb (ra) – a great saint loved by Punjabi Muslims

Sure, we’re really going to take history lessons from “Professor” Munir, someone who isn’t Punjabi himself and has never been to Punjab, whose limited contact with Punjabi Muslims obviously consists of ignorant social misfits who are grossly unrepresentative of the vast majority of Punjabi Muslims both in the subcontinent and overseas, and who is unable to answer even the easiest questions about the history of Sufism in South Asia & Persia. Not to mention his total lack of credibility as a “student of Islamic history” who is paradoxically completely ignorant about the contents of Aurangzeb’s own memoirs and letters to his children at the end of his life, either in the original Farsi or with regards to the easily-available English translation of the full texts.

Munir is a textbook example of what can eventually happen to a person’s mental state in extreme cases when they exploit religion (particularly when placing an overemphasis on “academic theological knowledge” and an ostentatious adherence to some of the rudimentary ritualistic aspects, whilst conveniently ignoring any religious injunctions to behave with respect, empathy and basic decency towards others) as a source of egotism and an attempt to hide & compensate for their own fundamental lack of any redeeming character traits, resulting in the development and manifestation of clearly-identifiable psychiatric illness.

Like some of the Sikh Gurus you mean?

The “retaliation” above is yet another example of Munir persistently violating major Islamic injunctions while simultaneously claiming to act in the name of Islam and for the benefit of Muslims (sound familiar ?), despite also having repeatedly claimed to be “conveying the position of orthodox Sunni Islam” --- specifically the following non-negotiable, mandatory Islamic obligations:

a) The Islamic injunction that one should never lie,
b) The Islamic injunction that one should always behave with respect, courtesy and integrity towards others,
and c) The Islamic injunction to never ridicule or gratuitously insult the religious founders & figures of other faiths under any circumstances when interacting with adherents of those faiths.

So, that’s 3 major Islamic injunctions which Munir is deliberately and maliciously violating in one post alone, the latest in a very long list of countless previous examples where he has repeatedly done this. What’s next, Munir – Are you planning to visit a lapdancing club, get drunk on tequila shots, and eat a bacon sandwich tonight as well ?

Re: BNP got pwned in Norwich North

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:25:33 -0000

6) I know Rumi, Hafiz and Sadi very well thank you

In that case, Munir, presumably you will fully understand the following and will also be aware of who wrote it:

بنی آدم اعضای یک پیکرند
که در آفرينش ز یک گوهرند
چو عضوى به درد آورد روزگار
دگر عضوها را نماند قرار
تو کز محنت دیگران بی غمی
نشاید که نامت نهند آدمی

Unless you are lying yet again, of course.

The only people I know in this society who don’t use profanity are religious Muslims- do you suggest I go and spend time with them

Absolutely. As much time with them as possible, in fact -- if you're genuinely serious about Islam, God and spirituality, and all that theological "knowledge" you allegedly possess isn't purely an intellectual exercise on you part.

Re: BNP got pwned in Norwich North

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 07:56:48 -0000

Munir,

Jai your indulging in ad hominen diminishes you further-unable to deal with the argument you attack the man- Your obsession with my person, my background, age, marital status etc is in a way flattering but somewhat disturbing. This along with your obession with Aurangzeb (ra) – a great saint loved by Punjabi Muslims who passed away hundreds of years ago does suggest you need to see a shrink

Munir is a textbook example of what can eventually happen to a person’s mental state in extreme cases when they exploit religion (particularly when placing an overemphasis on “academic theological knowledge” and an ostentatious adherence to some of the rudimentary ritualistic aspects, whilst conveniently ignoring any religious injunctions to behave with respect, empathy and basic decency towards others) as a source of egotism and an attempt to hide & compensate for their own fundamental lack of any redeeming character traits, resulting in the development and manifestation of clearly-identifiable psychiatric illness.

Like some of the Sikh Gurus you mean

Thanks for just proving my point perfectly. I’m sure all that made a lot of sense in your own little psychological bubble, but to the rest of the world that actually exists outside your head.....Not so much.

Here’s a suggestion: Why don’t you print out everything you’ve written on PP during the course of – say – the last 2 months, and show it to your parents ?

Make sure they particularly read the following:

- Your continuous use of profanities (even in comments where you’re simultaneously quoting sacred Islamic religious texts), often to the point of extremely explicit gutter terminology,
- Your continuous “poison pen letter”-style personal attacks across the internet against random commenters who are actually complete strangers to you,
- Your continuous violation of the Islamic injunction to refrain from lying and to treat people with courtesy, kindness and respect,
- Your continuous usage of your “adversary’s” alleged behaviour as a guideline (in fact, a convenient excuse) for your own disgusting behaviour towards them, irrespective of the actual Islamic teachings on appropriate conduct in such situations and frequently irrrespective of the fact that the perceived "insult" only exists inside your own head.
- Your verbal abuse, bullying and harassment across the internet of anonymous women like Sofia, who you don’t even know and have never met,
- Your continuous belittling and harassment of anonymous women like Chairwoman who is actually in her 60s,
- Your persistent labelling of Jewish people as being “racist” by default, along with persistently and obsessively finding the flimsiest pretexts to insult Judaism and Jews in general when they have absolutely nothing to do with the main discussion,
- Your claims about a widespread “Jewish conspiracy”,
- Your remarks to Ravi about Hindus such as “why don’t you wear a red dot and burn yourself to death”,
- Your subsequent remark that you would use “anti-Christian” insults against him next time,
- Your constant references to “Hindu India” despite the fact that the country has one of the world’s 3 largest Muslim populations,
- Your comment stating that you “feel no affinity towards Asians and actually don’t give a shit about them”,
- Your remark that Sikh and Hindu policemen in Britain would “probably rape Muslim women if they were approached by them”,
- Your comment to Amrit (another woman who is effectively an invisible stranger to you) where you called her parents “genocidal freaks”,
- Your suspicious and extremely incriminating silence in response to my ridiculously easy questions about the history of Sufism in South Asia,
- Your complete silence in response to my questions about your grasp (or lack of) high-level Urdu, Farsi, Punjabi and Sindhi along with your knowledge (or lack of) extremely famous Muslim Sufis and/or poets from both South Asian and Persian history,
- And pretty much everything you have ever said while claiming to speak for Muslims and act in the name of Islam. All of the matters listed above obviously fall into this category as well.

If you are absolutely convinced that all of your actions have been morally correct and justified, and that God fully supports your actions and your behaviour towards other people in the situations listed above, then you should have no problem making your parents aware of your activities online. After all, your actions have been conducted in the name of Islam and for the benefit of Muslims everywhere, and I’m sure you’d agree that your parents have the full right to be aware of exactly what their son has been doing in this matter.

We don’t want you to be the online equivalent of Shahzad Tanweer now, do we, since his unfortunate parents were completely in the dark about exactly what their son was doing in the name of Islam and “the Ummah” behind their backs.

It’s the weekend. People usually have a bit more free time. If you have the courage of your convictions, show your parents exactly what you have been writing online. If you really believe that you are right, both in terms of your beliefs and your behaviour towards other people, then presumably you should have nothing to be afraid of.

Do it, if you really have the guts. Let’s see how much of a man you really are.

I bet you don't, and that you respond with yet more excuses, deflections and "counter-accusations" to avoid doing it.

Re: BNP got pwned in Norwich North

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 05:07:21 -0000

Rumbold,

You would be advised to re-read Jai’s comments on other threads, and think about Islam more deeply.

Munir is a textbook example of what can eventually happen to a person's mental state in extreme cases when they exploit religion (particularly when placing an overemphasis on “academic theological knowledge” and an ostentatious adherence to some of the rudimentary ritualistic aspects, whilst conveniently ignoring any religious injunctions to behave with respect, empathy and basic decency towards others) as a source of egotism and an attempt to hide & compensate for their own fundamental lack of any redeeming character traits, resulting in the development and manifestation of clearly-identifiable psychiatric illness.

I expect severe sexual frustration probably doesn’t help matters either, particularly if the person is concerned is unmarried and lives in a relatively liberal & permissive society but in their own case both premarital relationships and masturbation are religiously prohibited.

Re: Jagdeesh Singh and Muslim/Sikh relations

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:10:31 -0000

Extremists here = anyone who actually follows what their religion teaches

People have the legal right to do that. And others have the right to point out such things are religiously forbidden :)

The people who care about their religion follow what it says and marry those of their religon. Those that dont care just disregard what it says .

Yet more hypocrisy from Munir.

Let's take a look at a highly relevant example from another PP thread he has very recently been simultaneously commenting on, with the extract and my own subsequent remarks reproduced in full:

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5287#co...

Jai: Munir is a textbook example of what can eventually happen to a person’s mental state in extreme cases when they exploit religion (particularly when placing an overemphasis on “academic theological knowledge” and an ostentatious adherence to some of the rudimentary ritualistic aspects, whilst conveniently ignoring any religious injunctions to behave with respect, empathy and basic decency towards others) as a source of egotism and an attempt to hide & compensate for their own fundamental lack of any redeeming character traits, resulting in the development and manifestation of clearly-identifiable psychiatric illness.

Munir: Like some of the Sikh Gurus you mean?

The “retaliation” above is yet another example of Munir persistently violating major Islamic injunctions while simultaneously claiming to act in the name of Islam and for the benefit of Muslims (sound familiar ?), despite also having repeatedly claimed to be “conveying the position of orthodox Sunni Islam” — specifically the following non-negotiable, mandatory Islamic obligations:

a) The Islamic injunction that one should never lie,
b) The Islamic injunction that one should always behave with respect, courtesy and integrity towards others,
and c) The Islamic injunction to never ridicule or gratuitously insult the religious founders & figures of other faiths under any circumstances when interacting with adherents of those faiths.

So, that’s 3 major Islamic injunctions which Munir is deliberately and maliciously violating in one post alone, the latest in a very long list of countless previous examples where he has repeatedly done this. What’s next, Munir – Are you planning to visit a lapdancing club, get drunk on tequila shots, and eat a bacon sandwich tonight as well ?

Re: Jagdeesh Singh and Muslim/Sikh relations

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:54:18 -0000

Ravi,

Welcome back. Your much-needed presence has been greatly missed.

****************************

Dalbir,

Mate you need to read the "BNP pwned" thread too. Given your ongoing conversation with Munir here, I think you'll find it to be of great interest. I suggest you start with comment #69 on that thread and then continue reading onwards.

Re: Jagdeesh Singh and Muslim/Sikh relations

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 06:26:02 -0000

Incidentally, Munir, since you mentioned your hero Aurangzeb on another thread yesterday, you conveniently forgot that – as confirmed in his own memoirs and his letters to his sons – at the very end of his life, Aurangzeb completely renounced his previous interpretation of Islam and the disgusting way he had treated so many people as a result (in fact, the very policies and actions for which you admire him so much), and rapidly made proactive efforts to try to make amends for his previous actions. He spent his final days a bitter, broken man who deeply regretted everything he had done during his long life beforehand, regarded it all as being a complete waste, and was absolutely terrified about what kind of nightmare awaited him after his death – because he became very, very aware of the horror of his crimes and the type of human being which he had become. Fortunately Aurangzeb began to gain real integrity and self-awareness before the end, but perhaps you should do some thinking about why you are determined to walk the same path which Aurangzeb had previously been on, when Aurangzeb himself ultimately rejected all of it.

Many people on this website have already given you “objective feedback” on exactly how you come across as a person. Another commenter made the following point, but it’s a highly accurate one so I’m going to reiterate it: Your behaviour is practically identical to the type of people – in any given faith, and unfortunately there are people like this in most major religions -- who really enjoy sadistically treating other human beings like absolute dirt (especially those who are not from the same religious background as them, along with co-religionists who they believe are “lax” in their own beliefs and practice of the faith), but think that it doesn’t matter either in general or to God because they can ostentatiously quote chapter & verse of their respective scriptures/holy book and any associated scholarly work & history and because they strictly adhere to the more ritualistic aspects of the faith which do not involve them actually having to treat others with kindness, decency and respect. They think that the veneer of “extensive religious knowledge” and the mask of piety compensate for their comparative lack of positive character traits and the horrific way in which they treat other people (sometimes using a flimsy religious pretext, sometimes not).

You mentioned that you’ve obtained your interpretation of Islam from various “respected scholars” and so on. Munir, this means that either your sources are wrong, or your understanding, interpretation and implementation of much of what you’ve learned is wrong. Either way, as a human being it’s turning you into a monster in terms of your attitude towards other people; your behaviour has been (and frequently still is) literally psychopathic, and the level of confusion about people’s characters, attitudes and intentions along with the world outside your head has repeatedly manifested in some kind of autism at best and actual psychosis at worst. From a psychiatric perspective, you’re well on the way towards genuine insanity.

Step back from the abyss. While there’s still time. Otherwise, one way or another, your life is heading towards a very, very nasty destination indeed; if your hero Aurangzeb managed to turn away from that path, surely you can too.

You can be much better than this, and you deserve much better than this.

Re: Jagdeesh Singh and Muslim/Sikh relations

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 06:18:57 -0000

Rumbold
“Such a shame about Jagdeesh Singh. And the idea of having police officers for different faiths is ridiculous. What if a Muslim woman wanted to report a forced marriage, and could only deal with DCI Munir, since he was the Muslim officer?”

Yep its a story about Sikhs wanted their own Sikh officers …. and you out of nowehre bring in Muslims (guess the forced marriage statistic thing wasnt so innocent eh) Never mind that I oppose forced marriages (you yourself showed the evidence for their prohibition in Islam) and would gladly have the parents locked up for good …why deal with reality and what people actually say when you have the stereoype? Why not deliver her to a Sikh or Hindu PC who would no doubt rape her as Sikhs and Hindus do Muslim women in Kashmir and Gujurat ?

Are you in fact Sikh/Sick?

Charming.

I also see that Munir has responded with deathly silence to the handful of questions I asked him about Sufism in South Asia on the other thread (here: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5208#co...) , despite the fact that they were the simplest, easiest questions I could think of. Although I’m sure he’ll come out with any number of excuses to “explain” his refusal to answer them (eg. “Why should I prove anything ?”, “I have better things to do”, “Who are you to ask me those questions ?”, etc etc etc). All very predictable.

