What is a bigot?

Another of the common accusations thrown at opponents of Islamisation is that they are bigots. With its usual smugness, the Left is now apt to call a bigot anyone with opinions that they dislike. But if you look at the real meaning of the word it has more to do with the way that opinions are held and one's attitude towards opinions different to one's own.

Let's start by looking at dictionary definitions of the word bigot:

Using the dictionaries that I have available in my home and looking at online sources I have found the following definitions of bigot:

1. [Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, pub. 1962] - one who holds irrespective of reason, and attaches disproportionate weight to, some creed or view.
2. [Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, pub. 1966] :
   • hypocritical or superstitious professor of religion circa 1600-1700
   • obstinate adherent of a creed or opinion 1700 onwards
3. [The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, pub. 1973]
   • circa 1598, a hypocrite
   • to 1664, a superstitious person
   • 1661 onwards, a person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a creed, opinion, or ritual
   • Bigoted: Obstinately or blindly attached to some creed, opinion, or party, and intolerant towards others
4. Current online dictionaries:
   • A ​person who has ​strong, ​unreasonable ​beliefs and who does not like other ​people who have different ​beliefs or a different way of ​life. [Dictionary.Cambridge.org]
   • A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions [OxfordDictionaries.com]
   • A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own - [Vocabulary.com]
   • A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own - [TheFreeDictionary.com]

The Left seems to be in the process of shifting the definition of "bigot" so that it means anyone unsympathetic to the Left's agenda, that is so say someone who seeks to avoid societal suicide. So anyone with conservative opinions who seeks to preserve their way of life is now classed as a bigot. In particular, anyone determined to protect their society and way of life from the predatory advances of Islam is a bigot. Thus counter-jihadists are portrayed by the Left as bigots.

But when we look at what is really going on today I think the Left's definition of bigot cannot withstand scrutiny. On the contrary, it seems to be the Left itself that most successfully fits the historical meanings of the word. Ex-Muslim Sarah Haider describes them as "benevolent bigots".

Meaning #1: hypcrite. A hypocrite is someone who does not practice what they claim to believe in.

Those on the Left like to see themselves as the champions of human rights, equality, social justice, peace, and that nebulous, undefined good known as "diversity".  The Left fails to live up to these claims because they surrender to the demands of Islam whenever it conflicts with their ideals. They capitulate to Islamic norms with respect to women thereby allowing gender apartheid; they are ready to accommodate Sharia courts and other instruments of Islamic control thereby enshrining all the inequalities of the Sharia in our societies; they fail to protect the peace by allowing the growth of jihadist elements and the almost unavoidable prospect of civil wars within western societies.

Even the stupid notion of diversity will eventually come unstuck as Islam transforms societies into closer and closer approximations of Islamic State.

The Left tests positive on definition #1.

Meaning #2: Obstinacy of opinion or unreasonable adherence to a belief

Since 9/11 many of us have taken the trouble to put our cultural assumptions to one side and try to understand the nature of Islam in its own terms. We have learned about the Koran and read it in whole or in part; we have learned about the central importance of Mohammed and his life; we have learned that his example is a key component in the development of Sharia law and that his moral example offers some appalling examples of deception, betrayal, enslavement, conquest, the murder of non-violent opponents such as poets, marriage to a child of six, sex with a child of nine, genocide, banditry, and that Islam's prime imperative (derived from Mohammed) is the subjugation of all to the belief that Mohammed is the last messenger of God and all should submit to the laws derived from his teaching and personal example.

In order to do this we have had to counter a natural tendency within all of us to cling to opinions and existing beliefs. We have a had to constantly revise our worldview in the light of what we found and had to come to terms with the painful recognition that Islam is a wholly different and aggressive worldview which is in direct and permanent conflict with our civilization. We have not sought this information because we like it but have had to come to terms with its existence in spite of the dread it inspires in us.

The Left, on the contrary, has remained obstinately wedded to its pre-existing worldview that all cultures are harmless and colorful additions to the fabric of our societies; that Muslims are not inspired and committed in varying degrees to a creed that is divisive and discriminatory; that we can coexist with any number of Muslims and preserve a tolerant, open, and rational society based on the principles of human rights.

They have stubbornly resisted the evidence that this is not a reasonable view in light of what we know about Islamic doctrines, Mohammed's character, the history of Islamic culture hitherto, and the practice of Islam today as shown in the 57 Muslim countries of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

They have stubbornly resisted the evidence of 27,670 terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam since 9/11.

