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, 13 December 2014

All Patriots “Must Go”: Bunny La Roche & the Left's Lesser-Gulag Policy


In Bunny La Roche's campaign against Ukip (as also with Hope Not Hate's similar campaign), her Leftist thugs have used the slogan “Farage must go”. Before that (as well as at the same time), these very same political automata have used the phrase “Cameron must go”.

In its self-publicity, Hope Not Hate claims to have dispatched the BNP and even to have done the same to the EDL. So it's understandable that Nick Lowles's group should set its sights on UKip.

Don't be naive about this campaign against “the far right”.

If these red fascists ever managed to destroy UKip (which isn't going to happen), then they would immediately try to destroy the Conservative Party too. And they'd do so with exactly the same means: with violence, intimidation and soundbites. Indeed between (roughly) the 1960s and the early 1990s, the Conservative Party was the main target of the Hard Left (as everyone who can remember the 1980s will know).

However, two things have halted this far-left campaign against the Conservative Party.

1) The rise of alternative right-wing groups in the 1990; though mainly in the late 2000s.
2) Even though the Tories are still economically capitalist (in a vague kind of way), large sections of their policies and beliefs are now either Leftist or at least Left-Liberal. (Some say the Conservative Party is“culturally Marxist and economically capitalist”.)
So this Leftist campaign against UKip (as well as against free speech) is a good thing in the following respect.

As everyone knows, Hope Not Hate, UAF-SWP, etc. have been systematically trying to silence the EDL, Gert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Douglas Murray, etc. for years. However, too few Brits will have taken much notice of this Lesser-Gulag policy. Despite that, now that these red fascists are doing exactly the same thing to UKip, people will finally begin to realise that these people are far more of a threat to democracy than any supposedly Nazi group.

These people are more of a threat than Nazis for the simple reason that they've “taken over the institutions” (as Antonio Gramsci ordered in the early 1930s).

Leftists/Trotskyists/communists can be found:

i) in all our universities
ii) in the legal professions
iii) amongst rights/race activists
iv) in the charities
v) in the offices of our national newspapers (The Guardian, the New Statesman,The Independent)
vi) in the police (or at least the CPS, “governing bodies” and “watchdogs”)
vii) in parts of the BBC
viii) and even – to some extent – in parts of the Church of England.

So even though there is indeed a very small number of genuine Nazi/fascist groups in the UK, they are still politically insignificant when compared to the power and influence of these red-fascist professionals.

Friday, 12 December 2014

Bunny La Roche: Psychopathic Trotskyist & SWP Activist


That's Bunny La Roche in the image: a SWP-UAF activist. She shouted her mouth off on last night's Question Time (BBC 1).

"Bunny Boiler" La Roche's comrade - Martin Smith, former SWP leader
She's a member of Kent International Socialists. She's also reported for the International Socialist Network which – just like Unite Against Fascism (UAF) and much else – is yet another adjunct of the SWP. (The website Political Scrapbook even connects her to the SWP cover-up of Martin Smith's sexual violence.)

Look at the pure hate and violence in her face. She's the female version of, well, Martin Smith – the equally violent former leader of the SWP and rapist. Indeed there are many photos of her in which she exudes her typical snarling hatred and smugness.

This woman has an almost pathological hatred of all those who don't believe exactly what she believes. She is, in fact, quite dangerous. Or at least her type (Trotskyists) – collectively - are very dangerous. (She also seems to have a typical SWP fetish for loudspeakers; though she doesn't really need one.)

La Roche "tapping into the revolutionary potential" of workers.
She even had the nerve to say (on Question Time): “I'm coming for you Farage.” Isn't that a criminal threat of violence? What does the police think of that? Still, it's no surprise at all. She also once shouted “when are you going to fucking die” at someone during one of her many protests and has even used violence and intimidation against “fellow socialists”.

What people who saw the show will know is that Bunny La Roche's venom was not only aimed at Nigel Farage: it was also aimed at two other members of QT audience. She's a supremely intolerant woman. She is a Red fascist. People like are just a much a threat to our society as any genuinely Nazi group. In fact, more so; bearing in mind that our universities, legal establishments, etc. are full of SWP members. People like her have “taken over the institutions”, as Antonio Gramsci demanded in the 1930s. My bet is that she's a lecturer or a social worker. (Judging by this link, she is a lecturer or an academic of some kind - "Parklife!".)

