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.)

Tuesday, 26 December 2017

Stop Funding 'Stop Funding Hate'!

Stop Funding Hate's Richard Wilson.

Stop Funding Hate (SFH) is a political group whose aim is to stop companies from advertising in various British newspapers. The newspapers SFH has in mind are the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Express. These newspapers have been read by hundreds of millions of people over a period of more than a hundred years. 
Stop Funding Hate claims that these newspapers use"fear and division to sell more papers".That fear and division is caused (according to SFH) when the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Express refer to the European Union, mass immigration, EU laws (which apply in the UK), Islamic extremism, Muslim grooming-gangs, immigrant criminality, Muslim ghettos, sharia law (in the UK), and so on.

The very odd thing about Stop Funding Hate is that it claims to be “non-partisan”. This claim shows either monumental philosophical naivety or straightforward political deceit.

In Stop Funding Hate's own words:

The Daily MailSun and Express are using hate to sell newspapers. And hate crime in Britain is rising. But there’s a simple way to stop this: persuade advertisers to pull their ads in the papers. Companies need to stop funding hate and we need to raise our voices to let them know. You help us do this by supporting the campaign today.”

When the Stop Funding Hate mentions the “hate” of these very-popular British newspapers it hardly ever analyses why, exactly, it is that the content of the relevant articles is false or even misleading. The bottom line, then, is that the very mentioning of, for example, immigrants, Muslim grooming-gangs or even Islamic terrorism (in any negative way whatsoever) must be hateful. In other words, SFH doesn't argue against the facts. It argues against the very stating of the facts. In parallel, SFH also argues against those political positions which are often backed up by those facts.

Thus it's not surprising that Naomi Fisht (who writes for Spiked) said that Stop Funding Hate's campaign is "entirely about censorship". She added (fairly logically) that if people have a political problem with any British newspaper, then they shouldn't buy it.

Presumably, if Stop Funding Hate's campaign were successful, then theDaily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Express would stop publishing (at least according to the Guardian). After all, it would be very difficult (or even impossible) for these newspapers to survive without advertisements; as the leftwing IndependentGuardian and Mirror also show.

Freedom of Choice?

Predictably, Stop Funding Hate has stated that it

"fully support freedom of choice & are not calling for any publication to be removed from sale".

That's the equivalent to stating the following:

Stop Funding Hate believes in the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech... but...

In any case, how could Stop Funding Hate literally bring it about that these “publications” be “removed from sale”? In would need a government led by someone like Jeremy Corbyn to achieve something like that.

Thus it's hardly surprising that the Daily Mail has responded by saying that SFH is

"a small group of hard left Corbynist individuals seeking to suppress legitimate debate and impose their views on the media".

Of course it's not the case that every supporter of Stop Funding Hate is a “Corbynist individual”. (That's probably also true of groups like Momentum and Hope Not Hate.) However, the founders, leaders and main activists in these groups will nearly all be militant leftwingers of various descriptions. It is these people - not the supporters - who'll call the shots and provide the ideological/political theories which sustain Stop Funding Hate's work and activities. (As is also the case with Momentum and Hope Not Hate.)

Stop Funding Hate's History

Stop Funding Hate was set up in August 2016 by Richard Wilson. Before that, Wilson was a Corporate Fundraising Officer at Amnesty International.

Stop Funding Hate began as a political reaction to the in-out European Union campaign. In other words, that referendum set the whole SFH show off. More specifically, SFH reacted strongly to the Daily Mail's coverage of the high court's ruling (in November 2016) on Brexit. It used that ruling as a reason to harass those advertisers who advertised in the Daily Mail. (It used the hashtag “#StopFundingHate” to do so.)

To put it simply, Stop Funding Hate believes that Brexit itself is “hateful”. Of course, since Richard Wilson is corporate man, he (or SFH) would never put it that honestly or clearly.

It's also odd that Stop Funding Hate claims to be non-partisan when it has an explicitly political take on Brexit. Then again, Richard Wilson was a vocal Remainer before he created SFH. Indeed (as stated) he set up Stop Funding Hate precisely because of the Brexit campaign.

So who funds Stop Funding Hate? The organisation itself claims to raise its money through crowdfunding. Indeed, in February 2017, it managed to raise £102,721 through such a method. However, it's almost certainly the case that SFH will receive funding from sources which aren't directly related to crowdfunding.

So what or who are those alternative sources of funding for Stop Funding Hate?

Do rival newspapers fund SFH; such as the Guardian, the Mirror and the Independent? What about Soros-funded political groups or individuals? What about the Labour Party, pro-EU groups or Muslim states/individuals? (That funding may not – or won't - be explicit or direct, of course.)

Stop Funding Hate's Advertising Targets

One thing that's worth mentioning here is that it's not the case that Stop Funding Hate only has it in for the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Express: it also has it in for the companies which advertise in these newspapers.

At first those companies included Asda, Aldi, Barclays, Co-op UK, Gillette, Iceland, John Lewis, Marks & Spencer, Morrisons, Lego, British Airways, Virgin Media and Waitrose.

A little later, Stop Funding Hated started to harass BT Mobile, Sky Mobile, Virgin Mobile UK, EE Limited, O2 and Tesco Mobile. This militant group used the corporate soundbite "Start Spreading Love" in its campaign against these companies.

In terms of detail, Virgin Media was the first company which Stop Funding Hate targeted. Why did it choose Virgin Media? It did so because SFH believed that it had spotted a political/ideological fellow traveller. Indeed SFH said the values of Virgin Media are "totally at odds with the Sun’s track record of misleading reporting".

After that, Stop Funding Hate released an advert (in the style of John Lewis's Christmas adverts) which called on the John Lewis department store to stop advertising in certain British newspapers.

Some of Stop Funding Hate's campaigns have been successful.

In September 2016, for example, Specsavers withdrew an advert from theDaily Express after Stop Funding Hate complained that it was funding "fear and division".

The ex-footballer and millionaire, Gary Lineker, also supports Stop Funding Hate. So much so that he spoke to crisp manufacturer Walkers about its advertisements in the Sun.

In November 2016, Lego, too, said that that it wouldn't advertise in the Daily Mail any more. In fact it stated that it wasn't "planning any future promotional activity with the newspaper". This made Lego the first company to end its advertising because of Stop Funding Hate's political activism.

Then the internet service provider Plusnet withdrew adverts from the Sun. Following that, in response to SFH's political activism, the Body Shop announced they had no future plans to advertise in the Daily Mail. Then in November 2017, Paperchase also stated that it would stop advertising in the Daily Mail. It also said that it “Won't ever do it again”!

Stop Funding Hate also targeted The Co-operative Group. This led to its chief executive, Richard Pennycook, saying (in 2016) that the the group would be "looking at our advertising for next year”.

However, in a 2017 update, the President of the National Members’ Council, Nick Crofts, stated:

"Many people buy these papers at the Co-op and some of them will be our members. Advertising in these papers also drives sales which are important to our businesses.”

Stop Funding Hate Spreads the Net

Stop Funding Hate never explicitly states that it wants the Daily Mail,Daily Express and the Sun to shut down - for good! (Though it might have done so in its early days.) Instead it states this implicitly. After all, to explicitly state that you want newspapers (which have been read by tens of millions of people for over ten decades) to stop publishing is to demand too much. Such political honesty would quite simply backfire.

This means that Stop Funding Hate claims that its campaign is all about stopping advertisers advertising in these newspapers; as well as about “the rights of consumers” to express their political views. (Though only when those political views harmonise with those of SFH.)

This is Naomi Firsht's (of Spiked) take on Stop Funding Hate's ostensible position:

Stop Funding Hate justifies its censorious activism by claiming it is simply encouraging people to exercise their rights as consumers... As a consumer, you can choose not to buy certain newspapers or shop in certain stores. But putting pressure on advertisers to withdraw money from newspapers due to their editorial line is something different. This is a barely veiled attempt to shut down newspapers some people disagree with...”

It's interesting, then, that Stop Funding Hate supporters have now focussed their venom on Spiked too. You see, these people are against the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Express because of their racism, conservatism, sexism, etc. And now they're are against Spiked because of its “libertarianism”; as well as its “links” to the “Alt Right”.

You see, the net of Stop Funding Hate is being spread much wider than many people may imagine. For example, let's say that the Daily Mail, theSun and the Daily Express were silenced as a result of SFH's actions. Do you really believe that the SFH campaign would suddenly stop - then and there? Of course it wouldn't! SFH would then immediately get to work on the Spectator, the Telegraph and other right-wing outlets. This may of course be done under another name. However, it'll still be done by the very same leftwing political activists.

As it is, Stop Funding Hate doesn't also need to concentrate on right-wing parties, groups and individuals. That's because other leftwing groups are doing that job. (For example, the similarly named Hope Not Hate.)

So what we have here are legions of unelected Leftists attempting to silence literally every right-wing newspaper, group and individual. Yes, so much for that shopworn and phony separation of what's now often called “democratic socialism” from Stalinism. 

Tuesday, 19 December 2017

British Fantasy Novelists for the European Union

In their attempts to reverse the democratic decision that is Brexit, the imaginations of many Remainers have become quite feverish. Yes, Remainers have resorted to fiction/fantasy about “Brexit lies”, the false consciousness of Brexiteers, and all the monumentally disastrous things which will happen once we leave the European Union...

Basically, some of the claims of Remainers are so outlandish that it's worth discussing some of the reasons why that may be the case.

English Remainers are overwhelmingly leftwing or Lib-Dem. They're also mainly based in London, the Home Counties and British universities. (Students and professors are generously funded by the EU.) This isn't the same as saying that “the North voted for Brexit” (as it's been put) because, according to some accounts, slightly more southerners voted this way. However, that doesn't stop it from being the case that Remainers are mainly from London and the Home Counties; as well as being disproportionately made up of recent immigrants (again, who're mainly based in London).

On the whole, these Remainers don't see the dark sides of the EU. And even when they do, they're quite happy with what they see.

This means that it's not surprising that most writers and artists are Remainers too.

Particularly, it's clear that it's those infamous Brexit lies which have strongly inspired various novelists and writers. In other words, many of them decided to advance the Remain cause through their fiction or fantasy.

So let's see what various authors and novelists have had to say on the subject.

Novelists for the EU

An early “post-Brexit” novel was Michael Paraskos's Rabbitman; which was published in March 2017. This book ties together the election of “a right-wing populist” American president with Brexit. The new American president also happens to be a rabbit (which is, I suppose, hilarious). Both his victory and Brexit were the results of “Faustian pacts” with the Devil.

This book also chimes in with Remainer end-times' prophesy because not longer after the UK leaves the EU, society collapses and - wait for it! - the British people then become dependent on EU food aid! (Really? Germany, for example, depends on us: in 2016 it sold about £26 billion more to us than we sold to it.) I'm surprised that Michael Paraskos didn't also paint a picture of the UK becoming a Nazi state led by a white-supremacist serial killer who was formerly a member of Brits for Trump. However, the EU food aid is almost as good a touch.

In the introduction I mentioned Brexit lies.

This takes us neatly on to Amanda Craig's novelThe Lie of the Land; published in June 2017. (Yes, note the title of this book.) In The Lie of the Land we find ourselves in 2026. At this future date, a posh couple from Jeremy Corbyn's Islington is forced to move (because of “austerity”) from London to Devon (which, the Guardian tells us, is full of “casual racists”). The author sees Devon (which is“poorer than Romania”) as a pro-Brexit heartland. Not surprisingly, Amanda Craig gives a more or less Marxist/Corbynite account of Brexit in which it was the case that “the disparities in society that led to June’s result”. (I don't know, perhaps, being superior and so utterly non-provincial, this fictional Islington couple could no longer afford three foreign holidays a year and the fees for their kids' private school – such austerity!)

Now what about Douglas Board's Time of Lies; published, again, in June 2017?

This is perhaps the most over-the-top of the lot. In 2020, Douglas Board has it that a retired football hooligan wins the election! (He wins it in a “populist power grab”.) Not surprisingly, there then follows an almighty clash with the “pro-European Union metropolitan political elite”. I suppose that all the peaceful and extremely tolerant Remainers were put in concentration camps too; in which they were forced to read Mein Kampf and the Daily Mail.

One piece of fiction which occurred after the Brexit result was that “hate crimes” immediately increased. On close inspection, this was shown to be, at worst, false; or, at best, extremely speculative. That didn't stop politicians, anti-racists and Remainers going on about this ostensible “spike” in hate crimes. (See this account of these hate crimes.)

The novelist Mark Billingham might have picked up on all this Brexit hate when he wrote his book Love Like Blood (published, yet again, in June 2017).

Love Like Blood charts Brexit and the subsequent rise in “xenophobic hate crime”. (The Guardian talks about “Little Englanders” in relation to this book.) What I never understood about this supposed spike in hate crimes is that if Brexit was seen as a positive result when it came to the amount of immigrants coming into the UK from oversees, then why would that cause an increase in racist crimes? Surely if the result had been negative (i.e., in favour of remaining in the EU), then that would have caused rage and then an increase in racist crimes. If British racists found out that there would be less immigrants coming into the UK in the future, then why the increase in hate crimes?

However, forget the crimes of those racist Brits (basically, all non-leftwing whites): what about conspiracies about a government quango? 

In David Boyle's The Remains of the Way (yes, published in June 2017), Brexit was brought about not by the votes of 51.89% of British voters; but by an old government quango which, miraculously, still worked within Whitehall. It gets worse. This quango was set up by Thomas Cromwell under King Henry VIII. What did this quango want? It wanted a“Protestant Brexit”. In addition, after Brexit the UK suffers famines and general destitution. However, I'm not sure if the EU then supplied the UK with “food aid”, as with Michael Paraskos's Rabbitman.

On a very similar theme, we also have Stanley Johnson's Kompromat.

According to this work of fiction (replicated by some Remainers), Brexit was the responsibility of “Russian influence” on the referendum. (But what about that Protestant quango?). However, thank God that Stanley Johnson believes that his book is “just meant to be fun”!


Friday, 8 December 2017

Remainers: their “Brexit lies” & “fake news”

One thing that can be said is that some - or even many - Remainers have been lying about what they call “Brexit lies”: those lies which are said to have occurred during and since the referendum. They've also massively over-exaggerated both the political significance and psychological power of those supposed lies.

Basically, in order for such large masses of people – over 17 million - to have succumbed to lies during the Brexit campaign (as well as after), they must have suffered from “false consciousness”. Yes, Remainers have resurrected that ancient leftwing concept. There are, of course, variations on this theme. Such as arguing that Brexiteers have been “brainwashed by the mainstream media”. Or that the Daily Mail or Sun “told them what to think” about the EU and our relationship with it.

Clearly the arrogance of these leftwing and Lib-Dem metropolitans knows no bounds. The snobbery is also blatant and obvious. It's only the self-image of Remainers which has it that they can't possibly be snobs. After all, don't snobs have a problem with blacks, ethnic minorities and the poor? No, contemporary Remainers and leftwing snobs have a problem with white working-class right-wingers (some of whom are poor) and Brexiteers instead. Many of these snobs also wear Che Guevara t-shirts, go to “gigs” and smoke cannabis – so how on earth could they possibly be snobs? I mean, the very thought!

This reminds of the public-school girl, Laurie Penny. This particular leftwing snob, Corbynite and Remainer is the daughter of a lawyer. He sent Laurie to a private school after which she ended up at - rather predictably - Oxford University. Since then she's spent most of her life in – yes, you guessed it – London.

When an audience on the BBC's Question Time reacted in shock and outrage to her elitist and arrogant snobbery about Brexiteer racism (which she hinted at, rather than explicitly stated), she then rather fatuously and pathetically said that she didn't also think that Brexiteers were “stupid”.

