David Myatt and Islam
Apr 4 2008 07:35
I am interested in the relationship between Muslim extremism and the far Right.
A few years ago a guy called David Myatt announced to the world that he was converting to the muslim faith. Up to that point he had a strong involvement with various neo-nazi political groups. It made quite an impact in the UK press at the time, but since then I have heard nothing. The only information from independent sources that I can find is this:
http://rigorousintuition.yuku.com/topic/821/t/David-Myatt-Searchlight-article.html
and this:
http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/nazi.html
Please help out if you can find anything else on this.
I haven't put any gaps in my links because I don't think either of them is a hostile source. If there are any problems, will the Moderator please get in touch and I will change them.
Apr 5 2008 04:55
#2
river wrote:
I am interested in the relationship between Muslim extremism and the far Right.A few years ago a guy called David Myatt announced to the world that he was converting to the muslim faith. Up to that point he had a strong involvement with various neo-nazi political groups. It made quite an impact in the UK press at the time, but since then I have heard nothing. The only information from independent sources that I can find is this:
This guy has been posting this self same message, full of inaccuracies, on forums all over the world in the last few months using a variety of usernames.
Anyone who's seriously interested in the relationship that may exist between some Muslims and the far Right would have found and read Professor Michael's book about the subject - The Enemy of My Enemy: The Alarming Convergence of Militant Islam and the Extreme Right - which provides some good info.
Anyone who's seriously interested in David Myatt would have found the Wikipedia article about him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Myatt
which provides a fairly balanced overview of the man, and gives references for further research.
Instead, this poster refers to a conspiracy site - run by a conspiracy nut - as an "independent source", and gives a link to an old article about Myatt which makes some allegations without providing any evidence for them.
Also, the poster makes some glaring errors as well. Myatt never "announced to the world that he was converting" to Islam. Instead, he kept quiet about it for years.. The poster also states "since then I have heard nothing..." Well, he must have missed the full page article that The Times newspaper printed about Myatt about two years ago, and Myatt's question and answer session with Sheikh Qaradawi's website, among many other things.
So, it seems that the purpose of the poster is - under the guise of pretending to ask for info about Myatt - to spread rumours and allegations and giving links to what are clearly biased sources.
Apr 29 2008 12:02
#3
Raffy, I think we have a 'pot and kettle' situation here. It was me who made the polite initial requests for help and in virtually every instance I have been followed to these message boards and insulted by the person who is stalking me. You will notice that in most cases, my detractor is a brand new member and has presumably registered for the specific purpose of attacking my work. He has stalked me to all these different message boards (and more).
http://www.bloglines.com/forums/read.php?10,8827
http://www.defendingthetruth.com/affirmative-action-race-issues/16518-david-myatt.html
http://libcom.org/forums/theory/david-myatt-islam-04042008
http://www.abovepolitics.com/forum/thread347540/pg1
http://www.politicsforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34386&sid=d7ccc0db890e97547189954328873a96
http://www.bnvillage.co.uk/village-square/98714-david-myatt-islam.html
http://www.blackpresence.co.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=330
One is prompted to ask why anyone would be so concerned about David Myatt that they would join all these message boards just to snipe at one insignificant posting amongst thousands. Why the frantically obsessive attempts to suppress two harmless links. Someone must be very frightened of what the 'Searchlight' and 'Declare Peace' articles contain.
In answer to some of the accusations made against me:
Yes I have made the same posting on different message boards the world over. That is how the internet works. If one is seeking out information, the web is a massive resource and it doesn't make sense to limit the search to my own locality. I made the same posting on different forums because that is how computers work – why type out different versions? Whilst you may not like the links I posted, they are at least demonstrably written by someone other than Myatt himself – which is perhaps what all this hostility is really about. I can't begin to imagine why you think links to texts that are clearly written by Myatt himself – or have some input from him – could ever be classed as 'independent resources'. Clearly they are not independent by any measure.
Finally, the situation regarding the 'Wikipedia' is a little more complex. There was a case recently, where a relatively well known musician had posted details about his life on Wikipedia. Due to to the interactive nature of this resource, one of his 'fans' repeatedly rewrote the entry with 'facts' which were a direct contradiction to the man's real life. The musician corrected these mistakes time and again, but his 'fan' was so persistent, that in the end the subject of the article had his life circumscribed by a stranger! It works both ways of course. If the subject of an entry is persistent enough, they can suppress information about themselves. The last I heard was that this was becoming such a problem, that certain categories of entry would lose the 'interactivity' which makes Wikipedia such a unique resource. Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia is wonderful for all uncontested areas of knowledge, but for anything contentious, I would always be concerned about missing information.
Apr 29 2008 17:45
#4
Anyone of any sagacity can see right through your "polite request" for info - as I pointed out in my first reply to your initial post.
Instead of answering the points I made about your post being just a trick to spread malicious rumors and allegations about Myatt, you just use the tired old Usenet-type tactic of making accusations against me, of trying to shift the focus away from your factual errors, of which there are many.
