This blog initially set out to focus primarily on Islam and the Islamisation of the UK. However, since that time the subjects covered have broadened. They now include (amongst other things): IQ tests, Jean Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Marxism, Trotskyism, David Cameron, Foucault, Nazism, Ralph Miliband, economics, statistics and so on. - Paul Austin Murphy
I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

Monday, 24 July 2017

Saint Jeremy's halo looses its glow over student debt




Various people - of many political persuasions - have accused Jeremy Corbyn of “misleading students” over student debt and fees. Others have also said that Corbyn “indicated” - during the election campaign – that he'd wipe out the sums owed by students. 

It seems, then, that Corbyn is a “typical politician” after all.

That means that of course Jeremy Corbyn, Momentum and the Labour Party were using students as “election fodder”. (Except that most middle-class students want to be fodder for radical socialism.) Indeed Corbyn has also focused much of his attention on all those middle-class Trotskyists and communists who flocked to the Labour Party (like flies to shit) once he became Chairman of the Labour Party.

So, yes, Corbyn was never explicit about student debt. Politicians are rarely explicit about anything. Again, that's to be expected – except in the case of a saint.

Apart from what Corbyn actually did and didn't say, the Labour Party did promise (i.e., before the election) to end tuition fees. That would have cost £7.5 billion a year.

Labour also promised to restore maintenance grants. That will mean that if Labour had been elected, it would have spent an extra £11.2 billion on higher education... or would it?

***********************

In an interview with the NME, Jeremy Corbyn said that he didn't see why those students who have the “historical misfortune” of large fees should be “burdened excessively” when compared to other people.

That's fairly vague. Basically, it can be taken as an explicit promise and not as an explicit promise. Those that wanted it to be an explicit promise (i.e., students) took it as an explicit promise. Most sceptics doubted the promise from the very beginning.

Thus it's not a big surprise that Jeremy Corbyn told the BBC's Andrew Marr that his comments weren't a “commitment” to erase student debt. After all, he said that before the election. And now Corbyn is backtracking (at least a little) after the election. That is, students have already done the business – they voted for Corbyn's radical socialism.

Jeremy Corbyn retrospectively tells is – in reference to his promises to students - that the Labour Party “had written the manifesto in a short space of time because there was a surprise election”. Does he also apply the logic of off-the-cuff manifestos to all the other parties, including the Conservative Party?

Some of Corbyn's other post hoc statements sound a little strange... and that's putting it mildly. For example, Corbyn also says that he “did not make a commitment we would write it off because I couldn’t at that stage”. What does that mean? He seems to be making the point that because Labour wasn't in power before the election (never?); then, because of that fact, he didn't have the power (at that time) to erase student debt. What? Of course he didn't! Yet he was campaigning to have that power. He wasn't promising jam sandwiches tomorrow asShadow Prime Minister. He was promising jam sandwiches tomorrow if he were elected.

Corbyn also said that the Labour Party was “unaware of the size of it [the “debt burden] at the time”. Now that just sounds like plain bullshit. One, he should have been aware. Two, if he was aware, then Corbyn is misleading the public again.

*****************************

It was very easy for Saint Jeremy to be a saint when he wasn't a political leader. Very easy. It's also very easy to be “principled” (as his disciples put it) when you don't have much political power. Sure, Corbyn is principled in the rather pathetic sense that he believes the same thing now (more or less) as he believed when he converted to socialism when he was 16 (in 1964). Is that supposed to be a good thing – believing at 68 what you believed at 16?

Corbyn shows us that he's a liar and misLeader just like most other politicians; and, indeed, many ordinary mortals. That's not the problem. The problem is the way Corbyn's supporters portray him as some kind of secular saint. Yet he's lied about his support for the IRA even before this student baloney. Again, it's not the lying: it's the image Corbynites have created around Saint Jeremy. A self-serving and obviously duplicitous image manufactured about a man who has praised Hamas and Hezbollah, Trotsky, the Soviet Union, Lenin and Castro. 

Saint Jeremy is a very strange saint.


Saturday, 22 July 2017

The BBC and Gary Lineker are Pro-Market... On the Sly



In reference to Gary Lineker spending £630 each night at a Los Angeles hotel, Lineker's “representative”, Jon Holmes, said: “The market has set the rate.”