They have stubbornly resisted the evidence of Christian persecution that anyone genuinely concerned for human rights would be interested to know.

They have stubbornly resisted the evidence of creeping Sharia and stealth jihad in one Western society after another - the same pattern, the same process, the same outcomes.

Instead of undertaking any revision of their opinions informed by reason and evidence they have clung to childish slogans and beliefs.

The Left tests positive on definition #2.

Meaning #3: Intolerance of beliefs or opinions different to one's own

The Left have demonstrated time and time again just how intolerant they are of opinions that differ from their own. Today's university campuses, dominated as they are by left-wing thought, have become places where conservative opinions can seriously impede one's career.

The current "safe spaces" fiasco on university campuses is another manifestation of this intolerance of contrary opinion. Students are demanding places where they can feel safe from the threat of opinions they dislike.

Another university phenomenon that has been gradually normalized by the Left is the "no platform" to speakers they disapprove of. Even a secular ex-Muslim such as Maryam Namazie has been barred from speaking at Warwick University in the UK.

Time and again the Left demonstrates its hostility to "free speech" when others refuse to intone the acceptable leftist platitudes. They also shut down the voices of others by labeling as "hate speech" the speech that they hate.

The Left tests positive on definition #3.

As you can see, it's not even a question of the pot calling the kettle black when the Left accuses the counter-jihad of bigotry. It's more like demons tearing at the flesh of innocents. They test positive on each meaning of bigotry outlined above and should be addressing it.

As a start they might consider taking seriously their avowed commitment to human rights and acknowledge the threat that Islam poses to these. They might study the Koran and the life of Mohammed and the theological doctrines derived from them and revise their worldview accordingly. They could also try allowing people to voice their concerns about the most intolerant religion on earth instead of shouting "bigot!" at all who take truth seriously and go by the evidence.

And, contrary to what the Left may like to believe, someone holding opinions that the Left does not like cannot for this reason alone be defined as a bigot. In today's context, those on the Left show far more of the attributes of bigots.

The Primacy of Guilty Feelings

It comes up again and again. It surfaces in thousands of articles, dramas, speeches, sermons; in millions of conversations and prayers: we are responsible; we are guilty.

The West carries a presumption of guilt. Whence comes this presumption? I was speaking to a committed Christian just recently and he assured me that the doctrine of Original Sin is alive and well within the body of Christ – His church. He even described it as the “guilty gene” as something intrinsic to our nature.

Christianity has made a virtue out of thinking ill of oneself; it has taught us to see ourselves first and foremost as sinners who have the opportunity to find redemption through Jesus. This teaching has engendered a widespread inclination in Christian civilisation to see the acknowledgement of guilt and sin as the foundation of morality: to be moral is to be aware of one’s fallen state; the more moral you are the more you are aware of your failings.

There is a way out. The Christian can acknowledge his inherent sinfulness, seek repentance, and seek salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus. It’s a mind-boggling doctrine but there is a way.

The idea that we are fundamentally sinful and guilty has been part of our culture for at least 2000 years. Are we to suppose that it has left no impression? Surely not. I see it surfacing again and again. In conversations with the politically correct and well-meaning it breathes like an undying assumption.

One facet of political correctness is the notion that we owe a debt to certain groups of people: those who can be seen as the victims of past and present imperialism.

In a peculiar twist of reasoning we are deemed responsible, guilty, of things done by our ancient forebears long before we were born. This guilt is not personal, it is collective. We all share it and yet it belongs to no-one in particular. There is no way to finally redeem oneself from this guilt; it is simply there as an ever-present legacy of the past. We are guilty by virtue of our membership of one group rather than another, regardless of our personal conduct. Conversely, those belonging to victim groups are wholly innocent and cannot be held accountable for anything. They are pure victims and to suggest otherwise is oppressive.

We see this tendency expressed in the never-ending apologising of the West, in the obligations felt towards the Third World, even towards that nest of imperial vipers known as the “Muslim World”. In fact this nest of vipers has learned how to play on this tendency very skilfully.

There is no escape from this guilt or its obligations because it is collective and impersonal.

We have been taught to examine our behaviour from an early age and some of this is a healthy form of taking responsibility for our actions. This is quite different to the impersonal guilt of the collective.

The tendency to attribute guilt to the “we” often has the effect of absolving the “they” or the “other” of any guilt or responsibility. To suggest “they” bear any responsibility would be to undermine their status as pure victims.

