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, 20 December 2014

The Muslim Council of Britain on the Peshawar Massacre


 

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) seems to spend almost its entire time publishing apologies for Islamic slaughter, killing, terrorism, violence, misogyny, sexual-grooming gangs, and so on. And it usually does so with Islamic taqiyya: lies, prevarications, evasiveness, equivocations, ambiguity, deceit, dishonesty, obfuscation, deception, dissembling and dissimulation (all used to advance and/or protect Islam).
 
Predictably, in the aftermath of the Islamic slaughter in Peshawar, the MCB has given its own response to the event in a very short piece entitled, 'A Massacre of Children: An Ummah in Shock'. And equally predictably, it quotes the one quote that Muslims always use in such circumstances.
 
Basically, you hear this passage all the time at Interfaith meetings, in the Guardian, on the BBC, etc. Try Googling the phrase and you'll get literally dozens of links; almost all will be from Muslim or interfaith groups.
 
This is a passage from the Koran which even many non-Muslims will recognize. The MCB version goes:
“Whosoever kills a human being, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.”

This quote is a perfect and despicable example of Islamic taqiyya and it is so for many reasons.
 
What surprises me, however, is that -- after the deceitful nature of this passage has been demonstrated so many times and in so many different places -- Muslims and Islamophiles are still using it. The MCB, for example, must think its non-Muslim supporters/readers are either stupid or even (fellow) liars.
 
This following is the MCB's lead-up to its citation:
“While it is very hard to find the words to respond to the tragedy before us, I can only quote a verse from the Koran in which it says...”

And then we have the passage itself:
“Whosoever kills a human being, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.”

(The passage is verse 32 of sura/chapter 5.)
 
Virtually no religion or ideology believes or accepts what is purported to be the meaning of that Koranic statement. In order to fully accept it, the religion or ideology concerned would have to be fully pacifist in nature (e.g., Jainism or Quakerism); which makes its use by Muslims all the more ironic or even somewhat sick.
 
This passage -- at least within a MCB and indeed Islamic context -- is at best meaningless (a mere soundbite) and at worse a piece of gross deceit.
 
The relevant point is that the MCB has cynically removed the middle clause knowing full well that it more or less negates the surrounding clauses. After all, the erased central clause isn't long: it's a mere ten words in length. This, I suggest, is classic Islamic taqiyya or deceit. And no Islamic organization does that better than the Muslim Council of Britain.
 
Here's the passage in full:
“… We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person – unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land [my italics] – it would be as if he slew the whole people.”

Immediately after that, we have:
“And if anyone saved a life, it would be as he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them our messengers with clear signs, yet even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

It can be seen that the opening clause is also always deleted by Muslims when they quote it at non-Muslims. That is, for a while I didn’t even know -- because of the deliberate misquotations from Muslims (or their use of Kitman) -- that the passage begins with the clause: “We [i.e., Allah] ordained for the Children of Israel...” That is followed by: “.... that if anyone slew a person...”.


So not only is this supposedly peaceful -- or even pacifist -- passage not aimed at Muslims in the first place (it was aimed at Jews), on only a tiny bit of analysis it can be seen not to be very peaceful or positive in the first place!



This well-used passage is from Jewish scripture (Mishnah, Sanhedrin: 4:5) anyway. It was stolen from Jewish sources by Muhammad and his immediate followers (something they often did).

In addition, the passage doesn't appear to have been abrogated like so many other “peaceful verses” in that book. Perhaps this is so precisely because of the surgically removed central clause.
 
Here’s another equally-positive translation used by Muslim:
“That whosoever killed a human being, it shall be deemed as though he had killed all mankind.”

The actual version (again) is:
“That whosoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy [sometimes ‘mischief’] in the land, shall be deemed as though he had killed all mankind…”

This, of course, prompts the question: What would be deemed as “villainy” by Muslims?
What about what the Taliban has claimed about the Pakistani Army and others?

Anyway, here’s a list of what has been -- and still is -- classed as “villainy in the land” by millions of Muslims:
 
apostasy, churches, the possession of Bibles, homosexuality, preaching a religion other than Islam, all criticism of Islam, Muhammad, the Koran, not going to the mosque, sex outside marriage, atheism, Zionism, Judaism, Christianity, materialist philosophies and political views, secularism… basically anything non-Islamic and certainly everything anti-Islamic.

