Tuesday, 26 April 2016

Microaggressions: All Racism. All the Time



Have you ever said something to someone of another culture or ethnicity and later wondered if it was patronising or slightly racist?”- the BBC (8.1.2016)

What doesn't seem like racism, is racism. Our problem is that we don't know the truth about racism. Well-paid academics, however, do. They pierce through the veil of perception to find the truth (e.g.,“racism is systemic and everywhere”) behind it.

Thus the whole anti-racist thing has taken on new Orwellian forms. Those who don't see themselves as racist are suffering from what the economist Mary Rowe called“innocent ignorance”, which is itself a result of “unconscious bias”. In other words, not seeing oneself as a racist doesn't mean that you aren't racist. Instead, let some Ivy League academic clarify your position for you. You may not like what he/she says.

The term “microaggresion” was coined by a psychiatrist named Chester M. Pierce.That was in 1970, so clearly it took quite some time to catch on; or, at the least, to become the fashionable meme that it is today.

Microaggressions have been called “the new face of racism”. The bag is that good-old-fashioned racism has been supplanted by racisms which are more “subtle, ambiguous and often unintentional”. Yes, racism is still seen as being a big problem. The thing is that most racisms nowadays are actually microaggressions.

Now let's get down to some hardcore anti-racist theology (or theory). Derald Wing Sue, for example, believes that there are three kinds of microaggresion. None of the three kinds refers to direct physical violence. Instead what we have is “microassault”, microinsult”and “microinvalidation”. The term “microassault” includes“discriminatory action, avoidant behaviour and name-calling”. “Microinsult” includes “hidden insulting messages”,insensitivity and rudeness. Finally, “microinvalidation” is a case of the roundabout negation of “ethnic identity” and “pride”.

What a puritanical world these progressive theorists (or theologians) belong to. It all boils down to the belief that there is racism everywhere and at all times. Or as Anita Saarkesianput it:

"…everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out to everyone all the time...”

(This has been classed as a “cherry-picked quote”. However, the full quote simply adds detail and context. Saarkesian still believes that everything is racist, etc. (See

The incredible thing is that ethnic minority groups who don't accept that they've been the victims of racism, have been the victims of racism. Or, I should say, the victims of microaggression.

You see, the real motivation behind microaggressions theory (as with much anti-racism) is the political desire for complete radical political/social change.

According to one study, for example, it's the case that black Americans are expected to “represent” other black Americans. That is, they're expected to be “proud of their identity” and thus to also propagate it. The researchers, of course, see this as a bad thing. Now this very same study also came to the exact opposite conclusion. In this case it was claimed that black Americans are put under pressure (by evil white people) to “act white”. This is also seen as a bad thing by the said researchers.

So, to reiterate, the study (although I use that term loosely) came to two diametrically opposed findings when it came to black Americans. One, that blacks are expected to represent all black people. Two, that blacks are also put under pressure to “act white”.

The same thing has occurred with another study of “African Americans”.On the one hand this study concluded that microaggressions are worse (in the long run) than explicit acts of physical and verbal racism. Such “tacit racism” causes “isolation” and “self-doubt”.On the other hand, microaggresive racism (in the long run) also tends to make black Americans “more resilient”.

Finally, positive comments towards black Americans are often actually... yes, negative comments... in disguise.

But none of this really matters. What does matter is chipping away at“white capitalist society” by “any means necessary”. What matters is “radical change” - endless and unceasing radical change. Revolution.

As I said earlier, microaggressions theory has it that much racism isn't seen as racism. It's also the case that many racists don't see themselves as being racist. Basically, every white person who doesn't endorse these recondite theories simply must be a racist. Indeed, in ultra-extreme anti-racism, even a white middle-class defender of“intersectionality” could be deemed to be (closet) racist.

The thing about microaggressions theory is that real racism may (or is) ignored under the wait of silly artifactual microaggressions. After all, if you cry wolf enough times you'll eventually be ignored. Amitai Etzioni, for example, has claimed that the fixation on microaggressions means that real racism (not theoreticalracism!) is often ignored under the weight of pretend microaggressions (seehere).

An article in The Atlantic also expressed concern that the obsession with microaggressions can actually cause more emotional trauma than the microaggressions themselves (see here).

In addition, most of these microaggressions are so minor that even those who champion the fight against them admit that they “occur at the unconscious level”. In other words, both the instigators and the victims simply don't know that they're taking part in in a tête-à-tête of microaggresion. Still, what does occur remains“denigration”.

