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, 1 November 2014

After the sexual-grooming scandal, South Yorkshire votes for another Labour Party Police Commissioner



Quite incredibly, despite the Labour Party’s responsibility for the anti-racism policies which led to over 1,400 young girls being abused and exploited by Muslim grooming-gangs in Rotherham, a Labour Party councillor (Dr Alan Billings) has been voted in as the new Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire.

This outrageous result can be partly explained by the simple fact that the turnout for the vote was an incredibly low 14.88%. What’s even worse than that is that it was down from the 14:93% of 2012. Indeed the turnout at the ballot box was actually lower than that: 3.5%; with postal votes account for the remaining 11.7%. (A large proportion of the posting votes will have been by posted by Muslim voters; a smaller proportion of which would have been unlawful.)

Labour’s Dr Billing succeeded in getting over 50% of the votes. Ukip’s Jack Clarkson, who came second, received 32%. The Conservatives came in third and the English Democrats fourth.

Various things can account for this result. The primary one is (obviously) voter apathy. However, we need also to take into account the relatively large Muslim demographics in South Yorkshire and the fact that the majority of Muslims vote en bloc for the Labour Party. On top of that: the Labour Party would have harnessed Muslim votes in all sorts of ways, whether through its anti-UKip propaganda or by direct consultation with Muslims. (The Muslim population of Rotherham increased by 78% between 2001 and 2011.)

The poll was held because of the resignation of Shaun Wright as a result of his responsibility for the massive Muslim child-abuse scandal in Rotherham.


Shaun Wight is also a Labour man. He was elected as Labour Party candidate for the job as South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner on the 15th of November, 2012.

Shaun Wright was a Rotherham Labour councillor between 2005 and 2010. During that time he was in charge of Rotherham’s children’s services.

Mr Wright himself resigned on the 16th of September; though only after weeks in which many people in Rotherham and elsewhere put pressure on him to resign.


The Labour Party – or at last its anti-racism policies – was partly or even largely responsible for what happened in Rotherham. It’s also the case that Labour has controlled South Yorkshire for decades.

It’s not surprising, then, that Ukip has picked up on this reality. And as a political party, it is its responsibility to do so. So it’s a surprise that some commentators – including the BBC – have accused Ukip of “exploiting” the Muslim-grooming scandal. It’s not as if other parties wouldn’t don’t do exactly the same in different cases. In fact they did so in the Rotherham case too.

When the Labour Party (along with its Trotskyist fellow travellers in Unite Against Fascist-Socialist Workers Party) accused Ukip, the EDL, Britain First, etc. of exploiting the scandal in Rotherham, it too has exploited the scandal in the very act of accusing others of doing so. And just as Leftists and Labourites accused other political groups of “suddenly arriving in Rotherham”, so too did London-based UAF activists and Labour Party bigwigs suddenly start arriving in Rotherham after the scandal hit the news.

More specifically, by saying that the grooming scandal “has nothing to do with Islam or Muslims” (or with “ethnicity”), the extreme Left and the Labour Party were exploiting this issue for their own ends.

Friday, 31 October 2014

Ann Coffey’s “child exploitation” report only uses the word ‘Muslim’ once


Ann Coffey, Labour MP and (ex)social worker. Coffey looks the part: Leftist fashion-consciousness and conformity at its best.

This BBC News piece – ‘Child sex exploitation “social norm” in Greater Manchester’ – mentions just about everything else but the Islamic and Pakistani nature of what has happened with the sex-grooming gangs all over the UK.

This article is basically a response to the now well-publicised Muslim sexual-grooming gangs in the north of England and elsewhere.

And let’s not forget that – as the title states – this article is specifically about the problems in the Greater Manchester area. Need I say more?


The BBC also uses the near-euphemism “some areas of Greater Manchester”. Even a moron could work out that “some areas of Greater Manchester” is another way of saying those towns and areas which have large Muslim ghettos: Rochdale, Oldham, Bury, Bolton, etc.

What we have here is the same old BBC deceit and obfuscation about these issues.

It must have taken some considerable editorial skill for the writer of this piece (who is, surprisingly, unnamed) not to mention Muslim or Pakistani grooming-gangs a single time. Indeed it must have taken a very high level of ideological bias not to do so.

In other words, the BBC has learned precisely nothing in the last few months.

That’s because the BBC can’t learn anything on this matter because the very mention of the ethnic and/or religious nature of the criminals concerned will necessarily and automatically lead – so Leftist theory has it – to racism and even fascism. And as we learned in Rotherham, the fight against racism is far more important than the lives of young girls.

