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.)

Thursday, 15 January 2015

The Charlie Hebdo Killings Explain Islam's Long History


The Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris – as well as all the other recent acts of violence against “blasphemers” in Europe, the United States and Canada – show us something very important about the long shelf-life of Islam. It shows that Islam has sustained itself through such violence.

Think about it.

For hundreds of years at a stretch, Islamic societies – as well as all those Muslims within them - would have experienced almost zero critical views of Islam. And when rare criticisms did escape from that void, the critic would have almost immediately been either killed or imprisoned.

And we're not talking about the 8th century here; or the 12 or 15th century. This is true of the Muslim world right up until today. Think of what happens in Pakistan/Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia) when it comes to blasphemy and apostasy.

Indeed we can also bring all this bang up to date and apply it to the entire non-Muslim world.

For example, one of the largest United Nations (UN) institutions is the Organisationof Islamic Cooperation (OIC); which includes an incredible 56/57 Muslim states. (It has permanent delegations to both the UN and European Union.)

For the last 46or so years (since 1969) it has been systematically attempting to get all non-Muslim countries (i.e. the entire world) to implement sharia blasphemy law. But, of course, the OIC doesn't call it sharia blasphemy law. That would be silly and politically counterproductive. It speaks, instead, of 'hate crimes', 'human rights', 'racism' and 'disrespect'. That is, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has rather cleverly co-opted the language of the West.

(This is an article by the OIC telling us about its long-running attempt to impose sharia blasphemy law on the United States and how it has tried to use the services of various notables – such as Hilary Clinton – in order to do so.)

Islam's Long Shelf-life

This Islamic tradition which demands death for apostasy – as well as punishment for blasphemy (or “hate speech”/“racism” as it's now called) – started with Mohammed himself. In 1,400 years, every apostate and blasphemer was either killed or imprisoned.

In Islamic or Muslim countries/empires, it was impossible to criticise Islam, Muhammed or the Koran in any way whatsoever. Sharia law made sure of that. Yes, there were indeed debates withinIslam on interpretation, etc., though certainly no debates about Islam itself.Islam has lasted for so long because of these overreactions to all and every criticism (or ‘offence’/‘insult’/'mockery'). That’s why Islam survived. Death for apostasy also helped it survive and spread.

So even a train-spotters' religion would survive and prosper if all criticism - or ‘insults’ - were forbidden on pain of death. The Train Spotting Religion would also survive if all apostates had their heads chopped off.

Islam's One Billion Muslims?

So why are there so many Muslims?

Muslims often tell us that there are over one billion Muslims in the world. (They usually state this in response to any criticism of Islam.)

This is a roundabout way of saying:

How can a religion with so many adherents be false or intrinsically violent?

Well, how could communism have been wrong/false when at its height it had millions of adherents (say, in the 1940s and before)? And what about Nazism? At its peak (say, the mid-1930s) there were tens of millions of Nazis and fascists in Europe and beyond. (Though both communism and Nazism relied on their own political versions of death for apostasy and blasphemy law.)

Numbers on their own prove neither truth nor goodness.

And then there's the demographic fact that Islam was simply passed on from generation to generation. This means that in Muslim societies -which also outlaw all criticism of Islam and stipulate death for apostasy - the numbers of Muslims would (by definition) increase from generation to generation. It could never have been any other way. In a sense, there was bound to be a billion Muslims on this planet at some point for simple reasons of demographics and the outlawing of all internal criticism of Islam.

We can also add to all the Islamic tradition of forced conversion and dhimmitude which were the result of Islamic expansionism and imperialism.

What we also have, then, is the lineal progeny of Islam through generations and generations of Muslim families. Millions of Muslim families that never considered – not even for one moment - the possibility of not being Muslim or changing their faith.

Now tell me that one billion Muslims says that much about either the truth or morality of Islam.


Islam has survived with the utterly necessary help of relentless violence. And that violence has now come to Europe and America.

It fact it arrived in Europe some time ago. (If we discount the historical Muslim invasions which predated the Crusades.)

Muslims have rioted in Malmö, Paris, Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm and in many other European cities. They have also rioted in the UK cities and towns of Bradford, Oldham, Keighley, Rochdale, Blackburn, etc. They rioted and killed over Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoons of Muhammed. They assassinated Theo van Gogh and have threatened to kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Gert Wilders and Salman Rushdie. They have bombed the streets of London, Paris and Madrid. They have demanded that sharia blasphemy laws be implemented in the UK to deal with all criticisms of Mohammed, the Koran and Islam itself. And no doubt they will eventually riot and kill over these issues in the future.

So when Muslims and Western Islamophiles tell you about Islam's long history and the“billion Muslims”, remind them of the Islamic traditions of death for apostasy and the violence against all critics of Islam.

Remind them of the Charlie Hebdo killings too.

Wednesday, 14 January 2015

BBC & Guardian Hypocrisy on Blasphemy


TheCharlie Hebdo massacre in Paris was discussed on the well-known BBC discussion programme Question Timelast Thursday. Quite oddly (I suppose), the host of the programme, David Dimbleby, decided to read out the BBC's official guideline on the depiction of Muhammad. (Yes it has/had one!)

Mr Dimbleby said:

"The prophet Mohammed must not be represented in any shape or form."*

Indeed, on the day of actual broadcast, a link was provided to the BBC's guideline; only to lead nowhere some time later (“an error has occurred”).

David Dimbleby may well have put his foot in it by reciting the ruling live on air because the BBC almost immediately (the day after) changed its tune.

The BBC is now saying that the “guideline is currently being revised”.Again, this is clearly a response to David Dimbleby's live faux pax (if that's what it was). However, perhaps I'm being cynical (probably not!) because a BBC spokesman has since said that “our policy has not changed as a result of the discussion on Question Time”.Yet the only defence of this seemingly revised position appears to be that the the previous guideline is “old”.

All this basically means that if Mr Dimbleby hadn't read out the guideline on TV, things may well have carried on as before. In other words, the BBC would now still have a rule banning all depictions of Muhammed. The only difference would be is that many people would still not know about this ruling.

Interestingly enough, on the same Question Time show, the panellist Liz Kendall MP (Labour Party) said that the BBC guideline on Muhammed is “a special case”.

Labour MPs and Leftists always seem to think that there's “a special case” to be made for suppressing freedom of speech (or print) when that speech is ideologically incorrect. And in our universities at present, for example, students and professors are finding good reasons (to them) for suppressing dissent almost every week. In other words, every silencing of political disagreement is a special case to the political censor or suppressor.


From the BBC News website.
This isn't a defence of Christianity. It isn't even an argument to say that Christianity is superior to Islam. I'm simply trying to highlight the BBC's blatant and gross double-standards. As everyone knows (including the BBC itself!), those double-standards are born of the BBC's sheer fear of Islamic violence, its political-correctness and its appeasement of noisy and violent Muslims.

This is the same BBC which has broadcast:

- Monty Python's Life of Brian many times. (Here's the 'Life of Brian Debate'; which was also on the BBC. It included the cast, the Bishop of Southwark - Mervyn Stockwood - and Malcolm Muggeridge.)

- Numerous critical programmes about Christianity and Jesus.

- TheLast Temptation of Christand Jerry Springer – The Opera.

- Positive reviews and shown 'Piss Christ'.

Basically, the BBC has shown countless programmes (from the comedic to the academic) that very many Christians have deemed to be offensive and sacrilegious.

Just to highlight one example.

The BBC ran shows called The Dave Allen Show and Dave Allen at Large from 1971to 1990. (It has also shown them since 1990.) These were shows written and presented by an Irish comedian. In the shows Mr Dave Allen relentlessly parodied and satirised the Catholic Church and even God. (Here, ironically, is a piece on him to be found in the now pseudo-religious Guardian newspapermore of which later.)

You could say that most of the time his satires of the Catholic Church weren't exactly vicious or political. Yet we must also realise that the vast majority of Muslims (nearly all of them) wouldn't allow any kind of satire against Islam or Muhammad. Think here of the death threats and anger about that 'Jesus and Mo't-shirt and image. The reactions – from Muslims – to that were almost exactly the same as it would have been had the image shown Muhammad having sex with a goat. (Ironically, when the 'Jesus and Mo' issue was debated on the BBC, no closeup was allowed of the t-shirt. Not because of the image of Jesus; but because of the image of Muhammad!)

The Guardian

The Guardian is even worse – or at least it was.

Before The Guardian realised – very recently! - that it had an inconsistent view on religion (i.e., relentless criticisms of Christianity and a positive view of Islam) , it would regularly feature critical pieces on the Church of England and Christianity itself and even publish negative depictions of Jesus. Only recently has The Guardian come to its current “interfaith position” (though it's not held by all its writers) on religion. Thus, for example, it has started to talk about “atheist fundamentalists” (such as Dawkins) and the like. Yet all this was initiated by atheist criticisms of Islam; not Christianity.

So it's crystal clear that The Guardian's newly discovered critique of atheism is almost entirely a result of its defence of Islam and Muslims. This is obviously the case because its criticism of certain atheists – as I said - are a very recent phenomenon. How recent? This change occurred largely in tandem with the increase in Muslim demographics; as well as with the political radicalisation/Islamisation of Muslims in the UK.

The Guardian's view on religion, therefore, is entirely political in nature; not at all religious. (There may be one exception to this at The Guardian: Andrew Brown, who does appear to be genuinely religious.) Basically, it is born of The Guardian's love of political Islam (e.g., Respect, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Association of Britain, Hezbollah, Muslim reactions to “Western colonialism, imperialism and racism”, etc.); not of Islam itself. It's also born of The Guardian’s self-appointed role of fighting what it deems to be “racism” (or“Islamophobia”).

In other words, when most of the outwardly religious people in the UK were seen - by Guardian journalists - to have brown skins, then the racist Guardian began to change its tune on religion.

The Guardian's Leftist politics is driving its new-found position on religion (basically, on Islam) and indeed on blasphemy.



1) Here's a Guardian article arguing against the publication of the Danish cartoons entitled 'Prejudiced Danes provoke fanaticism' (January, 2010). I'm convinced that The Guardian - or at least most Guardian journalists – also came out against theCharlie Hebdo cartoons when they first caused a Muslim reaction; though since the massacre, it has changed its tune. For some reason, its Charlie Hebdoarticles only go back five days or so. So my guess is that The Guardian has deleted its earlier pieces against Charlie Hebdo, which is something it has done on previous occasions when it has written (retrospectively) controversial things.

2) I suppose that the best that can be said about this episode is that at least David Dimbleby (or the BBC) had the honesty to read out the BBC's official guideline on the non-depiction of Mohammed on TV. In other words, this is one step better than having such a policy and denying or hiding it. Still, the BBC still has – or had - such a policy.

3)I don't know about you; but I don't like the sycophantic words “the Prophet” when used by non-Muslims in discussions: why the definite article? The words “the prophet Muhammad” are, I suppose, fine. Though you often get kuffar simply saying “the Prophet”; which implies the one and only prophet or the overriding prophet. Indeed the vast majority of Christians don't see Mohammed as being any kind of prophet. It's only recently that various Christian churches have revised their position on Muhammad’s status. In Dante's Inferno(14thcentury), for example,Muhammad was to be found in Hell.

Monday, 12 January 2015

Chomsky's Automatons Against the Mainstream Media (MSM)


You read a lot about the platonic Media on the Internet (hence the platonic 'M').

You also read a lot more about the the “mainstream media” or MSM.

Leftists, generally, are profoundly obsessed with the Media and they tend to see it as one solid block of uniformity, agreement and “obedience to power”.

For example, take this account of the MSM in the aptly titled website

...the government uses it [the MSM] as a tool to influence how people view the 'facts' of torture ... the obvious brainwashing that is purposefully being executed by government through media.... the government and mainstream media are willingly involved in controlling the thoughts of the American people.... we are being fed along with the facts. Amazing.”

(Yes, I'm well aware that some on the Right make almost identical comments about the MSM.)

When Leftists complain about the media - or the MSM - you can't help thinking that what really angers them is that there are any newspapers at all which advance positions they disagree with. This is the Gulag (or anti-freedom of speech) mentality of so many Leftists/progressives.

Chomsky, for one, gives the game away when he says that “you would need a transformation of society to change the media”.

What these people also seem to forget is that this very same media – if not always the MSM- also includes the following British Leftist and Left-Liberal newspapers, magazines and websites/blogs:

The Guardian the New Statesman, The Independent, the Daily Mirror, Red Pepper, Left Foot Forward, Liberal Conspiracy, Harry's Place, TheHuffington Post (UK),Islamophobia Watch,Socialist Worker,Counterfire,Press TV(UK), Al-Jazeera English,Stop the War Coalition,Indymedia(UK), etc.

(If few people read some of these outlets, then whose problem is that?)

As for the United States (though I'm open to being corrected on some of these), you have:

The New York Times, CNN, Time,Salon,Indymedia(US), The Huffington Post, Loonwatch,CAIR(Council of American-Islamic Relations), Al-Jazeera America, Politico, the Daily Kos,CounterPunch,The Nation, etc.

(The Lefty Directory sites well over a hundred American blogs and websites which are “lefty”.)

In other words, there's more to the MSM than Fox News andthe Daily Mail. Though, of course, there will by lots of aggressive and (politically) virile young Leftists who will find The Guardian, the New York Times, etc. far too right-wing and namby-pamby for their tastes. Indeed Chomsky himself is a critic of both the New York Times andThe Guardian; both of which also belong to the evil and omnipresent MSM.

Clearly, these Leftist and Left-Liberal organs simply aren't Chomskyite enough for Chomsky and his disciples! Here again we see that some politicos have a big problem with any newspaper advancing any position they disagree with.

As I've just hinted, Noam Chomsky - with his endless references to the “mainstream media” - is largely to blame for all this MSM talk.

He explicitly states his general position in the following passage:

...what the media do... is to take the set of assumptions which express the basic idea of the propaganda system, whether about the Cold War or the economic system or the 'national interest'... the debate only enhances the strength of the assumptions, ingraining them in the people's minds... in our system what you might call 'state propaganda'.... [is] implicit, it's presupposed... ”

Chomsky also has the sheer effrontery to refer to those who dare to disagree with him as having their “consent manufactured”. He even believes thatsoccerandsoapsare domains in which uninformed people “internalize the values of the elite”.

All this basically means that Chomsky has cleverly adopted - and then slightly modified- the Marxist notion of 'false consciousness' .

Chomsky gives his own slant on false consciousness when - in a supremely patronising manner - he says:

...there are a lot of people who just look a the world and say, 'Don't confuse me with the facts...' or 'I don't want to know about reality...'...”

Let's not forget that the Marxist theory of false consciousness is an an essential part of Leftism. It purports to explain - to take just one example - why members of the working class (almost all of them) - as well as all the members of other “oppressed groups” - fail to embrace revolutionary socialism (or Chomskyian Leftism).

Thus this massive Leftist conspiracy theory about the MSM (as well as about - by inference - false consciousness) contains two mind-blowing assumptions:

i) That all non-Leftists are massively stupid and without free will.
ii) That all capitalists conspire together to bring about exactly what the Leftists say they've brought about: a society made up entirely of “sheeple” whose only concern is to consume and obey.
As you can see, the arrogance here is blatant. It's also nauseating. It becomes even more loathsome when first-year students start lecturing you about the MSM after having only embraced Chomsky's Leftism - or some other strand of Leftism - a mere two weeks before. In other words, such zealous acolytes are clearly in the first flush of their conversion. (A few weeks before reading Chomsky they were probably still going to bed with their teddy bears.)

The Omnipotent & Omnipresent MSM

The thing is, if the MSM is so powerful and manipulative, then why are there literally hundreds of blogs/websites (some of which were mentioned earlier) and thousands of Internet commentators telling us exactly how manipulative and powerful it is?

Of course Leftist will now argue that it doesn't matter if there are hundreds – perhaps thousands – of Leftists blogs and dozens of Leftist newspapers because they have no political impact on the “central power structures and hegemonies of the capitalist system”. But if Leftists truly believe that, then why do they bother with their blogs and newspapers at all? In addition, considering that Leftists have already had great success in “taking over the institutions” (e.g. the law, the universities, the race 'n' rights industries, charities, local councils, police bodies, etc.), how much more power do these people actually want? Total power? Of course they do! (And to think that Chomsky deems himself to be - in his own words - a “libertarian socialist”.)

The other question that can be asked here is this:

How did these Great Leftist Minds miraculously stop themselves from developing false consciousness or from being “brainwashed by the MSM”? Are they all intellectual Houdinis?

I've got it, I know exactly how they developed True Consciousness – they read books written by Noam Chomsky!

And on that subject. You often get Leftists saying “read Chomsky” (as in “read the Bible”). I've even seen graffiti which says “Read Chomsky!” -complete with exclamation mark! - emblazoned on inner-city walls in the UK.

Do these verbatimChomskyites simply assume that all non-Leftists – as well as the critics of Chomsky - haven't read any of books or articles by Leftists? (Chomsky has written - on my count - around 70 books on politics; which is up totwoa year since the late 1960s.)

Of course Chomsky's disciples will now say that the critics of this man (who've also read some of his stuff) will “read Chomsky through the prism of the mainstream media”... Oh no, here we go again! Not more of that false-consciousness malarkey!

Have Chomsky-automatons ever thought – even for one moment - that may be just as brainwashed as the viewers of, say, Fox News? (The only difference will be one of ideologies and political views.) After all, you don't suddenly become an Enlightened One simply by reading a book by Chomsky.... or by Marx. It requires independent and original thought; not a good memory for Chomsky's many soundbites or Marx's theories.

In any case, this is all very silly because most people (at least in the UK) don't rely that much on national newspapers any more. They certainly don't read the same newspaper every day as they did in the days before widespread Internet usage. Most people use various and many Internet sources: often Leftist ones!



1) It's not that I deny that some – or many - institutions and individuals try to “manufacture consent”. Of course they do... in various ways. What I have a problem with is Chomsky's idea that nearly all the people who disagree with him - politically or ideologically - have had their consent manufactured.

Lots of people are stupid and thus easily susceptible to brainwashing – especially by Chomsky (less so by Fox News). However, Chomsky takes simple disagreement as a sign of manufactured consent. The only people he allows free will and intelligence too are those “capitalists” and“right-wingers” who are doing the manufacturing; as well as to those who read Chomsky (as well as other Leftists).

2) Some people think that Chomsky is a name from the past.

If only that were so.

Almost every time I have a debate (or argument) with a Leftist, he either mentions Chomsky directly or tacitly uses one of his terms/ideas. Every time a Leftist mainstream newspaper or website gets theoretical, Chomsky is always mentioned.

And Chomsky still tops the list of “the world's greatest intellectuals”.

3) I don't think there is a way around political bias in the media. I don't really think that we should seek a way around it.

If people fear indoctrination, then they should read more books/articles and visit more diverse news outlets. You can't escape indoctrination simply by becoming an avid ready of Chomsky's books and articles (or by always feeding on Fox News). In fact by doing that you simply swap one source ofself-indoctrination for another.

So, again, what is Chomsky's problem? His problem is contradictory opinions. This“libertarian socialist” is still a Stalinist at heart.

His brush-strokes are way too broad. Indeed, they are dangerous.

4) A commentator said that the theory of “false consciousness” has “nothing to do with Marx”. He then went on to say that “the concept, that people aren't seeing the world the way it really is so utterly ubiquitous that its hardly remarkable”.

I partly agree with that.

Marx and Chomsky do indeed have their own slant on an old – usually religious and Manichean – worldview. Indeed Marx and Chomsky's notion of “false consciousness” is very religious in nature.

Basically, Chomskyites and Marxists form a new priest-class: only they can see the Truth. And the Truth can only be found when you use the techniques required to find it (i.e. Marxist theory-theology); as told in the Holy Books of Chomsky and Marx.

5) One commentator put the Chomskyite view in this way:

It simply puts forward that the MSM is mostly corporate owned, and thus tends reflect their worldview.”

What is meant by the word “corporate” here? Yes, it's yet another Chomskyite buzzword.

Does this platonic Corporate Entity really have the same views on all things? And what does it mean to “reflect their views”?

Corporate”entities have published anarchist journals. Corporate entities funded punk bands and sold them in 1977 and beyond. Capitalism, in other words, can sell any view. How many books by hard-core Leftists and Chomskyites were produced and sold in the market place last year?

All this MSM talk involves gross conspiracism. That all political enemies believe the same thing and that they all work together. If Chomsky doesn't believe that, then the whole anti-MSM propaganda show falls to pieces.

Isn't the simplicity of the idea part of its appeal? That's why most believers inthe-Media-is-a-solid-block theory are aged between 15 and 23. It's only the pushers, like Chomsky, who are older.

6) Interestingly enough, I was accused by one person of having false consciousness. He wrote:

The thesis in manufacturing consent is in no way a conspiracy theory, and you demonstrate your ignorance and/or insincerity when calling it such.”

Of course I'm ignorant! I take that for granted when speaking to Enlightened Chomskyites. That was the main point of the article.

I'm right-wing: therefore I have false consciousness. This person used the word “ignorance” instead; though he gave me the benefit of the doubt by also saying I may be insincere.

7)All political parties require a degree of conformity and even obedience. Leftist parties certainly do. And the further Left you go, the more “centralised” the party becomes. So much so, for example, that the UK's Socialist Workers Party has a Central Committee. Now how embarrassing is that?

Chomsky goes many steps beyond political parties. He literally deems all people with right-wing or conservative views to have “false consciousness”. That's unless those right-wingers are capitalists or have political power – and then their main aim is to“manufacture” the “consent” of everybody else.

In the end, then, no matter how Chomsky and other Leftists dress it up (with numerous footnotes, academese and theory), they just can't stomach contradictory opinions – even from people outside the MSM and political establishment. I should know, my own free speech has been denied many time by the fans of Chomsky. Ironic, isn't it?

Sunday, 11 January 2015



According to the UK's Muslim Defence League (MDL), the murdered cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo - all 12of them - “provoked a reaction”.

No doubt the MDL also believes that Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, the Danish cartoonists, Asia Bibi in Pakistan - and so on endlessly - also provoked such an Islamic reaction.

To put it simply, the MDL is explicitly condoning and justifying the massacre in Paris; just as it has justified and condoned many other Islamic terror attacks.

Blasphemy Against Islam

The MDL also uses the childish word “bully”. Apparently, Charlie Hebdo bullied Islam, the Prophet Muhammed and Muslims generally.

Basically, whoever criticises Islam or Muhammed in any way *whatsoever* deserves to die because he's a “bully” or a “mocker”. More correctly, he's a blasphemer and sharia law punishes blasphemy in the Muslim world today; as it has done for the last 1,400 years. And now blasphemers against Islam are being punished in Europe and America too.

Islam is at war with the entire non-Muslim world; as it is has been for well over a thousand years.

So what do those who are seen as “moderate Muslims” think of all this?Officially-moderate Muslims – at least most of them - condemn Islamic violence on the BBC, in The Guardianand at the Church of Interfaith because they know that's required of them. Not to do so would result in immediate political suicide. However, the vast majority of Muslims (including nearly all of the so-called “moderates”) believe in vengeance or punishment for blasphemy against Islam.

Blasphemy, in sharia law, is punishable by death; or, at the very least, by some other form of sharia punishment(either imprisonment or stoning). So what the Muslim Defence League is saying shouldn't be a surprise to any non-Muslim – it's abiding by Islam and by sharia law.

