I blogged very positively about Anne Marie Waters a little over a year ago, when she spoke in London. At that point she was describing leaving Left / Feminist / Secularist movements behind and moving into Sharia Watch and UKIP. Her “Three I’s” – anti-Islamisation, anti-Immigration and pro-Independence, and the fact that established political movements that should be taking strong stands on these issues are effectively colluding through ideological political correctness.
More recently, having added Pegida to the movements she supports, she gave an update of essentially the same talk in Nottingham (not great sound quality) – “Islam and the Political Left” – in the fresh light of Merkel in Germany and Islamist terror in Paris and Brussels.
Now, she is a political campaigner, and chooses her rhetoric for its effect, so I wouldn’t always agree literally with every statement in an actual dialogue or argument. When debating politically-incorrect topics it is necessary to be extra careful – perversely, even to be a little politically correct – in choosing your words. And she is. There are things to say distinctly about both Islam and Islamism and the fact they are causally connected – and she does. When talking about immigration the things to say are about import of cultural practice inconsistent with our human values and freedoms – and she does. And she does it with reference to objective events, and empirical, pragmatic practice. She’s beyond – lost patience – with theory, and with overly analytical people like me.
I pick one example to analyse – highlighted already by a comment on the YouTube page:
“It’s not a conspiracy
[between Islam and the Western Liberal Left],
it’s a common ideology.”
- “Not a conspiracy” she says – that’s literally true. It’s a kind of collusion that evolves naturally in an environment of politically correct discourse – to look like a conspiracy, and behave like one too. It’s what I often call here a “memetic” effect. But, if it looks and quacks, many would call it a duck – she is careful not to.
- “It’s a common ideology” she says – well not literally true, but if documenting her thesis, her meaning is clear. They are both ideological and they share some important common ideological components – which she does indeed go on to list. She’s right. I’d just drop the “a” – the definite article. In fact the ideological problems run deep into how the meme of accepted discourse drives political correctness of [Western] thought, decision and action. A Catch-22. (Hence my own analysis here.)
Whilst we all deal with the difficulties of these “Three I’s” – facing us right now in the UK, she’s someone you should listen to carefully – with your ears and minds open. However you choose your own words, I’d challenge you articulate anywhere you believe she’s wrong. Anyone accusing her of bigotry – and many do – are not actually listening as carefully as she is speaking.
The fact it’s not actually an identifiable conspiracy, but more a mutual sleep-walk, means it’s particularly scary and dangerous to ignore it, or worse deny it, and all the more imperative we articulate and engineer solutions.