For Democratic Internationalism

Recently while surfing the Twittersphere I came across an incredibly moronic tweet by the everlasting twit that is Mark Ames, who likes to make alot of noise about "Russophobia" that is supposedly rampant in the media. Though I have occasionally retweeted him as he does produce the odd good tweet.

You really have to wonder in amazement, and a slight tinge of disgust, at the implication Ames and his co-'thinkers' are trying to push here. The implication is obviously that to have criticisms of the increasing authoritarianism of the Maduro regime in Venezuela and to refuse to ignore and throw under the buse the victims of Baathist totalitarianism in Syria is to be a neoconservative (I know, makes no sense either).

Supporting popular revolutions against tyrants was practically Leftism 101. Now, according to some, this position makes you a 'neocon', even if you are against Western intervention and, in the case of Venezuela, criticise opportunistic, power craving rightist forces you're still a 'neocon'. How can Mark Ames (and others, Ames wasn't the only one) with a straight face and a clear conscience chuck buckets of slime at those who have temerity to hold an opinion that does not step in line completely with stultifying orthodoxy?
 
Seriously, if a leftist can't support, or at the very least engage with, democratic revolutions worldwide then what is there to being a leftist? I do not consider any ideology that is not interested in supporting democratic movements worldwide as 'left'. Nor could I call anything 'left' that is provincialist, not internationalist, that believes in 'socialism at home but fascism and counter-revolution abroad'. Democracy is the soul of socialism, without it it means nothing. Which is why the struggle for socialism should always be married with the struggle for democracy.

During the war on terror, there were a number of leftists in the argument with the neoconservatives and their liberal interventionist fellow travellers like Michael Ignatieff, Christopher Hitchens and David Aaronovitch who argued that instead of invading other countries to 'export democracy', we should support and encourage grassroots pro-democracy movements within these societies who will eventually emancipate themselves. As Frantz Fanon once explained when writing about political education, there is no such thing as a "grand liberator", the people liberate themselves:

"To educate the masses politically does not mean, cannot mean making a political speech. What it means is to try, relentlessly and passionately, to teach the masses that everything depends on them; that if we stagnate it is their responsibility, and that if we go forward it is due to them too, that there is no such thing as a hero that will save them with his magic hands, that there is no famous man who will take the responsibility for everything, but that the hero is the people themselves and the magic hands are finally only the hands of the people."

This was basically what Tariq Ali said to Christopher Hitchens when they debated the war in Afghanistan in 2002. Noam Chomsky also argued this position:

"If we want to overthrow the regime of Uzebekistan, now a great favourite, but it happens to be not very different to the Taliban, the way to do it would not be to bomb Uzbekistan, but to support internal democratic forces and let them do it. And that generalises around the world"

I completely agree with this. This should be the left's response to neoconservatives and the liberal hawks. The idea that the United States is an 'Empire of Liberty' has always struck me as oxymoronic nonsense. It should be axiomatic that liberty and imperialism cannot co-exist, given the long history of blood stained dictatorships America has sponsored and, in a few instances, directly imposed upon free peoples.

Problem is when a popular revolution actually did happen in Syria as part of the Arab Spring, both Chomsky and Ali after some ambivalent support, engaged in relativising Assad's atrocities and those of his sponsors, Russia and Iran; churning out a simplistic and false narrative that puts the blame for the conflict on the United States for pursuing an aggressive "regime change" policy a la Iraq. Even going as far, in the case of Ali, as defaming the revolution's advocates as "Al-Qaeda supporters", even when they support unarmed groups like the White Helmets. That I guess the real difference between us is not whether we acknowledge the existence of these movements, but whether we truly value them or not.

I have grown extremely irritated to the point of tedium at this false dichotomy that has developed on the Left where you are either against Western crimes but apologise for any tyrannical regime that so happens to be anti-Western in the name of a morally vaccuous "anti-imperialism". Or you rightfully condemn the crimes of these regimes but relativise, and in some cases support, the crimes of the Western powers simply because 'we' committed them not the other guy. These two positions are untenable for anyone who cares about socialist internationalism or a genuine anti-imperialism that is based on solidarity with people struggling for emancipation not protecting oppressive states.

