"It was educational to hear Robinson position himself as for non-violence, for anti-racism, anti-homophobia. Even if you think his actions might belie that positioning, the act of endorsement is something." Not sure it is much if it's not what he actually believes though. Racists claiming non-racist positions are just trying to convince more people they're reasonable. He may or may not be, but endorsing these positions, dunno, not much value?
this is one of the things I fact checked. Here's wikipedia; The EDL "distinguished itself from Britain's traditional far-right by rejecting biological racism, antisemitism, and homophobia." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Defence_League
So while I agree that it might not be of much value - and indeed all of our specific declarations need to be judged in the context of our overall actions - I still maintain it is of some value. I'd rather everyone rejected racism, including racists, than not everyone did
You are right to say that the battle against right-wing extremism is to a considerable extent about values (real and claimed). Might I try to supply some ammunition ?
Even Robinson's claimed values are based on classifying people, not as individuals but as members of groups. This misses out the two most important things about people - our common humanity and our individuality. Group identification may be all right when people like Robinson tell you that your group is safe in their hands, but they cannot be trusted, and I believe this can be explained to people.
let me say a bit more about that - I agree that trust is key, and the untrustworthiness of Robinson could be better explained, but a key issue is that for many people Robinson appeals because he seems like he is on their side, understands their situation and voices their concerns. The lack of trust in the alternatives (establishment politicians, who may appear bloodless, distant and cosmopolitan) is also key
You might want to take a look at how brilliantly he handles this interview with a rather ignorant, ill-prepared and typically full of prejudice French journalist.
Help me better understand your perspective. Is there an Islamic takeover of the UK, or is it a conspiracy theory? Have you looked into the matter, or do you avoid it?
Well I live in the UK, so that gives me some perspective. When I hear people in the US talk about an Islamic takeover of the UK they seem embarrassingly out of touch. There are ethnic tensions and other issues, but the idea of an Islamic takeover is completely absurd.
And what about those who live in the UK but don’t share your view? Can you fairly represent their arguments and demographic data that suggest Islam will become a significant political force in the UK in the near future? Are you aware of the goals of the Muslim elite in the UK? Have you seen videos where they clearly state their intentions? Or do you simply echo the college professor’s opinion that all cultures are equal and can peacefully coexist?
What I find enraging is how much the gatekeepers are failing us. By misrepresenting the likes of Robinson they encourage us to underestimate them. They also create a sort of sympathy for him when, contrary to what you have been led to expect, you hear someone making reasonable arguments based on common values (of course fact-checking then shows things are not that simple, but how many of us do that systematically?) It also makes everything else you hear from the gatekeepers much less believable.
You've made your view very clear. I don't believe cultures, or the people in them, are homogeneous, nor unchanging, nor unchangable, and I believe that seeing things through a "clash of cultures" lens generates conflict more than diagnoses it.
The issue isn’t a clash of cultures; it’s the deliberate Islamization and colonization of the West. I don’t make this up. The Muslim elite state it clearly. Please listen to the Muslim leaders and believe them. Don’t dismiss the true meaning of their words. Here is an example:
What nonsense. I am not going to quibble about the fact that cultural conflicts exist and that some Muslim crazies want to subject the galaxy to Allah. Obviously these things exist. What you totally fail to establish however is how they would validate your conspiracy theory of a Muslim takeover of the West. There is actually absolutely no proof of that and additionally it demonstrates a lack of belief in the strength of Western culture and values that I personally find sad bordering on the treacherous.
The “Some Muslim crazies” you’ve just dismissed are actually representatives of the Muslim elite. The rest of the Muslim population lacks a voice; they follow their leaders. History has shown us that a small, well-organized group can overthrow governments and take control of entire countries. Islam has demonstrated this many times as a well-organized colonizer ideology. Please listen to what they say, observe their actions, and reconsider your view in light of this.
