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.)

Saturday, 6 September 2014

Gordon Jelley: the SWP's Rotherham social worker on Muslim sex-grooming gangs

Gordon Jelley

Gordon Jelley was one of the Rotherham social workers – a member of the UK’s Socialist Workers Party (SWP) – who would have been partly responsible for the lack of action on Muslim grooming-gangs in that town.

This social worker is himself guilty.

It would have been Jelley – and people like him – who accused the police, council workers, etc. of being “racist” or “Islamophobic” when they wanted to take action against Muslim groomers.

It was people like him that sent whistle-blowers on “diversity re-education courses” when they brought to light the extent of Muslim grooming-gangs in Rotherham.

This is about what people like Gordon Jelley and other Trotskyists did in Rotherham council.

This is how Leftist ideology had a major and direct impact on the continuing abuse of hundreds of girls.

These social workers, council workers, etc. are guilty. And so is their ideology.

The front page of Socialist Worker, the website publication of the revolutionary Trotskyist group, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

Gordon Jelley, according to Socialist Worker (in the article Rotherham child abuse – blame cops and the cuts, not political correctness’), “worked as a training officer for social workers in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, between 2005 and 2009”.

What it doesn’t also tell you is that he’s also a member of the SWP. In fact Gordon Jelley writes for Socialist Worker and Socialist Review. (Both are SWP publications. Here is Jelley writing about a book called Radical Social Work Today.) He also wrote for Socialist Worker as a “Rotherham local government officer for Unison”. And here’s his Twitter page (lots of stuff about Palestine and he has some well-known friends).

The Socialist Worker website often interviews people who – seemingly – are bystanders or workers in the field. It fails to mention that they are Trotskyist supporters or workers for the SWP. I doubt that the SWP - being so ideologically narrow and rigid - would ever quote any non-Trotskyist in full.

You could tell straight away that Gordon Jelley was SWP by the way he puts his position. It’s pure Dave Spart. Pure SWP. And then I checked his details. And I was right.

In fact Gordon Jelley is such an hardcore Trot that he doesn’t even blame “the Tories”. He blames New Labour. That is, he blames capitalism.

He writes: “The council was under the cosh from New Labour targets after it failed an inspection.” (Mr Jelley worked as a  “training officer for social workers” in Rotherham between 2005 and 2009.)

Since Islamic sexual slavery – and the mass rape of kuffar females – has been happening for 1,400 years in the Muslim world, it’s strange that the SWP blames capitalism for the existence of Muslim grooming-gangs…. No it’s not! The SWP blames all wrongs on capitalism – quite literally! It blames capitalism for war, racism, sexism, global warming, the buses being late, cancer…. and, now, Muslim grooming-gangs.

The SWP’s position is Manicheanism at its most pure. A Manicheanism in which everything capitalist is bad (evil) and everything non-capitalist is good. (Those good non-capitalist and non-white things include Muslim grooming gangs, Islamic terrorists, Islamic misogynists, brown and black racists, Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO, Iran, etc.)

Gordon Jelley also says that “[s]ocial workers had high caseloads”. Thus it follows, to him, that “[t]hey can be less likely to want to take on abuse cases because they know that comes with a heap of work they don’t have time for”.

The solution to that would have been very simple.

Social workers should have taken on the Muslim-abuse cases and jettisoned some of the others.

Why did these social workers have time for this other stuff and not for the systematic and widespread abuse of young girls? If Jelley is talking about “paperwork” here, then that may make what he’s saying a little better. But I doubt he’s only talking about paperwork. These other cases and time-consuming activities would have included making sure supporters of Ukip couldn’t adopt children (which happened in Rotherham), “racial awareness classes”, “diversity training”, action against “the far right”, “sensitivity training”, classes in social work (given by Leftist academics like, well, Gordon Jelley), lessons in Urdu and whatnot.

Political Correctness?

Gordon Jelley doesn’t say that he agrees with political correctness. He says that it didn’t so much as exist in Rotherham when he worked there.

