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, 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."

Sunday, 4 December 2016

Black Santa: Good Santa

An American mall has hired a Martian Santa Clause!

No, that's not true.

In fact, the Mall of America, in Minnesota, has hired its first black Santa in 24 years. And, judging by the headlines I've seen, you'd think they'd hired a Martian.

Take the UK's Metro newspaper. It proclaimed:

That’s because this year, the Mall of America has hired its first black Santa in 24 years of trading. And we are pretty darn excited about it.”

So what? Perhaps this mall has never done so before for a whole host of reasons. Perhaps no black person has ever applied to be a Santa. Perhaps the percentage of blacks in this city of Minnesota is relatively small. (In fact, African Americans make up 5.4% of Minnesota; so this has to be factored in.)

This reminds me of the endless fuss made about the supposedly low proportion of Muslims/Asians and blacks in the British Parliament.

In 2015 there were 650 Members of Parliament. 41 of them were black and “Asian”. That's 15%. Yet, roughly, blacks and Asians make up only 9% of the British population. That means that blacks and Asians are simply not discriminated against in Parliament. Indeed, according to these figures, blacks and Asians are over-represented in Parliament!

The thing is that if so many people think it's such a big deal to have a black Santa, then this could be a case of positive discrimination – and that's not a good thing. Positive discrimination is, quite simply, racist. It's racist in both the positive and in the negative sense.

The articles I've seen on this black Santa only hint at racism, rather than state it. We're meant, in other words, to assume racism; even though there's no evidence to support such an accusation.

Larry Jefferson was hired over 1,000 other candidates. Were the other 999 job-seekers all white? Probably not. Let's just hope Jefferson's a good Santa; not just a black Santa.

Nonetheless, Jefferson said:

There needs to be more Santas of color, because this is America, and kids need to see a Santa that looks like them. That helps kids to identify with the love and spirit of the holiday, you know?”

Yet child psychologists have been telling us for years that young children don't think in terms of another person's skin colour. They say that they're, in fact, “colour blind” until they get “socialised” into being racist. So how does that factor in to these comments?

Despite saying stuff about “people of color”, Jefferson did sum up the fuss when he said: “But gosh, I’m just Santa!” He also said that people were making “a big deal about this because I’m a black Santa”.

Jefferson can't understand the fuss. In fact he said it's “hilarious to me”.