It almost sounds like a statement of the obvious to say that an obsession with racism – or with microaggressions – feeds paranoia and thus in the process creates the sickness of over-sensitivity. Thus it's no surprise that City Journal(amongst others) has called the whole show a “farce, and a fad” .

It's crystal clear that microaggression theory feeds off an already infantile sense of victimhood. Moreover, our society – with the help of mollycoddled academics – has become ill with victimhood. So much so that the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has said that to be a fully-fledged victim is to reach the “height of this culture”.

So no wonder there's so much noise coming from the propagators and the supposed victims of microaggression.

Friday, 9 October 2015

A Short History of Leftist Violence


Writing in the 1960s, Peter Berger (a Jewish refugee and 'peace activist' from Austria) became involved in a Leftist demo in the United States. He said that

"observing radicals in action, I was repeatedly reminded of the storm troopers that marched through my childhood in Europe".

It wasn’t just these Leftist marches that reminded him of the Nazis, he also said that Leftism (in the 1960s) formed a "constellation that strikingly resembles the common core of Italian and German fascism".

And even in terms of argumentation and rhetoric, the red and brown fascists seemed to merge into one another. Berger wrote:

"There is a near identity between the arguments of [Leftists]…. And Mussolini’s polemics for action against theory, against program."

The 1960s

The Nazi Brown Shirts and the Italian fascist squadristi (of the 1920s and early 1930s) were a bunch of street thugs who liked nothing better than a scrap. They also liked terrorising what they called the ‘bourgeoisie’ by breaking their windows and beating them up. Large chunks of the Left did similar things in the 1960s and 1970s.

Take the Weathermen.

TheWeathermen had their own‘Days of Rage’; which were on par with what Brown Shirts did in the 1920s and early 1930s.

When the Weathermen violently disrupted the 1968 Democratic National Convention their motto was: "Enough talk, more action!"

A man named Mark Rudd (part of the Students for a Democratic Society [SDS] at Columbia University) also talked about “direct action” and“raising consciousness”.

Mark Rudd was more honest about violence and riots than, say, the Socialist Workers Party is today (after all, this was the revolutionary 1960s). For example, how do you radicaliseyouth? Rudd said that in order to "revolutionise youth", there must have "a series of sharp and dangerous conflicts, life and death conflicts".

Another Students for a Democratic Society spokesman, Rennie Davids, said:

"Don’t vote… join us in the streets of America… Build a National Liberation Front for America."

You see, terrorism is just as much a tool of the Revolution as anti-racism, demos and loud-hailers. So it shouldn’t be a surprise to learn that from September 1969 to May 1970, the aforementioned Rudd (of the SDS) and his co-progressivescommitted 250 terrorist attacks. That amounted to one bomb every day! In one summer of 1970 there were 20 bombings a week in California alone.

Now take the police, whom a large number of Leftists hate and often want to hurt. (The British Socialist Workers Party sees the police as "an arm of the state".) Rudd said:

"It’s a wonderful feeling to hit a pig. It must be a really wonderful feeling to kill a pig or blow up a building."

Another mate of Rudd, Ted Gold, said that Leftists must "turn New York into Saigon". Now was this out of sympathy for the Vietnamese (or the Vietcong) or simply because the thought of an almighty scrap turned him on? Perhaps it was both. Rudd himself was even more honest when he said:

"You fucking liberals don’t understand what the scene’s about. It’s about power and disruption. The more blood the better."

Britain's own squadristi, Unite Against Fascism (UAF), is also always talks about ‘action’ (or 'mobilisation'). As Mark Rudd said, "organising is just another word for going slow".

Che Guevara

You wonder why students and Leftists love Che Guevara so much. Is it really his politics or the fact that his face makes a saccharine and hip t-shirt?

For a start, Che appeared to be more in love with violence than Revolution. Or was it the case that Revolution was the best way to guarantee him violence and action?

Guevara often wrote about “the enemy”. Guevara himself said that

"hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective and cold-blooded killing machine."

It's also been said that Guevara loved executing the Revolution’s prisoners. For example, while Doing the Revolution in Guatemala, hewrote this to his mother:

"It was all a lot of fun, what with the bombs, speeches and other distractions to break the monotony I was living in."