We should refuse the nasty distinction of 'worthy' and 'unworthy' victims based on who is the one holding the whip over them. We should be against both the Western sponsored Saudi bombings in Yemen and Russia's bombings in Syria. We should simultaneously support the overthrow of Assad in Syria and support the overthrow of the Western backed Sisi dictatorship in Egypt. We should call for the ouster of the regressive and barbaric Wahabbi theocracy of Saudi Arabia and the no less regressive and barbaric Shia theocracy of Iran.

One can strive to arrive at this morally consistent internationalism without becoming a 'cruise missile liberal' or a 'state department socialist'. If criticising the authoritarianism and the complete abjectness of Maduro, and if expressing solidarity with the popular forces hanging on for their lives in Syria, against the double counter-revolutions of Russia and Iran and Al-Qaeda and ISIS,  makes me a neoconservative (which is laughable) then so be it. I would rather be called a name I don't like than compromise my principles. And you should either.

Damn! They're onto us.

On the Importance of Voting

On this Thursday, 8th of June 2017, millions of people will be going to polling stations throughout the United Kingdom in order to cast their vote in the upcoming election. The British people will deciding who their next prime minister will be, choosing between Theresa May of the Conservative party or Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn, a decision that will have a drastic influence over the future of our country. It will affect all our lives, and in a post-Brexit world, will ultimately determine the United Kingdom's place in the world.

The opportunity we as citizens have to vote in this election should not be underestimated or dismissed as irrelevant, not only because of the power each of us holds -however small it actually is- in our own hands, but because the right to vote is a value that we should all hold dear. We should'nt forget that back in the 18th century, only a tiny minority of people were allowed to vote. That minority was, of course, made up of wealthy, propertied, white protestant males who thought that only they should have the right to decide the future of their country. A dictatorship of the rich and the privileged you might say.

We should also take a moment to remember that there are still many of our brothers and sisters all around the world who are denied the right to vote or whose votes are abused and degraded in rigged and fradulent elections. Even though universal suffrage is a key element of our democracy, we are still incredibly lucky to have it. In countries like Syria, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Eritrea and Zimbabwe, where human rights are absolutely negated, people do not have this right and virtually have no say, no control over how their own society is run.

For many people throughout the world, the idea that a genuinely free and fair election would take place, and the government would peacefully give up power to the opposition if they lost, seems like an idealistic dream. However, flawed our bourgeoise form of democracy is, however limited it is, however rusty its institutions are, however much we want to enhance it, improve it and deepen it -which we should continue to demand. We all have to admit that that we, in the UK, and in other free nations, are among the lucky few in this world that are living this dream of democracy.

But we shouldn’t just feel fortunate that we have this right to democratically choose our governments. We should also feel grateful. I’m not saying we should be thanking the establishment or worshipping  the monarchy for granting us this right to vote. After all, the right of universal suffrage was not given to the citizens of the UK out of good will or kindness from our benevolent and 'enlightened' masters. It was fought for and taken from them. As Fredrick Douglass once put it, "Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will".

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/frederickd134371.html

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/frederickd134371.html

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/frederickd134371.html

We should remember those who struggled so that we could go to the polling stations on Thursday. We should remember Thomas Paine, one of my heroes and one of the great revolutionaries in history, whose book The Rights of Man called for an expansion of suffrage beyond wealthy elites. We should feel grateful to the 11 martyrs killed at the Peterloo Massacre of 1819, amongst them the great radical speaker and champion of working class emancipation Henry Hunt, attacked by local yeomanry for campaigning for their right to vote.

Then there are the Chartists, the 19th Century radical working class campaigners for parliamentary reform. Their six-point programme included demands for universal suffrage and voting by secret ballot - both of which we really do take for granted. All of these revolutionaries struggled to give us what we have today, and we should commemorate their struggle by casting our votes on June 8th.

But these groups were only the beginning of this battle. When we vote, we must also feel indebted to the feminist movement and their legendary exemplars such as suffragettes like Emily Davison, Annie Kenney, Emmeline Pankhurst, Sylvia Pankhurst, Sophia Duleep Singh and many others. They suffered persecution, imprisonment, defamation and abuse so that women could have equal voting rights to men.

It is thanks to the sacrifices of these radicals and revolutionaries that we have the right to vote and many other liberties that mak us a free people living in a free society.

I perfectly recognise that the bourgeoise, representative democracy we live under is limited and not as I would like it in an ideal world. It is basically, as Noam Chomsky would put it, a "ratification process", where both sides offer you, the voter, their positions -often with little difference between them- and you ratify them at the voting booth depending on which position you want. This is a limited form of democracy. Still a democracy nontheless. A more radical and meaningful form of democracy would be that I, and of course everyone else, would play some role in forming and creating these positions that affect our lives. And power isn't concerntrated in the hands of a distant and self-interested elite but is devolved amongst the people.