Let’s not mess about here.
 
Millions of Muslims today believe the very existence of people who aren't Muslims -- or lands that aren't Islamic -- are examples of “villainy in the land”.
 
 

Friday, 19 December 2014

Guns & Wars Save Lives


 



Guns can save lives.
Guns can take lives.
Indeed guns can take lives in the process of saving lives.

Wars can save lives.
Wars can take lives.
Wars can take lives in the process of saving lives.

It's not complicated and the Left knows that.

That's why the Left is only against those wars which are fought by what it calls “Western capitalist states”. Then again, Leftists are only against guns when those guns are owned by those outside Left-Liberal or outright Leftist states.

So Leftists are very choosy when it comes to who is and who isn't allowed to kill.

Islamic and Leftists terrorists, socialist revolutionaries, socialist/communist states, etc. have had their killings and oppressions explained away by Marxist theory. Right-wing terrorists, capitalists states, etc. haven’t.






In fact, throughout the 20thcentury and beyond, collectivist/communist states have killed en masse. (E.g. the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Vietnam, Communist Hungary, various Marxist regimes in Africa, etc.)Now many in the Left have also developed a penchant for Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and even the Islamic State (which was supported at a recent Left Unity conference).







Consequently,Leftists have legitimised all those killings and genocidal groups/states in all sorts of arcane and convoluted theoretical ways: ultimately, in deceitful and hypocritical ways.


So according to all the (pseudo) anti-war movements of the Left, it's just nasty white capitalists and other nasty (right-wing) whites who aren't allowed to kill.

In other words, Leftists aren't against war or oppression at all. They're against capitalism. Or, more correctly, they're against only those wars and oppressions which are carried out by“capitalist states”. In fact there's a quaint Marxist Manichean theory which says that capitalism is reponsible for literally all wars and indeed every other evil.


What you have, then, is Leftist racism, Manicheanism and hypocrisy bound together in one ugly package.

Hope Not Hate's Support of Human Rights... for Immigrants

 



Hah! The irony of Nick Lowles's Hope Not Hate grandstanding its support of human rights.

Isn't the freedom of speech one of the most fundamental of human rights? So why has this communist-led group been carrying out a relentless campaign against free speech?

This is what the leader of Hope Not Hate - Nick Lowles - has to say on the matter:


"Everything we do at HOPE not hate, every ounce of support we seek, is cemented by our faith in the universality of human rights."
It's interesting, of course, that Hope Not Hate focuses on the human rights of immigrants: in one case, on what it calls “domestic workers”. After all, they probably have brown and black skins, not the white skin of the (non-Leftist) working class it despises.


Hope Not Hate's image.

Here again, “human rights law" is simply a tool - of the radical Left - which is used to chip away at what they see as the “capitalist state”. Defending the human rights of, say, Tommy Robinson or any white (non-Leftist) person, on the other hand, simply wouldn't do the trick - would it, Nick?

As the phrase has it, this is yet another example of Leftist “lawfare”against a state which doesn't follow the Trotskyist or communist Left's wishes to a T.

If Hope Not Hate had state power... or at least if a collectivist/socialist government it were happy with had state power, it would silence the following groups and individuals: UKip, the EDL, all patriot and nationalist groups, as well as those millions of people (usually white working class) it classes as “bigots”,“haters”, “racists”, “fascists”, “Nazis”, etc.

Yes, if Hope Not Hate had state power (it already has supporters/fellow travellers in the Opposition, in the law, local government, the Mirror, etc.), it would silence literally millions of British people.

Human rights? The Gulag more like!

These Hope Not Hate references to “human rights” are even more hilarious than its token references to Angie Choudary.

Thursday, 18 December 2014

What Does “Far Right” Mean?

 


The image is from the Hope Not Hate website.
In the UK, the term “far right” only began to befrequently used very recently. Basically with the rise of the EDL in 2009. (This isn't to say it wasn't used before that.) When it did so, virtually all regional newspapers began to describe the EDL – and then other groups - as “far right”. (That might have been because nearly all regional newspapers are owned by Trinity Mirror and Newsquest.)

I'm convinced that it began to be used because the terms “fascist” or “Nazi” came to embarrass Leftists precisely because they accused almost everyone under the sun of being a “Nazi” or a “fascist”. Others got sick of it too. Thus, all of a sudden, the phrase “far right” came on the scene.