More powerfully, Guevara's actual motto was: "If in doubt, kill him."

Che Guevara killed so many people in his revolutionary career thatHumberto Fontova said that he was "a combination of Beria[the Stalinist sadist] and Himmler".

Of course Guevara killed far fewer people than Stalin. That's simply because Stalin ran a massive state and empire and therefore had far more political power than Guevara. So God knows how many people Guevara would have killed had he had as much power as Stalin. (The same can be said about Trotsky, etc.)

The Black Panthers

The Black Panthers were violent, anti-Semitic, misogynist, racist, militaristic, etc. Yet white middle-class students - and many others in the US and UK - have always been titillated by them.

This inverted-racist tradition goes back a long time. It shows itself in the love of black violence and the hatred of - and opposition to -“white violence”. As the white philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre put it:

"To shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time."

Malcolm X famously told his fellow blacks to employ "any means necessary" to destroy the “white oppressor”.

What about the Black Panther militarism (resurrected by Public Enemy in the 1980s)? The Black Panthers wore black shirts which included pseudo-fascistic or military ranks and titles. This was, of course, mainly play-acting and peacocking because if the Black Panthers had ever been a real and independent military force, the US military would have destroyed them overnight.

However, because the Black Panthers couldn’t have a conventional war, they settled for robbing banks, killing ‘pigs’ and ‘honkies’,kidnapping judges and children and calling for a separate black state.

Not only was there this Black Panthers fetish for violence, the movement explicitly grew out of fascism.

Marcus Garvey, for example, was the founder of the Back to Africa movement in the first decades of the 20th century. In 1922 he wrote: "We were the first fascists."

Large sections of the Left also adored the Congolese nationalist Patrice Lumumba simply because he was against the US and represented the “black cause”. He was essentially a fascistand a killer.... though a black one! Thus the Left and the United Nations loved him.

This love of what may be called the black exotic (like the love of the brown exotic Muslim today) took on absurd and silly proportions. You often got white middle-class Leftists falling in love with all things black and sometimes even pretending to be black. In the America of the 1960s, for example, you had a white middle-class guy (John Gregory Jacobs) saying:

"We’re against everything that’s 'good and decent' in honky America."

The New Left of this period sincerely believed, and stated, that every white person was born with "skin privilege" – and thus innately (or racially) oppressive and evil. This was pure racism, of course. Though racism against whites is fine and dandy because Marxist theory says so.

This obscene guilt-ridden glorification - thus condescension - of all things black was often worse than that. One Weatherman claimed that"all white babies are pigs". There’s more. When a Weatherwoman saw a ‘honky’ breast-feeing her baby, she yelled: "You have no right to have that pig male baby." Then this psychotic Weatherwoman advised the white woman to "put [the baby] in the garbage".


Everyone knows that the German National Socialists (Nazis) glorified irrationalism and had a profound political commitment to violence. So now we've seen how these two positionsbegan to be replicated (by International Socialists) from the 1960s onwards.

Both InterNazis and Nazis have also believed in - and used - terrorism to advance their various political ends. It may be no surprise, then, that many (or even most) radical Leftist groups (from SWP-UAF to Respect) have supported terrorism. Nowadays that's mainly in the form of Islamic terrorism; though, in the past, it was in the form of the PLO and various Maoist/Leftist terrorist groups. (National Socialists/fascists also supported various terrorist groups in the period from the 1960s to the 1980s.)

Consequently, the most dangerous mistake a person can make is to associate violence and genocidal Leftism exclusively with Stalinism, Maoism and the Khmer Rouge. It's clear that most of the things which characterised Stalinism – particularly - also characterise contemporary Trotskyist and other “progressive” movements. Indeed, in certain respects, even more so!

Cambodian victims of the Leftist Khmer Rouge.

Note)Much of the factual detail for this piece (specifically about the situation in the United States) was discovered in Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism.

Wednesday, 16 September 2015

Unite Against Fascism's Statement on the Conservative Party


By Weyhayman Bennett, Martini Smiff, Dave Spart, Sir Alex Theodore Callinicos, Lord Charles Nicolas Kimber and other members of the UAF-SWP Dance Collective


We campaign against the Conservative Party because…

THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY IS A RACIST PARTY, particularly targeting Muslims, blacks and the poor with its unfair, racialist and discriminatory immigration and benefits policies. This is a party which has only allowed a paltry two million immigrants into the UK since 2010!

