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.)

Saturday, 3 December 2016

Tell Mama Lies: How to Lie About Islamophobia



Although the image/representation above is from the largest “anti-Islamophobia” organisation in the United Kingdom, American readers will be well aware that similar organisations and individuals exist in the United States (e.g., CAIR, Nathan Lean, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Georgetown University, Loonwatch and many more). And, like Tell Mama, they too indulge in obfuscation, dissemblance and ambiguity. Indeed many happily lie for the cause of Islam.

The British organisation is called Tell Mama. This is how it sells itself:

Tell MAMA supports victims of anti-Muslim hate and is a public service which also measures and monitors anti-Muslim incidents...”

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

The image above, quite simply, is an outrageous use of numbers and charts. I know that left-wing political academics love their charts, percentages and stats and do this kind of thing all the time (i.e., in order to sell a political cause); but the details in the Tell Mama image are pathetic. (The image above is taken from the Tell Mama website. It can be found here.)


Ask yourself, for instance, this question: Why does Tell Mama, or Fiyaz Mughal (its Founder and Director), go back to 2013, rather than, say, 2012 or 2014? Do you think that this has something to do with the fact that in 2013 there were 43 “mosque attacks”; whereas in 2014 there was only 21? Thus there were more than twice as many attacks in 2013 than in 2014. That means that, over all, the 2013 figure would distinctly increase the numbers of overall attacks (from 2013 to 2016) to 100. On the other hand, if Tell Mama had started in 2014, the overall figure would have been 57!

We must ask two other questions. Of the “100 attacks on mosques and Muslim places of worship”, how many were reported to the police? How many resulted in convictions?

That means that at least some – or many – of the reports to Tell Mama (as facilitated by its convenient 'Submit a report' section) might have been at best exaggerations, and, at worst, lies.

Finally, note also that on the map of the UK above there are some coloured circles on the top of different coloured circles. This may hint at the fact that the same “attack” has been counted twice. After all, even though the circles only half-cover the circles below them, that needs to be the case because the viewer wouldn't realise that there had been two attacks if one circle were completely covered by another. Thus both circles may cover exactly the same geographical place because they're different symbolisations of the very same attack under two different categorisations.

Let's just take one example from the map.

In the North East of England area, there's a red circle (symbolising “vandalism”) half-covering a “criminal damage” circle (symbolising “criminal damage”). Now is this the same attack counted twice? After all, vandalism simply is criminal damage! (This double-counting possibility is further covered under individual headings below.)

In addition, the categorisations of most of the attacks are perverse. So let's go through them one at a time.

1) “Anti-Muslim literature”

Is Tell Mama confusing anti-Islamic literature with “anti-Muslim literature”? This is the case because anti-Muslim literature is often – or always! - portrayed as racist. Yet it's harder to do that with anti-Islamic literature. (Then again, there are plenty of Muslims and progressives who classify anti-Islamic literature as racist too!) Let's give Fiyaz Mughal the benefit of the doubt here and say that at least some of this literature was indeed “anti-Muslim”. But even here we'd need to ask what, exactly, that means. It could mean anything!

2) “Arson/arson threat”

Note firstly the fact that arson and the threat of arson are cleverly fused together here. Arson, to state the obvious, is massively different from the threat of arson. Indeed, for all we know, the proportion of threats of arson to actual arson could be something like 1000 to 1. That is, 1000 threats to every actual act of arson. The truth is that actual acts of arson (in the UK) have been extremely rare; compared to, say, the burning down of churches or Hindu temples in Pakistan. (Mughal is of Pakistani heritage.)

3) “Assault”

Here again Tell Mama trades on ambiguity. After all, there's such a thing as verbal assault and acts of physical assault are classified as “physical assault”. This leads me to conclude that perhaps all these “assaults” were verbal in nature. It doesn't stop there. What form did these verbal assaults take? It could be something like this: “Muhammed was a beheader of hundreds of Jews and other kuffar.” (A true historical claim.) Or: “Why do 'moderate Muslims' very rarely deal with their own extremists?”

4) “Criminal damage”

Is arson “criminal damage”? If it is, then it could quite easily be the case that Tell Mama is counting the very same attack twice (i.e., under two headings). Once as “arson” and again as “criminal damage”.

5) “Hate mail”

As with 4) above, can't hate mail also be classed as “anti-Muslim literature”? Here again, perhaps the same assault is being counted twice. Once as “anti-Muslim literature” and again as “hate mail”. Not only that:

If hate mail is anti-Muslim literature,
and anti-Muslim literature is anti-Islamic literature,
then anti-Islamic literature is also hate mail.

6) “Attacks involving pork products”

This doesn't even deserve a response. (Is this something from Monty Python?)

