How David Mitchell and Richard Dawkins are wrong about the EU referendum

On Sunday 29th of March 2016 the Guardian published an article by the actor/commedian David Mitchell entitled "The EU referendum should be a matter for parliament" in which he argued that it was wrong for David Cameron to offer a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union as a Tory manifesto pledge. In the article Mitchell quoted the evolutionary biologist/relentless self-publicist Richard Dawkins view that it is an "outrage" that the public have been given a vote on whether we remain in the EU or not, and that the whole decision should be "a matter for parliament".

In this article I'm going to explain why I think Mitchell and Dawkins are dangerously wrong to claim that such important decisions should be left to our superior lords and masters in parliament to decide on because the general public are too ignorant to decide for themselves.

Cameron's gamble

Before I get to explaining how utterly wrong-headed the Mitchell/Dawkins "leave it to our lords and masters" view is, first I'm going to point out where David Mitchell was right. Mitchell described Cameron's offer of a referendum on the EU as a "hugely selfish and irresponsible act" driven mainly by the decades old Tory rift between the pro- and anti-EU factions and Cameron's terror of losing Tory votes to UKIP.

It's absolutely clear that Cameron's offer of an EU referendum was firstly a sop to the large number of mainly extreme-right Tory MPs who detest the EU and secondly as a ploy to derail the UKIP surge in Tory constituencies.

The decision to offer a referendum on the EU was based entirely on Cameron's own self-interest. In the year before the 2015 General Election UKIP trounced the Tories (and everyone else) in the low-turnout EU elections and two Tory MPs conducted high profile defections to UKIP. Cameron knew that if he didn't do something to draw the UKIP thorn then the Tory prospects of winning the 2015 General Election were very grim indeed.

In the short-term Cameron's EU gamble was a success. The Tories gained a majority at the 2015 General Election, in which the extreme-right Thatcher-worshipping Ukippers ended up taking more votes off Labour than they did from their Tory ideological blood brothers.

In fact it was such a successful gamble that we ended up with the remarkable, if not completely unprecedented situation where the UKIP leader Nigel Farage ended up publicly appealing for UKIP supporters to vote for the Tory party instead of his own party's candidates!

The problem of course is that in the longer-term the dice has to be rolled, and it's on a knife edge whether the UK will end up remaining in the EU or engaging in a chaotic Brexit led by a bunch of right-wing fanatics who haven't offered anything even remotely resembling a coherent plan for what a post-Brexit UK would look like.

If the public vote to remain in the UK then Cameron's selfish gamble will have been a success, however if they vote for Brexit then the short-term gains will be massively outweighed by the cost. Cameron's position as Prime Minister would be completely untenable and anyone who imagines that there wouldn't be severe chaos as a result of the utter lack of a coherent economic plan from the Brexiters must be utterly delusional.

Where Mitchell and Dawkins are wrong

Both Mitchell and Dawkins argue that referenda on lesser issues (such as fox hunting) would be fine, but that membership of the EU is far too important to be left to ordinary plebs to decide.

There is no arguing that huge numbers of people are woefully under-informed about the arguments for and against membership of the EU (due in a large part to the spectacular levels of bias in the UK mainstream media), however what makes the Mitchell/Dawkins stance so desperately patronising is the idea that our lords and masters in the Westminster political establishment know any better.

Parliament isn't full of experts

The idea that parliament is full of experts who are better qualified to make important decisions than the plebs is completely wrong-headed.

First of all it doesn't take any kind of special economic expertise to get elected to Westminster. Everyone knows that if you stick a red rosette on a pig it would get elected in some areas, and that a dog turd with a blue rosette would win an equally impressive landslide in certain Tory heartlands. You only have to listen to intellectually stunted individuals like Nick Gibb (Tory) or Naz Shah (Labour) to realise that under our deeply unrepresentative electoral system it's entirely possible for people who can barely string a sentence together to get into parliament.

Further proof that MPs are hardly an economically enlightened elite can be seen in the results of a Positive Money survey of MPs that found that only one in ten MP understood that the vast majority of the money supply is created out of nothing by private banks when they make loans, while more than seven out of ten of them actually believed in the ridiculously naive economic fairy story that all new money is created by the Bank of England on behalf of the government.

If the overwhelming majority of these people don't even understand the absolute economic basics like where money comes from, how on earth are they any more qualified than the man on the street to make decisions with important economic ramifications?

Electoral fraud

There has been a mainstream media blackout on the story that over two dozen Tory MPs stand accused of conning their way into parliament at the 2015 General Election by misdeclaring their electoral expenses. The allegations are extremely serious and multiple local police forces are investigating individual cases while there have been numerous calls for a Metropolitan Police investigation into whether Tory party HQ were guilty of orchestrating the fraud on a party-wide basis.

If more than two dozen Members of Parliament are indeed guilty of cheating their way into Westminster, what on earth would give them the right to decide whether the UK remains in the EU or not on our behalf?

Say what you like about the ordinary British citizen, much of it is likely to be unflattering, but nobody can accuse them of cheating their way into position to make such an important decision about the future of the UK.

Bowing and scraping

A notoriously liberal TV celebrity and a "ivory towers" professor lecturing the public that they are too stupid and ill-informed to make important decisions for themselves really does not reflect well on the Bremain camp at all. In fact it's a dangerous stance because, like it or not, the decision to have a referendum has already been made. This means that any effort by Bremainers like Mitchell to tell the public that they're too stupid to decide things for themselves, and that it's best left to the Wesminster establish to decide our fate, is likely just to just drive more people into the Brexit camp.