Socialist Worker quotes him as saying that “[m]uch of the press—and many politicians—have claimed that ‘political correctness’ stopped the authorities taking action over the abuse”.

However, the SWP goes on to say that there is “no evidence of workers changing their behaviour due to considerations about the ethnicity of suspected abusers”…. Except that many people - including police officers, councillors, MPS, local residents, etc. - have said precisely that. And despite that evidence, this Trotskyist website then quotes Gordon Jelley as saying that “the idea of police worrying about offending Asian people was ‘like turning the world upside down’”.

Well, a political party (the SWP) which believes that political correctness has never gone far enough would say that. And since he mentions the police, members of the police – to repeat – have said that they were worried about “offending Asian people”. And they were worried because people like Gordon Jelley would have accused them of “racism” and “Islamophobia” if they tackled the Muslim grooming-gangs.

You see the Trotskyist permanent revolution hasn’t gone far enough for Gordon Jelley. And that’s why he still doesn’t see any of this as having anything to do with political (Trotskyist) correctness.

Jimmy Savile

Socialist Worker then goes ahead and makes an obscene point that even it must know is flawed to its very core. Like Slavoj Zizek’s recent article in The Guardian (that “Leftist herd of independent minds”), it says:

He [Gordon Jelley] pointed out that there are no demands on white ‘community leaders’ to condemn abuse when Jimmy Savile or other white abusers are discussed.

That’s because Jimmy Savile was a sex-abuser, not a racist. He didn’t single out Muslim or brown-skinned girls to abuse. The Muslim groomers, on the other hand, did single out white girls to abuse – specifically. Nor was Jimmy Savile expressing the traditions and values of his community, as the Pakistani Muslim groomers have done. Not only that: the Savile case has been extensively covered in the press. And that is something which the SWP doesn’t like when the criminals and abusers have brown skins. (Such is the deep-seated racism of the Trotskyist Left.) In addition, there weren’t dozens of gangs of Jimmy Saviles which all belonged to the same communities – brothers, cousins, uncles, mosque friends, next-door-neighbours, etc. – and which systemically abused members of other communities without the authorities doing a thing about it.


Gordon Jelley was a “training officer” for social workers in Rotherham between 2005 and 2009 . Thus it can be argued that he and his type are more guilty than almost anyone else for what happened in that town. After all, the police, councillors, other social workers, etc. would have taken advice from him and from people just like him.

Friday, 5 September 2014

Slavoj Žižek's Sly Defence of Muslim Sexual-grooming Gangs


[This article, as 'A Sly Defence of Muslim Sexual-grooming Gangs', can be found at American Thinker.]

As a Marxist revolutionary, Slavoj Žižek has his cake and eats it:
he believes in violent revolution as well as in “taking over the institutions” (in the Gramscian manner).

Currently Žižek is a senior academic at the following institutions: the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia; Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities (London); the European Graduate School; and Kyung Hee University, South Korea.

So it seems that Marxism isn't dead after all. It's certainly not the case that Žižek is dead. In fact he's been called the “Elvis of cultural theory”. The journal Foreign Policy listed him in its Top 100 Global Thinkers list in 2012. Žižek has also appeared in films and documentaries, including the 2005 film, Žižek! And it's even the case that there's a journal dedicated entirely to his work: the International Journal of Žižek Studies.


To be honest, I was expecting an unmitigated apologia on Muslim sexual-grooming gangs from Slavoj Žižek (even if a theoretical and canny one) in his most recent article for The Guardian: 'Rotherham child sex abuse: it is our duty to ask difficult questions'. After all, we're talking about a Marxist philosopher (if with non-Marxist trimmings) and The Guardian here. However, the piece isn't quite as bad as I thought it would be.

Having said that, yet another Guardian article with the usual deceit and apologetics on Islam and Muslims simply wouldn't have washed in the severe and in-your-face case of Rotherham's Muslim gangs – not even with theory-intoxicated Guardianistas.

But hold on to your horses a minute!