7) “Incident at a far-right protest”

This is even more vague – and intentionally vague! (It also sounds like a BBC play.) The Tell Mama's image/visual is meant to be about attacks on mosques. How does an incident at a far-right protest connect with “attacks on mosque”? I suppose an attack on a mosque could have happened during a protest. But then Tell Mama would have given that a separate category. In addition, what is meant by the word “incident”? Did someone fart outside a mosque or something?

8) “Threat”

Vagueness again. Anything can be classed as a “threat”. It doesn't even need to be a threat of violence because, again, if it had been, Tell Mama would have classified it under a different heading. As it is, someone can threaten to burn the Koran. Sure, someone can also threatened to kill a Muslim. But, like the “Arson/arson threat” earlier, threats to kill occur all the time on Facebook (often from Muslims) and even on the street. And, again like arson, threats to kill will outnumber actual killings by thousands to one... or more!

9) “Vandalism”

Just as Tell Mama may have fused “hate mail” with “anti-Muslim literature”, so here it appears to have also fused “vandalism” with “criminal damage”; which itself may well have been fused with “arson”! Fiyaz Mughal is simply replicating the various categorisations of assaults in order to make things look a lot worse than they actually are. (As he did by going back to 2013, rather than 2014, in his survey of “attacks”.)

10) “Verbal abuse”

What I said about “vandalism” and “anti-Muslim literature” occurs again with “verbal abuse”. Verbal abuse can be see as either “threat”. And, like most of the other entries, the words “verbal abuse” are splendidly vague. Abuse of what or whom? The Koran? Muhammed? A Muslim? Even if it were a Muslim, since Fiyaz Mughal has fused anti-Islamic literature with “anti-Muslim literature”, perhaps his “verbal abuse” may include abuses of Islam, not of Muslims.

11) “Violent extremism”

Luckily, Tell Mama's image does furnish us with an explanation of this category. It goes as follows:

Violent extremism refers to violent attacks (including bombings) as well as threats to bomb and burn down mosques.”

Bombings”? Come again? How many bombings have there actually been of mosques in the UK? None! Perhaps Fiyaz Mughal is getting pork attacks mixed up with bombings. This fusion and replication of categories is really beginning to annoy me. Thus we now have “violent extremism”, which may include “threats to burn down mosques” (which already has its own category). And, as I've already said, for every 1000 threats (or more) there is one act of arson/physical abuse. And my figures are underestimates!

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

Despite the deliberate vagueness and ambiguity throughout Tell Mama's list/image, I'm still pretty sure than Fiyaz Mughal will be aware of the legal definitions of some – or all – of his categories. Indeed I also suspect that he might have had the help of a lawyer; as well as assistance from Leftist academics (such as the hate-filled Nathan Lean, who's on the Advisory Board of Tell Mama).

That wouldn't surprise anyone. Lawyers aren't only concerned with written and spoken clarity. They're also concerned with political causes and winning cases. Thus, a left-wing lawyer would be happy to indulge in what people call “lawfare” (as Tell Mama itself is). Indeed progressive/socialist lawyers are taking part in acts of lawfare all the time. That means that a large part of today's legal profession is tailor-made to further the political aims and causes of organisations like Fiyaz Mughal's Tell Mama.




Friday, 2 December 2016

Dianne Abbott – Britain's Most Racist Politician



For those who've never heard of Dianne Abbott: she's a high-ranking and well-known British politician. In October, the British Labour Party appointed her as Shadow Home Secretary. (She first became an Member of Parliament in 1987.)

Abbott was given the job of Shadow Home Secretary by the “radical” Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Abbott had a relationship with Corbyn in the late 1970s.

Rather predictably, Dianne Abbott is a strong supporter of Black Lives Matter. She recently addressed a meeting on the subject organised by the Socialist Workers' Party offshoot, Stand Up To Racism. It also seems that Abbott's a keen fan of therace-baiter” Al Sharpton, whom she met in October. (Abbott has been called “Britain's Al Sharpton”.)

One can see Abbott's racial obsessions when looking over her career. For example, she chairs the All-Party Parliamentary British-Caribbean Group and the All-Party Sickle Cell and Thalassemia Group. The latter are two diseases that disproportionately affect black people.

Abbott is also founder of the London Schools and the Black Child initiative.

Closer to the present day, the University of London held a “a celebration of black identity” (in 2012) to honour Dianne Abbott's quarter-of-a-century in Parliament. This included a concert which included Linton Kwesi Johnson and Kadija Sesay. I assume that most – or all – of the other performers were black too.

Dianne Abbott's Racism

Dianne Abbott began her racist career in 1988, when, at a black studies conference in Philadelphia, she claimed that "the British invented racism”.

Despite that, we'll begin Abbott's story of racism in 1996.

In that year, she referred to the nurses at a local hospital as "blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls". No doubt they weren't all blue-eyed or all blonde; yet alone all blue-eyed and blonde. However, racists such as Abbott like to generalise. So why did Abbott make this comment? She did so because she believed that these Finnish nurses had "never met a black person before". Did she really know that they'd never met a black person before? Of course not. Would her words have been acceptable even if they hadn't seen a black person before? No, it would have been racist.

Dianne Abbott came in for a lot of stick for this comment; even from Marc Wadsworth, who was executive member of the Anti-Racist Alliance at the time.

Nonetheless, another race-baiter, the black Labour MP Bernie Grant, came to Abbott's defence. He said:

"Bringing someone here from Finland who has never seen a black person before and expecting them to have to have some empathy with black people is nonsense. Scandinavian people don't know black people—they probably don't know how to take their temperature".

Bernie Grant too was generalising; at least according to the aforementioned Marc Wadsworth. Wadsworth (who's half-Finnish) pointed out that the then Miss Finland, Lola Odusoga, was black and of both Finnish and Nigerian descent. And, like Abbott herself, Bernie Grant wouldn't have known that these Finnish nurses had never met a black person before. (As for the bit about taking temperatures?) This didn't matter. Bernie Grant and Dianne Abbott were really demanding black nurses for black patients.

Let's move to January the 4th, 2012. Abbott tweeted the following:

"White people love playing 'divide and rule' We should not play their game."

This is profoundly racist; except, of course, it can't be because Dianne Abbott is black. Abbott believes that all “[w]hite people love playing 'divide and rule'” and all whites play the same game. Is that also true of anti-racist whites like the socialist members of her own Labour Party (such as her ex-lover, Jeremy Corbyn)? Or are they honourable (white) exceptions?

Of course political divide and rule has existed as long as long as civilisation has existed. So to single out whites is, well, racist. Indeed by saying that “whites play 'divide and rule'”, Abbott herself was playing divide and rule – even if for her own team.

Needless to say, this racist outburst of Abbott's led to large-scale accusations of racism.

Abbott was told by her own party (the Labour Party) that the comment was unacceptable. Thus she did indeed end up apologising for "any offence caused". She claimed that she hadn't intended to "make generalisations about white people". Of course she did! But she was caught out and therefore she knew she simply had to apologise in order to save her career. And, like a typical politician, she apologised in a sincere act of hypocrisy.

Even the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, Nick Clegg, called Abbott's comments "a stupid and crass generalisation". However, Nadhim Zahawi, a Conservative MP, summed it up perfectly when he said:

"This is racism. If this was a white member of Parliament saying that all black people want to do bad things to us he would have resigned within the hour or been sacked."

No Mr Zahawi, blacks can't be racist! Haven't you read any Marxist theory?

Despite the many complaints to the Metropolitan Police about Abbott's racism, the police said that she “did not commit a criminal offence”. You see, the bosses of the Met know their Marxist theory too. (All that “diversity training” and “community cohesion” stuff.) The Metropolitan Police is yet another organisation which the Left has taken over. This, of course, doesn't mean that every cop in the rank and file is a Leftist. It simply doesn't need to be the case that all cops are Leftists. If the leadership is Leftist, then that's all that counts. (Think here of the Trotskyists/Marxists who lead and run the National Union of Teachers and the National Union of Journalists.)

Abbott is also a hypocrite in other respects.

Abbott, as a socialist, fiercely criticised her political colleagues for sending their children to private and/or selective schools. (E.g., Abbott was a unappeasable critic of fellow snobby Labourite Harriet Harman who, in 1997, had decided to send her own children to a grammar school.) In 2003, Abbott sent her own son to the the private City of London School. That must mean that what she did was "indefensible" and "intellectually incoherent" because that's precisely what she said about the other people who'd sent their kids to private and grammar schools.

The plot of this story is even thicker than that.

It involves the added bonus of Abbott's well-known and well-documented racism.

When Abbott was a guest on the BBC Two show, The Week, she defended her stance by saying: “West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children.” The host of this show, Andrew Neil, reacted by asking Abbott if she thought that “black mums love their kids more than white mums”.

Is it even true that West Indian mothers go to the wall for their children? What? All of them? I don't think so.

The Marxist Theory of Racism

Dianne Abbott has a long history of making racist comments. Except that she won't see any of them as being racist. Why is that? Well, according to Marxist theory, blacks simply can't be racists. Only whites can be racist. That's because “whites have political and economic power”; whereas blacks do not. Thus, as I said, none of Abbott's statements were racist – according to both Abbott herself and Marxist theory.