The MDL even uses a word Muslims always use in these contexts: “mock”.It was used about Salman Rushdie, the Danish cartoons, Asia Bibi in Pakistan and in countless other cases. Fiyaz Mughal (of Tell Mama), Mo Ansar and Mehdi Hasan have also used it about the critics of Islam. It's a staple Muslim word which is used to refer to literally all criticisms of Islam; not only to comedic representations of Muhammed (as with Charlie Hebdo).

Fair enough, Fiyaz Mughal, Mo Ansar, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), Mehdi Hasan, etc. haven't called for the death of the Charlie Hebdo and Danish cartoonists, Salmon Rushdie, etc.; though they have called for some kind of punishment of these people. They have also called for worldwide legal/political action to stop blasphemy against Islam (though they often call it “racism”, “bigotry”, etc.).

Indeed even the communist-run Hope Note Hate called Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists “counter-jihadists” and “Muslim haters” who were“asking for it” (see Nope, Note Hope's piece here).

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB)

But let's forget about the MDL because some non-Muslims may see it as a fringe group. Instead let's take the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).

The MCB's website spends most of its time distancing itself from the latest act of Islamic terror. However, it does to by rationalising, justifying and explaining these acts in various roundabout (duplicitous) ways. In other words, if you scrape away the Leftist and multi-cult jargon and soundbites, it doesn't really have a problem with most Islamic terror at all.

This is all the MCB could manage on the Charlie Hebdo killings:

The Muslim Council of Britain condemns this attack. Whomsoever the attackers are, and whatever the cause may be, nothing justified the taking of life.”

This is shorter than the piece (around 150 words) on the Peshawar massacre, which included the following words:

While it is very hard to find the words to respond to the tragedy before us, I can only quote a verse from the Quran in which it says:‘Whosoever kills a human being [“except for villainy and mischief in the land”], 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’.”

At least this time the MCB doesn't use the usual Muslim adjective“innocent” (as in “innocent life”); as it did in the Peshawar massacre piece. And that's because Islamic terrorists - and millions of Muslims worldwide - don't count the victims of Islamic terror asinnocent. Therefore the killings are justified. In fact they are all examples of the Koranic “villainy in the land” (as are the Hebdo killings).

The ironic thing is that on the day of the Islamic massacre in Paris, the MCB published an articled entitled “Confront terrorism by backing freedom”.

Now don't make any mistakes here. This is typical Muslim Brotherhood doublespeak. The MCB isn't talking about the freedom to publish cartoons of Muhammed and the freedom to criticise Islam. It is unequivocally against all that and has called for legal/political action to be taken against blasphemy.

The MCB is talking about freedom for Muslims. It is only talking about freedom for Muslims. It is calling for the freedom Muslims require to Islamise more of the UK. That freedom, ironically enough, involves limiting the freedom of non-Muslims to criticise Islam! That's what 'freedom' means to the MCB and to many Muslims. It is a one-sided and utterly hypocritical use of the word.

Basically, the MCB is in one breath calling for less freedom to criticise Islam; and in the next breath it's calling for more freedom for Islamists and Muslims generally. It is also calling for freedom from what it calls “knee-jerk and ill-thought-through considerations” against Islamism and Islamic terrorism.

In other words, the MCB is calling on the kuffarto commit suicide! Either that, or to “submit to Allah”.


In the secular West most people call the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo satire and criticism; not “bullying” or “mocking”.

The word “mockery” belongs to the 7th-century. It can be found, of course, in the Koran. It belongs to Islam.

These are also the words of someone (in the MDL) who's at war with the West– just like the killers in Paris. These are the words of a man who's also at war with secularism, democracy, free speech and who knows what else.

Basically, the MDL is at war with you!

Your very existence - as a non-Muslim with a free mind - is “mockery”.You are the Koran's “villainy in the land”.

Finally, after the MDL's sick diatribe against blasphemous kuffar, it has the audacity to ask: “you feel for the bully now?”

That is a warning from the MDL.

It's an explicit statement that more European and American mockers or blasphemers will be murdered by Muslims in the future. More kuffarwill be targetted for blasphemy and for much else.

We should heed that warning.

And so should our governments.