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, 7 July 2017

Another anti-UK threat from an EU big knob


Michel Bernard Barnier

It's strange really: the EU political machine was supposed to have loved the UK before Brexit (just over a year ago). Now it seems to hate it. Yet the UK is still the same country. Strange.

The latest threat from an EU big knob comes from Michel Bernard Barnier. He's the European Commission’s Chief Negotiator. He warned us that it'll be impossible for the UK to have “frictionless” trade with the EU. Of course this threat was put in a roundabout way – though it wasn't that roundabout. Barnier said that the UK won't be able to continue to enjoy the benefits of the single market.

It was only just over a week ago that EU Commissioner G√ľnther Hermann Oettinger moaned:

The Brexit gap will be financed by a mix of cuts, shifting expenditure, saving, and some new sources of money.”

The threat here is that the EU may force the UK to pay a 100 billion euro fee for daring to leave it.

In other words, the UK will be punished for Brexit. And like Oettinger, Barnier tacitly admits that the EU will loose too. It will be, in his own words, a “loser-loser situation”. However, there's much evidence to suggest that the EU will suffer far more than thus UK.

The fact is that these EU threats and the EU itself were never about “mutual trade”. They were about EU control over that mutual trade. As Mr Barnier said:

I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and keep all of its benefits and that one can leave the single market and build a customs union to achieve frictionless trade. That is not possible.”

To all that, a British government spokesman replied:

Obviously we are just at the beginning of the negotiations but I would say that the most frictionless possible trade between the UK and the EU is clearly in the interests of both sides.”

Yet if the EU isn't really about trade alone, then these EU big knobs won't really want deals which are of benefit to both the UK and the EU. They'll want to keep control of the UK or to punish us.

The political institution that is the EU wants political power over European economies. That's why the EU isn't happy with Theresa May saying that Britain is still planning to trade - and do business with - Europe. As I said, it was never all about trade and business. The EU is about politics and the political control of European trade and business.

Chief Negotiator Michel Bernard Barnier has of course focused on the fact that there'll be problems when the UK leaves the EU. Of course there'll be problems! There'll be problems with remaining in the EU too. Barnier cites the examples of additional red tape for UK exporters; as well as new border checks for the export of live animals. In addition, he mentioned the problems that Airbus (in north Wales) could face in moving parts and staff between its European sites.

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

Liam Fox (the International Trade Secretary) has just said that the BBC would rather see “Britain fail than [see] Brexit succeed”. Yet this can be said of the EU itself: The EU would rather see Britain fail than Brexit succeed. And just as communists and Trotskyists always wanted capitalist countries to fail in order to bring about the conditions required to bring about a revolution (“the worse it is, the better it is”), so the BBC and the EU want Brexit to fail in order to bring about a stronger case case for another referendum. The BBC and Remainers are as much against Brexit as communists/Trotskyists are against Britain itself.

The BBC is like Barnier and other EU commissars, at least according to Liam Fox. He claims that the BBC is out to ruin Brexit and even ruin Britain in the process. Fox said that he couldn't

recall a single time recently when I have seen good economic news the BBC didn’t describe as 'despite Brexit'”.

Despite Jeremy Corbyn's sometimes hidden and sometimes unhidden Eurosceptism, Labour MP Barry Sheerman said that Dr Fox was “living in cloud cuckoo land” over Brexit and the EU. He also said that Liam Fox carried out a “silly attack on the BBC” which can't “be used as an excuse for policy”. That's very strange! During Jeremy Corbyn's election campaign there were numerous “silly attacks o the BBC” from Labour MPs and Corbyn supporters about the supposedly “negative coverage” of Corbyn and his campaign. Was all that “an excuse for policy” too?

Thursday, 6 July 2017

I Don't Care About Student Debt!




It's just been announced that “three-quarters of graduates will never pay off their student loans while most will still be paying theirs into their 50s”, according to a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).

Yes, that's right! Three-quarters of students will probably not pay off their tuition fees. Should we feel sorry for the students who probably won't pay off their debts? If they were being forced to pay back their fees no matter what, then things would be very different. But they're not!

Indeed Chris Belfield - who worked on the report by the IFS - more or less admitted that there's too much of a big deal being made about student loans and their payment. He first tells us that “the average debt on graduation by £5,800”. He then admits that “[t]here is no impact on the repayments of the lowest earners”.

(Incidentally, the IFS's main focus of research is education and it is itself funded by the state/tax-payers.)