Does that mean that Gary Lineker (despite his pro-Corbyn and leftwing statements) is actually pro-market? Well, his representative certainly is.

Not surprisingly, then, Gary Lineker's agent also reacted defensively to criticism of Gary Lineker's £1.8 million BBC pay p/racket. But that doesn't matter. Lineker is a “progressive anti-racist”. Being paid massive amounts is only a sin if you're right-wing and/or wear suits and ties. And, as we all know, all sorts of millionaire rock/pop stars, actors and film-makers make millions. Though they're also politically hip. So that's okay then.

This BBC hypocrisy has even been debated in Parliament. MPs have said that BBC big knobs should be questioned about their special high-earners. For example, take the presenter of Radio 5 Live, Stephen Nolan. This geezer earned between £400,000 and £450,000 last year. (He also faces scrutiny for allegedly “hiding” extra payments.)

These very high BBC salaries – which almost equal those of many leftwing/progressive Chancellors/professors at various British universities – are quite amazing if one keeps in mind the fact that the BBC is funded by the British people in the form of license fees.

Thus the BBC believes in the capitalist market. And The BBC doesn't believe in the capitalist market.

As for Gary Lineker himself. I wouldn't class him as a typically vicious and nasty (Dave Spart-like) supporter of Jeremy Corbyn (of which there are many). I suppose he seems like a decent bloke. He even posted a tweet in which he said that it's an “outrage” that he's paid less than DJ Chris Evans (who earned £2.5 million last year).

Nonetheless, I'm not as critical of the aforementioned Chris Evans as I am of Gary Lineker. That's because the former hasn't supported the radical socialist, Jeremy Corbyn. 


As just stated, Gary Lineker is a supporter of Saint Jeremy. (Lineker publicly stated that he voted for Corbyn at the June 8th election.) Indeed the website Vicepenned an article called 'How Gary Lineker Became the British Left's Loudest Voice'. According to this article, Lineker has “taken down” Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and supported refugees (Without, of course, letting refugees live in his very expa/ensive British home or in his £2 million house in Barbados.)

However, like many other supporters of Jesus H. Corbyn, Lineker has a problem with Corbyn's extremely ambivalent position on Brexit and the EU. Thus we can conclude by saying that Lineker is a Corbynite apart from his very strong championship of the European Union (which Corbyn certainly doesn't share).

Let's face facts. There are very many extremely rich and well-off socialists, Corbynites and progressives: from Gary Lineker and Michael Moore to Seumas Milne and George Soros; from George Monbiot and Naomi Klein to Madonna and George Clooney.

However, earning a hell of a lot of money doesn't cause any of these people any moral or political problems whatsoever. There are two main reasons for that:

1) There are always some people who are even richer than they are! (They're usually billionaires in suits and ties who run businesses; which is so unhip!) After all, inequality is relative, isn't it?
2) It doesn't matter if you're very rich, as long as you're also leftwing or progressive.

The BBC itself is in a terrible predicament. This institution is politically Liberal-Left (i.e., its general “editorial position” is Liberal-Left). Indeed a few BBC journalists are radical socialists like Corbyn. The BBC is also a capitalist institution which wants to make as much money as it can. That means that its Liberal-Left or leftwing “values” come up full square against its practices or actions (e.g., the salaries of BBC employees). This clash between human nature and leftwing piety can also be seen with Micheal “nine homes” Moore, Roger Waters (of Pink Floyd), Seumas Milne and Andrew Philip Drummond-Murray (two well-off public-school boys who now run Corbyn's political machine), Charlotte Church (a Corbyn supporter), Emma Watson (actress, feminist and progressive “activist”), George Soros and many other members of the rich leftwing “tribe of independent minds”.

Friday, 21 July 2017

Tony Blair on Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit Civil War





Tony Blair - once again - has felt a very pressing need to talk about Jeremy Corbyn.

It's ironic that both Blair and Corbyn wanted to radically change the Labour Party. Tony Blair did so from the Right (at least economically; not socially or in terms of what Blair called “values”). Jeremy Corbyn is attempting to do the same from the - to use Blair's own words – “Hard Left”.

