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, 16 May 2014

The Tories Borrow UKIP's Clothes for the Euro Elections






The Conservative Party 'communication' ('Securing Britain's Future: Real Change in Europe') for the upcoming European election (which was passed through my letter box the other day) looks almost identical to UKIP's. Yes, the polices are almost identical. That's not in the least bit a surprise. The Conservative Party is in direct competition with UKIP and the latter seems to be more popular at the moment. Hey! So why not pretend to be UKIP – at least when it come to the European Union? Yes, I know that UKIP also calls for a complete withdrawal from the EU. Nonetheless, the Tories' points and criticisms are almost identical to UKIP's at this moment in time.


(This is a link to UKIP's website European election manifesto. So it evidently contains more words than the Tory leaflet I'm referring to.)

None of that really matters. Everything that this mini-manifesto – or leaflet - promises and says may well be jettisoned on May the 23rd. So no problem there. The Conservative Party, and David Cameron himself, has promised some of the things in this communication before and, predictably, they have never come up with the goods.

'Securing Britain's Future: Real Change in Europe'


The opening statement of the Conservative Party communication says it all:


For the first time since the Eurozone crisis you get to have your say on Britain's relationship with Europe.”

It says it all because it is indeed true that this is the first time since that Eurozone crisis (which began in 2009) that we can have our say on the EU. In fact the truth is that we can hardly ever have our say on the EU. Or, more correctly, whatever the majority of Brits say on this matter doesn't seem to have the slightest impact on either the EU and our relationship to it. What's more, British people having a say come May 22nd probably won't make much of a difference either! That's primarily either because the Conservative Party will renege on its promises - which is what usually happens - or the EU itself will not allow any change (or at least it won't allow any radical change).

And yet the Conservative Party - in this leaflet at least - says that the “EU needs fundamental change”. Then again, people, even Tory leaders, have been saying that for decades. So nothing new there then.


Of course you'd expect a manifesto about the upcoming European elections to be mainly about the EU. Nonetheless, I would say that what the Conservative Party says in this leaflet should also be said - almost word-for-word - in any upcoming leaflet on the main British election in 2015. What I mean is that the issues tackled here - such as immigration and excessive EU power - are of vital importance to the UK regardless of the European election on May 22nd.

But of course in the 2015 British election these issues will take a back seat or even be ignored entirely by the Conservative Party.

For example, discussing “benefit tourism”, “keeping our border controls” and even “bringing power back to Britain” (the words used in the leaflet) will not play as well - or so the Tories think - within the context of everyday post-election British politics. In other words, the Tories think they can get away sounding more radical in this European-election context than in an everyday post-election context.

Talk of “benefits tourism” and “keeping our border controls” scares the Conservative Party in the everyday domestic context because every time it opens its mouth on such issues the massed battalions of the Left (e.g., the race and rights industries, posh socialist lawyers, university professors and university think tanks, the Guardian, the BBC, parts of the Church of England, charities, etc.) give it hell. And the Tory Party is genuinely scared of these unelected but powerful Leftists and left-liberals. These people do indeed have substantial (though unelected) power and they can alter the political climate both before and during elections.

Vagueness


The trouble with this leaflet is how vague it is. I know it's only an election leaflet and you can't really expect any hard-core analysis in such a thing. Nonetheless, what is said in here is precisely the sort of thing you see and hear when Tories, or David Cameron himself, are interviewed and when they give their party political broadcasts.

The thing is, many voters don't go much beyond these soundbites and in fact politicians rarely do either. And there's probably nothing much that can be done about that.

Take this statement:


Capping welfare and reducing immigration so our economy delivers for people who want to work hard and play by the rules.”

I don't want to be pedantic... but reducing immigration by one would still be a case of “reducing immigration”. In addition, you could reduce immigration by one million but only do so over a five year period. As usual with claims like this, it depends on timescales and the exact amount of the reduction.

Here's two more tasters aimed specifically at the EU:

i) “Keeping our border controls and cracking down on benefit tourism.”
ii) “Getting a better deal for British taxpayers.”

Now even the most ardent Euro-bureaucrat or Euro-zealot would (publicly) agree with those words. In fact even a Euro-socialists would. Nonetheless, that's not to say that they would mean it. That is, publicly a European socialist MEP, for example, would agree with i) above but nonetheless quite possibly be working towards dismantling border controls and indeed the nation state itself. It's just that he can't - as an MEP or Eurocrat - state such a thing in public. And of course even a British Euro-socialist can't argue against the UK “getting a better deal for British taxpayers” (not out-loud anyway).

Despite that, these Eurocrats, Euro-workers and Euro-zealots will most certainly have a problem with the Conservative Party's other two points:


iii) “Securing more trade but not an 'even closer union'.”
iv) “Taking back control of Justice and Home Affairs.”

In terms of i), the Euro-zealot would simply say:

An “even closer union”, as you put it, would itself secure more trade. So what's your problem?

This is what a Euro-sceptic could say to Cameron:

If the Conservative Party happily admits that “more trade” can be established without an “even closer union”, then perhaps even more trade than that can be established without any (political) union at all.

As for ii), such demands from the Conservative Party seem to attack the very essence of the EU.

What I mean by that is that the EU is not and never has been “all about economics and jobs” (as New Labour deceitfully said both about both the EU and mass immigration): it's also about - in the jargon - “common standards of justice” and “universal human rights”. Now if there are indeed common standards of justice and universal human rights, then who better to implement them and see that they are followed than the EU? Indeed who is better to punish those states – such as the UK – who infringe those common standards of justice and abuse those universal human rights? Yes, none other than the EU!

The UK's EU Contribution

The Conservative election leaflet offers us some suspect economic stats about the EU and the Conservative Party. Then again, virtually all economic stats - especially when offered up by political parties or by, for example, the Leftist economist Jonathan Portes - are suspect in some way.

For example, the leaflet says that the Conservative Party has “cut the EU budget, saving British taxpayers £8.15 billion”. That does sound a lot. However, it leaves out the time period in which those savings were made. It also depends on what the government – or the British taxpayer - contributed to the EU before that cut.

But there's a problem with this figure. In 2011 we contributed £5.85 billion. Now let's just say that the we have contributed around £5 billion each year since the Conservative Party was elected in 2010. That would roughly equal a £20 billion contribution to the EU since the Tories gained power. Now this leaflet claims to have “cut the EU budget” by “£8.15 billion”. So that's even more than a year's contribution to the EU. And that's seemingly equivalent to saying that in one year we contributed nothing to the EU. Remember, the Tories claims to have cut £8.15 billion from the EU budget (presumably meaning our contribution to it); yet we contribute around £5 billion a year. Again, that cut is more than a year's contribution. Have I gone wrong somewhere?

The EU Referendum



The Conservative Party communication on the May 22nd European elections says that the British public will “get the final decision on Britain's membership of the EU at an in/out referendum by the end of 2017”. So why is the promised date of 2017?

