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, 9 October 2015

A Short History of Leftist Violence


Writing in the 1960s, Peter Berger (a Jewish refugee and 'peace activist' from Austria) became involved in a Leftist demo in the United States. He said that

"observing radicals in action, I was repeatedly reminded of the storm troopers that marched through my childhood in Europe".

It wasn’t just these Leftist marches that reminded him of the Nazis, he also said that Leftism (in the 1960s) formed a "constellation that strikingly resembles the common core of Italian and German fascism".

And even in terms of argumentation and rhetoric, the red and brown fascists seemed to merge into one another. Berger wrote:

"There is a near identity between the arguments of [Leftists]…. And Mussolini’s polemics for action against theory, against program."

The 1960s

The Nazi Brown Shirts and the Italian fascist squadristi (of the 1920s and early 1930s) were a bunch of street thugs who liked nothing better than a scrap. They also liked terrorising what they called the ‘bourgeoisie’ by breaking their windows and beating them up. Large chunks of the Left did similar things in the 1960s and 1970s.

Take the Weathermen.

TheWeathermen had their own‘Days of Rage’; which were on par with what Brown Shirts did in the 1920s and early 1930s.

When the Weathermen violently disrupted the 1968 Democratic National Convention their motto was: "Enough talk, more action!"

A man named Mark Rudd (part of the Students for a Democratic Society [SDS] at Columbia University) also talked about “direct action” and“raising consciousness”.

Mark Rudd was more honest about violence and riots than, say, the Socialist Workers Party is today (after all, this was the revolutionary 1960s). For example, how do you radicaliseyouth? Rudd said that in order to "revolutionise youth", there must have "a series of sharp and dangerous conflicts, life and death conflicts".

Another Students for a Democratic Society spokesman, Rennie Davids, said:

"Don’t vote… join us in the streets of America… Build a National Liberation Front for America."

You see, terrorism is just as much a tool of the Revolution as anti-racism, demos and loud-hailers. So it shouldn’t be a surprise to learn that from September 1969 to May 1970, the aforementioned Rudd (of the SDS) and his co-progressivescommitted 250 terrorist attacks. That amounted to one bomb every day! In one summer of 1970 there were 20 bombings a week in California alone.

Now take the police, whom a large number of Leftists hate and often want to hurt. (The British Socialist Workers Party sees the police as "an arm of the state".) Rudd said:

"It’s a wonderful feeling to hit a pig. It must be a really wonderful feeling to kill a pig or blow up a building."

Another mate of Rudd, Ted Gold, said that Leftists must "turn New York into Saigon". Now was this out of sympathy for the Vietnamese (or the Vietcong) or simply because the thought of an almighty scrap turned him on? Perhaps it was both. Rudd himself was even more honest when he said:

"You fucking liberals don’t understand what the scene’s about. It’s about power and disruption. The more blood the better."

Britain's own squadristi, Unite Against Fascism (UAF), is also always talks about ‘action’ (or 'mobilisation'). As Mark Rudd said, "organising is just another word for going slow".

Che Guevara

You wonder why students and Leftists love Che Guevara so much. Is it really his politics or the fact that his face makes a saccharine and hip t-shirt?

For a start, Che appeared to be more in love with violence than Revolution. Or was it the case that Revolution was the best way to guarantee him violence and action?

Guevara often wrote about “the enemy”. Guevara himself said that

"hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective and cold-blooded killing machine."

It's also been said that Guevara loved executing the Revolution’s prisoners. For example, while Doing the Revolution in Guatemala, hewrote this to his mother:

"It was all a lot of fun, what with the bombs, speeches and other distractions to break the monotony I was living in."

More powerfully, Guevara's actual motto was: "If in doubt, kill him."

Che Guevara killed so many people in his revolutionary career thatHumberto Fontova said that he was "a combination of Beria[the Stalinist sadist] and Himmler".

Of course Guevara killed far fewer people than Stalin. That's simply because Stalin ran a massive state and empire and therefore had far more political power than Guevara. So God knows how many people Guevara would have killed had he had as much power as Stalin. (The same can be said about Trotsky, etc.)

The Black Panthers

The Black Panthers were violent, anti-Semitic, misogynist, racist, militaristic, etc. Yet white middle-class students - and many others in the US and UK - have always been titillated by them.

This inverted-racist tradition goes back a long time. It shows itself in the love of black violence and the hatred of - and opposition to -“white violence”. As the white philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre put it:

"To shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time."

Malcolm X famously told his fellow blacks to employ "any means necessary" to destroy the “white oppressor”.

What about the Black Panther militarism (resurrected by Public Enemy in the 1980s)? The Black Panthers wore black shirts which included pseudo-fascistic or military ranks and titles. This was, of course, mainly play-acting and peacocking because if the Black Panthers had ever been a real and independent military force, the US military would have destroyed them overnight.

However, because the Black Panthers couldn’t have a conventional war, they settled for robbing banks, killing ‘pigs’ and ‘honkies’,kidnapping judges and children and calling for a separate black state.

Not only was there this Black Panthers fetish for violence, the movement explicitly grew out of fascism.