Let's put Corbyn in some kind of context. Almost all Labour Prime Ministers (if not all party leaders) since the 1960s has been against - or at war with – the radical/revolutionary Left. This includes Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Neil Kinnock, John Smith, Gordon Brown and, last but not least, Tony Blair himself. Now the Labour Party has a radical-Left leader. Thus, despite the recent mythology, it wasn't only Blair who had a problem with radical socialism.

Blair on Corbyn as Leader

Tony Blair offers us what seems to be a compliment directed towards Jeremy Corbyn. He said that Corbyn has what it takes to win an election. Nonetheless, if he did win, the United Kingdom would be in “real trouble”.

Clearly, you can be fundamentally against someone and still believe that he or she has what it takes to win an election. I too believe that Corbyn could win an election in the future. However, some people wouldn't like me saying this because it could end up being some kind of negative self-fulfilling prophesy.

Let's recall here that Blair once thought (just over one-and-a-half months ago!) that the Labour Party under Corbyn would suffer a “rout’ and “annihilation” at the June 2017 election. That didn't happen. Blair now admits that he was wrong. Indeed he now praises Corbyn's “temperament” and his mobilisation of young voters. Yet despite that, in an interview for BBC Newsnight, Blair also said that he didn't fully understand the increase in Labour support. Nonetheless, he still predicted that Corbyn could become Prime Minister in the future.

Despite saying that Corbyn has what it takes to win an election, Blair also says that Corbyn has no “agenda for the future”. As everyone knows about Tony Blair, he's a master of the soundbite... Corbyn has no “agenda for the future”. .... What!? Of course he has! Simply because Blair doesn't like Corbyn's agenda, that doesn't mean that there he hasn't got an agenda. Corbyn's agenda is crystal clear: he wants to collectivise Great Britain and turn it into a socialist republic. (Check out what's happening in Venezuela!) Now that's certainly an agenda!

Actually, I don't think Blair is much (or even any) worse than any other British political leader when it comes to soundbites. (Think of Corbyn's own soundbite - "For the many, not the few" - here.) Nonetheless the term “soundbite” certainly stuck to Blair and New Labour.

The EU and Brexit

Two things appear to have made Blair change his mind on Jeremy Corbyn: Brexit and the election of Donald Trump.

Blair, rather predictably, is against both Brexit and Trump.

It's Blair's Europhilia that's at the heart of his problem. He says that Corbyn has the same position – on a “hard Brexit” - as the Tories. Corbyn himself has fluctuated on this. He likes the internationalism of the EU; with its “open borders” and rhetoric about “rights”. However, although the EU is culturally socialist or progressive; it isn't economically socialist. And Corbyn wants socialism (like Chairman Mao, Hugo Chavez, Leon Trotsky, Lenin, etc.) to infuse literally every aspect of political and indeed private life.

The point about Blair (as well as the EU) being economically capitalist (or right-wing) and socially leftwing/progressive, is made by Blair himself. He says:

We’re stuck with one political party [the Tories] that’s defined by Brexit and an attitude on immigration that is just out of date, and the other [Labour] with an old-style leftist programme which, I understand why it generates enthusiasm, but it isn’t an answer.”

Yes, I know that it's a pain to get bogged down with these old political terms (e.g., “right-wing”, “leftwing”, etc.) – especially when Blair and so many others see them as being "old-fashioned". It's just that we need to communicate and Blair himself uses them. And, besides that, with Corbyn at the Labour helm, things can hardly be said to have changed that much when it comes to these traditional political positions!

In any case, in the following (as spoken to Sky News’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday), Blair does have a point when he goes into more detail about this capitalism/progressive (real or unreal) dichotomy . He said:

If you follow up Brexit with a hard-left economic programme this country is going to be in real trouble.

The fact is they aren’t solutions — they are two different visions of the 1960s when this country needs to work out an agenda for the future.”

As ever, to Blair it's all about the economy. Then again, Corbyn (as a socialist) also sees the economy as central. Indeed socialists dating back to Marx in the 1850s - along with free marketeers since Adam Smith - have also focused on the economy. In that sense, they're all reductionist about such “material conditions” having a vital impact on literally everything else.

Blair, along with many other prominent Europhiles, has also said that it's “possible” that Brexit won't happen. This is meant to be some kind of self-fulfilling prophesy, of course. In terms of the logic of possibility, it's of course the case that it's possiblethat Brexit may not happen. It's also possible that Corbyn will become a Tory or that swallows won't migrate back to Africa once summer has ended.

I mentioned Blair's penchant for soundbites earlier. Blair mentions Corbyn's very own soundbite: a “jobs-first Brexit”. What does that mean? My bet is that even when it's fleshed out it's probably still the case that this soundbite came first and then the policy – if there is one with some real meat on it - followed. (I'm only half joking here.)

Tony Blair is again correct when he said the following:

A lot of people supported us at the last election on the basis that voting Labour was a way of stopping Brexit or limiting the mandate that Theresa May had for Brexit.”

That's true. Even some hardcore Corbynites are very pro-EU. As I said, they'll love the internationalism, the open borders, the imposition of rights and, well, the anti-“Islamophobia” rhetoric. Perhaps these radical socialists – unlike Corbyn – have bitten the bullet that is the fact that capitalism still rules the roost in most of Europe. (Though it depends on what kind of capitalism we're talking about here.)

This is a big problem for Corbyn. There are loads of quotes of him – dating back to the early 1980s - being fiercely critical of EU and for all the usual radical-socialist reasons.

People may hate Blair, though much of what he says has a strong germ of truth within it. Thus he correctly concludes the following about the Labour-EU-Corbyn situation. He said:

I’m sceptical that this is a coalition capable of holding together if it becomes clear we are in the same position as the Tories on Brexit.”

Yes, the Tories are in the same boat on the EU and Brexit. If we could weigh both parties in the scales, which one would come out as being the most homogeneous on the EU and Brexit? It really is difficult to say because we also have to factor in voters as well; not just party leaders and MPs.

Wednesday, 19 July 2017

Global warming increases the price of ... wine!



Now here, in all its glory, is a supremely tangential link (found in a Metro article called 'Global warming is now messing with wine, so can you PLEASE STOP WRECKING THE WORLD'):

Global warming is “going to up the price of wine across the board”.

Readers may want to know the details about this fatal connection between man-created global warming and the high price of wine. Though - it must be said straight away - this can't always the case at present. It must surely depend on which wines you like and where you buy your wine from.

Anyway, this is the hard science bit; so pay attention and put your white coats on. Here goes:

Researchers have suggested that rising temperatures in Europe are likely to increase the cost of labour in vineyards, noting that as heat rises in August, a month when a significant amount of the harvest is brought in, there’s a 15% drop in the amount of time labourers are able to work.

There’s also a drop in productivity, slowing down the wine production process.”

That's odd. On average heat always rises in August in most European countries.Metro doesn't really make it clear if these natural - as well as annual - increases have themselves increased. It also says that “[r]esearchers have suggested”. Yes, they've suggested. That's a very loose word. Though it's obviously a very precise and important word if you like your wine and you're also against man-caused global warming.

Another study has admitted that this catastrophic effect on wine production hasn't been replicated elsewhere. Metro says:

Andreas Flouris of the School of Exercise Science at the University of Thessaly reckons that the results of the small-scale study could easily repeat in California, across Europe, and in Australia – so all our wine could be set to hike up in price.”

Now if this wine catastrophe hasn't yet happened in “California, across Europe, and in Australia” - then where, exactly, has it happened? The initial study mentioned that “most European countries” have been effected by it. (Which ones?) This other study says that it hasn't yet occurred “across Europe”. How do we make sense of these two seemingly contradictory phrases?

It's not just about cost. (Though, for Metro, it's mainly about the cost!) This is also about taste. Metro tells us that

[i]ncreased heat is also affecting the taste of wine, damaging the quality of grapes across Europe and shortening the growing season”.

All this - if true- will also affect prices. Shorter growing seasons will certainly affect the price of wine – or at least certain wines from certain countries. This is strange. One main reason why the United Kingdom doesn't produce much wine is its shortage of warm weather. (British wine makes up 1% of the domestic market.) Yet if temperatures keep on increasing, then surely more wine will be produced in England. That will also have a positive affect on the price of win! Why doesn'tMetro mention that?  



