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, 17 November 2016

Farage and Trump on “Freedom and Winning”



A left-leaning British news outlet has just keenly informed us that Nigel Farage was the first British politician to meet Donald Trump after the US election. Needless to say, we were meant to read something very deep and very meaningful hidden within those informative lines. Something sinister, perhaps; such as Trump agreeing with Farage – or Farage agreeing with Trump - on certain things.

So, yes, Farage met Trump before the British Prime Minister met Trump. What should we conclude from this? Some people have said that this made the British PM look “very foolish”. Indeed Theresa May won't be meeting Trump until next year; by which time, no doubt, she'll have had time to see how the political cookie has been crumbling. (Mrs May plans to visit Trump in the first three months of 2017.) Nonetheless, May has spoken to Trump by telephone. That, of course, is a very formal procedure which is expected from every British PM after an American election. Did she offer Trump some advice on how to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood/CAIR? No; don't be silly!

On top of all that, there's even been talk of Farage being a “go-between” for the British PM and Trump. That, of course, implies that Theresa May will need a go-between.

As for the title of this piece, a Ms Kellyanne Conway (Trump's spokeswoman) said that Trump and Farage "enjoy each other's company and they had the opportunity to talk about freedom and winning and what all this means for the world". Conway also said, rather unoriginally, that the meeting had been "very productive".

After the meeting, Farage himself said:

"It was a great honour to spend time with Donald Trump. He was relaxed, and full of good ideas. I'm confident he will be a good president. His support for the US-UK relationship is very strong. This is a man with whom we can do business."

Despite all that, the British Government has said that UKip's Farage will have "no role" in the Conservative Government's relationship with the new US administration. That's hardly surprising. If that were the case, then that too would be embarrassing for the Conservative Party. That's unless the Tory Party thinks that keeping a healthy political distance from Trump will benefit it in the long (or short) term. I doubt that! The Tories should take heed of what the US election and the EU referendum results have implicitly said to the establishment and/or the elite: namely, “Listen to the people!” On the other hand, any attempt by Theresa May and Co. to become newbie “British Trumps” will quickly be seen through! To be honest, most current Tory MPs and leaders share very little with Trump. Indeed most are ostentatiously proud of that fact.

On another point and during the aforementioned meeting, Farage asked Mr Trump to return a bust of Sir Winston Churchill to the White House Oval Office. Farage said he'd been "especially pleased" by Trump's "very positive reaction" to the idea of the bust returning. The said bust was removed by (then) President Obama as soon as he arrived in the White House. Obama, quite possibly, simply didn't have much time for Dead White Males. He does, however, have much time for Dead Black Males like Martin Luther King. (Obama substituted the bust of Churchill with the bust of Martin Luther King.) Whether or not Obama “snubbed” the Brits because of this, I'll leave the reader to decide. Nonetheless, after his meeting with Trump, Nigel Farage did state the following:

"... thank goodness, we are coming towards the end of an American president who loathed Britain.”

What about Conservatives in the UK loathing Donald Trump?

It's not surprising that Nigel Farage has said that Theresa May and other Conservatives have been “quite rude” about Trump. It's not surprising because, like the Obama administration, most – though not all! – British Tories believe in mass and unvetted immigration, the appeasement of Islamism, the European Union and all sorts of other - seemingly – Left-Liberal causes.

To get back to the rudeness. That means that British Tories should accept that "there are some fences to be mended". Farage also said that “Trump is an Anglophile” who “understands and recognises what our two great nations have done together between us” (as spoken on Fox News).

In terms of the 'dismal science' (i.e., economics), Farage said:

"One of the things we can do, we can have between us a sensible trade relationship, cut tariffs, we are massive investors in each other's countries. There's a bright future."

Despite all that, Trump had already joked to reporters when he said: "We're just tourists."

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


So firstly we had the Brexit Show. And now Donald Trump is President of the United States of America. Both these events, it has been said, were the result of “people power” (or the “voices of forgotten voters”). They were forgotten by the Left-Liberal elite; who, after following the words of Saul Alinsky and Antonio Gramsci, “took over the institutions” (e.g., the law, universities, parts of the BBC, parts of the Church, NGOs, charities, etc. ). Then, of course, these Alinskyite or Gramscian acolytes went on to take over various parts of various governments.

Still, the British Conservative Party - as well as others - shouldn't focus entirely on securing the votes of these forgotten voters. They should, instead, listen hard to what they have to say. Again, this isn't about gaining back votes (though votes will be needed): it's about destroying the Left-Liberal hegemonies (which exist in both the US and the UK). It's also about taking back control from the European Union; as well as from the American and British elite.

Basically, the peoples of the UK and US want their countries back.




Kenan Malik on the IQ of Black Americans



It's interesting that Kenan Malik offers a short account of various academics who've published well-publicised and controversial papers and books which argue that the IQ of black Americans is lower than that of white Americans. He mentions Arthur Jenson (an academic at Harvard University), Richard Herrnstein (another Harvard academic and joint author of The Bell Curve) and the British psychologist, Hans Eysenck. At the end of the paragraph, Malik states the following:

Meanwhile, the rise of inner-city violence, particularly in America, has led a number of scientists to consider the biological reasons for aggressive behaviour.” (185)

and that's it! No further commentary except to say that “opponents of such claims [are] more determined to challenge them” (185). But Malik doesn't challenge them. Perhaps this isn't place to do so. In addition, it can of course be the case that aggressive behaviour can be studied without any focus on race. Nonetheless, Malik does make a statement about “biological reasons for aggressive behaviour” just before the comments about black IQs. 
Do anti-racist accept IQ tests or don't they?

Malik hints at why he doesn't tackle claims about the IQ of blacks by discussing the statements of Margaret Mead on the subject. Firstly, Malik says that Mead “took a conscious decision not to explore the biological bases of human behaviour” (181). He then quotes Mead herself giving the reason for this. She said that it would be “dangerous” (Malik's word) because “'of the very human tendency to associate particular traits with sex or age or race, physique or skin colour'” (181). What's more, Mead concludes by saying the following:

'It seemed clear to us that further study of inborn differences would have to wait upon less troubled times.'” (181)

This isn't to argue that there aren't arguments elsewhere (there are). However, it seems that both Mead and Malik today (to quote Mead again) simply assumed that racial scientists “'make invidious comparisons based on such arbitrary associations'” (181). (Why “invidious”? Were all the “associations” truly “arbitrary”?) As I said, arguments against racial science and IQ testing exist elsewhere. Nonetheless, platitudinous remarks and smug assumptions seem to rule the roost on most occasions when race is discussed.

Malik also makes an astonishing claim when he confesses (if that's the correct word) that “[s]tatistically, the average IQ of African Americans is lower than that of white Americans” (224). Nonetheless, he immediately states that

unless we believe that African Americans are less intelligent than whites, we must recognise than an important part of the explanation lies in the social position of African Americans as a whole in American society” (224).

It appears that because Malik stresses the important impact of culture - and therefore politics - on science, then this must be an ideal case to give a political (rather than a scientific) explanation of the facts. Indeed since conscience and morality/ethics are part of culture, perhaps it's only right and proper to simply assume that the differences of IQ between blacks and whites simply must be to do with the “social position of African Americans in America today”. However, at least prima facie, the first way to interpret the fact that black IQs are lower than white IQs is because of genes or brains. Sure, such a quick conclusion can never contain the entire truth; yet at least it must be so much as stated.

The other possible conclusion is that American blacks have a poor “social position” partly because of their low IQs. After all, many other American racial groups - which started off with disadvantaged social positions - eventually became more and more successful and better off (such as Jews, the Chinese, the Irish and so on).

Throughout his book Malik (either directly or indirectly) stresses the point that it's scientifically - and perhaps philosophically - illiterate to stress biology at the expense of what he calls “culture”. True, yet - in this passage at least - Malik stresses culture (or “social position”) at the expense of biology. Indeed even though Malik repeatedly refers to that binary opposition between biology or genes and culture, he does seem to come down on the culture side on every occasion – not only this one.

Malik also repeatedly stresses that individual scientific theories partly – sometimes wholly – express the culture and therefore the politics of their day. Does that mean that Malik's science expresses the the anti-racism of our day? After all, Malik says that all science (even anti-racist science) must express the politics or culture of its day.

None of this is to deny that American blacks have experienced what Malik calls “social discrimination” and that they've done so “as a group” (which, to Malik, means this isn't about “individual blacks”). Nonetheless, Malik focuses entirely on such social discrimination and seems to assume - or conclude - that this is the entire explanation of the fact that American blacks have lower IQs than American whites.

Perhaps this is an argument against what's called “methodological individualism” (which Malik critically mentions elsewhere). That is, cultural/political interpretations trump biological/genetic interpretations when it comes to statistics... and much else. The IQ of individual black Americans, then, isn't to the point. (Not even the IQs of large groups of black individuals is to the point.) What matters is “African Americans as a group” (Malik's italics). And such a group suffers from “social discrimination”. That must mean that culture and/or politics not only trumps biology, it also trumps statistics and IQ scores.

Malik puts the case against methodological individualism (without using those two words) more explicitly - and on the same page - when he writes that

[u]nlike animals, for whom social behaviour can be understood as the sum of individual actions, for humans there are aspects of the social which are irreducible to the individual level, and which can only be understood in social terms” (224).

Malik backs up his argument with a quote from the philosopher Bernard Williams. Thus:

'What is true is that each action is explained, in the first place, by an individual's psychology; what is not true is that the individual's psychology is entirely explained by psychology.'” (225)


At least in this instance, Bernard Williams stresses both sides of the binary opposition that is (individualistic)psychology versus culture. Nonetheless, this may well be a rather innocuous (i.e., non-political) point about philosophical externalism (a position in the philosophy of mind). In other words, Williams (in the quote above) mightn't have been singing from the same (political) hymn-sheet as Malik himself.

*) All quotations are from Kenan Malik's Man, Beast and Zombie.