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.)

Saturday, 15 July 2017

Trump's long handshake shock!




Hold the front page! Yes, it's true. Donald Trump has just given someone a long handshake!

Can you believe that various news outlets (from CNN to Britain's Independent) have made a big deal out of this? I mean they really are betraying how pathetic this anti-Trump hysteria has become. These anti-Trumpers don't even pretend that they've a problem with Trump's politics anymore. Instead, literally anything goes! From Trump's compliments to President Macron's wife to, yes, his long handshakes. It really is pathetic – no matter how it's dressed up.

Metro, for example, called the handshake a “toe-curling exchange”. The UK's Independent called it an “excruciating 30-second handshake”. And CNN even surpasses these pathetic examples by giving us an academic “second-by-second analysis of the Trump-Macron handshake”. Sad!

Indeed many news-outlets gave us the precise timing of the handshake – it was 25 seconds' long! Imagine it. Some sad-clown-of-a-journalist actually timed it!

Apparently, Trump has given “awkward handshakes” before. And? This is like a graphic example of the idea that in order to destroy Trump, the mantra “by any means necessary” can be seen to be upheld by many journalists and editors today. It really is massively pathetic.

And if elements of the media offer “in-depth analyses” of handshakes, it's no surprise that they also made a big deal about Trump's comment to the French President's wife (Brigitte Macron) when he said that she was in “such good shape”. I wonder what the same journalists would have said if Trump had said that she was in such bad shape?

Another pathetic and sad media story was the fact that the Polish “leading lady” (Agata Kornhauser-Duda) decided to shake Melania Trump's hand before Donald Trump's. So what? Yet the videos are so short that clearly they're cut-and-edited to make it seem worse than it was. In another words, as soon as she'd shook Mrs Trump's hand, she then shook Donald Trump's hand. Indeed she didn't even see Trump's outstretched hand in the first place!

Despite that, one newspaper said that it was “a snub of the most brazen variety, and it’s a thing of beauty”. Now would that newspaper have said the same thing if it were in political agreement with the American President? Of course not! We never had pathetic pieces like this on Barack Obama.

All this may not be Fake News; though it's certainly Pathetic News.

Many newspapers steal each other's stories. Indeed many news stories are rewrites of other newspapers' news stories. So this may partly explain the concentration on this monumentally insignificant handshake.However, when it comes to editors placing the same stories - and the same angle on the same stories - in their own rags, that's indeed a sad state of affairs.

I said anything goes in the anti-Trump crusade. And this reminds of an old story dating back to February 2017.

The BBC's very own public-school radical critic, James O'Brien, did a feature on “fake news” for Newsnight. It was really about how Donald Trump himself is primarily responsible for fake news. Yet, in James O'Brien's introduction to one of his pro-Trump guests, he not only offered the viewers fake information about her working for Breitbart (which she didn't); he even failed to mention the fact that she'd worked for the Wall Street Journal for 15 years! (See video here.) Thus the BBC offered its licence-paying “customers” fake news about fake news!


Thursday, 13 July 2017

The EU can “go whistle!”



Yes, I know that it's a cliché; though there's certainly a “war of words” going on between the British government and the EU's big knobs. These Euro-knobs are also beginning to sound like strict nannies giving their nieces and nephews a good telling off.

Boris Johnson - quite rightly - said that Brussels can “go whistle” when it comes to the UK paying a huge sum to the EU for not wanting to remain under its control. That huge sum is a punishment for Brexit. Yes, Britain is being punished. Or that's the EU's hope.

Thus the European Chief Negotiator for Brexit, Michel Barnier, sarcastically said: “I’m not hearing any whistling, just the clock ticking.” That was a reference to the deadline to reach an agreement by March 2019.

However, in order to make it seem that it's not all about reparations and punishment, Michel Barnier said that the British government should also be clear on the status of its expatriate citizens and, well, the border with Ireland. Now why the hell is a EU commissar referring to the Northern Ireland/Ireland border? The cheek of it!

It's of course also the case that Barnier didn't refer to reparations or punishment. Instead – when speaking after a briefing with other European big knobs in Brussels - he talked about the UK “honouring its monetary commitments”.

Monetary commitments?

Yes, according to the European Commission president (Jean-Claude Juncker), the bill may very well be £53 billion. Other reports have it as high as £89 billion. (The British government is expected to spend around £86 billion on education in 2018.)

I mentioned reparations. According to Michel Bernard Barnier, other people have used the word “ransom”. He said:

People have used words like ransom. We are not asking the UK for a single euro or a single pound more than they have legally undertaken to provide.”