Now what's all this going to do to London's dinner-party circuit? I mean Metropolitans are already suffering from severe “austerity”. Add 50 pence (or less) to a bottle of wine and then what have you got? Massive poverty among London's professional political Pharisees (who also like wine).

Global Warming Generally 

This Metro (which is a British tabloid) journalist, Ellen Scott, screams these words at her readers:

Stop being bloody idiots and doing their bits to save the world.”

Yet she doesn't say how people should do their bit. Perhaps piety and screaming is enough, I don't know.

Then Ellen Scott gets to the heart of her problem. Global warming “is massively f***ing up our wine”. Yes, she doesn't like paying too much for her wine. That's why she swore. (Or she might have used expletives to show that she has lots of street cred.) She swears some more when she says “here’s another convincing reason to give a sh*t about global warming”.

Metro tells us that “global warming” is “a massive issue” and that we should “ignore anyone who says it’s not a real thing”. (“Ignore”, rather than argue against?)

For a start, not all deniers deny that global warming exists. Not all deniers say that humans aren't partly responsible for global warming. What is denied is the claim that human beings are the main (or sole) reason behind global warming. What they also say is that global warming has occurred many times before – even before the period of human industrialisation.

Metro carries on in the same vein by telling us this:

Rising sea levels. Extinction of animals. Terrifying weather patterns. Looming death.”

We can say that sea levels have risen throughout the history of the planet. Uncountable species of animals have also become extinct. (Doesn't Ellen Scott know anything about this central aspect of evolution?) Weather patterns have always included aspects that are “terrifying”. In other words, none of thus is exclusive to the 21st century. Indeed all these things have happened before – countless times. Now this may be the case even if it's also true that human beings have contributed to global warming. However, the rhetoric and end-times screaming – from Ellen Scott - doesn't help Metro's cause.

Metro: A British Leftwing Tabloid

The link between high prices for wine and global warming must be one of the most pathetic and tangential links I've ever read. It may also show us why Metro is primarily aimed at Metropolitans with lots of money. If anthropogenic global warming is a problem, then it's Metro readers who are partly responsible for it.

Thus, just as socialists always focus in on the emotions of greed and enviousness, so too does Metro. Basically Metro is saying that if you want cheap wine, then take action against man-caused global warming.

As you've seen, Metro is very pious and it is so on all sorts of other issues too. That piety isn't disguised by its tabloid style or even by the use of swear words within its pieces.

Thus it's worth saying that British leftwingers were never really against what they snobbishly and dismissively referred to as “tabloid journalism”. What they were against is the fact that most tabloids are (broadly speaking) politically right-wing. However, Metro shows us that leftwing (or liberal-left) tabloids are okay after all.

Metro even heavily focuses on sex 'n' celebrities. (Here's a piece - also by Ellen Scott - called 'A new kind of sex toy is exploring the pleasure of vaginal pressure'.)Metro also loves to screenshoot various people's (famous or otherwise) tweets.

Metro (or Ellen Scott) finishes off with this warning:

So basically, global warming could end up making our wine taste rubbish and cost more.

Thanks a lot, fossil fuel users.”

We must presume here that Ellen Scott doesn't use fossil fuels. Actually, that's highly unlikely! So perhaps she means that she uses less fossil fuels than evil right-wing people. That's not very likely either. So perhaps it's her piety and fanaticism that really count.

Finally, Metropolitans (or the readers of Metro) love wine and money. That must surely mean that man-caused global warming comes after money, wine and one's (e.g., Ellen Scott's) personal use of fossil fuels. However, it's made to seem – in this Metro piece – that the war on fossil fuels comes first. As far as Metro is concerned, it seems to be the case that human nature (or the cost of wine) comes first.


Tuesday, 18 July 2017

A racist London Tube attack against another racist?





Meet the first (possible) racist.

He's an architect by the name of Pawel Uczciwek. This man is accused of having “racially abused a woman” and then of “trying to pull off her hijab” in a London Tube station. This happened on Saturday.

Yet the accused man (or “Islamophobe”) also said that his black girlfriend was under a “racist attack from three other random females”.