We saw an example of this recently when the odious George Galloway said in the British Parliament that we were to blame for British Muslims going to fight for ISIS because we had not been good enough to them. Unfortunately this way of thinking, even if not articulated so clearly, is very prevalent in the West, particularly on the Left.

This phenomenon is sometimes given the label “white guilt”. This is indeed an aspect of it. However, the prefix “white” implies a mainly racial dimension as if it applies to the treatment of non-white peoples. The phenomenon is actually far more general than this and underlies the sense of obligation towards any group that can be defined as “other” or “not we”.

Repentance is a major theme in Western culture. Within Christianity repentance is a key element of salvation. Indeed, one can see in psychological terms that there can be little possibility of personal change unless there is a willingness to acknowledge where one has previously gone wrong. Through repentance we achieve forgiveness in the sight of God. God loves a repentant sinner most of all.

But in the collectivised guilt of the politically correct how is one to repent? No personal wrong has been done to any particular person so reconciliation cannot be sought there. Repentance thus tends to take the form of taking the side of the “other” of showing solidarity with the right victim groups or of doing endless penance through endless accommodation. By identifying with “pure victims” guilt-ridden westerners can associate themselves with their guiltlessness.

The “Palestinians” spring immediately to mind in this context because they have been elevated to the world’s pre-eminent victim group and all that this implies: unaccountability and guiltlessness. Those Westerners who are fully signed up to the collective guilt paradigm enjoy any opportunity to share in the “suffering” of the Palestinians. An especially egregious example of this solidarity was shown in the placards bearing the slogans “We are all Hezbollah” and “We are all Hamas”.

One approach to explaining the psychology of this behaviour is to acknowledge the primacy of emotion in the mind. Jonathan Haidt describes the reasoning part of the mind as a rider on a much larger animal mind which he likens to an elephant. The elephant represents all the automated responses of the mind: urges, feelings, snap judgements, pre-conscious perceptions and so on which provide so much psychological momentum.

The reasoning part of the mind can forward plan and guide to some extent but the elephant, in any given moment, has generally already decided which way to turn and takes the rider with him. The reasoning mind then provides the rational justification for moving in that direction, of adopting that stance. What this means is that we will find explanations for our behaviour that match the feeling-state we have.

If our feeling-state has a large measure of guilt, as many Westerners do, we will provide explanations which are consonant with that guilt. As Westerners many of us are riders of guilt-ridden elephants. We are experts at finding justifications for these guilty feelings. They have become tenacious aspects of our “nature” and culture.

The guilty feelings are there as primary mental facts. The rational mind has to account for them and does so by means of thinking up spurious notions of collective guilt.

Amnesty International and Afghanistan

I had to laugh this morning when I was reading Amnesty's latest magazine. For a start, I had a look at the back cover where a photo of some Amnesty members was shown. I've always enjoyed trying to read faces to discern attitudes and many of these faces were absolutely transparent. The bien-pensant, pacifist, liberal-lefty, we-can-get-on-with-everyone, all-you-need-is-love, naivety was plastered all over them. What a collection of gullible, useful idiots they looked.

I read an article inside about the plight of Afghan women pending the withdrawal of coalition troops. The article spoke of the many advances for women in Afghanistan since the Taliban were ousted from large areas of the country from 2001 onwards. It spoke of the brutality of the Taliban and how they violated human rights for everyone but especially women. Now, as the Obama-led coalition seeks a speedy exit and is holding negotiations with the Taliban, fears about the consequences for many Afghans are rising.

All understandable enough, and I'm right behind anyone who wants to uphold universal human rights but this is really where the cultural relativists of the Left have got their (or rather the poor Afghans') comeuppance. Having pooh-poohed the efforts of coalition forces to bring order and justice to Afghanistan ever since they started and having done all in their power to bring the troops home (under whatever pretext), they are now crying for the Afghans because the enemy that they don't want to fight, and whom they have busily tried to define as a non-enemy in their usual sneering manner, is positioning itself for a return to power. Dress it up how you like, we will put the Taliban back in power when we leave.

What the likes of Amnesty need to understand is that universal human rights cannot be upheld universally all the time. If a group of people is violating the human rights of another group and they can only be stopped by force, you have to violate their human rights to stop them: you have to kill them.

But those people on the back cover of Amnesty's magazine just won't accept this unpleasant reality.