The SWP explicitly believes in violent revolution to overthrow what they call “capitalist democracy”. They also believe in street violence to “liquidate” (an old communist phrase) all “class enemies” – that is, all non-Trotstyists and non-communists. More specifically, the SWP has frequently used violence against UKip members and supporters in the last few years; just as they have repeatedly used violence since the 1960s. (There's an image of one of Bunny La Roche's protests in which Nigel Farage is physically attacked by a SWP banner.) Her gang of Leftist thugs have also prevented UKip supporters attending talks and suchlike.

One phrase her group uses is: “Farage has to go.” That's strange really because there has been similar campaign with the slogan “Cameron has to go” as well. Indeed who would be left alive if these fanatics ever gained state power through their gloriously violent revolution?

Well, if these people ever achieved state power (which is what they dream of), then the Gulag would be built over night to house the literally millions of people – mainly working class – whom these middle-class Trotskyists profoundly despise.



1) Don't be fooled by her Estuary English/Mockney accent. All Trots speak that way. In fact I've heard ex-public-school members of the SWP speak like that; including the two Lords in the SWP Central Committee.

2) Here's a piece on her in KentOnline.

3) This is an article by Socialist Unity which shows that La Roche is prepared to spread the love and lack of bigotry amongst her fellow socialists. More correctly, she has a record of bigotry, sectarianism and violence even towards fellow Leftists. Clearly, like Weyman Bennett, Martin Smith and all SWP, she's addicted to violence and SWP supreme power.

Thursday, 11 December 2014

Paul Austin Murphy's Twitter Account


Join me on my very own Twitter page. Bring friends, family and the disadvantaged too.

Trolls are especially welcome; even though I'm not quite sure what they are. (Are they peeps who disagree with One?) In addition, you can screen-shoot my most flagrant examples of racism and fascism – as well as all the other isms I thoroughly endorse - and send them to EDL News or Hope Not Hate.

Inside you'll find lots of delicious babes and people doing their anecdotes. There's even some hardcore Marxist dialectics and a little semiotic analysis too.
One of them delicious babes.

Guaranteed fun times for one and all - or your money back.

Those especially keen on Leftist jargon and soundbites are more than welcome. After all, we all belong to the same Humanoid Race.

Click here to enter wonderland:

Wednesday, 10 December 2014

Moazzam Begg on Far-Right Terrorism



Moazzam Begg speaking at an Amnesty International event.
You won't believe the audacity of an article written by the former Guantanamo Bay inmate Moazzam Begg. It's entitled: 'When is a threat not a threat? The UK's terrorism double standards' (published by Middle East Eye on the 5th of December).

Moazzam Begg is trying to sell the fairy tale that there's just as much of a threat from“far-right terrorism” than there is from Islamic terrorism. He also says that the British soldier, Ryan McGee, got off leniently for his own recent terrorist plot.

In any case, after the recent case of Ryan McGee, Moazzam Begg has to go back to 2007 (to the Robert Cottage case) to find another example of non-Islamic terrorism in England: on both occasions, no one was killed.

Since 2005, on the other hand, over forty Islamic terroristattacks have been thwarted in the UK. In the United States there were 50 foiled Islamic attacks between 2001 and 2011. And between 2001 and 2012 there were over 20,022Islamic terror attacksworldwide. All in all and on average, there are around 1,800 Islamic terror attacks every year; or one attack every five hours. (To give just one more example, in terms of Pakistan alone,between 2001 and 2011 35,000 died as a result of Islamic terrorism.)

Like Norway's Anders Breivik and America's Timothy McVeigh, the UK's Ryan McGee has been a godsend to both the British Left and to Muslims like Moazzam Begg.

Yet Anders Breivik's attack was over three years ago. In 2011 alone there were sevenIslamic terrorist attacks which claimed more lives than the Breivik massacre; which claimed 77 lives. (Since 2011, how many Islamic terrorist attacks have there been?) Rather miraculously, however, Begg himself doesn't mention Breivik (perhaps because he focusses entirely on the UK).

In any case, no one's ever claimed that there have never been non-Islamic terrorists. In the 1960s and 1970s, for example, most of them – at least in Europe and the US - were Leftists (though there were some Nazi/fascist attacks too). Despite that, there are more Islamic terrorist attacks every month (or even less) than in the entire history of Leftist/Nazi terrorism. And that’s the difference, Mr Begg, as you know full well.

Leftist Support

Venessa Redgrave, Victoria Brittain, Begg & Martin Linton MP
There's a vast amount of evidence against this wretched - though media-friendly - Islamist and (former?) terrorist: simply Google his name and see. And when you do you'll be astonished by the fact that this man is still walking free. (Yes, Begg talks about the lenient sentence given to Ryan McGee.)