In the end, even though Žižek says things like “we are dealing with the 'political unconscious' of the Pakistani Muslim youth” (note the word 'political', not 'religious'), he never once goes into detail about either Islam or Pakistani Muslim culture. And as I did expect, Žižek goes into more detail about Catholic priests, Jimmy Savile and serial rapes by white men (in Canada) than he does about Muslim grooming-gangs.

In fact Žižek may be deceitfully trying to sell himself as a honest Leftist/Marxist simply in order to make the same old Leftist points he does make about Jimmy Savile, white Canadian rapists and the Catholic Church. And all this despite the fact that he writes that

“anti-racism is effectively a barely covert racism, condescendingly treating Pakistanis as morally inferior beings who should not be held to our standards”.

As well as:

“[I]t is fully legitimate to raise the question of whether there are features in their religion and culture that open up the space for the brutality against women.”

Indeed Žižek does “raise the question”. The problem is: he doesn't attempt to answer it.

There are - at most - two (of thirteen) paragraphs specifically on Muslim grooming-gangs (i.e., less than 170 words of a 1129-word article). And even those two paragraphs are vague and very general in that Žižek is actually talking about religion generally, not Islam. He spends two paragraphs, on the other hand, on the sexual abuse cases of the Catholic Church and one more paragraph on “a group of white rapists” in Canada.

The funny thing is (unless he's playing games) that Žižek does say that the

“left exhibited the worst of political correctness, mostly via generalisations: perpetrators were vaguely designated as 'Asians', claims were made that it was not about ethnicity and religion but about the domination of men over women”.

Though after saying that, Žižek goes straight ahead and more or less does what he has just said “the left” has done so far. That is, he spends more time talking about religions generally - as well as “ritualised” male sexism and violence - than he does talking about the specifics of Muslim grooming-gangs in England.

So perhaps this ostensible openness and honesty from Žižek is simply a strategic move (politically speaking). Or, to use Žižek's own words, not being honest and open about Muslim grooming-gangs is

“a more effective way to open up the field to Ukip and other anti-immigrant populists who exploit the worries of ordinary people...”

In other words, if the Left doesn't allow more articles like Žižek's to be written, then UKip - and other “populists” - will find it even easier to “exploit the worries of ordinary people”. (The words “exploit the worries of ordinary people” is Žižek's tangential use of the Marxist notion of “false consciousness”; which, apparently, is something which “ordinary people” - i.e., all non-Marxists - suffer from.)

All Religions - Except Marxism - are Bad

In the entire article, Slavoj Žižek only has one thing to say about Islam itself. At that is this:

“Without blaming Islam as such (which is in itself no more misogynistic than Christianity).”

Now that's precisely what you would expect from The Guardian and Slavoj Žižek.

Žižek, as a Marxist, thinks that all religions have a problem with what he calls “ritualised violence” in which religious males take “revenge on vulnerable women of the predominant group”.

Here Žižek is simply reiterating the mindless Marxist position that – basically - all religions are the same. (All religions have certainly been analysed in the same way by Marxists.) And if all religions are the same, then it must follow that any concentration on Islam simply must be racist or “Islamophobic” in some way – by Marxist definition. After all, Žižek himself is at pains to tell is about white rapists in Canada and sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

Zizek's also offers a Marxist analysis of male violence against women; which also conveniently fits into his Marxist analysis of religion. And, yes, you guessed it, that violence is all about socioeconomic “exclusion”, “social dislocation” and the like.

For example, it terms of the “serial rapes” by “a group of white men” in Canada, this is all about “the social dislocation due to fast industrialisation and modernisation” which “provoked a brutal reaction from males who experience this development as a threat”. (This is yet another example of Marxist reductionism which, in this instance, simply disregards such sexually-violent activities as they are carried out by affluent or politically/socially powerful men.)

Of course saying that all religions are the same (or that all religions are, in Marxist-speak, “mere epiphenomena of socio-economic realities” ) is about as subtle and sophisticated as saying that “all politicians piss in the same bucket”.


Slavoj Žižek's Marxism is perhaps at its most pure when he says that at the heart of the matter of Muslim grooming-gangs (believe it or not!) isn't the

“conflict between cultures, but a conflict between different visions of how different cultures can and should co-exist”.

