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, 19 July 2017

Global warming increases the price of ... wine!



Now here, in all its glory, is a supremely tangential link (found in a Metro article called 'Global warming is now messing with wine, so can you PLEASE STOP WRECKING THE WORLD'):

Global warming is “going to up the price of wine across the board”.

Readers may want to know the details about this fatal connection between man-created global warming and the high price of wine. Though - it must be said straight away - this can't always the case at present. It must surely depend on which wines you like and where you buy your wine from.

Anyway, this is the hard science bit; so pay attention and put your white coats on. Here goes:

Researchers have suggested that rising temperatures in Europe are likely to increase the cost of labour in vineyards, noting that as heat rises in August, a month when a significant amount of the harvest is brought in, there’s a 15% drop in the amount of time labourers are able to work.

There’s also a drop in productivity, slowing down the wine production process.”

That's odd. On average heat always rises in August in most European countries.Metro doesn't really make it clear if these natural - as well as annual - increases have themselves increased. It also says that “[r]esearchers have suggested”. Yes, they've suggested. That's a very loose word. Though it's obviously a very precise and important word if you like your wine and you're also against man-caused global warming.

Another study has admitted that this catastrophic effect on wine production hasn't been replicated elsewhere. Metro says:

Andreas Flouris of the School of Exercise Science at the University of Thessaly reckons that the results of the small-scale study could easily repeat in California, across Europe, and in Australia – so all our wine could be set to hike up in price.”

Now if this wine catastrophe hasn't yet happened in “California, across Europe, and in Australia” - then where, exactly, has it happened? The initial study mentioned that “most European countries” have been effected by it. (Which ones?) This other study says that it hasn't yet occurred “across Europe”. How do we make sense of these two seemingly contradictory phrases?

It's not just about cost. (Though, for Metro, it's mainly about the cost!) This is also about taste. Metro tells us that

[i]ncreased heat is also affecting the taste of wine, damaging the quality of grapes across Europe and shortening the growing season”.

All this - if true- will also affect prices. Shorter growing seasons will certainly affect the price of wine – or at least certain wines from certain countries. This is strange. One main reason why the United Kingdom doesn't produce much wine is its shortage of warm weather. (British wine makes up 1% of the domestic market.) Yet if temperatures keep on increasing, then surely more wine will be produced in England. That will also have a positive affect on the price of win! Why doesn'tMetro mention that?  



Now what's all this going to do to London's dinner-party circuit? I mean Metropolitans are already suffering from severe “austerity”. Add 50 pence (or less) to a bottle of wine and then what have you got? Massive poverty among London's professional political Pharisees (who also like wine).

Global Warming Generally 

This Metro (which is a British tabloid) journalist, Ellen Scott, screams these words at her readers:

Stop being bloody idiots and doing their bits to save the world.”

Yet she doesn't say how people should do their bit. Perhaps piety and screaming is enough, I don't know.

Then Ellen Scott gets to the heart of her problem. Global warming “is massively f***ing up our wine”. Yes, she doesn't like paying too much for her wine. That's why she swore. (Or she might have used expletives to show that she has lots of street cred.) She swears some more when she says “here’s another convincing reason to give a sh*t about global warming”.

Metro tells us that “global warming” is “a massive issue” and that we should “ignore anyone who says it’s not a real thing”. (“Ignore”, rather than argue against?)

For a start, not all deniers deny that global warming exists. Not all deniers say that humans aren't partly responsible for global warming. What is denied is the claim that human beings are the main (or sole) reason behind global warming. What they also say is that global warming has occurred many times before – even before the period of human industrialisation.

Metro carries on in the same vein by telling us this:

Rising sea levels. Extinction of animals. Terrifying weather patterns. Looming death.”

We can say that sea levels have risen throughout the history of the planet. Uncountable species of animals have also become extinct. (Doesn't Ellen Scott know anything about this central aspect of evolution?) Weather patterns have always included aspects that are “terrifying”. In other words, none of thus is exclusive to the 21st century. Indeed all these things have happened before – countless times. Now this may be the case even if it's also true that human beings have contributed to global warming. However, the rhetoric and end-times screaming – from Ellen Scott - doesn't help Metro's cause.

Metro: A British Leftwing Tabloid

The link between high prices for wine and global warming must be one of the most pathetic and tangential links I've ever read. It may also show us why Metro is primarily aimed at Metropolitans with lots of money. If anthropogenic global warming is a problem, then it's Metro readers who are partly responsible for it.

Thus, just as socialists always focus in on the emotions of greed and enviousness, so too does Metro. Basically Metro is saying that if you want cheap wine, then take action against man-caused global warming.

As you've seen, Metro is very pious and it is so on all sorts of other issues too. That piety isn't disguised by its tabloid style or even by the use of swear words within its pieces.

Thus it's worth saying that British leftwingers were never really against what they snobbishly and dismissively referred to as “tabloid journalism”. What they were against is the fact that most tabloids are (broadly speaking) politically right-wing. However, Metro shows us that leftwing (or liberal-left) tabloids are okay after all.

Metro even heavily focuses on sex 'n' celebrities. (Here's a piece - also by Ellen Scott - called 'A new kind of sex toy is exploring the pleasure of vaginal pressure'.)Metro also loves to screenshoot various people's (famous or otherwise) tweets.

Metro (or Ellen Scott) finishes off with this warning:

So basically, global warming could end up making our wine taste rubbish and cost more.

Thanks a lot, fossil fuel users.”

We must presume here that Ellen Scott doesn't use fossil fuels. Actually, that's highly unlikely! So perhaps she means that she uses less fossil fuels than evil right-wing people. That's not very likely either. So perhaps it's her piety and fanaticism that really count.

Finally, Metropolitans (or the readers of Metro) love wine and money. That must surely mean that man-caused global warming comes after money, wine and one's (e.g., Ellen Scott's) personal use of fossil fuels. However, it's made to seem – in this Metro piece – that the war on fossil fuels comes first. As far as Metro is concerned, it seems to be the case that human nature (or the cost of wine) comes first.


Tuesday, 18 July 2017

A racist London Tube attack against another racist?





Meet the first (possible) racist.

He's an architect by the name of Pawel Uczciwek. This man is accused of having “racially abused a woman” and then of “trying to pull off her hijab” in a London Tube station. This happened on Saturday.

Yet the accused man (or “Islamophobe”) also said that his black girlfriend was under a “racist attack from three other random females”.

Pawel Uczciwek also said that the the allegation against him is “completely false”. He continued:

I would like to confirm I never hit or attacked anyone I simply defused the situation by separating them.”

What's more, Uczciwek stressed his own anti-racist case by stating the following:

The police is fully cooperating with me and will be able to obtain CCTV footage showing the three women attempting to attack my partner because we are in an interracial relationship.”

Perhaps the Muslim woman (Aniso Abdulkadir) didn't like the idea of a black woman going out with a white man. And that's why she verbally attacked her. That's certainly what Uczciwek hints at. The means that Aniso Abdulkadir bit off more than she could chew. That is, she verbally abused Uczciwek's black girlfriend and then he did indeed physically attack her.

Another possibility is that, as a Muslim, Aniso Abdulkadir didn't like the fact that Uczciwek's girlfriend was wearing a short skirt.

So here an attack on a Muslim has been classed as “racist”. Yet even if there was physical contact, that doesn't automatically mean that it was racist simply because the victim (if she is a victim) is a Muslim.

It's certainly the case that's there's been a hell of a lot of Muslim-on-non-Muslim (orMuslim-on-white) violence in the UK. Some of it has even been featured in our newspapers. In addition, according to many sources, black-on-white violence (as in America) is higher than white-on-black violence.

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

Now meet the second (possible) racist: Aniso Abdulkadir.

This Muslim woman wasted no time at all in advertising – on Twitter - the alleged attack.

Aniso Abdulkadir posted an image of the man who attacked her. She wrote:

This man at Baker Street station forcefully attempted to pull my hijab off and when I instinctively grabbed ahold of my scarf he hit me.”

She continued:

He proceeded to verbally abuse my friends and I, pinning one of them against the wall and spitting in her face.”

Not surprisingly, this tweet earned more than 24,000 retweets by Sunday afternoon.

It also seems that she already had a strong political position on racism. Or at least her friend Lux had. The latter also tweeted the following words:

Racism is a real thing people choose to ignore, we really do live in a pathetic society where people are all talk and completely useless.”  


A British Transport Police spokesman said the incident is being investigated. It's being investigated as a “hate crime” rather than a simple fight or physical attack. The spokesman said:

Behaviour like this is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

This incident has been reported to us and we’re investigating.”

One wonders why the British media seems to have taken Aniso Abdulkadir's side. After all, there is equal evidence on both sides. For one, it's hard to class a white man as “racist” if he has a black girlfriend! And why (as yet) hasn't the media done any research on the Muslim black woman who claims to have been attacked?

Judging by her name and photo, I'd say that Aniso Abdulkadir is of an African - rather than an “Asian” - background; possibly Somalian. 


Not to put too fine a point on it, African-heritageblacks (including Muslim blacks) have a reputation for violence in the United Kingdom; especially in London. (This is particularly true of Somalians.) This reputation also includes black women. However, unlike the case of the architect, the news pieces I've read haven't provided us with any details about Aniso Abdulkadir.

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

Many have said (in various ways) that anti-racism has been demeaned by so many anti-racist policies and actions. There's also the omnipresence and overuse of accusations of “racism”. When people state these things, however, pious and puritanical anti-racists either laugh or foam at the mouth. They claim that the people who say such things are racists anyway therefore such a claim simply must be bogus.

