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, 22 December 2016

Nigel Farage, Hope Not Hate, and Leftist Lawfare


Nigel Farage has said that that the German chancellor (Angela Merkel) was partly responsible for the attack on a Berlin Christmas market. This was an attack which claimed the lives of 12 Germans.

On Twitter, Farage wrote: "Terrible news from Berlin but no surprise. Events like these will be the Merkel legacy."

Some news outlets have said that this was also a reference to the murder of Jo Cox. It's hard to work out if that was also Brendan Cox's (Jo Cox's husband) position. Nonetheless, Cox quickly responded: "Blaming politicians for the actions of extremists? That's a slippery slope Nigel."

Then Farage replied:

"Well of course he would know more about extremists than me, Mr Cox; he backs organisations like Hope Not Hate, who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful but actually pursue violent and very undemocratic means.

"And I'm sorry Mr Cox, it is time people started to take responsibility for what's happened. Mrs Merkel had directly caused a whole number of social and terrorist problems in Germany, it's about time we confronted that truth."

(Hope Not Hate is one of the three charities supported by a foundation set up in the name of Brendan Cox's late wife.)

One thing we need to note here is that Brendan Cox responded to a tweet by Nigel Farage, not the other way around. Wasn't Farage meant to reply to Cox at all? It seems that way. Despite that, Merkel does have a lot of responsibility for what happened in Germany.

Nigel Farage has been contacted by Hope Not Hate lawyers in response to his comments on LBC Radio.

Predictably, the extremist Hope Not Hate (which hates all patriots and everyone to the right of Jeremy Corbyn) itself replied:

"Nigel Farage's allegations against HOPE Not Hate on LBC today are a political smear, which is why our lawyers have written to Mr Farage demanding that he retracts and publicly apologises for his remarks, or face further legal action."

To move back to the situation in Germany, Mrs Merkel has said it would be "particularly sickening" if the Christmas market attacker is an asylum seeker. And, in a tweet, Marcus Pretzell MEP described those who had been killed as "Merkel's dead". (Does this mean that Pretzell will also be the victim of Leftist lawyers in their fight against the peoples of European?)

***********************************

Nick Lowles and Leftist Lawfare


Hope Not Hate's Nick Lowles is a communist; though, for publicity reasons, I would guess that his preferred term nowadays would be 'socialist'. Of course it's hard to establish Nick Lowles's views in terms of documentary evidence because the Guardian, theIndependent and even right-wing newspapers have rarely interviewed or even discussed him; let alone asked him what his political views are on issues not directly related to “fighting racism and fascism”.

And just as Lowles frequently attempts to besmirch people by associating them – however tangentially – with Nazifascistbigots, so we should do the same with Nick Lowles himself. For example, he can be linked to the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Communist Party of Britain and various extremely violent “anti-fash” groups in the 1980s and 1990s. (Matthew Collins, Lowles's second-in-command, began life as a black/Nazi fascist: now he's a red fascist.)

Hope Not Hate's threat against Nigel Farage is yet another example of Leftist lawfare. Put this is the context of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders being banned from the UK. Think of the state's persecution of Tommy Robinson. And then think of Louise Haigh's attempts to ban Britain First.

What else would Hope Not Hate ban or take to court if it had the political power to do so? After all, the banning of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from the UK was a direct response to Hope Not Hate activism. (Here is Hope Not Hate itself claiming victory!)



Thus, by Hope Not Hate's own reasoning, its own exhibitions, demos or activities should also be banned. Indeed since Hope Not Hate has called for the banning of political parties, groups and individuals (as well being the main force behind the omnipresent “no platform” policy), it can be said that Hope Not Hate itself should be banned because of its communist and totalitarian inclinations.

***********************


Some More Examples of Leftist Lawfare

*) Tommy Robinson (former leader of the EDL) was stopped from speaking at the Oxford Union on two occasions. He was systematically and endlessly persecuted by the police and legal system.

*) 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.

*) 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.

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

*) The Guardian newspaper 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.


*) Tim Burton (Liberty GB) was taken to court by Tell Mama's Fiyaz Mughal. Mr Mughal lost the case. Then Tim Burton was taken to court again, by the very same person.

Click Titles to Access Articles:

'Hope Not Hate and the Coming English Civil War'






























Tuesday, 20 December 2016

No Pop Stars for Donald Trump




The Wrap, a U.S. news website, tells us that Donald Trump's inaugural committee is having problems finding stars who're willing to play at his inauguration ceremony (on 20 January 2017). The Wrap says that the committee is “calling managers, agents, everyone in town to see who they can get and it's been problematic”.

Apparently, Beyoncé and Aretha Franklin serenaded Barack Obama (back in 2008) in a show of racial solidity. And later Obama had “audiences” with other black stars, such as Rihanna and Kendrick Lamar.

Despite all this, Ted Nugent, Kid Rock and Billy Ray Cyrus do support Trump's presidency, which isn't to say that they'll play at his inauguration. And then there'll be many other musicians who're too timid to break away from the pop flock and admit that they support Trump. That would be soooo unhip.

It's also been well-publicised that Kanye West has said that he'd have voted for Trump had he bothered to get out of bed to vote. Kanye West also met Trump a couple of days ago. At that “meeting” the inauguration wasn't discussed. Mr Trump did say, however, that they were "just friends".

*********************************

I can't prove that most pop stars are often more dumb than wise. But take Grammy-award winner, John Legend (another black “guest” of Obama's). What did he have to say about Trump failing to attract any pop stars? He said he's “not surprised”. And then he came out with this little bit of political effluvia:

"Creative people tend to reject bigotry and hate. We tend to be more liberal-minded. When we see somebody that's preaching division and hate and bigotry, it's unlikely he'll get a lot of creative people that want to be associated with him."

What's more, John Legend thinks that Trump is "a fantasist unmoored from reality". Is that unlike ultra-rich musical narcissists like, say, John Legend and legions of his ilk?

So who cares about the fact that pop stars don't want to play for Trump? Most of them are pretty shallow hedonistic creatures anyway. They usually know next-to-nothing about politics and a heck of a lot about being politically hip and fashionable. Of course they won't play for Trump! For one, he's a businessman. For two, he's old and white. How unhip can you get? (That's despite the fact that some of the best businessmen are pop stars; though they pretend otherwise.)

As for Obama's previous success in this department. I detest Beyoncé' endless melismatic outpourings. I'm sick and tired of super-tough gangstas and the glorification of violence in rap and hip-hop. I'm bored - and sometimes sick - of the soft porn, sexism and misogyny of R 'n' B videos and stage shows.

So I'd suggest to Trump that this is a blessing. After all, does it follow that if you can play four chords or sing a tune that what you say about politics will also be illuminating? The Will Smiths, Bob Geldofs, Bonos, Springsteens, etc. of this world should keep their mouths shut – except when singing. They're rich and famous for their music, not for their political wisdom.



Friday, 16 December 2016

The Washington Post's Islam vs. Donald Trump's Islam



The Trump campaign against radical Islam doesn't pull any punches. And why should it? We're talking about a religion which has tens of millions (or more) adherents who'd love to blow the United States off the map. (That's after Israel, of course.)


However, according to the Washington Times, it's Trump and his advisers who believe in “civilizational conflict”. (Presumably after the analysis offered in Samuel Hutington's book, The Clash of Civilisations.)

Jackson Diehl, of the Washington Post, says that Trump's appointee, Stephen K. Bannon, speaks in terms of a “long history of the Judeo-Christian West's struggle against Islam”. Michael T. Flynn, the incoming national security adviser, is also in favor of “a world war against a messianic mass movement of evil people”.


Indeed Flynn has got the measure of things. He once wrote:


I don’t believe that all cultures are morally equivalent, and I think the West, and especially America, is far more civilized, far more ethical and moral.”


