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.)

Tuesday, 16 September 2014

The Muslim Council of Britain's campaign for more inaction on extremism

[The Deputy Secretary of the MCB, Harun Khan.]

The Muslim Council of Britain (the UK's CAIR) is at it again.

Over one thousand five hundred (1,500) British Muslims had already travelled to Syria and Iraq - in order to engage in jihad and terrorism - before any of David Cameron's new policies against Muslim extremism had been put into action. Now think of the reality of the MCB's most recent position. There are over 1,500 British Muslim terrorists or jihadists - either in the UK or about to return - and the MCB is busy warning the government to keep its hands off Muslims... or else there'll be, eh, more Muslim extremism.

It seems that every time the government or other agencies take any concrete or real action against Islamic extremists - or even against Islamic terrorists - in the UK, the MCB has a serious problem with it. (See the MCB's recent 'Muslim Council of Britain Responds to The Times'.)

For example:

i) The MCB had a problem with the actions against Islamic terrorists in the UK between 2005 and 2010. It said that such actions “could cause [or did cause] extremism within the community”.
ii) The MCB had a problem with the investigations and actions against the Islamisation of British schools. It said such investigations and actions “could cause [or did cause] extremism in the Muslim community”.
iii) The MCB had a problem with the emphasis on the Muslim and Pakistani nature of sexual-grooming gangs. It said such an emphasis “could cause [or did cause] extremism in the Muslim community”.

It's almost as if the MCB doesn't want any action – of any kind – to be taken. Now why would an organisation which is part of the Muslim Brotherhood - a worldwide Islamist movement - not want any action to be taken against any section (extreme or otherwise) of the Muslim community?... Do I really need to answer that?

Talk to the MCB

The MCB has rather generously offered its services to the British government, despite the fact that the Conservative Party cut its links to the organisation in 2010. The Labour Party also cut its links to this Islamist group in 2009, only to restore them in 1210. In fact, in 2007, David Cameron himself condemned the “hardline” members of the MCB. And the MCB's grandstanding (with it's self-proclaimed “500 affiliated organisations”) was said, by Cameron, to simply be a result of it having the “loudest voice”: a voice which “crowd[ed] out other, genuinely moderate, voices”.

Even the website Onislam - ironically reporting from Cairo - mentions that previous relationship between the Labour Party and the MCB. It says that the “MCB had a constructive relationship with the previous Labour government”. (Is that why they broke up?) However, it then goes on to quote the MCB's deputy secretary, Harun Khan (see image above), who says that it has been "very difficult to have any formal engagement at all" since David Cameron came to power in 2010...

The MCB's secretary general, Saleem Kidwai, also pleads with the government in this way:

"I would say to the government, you must talk to the Muslim Council of Britain because it is the largest organization."

"You can talk to think-tanks but they are not the grassroots groups – the MCB has got the mandate from 500 organizations who represent Muslims from all walks of life.”

The MCB's deputy secretary, Harun Khan (mentioned earlier), also rather arrogantly said (quoted in The Guardian) that the British government "need[s] to be talking to us and others to understand what it is that's leading these boys down this route".

And why is that, Mr Khan? Is it because the Islamist MCB will tell the government that such Muslim extremism is all down to, well, Western governments and non-Muslims generally? More specifically, the MCB will mention British foreign policy towards Israel and the recent events in Gaza..... But hold on a minute! The MCB will also cite British foreign policy on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria and so on.

And then the MCB will get onto the sins of non-Muslims in the UK itself.

It will say that Muslim extremism is caused by (amongst many other things) these things:

i) not allowing Muslims to follow sharia law
ii) not allowing the burka and hijab to be worn in the workplace
iii) there not being Islamic prayer rooms at every place of work
iv) not banning “Islamophobic” movements and individuals such as the EDL and Liberty GB's Paul Weston from marching and speaking; a well as not banning The Satanic Verses, that film on Muhammad and much else.
v) not allowing more Islamic schools
vi) not allowing more about Islam to be taught in non-Islamic schools... and so on and so on.