The funny thing about a lot of British people is that they absolutely love to bow and scrape before their lords and masters. Just look at the pathetic fawning over the royal family, listen to the absolute drivelling dirge that passes for the national anthem, or consider the fact somehow we ended up re-electing the most dangerously fanatical, out-of-touch and incompetent bunch of over-promoted elitists in living memory as our government. However the British really don't like to be told that they must bow and scrape before their betters, especially by a liberal TV celebrity and an "ivory tower" dwelling academic. There's a prevailing attitude that "we'll bow and scrape to our lords and masters because we want to, not because we're told to".

Conclusion

David Mitchell was absolutely right to point out that Cameron's offer of an EU referendum was an incredibly reckless gamble based purely on Tory self-interest, however he's wrong to claim that such important decisions should be left to the Westminster establishment.

He's wrong because the Westminster establishment are just as deeply misinformed about fundamentally important economic issues as the man on the street (if not more so because they live in an insulated bubble of wealth, power, privilege and influence).

He's wrong because a significant number of MPs stand accused of defrauding their way into parliament, meaning that if the decision was left to them, some of them could end up casting deciding votes on such an important decision despite having unlawfully cheated their way into that position in the first place.

He's wrong to complain about it now because the decision to have a referendum has already been made, meaning that liberal Bremainers lecturing ordinary people that they're too stupid to be allowed to vote is more than likely to drive an awful lot of them towards the Brexit camp, because at least the Brexit camp only assume that the general public are an ignorant bunch of halfwits, rather than stating it at them explicitly.

The Mitchell/Dawkins stance is wrong not because the public aren't under-informed, they generally are are because of the bias of the mainstream media, the fundamental lack of political and economic education in the comprehensive school system and the ridiculously short notice at which the EU referendum campaign was announced. It is still wrong though because it assumes that the people in parliament are any better at making such important decisions that the ordinary person on the street, abd because whining about it after the decision has already been made is a waste of time. Instead of spending hours writing that article, perhaps Mitchell could have invested the time in researching the facts of the EU debate for himself?

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.

OR

Different reactions to the Charlie Hebdo assassinations

On the first Wednesday of 2015 the world witnessed the boldest display of Islamist barbarity in the history of the French nation, in which 12 people were killed by masked gunmen with parts of the assault caught on CCTV cameras and broadcast across the world.

The target of the attacks was the office of a Paris based magazine called Charlie Hebdo that few outside of France had ever even heard of. The magazine staff were murdered in cold blood for the supposed "crime" of committing satire. For those who don't know, Charlie Hebdo is a satirical left-wing anti-religious newspaper featuring comment and cartoons (a little bit like a cross between Viz and Private Eye). The reason they were attacked by Islamist fanatics is that they had published several satirical cartoons of the prophet Mohammed.

Aside from eight members of the magazine staff, two police officers, a guy who was in the building to do some maintenance work and a visitor to the office were also gunned down in cold blood and a mother and five year old child were held at gunpoint in order to elicit the security code for the building.

My reaction

Regular readers will already be familiar with my advocacy of non-violence, my strong opposition to all forms of absolutism and my tendency toward moderation rather than extremism, but to spell it out in the clearest terms possible for the avoidance of doubt I'll say this: The perpetrators of this barbaric attack are evil fanatics who have done a huge amount of damage to the freedoms that Europeans hold dear, because this attack on freedom of speech is not only an attack on freedom within itself, it's also yet more ammunition for right-wing authoritarians like Theresa May and her Tory party colleagues, who delight in using the actions of deranged fanatics like these to undermine and dismantle the freedoms and liberties that so many of our ancestors fought to achieve and died to maintain.

The target of these Islamist fanatics may have been the freedom of expression that Europeans hold so dear, but these deranged extremists have clearly done far more damage to the Islamic faith (that they falsely claim to represent) than they have to the rights of Europeans to express ourselves. Every time an Islamist fanatic commits an atrocity like this, they severely damage Islam because they foster ever more hostility towards Islam and Muslims from people who are unwilling or unable to differentiate between the actions of a minority of dangerous Islamist fanatics, and the entire concept of Islam.

Muslim reactions

European Muslims have been vociferous in their condemnation of this atrocity. The Union des Organisations Islamiques de France were unequivocal in their condemnation of the attack calling it "barbarous" and "unacceptable". They called for French Muslims to demonstrate their solidarity with the victims by attending memorial events and protests against Islamist extremism.

The Muslim Council of Britain were also swift to condemn the attacks with a clear and concise statement that "The Muslim Council of Britain condemns this attack. Whomever the attackers are, and whatever the cause may be, nothing justifies the taking of life".
    
Al-Azhar University (which is the most importance centre for Arabic literature and Sunni Islamic learning in the world) released a statement criticising the Paris attack as un-Islamic and denouncing the use of violence.

The Arab League condemned the attacks, as did many specific Islamic states including Saudi Arabia. When even the brutal totalitarian Saudi regime is criticising their barbarity, it's absolutely clear that these fanatics are at the very edge of the violent extremist fringe.

Islamist reactions

Whilst the vast majority of Muslims condemn this kind of atrocity because it goes against the teachings of the Qar'an (which prohibits murder, the killing of non-combatants and sneak attacks), a few Islamist extremists celebrated the attack as if it was some kind of triumphant victory, rather than a bunch of heavily armed cowards wearing masks to hide their identities as they assassinated unarmed civilians in cold blood.