No doubt the Conservative Party has an answer to that question. The problem is, I couldn't find that answer. The answer cannot even to be found on its 'Let Britain Decide' website.

Firstly, why wasn't this promise made in the pre-2010 Conservative Party manifesto? Secondly, the issue of a referendum is even more pressing now because the actual British (not European) election is in 2015. (Clearly it is now too late to do anything about that.)

To state the obvious: 2017 is two years after the next election in 2015. Why? Is it because by then the Tories can see which way the wind is blowing before the election after that? That is, if they are out of power in 2017, then promising a referendum may be good for the party. However, if they are reelected in 2015, then a referendum in 2017 may not be so good. Decisions decisions.

I don't want to say even more evil things but it's quite possible that the referendum won't even happen in 2017 either – even if the Tories are elected in 2015. After all, one or even twice, political parties have been known to lie.

On David Cameron's previous statements about an EU referendum.

From what I know, the debates I've seen are mainly based on two statements Cameron made: both of which are on video. (One is from 2009 and the other is from after his election in 2011.) Some defenders - some of whom claim not to be Tories (though they're clearly pro-EU) - have said that he didn't offer us a referendum about actual membership of the EU in 2009 (or before that). He simply offered us a referendum “on the Lisbon Treaty or any other future EU treaty”. That appears to be correct.

But none of this really matters. What Cameron said before power (prior to 2010), or before an election (as in leaflet), and what he does after an election, are two entirely different things: as every British voter knows. British voters are fully aware that politicians promise certain things before an election and then - sometimes almost immediately – renege on those promises. That is, the British people know that politicians lie. In fact we've got so used to these lies that we expect them and have even learned to live with them - even if they do still piss us off.

Thursday, 15 May 2014

White Leftists on UKIP's Black Uncle Toms







The UK Independence Party (UKIP) is almost on the verge of toppling a two-party (sometimes three-party) monopoly in British politics which goes back to the 19th century.

UKIP - which was formed as long ago as 1993 - calls from a withdrawal from the European Union (EU) and a halt to all political and social experiments in mass immigration.

Predictably, Leftists have been calling UKIP a 'racist party'. That's not a surprise: such people call all those who dare to disagree with them 'racist' or 'far right'. (Joseph Stalin called almost literally all his opponents and enemies “fascist”.)

In order to dispel these claims of racism (mainly based on its position on immigration), UKIP held a rally (or public meeting) in London (on the 7th of May) to prove to the race-obsessed Left that it isn't racist.

Apparently there were many non-white faces both in the audience and on the stage. Nonetheless, as we all know, all that won't change a thing: Leftists will simply rationalise the event as, say, a “gimmick”. They'll also class all the non-white members and leaders of UKIP as “Uncle Toms”. That's partly because many Leftists are themselves racist in that they demand that all members of the “ethnic minorities” must adhere to the set patterns of behaviour and belief which have been laid down for them by, well, white middle-class Leftists. It's also primarily because it's not UKIP's putative racism that these Leftists are really against – it's UKIP itself.

UKIP lined up various people from the ethnic minorities: such as Amjad Bashir, Winston Mckenzie (the former boxer), Suzanne Evans and Sarinder Joshua Duroch.


To be honest, wasn't this aspect of the rally a little bit distasteful? Shouldn't blacks and other minorities in UKIP simply do their job? Should they be paraded around on stage as if they were curious circus acts? Despite saying that, perhaps such an event was required for simple reasons of realpolitik and UKIP strategy.


Perhaps people shouldn't be too happy with the fact that Winston McKenzie - the former boxer - shouted out "I'm black and I'm proud" either. I suppose that you can argue that after years of genuine racial prejudice (not the kinds which are manufactured by anti-racist fanatics), it's only natural and right that blacks should say such things. Nevertheless, it can now be argued that after three decades (or so) of living under the anti-white prejudice and bigotry (at least against the non-Leftist working class) of our Leftist “hegemony” , that it's now perfectly acceptable for whites to also say “I'm white and I'm proud!”. And then what have you got? You've got race-based politics, which is precisely what the Left (as well as Nazis) wants and what it has helped bring about.




In other words, UKIP must realise that if it's against racism, then it must also be against statements like “I'm proud to be black”. Or perhaps I'm being too purist here. But think about it. What if I shouted out “I'm white and I'm proud!” at the same event? Now I'm almost certain that that statement would have gone down like the proverbial led balloon.


There's also a problem with what one writer said about the UKIP rally. Raheem Kassam, writing in Breitbart, said that the “audience, it must be reported, was still predominantly white”. Yes? And? Mr Kassam, that's simply because England is still a predominately white nation. That is unless Kassam believes in quotas or positive discrimination. Now, if that's the case, positive discrimination or quotas is not only racist in itself (even if 'positive') – it actually encourages (negative) racism. More accurately, it has made many of the people who haven't been the beneficiaries of such quotas or positive discrimination (i.e., white people) get very angry. And that, my friend, contributes to racism. Positive racism, in other words, encourages negative racism (as has been shown many times before).


I mentioned the Leftists' use of the phrase “Uncle Tom” earlier. At this same event Leftist protestors came pretty close to using that precise term. Take the case of the mixed-race UKIP leader, Steven Wolfe, who attended the rally. He was heckled by protesters (who were mainly from the overwhelming white and middle-class Socialist Workers Party). They classed him as “fake” and “racist”.... Yes, that's right: white middle-class Leftists classed a man of mixed race as “fake” and “racist”. He responded by saying that he himself was "called a n***er at the age of 5 years old".


What Steven Wolfe must realise is that such Leftists want their blacks to be “radical”, or members of the Nation of Islam, or rappers, or R 'n' B musicians, or even criminals. When they're not (say when they're conservatives, patriots or businessmen), then, according to racist Leftist logic, they simply must be Uncle Toms or “fake”. Such is the racial essentialism of many Leftists (particularly Trotskyists/”progressives”).


There was also a woman of both Jewish and black heritage – Paula McQueen – at the UKIP rally. She had this to say to the audience:


"We are libertarians, we believe in individual freedom, and we want the government to interfere less in people's lives”.

Well, if she believes all that, then she simply must be a an Uncle Tom (or an Auntie Tracy). Firstly, she's not a eternal victim of “capitalist oppression” who's therefore willing to be patronised by white, middle-class Leftists. Secondly, she's not a “radical” either. Thus, according to Leftist logic, she must be either be “fake” or an Uncle Tom.



Nigel Farage (the leader of UKIP) also had this to say at the rally:


"I don't care what you call us. You can call us right wing, left wing, you can call us small-minded, I don't care what you call us. But from this moment on, please, do not ever call us a racist party. We are not a racist party".


