In all, I am not a plantation-slave chained to a master in the big house. Nor am I to be equated with one of his house-boys. This metaphor will not hold inspection. Nor is any master I have directly or indirectly to be identified with a particular religious and ethnic sort – the Jews. What gives someone mastery over me and others is, finally, not about factors of birth or faith. Furthermore, where such relations between me and others exist, these do not actually especially threaten any other free relations I have with other people.

I might well agree with some of the thoughts about religion and politics made by writers and thinkers that are generally understood to be socially conservative and economically libertarian. I would and do reject exactly the addiction of these thinkers’ to social conservatism and vandalism of the state’s role in helping to moderate economic relations between people. I think they are wrong in such matters – but what they write about Islamism, religion and its relationships with the political is often right. I am free to come and go, more or less.

every time you guys are at your shindigs with your far-right, neo-con Masters

cites a myth of master-slave relations; and that the former are actively deploying the latter as pawns in some titanic (but oddly, not immediately observable) struggle against other equally well formed opponents themselves engaged in slave rebellion against the masters’ provisions and instructions.

Both traditional radical leftism and most of what is foundational to all Abrahamic religions – share this theme of liberation from oppression as central, foundational myths and have actively used these in their political activity. Both Lenin and Mawdudi actively promoted effectively the same values – our party (and only our party) will liberate you from the conditions of oppression. Where Trotsky and Qutb differ is simply their core constituencies – for Trotsky these are the workers without regard to faith, nationality, gender or other permutation. For Qutb, it is a set of people, selected by religious faith (Islam) without regard to social class.

Whatever its variation, though, what is epically delusional about this shared myth of the liberation of the target forces from oppression is that in practice (when the Islamists and leftists get over themselves), it is very difficult to actually show reasonable examples of the uniform oppression of “the many” by “the few” that might validate the leftist/Islamist myths about oppression and liberation. Yes, it is possible to identify oppressive and coercive moments in the relationships of people – but there are also moments of consent and cooperation of equals in human affairs.; and the latter relations are not actually existentially under threat from the former, as the leftist/Islamist ideological nexus would want.

Islamists would want to contest this, but it was Fred Engels – a communist – who best encapsulates what is so horrendously lame in their world view. Marx safely dead, Engels set to work “popularising” and establishing his simplified Marxism as the theoretical vehicle for subsequent leftist radical ideologies. One of the popularisms encouraged by Engels was an appallingly clanky meta-historical narrative of “forces” at struggle and the eventual victory of the oppressed over the forces of their oppression. Of course, simple inspection of historical reality puts the mockers on this Engels’ -derived flight-of- fancy as ideological- imperative.

Prehistoric economics as a useful work means evidence-heavy analyses of the economies of extremely ancient societies. All the evidence points to extremely mixed economic and social relations as the norm. Engels posited these societies as primitive communist societies – and yet the evidence is very light for this thesis. There are relations of oppression at work and relations of cooperation in evidence – in fact, just like now: Humanity has not lost a Paradise to which it will somehow return – as much as humanity does not recognise the Garden is – as it has ever been – simply all that surrounds us then, now and in the future.

As I have already written, even where one might show specific cases of oppressive social or economic relations, these do not stop or even remarkably eliminate or impede other relationships of equity and liberty between people as co-operative beings… and vice versa – being free, at liberty does not mean there are fewer cases of being unfree, without liberty. As the former USSR spectacularly demonstrated with an alarming irony, “fighting oppression” means, in practice, horrendous oppression of others… and all supposedly “in the name of” the oppressed!

Remarkably, people not seized by Islamisms’/leftisms’ delusional grand, mythic, narratives tend to seem their lives and those of others as a mix of moments of coercion and consent – and these people are not wrong. Further, critically, these people do not see themselves or others as the bearers and victims of some sort of titanic, existential, life-and-death struggle for the soul of humanity ongoing between good and bad, light and dark, masters and slaves. Engels-inspired Marxists and G!d-bothering Islamists would beg to differ – but then they would, wouldn’t they?

And what’s this about the neo-con-ery of our alleged masters – who are these people? Islamists identify a small, well-cohered social group as the promoters of what they have learned from their Marxist predecessors should be called “neo-conservatism”. What “neo-conservatism” is – and what it means – are questions conveniently neglected by both Marxists and latterly Islamists.

Whatever it is, argues Islamism, we know what we mean by it – we are going to use it to point to a vile myth in which all that is wrong and oppressive in this world is the work and fault of Jews; and neo-conservatism is the justification for all this wrong being done, allegedly, written by Jews, for the benefit of Jews.

Islamism constantly wants to equate the hatred of a religious group (Muslims) by others with acts of racism. But hatred of a religion is not necessarily hatred of a religious person’s ethnic or national identity. But it might be, as Islamism definitely demonstrates: its hatred of the Jews is racist precisely because the nature of Judaism is itself always both ethnic and religious. Islamism bemoans anti-Muslim hatred and – in the same breath – racially abuses an entire people and offers nothing but intolerance of their faith.

I see the self-loathing Islamist nutters have woken up.

Trust me, there’s no “freedom of thought” there! One thing makes me happy; every time you guys are at your shindigs with your far-right, neo-con Masters you must feel a tinge of sadness every time they whisper amongst themselves, away from your earshot. Are they calling you the “field slave” we all know you are!!! hahahah, gosh must be quite lonely toiling in the “cotton fields” in order to be accepted by knowing the Masters never will. Tragic

What a rag-tag assortment though…some bloke from Babyshambles, a guy who is essentially famous for heckling, and thingy-who-used-to-be-in-a-band-with-that-dude-from-the-Arctic Monkeys*.

* True fact: McClure admitted in an interview with the NME in August 2006 that he only named his second band, ’1984′, as it was one of the only books he’d ever heard of. Spectacular.

It’s utterly repulsive that the Islamists, communists and their fellow travellers who make up the British ‘Kafa’ should seek to steal the memory of this Egyptian group by adopting the same name. The Egyptian group sought to end tyranny and dictatorship: the British group is composed of individuals who willingly, knowingly and repeatedly turn a blind eye to Islamist fascism. Indeed, some members of ‘Kafa’ not only turn a blind eye to such fascist groups but actively endorse, praise and promote them.