Clearly, Jackson Diehl thinks that such “Islamophobic” words are counterproductive. That such words cause - rather than solve – problems. But is systematically lying about Islam a successful policy? Are there less Islamic terrorists today than there were twenty or even ten years ago? Are Muslims, as a whole, becoming more moderate? Is there a Muslim “reform movement” spreading across the world or even in Europe and the U.S?


So let's start telling the truth about Islam, as Flynn and millions of others are attempting to do.


Jackson Diehl lays his own cards on the table when he says that François Fillon's book, Conquering Islamic Totalitarianism, is an example of what he calls “anti-Muslim rhetoric”. Diehl even has a problem with the suicidal Islamophile Angela Merkel. He said that she “felt obliged to strike an anti-Islamic pose last week, proposing a crackdown on the minuscule number of German women who wear a burqa”.


Jackson Diehl also has a big problem with Egypt’s Abdel Fatah al-Sissi, whom Trump supports. Did Diehl prefer the Muslim Brotherhood regime? You know, the movement that has traditionally persecuted and bombed the Christian Copts of Egypt?

***************************

So Jackson Diehl endorses the Leftist theory that if only Muslims were freed from Western-backed dictatorships, then they'd embrace democracy. That's a barefaced lie! There are a small number of Muslim democrats dotted around the world. However, most Muslims don't have a problem with, for example, al-Sissi's regime (in Egypt) because it's a dictatorship, as Diehl argues. They have a problem with it because it's not Islamic enough! Yes, there is a massive movement in the Muslim world fighting against pro-Western autocracies. But it's not fighting for Western democracy or secularism. It's fighting for sharia law and Islamic totalitarianism, hence the title of François Fillon's book (which Diehl castigates).

We can never win this “civilizational conflict” if we keep on insisting that Islam itself is blameless and that only some of its adherents are to blame. How many white swans do we need to see before we can say “All swans are white”?


Jackson Diehl finishes his story of blameless Islam by turning a positive into a negative. He writes:


Trump’s aim will be to quarantine and repress the region and its religion. The worst foreseeable outcome is that he will succeed.”
So Diehl wants yet more Islamophilia and thus more suicidal diplomacy (or sanctimonious interfaith). That is, he wants more of the same. And more of the same simply means more Islamic terror in Europe and the United States.


It has been weakness, Mr Diehl, that hasn't worked so far: not strength.


*) See Jackson Diehl's 'Trump’s coming war against Islam' here.


Monday, 12 December 2016

Tariq Ali Lies About Castro and Pinochet



Tariq Ali is a monumental bore of the Marxist Left. He’s been reciting the very same theological catechisms since he was in short trousers in the 1960s. He hasn’t once come up for air! Still, Leftist pontificating has gained him a superb career. My bet is that he’s a millionaire. 
Anyway, Lord Ali is a British Pakistani writer and journalist. He’s a member of the editorial Central Committee of the New Left Review, and he contributes to the Islamophile Guardian, the CounterPunch comic, and the London Review of Books.
*********************************
Here’s Tariq Ali on the BBC’s News-night programme (alongside Peter Hitchens), being interviewed by Evan Davies.
The basic gist of Evan Davies’s overall questioning was to ask Tariq Ali why he and his fellow Leftists excuse, rationalize and even condone mass murder, class/ethnic “liquidations”, torture, dictatorship, oppression, censorship, secret police, etc. when carried out by socialist/communist regimes; but criticize the very same things when carried out by right-wing regimes.
Then again, Tariq Ali said – in the interview – that he was “on the same side as Castro”. So that explains everything.
In terms of the video, at 5:55, in response to an Evan Davies question, Tariq Ali shouts:
Hang on! Pinochet wiped out 30,000 people for God’s sake! How can you compare Pinochet to Castro?
Amongst a whole host of conflicting figures, we can say that Fidel Castro was responsible for the political murder of between 35,000 and 76,000 of his own people. (Some figures are much higher.) General Augusto Pinochet, on the other hand, was responsible for the political murder of between 1,200 and 3,200 people. (Many figures are lower.)


Thus it would seem that Tariq Ali, if anything, inverted the figures by giving Pinochet a hugely inflated number for his regime’s political killings. Mr Ali didn’t even bother to cite a figure for the Castro regime of torture and abuse.

Sunday, 11 December 2016

Boris Johnson tells the truth about Saudi Arabia

Boris Johnson, the British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (since July 2016), has finally told the truth about Saudi Arabia. He said that it’s engaging in “proxy wars” in the Middle East.

Boris Johnson said:
“There are politicians who are twisting and abusing religion and different strains of the same religion in order to further their own political objectives.”
He went on to say:
“… and that’s why you have these proxy wars being fought the whole time in that area – is that there is not strong enough leadership in the countries themselves.”
The foreign secretary also blamed the problems of the Middle East on the lack of “big characters” who’re willing to “reach out beyond their Sunni or Shia” group and bring people together. 
The BBC’s diplomatic correspondent, James Landale, said that these comments will be “awkward if not embarrassing for the foreign secretary”. Landale continued:
“Once again Mr Johnson’s use of language is causing headlines that his diplomats will need to explain.”
This video of Boris Johnson speaking has emerged (thanks to the far-left Guardiannewspaper!) just as the UK’s Prime Minister, Theresa May, returned from a visit to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman… Oh dear!
********************************
You’d think that Boris Johnson, because of his background, would make a good diplomat. However, it’s turned out (many times) that Boris ain’t such a great diplomat at all – for good or for bad.
In any case, I’m all in favor of diplomacy when such a thing is a means to achieve certain ends. However, when it systematically fails and does so for decades, then we should question the efficacy of diplomacy. Or, in the case of Saudi Arabia, if diplomacy is really all about oil, then perhaps a bit of honesty will come in handy. (That’s if diplomacy and honesty can ever ride together.)
Everyone knows that Saudi Arabia funds terrorists, kills its own people for apostasy, etc. The Americans know it. The British know it. And even the many rich friends of Saudi Arabia know it.
On the subject of “proxy wars”.
You’d need dozens of Boris’s “big characters” to stop an Islamic civil war which has been going on for well over a 1000 years. After all, the celebrations and commemorations of past battles between Sunni and Shia Muslims are part of Isalamic history and culture. (The Shia, in particular, yearly re-enact past battles and defeats.) This war is inscribed on the minds of both Sunni and Shia.
I’m not so sure about the rest of Boris’s analysis.
Boris Johnson talks of politicians, for example, “twisting and abusing religion [Islam]” for political gain. It’s certainly true that Iran and Saudi Arabia were – and still are – responsible for much of the conflict in, for example, Iraq, Syria and now Yemen. Yet why can’t this be both an Islamic and a political thing? After all, Islam itself is a political religion. It’s Islam itself which provides much of the political ideology which fosters the enmity.
Boris has fallen for the “abuse of Islam” cliche. In other words, to him (as to Marxists), religion/Islam is a mere epiphenomenon of the material conditions below. Yet, if anything, politics (in the Middle East) is actually an epiphenomenon of Islam, not the other way around.

Leftist Lawfare: Geert Wilders Found Guilty of “Hate Speech”




The Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been found guilty of “hate speech”.

No penalty was imposed by the court. Wilders himself called the guilty verdict "madness".

During a meeting in March 2014, Geert Wilders asked: "Do you want, in this city [The Hague], and in the Netherlands, more or less Moroccans?" His supporters chanted: “Less! Less!” Wilders responded by saying: “Then we'll fix it.”

On 18 March 2016, a second trial against Wilders began. The accusation against him was one of inciting "discrimination and hatred" against Moroccans living in the Netherlands. Then, on the 17 November 2016, the Dutch Public Prosecution Service demanded a fine against him of €5,000 (£4,300).

This isn't the first time Muslims and Leftists have attempted to use lawfare to silence views they don't like.

In 2007, a representative of the Prosecutors' Office in Amsterdam told the press that dozens of reports had been filed against Geert Wilders, and that they were all being reviewed.

