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.)

Tuesday, 29 July 2014

The Muslim Council of Britain rejects the “Trojan Horse” reports

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has rather predictably
said that it

“unequivocally condemns all terrorism and extremism and we have not seen any evidence to date of such activities in Birmingham schools”.*

I say predictably not only because the MCB is a Muslim Brotherhood organisation, but also because it has been directly connected to this Islamisation-of-schools affair itself.

The MCB, for example, produced it's own “plot” for the Islamisation of state schools in 2007 (which was published on its website - more of which later). It also has many direct connections with some of the Islamist plotters.

And despite the negative findings of Peter Clarke's report, as well as the numerous testimonies and details found in many newspaper articles, the MCB is still talking about “allegations”.

So what would need to happen in order for the MCB to stop talking about mere allegations? What sort of evidence would it require? What kind of trustworthy body (to the MCB) would need to be set up to look into these things? (That's if the MCB believes that they should be looked into in the first place.) Perhaps something run Muslims in conjunction with the Respect Party? Perhaps an investigation carried out by the MCB itself?

That Hoax Letter Again

It's unbelievable that the Muslim Council of Britain is still going on about the “hoax letter” which “purports to outline a plot by Muslims to takeover schools” when virtually all the people involved in this affair - including the strongest critics of these schools - have already and often said that it the letter is probably a hoax. Indeed some have said that it is a hoax. And yet out of desperation or deceit (or both), the MCB, Salma Yaqoob, The Guardian et al are still repeatedly telling the public what the public already knows – that this letter was probably a hoax.

The other ironic thing is that a genuine “letter” - or “plot” - was actually written for the MCB itself (back in 2007) by the now well-known Mr Tahir Alam of Park View school (also a “human rights defender” and Chair of the MCB Education Committee), as well as by Muhammad Abdul Bari (who was the Secretary General of the MCB at the time). That document was on the website until a couple of months ago when the MCB website was revamped. (It may have been erased before that.) I have seen it and so have various journalists and many other people. Indeed I provided a direct link to it in a previous article.

In any case, think of the terrible inference involved here. Because a single letter may well have been a hoax, it seems to surprise the MCB that “accusations of an extremist plot still persists”.

Why can't a plot still have occurred even if that single letter was a hoax? Why is everything dependent on that letter? Indeed why is the MCB referring to a “plot” in the singular when - from the details of the many investigations - there were many plots by many people in many schools? In fact it is argued here that these schools could still have been Islamised without the need for a cloak-and-dagger or a behind-the-scenes plot.

The reason why the MCB's focus is on a single plot is because the MCB is still fixated on the hoax letter which outlined a single plot. Yet the Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Times, the Daily Express, The Independent, the Birmingham Mail (though not, of course, The Vanguardian), the various investigators and the many people involved in this case who have offered testimonies have made it clear that if anything there have been various plots by various people at various times. In other words, there wasn't a single centrally-planned plot which followed, to the letter, the dictates of a single (hoax) letter. And that's hardly a surprise.

Evidence of Extremism?

So the MCB says that there's no “evidence of extremism in Birmingham schools”. What can you say to that? There is a very large amount of evidence which has been published by our national newspapers and, indeed, in Peter Clarke's report. This evidence includes dozens of testimonies from teachers, parents, MPs, councillors, journalists and all sorts of other people both directly and indirectly involved in Birmingham’s schools (as well as other schools).

I suppose that it entirely depends on what the MCB means by the words “extremism” and “evidence”.

It can be suggested that because the views of the MCB concur with the views of the Muslims involved in the Islamisation of Birmingham's schools, then, evidently, it won't see any anything that's happened as being extreme.

And it follows that if the MCB doesn't see the report's citations of Islamic extremism as extremism, then it won't accept that there's any evidence of extremism either.

The MCB's position really isn't that complicated.

However, there is one statement from the MCB - as well as from Peter Clarke's report - which is difficult to understand.

The MCB itself quotes Clarke this way:

“Mr Clarke says in his report that 'I have seen no evidence to suggest that there is a problem with governance generally' (10.1)...”

I guess - from what I've read and what Muslim teachers and governors have said - that this means that in terms of the academic achievements of these schools, they've done quite well. The argument must therefore be that because these schools have been relatively successful (academically), then either that means that they shouldn't have been investigated or that academic success itself must mean that there can't have been any Islamic extremism (or plots) in the schools. But that simply doesn't follow.

Think about the admittedly extreme theoretical case of a school run according to a National Socialist (Nazi) or a Stalinist “ethos” (rather than the “Islamist ethos” of Peter Clarke's report). This Nazi or Stalinist school, nonetheless, is still academically successful (as Nazi and Stalinist schools were). Would that automatically mean we should leave these schools alone? Would it also mean that the schools couldn't be be extreme simply because many of their pupils have managed to get so many qualifications?

One Confession?

[Tahir Alam, of Park View school.]

The MCB does deign to admit to one thing (though even this admittance doesn't amount to much).

