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, 15 August 2014

Meet Iraq’s New Prime Minister: the Islamic Dawa Party’s Haider al-Abadi

 


Haidar al-Abadi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq/PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons
Haidar al-Abadi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq/PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons

Nouri Maliki has officially resigned his post as Iraq Prime Minister on Iraqi state television. Haider al-Abadi was then asked, by Iraq’s president, to form the next government.

Mr. Maliki said:

I announce before you today, to ease the movement of the political process and the formation of the new government, the withdrawal of my candidacy in favour of brother Doctor Haider al-Abadi.
 
Al-Abadi was an Iraqi exile between 1980 and 2003. He resided in the United Kingdom, unlike Ahmed Chalabi before him who resided in the United States. And we know what happened to Chalabi. Yes, he was in office for less than 12 months; though not as either Prime Minister or President.

However, its not just the American government which backs al-Abadi. He also has the support of his own Islamic Dawa Party, Iraq’s Shia clerics and Iran.

From the various news pieces published recently, it’s hard to see the arguments as to why Haider al-Abadi is a better alternative to Nouri Maliki.

Did Nouri Maliki lose the support of the Americans and Iraqis because he wasn’t tough enough on the Islamic State (IS) jihadists and other Sunni militants? Or did he lose it because he prolonged and accentuated the Shia hegemony over the Sunnis in the Iraq government and beyond?

Islamic_Dawa_Party_Emblem_svg
The Islamic Dawa Party’s emblem/ IMAGE CREDIT: Wiki Commons

In terms of the former possibility, Nouri Maliki did once say that he didn’t want to be the responsible for shedding a single drop of blood in Iraq. Nonetheless, that might have had more to do with the lack of loyalty of the Iraqi army (as well as the limited numbers of the Shia militias) than any true pacifism on Maliki’s part.

As for the latter possibility, US National Security Adviser Susan Rice has said that that Haider al-Abadi’s appointment is a “major step” towards uniting Iraq.

President Obama has himself said:

[Haider al-Abadi] still has a challenging task in putting a government together, but we are modestly hopeful that the… situation is moving in the right direction.
 
Since Haider al-Abadi is the spokesman for an explicitly religious (Shia) party, the Islamic Dawa Party (da’wah means the proselytising or preaching of Islam), it’s hard to see how sectarian tensions – both inside and outside of government – will lessen. The IDP is also very closed linked to Shia Iran. (Tthis, when you think about it, is hardly a surprise.)

The Islamic Dawa Party was created to “promote Islamic values and ethics, political awareness, combat secularism, and create an Islamic state in Iraq”.

Furthermore, according to Roger Shanahan, the Party states:

  1. Absolute sovereignty belongs to Allah.
  2. Islamic injunctions are the basis of legislation. The legislative authority may enact any law not repugnant to Islam.
  3. The people, as vice-regents of Allah, are entrusted with legislative and executive powers.
  4. The jurist holding religious authority represents Islam. By confirming legislative and executive actions, he gives them legality.


In other words, there’s no separation of state and religion (or Shia Islam) within the Islamic Dawa Party’s political ideology.

Sir John Major thinks all immigrants are fine Conservatives

 




The former British Prime Minister, Sir John Major, has just told the BBC that immigrants have "the very Conservative instinct" of wanting to "better themselves and their families".


Come again? Can't that be said about virtually every adult human being on the planet? Indeed can't that also be said of many criminals, dictators and even some Satanists?


Of course immigrants will have the "guts and drive to drive to travel halfway across the world" (as John Major puts it) if they have no rights, freedoms and a low standard of living in their home countries. Indeed I would say that it has nothing to do with "guts and drive" because if immigrants want more cash and more freedoms, then it's pretty obvious they'll find the West appealing. And that's why tens of millions have moved into Europe and the UK over the last few decades.