This time the MCB is responding to what David Cameron outlined on the 1st of September. More specifically:

i) the new plans to increase and tighten-up anti-terrorism measures
ii) giving the police temporary powers to confiscate the passports of Muslims bound for Iraq and Syria
iii) stopping Muslim terrorists or jihadists from returning to the UK (from Syria and Iraq)
iv) the possibility of relocating suspected terrorists and jihadists to other countries

Harun Khan has explicitly said what he doesn't want the government to do on any of this. He doesn't want the government to legislate against Muslims; to monitor Muslims; to strip Muslims of their passports; or even to interview Muslims. In other words, he doesn't really want the government to do anything. Or in Khan's own words:

"Part of the problem is the constant talk of legislation, harassment and monitoring, stripping people of their passports.

"This is what's leading young people towards radicalism."

If the MCB could run and control such government “anti-extremist” programmes, it would no doubt teach the jihadists and terrorists to focus their energies and anger in a political or Islamist direction. Say, in the direction of the Muslim Brotherhood and its children: such as Hamas, CAIR and the MCB itself.

Muslim Extremism is a Response to Action Against Muslim Extremism

The MCB's Harun Khan intentionally gets the causal arrow the wrong way around.

He says that the “constant talk of legislation.... monitoring” and “striping people of their passports” causes Muslim extremism. Yet, as everyone knows, these are responses to Muslim “radicalism” and extremism, not the causes of it.

The MCB also says that the new measures announced by David Cameron will widen the gap between the Muslim community and the government. Here again the MCB has the causal arrow the wrong way around. David Cameron and many others are responding to an already wide gap between the Muslim community and non-Muslims.

And, not surprisingly, it's the MCB itself which is contributing to that widening gap between Muslims and non-Muslims with its constant activism for more sharia law, more Islamic schools and, in this instance, less action against Muslim extremism and terrorism.

Another obvious point to make – blindingly obvious in fact – is that Muslim extremism increases when no action is taken. The massive cases of the Muslim grooming-gangs and the Islamisation of British schools graphically display that. But it's also true of Islamic terrorism and Islamic extremism in general.

So, again, how does the MCB attempt to pull off this neat and duplicitous trick? Simple. It's a kind of blackmail which says that any actions taken against Islamic extremism will cause Islamic extremism.

This is not a new gimmick.

Lord Ahmed, for example, once threatened “civil conflict” if actions were taken against Islamic terrorism in Birmingham. In both cases, Lord Ahmed and the MCB want precisely zero action to be taken against Muslim extremism.

Now why is that?

Sunday, 14 September 2014

Loonwatch & Islamophobia Watch: Why Leftists are Islamophiles

[Bob Pitt, formerly of the Workers Revolutionary Party and various other Trotskyist sects. Now the proprietor or Managing Director of Islamophobia Watch. Photo Source:]

Bob Pitt’s website - Islamophobia Watch - is very much like the American website, Loonwatch. Both are either outright Leftist outfits or Leftist-Muslim collaborations.

[Nathan Lean via Twitter]

It’s also highly likely that they are funded by Muslim individuals, Islamic institutions and Muslim states. It’s even more likely that America’s Loonwatch is financed by Georgetown University. Or at least it’s funded by the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (CMCU) at which one Loonwatch contributor, Nathan Lean, has had – and still has – strong connections. (Here is a link to Lean speaking at the CMCU.)

Loonwatch may also get funding from the American Academy of Religion, the Middle East Studies Association and Alternative Perspectives and Global Concerns (APGC). Why? Again, because Loonwatch’s main contributor, Nathan Lean, is also connected to all these institutions. No doubt other Loonwatch writers are connected to the aforementioned institutions too.

It is said that Nathan Lean is Loonwatch’s ‘Garibaldi‘. (See this link for more information on Mr Lean.) Nathan Lean has also written for the Huffington Post, the Los Angeles Times and New York Daily News. More relevantly, Nathan Lean is Editor-in-Chief for Aslan Media (“We bring you the Middle East”). (Here’s Lean doing a video on – guess what – “Islamophobia” for Aslan Media.)

As for the aforesaid Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal. He’s a member of the Saudi royal family. He’s keen on funding “interfaith” and “Islamic studies” in the non-Muslim world, as is the Saudi state generally.

[Nathan Lean’s book, The Islamophobia Industry.]

And since there is zero – repeat, zero! – interfaith and religious tolerance in Saudi Arabia, one can only conclude that what people like Alwaleed Bin Talal mean by “interfaith” is the teaching of Islam to the kuffar. Or, in other words, Islamic dawah (i.e., proselytising).

