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.)

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 Fran├žois 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 Fran├žois 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.