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.)

Friday, 12 September 2014

Unity Vigil: Justice for the victims of Rotherham's grooming-gangs

The image used for the Unity Vigil (organised by Unite Against Fascism) via Facebook. 

The title of this piece has been stolen from the activist group which is holding a ‘vigil’ in Rotherham. The full title of the vigil is: ‘Unity Vigil: Justice for the victims – don’t let the racist EDL divide us’. (This group will be holding its vigil at All Saints Square – in Rotherham - at 1pm.)

Many of the people who put on these ‘vigils’ are the same people who violently demonstrate at Unite Against Fascism (UAF) counter-demos. In fact this vigil has been organised by UAF! (There will no doubt also be a violent “anti-fash” demo somewhere else in Rotherham.)

Thus the “peace” or “vigil” bit is a complete gimmick.

Trotskyists (now often called “progressives”) are some of the most violent, narrow-minded and intolerant people on earth.

And just as the (Trotskyist-run) Stop the War Coalition (StWC) is only against wars carried out by Western “capitalist states”; so this group will only be against racism, violence and division if that racism, violence and division is carried out by white groups and white individuals (as the grooming case shows).

Why didn’t the organizers of the Unity Vigil  for “the victims” rally in their defense three weeks ago? Or two months ago? Or, indeed, ten years ago?

The answer to that is simple.

It’s because this vigil is not really about the victims of Muslim grooming-gangs at all. It’s actually a response to the national and very vocal responses to the Muslim grooming-gangs. In other words, the vigil is actually against the the English Defense League (EDL) and about the “fight against racism”. It’s not about the victims of Muslim grooming-gangs. These activists helped make these young girls become victims in the first place. They were just as much victims of  their pious and zealous anti-racism as they were the victims of the anti-white and anti-kuffar grooming gangs!
Again, there have never been any vigils like this in Rotherham before the recent report even though the people of Rotherham – including some of the people who are holding this vigil – have known about the grooming-gangs for years.

The only way there will be “justice for the victims” is by punishing the type of people who are holding this vigil. These people are part of the problem. They – or people like them – are at least partly responsible for what happened in Rotherham. And the fact they are still talking about “racists dividing us” shows that they haven’t learnt a single lesson from all of this. As mentioned, they are part of the problem. In fact some of those on the vigil will be Rotherham social workers, council workers, trade unionists, Leftist activists and the like: the very people who attempted to cover the whole thing up.

You’ll also see that UAF rejects most of the findings of the reports, newspaper articles, testimonies and everything else written and said outside of the revolutionary Left. The bottom line is, then, that the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and UAF would like to go back to the good old days which existed before the Muslim and Pakistani nature of these grooming-gangs became common knowledge.

(See UAF’s ‘Justice for the victims of child exploitation – we will not let the racists divide us’. Note that UAF doesn’t even use the words ‘grooming gangs’, never mind ‘Muslim grooming gangs’. This is the deceitful Leftist fusion of general sexual abuse with with specifics of grooming-gangs.)

The Road to Rotherham

It started out as the authorities saying:

It’s a sexual-abuse problem: not an Asian problem. [Still the UAF-SWP line.]

Then things changed - just a bit - to:

It may partly be an Asian problem; though it’s also a problem which crosses all ethnic groups.

Now, or in the last few weeks, we’ve reached:

Yes, it’s a Pakistani problem; though it’s also a problem which crosses all ethnic groups.

The truth, however, is that it’s a Muslim problem.

Most sex-groomers are Pakistani simply because most Muslims in the UK are Pakistani.

If most Muslims in the UK were Arabic, north African, etc., then most Muslim groomers would have been Arabic, etc. Indeed, the sex-grooming - along with the street-rape - in places like Malmö, Stockholm, Marseilles, Paris, Oslo (the “rape capital of Europe”), etc. are hardly every carried out by Pakistani Muslims. In these cases, the culprits are mainly Arabic, north African, Somalian, Turkish, etc. Muslims. And even in the UK, Kurdish, north African, Turkish and other Muslims have been involved.

The other cop-out is that the groomers “are all young lads”.

So now it’s an “youthful irresponsibility” argument.

That is rubbish too. Many of the perpetrators have been in their 30s and 40s. In fact some of them (sometimes their uncles and even granddads) have been in their 50s and 60s. In addition, now the Daily Telegraph is informing us that ‘Imams promote grooming rings’.

Now for the cliché – used by such organisations as the Rotherham Advertiser and of course UAF – that the EDL and other groups are “exploiting this issue”. (Since the EDL was set up to confront precisely these kinds of issue, this is a funny thing to say.)

Well, the only reason why England’s politically-correct Great and Good finally responded to all this was because of external (external to the council, police, MPs, etc.) pressure from people and groups which had the courage and conviction to tell it as it is.

Even Bradford’s Telegraph & Argus, or Jim Greenhalf, mentioned (in 2012) the English Defence League. He said that the EDL has “underlined the point” that “those convicted in Keighley and Greater Manchester are Muslims”.


However, as far back as 2010, Chief Inspector Alan Edwards said:

"To stop this type of crime you need to start everyone talking about it but everyone’s be too scared to address the ethnicity factor.

"No one wants to stand up and say that Muslim Pakistani guys in some parts of the country are recruiting young white girls and passing them around their relatives for sex, but we need to stop being worried about the racial complication."

Chief Inspector Alan Edwards
 Chief Inspector Alan Edwards via

That was in 2010. Though it has only been in the last few weeks that the newspapers have started using the word ‘Pakistani’ (instead of ‘Asian’). And that was mainly because a well-respected academic produced a report on the Rotherham scandal. So it seems that the authorities (including national and regional newspapers) simply didn’t trust or respect what the people – not just the EDL – had to say about the the Muslim grooming-gangs.

Finally, many of the people and organisations which are now pointing the finger at the authorities in Rotherham – from the Daily Mail to the Conservative government – are carrying on with the with the same problematic mind-set: that of refusing to accept the Islamic/Muslim nature of what has happened.

If it was wrong not to point out the Pakistani nature of these gangs, why is it still right to ignore the Islamic/Muslim reality of them? What, exactly, is the difference?

Wednesday, 10 September 2014

Socialist Worker (SWP) on Saturday's EDL Demo in Rotherham

Members of Unite Against Fascism (UAF) and local people gather in a park in Tower Hamlets ahead of a demonstration by the right-wing EDL (English Defence League) in London, on September 7, 2013.  Members of the EDL assembled in central London despite losing a high court battle to demonstrate in the Tower Hamlets area of East London, which they claim is subjected to Sharia Law.  AFP PHOTO / JUSTIN TALLIS
Members of the Socialist Unite Against Fascism (UAF) gather in a park in Tower Hamlets ahead of a demonstration by the English Defence League (EDL) in London, on September 7, 2013.  AFP PHOTO / JUSTIN TALLIS

This coming Saturday, the English Defence League (a counter-jihad and patriotic movement) will be holding a demonstration in Rotherham, in northern England, in the wake of revelations from the latest enquiry that political correctness empowered Muslim sexual-grooming gangs to sexually exploit “at least” 1,400 children between 1997 and 2013, as reported at the Brenner Brief.

As the EDL website itself puts it:

Our Rotherham demonstration, on the 13th of September…. will focus on the child sexual abuse by Muslim rape gangs and the cowardly betrayals of local officials…

Predictably, Unite Against Fascism (UAF) and the Socialist Workers Party have promised a counter-demo.

Sadie Robinson – in the the Socialist Worker piece ‘After Rotherham abuse horror – don’t let the Nazis divide us’ – writes that the EDL “is trying to whip up racism in Rotherham”. (Another recent UAF-SWP favourite slogan is “don’t let the racists divide us”.)


Socialist Worker Interviewees

Ged Demsey (union leader and Labour Party member)

Ged Demsey, a member of the Labour Party and a supporter of the SWP. He’s also a leader of the Unite union.

You can’t help but be sceptical about Ged Demsey’s loyalty to the Labour Party (he’s also on the National Executive Council of the Unite union) because you can find him being interviewed again by Socialist Worker on a completely different issue. Not only that: in that interview – although speaking in a “personal capacity” (i.e., as a supporter of the SWP) – Demsey says that the Labour Party should “fight back with progressive and radical policies that offer a real alternative”. Do you mean, Mr. Demsey, the sort of policies which are offered by the Socialist Workers Party?

Anyway, because socialists/Leftists are so obsessed by the “fight against racism” (as the Rotherham grooming-gangs case has graphically shown), Ged Demsey himself says:

… we want the police, council officials and councillors to be held accountable for their failure to safeguard Pakistani and white children.

Yes, you read that correctly.

In his fight against mainly possible and fictional racism, Ged Demsey talks about Pakistani children being abused. Now Pakistani children may well be abused by their own families. However, Saturday’s demonstration is about Muslim grooming-gangs and the 1,400 white girls who were the victims of these gangs. Not a single Pakistani or Muslim girl was a victim.

Here again you have Leftists fusing general child abuse with the specific case of Muslim sexual-grooming gangs. And in so doing, these Leftists are deliberately muddying the water.

Socialist Worker also muddies the water by saying that “[r]acists have tried to paint abuse as a race issue after many victims described their abusers as ‘Asian’”.

So not only does the SWP – in its evangelical ideological correctness – have a problem with talk about “Muslim” or “Pakistani” grooming-gangs, it even has a problem with the use of the misleading term “Asian”. That’s how zealous and extreme the SWP is.

It’s strange that the SWP says that people have “tried to paint abuse as a race issue”.

No they haven’t!

The SWP and other Trotskyists have tried to paint this case as a race issue.

Most other people have painted it as a Pakistani or Muslim issue.

And neither Pakistanis nor Muslims – as the SWP knows – constitute a single race. However, because accusations of “racism” work (politically and strategically speaking), the SWP will continue to paint all the critics of Muslim grooming-gangs (as well as of Islam) as racist.

As ever, it’s the SWP that’s race-obsessed and indeed racist. It sees literally everything in terms of race. And it does so because if it can convince everybody else that criticism of Islam or of Pakistani grooming-gangs is racist in nature, then half its battle will already be won. After all, there are laws against racism and the authorities will take action against it…. except, of course, when that racism was displayed by the Muslims who systemically abused white girls in Rotherham and not a thing was done about it.

You see, the SWP doesn’t have a problem with that kind of racism. That is, Trotskyists don’t have a problem with people with brown skin being racist towards people with white skin.

In fact the SWP-UAF has never had a problem with brown and black racism. Why is that? It’s because, according to Marxist theory, all black and brown people are “oppressed” (by the “capitalist state” and “capitalist society”). Therefore brown and black people can only ever be the victims of racism. Young white working-class girls, on the other hand, are “oppressors” (or at least the daughters of white oppressors) who also benefit from something called “white privilege”.

Such is the sick theory (theology) of the SWP.

Additionally, Ged Demsey says that the “EDL doesn’t point out that most offenders for child abuse are white”. He then continues by saying that these abusers “include celebrities and people from the judiciary, politicians and the establishment”.

Demsey is moronically referring to the late celebrity Jimmy Savile, who was found to have sexually abused women throughout his life. The Jimmy Savile case saturated the airways and the tabloids for weeks, as have cases about “the judiciary, politicians and the establishment”. (No doubt the EDL itself has featured these cases too.) And besides which, of course “most offenders for child abuse are white” because most British people are white.

Phil Turner (SWP, Rotherham Advertiser & NUJ)

Phil Turner, a writer for the SWP and a reporter for the Rotherham Advertiser.

Socialist Worker also interviews Phil Turner, who’s a member of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ).

And lo and behold, Phil Turner is a member of the SWP too! (Here he is writing an article for Socialist Worker entitled ‘Remploy workers protest to stop factory closures’.)

In fact Phil Turner is also a reporter for the Rotherham Advertiser. (It seems that in 1998 Turner was “dragged to a disciplinary hearing” which “led to a one-day strike” against that newspaper.)

Gordon Jelley, member of the SWP and a “trainer” of social workers in Rotherham between 2005 and 2009.

Trotskyists have “taken over the institutions” in the Gramscian manner. Last week the Brenner Brief revealed that the SWP’s Gordon Jelley was a “training officer” for social workers in Rotherham between 2005 and 2009. Now we have a SWP member who’s also a reporter for the Rotherham Advertiser – the very newspaper which will have featured many pieces on the Muslim grooming-gangs in that town. In fact Phil Turner might well have written some of them!

And just when you think it can’t get any worse, this revolutionary-Trotskyist member of the SWP has written a piece for the Rotherham Advertiser on – of all things – Ukip. (Turner’s piece is called ‘Ukip linked to European far right organisation’.)

Unlike most regional news papers, the Rotherham Advertiser isn’t scared of fusing explicit editorial comment and factual detail. For example, here’s a self-referential piece entitled Advertiser dismisses BNP campaigner’s claims of sex grooming cover-up’ in which the Rotherham Advertiser says that the “BNP attempted to make political gain” over the Advertiser‘s own “cover-up” of the reality of Muslim grooming-gangs… And the SWP-UAF, the Labour Party and all other parties don’t do that kind of thing? In fact when the Rotherham Advertiser says that the BNP has “attempted to make political gain”, it can be said that it too has attempted to make political gain by saying that the BNP has attempted to make political gain…. if you catch my drift.

And as a Trotskyist, you’d expect the Rotherham Advertiser’s Phil Turner to talk about class… and he does talk about class. He tells Socialist Worker:

When you talk about class, it gets a response. If you don’t get out and talk to people, it can feel like the town’s been taken over by racists.

Well, “the town” has already been “taken over by racists”, Mr Turner. By the Muslim racists who abused over 1,400 white young girls because of their race and their religion. But as previously mentioned, according to Trotskyist theology brown people can never be racist because they’re “the oppressed” – every last one of them! The white people who are going to protest against these grooming-gangs on Saturday, on the other hand, are racists. Why? It’s simple: because they are white.

Vicky Hilton (Rotherham Fights Back)

Vicky Hilton, on the right.

Now here’s the Rotherham Advertiser’s very own member of the SWP – yes, Phil Turner again! – penning yet another completely objective and politically sensible piece on a group called Rotherham Fights Back which is entitled ‘Campaign launched to boost Rotherham community spirit’. In fact this article replicates exactly what Vicky Hilton says to Socialist Worker later; which isn’t surprising since the SWP’s Phil Turner works for both Socialist Worker and the Rotherham Advertiser.

The aforesaid Vicky Hilton – of Rotherham Fights Back – is quoted as saying that the people of Rotherham “want to live in a united community”.

It’s too late, Vicky.

Since Muslim grooming-gangs have ruled the streets of Rotherham for well over a decade, there’s little chance left of a “united community”. In other words, Muslims have already “divided us”.

And since the Muslim community has largely turned in on itself on this issue (as on many others), that won’t help either.

Neither will Rotherham’s Islamic-supremacist mosques, imams and “community leaders. Nor will its Leftist social workers, trade-union leaders and councillors.

In fact, rather than (white) “racists” and the EDL “diving the community”: Muslim grooming-gangs, Islamic supremacists and the Leftist whores-of-Islam in Rotherham have done precisely that – as nearly the whole of the UK now knows.

Monday, 8 September 2014

According to Cambridge University, Meat Causes Global Warming



Researchers from Aberdeen and Cambridge Universities have just published a study (on August 31st) which states that greenhouse gases from food production will go up 80% if we continue to eat meat and dairy produce at today's levels.

Of course global-warming activists (as well as academics) have said this kind of thing before.

Take Doctor Pachauri.

In 2008 Dr Pachauri told a Compassion in World Farming conference that everyone should
give up eating meat. Why did he do that? Because he believed that the digestive methane given off by cattle (i.e. flatulence) contributed more to greenhouse gases than all the world's transport put together. Though as Christopher Booker pointed out:

“As a vegetarian Hindu, Pachauri said nothing about the contribution to global warming made by India's 400 million sacred cows.”

Doctor Pachauri is neither an expert in dietary matters nor a scientist with specialised knowledge of atmospheric physics, astronomy, oceanography, geology, meteorology, chemistry, etc. (i.e., all the disciplines required in the “science of global warming”). He is (or was), in fact, a former railway engineer and economist who then became the chairman of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He was also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Al Gore, in 2007.

Now take a slightly later case.

In 2009, the Sustainable Development Unit of the UK's National Health Service (NHS) - which was then under the Labour Party control - published a report entitled
'Saving Carbon – Improving Health' . It advised all Britain's NHS hospitals to serve “nutritious fruit, veg and pulses” rather than meat and diary products. The reason why the NHC advised this was because it believed that meat and milk production contributed to the unacceptable rise in greenhouse gases. Or, as the NHS itself put it,

“unless we take effective action now, millions of people around the world will suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the climate changes.”