Surely Nathan Lean and the rest have already worked this out.

And that’s where Leftist politics comes in.

As with Islamophobia Watch, the reason why such Leftists are pleased to receive lots of cash from rich royals – who run autocratic regimes with poor human rights records – must surely be because they (or revolutionary Leftism generally) have something to gain from these cynical and opportunistic arrangements.

In any case, the main stylistic difference between Loonwatch and Islamophobia Watch is that the latter is more tabloid in style in that it doesn’t even attempt to defend its positions (if it has any); whereas Loonwatch at least attempts to argue its case – though it does so with vitriol, numerous Stalinist accusations of “madness” (or lunacy) towards literally all critics of Islam and some rather pathetic and snooty college sarcasm.

(See my 'Loonwatch: "the mooslims! they're heere!"' at American Thinker.)


Bob Pitt is the unscrupulous, opportunistic and principle-less (excepting the principle of “smashing the capitalist state at all costs”) writer for Islamophobia Watch. (See Bob Pitt performing for Muslims in this YouTube video.)

Bob Pitt is probably one of the most effective kafir (an atheist and Marxist materialist) enabler of Islam and Islamism in the UK.

Both Bob Pitt and the writers for Loonwatch don’t only defend Muslims no matter what they say or do. They mainly defend Islamists and Muslim fundamentalists no matter what they say or do. (Such white, middle-class Trotskyists and “progressives” – if they are distinct – classify moderate and reformist Muslims as “Uncle Toms”.)

The logic is simple.

If Bob Pitt didn’t defend every single bad deed and bad belief of every single Islamist and Muslim fundamentalist, then that would work against his own cause – that of “radicalisation” (or revolution). This man thinks – believe it or not – that enabling Islamists, etc. will help further the (Leftist) radicalisation of the UK. It will help Trotskyists like him “destabilise the capitalist state”.

It may seem like madness itself for an atheist Marxist to support reactionaries, religious fundamentalists and misogynists. However, the help that Bob Pitt gives – via Islamophobia Watch – is given for a reason. That reason being that it will help destabilise British society, as well as the “capitalist state” itself.

Any crisis or trouble helps the Revolutionary Cause. That’s why Trotskyists like Bob Pitt have always believed that the “worse things are; the better they are”.

Defending Muslims who believe in genital mutilation, sharia blasphemy law and terrorism – within the UK – will make things worse for most of us. Nonetheless, they will make things much better for International Socialists like Bob Pitt; as well as for National Socialists (Nazis) and Islamists.

All this explains this middle-class Leftist’s daily and unquestioning support for Muslim extremists no matter what they say or do. His own cause (radicalisation-through-destabilisation) benefits from such opportunism and unscrupulousness.

And that is also partly why Marxists – for the last hundred and thirty years or so – secretly loved it when there was mass unemployment or the latest “capitalist crisis”. They loved it and they still love it! Such disasters provide the breeding grounds for radicalisation. They’re also helpful when it comes to recruitment into Trotskyist/Marxist parties and movements (such as into the SWP-UAF, Respect, the Stop the War Coalition, etc.).

That’s why Marxists have said that there’s a “capitalist crisis” almost every year for the past one hundred years or more.

As I said, revolutionaries like Bob Pitt want capitalist crises! They want mass unemployment. Just as they want Islamic agitation, extremism and possibly even Muslim grooming-gangs. All these things contribute to their “fight against capitalism”.

And all this is at the heart of Bob Pitt’s Islamophobia Watch and Nathan Lean’s Loonwatch; not any deep love of Islam or even of Muslims.



Nathan Lean has two personas.

One: a vicious and loud-mouthed Leftist. (It's beyond comprehension that this man uses the word 'hate' all the time - as in 'hate blog'.)

Two: an interfaith academic.

The former preaches violence, direct action, hacking and the denial of free speech.

The latter preaches religious and political pluralism, peace, tolerance and equality.

The latter contradicts the former in almost every respect. This basically means that Nathan Lean is a consummate hypocrite.

  • Thumbnail

And here's Lean being sexist, vicious and threatening against Robert Spencer. Still, like the Gulag, it was all for a good cause: