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.)

Thursday, 21 August 2014

Unapologetic Galloway has been interviewed by the police




bssss
George Galloway in Bradford, with a fellow activist for Respect/PHOTO CREDIT: The Guardian


George Galloway has been interviewed by West Yorkshire Police about the “Israel-free” comments he made at a meeting in Leeds on the 2nd of August. The meeting was held for Respect activists. The video of the speech was then posted on YouTube. (Click here and here  for more information.)


According to Chief Superintendent Paul Money, George Galloway cooperated with the police and was interviewed at Elland Road station under caution.


West Yorkshire Police has said that the case will be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) when its enquiries are completed.


libert gb
George Galloway/PHOTO CREDIT: Liberty GB


To recap on the speech, this is what George Galloway said on the 2nd of August:


"We have declared Bradford an Israel-free zone.
 
"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 the college.
 
"We don’t even want any Israeli tourists to come to Bradford even if any of them had thought of doing so.
 
"We reject this illegal, barbarous, savage state that calls itself Israel – and you have to do the same."


Mr Galloway has been a Bradford West MP since 2012.


Galloway in Court







hkhjhh
Galloway during the US Senate hearings of 2005/PHOTO CREDIT: The Guardian


George Galloway will milk his questioning and possible court appearance for all it’s worth. He is, after all, a consummate performer.


Even the people who despise George Galloway – as many people do (especially his former “comrades”) – freely confess that he has excellent literary skills and that he’s a performer of the first order. Despite that, when you read – rather than hear and see – his words on paper or on the Internet, Galloway-power lessens somewhat. Indeed you quickly find that there’s hardly any analysis, argumentation or even factual data in what he says. And beyond the literary exhibitionism, there’s no much politics either. This man “thinks with the blood” and primarily appeals to people who think that way. He tends to appeal to those who are politically simple-minded, Manichean and full of dreams of vengeance and power – hence Galloway’s Hitleresque style and (lack of) content.


As I said, Galloway will make the most of his court appearance. It may end up like Hitler’s court performance (in 1924) after being convicted for the Munich Putsch of 1923. Indeed Galloway may replicate the RADA skills he used during the Galloway v the US Senate (“oil-for-food”) hearings in 2005 (see image above). And since judges, lawyers and prosecutors can’t also rely exclusively on literary style, rhetoric and polemics, it’s no wonder that Galloway sometimes comes across so well at such appearances.


DAVID WARD
David Ward MP (Bradford East), who’s also pushing for a sectarian/communalist Britain/PHOTO CREDIT: The Guardian


Because Galloway is a pathological exhibitionist, it wouldn’t surprise the British public if he said something even more extreme and racist about Israelis and Jews either before or during the trial. In addition, since he’s competing with David Ward MP to see who’s the most immoderate and perverse Bradfordian Islamophile of them all, this may well happen.


One very-often-used strategy Galloway employs is to accuse virtually all his critics of lying. He’s done this very many times over the years. (Such things can be seen on various YouTube videos.) In fact apart from using his flamboyant literary skills, this seems to be Galloway’s first resort: especially when he’s being questioned. This is bizarre really since George Galloway – along with Jeffrey Archer – is one of most well-documented liars in British politics. This must simply be a case, then, of what psychologists call “psychological projection”. That is, a trait that Galloway recognises in himself (compulsive lying) is projected onto virtually all of his opponents. (See ‘The Lies of George Galloway’.)


George Galloway will be truly saddened by the fact that cameras aren’t allowed in British courts.


*) Latest Update



West Yorkshire Police, Leeds District, has written and delivered letters to the 250 people (in Leeds alone) who reported George Galloway’s remarks. The letter reads:
Dear…
 
Thank you for your complaint in relation to the speech made by George Galloway MP on Saturday 2nd of August 2014 in Leeds.
 
West Yorkshire Police have received a number of complaints in relation to the content of the speech and are conducting an investigation.
 
It is likely that the investigation will take a number of weeks. The Crown Prosecution Service will then review all the facts and make a decision. We will contact you regarding any further developments.
 
"If you would like to discuss this matter please do not hesitate to contact [... ] on contact [...]. Another agency that may be of assistance are Victim Support on [....].
 
Yours faithfully,
 
Pat Twiggs
Detective Superintendent
Head of Crime – Leeds District

Wednesday, 20 August 2014

BBC deceit about British baby names and 'Muhammed'


 





Anthony Reuben, in a BBC News item entitled 'Most popular baby names Amelia and Oliver' (15th August), wrote that



“some people have added up the spellings of Muhammad to put it in first place on the list”.



He then went on to say:



“There are eight different spellings, and if you add them up you get to 8,380, which would put the name in first place, ahead of Oliver on 6,949.”


[The BBC's Anthony Reuben.]



However, Anthony Reuben responds to these points in the following manner:


 
"But you're on a slippery slope once you start combining entries on the list.




“If you add the number of babies called Harry to the number called Henry, for example, you get to 9,136. Combining Jack and Jacob gives you a whopping 13,649.”