The gloating and jeering of Islamist extremists on Twitter is absolutely disgusting, and those joyfully declaring that "Europeans will never live in safety again" because of this are both delusional and un-Islamic. They're delusional because they seem totally unaware that France (and most of mainland Europe) survived, and recovered from, years of Nazi occupation (which was far worse than anything a bunch of Islamist extremists could ever dream of inflicting), and they're un-Islamic because the Qar'an repeatedly instructs Muslims to live in peace, and not to go around killing innocent people and trying to make people live in fear.

The "leftie-liberal media"

Many on the extreme right try to paint "lefties" and "liberals" as the culprits for acts of Islamist barbarism, because, according to extreme-right doctrine, the liberal left and the Islamist fanatics love each other unconditionally. The sheer idiocy of this stance is illustrated by the fact that Charlie Hebdo is an unashamedly left-wing and liberal publication, making them a very odd choice of target if the extreme-right orthodoxy is to be believed, and an odd choice of publication for the extreme-right to suddenly begin championing too.

In my view the "leftie-liberal media" (as embodied in the UK by the Guardian) did a pretty good job of covering the story. I agree with the idea that we should not give in to fear, and should continue to satirise the Islamist extremists, and I also agree that it is vitally important to draw a clear line between the disgusting fanatics who committed this atrocity and the billion plus innocent and peaceful Muslims in the world.

Satirists

For me the most moving tributes to the victims of this atrocity came from satirists and cartoonists across the world.

I was particularly moved by images from the Australian cartoonist David Pope and the Brazilian cartoonist Latuff (see image).

As a left-wing writer who has tried his hand at satire on occasion, I'm not going to let the actions of these evil fanatics intimidate me, and it fills me with inspiration to see countless other much more high profile writers and cartoonists bravely standing in solidarity with the victims and refusing to be intimidated too. 

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins was quick to use this barbaric attack as an excuse to attack the whole of Islam as inherently more violent than other religions. It's bad enough that he uses his massive media profile to spread the work of extreme-right Islamophobes like Geert Wilders and Pat Condell, but opportunistically jumping on this tragedy in order to spread his own hatred of Islam is shameless stuff indeed.

Nigel Farage

Like Dawkins, Nigel Farage also took the opportunistic approach to the Charlie Hebdo assassinations by using the atrocity to wheel out a fearmongering "clash of civilisations" narrative in which he appeared to describe Muslims living in Europe as a "fifth column", openly blamed "multiculturalism" for the attacks and then went on a prolonged tangential rant about the free movement of people within the European Union.

To my ears, the using of this tragedy to harp on about his opposition to the European Union was a shockingly insensitive piece of political opportunism, but I'm sure that tribalist Ukippers will have literally lapped it up because he threw in plenty of the buzzwords and phrases they love to hear like blaming "multiculturalism" for absolutely everything and harping on endlessly about "immigration".

Britain First

If you think that the reactions of Richard Dawkins and Nigel Farage were brazenly opportunistic, you won't believe the disgusting opportunism of Britain First. This extreme-right BNP splinter group are such a revoltingly opportunistic bunch that they used a video clip of the cold blooded murder of the French policeman Ahmed Merabet as an advert for their online shop!

Not only did they try to cash in on the tragedy by using this harrowing murder video as an advert for their extreme-right tat shop, they also pinned the advert to the top of their Facebook page too.

If the general public thought that Sainsbury's using a dramatisation of the the 1914 WWI Christmas football match to advertise their shop was in bad taste, what must ordinary people think of the use of a graphic video clip of an actual murder to raise funds for an extreme-right hate group?

Theresa May

The Home Secretary Theresa May has yet to make a public statement on the Charlie Hebdo assassinations, but it seems only a matter of time before she begins using this horrific incident as further justification for her plans to further undermine our freedoms and liberties.

The plans she announced at the Tory conference in 2014 include a scheme to revoke freedom of speech and freedom of assembly from people who have committed no crime whatever, the legislation of "thought crime" into British law, further attacks on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and even plans to compel nursery schools to spy on the toddlers they care for in order to make sure they're not potential terrorists!

The people who committed this attack are murderous extremists, but I refuse to be afraid of them, because if we give in to their violence, then we're letting them win. The extremists I'm really afraid of are powerful people like Theresa May and her right-wing authoritarian Tory colleagues, who are desperate to use terrorist attacks like this one to justify their agenda of undermining and destroying the legal rights and protections that our ancestors fought so hard to achieve.

If we allow Theresa May and her ilk to use terrorist atrocities like this as an excuse to revoke our historic rights and liberties, and to force nursery staff and hospital workers to work as spies for the state like some kind of East German nightmare, then we'd be letting the terrorists win by default wouldn't we?

Rupert Murdoch

One of the most outlandish responses to the atrocity was Rupert Murdoch's Twitter declaration that all Muslims, even peaceful ones should be "held responsible" for the killings.

The hypocrisy of this stance is incredible. Here's a man who has flatly refused to take responsibility for the widespread criminality at his newspapers that included bribing the police and hacking into the mobile phone of a dead school girl to spy on her messages, saying that every single Muslim in the world (Shia, Sunni, Sufi, Ahmadiyya, Ibadi, whichever denomination) should be held accountable for the actions of these crazed gunmen.

By Rupert Murdoch's twisted logic, adherents of all Christian sects (Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Quaker, Orthodox, etc) should have been held collectively accountable for the actions of Anders Breivik (a Christian who killed 77 people in Norway) and Timothy McVeigh (a Christian who killed 168 people in Oklahoma City).

This comment was particularly concerning because it's obvious that the concept of collective responsibility is only a tiny step away from collective punishment. 

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website that accepts no donations from big business, political parties or governments. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.

MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
         
12 things you should know about Britain First
           
David Cameron's Orwellian word games
                     
Who are the real extremists?
       
The pre-election contract the Tories want you to forget all about
                             
Richard Dawkins and the extreme-right Islamophobes
                                         
Britain First and their exceptionally ignorant brand of British nationalism
                          
The shooting of Malala Yousufzai
                
What is ... a closed ideology echo chamber?
                      

How the TTIP corporate power grab is the biggest current threat to UK sovereignty
                                
David Cameron and the lucrative Syrian blood pie
  

Richard Dawkins and the far right extremists

Regular readers will know that I am not a fan of Richard Dawkins and his garbled anti-religious rhetoric. I have no ideological objection to non-religious stances, and greatly admire the work of other proponents of atheism such as the brilliant science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov and the wonderfully impassioned popular scientist Carl Sagan. I find Dawkins' sanctimonious and divisive evangelism for the atheist cause intensely annoying. Not only are many of his arguments dreadfully weak from a philosophical perspective, his regular appeals to mock the religious with "naked contempt" have inspired a new breed of intolerant secular atheists that enjoy nothing more than dragging the level of any science, religion or ethics based debate down to the level of pitiful mud slinging and endless reiterations of the infuriatingly weak spaghetti monster / sky pixies / cupboard elves argument. ("You postulate something I don't believe in, so I should be able to postulate something that neither of us believe in, which should be considered as equally valid").

I've often stated that I believe that the important distinction should not be between those that believe in the possibility or probability of some higher force they think of as "God", and those that don't. The useful distinction should be drawn between those that are respectful and tolerant of other ideas and those that are disrespectful and intolerant. Thus the Quaker, the sceptical agnostic, the new age hippy spiritualist, the ignostic, the scientifically minded deist and the friendly old Church of England organist probably belong on one side of the debate, and the shrill "you're all mentally ill so I'm going to ridicule you" atheist ranters join the delusional Islamist fanatics, the religious theocrats, the far-right Islamophobes and the Westboro Baptist Church on the other side.

One of the things I've stated in the past is that the rise in evangelical atheism has coincided with the rise of the bonkers pseudo-economic theory of neoliberalism, which promotes greed (or "rational self-interest" as they define it) as the only virtue, and rejects other traditional virtues such as charity, modesty, egalitarianism and justice as grotesque aberrations. It seems that in western culture, faith in the absurd deity-like "invisible hand of the market" (which is one of the articles of faith of neoliberal economic theory) is gradually replacing faith in the traditional conceptions of God.

Another thing that links neoliberalism and evangelical anti-theism is the desperation to dress up irrational faith based philosophies in the language of rationality. Hence the neoliberal rebrands "greed" as "rational self-interest", and misappropriates the Work of Charles Darwin in order to justify their favoured philosophy of "survival of the fittest" social organisation. Often the evangelical anti-theist also attempts to claim the rational high ground, whilst simultaneously maintaining faith in the philosophically unjustifiable position of certainty in the non-existence of "God" (however it is defined).

Of course I am not saying that all non-believers have embraced right-wing neoliberal crony capitalist ideas, but many have, including it seems, Richard Dawkins. The fact that Dawkins is a vocal supporter of the Liberal-Democrats is evidence enough that he approves of neoliberal economic theory (given that just like the Tories and Labour, the Lib Dems have also been usurped by a bunch of devout adherents of neoliberal pseudo economics). Another indicator that Dawkins is an ideological neoliberal is his association with AC Grayling's New College of the Humanities, which charges ludicrous US style fees of £18,000 a year for degree courses. If involvement in the extreme end of the grotesque commodification of higher education isn't a clear indicator that Dawkins has bought into the ideology of neoliberalism, and the commodification of everything, including knowledge, I'm not sure what would be?

Dawkins has positioned himself as the spiritual leader of the atheist movement, and millions upon millions of people have bought into his contrarian pseudo-philosophical atheism, making him a multi-millionaire in the process. Because of this fame and popularity he is in an immensely powerful position when it comes to the dissemination of ideas. When Dawkins promotes an idea, tens, or hundreds of thousands of people listen to him. It is bad enough that he has willingly ingratiated himself into the political establishment, given their fixation with the pseudo-scientific philosophy of neoliberalism, but it is his coalition building efforts with the extreme right of the political spectrum that should really get the alarm bells ringing.

In June 2010 Dawkins uploaded a video from a far-right extremist called Pat Condell, one of several that he has posted to his site over the years. If you are fortunate enough never to have witnessed one of Pat Condell's video blogs, you're bloody lucky. That Condell is so immensely popular with the reactionary right means that if you haven't ever come across his work at all, in all probability you either have a very select group of intellectually coherent friends, or you've never really got into social media and checking your updates.

In his video monologues Condell comes across as sufferer of an incurable case of Angry White Man Syndrome, with the main symptoms being a stunningly reactionary mentality, philosophical illiteracy, and extreme cognitive dissonance. Some of his video blogs actually make my head hurt from the sheer scale of cognitive dissonance. Condell presents his pre-prepared video monologues in a grotesquely contrived style with a constant patronising tone, which he maintains incessantly as he drones on and on, spouting his philosophically illiterate bile. He comes across as a kind of Al Murray's pub landlord charactor, but utterly devoid of all satire, irony ,effective timing or any kind of humour whatever. 