So, what about the many factual errors contained in your original short post?
Thus, I repeat my points:
1) If you really are doing some serious research, then you would have found far more than the two spurious so-called "independent" items you linked to. Items such as books by Professor Kaplan, and Professor Michael.
2) If you had done even some preliminary, elementary research you would have found that Myatt did not "announce his conversion" to the world, as you claimed.
3) What about your error that "It made quite an impact in the UK press at the time..."? It went unnoticed for almost two years.
4) What about your error that "since then I have heard nothing..." ? Like I wrote, you missed the full page story in The Times newspaper; you missed Myatt's question and answer session on Sheikh Qaradawi's website. You missed an awful lot more.
5) What about your erroneous claim that the two sources you could find (obviously your Google or Yahoo searches are very different from mine) are "independent"? There are not independent in any shape or form. One is a conspiracy site, run by a conspiracy nut (who claims Myatt was/is an MI5 agent), and one is a political organization which even many on the Left in Britain find somewhat dubious because of its (alleged) links with MI5 and its past divisive actions within the Left. These people do not deal in facts, but in innuendo, smear, allegations and assumptions. Rather like most of The Fourth Estate.
So, the conclusion is - due to all these errors and mistakes - that your post is just a ruse to spread unsubstantiated allegations about Myatt. If it was not, you would at the very least have given some other links which balanced the biased view of Searchlight - which, BTW, never presented any evidence for their allegations, ever. Check out:
http://aboutmyatt.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/david-myatt-and-searchlight-rumors/
Apr 30 2008 16:07
#5
Sorry Raffy, but I think you are falling into the same trap as in your previous post – trying to foist your definition of what an independent source is, onto the minds of other people. I didn't mention The Times link because it is so common I think everyone must have seen it by now. As for the others, I have read the texts you suggest and rejected them long ago. The final link you provide in your post merely opens up yet more links written by Myatt himself. What exactly are you trying to do here? Do please stop following me around the internet; it looks creepy!
May 1 2008 17:22
#6
Instead of addressing the issue of the many factual errors in your initial post, you resort to the weird claim that somehow I am stalking you, which is a bit of projectionism and obfustication at work.
You claim that you didn't mention The Times article "because it was so common" - which is quite farcical. I suppose the many other links weren't mentioned because they also were "so common" - while the ones you did give were "not so common"?
As for your ludicrous claim that I am trying to foist "my" definition of what an independent source is onto others, it it just ludicrous, because it was you who claimed your two sources were "independent" and therefore it was and is for you to define what you mean by independent, which you have failed to do.
You seem to fail to notice (or maybe only pretend not to so notice) that I gave no definition, just queried your claim of your "sources" being "independent".
If you are really serious about "doing some research", go to the Islamic Awakening forum and make your post and your claims there.
But I think your illogic and attempts at obfustication and your resorting to argumentum ad hominem will enable readers here to make up their own minds about your intent.
Therefore, please continue with such replies. As for me, a golden silence falls. Caeca invidia est.
May 1 2008 18:32
#7
raffy, river: Is there any real reason you two couldn't continue this discussion in private? Does everyone on this forum really need to witness this petty flame-war?
Jun 5 2008 11:22
#8
http://libcom.org/sites/all/themes/libcomz/images/smileys/wink.gif
Don't worry treeofjudas, we are both having our afternoon nap now, so no more noise.
Jun 18 2008 12:30
#9
Some time ago, I read a message board post which said that David Copeland had converted to Islam. It was claimed that this happened soon after he was sentenced for the murder and maiming of innocent people in the Admiral Duncan, Brick Lane and Brixton, nail bombings. See:
http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/nazi.html
for the background to these atrocities.
Has anyone seen confirmation of Copeland's conversion from any independently verifiable source (newspaper report, news agency etc.)?
Incidentally, the original Searchlight link:
http://rigorousintuition.yuku.com/topic/821/t/David-Myatt-Searchlight-article.html
seems to be down intermittently.
A more reliable one can be found here:
http://rigorousintuition.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/821
Which is part of this interesting article:
http://osdir.com/ml/culture.discuss.cia-drugs/2005-08/msg00685.html
At best, the cooperation of various right-wing extremists with each other is tenuous. While they may share common objects of hatred ('red', homosexuals, women, Jews, etc), the one thing that defines most right-wing racist groups is their own triumphalism of whatever monolithic bloc of people they claim to represent. Not long ago the far right nationalist parties, in an odd move, attempted to form a voting bloc in the EU parliament, only to collapse a couple months later after one of the members of the Italian fascist party (Mussolini's own grand-daughter is I'm correct) said something racist about the Romanian fascist party; the irony of course, was utterly lost on the mainstream press.
So while I see right-wing extremist groups maybe helping each other out, I don't see how it could ever get beyond simple rhetoric boosting, and surely their own self-inflated egos and posturing could not sustain a long standing relationship.