Anyways, that, I suppose, demonstrates the importance of voting. Not just because we are voting in an incredibly important election that will shape our futures, but because we are lucky that we can vote at all. It hasn’t always been this way. We haven’t always had this precious democratic right. So, when we put our slips in the ballot box on Thursday, whatever our gender, ethnicity, skin colour, religion, class, we should remember those who gave their lives so that every one of us could have this right.

When the election arrives, I urge you to go to the ballot box and vote. If you feel alienated and disenfranchised from politics, I don’t blame you, it often feels like you have a choice between tweedle dum and tweedle dumber. Alot of things are rotten in British politics and desperately need radical reform. But I would still advise you to vote in this election as it would be the start of your political engagement and you will find out that small differences within a power system can have relatively significant consequences and one cannot be completely neutral about this, even for those of us who ultimately seek to create a more radical alternative.

I would also advise you to try your best to become politically engaged, increase your democratic consciousness and become more actively engaged. It may seem pointless, but it ensures you won’t be dismissed as entirely apathetic.

Turning out to vote on Thursday is the least we can do for all those who struggled for the rights we enjoy today.

The One Thing I Agree With The Iron Lady On

As a leftist, it is virtually an article of faith to axiomatically hate and despise Margaret Thatcher, for good reason I would wager.

She was the Godmother of what we now call neoliberalism, an economic doctrine that has wreaked much havoc across the world, especially in the global south. She smashed the workers and trade union movement in Britain. She was very friendly with dictators like Augusto Pinochet, Zia Ul-Haq and Suharto. In addition, she was an ally of Saddam Hussein, an admirer of the Saudi royal family and very soft on the apartheid regime in South Africa. And is responsible for so many other iniquities.

Her acolytes and supporters repeatedly described her, in the totally vacuous and fawning tributes and obituaries in the aftermath of her death in 2013, as a "fearless champion of freedom, democracy and rule of law" when she was anything but the opposite. If I had things my way she would've been described as a champion of despotism and tyranny and an enemy of liberty and democracy.

Anyways, enough of my vitriol. I'll save that for another day to get it out of my system.

Despite my criticisms of her, there is one issue where the 'Iron Lady' and I would see eye to eye, somewhat: The Falklands War.

The reason why I feel the Falklands war, and more importantly the defeat of Galtieri, was on balance a good thing was because of its biggest collateral benefit, which was, the utter embarrassment and discrediting of Galtieri's murderous, fascist junta, and its eventual overthrow.

It was also a bloody nose for the United States, who were uncomfortably made to choose between their British allies or their Argentine junta clients. What many people don't know is far from standing side by side with Britain all the way, Reagan pleaded with Thatcher not to completely retake the islands which would lead to "Argentine humiliation" and tried to produce a compromise between Argentina and Britain, as recent revelations have subsequently revealed. It was only when it was clear that Britain had the upper hand that the US gave firm support to Britain.

The neo-fascist regime of Galtieri and his junta was a favourite of the Reagan administration and the neoconservative apologists like Jeanne Kirkpatrick who viewed the regime as a "bulwark against Communism" in Latin America. Presumably because the "Majestic General's" death squads would stamp out any movement that was not in total subordination to American interests in South America (like the democratic socialist government of Salvador Allende inconveniently elected in Chile in 1970). Moreover, the junta also helped to train and arm the CIA backed homicidal Contra mercenaries in its war against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

During the reign of the Argentine Junta, as part of its "Dirty war", (a policy green lighted by the then US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger- why he is still on the outside is beyond me!) anyone who fit the bill of a "subversive" which included leftists, trade unionists, intellectuals, students and journalists simply "disappeared" and was never seen or heard of again.

Any tin pot dictatorship can throw a dissident in jail, and censor their publications because they dislike their opinion, but it is often the most appalling and filthy totalitarian regimes that just make people "disappear". It has that psychological effect of sending a warning to an already terrorised population that if they fall out of line then they or their loved one will be next.

"Los desparecidos" was the name given to an estimated 30,000 people who met this unfortunate fate. Calling them "the disappeared" gives you the impression that there was an air of mystery as to what happened to them. The reality is that most were horrifically tortured, sexually violated, and then murdered.