But the above isn't entirely true, strictly speaking. Why? Because every political party - of every conceivable persuasion - has its racists. Leftist parties and movements, for example, are full to the brim with racists. And the fact that this statement sounds almost paradoxical simply goes to show that the Left's self-publicity about its own pious and zealous anti-racism really has had an effect on people who aren't even left-wing.


Many Leftist cretins, then, will continue to class UKIP's blacks, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, etc. as Uncle Toms.


But this isn't just a UKIP phenomenon.
Richard Silverstein


Take the case of the Leftist academics and bloggers (such as
Islamophobia Watch) who've called Ayaan Hirsi Ali an Uncle Tom for opposing female genital mutilation, gender apartheid, “honour killings” and whatnot. And, more recently, Richard Silverstein called a black supporter of Israel a “negro” and he even questioned her ability - as a black woman - to write an article about Israel and anti-Zionism. (These are some of Silverstein's words for Leftist justice: “They finally did it: found a negro Zionist: Uncle Tom is dancing' for Joy!”)

Two Uncle Toms, according to white, middle-class Trots.

And whenever a Muslim moderate speaks out (the few that do), Trotskyist websites such as Islamophobia Watch class them as Uncle Toms (even if they don't always use that exact term). You see such Leftists want their Muslims to be "radical" (or Islamist) too; just as they do their blacks. And if they aren't, then they class them as Uncle Toms.


So, in a sense, many on the Left (the International Socialists) are almost as racist as their estranged brothers: the National Socialists (Nazis). Of course Leftists deny outright that they can be racist: it's a logical impossibility. Leftists, by self-definition, simply can't racists. Yeh, sure!
Timothy Garton Ash thinks Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an Uncle Tom.



Nonetheless, here are just three reasons why the contemporary Left is profoundly racist:


i) In the UK, large chunks of the Left are racist towards whites (usually the non-Leftist working class); as shown by their political discrimination against whites (though not themselves) and discrimination in favour of ethnic minorities.
ii)The Leftist tradition of Jew-hatred goes back to Marx's diatribes against the “capitalist Jews” - some seventy years before the formation of the Nazi Party in 1920/21. Ever since Marx, many International Socialists have fused Jews and capitalism together in their minds; just as National Socialists have fused Jews and communism together in theirs.
iii) Added to such negative racisms, the Left has also zealously and piously adopted the ubiquitous positive/inverted racism which is now primarily directed at Muslims; but which was formerly directed at blacks.


As for the Left's championship of immigration. Predictably (as mentioned earlier) there were many SWP, Hope Not Hate and other extreme Leftists protesting outside this UKIP event. They were screaming out such soundbites as "UKIP, No Way! Immigrants, here to stay!" and probably throwing stuff too. 





This Leftist patronage of endless mass immigration (as well as being against “closed doors” and the nation state itself) has virtually nothing to do with “fighting racism”. It's mainly about bringing about a revolutionary (or simply destabilised) situation in the UK. And just as New Labour imported up to three million immigrants (between 2000 and 2010) for almost exclusively political and ideological reasons, so these Leftists protesters also want endless mass immigration for similarly ideological and political reasons. That is, most Leftists don't fight against racism because of their unbounded and profound love of the Other. Their fierce and zealous anti-racism is, instead, simply a weapon in the revolutionary arsenal of the radical Left.



Leftists (or at least the Far Leftists) know full well that such mass immigration will help them destabilize the “capitalist system” (as they call it). Through such destabilization, people will become “radicalized” (or so they predict) into adopting revolutionary socialism – as offered to them by, say, the SWP. In other words, the riots and communal conflict which have already occurred in the UK, and which will occur on a larger scale in the future, are but a means to bring about the revolution which these Leftists so desire. Or, as the phrase goes, for the (revolutionary) Leftist (as well as the Nazi): “The worse things are, the better they are."














                             **********************************************************8

Notes on Comments From American Thinker:


1) "The most glaring mistake of the article was saying Nazis and left are different."


Did I say or imply that? In any case, they are different. Even similar parties are different in certain respects.


I know that International Socialists (Leftists) and National Socialists (Nazis) share far more than they don't share. And that's why they focus on their dissimilarities. But there's a grammatical problem here.


Even if Nazis and Leftists (or the Far Left) were identical, I still wouldn't use 'Nazis' or 'Leftists' to refer to both groups because that would create obvious misunderstandings for many readers. Even if they share ideologies, they still belong to different parties, different classes, have different traditions, wear different clothes, etc. So if I used a uniform term to refer to all Leftist and Nazi totalitarians, it would be very unhelpful.


"The only real difference between the Nazis and Joseph Stalin's brand of tyranny was the audacity of Hitler to attack Stalin. Up to that time, even the French Commies liked the Nazis. (Who do you think was waving to the Germans as they marched into Paris?) (Then promptly became a serious resistance after Hitler attacked Stalin) Nazis are just socialist/communist/progressive control freaks with a serious superiority racist bent. No wait a minute, so was Stalin."


I agree. That's an account of the "first brown then red" strategy of virtually all German and European socialists/Communists - including Trotskyists - in the early 1930s.


Only this morning, I saw a video of a British "far right" party in which one member said: "The capitalists are turning us all into wage-slaves." (Another went on about "Zionist globalism".) The policies this group are advancing are almost indistinguishable from what the SWP, Counterfire, 21st Century Revolution, Respect, the Stop the War Coalition (StWC) and other Trotskyist/communist groups are offering "the workers".


And that's why the Leftist and the Nazis dogs fight each other so fiercely: they are fighting for possession of the same political bones.


2) "The hard-left want revolution, the liberal/left want bunnies and love and peace....because they are not terribly bright and easily brainwashed with the nice buzzwords."


I think that's mainly because the Hard Left does all the theorising. It loves theory. Theory is primary to Trotskyists and communists. Theory is what makes people have True Consciousness, rather than False Consciousness.


Marxist theory, to the Hard Left, is a cleansing mechanism. The more theory the better. It makes you different from "one-dimensional man" and all those lovers of soap and soccer so hated by Chomsky.


Theory rules OK!


That theory, though, filters down from the Hard Left (in the universities) to the bunny-lovers of the Soft Left who are busy doing real politics (in council chambers and even in Parliament), or running charities and rights/race industries, etc. In other words, the Hard Left does the thinking for the Soft Left.


Hence it's often the case that the Leftists on the street (outside, for example, Alex Callinicos's London University) only have buzzwords. Theory created those buzzwords; but they don't know the theory. They only know buzzwords. These buzzwords alone, it seems, cleanse them of False Consciousness.


3) I frequently refer to the class nature of British Leftists in this article simply because it is these very same people who are obsessed with class (or at least they were before Muslims and lots of other immigrants came along). In addition, they are often middle-class people who have traditionally seen it as their job to speak for (or patronise) the working class: whether they were communists, Trotskyists or Fabians.


So I have no problem with 'class societies' as such; just the fact that most Leftists - and virtually all Marxist revolutionaries - are middle class: often upper-middle-class. It's the hypocrisy and irony that gets me.


"Here in the States, though, the 'middle class' is definitely not the backbone of the various Regressive parties. We are far too busy working jobs to support our families, and raising the same, to run off to every political rally and demonstration. We also don't particularly care for trashing our own neighborhoods and shopping districts, either - we have to live, work, and shop in them."


True. But we, on the whole, use the words "middle class" differently in the UK.



The middle class is made up of different sections. (No, I don't claim to be a sociologist.) So you appear to be referring to those who run their own businesses, etc. The Leftists I have in mind, on the other hand, have a lot of leisure time to go on demos, become political activists, etc. because they are often lecturers/professors, students, people involved in the rights and race industries and so on. In fact their business is precisely to work towards creating a Leftist state and also to give parties like UKIP a hard time.



Leftism is itself a business (whether in the universities, the law, publishing, etc.) with lots of money to be made and lots of "career opportunities".



"The Regressives here come from the elitists of the upper class, who agitate, fund, and channel the ignorant and envious poor against the middle class (who are,after all, the enemy in Marxist dogma)."


That's true here too. The foot-soldiers of the Leftist elite may well be students and sometimes even workers. However, the further up the hierarchies of Leftist parties and groups you go, the more privileged their leaders become. Take the Central Committee of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). If anything, that elite group has been mainly made up of upper-middle-class types: people who went to fee-paying schools and whatnot. (Although a couple have been from "working-class backgrounds" over the years. I know that because the SWP frequently mentions it.) Indeed two present members of the SWP's Central Committee, Charlie Kimber and Alex Callinicos, had relations - back in the 19th century - who were British Lords.

Monday, 12 May 2014

British Muslim Terrorists Before 9/11






Before 9/11, we never had these types of issues. All this has developed since 9/11. The Government’s foreign policy… going into Iraq…”

Abdul Qadeer Baksh, Chairman of the Luton Islamic Center

In the UK, a lot of commentators - not all of them Muslims - said that the Islamic murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich (London) was a primarily, or even exclusively, a response to three main factors: the Iraq War in 2003, the ‘invasion’ of Afghanistan in 2001, and, to a lesser degree, a response to the Muslims who have been killed by ‘drone attacks’ carried out by the United States.


Despite all of that, it has also been said that the move from selective terrorism to the "global jihad" occurred in London a couple of decades or so before the intervention in Afghanistan in 2001.


Osama bin Laden's first fatwas were originally published in London. And, as early as the late 1980s and early 1990s, a number of radical Islamist conferences took place in Britain.


Islamists from all over the world attended these conferences. They included Hamas, Hezbollah and many other Islamist groups. In other words, this global jihad more or less began in the late 1980s in London.


It's no surprise, then, that al-Qaeda’s first major attack on the US was partly planned from the UK. After the actual attack, the claim of responsibility also came from the UK – from London.





To plan all this carnage, which was part of this new global jihad, Osama bin Laden set up a ‘media information office’ which he named the Advisory and Reformation Committee.




Even earlier than that, and away from London, the seeds of the global jihad were being planted in the UK. Take the Islamic Foundation of Leicester, which was set up forty years ago, in 1974.


What was the purpose of this Foundation? It was set up to promote the political beliefs of the Jamaat al-Islami. What were its political beliefs? Primarily it was, and still is, to spread sharia law not only to all Muslims, but also to all non-Muslims throughout the globe – hence the global jihad.


We are talking about England here – Leicester.





The chairman and rector of the Islamic Foundation was also the vice president of the Jamaat al-Islami opposition party in Pakistan. And this too has total sharia law as its mission. That is, the turning of Pakistan into a complete sharia state – an Islamic state.
Dewsbury mosque.



Now let’s move a hundred miles or so to the Yorkshire town of Dewsbury. The same sort of thing which happened in Leicester happened there too. But instead of Jamaat al-Islami being imported into the UK, we now have the Tablighi Jamaat. This is a radical proselytising movement – or, as Muslims put it, it is a da’wah movement.


The Tablighi Jamaat mosque was built four years after the earlier Islamic Foundation of Leicester was founded – in 1978. To put things simply: this mosque has been a major recruiter for the global jihad for thirty-six years – since 1978.

To get back to Leicester’s Jamaat al-Islami. This Islamist group has supplied mosques - throughout the UK - with radical imams. It has also set up ‘research centers’ like the one in Leicester itself. The result of this Jamaat al-Islami semi-monopoly was that a whole generation of British Muslim kids were indoctrinated with Islamist and pro-jihadist ideas.

The British Terrorists

 

Omar Bakri Mohammed & Abu Hamza

Let’s just take the case of a single well-known and important jihadist who began his work many years before 2001.


Omar Bakri Mohammed, a jihadist who was born in Syria, arrived in the UK twenty-eight years ago – in 1986. He ended up in the UK because he’d been expelled from Saudi Arabia. In no time at all, he set up the first UK branch of the extreme Islamist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir.

From the UK, he called for the murder of the British Prime Minister of the time – Margaret Thatcher. A little later, in 1991, he did something similar when he claimed that the then Prime Minister, John Major, was “a legitimate target; if anyone gets the opportunity to assassinate him, I don’t think they should save it”. Of course, nothing was done about this jihadist by the British government of the time or by anyone else for that matter.

There was also Islamist trouble brewing at the now famous Finsbury mosque back in the early 1990s. Extremists took over this mosque in the early 1990s. And even then, the hook-handed, ex-bouncer and media star, Abu Hamza, was part of all that trouble.

The activities of Abu Hamza go even further back than that.

He said himself that he had had “a long association with the Taliban government”. In the 1990s, he was part of the group Supporters of Sharia, which was deemed to be a propagandist group for the Algerian GIA in Europe. He was even connected to the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.


In addition, only around two and a half months before 9/11, on June 29, 2001, Abu Hamza hatched a plot “which involved attacks carried out by planes” to kill President Bush at the G8 summit in Genoa. This plot was hatched actually within the Finsbury Park mosque in London.

At least one person, an Algerian journalist named Reda Hussaine, was aware what was going on in these early days at Finsbury Park mosque. Not that this amounted to anything because MI5 didn’t want to know. He wrote:


I watched young Muslims at the Finsbury Park mosque in London in the late 1990s being prepared for journeys to military camps. Money was raised for their air fares by selling books and films in stalls at the mosques.”


Another London-based terrorist, the Algerian Rachid Ramda, gained asylum in the UK in 1992. Three years later, the French Government accused him of having financed a terrorist attack on Saint Michel Station in Paris (1995). Eight people died and 150 were wounded as a result of this act of Islamic terrorism. Because of this, the French Government requested his extradition three times – in 1995, 1996 and 2001. Each request was rejected by the British government. However, ten years after the first request, in 2005, the British government finally sent him back to France.


Now let’s talk about Birmingham (in the English Midlands).



16 years ago, in 1998 and three years before the intervention in Afghanistan, eight British Muslims from Birmingham, London and Luton (this is of course relevant to the quote which opens this article from the Chairman of the Luton Islamic Center), were arrested and convicted in the Yemeni capital Aden. They were arrested for plotting terrorist attacks against British targets in Yemen and of abducting a group of tourists.

Abu Qatada & the Finsbury mosque

These British Muslim terrorists were actually recruited in the mosques of Birmingham, London and Luton. They were even trained in terrorist camps which were sponsored by Osama bin Laden.

Interestingly enough, Abu Hamza is part of this story too; along with Finsbury mosque. It is said that he mastered minded the terrorist attacks in Yemen as well as the abduction of tourists. He denied this. However, one of the British terrorists was no other than his son and one of the others was his godson! Being a good father, he admitted telephoning them just after they had abducted the tourists in Yemen.
Salma Yaqoob


Since we have just spoken of Birmingham here and the Yemen plot, let’s mention Salma Yaqoob, who's the former leader of the Respect party and writer for the British 'progressive' newspaper, The Guardian. She acted as a media spokeswoman for these British Muslim terrorists, in Yemen, at the time. The campaign was called ‘Justice for the Yemen Seven’.



Just one year after the arrest of the British terrorists from Birmingham, Luton and London, in 1999, it was reported, in a national newspaper, that each year some two thousand British Muslims were attending terrorist training camps around Britain to be taught the skills required for the global jihad. The camps were held most weekends in Birmingham and London. These camps were run by a group called al-Muhajiroun, a group from London which has since changed its name more than once. The group wanted to enforce Islamic rule on all Western governments, as Anjem Choudary’s group still does today.


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


Notes on Comments From American Thinker:


1) "Mr. Murphy, personally, I believe Britain is past the point of no return."



With only three to five million Muslims at present, how could that possibly be? If I thought the same, I wouldn't have bothered writing the article.


We should be careful with what philosophers call "necessitarian arguments" - especially about the future and even more especially about the political future. (Most – or even all - Marx's prophesies about the future turned out wrong.) There are simply too many variables to be so sure about these things.



Granted, as I said, things will be terrible in twenty years' time. But that's twenty years' time. In addition, things will have to change pretty quick. But there is evidence, in the UK, that things are changing.



"Even if Britain closed its immigration doors today, barring mass deportation, me thinks you folks are screwed."



If the Leftist "hegemony", and the Labour Party, has been guilty of huge negative social and political experiments on the British people, then, at least in principle, there could also be huge positive political changes in the opposite direction. Why not? Nothing stays the same - least of all in politics. Things could get worse, sure; but things could also get better. I don't know. And neither do you.



"There is a whole lot at play --- from ever increasing muslim political power to British demographic birth rates and to near total subjugation to political correctness."



All those things can be rectified in all sorts of ways. In theory at least, we could put a halt to all Muslim immigration. And if we crack down on all internal sharia law, then the only problem will be Muslim demographics. But without sharia power, as it were, Islam couldn't manifest itself in this country - unless we let it, which we are... at the moment.



Think here about the rise of UKIP, as well as the EDL, Liberty GB, Britain First and numerous patriotic and counter-jihad Facebook pages and websites, etc. - all fighting against Islamisation. Something, or many things, will crack sooner or later.



Even our established national newspapers carry news stories about Islamisation and the threat of "radical Islam" almost every day. How is all that going to be kept under control - even by our dhimmi or Islamophile Establishment?



I'm not a futurologist, so I don't know what will happen. And I'm not a determinist when it comes to present realities firmly and inextricably determining future realities either.



If people give in now, that will simply create a self-fulfilling prophesy. That is, things will get worse simply because people think that "things can only get worse".


2) "Then you wouldn't much care for the 'diversity' that the Democrat Party is about to foist upon the United States via amnesty for several dozen million illegal aliens, mostly of Mexican descent, nationality and ethnic loyalty."


That sounds like a terrible state of affairs. And, again, it is Leftist/progressive politics which is probably driving it, rather than any genuine love of (Mexican) immigrants.



It will be led by an underlying Leftist ideology which is against the very idea of a nation state (or "closed borders") - even if that ideology is rarely stated to the voters. As with the UK from 2000 to 2010, it sounds like a Leftist/progressive social experiment on the American people - without a single vote being cast for it. (Not that every issue can be voted for - just the important ones, eh?)



"You naively state that Muslims 'must follow British law.' They don't, they won't, and you know it."



Hang on a minute. I said that "Muslims must follow the law". I didn't say that they do or that they will follow the law.


British Muslims do follow some laws, clearly. However, the brutal fact is that to the extent that they are Muslims means that they must not follow any non-sharia laws. That means that in the future, more and more British Muslims will follow less and less British laws.



And the Muslims who do follow non-Islamic law, do so against their own religion. That is, sharia law = Islam.



Your views about Mexicans just sound racist to me. Perhaps I'm a "cultural Marxist". Whatever. However, a culture being flooded by millions of any kind of immigrant, in such a short time, seems like a very bad idea, as I said.



The fact that you can't discriminate between Muslims and Mexicans, and indeed between any kind of immigrant, shows me that you lack subtlety on these issues and are simply "thinking with the blood".


All Mexicans cannot be bad by definition. Unless you think there is such thing as a Mexican race and that their fixed DNA determines their behaviour and beliefs NO MATTER WHAT SITUATION THEY FIND THEMSELVES IN.


Muslims, on the other hand, are defined by their religion. And religion does determine specific beliefs and behaviours.


I don't generalise about "all Muslims" either. All I say is that to the extent that Muslims follow sharia law (Islam) within a non-Muslim country, that is what determines whether the situation is problematic or not. If Muslims remain nominal or tribal Muslims, or keep sharia out of the public arena, there would be no issue. The problem is that, on the whole, is not going to happen in the future.


3) "How idealistic."


[My views about immigrations, Muslims, etc.]


Which bit of what I said is "idealistic" and why?



Nothing is more "idealistic" that attempting to impose an "ethno nation" - through totalitarian means - on a people who were born and bred on democracy and who haven't got a problem with immigrants simply because they are immigrants. Nothing is more "idealistic" than imposing foreign ideologies – and I don't mean Islam - on the British people.



"What group of people does not impose their cultural will and identities around them?"


What does that mean? I've already said that Muslims must follow British law, etc. So what are you referring to, exactly?


"We couldn't stop ourselves [from imposing our ethnic will] even if we tried..."


Again, what does that mean? Is that some kind of folk biology or something? It's too vague, mate.


"Diversity just isn't worth it."


It depends. Or do you prefer black-and-white positions? "Embracing diversity" is a bad thing when it becomes an absolute, as it has with the British Left. People should pick and choose which examples of diversity are acceptable in a given society. For example, we cannot tolerate the intolerant (e.g., Islamism).