Thus the substitution of “Nazi” or “fascist”with “far right” is very much like the substitution of“capitalism” with “neoliberalism” during almost the same period. (Is this coincidental?) And, in both cases, I'm prepared to accept the there are conceptual and political differences. It's just that most users of “far right” and “neoliberalism” wouldn't be able to tell you what they are. Indeed if they could - or did - cite important and substantial differences between the Far Right and Nazis or fascists, the use of the phrase "far right" would loose its point and political efficacy.

To put this plainly, to the majority of Leftists (as well as to most regional journalist):

far right” = Nazi/fascist.

Try and test Leftists (as well as journalists) 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. (Leftists could, of course, offer superficial differences in order to prove a point.)

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 Leftists.

The Pope on the Religion of Peace

 



The Pope has said many positive things about Islam recently (as has people like Tony Blair, David Cameron, etc.). You get the feeling that this is almost politically compulsory in today's climate. In other words, far from “Islamophobia passing the dinner-part test” (as the then Baroness Warsi once claimed), the exact opposite is the case.

Perhaps the Pope is doing what Leftists frequently do: he's “lying for Justice”. (All politicians and activists, of course, lie at some point. However, Leftists – or at least Trotskyists, etc. – have a strong “theoretical justification”for it.)

The Pope may think that to believe – let alone announce - the alternative (that Islam is a religion of war and religious supremacism) is just too massive a pill to swallow.

In any case, some Christians, Leftists and interfaithers know full well that Islam is not “a religion of peace”. They know it as much as you and I do. However, to publicly pronounce that Islam is a jihadist religion will - they think - result in more communal conflict and violence, not less.

The truth is the other way around. After all, selling the lie that the Nazis “only wanted peace” in the 1930s meant that Britain and America lost a lot of ground when it came to destroying that particular enemy.

Interfaith gobbledegook and talk of Islam being the “religion of peace” (along with naïve and often politically fake pacifism) have led to more violence and bloodshed, not less.

What seems to matter more to these people (e.g., Leftists, interfaithers, etc.) is grandstanding their supreme tolerance and very deep lack of bigotry; rather than telling the truth. (Yes, they're being pious!) Thus some of them must know that lying about Islam is going to result in more oppression and death, not less.

How the BBC Does Bias

 





Because the BBC is tax-payer funded, it always has to hide its Left-Liberal - sometimes outright Leftist - bias. After all, everybody pays for the license fee - no matter what their political beliefs.

So there is rarely any outright politicking on the BBC (except on Have I Got News For You, other BBC comedy programmes, dramas/soaps, opinion pieces, etc.).

The BBC shows it bias by what it focusses on; what it misses out; who it quotes; who it doesn't quote; what it quotes; etc.; rather than by plain politicking.

I don't think that every BBC presenter and BBC programme is Leftist or Left-Liberal either. That doesn't matter. It's the BBC's editorial line and overall bias that's Left-Liberal. Every now and again, then, they will have shows presented by right-wingers, etc.; which is more than The Guardian ever manages. (The Telegraph, on the other hand, does publish pieces by what could be called Left-Liberals.)

Of course it's a little embarrassing accusing the BBC of bias because all kinds of mutually-contradictory political groups do the same. However, all I can do is argue my case. And it must also be borne in mind that many BBC presenters, editors, programme makers, etc. have explicitly admitted to that (left-liberal) bias at certain times. (Quite a few times, actually.) Others have also denied it.

Take the case of those Leftists who say the BBC is based towards Israel. Succinctly, that amounts to saying that the BBC doesn't completely endorse and propagate the revolutionary Marxist analysis of Israel (that it's an “imperialist racist state”) in which Israel has literally sole culpability for.... um, everything that happens in that area of the world. Well, if that's what the BBC must believe in order not to be biased, then the Trotskyists/communists are correct: the BBC is biased.

In addition, when I say that the BBC is biased I don't also believe that such a news outlet can necessarily escape from such bias: it can't. What it can do is admit to its bias (as it has done at times) and also try to allow outlets for other perspectives; which, to some extent at least, the BBC has done.

White Guilt

 





You can be against things such as racism and not be a Marxist/Leftist. In fact pious and highly-theoretical brands of anti-racism actually contribute to racism.

If a Leftist admits to having “white privilege”, then he must feel a certain sense of guilt about having that white privilege. People who are privileged often feel guilt for that privilege; as do the numerous Marxists who have been financially and educationally privileged (as well as being white). In fact their white guilt probably motivates almost their entire position on anti-racism. Guilt is an extremely strong emotion/psychological disposition.

And since nearly all Marxists/Leftists are both white and from well-off backgrounds, that is a double dose of strong guilt and it may well motivate their entire politics.

The very acceptance of one's“privilege” involves guilt otherwise it wouldn't be seen a privilege in the first place.

A Class Analysis of Marxists

 



I would say that nine out of ten Marxists/revolutionary socialists/Trotskyists are middle-class.

Most academic Marxist writers and activists belong to a tiny and severely circumscribed social milieu: the university. What's more, the higher up the echelons you go in the leadership of the Left, the more likely Leftists/Marxists are to be upper-middle-class (e.g., the leaders of Leftist parties, lawyers, “rights activists”,professors, journalists, etc.); rather than plain middle-class ("petit bourgeoisie").

Marxists are the perfect subject for a sociological analysis; though since many sociologists and “class analysts” are Marxists, such a thing has never happened.

What Marxists seem to say is that it's okay for them to analyse where non-Marxists/Leftists get their views from (i.e., their "class position"); though it's wrong for people like me to analyse where Marxists get their ideas from (i.e.,their class position).

Wednesday, 17 December 2014

The Islamic Siege in Australia


 





That he-had-mental-problems mantra is heard all too frequently nowadays. It was used about the Canadian murder, as well as about the one in Woolwich.

(Non-Muslim) Islamophiles generally see it in definitional terms:

If a Muslim kills or bombs someone or something, he must be mad.

The Left, on the other hand, blames Islamic terror on poverty, imperialism, colonialism, the Balfour Declaration, racism, global warming, the price of bread....anything.

. Anything other than Islam itself. This too is a definitional assumption and it's essentially Marxist in nature.

Islam is always and every time excused of having anything to do with anything negative or violent. Yet is is deemed as having everything to do with things positive and non-violent. In the former case, Islam is a mere“epiphenomenon of social conditions”. It's not fundamental or even relevant at all. Islam is simply Marx's “sigh of the oppressed creature”.

The violence is either or result of mental illness or socio-political conditions. Islam gets off scot free.

And the longer our rulers pretend to believe this, the worse the situation is going to become. They are denying the truth for political reasons; though also for reasons of moral and political piety.

Nigel Farage on Traffic Jams


 





Between 2000 and 2011 there were up to five million new immigrants into the UK. Now is the anti-Farage argument that these numbers haven't had any affect on traffic whatsoever?

Forget the specifics of the motorway Farage was travelling on: won't five million new immigrants - in only eleven years - have had at least some overall negative affect on traffic?

Whether this is true on the day Nigel Farage was travelling, I've no idea. Do most of his critics know the specifics?

Is the position this?

Because there were traffic jams in the past, then there can't be worse (overall) traffic jams today. That's like saying that because there were some traffic jams in the 1940s (which there were), then the situation can't possibly be worse today. That position is obviously false. No-one has ever said that there have never been traffic jams before.

So perhaps people are saying that because traffic jams aren't always and only to do with mass immigration, then they can't have anything at all to do with mass immigration. The fact people have experienced traffic jams in the 1960s (or in the 1920s) doesn't stop it from being the case that the situation is worse today because of mass immigration.

So there many be an element – large or small - of truth to what Farage said about the traffic. However, if people insist of pretending to believe that Farage claimed that every traffic jam is a result of mass immigration, then it's no wonder they think what he said is stupid. Though, in the end, such people have effectively interpreted his statement in order to make it ridiculous; rather than it necessarily being ridiculous.

Since I'm talking about Farage, UKip doesn't, as far as I know, have a problem with student and qualified/skilled immigrants.

Recently there was a“report” (or was it a “study”?) by pro-immigration Leftist academics at the University College London (UCL) which hit the news. They said that in roughly ten years EU immigrants contributed £20 billion in tax. They didn't mention the £120 billion paid out to non-EU immigrants in benefits in roughly the same period. They didn't mention the public services, etc. which working EU immigrants got for free either. Finally, they didn't mention the £15 billion or more in foreign aid in in the same period. That means the tax contribution was simply erased leaving a deficit of some £100 billion that went entirely on immigrant benefits.

Banksy, The Guardian and Free Speech


 





The ironic thing is that it's the very people who write that kind of graffiti (in the image) - and who dress like that (as well as Banksy himself) - who are precisely the kind of people who believe in many restrictions on (usually right-wing!) speech. Though because they have zero skills of self-analysis, they don't see that.

What Leftists - and even anarchists - really really mean is this:




Free speech for me and for people who think like me. Not for those who express views I find objectionable.


It's like The Guardian’s bullshit about Edward Snowden and government surveillance.

That Leftist rag called for surveillance after Anders Breivik – for all those potential “far right” terrorists. And even before that they called for monitoring of “far right” groups and individuals. The Guardian has also called for bans and censorship: of the BNP, EDL, “hate speech”, “hate blogs”, etc.

The hypocrisy here is blatant and obvious.

The Guardian believes in a “police state” - as long as it's a collectivist/socialist police state. It believes in monitoring and surveillance – against the “far right”; not against Leftists and Muslims. It believe in bans – against the “far right”, etc.

The ironic thing is that Leftists, when banned on Facebook for example, always talk about “free speech” even though they ban people on their own pages within milliseconds of reading a disagreable comment. As with The Guardian, they mean: “Free speech for me and those with the correct views.”

Almost all Leftists strongly believe in the “no platform” policy for all dissenting views –literally! If they had the requisite state power, they'd also believe in the Gulag. Give them more power, and the closer to the Gulag they become; as NUS, etc. have shown recently.

That's why all this Banksy and Guardian stuff about free speech makes me want to puke.

I think they indulge in such blatant hypocrisy because they have zero skills when it comes to self-analysis and self-criticism. Many simply think that being a socialist/Leftist is all it takes to be morally, politically and intellectually superior. And because of that mindless assumption, they are often morally, politically and intellectually inferior.

Tuesday, 16 December 2014

Short Notes (2)

 
Meet the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB)



The shortened version of every MCB position:





Any action taken against Muslim grooming-gangs is “Islamophobic”, “racist” and“hysterical”.






Any action taken against Islamists taking over some British schools is Islamophobic, racist and hysterical.






Any action taken against Muslim terrorists is Islamophobic, racist and hysterical.






Any actions taken against radical clerics is Islamophobic, racist and hysterical.






Any action taken against Islamic schools is Islamophobic, racist and hysterical.

Monday, 15 December 2014

Short Notes (1)


1) A Class Analysis of Marxists



I would say that nine out of ten Marxists/revolutionary socialists/Trotskyists are middle-class.

Most academic Marxist writers belong to a tiny and severely circumscribed social milieu: the university. What's more, the higher up the echelons you go in the Left, the more likely Leftists/Marxists are to be upper-middle-class (e.g., the leaders of Leftist parties, lawyers, “rights activists”,professors, journalists, etc.); rather than plain middle-class.

Marxists are the perfect subject for a sociological analysis. But since many sociologists and “class analysts” are Marxists, such a thing has never happened.

What Marxists seem to say is that it's okay for them to analyse where non-Marxists/Leftists get their views from (from their "class position"); though it's wrong for people like me to analyse where Marxists get their ideas from (from their class position).

2) White Guilt



You can be against things such as racism and not be a Marxist/Leftist. In fact, pious and highly-theoretical brands of anti-racism actually contribute to racism.

If a Leftist admits to having “white privilege”, then he must feel a certain sense of guilt about having that white privilege. People who are privileged often feel guilt for that privilege; as do the numerous Marxists who have been financially and educationally privileged (as well as being white). In fact their white guilt probably motivates their entire position on anti-racism. Guilt is an extremely strong emotion/psychological disposition.

And since nearly all Marxists/Leftists are both white and from well-off backgrounds, that is a double dose of strong guilt and it may well motivate their entire politics.

The very acceptance of one's“privilege” involves guilt otherwise it wouldn't be seen a privilege in the first place.

3) Anti-Racism Causes Racism



Pious and sanctimonious anti-racism contributes to racism.

The constant barrage from councils, Leftist lawyers, activist groups, the police, etc. against whites and English identity causes racism.

I'm not saying that sanctimonious anti-racism causes allracism. I'm saying that it may well be responsible - after thirty years or more of our Leftist hegemony's relentless hatred of the white, non-Leftist working class – for much racism.

