In this edition of the Aidan Project, Aidan discusses a potential hint of progress in the battle against leftist confusion.
The case of Maajid Nawaz and the Southern Poverty Law Centre has been discussed several times previously on the podcast; the case is an important one for the struggle it represents. The SPLC, to the horror of those who support the notion that cultural relativism is the death knell of honest discourse, labelled Nawaz an anti-Muslim extremist in October 2016. Nawaz is suing this organisation for libel. Aidan summarises the case for new listeners and provides an update that demonstrates a glimmer of hope and, tellingly, further demonstrates the fantastic degree to which the SPLC is irrefutably mistaken. Aidan also addresses why the terms ‘leftists’ and ‘liberals’ are unreliable synonyms. Indeed, leftists and liberals are often very different in terms of their outlook. Aidan explains why liberals should care about Nawaz’s case, and why liberals must be proactive in tackling the moral confusion espoused by manic leftists. Aidan also explains legal exceptions to free speech in the United States of America under the First Amendment. Related tweets
So, who is Maajid Nawaz, what is the SPLC, and why does any of this matter?
The Southern Poverty Law Centre describes itself as ‘combating hate, intolerance, and discrimination through education and litigation’. There is no question that the SPLC has been responsible for a number of admirable successes in tackling intolerance, but it has sadly now gone completely off course. The SPLC incomprehensibly included Maajid Nawaz on a list of dangerous extremists in October 2016. Indeed, by adding Nawaz to a list of persons it alleges exploit terrorist attacks to demonize the Islamic faith, the left has struck a new low of inexplicable moral confusion.
Nawaz now operates a counter-radicalization group called Quilliam. Nawaz, a former Islamist, who served a prison sentence in Egypt, speaks with insight about Islam, and makes clear the distinctions between Muslims, Islamists and Jihadists. A distinction all too often confused by the real Islamaphobes, who address all groups as one. Unfortunately, to his enemies on the left, Nawaz – in true regressive fashion – is labelled as Islamophobic, while his opponents on the right infer that he is a secret Islamist on a mission of infiltration. What a sorry state of affairs.
The poverty of progress could not be more pronounced than with this embarrassing own goal by the SPLC. What chance, I ask, does the left have in winning the moral and progressive arguments when its own best assets of informed reason are themselves attacked as extremists?
It is not only the right which has moved to post-truth, the left is at it as well.
There is a quote, often attributed to Winston Churchill, which predicts, “The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists.” Churchill probably did not say this, but the idea certainly has prowess. We all too often see well-meaning organizations come to represent the very behaviours they had set out to destroy. Is Antifa an example of this? There is evident confusion on the left surrounding the name, ‘Antifa’. Antifa is an abbreviation of ‘anti-fascist’ or ‘anti-fascist action’. Unfortunately, there is a branch of leftists who are using the explanation of the name as the only required justification for all the organisation does. In this edition of the podcast, Aidan looks at Antifa and asks, “What’s in a name?” You can tweet the show @TheAidanProject. For further information on other groups discussed on this show, see www.sourcewatch.org.
On July 21, the noted evolutionary biologist and author, Richard Dawkins, was de-platformed by a ‘progressive’ radio station in California because of comments he had previously made about Islam. This decision – powered by the moral confusion that maliciously designates fair criticism of religion as hate speech – is yet another example of the left’s deeply dishonest, nonsensical, virtue-signalling and outlandish apologising whenever Islam is discussed. In this episode, Aidan is joined by Sadia Hameed, spokesperson for the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, for an honest conversation on the challenging issues of appraising Islam, leaving the faith, the media’s obsession with ‘Islamophobia’, the widespread cultural relativism and obscurantism espoused on the left, the conflation of peaceful Muslims and archaic Islamists by the right, and much more, including the de-platforming of Dawkins. This is an important conversation regarding the interactions of the ideas of Islam and the world. For more information on the Council, visit their web site at https://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/.
On June 14, Tim Farron announced his intention to resign as leader of the Liberal Democrats, citing unfair media coverage surrounding his Christian faith. In this podcast, Aidan argues that beliefs matter and that religion does not exempt anyone from reasonable scrutiny. You can tweet Aidan with your thoughts @theaidanproject.