Tell me which "diversity" you're talking about; and then I'll tell you whether I'm against it or not. Saying you are against diversity in toto is almost meaningless.


Besides totalitarian Islam, there are other examples of diversity I personally don't like: totalitarian Nazism/fascism and totalitarian communism/Leftism.


4) "The Brits just didn't have the balls to stop it and now the rest of the Western world is on notice."


That is a generalisation. Many Brits do have "the balls to stop it" - they just don't have the requisite political power to do so effectively.


The vast majority of Brits are against further Muslim immigration. They are also in favour of taking action against Muslim grooming gangs, enforced halal produce, Muslim patrols in London, FGM, "honour killings", increased sharia law, etc. Tens of thousands of Brits are active on Facebook, in political groups/movements, etc. They just aren't in positions of power in the political establishment.


At least on Islam, the Establishment (both Leftists and Conservatives) is vastly at odds with the British people. As yet, we can't really do anything about that. But the British people certainly has the balls.

Things are changing and they are changing fast. The genie has been let out of the lamp and it can't be put back in. Literally millions of Brits know the truth about Islam. (Thanks to the Internet, which Muslims haven't, as yet, imposed sharia blasphemy law upon - although they are always trying to do so.)


So the majority of Brits, as yet, don't have the political power to stop the rot. They must gain that political power within, say, 10 to 20 years otherwise it will simply be too late. Then there will be civil war - as there already is in places from southern Thailand to Oslo. There has also been for 1,400 years of civil war between Muslims and the peoples they have either conquered and subdued or they have lived next to.


5) Why "xenophobia"? The article is only about Islam and Muslims.


I have no problem with other peoples as long as they don't attempt to impose their will on me and on the nation in which I live.


I don't even have a problem with immigration - within limits. It depends on the immigrants and the numbers.



What I do have a problem with is the mass-immigration experiments Leftists and Labourites have carried out on the British people behind their backs. (Although being flooded with three million immigrants in ten years was not really behind anyone's back – it was the political motives and reality alone which were secret.) But my problem then is with our former Leftist/Labour leaders - not immigrants as such.



America has largely, though not entirely, been successful with its immigrants. Though it depends on whether or not Leftists, or "progressives", want to impose their pious views about immigrants - and the virtues of immigration - on the people no matter what the people want and no matter what the negative consequences of that immigration are. That is the problem with immigration: Leftist/progressive experimentation and diktat from the top.



Immigrants can only our "alter identities", as you put it, if indigenous politicians allow that to happen. And between the 2000 and 2010, that was what happened in the UK (as well as to some extent before).



The Labour Party, and its ideological and social/socialist fixations, are to blame.

Sunday, 11 May 2014

Marxists Against Postmodernists







Postmodernism Won't Smash Capitalism!



Whatever the pros and cons of postmodernism, what matters to Marxists (as ever) is that it won't, as they often put it, “smash capitalism” or help produce a revolutionary situation. Thus it is more or less useless to the average dogmatic and monomaniacal Marxist.


Marxists want to smash capitalism through (violent) revolution. Postmodernists, on the whole, don't want to do that. Therefore Marxists believe that if postmodernism is not intent on smashing capitalism (or doesn't create a revolutionary situation), then it's either “neo-conservative” (Jürgen Habermas's word) or it's actually a part of the capitalist system which needs to be smashed.


Marxists traditionally saved most of their deepest hatred for fellow socialists and even for fellow Marxists. Today Marxists have the most profound hatred for postmodernists and other theoretical or philosophical 'counter-revolutionaries'.


You see Marxist dogmatism and zealotry doesn't just turn Marxists against “the far right” or conservatives: everyone who's not for Marxism and the revolution is an enemy. Thus the enemies of the average Marxist are legion and stretch from Tories and “reformist socialists” to postmodernists like Jean Baudrillard and  Jean-François Lyotard and even thinkers like Michele Foucault.


It is this kind of rigid, fundamentalist and zealous Marxist 'logic' (or thinking) which leads to the Gulag: not the purported “deviations” from Marxism such as Stalinism.


Marxists Against Pluralism



What Marxists are also fundamentally against is pluralism. Or, in the specific case of postmodernism, they are against the postmodernist championship of pluralities (or Slavoj Žižek's “hybrid entities”). What Marxists want, instead, is a single ideology (i.e., Marxism) which makes sense of that single most important aspect of politics and society: class. Thus pluralism not only encourages pluralities (or different “phrase regimes”, as Lyotard put it), it also ends up with a plurality of competing ideologies. And that, of course, is extremely unhelpful to Marxists because they see the Marxism-versus-capitalism ideological battle as being primary or even being the only Real (as pseuds like Slavoj Žižek put it) battle.



Terry Eagleton, for example, is very specific as to why he has a problem with pluralism. In his The Illusions of Postmodernism (1996) he writes that “for all its talk of difference, plurality, heterogeneity”, postmodernism still can't escape from the prison-house that capitalism has created for it. (This is the same argument of Slavoj Žižek.) More specifically, Eagleton believes that this postmodernist celebration of plurality is simply a predictable result of the fact that mass political movements (inspired and led by Marxists, of course) “have temporarily gone out of business” (as written in 1996).



As for these despised (by Marxists) pluralities, Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe argued that Marxists - rather than despising them, they should embrace them. In their book Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (1985), they argued that Marxists should align themselves with all the (politically-correct!) movements which were on offer to them: such as feminism, the Greens, ethnic and sexual minorities, etc. In actual fact, Trotskyists, for one, have always done this (though that has been even more the case in recent years). However, this alignment of Trotskyist Marxist parties, for example, and these pluralities might not have been what Laclau and Mouffe had in mind because such alignments have been and still are deeply cynical and opportunistic on the part of Trotskyist groups. In other words, what Trotskyist tend to do with these social movements is not to align with them; but either infiltrate them or quite literally take them over. And in that process Trotskyists attempt to impose their strict Marxist ideologies and modes of action on these otherwise disparate groups. So, basically,Trotskyists were, and still are, going against Laclau and Mouffe's intention. In other words, this isn't “socialist political pluralism”. It is, instead, Trotskyist parties infiltrating or taking over social movements for their own end: the white, middle-class Trotskyist revolution.


Marxists Against Postmodernists


Douglas Kellner



Douglas Kellner is a strong critic of postmodernism. 


The primary claim is that postmodernists are not really political at all. However, what Kellner really means is that they are no longer Marxists or socialist revolutionaries.


For example, he makes these crude Marxist generalisations about Jean Baudrillard and others:


I am not sure that we have now transcended and left behind modernity, class politics, labour and production, imperialism, fascism and the other phenomena described by classical and neo-Marxism...”


For a start, I doubt very much that any postmodernist has ever “left behind” class (or “class politics”), “labour”, “production”, etc. How on earth could they? Such things obviously exist. (Though this is not quite so clear when it comes to “modernity” and what Kellner takes to be “fascism” and “imperialism”.) What postmodernists have rejected are Marxist theories of class, labour, production and whatnot. Now that is a rejection of Marxism, not a a case of completely leaving behind the things which have been tackled by Marxists and others.