Clive Stafford Smith & Begg

In any case, try to swallow some of Moazzam Begg's own words just for starters:

"….I was focused on the global jihad being waged against Bosnia, Russia, and India, and it became clear to me by 1996 that the jihad was also against the United States. I felt that jihad was an appropriate way to deal with those who harmed Muslims, especially jihad against Russia, and India, since I viewed them as oppressors of Muslims."

So why is it that so little evidence has stuck to Moazzam Begg?
I think that there are four main reasons for this:

i) Basically, Moazzam Begg has never been filmed/caught planting a bomb or with a hand-written terror plot in his hands. (It really is – more or less- that simple.)

ii) Everything Moazzam Begg has ever confessed to (he's confessed to a lot) occurred –according to Begg himself - “under duress” (which is precisely what almost every Islamic terrorist former detainee has claimed after the event).

iii) The British government and

MI5 have attemptedto use Moazzam Begg's services at various times. Thus, ultimately, Begg has something on them (as it were). Either that, or the British state owes Begg something. Basically, from 2005 (possibly before) onwards, various deals have been done between the government/MI5 and Moazzam Begg.
iv) Finally, and perhaps more importantly, Moazzam Begg has secured the services of some of the best lawyers and “rights activists” in the United Kingdom.
More specifically on that last point.

Many very high-ranking Leftist lawyers and activists have flocked to Moazzam Begg's defence. And - as these very same Leftists often say when they're talking about the politicians, bankers, etc. who've “got off scot-free”- if you have the right lawyers or activists working for you, it's amazing what you can get away with. This is especially the case when the lawyers and activists politically sympathise with the men they support and defend; as well as when they agree with what the suspects are fighting for (which is certainly the case with Moazzam Begg).

Gareth Peirce & Begg

In addition, Moazzam Begg's racial/ethnic and religious status (as a brown-exotic Muslim) has certainly titillated the fancies of all those white, upper-middle-class Leftist lawyers/activists who've acted - over the years - as little more than Moazzam Begg's professional whores.

Victoria Brittain & Begg

As for the specifics of that Leftist support.

For a start, don't believe any of the Leftist/progressive hype about Guantanamo Bay“detainees”. As everyone except these lawyers/activists seems to know:

i) In 2009, 1 in 7 released Guantanamo detainees went straight back into terrorism. (Or, according to their lawyers, went straight back into various“liberation struggles” or into interfaith outreach.)

ii) Between Barack Obama gaining power in 2009 and 2014, 88 released prisoners were “confirmed as re-engaging in violence”.

(Incidentally, only eight people have died in Guantanamo Bay. Compare that to the up to 30,000 political dissidents who wereput to deathfor political reasons – this excludes Islamic hudud/sharia death sentences - by the Iranian state in 1988 alone; and that's to forget about Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.)

What about the proper names of Moazzam Begg's Leftist/progressive false friends?Try these for size:

Shami Chakrabarti (as well as her “rights group” Liberty)

Amnesty International (many AI members left this organisation because of its sponsorship and support of Begg)

the Guardian’s former Associate Foreign Editor Victoria Britain(as well as many other Guardianjournalists)

JUST West Yorkshire

Philippe Sands QC

Vanessa & Corin Redgrave

Michael Mansfield QC

The Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers

Clive Stafford Smith (OBE)

committed socialist” lawyer Philip Shiner, etc.

(All the links in this list will take you to articles which cite the strong connections between the aforementioned Leftists/Trotskyists and Moazzam Begg.)


Gareth Peirce, directly behind Begg.
Moazzam Begg is a despicable Islamist who surely must have played at least some part in blowing innocent civilians – mainly Muslim - to pieces.

This man despises just about every fibre of Great Britain; both politically and Islamically (if the two can be disentangled). And just like the Trotskyists/progressives who've become his false fiends (or useful tools), he's wormed himself into the heart of the British society (or at least its elite Red Sections) he ultimately wants to destroy.

Gareth Peirce and the terrorist she freed: Abu Qatada

To put all this in the most simple of possible terms (which is precisely how Moazzam Begg himself puts it): all action – of any kind whatsoever - against Islamic terrorism is seen, by Begg, to actually be a part ofgrande “war on Islam”. (Incidentally, his many Leftist enablers see it all being part of a “imperialist state conspiracy” - even though many of them, as we've seen, effectively belong to that state!)

Thus Moazzam Begg is far more dangerous than the popular celebrity Anjem Choudary. Why? Simply because Moazzam Begg has got so many members of the Establishment (which is now largely Leftist or at least Left-Liberal) in his pocket. So much so that he is currently walking the streets of the UK. Not only that: he has published a book, given talks in universities, appeared on the BBC, etc. On the other hand, the Daily Mail and Hope Not Hate's favourite Muslim, Anjem Choudary, is just a clown and a diversion.