What better proof or racism and bigotry could there be?

The Tories have attempted to stir up Muslimophobia, racistoids and hatred with their bigoted patriotic speeches and asylum policies. They want to divide our communities: the poor from the even-poorer, Muslims from the dirty kuffar, black from the white, and red from brown-types.

They claim to oppose ‘extremism’ but Tory supporters have been filmed saying nasty things about Islam and immigrants.

For example, one member (from far-right Rotherham) said that “Muhammed wasn't that nice”. Another Naziracistfascistbigot said:

Does Islam really mean 'peace'? Really? Are you pulling my leg or something? So does that mean that the Pope is a Protestant and Weyhayman Bennett is the Lord of Hackney and Tower Hamlets?”

The Tories are also contributing – with their (neo)neoliberal policies– to a climatechange of fear, hate and fear; as well as to a climate of bigotry, hate and fear.

THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY IS RIDDLED WITH FASCISTS.It has had close connections to the National Front going back to the 1560s. In the 1930s it was very closely connected to the German Internationalist Socialist Workers Party (which was, of course, led by Eddie Elizabeth Hitler). Between the 1960s and 1980s, the ultra-fascist Monday Club (which once included our very own Teddy Taylor) was essentially a Tory club. And there were its connections with neo-racist and very-white Rhodesians. David Cameron himself once walked on the same side of the street as Nick Griffin and Mother Theresa May once refused to wear a black dress. Cameron and Osborne also went to the same public school as someone who knew the second cousin of Nick Griffin's pet dog. (We have evidence of this from the SWP's Callinicos and Kimber – who went to the same public school.)

Many more former members of the BNP, the Internationalist Front and the League of Saint Corbett have also been active in the Conservative Party.

Conservative supporters have also frequently been photographed giving Eddie Hitler’s ‘sieg heil’ salute, being critical of Lenny Henry's superlative comedy and refusing to buy delicious halal meat.

THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY IS VIOLENT in its support of endless capitalist wars and the incarceration of Muslim freedom fighters in the torture chambers and concentration camps of Guantanomo Bay - a place in which literally millions of Muslims have been murdered and tortured.

The Tory Party's core supporters are members public-school gangs who've joined forces to form a Capitalist Class to rob poor Leftist professors, social workers and lawyers and give it to the Far-Right Rich.

THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY IS A DANGER TO US ALL. It started by targeting the poor. Now it targets Muslims, immigrants and Marxist professors. It's increasingly aiming its neo-neoliberal violence and neo-fascism at other traditional targets of the Further Right: trade-onionists, anti-aunties, and anti-cuts protestors; as well as at nice Muslim people and black-types. All with the manufacturing of consent that's daily carried out by the Daily Mail and Rotherham Advertiser.

Conservative Party leader ‘David Cameron’ has issued vocal threats to university students protesting about having to pay tuition fees in order to become members of the Leftist Elite.

THE CONSERVATIVE LIES when it claims it has the support of minority groups such as Hindus, Sikhs and Marxists. Its attempts to recruit from these groups have failed miserably and any who do join the Tory Party are Uncle Toms with clinical-diagnosed False Consciousness.

Moderate Muslim organisations (such as al-Qaeda, the MCB and Hezbollah) have all spoken out publicly to condemn the Conservative Party's Muslimophobia and anti-immigration policies.

THE TORIES ARE TRYING TO CREATE A CAPITALIST DICTATORSHIP to terrorise ethnic-minority communities and Marxist professors... as well as the poor.

In the end, Unite Against Fascism believes that the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is the only party which can be trusted. Capitalism and democracy have always caused racism, war and poorness. Thus we call for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat under the rule of Sir Alex Theodore Callinicos, Lord Charles Nicolas Kimber and Weyhayman Bennett.

UAF also calls for a broadening of the “no platform” policy into a Universal Gulag Policy in which all Nazifascistracistbigotswill be used as forced labour to feed the tens of millions of immigrants we would then allow into this country.

Embrace Diversity.

Make your Community Cohesive.

And Viva la violent Revolución!

Thursday, 5 March 2015

Russell Brand: Revolutionary, Prophet & Prettyboy


The thing is, it doesn’t really matter what Russell Brand says about politics or about anything else.

