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.)

Monday, 15 December 2014

Short Notes (1)


1) A Class Analysis of Marxists



I would say that nine out of ten Marxists/revolutionary socialists/Trotskyists are middle-class.

Most academic Marxist writers belong to a tiny and severely circumscribed social milieu: the university. What's more, the higher up the echelons you go in the Left, the more likely Leftists/Marxists are to be upper-middle-class (e.g., the leaders of Leftist parties, lawyers, “rights activists”,professors, journalists, etc.); rather than plain middle-class.

Marxists are the perfect subject for a sociological analysis. But since many sociologists and “class analysts” are Marxists, such a thing has never happened.

What Marxists seem to say is that it's okay for them to analyse where non-Marxists/Leftists get their views from (from their "class position"); though it's wrong for people like me to analyse where Marxists get their ideas from (from their class position).

2) White Guilt



You can be against things such as racism and not be a Marxist/Leftist. In fact, pious and highly-theoretical brands of anti-racism actually contribute to racism.

If a Leftist admits to having “white privilege”, then he must feel a certain sense of guilt about having that white privilege. People who are privileged often feel guilt for that privilege; as do the numerous Marxists who have been financially and educationally privileged (as well as being white). In fact their white guilt probably motivates their entire position on anti-racism. Guilt is an extremely strong emotion/psychological disposition.

And since nearly all Marxists/Leftists are both white and from well-off backgrounds, that is a double dose of strong guilt and it may well motivate their entire politics.

The very acceptance of one's“privilege” involves guilt otherwise it wouldn't be seen a privilege in the first place.

3) Anti-Racism Causes Racism



Pious and sanctimonious anti-racism contributes to racism.

The constant barrage from councils, Leftist lawyers, activist groups, the police, etc. against whites and English identity causes racism.

I'm not saying that sanctimonious anti-racism causes allracism. I'm saying that it may well be responsible - after thirty years or more of our Leftist hegemony's relentless hatred of the white, non-Leftist working class – for much racism.

After all, after thirty years of political correctness and Leftist indoctrination, Leftists themselves say that racism is getting worse. Ever thought that racism is getting worse precisely because of thirty years of political correctness and sanctimonious anti-racistm?

Leftist anti-racists contribute to some – not all – racism. Actions cause a counter-reactions. And relentless anti-racist zealotry – day after day – is bound to cause at least some equal racist zealotry.

4) The BBC



Because the BBC is tax-payer funded, it always has to hide its Left-Liberal - sometimes outright Leftist - bias. After all, everybody pays for the license fee no matter what their political credentials.

So there is rarely any outright politicking (except on Have I Got News For You, other BBC comedy programmes, dramas/soaps, opinion pieces, etc.).

The BBC shows it bias by what it focusses on; what it misses out; who it quotes; who it doesn't quote; what it quotes; etc.; rather than by politicking.

I don't think that every BBC presenter and BBC programme is Leftist or Left-Liberal either. That doesn't matter. It's the BBC's editorial line and overall bias that's Left-Liberal. Every now and again, then, they will have shows presented by right-wingers, etc.; which is more than The Guardian ever manages. The Telegraph, on the other hand, does publish pieces by what could be called Left-Liberals.

Of course it's a little embarrassing accusing the BBC of bias because all kinds of mutually-contradictory political groups do the same. However, all I can do is argue my case. And it must also be borne in mind that many BBC presenters, editors, programme makers, etc. have explicitly admitted to that (left-liberal) bias at certain times. Others have also denied it.

Take the case of those Leftists who say the BBC is based towards Israel. Succinctly, that amounts to saying that the BBC doesn't completely endorse and propagate the revolutionary Marxist analysis of Israel (that it's an “imperialist racist state”) in which Israel has literally sole culpability for.... um, everything that happens in that area of the world. Well, if that's what the BBC must believe in order to not be biased, then the Trotskyists/communists are correct: the BBC is biased.

In addition, when I say that the BBC is biased I don't also believe that such a news outlet can necessarily escape from such bias: it can't. What it can do is admit to its bias (as it has done at times) and also try to allow outlets for other perspectives (which, to some extent at least, the BBC has done).

No comments:

Post a Comment