The obvious questions here are:

i) Did the UK legally undertake to provide this specific “monetary commitment” to the EU?

ii) And if 'yes', what was the figure agreed on?

In the end, Barnier seemed to agree with me. After all his subterfuge, he couldn't help himself when he added that the best alternative to punishment (or reparations) would be for the UK to stay in the EU. Indeed he threatened “consequences” for leaving the EU.

These consequences are reparations and other kinds of political/financial punishment.

Linda Sarsour uses threats against her to advance Islam(ism)



Linda Sarsour is a classic Islamist operative in that - just like Trotskyists advancing their own revolution - she's using other people's causes and other groups to further her own Islamist and Islamic ends. And she's been very successful at this. Very successful!  

This means that it's not a surprise that the UK news outlet, Metro, seems to be a fan too. It has bemoaned, for example, the fact that a

Muslim woman and Palestinian activist has shared a disturbing rape threat email she was sent by a stranger”.

Metro even surpasses itself when it says that Linda “bravely shared a disturbing hate-filled email to her enormous following”. That's precisely why she has such an “enormous following” because of gimmicks like this! She shared these emails not only to sell herself; but to also sell her Islamist politics. And that's why she had to add that

[w]hen folks claim I follow a violent religion but send me these types of emails. #TheIronyisStarting”.

So there's a political point to this email; which Metro happily overlooks.

Metro then goes one step further - in its mindless Islamophilia - by saying that one message

contained a highly offensive comment about the Quran, which was misspelt by the writer”.

So this ain't just about being offensive to Sarsour. It's also about being offensive to the Korang!

Metro also piously informs us that one Twitter user, Juliana, wrote:

Absolutely disgusted when reading this email. I don’t understand how people have the mind and heart to type this horrific stuff.”

Yes she does understand it! It happens all the time on Facebook, Twitter and in other social-media outlets. The facts is, she doesn't think it should have happened to a woman she likes or whom she politically supports. 

This simply must be a political post by Metro because all sorts of people - in all sorts of groups - receive emails like this from all sorts of people. Many Muslim men, for example, send emails and post Facebook comments about their rape and brutalisation of kuffar women. Indeed Corbyn's supporters have recently been reprimanded for their abuse and highly-aggressive activity on social media. (See this article; though there are many.) 

Nonetheless, liberal-left Metro –just like the revolutionary Left - picks and chooses which groups and which individuals to focus on when it comes to this issue. It would never, for example, feature an entire article on the numerous death-threats which Tommy Robinson has faced over the years. Nor would it post screenshots of the many violent and hateful posts that Corbynistas have sent and posted. As I said, Metro picks and chooses its victims.

Finally, just like the UK's SWP/Unite Against Fascism, Linda Sarsour has tapped into all sorts of groups and movements and then used them for her own ends. Even feminists have been naive enough to bring her on board when they made her a co-chair of the Women’s March on Washington earlier this year.

For Islamism (with the kind help of the Left/progressives), the only way is up.

Wednesday, 12 July 2017

Brexit & Anne Marie Morris are “niggers in the woodpile”





When the Conservative MP, Anne Marie Morris, said that a no-deal Brexit is a “nigger in the woodpile”, she offered Europhiles a loaded weapon with which to shoot her. This means that instead of being truthful and saying that they're really against her pro-Brexit position, they can instead - and rather predictably - accuse her of being a “racist”. Indeed the fiercely pro-EU Metro, for one, has a problem with distinguishing news pieces from opinion pieces when it tells us that “nigger in the woodpile” is a “disturbing, outdated and extremely offensive term”. How pious and over-the-top is that?  

Anne Marie Morris - MP for Newton Abbott - has been suspended from the Conservative Party.

Prime Minister Theresa May (sounding like a very-pale-blue version of Private Eye's Dave Spart) said:

I was shocked to hear of these remarks, which are completely unacceptable. I immediately asked the chief whip to suspend the party whip.

Language like this has absolutely no place in politics or in today’s society.”

The thing is that if PM May hadn't said all that, then she too will be accused of racism. Or, at the least, she'll be accused of “supporting racism”. Yes, the Left rules and runs the Culture Show; they just don't run the House of Commons and the economy... yet.

Another Conservative spokesman got in on this anti-racist act and said:

We are aware of these reports, this kind of language is completely unacceptable, and we are urgently investigating.”

Then again, Anne Marie Morris has apologised. She said:

The comment was totally unintentional. I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused.”