Seriously, try a few minutes of one of his monologues and see if it's desperately infuriating gibberish that it sets your mind ablaze with criticisms of the sheer cognitive dissonance, or whether you find it so balanced and plausible that you would deliberately share it with your friends. This is exactly the thought process that Dawkins has gone through. The only difference being that he wouldn't just be annoying a few of his "thinkie" Facebook friends by enjoying and sharing such extreme-right bile, he's repeatedly decided to share Condell's extremist views with tens, or hundreds of thousands of people at a go.

In the video blog that Dawkins approved of so much that he shared it with his hundreds of thousands of acolytes, Condell rants for six straight minutes about the evils of Islam. Throughout the video that Dawkins deliberately uploaded to his own site, Condell uses the philosophically bogus trick of ascribing personality traits to the entire religion of Islam. It is a shamefully weak debating strategy to ascribe to the concept of an entire religion, traits that are shared only by a minority of its followers. This personification technique is a crap debating strategy, and anyone that is attuned to spotting philosophical bollocks should be able to spot it for the gibberish that it is. That Dawkins didn't spot it, or that he allowed confirmation bias to completely over-rule the critical judgement that he is supposedly so famous for, simply because he agreed with the anti-religious slant, illustrates the fact that Dawkins is not the great logical thinker and champion of reason that so many (including himself) make him out to be.

In the video that Dawkins liked so much that he decided to share it with his followers, Condell made a number of inflammatory remarks, used soaring hyperbole and generated absurd feats of revisionism. If describing Islam as a nothing more than a "political ideology of hate" and making the case that it should be banned entirely as a kind of terrorist thought crime is not even a little bit concerning to you, you probably would have though that George Orwell's 1984 sounded like a rather splendidly organised utopia, had you ever actually bothered to read it, wouldn't you?

Here are a few more extracts from the extremist video that Dawkins shared on his website:

"Islam makes no secret of its desire to exterminate the Jews" (note the personification of an entire religion technique)

"Islam is a bigger threat to our freedom than Naziism ever was"

One of Condell's most revisionist statements was that "we were all more or less on the same side against the Nazis", which is demonstrably untrue. Either Condell is so ignorant of history that he knows nothing of the British Union of Fascists, the Anglo-German Link, the huge investments in Nazi Germany by American banks (such as JP Morgan and Chase Bank) during World War Two and the shockingly anti-semitic Right Group secret society amongst Tory MPs and the English aristocracy. We certainly weren't united against Nazism during the rise of Naziism in the 1930s because there was a powerful and growing pro-Nazi extreme right-wing lobby in the UK all the way up until the declaration of war.

It hardly seems surprising that a man representing the extreme-right of the UK political spectrum is so keen to pretend that the right wing have always opposed Nazism, when the opposite is true. Whether Condell is just far to ignorant to know of this stuff (a possibility), or that he deliberately airbrushed it all from his story of how right-wingers like him have always opposed Nazism, the actual facts render his claims extremely high-order revisionism.

In another section of the Dawkins approved video Candell uses his absurd personification technique to claim that Islam "rejects" and "despises" America, and he goes further, claiming that "any Muslim that denies this is a liar". He's stating the case that his philosophically illiterate interpretation of the concept of Islam simply cannot be countered by anyone, not even people that have devoted their life to study of it's scriptures! Condell is claiming to be more of an expert on Islamic theology than any devout Muslim that has ever dared to interpret their own faith in a non-violent way! Condell is essentially making the childish argument that "Islam [as a concept] is committed to 'stealth jihad', and that's definite! no comebacks, not listening anymore [fingers in ears] nah-na na-na-nah!".

It seems that Dawkins is prepared to endorse any kind of anti-religious content no matter how extreme and incoherent it is from an analytic point of view. He's quite clearly bought into the pathetic "the enemy of my enemy is my friend mentality".

Perhaps the Dawkins apologist might try to assume that Dawkins didn't know who Condell was: That he knew nothing of Condell's extreme-right views: That perhaps he posted the Condell clips as some kind of accident? However it is absolutely clear from a below-the-line comment in response to a query over his endorsement of such an extreme-right viewpoint, that Dawkins knows exactly who Condell is and that he endorses his views. Dawkins replied:

"I think it is well arguable that Islam is the greatest man-made force for evil in the world today. Pat Condell is one of the few with the courage to say so.” [source

So Dawkins is familiar enough with Condell's work, and agreed with it to such an extent, that he would go as far as describing the man as an exceptionally courageous individual, in defence of the decision to share these extreme-right islamophobic views with followers of the Richard Dawkins Foundation page. The content of the Condell speech that Dawkins endorsed to his followers and then justified is bad enough, but some of Condell's other views are whirlwind displays of cognitive dissonance.

One of Condell's most famous causes is unyielding support for the Dutch fascist Geert Wilders. It is beyond doubt that Wilders is an Islamophobic with extremist views. He believes that the Koran should be banned, along with the religion of Islam, that immigration of Muslims into the Netherlands should be stopped and that a mandatory repatriation (ethnic cleansing) programme for Muslims should be initiated. 

Condell's defence of Wilders is the same one that Wilders uses to defend himself. The argument is that is is an outright attack on Wilders freedom for anyone to describe him as a right wing extremist, even in sanitised forms such as as "far-right" (rather than "fascist" or "extreme-right Islamophobe").

The cognitive dissonance is appalling.

Wilders wants to designate an entire religion as "thought crime", ban books, and to begin a programme of ethnic cleansing, yet the anyone describing these views as "right-wing" or "totalitarian" is the sworn enemy of freedom!

How pugnaciously biased would you have to be to think of the man that wants to burn books, ban ideas and deport people as the brave freedom fighter, and think of the journalist that dares to present these views as "perhaps a bit extreme" as the dangerous extremist fanatic, hellbent on curtailing people's freedoms?