1) In the UK, the term“far right” only began to be frequently used very recently. That was basically with the rise of the EDL in 2009. (This isn't to say it wasn't used before that.)

I'm convinced that it began to be used because the terms “fascist” or “Nazi” came to be an embarrassment to the Left precisely because Leftists had previously accused almost everyone under the sun (except themselves) of being a “Nazi” or a “fascist”.Others got sick of it too. Thus, all of a sudden, “far right”came on the scene.

To such Leftists, “far right” = Nazi/fascist.

Try and test Leftists out. Ask them to distinguish a member of the “far right” from a Nazi or a fascist. They won't be able to do so in most circumstances.

This isn't to say there can't be a Far Right that's not Nazi or fascist. I'm only commenting on the word as it's used by the majority of Leftists.

Sunday, 7 December 2014

Not Another Hottest Year Since 1880?


A BBC News piece (published on the 1st of December) informs us about the “record-breaking global temperatures for the year to date”. This is a belated response to an announcement in September made by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for the year 2014.

As many people know, exactly the same claim was made for the year 1998 (as well as for years after). It was repeatedly claimed that 1998 was the “warmest year of the millennium”. No, not since 1880 (“when records began”): of “the millennium”. However, some say it was 1934 (in terms of the 20th century); others says otherwise.

For example, there's a smug website (called 'Sceptical Science:Getting sceptical about global warming scepticism') which disputes the 1934 claim. (His own claims are disputed in the comments section.) One assertion is that the data of 1934 only applied to the United States.

Clearly there's a market here for another website entitled: 'Sceptical Science: Getting sceptical about scepticism about global-warming scepticism'. Indeed many of the sceptical arguments against global-warming scepticism have themselves been - to use an academic cliché - “debunked”. (In philosophy, there's been a long and healthy tradition of scepticism directed towards scepticism; which, when you think about it, is a backhanded compliment to scepticism.)

So let's face facts here: almost all claims in the global-warming show (both pro and con) are disputed.

Anyway, similar claims have been made about various years in the 20th century; though not necessarily that they were the warmest of the century (or of the millennium).

In general terms, it was in fact the case that global temperatures rose in the 1980s. Indeed in the 1990s they rose even more to reach a peak in the aforementioned year of 1998. However, even between 1980 and 2000 global temperatures only rose by a few tenths of a degree. And such a thing has happened countless times before in the earth's history.

Indeed we should place all that within even larger parameters.

The Little Cooling period of 1940 to 1975, for example.
And, on a larger scale, there was the Mediaeval Warm Period which, at times, was warmer than the 1980s and 1990s.

What's more, the vast majority of studies (at least according to a controversial meta-study of 2003 by Dr Willie Soon and Dr Sallie Baliunas) accepted that earlier centuries had been warmer than the 20th century.

There are two further points about the 2014 claim to bear in mind.

  1. Temperatures in the 20th century only rose, on average, by 0.6 degrees. (Changes will need to be made for the last fourteen years.) Now is that rise of 0.6 degrees in and of itself a danger to the planet and mankind?
  2. There have been many previous centuries in which there were similar rises in global temperatures. Perhaps there have been countless centuries within which temperatures rose more than the average 0.6 degrees of the 20th century.

What lies at the heart of most of this global-warming hullabaloo is a reliance on what has happened since 1980 (or, even more so, since 1998). This situation is summed up by the environmental analyst, ecologist and conservationist Peter Taylor. In 2009 he wrote:

"The period 1980-2005, a mere 25 years, is now the sole 'signal' for human agency [causing global warming] and the identification of this signal relies entirely upon ability of computer simulations to separate natural cycles from the effect of extra greenhouse gases.”

The Last 17 Years
How does the proclamation about 2014 being the hottest year since 1880 tie in with the often-repeated claim - as originally of March 2014 - that there's been no global warming for seventeen-and-a-half years (or for 210 months)?

Of course it could be that these claims are wrong and the NOAA's claim is correct. Or, alternatively, it could be that NOAA's claim is wrong and these claims are correct.

As Peter Ferrara states:

.... the record of satellite measurements of global atmospheric temperatures now shows no warming for at least 17 years and 5 months, from September, 1996 to January, 2014, as shown on the accompanying graphic. That is surely 17 years and 6 months now, accounting for February.”
Now just as I'm not entirely bowled over by NOAA's recent claim, so I'm not entirely bowled over by Peter Ferrara's claims either. And the reason for that appears to be simple.