In June 2008, there was an attempt to prosecute Wilders under Dutch anti-hate laws. It failed. The public prosecutor's office released the following statement:

"That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable. Freedom of expression fulfils an essential role in public debate in a democratic society. That means that offensive comments can be made in a political debate."

And then, on 21 January 2009, a court ordered prosecutors to try Wilders.

In October 2010, the Dutch court approved a request from Geert Wilders to have new judges appointed forcing the court to retry the case of 2008. On 7 February 2011, Wilders was once again in the court room.

Finally, in June 2011, Wilders was acquitted of all charges. A Dutch court said that his speech was legitimate political debate; though on the boundary of legality.

And to bring this story closer to home.

In February 2009, a former British Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, banned Geert Wilders from entering the United Kingdom. She labelled him an "undesirable person". (This was largely in response to the words and activism of the communist-run organisation Hope Not Hate.)

At the time, a Home Office spokesperson said that the “Government opposes extremism in all its forms”. Needless to say, the aforementioned Labour Government had let countless Islamic extremists into the U.K in the proceeding years.

Despite these court appearances and bans, it's been said that up to three million people will choose Geert Wilders when they vote for a new government in March 2017. Forecasts have him set to win 35 seats.

*******************************

Interestingly enough, the BBC's Anna Holligan confesses her political prejudices. She says:

"I expected 'hate Islam, love Wilders' kind of thing, that's how the PVV voter is framed, the angry white man, but it's much more complex now. It's entrepreneurs, teachers, Church leaders, people who feel the traditional parties on all sides of the spectrum simply aren't listening to their concerns.”

Wilders is certainly part of the much hated (by liberals and left-wingers) “populist Right”. His supporters have no faith in the Dutch and European Left-Liberal elite, political correctness, mass immigration, the European Union and, most of all, that elite's appeasement of radical Islam.



Thursday, 8 December 2016

Dame Louise Casey on the Balkanisation of the UK



just-published report informs us that “ethnic segregation” has increased in the UK. It also says that this has happened largely because of political correctness and the fear of being called “racist”. (This report will also be classed as racist and against the tenets of political correctness. Read yesterday's Guardian!)

Dame Louise Casey has been very honest. For example, Casey argues that segregation has occurred alongside a growth in what she describes as “regressive religious and cultural ideologies”. Indeed she's also talked about the growing sense of grievance in some parts of the Muslim community. (Islam demands instantiation everywhere Muslims exist. Therefore such grievances are bound to exist.)

Casey's report received more than 200 submissions from think tanks, community groups and academics. It probably received nothing from those many non-Muslims who live, for example, near Muslim ghettos. That's because those with first-hand experience of all this are all racists. Only a Dame can say this kind of thing. And even she'll get shouted down by both the Left and by Muslim groups. (The Muslim Council of Britain has already criticised the report - see the Guardian article linked above.)

The people of the UK have known all this for decades. Literally. Especially people in the North West, Birmingham, Luton, London, Rotherham, etc. Yet because this report is official and written by a Dame (Dame Louise Casey), news outlets have decided to focus on it. In the past, all journalists and social scientists needed to do was walk around Bradford, Luton, Rochdale, Birmingham, etc. for a few days (or less) to realise these facts about today's Disunited Kingdom.

What we have, specifically, is a plethora of Muslim ghettos. In fact there are literally dozens of such ghettos dotted throughout the UK. Perhaps over a hundred.

*************************************


What are the best ways to combat this growing ethnic/religious segregation? According to Dame Louise Casey, people should be taught British values, law and history in schools. But these things have been suggested before – many times. And every time they're suggested, the massed battalions of the Left shoot the suggestions down as being.... yes, you guessed it, racist.

These enablers of disunity also say that “there are no British values” and that there “is no British identity”. That's odd because they don't say the same about Asian, black, Muslim or even Palestinian values and identities. It's only British values and identity that are denied. Indeed Ratna Lachman - an Asian Trotskyist lawyer (at JUST West Yorkshire) - even said that the “so-called 'white working class' means the far right”. (Fiyaz Mughal's Tell Mama also published an article against what it called “English identity”.)

How can Muslims be persuaded to embrace “integration, tolerance, citizenship” when Islam itself works against all these things? Integration with the kuffar (if you read the Koran) is most certainly a bad thing. Tolerance of the kuffar (if you check the later life of Muhammed) is a bad thing. And as for citizenship, that goes against the essence of sharia law (i.e. citizenship encompasses both secularism and democracy).

One thing that Muslims and the Leftist whores-of-Islam will certainly speak out against is the idea that new immigrants may be required to swear "an oath of integration with British values and society". That, of course, will be deemed racist and even fascist by the usual suspects. And then legions of lawyers will get to work on the suggestions. In the end, then, nothing much will happen because the British Left won't let it happen.

*******************************

So why have public bodies and individuals ignored this growing segregation? The answer is simple. It's exactly the same reason as to why they ignored the numerous Muslim grooming-gangs and anti-white racism in the UK. That reason being that left-wing dogma demands that public bodies and individuals ignore such politically-inconvenient things. If anyone dared to publicise such problems, then that would have been labelled “racist”. And, as everyone knows, racism is the ultimate sin in our society. All other crimes pail into insignificance when compared to racism. And that's why so many other crimes have been allowed to happen. Indeed all this has happened in order to continue the endless opportunistic, cynical and masochistic fight against racism.

Tuesday, 6 December 2016

The “Populist Right” vs. the Elitist Left



There's two new words in town. Leftist automata have took to them like ducks to water. Forget “neoliberal” and “neocon” - they're so passé. What we now have are the words “populist Right”.

Yes, Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the UK's Socialist Opposition, has urged “progressive parties” across Europe to unite against the rise of the "populist right".

Mr Corbyn, in a speech at the Party of European Socialists in Prague, was referring to Donald Trump, the Freedom Party in Austria, Marine Le Pen's National Front, and, of course, Ukip.

The Labour leader also accused right-wing parties of being "political parasites" which were "feeding on people's concerns". He went on to say:

"The gap between the rich and poor is widening. Living standards are stagnating or falling. Insecurity is growing. Many people feel left behind by the forces unleashed by globalisation. They feel powerless in the face of de-regulated corporate power.”

Now what is all that if it ain't “feeding on people's concerns”?! Corbyn's feeding on people's concerns about falling living standards, the “gap between rich and poor”, “insecurity, “globalisation” and “de-regulated corporate power”. But, most of all, Corbyn wants to scare people with his fantasies about the “far Right” - or, as it's called this week, “the populist right”.

When did being popular become a sin in politics? Or, at the least, why is it assumed that it's a bad thing in progressives' eyes? I suppose that, historically, various socialist vanguards were what really mattered to the Left. The Bolsheviks. The Fabians (i.e., the early Islingtonians). The Red Guard. The Khmer Rouge. And now a tiny bunch of very-posh Islingtonians.

Of course, the leader of the Labour, being regressive-left, offers a traditional Marxist analysis of the current situation. Thus:

1) People aren't against mass immigration because of the threat of terrorism or the Islamisation of the UK.
They're against mass immigration because of the failures of capitalism.
      2) They aren't against Muslim grooming gangs because of how they exploit and brutalise young girls.
    They're against Muslim grooming gangs because of the failures of capitalism.
3) And they aren't against the EU because it is facilitating mass immigration and subverting our laws.
They're against the EU because of the failures of capitalism. And so on and so on.

When Corbyn say that these “populist parties” have identified many of the “right problems” but that their solutions are “toxic dead ends”, he means that the solutions should be Marxist/socialist in nature. Thus, after we've collectivised, nationalised and massively restricted freedom, then Utopia-in-the-UK can flourish.

And again, Corbyn talks about how the capitalist “substructure” is to blame for, well, literally everything. He also tells us that our economics and politics have “failed” and that only a pure and historically-blameless socialism can solve all our problems. This, in Corbyn's own words, is the solution:

"… unless progressive parties and movements break with a failed economic and political establishment, it is the siren voices of the populist far right who will fill that gap."