As with pop music, his fame and notoriety rest almost entirely on the fact that a lot of young people (of both sexes) find him attractive; as well as stylish and hip. (Some older people may do so too.) In other words, he’s today’s version of the Che Guevara t-shirt. I don’t mean that he’s today’s version of Che Guevara. No way: Guevara was an intelligent and ruthless killer. Russell Brand is only today’s version of the Che Guevara t-shirt. In fact he’s all t-shirt.

Think of it this way: how big would Russell Brand’s (as well as Che Guevara’s) fan-base be if he looked like Ed Miliband and had the body of Eric Pickles?

Brand History

Russell Brand makes a lot of his working-class credentials and claims that the reified Establishment is against him because of his “roots”.

He conveniently forgets that many members of the working-class have made into the Establishment; if not in very large numbers. Indeed they have even made it into the leading parts of the Conservative and Labour parties.

In any case, a lot of folks within Russell Brand’s capital-'E' Establishment – whether lawyers, rights/race activists, members of the Church of England, journalists, civil servants and even members of the Conservative Party – actually believe many of the things he believes and also endorse and support many of his hip causes.

So when Brand talks about the Establishment, he must only be talking about those small sections of it which have the audacity not to uphold his own profound theories about the necessity of a Hip Revolution.

The other thing is that Brand isn’t particularly working-class anyway. And, no, I don’t have a complete least of necessary and sufficient conditions for what it is to be working class. “Class politics”only concerns me when people (disingenuously) grandstand their own working-class credentials in order to sell themselves politically.

And like the leaders of the SWP, Ed Miliband, Leftist lawyers and many public-school boys in rock music, Russell Brand may be affecting (or simply exaggerating) a Mockney/Estuary English accent (“Parklife!”)in order to do so. (Though Brand is from Grays; which he – rather that others – often classes as a“working-class area”.)

What Russell Brand appears to be doing is conflating being working-class with being from a dysfunctional background.

Brand’s parents split up when he was six months old. After that his father –who was a professional photographer –took his teenage son to use prostitutes. By the age of 16, however, Brand had attended Grays Media Arts School, the Italia Conti Academy and a boarding school.

None of that seems particularly working-class; though, as I said, his background (on his own account) is clearly dysfunctional.

The Revolution

What drives Russell Brand’s recent conversion to The Revolution are the same three things which have always driven him: narcissism, hedonism and exhibitionism.

Of course I’m not being original when I call him a narcissist and an exhibitionist because countless other commentators have also done so. (Strangely enough, he’s also said the same about himself; if not in those precise words.)

Despite saying that, what has particularly annoyed me about the Russell Brand Phenomenon is the amount of Leftist commentators and journalists who– having once classed him in the very same negative ways I’ve done – suddenly changed their minds about him. And they did so as soon as it became clear to them that he had thoroughly embraced The Revolution. Then he was no longer seen –by these same hypocritical Leftists – as a narcissist, exhibitionist and a hedonist.

(This is especially true of certain Guardian journalists. Then again, literally anyone– whether that be Muslim misogynists, Islamic terrorists and Islamists – who can advance progressisocialism in any way whatsoever is fair game for Guardian patronisation.)

Russell Brand is now, apparently, someone who“articulates the voice of youth” (do they all have the same voice?); who “speaks truth to power” (what a cliché!); as well as someone who’ll “reignite the people’s passion for politics”.

So when did Russell Brand convert to politics or, more specifically, to The Revolution?

Was it after or before he did transcendental meditation for a day (or Buddhism for a week)? He’s very much like Madonna in that, like her, he’s had almost weekly fashionable attachments to all sorts of different political and religious arcana. (Even Beyoncé, in her latest video, is Doing The Revolution; if dressed in a miniskirt and a niqab face-mask – so deep man!)

I suppose it can be said that Russell Brand converted to politics roundabout 2009; though, at that time, in extremely peripheral ways. (E.g., as a typical mindless political fashionista Brand simply had to embrace the Palestinian cause; which is now as obligatory – for callow political hipsters – as the Che Guevara t-shirt.) This isn’t to say he didn’t mention politics in passing before 2009: sure he (probably) did. However, his commitment to Total Revolution dates later than that: it basically began in 2013, when he was 38.

Indeed even in his last book of 2010, Booky Wook 2, there are virtually no political references. There are some tangential references to political issues; though it’s all in very much in passing.

So what about Russell Brand’s Revolution?