Marcus Garvey, for example, was the founder of the Back to Africa movement in the first decades of the 20th century. In 1922 he wrote: "We were the first fascists."

Large sections of the Left also adored the Congolese nationalist Patrice Lumumba simply because he was against the US and represented the “black cause”. He was essentially a fascistand a killer.... though a black one! Thus the Left and the United Nations loved him.

This love of what may be called the black exotic (like the love of the brown exotic Muslim today) took on absurd and silly proportions. You often got white middle-class Leftists falling in love with all things black and sometimes even pretending to be black. In the America of the 1960s, for example, you had a white middle-class guy (John Gregory Jacobs) saying:

"We’re against everything that’s 'good and decent' in honky America."

The New Left of this period sincerely believed, and stated, that every white person was born with "skin privilege" – and thus innately (or racially) oppressive and evil. This was pure racism, of course. Though racism against whites is fine and dandy because Marxist theory says so.

This obscene guilt-ridden glorification - thus condescension - of all things black was often worse than that. One Weatherman claimed that"all white babies are pigs". There’s more. When a Weatherwoman saw a ‘honky’ breast-feeing her baby, she yelled: "You have no right to have that pig male baby." Then this psychotic Weatherwoman advised the white woman to "put [the baby] in the garbage".


Everyone knows that the German National Socialists (Nazis) glorified irrationalism and had a profound political commitment to violence. So now we've seen how these two positionsbegan to be replicated (by International Socialists) from the 1960s onwards.

Both InterNazis and Nazis have also believed in - and used - terrorism to advance their various political ends. It may be no surprise, then, that many (or even most) radical Leftist groups (from SWP-UAF to Respect) have supported terrorism. Nowadays that's mainly in the form of Islamic terrorism; though, in the past, it was in the form of the PLO and various Maoist/Leftist terrorist groups. (National Socialists/fascists also supported various terrorist groups in the period from the 1960s to the 1980s.)

Consequently, the most dangerous mistake a person can make is to associate violence and genocidal Leftism exclusively with Stalinism, Maoism and the Khmer Rouge. It's clear that most of the things which characterised Stalinism – particularly - also characterise contemporary Trotskyist and other “progressive” movements. Indeed, in certain respects, even more so!

Cambodian victims of the Leftist Khmer Rouge.

Note)Much of the factual detail for this piece (specifically about the situation in the United States) was discovered in Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism.

Monday, 5 October 2015

Loonwatch's Loons, Wackos & Sociopaths


The question is simple: Why do the writers at Loonwatch hide their identities?

My guess is that Loonwatch writers use fake names for one very simple reason: they have something to hide. Why else would they use false names?

So are the writers at Loonwatch mainly Muslims with a couple of Trotskyists/communists (nowadays called “progressives”) thrown in for good measure? Or are they mainly Trotskyists/communists with a couple of Islamists thrown in for good measure?

No one knows because every Loonwatch writer uses a fake name.

Indeed it's hard to get your head around the fact that atheist (Marxist) materialists could have so much sympathy and respect for Islam without thereby also becoming (or being) a Muslim. Unless, that is, it's all cynical political opportunism.

Loonwatch's Danios, for example, wrote a book (The J Word: Jihad, Between Hype and Realitywhich tells us that jihad really and truly is all about peace, love and cuddles. He's also written many articles defending all things Islamic. So why isn't he a Muslim? If he's a revolutionary International Socialist, perhaps he's doing what many Leftists are doing: attempting to “tap into the revolutionary potential of Muslims” (as the the UK's Socialist Workers Party puts it). In addition, perhaps “the worse it is, the better it is (Leon Trotsky's mantra) for revolutionaries in that the more violence and conflict Islam brings to the West (along with mass immigration), the more they can make use of such “revolutionary situations” to further their own non-Islamic causes.

As I said, what else can explain this omnipresent and supremely perverse convergence of theocratic Islam and atheistic Leftism?


It seems that Garibaldi has stopped writing for Loonwatch (at least for the time-being). Though how could anyone know that for sure when 'Garibaldi' is a fake name in the first place?

The main writers nowadays are Emperor and Dorado. In fact Emperor seems to write the vast majority of stuff at Loonwatch... or does he? For one, who's to say that Garibaldi and Emperor (or Dorado) aren't the same person? Indeed perhaps Emperor is a collective name used by many Loonwatch writers. The writers at Loonwatch might also have decided to use the same name/s in order to put readers off the scent (as it were).

In any case, Nathan Lean denies being Garibaldi. The solution to that problem (as with Danios) is that Garibaldi should come clean. It really is that simple. What's he hiding? He should give up on the cloak-and-dagger student Leftism/Islamism and tell us who he really is.

Garibaldi did ask why Nathan Lean would use another name when he regularly publishes stuff about counter-jihadists and Robert Spencer in his own name. The answer is again uncomplicated. Nathan Lean's Huffington Post,interfaith, etc. stuff is written in a journalistic style and his books are seen to be academic and objective. However, as Loonwatch's Garibaldi, Nathan Lean can indulge his other persona: a vicious, nasty (red) fascist who's utterly intolerant towards all who dare to disagree with him. He would never get away with such viciousness, student sarcasm and intolerance at, say, an interfaith meeting or event. Only Loonwatch caters for such extreme rhetoric and nastiness. Nathan Lean may simply be letting off steam through his alter-ego: Garibaldi.

