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.)

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

Salon: It’s not about mental illness, Palestine, Iraq: The big lies that always follow terrorist attacks by Muslims*


*The following is simply a rewriting of an article published by Salon(last week) entitled 'It’s not about mental illness: The big lie that always follows mass shootings by white males', which was written by Arthur Chu. I have, of course, made a few additions and amendments.


Blaming“mental illness”, “alienation”, “unemployment”, “the invasion of Iraq”, “the price of bread”, etc. are cop-outs -and ones that let us avoid talking about Islam, Muslim hatred, the violent passages in the Koran, the violent life of Muhammed, etc.

I get really really tired of hearing the phrases “mental illness”,“alienation”, “the intervention in Iraq”, “unemployment”,“lack of identity”, “Islamophobia”, “the price of bread”,etc. thrown around as ways of excusing Islamic terrorism and avoiding saying other terms like “toxic Islam”, “jihad”, “Islamic misogyny”, “Muslim hatred of kuffar”, etc.

We barely knew anything about the suspect in, for example, the Ottawa killing of Corporal Nathan Cirillo by Muslim Michael Zehaf-Bibeau in October 2014. We certainly didn’t have testimony from a mental health professional responsible for his care that he suffered from any specific mental illness, or that he suffered from a mental illness at all. (Though he was a drug user and criminal.)

The media insists on trotting out the phrases “mental illness”,“alienation”, “the invasion of Iraq”, “unemployment”,“racism” and blaring out these non-stop in the wake of any mass killings by Muslims. I had to grit my teeth every time I personally debated someone defaulting to the mindless mantra of “The real issue is the US invasion of Iraq” over the New York, Madrid, Boston, Paris, London and other Islamic atrocities.

And“The real issue is Western imperialism and oil” is a goddamn cop-out too.

What I hear from people who bleat on about, say, “The real issue is Muslim disempowerment” when pressed for specific suggestions on how to deal with said “real issue,” is terrifying nonsense designed to excuse Muslims and Islam itself. Western Muslims should attempt to get their own house in order before they complain about the actions and legislation of European and American governments. What about the rights of the victims of Islamic terror and Muslim grooming-gangs? Where are the super-posh and super-rich Leftist lawyers when we need them?

What’s interesting is to watch right-wing groups and counter-jihadists being thrown under the bus to defend Muslim killers and their fellow travellers in the Muslim community. In the wake of the Lee Rigby killing, for example, Muslims and Leftists focussed almost entirely on the so-called “surge in Islamophobic attacks”; which turned out to be almost entirely bogus. (The idea of a plague of Islamophobic attacks in the UK was mainly spread by Fiyaz Mughal and his Tell Mama organisation.)

We’ve successfully created a world so topsy-turvy that being a member of the English Defence League (EDL) or the Tea Party is a stronger evidence of terrorism than purchasing the Koran, reciting its violent passages and going on demos which have banners which proclaim “Death to the West!”.... Indeed notblowing things up is stronger evidence of terrorism and violent intent than blowing things up itself... God bless America.

What’s also interesting is the way, say, the phrase “The real issue is Israeli oppression and Palestinian rights” is used to defend Muslim mass murderers. When you call someone “alienated”, “unemployed”,“angry at Israel and the invasion of Iraq” in this culture it’s a way to excuse Muslim killers and the tens of millions of Muslims who passively support them.

This is cruel, ignorant bullshit when it’s used to discredit those groups and individuals who speak up for the victims of Islamic terrorism and Muslim grooming-gangs.

Tuesday, 23 June 2015

Prime Minister Cameron Speaks Out Against “Extreme” Islam


Prime Minister David Cameron has come out explicitly, and in detail, about the dangers of Islam... or, at the least, about “extreme” Islam. Except, of course, he doesn't actually use the word “Islam” (not once); though he does use the word “extreme”. He talks, instead, of an “extremist ideology”.

David Cameron's words (which were spokenat a security conference in the Slovakian capital Bratislava) are partly a response to the Muslim family (from Bradford, in the north of England) which travelled to Syria recently. The sisters (Khadija, Sugra and Zohra Dawood, along with their nine children) first travelled to Saudi Arabia (on a religious pilgrimage) and were then thought to have travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State (IS).

Cameron isn't only reacting to this case, but also to reports of the death of Talha Asmal. Asmal (who was only 17 and again from West Yorkshire) is believed to have become the UK's youngest-ever suicide bomber.

In tandem with all that, Cameron has also criticised those British Muslims who “quietly condone” Islamic extremism in the form of the Islamic State and Islamic groups. He knows that what's happened with the British sisters travelling to Syria (or at least similar things) has happened too many times before for it to be a small problem or a problem with, as they say, “a small minority of Muslims”. After all, this case has almost exactly replicated the former case of another group of three British Muslim girls/young women who travelled to Syriato join the Islamic State. So much so that we've had a replication of the previous press conference: concerned fathers and what looks like another Islamist lawyer. You may recall that in the last case, the seemingly concerned father (who spoke at the press conference) was himself a radical Muslim who'd attended a violent rally (led by Anjem Choudary) which also included the killer of Lee Rigby. Abase Hussen can also be seen (in a photo) burning the American flag.