In his own words:

My relentless pontificating on revolution and a new social order came in for a lot of deserved abuse.”

As I said, Russell Brand is – or was – an exhibitionist and narcissist who got bored after twenty years of flagrant hedonism and then – when heading towards middle age –realised that he had to find another market (or niche). And that market is The Revolution.

That’s not strange at all.

The Revolution has always been marketed. Large parts of the hippie (post-1966) and punk (post-1976) movements, for example, succumbed to capitalism within a year. And, more contemporaneously, capitalism has even gained controlled of sizeable elements of the anthropogenic-global-warming show.


The thing about Russell Brand is that he doesn’t hide his vanity and narcissism – at least he didn’t before his conversion to The Revolution.

What we have here is a 39 year who saying the things you’d expect to hear from 20-year-old (student) member of the SWP.

Basically, Russell Brand has had his fun. Hedonism and flagrant exhibitionism must have begun to bore him a little. Thus he thought that The Revolution would titillate him a little instead. Thus Brand is a little like the party girl who suddenly realises she no longer has the looks to party and therefore chooses to become a sanctimonious prude instead.

A lot of narcissistic and hedonistic pop and film starts have converted to politics in their thirties or later. I presume it’s when they too have become bored with partying. The thing about these beings is that they may become bored with politics too if something else comes along to titillate them (e.g., Islam or something).

Since Russell Brand himself says that he “was born to be famous”,perhaps we should take him at his word and see his commitment to The Revolution as yet another means to further himself. Indeed since he has said that everything he did he did because he“really wanted recognition”, then perhaps his commitment to The Revolution is another way of securing that recognition.

In any case, his YouTube loyalty to The Revolution has no doubt taken him out of that “penitentiary of anonymity” he has fought so hard against all his life.

And just as touring, being on chat shows, etc. secured him sex (they were, according to Brand himself, proxies for his “biological drive”), so The Revolution may be doing exactly the same thing.

Sima Kotecha (BBC) proves that Islam is "a religion of peace"


The BBC really should try harder.

Think about it.

The BBC uses a Islamophile journalist (who nearly always writes on Muslim-related issues) to do a piece on whether or not Islam is a religion of peace. Indeed her articles and broadcasts are very sympathetic to both Islam and Muslims.

And guess what Sima Kotecha discovered. Yes, that's right: she discovered that Islam truly is “a religion of peace and love”. Well I never!

Would the BBC have used a member of the the BNP to do a report on whether or not BNP supporters are “racist” or “fascist”? Of course it wouldn't!

On the issues of Islam and Muslims, the BBC doesn't even attempt to hide its bias. In fact the BBC (as a whole or editorially) simply takes it for granted that Islam is the religion of peace... and love. Thus it also believes that all Muslim terrorists, bombers, killers, etc.“distort”/“misinterpret” Islam (or whatever soundbite is available at the time).

Now isn't that an interesting use of the word 'reprisal'? The political activist and writer for the Guardian, Salma Yaqoob, also called the London train and bus bombings of 2005 “reprisal attacks”. (They killed 52 people and injured 700 more.) Clearly, many - or even most - Muslims deem each and every act of Islamic violence to either be “defensive” or to be a reprisal/revenge for some non-Muslim misdeed or other.

What's more, Sima Kotecha has done this kind of thing before. Another article - called Niqabs vs. the West – also comments on a Kotecha piece of positive spin on a different - seemingly negative - poll taken of Muslim attitudes.

And here's a further taster of the kind of subjects Sima Kotecha likes to cover.

Inthis Internet link she can be found protesting about the imprisonment of (Muslim Brotherhood?) journalists in Egypt, writing about Gaza, Iraq, the Islamisation of British schools and so on. In addition there is Kotecha's report for the Today programme called 'British Muslims react to Charlie Hebdo attack'. The writings of Sima Kotecha are also featured here in the website Islamist Watch. She's also been a reporter in Afghanistan and interviewed members of al-Qaeda.

Islam is a Religion of Peace & Love

Sima Kotecha informs us that Islam is a religion of peace and love - not violence”.

Later, Kotecha quotes a Bradford College student (one of her many student interviewees), a Musmil Afik, who also informs us that “Islam is about peace, love and harmony”.

Should a BBC reporter - even if a Muslim - really be coming out with such general statements? Surely this is the kind of thing you'd expect from a college wannabe journalist. (Sima Kotecha is 35.)