That Dawkins lends his support to such an individual shows how tolerant of extremist views he is, as long as the extremists happen to reside in his camp. Dawkins also uses the uses the same kind of freedom of speech justification as used by Condell and Wilders, to defend extremist right-wing views. In one of his supportive posts for Condell, Dawkins wrote that:

"That some people say they are 'offended' by something is never a good reason for censoring it." [source]

Isn't that a statement that could equally be applied to statements of religious bigotry or obscene religious practices? If the head of some warped Islamist theocracy was designating another religion a thought crime and calling for it to be banned entirely and it's adherents to be discriminated against, Dawkins would be criticising it in a flash. But because it's the view of the leader of a Dutch political party or a right-wing Youtube celebrity atheist, these views are courageous and must be protected by freedom of speech.

As for Dawkins view on Wilders, here's a quote, which is quantified only by a threatened future withdrawal of support should Wilders transgress some kind extremeley nebulously defined "mustn't be a fascist" clause):

"if it should turn out that you are a racist or a gratuitous stirrer and provocateur I withdraw my respect, [but now] I salute you as a man of courage, who has the balls to stand up to a monstrous enemy" [the full text can be seen here]

The Dawkins clause in this statement of support for Wilders' right to spout fascist ideas is a thing of wonder. The clause is written as if working tirelessly to promote the idea that people should be discriminated against, treated as thought criminals and ethnically cleansed on the basis of their religious heritage (as Wilders has repeatedly), is hardly sufficient to justify the moderate description "gratuitous stirrer" or "provocateur", let alone more apt descriptions such as "dangerous fanatic with totalitarian tendencies", "Islamophobic far-right cause célèbre" or "scary militant nutter".

The two main problems with the preceding excuses presented by Dawkins to cover his open praise for Widers can be summised as:

1. In the amount of time it took to write all of those get-out clauses, Dawkins could easily have established for himself that Wilders is a far right extremist committed to ethnic cleansing and the "Constitutional protection of the dominance of the Judeo-Christian culture of the Netherlands", which must surely be an appalling prospect to any atheist. 

 2. That Dawkins comes out with such lengthy and convoluted disclaimers, strongly suggests that he did already know of Wilders' extremist views, but created the fiction of ignorance in order to heap praise upon the someone he knows to be an extreme-right fascist.

Here's an outline some of the policies promoted by Wilders and his PVV party (the fifth one should surely get the old atheist alarm bells ringing even if the blatant fascism underpinning the others doesn't.

• 1. The Koran should be banned, and possession of it be made a criminal offense. 
• 2. Criminals (like people that own a copy of the Koran for example) should be subject to mandatory deportation, even if they are citizens. 
• 3. Immigration of people with Muslim heritage should be totally stopped. 
• 4. Repatriation schemes to send people with Muslim heritage back to their "country of origin" should be started. 
• 5. "Constitutional protection of the dominance of the Judeo-Christian culture of the Netherlands" should be enacted.

That Dawkins is so eager to position himself with these guys suggests he is willing to accept (and even defend) the exactly same kind of barbaric tribalism that he lambasts whenever it presents as a religious trait. As long as the extremist and totalitarian rhetoric comes from within his own camp (some kind of nebulously defined "atheist community") he'll not only immunise it from criticism, but he'll openly promote it too. If you're religiously minded and you transgress, then Dawkins will lambast you as an enemy of freedom, but if you're on his side of the debate, whatever vile nonsense you spout should be celebrated and rigorously protected by appeals to freedom of speech.

If, as you're reading this, you're already preparing to begin the construction of a "how very dare you criticise Dawkins" type defence of Dawkins stance alongside these extreme-right Islamophobes, that doesn't actually address any of the points raised in this article, you're probably suffering from confirmation bias in the same way Dawkins himself is when it comes the extremists he treats as allies and refers to in glowing terms. Because you like his message of atheism and his intolerance toward religion, you'll put up with and even defend ideas that you would decry if they happened to present as religious bigotry.

Just to return to my own view for a moment before I conclude, I'd like to reiterate that I have every respect for many people that maintain the atheist stance, including members of my family, firm friends and several of my favourite authors, but I have no tolerance for right-wing extremists and fanatical totalitarians or their apologists, whether they happen to be religiously minded or not.

In my view I'm on the tolerant respectful side of the debate with the majority of atheists and the majority of religiously minded people, whilst Dawkins is positioning himself with right-wing fanatics like Condell and Wilders on the extremist team alongside religious bigots, Islamist crazies, the puritanical social zeolots that he's made himself staggeringly wealthy by criticising. If there's one thing I'd like you to take from this article, it would be the idea is that although the our personal views are a fundamental part of the debate, the more important distinction is not so much the kind of view (atheist - theist; left-wing - right-wing, capitalist - anti-capitalist ...) it is the manner in which the views are expressed (libertarian - totalitarian; moderate - extremist).

Dawkins' stunningly hypocritical "freedom of speech" justifications for the disemmination of extremist right-wing ideas leads to the conclusion that Dawkins is a man hopelessly riddled with confirmation bias who couldn't spot a philosopically bogus argument if it hit him in the face. This inability or cognitive unwillingness to critique extremist and intolerant views, and his eagerness to promote them and defend them using appeals to freedom of speech leaves us with the question of how it is possible, given such a glaring lack of critical faculties and such a bad case of confirmation bias, that he has managed to position himself as the world's foremost critic of religion?

 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.

More articles from
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 

What is ... Confirmation Bias?

The incompatibility of Christian ethics and modern Conservatism

The JP Morgan plan for Europe
        
What is ... Neoliberalism?
                  
