Wednesday 24 May 2017

A threadbare, worthless ideology

I must say I’m disappointed in Andrew Neil. The right-wing blogosphere seems to regard him as the BBC’s only saving grace, but he has a chequered record. 

He gave Theresa May a thoroughly deserved hard time over the U-turn that she insisted wasn’t a U-turn. Repeatedly claiming that nothing had changed, when it clearly had, didn’t inspire confidence. Insisting black is white is what politicians do, I know, but we deserve better.

I was so looking forward to Andrew Neil eviscerating Jeremy Corbyn equally fiercely, but fate intervened. 

What disappointed me today was his mealy-mouthed exchanges with his guests, Lucy Powell, Hazel Blears and Douglas Murray, and later Adam Deen (Quilliam) and a chap from a counter extremist organisation whose name escapes me. 

Does anyone else remember Hazel Blears from 2009, when she was the Labour Party’s Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government? She was the lone member of the Labour cabinet who went head to head with Daud Abdullah of the Muslim Council of Britain.    He sued her.

At the time she caused a stir by wearing a badge bearing the slogan “rocking the boat”, and then resigning from the cabinet. 

Douglas Murray appeared weary and exasperated, but he’s always good value - and Hazel Blears was looking perky and bright on the Daily Politics Manchester special. 

Andrew Neil was using his cynical style of interrogation. He was probably exhausted, having expended so much energy being fierce and adversarial with Theresa May the other day. 

I realise everyone is determined not to say anything Islamophobic at the moment; each word uttered is carefully measured so as not to blurt out anything specific about Islam. Lucy Powell uttered a lot of words without managing to say anything at all. Then Andrew Neil said ( of Muslims) “I’m not ascribing it to them! I didn’t say Islam, I said Islamist, of course, which is different"

When Douglas Murray and Hazel Blears had a chance to speak, we almost got somewhere. 

Hazel Blears said that Islamist ideology was ‘stupid’, “a threadbare, worthless ideology" and they nearly managed to convey that ISIS does have something to do with Islam, but the message  got lost in the fog of not wishing to paint all Muslims as terrorists. 
Adam Deen got even nearer to stating the bleeding obvious when he said that ISIS does share a strain of thought with Islam, but  as far as I could tell it fell on deaf ears. 

If Andrew Neil isn’t willing or able to grasp this most fundamental truth, I imagine a lot of his supporters will be as disappointed as I am.


  1. The idea that so called Islamist ideology is "stupid" is grossly stupid itself. The term "Islamist" was invented in the West by non-Muslims. It means nothing. Their ideology is the ideology of Islam. The only difference from mainstream Islam is over how to go about restoring the Caliphate.

    Islamic ideology has been around for 1400 years. Something like 2 billion follow it. It will soon be the majority ideology on Planet Earth. It is supplanting other ideologies in Europe.

    Those who underestimate it, will be overwhelmed by it.

  2. Don't underestimate also the fear factor for all these folks. Not just of being labelled racist, not just of not being invited back to the BBC, not just of being sued by Islamic lawyers, but of of course of physical violence. Not just now, but in years to come.

    There's big restrictions on free speech these days. BBC goes along with it.

    1. As we saw with the BBC's "we will report you to your employer" 1984 diktat, the BBC is an enemy of free speech. Remember, it also misuses BBC Trending to create fake public opinion trends, and controls "Have Your Say" so rigidly that it has become "Don't Have You Say Unless You Are a Liberal-Lefty Who Wants to Comment on the Nonsense Topic We Have Chosen".

  3. I don't understand this 'protected minority' approach. As noted above Islam is a major belief system that is being introduced without consultation.
    Most Muslims aren't bombers, (most anyone aren't bombers either), but they provide cover for those that are. They might not attack people who dress 'immodestly', but they will vote for a Muslim mayor who will ban lingerie adverts or insist all food is halal. There won't be any of this 'respect' for Christianity or democracy once they gain political power. The indigenous British only have one homeland yet our national broadcaster denies that we exist and encourages our colonisation while deploring past colonisations.

    1. Never let it be forgotten that the Muslim Mayor in question (Sadiq Khan, a real BBC favourite) actively campaigned against the extradition of Babar Ahmad who subsequently pleaded guilty to a terrorism-related offence.

      I agree that the very existence of the UK as a viable culture is now at risk. The concept of the tipping point is instructive. You only need a bloc of 50 pro Sharia MPs to have a huge effect on our politics (they don't even need to stand as a separate Islamic Democratic Party or whatever - as happens now they can pose as representatives of any party). If at any point the migration doors are opened up things could change very, very quickly. At a critical juncture, we may see a sudden rise in emigration of non-Muslims. You might see 10 million people leave in five years at which point you might be left with a country that is effectively Muslim majoritarian representing perhaps 30% of the population and thereby dominating it. An emigration wave could be accompanied by economic could be game over.

      It doesn't have to happen but that is definitely what we are sleep-walking towards and this government is not doing anything effective to wake us up - quite the reverse, it wants to keep us in our sleeping state.

  4. You'd have to be a hitherto unknown magnitude of stupid not to make the connection between Islam and ISIS (or as it's known on the BBC, the so-called Islamic State), it doesn't need spelling out. Clue's in the name.

    1. So why are people like Mark Easton, Evan Davis, and Jenny Hill so incapable of making the connection? There's blindness, and then there's wilful blindness. Actually to talk of a "connection" is wrong. ISIS is a manifestation of Islam as surely as whirling Dervishes and the absence of Jews living in Saudi Arabia is.

      Anyone who knows anything about this case knows the BBC are playing down the devoutness of Abedi.
      This "what we know" doesn't mention his mosque attendance or devotion to religion.