Over and above the mindless generality of what Sima Kotecha says, the survey itself shows us that many Muslims don't actually believe that Islam “is a religion of peace and love” at all. They believe it's a religion, to use Kotecha's word, of “violence”.

The poll, for example, tells us that 33 out of a 100 Muslims surveyed believe that violence against what Muslims call “blasphemers” is justified. It also tells us that “27% of the 1,000 Muslims polled by ComRes said they had some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks”. The survey also claims that “11% feel sympathy for people who want to fight against western interests”.

Yet in Sima Kotecha's “analysis” (the BBC's term) of the poll, she manages to ignore all this. Instead she offers us the official line on Islam. In other words, she doesn't interview or question any Bradfordian members of George Galloway's Respect party, militant imams, Islamist students or any supporters of Islamic terrorism.

The Poll Itself

The poll itself was carried out between 26 January and 20 February 2015.

One question which needs to be asked is: What is the relation between theCorporate Reputation (ComRes) organisation (which carried out the poll) and the BBC?

What is clear is that Kotecha's summary moves way beyond the results of the ComRes poll.

Kotecha seems to have only interviewed students in her report. This is strange since this isn't from a BBC news piece for young people.

Anyway, we're told by the BBC that “[o]ne thousand Muslims were polled as part of our survey”. The BBC also says that this “number statistically representative of the population of close to three million Muslims in Britain”. (It doesn't tell us why the poll is“statistically representative”.)

Only 1000 Muslims were questioned. That small number of Muslims might have been selected to provoke the kind of responses the BBC and ComRes hoped to hear. (That is certainly true of Sima Kotecha's own interviews; if not the poll itself.) Indeed, as I said, it seems that most of the respondents were students and young people.

What we're not told is the precise wording of all the questions which Bradford's Muslims were asked. That is a very important question when it comes to questionnaires and surveys like this. The ComRes organisation itself doesn't tell us what the questions were (as can be seen in this link). However, it does tell us what its 'methodology' was at the time:

ComRes interviewed 1,000 Muslims living in Britain aged 18+ by telephone between 26th January and 20th February.”

It also sells it sells itself as “the leading research consultancy specialising in Corporate Reputation, Public Policy and Communications”.

Damned Stats
The BBC's Sima Kotecha & Mishal Husain protesting about the imprisonment of Egyptian (Muslim Brotherhood?) journalists.

As everyone knows, there are “lies, damn lies and statistics”.

Stats can be used to sell almost any political position or stance. This poll - or at least Sima Kotecha's summary of it - is a classic case.

Almost every cited stat in this survey seems to be designed to put British Muslims in a positive light.

For example, the survey tells us that 93% of the Muslims questioned “feel a loyalty to Britain”. What the hell does that mean? (It's so vague.) What, exactly, was the question that elicited that response?

Of course this all depends on which aspects of Britain Muslims feel loyal too.

For example, I bet that Muslims do indeed feel very “loyal” to Britain's extreme tolerance of all Muslim behaviour. Are they loyal to the “diversity” that is Islam (as Muz Khan, on Kotecha's Twitter page, puts it)?

Note also the phrasing of this statement:

Muslim clerics who preach that violence against the West can be justified are out of touch with mainstream [Muslim] opinion - 49% [of Muslims] agree.”

That could just as easily have been written this way:

Muslim clerics who preach that violence against the West can be justified are out of touch with mainstream opinion – 51% of Muslims disagree.
That is effectively exactly the same statement; though it gives a very different impression.

Now note the phrasing of this statement:

ComRes poll for BBC said that two-thirds of respondents said acts of violence against those who published such images could never be justified.”

That means that one of of every three Muslims surveyed (not one out of all Muslims in the UK) believes that violence is justified against blasphemers.

The thing is, I don't think that the BBC and Sima Kotecha have really thought through the consequences of their own statistics.

Let's agree that the Muslims surveyed are “representative of the known [Muslim] population” (as ComRes puts it).

That means that two Muslims in six and three Muslims in nine believe in violence against blasphemers. Put that another way: 33 of the 100 Muslims surveyed by the BBC believe that violence is justified against people who publish anti-Islamic images.

That would mean that if that percentage were applied to 10,000 British Muslims (rather than ComRes's 1000), there would be 3,300 Muslim extremists amongst them.

So now let's jump to 100,000 Muslims. In this case there would be 33,333 Muslim extremists amongst 100,000 Muslims.