Now that statement - despite Žižek's hints at a “Marxist critique” of multiculturalism - is one of the best descriptions of the ultimate vice of multiculturalism that I've ever read. In addition, Žižek sums up the essence of multiculturalist theory and then goes right ahead and fully endorses it...

.... Except that Žižek does add his own little something to plain-old multiculturalism: a multiculturalism than should be (more?) Marxist in nature. (Since when has multiculturalist theory not been largely Marxist in nature, Slavoj?)

Like the beliefs of all those Dead and Living White Males of the various capitalist and imperialist empires, Marxists have always seen Marxism as a “universal” religion or ideology. Or as Žižek himself puts it:

“The only way to break out of this deadlock is to propose and fight for a positive universal project shared by all participants.”

That “universal project” is one which includes the “fight for emancipation” and the “struggle against neocolonialism”. That Grand Narrative and universal ideology is Marxism. In other words, what will tie the so-far warring tribes, religions and even classes together - within a multicultural society - is a joint commitment not to patriotism or shared civic, social and political values/traditions, but to Marxist theory, ideology and causes.

In the end, then, Slavoj Žižek delivers more of the same Marxist/Leftist theory; despite the promising hints and half-criticisms of Muslim grooming-gangs. In fact he offers us a Marxist rationale (or apology!) for so much as mentioning (though not analysing) the Muslim grooming-gangs and their misogyny and racism.

Yes, Slavoj Žižek predictably – and despite my initial surprise - spends much more time indulging in yet more ritualistic criticisms of various Leftist bêtes noires than he does criticising – let alone analysing - the Muslim grooming-gangs of Rotherham and beyond.

Thursday, 4 September 2014

Telegraph & Argus (Bradford) doesn't say that the sex-groomers were Muslims

Rochdale sex gang via Telegraph
Rochdale sex gang via Telegraph

Yet again Bradford’s Telegraph & Argus doesn’t even use the word ‘Asians’ in two of its most recent articles on Muslim sexual-grooming gangs in Bradford and Keighley.

It doesn’t mention Pakistanis either.

And it certainly doesn’t mention Muslims.

And these articles have been published only a week or so after the Rotherham case hit the fan. That is, after councillors, police, social workers and MPs – or at least some of them – have partially come clean on the Muslim (or at least the Pakistani) nature of this epidemic.

(Here are the two T & A pieces: ‘Up to 100 children at risk of sexual grooming’  and ’28 men arrested in Keighley grooming gang probe’.)

But firstly a few words about Bradford itself.


A demonstration in Bradford against the film about Muhammad.

Bradford is in the north of England (in the county of Yorkshire). It has one of the largest Muslim populations – proportionate to the overall population – in the UK. It comes out as just behind London’s Tower Hamlets (at 34%) and roughly equal to Oldham (at 26%).

However, people should be careful with the statistics which are often offered up on Muslim demographics. When the political statisticians aren’t fusing Muslims with ‘Asians’, there’s also the problem with fusing Bradford (the city) with Bradford Metropolitan Council. The latter includes many surrounding towns, such as Ilkley, Bingley, Silsden, Keighley, Baildon, etc.; all of which (except Keighley) have very small Muslim populations. Indeed Ilkley has a virtually zero Muslim population; that’s if you exclude the taxi drivers and the people who work in the curry houses. (Perhaps that’s why Ilkley is full of Leftists and Left-liberals who are keen fans of multiculturalism, Islam and Muslims.)

The figure that’s often offered for the Muslim population of Bradford is around 26%. Now that’s for Bradford city. If it’s of Bradford Met as a whole, then the percentage is 16%.



Other regional newspapers in England have finally started using the ‘P’-word (‘Pakistanis’), if not the ‘M’-word (‘Muslim’). At one point – up until around 2010 – these newspapers didn’t even use the word ‘Asian’. And since the Rotherham case, the word ‘Pakistanis’ is now being used – at least for now and for some newspapers. The next step, of course, is to use the word ‘Muslim’. After all, the groomers in Blackpool, etc. included Kurdish and north African Muslims. And in Malmö, Oslo, etc. hardly any of the Muslim groomers are Pakistani or ‘Asian’.