The "Golden Hammer" of neoliberalism
 
Michael Gove, religious fanatics and British schools 

 

Obnoxious Atheism

Barclays defiling their Quaker roots

Richard Dawkins and the slave trade
                   

Scottish Catholics and their campaign against gay equality
 

 

Religious moderates, atheists and religious fanatics

A common theme amongst preachers of atheism is the idea that "religious moderation fosters extremism". This is the idea that all religious faith is toxic because extremists can use religious faith to pursue their fundamentalist agendas. The idea is hinted at in the title of chapter 8.7 of the sacred text of atheism; "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. The chapter is entitled "How 'moderation' in faith fosters fanaticism" and the reason I said the argument is "hinted at" is that the chapter does absolutely nothing like demonstrate "how moderation in faith fosters fanaticism", it is perhaps one of the most misleading chapter titles I've ever seen in a lifetime of reading.

To begin with, Dawkins doesn't make a single mention of any of what I'd describe as the "moderate faiths" (Buddhism, Quakerism, the other peace churches, liberal Anglicanism, Sufism, Zoroastrianism), he doesn't even mention any middle ground faiths (Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, Church of England) either, preferring instead to focus the whole chapter on a polemic about the activities of the most extreme religious fanatics. After a quick count I found at least 35 mentions of Islam and Islamic fundamentalism (suicide bombing, Bin Laden, 9/11, martyrdom, London bombings, Saudi Arabia, Taliban, Al Qaida, Ayatollahs, jihadists, and on and on he went) plus three mentions of Christian fundamentalism (abortion terrorists, rapture Christians) in the chapter. This is a chapter that is supposed to be about the dangers of "religious moderation" but it doesn't mention a single moderate faith, not even once, it doesn't even make a single mention of any of the semi-extremist faiths such as Catholicism, but it mentions Islam and Islamic fundamentalism at least 35 times.

Dawkins utterly failed to demonstrate his theory that "religious moderation fosters religious fanaticism" simply because he spent the whole chapter ranting on about extremism and forgot to actually mention any religious moderates, relying on the confirmation bias of readers to sell the message, after all it is difficult to disagree with criticism of murderous Islamic fundamentalism.

Once you have mentally agreed that murderous religious extremism is bad so many times, it is easy to overlook the fact that the chapter doesn't even come close to establishing what is claimed in the title.  Had this been a first year Philosophy of Religion undergraduate essay, I'd have failed it because it completely failed to establish what is claimed in the title. Not only that, it was also full of petty unsubstantiated generalisations, such as the idea that "religion discourages questioning". This is such a facile generalisation it's remarkable, it is as if Dawkins has never even heard of Søren Kierkegaard, or has simply wished out of existence the school of thought that "man cannot truly understand that which he has not doubted" (quite a thing to do for someone that preaches the scientific method).

Just in case one thinks that the chapter title was perhaps a publishing error, and that he actually meant to call it "An angry polemic against murderous religious fanaticism", Dawkins drops this one liner into the middle of the chapter:

"The teachings of moderate religion though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism."

 A sentence that makes it absolutely clear what he is supposedly trying to establish. The problem is though, that he doesn't establish it at all, he just thrusts this sentence into the middle of the text, then continues on with his rambling polemic. He doesn't actually demonstrate the validity of this statement at all. He fails to establish validity because this quote is is practically the only (extremely vague and generalised) reference to "moderate religion" in the entire chapter.

Had Dawkins actually demonstrated how aspects of moderate religion (Quaker lobbying for the UK establishment to legally recognise their gay marriage ceremonies; the Rastafarian leader Haile Selassie's repeated calls for human equality; or the Dalai Lama's calls for respect and tolerance between people of all faiths and none) had fostered religious extremism, I'd have been mightily impressed. However he failed to do it, and he failed quite spectacularly from a philosophical point of view. Not that I expected him to succeed in proving such an ill defined and generalisation riddled assertion of course. In fact, I challenge anyone to create a reason and logic based essay demonstrating how a specific example of "moderate faith", lets say, the Quaker peace testimony has fostered such extreme religious fanaticism.

After defending "religious moderates" from Dawkins' rambling onslaught, I have to say that I strongly believe that religious fanatics must be confronted, in fact I have used this website to speak out against religious bigotry and creationist drivel on a regular basis.

In my view, the most important thing when speaking out against religious fanaticism is to be careful about the language we use to make these criticisms. If we use lazy generalisations (generalisations are one of the very lowest forms of fallacious reasoning) like "religious people" instead of specifics like "creationists" to make these criticisms, then we are completely undermining our own position and driving anyone moderate or rational away from the debate.

Driving away moderate and rational voices ends up leaving just the all too familiar shouting match between inarticulate, or just plain ignorant atheist ranters (that can't even understand the fallaciousness of their own arguments or believe that invoking "sky pixies" or "spaghetti monsters" ever, under any circumstances, actually adds value to the debate) and fanatical religious extremists (that are deluded enough to think they can win an argument simply by quoting bits of ancient religious text or threatening divine retribution!).

These extremists on either side of the debate are precisely the people that should be ignored (and derided by anyone rational if they simply wont stop spouting irrational nonsense).

Any real progress is only ever going to be made through co-operation between reasonably rational and tolerant people (sceptical agnostics, humanists, Buddhists, Quakers, other peace churches, religious moderates within less moderate churches, liberal atheists, liberal secularists, ignostics, etc). Therefore; carefully considered and rational language is hugely important from all sides, especially from the side that so often tends to assume that the rational high-ground belongs to them.