************************************************

So, Munir, the bottom line is that you actually didn’t know the answers. If you really were as familiar with South Asian history as you have claimed, especially in relation to Islam and Sufism in the region, then it should have taken you less than a minute to answer all of them, off the top of your head, and without having to resort to any external sources of information such as the internet (or, indeed, having to ask anyone else).

That’s how easy the questions actually were.

And it’s unwise to attempt to minimise the importance and impact of South Asia when it comes to Islam -- not only because, as I said before, the subcontinent as a whole contains more Muslims than anywhere else on the planet and has an associated history stretching back over a thousand years, but because the specific regions and populations most heavily affected by Sufism are not exactly “minor” matters where Islam in South Asia is concerned – or on a global scale, in fact, due to the huge numbers of people involved and the subcontinent’s own history as a Muslim-ruled part of the world for about 800 years.

For example, numerically Punjabis make up the largest group in Pakistan, and coupled with what can be termed the “greater Punjab” region – the province of the same name in Pakistan, plus the corresponding modern state in India, along with Haryana and Himachal Pradesh – that’s a huge geographical region and a massive number of people. It gets even bigger if, due to various historical reasons and the overlapping cultural & historical events involved, one adds Kashmir and Sindh to the list of regions affected.

It’s fascinating that people like you repeatedly make such a big noise about “Muslim Spain” and various regions in the Middle East, but are either suspiciously silent or grossly misinformed about historical Muslim superpowers such as the Indian subcontinent. Even Persia, the subcontinent’s immediate neighbour to the west and another medieval Muslim superpower, is strangely absent from your assertions – a region, incidentally, which had a colossal influence on medieval north India. And tying this back to Sufism, the life and writings of the Persian Sufi poet Rumi are not exactly unfamiliar to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike in modern-day northern India and Pakistan, for example. I bet that you’re barely aware of who he was, never mind about his life, his poetry and his teachings. Not to mention Hafiz, Sa’di, or Omar Khayyam.

I’m willing to bet that, even if you are actually South Asian, your grasp of high-level Urdu and Farsi (along with Punjabi and Sindhi, if you’re serious about South Asian Sufism) is rudimentary at best, and not even close to your level of fluency in “all things Arabic” which you’re clearly so enthralled by. Which rules out an entire body of Muslim cultural, literary, poetic and religious heritage from South Asia and neighbouring Persia, stretching back many centuries and influencing hundreds of millions of people, both Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if even the works of Mirza Ghalib, Meer Taqi Meer, Zauq, even Bahadur Shah Zafar II are mysteriously unfamiliar to you.

You should know all of this already. The question of why you do not is extremely curious; it’s like someone loudly claiming to be a “staunchly patriotic Pakistani” but turning out to be unable to list the provinces comprising Pakistan or even name the country’s national language.

Therefore, coupled with your ignorance of the above and your continuing ignorance of extremely basic information about South Asian history along with the culture, beliefs and practices of non-Muslim South Asians, not to mention the actual real-life current & historical interpretation of Islam in the parts of the subcontinent where it was most widespread, it means that one or more of the following applies to you:

- You’re not actually of South Asian ethnicity, despite making insinuations to the contrary.
- You’re a convert to Islam.
- You’re not actually a Sufi, despite your claims to the contrary.
- Your contact with the bulk of South Asian Muslims in Britain or overseas is minimal or non-existent.
- Your contact with South Asian Muslims here in Britain involves people who are completely ignorant about the history & interpretation of Islam in the subcontinent, especially in relation to Sufism, and they have to rely on various “scholars” in order to fill in the huge gaps in their knowledge.
- Your contact with South Asian Muslims involves people here in Britain who, for whatever reason, have rejected the interpretation of Islam traditionally practiced in the part of the subcontinent where their own roots lie and have adopted a predominantly non-South Asian (not even Persian) frame of reference in terms of Islam, identity, worldview, and global history.
- You’re so fixated with Sunni Muslims (especially the “traditional orthodox” kind, as per your interpretation of the concept) that it’s ended up leaving a huge gap in your knowledge in relation to regions where they have not been the dominant group, ie. the subcontinent as a whole, along with Persia, and you end up having to fill in the gaps via various third-party sources and “scholars”.
- Some combination of the above.

Either way, what is blindingly obvious is the fact that you live such an insular, isolated, parochial life in relation to your lack of contact with the majority of British South Asians (especially those from different religious backgrounds) that you don’t even know about some of the most basic things which the average South Asian Muslim is perfectly aware of, including those who are British.

But it’s good that matters are now becoming clearer. We’re finally starting to get somewhere.

Re: Jagdeesh Singh and Muslim/Sikh relations

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:18:45 -0000

Don,

What the fuck? How the hell do you expect to be taken seriously when you think that is acceptable? Your grievence gives you total licence?

Whether Munir thinks it's actually acceptable or not, the fact that he thinks it's acceptable to "suggest" that sort of activity even as a "joke" or some kind of rhetorical statement speaks volumes about his character and state of mind, along with his mentality towards Hindus and Sikhs.

Re: Jagdeesh Singh and Muslim/Sikh relations

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:35:05 -0000

Mr Singh, who does come off as as being apoplectic, is missing the point. Instead of attacking the heads of these very churches for their liberal attitudes towards marriages between Sikhs and non-Sikhs, he should be applauding them for bringing people together regardless of their colour, ethnicity, or faith.

Spot-on. Mr Singh appears to be missing the point of one of the most basic principles and aims of Sikhism, symbolised most obviously by:

a) the fact that gurdwaras are open to everyone irrespective of religious affiliation,

b) the fact that the Guru Granth Sahib includes hymns written by religious figures from multiple religions, including Sufi saints,

c) the fact that the foundation stone of the Golden Temple/Harmandir Sahib itself in Amritsar was laid by a Muslim (as requested by the Sikh Guru of the time),

and d) the specific reasons for the gurdwara's 'langar' being open to everyone, equally, without discrimination, and with the intention that everyone eats freely side-by-side with their fellow human beings regardless of their background.

Re: Win two tickets for The Black Album, at National Theatre

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:31:34 -0000

Where’s Jai when you need him?

(doesn’t mean he will win though).

Heh heh, very funny ;)

I'm going to give the tickets a raincheck but I may have a go just for a laugh anyway.....

Stay tuned......

Re: Harry’s Place in selective hysteria shocker

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:07:26 -0000

Sunny,

Great points in #119 and I'm going to leave this discussion with Munir in your capable hands, but I have to briefly respond to the following remark myself:

the vast majority of Muslims dont even know what a Sikh is.

This may or may not be true in relation to the global Muslim population as a whole, but it's completely false in relation to the "vast majority of Muslims" in or from the subcontinent, especially India (most of all the north) and also Pakistan.

Again, it raises yet more questions about a) whether Munir is actually South Asian himself, b) if not, then exactly who or where is he getting his understanding of South Asian history, culture, and the various peoples involved from (both Muslim and non-Muslim), and c) either way, exactly what kind of Muslims he's been hanging around with, if they're exhibiting such a high level of ignorance about Sikhs & Sikhism compared to most South Asian Muslims.

Re: Harry’s Place in selective hysteria shocker

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:17:47 -0000

rather than the practising turbanned gurdwara-going uncle breathing fire against “sullahs”

As Sunny and numerous other regulars know, not a single one of those statements above applies to me.

Nice try though, Munir. You are so far off the mark on all counts that it's extremely entertaining seeing what a creative imagination you have.

Re: Harry’s Place in selective hysteria shocker

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:07:49 -0000

You could have simply ignored CeltLord's comments, Munir -- just as Imran suggested and just as I and most other people on PP usually do. It's not necessary to respond to every single troll (BNP, Islamophobic, or whatever) who turns up on this blog deliberately looking to pick a fight with a suitable target, especially as such comments are frequently deleted by PP's editors anyway. The fact that most people have been ignoring CeltLord, Dashenka (or whatever her username was), etc etc isn't a coincidence.

Re: Harry’s Place in selective hysteria shocker

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:56:14 -0000

Imran,

Then don’t write them. You do realise this is prohibited by Allah in the Qur’an. I can dig out the exact verse but roughly it says that others should not be mocked for their beliefs because they may mock your belief and Allah in turn.

Simply put don’t respond to Celtlord who clearly is trying to whip up the response.

Absolutely correct. And in fact, it's not even a matter of refraining from this type of behaviour due to it being prohibited by the Quran -- it's a matter of basic common sense and fundamental human decency. Munir should instinctively know that it is unacceptable and wrong to behave this way.

But at least he has enough of a sense of integrity to apologise, which is good. I happily accept Munir's apology.

Sunny is also a non-religious Sikh so maybe not the best port of call.

Sunny may or may not necessarily be strictly-practicing when it comes to some aspects of the religion but he is still very well versed in the history and principles of the faith. Coupled with the fact that he has immediate family members who are very committed indeed when it comes to following the religion "in full", Sunny is an excellent person to provide suitable responses or clarification in relation to Sikhism.

Re: Harry’s Place in selective hysteria shocker

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:29:18 -0000

Sunny,

proving one again how integral Muslim hatred is to some aspects of the Sikh religion

Muslims are concerned about Palestine because it is a holy place integral to our religion. Why are you? Because Muslim-bashing is an integral part of yours

Perhaps it would be best if you responded to the statements above about Sikhism by Munir in #59, since he completely ignores what anyone else tells him about the faith and its history and appears to be basing his ideas on hearsay and random websites.

As you probably know, there are already some major question marks about exactly where Munir is getting his information (or lack of it) from, in relation to major aspects of South Asian history and the culture & religious beliefs/practices of non-Muslim South Asians. Not to mention his ideas about the current and historical interpretation of Islam in South Asia, especially in the north and most of all in relation to Sufism (although that's a separate issue). In fact, it raises further questions about exactly what Munir's ethnic & ancestral background really is, given his ongoing silence in response to polite questions requesting clarification about the matter.

Since you're pretty much the only person on this entire website that Munir treats with any respect & consideration, you're best placed to deal with Munir's "confusion" about Sikhism.

Re: BNP’s Barnbrook first lies, then hides

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:28:02 -0000

This may be of interest too:

"BNP supporters 'beat man who clashed with Griffin'".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/b...

Extract:

"Supporters of the British National Party were accused last night of operating like "a private army" after they set upon a man who poured a drink on the group's leader.

David Drew MP told the House of Commons last night that a "totally upstanding" constituent was given "one hell of a hiding" by BNP supporters.

He said the attack took place as Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP who was last month elected as a Member of the European Parliament, was visiting Painswick, Gloucestershire. "I don't know why he was wined and dined in my constituency in Painswick but he was," Mr Drew said. "It just so happens that one of my constituents took offence at this and happened to spill some beer over Mr Griffin. As a result of this he was given one hell of a hiding."

The MP for Stroud added: "I am not prepared to accept that any politician has a private army. I am not prepared to have the BNP anywhere near my constituency. But I hope that we will look at the actions of the BNP."

He told the Commons that he knew the victim, whom he said he was proud to be associated with, but that an arrest and charges were unlikely to be made because the constituent was too shocked to pursue it. "That's just indicative of what the BNP is like," the MP said.

The Deputy Commons Leader Barbara Keeley said the allegation of the attack was a "serious thing"."

Re: BNP’s Barnbrook first lies, then hides

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:00:16 -0000

Daniel Hoffman-Gill,

The "communist" allegations are pretty funny, considering that quite a few regular commenters on this blog who generally agree with PP's basic ethos are actually card-carrying capitalists. Not to mention the fact that a number of the people concerned are neither "lefties" in the traditional stereotypical sense nor indeed necessarily Labour supporters.....

Anyway.....

Griffin retracted the send them all home policy, realising that the UK would be empty aside from some tiny gene pool inbreeding goons in Shropshire, Lincolnshire and the Border lands.

Apparently his exact words in relation to the proposed "voluntary" repatriation programme were "Nobody out there wants it, and nobody wants to pay for it".

The latter point is pertinent to say the least, considering that Griffin had previous suggested £50k as the "generous financial incentive" -- because, for 6 million non-white British citizens, that works out at a staggering £300,000,000,000.

And that's even before you add white "foreigners" who also fall into the BNP's repatriation target list, such as Australians etc, as per the BNP's responses to eGov's latest questions list a few weeks ago.

I'm glad to see that someone at the BNP finally "did the math".

Re: 8000 forced marriage cases in 2008

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:28:10 -0000

…..and #138

Correction: should say "#118"

Re: 8000 forced marriage cases in 2008

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:25:59 -0000

I was hoping that some of the 'constructive criticism' would have sunk in where Munir is concerned and I was going to draw a line under the matter, but since he's made statements such as the following.....

Seriously you are such a parochial fvckwit

.....and #138 (along with the currently-ongoing "Harry's Place" thread) is littered with deliberate insults and highly inaccurate assumptions about my own ideas of religion per se (both Islam and Sikhism, in this case), I think we'll go with the following instead:

*******************************

Munir,

Reading the Quran in Arabic and following the teachings of Muslim scholars from various parts of the world is perfectly acceptable and understandable if you believe it helps you understand and practice your religion better. Islam is, after all, very much an international faith in terms of both is history and its influence, as you correctly said yourself.

However, you’ve also repeatedly claimed to have an accurate and comprehensive understanding of Islam (including Sufism) in terms of its history, interpretation, practice and influence in the Indian subcontinent, a part of the world which (combining India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) has more Muslims in total than any other country on the planet.

Fine. Let’s test that.

If your claims are correct, particularly in relation to your knowledge and understanding of South Asian Sufism, then it should be very easy for you to answer the following 5 random questions:

1. Which parts of the subcontinent were impacted most heavily by Sufism, primarily in terms of the prevailing interpretation of Islam amongst the Muslim masses and secondarily in terms of the impact on the local culture involving multiple religious communities ? List the top 4 regions in descending order of impact if you can.

2. With regards to the part of the subcontinent which was more heavily and widely impacted by Sufism than any of the other regions, what were the names of the two historical Sufi saints who were the most influential ?

