This blog initially set out to focus primarily on Islam and the Islamisation of the UK. However, since that time the subjects covered have broadened. They now include (amongst other things): IQ tests, Jean Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Marxism, Trotskyism, David Cameron, Foucault, Nazism, Ralph Miliband, economics, statistics and so on. - Paul Austin Murphy
I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

Friday, 26 December 2014

Leftists Believe in Free Speech... for Leftists

 







This piece won't concern itself with extreme cases such as shouting “fire” in a cinema or explicit calls to violence. Nor with the case for complete freedom of speech in every domain. This is about political free speech.

More specifically, it's about those Leftists/progressives who claim that certain political views or expressions will lead - usually tangentially or indirectly - to X and Y (where X or Y are deemed negative or violent).

In terms of concrete detail, all sorts of groups and individuals have been silenced in recent months and years by Leftist/progressive groups and individuals.

For example:

*) Tommy Robinson (former leader of the EDL) was stopped from speaking at the Oxford Union on two occasions.

*) The National Union of Students (NUS) refused to hold a debate on abortion. (It also refused to condemn the Islamic State.)

*) Scientists who do research on IQ, race, sociobiologists, “creationists”, believers in Intelligent Design, etc. have been sacked and even physically harassed in British and American universities.

*) Global-warming sceptics are also given a hard time in (some) universities anddenied a voice in many other places.

*) UKip members have been denied the right to work in certain places of employment and one Ukip couple had their foster children removed because of their political allegiances. In addition, the University of East Anglia “cancelled” (or banned) an appearance of a UKip candidate.

*) The criticism of Islam is severely curtailed on Facebook and, less so, on Twitter (probably because of its capsule form): numerous Facebook pages which were critical of Islam have been closed down.

*) People in the UK have been arrested and imprisoned for burning the Koran (including a West Midlands schoolgirl aged 15).

*) Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders have been denied entry into the UK.

*) Paul Weston (the leader of Liberty GB) was arrested for quoting the words of Winston Churchill.

*) Bill Maher was“disinvited”from the University of Berkeley because of his comments about Islam.

*) Leftist and Muslim groups (as well as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation at the United Nations) have called for thebanning of what they call “hate blogs” and “hate sites” (i.e. those which are critical of Islam).

*) The Guardiannewspaper and Leftists groups have called for the monitoring of “far-right” groups (though not for the monitoring of Islamic and Leftist groups); as well as the banning of demos and even the banning of political movements and organisations. (One Guardianjournalist, however, has argued against such bans.)

In the end, then, all political views and expressions lead somewhere... tangentially or indirectly. It's also a truism to say that words affect things, people and events.

So we must be specific.

Good Reasons to End Free Speech



All the leaders and politicians who've ever cracked down on free speech have always had highfalutin reasons to do so. It's not as if despots or ruling parties have done so just for the hell of it. In fact many have said that “freedom of speech requires responsibility” or that certain expressions can have “serious repercussions”; which is precisely what many Leftists/progressives today argue. (Others, sure, have argued in these ways too.)

Okay: do Leftists apply that across the board – politically - or only selectively?Accordingly, Leftists are very choosy about free speech. They're not usually talking about responsibility and consequences in the abstract. They're nearly always talking about right-wing responsibility and the repercussions of right-wing speech. Neat.

Clearly there are a whole multitude of reasons to clamp down on free speech. The question is:

Are they good reasons or are they simply means to silence political dissent?Sure, Leftists have themselves have had their own free speech curtailed at certain times and in certain places. However, these comments don't depend on denying that fact. They're about the Left's own inconsistent and somewhat hypocritical position on the freedom of speech.

Consequences

Nearly all public speech has some negative and/or positive repercussions.

So if that's the progressive case, then for every right-winger silenced, I can cite another ten Leftists/progressives who should also be silenced. They too should be aware of their own responsibility and the repercussions of what they.

See how it works?

After all, left-wing views can lead to the Gulag, totalitarianism, to “stringing capitalists up - from the nearest lamppost - by their intestines”,to “class liquidations” and, yes, to the complete denial of free speech.

Thus one good reason for denying free speech to at least some Leftists - ironically enough - is that certain forms of Leftism (e.g., forms propagated in our universities, by Unite Against Fascism, Hope Not Hate and other Communist and Trotskyist parties/groups, etc.) can lead to the end of free speech. So, in that sense, it can be argued that Trotskyist/communist free speech must be curtailed in order to save free speech. And, ironically enough, that's more or less what groups like Hope Not Hate and UAF say about their own “no platform”policy towards all right-wing groups outside the British Conservative Party. (Given the right time and the right amount of power, the Tories wouldn't be safe from such Leftists either.) In other words, what such groups say and do can also be applied to them!

And that's one reason why you can't really be selective when it comes to the freedom of speech. A selective defence of free speech isn't, in effect, a defence of free speech at all. It is more a case of:

I'm in favour of free speech.... but...”

And that is a bit like the phrase that anti-racists always use against people they see as“closet racists”. Namely:

I'm not a racist.... but....”

Free Speech for the Right People

The bottom is that Leftists agree with free speech for those they agree with. That is hardly a surprise, is it?

So when you press certain Leftists on this, they begin to sound like, well, seasoned politicians. In other words, they sound like they haven't got the honesty to answer a simple question. And you can only conclude from that reticence or dissimulation that they don't believe in free speech at all ..... unless that speech lies firmly within the political bounds that they have themselves constructed.

Talk of“responsibility” and “repercussions” is often just fluff.

In the end, then, the position of the majority of Leftists is this:

i) Political expressions which don't abide by Leftist/socialist/progressive ideology or politics “show a lack of responsibility”, have“violent and anti-social consequences”, etc..

  1. Those political expressions which do abide by Leftist/socialist/progressive politics or ideology do “abide by standards of responsibility”, don't have “violent and anti-social consequences”, etc.
  2. Thus the Leftist position on free speech is transparent – it's entirely determined by the politics and ideology of the Leftist concerned.




What Leftists do –and The Guardian newspaper is an excellent example of this – is conflate free speech with the state (or the authorities) allowing politically-correct people to say politically-correct things. But that's not free speech, is it? It's a (Leftist/progressive) political con or gimmick masquerading as a defence of free speech.

Monday, 22 December 2014

Nigel Farage on Muslim Jew-hatred in the UK

 




Oh dear!

Nigel Farage has spoiled the Leftist “narrative” on Jew-hatred by saying that most anti-Semitism - in terms of actions and words - in the UK comes from Muslims; not from what people now call the “far right”.


More precisely, Farage said:

"I have detected quite a sharp rise in anti-Semitism in Britain and across the EU. What's fuelling it is there are many more Muslim voices and some of them are deeply critical of Israel and some of them question Israel's right to exist.
"We've got this counter voice which is deeply critical. This is one of the challenges we face; when you've got more groups [to deal with]."
Farage even said –quite rightly – that Leftism (or political correctness) is largely to blame this because, as everyone knows, Jew-hatred is an acceptable kind of racism to large parts of the Left (as is the hatred of the non-Leftist white working class). In fact Jews are called“Zionists” nowadays; by both the Left and by Nazis.

Farage said:

"There's a lot of people in politics who would be nervous about speaking up about anti-Semitism. I feel we've not being doing enough in defending the Jewish right to have a homeland because we are worried of offending another group."
Predictably, then, Nick Lowles's Hope Not hate said that Farage's comments were “nonsense”.


Matthew Collins in his NF days.
Matthew Collins, the Hope Not Hate spokesman, said that

"Farage gets a dig in at Muslims but he should be aware he is fishing in the same swamp as the BNP”.

I would suggest, Mr Collins, that it's the Far Left that's “fishing in the same swamp as the BNP”. And Matthew Collins should know that.

(Matthew Collins moved from being a member of a National Front to being a Trotskyist/communist as swiftly as a moving bullet. Clearly Mr Collins is what psychologists call an “extremist type”. That is, he has a penchant for ideological and political extremes.)

To get back to the Leftist "discourse" on racism.

You see, every Jew-hater is supposed to be a white male member of a Nazi or fascist group.

Except that Muslim Jew-haters number the tens of millions worldwide and the Islamic hatred of the Jews dates back to Muhammed and the Koran.

And the Far Left too has a tradition of Jew-hatred which dates back some 60 years before the rise of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi Party). That is, it dates back some 160 years before the BDS movement; almost one hundred before the creation of Israel; and even before the beginning of modern Zionism in the late 19th century.

It days back to Marx (a Jew by blood) and to the numerous other 19th-century Marxists/socialists who strongly stressed the connection between Jews and capitalism. (Nazis, of course, stress the connection - ironically enough - between Jews and communism.)

These facts are just so damned inconvenient, aren't they?

In any case, some people have said that Muslims “use anti-Semitism”. I don't think that's true; though it can be true in some cases and to a degree. That idea would imply that the Jew-hatred is a peripheral part of Islam. It's not.

Almost all of Muhammad’s enterprise was to trump and then destroy Judaism - as well as Christianity - in Arabia and beyond. The whole of sura 2 ('The Cow'), for example, is one relentless diatribe against Jews and their evil ways.

Racial Jew-hatred might well have been a 20th-century addition to a theologically- and politically-based Islamic hatred. However, since Islam has always also been Arabocentric, the racial/ethnic aspect can't be overlooked. It is still true, however, that Muslim groups and individuals did indeed borrow many ideas, theories and values from both the Nazis and the communists/Marxists; such as Jew-hatred, anti-democracy, anti-capitalism, different takes on totalitarianism, Manichean world-views, the glorification of revolutionary and other kinds of violence, etc.

Sunday, 21 December 2014

The United States Tortures Muslims?

 


Photo Source: ibtimes.com
Photo Source: ibtimes.com

After the Senate Democrats released the so-called “Torture Report” earlier this month, the well-known terrorist organization known as the Taliban released a statement saying that the Senate report “reveals the true face of America.” The very same day, the Taliban“claimed responsibility for a bombing at a film screening in Kabul that killed at least four people.”

North Korea, where an estimated 400,000 people have died in internment camps and still another 120,000 people are imprisoned for political reasons and without due process, also criticized the “Torture Report” in a letter to the United Nations, accusing the United States of conducting “brutal medieval forms” of torture and “the gravest human rights violations in the world.”

Iran’s “Supreme Leader,” of course, also joined in on the anti-American sentiment:


On Saturday, Majid Rafizadeh, an Iranian-American political scientist and scholar at Harvard University observed in an OpEd for the United Arab Emirates-based al Arabiya that Iran

"…appears to be in high spirits, capitalizing on and celebrating the release of the U.S. senate’s report on CIA torture. Several high level Iranian officials began slamming the U.S. for its human rights record."

Rafizadeh pointed out that Iranian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham “called the CIA torture report ‘shocking’ and called for the prosecution of those responsible. She stated: ‘the content of this shocking report shows violence, extremism, and secrecy as institutionalized in the U.S. security system.'”

Of course Muslim terrorists are going to cry “torture” after detention or imprisonment in Western states – just about every single one of them (so far) has done so.

This is strange, really, because in nearly all Muslim countries torture is deeply institutionalised and its practice is an everyday occurrence. However, when it happens in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Gaza, the West Bank, Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan, etc., there isn’t the hullabaloo that has followed torture allegations in the Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) detention center and Abu Ghraib in Iraq. The very fact that there’s been so much noise about Gitmo and, earlier, Abu Ghraib shows us that torture isn’t taken lightly in Western states and that it is taken for granted in Muslim countries.

In other words, most Leftists (as ever) have very low standards for Muslims and for Muslim countries. On the other hand, these very same Leftists have very high standards for Western states. This, effectively, amounts to classic left-wing racism. (As for Israel, the Left demands perfection from Israel in order to bring about its destruction.)

Take Iran.

Between 1979 and 2014, the Iranian theocratic state murdered tens of thousands of political dissidents. Indeed in 1988 alone, up to 30,000 political dissidents were murdered by the state. Iran also has the largest number of journalists in prison in the Middle East and beyond. Finally, in 2013, Iran put 687 people to death; compared to 39 in the United States. (The population of Iran is 77 million. The population of the US is 316 million.)

Yet Iran has become a darling of large parts of the Left.

Cuba – a long-time favourite of large sections of the Left – has institutionalised torture and it has done so for decades. Tens of thousands of people have been tortured in Cuban prisons. Between 1958 and 1987, up to 33,000 political prisoners were also killed by the Cuban state. (Cuba’s population is just over eleven million; which is more than twice as less than the 26 million population of Texas.)

Now think of Guantanamo Bay.

It’s very ironic that Guantanamo Bay is so near Cuba. Indeed when you Google “the history of torture in Cuba”, all you get is tens of articles on the US prison in Guantanamo Bay!

Between 2002 and 2014, only eight inmates died within this prison and more than one died as a result of suicide. (There was one homicide in Abu Ghraib.)

The ultra-posh Leftists lawyers of Muslim terrorists would have advised them to claim torture. There is no doubt about that. They would have done so – as good lawyers – to help the case; as well as – as good Leftist lawyers – to further the cause.

Leftist lawyers are using Muslim terrorists – genuine or otherwise – to chip away at Western “capitalist states”. As with anti-racism, the plight of Muslim terrorists (or blacks) is just a means to bring about a revolutionary/radical end.

The law and “right groups” are deeply political. The law is yet another Gramscian“institution” which has – at least in many cases – been taken over by left-wing radicals.