If you read Jacobo Timerman's, Prisoner Without a Name, about what this hideous regime did to prisoners (especially female ones) in the notorious torture centre of the Navy Petty-Officers School of Mechanics, you will encounter horrific accounts that will curl your hair:

"The entire affective world, constructed over the years with utmost

difficulty, collapses with a kick in the father's genitals, a smack on

the mother's face, an obscene insult to the sister, or the sexual vio-

lation of a daughter. Suddenly an entire culture based on familial

love, devotion, the capacity for mutual sacrifice collapses. Nothing

is possible in such a universe, and that is precisely what torturers

know...From my cell, I'd hear the whispered voices of children

trying to learn what was happening to their parents, and I'd witness

the efforts of daughters to win over a guard, to arouse a feeling of

tenderness in him, to incite hope of some lovely future relationship

between them in order to learn what was happening to her mother,

to get an orange sent to her, to get permission for her to go

to the bathroom."

This was the reality that the people of Falklands Islands woke up to in May 1982, and would eventually have had to face. It simply could not be allowed that an anti-Semitic, fascist dictatorship run by professional murderers, rapists and torturers could invade an island it had no right to, and trample on the right to self-determination of the inhabitants; it had to be expelled.

Now, in having this opinion, I am to a certain degree in a minority amongst the left- not that I mind that much.

Some on the left, out of a very synthetic and dogmatic pseudo-"anti-imperialism", not merely opposed Thatcher's war to retake the Falklands (that's one thing) but sided with the Galtieri junta. It is so bizarre to me that some of them were delighted that the 'Malvinas' had been 'liberated' from British imperialism when it was clearly the case that the Argentine junta were the ones acting like imperialists and were the naked aggressors.

However, it must be said that most of the left certainly did not like Galtieri because of its suppression of leftists and trade unions and the support it received from the United States, but opposed the war mainly because of discomfort at the flag waving, bloodthirsty, "Argie bashing" jingoism and the ridiculous "Rule Britannia" imperial nostalgia that surrounded that war.  And the belief that Mrs. Thatcher would manipulate this reservoir of patriotism to boost her popularity for the 1983 election.

I can understand the aversion to aggressive British chauvinism, especially when it veered in to xenophobia. I don't like it either. The infantile, puerile nonsense makes me want to puke out food that I've forgotten ever eating.

 The infamous headline from The Sun

 after the controversial sinking of the Belgrano

Nonetheless, despite all this, and despite the fact it helped Thatcher get re-elected I think the war was a good thing, not because of "British pride" but because it’s collateral effect meant the downfall of the fascist junta and the re-establishment of Argentinian democracy.

Because of my internationalism, my love of liberty and a fundamental and visceral antipathy towards tyranny of any sort (especially Fascist tyranny), I simply cannot regret the defeat of Galtieri at the hands of Thatcher or delude myself into thinking the end of the regime was insignificant because it might be a convenient point of credit for Mrs. Thatcher. In my view, a free and democratic Argentina, emancipated from the dark days of fascist oppression and tyranny is the greater good to come out of this whole episode.

There is a very simple principle at stake with the Falklands/Malvinas question: the right to self-determination of the people who live there. If they wish to remain British, which clearly they do, then that is what their status should be. If they still of a sudden want to be part of Argentina or wish to do what the Americans did in 1776 and declare independence from Britain then I would support that right too. But the fact of matter, as the 2013 referendum demonstrated quite clearly, the islanders wish to remain British. So, this is a non-issue for me, and the Argentines are simply punching air.

Hopefully at some point this question that derives from a petty 19th century imperial quarrel will be buried once and for all.

Notes on Manchester Attacks

I don't mean to disappoint you but I don't really have alot to say on the Manchester attacks because I would just be repeating myself, and you would find that boring. Nonetheless, I somewhat feel compelled to write something on this bloodbath, so I will really try not to seem like I am repeating myself or recycle talking points I have used in response to past tragedies.

I feel sorrow for those whose lives were taken, those who were maimed and injured, and those who are looking for their loved ones among the missing, and sadly those feeling the pain and loss of losing a loved one. I cannot even begin to imagine what those poor people are going through right now. We musn't forget that on the recieving end of these atrocities, every time, are living and breathing human beings and wrecked families. I have nothing but complete and unconditional solidarity with the city of Manchester, and my fellow compatriots who have been affected by this tragedy.

 The Burj Khalifa in Dubai in solidarity with Manchester

My emotions are surging full of rage at the evil commited by the depraved savages responsible for this heartless murder of innocents. This wasn't an attack on the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime ministers. It wasn't even directed at armies or police forces. It was aimed at ordinary people. It targeted children, harmless, powerless, innocent children. Religious fascists don't bomb children going to an Arian Grande pop concert because they have a grievance over this or that imperialist crime on "Muslim lands". They do so because they are wicked, lawless, evil and motivated by an ideology that is based on sadism, hatred, dehumanisation, cruelty and absolutism. An ideology that not only denies, but negates any sense of morality, humanity, civilisation and virtue.

As shocking as this is, it should not be surprising. The moral universe of a Jihadist has no issues with decimating children in cold blood. For example massacaring children in a school in Peshawar, Pakistan or firing a bullet (though failed to kill) into Malala Yousufzai's head because she demanded an education. I can go on and give you inummerable examples of these kinds of atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Nigeria etc. They will not hesistate to murder 'their' own children. What made you think they would not be doing the exact same thing to ours? The life of a child has no value to these nihilists.

Saffie Rose Rousse, one of the named victims. 

She was 8 years old. Just 8 years old!

My heart is breaking.

A beautiful little girl decimated by bloody ugly monsters

We cannot prevent every terrorist attack. No matter how sophisticated the national security system, no matter how hard the intelligence service works, even if we turned our society into a totalitarian police state (which I would be strongly against), we still wouldn't prevent every attack. Some attacks are just going to fall through the cracks.

What we can control is our reaction. React we must, but the issue is in what type of reaction we will give. Just as Malcolm X said the racist will never be his teacher, we also must not allow theocratic fascists to be the teachers of free and civilised peoples. We must firmly state that we will not give in to the logic of terror.

We must resist that niggling temptation to sink into the politics of fear and the politics of suspicion, because once we go down that road we will end up in the desolate state of the authoritarian police state to whom we will surrender our hard won liberties to in the hope that they can gurantee us permanent security. Once we arrive at this sordid destination, then we will neither have security or liberty. All we will have is a society paralysed by fear, polarised communities, a broken social fabric and a state with a great amount of power that it will inevitably abuse and use arbitrarily.

How not to respond to terrorism 101

 
Unfortunately, the usual suspects have, as usual, exploited this tragedy to spread their tendentious agenda. While the people of Manchester stand united, give free taxi rides, donate blood, open their doors to strangers and make general messages of love and solidarity - the people we should really be talking about. Others call for a "final solution" and stir up racial and sectarian hatred.

This is language of fascism and effectively an incitement to genocide. She should face serious moral accountability and really ought to retract this disgusting statement. Part of our reaction must include not allowing this kind of toxic anti-Muslim demagoguery to be pervasive.

Now, we are right to be angry, to be filled with rage, even, to be filled with hate. Often in our public discourse hate is often seen as a bad thing - for good reason most of the time- and how we should focus on love - again often for good reason. But I would say that in order to know what you love, you must know what you hate (and the vice versa applies too) and there is justification in this instance for hate, at least for me, because it is directed at those who deserve it and based on a desire for justice, not directed to those who are innocent or based on revenge or a desire to persecute and demonise others.

I hate the fact that twenty two of our fellow citizens - many of them children- were murdered, I hate the savage who did it, I hate those who will apologise for it, and I hate the filthy, murderous ideology that underpins such barbarism. I want to destroy that ideology and the groups that fight under its banner. Not only destroy it, but obliterate it, extinguish it, and systematically and absolutely disgrace and discredit it. Compromise with this kind of absolutism is unthinkable and not possible. There is nothing to negotiate, I seek its complete destruction. Jihadism and its various terror surrogates must be opposed, resisted and fought wherever they are, and the resistance should only be criticised when it falters or waivers in its opposition to these reactionary forces.

What we have to realise is there is no quick solution to this problem. We cannot ignore it or explain it away with silly turgid masochistic talking points or benign but ultimately hollow statements of 'all we need is love'. Nor can we pretend that we can simply bomb, shoot, torture, legalise and "close our borders" our way out of this. What is required is a very strong and resilient political, social and ideological struggle against this form of Islamic absolutism, alongside those resisting it on the frontlines in other countries, aswell as our own (this has nothing with the 'clash of civilisations' bullshit or Eurabia alarmism), based on international solidarity above all else. But it must be rooted in a different kind of politics.