More fully, she said:

“I don't believe that people who voted for Brexit are stupid. I think, unfortunately, that people may have been lied to and manipulated.”

So how can over 17 million people who're so easily lied to – as well as “manipulated” - not be... well, “stupid”? Laurie Penny's comment is as close to containing a self-contradiction as it's possible to be.

Now if Laurie Penny's isn't a smug, metropolitan snob, then why wasn't she also the victim of all those Brexit lies and manipulations? If those lies were so powerful, then why were Remainers like her immune to them? Is it Remainers like her are intellectually, morally and politically superior to Brexiteers? What else can explain this Remainers' lack of susceptibility to such terrible Brexit lies?

The EU-NHS Lie?

The mass meme about Brexit lies has been utterly essential to the Remain campaign. It's mentioned in virtually every comment which Remainers make.

So let's be specific about the lies we hear so much about.

In the vast majority of cases, it's a reference to that infamous “Vote Leave” billboard/poster and bus advert. The advert on the bus was this:

"We send the EU £350 million every week. Let's fund our NHS instead."

The billboard advert was this:

“Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week.”

The thing is, according to many, that figure wasn't a lie at all. And according to others, it was simply unclear.

The UK Statistics Authority watchdog, for example, said that it was “misleading”. That's because the figure wasn't false in itself. Instead its citation solely relied on the UK’s £19 billion gross annual contribution to the EU. The figure failed to take into account the UK's rebate and other monies which come back from the EU.

Thus, even if it were taken as true that the UK sends £350 million to the EU every week, and at the very same time the UK receives back £100,000,000,000 every week, then that still doesn't make this claim a lie. Yes, it's still the case that we send the EU £350 to the EU every week! See? It's complicated.

As ever with economics and statistics, the truth is complex. Indeed almost every article on this “lie” fixates on different aspects of the figures and facts. None of these articles conclusively – or even convincingly – demonstrate than the claim was a brazen or willful lie.

Despite all that, according to some accounts, the figure was actually an underestimation! That is, it's been argued that we actually send (or sent at that time) more than £350 million to the EU every week!

Thus saying that this figure was a “lie” is to take a simplistic position on a complex matter. One thing, however, that can be conceded is that the billboard promise to directly link EU payments to NHS funding was probably a mistake. However, the bus advert is a different matter entirely because it didn't promise that our EU payments would go directly to the NHS.

In any case, the idea that 17,410,752 voted for Brexit on the sole basis of a single statistic (or promise) is monumentally patronising and obviously false. But what do you expect from those metropolitan Remainers who have a severely condescending view of Brexiteers?


Sunday, 3 December 2017

Theresa May and the Left Declare War on Trump's Tweets

As many Americans will know, the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, said that Donald Trump was “wrong” to re-tweet the videos which had previously been tweeted by the political group, Britain First. Indeed Britain's ambassador to Washington, Sir Kim Darrochsaid he has raised the Government's concerns with the White House.

PM May said that Britain First is a “hateful organisation”. Nonetheless, she didn't have anything to say about the content of the videos themselves. After all:

Britain First didn't stage the videos.
It didn't get that Muslim to smash a statue of the Virgin Mary.
It didn't force that Muslim man to attack a boy on crutches.
And it didn't force those Muslims to throw a boy off a rooftop.

And much has also been made of Britain First tweeting a video from 2013 (not, I presume, from 2017). So here's a video of Islamic terror (in London) from 2017! (Is the implication here that there hasn't been any Islamic terror since 2013? Really!?)

Britain First simply tweeted these videos for reasons which are obvious: it wants people to know what's going on in the Muslim world and in Europe too.

The British tabloid Metro, however, said:

Trump re-tweeted her fake news and racist tweets.”

Now every syllable of that mindless (though ideologically-correct) comment is false. (That doesn't matter: it's political and moral grandstanding that matters to Metro and to many others.)

Firstly, how, exactly, were the tweets racist?

Secondly, why were the tweets fake?

The Dutch attacker was a Muslim who's parents are Muslim immigrants. The only statement which was false was that he's an “immigrant”. Now is that really such a monumental mistake, Metro? In addition:

Is the statue-smashing video fake? No.
Is the video of Muslims throwing a boy off a rooftop fake? No.
Is the video of a Muslim attacking a boy on crutches fake? No.

No surprisingly, Trump wasn't happy that Prime Minister May has profoundly missed the point. He tweeted:

Theresa May, don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine!”

Now that's spot on! Theresa May has clearly ignored the content of the videos. That is, she's ignored the “destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism” and focussed entirely on Britain First.

Now if the British Government were honest about the massive violence in the Muslim world (as well as the violence from Muslims in Europe and the UK), then Trump wouldn't have needed to rely on Britain First for these videos. Besides which, there's a very good chance that Trump didn't even know who Britain First is. Many in the UK don't really know much about Britain First. I also suspect that Theresa May doesn't either. (My guess is that she'll have been fed information on Britain First and these videos mainly by groups like Hope Not Hate – see its piece on this - and various Muslim organisations.)

Thankfully, Theresa May hasn't succumbed to the cynical opportunism of leftwing groups in that she hasn't decided to cancel Trump's state visit to the UK. And since authoritarian leftwingers wanted Trump banned from the UK before this video bonanza, then it's not a surprise that they now want him banned after it too. These people want to ban Trump for the same reason they managed to get Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders banned from British shores. (See American Thinker's 'Geller and Spencer Banned from the UK'.)

The White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, also knows that this isn't really about Britain First. It's about the content of the videos. In full, she said:

I think what he’s done is elevate the conversation to talk about a real issue and a real threat and that’s extreme violence and extreme terrorism, something that we know to be very real and something the president feels strongly about talking about and bringing up and making sure is an issue every single day.”

However, it's not all about Islamic terrorism either. It's also about Islamic sharia law, ghettos, gang violence, grooming-gangs, etc. in Europe and the UK.

Prime Minister May also seems to believe that we have a big problem with “far-right terrorism” as well. She said:

We must all take seriously the threat that far-right groups pose both in terms of the terrorist threat that is posed by those groups and the necessity of dealing with extremist material which is far-right as well.

... In the United Kingdom we take the far-right very seriously and that’s why we ensure we deal with these threats and this extremism wherever it comes and whatever its source.”

That's very odd! There has been no “far-right terror attack” in the UK. The MP Jo Cox (more of which later) was killed by a man who shouted “Britain first” - not“Britain First”. (In full he said: “This is for Britain”; “keep Britain independent”; and “Britain first”.) This phrase “Britain first” dates back to the 1960s and that's why the group Britain First chose it. There's also one single photo of the killer holding a British First banner; though he wasn't a member and there's no other evidence connecting him to the group.

In terms of Europe, we had Anders Breivik's massacre in 2011.

However, according to Europol, Islamist terror attacks in the European Union increased from four in 2014 to seventeen in 2015. And the number of people killed increased from four to one hundred and fifty. In 2016, 135 people were killed in ten Islamic attacks in the European Union.

France alone suffered eight attacks between 2014 and 2016.These attacks included the January 2015 Île-de-France attacks, the November 2015 Paris attacks, and the July 2016 Nice truck attack.

As for the United Kingdom, it saw three major attacks in four months in early 2017: the Westminster attack, the May 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, and the June 2017 London Bridge attack.

There have been other Islamic attacks in Europe; including ones in Belgium, Germany and Spain.

So what about right-wing terror in the UK in recent years? There's been one murder (as already mentioned). In addition, a few young men who made bombs in their bedrooms have been imprisoned.

That murder of the MP Joe Cox occurred in 2016. She was murdered by Thomas Mair. He was was motivated by his political views and was said to had “links” to several organisations in the UK, US, and South Africa.

Consequently, it's somewhat bizarre that Prime Minister May has done two things:

i) Criticise Trump for tweeting the truth about Islam in Europe and the Muslim world.
ii) Made a big deal about almost non-existent “far-right terrorism”.