And not only is wanting to improve one's life something that most human beings desire (including members of the Mafia and al-Qaeda), I'm also having problems seeing why Sir John Major sees it as a particularly Conservative (yes, capital 'C') trait. Don't fascists, communists, conservatives, liberals, greens and even nihilists attempt to improve their own lives?


So why is it that positive generalisations/ stereotypes about immigrants are deemed to be okay and rarely even noticed; whereas all the negative ones are immediately pounced upon? A generalisation is a generalisation – even if it's positive. And this is a gross and meaningless generalisation on John Major's part.


... Unless it is a rather disingenuous way to try and gain more immigrant votes for the Conservative Party. After all, it was only the other day that Baroness Warsi said that the Tories were failing to attract Muslim votes. At the very least, this way of thinking is at the heart of the piece by the BBC's deputy political editor, James Landale.


John Major also states the blindingly obvious when he says that not all immigrants come to Britain "to benefit from our social security system".


Mr Major, no one has ever said that. Not even the the most vocal critic of immigration has ever said that.


Of course some immigrants manage to find work in the UK – everybody knows that. So what's going on here? Is this a piece of immigrant-vote harvesting for the Conservative Party?


Let's think, instead, of this hypothetical scenario.


Between 2000 and 2011, the Labour Party imported up to 3.8 million immigrants. (This bit isn't hypothetical: it's a fact.) Now say that only one hundred of that 3.8 million managed to find work in the UK. That would still mean that John Major's statement that not all immigrants come to Britain "to benefit for our social security system" would be true ... true, though pretty damn dumb.


As it is, in reality most of our recent – and many not so recent – immigrants are indeed on benefits. (In 2012, 370,000 recent immigrants were on benefits; 258,000 of these were from outside the European Union.) And many of them would have come to the UK specifically to claim benefits. The fact that some immigrants find work doesn't really change that much. It doesn't alter the social disintegration we are facing in parts of the country. It doesn't alter the drain on the health services, the massive benefits bill and the balkanisation of our country which mass immigration has brought about. Indeed even many of those immigrants who do find work don't really contribute to society or the welfare of the UK – except by accident. What they contribute to is the welfare of their own families (as John Major said). Either that, or, at the most, they contribute to the welfare of their own ethnic/ religious groups within this country.


Despite all those comments about John Major, it still must be stated that he was specifically talking about his experiences of immigration in the 1950s.


When speaking on Radio 4 to the historian Peter Hennessy (Reflections, Wednesday 13th August 2014), John Major said:


"There was a different social value placed on immigration. I saw immigration at very close quarters in the 1950s."

That's true. However, unlike today, I doubt that any immigrant in the 1950s would have come to the UK just to go on benefits. Indeed no immigrant would have been allowed to come here just to go on benefits at that time.


Isn't it becoming clear, then, that what John Major said is not at all relevant to the contemporary situation in the UK?



The BBC's Pro-Immigration Bias?



The BBC's deputy political editor, James Landale, said that John Major's "tone is in contrast to that used by present Conservative PM David Cameron".


No it's not!


It depends entirely on when David Cameron speaks.


For example, just before elections, Cameron appears to get tough on mass immigration and benefits tourism. However, after the election – or long before an election – he says exactly the kinds of things that John Major has said in this interview. Indeed John Major himself probably said strong things against (mass) immigration at certain points in his political career. And no doubt he contradicted what he said at other points. That's politics, Mr Landale, as you know.


Landale even points out David Cameron's hate-crime of "putting Britain first" by making it harder for immigrants to claim benefits. But is Cameron actually doing this or is his simply making false promises to the British public? In other words, is David Cameron's position on immigration more in tune with the BBC than its deputy political editor is making out?


Oh, by the way, James Landale was educated at Eton College. And whilst he was there, Boris Johnson and David Cameron were his fellow pupils.


I wonder where Messrs Johnson, Cameron and Landale will be living when the shit hits the fan.


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


*) To be fair to John Major, in a 28-minute interview he only talked about immigration for around two minutes or less. And then it was about his experiences in the 1950s.