Firstly, even though 'Harry' and 'Henry' may have the same common root, they are still different names: not simply different spellings of the same name. The same goes for 'Jack' and 'Jacob' – different names with (possibly) the same root.


In addition, if there were even more different spellings of 'Muhammed', then – in theory at least - that Muslim name wouldn't even come in the top fifty or hundred of British names if we were follow Reuben's faulty logic. Thus, in the BBC's Orwellian world, hardly any babies at all in England and Wales will have been named 'Muhammed' in 2013. I wonder what the English nurses and midwives think of Reuben's ideologically-correct reasonings.


However, none of that matters. Every Muslim baby named 'Muhammad' is named after the Prophet Muhammad.


So are all the people named 'Harry' and 'Henry' named after the same person? Indeed is everyone named just 'Harry' named after the same person? Of course not! And the same is true of the names ''Jack' and 'Jacob'.


Is Anthony Reuben “lying for justice” here? (Is he lying about the number of Muslims being born in the UK in order, presumably, to fight against racism and insure Community Cohesion?)


The BBC doesn't seem to want its readers and viewers to know how many Muslims are being born in the UK. Now why is that? 


*) According to the BBC, 'Muhammed' and 'Muhammad' are different names simply because one includes an 'a' and the other has an 'e'.





British Christian leaders speak out against Islamic extremism…at last!


Bishop of Leeds via Daily Telegraph
Bishop of Leeds Nick Baines via Daily Telegraph


At last, a couple of senior British Church leaders have spoken out against Islamic extremism. Up until this point, such people have barely even dared to utter the words “Islamic extremism”, let alone speak out against it.


And hasn’t it been the case that many – or nearly all – British Church leaders have attempted to argue that the words “Islamic extremism” are effectively a contradiction in terms (or an oxymoron)? In any case, Prime Minister David Cameron has certainly more or less said that (as we shall see later).


The most obvious point to make here is that this isn’t just about the treatment of Christians and other non-Muslims in Iraq. It’s about the treatment of Christians and non-Muslims in literally every Muslim state on the planet. And if that’s the case (which it is), then surely it must follow that the persecution and killing of non-Muslims by Muslims is in many ways actually written into Islam itself. Well, it is.


To be fair, the Right Rev Nicholas Baines, in a letter to David Cameron (which is also published on his website), did write about “Islamic extremism as it is developing across the globe”, not just in Iraq.


Rev Baines also had strong words to say about the “increasing silence” from his own Church and from politicians about the persecution and murder of Christians throughout the Muslim world.


It seems that the more committed Churches and Church leaders are to the interfaith movement, the more silent they have been about the anti-Christian actions of Muslims and Muslim states. After all, those heavily engaged in what could be called the Church of Interfaith (as many Christians and Christian leaders are), the more likely they’ll be interacting with Muslims on a weekly – sometimes daily – basis. Thus it has become almost impossible for them to say anything negative about Muslims and even about Muslim states. And it’s certainly the case the criticism of Islam itself – or even even criticism of a single Islamic doctrine – is quite simply verboten. And that’s primarily the case lest Community Cohesion is threatened, accusations of racism are thrown around and Muslim outrage/violence and Guardian articles ensue. (Thus proving the point being made here.)


The Right Rev David Walker (the Bishop of Manchester) has also contributed to this sudden chorus against global and systematic Islamic extremism. Of course it’s the case that some Christian Christian groups (though not senior Christian leaders) have already spoken out. However, since the Rev David Walker and Rev Baines have themselves said that there’s been widespread silence on Islamic extremism, then those who point out this sudden turnaround (because of Iraq) can’t be accused of being cynical.


The Bishop of Manchester said (on Radio 4′s Sunday) that the UK government has a “moral obligation that it is repeatedly failing to rise to”. However, as I said, this hasn’t only been the government’s fault. It’s also the fault of the Church itself, the interfaith circuit and the anti-racism industry. All of these institutions have consistently portrayed any and all criticism of individual Muslims or Islam itself as being tantamount to racism.


As many people will know, David Cameron has also spoken out against Islamic extremism in the last few days. Yet what he has said may turn out to be counterproductive and even suicidal in the long run.


Mr Cameron, for example, hasn’t got the right or the authority to come out with his recent categorical statement that there’s


"Islam on the one hand and extremists who want to abuse Islam on the other".

Cameron simply doesn’t know enough about Islam to make such a statement. And even if he did know at least something about Islam, that statement still wouldn’t be justified. Indeed even when Muslims make such statements, they are unjustified in doing so. Why is that? Simply because there is no central authority in Islam. What’s more, the so-called “Islamic extremists” are just as theologically sound (actually more so!) than those Muslims involved in, say, the interfaith circuit.