      It is only when you go into a link that it is mentioned briefly in passing, about 20 paragraphs down, as though it was an incidental factor and not a possible causal factor. Most sensible people in the country will understand this is a very salient factor. If Abedi had distanced himself from Islam would he have undertaken this attack? Answer: No, as certainly as anything is certain in this world.

      Another thing the BBC will not do is examine the huge risks involved in accepting so called "refugees" from the Islamic world,in the light of this and several other cases of terrorism.

    2. My original statement stands. You'd have to be an idiot of epic proportions not to join the dots yourself, ergo I don't need the BBC to tell me (that's not to say they shouldn't, but I don't personally find it that important). If you've seen the coverage and reportage of this whole disgusting episode from the BBC or any other MSM provider, as I'm sure you have, you can't fail to notice what an entertainment event they're making out of this. The same predictable themes over and over again.

      There's a much bigger problem than the BBC or the MSM though, and that's our Government. How, or even why, would you expect acts of terrorism to stop when our own Government has such a cosy relationship with sponsors of such terrorism like Saudi Arabia?

    3. So you're saying the BBC, all Thought for the Day contributors, nearly all its paper reviewers and virtually all Muslim spokespeople (clerics, Warsi, Alibi-Brown etc etc) are idiots of epic proportions? Because they deny the link.

      Typical attempt at deflection at the end there. Our policy re Saudi Arabia is reprehensible but the link between Islam and terrorism pre-dated the emergence of Wahaabiism (as you probably well know) and is sanctioned by other branches of Islam e.g. Iran's Shia regime and various Sufi sects.

    4. "Typical attempt at deflection at the end there". Typical of what? Not sure what I was deflecting.

      Is this like the many Twitter spats where righties accuse lefties (or lefty-liberals) of being responsible for the Manchester attack and/or mocking their words as they favour action? (where action=attacking lefties on Twitter). Harsh words and intellectual sparing on the internet, that'll sort it out.

    5. It's a typical exercise in deflection to point the finger at Saudi Arabia without addressing the threat of Sharia within the UK which is much bigger than the influence of Saudi Arabia.

      I have never favoured spatting on the internet as opposed to real policy discussion.

      We clearly need policies involving closure of Mosques that are harbouring violent Jihadis, closure of most Sharia courts, making it illegal to conspire to promote Sharia law in the UK, deportation/stripping of UK Citizenship of anyone found guilty of terrorism offences and a complete moratorium on immigration by people who adhere to Sharia law.

      Remember, the ECHR declared Sharia to be incompatible with human rights.

    6. Just saw a Muslim woman on QT saying Saudi-funded Mosques should be shut down. That would be a start.

  5. Fake News and false dichotomies...

    The BBC luuuurv false dichotomies...they are so controlling aren't they?

    Recent examples:

    1. In response to the Manchester outrage you can either "unite in a spirit of hope and defiance" or "pursue the politics of hate and division". There is a third option, BBC - you can calmly examined Islam, its scriptures and the motivations of violent Jihadis and construct public policy accordingly, with the accent on halting and challenging the advance of Sharia.

    2. Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit. You can either be a member of the single market and the customs union or you reply on WTO trade terms. Sorry, BBC there are any number of options in between and we will see whether the EU wishes to offer us any.

    3. Trump is a fool or Trump is a fascist. The possibility that he might be a democrat with a lot of natural guile is not allowed.

    4. Trump's team either had contacts with the Russians in which case they are in their pocket or they did not have such contacts. The possibility that they did have contacts (like the Democrats' campaign leader Podesta)but that they are not in the Russians' pocket is not allowed.

    False dichotomies are the Fake Newser's friend.

  6. It was quite extraordinary the way Douglas Murray, who spoke at some length and made some significant points, apart from a few minor interjections, was more or less disregarded by Andrew Neil. It’s almost as if anything outside of the BBC’s standard position isn’t even worth engaging with. Neil may well be thought of in some quarters as the BBC’s saving grace, but having a combative style when it suits him doesn’t make him a good interviewer. Ultimately from any perspective, left or right he is just another self-regarding BBC hack.

    1. Andrew Neil was a globalist before there was globalism. He's probably delivered quite a few lectures at unis in Ryhad, for all I know. Yes, he can be good but he can be useless as with that "poundland Jihadi" mock-Churchillian nonsense.

  7. The Lucy Powell interview is unfortunately all too familiar, and if I could say one thing to her and others in leadership positions it would be - speak with strength! Don't be so timid that you end up saying nothing for fear of offending someone.

    As someone of Indian origin, part of me can't help feel appreciative of Lucy's intentions to be mindful towards others. But not discussing issues doesn't help.

    The recent attacks in Europe are an attack on the very fabric of our society, which is precisely why it touches us so and why we spend so much time on reflection.

    People are justifiably concerned, and politicians, in the leadership position they hold, need to be able to articulate a way forward.

    I don't know what the answer is, necessarily - I'm not sure there's an easy one. It does seem to me that in the West, our answer is more and more surveillance without sufficient power to apprehend - specifically, I'm thinking of cases where suspects have traveled to Syria and returned. As I said, I don't know the answer, but that's why I want to hear the debate.

    1. In my view we need to focus on the ideology that is causing all the trouble - Sharia - not Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, Mormonism, Christianity or Buddhism. We need to examine how it operates and propagates and respond accordingly - controlling promotion of Sharia, Sharia Courts, Sharia Education, and immigration of Sharia followers. Close down Mosques that fail to combat Sharia promotion adn deport terrorists who have more than one nationality (most do).

      Internationally we should build strong contacts with countries like India that are democracies, and stop genuflecting to appallingly corrupt and corrupting regimes like Saudi Arabia.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.