The article is actually more about why the BBC's Old Etonian, James Landale, decided to focus almost his entire article on those few comments. It's also about James Landale's sly dig at Cameron's (his fellow pupil at Eton) supposedly tough stance on immigration - which is all smoke and mirrors anyway.

Wednesday, 13 August 2014

Former Bradford Deacon condemns George Galloway’s ‘Israel-free’ speech

 


Parliament Member George Galloway via Reuters
Parliament Member George Galloway via Reuters


Bradford’s Telegraph & Argus reports that the former Archdeacon of Bradford has condemned Member of Parliament George Galloway over his controversial comments earlier this month that the city should be an ‘Israel-free zone'.


He said that “it could damage [Bradford's] reputation". Canon Guy Wilkinson (now the Vicar of Fulham and Hammersmith) also said that Galloway’s views are “absurd and unjustified".


Would a current Archdeacon ever have dared – or even wanted – to say such a thing; considering Bradford’s Muslim demographics?


So what did George Galloway – MP for Bradford West – actually say?


We don’t want any Israeli goods, we don’t want any Israeli services, we don’t want any Israeli academics coming to the university or college, we don’t even want any Israeli tourists to come to Bradford, even if any of them had thought of doing so.

As a result of all this (as well as the 60 or more reports to West Yorkshire Police), there’s now a petition on change.org entitled ‘To bring about a prosecution against George Galloway MP under S.5(1) of the Public Order Act 1986′. So far, the T & A writes, it has attracted more than 4,100 signatures; though on the last count that had gone up to over 13,000.


Dr Irene Lancaster, chairman of Broughton Park Jewish Christian Dialogue Group in Salford, has also also signed the petition.  She said:


He is demonising a whole people.
 
I don’t know if I want to go to Bradford any more. I’m scared to go there.

Despite all that, a spokesman for Mr Galloway rather arrogantly and childishly said:


It’s a complete and utter nonsense that people have done an online petition.

These people should have more to do with their time. The police have not been in touch with us.

Mr Galloway was merely expressing an opinion.

To be fair to the police, it will be the case that the “police haven’t been in touch” with Galloway or his lawyers because the police will only contact a person once they have established a case against him or her.


Would George Galloway’s spokesman have said the same if a politician had attempted to make Southampton “Pakistani-free” or “Muslim-free"? What about “Iraqi-free"?


And what about reports of racism other than racism against Jews or Israelis? Should the people who report such things “have more to do with their time"? Or is it that some hate crimes are acceptable and others are unacceptable? I have a feeling that Galloway’s spokesman would have spent much of his time talking about racism; just not racism against Jews, Israelis or whites.


Then again, there is a Marxist/Leftist theory about “hierarchies of racism” which stipulates that certain “power groups” – as the Left sees whites and Jews – can never be the victims of racism or even of hate crimes. Why is that? Simply because all whites and Jews are seen to have political power and/or be a majority. Thus, by Marxist logic, Leftists won’t see what Galloway has said as an example of either racism or incitement to violence – by definition.


Of course this quaint Marxist theory simply doesn’t work for powerless working-class whites and Jewish minorities. And it must also be noted that Jews and Israelis are classed as “whites” – even the black and brown ones – by International Socialists; though not by National Socialists.


Honourable Leftist Jews & Evil Jews/Israelis



800px-George_Galloway_Feb_2007_02
George Galloway/PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons


What George Galloway may now say is that Jews are free to visit Bradford; just not Israelis. Judging from what he’s said about non-Israeli Jews (not just Israel-supporting Jews) in the past, that would be to backtrack on his part. Nonetheless, Galloway will be especially keen to welcome those Marxist or Leftist Jews who are often quoted by “anti-Zionists” because such Jews are also fanatically anti-Israel. This includes well-paid academics such as Ilan Pappe, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, the Socialist Workers Party’s Steven Rose, etc. – all self-described Marxists/communists (except Chomsky, whom many young people think, bizarrely enough, is an anarchist). These Jews – like the Neturei Karta (of whom there are less than 5,000 in Israel and probably less than 100 in the UK) – come in very useful when it comes to anti-Israel causes and demos.


The ‘argument’ goes something like this:


Well, Chomsky and Finkelstein are Jews. So that must mean that what they say about Israel and Zionism must be true.

That, of course, is logical puke.


Does that also work for American and European Jews who defend Israel? This author doubts it. In fact, International Socialists and National Socialists often call such Jews “Israel-firsters” – even when they’ve never been to Israel.


What we have here is the bizarre and self-contradictory case of Jew-hating Islamists, International Socialists and National Socialists (a totalitarian alliance of haters of “capitalist democracy” and Israel) suddenly making far-left Jewish critics of Israel (as well as the Neturei Karta) the honourable exceptions to an otherwise omnipresent Jewish nefariousness.

Monday, 11 August 2014

Baroness Warsi threatens the Conservative Party again

 


Foreign_Secretary_in_Bradford_(4748641620)
Baroness Sayeeda Hussain Warsi with the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, meeting Muslims in Bradford (northern England)/PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons


Former Baroness Sayeeda Hussain Warsi has just threatened the Conservative Party again – a government she is supposed to support.


Just a week ago she said that if David Cameron and the Tory Party didn’t give in to Muslim demands about Israel, it would lose Muslim votes.


And here again she has said the same about attracting Muslim voters. Except, of course, this sectarian politician didn’t use the words “Muslim voters.” She spoke, instead, of “ethnic minority voters.”  This is utter deceit on Warsi’s part because this woman has hardly ever – if at all – spoken out for any “ethnic minority voters” who aren’t Muslim.


As I said, Warsi is a communalist politician from head to toe. And indeed she entered the higher levels of the Conservative Party to further her sectarian dreams. This isn’t to say that Warsi has never discussed any non-Muslim issue. Of course she has. If Warsi had only ever talked about Muslim and Islamic issues (when she was the Conservative Party chairman), then that would have been just too obvious on her part.


None of this is a surprise.


There are Muslims up and down the country who have become councillors – and to a lesser extent MPs – specifically to advance Islamic and Muslim causes. That’s why you often find the bizarre situation in which Muslim councillors leave one party to join a completely different one. There are many examples of Muslim Tory councillors becoming Labour councillors and vice versa. And just in the last few days, a Muslim councillor left the Conservative Party to become a member of Respect.


This sectarian (Muslim) mindset is going to end up in a situation which will be similar – at least in some ways – to what happened in the English Civil War in the 17th century.


The Political Demands of Warsi and Her Fellow Muslims



Cox's_Bazaar_Refugee_Camp_(8539828824)
Baroness Warsi visiting a refugee camp in Bangladesh/PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons


I said that Lady Warsi didn’t use the words “Muslim voters”.


What she actually said was that if the Tories want to attract “ethnic minority voters,” then they’ve left it “a little late”.


Again, it’s clear that she meant Muslims by “ethnic minorities” because she also tied this Muslim-votes issue into the Government’s handling of the Gaza situation. More accurately, after talking about her anger that the Government hadn’t given into Muslim demands over Gaza, she said:


… the electoral reality is that we will not win outright Conservative majorities until we start attracting more of the ethnic vote.

Originally Warsi did believe that David Cameron would be amenable to Muslim demands. This is what she said her view of Cameron was in 2005:


This is a guy who gets today’s Britain. He’s a new kind of Conservative. He’s comfortable with today’s Britain.

In other words, in 2005 Warsi believed that David Cameron would allow more sharia law in the UK, would follow Muslim-voter dictates on the Middle East, Afghanistan and who knows what else.


And, my God, Warsi was right to have faith in the politically shallow David Cameron.