3. What was the name of the extremely famous historical Sufi figure who has been influential on multiple religious communities across northern India and is widely regarded as a direct predecessor to Guru Nanak ?

4. What is the name of the semi-legendary Indian story which was most frequently used by one of the most well-known historical Sufis (note: a different individual to the person referenced in question 3) as an allegory for divine love in medieval qawwalis and kafis ? (Bonus mark if you can also list the other three most well-known stories integral to South Asian Sufism and the culture of the areas impacted, especially in the North).

5. What was the name of the historical Muslim poet who wrote the most famous version of the aforementioned story ?

I’ll also throw in three optional bonus questions so that we can all see how much of an ustad you really are when it comes to South Asian Sufism:

Bonus question 1: What spiritual practice did Punjab’s most famous historical Sufi believe was much more constructive compared to, for example, someone ritualistically engaging in daily “panj namaaz” without any accompanying sincerity and genuine inner piety ?

Bonus question 2: How did Sindh’s most famous historical Sufi get the name he is more popularly known by, and exactly why is he so famous and respected ?

Bonus question 3: What was (and in many cases, still is) the general position of Sufi orders in the subcontinent in relation to non-Muslims who wished to join them, especially in the North ?

Try not to ask anyone else or use Google or the internet in general to obtain the answers. If you really are well acquainted with this aspect of Islam in terms of the Indian subcontinent, then providing accurate responses should be an extremely quick and simple matter for you.

Theoretically, it should take you no more than 30 seconds to correctly answer all of them, politely and without any of your usual aggression, rudeness or evasion. Assuming, of course, that you practice Islam in general and Sufism specifically as seriously as you claim to.

And bear in mind that the topics covered above are a major part of the heritage and cultural background of many South Asians (both Muslims and non-Muslims) currently reading this blog, so they will already know the correct answers themselves.

For the moment, we will ignore your ongoing and conspicuous evasion in relation to clarifying your own ethnic & ancestral background.

Re: 8000 forced marriage cases in 2008

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:24:43 -0000

I have nothing but the highest respects for non Muslims who arent Islamophobes

The problem, Munir, is that you have a huge problem with frequently being unable to tell who is a genuine Islamophobe and who is not -- often quite randomly. And that's before we even address the question of what made you think Rumbold is even remotely Indian, given the fact that, during several years of participation on this website, he has said absolutely nothing to indicate that he is even South Asian, let along specifically being of Indian origin.

It's indicative of a wider behavioural problem on your part, Munir. You persistently see things which aren't there and, where there is either silence or an absence of information, you automatically assume the very worst. And you have a pathological issue with insulting and (attempting to) humiliate people even if there is no malice intended in relation their own conduct or querying of anything in relation to yourself, Islam or Muslims in general. Even if the other person is a Muslim himself/herself.

I think that, most of the time (there have been a couple of notable exceptions), you have a basic problem with being unable to disagree with anyone politely. Any "response" or counterarguments on your part "have" to be backed up with insults and efforts to personally hurt the other individual -- even on the occasions when, ostensibly, you are supposedly replying with a superficially "reasonable" response, which frequently turns out to be a Trojan horse for yet more carefully-calibrated barbs and sadistic insults.

I don't know if your conduct & attitude on PP is an accurate reflection of your behaviour towards people in real life or if, conversely, you treat commenters here this way because (for whatever reason) you feel unable to treat people like this face-to-face, but all this is seriously something you need to think about.

And by the way, you might want to give the sycophancy towards Sunny a rest, along with your attempts at playing "divide and rule" where he and I are concerned. He's not as gullible as you think and, apart from the fact that our respective stances on religious matters are far closer than you clearly presume, insulting people like me and Rumbold whilst simultaneously attempting to ingratiate yourself with Sunny is not exactly going to improve his opinion of you. As far as this website's entire editorial team is concerned, you're on far thinner ice than you think.

Like I said before, you clearly have the capacity and the potential to be a far better human being than this, so don't do yourself a gross disservice by continuing down this path.

Re: 8000 forced marriage cases in 2008

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:26:40 -0000

Sofia,

Munir, thank you for calling me a retard, you are rude, offensive

Apparently Munir believes that having a theoretical, academic understanding of Islam & its history is much more important in the grand scheme of things and a much greater demonstration of piety than having enough basic human courtesy, empathy and manners to refrain from talking to you that way.

Re: 8000 forced marriage cases in 2008

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:18:56 -0000

Rumbold,

I recommend (and I am sure Jai et al will second this) that you re-read some of your comments on this thread. You should consider whether you really want to be the person that thinks like that. Is this the way you want people to describe you?

I do second your comment, although the message clearly hasn't sunk in as far as the primary recipient is concerned.

Re: 8000 forced marriage cases in 2008

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:55:35 -0000

Chairwoman,

As we’re both infidels he will no doubt ignore us completely

I think that's the basic problem -- it's a fundamental lack of respect for anyone who is not a Muslim (or "the right type of Muslim", in his eyes). Munir's attitude towards -- and treatment of -- such people is disturbingly similar to the way, for example, white supremacists & racists in general behave towards everyone who is not a white Christian; both parties treat their targets as though they were practically subhuman.

As I said in #105, I think that if Munir channelled his aggression and intelligence more constructively, along with revising his mentality towards non-Muslims as a whole, then it would be much better for him and for everyone he interacts with; at the moment, most of the time, the more people stand up to his attempts to calculatedly hurt them and brutally bully them into silence, the worse his own behaviour gets towards them (and as I said before, at some point he's going to cross the line with someone smarter, stronger and -- most pertinently -- more ruthless than him, to the extent that the latter will retaliate online in a way which will truly eviscerate him). Using his own intelligence and instincts to think for himself would definitely be a good start, rather than relying so heavily on religious texts along with the second-hand opinions of various "scholars" as "instruction manuals" for absolutely everything he thinks and does. God did not create him to be a sheep.

I get the feeling that Munir does not trust his own independent judgement and critical/reasoning faculties, and is also afraid of God's disapproval and punishment/retribution if he "steps out of line" or questions anything which he has been told is "the word of God" (or derives from the latter and/or Mohammad's own precedent).

Personally, I think that quietly and sincerely listening to the music of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan would do wonders for Munir's state of mind and level of empathy/emotional intelligence, but that's just a friendly suggestion. Millions of other people in/from South Asia and around the rest of the world have certainly benefitted enormously from the late Sufi maestro's message and truly heartfelt, poignant and uplifting music.

Re: 8000 forced marriage cases in 2008

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:23:37 -0000

Rumbold,

I do wonder exactly where Munir has got his interpretation & understanding of Islam from, especially as it is apparently the basis for his own attitudes and behaviour (as an individual and towards other people); apart from the fact that it's extremely "academic", it bears little resemblance to the way, generally-speaking, Sufism has actually been practiced by its most sincere and/or well-known adherents in the subcontinent (especially in the north) over the centuries and even in the present day, despite Munir's own claims to have a comprehensive grasp of South Asian Sufism himself.

He also persistently mis-spells Hindutva as "Hinduvata"; coupled with the considerable gaps in his knowledge of South Asian history as a whole (irrespective of his false claims that anything contradicting his interpretation is a result of "Hinduvata propaganda") along with the culture & religious beliefs/practices of non-Muslim South Asians (including very basic aspects which Muslim South Asians in general are usually perfectly aware of), all this does raise further questions about what his own background actually is.

However, as I said earlier, he has been truly superb at attacking and debunking the assertions of many BNP supporters who have recently commented on PP. It's a shame he does not apply the same level of decency, integrity, and desire for justice to everyone else he interacts with, and not just in relation to responding to "attacks" (real or imagined) either. He's a smart guy, he often has a great sense of humour, and he clearly has the potential to be a highly insightful and decent individual, so perhaps this is something he should make an effort to work on, for his own sake and for everyone else's sake too.

Re: 8000 forced marriage cases in 2008

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:15:27 -0000

Halima,

“And forced marriages were common amongst the upper classes/aristocracy here in the West too until the early 1900s…”

Really?

Good God, yes. Parentally-forced "marriages of alliance", marriages for "political" reasons etc etc have been common amongst the upper echelons of society all over the world, for a very long time (it goes back thousands of years), including here in the West.

It is most definitely not just a "South Asian" thing. Not by a long shot.

Other variants included so-called "shotgun weddings", although that was usually due to the woman in the premarital relationship having become pregnant, resulting in her father forcing the unlucky couple to get married, using a suitable weapon to prevent the groom from trying to back out. Obviously it's much less common now due to there generally being less stigma associated with pregnancy out of wedlock in the West these days.

Re: 8000 forced marriage cases in 2008

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 04:55:26 -0000

Rumbold,

Munir's persistent paranoia and self-centred tendency to start aggressively lashing out at anyone he (frequently falsely) perceives to have "slighted" him or Muslims in general, often using the most calculatedly sadistic methods he can think of and deliberately involving completely fabricated "accusations" (which he already knows are false) in an attempt to bully the target into submission, are all getting more than a little tiresome. And his behaviour towards you on this thread was disgusting, to the point of being psychotic. It was nearly as bad as his recent remarks about Amrit's parents, or the way he started making quite sick comments to Ravi due to having mistaken him for a Hindu.

I think he needs to learn about respecting other people's boundaries (literal and psychological), especially when they're virtual strangers whom he's never seen and has never met apart from "blind" conversations across the internet, otherwise sooner or later someone is going to decide "enough is enough" and retaliate in kind. It's pointless -- not to mention hypocritical -- for him to be so conspicuously sycophantic towards God (coupled with continuously quoting this-verse from the Quran and that-verse from the Hadiths, or this-scholar and that-Arabic term) if he's going to simultaneously treat his fellow human beings like complete dirt, often at the drop of a hat and using the slightest excuse.

It's a shame he has this problem, because recently he's been making some extremely good points on multiple topics, and he has also been absolutely brilliant when counteracting some of the BNP trolls.

As for the curious silence in response to the polite request to him to clarify his own background, I wonder what he's hiding.

Re: 8000 forced marriage cases in 2008

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:48:17 -0000

so perhaps it is more to do with similar prevailing social/cultural attitudes which occur (or occurred in the past) in many/all of the parts of the world where the practice is or was prevalent, rather than necessarily something entrenched and unique to South Asia.

Having said that, if the majority of cases of forced marriage do indeed occur in South Asia, factoring in the percentage of marriages which are forced in relation to the total number of marriages along with the population of the specific country as a whole, then it would be a good idea to research & analyse specifically why this is the case.

Re: 8000 forced marriage cases in 2008

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:30:36 -0000

Rumbold,

Kudos for staying (relatively) calm under extreme provocation.

Incidentally, no response to the second half of my post #64, I notice.

**********************************

Halima,

parts of the world where Muslims are the majority – Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, India,

*ahem* I'm assuming the last one is a typo and you meant Pakistan and/or Bangladesh -- India is actually a Hindu-majority country and over 80% of the population there is not Muslim.

Anyway, forced marriages do also occur in parts of the Middle East and Africa. Perhaps, at least where the UK is concerned, the practice appears to be particularly prevalent amongst the population with roots in South Asian because South Asians are the largest non-white ethnic group in Britain.

And forced marriages were common amongst the upper classes/aristocracy here in the West too until the early 1900s, so perhaps it is more to do with similar prevailing social/cultural attitudes which occur (or occurred in the past) in many/all of the parts of the world where the practice is or was prevalent, rather than necessarily something entrenched and unique to South Asia.

***********************************

When we are talking about comparisons what’s the difference between 8% and 15% compared to 64%?

There is clearly something going particularly wrong in some quarters of the British Pakistani population if the percentage of victims of forced marriages is apparently a staggering 8 times the percentage of British Indian victims.

Re: 8000 forced marriage cases in 2008

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:47:17 -0000

.....By the way, congratulations Douglas on your daughter's impending marriage.

*****************************************

It is you that tries to make it about your cultural or religious roots.

In order to place his comments into their proper context, along with enabling everyone to better understand the reasons for his objections, perhaps it would be helpful for Munir to clarify a) if he is South Asian in terms of his ethnicity, b) if so, which country in the subcontinent his ancestry lies in, and c) [optional] specifically which region of the country concerned his ancestry lies in.

This is a genuine question, since the majority of the other regular Asian commenters here are already aware of the specifics of each other's ancestry.

Re: 8000 forced marriage cases in 2008

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:23:22 -0000

Since there are some statements in this thread (mainly by Munir) implying that "Indian" automatically equals "Hindu or Sikh", it's probably worth re-iterating that, although the vast majority of British Asian Muslims are indeed Pakistani or Bangladeshi, a small percentage of British Indians are also Muslim.

The number of Muslims actually residing in India itself is of course comparatively higher -- the latest figures are from the 2001 census and state that approx. 13.4% of the population is Muslim, which came to nearly 140 million people at the time.

Re: Why I like identity politics

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:39:47 -0000

re: #45

Thank you for your kind words, Douglas, very nice of you.

Re: Why I like identity politics

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:59:17 -0000

Damon,

I think I have to disagree with Jai a bit on his comparisson with the BNP and Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri, and Anjem Choudary etc.

On at least one previous occasion, I have listed -- in detail -- the specific reasons for the very strong similarities between the BNP & its members/sympathisers and certain regressive Islamist groups & their members/sympathisers.

I am referring specifically to these organisations, their affiliates, and their supporters -- what media outlets such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, MigrationWatch say is neither here nor there in this instance, as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise your logic could also be applied in the corresponding situation, ie. that any Muslim-focused media source which says X, Y or Z which actually/potentially comments negatively about non-Muslims and/or the West should "get no credit" because Al-Muhajiroun and other similar groups may quote the information concerned.

My original point still stands. The BNP and its members/sympathisers are far, far closer to effectively being the "white British Al-Muhajiroun" than the individuals concerned may either realise or admit.

This is a statement of fact, not a "dishonest anti-fascist tactic", and an accurate identification of the extremely strong parallels between the two organisations and their respective supporters in terms of mindset, worldview, behaviour, modus operandi and agenda is certainly not "undemocratic" by any stretch of the imagination.

They are what they are -- essentially mirror images of each other. I suspect it may be a tough pill for some people to swallow, but the reality of the situation is that there is barely a hair's-breadth of difference between the aforementioned groups & their members/supporters.