When Dawkins creates incoherent criticisms of "religious moderates" which rely on nothing more than abject generalisations and rabble-rousing polemics, he actually undermines the atheist position. It is quite remarkable to see a "man of science" make such an appalling mess of an argument, devoid of reason or coherent methodology as it is. One wonders whether Dawkins would accept an evolutionary biology essay from a student at Oxford University (where he teaches), which substitutes vapid generalisations and angry polemics for the normal methodologies of empirical evidence gathering and rational analysis.

It is undeniable that Dawkins made a complete mess of his so called critique of "religious moderation". A friend of mine called David Simon Banbery framed the argument much better than Dawkins ever has, when he defined the problem as being "moderates' inaction against extreme factions within their own religion". This at least removes the huge generalised, homogeneous label "moderate religion" that Dawkins was relying upon and places the emphasis onto moderate individuals within specific religions.

I think it is fair to say that myself and David share the view that whatever the organisation, there will always be individuals determined to use their power within that organisation to suit their own objectives. Whether this desire is based on pure selfish self-interest or on underlying psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies; powerful individuals will use political, corporate or religious power structures to promote their own (often warped) moralities.

I believe that I am not being unfair to summarise David's position as "extremists exist in all walks of life, and that it is a particular failing of some religions that they have allowed extremist factions to develop within their midst". I broadly agree with the view but I'd say the problem isn't just limited to religions though. For example; democratic political organisations are by no means immune to infiltration by extremists. The classic example being the rise of neoliberalism (a right-wing ideology which seeks to undermine democratic control over the economy). Even nominally left-wing organisations like the UK Labour party, the Polish Solidarity party and the South African ANC have been infiltrated by neoliberal extremists. The fact that neoliberals actually want to undermine democratic control over the economy demonstrates that this infiltration by political extremists is perhaps even more dangerous than infiltration by religious extremists from a structural perspective, since most religious extremists at least want to maintain the power structures of the religious system they are bastardising, rather than trying to destroy the entire structure from within by severely limiting the powers and capabilities of their own institutions in line with some external dogma (orthodox corporatist neoliberalism).

I think David's argument that moderates within any given religion have an obligation to prevent their organisation being hijacked by extremist usurpers is much stronger than Dawkins' argument (I hesitate to even use the word "argument" it is so poorly constructed) that religious moderation (in general) fosters (very specific and extreme kinds of) religious fanaticism. Whether these extremist usurpers are driven by self-interest, sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies or they are people pursuing some personal or political vendetta, I believe that it is the moral obligation of moderates within any given organisation to stop them.

If you believe this to be the case, then what I said previously about rational language is especially important. These religious moderates (with the moral obligation to fight extremism) need to be engaged in rational discourse, rather than just getting lumped into the same generalised category as the extremists and ruthlessly derided by shouty "all religion is evil" atheists.

Religious moderates must actually be engaged in constructive discourse and then supported by voices of reason and sanity as they fight to root out extremist elements from their religion. If however, they are abused and derided by people who are simply pretending to be rational and tolerant, who are these moderates going to turn to? To the extremist voices within their own religion of course.

In my opinion, irrational obnoxious atheism actually "fosters religious extremism" by abusing religious moderates and pushing them towards religious extremists, who are always delighted to hear their concerns and build new audiences to mindwash with their anti-scientific mumbo-jumbo (and worse).

The rise of religious extremism is absolutely great for ranty atheists: Confirmation bias tells them that they were right about the inevitable rise of religious extremism, making them feel nice and smug and giving them even more self-justification to continue their half-witted ranting. After all, the last thing the "all religion is evil" ranter brigade would like to see is the growth of a new era of respect and compromise between people of moderate faith and people of none; a compromise of moderates with a mission to eradicate religious extremism.

The kind of intolerant atheist ranter that would like to see all religious thought eradicated, would see this kind of compromise between rational and tolerant theists and rational and tolerant atheists as a catastrophic and intolerable defeat. Therefore, in their minds it is always necessary to keep stoking the flames of religious hatred. These intolerant atheists fear statements like "We need an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without" (from the Dalai Lama) as much as the religious fanatic does, because this sentiment clearly demonstrates that their simplistic "all religion is evil" worldview is exactly the same kind of inaccurate and divisive "us and them" lunacy that drives religious fundamentalism.

The rise in religious extremism is great for the religious extremists too of course, but it is extremely bad for almost everyone else: At best we have to listen to even more demented gibbering from these morons (ranty atheists and theist science-deniers alike) and at worst we must suffer the very real consequences of religious fundamentalism (violence, oppression, misogyny, homophobia, anti-scientific propaganda, barbaric practices...).

Next time you see Richard Dawkins trying to direct his followers to deride and ridicule all religious people and treat them with "naked contempt", I believe you should think carefully about what his agenda actually is (is this kind of ridicule and naked contempt strategy a reason based strategy or something else?), what the outcomes could be (could this kind of insulting and intolerant derision strategy actually turn moderate people away from science and reason and foster more religious extremism?) and remember that this is a man that has a history of basing his anti-religious arguments on extremely broad generalisations and extremely narrow polemics.

 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.

See Also

  
The incompatibility of Christian ethics and modern Conservatism
       
The shooting of Malala Yousafzai
     
Richard Dawkins and the far-right extremists
      
Scottish Catholics and their campaign against gay equality
         

Obnoxious Atheism
    
The Tory ideological mission
       
ACE indoctrination: Already here and spreading fast

Dawkins' ranters please shut up

Richard Dawkins and the slave trade

The Church of England and poverty