It's also the case that “university funding has increased by about 25% per student since 2011”. But that won't be enough for both the middle-class Left and for middle-class students. Nothing is ever enough. As the student Left itself put it during the 1968 student demonstrations in Paris: “Be realistic, demand the impossible!” (Soyez r√©alistes, demandez l’impossible.) 

It's students who choose to enter further education. And even if some students are paying off loans into their fifties, the amount they pay will be dependent on what they earn. If they are binmen at the age of fifty, then they'll pay off... nothing. Zero. If they're earning the average wage or even slightly above that, then they'll still be paying next-to-nothing. Though if they're earning a lot, then they should be paying back a lot.

So, again, why should we feel sorry for students and their rhetorical “debt crisis”? They chose to study. And most – not all - students chose to study in order to find a job which will pay them more than than those jobs open to people who haven't been to university.

This is the case even with poorer students. Presumably, they don't enter further education in order to remain poor. And when they catch themselves good jobs, then they'll need to pay back their loans. Simple as that.

The situation is different for those poorer kids who want to enter further education in the first place. And it's best if all people get the chance to further their education.

However, what we mainly have here isn't the problem of poorer kids entering further education. What we have is a bunch of middle-class kids crying about the fact that they'll have some of their dosh taken away from them (as fee repayments) after they graduate. And since they can conveniently rationalise their greed with Leftist politics, we have a fatal cocktail. Thus it's mainly about middle-class kids crying about not earning as much money as they'd like to earn. Though of course they dress up their greed with the politics of Tory evil towards students and education generally.

The class nature of the middle-class Left's crocodile tears about student greed is shown in this quote from the IFS study:

“There is a risk that better-off parents will pay fees up front, especially if they think their offspring will be high earners. This would increase the cost to government in the long run.”

So “better-off parents” may pay fees up front. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with that (it seems) is that better-off students want to be better-off both as students and as professionals. What's wrong with that is that the better-off parents want to remain better-off and not pay any fees for their kids.

It's of course the case that the middle-class socialist Jeremy Corbyn has pledged to scrap tuition fees. Then again, Corbyn has promised jam sandwiches for all tomorrow; as well as an infinitely-funded National Health Service. In addition, middle-class students (who want to earn as much as possible when they graduate) are a very important part - both in terms of votes and activism - of today's Labour Party machine now that it's led by a “rad socialist” - i.e., Jeremy Bernard Corbyn.

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

Sure, there may well be an idealised position on education in which money shouldn't really matter. However, most students don't fulfill that ideal or go to university because of it. Most students, again, go to university to gain the qualifications required to the get jobs which will earn them considerably more money than they'd otherwise earn.

Jeremy Corbyn vs. the British Army


Corbyn is not a pacifist.


The leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, has yet again focused on the claims that SAS forces killed Afghan civilians. There are also claims that these soldiers attempted to cover-up the evidence against them. Corbyn believes that these accusations should be investigated by an independent inquiry.

Quotes have appeared - from military police and defence sources - which show that there is “strong evidence” that SAS military personnel killed captured civilians suspected of being Taliban insurgents.

These claimed emerged in Operation Northmoor, which was a Royal Military Police investigation. Despite all that, the Ministry of Defence has said that the RMP found no evidence of criminal behaviour.

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

There's no doubt about it. Soldiers who abuse their position or break the rules should be disciplined. That's certainly the case if they kill civilians. Nonetheless, it all depends on whether or not such people are indeed civilians. And even if they are civilians, it also depends on whether or not they're collaborating with the enemy. Still, even if they are collaborating, that, in itself, doesn't mean that it's lawful to kill them. It all depends on very many variables.

So why is Jeremy Corbyn referring to this case? He's doing so – obviously - for political reasons. It should also be noted here that in the past Corbyn has called for similar inquiries in the cases of Orgreave, British army actions (interestingly enough) in Northern Ireland, the Falkland Islands, etc. 
Corbyn is not a pacifist. 

Of course when it comes to what Corbyn really thinks and believes about these matters and the British army, we now face the philosophical problem of “other minds”. Nonetheless, we can take a semi- or quasi-behaviourist position on Corbyn's mind. That is, we can judge him by his words and deeds instead. In any case, we could never prove that Corbyn “really believes” p; just as other people could never disprove that he really believes p.

However, as an international socialist, Corbyn has always been against the British army. If you trawl through his public pronouncements and writings, you'll find much anti-British army (as well as anti-police) rhetoric. He saw the army as being “part of the capitalist state” (not his own words). Of course, as an MP, he's had to tone his views down. When he became Labour leader, he toned them down some more. And during the election, he was even more prudent and circumspect.