Kellner even extends his rigid Marxist critique to Michel Foucault - whom he sees fit to lump together with Baudrillard and Lyotard - when he says that Foucault “made a serious theoretical mistake in severing [his] work from the Marxian critique of capitalism” (166).


Here again the same error is made. Foucault most certainly did not “sever [his] work” from the “critique of capitalism”. He severed himself from the “Marxian critique of capitalism” - as Kellner, this time, explicitly puts it. And again, Kellner, being a fundamentalist Marxist, will believe that a severing oneself from a/the Marxist critique of capitalism is a severing oneself from the critique of capitalism itself – full stop.


Not only do Marxists like Kellner deem postmodernists to be part of Das System, they also question their status as “radicals”. Kellner says precisely that - if not explicitly - in the following:


Baudrillard is still read and received as a political radical, and those who are becoming increasingly attracted to his thought generally perceive themselves as 'radicals' of some sort.” (162)


Clearly, being a non-Marxist also means being a non-radical to Kellner and other Marxists (hence the scare quotes around “radicals”). And, just like non-Marxist critiques of capitalism are not really critiques of capitalism at all (according to Marxists), so non-Marxist radicals are not really radicals at all. Or as Kellner puts it:


Baudrillard is the latest example of critical criticism which criticises everything, but rarely affirms anything of much danger to the status quo.” (162)


However, there is some truth in what Kellner says above about Baudrillard. He is part of that French philosophical tradition of endless oneupmanship between French philosophers - or generations of philosophers - in which each new philosopher contrives to out-radicalise his predecessor. Or, as Kellner puts it, Baudrillard and others offer us “critical criticism which criticises everything”.


Nonetheless, that's precisely the view many take of many contemporary Marxists or revolutionaries: they criticise everything but offer nothing in its place. In addition, I would argue that Baudrillard can be deemed to be a radical – just not an outright Marxist radical.


I would also say that Marxist ways of thinking, and even specific Marxist theories, still motivated much of his thought (see later section on Lyotard). But, of course, being a self-conscious outreradical, he simply had to reject the tried, tested and boring Marxism of his day. After all, both Lyotard and Baudrillard, and many other postmodernists and post-structuralists, once belonged to Marxist groups.


Alex Callinicos


Alex Callinicos (of the Socialist Workers Party's Central Committee) also makes this error when he claims that postmodernists have forgotten about the nature of exploitation. No they haven't! Or at least not all postmodernists have. What they have done, as with the Kellner/Baudrillard case, is forgotten about, or rejected, all the stale and dogmatic Marxist theories about exploitation. That's a completely different thing entirely.



The Marxist logic here is very simply. As with Marx, the Soviet theoreticians, onwards, if you don't offer a Marxist analysis of exploitation, or of “class politics”, labour and production (in Kellner's case), etc., then, effectively, you aren't offering an analysis at all. Such is the arrogance of Marxists. (A Marxist arrogance which has run through the entire history of Marxism.)


Alex Callinicos is actually very specific about the problem with postmodernism.


In order to offer a true or correct analysis of exploitation, for example, the theorist simply must take account of the what Marx called “surplus value”. That is, the postmodernist must take account of how surplus value is creamed off by the capitalist. However, if as a postmodernist (or as anyone else) you don't accept the highly metaphysical theory of surplus value, then your analysis of exploitation, and so much more, will quite simply be false (or “counter-revolutionary”) – by Marxist definition.


And, again, by mindlessly simple Marxist logic, if the theorist or analyst of exploitation - or anything else - is not doing his theorizing through the tight and severely circumscribed lenses of Marxist theory, then, by Marxist definition, he must be a capitalist or, as Jürgen Habermas puts it, a “young conservative”. 




Fredric Jameson went further: he said that the whole of postmodernism simply expressed “the logic of late-capitalism”.


It's clear, then, that Marxists in the 1980s and beyond were as rigid and dogmatic as they had always been. And that rigidity and dogmatism always guaranteed that they would always fail from an intellectually standpoint (though not necessarily politically).


In the end, then, according to rigid and obdurate Marxists like Frederic Jameson, Alex Callinicos, Douglas Kellner and many others, the entirety of postmodernism was/is simply “symptomatic of the capitalist system in a particular phase of its development” (165).


The Postmodernist Critique of Marxism & Postmodernist Marxism


Jean-François Lyotard Turns Against Communist Parties



The specific historical context of Jean-François Lyotard's conversion to postmodernism (as it were) from Marxism can be easily traced.


It all happened roundabout 1968.


Lyotard was both shocked and disgusted by the French Communist Party's condemnation of the occupation of the Nanterre campus of the University of Paris by a student group which was led, at the time, by none other than Daniel Cohn-Bendit.


The French Communist Party supported the arrest of the student leaders involved in the occupation. Nonetheless, the French Communist Party wasn't on its own: the unions, the press, the university authorities were also against the occupation.





It's often also said that the students were also supported by the striking workers who were striking against government pay policy. Nonetheless, the students simply fused with the strikers and vice-versa (though some union activists would have supported the student Leftists).


Clearly, then, Lyotard's disgust at the French Communist Party, and his support for the students, was less a question of his rejecting Marxism and more a case of him thinking that the French Communist Party was not Marxist or revolutionary enough. In other words, Lyotard was taking a classic Trotskyist position - not a “postmodernist” one - against the communists and in support of the students. There was nothing in the least bit “postmodern” about his position and actions at this point.


Nonetheless, all this did indeed lead him in the direction of postmodernism, as it were. So much so that even in the 1980s Lyotard still regarded “May 1968” as the beginning of the end of old-style Marxism. In fact one of the well-known slogans of these Paris évènements included the word “bureaucrat”. And that, it seems, was a reference to, if not Marxism itself, then to communist political parties. Thus:


Comrades, humanity will never be happy until the last capitalist is hung on the guts of the last bureaucrat.”


Jean-François Lyotard's Postmodernist Marxism


The fact is that some – or most – postmodernists did offer both an analysis and a critique of capitalism – just not a completely Marxist one.


Take Lyotard in his well-known book, The Postmodern Condition. In that book he asks us what form capital takes in contemporary society. He asks questions about contemporary “means of production” and how they different from previous periods (in the classic Marxist manner). More relevantly, and more in line with Marxism, he asks how contemporary political reality reacts to contemporary forms of capital and means of production.


In fact Lyotard becomes even more explicitly Marxist when he analyses contemporary capital and the means of production.


Firstly, just like Marx, he tell us how capital has transformed itself from being primarily industrial to being what he calls “informational”; just as Marx detailed the change from 18th century mercantilism to 19th century capitalist industrialism.