I believe her. But that won't be enough for anti-racist puritans and purists. They want blood. Especially since Morris is also a Eurosceptic on this matter. That means that they can kill two birds with one stone.

So is the source of this fake outrage really about Morris's position on Brexit? After all, besides using the once-common English phrase “nigger in the woodpile”, she also said that “just 7% of financial services in the UK would be affected by Brexit”. Was that the real sin and not her ostensible racism?

Morris went on to say:

Now I’m sure there will be many who’ll challenge that, but my response and my request is look at the detail, it isn’t all doom and gloom.”

Metro informs us - if indirectly - that all “Tories” and Brexiteers are racist with the words “none of her fellow panelists reacted”. They didn't react to the phrase because it belongs to the English language and it's not racist. 

The fact is that the phrase “nigger in the woodpile” isn't racist. It's part of the English language. Using the word “nigger” can indeed be racist; though even then it depends. After all, blacks are allowed to use the word “nigger” without white middle-class leftwingers even raising an eyebrow. Then again, blacks and Muslims are allowed to form rape gangs, sell drugs, kill, indulge in FGM, etc. without many of the politically-correct Left raising an eyebrow. That's anti-racism, folks!

The problem is that because the Culture Show (if not also the Economics Show) is run by the Left, then it's not surprising that Theresa May has jumped on this particular anti-racist bandwagon. Nonetheless, she'll never be more-anti-racist-than-thou when it comes to the politically-correct Left. Indeed leftwingers are eternally in competition with one-another in this perverse and pious I'm-more-anti-racist-than-thou competition.

This will eventually lead to anti-racists consuming each other. Or let's hope so.

Tuesday, 11 July 2017

Europhile Vince Cable vs. the UK




Sir Vince Cable has just said that he believes that “Brexit should never happen”.... Sorry, I made a mistake there... Sir Vince Cable has just said that he believes that “Brexit may never happen”.

Cable was referring to what he called the “enormous divisions” in both the Labour and Conservative parties. He concluded that people may think again about leaving the EU. In his own words:

I’m beginning to think Brexit may never happen.The problems are so enormous… I can see a scenario in which this doesn’t happen.”

Firstly, there are “problems” about all sorts of things in all British parties. Are the problems about Brexit truly “enormous”? Possibly. Cable, as a staunch fan of the EU, certainly hopes so. To quote the man himself:

The Lib Dems had always been absolutely straight and consistent in support for the European project.”

In any case, what exactly does he mean by the words “I can see a scenario”? Again, does he hope there will be such a scenario? Any scenario can be imagined about anything.

Yet Cable certainly wasn't keen on Ukip not being in disarray about Europe, was he? And if the Tories weren't in disarray about Europe, would that make him happy? Of course it wouldn't!

Liam Fox has just said that the BBC would rather see Britain fail than Brexit go ahead. Two EU commissars have (more or less) said that they too would like to see Britain fail when it leaves the EU. And now we have Vince Cable, who believes that Brexit should be made to fail “by any means necessary” (not, of course, his own words). These people are so committed to the EU's role as Europe's political, economic and legal powerhouse that the success of Brexit - and indeed Britain! - pails into insignificance besides the EU's own far-more-important success.

However, Sir Vince is right about one person: Jeremy Corbyn. (Corbyn is, of course, Cable's main political opponent when it comes to taking over the role of Prime Minister from Theresa May.) Saint Jeremy is indeed a Eurosceptic. Nonetheless, Cable is wrong to conclude that young voters may stop supporting Corbyn because of his anti-EU position. Despite that, there are many staunch fans of the EU in Corbyn's Labour Party. Indeed some of them are even outright Corbynistas rather than “right-wing Blairite vermin” (as one pro-Corbyn t-shirt had it). However, most young Corbynistas are more turned on by the idea of Corbyn's extremely-radical socialism than they by the EU's.... what? Radical socialism is far more politically hip (or fashionable) than any pro-EU position. And young radsocialists place great emphasis on their being politically hip. After all, Che Guevara and “Jezzer” Corbyn t-shirts are far hipper than pro-EU t-shirts.

Cable, like most other Europhiles, concentrates entirely on economics. In so doing, he paints the usual nightmare scenarios about the - possible! - rise in unemployment and the decrease in living standards if/when we leave the EU. In fact Sir Vince seems to relish these possibilities. That's because anything goeswhen it comes to fighting Brexit.

This isn't a surprise. Cable is Homo Economicus. He was made Honorary Professor of Economics at the University of Nottingham. Before that, from 1966 to 1968, he was a Treasury Finance Officer to the Kenyan Government.

