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, 5 February 2015

Generalisations About IQ Tests

 


There's a lot of debate (or at least there once was) on the value and even“the meaning” of IQ tests.

To be facetious, one could say that the people who are good at IQ tests are the people who are good at IQ tests. Or, more clearly, the people who are good at IQ tests are often those who've simply done lots of IQ tests! In other words, they've picked up a particular skillthrough much practice – and that skill is being successful at IQ tests!

There will be many people with high IQs who offer nothing to the world. (They may be non-entities.) Similarly, people with fairly low IQs (within reason!) may achieve a lot in this world – even intellectually or academically.

I even once heard someone say that Albert Einstein had a low IQ. Perhaps he didn't mean in the sense of Einstein actually having been tested as such. He might have meant that had he been tested, he might not have scored very highly. Anyway, I later found out the Einstein had an IQ of 160+ - at least according to the image above. (That shows how little I know about IQ tests. Would that make me a bad candidate for an IQ test?)

I do know that Einstein did very badly at school. The teachers, as far as I can recall, didn't rate him very highly.

So perhaps IQ tests aren't good for geniuses in the sense that some geniuses are extremely specialised. And IQ tests test a lot of things which talented or creative people may not be good at. (How would Mozart, for one, have faired had he been tested by a 18th-century IQ test?)

To be honest, I know next to nothing about IQ tests. One, I've never had one. Two, I've never felt the need to have one.

What Do IQ Tests Prove?

Many people also rhetorically ask: “What do IQ tests prove?”

Well, IQ tests do “prove” at least one thing: they prove that you are good at the individual tests which are found within IQ tests. Since I don't know much about IQ tests, I can only guess that IQ mathematical tests can prove that some people are good at those areas of mathematics. Similarly with IQ spatial tests or puzzles.

However, the word “prove” should only really be used, strictly speaking, in maths and logic. (It isn't even used that much in science, except in a loose sense.) Perhaps 'demonstrate' or 'show' would be a better word, as in:



IQ test A demonstrates that Person X is good at Test A.

What follows from all that? It seems perfectly acceptable to conclude that if it's been shown that someone is good at certain areas of maths,“spatial awareness”, puzzles or whatever, then it may very well follow that they'll also be good at things that are very distant from such IQ tests. And that seems like a fair conclusion.

The Limitations of IQ Tests

One person said to me:

IQ tests only help estimate a persons problem solving and rationalisation abilities. There's so many forms of intelligence that (again) IQ tests can't even assess.”

Yes, though do supporters (or defenders) of IQ tests necessarily deny all that? Won't they – or some of them – admit that IQ tests have their limitations? Surely IQ fans won't claim that they testeverything. And if they don't claim that, then what's the big problem with them?

It all depends on how much importance people place on IQ tests. That's the issue. And of course it's precisely because of that that the issue has become politicised.

However, to test “a person's problem solving and rationalisation abilities”is to test a quite a lot. And it's also to test important things. That's not to say there's nothing else to test. The remaining question would be:



How effectively do IQ tests test a person's problem-solving and reasoning abilities?

My adversary then went on to say:

Many psychologists dismiss the point of IQ testing because it's limited and research hasn't been furthered for its development.”

Of course IQ tests are limited! By definition they're limited. Though why would that automatically be a problem? All psychological and cognitive tests are limited. And perhaps “research hasn't been furthered” because of the political controversy associated with IQ tests. In fact I bet that's the primary reason.

Wednesday, 4 February 2015

After Rotherham: Why the Leftist Silence on Islamic Misogyny & Rape?

 


Gordon Jelley: social worker in Rotherham from 2005 to 2009 and a Socialist Workers Party (SWP) activist & writer.

Why are nearly all European and American Leftists/socialists/”progressives” (as well as most feminists) utterly silent on Islamic misogyny and rape?

The answer to that is brutally simple.

It's simply because most Muslims have brown and black skin. Thus the Left's racist and theory-driven anti-racism trumps both feminism and justice itself.

All this explains what happened in the UK town of Rotherham.

Rotherham is a town in the north of England in which hundreds – perhaps thousands - of young girls were not only the victims of Muslim sexual-grooming gangs; but also victims of Rotherham's “anti-racism policies”. (See this article for details on the Rotherham case:'Muslim sex gangs and the young victims of Rotherham Council's anti-racism policies'.)

Leftist anti-racism (or the anti-racism policies and actions of councillors, the police, social workers, politicians, etc.) trumped the abuse of hundreds of white girls and even erased any prior commitment to feminist principles.

You see, in the Left's “hierarchies of oppression”, racism is the worst sin. Yet Leftists themselves were profoundly racist for allowing all this to happen.

What I mean by that is that the Rotherham scandal was largely the result of a double-dose of the Left's own brands of racism. Namely:





i) Its negative racism towards the largely white and working-class victims of Britain's Muslim grooming-gangs.





ii) Its positive/“inverted” (or patronising) racism towards the gangs themselves; which was based on the non-white skin colour of the Muslim rapists and abusers.

So added to the Left's positive/inverted racism towards all black and brown people (except the “Uncle Toms” who support UKip, black conservatives, etc.), you also have its negative racism towards non-Leftist whites.

All this was graphically displayed by what happened in Rotherham. Though it has also happened throughout the country and in many dissimilar cases.