Thus Nathan Lean has two personas:

i) A vicious loud-mouthed Leftist.

ii) A cuddly interfaith academic.

The former preaches violence, direct action, hacking and the denial of free speech. The latter preaches religious/political pluralism, peace and equality.

And what I've just said about Nathan Lean will probably be equally applicable to most/all of the other writers at Loonwatch. After all, they use fake names too.


Actually, one Loonwatch writer, Danios, did appear to come clean about who he is when he wrote the following in 2010:

....I am currently a post-doctoral fellow at an Ivy League university and instructor at a state university. Coming out of the closet at the present time would pose some logistical problems for me, which is why I have chosen to do it at a later date. Does this answer your question, Spencer?”

However, because Danios also uses a fake name, there's no reason to believe a word of that. Then again, it is, in fact, plausible that Danios is a Leftist “post-doctoral fellow at an Ivy League university and instructor at a state university”. After all, UK and US universities are full of Leftists who have the hots for their free-speech-hating brothers – the Islamists. Despite that, it's also possible that Danios (or Garibaldi/Nathan Lean) works for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). In reality, judging by his prose style, I would go for the Marxist academic option even though it's very difficult to distinguish Leftist totalitarians from Islamist totalitarians nowadays. Or as Mark Humphrys puts it: run by leftists or Islamists, it's hard to tell. And isn't that a sad comment on the left!”

These people are so desperate that they even make the claim that people in the “counter-jihad movements” (all those wackos and loons!) also use pseudonyms. So what's the big deal with Loonwatch anonymity?

Take Danios again.

He cites various examples of counter-jihad writers who use pseudonyms; as in the following:

Nonie Darwish and Nahid Hyde are the same person. 'Sultan Knish' is actually Daniel Greenfield. 'Baron Bodissey' of Gates of Vienna is actually Edward May. 'Bonni' of Bare Naked Islam is actually Bonni Benstock-Intall. Fjordman is actually Peder Jensen.”

So Danios informs us that Sultan Knish “is actually Daniel Greenfield”. Hah! Daniel Greenfield himself tells us he's Sultan Knish on his Sultan Knishwebsite! Similarly, you can find this out within a second if you Google his name. You can't do that with Danios because there's no Wikipedia piece on him.

As for Nonie Darwish, her face can be found all over the Internet.

I suspect that some of the other examples cited by Danios keep their names secret because if they didn't, they'd very likely be killed by the kind of Muslim fanatic Danios defends. Could Danios himself be killed for what he's writing? That would be highly unlikely. In any case, that's not the reason why he uses a pseudonym. He uses a pseudonym for the simple reason that were it known who he is, his job (of enabling Islam and jihad) would be made a whole lot harder. (Danios himself admitted this when he said that “[c]oming out of the closet at the present time would pose some logistical problems for me”.)

The other bizarre thing is that, in one breath, Danios tells us about the counter-jihad loons and wackos who use pseudonyms; and then, in the next breath, he tells us exactly who they are. That kind of defeats the object... doesn't it?

One article, by Sheila Musaji, repeatedly tells us that Robert Spencer (of Jihad Watch) has “avoid[ed] debating with those who are skilled debaters”. The prime example of a skilled debater is, I presume, Danios himself. That's odd. Can you really call a man who uses a pseudonym –and who's never debated anyone face to face - a skilled debater? Can you call a man with no acknowledged tenure or details about his employment history a skilled debater? (Danios and Loonwatch often criticise Robert Spencer's credentials.) Indeed perhaps not all of Danios's pieces are by Danios – how would we know?

According to Sheila Musaji, this is what Robert Spencer said about a debate with Danios:

Robert Spencer at first said that I am willing: if 'Danios of Loonwatch' reveals his real name, finds a university willing to host the debate and contracts an impartial moderator, I’m ready when he is. Spencer expanded on the issue of Danios pseudonym saying Sorry, I don’t debate fictional characters or pseudonyms. 'Danios of Loonwatch' can go debate Scot Harvath or Harold Robbins.”

And this is what Danios himself says about Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer:

It will then be seen if you can defend your own writing, which I argue is a load of sensationalist crock. Will you accept my challenge to debate or cower in fear? My guess is that you 'know [you] can’t refute what I say' and will 'resort to…haughty refusals to debate'...”

That reads like something you'd see in a student Trotskyist rag. Firstly you've got the tabloid “sensationalist crock”. Then the machismo “cower in fear”. This stuff makes Facebook/Twitter seem like University Challenge. I mean after all that Leftist/Islamist vitriol and viciousness, would a debate between Danios and Robert Spencer really be worthwhile?

In any case, you get the feeling that the writers at Loonwatch would like to skin alive the tens of millions (or more) of us IslamophobicNazifascistracist bigots who exist in the world today. Yes, all those millions who dare to have a problem with Islam and its massively murderous impact on the world today.