His economic fixations aren't just academic or political either: they're also financial and career-based. From 1995 to 1997, for example, Cable served as Chief Economist for the oil company Royal Dutch Shell in Nigeria. Indeed Cable's political – not economic - role came under scrutiny in that country.

As I said, Cable is Economics Man. And such men, nowadays, are also very keen on enlarging the political, economic and legal power of large institutions such as the EU and even the UN.

In parallel to all that, Cable - as usual - ignores the problems of European “open borders” and EU courts making British politicians and courts impotent against terror, terrorists and the refugees who aren't, well, refugees. He has nothing to say about the “democratic deficit” either. Nothing to say about political power moving away from the UK to Europe. Nothing to say about increasing EU bureaucratisation. Nothing.

Like a Marxist or fundamentalist free-marketeer, to Cable (to paraphrase Bill Clinton), it's all about the economy, stupid. But it's not, is it? Cable knows that. We know that. And Cable knows that we know that. Hence his happiness about the rival political parties are in disarray over Brexit.

It was said earlier that Economics Man pretends to see the whole Brexit/EU show in terms of economics and economics alone. Thus it's fitting to end with the words of Conservative MP Owen Paterson. He said:

I’m afraid Vince is behind history. If we do not deliver a proper Brexit… there will be absolutely appalling damage to the integrity of the whole establishment — not just political, the media and the judicial establishment.”

True; though the EU is far more important to Cable than the “political, media and judicial establishment”. Worse than that, it's far more important than the 17.4 million people who voted for Brexit. 

Is Sir Cable, therefore, truly a (liberal) democrat?

Monday, 10 July 2017

Leftwing threat of vandalism against Thatcher statue




The British Prime Minister, Theresa May, has told us that a statue of Margaret Thatcher shouldn't be stopped simply because of fears of vandalism. These words were uttered in response to the monument not being erected as planned.

May said:

What I’m very clear about is there should be no suggestion that the threat of vandalism should stop a statue of Margaret Thatcher from being put up.”

It's not only a fear of vandalism that's the problem here. The Public Memorials Appeal Trust had its allocation rejected by an organisation which maintains the square. “Local campaigners” also have a problem with the statue. In the former case, it may simply be because the PMAT forecasts vandalism of the statue. In the latter case, the campaigners have a political problem with Thatcher. More specifically, conservationists are also worried that the statue will be vandalised by those people who didn't - and still don't - like Thatcher's politics.

The Thorney Island Society (TIS) was slightly less political when it said:

While Lady Thatcher was also widely respected, it cannot be said that she was uncontroversial in this country.

There is a strong case for the 10-year rule to be respected – there should be a decent interval before permanent statues are erected, especially when they are controversial enough to risk vandalism.”

Some of the people immortalised in monuments are also hated by large sections of the Left; including Winston Churchill (at Parliament Square) and Cecil Rhodes (at Oxford University). Indeed Churchill's statue has itself been vandalised and sprayed with graffiti by intolerant political activists and haters of Difference. More relevantly, in 2002 an activist cut off the head of a marble of Thatcher on display at London’s Guildhall Library.

Nonetheless, leftwingers love the monuments to those people they agree with; such as the Nelson Mandela statue also at Parliament Square.

The fact is that no matter who the well-known person is, there'll always be people who're outraged with the statues in their honour.

All this shows us yet again how intolerant and violent sections of the Left can be.

It doesn't matter what individual people or political groups think of Margaret Thatcher. She was a British Prime Minister who was elected PM on three different occasions. Of course violent and intolerant leftwingers think that what they believe is of supreme importance – even if most people disagree with them. You see, what they believe isn't supported by “false consciousness” or Tory evil. Therefore these views must be noted and acted upon. Of course other people may feel equally strongly about other things; though their non-leftwing views don't matter (unless they belong to the ethnic minorities).

I find it hard to comprehend how leftwingers can hate Thatcher (an elected leader) so much yet love people like the violent sadist Che Guevara, the mass killers Trotsky and Lenin, the dictator Fidel Castro (who ruled for fifty years – almost five times as long as Thatcher); and, yes, Corbyn – a supporter and fan of the IRA, Fidel Castro, Trotsky, Lenin, Hamas, Hezbollah and the former Soviet Union.

Sure, Thatcher wasn't perfect; though she was far better than many heroes of the Left. In any case, many people admired her and she was a British Prime Minister. The threats of vandalism simply show us how intolerant large sections of the Left are. They have a profound hatred of Difference, the Other and indeed democracy.