Nonetheless, even when speaking in Parliament, Corbyn said that British taxpayers should be able to choose whether or not they pay taxes which fund the British army. According to the Telegraph:

During a House of Commons debate in 1999, the Islington North MP proposed letting people opt out of giving tax revenue to the Army.

'What policy is adopted by his Department in respect of taxpayers who do not wish to pay certain elements of taxation on grounds of conscience,' he asked Treasury ministers on June 24.

Mr Corby continued: 'British taxpayers have a right of conscience not to participate in the armed forces in time of conscription and should have a similar right in time of peace to ensure that part of their tax goes to peace, not war.'..”

(I wonder if Corbyn has the same views about tax-payer choice when it comes to paying taxes which go towards universities, the NHS, public housing, the roads, railways, etc.)

Phil Shiner, the disgraced lawyer and self-described “committed socialist”, is also very good example of a socialist who attempted to take large-scale action against the British army.


"The campaigning human rights lawyer Phil Shiner has been struck off as a solicitor after he was found guilty of multiple professional misconduct charges, including dishonesty and lack of integrity...

"The tribunal found Shiner guilty of 22 misconduct charges. They were proved to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt...

"Shiner claimed UK soldiers had captured, tortured and murdered innocent Iraqi civilians after the Battle of Danny Boy near Amara in 2004...

"The tribunal was told the men’s purported witness accounts were fictitious and PIL stood to benefit from damages cases linked to the claim.

"Shiner had admitted eight allegations of acting without integrity, including that he made 'unsolicited direct approaches' to potential clients...

Finally, the Guardian quotes the Secretary of State for Defence Michael Fallon thus:

"'Justice has finally been served after we took the unprecedented step of submitting evidence on his abuse of our legal system. Phil Shiner made soldiers’ lives a misery by pursuing false claims of torture and murder – now he should apologise. We will study any implications for outstanding legal claims closely.'”

Interestingly enough, previous to Phil Shiner's disgrace, the Guardian was a staunch supporter of his work against the British army. He even wrote articles for the Guardian. (See, for example, his 'UK links to torture go beyond complicity to active involvement' written only a couple of years ago.)

Corbyn's Entryism into the Labour Party

Jeremy Corbyn has taken Trotskyist and communist “entryism” into the Labour Party to the next level. Thus he has always been very careful with his words, if not equally careful with his deeds and actions. (That's despite the image that he's a “very principled MP”.)

Strictly speaking, however, Jeremy Corbyn can't be an entryist because he's always worked through official channels. For one, he was voted in as an Member of Parliament way back in 1983. And since then he's worked within the confines of the Labour Party and the Parliamentary system. It can therefore be said that it's revolutionary socialist ideas - rather that explicit revolutionary socialists themselves - that are now firmly entrenched in the Labour Party.

Having said that, Corbyn's views and actions are often staunchly against what other socialists call “capitalist democracy”. Thus it's quite clear that one can work within a system which one ultimately wants to destroy. This happened with both the National Socialists and Hamas in 1933 and 2006 respectively. The Nazis, after their election, brought about a one-party state led by a fuhrer. Hamas, similarly, staged what has widely been called “a coup” in 2007 which obliterated all opposition.

In the case of Corbyn, we'd also need to say why - or if - he wants to destroy our parliamentary system and exactly what he takes that system to be.

Corbyn as a Gramscian

Corbyn is not a pacifist.


Trotskyists and communists have attempted to infiltrate the Labour Party since the 1920s. In the 1980s, such “entryism” was rife. For example, there was theLabour vs. Militant war which lasted - on and off - for 17 years (between 1975 and 1992). There was also many Labour leadership battles with rogue Labour councillors and MPs.

However, these Trotskyists and communists never achieved as much political power as they'd hoped to. As Antonio Gramsci suggested, they had already taken over many “institutions”. Nonetheless, they haven't taken over one vital institution: the House of Commons. Indeed they hadn't even created a Labour Leader... until Jeremy Corbyn. And what better Gramscian institution is there than a political party which has millions of supporters?

Corbyn must have ideas which are very similar to those expressed by the revolutionary Leninist, Richard Seymour (who's written for the GuardianAl Jazeera, the New Statesman and the London Review of Books). Seymour (an admirer of Gramsci) has now given up on the Socialist Workers Party (which he left in 2013) - and revolutionary socialism generally (in the sense of believing in a violent revolution) - and opted for Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party instead.

Like Corbyn, Seymour is very angry that the Left hasn't, as yet, achieved total power. He writes:

[W]hy, in more than five years of turmoil for the global capitalist system, has the left made such a practically negligible impact?”

Moreover,

By the time oppositional forces work out an analysis of what is happening, figure out some tactics and get their people in motion, the terrain has already been occupied by those in power.”

That's precisely why Richard Seymour now supports Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party. He's sick of what he calls Leftist “groupuscules” and more-Left-than-thou peacockery. He, like Corbyn, wants state power. That's why Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party. And that's also why he's only just fought an election campaign.

The (other) Gramsci institutions are no longer enough. The Left wants total power.

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

Corbyn is not a pacifist.


Corbyn's claims about SAS soldiers should be seen within the Marxist light underlined above. We should doubt that he cares that much about injustice or the killing of innocent civilians. Remember, this man supported the IRA and still supports Hamas and Hezbollah. He has had good words to say about Trotsky, Che Guevara, the Soviet Union, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. All these groups, people and states were large-scale killers. They were also oppressors.

So, to repeat. Corbyn doesn't care about the killing of innocent civilians. He cares about having a go at the British army because he still sees it (to quote other radical socialists) as “an arm of the British capitalist state”.

Sunday, 2 July 2017

Jeremy Corbyn's middle-class supporters at Wimbledon




Various middle-class men and women hoped that the new chant (or hymn) for Saint Jeremy would dominate Wimbledon. Posh Corbynistas were also expecting Jesus H. Corbyn to have a seat in the Royal Box. It was even reported that he'd already been invited. 


Jeremy Bernard Corbyn - who likes to disguise both his own and his activists/leaders “class origins” - will probably decline the offer. (Though you never know!) 


One leftwing student (a leftwing student? never!) said:

“Why I am looking forward to Wimbledon? Hearing Jeremy Corbyn chants in the stands.”

Twitter user also wrote:

“Last night I dreamt Corbyn was in the Royal Box at Wimbledon and I started this chant there.”

And despite the posh Left's own highly non-self-referential mythology about the "posh fans" at Wimbledon and other (non-socialist) posh people, David Cameron was also met by boos at Wimbledon last year. 

It was also said that there may be pro-Corbyn t-shirts being worn at this year's tournament. This would have been a problem because the All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC) has a rule which bans political slogans during the tournament. More precisely, one rule bans “any objects or clothing bearing political statements”. 

An AELTC spokeswoman told the Daily Telegraph:

“We wouldn’t want people to use this kind of event as a platform for their specific views or causes.”

In practice, umpires are expected to stop any chanting if it were to happen. Predictably, they'll say “quiet please”. If that doesn't work, then stewards may remove people for breaking these rules.

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


Saint Jeremy is very very popular with the middle-classes and the very young. Thus although I was surprised by this news about Corbynistas at Wimbledon; I quickly realised that I should have been surprised that I was surprised.

Finally, I'm not saying that there aren't any working-class supporters of Jesus “Jezzer” Corbyn. His promise of an infinitely-funded NHS (as well as a General Municipal Utopia) appeals to many people. I doubt, however, that he'd deliver were he to become Prime Minister. And that would be the case for very many reasons. One primary reason is that taxing the platonic Rich (rather than, say, middle-class Corbynistas) into the ground won't help bring about a socialist utopia. It will probably bring about the exact opposite. 

Then again, I'm an “evil Tory”, a working-class brainwashed Uncle Tom, and a Naziracistfascistneoliberal bigot. So I would say that, wouldn't I?

Metro (UK) on Trump's Hatred of Women and the Media




Metro (sometimes called Metro.co.uk) began life as the online sister of another newspaper that's now available (for free!) on Britain's public-transport system. It broke free of that hard-copy newspaper in 2015. It still belongs to the same company and it's even based in the same building! However, you'll be glad to know that Metro1 (“The world's most popular free newspaper”) and Metro2 (“News... but not as you know it”) are completely different publications with completely separate editorial teams. Yes.

Metro1 is slightly more serious and less “tabloid” that Metro2; though they both propagate (broadly speaking) the same liberal-left political views.

Bear all the above in mind when – in what follows - you read Metro's critical comments on Donald Trump's own critical comments about... yes, the media!

Metro and Trump on Women

Metro2 - which has managed to secure millions of readers every day – is a strange news outlet. (I'll stop using the superscript 2 now.) It's unashamedly political and doesn't seem to be able to distinguish opinion pieces from news items.


It starts off badly and gets worse from there. It deigns to tell us “what [Trump] thinks of women”. It turns out it's what Trump thinks of one woman (MSNBC's Ms Mika Brzezinski) and even that's pretty tame. Still, if you don't like a man's politics; then everything he says and does is fair game.