However, just as Dr Pachauri forgot to mention the 400 million untouchable sacred cows of India, so the NHS forgot to mention that it was the largest single emitter of CO2 in the British public sector. In fact it was responsible for 3% of all the UK's emissions.

The Study

To get back to the
Cambridge University study.

A 80% rise of greenhouse gases (from food production alone) does sound like a lot.. at first. But then again the fact that there a billions of atoms in my little finger also sounds like a lot. The question is: So what?

We must now ask the following questions:

i) “Greenhouse gases will in increase by 80%” - over what period, exactly?
ii) The increase of 80% is an increase form which level?
iii) Is the initial level (the level today) itself in any way dangerous?

The lead researcher of this Cambridge University study, Bojana Bajzelj, seems to be attempting to fuse concerns about global warming with concerns about meat-eating and its effects on Third World -- or poorer -- economies.

So is Bajzelj's concern about global warming in the driving seat here? That is, has Bajzelj -- as a former “
environmental consultant” and now an environmental technologist -- found other concerns and causes to back up the prior fight against anthropogenic global warming?

Firstly, Bajzelj appears to be more about the wrongs of meat-eating and its effects on Third World economies than she is about global warming:

"The average efficiency of livestock converting plant feed to meat is less than 3%, and as we eat more meat, more arable cultivation is turned over to producing feedstock for animals that provide meat for humans.”

But then she says:

"The losses at each stage are large, and as humans globally eat more and more meat, conversion from plants to food becomes less and less efficient, driving agricultural expansion and releasing more greenhouse gases.”

She then:

“Agricultural practices are not necessarily at fault here -- but our choice of food is."

Now is that last statement simply disingenuous?

If we radically change what we eat (our “choice of food”), then “agricultural practices” in the Third World will change too. Or agricultural practices will change in response to our changed food habits. What Bajzelj is saying is that having farms devoted entirely to livestock is simply a response to the fact that we eat too much meat in the West. Therefore if we change our “choice of food”, then there won't be as many farms devoted to producing cattle for meat consumption.

Thus is just as much about economics and (possible) global inequalities than it's about global warming.

As a matter of fact, these other arguments against increased meat-eating in the West are far more persuasive than the stuff about global warming. Though the question remains:

Have warmists used these other arguments simply to back up the prior case for more political and economic action against global warming?

Perhaps I'm being too sceptical or even cynical here.

However, my scepticism is legitimate in many cases. There are academics, environmentalists and Leftists galore who are fervently in favour of drastic changes to Western capitalism or even its complete destruction. And that will be at the heart of much of this.

In addition, my scepticism is also at least partly legitimate in the sense that scientists and political activists who already accept anthropogenic global warming have indeed often collaborated with the health experts who are themselves concerned with the increased levels of obesity in the Western world.

In other words, warmists - or at least some of them -- have found another string for their bow. They have managed to tie the fight against fatness to the fight against anthropogenic global warming.

The Rising Level of Greenhouse Gases

As for greenhouse gases, even the most hardcore anthropogenic-global-warming sceptics have admitted -- and have done for over two decades -- that greenhouse gases have steadily increased over recent years. The problem is that these increases don't correlate with global warming. Alternatively, if they do, the effects of such increases are negligible from a human, social and environmental perspective.

For example, Peter Taylor -- a natural scientist who's worked on ocean pollution and atmosphere - wrote (in 2009) that “a doubling of this gas [carbon dioxide] does not present a serious threat”. (The Cambridge University study is not, of course, only about the rise in levels of carbon dioxide.)

But that doesn't matter to globalist politicians/activists, Greens/environmentalists and Leftists/progressives because simply saying that “greenhouse gases are rising” (or, in this case, “greenhouse gases from food production will go up 80%”) will have the desired psychological effect on many people. And if such statements have such a psychological effect, then they undoubtedly will have political effects too (in the long run).

Nonetheless, this study isn't just arguing that increased levels of greenhouse gases are partly caused by increased meat consumption. It's also arguing that such increases will “accelerate climate change”. And that's the very widely disputed bit.


What often seems to be at the heart of these concerns about meat-eating and global warming is a desire for political control and then for political change – not necessarily or always for global welfare. Or, more precisely, the focus on particular environmental (or, in this instance, health) issues will enable activists and politicians to make large political changes. Thus environmental concerns and causes are often – though not always – proxies for political concerns and causes.