As I said, Cameron has been very explicit this time. He said that the “cause is ideological”. Cameron continues:

"It says religious doctrine trumps the rule of law and Caliphate trumps nation state and it justifies violence in asserting itself and achieving its aims.”

He immediately followed those words up with this question: “How do people arrive at this worldview?”

As for moderate Muslims (or at least pseudo-moderate Muslims), Cameron went on to say:

"I am clear that one of the reasons is that there are people who hold some of these views who don't go as far as advocating violence, but do buy into some of these prejudices, giving the extreme Islamist narrative weight and telling fellow Muslims, 'You are part of this.'"

This could almost have been said about the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which is currently agitating to be part of the government's“de-radicalisation” programme. That's strange because - asCameron believes (both very recently and as far back as 2007)- the MCB is actually part of the problem.

Cameron also makes the point that this isn't just about “firebrand preachers” (such as Anjem Choudary) or “extremist websites” –it's about the entire Muslim community. Sure, not every Muslim in the Muslim community; but Muslims who are undoubtedly part of that community.

Cameron says that "[w]e need to treat the causes, not just the symptoms”. This means that, when it comes to de-radicalisation, it's not just the “government which has a role to play, so do communities and so do families too". Cameron continues:

"I think part of the reason it's so potent is that it has been given this credence.

"So if you're a troubled boy who is angry at the world or a girl looking for an identity, for something to believe in and there's something that is quietly condoned online or perhaps even in parts of your local community then it's less of a leap to go from a British teenager to an Isil fighter or an Isil wife than it would be for someone who hasn't been exposed to these things."

Cameron (indirectly) says that Islamism (or violent Islam) is to many young Muslims what revolutionary socialism is to many young middle-class students. He said that "angry young men and woman" have always found "supposedly revolutionary causes" appealing and that this fact is "particularly potent today". Moreover, radical Islam (or, depending on your position, Islam) "paves the way for young people to turn simmering prejudice into murderous intent" and to "go from listening to firebrand preachers online to boarding a plane to Istanbul and travelling onward to join the jihadis".

Of course all the usual suspects will speak out strongly against what David Cameron has said. Not all of them will accuse him of“racism”/”Islamophobia” or of “victimising the Muslim community”. The clever ones (such as the Muslim Council of Britain and Hope Not Hate) will use the classic“encouraging Islamophobia” (or “encouraging racism”) meme instead. Those two words are subtly different from the words “racism”or “Islamophobia” on their own... aren't they? Yet if Cameron knows that he's encouraging Islamophobia (or encouraging racism), then isn't he an Islamophobe (or a racist)? Thus accusing someone (or some group) of “encouraging Islamophobia” is effectively accusing someone (or some group) of Islamophobia.

Unite Against Fascism-Socialist Workers Party, Baroness Sayeeda Hussain Warsi, the MuslimPublic Affairs Committee (MPACUK), Owen Jones, George Galloway,Press TV, 5 Pillars, etc. won't be so subtle. They'll use their favourite word and accuse Cameron of being either a 'racist' or an 'Islamophobe'. They'll also use the classic phrase “generalising about the whole Muslim community” (as Owen Jones does) if they can. That isn't to say such people won't at times also use the words“encouraging Islamophobia”. It'll depend on which journalists or broadcasters they're talking to at the time.

Monday, 22 June 2015

Will the NHS grind to a halt if it looses 3,300 foreign nurses?


In the news today it can be seen that thousands of foreign nurses working in the UK may be required to leave under the Government's new immigration rules.... Or at least that's the story as offered by union leaders.

Perhaps I'm being too conspiratorial when I say that when the BBC runs an article entitled 'Migrationrules may cause NHS chaos', you have a nagging feeling that this is the BBC's rather clever way of doing a positive editorial (in the dis/guise of a news item) on the unadulterated glories of immigration (in the style of the BBC's very own MarkEaston).

What the BBC and many others consistently fails to mention is that most new immigrants (as well as many old ones) claim benefits and/or are unemployed. That's why the NHS-needs-immigrants story is trotted out so much. Sure, many immigrants do work for the NHS; though does it follow that the NHS would grind to a halt without them? And even if that's true, why did we allow this to become the case in the first place? Is it, as with other areas, that these immigrants are prepared to accept lower wages than British workers? And if that's the case, is that also automatically a good thing?

Indeed low wages is part of this story. If immigrants earn less than £35,000 after being in the UK for six years, they'll be required to leave the UK. Not only that: this is a specific Government action to help reduce the need for immigrant workers in the NHS and elsewhere.

In response to union scaremongering, a Government spokesman has said that that all those involved have had four years to prepare for these changes. He also said: "There are exemptions to this threshold where the UK has a shortage."

All in all, then, this is part of the Government's plan to cut net immigration. Having said, according to unions, only 3,300 NHS nurses will be affected – and that's by 2017. So considering the fact that there are 400,000 nurses working in the NHS, that's a relatively small number.