After all, after thirty years of political correctness and Leftist indoctrination, Leftists themselves say that racism is getting worse. Ever thought that racism is getting worse precisely because of thirty years of political correctness and sanctimonious anti-racistm?

Leftist anti-racists contribute to some – not all – racism. Actions cause a counter-reactions. And relentless anti-racist zealotry – day after day – is bound to cause at least some equal racist zealotry.

4) The BBC



Because the BBC is tax-payer funded, it always has to hide its Left-Liberal - sometimes outright Leftist - bias. After all, everybody pays for the license fee no matter what their political credentials.

So there is rarely any outright politicking (except on Have I Got News For You, other BBC comedy programmes, dramas/soaps, opinion pieces, etc.).

The BBC shows it bias by what it focusses on; what it misses out; who it quotes; who it doesn't quote; what it quotes; etc.; rather than by politicking.

I don't think that every BBC presenter and BBC programme is Leftist or Left-Liberal either. That doesn't matter. It's the BBC's editorial line and overall bias that's Left-Liberal. Every now and again, then, they will have shows presented by right-wingers, etc.; which is more than The Guardian ever manages. The Telegraph, on the other hand, does publish pieces by what could be called Left-Liberals.

Of course it's a little embarrassing accusing the BBC of bias because all kinds of mutually-contradictory political groups do the same. However, all I can do is argue my case. And it must also be borne in mind that many BBC presenters, editors, programme makers, etc. have explicitly admitted to that (left-liberal) bias at certain times. Others have also denied it.

Take the case of those Leftists who say the BBC is based towards Israel. Succinctly, that amounts to saying that the BBC doesn't completely endorse and propagate the revolutionary Marxist analysis of Israel (that it's an “imperialist racist state”) in which Israel has literally sole culpability for.... um, everything that happens in that area of the world. Well, if that's what the BBC must believe in order to not be biased, then the Trotskyists/communists are correct: the BBC is biased.

In addition, when I say that the BBC is biased I don't also believe that such a news outlet can necessarily escape from such bias: it can't. What it can do is admit to its bias (as it has done at times) and also try to allow outlets for other perspectives (which, to some extent at least, the BBC has done).

Sunday, 14 December 2014

Russell Brand: Revolutionary, Prophet & Prettyboy

 







The thing is, it doesn’t really matter what Russell Brand says about politics or about anything else.

As with pop music, his fame and notoriety rest almost entirely on the fact that a lot of young people (of both sexes) find him attractive; as well as stylish and hip. (Some older people may do so too.) In other words, he’s today’s version of the Che Guevara t-shirt. I don’t mean that he’s today’s version of Che Guevara. No way: Guevara was an intelligent and ruthless killer. Russell Brand is only today’s version of the Che Guevara t-shirt. In fact he’s all t-shirt.

Think of it this way: how big would Russell Brand’s (as well as Che Guevara’s) fan-base be if he looked like Ed Miliband and had the body of Eric Pickles?

Brand History

Russell Brand makes a lot of his working-class credentials and claims that the reified Establishment is against him because of his “roots”.

He conveniently forgets that many members of the working-class have made into the Establishment; if not in very large numbers. Indeed they have even made it into the leading parts of the Conservative and Labour parties.

In any case, a lot of folks within Russell Brand’s capital-'E' Establishment – whether lawyers, rights/race activists, members of the Church of England, journalists, civil servants and even members of the Conservative Party – actually believe many of the things he believes and also endorse and support many of his hip causes.

So when Brand talks about the Establishment, he must only be talking about those small sections of it which have the audacity not to uphold his own profound theories about the necessity of a Hip Revolution.

The other thing is that Brand isn’t particularly working-class anyway. And, no, I don’t have a complete least of necessary and sufficient conditions for what it is to be working class. “Class politics”only concerns me when people (disingenuously) grandstand their own working-class credentials in order to sell themselves politically.

And like the leaders of the SWP, Ed Miliband, Leftist lawyers and many public-school boys in rock music, Russell Brand may be affecting (or simply exaggerating) a Mockney/Estuary English accent (“Parklife!”)in order to do so. (Though Brand is from Grays; which he – rather that others – often classes as a“working-class area”.)

What Russell Brand appears to be doing is conflating being working-class with being from a dysfunctional background.