This pious, zealous and eternal fight against largely fictitious racism has so far meant that:

*) The National Union of Students (NUS) won’t condemn the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria.
*) Parents who are also members of Ukip can’t adopt children.
*) When people express a problem with mass immigration that they are automatically castigated.
*) People are sacked for harmless jokes and membership of political parties.
*) People can’t speak in public (universities, public meetings, on the BBC, etc.).
*) People’s Facebook accounts are closed down.
*) People a thrown into prison for what they think; not what they do.
*) Demonstrations are banned.
*) Academics and politicians are stopped from entering the UK.

Ann Coffey’s Report

Not only does the Labour Party’s Ann Coffey fail to mention the Muslim/Islamic nature of the sexual-grooming gangs, she systematically attempts to place the entire blame elsewhere: whether that be “music videos” or the lack of “training”. (The SWP similarly blamed it all on “cops and cuts”.)


The previous academic report on the Rotherham case, for example, didn’t mention “music videos, sexting and selfies” (even if they are indeed “fuelling the increased sexualisation of children”). Yet these things seem to the basis of Ms Coffey’s own report: ‘Real Voices’.

These are separate issues.

If it were all about videos, sexting or a lack of training, why have these problems been worse in places like Greater Manchester – places with large Muslim populations – than anywhere else?
Muslim grooming-gangs have existed since the mid-1990s and possibly earlier. So Ann Coffey seems to be deliberately trying to fudge the issue here.

That’s not a surprise. Coffey’s own Labour Party is largely responsible for the issue in Rotherham, Greater Manchester and elsewhere. It was Labour Party councillors who believed that racism was the ultimate sin and that anyone and anything could be sacrificed in the fight against it.

Ann Coffey is also quoted as saying that the “prevailing public attitude” blamed children for what happened in Greater Manchester and elsewhere.

No it wasn’t the “prevailing public attitude” at all, Ms Coffey.

It was the “attitude” of people who belong to your party; as in the Rotherham case. It was also the attitude and ideological views of Leftist social workers, Labour councillors and those police chiefs who’ve been hoodwinked by Marxist theology (i.e., theory).

These cases were most certainly not the fault of the “public”.

Indeed various members of the public in Rotherham and elsewhere attempted to do something about Muslim sexual-groomers. And guess what: Labour councillors, Leftist social workers and the police didn’t allow them to do so.

Ms Coffey shouldn’t blame the public at large for the Leftist hegemony we now have in Greater Manchester and elsewhere in the UK.

In fact this BBC piece itself includes a quote from Tony Lloyd (the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner) which states that it wasn’t the public which was at fault at all: it was the “system”. Tony Lloyd says:
For too long their voices were ignored or, worse, dismissed by the system.
Again, Ms Coffey herself implicitly states in her report – despite what she said earlier – that it wasn’t really the fault of the public (or “sexualised videos”, lack of “training”, etc.) at all: it was the fault of “social workers, prosecutors and juries” all of whom “carry [anti-racist or Leftist] attitudes around with them”.


So let’s face facts: Ann Coffey MP has the perfect credentials to be part of the problem: not part of the solution. She’s not that much unlike the SWP social worker Gordon Jelly – formerly an employee of Rotherham Council – who blamed Muslim sex-grooming on “cops and cuts”.

Coffey was also was trained in sociology at the Polytechnic of South Bank, at which she was vice president of the students’ union. She began work as a social worker – like Gordon Jelley – in Birmingham, then Wolverhampton and, finally, in Stockport. She was also Tony Blair’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. (Coffey is now married to the vice-chair of the University of Sussex’s University Council, Peter Saraga.)


As for this BBC News article (rather than the views of Ann Coffey MP), it says, for example, that “girls in uniform were regularly stopped by men outside schools”.

Now I’m willing to accept that on a few occasions non-Muslims have done this. However, in the vast amount of these cases this is being done by Muslim gangs and by Muslim individuals. (I have personal experiences of this happening many times in Bradford.)

And even when the BBC gets more specific, it still doesn’t mention Muslim or Pakistani grooming-gangs. For example, it states the following:

[The report] was commissioned by Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Tony Lloyd to assess the improvements in protecting youngsters after nine men were jailed in 2012 for running a child sex ring in Heywood and Rochdale.
Now it just so happens that the nine men who were jailed for running this “child sex ring” in Heywood and Rochdale were all Muslims. But that’s not a surprise because all the other sexual-grooming gangs – from Rochdale to Oxford to Oslo – have been overwhelmingly made up of Muslim men as well.