Party Politics



Even the British Labour Party has begun to realise what many other people have known for a very long time. For example, the Shadow foreign secretary (Douglas Alexander) has spoken about the Tories’ lack of action on the issue of Islamic extremism. Though, of course, this is Mr Alexander scoring party-political points against the Conservative Party and nothing much more. And let’s not forget here that these words are coming from a Labour Party which has done more than any political party in British history to enable - both in the UK and abroad – Islamic extremism.
There’s also been some party-politicking from Lord Ashdown. He said that Cameron’s comments about defending “our values” are “ill-judged”.


So here’s yet another politician who has virtually ignored domestic and foreign Islamic extremism until the recent events in Iraq. Or, more correctly, until he saw an opportunity to score party-political points against David Cameron. After all, Lord Ashdown – even more than many other British politicians – appears to have a deep faith in the Orwellian myth that “Islam is peace”.


In any case, if talk of “our values” is deemed by Lord Ashdown to be “ill-judged”, then what, exactly, are we fighting for? And what are we fighting against? Indeed how can we defend or fight at all without shared values?


Yet Ashdown, on his own admission, does believe in shared values: it’s just that these values “included those in Islam”.


And therein lies the heart of the problem: na├»ve, gullible and ultimately suicidal Islamophilia.

Monday, 18 August 2014

Owen Jones explains the Gaza demonstration fixation



1024px-ComradeOwenJones
Comrade Owen ‘Son of Dave Spart’ Jones/PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons


Oxford University graduate and media-socialist, Owen Jones (a son of self-described Trotskyists), said – in a recent Guardian (where else?) article – that there haven’t been any demonstrations against the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), the jihadists in Syria, etc. because people demonstrate against governments, not groups. In other words, they demonstrate in order to change government policy in a given region.


This is how Owen ‘Son of Dave Spart’ Jones legitimises the decades-long Leftist monomania with Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.


This is an utterly bogus argument.


anti-Semiitic-demonstration-300x194
“Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.” UK demo in support of Gazans.


Leftists (or perhaps I should say Trotskyist-led groups like the Socialist Workers Party, the Stop the War Coalition/Press TV, etc.) have never demonstrated against a single Muslim/Islamic state. They didn’t demonstrate against what happened in the Sudan in the 1990s and early 2000s. They’ve never demonstrated against Pakistan’s treatment of Christians or its support of terrorism. They’ve never demonstrated against the gay-killing theocracy of Iran. They never demonstrated against Muslim-Brotherhood-controlled Egypt and its persecution of Copts and other minorities. And so on. And neither did Leftists ever demonstrate against the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, or even against Pol Pot.


Indeed in many of these example, the Left supported and still explicitly supports these regimes, such as Iran today and China in past.


In addition, Owen Jones says that people have demonstrated against Israel because the UK government arms that country. But our country also arms Pakistan to the teeth. It has also armed Saudi Arabia. And I bet that it armed – at least to some extent – Sudan in the 1990s and early 2000s. Again, there were never any demos – led by the Stop the War Coalition (or its SWP equivalent) – against the Sudanese Islamist regime or against Saudi Arabia. (There have been small-scale demos - or ‘vigils’ – organised by groups such as the Campaign Against the Arms Trade.)


And no doubt that are some neat little Marxist theories as to why Leftists support – or at least don’t demonstrate against – various and many ideologically-correct oppressors, misogynists, racists, terrorists and killers.


No: Leftists demonstrate against Israel because that country has been an obsessional target of their hate since the 1967 war. In other cases, large segments of the Left (including the Soviet Union and its minions) turned against Israel before 1967.


What Owen Jones also singularly misses out is the fact that International Socialist Jew-hatred pre-dates the founding on Israel by some one hundred years or so. Indeed there are strands of International Socialist/Marxist Jew-hatred which pre-dated the formation of the National Socialist German Workers Party (in 1920) by some fifty or so years. (I’m not just talking about Marx here: there were many Jew-hating communists and socialists in the late 19th century.)


Lindsey_German_Scotland
Lindsey German of the Stop the War Coalition (StWC). She is formerly of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Virtually all “pro-Palestine” or anti-Israel demos – as well as many others – are run and controlled by literally a handful of white, upper-middle-class academics of the SWP, as well as some ex-SWP: including John Rees and other friends of Iran’s Press TV./PHOTO CREDIT, Wiki Commons


Large segments of the Left aren’t really against Israel because of Gaza or Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. They’re against Israel! Full stop. And they’re against Israel for two primary reasons:


  • Israel is a “capitalist democracy”.
  • Israel is a a state primarily for Jews.
Thus Israel fuses three things which many Leftists hate: capitalist democracy, Jews and nationalism…. except, of course, that the Left has always accepted all sorts of nationalisms advanced by non-capitalists or people with brown and black skin. (Many on the Left deem all Jews to be “whites”.)


And because Israel is a new state, the Left has always believed it can do it severe damage. That’s why Israel has been a political obsession (or fashion) of the Left. Many Leftists would like to destroy the “capitalist democracies” (which aren’t, according to Marxist theory, genuine democracies) of the UK and the US too. However, they think that their chances of destroying Israel are far more likely; especially since they have aligned themselves with all sorts of murderous forces and terrorist groups which have precisely that intent.