That's a very large number of Muslims who believe in Islamic violence.

And this reasoning can also be applied to the “27% of the 1,000 Muslims polled by ComRes said they had some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks”; as well as to the “11% feel sympathy for people who want to fight against western interests”. Again, this is only 27% and 11% of 1000 Muslims – not of all British Muslims.

Think of the possible equivalent case of 33 out of 100 white British people believing that violence against blacks and Asians (simply because of the colour of their skin) is justified; or 27% of Ukip supporters sympathising with the actions of Anders Breivik.

Russell Brand on Jihadi John


Russell Brand - just like all the other Leftist whores of Islam - is providing us with further rationalisations for what Jihadi John did. Then again, “revolutionary socialists” provide rationalisations for what all Islamic killers and terrorists are doing (as well as for what they've already done in the past): no matter how bad their crimes are.

As ex-SWP super-whore John Rees (Stop the War Coalition, the People's Assembly, Iran's Press TV, Counterfire, etc.) also knows: Muslims have been the best tools in the revolutionary toolkit since gays, women and the working class. (All of whom have failed in their duties to the middle-class university-based Left.)

And, of course, Leftists like Russell Brand never mention that perfect elephant in the room: Islam.

Russell Brand is now offering us some more of those recent psychoanalytic/psychological reasons for why Jihad John did what he did. Still, it makes a change from the usual Marxist socioeconomic cop-outs.

Yet if Islamic jihadists and killers can have their crimes explained away with psychotherapy/psychology, then so too can all criminals and killers. Indeed all those who commit misdeeds of any kind can have their deeds explained away.

So would Russell Brand like to do the same for what he calls “Tony Blair's crimes”?Perhaps Mr Blair was bullied as a child.

What about “corporate bosses” – they may do what they do for reasons of psychology or childhood trauma.

What about Nazifascistbigots!? Is Russell Brand going to explain their views and actions away and stop foaming at the mouth when he mentions them?

Of course he isn't!

Russell Brand and Leftists generally choose their targets very carefully.

Muslims kill because of MI5 “bullying”, or racism, or unemployment, or past colonialism, or the price of bread, etc.

Capitalists exploit”, "racists kill", “neo-cons wage war”, etc. because they're evil : not because they were bullied, because they were once poor, etc. (Manichean Leftists, of course, rarely use the word“evil”.)

Russell Brand also uses the word “alienation” in relation to Jihadi John.

Alienation”is a standard Leftist word too. (More correctly, it's Marxist.) Yes, it's yet another Leftist theory-based cliché.

When you become a revolutionary socialist (as Mrs Brand did a couple of weeks ago), then you simply must use terms like “alienation”; as well as “Zionist”, “neoliberal”, “corporate bosses”, etc. Though that should only be after you've bought the compulsory Che Guevara t-shirt; which is almost as de rigueur as being against Israel.

And just Brand doesn't use psychoanalytic rationales for bankers' behaviour, or the behaviour and beliefs of Tony Blair or Cameron, so he would never say that bankers, Tony Blair/Cameron, "corporate bosses", etc. suffer from “alienation”. Again, Russell Brand isn't really doing psychoanalysis or psychotherapy at all – he's doing politics.

You see, at the end of the day, the only thing that matters to juvenile Leftists like Russell Brand (who's 39/40) is blaming the West (or “capitalist states”) and completely excusing jihadists, Muslim terrorists, etc. In other words, it's all about furthering the Revolution (it's Brand who uses the platonic capital, not me): it's not really about what is the case.

Russell Brand, basically, believes he's “lying for Justice”. I simply can't believe that even such a politically feckless person as Brand can genuinely believe this stuff about Jihadi John. Or at least not without also applying the very same reasoning to every killer, criminal and (as I said) “greedy banker” and “corporate boss”.

Russell Brand is being politically hip. People should never underestimate how important hipness (in this case, political hipness) will be to a vain, narcissistic (politically) shallow person like Mr Brand.

Russell Brand is also a perfect member of the Leftist "tribe of independent minds". That Leftist Tribe whose members all dress the same, read the same books, use the same soundbites/jargon and tend to mention Chomsky, "Zionism" and "neoliberalism" in every other sentence.

*) See my American Thinker piece on Russell Brand: 'Russell Brand: Revolutionary, Prophet & Prettyboy'.