Brand’s parents split up when he was six months old. After that his father –who was a professional photographer –took his teenage son to use prostitutes. By the age of 16, however, Brand had attended Grays Media Arts School, the Italia Conti Academy and a boarding school.

None of that seems particularly working-class; though, as I said, his background (on his own account) is clearly dysfunctional.

The Revolution

What drives Russell Brand’s recent conversion to The Revolution are the same three things which have always driven him: narcissism, hedonism and exhibitionism.

Of course I’m not being original when I call him a narcissist and an exhibitionist because countless other commentators have also done so. (Strangely enough, he’s also said the same about himself; if not in those precise words.)

Despite saying that, what has particularly annoyed me about the Russell Brand Phenomenon is the amount of Leftist commentators and journalists who– having once classed him in the very same negative ways I’ve done – suddenly changed their minds about him. And they did so as soon as it became clear to them that he had thoroughly embraced The Revolution. Then he was no longer seen –by these same hypocritical Leftists – as a narcissist, exhibitionist and a hedonist.

(This is especially true of certain Guardian journalists. Then again, literally anyone– whether that be Muslim misogynists, Islamic terrorists and Islamists – who can advance progressisocialism in any way whatsoever is fair game for Guardian patronisation.)

Russell Brand is now, apparently, someone who“articulates the voice of youth” (do they all have the same voice?); who “speaks truth to power” (what a cliché!); as well as someone who’ll “reignite the people’s passion for politics”.

So when did Russell Brand convert to politics or, more specifically, to The Revolution?

Was it after or before he did transcendental meditation for a day (or Buddhism for a week)? He’s very much like Madonna in that, like her, he’s had almost weekly fashionable attachments to all sorts of different political and religious arcana. (Even Beyoncé, in her latest video, is Doing The Revolution; if dressed in a miniskirt and a niqab face-mask – so deep man!)

I suppose it can be said that Russell Brand converted to politics roundabout 2009; though, at that time, in extremely peripheral ways. (E.g., as a typical mindless political fashionista Brand simply had to embrace the Palestinian cause; which is now as obligatory – for callow political hipsters – as the Che Guevara t-shirt.) This isn’t to say he didn’t mention politics in passing before 2009: sure he (probably) did. However, his commitment to Total Revolution dates later than that: it basically began in 2013, when he was 38.

Indeed even in his last book of 2010, Booky Wook 2, there are virtually no political references. There are some tangential references to political issues; though it’s all in very much in passing.

So what about Russell Brand’s Revolution?

In his own words:

My relentless pontificating on revolution and a new social order came in for a lot of deserved abuse.”

As I said, Russell Brand is – or was – an exhibitionist and narcissist who got bored after twenty years of flagrant hedonism and then – when heading towards middle age –realised that he had to find another market (or niche). And that market is The Revolution.

That’s not strange at all.

The Revolution has always been marketed. Large parts of the hippie (post-1966) and punk (post-1976) movements, for example, succumbed to capitalism within a year. And, more contemporaneously, capitalism has even gained controlled of sizeable elements of the anthropogenic-global-warming show.

Ego

The thing about Russell Brand is that he doesn’t hide his vanity and narcissism – at least he didn’t before his conversion to The Revolution.

What we have here is a 39 year who saying the things you’d expect to hear from 20-year-old (student) member of the SWP.

Basically, Russell Brand has had his fun. Hedonism and flagrant exhibitionism must have begun to bore him a little. Thus he thought that The Revolution would titillate him a little instead. Thus Brand is a little like the party girl who suddenly realises she no longer has the looks to party and therefore chooses to become a sanctimonious prude instead.

A lot of narcissistic and hedonistic pop and film starts have converted to politics in their thirties or later. I presume it’s when they too have become bored with partying. The thing about these beings is that they may become bored with politics too if something else comes along to titillate them (e.g., Islam or something).

Since Russell Brand himself says that he “was born to be famous”,perhaps we should take him at his word and see his commitment to The Revolution as yet another means to further himself. Indeed since he has said that everything he did he did because he“really wanted recognition”, then perhaps his commitment to The Revolution is another way of securing that recognition.

In any case, his YouTube loyalty to The Revolution has no doubt taken him out of that “penitentiary of anonymity” he has fought so hard against all his life.

And just as touring, being on chat shows, etc. secured him sex (they were, according to Brand himself, proxies for his “biological drive”), so The Revolution may be doing exactly the same thing.