Re: Why I like identity politics

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:55:01 -0000

On a lighter note -- Sunny, I love the picture you've chosen for your article. It's a blast from the past that's guaranteed to trigger laughter and smiles of recognition amongst fans of a certain much-missed 90s show.

Re: Why I like identity politics

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:53:07 -0000

Random BNP trolls should be ignored.

I've made the following basic point a couple of times previously, but to re-iterate: Since there's very little basic difference between Nick Griffin and, for example, Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri, and Anjem Choudary, their respective followers and admirers should also be treated the same.

Because they all really are the same -- and that includes supporters of the BNP and its associated ideology who comment here on PP. Other than the fact that one group uses race as a justification (perhaps "excuse" might be a better description) and the other uses religion, they're all cut from the same cloth.

Re: Why I like identity politics

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:31:40 -0000

Pop over to the ‘American Renaissance’ website for discussion of ethnic gang culture in North America and much more of interest

For the benefit of those of you who aren't aware of this, "American Renaissance" (along with the associated website), which "Edna Welthorpe" has now 'recommended' several times on PP, is a well-known US-based white supremacist and racist magazine produced by the "New Century Foundation". Contribuing authors can be described as 'intellectual racists' and the organisation has also held biannual conferences.

And, surprise surprise, contributers to the magazine and the conferences include a certain Nick Griffin.

I'm not going to link directly to the website but Wikipedia has a summary of both the magazine and the foundation (including a link to the website for those of you who wish to access it), along with further details on the type of people who contribute to the magazine and attend the affiliated conferences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Renaissan...)

Re: Terrorist found guilty (so let’s make some comparisons)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 05:52:34 -0000

There a fundamental problem with the way in which some treat minorities in this country. Too many have yet to snap out of the colonial model, which views non-whites as a homogenous group, each responsible for all.

As for viewing groups as homogeneous, I suspect that when that does happen it is mostly down to sloppy, unreflective ‘thinking’.....Where the attitude runs deeper then we might be looking at actual cognitive impairment or a pathological condition.

See, you can actually distinguish individuals when they are white, but when it comes to Asians, you can’t. And you think the worst.

The comments above by Rumbold, Don and Ravi summarise the crux of the matter.

And, of course, "Jennifer Smith" has unwittingly demonstrated the point herself perfectly, by virtue of her own remarks, attitude and behaviour on this thread.

Re: The CSC’s BNP report is a farce

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:22:31 -0000

That’s a tactic. Their strategy, though, remains unchanged. Promote their ideology based on race and racism. Nick Griffin said so himself.

Correct on all points. And it's confirmed by the BNP's ongoing responses to the questions eGov has been addressing to them too. Despite the horribly inflammatory public rhetoric, their "real" policies and ideology don't necessarily focus solely on Muslims -- they have a problem with all non-white people full-stop, whether they're Muslim nor not.

And, as Griffin himself stated (see #49), the BNP's current public focus on Muslims is an opportunistic political tactic -- they're deliberately scapegoating & persecuting Muslims in order to further their own ambition to achieve power. Nasty, nasty stuff.

Underneath it all, they're still unambiguously antisemitic as well (again, as Griffin confirmed in that speech). Meaning that they still hate Jews at least as much as they hate Muslims and all non-white people.

Incidentally, Griffin's comments about "the public" (in terms of deliberately exploiting people's prejudices and manipulating current/potential supporters in general) demonstrate yet again the BNP leadership's contemptuous attitude towards the public as a whole, including people whose support they wish to elicit.

Re: The CSC’s BNP report is a farce

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:09:10 -0000

Nick Griffin went on the record to say it was politically better for the BNP to focus on Muslims rather than Jews or racism.

The BNP knows that anti-muslim hysteria that has been whipped up since 2001 is ripe for the taking in terms of public opinion.

The BNP will see anyone they like as a suitable case for treatment. Muslims are just the dish of the day… Convenient fodder for an altogether repugnant belief system.

Absolutely correct. Here is an extract from a speech by Griffin to local party activists in Burnley in 2006 confirming the above, in his own words:

Quote:

We bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there it's the thing they can understand. It's the thing the newspaper editors sell newspapers with. If we were to attack some other ethnic group — some people say we should attack the Jews … But … we've got to get to power. And if that was an issue we chose to bang on about when the press don't talk about it … the public would just think we were barking mad. They'd just think oh, you're attacking Jews just because you want to attack Jews. You're attacking this group of powerful Zionists just because you want to take poor Manny Cohen the tailor and shove him in a gas chamber. That's what the public would think. It wouldn't get us anywhere other than stepping backwards. It would lock us in a little box; the public would think "extremist crank lunatics, nothing to do with me." And we wouldn't get power.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=12696...

Re: The case for staying in Afghanistan

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:40:23 -0000

Afghanistan is 100% Muslim

The influx of Afghan Sikh refugees who have arrived in the UK in recent years might politely disagree with this statement. The vast majority of Afghans are indeed Muslim, but "100%" ? No, and certainly not for a couple of centuries at the very least.

***********************************

An observation in response to a comment by Soru on the other 'Afghanistan' thread:

Alexander, the British empire and the Russians all failed to conquer Afghanistan,

With all due respect, this statement isn't entirely correct: Alexander DID conquer Afghanistan, before moving on to attacking some of the northwestern regions of the Indian subcontinent.

Much more recently (relatively-speaking), the Mughals successfully annexed most of what is now modern-day Afghanistan into their empire; to a lesser extent, the Sikhs under General Hari Singh Nalwa also defeated the Afghans in warfare and annexed a couple of chunks of Afghanistan.

So, if someone is looking for ways to successfully defeat the Taliban militarily, perhaps it would be worthwhile for them to look at the more recent historical precedents in order to gain some pointers for how this might feasibly be achieved, obviously updated with modern weaponry and the associated modification of strategy & tactics. Despite the 'received wisdom' out here in the West, in reality Afghans haven't necessarily been quite as 'invincible' as the prevailing European/Western mythology may claim.

Re: Banning our resident racist scum?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:34:46 -0000

Vikrant,

Sorry for being pedantic, but none of them are actually Parsis… as justforfun could affirm for me. They are Iranis i.e descendants of recent Zoroastrian immigrants to India making them distinct from Parsis.

Interesting. All of those actors/actresses openly self-identify as "Parsi".

Either way, most of my original points still stand.

Re: Banning our resident racist scum?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:09:18 -0000

Shamit,

Could I have the Tata Group please — as an indigenous Indian?

Very funny. I wonder if Mongrel thinks that John Abraham has committed an act of genocide against Bengalis -- or "indigenous Indians" in general -- by getting romantically involved with Bipasha Basu.

On a more serious note, one has to wonder at the considerable irony and hypocrisy of a Parsi, descended from Persian Zoroastrian refugees to India, and from a community which has benefitted enormously from India's own multicultural society, supporting a racist British party which promotes the complete opposite of everything that has enabled Parsis to settle and thrive within India, especially in Bombay/Mumbai.

......And thanks for sending me that investment report I requested, very interesting reading.

Re: Banning our resident racist scum?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:07:19 -0000

Jai, read Carmenego again, I only answered her call for Genocide.

Carmenego was clearly joking, as was patently obvious to anyone sane reading her comment. The concept of satire and irony appears to be completely lost on some people.

So, Mongrel, according to your own logic and political sympathies, presumably you believe in the following assertions, if one applied the BNP's own ideology to Parsis in India:

- The sympathetic Gujarati king who offered asylum to the Zoroastrian refugees (your ancestors) all those centuries ago was making a huge mistake and should have either sent them back to Persia (immediately or at a suitable stage afterwards), refused to let them land on Indian soil irrespective of where they went afterwards, or (to use Nick Griffin's recent "recommendation" about African refugees arriving in Europe) destroyed any ships/boats carrying Zoroastrians before they had the chance to reach India's coast.

- Parsis should never be regarded as "true Indians" (or "Indians" full-stop) by other Indians (or by anyone else) irrespective of how many generations they have resided in India, irrespective of the person concerned actually being born in India, and irrespective of how "Indianised" the Parsi concerned may be in terms of cultural influences & interests, mores, attitudes and lifestyle.

- "Indigenous Indians" should always be the first choice over Parsis in any sphere of Indian life, from jobs to business services to romantic partners.

- A Parsi in any field of employment is "stealing" a job from an "indigenous Indian".

- A Parsi romantically involved with/married to an "indigenous Indian" is "stealing" a man/woman who would (indeed, by your logic, "should") otherwise be involved with/married to an "indigenous Indian", and is actually committing an act of genocide against the "indigenous Indian" population.

- In fact, the very presence of Parsis in India is an "act of genocide" against the "indigenous Indian" population.

- The majority Indian population should have the legal right to refuse to employ Parsis, or to refuse to serve them/provide professional business services to them, purely because they are Parsi.

- Parsis in India should be stripped of any human rights legislation or Indian laws in general which protect them from discrimination, persecution, defamation or harassment.

- Parsi actors and models in Bollywood, from Boman Irani to Nauheed Cyrusi to Parizaad Zorabian, along with people like John Abraham (who has a Parsi mother), should never be depicted in on-screen romantic relationships with non-Parsi actors/actresses or "indigenous Indians" in general. In fact, they should a) never be depicted in non-Parsi roles and b) they are "stealing" acting jobs from "indigenous Indians".

- Any Parsi cultural influence or presence in Indian society in general is a "polluting foreign influence" and should either be strongly discouraged or prohibited outright.

- The Godrej and Tata industrialist families have been "stealing" jobs from the majority "indigenous Indian" population since the 19th century, and are continuing to "take" wealth from the latter.

- The considerable contribution of noteable Parsis to India, in politics (including the independence movement), law/business/commerce/industry, arts, and sports should either be deliberately de-emphasised or completely stripped from Indian history books and eradicated from any awareness or references in the public sphere. Including the Parsis listed here, some of whom are very famous and respected indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Parsis

- All Parsis who are currently Indian citizens should be given a "generous financial incentive" to be "voluntarily" repatriated back to Iran, since that country is their "true homeland", not India.

**************************************************************************

Just to be clear, I don't believe in any of the assertions above and would disagree in the strongest possible terms with the mindset behind them and any efforts to actually implement them in India. But presumably you would support the Indian government imposing these measures on you, all your Parsi relatives, and the entire Indian Parsi population as a whole, from the top-down and across the entire country, and you would fully agree with & support the ideology of any Indian political party campaigning for election on this basis.

Because this is exactly how the BNP thinks in terms of their attitude towards all non-white people in Britain.

I trust the matter is a little clearer now.

Re: Banning our resident racist scum?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:03:56 -0000

Perhaps because you’ve forgotten your roots. (Thought you would have got it when I joked about building a Dakhma on Wimbledon Common).

Given the fact that the Parsi population in Britain is very small indeed compared to the majority of British Asians who are Pakistani, Indian Punjabi or Gujarati, references to Parsi buildings such as 'dakhmas' will not be familiar to many British Asians of all ages, and certainly not to the average UK-born 2nd-gen South Asian who will have had very little (possibly zero) social contact with Parsis and will therefore be unlikely to be aware of the Persian/Farsi term for "Tower of Silence".

However, given the concerns in some quarters of India's small Parsi population about the community being "destroyed" due to intermarriage and the dwindling number of potential marriage partners available from the same background, it certainly explains (but absolutely does not justify) the mindset behind the following statement:

Neither do I (Carmenego) call for a particular race to be deprived of sexual partners of their own kind in order to destroy their entire race.

And as for the following:

the kind of unreasoning envy and hatred that even Hitler rose above).

Ironically, it's exactly that kind of thinking that causes some people to behave in highly neurotic, indignant, irrational, inappropriately possessive, indeed envy-and-hatred-driven ways when they perceive individuals from "other" backgrounds "stealing" "their" women (or, sometimes, men -- but let's be honest, it's more frequently about "losing" women to The Other, isn't it ?).

Which is the fundamental problem, because it's based on the following two erroneous premises:

1. A false presumption of ownership over people you perceive to be from the same background from you, even if your actual relationship with them is tenuous or non-existent beyond common race/ethnicity/religion/nationality/etc (*delete as applicable).

2. A false presumption of having the right to dictate who someone else should not become sexually involved with. In reality, there is this "little" concept in the modern era, particularly here in the West, of mutually-consenting adults.

Presumptions which are not only false and arrogant, but also obsolete in terms of modern Western ideals and norms. Except, of course, for those throwbacks who still believe in such tribalistic, bigotted notions. Not to mention the assumption that "nationality" and "race/ethnicity" itself are analogous, despite the fact that the concept of the nation-state itself in the modern sense is a relatively recent development in world history.

Hell, as our august friend from India itself, Mongrel should understand this more than anyone, given the subcontinent's own history and post-colonial political partitions and constructions, both in terms of the division/creation of language-based states and the accession of previously-independent royal kingdoms to the republic of India along with Pakistan.

Unless, of course, Mongrel thinks that the Indian government and populace should have the right to deport him and all his other Parsi relatives back to Iran if they see fit to do so.....

Re: Banning our resident racist scum?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:49:41 -0000

Munir,

Im not aware of there being any supporters of Al-Muhajiroun let alone al-Qaeda on here. Who are you talking about ?

I was speaking hypothetically.

************************************

Amrit,

That suggests that they have paid for the privilege of their self-delusions and blame game.

Exactly.

Re: Banning our resident racist scum?

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 07:11:14 -0000

Sunny,

I think you should treat them the same way that you would treat commenters who are members/supporters of, and/or apologists for, Al-Muhajiroun and Al-Qaeda, since their respective psychiatric pathologies and the modus operandi of their respective efforts at proselytisation & self-justification are practically identical.

***********************************

I’ll tell you who the most extreme proponents remind me of: It’s like listening to a bunch of persistent paedophiles and rapists blaming absolutely everyone but themselves for their “condition”, especially the targets of their obsessions (complete with playground-style cries of “Look what you made me do”), and engaging in all manner of self-serving, disingenuous pseudo-intellectual arguments to excuse, rationalise and justify their attitudes & behaviour. The level of Josef Fritzl-style deviousness and mental sickness on display has been truly disgusting.

Re: Proof the BNP are scum

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:34:06 -0000

Leon,

It's very noticeable that the BNP leadership (and their more vocal supporters) do seem to have a particular -- and peculiar -- unhealthy obsession with "Africans".

It's all the more strange when you bear in mind the fact that, numerically, Africans aren't even close to being the largest non-white ethnic group in Britain.

Maybe it's because, out of all the various peoples who fall into the category of The Other from their perspective, they regard Africans as being the most extreme 'Other' of all in relation to themselves. Another puzzle for the psychoanalysts, perhaps.

In the meantime, here's the full text of a brilliant article from The Economist's spinoff "Intelligent Life" magazine which I recommended to Roger a few weeks ago, titled 'Exodus/We are all African now'. Do take some time out to read it when you have some spare time, it's definitely worth it and the article makes some superb, extremely relevant points.

http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/content/jm-l...

Re: Proof the BNP are scum

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:18:40 -0000

Sorry again, Jai’s been removing my comments. Just thought I’d blow off some steam. No offense.

I'm not one of this website's editors, Colin -- ask one of them instead.

And, incidentally, if you think that everyone else who comments on this website and opposes you is a "liberal" or "left-wing" in the stereotypical sense, or even remotely a "Marxist" or a "Socialist" (to use a couple of the BNP's favourite insults), then you really are even more gullible than I thought.

I expect you even believe that the only reason you've been allowed to continue to comment on this blog at all is due to a concern about "freedom of speech". How naive.

You really do have a great deal to learn about the way the real world works -- not to mention the fact that the BNP's leaders would simply disown your statements here if they drew any flack for it, resulting in all your daily efforts being completely wasted.

But again, in terms of being cannon fodder who are being ruthlessly exploited and manipulated by their own leaders, I guess the biggest fools on the planet really are the footsoldiers of the BNP, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Al-Muhajiroun.

Your priority should now be finding ways to extricate yourself from the situation and rejoin the rest of the human race. No prizes to anyone else for guessing exactly why you're so afraid of letting your GP find out about the reality of your views on race and your perspective on the world in general, not to mention what you do online.

But there's still time for you to salvage your life. Whether you resolve matters via your GP or as a result of your own independent efforts is up to you. As I said, I recommend taking the professional route. Use your doctor as a sounding board for your opinions and you will quickly learn the benefits of someone in your situation receiving an informed, professionally-qualified opinion about your ideas, conduct and activities. And that will serve as an excellent first step on your road to recovery.

If not, then I expect your fate will be the same as the other brainwashed, deranged sheep who place such a tragically misguided amount of trust in the cults of Messrs Griffin, Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri and Choudary.

Re: Proof the BNP are scum

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:10:58 -0000

Good article, Leon. (And I agree completely with your post #22 above too).

I've said repeatedly that, in terms of mindset, worldview, agenda, behaviour, and attitude towards 'The Other', everything they say and do confirms that there is relatively little difference between Al Muhajiroun's and the BNP's respective members, supporters & apologists. And that they should all be treated accordingly.

Indeed, some supporters of the BNP and its more openly violent ideological counterparts are essentially the 'white supremacist' equivalent of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It is interesting to see that, with his explicit advocacy of the murder of unarmed African civilians, displaying yet again the extremely low value he places on the lives of non-white people and his psychopathic attitude towards them, Nick Griffin is very much in this camp.

Interesting, but not surprising at all. However, as always it is very good to have his views on matters out in the open.

Re: These ‘babes’ are for the BNP

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:20:00 -0000

#102.

You are confusing honesty with a state of ‘illness’.

That’s OK. I understand that many of you progressives on this site are very unwell individuals. You’ll be the last people to discover that you are very unwell.

You all have my sympathy.

Admitting that you’re unwell is the first step to making a recovery. Don’t forget to watch those links I gave you at #101.

This is the most important one for you to watch.

Video 1: http://tinyurl.com/l7c225

Good luck.

Colin, I'm not even remotely interested in incompetent quack opinions any more than I'd be interested in the so-called medical opinions of "Dr" Ayman Al-Zawahiri or the ideological assertions of Al-Qaeda and Al-Muhajiroun's various members, supporters and apologists, irrespective of how many ridiculous Youtube links you want to post on this thread or any others on this website. And that's without even addressing the sheer stupidity of acquiring your understanding of race, psychiatry and clinical psychology from Youtube, of all sources, or attempting to use it to support your 'arguments', such as they are.

Do what I stated in #76 and again in #102. As I said, take hard copies of all your comments with you, including the 'written link' in #101 along with the various Youtube links you have posted here. I expect your GP will have to read through that material in his/her own time outside of surgery hours, but in the meantime it will give your doctor an opportunity to discuss matters with you and get the process started.

And as I said previously, if you really are convinced that "you are sane and the rest of the world is mad" and that the people who forcefully disagree with your views on race are "very unwell", then it should not be a problem for you to discuss all this with a qualified medical professional, face to face and in detail.

Do this now. Pick up the phone, make that call, arrange that appointment, and have that discussion with a person who really does have the qualifications, training, professional experience, scientific understanding and medical knowledge to be able to give you informed feedback about your numerous assertions along with providing clarification of the various matters you have indicated confusion about, both factually and in relation to the specific reasons for your incomprehension.

Get off the internet and sort this issue out, rather than wasting your own time and everyone else's here any further.

Re: These ‘babes’ are for the BNP

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 07:04:44 -0000

I’m sane – the rest of you are mad!

In which case, proactively taking the following actions.....

- Book an appointment with your GP.

- Beforehand, print out all of the comments you have posted on Pickled Politics regarding your opinions on racial matters, including absolutely everything you have posted here during the past few days along with your comments during the past month or so (particularly those where you referred to Asians being “parasites” who are “taking advantage” of “indigenous white British people”, the latter’s alleged “slower reproductive cycles”, references to a “bloodless genocide against the British”, references to “difference species of humans”, your unsolicited & unilateral claims to speak for “white British people” as a whole, etc etc).

- Hand the printouts to your GP, ask him/her to carefully read through them, explain that you have been making these statements to various anonymous strangers on an online discussion forum via the internet, summarise your motivations for doing so, and request your GP’s feedback once he/she has had the opportunity to review the material.

.....should not be a cause for concern.

Re: These ‘babes’ are for the BNP

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:36:48 -0000

Ravi,

I always assumed that strong feelings of racism and bigotry stem from the inability to empathise with other human beings, or putting themselves in other people’s shoes.

Absolutely correct, and in this particular context, taken to this extreme level, coupled with a number of other clearly-visible behavioural traits which have been (and continue to be) persistently exhibited, it's one of the major markers of a certain identifiable psychiatric personality disorder.

Re: These ‘babes’ are for the BNP

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:22:02 -0000

Rumbold,

Bit unfair Jai- the GP’s probably Asian.

That would make the situation particularly ironic, wouldn't it ?

Either way -- irrespective of the ethnicity of his GP -- the situation is this: Colin has explicitly stated that he does not have any intuitive feelings of empathy or common humanity with anyone who is not white, and that he does not fully understand why this is the case (although he's obviously suggested various 'theories' to attempt to explain it).

If Colin has a full and frank discussion with his GP, then the latter will be able to respond with a professional opinion on exactly what is going on inside Colin's head and the reasons behind his perspective along with the resulting behaviour.

I expect it may require some further follow-up conversations along with a referral to an appropriate specialist, but in any case, Colin's predicament will be properly assessed, diagnosed, and he will be provided with a solution to his question -- assuming, of course, that he is serious about this and is indeed prepared to be as ruthlessly honest in all matters as he has claimed to be.

Re: These ‘babes’ are for the BNP

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:08:59 -0000

Ravi. What’s so wrong with being ‘bigoted’ as you put it? Do tell.

Colin, having read your continuing remarks today, I will make this very easy for you and give you the simple solution to your query, since you appear to be determined to fulfil your role as one of the BNP’s cannon fodder. Consider the following a one-off freebie – and, incidentally, don’t take this as an excuse to start trying to talk to me again, since I’ve made my views on engaging with members of the ‘white British Al-Muhajiroun’ extremely clear.

- Book an appointment with your GP.

- Beforehand, print out all of the comments you have posted on Pickled Politics regarding your opinions on racial matters, including absolutely everything you have posted here during the past few days along with your comments during the past month or so (particularly those where you referred to Asians being "parasites" who are "taking advantage" of "indigenous white British people", the latter's alleged "slower reproductive cycles", references to a "bloodless genocide against the British", references to “difference species of humans”, your unsolicited & unilateral claims to speak for "white British people" as a whole, etc etc).

- Hand the printouts to your GP, ask him/her to carefully read through them, explain that you have been making these statements to various anonymous strangers on an online discussion forum via the internet, summarise your motivations for doing so, and request your GP's feedback once he/she has had the opportunity to review the material.

- If you have nothing to hide and genuinely have the courage of your convictions, then you should have nothing to fear.

I expect you will receive a comprehensive answer to your original question from your GP at the earliest opportunity afterwards.

Re: Immigrants don’t jump the housing queue

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:15:50 -0000

ONS is quite clear on the matter, the WWC are up to 3 times more likely to be working than any ethnic minority

Not quite.

From the same link:

"The unemployment rate for Indian men (7 per cent) was similar to those for White British or White Irish men."

I believe the exact quotes in relation to '3 times' were the following:

In 2004 Pakistani women had the highest unemployment rates in Great Britain, at 20 per cent. The next highest female rates were among women from the Black African or Mixed ethnic groups (each 12 per cent). These rates were around three times the rates for White British and White Irish women (4 per cent each).

and

Among men, those from Black Caribbean, Black African, Bangladeshi and Mixed ethnic groups had the highest unemployment rates (between 13 and 14 per cent). These rates were around three times the rates for White British and White Irish men (5 per cent in each case).

Still, don't let the truth and factual accuracy get in the way of BNP propaganda.

Re: BNP response to part 2

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:29:15 -0000

Colin,

Notwithstanding your continuing childish attention-seeking attempts to provoke a reaction from me despite your claims that 'the feeling is mutual', to re-iterate:

Thank you for your contributions to this thread. They have been extremely helpful, albeit probably not in the way that you intended. As with numerous fellow ideologues who have decided to grace this website with their presence, you have unwittingly played your role to perfection.

You also appear to be under the impression that I am interested in engaging in a dialogue with you. I assure you that you are greatly mistaken in this matter. The fact that I have not addressed you directly in any of my own comments and have not replied directly to any of your repeated so-called ‘rebuttals’ addressed to myself should have been a clear indication of my stance towards you — in short, take the hint.

My silence is motivated by a complete lack of interest in talking to you, not a lack of ability in countering your assertions. Be advised that addressing any further comments to me would be a further waste of time on your part and that you would be better off directing your efforts and energies elsewhere.

Re: BNP response to part 2

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:21:54 -0000

manufactoring

"manufacturing",

understimating

and "underestimating", obviously.

One of PP's editors needs to fix the comments edit function.

Re: BNP response to part 2

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:59:44 -0000

Hantsboy,

Even fighting Hitler led to huge economic constraints after WW2. It took years and the loss of a mighty empire to recover.
Some say we never recovered.

So a BNP government would be like a stroll in the park after that experience.

I will keep this relatively brief as Shamit is better placed to explain matters to you in detail, and also because I have generally stated whatever I wished to say in response to the BNP's latest responses in my series of comments at the start of this thread.

1. As Shamit said, there would be no Marshall Plan to assist Britain's recovery this time.

2. Britain had an existing series of overseas alliances and trade relationships after WW2. These have developed and grown exponentially during the past 60+ years, particularly with massive globalisation and the corresponding integration of Britain into the worldwide, interconnected business network. However, many of these relationships would be terminated upon the election of a BNP government. In fact, with the termination of relations with Commonwealth countries along with the severe impact on relations with various Western nations, particularly the United States, the economic situation would actually continue to go into reverse.

3. The United States leading and enforcing international sanctions and trade embargos on Britain would have an absolutely catastropic effect on Britain's economy and overall standard of living.

4. The two biggest foreign investors in the British economy are currently the United States and India. The termination and withdrawal of this investment would also be extremely destructive towards Britain.

5. You are presumably aware of the extent to which the recent problems in the Financial Services sector (ie. the City) have wreaked havoc on the rest of the British economy, because of the extent to which the banking sector disproportionally contributes to the British economy as a whole (esp. with the decline in the manufactoring sector in recent times). Considering the extent to which the City is integrated with the global financial system, the severe disruption which would impact London's financial markets and the sector as a whole as a result of the aforementioned disruption of international trading relationships would make the current crisis "a stroll in the park".

6. You may be understimating the number of foreign nationals (both white and non-white) who currently work in the City, due to the multinational nature of both British and foreign (particularly American) banking organisations (especially investment banks). Similarly, you may be understimating the number of non-white British citizens who work in the City. And you may also be understimating the extent to which multinational organisations (both British and foreign, particularly American) currently provide various third-party professional services to the City. Again, the impact on all of this due to the termination/disruption of global business relationships along with the BNP's own intended policies regarding the employment of non-white people would be extremely dangerous.

7. Similarly, the extent to which the British private/corporate sector as a whole includes global business relationships involving both British and foreign companies, coupled with the number of non-white British citizens and non-white professionals from overseas who are employed by these companies, would result in any attempts by the BNP to implement the aforementioned policies having extremely serious repercussions. Also, the degree of leverage and financial muscle that the private sector (especially multinationals and investment banks) possess is absolutely huge, so the impact of a) retaliation on their part, and b) termination of business operations in Britain would wreak much more havoc on Britain as a whole than you may think.

8. In summary, economic and military isolationism for a relatively small island nation like Britain (which is what would happen under a BNP government, due to internal policies and external responses) in a heavily integrated and increasingly globalised modern world, where the major player is the United States and which is rapidly being joined by China, India and Brazil, would be the worst possible thing to happen to this country. This isn't 1948 -- and, even worse, this time Britain wouldn't have the international allies which assisted British recovery after WW2.

Modern-day North Korea is probably the best example of what would happen to the United Kingdom.