After reading this BBC News piece, you may have the feeling that nothing much is going to change when it comes to tackling the nationwide and widespread problem of Muslim grooming-gangs. To the BBC, the fight against racism is the ultimate fight. So much so that the ideology of anti-racism demands that that the writer of this piece never once mentions the word “Muslim”; never mind the word “Pakistani” or even “Asian”.

And if racism is still regarded as the ultimate sin of the early 21st century, then it’s a good bet that many Muslim grooming-gangs are going to carry on doing what they’ve been doing for up to twenty years.

Finally, the only mention I could find of Muslims in Ann Coffey’s report is this:

I visited the Council of Mosques in Rochdale in March 2014. They are concerned that, as a consequence of the media coverage, they are seen as part of the problem and not part of the solution. They are emphatic that the behaviour of the offenders was criminal not Asian, and are concerned that this distinction is not being made by the wider public.

The BBC and Ann Coffey MP are part of the problem.


The Report's References to “Pakistanis” and “Asian”

There are four usages of the words “Pakistani” and five of “Asian”in Ann Coffey's 75-page report; though everyone one of them tells us that it is problematic or simply wrong to think in these terms.

Put simply, Ann Coffey is continuing to make the political and ideological mistakes which were highlighted in the previous report on Rotherham.

These are the references:

1)A small minority of British Pakistani men are criminal sex offenders as in other communities. So it is important to understand why those particular men became criminal sex offenders. The assertion that it was a racial crime in that the girls were targeted because they were white is undermined by the fact that one of the men in the Rochdale case was also convicted of a serious sexual offence on a British/Pakistani girl. We do not know whether these men also abused other British/Pakistani girls.”

The reasoning above is intentionally grotesque. One Muslim (out of well over a hundred who've been convicted), in one gang (of dozens or more) abuses a single“British/Pakistani girl” and Ann Coffey automatically assumes that this can't be a Muslim/Pakistani and an anti-white problem?

2)One British/Pakistani woman who I talked to was concerned about an underreporting of sexual assaults in the community because of the shame it is felt to bring on the victim and the victim’s family.”

3)Part of the problem is that people think of CSE as the Rochdale model of predominately Asian men sexually exploiting white girls so there is a poor understanding of the broader picture.”

4)Sunrise CSE Team in Rochdale..... Rochdale is characterized as being identified with the particular form of child exploitation of groups of predominantly Asian men abusing white girls as a result of widespread media coverage of recent trials. However they report that 85 per cent of the cases they manage are single offenders, many peer on peer.”

Exactly, “85 per cent of the cases they manage” would have been “single offenders”because, as everyone now knows, the Muslims in the grooming-gangs weren't being “managed”: they were being ignored or even enabled to do what they were doing.

5)High-profile court cases, such as Rochdale, have elevated CSE into the public consciousness, but at the same time have left the impression that CSE is only about vulnerable white girls being exploited by groups of Asian men.

"If offenders are always portrayed in a particular way, e.g. Asian males, then the signs in people who don’t look like offenders will be missed and with them opportunities to protect children.”

6)Sian Griffiths... said: 'Being Asian is not an explanation of the motivation for the offending behaviour. There needs to be an understanding of the combination of personal, cultural and opportunistic factors that created the conditions for sex offending.'....”

7)In Rochdale, the nine men convicted of grooming girls with alcohol, drugs and gifts and then passing them round multiple men for sex were predominantly British/Pakistani.”

Tuesday, 28 October 2014

Qatar & the Islamic State (IS) versus Iraq & Syria


David Cameron meets Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani of Qatar.

Many commentators have made much of the possibility – or, some say, fact – that Saudi Arabia is funding, arming and supporting the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq. However, others are suspicious of this claim.

Recently, speculation has focused on Qatar’s role in this conflict. Officially, Qatar has been supporting the US-led military action against IS since September.

Qatar officials have said that they haven’t been supporting the Islamic State. A distinction has to be made here, however, as to whether or not this is about the Qatar’s support of IS in Syria or in Iraq (this distinction may not amount to much in the end.)

As far as Syria (not Iraq) is concerned, Qatar has admitted to supporting what they and the United States government call “moderate” fighters (or even “moderate militants”). That support is also in cooperation with the CIA and with Western and Arab intelligence agencies.