One hundred years ago to the day of this episode’s release, on 6 April 1917, President Woodrow Wilson declared that the US was at war with Germany. This is part two of a two-part series focusing on the role of the United States of America in the Great War of 1914-1918. In part one, Dr. Paul Dean explained the underlying tensions that led to war, the ambitions of the Central Powers and The Entente, and the tragically misplaced belief that it would all be over quickly. Part one concluded on the eve of the momentous Declaration of War on Germany. Part two surveys the path of the war following the US’s official military intervention until the 11 November 1918 Armistice, but also beyond in wider political terms. What were Wilson’s war aims? How did the US military perform? What overall impact did the US have? And what is the legacy of ‘America’s Forgotten War’? All judgements on the merits of the war aside, the events of 1914-1918 must never be forgotten. It appears there is much work to do to raise the Great War’s profile in the US. This is the Aidan Project’s small contribution towards reinvigorating this valuable historical memory. The series’ special guest, Dr. Dean, is a former instructor at, and alumni of, Washington State University, who is an expert on World War One and author of ‘Courage: Roy Blanchard’s Journey in America’s Forgotten War’. For more information on Dr. Dean, please visit his web site at www.paultdean.com.
“Americans on both sides should find a way to address the lethal ideology of Islamism. This standoff is a distraction.”
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
9 February 2017
I have provided this companion piece to put to writing one of the most surreal examples of the Regressive Left‘s insatiable desire for self-strangulation and to address what I will simply call ‘bad ideas’. Enter the Southern Poverty Law Centre, an organisation which incomprehensibly included Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali on a list of dangerous extremists in October 2016.
The SPLC describes itself as ‘combating hate, intolerance, and discrimination through education and litigation’. There is no question that the SPLC has been responsible for a number of admirable successes in tackling intolerance, but it has now gone completely off course. Indeed, by adding Nawaz and Ali to a list of persons it alleges exploit terrorist attacks to demonize the Islamic faith, the left has struck a new low of inexplicable moral confusion.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a heroic icon of would-be Islamic Enlightenment. Fleeing an arranged marriage and the confines of a strict Islamic upbringing, Ali found asylum in the Netherlands, where she embraced liberal, democratic values. Ali, who admits in her book that in her indoctrinated youth she supported the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie, is now a brave campaigner for Islamic reform. A dangerous job, which she tackles with immense courage and intelligence.
Maajid Nawaz now operates a counter-radicalization group called Quilliam. Nawaz, a former Islamist himself, speaks with insight about Islam, and makes clear the distinctions between Muslims, Islamists and Jihadists. A distinction all too often confused by the real Islamaphobes, who address all groups as one. Unfortunately, to his enemies on the left, Nawaz is – in true regressive fashion – labelled as Islamophobic, while his opponents on the right infer that he is a secret Islamist on a mission of infiltration. What a sorry state of affairs.
The SPLC would certainly go on my list of regressive liberal organisations which have completely lost the plot. The poverty of progress could not be more pronounced than with this embarrassing own goal by the SPLC. What chance, I ask, does the left have in winning the moral and progressive argument when its own best assets of informed reason are themselves attacked as extremists? It is not only the right which have moved to post-truth, the left is at it as well.
The wider debate continues, and whilst the left argues with itself about Islam, immigration, healthcare, the economy – and anything else worth debating – there is only one winner, and it is not the left. To be sure, the left has always been at war with itself, but I simply do not believe it needs to be this way. We just need some honesty. Real honesty. Perhaps even uncomfortable honesty. We urgently need to have difficult conversations that do not confuse the true essence of liberal democracy. Bad ideas must be challenged by good ones. And there are some really bad ideas out there.
Perhaps, even with the left totally confused and impotent, Trump would still have won, and Brexit would still have happened. However, at least with a sensible, honest left, there would be a united opposition to Trump’s bigotry. As it happens, large sections of the left are willing to defend bigotry and misogyny, as long, of course, if it is done in the name of good-old-fashioned religion. But there is no such tolerance for the President. Would Trump’s infamous “grab ’em by the pussy” utterance be okay if it was merely the sincere expression of a deeply held belief based on his closely observed religious faith? Is this not ever so slightly patronising and hypocritical to condemn Trump but let the zealots off from their nonsense because of their supernatural beliefs? Let us be clear: neither Trump nor the devout should get a pass for bad ideas. It is quite proper to expect more from all members of society. There is nothing more regressive than letting bad ideas slide for fear of causing offence. You should never have to apologise for bad ideas.
We must be able to say honestly, in the 21st century, that desiring to throw homosexuals off buildings for the “crime” of their sexuality is wrong, regardless of religious belief. I am not an Islamaphobe for saying that. If you are willing to defend the right of any religion to hold such pernicious views then you are part of the problem. If you want honest debate and want to help challenge the nonsense of the Regressive Left, please do share my message. Please also support Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz.