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, 23 November 2016

Jeremy Corbyn disavows alt-left supporters

Jeremy Corbyn has retrospectively repudiated the fringe "alt-left" group Momentum for publicly celebrating his election as leader of the Labour Party back in September. At that celebration, according to “Zionist sources”, Corbynites raised their fists and sang the Red Flag anthem.

In a far-ranging interview with the Islington Dinner Party Times, “Jezza the Gezzer” Corbyn (who was educated at the private Castle House School) was quoted as saying: "I condemn them. I disavow, and I condemn them. And I disavow and condemn them too."

Corbyn said he didn't want to "publicly energise" alt-left groups, which include neo-Communists, retro-Socialists, Socialist Internationals, Islamosocialites, anti-Semit...Zionists, and Trotskyians.

Alt-left supporters were filmed (by Red Ken Loach) on Saturday in Islington cheering as a speaker shouted: "Vive la revolution! Death to all neoliberal pigs! Pay rises for Marxist professors!”

In the video, a leader of the "alt-left" movement told a conference of Corbynistas that the UK belongs to the Vanguard of the Working Class, whom he described as “Patriarchs of the Children of Toil".

Chairman Moo denounced the movement's critics as "the most despicable Nazifascistracist creatures who'd ever walked the planet".

The gathering on Saturday drew protesters who blocked traffic around the Che Guevara Building and Safe Space Centre in Islington's socialist-dinner-party district.

Reichskanzler Angela von Turtle expressed no concern at all that Mr Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party has given succour to extremely moderate Trotskyists and communards (such as the Socialist Workers Party, Left Unity, Alliance For Workers' Liberty, etc. - all of whom supported Corbyn).

A senior official close to Mrs Turtle described the infamous "Comrade Corbyn!" video as "a video". 
"I'm a center-Left democrat."

But Mr Corbynoid stood by his Chief Communist and Director of Communications, Seumus Milne, when the latter started instigating plans for a Gulag for the “far right” somewhere “up North”. (Milne is an ex-Winchester [private] College fag and former associate editor of The Guardian newspaper.) Corbyn bristled at claims that the newspaper was associated with the Socialist Dinner Party Movement.

"The Guardian is just a unbiased, fair and brilliant publication. They cover stories like you cover stories," he told the Islington Dinner Party Times.

"If I thought supporters were a racist towards working-class whites and right-wing Jews, I wouldn't even think about hiring them", he said of Seumus “Beria” Milne.


This is a partial rewriting of (yet another) BBC article on Donald Trump and the alt-right movement: 'Trump disavows alt-right supporters'.

Nigel Farage as Ambassador to the United States?

Donald Trump has called for Ukip's interim leader, Nigel Farage, to become the British Ambassador to the United States. Trump said:

Many people would like to see Nigel Farage represent Great Britain as their Ambassador to the United States. He would do a great job!”

Personally, I don't think that would be a good move on Farage's part. It would be a step down; even though Farage would be ambassador to the world's most powerful country. Besides which, it may tie him too closely to the current British Conservative Government; which, again, I don't think would be such a good thing. I say this because Farage and Ukip have very little in common with today's Conservative Party and most Tories don't have much respect for Farage and Ukip.

In any case, since Trump won the election, perhaps he and other sympathetic Americans should be helping Farage and Ukip, not the other way around. (Then again, it can be argued that Farage helping Trump is an indirect way of Farage helping Great Britain.)

If Farage did become the British ambassador to the U.S., he'd be the most senior diplomat in Washington. Yet, from that position, I'd guess that he'd have little chance to do the political things he'd like to do.

Farage was nonetheless “flattered” by the idea of becoming an ambassador. Though, despite being flattered, he doesn't want the job. As Farage himself said:

I don’t think I will be the ambassadorial type. Whatever talents or flaws I have got I don’t think diplomacy is at the top of my list of skills.”

So it's not a surprise that the British Government has said that there's “no vacancy” anyway. The current ambassador - Sir Kim Dorroch - sent a memo to Downing Street which said that he and other UK diplomats were “well placed” to deal with Trump's presidency and everything which flows from it. In addition to that, a Government official said that the UK Gov. has “excellent ambassadors to the US”.

In view of Sir Kim's words, Farage said that it was “obvious” that the current Ambassador to the United States should resign. Why? Because this man, in Farage's words, is part of the “old regime”. Yes, an old regime which has enthused about the European Union; encouraged mass immigration; banned American and Dutch dissidents (e.g., Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders); allowed Muslim ghettos, halal slaughter and sharia law to mushroom; and so on.

Moreover, according to Sky News, Farage went on to say that Sir Kim's

world view, and the world view of the Trump team are going to be diametrically opposed and I would have thought it would be sensible to put someone there who was likely to get on with Team Trump”.

Nonetheless, Farage has said that he'd “love to help” deal with Team Trump; though not as an ambassador. Indeed he likes the idea of being the U.K and U.S's go-between. That's why he said that the British Prime Minister's stance against such a position is “nonsense”. Not only that: Theresa May should put “petty personal differences” aside.

Farage has also said that some of the British politicians who've been "openly abusive about Trump” are “now pretend[ing] to be his friend".

Farage went on to say:

"It is career politics at its worst and it is now getting in the way of the national interest. I have said since the now famous photograph with Donald Trump 10 days ago that I would do anything to help our national interest and to help cement ties with the incoming Anglophile administration. I have known several of the Trump team for years and I am in a good position with the president-elect's support to help. The world has changed and it's time that Downing Street did too."

Finally, American readers may also recall that Farage has already campaigned with Trump in Mississippi (last August); when thousands of Americans turned up to listen to Trump speak. At the time Trump described Farage as “the man behind Brexit”. Trump also predicted that the U.S. election would be “Brexit plus plus plus”.

Tuesday, 22 November 2016

Was Tony Blair to Blame for the Iraq War?

What is surprising is the amount of people who fall into the trap of blaming others for Arabic violence and Islamic fanaticism – or at least they've done so in the case of the Iraq War. Has everyone bought into this “narrative” (a favourite word of Leftists) on Iraq?

So who was – and still is - to blame for the violence in Iraq? Not ISIS, Iraqi Muslims, Shia/Sunni militia and terrorists, Baath party members, etc. Not in the slightest. Muslims, it seems, are never to blame when in comes to the racist Left; which sees all Muslims as children who are incapable of behaving humanely or decently. Instead it's all the fault of Blair, or Bush, or the “neocons”, or global warming (as The Guardian and Noam Chomsky have it), or whoever.

Yes, it may be absolutely true that Tony Blair shouldn't have intervened in 2003. It may also be true that he's power-mad lunatic who wanted (or still wants) to go down in history as a great statesman. Nonetheless, what he did, he did some 14 years ago and the violence is still with us. Sure, we stayed in Iraq until 2009/11; though in 2007 Blair resigned and then more or less disappeared from the political scene.


Tony Blair attempts to legitimise his position on Iraq by using a quote from an Iraqi woman – formerly a victim of Saddam Hussein. According to Blair:

I still keep in my desk a letter from an Iraqi woman who came to see me before the war began. She told me of the appalling torture and death her family had experienced having fallen foul of Saddam's son. She begged me to act.”

Blair continues:

After the fall of Saddam she returned to Iraq. She was murdered by sectarians a few months later. What would she say to me now?” (479)

As I will say a few times in this piece, many haters of Blair will simply say that he's lying about this. (After all, Blair is “Bliar”, isn't he?) The basic gist here is that Blair thought he was doing good. Nonetheless, he accepts that his actions had disastrous consequences. Thus are critics of Blair critical because Blair couldn't predict the future? Or are they critical because, in his heart of hearts, Blair knew that mass violence and terrorism would be the result of the intervention in 2003?

Tony Blair also confronts Saddam's crimes head-on when he quotes himself speaking in Glasgow in October 2002 (on the same day as the mass protests). He told the audience that “'tens of thousands of political prisoners languish in appalling conditions in Saddam's jails and are routinely executed'” (426). He also said that “'in the past fifteen years over 150,000 Shia Muslims in southern Iraq and Muslim Kurds in northern Iraq have been butchered'”. Finally, he said that “'up to four million Iraqis in exile round the world including 350,000 now in Britain'”.

Following on from that, and in the same speech, he singles out the hypocrisy of the “anti-war” Left. He said:

'There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children who die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power will be left in being.'” (426)

Of course the revolutionary - and even moderate - Left didn't march against Saddam Hussein. Saddam had brown skin and he didn't rule a “Western capitalist state”. Thus his crimes were of no interest to most – if not all – Leftists. That's unless links could be found which connected Saddam to the UK, US and the West generally. And, of course, links were made; though they were made primarily after the intervention of 2003.

Tony Blair also argues that, as philosophers put it, there was no necessary connection between removing Saddam Hussein and the mass violence which followed (mainly a couple of years later, according to Blair). As Blair himself puts it:

The notion that what then happened was somehow the ineluctable consequence of removing Saddam is just not right. There was no popular uprising to defend Saddam. There was no outpouring of anger at the invasion. There was, in the first instance, relief and hope.” (465)

What ruined all this was that “tribal, religious and criminal groups [decided] to abort the nascent democracy and try to seize power” (465). What's more, Blair believed that “if the terrorists could cause chaos, the resulting fear and security clampdown would become a signal that the mission had failed” (465).

Again, should Blair have known all this would have happened in a (typical?) Arab country?

Thus not all the blame for the Iraq War can be placed in the hands of Blair and Bush... at least not according to Blair himself. He tells us that “it is instructive to read the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 passed by President Clinton” (385). In more detail:

It was then that US policy became regime change, but it did so – as the Act makes clear – because the WMD issue and Saddam's breach of UN resolutions.” (385)

Of course it can now be said: But Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Blair and Bush did! We can also ask if Clinton would have intervened in Iraq had he the chance and/or reason to do so. I believe that at some point, had he retained power, Clinton might well have invaded Iraq. (Let's not forget here that Clinton had already bombed Iraq in 1998).

*) All quotations are from Tony Blair's autobiography, My Journey.