And since only people with political and economic power can be racist, I wonder how this applies to Abbott herself. After all, Abbott went to Cambridge University, where she studied with the luvvie Simon Schama. After that, from 1986 to 1987, she worked as a Race Relations Officer and became Head of Press and Public Relations at Lambeth Council. She them became an MP. She's also served on various Parliamentary committees. And so on and so on.

Now that's a lot of political power. Nonetheless, I'd expect Abbott to claim that when it's said that “blacks have no power”, that's meant in the sense that blacks as a whole have no power. How convenient. Perhaps blacks can't be snobs (like Abbott herself), paedophiles, killers, etc. either. In other words, this prejudice-not-racism theory effectively infantalizes blacks.


If you think I'm being conspiratorial about this, simply type in the words “black people can only be prejudiced, never racist” (don't use inverted commas) into Google. And then read the pages and pages of Marxist/Leftist theory which tell us, in all seriousness, that no black person can ever be racist. Read it and laugh.

Monday, 28 November 2016

MP Louise Haigh Wants to Ban Britain First



The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, is being asked (by a Labour MP) to classify Britain First as a “terrorist organisation”; and, following that, to ban (or “proscribe”) it.

Labour’s Louise Haigh has suggested giving the House of Commons a chance to approve adding Britain First to the list of banned organisations.

This “proscription” will be - if made law - deeply undemocratic. It will make it a criminal offence for people to belong to Britain First. Not only that: it will be a criminal offence to even encourage the support of Britain First. The same goes for arranging meetings in support of the party. And to top all that: if you wear Britain First clothing, you'll be arrested and possibly imprisoned.

Now this is what Louise Haigh MP wants for Britain in 2016. Can you believe it?

As Louise Haigh herself put it:

... can we have a debate about whether Britain First should be proscribed as a terrorist organisation and banned from standing in democratic elections?”

Still, all is not lost; at least as far as Britain First is concerned. As the Leader of the House, David Lidington, put it (in a tacit defence of democracy):

There have been cases in the past where organisations have been so proscribed, have gone to the courts and successfully won a judicial review to say that the evidence on which that action had been taken was not sufficient.

So, I’ll make sure that your proposal is reported to the Home Secretary but there has to be clear evidence of terrorist involvement for the terrorist proscription to be applied.”

Before that, Lidington had also said:

I can’t offer a debate. As you probably know, the Home Office brings forward orders for the proscription of particular organisations but must do so on the basis of evidence.”

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

Can you the imagine the audacity and sheer stupidity of such a demand to ban a political group? It's both philosophically illiterate and politically extreme. Hasn't MP Haigh ever heard the phrase “correlation doesn't imply causation”?

As far as I know, the killer of Jo Cox (Thomas Mair) wasn't a leader or even a member of Britain First. He has neither been on a Britain First demonstration nor attended a meeting.

Yet simply because he shouted “Britain First” during the killing of Jo Cox, an opportunistic Corbynite MP is calling for the banning of a political group.

Needless to say, similar demands were once made about both the British National Party and the English Defence League. And some left-wingers have even said the same about Ukip!

Let's face facts here: all right-wing and/or patriotic groups (outside the Conservative Party) should be banned, according to many “progressives” – especially Corbynistas like Louise Haigh. Let's state another fact: the forbears of Louise Haigh once classified the Conservative Party as “fascist” and/or “racist” in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990. (Some still do; and the Tories should bear this in mind!)

Is an image of the Gulag beginning to form in your mind?

The killer of Jo Cox shouted “Britain First”. Louise Haigh is a member of a party that is (in parts) rampantly anti-Jewish. So much so that it has been officially investigated (by a Labour baroness!) to that effect. There's more: Haigh is supporter of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign; which has numerous links to Palestinian terrorists. (Take one example. The PSC funded the ship the MV Mavi Marmara (of the “Gaza flotilla”); which contained many well-documented terrorists and Islamists and a large stash of weapons. Some of these weapons would have been intended – at some point - to be used on Israeli citizens.)

Since we're on this theme. Does Haigh support Black Lives Matter?

Yes she does. There are links between Black Lives Matter and support for the killing of 28 policemen in the United States; as well as 11 cop-killings by BLM activists. Haigh's boss, Jeremy Corbyn, was himself very closely attached to - and supportive of - the IRA (as well as of Hamas, Hezbollah) from the 1980s up until the 1990s.

On a final technical note. when Thomas Mair shouted “Britain First!”, how do we know that he was referring to the political party? Perhaps he shouted “Britain first!”, rather than “Britain First!”. After all, Britain First itself chose that title because the words “Britain first” have often been uttered by all sorts of patriots and patriotic groups. And even by a few Conservative MPs!