Aidan talks about the Manchester bombing, which took place at Manchester Arena, England, on 22 May 2017. Aidan feels we need an honest debate on the issues which led to this latest outrage, and that liberals need to attend to a problem of their own: moral confusion. What do you think about the modern, virtue-signalling, ‘liberal’ reaction to any criticism of Islam? Aidan is on Twitter @theaidanproject
On this edition of The Aidan Project, Aidan is joined once more by Jared Miracle, a cultural entomologist with an M.Ed. and a PhD. in anthropology from Texas A&M University. In this episode, Aidan and Jared discuss the infamous cat killings from The Great Cat Massacre, Robert Darnton’s noted scholarly work on the cultural history of France. Why did early modern Europeans find cats to be completely deserving of such harsh treatment? Along with this incredible story and the wider context surrounding it, Aidan and Jared also discuss the mythical Mexican chupacabra, religion, Artificial Intelligence, and much more. You can follow Jared on Facebook (facebook.com/jaredmiraclewriter) and Twitter (@DocKungFu).
This is a bonus podcast from Aidan Coughlan’s conversation with Sami Ramadani from the episode, ‘The Tragedy of Iraq’. Sami grew up in Baghdad, departing as a political exile during Saddam Hussein’s reign. In previously unreleased audio, Sami explains that, contrary to what is widely believed, the sectarian fighting in Iraq is something of a new phenomena. You can find Sami on Twitter at https://twitter.com/SamiRamadani1.
The title of this episode is an homage to an important philosophical work by John Stuart Mill, ‘On Liberty’, which was published in 1859. In this edition of The Aidan Project, Aidan is joined by journalist, podcaster and activist, Joshua Thomas, host of Liberty Live and the Political Conundrum Podcast. Whilst Aidan and Joshua disagree on several points, a true liberal democracy’s interpretation of free speech must surely mean that diametrically opposed arguments can be made without shouting your opponent down. In addition to the central theme of the episode, also discussed and defined are ‘fake news’, ‘the regressive left’ and ‘social justice warriors’. Aidan and Joshua also look at the Daily Mail infamously labelling UK judges as ‘enemies of the people’, and much more. For more information on Joshua, you can catch Liberty Live every Saturday evening at 8PM GMT on YouTube, where you can also find the Political Conundrum Podcast. Joshua is on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/PoliticalConundrum/) and YouTube (http://bit.ly/2g4ZXiN).
“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 in 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 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.