He’s the man who has made London the “Islamic finance capital of the world” who once called the English Defence League (EDL) “filth” who’s virtually a cultural (though not economic) leftist on all sorts of issues (not just Islamic/Muslim ones); as well as a man who has said that British people must learn Muslim (though, like Warsi, he said “British Asian”) “values” rather than “the other way around.”


Despite all that, Warsi believes that today’s Conservative Party is not as keen on Muslim votes as it should be. She also, bizarrely, thinks that the Party is too, well, conservative.


She said:


The party leadership has shifted since then [2005]. I think over time it will be a regressive move because we have to appeal to all of Britain, not just because it’s morally the right thing to do.

You see, this is all about Muslim votes. Or to use Warsi’s own words: it’s all about the “electoral reality” which faces the Conservative Party.


And the electoral reality which faces the Tories is that they will have to:


  1. take a strong stand on Israel (Warsi wants an “arms embargo”)
  2. pull British soldiers out of Afghanistan
  3. allow more sharia law in the UK
  4. ban the EDL and other counter-jihadist groups
  5. speak out against UKIP’s “racism” and “anti-immigration policies”
  6. completely revise their positions on the Middle East and the entire Muslim world.
That’s the huge price the Tories will have to pay in order to get Muslim votes.


So welcome to Baroness Warsi’s sectarian Britain.


And welcome to the first stirrings of future civil conflict in the UK.

Sunday, 10 August 2014

Shock horror! UKip MEP praises Hitler's speaking style

 







It's been reported (by the Mail on Sunday) that Bill Etheridge (an MEP) advised UKIP candidates to learn from the speaking style of Adolf Hitler.



What's “unbelievable” and “truly disgusting” about this is that Labour's Mike Gapes (who used the words “unbelievable” and “truly disgusting” about Etheridge's remarks) has used these comments to make outrageous claims about UKip.


Mr Gapes said:


"I thought nothing could surprise me any more, but this just goes to show that Farage has completely failed to clean up his party.


"One of his MEPs training young candidates to speak like Hitler? Simply unbelievable."


This UKip MEP was talking to prospective candidates at a public speaking seminar at the Young Independence Conference in Birmingham... Yes, the clue's in the words “public speaking seminar”.


The thing is that Mike Gapes (MP) knows full well that Bill Etheridge wasn't endorsing Adolf Hitler's actual views because Etheridge also told his audience to learn from other “great speakers of the past”: such as “Churchill, Blair, Martin Luther King”.


So does this mean that Bill Etheridge is some kind of surreal amalgam of a old Conservative, a New Labourite and a black civil rights activist? According to the shallow and opportunistic Mike Gapes, that's exactly what it means.


The fact is that Hitler was a “great speaker”. (Although what “great speaker” means would need to be spelt out... though not by me.)


And just to show what a political opportunist Mike Gapes really is: I'm fully prepared to say that none other than George Galloway - the serial exhibitionist and Mike Gapes' fellow political opportunist - is also a great speaker. Indeed many people who despise both the man and his politics have said admiring things about Galloway's speaking skills and his truly poetic turns of phrase.


Clearly we can easily distinguish between style and content. Or, more precisely, we can distinguish the oratorical skills of a political speaker from his ideological beliefs. For example, when you read Galloway's words on paper (or on the Internet), they loose much of their appeal. Indeed they can quickly be seen to be almost devoid of argumentation and even fact. (Galloway, like Hitler, "thinks with the blood".)


So if many people can distinguish style and content in the case of George Galloway, then surely Bill Etheridge can do that in the case of Adolf Hitler. In fact there are a whole host of effective political performers whose political content we can happily disagree with: Tony Benn, Arthur Scargill, Lenin and so on.


Yes, Hitler was indeed a “magnetic and forceful” performer. That's partly why he gained so much support. And, yes, he “achieved a great deal”. (For a start, he became the Fuhrer of Germany.) Bill Etheridge never said that Hitler achieved a great deal that was good. He said that he “achieved a great deal”. Now that is simply an historical fact.