Ferrara statements seem to be based on RSS satellite records (RSS: Remote Sensing Systems). The claim of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is based on, surely, “oceanic and atmospheric” records or findings. (Then again, the NOAA also uses satellite recordings.) And here again the sceptics about global-warming scepticism have disputed satellite recordings; just as sceptics about global warming have disputed some of the recordings/findings which further the anthropogenic global warming cause.

Why “since 1880”?

NOAA claims that the average global temperature - between January and October 2014 - was the hottest since records began in 1880.

That reference to “since records began in 1880” can give people a misleading impression.

There is a vast amount of evidence about global temperatures which occurred before 1880. In fact they go back hundreds of thousands of years. And much of this evidence has worked against the AGW theory.

So there's a distinction to be made here between:

i) The records of temperatures which occurred in situ (or at the time). And

ii) The other ways and means of establishing the temperatures of the past (some of which date back 800,000 of years).

Scientists are Human

Remember the following:

i) Scientists are human beings.

ii) Most adult human beings have strong political and ideological views.

iii) Therefore it is likely that many scientists have strong political and ideological (i.e., non-scientific) views.

iv) Consequently, at least some of those scientists who work for the IPCC – as well as other government- and UN-run organisations - will also have strong political and ideological views which may/will taint their findings as well as skew what it is they choose to research. (I could just as easily apply this to organisations which argue against anthropogenic global warming.)

In addition, simply because someone's a scientist (or even a scientist who has a direct speciality in this general area), it doesn't follow that such a person will have direct access to the unadulterated truth on anthropogenic global warming (or even to a small aspect of it). After all, such a scientist will be a specialist in only one scientific discipline. The thing is, the general field of global warming (or climate change) requires numerous scientific disciplines and no single scientist is an expert in all such disciplines (or even in two or more of them).


How does the average person decide on all these factors and facts relating to global warming without doing a hell of a lot of thinking and even a lot of hard work? (My bet is that nearly all believers don't do that much work at all – they simply believe.)

So I'm willing to admit that I may have made some factual and logical mistakes in this piece. Nonetheless, that doesn't make me feel too bad because even the scientists and writers who've spent nearly all their adult lives studying and writing about this issue have done exactly the same thing. (Notable examples include Dr Michael Mann, Al Gore, IPC, James E. Hansen, James Lovelock, Professor Sir DavidKing, Timeand many others.)

I'm also willing to admit that global-warming scepticism does have a (possible) downside.

The downside is that if such scepticism were widely endorsed by the powers that be, then such people would quite probably call a halt to most – or even all- the actions which are now being taken to stop (or reverse) man-made climate change.

And therein lies the heart of the problem.

Believers strongly hold the view that AGW scepticism simply cannot be accepted (or even allowed) precisely because – they believe - such a halt on action against climate change will have very serious repercussions for both the planet and mankind.

Thus even if warmists accept (if only to themselves) that climate-change scepticism contains at least some truth, the fact that it it may also be largely false means that it's a dangerous thing to take seriously (or even to allow). And that's why politicians and activists have done their level best to denigrate and even silence global-warming sceptics.

And just as Soviet Communists believed that the Gulag, Show Trials, “class liquidations”, etc. were necessary for X, Y and Z; so warmists believe that their own political actions and words (to silence global-warming heresy) are equally necessary in order to bring about something which is even more important than world communism: “saving the planet”.

The thing is, the believers may be wrong. Not only wrong about AGW; but also about the need to adopt Stalinist measures in order to silence the sceptics.



1) Surely it was the case that in the year 1934 very few countries worldwide would have been carrying systematic surveys of the weather. So even if the data was just about the US, how would we now know that it didn't also apply to many other countries or even globally?

2) As Christopher Moncktonputs it:

Seventeen and a half years. Not a flicker of global warming. The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months.”

3) You can ask the question whether a single institution (in this case the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) can make such a massive claim entirely on its own. More correctly, even if it can indeed make such a claim, can a single institution be trusted with the complete truth on such a large issue as global climate change?

What should be borne in mind here is that similar institutions have been shown not only to make false claims: they've also been shown to be institutionally biased (in political or other ways) and even corrupt. (This is certainly true of the IPCC.)

4) In 2009, the UK's Met Office, for example, claimed that we were heading for “a barbecue summer”. In fact the UK suffered an extremely wet and cold (for that time of year) July and August . In addition, at that time at least, the Met Office relied heavily on now largely discredited – or at least heavily questioned - computer models.