The support of Syrian “moderates” makes sense because many of those Islamist fighters in Syria are Muslim Brotherhood and the Brotherhood has a strong history and influence in both Qatar society and the state.
In terms of detail, it is known that moneyed people in Qatar have made donations to Islamist (Muslim Brotherhood) groups in Syria. The Qatar government has also given money to these groups. Qatar’s capital, Doha, is also thought to have links to the al-Nusra Front (which isn’t so closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood); rather is an arm of al-Qaeda.
Predictably, because Bashar Assad’s regime is Shia (Alawite), the Qatar state (or at least its Director of Intelligence) has said that Qatar has nothing to hide when it comes to its support of Sunni groups attempting to destroy Bashar Assad’s regime.Finally, not only is it the case that some of the “moderate” Sunni groups fighting in Syria aren’t, well, moderate; so some of them have also joined IS, the al-Nusra Front and other outright jihadist forces in the last few years.
As everyone knows, Qatar and Saudi Arabia supply the United States and the United Kingdom with much oil – and that changes everything. Even some British politicians have been open about the political ramifications of this. In early October, for example, British MPs questioned the close relationship between Qatar and the UK.This skepticism about the “special relationship” between Qatar and the UK isn’t surprising. For a start, not only do Britons rely on Qatar’s oil, this Gulf State is also a major investor in the UK. Its “sovereign wealth fund”, for example, has also been the subject of various allegations.

There is an unwillingness amongst many commentators to acknowledge the Islamic nature of Qatar’s support for the Islamic State (IS). To state what amounts to the obvious: Qatar is a Sunni country; whereas Iraq is overwhelmingly Shia. Not only that: the Shia have almost total control over the Iraqi state. Thus it follows that Qatar supports IS for a similar reason as to why Iran support the Iraqi state. That is, Qatar supports IS because it wants to destroy both the Iraqi and Syrian Shia states; just as Iran supports the Iraqis against IS because it wants to stop the latter from destroying the Iraqi state. (Shia Iran also wants to increase its power in Iraq regardless of the recent episode with IS.)

So when Qatar denies funding and support of IS all that means is that the Qatar state doesn’t officially support it. Other Qatar institutions and individuals are, of course, supporting IS; as the state itself may be doing (though not officially). Something similar is true of Saudi Arabia. Even though the Saudi state isn’t supporting and funding IS, many Saudi institutions and individuals will be doing so.

It may well be the case that the Saudi state has far more to fear from IS than the Qatar; even though the latter’s existence is also at risk. However, one important point is that Qatar doesn’t border Iraq. Saudi Arabia does. That alone may account for any differences there are between Qatar and Saudi Arabia when it comes to the Islamic State (Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran and Turkey all border – to greater and lesser degrees – Iraq.)

Monday, 27 October 2014

Gramsci's Dream Came True: We Have a Leftist Ruling Class


I chose James Joll's book's book not only because he has written about Antonio Gramsci, but also because - after having read it - it became clear that he was a fan of the Italian Marxist. Thus it can be said that the text is a fair account of Gramsci's ideas. And if there is any bias in the texts I've chosen, it's bias in favour – rather than against – Gramsci.
It can also be said that James Joll was himself a perfect example of the Gramscian elite. For a start, as Gramsci urged, Joll “took over” parts of at least four “institutions”:Oxford University, the London School of Economics (along with numerous other Marxists), the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University and the British Academy.

James Joll was educated at Winchester College and New College, Oxford University. He was then elected Fellow of New College, Oxford. He also held the Stevenson Chair of International History at the University of London.
Joll also wrote The Second International 1889-1914 and, appropriately enough, Intellectuals in Politics.

What I've done in the following is partly quote - in full - various passages from James Joll's book, Gramsci. However, I've also included various short square-bracketed additions within the text to update and clarify the content; as well as three short introductions to Joll's quotations.
(Saul Alinsky is a later American version – at least in some important respects - of Antonio Gramsci. See 'What Did Gramsci Teach Saul Alinsky?' at Tavern Keepers.)


“The greatest Marxist writer of the twentieth century, paradoxically, is also one of the greatest examples of the independence of the human spirit from its material limitations.” - James Joll

Because Marxists or revolutionary socialists see everything in terms of “class conflict”, they also see everything in terms of “class power”. For old-style revolutionary Marxists, the natural response to this “material reality” was a violent revolution in which the working class – led, of course, by an elite of middle- and upper-middle-class Marxists (the “vanguard”) - seized power from the “capitalist ruling class”.

However, by the time that Antonio Gramsci began writing (in the 1920s and early 1930s), successful revolutions in Europe and America hadn't been forthcoming. Thus another strategy was called for.

Gramsci effectively gave up on the old Marxist theology (or theory) that “material conditions” (the “modes of production and exchange”) determined what Marxists call “consciousness” (or what most others call mind) and came to acknowledge what everyone else had already acknowledged: that mind – or “consciousness” – has at least some independence for its material environment.