This is certainly the reaction to the claim that anti-racism often causes racism. Yet these knee-jerk reactions simply prove the point!

One aspect of the eternal war against racism is that any criticism whatsoever of that war (or its anything goes tactics) is also deemed to be racist. Thus the war will carry on and become more extreme and more puritanical. It will continue in this manner until the endless war against (often-fake) racism implodes in some way. Or it'll continue until anti-racists begin to eat their own children. In fact, this is already happening!

In addition to all that, anti-racism is a primary weapon in the armoury of leftwingers. It's also a means to further one's career or to sell one's pure credentials. It iseverything to everyone.

This story highlights the problem. Both sides claim that the other side is “racist”. Thus what we often have is this:

I'll place my anti-racism against your anti-racism.

Who wins? Both sides? None?

We also have the I'm-more-anti-racist-than-thou competition which white leftwingers seem so keen on. As I said, the anti-racism revolution is eating its own children.

Sunday, 16 July 2017

British Muslims fund terror, says UK Government report





The British Home Office have just clarified something which many British people have known for well over a decade: that Islamists and terrorists are being funded by ordinary British Muslims to the the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.

That means that this isn't about the usual extremist British Islamic organisations which have already been well-documented. This is about people who may well pass for “ordinary” or even “moderate” Muslims.

Many people have also known – for a long time – that Islamic charities are often fund-raisers for Islamic terror. Indeed the report includes the information that Islamic organisations pose as charities because charity – though only for fellow Muslims and Islamic causes - is very big in Muslim communities. Thus it's all very late in the day for the British Government to decide to work with the Charity Commission on these issues. However, better late than never.

As the Home Office put it, pro-terror money is coming from small, anonymous public donations. According to the British Home Secretary, Amber Rudd:

In some cases, these organisations receive hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. This is the main source of income.”

Rudd also said that the report (which was commissioned in 2015 by David Cameron)

gives us the best picture we have ever had of how extremists operating in the UK sustain their activities”.

However, Rudd has decided not to publish the report for reasons of “national security” and also because it contains a lot of “personal information”.

Rather predictably, the Labour Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, chose to make a party-political point about all this; rather than a point about what can be called “the enemy within”. After all, the enemy within has brown skin; whereas the Tory Party is white. Thus Abbott tells is that there's a “strong suspicion” that facts are being

suppressed to protect this Government’s trade and diplomatic priorities, including in relation to Saudi Arabia”.

(The Green Party – which, just like a melon, is green on the outside and red on the inside - has got in on the act. Caroline Lucas also attacked the Tories for withholding information.)

What Dianne Abbott fails to mention is that Rudd also stated that the report contains lots of personal information about British Muslims. That would mean that if that personal information were made public, then lots of British Muslims would be put under the spotlight. Now I wonder how the anti-white anti-racist Diane Abbott would respond to that? Would she - and other Labourites - talk about “Islamophobia” and the “victimisation of the Muslim community”? After all, Rudd is white and most Muslims are brown.

Saudi Arabia has just been mentioned. 

An image from the fanatically party-political and pro-Corbyn blog, Another Angry Voice. Much has been made of the viciousness and nastiness of many Corbyn supporters. (Mainly people who weren't members or even supporters of the Labour Party until Corbyn was made leader.) This blog is the Corbynite equivalent of the Nazi's Der Stürmer














This is the latest British leftwing sport: tying literally all Islamic extremism and terror (including ISIS and the attacks in England) to Saudi Arabia. Now why is this the case and why is it such a recent phenomenon in leftwing circles? Again, for party-political reasons; not for a genuine antipathy towards Islamic terror or Saudi Arabia. More concretely, the Corbynite Left decided to make a big deal about the Government's close relations to Saudi Arabia during Jeremy Corbyn's election campaign. (These relations are no closer today than they were during any other previous British government.) Thus, to the Left, this isn't at all about Islam or Saudi Arabia. It's actually all about the Tories.

Saudi Arabia is indeed important in the terror stakes. Very important. Nonetheless, so too is Iran. Iran has been funding terror and carrying out terror attacks since 1979. Some of those attacks occurred as far a way as Argentina (two large-scale attacks), Paris, Brussels, Bahrain, Kuwait, Panama, London (against Salman Rushdie), Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania, India, Israel, Bulgaria, etc. Iran was also responsible for the attacks in Beirut in the 1980s and other Lebanese bombings which – over all - claimed hundreds of lives.

Labour's Jeremy Corbyn and the Stop the War Coalition (which he led until he became leader of the Labour Party) are big fans of Iran. Iran is at war with Saudi Arabia. (You work it out!) Indeed some of the StWC's leaders are also big fans of Bashar Assad's Socialist Ba'ath Party! Then again, other StWC leaders have said positive things about the Soviet Union, Mao's China and, believe it or not, North Korea.

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.