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, 22 December 2016

Nigel Farage, Hope Not Hate, and Leftist Lawfare

Nigel Farage has said that that the German chancellor (Angela Merkel) was partly responsible for the attack on a Berlin Christmas market. This was an attack which claimed the lives of 12 Germans.

On Twitter, Farage wrote: "Terrible news from Berlin but no surprise. Events like these will be the Merkel legacy."

Some news outlets have said that this was also a reference to the murder of Jo Cox. It's hard to work out if that was also Brendan Cox's (Jo Cox's husband) position. Nonetheless, Cox quickly responded: "Blaming politicians for the actions of extremists? That's a slippery slope Nigel."

Then Farage replied:

"Well of course he would know more about extremists than me, Mr Cox; he backs organisations like Hope Not Hate, who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful but actually pursue violent and very undemocratic means.

"And I'm sorry Mr Cox, it is time people started to take responsibility for what's happened. Mrs Merkel had directly caused a whole number of social and terrorist problems in Germany, it's about time we confronted that truth."

(Hope Not Hate is one of the three charities supported by a foundation set up in the name of Brendan Cox's late wife.)

One thing we need to note here is that Brendan Cox responded to a tweet by Nigel Farage, not the other way around. Wasn't Farage meant to reply to Cox at all? It seems that way. Despite that, Merkel does have a lot of responsibility for what happened in Germany.

Nigel Farage has been contacted by Hope Not Hate lawyers in response to his comments on LBC Radio.

Predictably, the extremist Hope Not Hate (which hates all patriots and everyone to the right of Jeremy Corbyn) itself replied:

"Nigel Farage's allegations against HOPE Not Hate on LBC today are a political smear, which is why our lawyers have written to Mr Farage demanding that he retracts and publicly apologises for his remarks, or face further legal action."

To move back to the situation in Germany, Mrs Merkel has said it would be "particularly sickening" if the Christmas market attacker is an asylum seeker. And, in a tweet, Marcus Pretzell MEP described those who had been killed as "Merkel's dead". (Does this mean that Pretzell will also be the victim of Leftist lawyers in their fight against the peoples of European?)


Nick Lowles and Leftist Lawfare

Hope Not Hate's Nick Lowles is a communist; though, for publicity reasons, I would guess that his preferred term nowadays would be 'socialist'. Of course it's hard to establish Nick Lowles's views in terms of documentary evidence because the Guardian, theIndependent and even right-wing newspapers have rarely interviewed or even discussed him; let alone asked him what his political views are on issues not directly related to “fighting racism and fascism”.

And just as Lowles frequently attempts to besmirch people by associating them – however tangentially – with Nazifascistbigots, so we should do the same with Nick Lowles himself. For example, he can be linked to the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Communist Party of Britain and various extremely violent “anti-fash” groups in the 1980s and 1990s. (Matthew Collins, Lowles's second-in-command, began life as a black/Nazi fascist: now he's a red fascist.)

Hope Not Hate's threat against Nigel Farage is yet another example of Leftist lawfare. Put this is the context of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders being banned from the UK. Think of the state's persecution of Tommy Robinson. And then think of Louise Haigh's attempts to ban Britain First.

What else would Hope Not Hate ban or take to court if it had the political power to do so? After all, the banning of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from the UK was a direct response to Hope Not Hate activism. (Here is Hope Not Hate itself claiming victory!)

Thus, by Hope Not Hate's own reasoning, its own exhibitions, demos or activities should also be banned. Indeed since Hope Not Hate has called for the banning of political parties, groups and individuals (as well being the main force behind the omnipresent “no platform” policy), it can be said that Hope Not Hate itself should be banned because of its communist and totalitarian inclinations.


Some More Examples of Leftist Lawfare

*) Tommy Robinson (former leader of the EDL) was stopped from speaking at the Oxford Union on two occasions. He was systematically and endlessly persecuted by the police and legal system.

*) UKip members have been denied the right to work in certain places of employment and one Ukip couple had their foster children removed because of their political allegiances. In addition, the University of East Anglia “cancelled” (or banned) an appearance of a UKip candidate.

*) The criticism of Islam is severely curtailed on Facebook and, less so, on Twitter (probably because of its capsule form): numerous Facebook pages which were critical of Islam have been closed down.

*) Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders have been denied entry into the UK.

*) Paul Weston (the leader of Liberty GB) was arrested for quoting the words of Winston Churchill.

*) Leftist and Muslim groups (as well as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation at the United Nations) have called for the banning of what they call “hate blogs” and “hate sites”(i.e. those which are critical of Islam).

*) The Guardian newspaper and Leftists groups have called for the monitoring of “far-right” groups (though not for the monitoring of Islamic and Leftist groups); as well as the banning of demos and even the banning of political movements and organisations.

*) Tim Burton (Liberty GB) was taken to court by Tell Mama's Fiyaz Mughal. Mr Mughal lost the case. Then Tim Burton was taken to court again, by the very same person.

Click Titles to Access Articles:

'Hope Not Hate and the Coming English Civil War'

Tuesday, 20 December 2016

No Pop Stars for Donald Trump

The Wrap, a U.S. news website, tells us that Donald Trump's inaugural committee is having problems finding stars who're willing to play at his inauguration ceremony (on 20 January 2017). The Wrap says that the committee is “calling managers, agents, everyone in town to see who they can get and it's been problematic”.

Apparently, BeyoncĂ© and Aretha Franklin serenaded Barack Obama (back in 2008) in a show of racial solidity. And later Obama had “audiences” with other black stars, such as Rihanna and Kendrick Lamar.

Despite all this, Ted Nugent, Kid Rock and Billy Ray Cyrus do support Trump's presidency, which isn't to say that they'll play at his inauguration. And then there'll be many other musicians who're too timid to break away from the pop flock and admit that they support Trump. That would be soooo unhip.

It's also been well-publicised that Kanye West has said that he'd have voted for Trump had he bothered to get out of bed to vote. Kanye West also met Trump a couple of days ago. At that “meeting” the inauguration wasn't discussed. Mr Trump did say, however, that they were "just friends".


I can't prove that most pop stars are often more dumb than wise. But take Grammy-award winner, John Legend (another black “guest” of Obama's). What did he have to say about Trump failing to attract any pop stars? He said he's “not surprised”. And then he came out with this little bit of political effluvia:

"Creative people tend to reject bigotry and hate. We tend to be more liberal-minded. When we see somebody that's preaching division and hate and bigotry, it's unlikely he'll get a lot of creative people that want to be associated with him."

What's more, John Legend thinks that Trump is "a fantasist unmoored from reality". Is that unlike ultra-rich musical narcissists like, say, John Legend and legions of his ilk?

So who cares about the fact that pop stars don't want to play for Trump? Most of them are pretty shallow hedonistic creatures anyway. They usually know next-to-nothing about politics and a heck of a lot about being politically hip and fashionable. Of course they won't play for Trump! For one, he's a businessman. For two, he's old and white. How unhip can you get? (That's despite the fact that some of the best businessmen are pop stars; though they pretend otherwise.)

As for Obama's previous success in this department. I detest Beyoncé' endless melismatic outpourings. I'm sick and tired of super-tough gangstas and the glorification of violence in rap and hip-hop. I'm bored - and sometimes sick - of the soft porn, sexism and misogyny of R 'n' B videos and stage shows.

So I'd suggest to Trump that this is a blessing. After all, does it follow that if you can play four chords or sing a tune that what you say about politics will also be illuminating? The Will Smiths, Bob Geldofs, Bonos, Springsteens, etc. of this world should keep their mouths shut – except when singing. They're rich and famous for their music, not for their political wisdom.