Thus, instead of a violent revolution in which young– and old – revolutionaries could indulge in their violent fantasises of killing “capitalists” and all sorts of other people, Gramsci realised that a revolution could be carried out without violence and storming the barricades. Because mind is indeed free of its material environment, what Marxists now needed to do was to “take over the institutions” and thus create an “hegemony” of revolutionary ideas, theories and values.
Quotes From James Joll

Abu Qatada & Gareth Peirce, private-school girl & Trotskyist "super-lawyer" (ex-SWP, Socialist Action, etc.) who freed Qatada.

“.... Gramsci saw, in a way that few other Marxists have done, that the rule of one class over another does not depend on economic or physical power alone but rather on persuading the ruled to accept the system of beliefs of the ruling class and to share their social, cultural and moral values.” (8)

“The hegemony of [the Leftist and left-liberal] political class meant for Gramsci that that class had succeeded in persuading the other classes of society to accept its own moral, political and cultural values. If the [Leftist and left-liberal] ruling class is successful, then this will involve the minimum use of force, as was the case with the successful liberal regimes of the nineteenth century.” (99)

"... 'hegemony' which explains how a [Leftist and left-liberal] class can establish its cultural and moral superiority independently of its direct political power.... to suggest ways in which a Communist party [or Leftist individuals and groups] might... expand its influence and increase its support even without actual control of the government.” (11)

“'The realisation of an apparatus of [Leftist and left-liberal] hegemony, in so far as it creates a new ideological soil and determines a reform of consciousness and the methods of knowledge... when we [Leftists] succeed in intruding a new morality in conformity with a new conception of the world...” (99)

“... the achievement and maintenance of [a Leftist] hegemony is largely a matter of education: [To use Gramsci's words] 'Every relationship of [Leftist] hegemony is necessarily a pedagogic relationship.' The degree of success of such an [Leftist] educational process will be shown by the extent to which a new [left-wing] consensus or, to use Gramsci's phrase, a 'collective national will' is formed.” (101)

The Leftist Elite & Revolutionary Parties
Seumas Milne, public-school boy, Stalinist, Assistant Editor of The Guardian.

Leftist “intellectuals” and Marxist revolutionaries were – and still are - the people to bring about Gramsci's “hegemony”. As I said, they are to do that by taking over the institutions: primarily the education system; though also the law, regional and national newspapers, rights and race groups, the charities and even churches.
Quotes From James Joll

“... [Gramsci] writes of [Leftist] intellectuals in the usual sense as the intelligentsia who provide philosophy and ideology for the [working class and others] and who enable the [Leftist and left-liberal] ruling class to exercise their hegemony by supplying the system of belief accepted by ordinary people so that they do not question the actions of the [Leftist and left-liberal] rulers.” (90)

“The role of the revolutionary party [the SWP, socialist parties, the Labour Party, the Fabian Society, the Democrats, etc.] and the [Leftist] intellectuals who are its leaders was, in fact, to be much the same as that of the priesthood in the Catholic Church in its prime, when they were able to preserve [in Gramsci's words] 'the ideological unity of the entire social bloc which that ideology serves to cement and to unify'.” (94)

“.... in Gramsci's political thinking, and the task of a revolutionary party [the SWP, parts of the Labour Party, the Fabian Society, the Democrats, etc., as well as revolutionary/radical individuals].... is to establish such hegemony, if necessary by a slow modification of people's consciousness during a period of 'passive revolution' or a 'war of position'.” (98)

The Radical Left Rules, OK?
Alex Callincos: Kings College professor, SWP leader, public-school boy & descendent of a lord..

Quote From James Joll

“.... Communists can perhaps claim that they are well on the way to establishing their hegemony with the collapse of the old hegemonic system. They have achieved a dominant position in local government in many areas and in so far as they attract support not only from organised labour but also from very many intellectuals and professional people, they seem to be establishing their hegemony very much along the lines which Gramsci had suggested.” (110)

Even when Antonio Gramsci was writing (in the 1920s and 1930s), and certainly when James Joll was writing (up to the late 1970s), it was clear that Marxists had already been successful – at least to some extent – when it came to installing their own“hegemony” within Western society. In fact according to Joll, even Gramsci realised that “Marxism was beginning to exercise its own hegemony within the system of traditional culture” (111). That was around 90 years ago. And since the 1960s (some 50 years ago), the march of Leftism has been relentless.

The revolution, it seems, is permanent.