Re: BNP response to part 2

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:14:39 -0000

Colin,

Thank you for your contributions to this thread. They have been extremely helpful, albeit probably not in the way that you intended. As with numerous fellow ideologues who have decided to grace this website with their presence, you have unwittingly played your role to perfection.

You also appear to be under the impression that I am interested in engaging in a dialogue with you. I assure you that you are greatly mistaken in this matter. The fact that I have not addressed you directly in any of my own comments and have not replied directly to any of your repeated so-called 'rebuttals' addressed to myself should have been a clear indication of my stance towards you -- in short, take the hint.

My silence is motivated by a complete lack of interest in talking to you, not a lack of ability in countering your assertions. Be advised that addressing any further comments to me would be a further waste of time on your part and that you would be better off directing your efforts and energies elsewhere.

Re: BNP response to part 2

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:18:29 -0000

5cc,

Perhaps that is the real answer to the question about what the BNP would do to non whites who don’t snap up that voluntary repatriation. Make living here virtually impossible by penalising firms (other than restaurants, you understand) that hire them so it’s impossible to find work. And possibly more besides.

Exactly. I've been saying this myself for a while now, and the BNP's answers confirm it.

They intend to systematically disempower, disenfranchise, marginalise, and impoverish non-white people in Britain, coupled with wiping out all legal safeguards designed to protect them from racial discrimination, racial harassment, racially-motivated persecution, and racially-motivated attacks (physical as well as verbal).

Re: BNP response to part 2

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:07:51 -0000

5cc,

It’d be nice if a proper BNP representative could give us the real answer so I could know if I’m right.

With regards to the ongoing responses to the lists of questions which are being sent to the BNP, I believe eGov received written confirmation that L.J Barnes has been formally authorised to speak for and represent the BNP in this matter.

***************************

As for the various examples of 'research' which have been provided by certain BNP supporters on this thread, I guess they're just following the precedent set by the organisation's current leadership, namely the Nobel prize-winning "You just look.....You just know" method of scientific research and statistical analysis.

Re: BNP response to part 2

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:32:16 -0000

Redbridge covers Ilford, Goodmayes, Gants Hill, Seven Kings, Woodford and Hainault. The Asian inhabitants of these areas account for 65% of the total population.

Completely false.

According to 2005 figures, the Asian inhabitants of Redbridge (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and 'other Asian') constitute only 26.5% of the total population.

Links:

http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/facts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_...

Re: BNP response to part 2

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:19:02 -0000

A commenter on the exotically-named "Counting Cats in Zanzibar" blog made some absolutely superb points a few months ago. I think that the remarks about 'coloured people bringing an illiberal culture with them when immigrating' are a considerable generalisation and certainly not applicable in the cases of (for example) people of Caribbean origin or absolutely huge numbers of the British Indian population who were born here during the past 40 years, but apart from that, it's probably one of the most articulate, eloquent and spot-on succinct summaries of the fundamental problem with the BNP and its supporters that I've ever read.

Link: http://www.countingcats.com/?p=2435&cpage=1...

Quote:

But the point being made here is that it is this tribalism that is the problem, and that the BNP in copying it are only making things worse. The BNP are simply white tribalism. People are the same, irrespective of skin colour, and the BNP are a perfect example of what they see and complain about in foreigners.

It’s about cultures; not races or nations. If people want to stand up for a genuinely liberal culture - one that does not restrict people with rules and limits imposed on them by society - we’re with them. If they want to express pride that the British people (as opposed to their current rulers) were and are heavily committed to such a culture and the fight to create/preserve it, that’s perfectly OK. But the moment they try to attach that to some other characteristic, some tribal marker like skin colour or ancestry or nationality, they are revealed as precisely the same sort of idiots we’re fighting against; just white-skinned ones. It’s a natural human reaction - people of every kind do it - but it is spectacularly ironic to to indulge in it while supposedly campaigning against it.

What I want is a world where you can be the only white person on the bus and feel perfectly safe, because you will know that everybody on it respects the same values of liberty and tolerance. And that the bus could be anywhere from Clapham to Mecca.

Until people recognise that it is the culture that matters, and that liberty is as important for dark-skinned people as light-skinned ones, in just the same way it is for people with blood group O as for blood group AB, we will continue to lose this war. The problem is not that coloured people immigrate, it is that they bring an illiberal culture with them. We want the people, we only need to reject the illiberal aspects of the culture.

To reject the people and take on their illiberality is lunacy of the highest order.

Re: BNP response to part 2

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:04:44 -0000

not all Asians buy from Halal shops.

Especially approximately 50% of the British Asian population which is not Muslim and is therefore not subject to Islamic dietary restrictions.

Re: BNP response to part 2

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:30:44 -0000

If Black British citizens in the UK wish to set up businesses that serve only black clientele and employ only black staff then they will be free to do so. If the owners of Turkish kebab shops want to serve only British citizens of Turkish ancestry in their shops and employ only British citizens of Turkish descent they will be allowed too. If a White British citizen only wants to sell his products to White British citizens and employ on White British staff then they will be allowed too. If Chinese takeaways want to serve only British citizens of Chinese
ancestry and employ only British citizens of Chinese ancestry they will be allowed too. If Indian takeaways only want to serve British citizens of Indian descent and only employ British citizens of Indian descent as cooks and waiters in their shops they will be allowed too.

This is the most damning response of all. Especially the following sentence:

If a White British citizen only wants to sell his products to White British
citizens and employ on White British staff then they will be allowed too.

These activities would indeed result in the systematic marginalisation of non-white British citizens from British society as a whole, considering that 90% of the population of Britain is white. Again, as the main article states, it means that white organisations and establishments will be allowed to refuse to hire non-white employees and to refuse to provide services to non-white clients/customers.

It basically means state-sanctioned racial segregation in the United Kingdom.

***********************************

To summarise the responses to the latest batch of questions: The BNP claim they're not going to actively (or openly) encourage racial discrimination or bigotry against non-white people (including the majority who are British citizens) -- they're just not going to stop anyone else in Britain from doing it, and they're going to wipe out any human rights legislation or British laws in general which are designed to protect ethnic minorities from exactly this type of racist treatment.

So there it is: The BNP’s goal is effectively apartheid-era South Africa, pre-Civil Rights racially-segregated America, and Nazi Germany.

And we have this directly from them, in writing, and in their own words.

Re: BNP response to part 2

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:25:16 -0000

Q. Exactly how much of Britain’s current GDP, in terms of gross, net, and
overall percentage figures, is a result of the non-white British population?

A - Who knows.

The information is actually freely available. For example:

British Asians are responsible for 6% of the UK’s total GDP even though they comprise only 4% of the total British population.

Considering that the UK’s GDP for 2008 was estimated to be $2,674 billion, 6% of that figure is still a huge amount in dollar terms and disproportionately high compared to the proportion of the total British population which consists of British Asians.

Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Asian
http://www.britishasiantrust.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Uni...
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01...

Statistics pertaining to other British non-white citizens are similarly easily sourced.

Anyone who believes any of the bullshit pumped out by the present Labour government concerning any statistics related to immigration or immigration linked issues is an idiot. Neither the government nor the politically compromised public institutions who generate such statistics related to the effects of immigration on our economy can be trusted.

So, according to the BNP, all previous research which has been undertaken and the results/conclusions which have resulted is intrinsically invalid and should therefore be automatically disregarded, particularly if the findings contradict & undermine the BNP’s own agenda. How convenient.

Q. What would be the estimated financial loss to Britain’s GDP upon the
withdrawal of all domestic assets by non-white British citizens submitting to “voluntary repatriation” or involved in pre-emptive emigration upon the election of a BNP government?

A - How can anyone assess the impact of such an issue when the government itself acknowledges that it does not have a clue how many immigrants, illegal immigrants, illegal entrants, asylum seekers or bogus asylum seekers are in the country.

Irrelevant – the question specifically referred to non-white British citizens. It should be perfectly feasible for a political party seeking election and/or any other interested organisations to undertake the relevant research and provide an accurate estimate for this specific group.

One of the first jobs of the BNP upon entering government will be to undertake an immediate National Population Audit. As part of this process once we have ascertained the actual figures of the above mentioned groups within our country then we will develop a programme to resolve such issues.

Interesting. It raises disturbing questions about what the BNP really intends to do with this information and exactly what the (allegedly) as-yet-undeveloped “programme to resolve such issues” will involve.

Q. What will be the total financial amount required in order to provide this
“generous financial incentive” for up to 6 million people?

A - As stated above the figures cannot be ascertained until the true figures of actual numbers in our country are ascertained.

Q. Exactly what percentage of Britain’s foreign aid budget will be used in order to provide the “generous financial incentive” to encourage the voluntary repatriation of approximately 6 million non-white British citizens?

A - The entire foreign budget will be diverted from subsidising tyrants, corrupt oligarchs and aid dependent terror states in the Developing World into assisting the creation of civil societies in those nations through the talents and skills of voluntarily repatriated members of the diasporas of those nations.

If the BNP claims that it is currently impossible to accurately assess how many non-white British citizens there really are in the UK, as per the previous answers quoted above, then how does the BNP know that Britain’s foreign aid budget will be sufficient to finance the aforementioned “general financial incentive” ?

Re: BNP response to part 2

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:21:51 -0000

At the moment the only children taught an identity, and taught to be proud of their identity, are non-white children, Under a BNP government all children will be taught to be simply proud to be British and about British culture and history.

Given the BNP’s known “sympathies” and their insistence on using the terms “British nationality” and “British ethnicity” interchangeably to mean solely white British citizens, the areas covered in the response above will effectively mean a white supremacist stance and a considerable distortion of British history as a whole, coupled with a heavy bias against any accurate, honest discussions of -- or information about -- the more negative aspects of British history in relation to non-white countries and peoples.

Not to mention the portrayal of non-white countries and peoples in general, given the BNP’s tendency to be somewhat economical with the truth in these matters. Case in point is the BNP’s statement in response to the previous batch of questions about Indian soldiers in WW2, where they falsely claimed that “many” joined the Nazis and the other Axis powers. In reality, out of a total of 2.54 million Indian soldiers involved in WW2, 98.4% fought on the side of the Allies.

And that’s before we even get started on a BNP government’s attitude towards the United States, currently Britain’s closest ally and strongest external cultural influence, considering the BNP’s explicit statement that they “dislike the present American regime and see the need to resist American cultural imperialism” and will effectively “hold American military bases in the UK hostage” in order to prevent American interference in their “nationalist” agenda, as per their 2005 General Election manifesto.

Re: BNP response to part 2

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:18:55 -0000

Q. What will be the standard BNP procedure in order to deal with non-white British citizens who refuse voluntary repatriation and do not submit to compulsory repatriation?

A - As stated above the BNP policy on Voluntary Repatriation does not apply to just Non-Whites, it applies to all Naturalised British Citizens of all colours and races who have a Right Of Return ( leges sanguinis ) to their home nations.

…..Note that the BNP policy on voluntary repatriation, contrary to the facile and erroneous propaganda pumped out by the ignorant, the uninformed and the media, applies to everyone in the country regardless of race, religion, colour, creed or nationality. Everyone from Australians to those from Zaire will be given the opportunity to utilise the Voluntary Repatriation policy,

I expect that the large numbers of white Australians currently in Britain will not be too thrilled to hear that they are also included as targets of the BNP’s “voluntary” repatriation policy hit-list.

Re: BNP response to part 2

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:15:29 -0000

Q. Will Britain’s white/Caucasian population be subject to taxation by a BNP
government in order to finance this incentive?

A - We intend to impose punitive taxation on those companies, individuals and corporations in Britain who have profited from the theft of the most skilled and essential people from the Developing World.

In reality, this means that they will use taxation to penalise any companies, individuals or corporations in Britain who have hired non-white professionals from outside the West and in order to act as a future deterrent. It’s motivated by an agenda to “keep Britain white”.

I think we can take any claims by the BNP about humanitarian motivations to help “the Developing World” in this answer and all others with a very large pinch of salt.

Re: BNP response to part 2

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:14:22 -0000

The theft of the most skilled, most talented and most essential people of
Developing Nations such as doctors, nurses, economists and entrepreneurs over decades by the West, and especially nations such as Britain, has been a crime against humanity. As a result of this theft of the brightest and most talented people from the Developing World the African continent has been devastated.

- Completely irrelevant to the question which was actually asked.

- Deliberately misrepresents the proportion of non-white professionals in these occupations in Britain who are literally “from Developing Nations”; for example, in reality the majority of those under the age of 40 who are of South Asian ethnicity (an age group which constitutes the majority of the British Asian population as a whole), particularly British Indians, were born in Britain, have been full-fledged British citizens from birth, are a part of “the West” themselves, and are therefore not actually from “the Developing World” at all.

- Ignores/avoids the fact that huge numbers of non-white medics will pre-emptively leave (I expect the United States will be the first destination choice and will welcome them with open arms) if the BNP seems to be heading for an election victory, and others will leave as soon as possible afterwards. Doctors and nurses are highly educated, extremely skilled professionals and securing a job outside the UK would not be a problem for them, particularly in the United States, due to the latter’s extremely favourable immigration policies in relation to medics. In a nutshell, they will pre-emptively “jump” en masse a long time before the BNP actually comes to power and has any chance to put its policies into action, and will therefore not wait to be “pushed”.

- Fixated on “Africa” despite the fact that far more non-white doctors are actually South Asian, either in terms of their previous country of origin (in the cases of the majority over the age of 40) or in terms of ancestry (in the cases of the majority under the age of 40).

- Fixated on “Africa” despite the fact that the largest non-white population of British citizens is actually of South Asian origin, not African. In fact, the number of British Africans isn’t even close to the number of British (South) Asians.

– Ignores the primary reason why Britain proactively hired doctors from the Commonwealth countries during the 1960s and 70s: It was because there was a desperate shortage of medical staff in Britain’s NHS at the time, and therefore the lives of huge numbers of British people quite literally depended on it. It goes without saying that the vast majority (quite possibly all) of the Asian doctors who arrived in those times are now full-fledged British citizens, and have been for approx. 40 years, if not more. More details here: “How Asian doctors saved the NHS” — http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3239540.stm.