The MCB writes:

“The evidence Mr Clarke cites, for example of social media conversations exhibiting inappropriate behaviour are indeed very disturbing and may constitute grounds for disciplinary, procedural and legal action.”

This is hardly a confession of guilt. That's because the MCB may argue that what happened on social media can hardly be said to have directly involved Birmingham's schools as such. However, it just happens that these “conversations exhibiting inappropriate behaviour” were carried out by Muslim governors and teachers at Tahir Alam's Park View school. All in all, there were 3,000 messages spaced over 130 pages (all administered by Park View's Acting Principle). These comments included:

i) “highly offensive comments about British servicemen”
ii) “scepticism about the truth of the reports of the Lee Rigby murder and the Boston bombings”
iii) “disparagement of certain schools of Islam” (probably Shia and Ahmadiyya Islam)
iv) “a stated ambition to increase segregation in schools” and
v) “explicit homophobia”.

The MCB wants us to conclude that because what they said didn't literally happen inside the investigated schools, that this somehow makes them inconsequential; or, at the least, less relevant. Indeed Mr Alam - when questioned on Radio 4 (at 8 minutes, 20 seconds) – has said that these extreme comments “need to be looked into” (which doesn't amount to much). Nonetheless, he denied any knowledge of the conversations. Yet, as the interviewer said, all of these comments were written by teachers and governors at his own school. Indeed he knows all of them. What's more - and let's not beat about the bush here, these extremists believe exactly the same things as Tahir Alam himself.

In addition, even though these extreme comments were made by governors and teachers at a school in Birmingham (Park View), the MCB still has the audacity to say that we shouldn't “ascribe guilt by association”. That, quite frankly, doesn't even make sense. These extremists were teachers and governors at a Birmingham school which has been under investigation. So how can Peter Clarke – or anyone else - be guilty of ascribing “guilt by association”? 


1) It seems that the only ones who've conflated “terrorism” and “extremism” - at least in the case of Birmingham's schools - has been people like Salma Yaqoob and the MCB itself; not Peter Clarke, The Telegraph and the other investigators involved in this affair.)

2) Just a word about the MCB's "revamped" website:

It's aimed at us! It's aimed at non-Muslims. It's what the MCB wants us to read about itself.

The MCB now knows that its pronouncements and articles are being monitored by kuffar who don't believe in Community Cohesion and Diversity. They know that journalists and others have their eyes on the ball.

Thus all the controversial stuff has been erased. That's why there's hardly anything on the new website. It is virtually empty - even after two months. They could have included some of the old stuff; though much of that was controversial (to us, not to the MCB). Like the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACUK), the MCB website has had a clear-out and erased the Islamist and extremist articles and features.

Hence the pseudo-patriotic images: it's all for kuffar consumption.

All the MCB's hard-core Islamist conversations will be taking place elsewhere.

Sunday, 27 July 2014

David Ward MP: Anti-Zionist?


David Ward MP (for Bradford East, England)/PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons

Meet the Member of Parliament for Bradford East, David Ward. He’s a well-known serial offender.

Yet again he’s just come in for criticism (from MPs of all parties) for his recent comments on Israel’s attempts to stop Hamas’s relentless rocket attacks.

I suppose the generous amongst us will call him an “anti-Zionist” rather than a “Jew-hater”. However, since he uses the word “Jew” (or “Jews”) as much as he uses the word “Zionist” (or “Israeli”), let’s just say – to put it mildly – that there’s at least some room for doubt here.

Why David Ward Thinks Hamas Fires Rockets

IMAGE CREDIT: Wiki Commons

The most obscene part of David Ward’s latest “vile” (according to his fellow MPs) SWP-like harangue is the part in which he said that if he “lived in Gaza”, he’d “fire a rockets” into Israel too.

So why obscene?

The answer should be staring people in the face.

Israel’s recent actions were a response to months – actually, years – of Hamas rocket-attacks. You know, the kind of situation which no country on earth (including the UK) would put up with for more than, say, a week.

Yet David Ward (MP) seems to be reversing the causal sequence here.

Does he genuinely believe in this case of backwards causation in which Hamas has been firing rockets for years in response to Israel’s very recent actions?

I suppose David Ward may say that Hamas rocket-attacks were in response to previous Israeli actions.

That’s simply not true.

Hamas fires rockets into Israel for three main reasons:

i) To kill Israeli civilians.
ii) To help destroy Israel.
iii) To cause an Israeli counter-attack which will inevitably bring about a virulent anti-Israeli response in the West. (Bingo! That’s exactly what happened!)

In other words, Hamas rocket attacks are most certainly not retaliatory in nature: they are politically strategic.

Another claim that David Ward has made is that Hamas is firing rockets because it is “desperate” and because “politicians in the West are failing them”. Yet any group could say it’s acting from desperation; whether that be al-Qaeda today or the Red Brigade in the past.

In Hamas’s case, it can easily be argued that it alone is intentionally creating this desperate situation. And Hamas is doing so because only desperation, chaos and death will bring about the situation it wants: a strong Western reaction against Israel’s actions (which David Ward hints at) and then, in good time, the destruction of Israel.