We need a politics that is unapologetic in defending what these nihilists are out to destroy; the joys of life and our 'infidel liberties'. A politics that seeks to unite people from different communities towards a common goal. A politics that neither rushes to blame the other, nor attempts to explain away evil through moral relativism or victim blaming. A politics that sees the moral outrage in terror, but also understands the need to analyse the political and social context in which terror thrives. A politics that takes religion and ideology seriously but doesn't engage in collective blame, nor calls for the persecution or authoritarian measures against the other. A politics that acknowledges that there are many stupid and immoral ways of engaging in this struggle, that are rooted in chauvanism, hatred and irrational demonology, but understands that there is no principled or intelligent way of being against this struggle. A politics that will call on all of our principles, all of our intelligence and all of our solidarity and internationalism.

In short, a very difficult politics, but a principled and intelligent one.

Notes on Westminister Attack

Tragedy strikes Europe.

Yesterday afternoon, on the anniversary of the Brussels attacks from last year, London was on the end of a terrorist assault. According to the BBC, Three people have died and at least 40 have been injured after an attacker drove a car along a pavement in Westminster, stabbed a policeman and was shot dead by police in the grounds of Parliament.

The dead police officer - who was unarmed as the attacker charged over and stabbed him - is known as PC Keith Palmer, aged 48, a husband and a father. His former colleague in the Royal Artillery and Conservative MP James Cleverly, paid tribute to him by describing him as a "lovely man".

Another victim has been named as 43 year old, mother of two and Spanish language teacher, Aysha Frade. Aysha was mowed down by a the grey Hyundai 4x4 as she walked over Westminster Bridge to collect her two daughters, aged 8 and 11.

The third victim was American tourist Kurt Cochran, who was on the final day holiday with his wife celebrating their 25th wedding anniversary when he was killed.

At least 40 people are known to have been injured. Among them twelve Britons, four South Koreans, three French youngsters on a school trip, two Romanians, two Greeks, one German, one Polish national, one Irish citizen, one American citizen, one Chinese and one Italian.

This attack was an act of Islamist terrorism, ISIS recently claimed responsibility, praising the attacker - a British born jihadist named Khalid Masood- as a "soldier of the Islamic state". However, it remains to be seen whether the attack was directed by ISIS , or inspired by them. It seems more likely that it was the latter, not the former.

As usual, after every one of these tragedies, we subject ourselves to the same rituals we always go through. It really is tiring and immensely frustrating to see one side act as if there is no problem, or if they do they severely simplify and misdiagnose the problem, while the other side will exploit what is a legitimate issue in order to spread bigotry, hatred and unneccessary, irrational fear.

I write this first and foremost as a human being, who has a sense of empathy, compassion and solidarity with my fellow creatures. In the aftermath of every terrorist attack, All of my thoughts and condolences are with the victims and their families, before anything else. They are the ones whose lives have been taken from them, unable to ever embrace their parents, wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, children and friends again.

Just imagine being the children of Aysha Frade, eagerly waiting for their mother at school, looking forward to going home to spend time with the family, only to realise that someone had taken her life. Imagine being the wife of PC Palmer, who everyday says goodbye to her husband as he goes off to work always expecting he will return home from his shift safely, but this time, on this day, he doesn't.

Nothing is worse than that and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

 Many have described yesterday's assault as an "attack on democracy", or as Theresa May put it, "a shot against our values of ‘democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law". True, this Jihadist  scumbag and his ideological ilk do hate these values and their universality because it is in direct opposition to everything they stand for: one set of values sets the conditions for human flourishing, happiness and emancipation, while the other set can only bring death, misery and enslavement.

However, let us have some perspective. No individual, no matter how well armed they are, no matter how determined, no matter how committed he is to his cause, can overthrow democracy or enslave a free people. These hard won rights and liberties that previous generations have struggled for are too robust, too vigarous, too steeped in the consciousness of all generations, to be overthrown by a twisted zealot with a weaponised vehicle, a knife, and a perverse belief in a reward of 72 virgins in a celestial orgy for killing 'the kuffar'.

The only way the terrorist would have any impact on democracy and freedom is if we give him an enourmous helping hand. It will be our response as a society to this act of barbarity that will decide whether democracy is under attack or not.