Even Slavoj Žižek the well-known Marxist philosopher (writing in The Guardian the other day), criticised the use of the word ‘Asian’ when referring to Muslims. However, in that same article he spent more time on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church (something that newspaper has often featured) and “white male rapists” in Canada than he did on Islam and Pakistani grooming-gangs. In other words, The Guardian and Leftists generally have now realised that they now have to whitewash the reality of Islam and Muslim grooming-gangs in an even more subtle and sly way.

As many people have said, once the noise quietens down about Rotherham and its massive problem with Muslim sexual-grooming gangs, it will be back to normal. That is, back to ignoring the fact that this is overwhelmingly a Muslim problem. In fact, as far as the Telegraph & Argus is concerned, it’s back to normal only a week after the Rotherham scandal.

The situation is simple.

If the T & A, the police, MPs, social workers, councillors, etc. don’t recognise what’s at the heart of this problem – Islam and Muslims, then the problem simply won’t be solved. Willed ignorance and ideological correctness will carry on stopping it from being solved.

The truth is just too heavy for these people to handle. And that truth is that Islam has had an unbroken history of sexual slavery. Therefore many Muslims don’t think the sexual abuse of young kuffar girls is either a sin or a crime.

Finally and ironically, Bradford’s Telegraph & Argus is so Islamophile that it doesn’t have a single Muslim journalist on its staff. The word on the street is that the majority of Bradford’s Muslims simply don’t read it. Perhaps they are too busy reading the Koran, Al Jazeera and grooming manuals.

Monday, 1 September 2014

Should we work with Syria's Assad to defeat the Islamic State (IS)?

The British government has said that it won't work with President Bashar al-Assad in order to destroy the Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq.

This is in response to the comments of the former head of the British Army, Lord Dannatt (along with former Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who recently advised some kind of alliance with Assad. (As a military man, I suppose that Lord Dannatt may know what he's talking about.)

Nonetheless, since these suggestions seem to have arisen specifically in response to the beheading of the U.S. journalist James Foley, they may simply be knee-jerk reactions. After all, if it's worth working with Assad now, surely it was worth working with him last week or even months ago. After all, IS have been carrying out large-scale killings and wreaking havoc in Syria and Iraq for up to four months now.

Despite Lord Dannatt's words, the Foreign Secretary (during an interview on BBC Radio 4's World at One) has said that cooperating with the Syrian regime would “poison” Britain's endeavors in that part of the world. Philip Hammond said:

"We may very well find that we are fighting, on some occasions, the same people that he is but that doesn't make us his ally."

In other words, is our enemy’s enemy necessarily our friend? Well, no; not necessarily our friend. However, that doesn't stop us from working with an enemy in order to defeat a worse enemy. In any case, working with someone doesn't make that person our friend. Or, as Sir Rifkind put it, history has shown us that "sometimes you actually have to make an arrangement with some nasty people in order to get rid of some even nastier ones".

Here we also face another classic philosophical question: Do the ends justify the means? More specifically, can working with a poisonous regime be justified if the end result is the destruction of an even more poisonous entity (in this case, the Islamic State)?

Dodgy Alliances

Of course if Britain were to work with Bashar Assad to defeat the Islamic State (IS), many people will be up in arms and start using the words “hypocrisy”, “double-standards” and whatnot. (Conspiracy-theory-based Trotskyist groups -- such as the Assad-friendly Stop the War Coalition -- would have a field day.) Yet if there were an alliance, it would simply be strategic, politically and militarily speaking. And strategy, or Realpolitik, is the stuff of politics.

Think about it.

We aligned with Stalin during World War II. Before that, the Nazis signed the 1939 nonaggression pact with the same man. And, as Leftists and Muslims are always telling me, the United States funded -- and the CIA trained -- the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the period before the rise of the Taliban.