– Ignores all the non-white (especially Asian) doctors in the UK who were subsequently born in this country, have always been full-fledged British citizens, and attended medical school in the UK during the past ~40 years.

– Ignores the fact that approx. 30% of medical students in the UK are non-white, the majority of whom are not only South Asian but are also full-fledged British citizens and therefore fall under the definition of “British medical graduates”.

Incidentally, the comments about the "collapse of nations in the Developing World" and what the BNP plans to do to "assist" them are nonsense in relation to the rapid rise of India (which, along with the US, is currently the largest financial investor in the British economy and is also predicted to become a global economic superpower during the next few decades along with China, Brazil and of course the US). Either the BNP’s grasp of this aspect of global macroeconomics is somewhat lacking or they’re deliberately avoiding it, hence the repeated references to Africa instead.

Similarly, the BNP is making considerable assumptions about whether the UK would be in any position to help anyone else at that point, given the economic collapse, international sanctions and trade embargoes that would inevitably ensue upon the election of a BNP government.

Re: Taking on the BNP’s arguments (at City Circle)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:09:37 -0000

a website run and authored by an American-Bangladeshi

Or, indeed, a 'Bangladeshi-American' (to use the correct American naming convention).

But I have no doubt that Mr Khan appreciates the publicity for his excellent blog nevertheless.

Re: Taking on the BNP’s arguments (at City Circle)

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:52:05 -0000

Roger,

Since you're having various arguments involving genetics hurled at you, the following may work in your favour. Take some time out to read through it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of...

Regarding the link supplied in #97, I will refrain from commenting on the considerable irony of a supporter of the BNP attempting to back up his assertions by exploiting information from a website run and authored by an American-Bangladeshi, although I'm sure Razib himself would find it amusing.....

Re: Michael Jackson: It don’t matter if you’re black or white, he said

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:59:05 -0000

The media are certainly influential but they arent everything. Non white people KNOW all white people arent like that because they see and meet white people everyday (the population is 90+% white) as well as on TV (the working class for example have eastenders)

This is simply not true of black and Muslims people- for many white people the only thing they see of them is in the papers when a bad person from those communities has committed a crime or said something bad. Thus this forms their impression.

That's actually spot-on, especially the first paragraph. And the contents can be extrapolated to include minorities in general, including all Asians (irrespective of their religious affiliation).

Along with what Munir has correctly said, the problems arise when people have these stereotyped ideas about others inside their heads based on assumptions, Chinese whispers, second-hand information and whatever they may have picked up in the media. So their perceptions and actions are distorted accordingly, because they're not necessarily based on direct first-hand experience or more neutral agenda-less sources.

Sometimes, simply talking to people directly, basing your opinions on your experiences of them as individuals, and having normal friendly polite conversations with them about aspects of their backgrounds which you're unsure about or just curious about, is a far more constructive and generally healthier way to go about things. Believe it or not, this is a shockingly revolutionary idea to some people out there.

Re: Michael Jackson: It don’t matter if you’re black or white, he said

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:46:56 -0000

Rest in peace, Moonwalker.

Re: How religion and race meet to create havoc

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:17:43 -0000

What I meant was, would an atheist from a Sikh background still identify themselves as a Sikh, in the same way that atheist Jews identify themselves as Jews?

Depends on the individual, although these days they tend to identify themselves as "cultural Sikhs" as opposed to "practising/observant Sikhs". I guess you could probably apply the former term to very large numbers of the younger Sikh generation in the UK as mentioned before, although (again) generally they tend to be agnostic as opposed to outright Dawkins-style atheists.

To cut a long story short, yes agnostic Sikhs would still identify themselves as Sikhs.

Re: How religion and race meet to create havoc

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:17:37 -0000

is there any such thing as an atheist Sikh

Technically the term is an oxymoron but in reality, yes there are plenty of people from Sikh backgrounds who are atheists or (perhaps more commonly) agnostics.

The same applies to Hindus, and in both cases it's more common amongst the UK-born 2nd-generation.

Re: The burkha should not be banned

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:01:11 -0000

It doesn’t really matter what the Koranic instructions on head/body covering is, does it?

There are Muslim women who wish to cover up, and women who don’t.

Surely it should be their personal choice, and a matter between them and Allah?

Although I personally believe that there are circumstances where the face should not be covered, it isn’t my business. It certainly is not the business of any government to tell legally adult women whether they can or cannot cover their faces (I am not sure about minors),

but needs to come from within the community.

sometimes ‘agree to disagree’ can be the only option.

The statements above are a superbly succinct way to essentially summarise what I was trying to say in my PhD-length post #338 (and #286 & 312 before that). Well done Chairwoman and Ravi.

Re: The burkha should not be banned

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:48:01 -0000

Don,

Several, myself included, see it as a social negative and to argue that case is not authoritarian. Religious practices are not immune from criticism simply because they are religious.

I understand your point but, as I said earlier, this is an extremely old debate and not necessarily one which can easily be resolved.

There are people who place paramount importance on the dictates of 'Orthodox Islam' (to use Munir's term) and the teachings of various scholars, various 'schools', and so on. There are people who place paramount importance on the teachings and examples of various Sufi saints. There are people who view various Sufi saints as integral to 'Orthodox Islam' as long as the teachings of those saints did not contradict their interpretation of 'Orthodox Islam'. There are people who view various Sufi saints who contradicted and condemned the interpretation of 'Orthodox Islam' taught by the highest religious clergy of the time as being heretics. There are people who view those Sufi saints as having a better grasp of the real message of God and Islam than historical or contemporary members of the elite orthodox clergy who condemned them. And so on and so forth.

You get the general idea.

As I said in my earlier posts to Ravi, these issues have been a matter of debate and opinion in the subcontinent's Punjab and Sindh regions (both sides of the border) for centuries, because of the historical events those regions were involved in, the confluence of various groups and religious communities which have been particularly concentrated there, the level of social interaction and syncretism which occurred as a result, the rise of more 'mystical' interpretations of spirituality and religion during the medieval period and which Punjab & Sindh were particularly strongly influenced by (involving both Muslims and Hindus, and later obviously Sikhs too) and which contradicted (and were opposed by) many of the established orthodox religious clergy affiliated with both Hinduism and Islam respectively in the subcontinent.

I gave a couple of examples in #286 and #312 (hopefully you’ve had a chance to browse through those posts). The Sufis I mentioned there -- particularly Bulleh Shah -- are not exactly minor figures as far as Punjabi and Sindhi culture & history are concerned; indeed, their influence extended (and still extends) far beyond those regions' Muslim populations. In more recent times, the same applies to the late Pakistani Sufi singer Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan.

None of which, of course, is unique to Islam. The same arguments and differences of opinion have frequently occurred amongst the followers of most of the other major world religions, including Hinduism and Christianity: 'Received wisdom' vs. independent opinion; scholars vs. mystics; orthodoxy vs. unorthodoxy (indeed, even heresy); 'purity' vs. syncretism; exclusiveness vs. universalism; pure reason vs. pure emotion; clerics vs. the masses; priests, prophets, scriptures and academic texts vs. direct experience of God & spirituality; ritual vs. true enlightenment; books vs the heart. Along with plenty of overlaps in-between all of the above. Etc etc.

People are always going to insist that their interpretation of their respective religions is the ‘right’ one. I think that, sometimes, it’s better for people to just state their opinions on why they believe they are correct, present whatever facts and/or reasoning they can provide to back up their stance, and leave it at that by amicably agreeing to disagree. Freedom of conscience and freedom of religious belief ultimately rest with the individual (as long as their actions based on those beliefs don’t maliciously impact anyone else, of course). Being a wise person, I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you that – on an individual or a group level – there has to be a degree of adjustment or compromise on the part of one or both counterparties in order to enable everyone to effectively get along. Either ‘somebody wins’, coupled with ‘somebody capitulating’, or the situation ends up balancing out one way or another. Again, the long history of Punjab and Sindh is a prime example of this, considering that those regions have seen more than their fair share of both conflict and coexistence in matters of religious belief & practice. I think that there’s a lesson to be learned there.

Ultimately, again as I mentioned in my earlier posts, there are going to be people who insist that the hijab etc are integral, ‘obligatory’ parts of Islam, there are going to be people who insist that these are not integral or ‘obligatory’, and there are going to be people who insist that other aspects of and individual’s conduct and spirituality are much more important in terms of the big picture irrespective of whether the hijab etc are integral or not. Does the ‘truth’ really matter ? Only to the Muslims directly involved. At the end of the day, whether a person believes x or y or ends up changing their mind at some point is completely up to them. People have to make their own decisions and reach their own conclusions in these matters.

The most important thing is that nobody forcibly imposes their stance on anybody else, regardless of which side of the fence they may be on, and this includes any attempts at state legislation interfering in attire (particularly if the latter is based on religious beliefs). And that final note is something I’m glad to see that most of us here are in total agreement on.

This time I really am signing-off from this thread, but since there are plenty of historical precedents for the issues that are being debated here, I thought I should mention that and add my 5 cents. There hasn’t been a consensus on many of these matters amongst large swathes of the north Indian and (what is now) Pakistani population for at least 800 years, so I don’t expect differences of opinion to suddenly disappear overnight here in Ol’ Blighty. But, as I mentioned previously, perhaps there are some important lessons to be learned from the subcontinent’s own history when it comes to amicable coexistence between religious groups and amongst people within those groups who may disagree on the interpretation of their respective faiths, both in terms of positive precedents from South Asian history and also in the interests of refraining from repeating some of the same mistakes.

Re: The burkha should not be banned

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:12:17 -0000

if it wasnt an obligation ? The same goes with Sikhs wearing turbans

As detailed in #312, it is only an 'obligation' for baptised/Amritdhari Sikhs (in conjunction with uncut hair). It is a recommendation for the rest of the Sikh population, but not compulsory.

Re: The burkha should not be banned

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:28:08 -0000

Ravi,

Jai, I hope I was very clear in #281 and #285 that (a) historically the significance of veil changed – and the Prophet seemed to have more liberal attitudes than in subsequent centuries, and (b) there are different interpretations of Islam, something that Munir doesn’t acknowledge, calling heretic and brainwashed anything that doesn’t fit his view. In fact, he is presenting the same view as Islamophobes: that Islam is one single homogeneous bloc.

Yes I know -- it wasn't a criticism of you by any means. I was just making a general observation that a) this argument is a very old one, especially in the north of the subcontinent, most of all in Punjab and Sindh, and b) revered Sufi saints such as Bulleh Shah did not necessarily agree with many of the teachings and practices promoted by some of the ulema/religious orthdoxy. If you know about the specifics of the Heer-Ranjha story or the various other actions which Bulleh Shah believed were more important (and more spiritually beneficial) than strict adherence to Shariah in the traditional sense then you will understand what I'm referring to.

In a nutshell, Bulleh Shah opposed the version of Islam which was promoted by the imperial elite of the ulema during his time, an interpretation which was also practiced and promoted by his contemporary the Emperor Aurangzeb for most of his life (although he renounced it in his dying days, as previously discussed) and who had been supported in this interpretation of Islam by the aforementioned ulema, and which was in a way a forerunner of modern-day Wahhabism and other Islamic sects which are at the more conservative end of the Islamic spectrum.

There have of course also been other Sufi saints from the north of the subcontinent who had broadly similar views (some of whom either clashed with the ulema and/or the rulers they supported, or just avoided them entirely), but Bulleh Shah is the most famous one from that region. Other north Indian sufi saints from centuries earlier include Kabir, Baba Farid, Nizamuddin Auliya (and his follower Amir Khusro), and Lal Shahbaz Qalandar.

Far-sighted and enlightened Sufis from outside the subcontinent of course include the great Rumi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumi ).

So yes, the bottom line is that this issue isn't necessarily as straightforward as some may claim, as historically there have been Sufis who are now greatly respected as saints by many Muslims and who took a fairly unorthodox view of Islam, religion and spirituality irrespective of what some of the ulema of the time taught (or thought). The fact that -- for example -- the Heer-Ranjha story, integral to Bulleh Shah's ideas of Sufism, includes multiple "transgressions" of orthodox Shariah including lack of veiling, gender mixing, unchaparoned premarital romantic relationships, plus forceful opposition by the local Islamic clergy, and even music (regarded as "unIslamic" by some schools of thought), should all tell you something.

Again, all this is an extremely old debate. There are going to be people who believe in the Bulleh Shah approach to Islam and spirituality, and there are going to be others like Munir (amongst plenty of others) who prefer the more formalised approach according to various scholars, "schools", the strict dictates of Shariah and so on; given the fact that there have been disagreements about all this amongst the inhabitants of the north of the subcontinent for at least 800 years, the differences of opinion on this thread alone don't even remotely surprise me. I don't necessarily expect any kind of rapprochement any time soon either.

Different strokes for different folks.

Finally, one brief off-topic correction to one of Munir's statements, before I sign off from this thread:

its an obligation much as it would be for a Sikh not to wear a turban

It's an obligation only for baptised/Amritdhari Sikhs; it's optional (albeit recommended) for the rest of the Sikh population -- regardless of what the Rehat Maryada may say, as the latter is (to use an Islamic term) an "innovation" which was constructed by various third-parties a very long time after the death of the last human Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, who simply said that one should listen to the hymns of the Guru Granth Sahib if one wanted to learn his teachings (and those of his 9 predecessors) on any given topic, adopt the prescribed practices and Khalsa code of conduct if one decides to become a baptised/Amritdhari Sikh, and that was it.

Re: The burkha should not be banned

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:58:44 -0000

Apologies if there is any confusion: #288 actually refers to my previous post #286, not Halima's post #287.

Re: The burkha should not be banned

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:56:52 -0000

^^By the way, the post above is just to place some historical context on the matter and to clarify that there are some strands of Islam which have very different views on a number of issues, and are especially influential in some parts of what is now Pakistan and northern India. I said earlier that I don't really want to get involved in this debate and I still stand by that assertion.

Re: Taking offence too far

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:05:08 -0000

Here's the website:

http://www.comparethemeerkat.com/home

It gets even crazier. Aleksandr even has his own Facebook profile, made by the same team as the one behind the website.

http://www.facebook.com/Comparethemeerkat

And he's got a "Bloopers" video for the commericals too. I'm not kidding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hfOt1qoALo

I'm not quite sure what the people behind all this have been smoking, but they've obviously had a lot of fun.

Re: Taking offence too far

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:55:01 -0000

The guy in the CiF article has completely misinterpreted the advert. It's about people (in Britain) looking for car insurance, accidentally typing in the wrong URL address due to the similar spellings of "market" and "meerkat", and ending up accessing Aleksandr the Meerkat's website; it's not about the alleged inability of Eastern European/Russian people to pronounce the word "market".

From what I can tell, the advertising agency responsible for the commercials have deliberately gone for the most insanely surreal approach possible -- A Russian aristocratic meerkat in a red velvet smoking jacket running some kind of meerkat matchmaking website from his mansion. Of all things.

And given the fact that meerkats are widely regarded as being cute, I think the general response would be to increase the popularity of meerkats even further, rather than increasing prejudice towards Russians because of the nutty decision to depict the protagonist as having a Russian accent. I read an article in one of Britain's main national newspapers a week or two ago where visitors to the meerkat section in one of the UK's major zoos keep doing impressions of Aleksandr when they see the animals (to the apparent irritation of the zoo staff responsible for looking after them).

Having said that, I can fully understand why Aleksandr's Borat-style way of speaking might be offensive to some Russian people, especially if they (or other Russians they know) have personally experienced ridicule or mockery due to their own accents, although in this particular case the intention is supposed to be affectionate and surreal. The website -- yes, there really is a 'comparethemeerkat.com' site -- is very funny too; the team behind it have really gone to town when it comes to creativity. Some of the fake meerkat profiles are quite lairy too -- one of them states that the furry guy's hobbies include a "fetish for shaved minx", believe it or not.....

Here: http://www.comparethemeerkat.com/home

It gets even crazier. He's even got his own Facebook profile: http://www.facebook.com/Comparethemeerkat

And "Bloopers" from the commerical. I'm not kidding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hfOt1qoALo

Re: Luton demo by English Defence League banned

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 05:36:48 -0000

Damon,

One final comment on this thread by me, since you (correctly) mentioned that it's actually about the EDL.

I agree it’s often more about class, but the BNP types argue that point too and say that ”we” shouldn’t have taken in so many people who went straight to poverty and neediness.

The BNP types hate all non-white people irrespective of the latter's class. You don't need to read Lee John Barnes' recent diatribes about "middle-class career Asians" here on PP to be aware of that.

And their implication that non-white people in general "went straight to poverty and neediness" is a false narrative; the unemployment rate amongst British Indians is approximately the same as that amongst white British people, for example. Not to mention the situation regarding the 2nd-generation British Asian population in general, many of whom (particularly amongst British Indians) fall very much into the middle-class socioeconomic bracket, along with large numbers from all generations who can actually be defined as belonging to the affluent upper-middle class bracket. I could give further examples, but you get the picture.

Taking this back to my main point, it's imperative not to assume that any non-white person is automatically "working class" or even "poverty-stricken and needy", regardless of the attempts of many of the BNP types to stereotype them that way. And like I said earlier, a lot of things in life are far more to do with class than race or religion -- and, like white people, this applies to non-whites including Asians too, not just back in the subcontinent (as you've found out via your Indian friend) but also here in the UK. There are middle class Asians and indeed residential areas in Britain which are predominantly Asian and middle class, along with a smaller section of extremely wealthy Asians and (depending on the demographics of where they live) the associated residential areas.

In terms of lifestyle, the attempts by some people to portray all non-white people, including Asians, as being ghettoised, insular, poverty-stricken parasites is frequently so far from reality that it's ridiculous, especially in relation to the huge numbers of highly-educated professionals. And yes, depending on their age, Asians go to "yuppie bars and restaurants" and clubs just like everyone else, and not just in "Asian areas" either.

As I keep saying -- as politically-incorrect as it may be, when it comes to this particular issue, think in terms of class, not race, and one will gain a far more accurate picture of the real world.

Re: Luton demo by English Defence League banned

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:31:11 -0000

Damon,

And also I think you ignore the reality and flaws (and tribalism) of less than perfect human beings.

The point is that other people are under no obligation to cater to these flaws, especially in situations where they involve bigotry towards others as a result of these flaws. Irrespective of who is involved in engaging in such bigotry.

And regarding the examples of Sikhs, Somalis, Bangladeshis etc you've given, it's worth bearing in mind that their behaviour is considerably driven by being minorities in a country where they are vastly outnumbered by the majority population. This doesn't mean that one should excuse any manifestations of insularity, parochialism, ignorance or bigotry they may also demonstrate, but it does place their attitudes into a clearer context. Comparisons with "white working class" people are inaccurate because white people constitute about 90% of the population of this country.

Leaving aside their enjoyment for footall fighting, they are really quite typical of a large section of the white working class. I know a lot of people with that kind of mentality, and I don’t know if your very correct idea of community not mattering a jot would get through to them.

Like I said, this doesn't mean anyone else should validate or excuse the more negative aspects of "that kind of mentality", or even give a damn about it.

I was showing a young Hindu student from India around London earlier in the summer. She didn’t like King street Southall, or Edgeware road. She’s very pretty and wears jeans and T shirts. In both places she said she felt that men were openly leering at her. She didn’t like Green Street either. Or Tooting. (Maybe she’s just a bit of a snob, or maybe she picks up on things that I miss.)

Congratulations, you've hit on the crux of the matter, especially where many British Asians and the more affluent sections of Indians literally from India are concerned. Namely, that things are frequently much more about "class", not primarily "race" (and/or "religion"). Including a person's perspectives, attitudes, behaviour, and who they actually have more in common with.

Build on that point, extrapolate it accurately, and everything will become far clearer.

Re: Luton demo by English Defence League banned

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:08:18 -0000

Damon,

Jai, I agree with you very much on one level, but on another what you say seems so strict and unbending.

"Strict and unbending" is an appropriate response from time to time.

I think there might be an ”oil and water” reaction that goes on between those hard core hooligan types and the reality of modern everyday East Ham or Whitechapel.

It's an "oil and water" reaction between hardcore hooligan types and the reality of civilised people in general, irrespective of the latter's ethnic or religious background.

The bottom line is the following: 1) Except for the most isolated, parochial areas, "things change". Always. Especially in major urban centres. Worldwide.

and 2) An inability to live relatively peacefully alongside people who may be from a different background to oneself, with a minimal amount of friction, and find some area of common ground with them, coupled with territorial "my patch"-style complaining about the area "not being like it used to be", when the other parties are not extremists or otherwise "troublemakers", means that the problem is actually within the individual complaining and objecting to the situation. They need to grow up. At the end of the day, they don't literally "own" the area concerned, regardless of whatever sentimental attachment they may have to it and regardless of whatever feelings of nostalgia it may trigger in them.

Unless the other party is breaking the law, engaging in gross human rights violations, or generally being problematic like the aforementioned extremists, beyond a certain point it's none of their business. And their various "objections", while understandable, should not necessarily be given any validity -- no more than, for example, the objections of a hypothetical Sikh Punjabi from Southall complaining about the increasing numbers of people from other backgrounds who are visible in the area these days and how Southall is therefore "not like it used to be when he was younger". Or, indeed, a long-time resident of Delhi, Mumbai or Bangalore in India complaining about the large (and increasing) numbers of people from other parts of the country who live in those cities and the respective "cultural differences" they are bringing to "their city", or the increasingly international and Western flavour of many parts of those cities.

Therefore, taking this back to the aforementioned bottom line:

Back then the area had become very multi-cultural, but it wasn’t so completely Muslim, Arab and South Asian as it looks today. You still had plenty of white people working in the markets then, whereas now they are very much a minority. Though there’s still some white fishmongers that I’ve seen at East Ham Market.

.....the appropriate response is "So what ?".

Re: Luton demo by English Defence League banned

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 05:20:53 -0000

Speaking generally, beyond a certain point the targets of any kind of bigotry are under no obligation to “calm the fears” of the other party if their mentality and behaviour is driven by genuine malevolence.

.....and if their "objections" are baseless, inappropriate or unjustified, I should add.

Re: Luton demo by English Defence League banned

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 05:04:26 -0000

Damon,

I meant that Morrigan or people like him should be free to ask any questions they like, and that maybe instead of ignoring them, an attempt could be made to answer them.

Correct, but everyone concerned should bear in mind that they will receive multiple answers from multiple sources, many of which will be contradictory. The same situation which would occur if someone aimed questions at, for example, "the Christians" -- and subsequently received answers from Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Eastern Orthodox Christians, or indeed any other members of the large number of denominations and interpretations which comprise modern-day Christianity worldwide. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_... ).

The multiple sects and multiple interpretation thing is something that interests me, and I’m sure that most of us non muslims are pretty ignorant of, (outside some idea of Sunni and Shia).

Perhaps more accurately, most non-Muslims currently residing in -- or with ancestral roots in -- parts of the world where there is not a sizeable established population of Muslims.

Fortunately, information is easily available in 2009. A good starting point may be the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_an...

I suppose my point is; can these people ever be talked to?

Depends on the specific individual.

However, integration is definitely a two-way street, as many have said previously, and the onus is on the English people concerned to proactively and rigorously do their own research and enlighten themselves as much as (possibly, even more than) it is on ordinary Muslims to answer any questions they may have. As I said, information is freely available these days, both via literature and via (authoritative) sources on the internet, although it would obviously be wise not to base one's opinions predominantly on the latter. And, of course, simply talking to people is frequently a good way to assuage one's confusion and possibly unnecessary concerns.

Another factor is the reason for the person's "worries". If it's due to ignorance then rectifying that should theoretically solve the problem. However, if they still persist in exhibiting paranoia and engaging in efforts at demonisation/dehumanisation of their targets regardless of how much accurate and credible information is presented to them and regardless of the irrationality of their own behaviour and perceptions, then the problem is internal and motivated by malice; therefore, in those situations, "talking to them" would be pointless. Speaking generally, beyond a certain point the targets of any kind of bigotry are under no obligation to "calm the fears" of the other party if their mentality and behaviour is driven by genuine malevolence.

.....but once again, it depends on the specific individual.

Re: Luton demo by English Defence League banned

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 10:25:27 -0000

Set up a proper website called something like ‘islamistheproblem.co.uk’ and use it to set out the top 5 (or maybe 85…) questions Muslims have to answer, because you say so. It worked for Pickled Politics, against the BNP.

.....

As for Morrigan’s idea of 5 or 85 questions, I’d say let them be asked. And answered to the best of people’s ability.

It's not an accurate analogy. The BNP questions were directed specifically towards a political party campaigning for election, not towards white British people in general.

The latter would be a highly misguided course of action, both because of the dangers of "collective guilt and collective responsibility" and also because of the extremely false presumption that all white British people would have similar views on the matters concerned.

The flaws in the arguments above also apply to the notion of drawing up any list of questions that "the Muslims" "have" to answer --

a) because they're just ordinary individuals affiliated to a particular faith, not some kind of united, "society within a society" organised political group,

b) because Islam itself is not a homogenous monolithic religion (there are multiple sects and multiple interpretations, just like Christianity and most other major religions),

c) and because there is no formal, official religious leadership of Islam who has the authority to speak for all Muslims, either nationally or worldwide.

If you're going to draw on the BNP precedent, a much more accurate analogy would be "5 -- or 85 -- questions that Al-Muhajiroun have to answer". Especially if it ever gained the legal facility to run for national election as a political party.

But "the Muslims" in general ? No. No more than it would be wise, ethical or appropriate to compile a list of questions that "the Christians" have to answer, on a website called Christianityistheproblem.co.uk, as though Christians worldwide were a united, homogeneous political group, subject to collective guilt and collective responsibility, with no internal divisions and theological differences of opinion, and with an identical interpretation of their religion.

Re: Releasing Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 08:08:14 -0000

Excellent article, Rumbold.

That age-old question: Retribution vs. Rehabilitation.....

Re: The NHS debate

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 05:50:18 -0000

This is an excellent article about the hysteria regarding "the healthcare question" in the US and broader issues involving the Republicans and many of their supporters:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentato...

Read the comments afterwards too.

And an associated article about an escalating corporate backlash against Glenn Beck's show on Fox:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/america...

Re: Admiring the Republican counter-attack on healthcare

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 06:23:27 -0000

Professor Stephen Hawking's spirited defence of the NHS was an admirable reaction to an American newspaper's attempt to use him as a tool to attack the NHS.

There's a huge amount of scaremongering going on in some quarters of the US. It's pretty disgusting seeing the lengths that some people are going to in order to try to destroy Obama -- admittedly it was to be expected, considering the Republican's defeat in the election last year, but it's still very, very nasty indeed seeing their efforts in action.

Regarding the following:

This means Democrats are constantly on the defensive and end up losing the battle. You never win on the defensive – only on the offensive.

That's absolutely correct, and it's one of the ways in which Obama was able to win the election -- it was when he stopped being either silent or constantly on the defensive, and actually started hitting back in earnest. He may need to do the same in order to succeed during his presidency too -- not in terms of stooping to the same depths as his Republican opponents, but he'll need to take the gloves off to some extent.

The Republicans and their allies are absolutely desperate to destroy him, and they're not going to stop until they either succeed, or (conversely) until they implode completely or they're comprehensively discredited themselves.

Re: Idolising historical figures

CrazyMcCain (R-aggedyAndy) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:35:54 -0000

On a tangential note, there's been a fair bit of controversy about whether Bose really did die in the plane crash as claimed by the Japanese. There have been a number of formal investigations by India which have apparently revealed considerable discrepancies, and some of the findings have been "sealed" by the Indian government, ostensibly because they are politically highly sensitive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Subhas_Ch...

And, even more curiously, there are also rumours that Bose actually lived "in disguise" in northern India until his death in 1985. Apparently the handwritings of Bose and the individual concerned matched too. And although the investigating team could not say for certain whether Bose and his person were one and the same, they simultaneously came to the conclusion that the official account of Bose's death was also incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagwanji

The plot thickens, eh.....