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.)

Wednesday, 9 August 2017

Saint Jeremy of Islington

It's often said that Jeremy Corbyn is a “different kind of politician”. (This was also said about Tony Blair, Barack Obama, Margaret Thatcher, Bernie Sanders, Arnold Schwarzenegger... ad infinitum.) That he's been “unblemished from any scandal”. And it's also said that Corbyn's a “genuine politician who has never compromised or changed his political ideas in his life” (more of which later).

There are many replies to all the above.

Until Jeremy Corbyn became the leader of the Labour Party in September 2015, he'd never been a leader within a political party. He was indeed leader  of the Trotskyist/communist Stop the War Coalition from 2011 to 2015. (Not every member/supporter of the StWC is a Trotskyist/communist.) He'd never even been in a Shadow Cabinet. Thus it's unlikely that he'd be “blemished” by any scandal. Sure, some humble MPs are sometimes blemished without actually being leaders. Though, as everyone knows, most media attention is focused on leaders or high-profile MPs.

Take the example of Tony Blair. He was often called “Teflon Tony” by the media. However, that name was only applied to Blair when he was Prime Minister. (He wasn't seen as Teflon Tony before he became PM.) Indeed he didn't really acquire that image until the Iraq War in 2003 – seven or so years after he was elected PM.

And is it the case that Jeremy Corbyn is unblemished anyway?

He's unblemished by any financial scandal. So what about political scandals – such as his support from the IRA, Trotsky, Lenin, the Soviet union, Hamas, Hezbollah, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and his he desire to abolish the army? Why only focus on financial scandals or sexual infidelities? (It can be argued that personal financial scandals don't affect as many people as political scandals do.) Yes, Corbyn's supporters can easily select instances in which Corbyn is clean and ignore those cases in which he isn't clean. One can do the same with Tory MPs or politicians who've been involved in financial scandals.

As for the fact that Corbyn is a “genuine politician who had never compromised or changed his political ideas in his life”.

Read that back and think about it. Corbyn has never compromised or changed his political ideas in his life. Is the fact that Corbyn adopted his socialist views at sixteen - and that he still believes them at 68 - meant to be a good thing?

If someone changes their views in order to gain political office (though there are signs that Corbyn is doing that) or for reasons of pragmatics, that's a bad thing. However, to never grow or learn politically, that must surely be a bad thing. Hitler, David Cameron, Gary Lineker might also have first believed what now believe at 16. So what? Again, why is that automatically – if at all - a good thing?

Chameleon Corbyn”?

Even though this piece is critical of Corbyn's politics, it's still the case that we shouldn't class him as “Chameleon Corbyn”. That's because he's now doing what all/most politicians do when they gain positions of power or influence. Rather, I think that the problem with Corbyn is the opposite: he's an extremely rigid ideologue. Everything he believes his filtered through radical-socialist ideology and theory. Nothing remains untouched by the ideology he's held since he was sixteen years old. In that sense, he's certainly not a chameleon. He may be forced (as it were) to be a chameleon now that he's Leader of the Opposition; though, as I said, that's true of all politicians.

The fact that there's a clash between Corbyn's ideological rigidity and the fact that he's also the leader of a political party (attempting to become the government) can be seen with various examples.

Corbyn (as radical socialist) would like to abolish the army and dismantle Trident. This man was also a leader of the Stop the [Western Capitalist] War Coalition until he became leader of the Labour Party. He's still a member of CND. Yet, as leader of the Labour Party, he and his party have focused on the Tory Party down-funding the army; as well as down-funding the police.

What about Brexit?

Corbyn is so obviously against the EU that it's quite silly to deny it. Yet he's part of a party which includes many Europhiles/anti-Brexiteers. The radical-socialist ideologue within him, then, clashes with the demands of realpolitik. Of course I could of course be wrong about Corbyn and the EU. However, all radical socialists since the 1970s have been radically against the EU. Even most moderate (or “democratic”) socialists have been anti-EU. Corbyn himself has repeatedly spoken out against it. So is it unfair of me to mention Corbyn's anti-EU/pro-EU schizophrenia?

If Corbyn is truly anti-EU (as I believe he obviously is), then many Labour voters may well get a shock when - or if - he's elected. A profound shock in the sense that being pro-EU is of vital importance to a number of Labour voters; though this is far more true of Labour MPs.

And then there's “student debt”...

Monday, 7 August 2017

Sir Vince Cable's vicious outburst against old Brexiteers

Perhaps the Lib Dem leader, Sir Vince Cable, thought that he could get away with his nasty tirade (as written in the Daily Mail) against old people simply because he's old himself. (Cable is 74 years old.) Wouldn't that be like a black man making racist jokes against blacks? Yes, it's certainly the case that Cable can still be a bigot against old people even if he is 74; just as a black man can still be racist even if black.

It's very odd that Cable should use the word “fanatical Brexiteers” in his very ownfanatical outburst against old Brexiteers. It's also strange that Cable talked about “an undercurrent of violence in the language [of Brexiteers] which is troubling”. Again, that could perfectly sum up Cable's own words! He should look in the mirror.

The other strange thing is that Cable made himself the honourable exception to all those old people who don't care about the young today (or about future generations). Yet if he cares so deeply about the young (at the same time as being old), then so too may many other old people. Of course if Cable arrogantly assumes that only by embracing his own Europhilia can old people care about the young, then that - as a matter of definition – automatically rules out any other ways of caring about the young. That means that old Brexiteers can't care for the young simply because they don't hold the same views as Sir Vince Cable. How arrogant is that of Vince Cable?

Almost everything Vince Cable said to the Mail (on Sunday) is full of bigotry, arrogance and smugness. Firstly, he said that Brexiteers would be happy to see the economy fail if it meant leaving the EU. No; that doesn't make Brexiteers happy. They don't believe that the economy will fail after Brexit. And even if it does fail (which is something Cable is hoping for), that doesn't mean that they would be happy about it. It simply means that old Brexiteers don't believe that this is going to happen.

It's certainly true that a YouGov poll “suggested” that 61% of Leave voters thought a damaged economy was a price worth paying for leaving the EU. That was probably a direct and honest answer to a very biased and loaded question. What Brexiteers want is an end to the “democratic deficit” that's been brought about by the EU. People – not only the old - don't want the bureaucratic elite in Brussels imposing its political will and laws on the British public.

I too believe that a certain degree of “damage to the economy” is a price worth paying for democracy. Indeed Brexiteers have never said that there will be no economic cons to leaving the EU. There will, however, also be many economicpros; as well as end to the democratic deficit.

So why does Sir Cable see all this in purely economic terms? Is he a Marxist or a “market fundamentalist”? The economy is important, sure; though let's not get reductionist about its importance. There is more to life than the economy. And there's more to politics than economics. 

Cable also said that the “old have comprehensively shafted the young”. What? Allold people? Every single one of them? And what does he mean by “shafted” anyway? Have the old shafted the young simply because they don't believe what he believes?

Cable also wrote the following:

And the old have had the last word about Brexit, imposing a world view coloured by nostalgia for an imperial past on a younger generation much more comfortable with modern Europe.”

I think that is a gross generalisation about what motivates Brexiteers – young and old. The great “imperial past” of Great Britain came before the early 1950s. How many adults of that period are still voters today? That begs the question: What does Cable mean by “old”? Is he referring to those born before and just after the war? Or is he referring to everyone over 40? In other words, is Cable hoping for the Yoof Vote – just like Corbyn?

To top his indulgent and aggressive rhetoric, Cable brought up “Brexit jihadis”. I mean... that really is taking the biscuit! He's beginning to sound like a Lib Dem Dave Spart.