This righteous young journalist pontificates more. He writes: “Dear. Lord. This guy has zero respect for the opposite sex.” (I bet Oliver McAteer himself is a consummate New Man. I also bet that he washes the dishes at least once a month and uses oodles of expensive face cream.)

All this is in response to one of Trump's jokes (quoted by Metro). It's fairly funny; if a little mean. It goes:

“…to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!”

What has to be stated here is that MSNBC's Ms Mika Brzezinski fired the first shot when she accused Trump of being “needy”. Or should I say that that she indulged in a bit of bullying because her employer – MSNBC - accused Trump himself of “bullying”. Despite her reference to being needy, Trump has also been a serial target of Ms Brzezinski for a long time. Indeed Metro itself even shows us one of Brzezinski's previous bullying anti-Trump tweets!

Just desserts anyone?

To get back to Metro.

What these pious anti-sexists (such as Metro's Oliver McAteer) seem unable to distinguish is that a joke about one woman (or even a few women) is not also a joke about all women (or women generally). The same is true of jokes about blacks. According to some pious and pure anti-sexists (or anti-racists), however, whatever the content of a joke about a woman (or a black) is, it is - by definition - sexist (or racist). The very fact that's it's a joke and it's also about a woman (or a black person) is literally all it takes... Unless that woman is Prime Minister Theresa May or the black is an Uncle Tom – then women and blacks are (almost) fair game.

So how would a joke about, say, a well-known “Tory MP” having a penis enlargement go down at Metro? Probably very well. In fact I've seen such things in this glossy and glitzy rag.

Anyway, the hypocrisy is further confounded by the fact that in one breath Donald Trump is castigated for “cyber bullying”; and in the next breath this imbecile writes:

Luckily, these guys have a sense of humor and can take a bit of cyber-bulling, unlike someone we know well [Trump].”

(Why is a British journalist using American spellings anyway?)

So cyber-bulling is okay if aimed at Trump and other nasty right-wing white men; though bad when aimed at CNN journalists, blacks and Muslims?

Metro again indulges in (meta/second-order) hypocrisy by implicitly criticising Trump's own hypocrisy. Metro continues:

Ironic that the FLOTUS pledged to head up a campaign against online trolling when Trump first took office. Yeah, maybe start with the problems at home first.”

Metro and Trump on the Media

To return to the beginning of this article. Here's Metro's (or Oliver McAteer's) very first line:

The president of the United States of America (just remember that, for a second) took his ‘FAKE NEWS’ campaign to the next level this morning by going after the presenters of Morning Joe.”

You couldn't get more opinionated than that, could you?

Metro then says that “Trump’s been stepping up his campaign of hate against the media this week”. Well, for a start, the writer (or Metro itself) is part of that media. So I wonder if that is in any way relevant to Metro's piously hypocritical words about Trump.

Moreover, rather than castigate the journalists who lied about Trump's connections with Russia, this infantile journalist turns the whole story on its head and castigates Trump for having a go at the journalists responsible for those lies! He informs us:

In case you missed it, three journalists from CNN resigned on Monday June 26 over a Russia-related story that had to be retracted. Trump celebrated, obviously.”

It seems that because this journalist's views are broadly in line with CNN (or at least its position on Trump) that he therefore has no critical eyes for anyone other than Trump. He continues:

But somehow, in between dealing with an international travel ban and meeting the Indian PM, he found time to take yet another swipe at the news channel.”

At least he deigns to actually quote Trump thus:

'Fake News CNN is looking at big management changes now that they got caught falsely pushing their phony Russian stories. Ratings way down!'”

Again, there's not a single critical word here about CNN itself.

It's also strange that left-leaning or liberal-left people (perhaps even the ones who work for Metro) have had it in for the “right-wing media” for years. Yet here we have a Metropolitan “liberal” talking dismissively about “Trump's hate for the media”.

He tells us, for example, that Trump “went rogue and blasted loads of other American media outlets as well”. He then quotes Trump's tweet itself:

'So they caught Fake News CNN cold, but what about NBC, CBS & ABC? What about the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost? They are all Fake News!'”

What's of interest to Metro (or Oliver McAteer) here isn't Fake News and media lies: it's the fact that Trump tweeted about Fake News and media lies!

Another funny thing about this cartoon piece (from a cartoon newspaper) is that its slags off Trump's “inappropriate tweets” and then tells us how funny various anti-Trump Tweets are. Indeed Metro itself is often chock-a-block with such tweets!

The words “kettle”, “pot”, “black” and “calling” spring to mind here.