You can rest assured vile bigots and Muslimaphobic chauvanists who desire to stigmatise and demonise an entire community, are talking this attack up as an act of war, the latest blow by an Islamic army slowly, stealthily conquering Europe. These merchants of racism from the far-right have no other purpose but to spread irrational fear and hatred. They claimed Britain was "cowed" by the crime and London was "shut down" and under "lockdown" as a result of the attack. This is of course a total falsehood, London carried on as normal and people were not cowed and went about their business as usual. All these people desire is the power to subjugate and stigmatise muslims, and they seek to undermine the idea that peoples of different faiths can coexist with each other and build a society.

Meanwhile those often labelled "the regressive left" will indulge themselves in a toxic mix of victim blaming, masochism and a self hatred before the blood of the victims is even allowed to dry, desperately peddling 'grievance' and 'root cause' narratives of how 'we' brought this horror on ourselves; of how these are the deserved punishements for our numerous crimes and iniquities; of why we somehow triggered this poor guy to slam a car into a pedestrians and slit a man's throat.

I have said it before and I will say it again: do not give me this crap that jihadist atrocities are a response (or shall we say 'blowback') to western imperialism.  ISIS are not anti-imperialists, or some strange Islamic version of liberation theology. They are pro-imperialism, they seek to revive a lost empire: their imagined caliphate. This is what their Islamic state project is all about, imposing a purritanical, theocratic fascist empire, first in the muslim world, then across the whole world. Obviously, this project is so utopian and so irrational that it could never be fully established, but let us be clear on their intentions and the character of their ideology.

In response to these two pathologies, we cannot surrender ourselves to the culture of fear and the politics of suspicion because it will potentially lead to us down the barren road of petty authoritarianism, the security state and foul assaults on the liberties which supposedly needed to be defended from the Islamist threat.

While it is understandable and proper that we focus on the tragic nature of this attack and the challenges around other potential attack it provokes. Let us not forget the bravery, heroism and humanity that was on display in the midst of such savagery and the international solidarity and sympathy. We may have seen the worst of humanity, but we also saw the best of it.

Our response to yesterday's assault should be to demand more freedom and democracy, not less. It should be to never allow hatred and fear to colonise our hearts. It should be to remember the victims, their memory and humanise them, as opposed to the manner the terrorist dehumanised them. Ultimately, it is to do everything within our power to make sure that while this bloody, savage act may have succeeded in impacting awfully on scores of innocent people, it will have no impact on our values, our political life, our daily lives, and our sense of security.

This, of course, on its own won't solve the challenges the global threat we all face from the Jihadist internationale, but it is neccessary step to even begin dealing with the challenge. We must resist terrorism not complete it.


 .

Beware of Linda Sarsour

'Brooklyn hijabi' and alleged feminist Linda Sarsour was a co-organiser and leader of the notorious Women's March on Saturday, described as one of the biggest protests in American history.

She recieved alot of criticism afterwards which was described as "Islamophobic" or "right wing" across many media sites that reported on it.

I will concede that some of the blowback she experienced on social media was unpleasant and indeed motivated by bigotry and racism. I condemn this obviously and view it as tragic, as it diverts attention from very legitimate criticisms of her hypocrisy and faux-feminism.

However, the reason she is on the end of legitimate criticism is not because she is Muslim. It's because she is an apologist for oppressive Islamist fundamentalism and an identity politics poser, which many media sites failed to mention. There is an immense, and rather sick irony for someone who minimizes the oppression of her 'fellow Muslim sisters' to lead a Women's March to defend the gains of feminism against Donald Trump.

You don't believe me? Well, let us look at some of her previous tweets.

Her basic message is "Don't worry! Women being barred from driving isn't a big deal because they get 10 weeks of paid maternity leave, while women in America don't have the benefit of paid maternity leave".

The hardships of women in Saudi Arabia goes far beyond them not being allowed to drive. It's to do with a state, a legal system and even a culture that doesn't treat them as human beings of equal worth. That views motherhood and domestic surbordination as the only thing that is worthy of a woman. So yeah, it's not a coincedence that Saudi women are compensated with a sort of generous maternity leave.

In this tweet she attempts to downplay the issue of forced veiling in Saudi Arabia. Of course, veiling is not THE issue for Saudi women, but it certainly is AN issue. The issue is the fundamental right of women to choose what they wish to wear, not for the nanny state acting in the name of Allah ordering women what to wear. As a "feminist" how does she fail to see this very simple principle?