Even the Liberal Democrats-Conservative Party coalition of 2010 was/is a strategic alliance of sorts. And up and down the country -- as well as throughout the 20th century -- MPs and councilors have allied with people of different political parties – sometimes with radically different parties.

I mentioned Trotskyists and Trotskyist groups earlier. These people themselves have forged many and varied alliances with all manner of Islamic reactionaries, (brown) racists, misogynists, killers, and oppressors to advance the white, middle-class (mainly university-based) Trotskyist revolution.

Yet sometimes alliances with false friends have to be made in order to achieve one's objectives. And in this case that objective would be to defeat the Islamic State. Now the question may not be whether it's a good thing to ally with Bashar Assad, but whether it would work. Another question would be whether or not it would create more problems for Britain in the long run. Or, as Philip Hammond put it, it may not be “practical, sensible or helpful” to work with Assad.

Philip Hammond's point may be that even if an alliance with an enemy were to defeat a worse enemy, it may still not be a good thing to do in the long run.

What about alliances with Iran, for example, in order to defeat IS? That could well end up being a very bad move in certain hypothetical scenarios. Take the case of Iran directly intervening in Iraq with massive force and the British government enabling and cooperating with that intervention. This could end up with Iran gaining control of the whole of Iraq or at least it installing a puppet leader. (That's if this isn't already the case to some degree.) Not only would a direct Iranian control of Iraq be a bad thing for the West, the surrounding Sunni states (including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan) wouldn't like it either. In fact the problem could become even worse than the situation with IS because nuclear weapons could then be involved and the whole region -- including Jordan and Saudi Arabia (even Turkey) -- could then be at war.

So yes, it was only almost exactly a year ago that the British government contemplated going to war with Bashar Assad's regime. But that was then. This is now. We may have to work with a bastard in order to defeat a far worse bastard. Such is politics. Again, the argument isn't that it would be advisable to ally Bashar Assad, it's that it could be.

After saying all that, the British government has said that it won't work with him. Though that was yesterday. The government may change its tune tomorrow.



1) Much of the Western Left (especially Trotskyist groups and individuals) isn't too keen on eradicating Bashar Assad, despite its many close relations with Sunni Muslim groups and individuals. In fact this has proved problematic for George Galloway in his Respect constituency in Bradford (nearly all Sunni Muslims).

The UK's Stop the War Coalition has similar close relations with Iran and therefore with Syria. George Galloway, John Rees, Lindsey German, Yvonne Ridley, etc. have all worked for Iran's Press TV at some point. And the former SWP man, John Rees (now of Stop the War and Counterfire) once said that he'd support Iran if Iran and the UK were at war.

2) Part of the problem in Syria has been the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the most important group within the "rebel" forces fighting against Assad (i.e., outside the jihadists of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (IS)).

Conflicts with the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria date back to the 1960s or even before.

The Muslim Brotherhood of Syria was formed (in the early 1930s) only a few years after the Egyptian original. There was the Battle of Hama in 1982 in which between 20,000 and 40,000 died.

So the Muslim Brotherhood - as in the US and Egypt - is part of the problem.

3) I'm not sure about the often-used phrase "war criminal" as used against Assad (as well as many others). That phrase has been used against the US and UK many times. Indeed, when you think about it, all it usually means is this:

"war criminal"/"war crimes" = political and military acts which I disagree with

Israel is accused almost every day of committing war crimes when, in fact, they are all legal - legal according to Israel and often legal when it comes to the UN too!

It's funny really because the "illegal" status of these acts, whether by Assad or Israel, is care-of the United Nations. Yet many of those on both the Left and Right who use the words "war crimes" or "illegal act" don't have any time for the UN.... unless the UN is doing and saying stuff which they agree with. If it doesn't, then they criticise the UN as an 'imperialist front", etc.

I personally don't care what the UN thinks. If what Assad is doing is wrong, then it's wrong. The fact that this global organisation - with 51 (mainly Sunni) Muslim states within in and which has had Syria and China on its Security Council - classes what he Assad does as "illegal" doesn't really clinch it for me.