"It was educational to hear Robinson position himself as for non-violence, for anti-racism, anti-homophobia. Even if you think his actions might belie that positioning, the act of endorsement is something." Not sure it is much if it's not what he actually believes though. Racists claiming non-racist positions are just trying to convince more people they're reasonable. He may or may not be, but endorsing these positions, dunno, not much value?
this is one of the things I fact checked. Here's wikipedia; The EDL "distinguished itself from Britain's traditional far-right by rejecting biological racism, antisemitism, and homophobia." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Defence_League
So while I agree that it might not be of much value - and indeed all of our specific declarations need to be judged in the context of our overall actions - I still maintain it is of some value. I'd rather everyone rejected racism, including racists, than not everyone did
You are right to say that the battle against right-wing extremism is to a considerable extent about values (real and claimed). Might I try to supply some ammunition ?
Even Robinson's claimed values are based on classifying people, not as individuals but as members of groups. This misses out the two most important things about people - our common humanity and our individuality. Group identification may be all right when people like Robinson tell you that your group is safe in their hands, but they cannot be trusted, and I believe this can be explained to people.
Excellently put. It often comes back to trust
let me say a bit more about that - I agree that trust is key, and the untrustworthiness of Robinson could be better explained, but a key issue is that for many people Robinson appeals because he seems like he is on their side, understands their situation and voices their concerns. The lack of trust in the alternatives (establishment politicians, who may appear bloodless, distant and cosmopolitan) is also key
You might want to take a look at how brilliantly he handles this interview with a rather ignorant, ill-prepared and typically full of prejudice French journalist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iVXZJEiy_0
The limits of fact-checking become clearer by the day. I hope the new BBC director-general takes note.
Help me better understand your perspective. Is there an Islamic takeover of the UK, or is it a conspiracy theory? Have you looked into the matter, or do you avoid it?
Well I live in the UK, so that gives me some perspective. When I hear people in the US talk about an Islamic takeover of the UK they seem embarrassingly out of touch. There are ethnic tensions and other issues, but the idea of an Islamic takeover is completely absurd.
And what about those who live in the UK but don’t share your view? Can you fairly represent their arguments and demographic data that suggest Islam will become a significant political force in the UK in the near future? Are you aware of the goals of the Muslim elite in the UK? Have you seen videos where they clearly state their intentions? Or do you simply echo the college professor’s opinion that all cultures are equal and can peacefully coexist?
What I find enraging is how much the gatekeepers are failing us. By misrepresenting the likes of Robinson they encourage us to underestimate them. They also create a sort of sympathy for him when, contrary to what you have been led to expect, you hear someone making reasonable arguments based on common values (of course fact-checking then shows things are not that simple, but how many of us do that systematically?) It also makes everything else you hear from the gatekeepers much less believable.
You've made your view very clear. I don't believe cultures, or the people in them, are homogeneous, nor unchanging, nor unchangable, and I believe that seeing things through a "clash of cultures" lens generates conflict more than diagnoses it.
The issue isn’t a clash of cultures; it’s the deliberate Islamization and colonization of the West. I don’t make this up. The Muslim elite state it clearly. Please listen to the Muslim leaders and believe them. Don’t dismiss the true meaning of their words. Here is an example:
https://substack.com/@tlionel/note/c-174800971?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=1wr075
What nonsense. I am not going to quibble about the fact that cultural conflicts exist and that some Muslim crazies want to subject the galaxy to Allah. Obviously these things exist. What you totally fail to establish however is how they would validate your conspiracy theory of a Muslim takeover of the West. There is actually absolutely no proof of that and additionally it demonstrates a lack of belief in the strength of Western culture and values that I personally find sad bordering on the treacherous.
The “Some Muslim crazies” you’ve just dismissed are actually representatives of the Muslim elite. The rest of the Muslim population lacks a voice; they follow their leaders. History has shown us that a small, well-organized group can overthrow governments and take control of entire countries. Islam has demonstrated this many times as a well-organized colonizer ideology. Please listen to what they say, observe their actions, and reconsider your view in light of this.