The established wisdom, as apparently seen by Maajid Nawaz, is that he has been there, done it, and brooks no argument from those who would usurp the knowledge of his lived experience. The LBC host will, moreover, set his lawyer on anyone who suggests that he was ever involved in terrorism (which, it must be stressed, he was not), unless they happen to be called Stephen Yaxley Lennon. You don’t mess with Maajid.
Sadly, Nawaz also has a tendency to over-egg this particular pudding, and for him the moment of reality arrived yesterday as he got rather carried away with an attack on the mythical “hard-left”. “The hard-left has fucked up our youth. These are fruits of their Long March & a consequence of us all giving the hard-left an easy pass on their morally relativist, post-modernism” he pontificated. But Jason Stanley had a problem.
He’s a philosophy professor at Yale University, and what caught his eye was Nawaz’ reference to “post-modernism”, which had no relevance to the subject Nawaz was apparently discussing. “Is this a joke tweet?” he asked, following that with “It’s hard to take you seriously when you mention postmodernism in this context though”.
Nawaz had been caught throwing in an expression for effect, effectively being a language poseur. Now he had been called out for it, and all he could do was to fall back on his I’ve-been-there-and-you-haven’t-so-don’t-mess-with-me schtick. Off he went.
“Considering circumstances, do you really think this is an urgent point to try & make to someone you’ve just learned has lived through torture & violence & is advising against more violence being the answer? As a white American male, do try not to tone police this Muslim survior [sic] of violent racism and state torture. That is, if you genuinely see your intersectional privilege & seek to understand my lives [sic] experience and intellectual references”. He sees Stanley’s call-out and raises him some more big words!
Stanley couldn’t quite believe this. “Are you still joking? Seriously, I can’t tell. This whole thread reads like a parody”. To which Nawaz just got even more radged. “And here on display is the sheer arrogant dismissive privilege and racism of the American left. Thank you” he blustered. But he still failed to get the point. So Stanley tried once more.
“You’re welcome? Sorry, I genuinely do not know if this is a parody - obviously you are aware that ‘postmodernism’ has nothing to do with protest in my country (and that Marxists are not postmodernists etc.)”. At which point Nawaz resorted to abuse. “Thanks for the whitesplain white dude”. That wasn’t what he had been told. I suspect he knew it.
Jason Stanley, who did not need to resort to the blustering defensiveness with which he had been confronted, simply replied “Sadly I cannot tell if you are still joking”. Mehdi Hasan, who has Nawaz figured out, observed “Maajid Nawaz has this whole anti-identity politics schtick but as soon as someone calls him on his BS - as my friend Yale professor & fascism expert [Jason Stanley] did earlier - he instantly reverts to a 'you-cant-criticize-me-because-youre-a-white-man' line. He is beyond parody”.
Will the next Nawaz legal threat cite his hurt feelings? Who knows? Indeed, who cares?
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet6
Maajid is very dogmatic, I can see how someone like him became radicalised. People also seem to mistake postmodernist analysis for advocacy of what post modern analysis reveals about the modern era. I, for example, miss the era where 'left' and 'right' had stable meanings that we could all agree on which provided a sure footing for political debate.
ReplyDeleteThere's something seriously wrong inside Nawaz's head.
ReplyDeleteA twisted nerve perhaps.
What's wrong with him is that he likes money and has no principles.
DeleteMaajid reminds me of Malcolm from the Mailwatch forum.
ReplyDeleteMalcolm is far smarter though, most of what he says isn't complete bunkum. Most. Most.
Most self constructs very rarely survive intense and knowledgeable scrutiny.
ReplyDelete