Lyotard even applied Marxist modes of thought to the analysis of “informational capital”. That is, he talked in terms of computers maximizing the output of information from the minimum of human input; just as Marx claimed that capitalism maximized industrial/capital profit from the minimum of (paid) human input (or labour). In other words, every time time and labour are reduced to a minimum (when it comes to computer or informational output), the capitalist (or capitalism itself) makes a profit.


In fact this sounds very much like Lyotard's own version of Marx's theory of “surplus value”. However, Lyotard is not talking here about the maximum “exploitation” of labour or even the maximum exploitation of informational input; but of the minimum use of labour and the minimum use of time. That, in itself, is not simple exploitation in the classic Marxist manner. In fact to the extent that labour has become less relevant in our “informational age”, the less we can talk about exploitation at all. The only exploitation we can really talk about is the denial of work to to labour – work which may well lead to exploitation!


So in certain respects Lyotard retains Marxist categories (or ways of thinking) and jettisons others. And why not?


Phrase Regimes


Quite simply, Lyotard substituted Marx's idea of “class consciousness” (or class ideology) with his notion of a “phrase regime”; which was most fully enunciated in his book, The Differend (1983).


If anything, phrase regimes are very much like the “class ideas” or ideologies of each class within a capitalist society in that Lyotard argued - just like Marxists - that the aims and desires of each phrase regime are incommensurable. However, to Marxists, they are politically incommensurable; whereas Lyotard seemed to have believed they were also semantically incommensurable. (This is not unlike Thomas Kuhn's new and revolutionary scientific “paradigms” vis-a-vis their predecessors.) This is clearly is clearly Lyotard's re-spinning of Marxist theories about the classes of capitalist society and their (politically) incommensurable ideologies.


Indeed Lyotard cites an example of these incompatible (or incommensurable) phrase regimes that could have been taken straight out of any Marxist book at almost any time.


He writes about an exploited worker who can't do anything about her exploitation (in whichever form it manifests itself) because, in order to challenge her boss, she would have to do so in a court of law. And, in a pure Marxist spirit, Lyotard argues - with brutal simplicity - that she will fail simply because exploitation is, well, legal in a capitalist society. (Let's leave to the side what exactly Lyotard means by “exploitation” in this context.) Indeed the boss and the court belong to the same phrase regime (again, this is classic Marxism). And because of that, this female worker cannot help but fail or have her voice denied. (The fact that workers often don't fail - against their bosses and otherwise - in the courts is overlooked here.)


Lyotard moves on from this classic Marxist account of exploitation (as well as of the nature of the different ideologies and power-structures of phrase regimes) to provide an equally Marxist (partial) solution to this problem.


Whereas Marxists would talk about the 'revolutionary vanguard' articulating the demands of this worker, and even providing the solution to this mini-system of exploitation, Lyotard assigns that role to philosophers such as, well, himself (which amounts to almost the same thing as the Marxist 'vanguard'). Just as the middle-class Marxist vanguard scrubs away the false consciousness of workers, and provides them with revolutionary ideas, so Lyotard's philosophers also help the exploited find their voices. Or, more correctly, help workers find the voice of the philosopher (or vanguard) and then help them adopt it. Lyotard calls this “philosophical politics”. Marxists call it “revolutionary politics” (as enabled by a vanguard of middle-class revolutionaries).


In addition, just as Marx saw politics as everything and philosophy as nothing (“the point is to change the world”), so Lyotard believed that radical political phrase regimes were the greatest achievement of (postmodern) philosophy.


The Anomalous Case of Jacques Derrida




The idea that the postmodernists and post-structuralists completely broke away from Marxism is ridiculous. How could they? Of course they did when they were talking about esoteric philosophical matters which had no direct impact on political or social matters. Jacques Derrida, for example (although not a postmodernist as such), could only ever distance himself from Marxism when talking about the “transcendental signified” or “binary oppositions”. At all other times, he was still consumed with Marxist dreams and Marxist thought-processes.


For example, in response to to Francis Fukuyama's free market “triumphalism” (as Derrida put it), and Fukuyama's views that the free market usually - though not necessarily!- leads to political freedom, Derrida said, yes “and two world wars, the horrors of totalitarianism”.


Who but an outright Marxist could make such a bald statement?


For one, people, political movements and all sorts of other things led to the two world wars. As a philosopher who rejected necessity and essentialist thinking, how could Derrida possibly have believed that the free market alone - or indeed at all - led to totalitarianism and two world wars? The Nazis led the way to the Second World War; as well as ideology and human nature (not "fixed", but existent) – not the free market.


In addition, clearly when Derrida mentions “totalitarianism” he only had in mind Nazi totalitarianism, not Communist/Marxist totalitarianism: clearly the free market didn't lead to Stalin's foul reign.


In other words, Derrida's entire analysis of the two world wars and totalitarianism is Marxist from head to foot.


In other words, when Derrida wasn't playing philosophical games in his pretentious prose-style (as well as carrying out endless feats of French philosophical oneupmanship), he slipped backed into pretty mindless Marxism. And that perhaps explains why he kept away from explicitly political writings until his Specters of Marx (1993). After all, what could be more Marxist than blaming the two world wars and totalitarianism on the free market alone – let alone conveniently disregarding communist/Marxist totalitarianism?


Derrida was even more explicit elsewhere. In an interview in Radical Philosophy (1994) he said:


I have never gone along with these proclamations about the end of the great emancipatory and revolutionary discourses.”


I suppose it can be argued that all things “emancipatory” and “revolutionary” don't necessarily need to be squared with Marxism. However, because this quote is also part of Derrida's general dig at postmodernism, it's clear that (just as with Kellner, Callinicos, Slavoj Žižek and Frederic Jameson earlier), that he believed that the emancipatory and revolutionary simply couldn't exist separately from Marxism and its own project.


Basically, in strictly philosophical terms, Derrida was indeed a post-structuralist or a deconstructer (or whichever term is correct). Nonetheless, politically he was almost a full Marxist. Now whether or not that dichotomy is feasible I don't know. Perhaps Derrida was always fully aware that his philosophical exhibitionism was always secondary to - or at least separable from - his Marxist political dreams.


The Priest-Class of Marxist Revolutionaries


In a strong sense Marxists must be zealous and fundamentalist otherwise they wouldn't be Marxists at all. And Marxists show their fundamentalist traits when they accuse all non-Marxists - including postmodernists (even those who are actually critical of capitalism) - of being “complicit in the system [capitalism] they criticise”.


Thus, according to Marxists, the only true criticism of capitalism can come from Marxists.


Here, as always, Marxists (as the “vanguard”) hold themselves to be the priest-class of all legitimate and true criticism of capitalism.


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


Note:


1) See also my 'Baudrillard, the Postmodernist, was Still a Marxist' and 'Slavoj Žižek Against Postmodernist Counterrevolutionaries'. In addition, see my 'Michel Foucault's Critique of Marx'.