This is a such a doltish and dishonest tweet. She appeals to women in high positions in the Muslim world (all of them women of privilege by the way, to use a word butchered by her and her ilk) as though it somehow alliveates the conditions of the average Muslim woman.

The same moronic logic is used by those who say because Barack Obama was president of the United States therefore America is "post-racial". I know she doesn't accept this logic in regards to race relations in America- in fact she poses as a defender of black lives and black bodies to gain ebonic points- but she will use this logic in regards to gender relations in Muslim majority countries.

Never mind honor violence; never mind the injustices rape victims are subjected to by shariah courts; never mind all the discrimination and repression of women. But, of course, women in high places, therefore "what's this whole sexism issue Islamophobes bang on about?"

"Shariah law is reasonable". Really? Does she not realise that in countries that adopt shariah apostates and homosexuals are executed; women alleged to have committed adultery are stoned to death; women who could not gather the testimony of four "pious" witnessess neccessary for a rape conviction are at risk of being stoned to death and religious minorities are repressed. Of course, all that matters to Linda is interest free loans. The experiences of those who have to endure the injustice of actual existing shariah is barely a concern to her.

Romanticism for shariah is an easy position to hold when you don't live under it and have to experience its full consequences.

If her Shariah apologism wasn't bad enough for you. You then have self-proclaimed Liberal personalities and celebraties defending her as a symbol of decency, tolerance and compassion, against her critics. Who by definition are 'haters', 'trolls and 'bigots'. A lame and abject hashtag #IMarchWithLinda was started to express their solidarity.

When was the last time Naomi Klein said anything intelligent?

Further praise and support came from New York State Senator Gustavo Rivera condemned “online trolls” attacking Sarsour.

NY Daily News columnist Shaun King described Sarsour as "one of the most effective, skilled, passionate organisers in the world". At least the white ally showed up.

Even Bernie participated in this orgy of adulation. I like Bernie and I wished he was the Presidential candidate instead of Hilary Clinton. But he is plain wrong on this one. As demonstrated previously, Linda is not a progressive. I am pretty sure they are tweeting their support for Linda out of ignorance of Linda's less than progressive stances on Saudi Arabia and shariah- or at least I hope so. So I will not condemn Bernie and the others too harshly.

From their point of view they see a poor hijabi activist, who superficially agrees with their progressive program, getting a hard time from 'bigots' and 'haters' with their 'gendered Islamophobia', naturally they spring to the defence of the percieved victim. Still, they ought to know better.

I, however, cannot respect the SPLC's (an organisation I have respect for) tweet of solidarity with Linda. Not after they unfairly put secular liberal Muslim Maajid Nawaz and liberal ex Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali on their nonsensical Islamophobe watch list (hit list more like).

I have problems with both Ayaan Hirisi Ali and Maajid Nawaz and don't agree with everything they say. But I would definetly have them over the charlatan Linda Sarsour. Any day of the week, it's not even a contest. Those two are far more deserving of the SPLC's support than this merchant in victim politics. It's saddening to see the SPLC regress like this.

Linda Sarsour is the product of this primitive and solipsistic identity politics that has permeated American politics for the past couple of decades. It has allowed her, with her pseudo radical bluster, to impose herself as the representative of American Muslim women (especially young ones) and for mainstream liberals to take her seriously.

What is most worrying was not Linda herself, necessarily, but the uncritical praise and support she recieved from squishy progressives.

It is worrying because it gives credence to this toxic, quasi-orientalist idea that in order to be seen as an 'authentic' Muslim and an ally of progressives, liberals and radicals, you have to be a faux-militant, Malcolm X wannabe, rabble rousing 'unapologetic' hijabi.

If you deviate slightly from this construction - like a Muslim woman who has the daring idea of not wearing the hijab and is a consistent advocate of human rights- then mainstream progressives and Hollywood liberals will not take you seriously, or even notice you, since you are not 'Muslim' enough for them.

Linda does not represent Palestinian women or Arab women or Muslim women, nor should she be regarded as such. She is a poser; a showboat run amock, dying for the camera. And worse, someone who attempts to minimize the oppression of women and the marginalised in Muslim majority countries. Pointing out her hypocrisy is not 'right wing', 'Islamophobic' or 'fake news', its actually being consistently progressive.

I don't take her seriously and I hope, comrades, you don't either.