Like revolutionary Trotskyists, Hamas requires a desperate situation because only that will make it politically successful and enable it to get what it wants. Hamas, therefore, requires high numbers of Palestinian dead as well as social disintegration. (Trotskyists require high levels of unemployment, social disintegration, etc.)

As Trotskyists put it, extreme situations “radicalise people”. Without extreme situations (of desperation), Trotskyists and Hamas (as with the Nazis in the 1920s and 1930s) wouldn’t stand a chance of getting what they want or gaining the support they require. Hence instability and death are engineered in Hamas’s case.

This case of ugly Realpolitik can be summed up by a phrase which was actually coined to express the revolutionary Trotskyist position; though it also sums up Hamas’s stance:

“The worse it is, the better it is.”

David Ward’s Past Statements

What of David Ward’s previous diatribes against Jews and Israelis?

He was suspended from the Lib Dem parliamentary party in July 2013 for such comments. He also had the whip withdrawn for three months.

Much of what David Ward has said is pretty much student-SWP stuff. For example, he says that Hamas fires rockets and sends suicide bombers into Israel because of the “occupation”. Well, Hamas pulled out of Gaza in 2005 and the West Bank has been run by the Palestinian National Authority for years.

In addition, if the Gazans don’t want to be “occupied”, then perhaps they should persuade Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel.

That is unless David Ward MP means the occupation that is Israel. That is, does he believe that Israel itself is “occupied territory”? Now if he means that, he should say that.

The British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, and Baroness Sayeeda Hussain Warsi at a mosque opening in Bradford/PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons

Is David Ward saying all these things because the vast majority of his constituents are Muslims or because he sincerely believes them? If the former is the case, then the vileness of his comments is compounded by his ugly careerism. If the latter’s the case, his opinions are simply vile.

Mr Ward is an MP for Bradford East, which includes:

i) Little Horton (which has a large Muslim demographic – all its councillors are Muslim)
ii) Bradford Moor (a large Muslim demographic – all its councillors are Muslim)
iii) Bowling and Barkerend (a large Muslim demographic – with 3 Muslim councillors)
iv) Bolton and Undercliffe (a large Muslim demographic)
v) Eccleshill (a small Muslim demographic)
vi) Idle and Thackley (a small Muslim demographic).
Some of those wards have very large Muslim demographics. Indeed in some parts of these wards the population is exclusively Muslim.

Death to Israel!

1st line: “Allah is great.” 2nd line: “Death to America.” 3rd line: “Death to Israel.” 4th line: “A curse upon the Jews.” 5th line: “Victory to Islam.” IMAGE CREDIT: Wiki Commons

Of course David Ward’s problems with Israel go much deeper than Israel’s recent actions. Much deeper. The reality is that if Israel had never counter-attacked against Hamas, he would still be a virulent critic of Israel.


Because Mr Ward believes that Israel shouldn’t exist. I doubt that he says that to many non-Muslims; though that’s undoubtedly what he believes. In fact he’s actually come pretty close to saying precisely that.

He believes that Israel, for example, is an “apartheid state”.

Yet if David Ward wants to criticise apartheid states, perhaps he should criticise Saudi Arabia, Egypt (especially under the Muslim Brotherhood), Libya, Kuwait, Algeria, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Iran, etc. Indeed ISIS – in conjunction with other Sunni Muslim groups – is trying to ethnically cleanse Iraq of Christiansat this very moment in time. And those Christians who haven’t fled will be subject to the classical dhimmi status that has existed for up to 1,300 years in the apartheid-ridden Islamic world.

Now I doubt that David Ward’s many Muslim constituents would want to hear all that coming from their MP.

And just as the UK media’s favourite Islamo-Trotskyist Salma Yaqoob said that Israel’s “days are numbered”, Ward has also said that the “Zionists” are “loosing the battle”. Perhaps he’s right. After all, he too is trying to bring about the end of that “battle”.

A Lesson in Semantics

Yes! Yes! Yes! Semantically it is indeed the case that the words “anti-Zionism” and “Jew-hatred” are not synonyms. That is, “anti-Zionism” doesn’t mean hatred of Jews.
The problem is that most of the “anti-Zionists” I’ve read about – and talked to –  either started out as good old-fashioned Jew-haters (then rather predictably became anti-Zionists); or they somehow fused their Jew-hatred and anti-Zionism from the very beginning.

This must surely mean that these semantic debates about the difference between between being a Jew-hater and being an anti-Zionist don’t really matter that much. They don’t matter because the fact still remains that nearly all anti-Zionism is driven by a pre-existing Jew-hatred. Indeed such a debate simply ends up being an entirely linguistic affair. (The sort of thing English analytic philosophers might have engaged in the 1950s.)

Let’s put it another way:

Jew-haters believe the same things about Israel as anti-Zionists. And indeed most anti-Zionists believe the same things about Jews as Jew-haters.

Consequently, the more semantic we get about this issue the more we move away from the political (as well as psychological) reality and the more we move towards verbal bullshit.