Pawel Uczciwek also said that the the allegation against him is “completely false”. He continued:

I would like to confirm I never hit or attacked anyone I simply defused the situation by separating them.”

What's more, Uczciwek stressed his own anti-racist case by stating the following:

The police is fully cooperating with me and will be able to obtain CCTV footage showing the three women attempting to attack my partner because we are in an interracial relationship.”

Perhaps the Muslim woman (Aniso Abdulkadir) didn't like the idea of a black woman going out with a white man. And that's why she verbally attacked her. That's certainly what Uczciwek hints at. The means that Aniso Abdulkadir bit off more than she could chew. That is, she verbally abused Uczciwek's black girlfriend and then he did indeed physically attack her.

Another possibility is that, as a Muslim, Aniso Abdulkadir didn't like the fact that Uczciwek's girlfriend was wearing a short skirt.

So here an attack on a Muslim has been classed as “racist”. Yet even if there was physical contact, that doesn't automatically mean that it was racist simply because the victim (if she is a victim) is a Muslim.

It's certainly the case that's there's been a hell of a lot of Muslim-on-non-Muslim (orMuslim-on-white) violence in the UK. Some of it has even been featured in our newspapers. In addition, according to many sources, black-on-white violence (as in America) is higher than white-on-black violence.

***********************

Now meet the second (possible) racist: Aniso Abdulkadir.

This Muslim woman wasted no time at all in advertising – on Twitter - the alleged attack.

Aniso Abdulkadir posted an image of the man who attacked her. She wrote:

This man at Baker Street station forcefully attempted to pull my hijab off and when I instinctively grabbed ahold of my scarf he hit me.”

She continued:

He proceeded to verbally abuse my friends and I, pinning one of them against the wall and spitting in her face.”

Not surprisingly, this tweet earned more than 24,000 retweets by Sunday afternoon.

It also seems that she already had a strong political position on racism. Or at least her friend Lux had. The latter also tweeted the following words:

Racism is a real thing people choose to ignore, we really do live in a pathetic society where people are all talk and completely useless.”  


A British Transport Police spokesman said the incident is being investigated. It's being investigated as a “hate crime” rather than a simple fight or physical attack. The spokesman said:

Behaviour like this is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

This incident has been reported to us and we’re investigating.”

One wonders why the British media seems to have taken Aniso Abdulkadir's side. After all, there is equal evidence on both sides. For one, it's hard to class a white man as “racist” if he has a black girlfriend! And why (as yet) hasn't the media done any research on the Muslim black woman who claims to have been attacked?

Judging by her name and photo, I'd say that Aniso Abdulkadir is of an African - rather than an “Asian” - background; possibly Somalian. 


Not to put too fine a point on it, African-heritageblacks (including Muslim blacks) have a reputation for violence in the United Kingdom; especially in London. (This is particularly true of Somalians.) This reputation also includes black women. However, unlike the case of the architect, the news pieces I've read haven't provided us with any details about Aniso Abdulkadir.

*******************

Many have said (in various ways) that anti-racism has been demeaned by so many anti-racist policies and actions. There's also the omnipresence and overuse of accusations of “racism”. When people state these things, however, pious and puritanical anti-racists either laugh or foam at the mouth. They claim that the people who say such things are racists anyway therefore such a claim simply must be bogus.

This is certainly the reaction to the claim that anti-racism often causes racism. Yet these knee-jerk reactions simply prove the point!

One aspect of the eternal war against racism is that any criticism whatsoever of that war (or its anything goes tactics) is also deemed to be racist. Thus the war will carry on and become more extreme and more puritanical. It will continue in this manner until the endless war against (often-fake) racism implodes in some way. Or it'll continue until anti-racists begin to eat their own children. In fact, this is already happening!

In addition to all that, anti-racism is a primary weapon in the armoury of leftwingers. It's also a means to further one's career or to sell one's pure credentials. It iseverything to everyone.

This story highlights the problem. Both sides claim that the other side is “racist”. Thus what we often have is this:

I'll place my anti-racism against your anti-racism.

Who wins? Both sides? None?

We also have the I'm-more-anti-racist-than-thou competition which white leftwingers seem so keen on. As I said, the anti-racism revolution is eating its own children.