Indeed this situation was so bad that not only did Leftists enable the mass abuse of young girls in Rotherham at the time, even after the shit had hit the fan (or after it had hit the national news), such Leftists still wanted things to carry on as before. That is, Leftists criticised those who spoke out against both the abuse and the political inaction; as well as agitated against the demonstrations which occurred in Rotherham.

Take the specific case of Gordon Jelley.

Mr Jelley was a leading social worker (a “trainer”) in Rotherham between 2005 and 2009. He also happens to be a writer for the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). He would therefore have been partly – or even largely - responsible for what went on in Rotherham. Yet a few months ago (after Professor Alexis Jay's reporton the abuse and systemic failures in that town), he was interviewed by the aforesaid SWP (which didn't tell us he's also a member) on the Rotherham affair. All he could do - as a typical Marxist automaton - was blame “cops and cuts” for everything that had happened; as well as warn the readers not to “let the racists divide us”. (The details of all this can be found in this article: 'Gordon Jelley: the SWP's Rotherham social worker on grooming gangs'. )

Indeed it will be Gordon Jelly-types who are also responsible for the fact that Muslim abusers and rapists are still driving around Rotherham with under-age white girls in their passenger seats; as recently stated by many residents in the town. (This article in the Independentis dated the 29th of January, 2015.)

So it does seem that (racist) anti-racism really does rule supreme in Rotherham; as well as in the rest of the UK.

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

Apart form the statistics probably been made up off the top of her head, most abusers will be white in the UK simply because most people in the UK are white. It's proportionality that matters. Virtually every groomer in Rotherham was a Muslim and virtually every victim was white (a non-Muslim). Apart from that, she said “1,400 abusers” -that's the figure for the victims, not the abusers. She's clearly “lying for Justice” (as progressives/Leftists put it).

Of course Leftists will now say that there's also misogyny in Christianity and that many Christians have also been rapists and paedophiles.

Yes indeed. And Leftists have frequently told us all about such things for decades (or even longer). Yet when Muslim misogyny, rape and sexual grooming came along on the most extreme scale imaginable –what happened? Complete Leftist and feminist silence. Why? As I said, because Muslims, on the whole, have brown skins.

Now that really is racism, isn't it?

Of course mentioning Christian misogyny is a classic case of Leftistwhataboutism. You also often get: Whataboutthecrusades?Whatabouttheslavetrade?Whataboutwhathappenedin15thcenturyFrance? Etc. (See this poem on whataboutism.)

Okay: whatabout what's happening in the UK -today - with Muslim grooming gangs? Whatabout what's happening all over the world - at this present moment in time- when it comes to the global jihad?

Are there Christian grooming gangs all over the country abusing thousands of young kids? Is there a Christian rape jihad going on in Iraq, Syria, Oslo, Malmö,etc.? Is there a Christian country in which (as in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.) the woman is imprisoned for being raped and sometimes given other kinds of sharia punishment?

Finally, there may be a handful of Muslims who don't subscribe to the rape jihad or the collective abuse of kuffarfemales. Nonetheless, there are certainly more than enough Muslims to cause the grooming-gang phenomenon which we now have in the UK. There are also tens of millions (or more) of Muslims who believe in jihad, that raping kuffaris permissible (according to Allah), etc.

So, yes, a handful of interfaith Muslims may claim not to believe in all this thoroughly Islamic stuff. The thing is, are we kuffarprepared to place all our eggs in that tiny basket?

Sunday, 1 February 2015

The Guardian's Jason Wilson on Cultural Marxism

 


TheGuardian employing a Leftist academic and sociologistto deny the cultural and political power of Marxist theorists and institutional professionals is like getting the police to investigate police corruption or getting the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) to write a report on the Islamist penetration of British society.

Jason Wilson's article - published last week - is entitled 'Cultural Marxism: a uniting theory for rightwingers who love to play the victim'. Its subtitle reads:

The culture war that so defines current debates between the left and right sides of politics has its history in the barmy theory of 'cultural Marxism'.”

The Guardian itself says that Jason Wilson “is a visiting fellow at SwinburneUniversity's Institute for Social Research, and lives in Portland, Oregon”.

RecentGuardian articles by Jason Wilson's include:

-'Charlie Hebdo could be published in Australia' (which argues against free speech on issues of “religion or religious identity”)

-'#illridewithyou: do Australia's rightwingers hate it because they don't know their own readers?' (which is about “right-wing racism against Muslims”in Australia) and

- 'The right has won control of the English-speaking world' (whose title is self-explanatory).


Basically, all Wilson's articles seem to be about how unremittingly evil the Right is and how the Left should “w[i]n control of the English-speaking world” (which, apparently, has been won by the Right). This is ironic considering the fact that the subject matter being discussed here is cultural Marxism and its cultural and political power in, well, the English-speaking world (as well as beyond).

Basically, then, Jason Wilson is protecting his own political and ideological fiefdom.

Partly because of that, Jason Wilson rather predictably features Anders Breivik and anti-Semitism in his article. Added to that, the Guardianitself uses a photo of Breivik as its main image.

Now isn't that a rather crude ad hominem?

Wilson and the Guardianare saying the following to their readers:


"The mass killer Anders Breivik also talked about 'cultural Marxism'. Therefore all statements about it – from other people - must surely be politically suspect if not downright false."

But let's just get one thing out of the way to begin with.

Of course the term “cultural Marxism” is sometimes overused. It's also sometimes used by people who've never actually read any Gramsci, Adorno or even any other Marxist. However, that's true about all political terms and of many people. Legions of Leftists, for example, can hardly utter a single sentence without including the word“Zionist” or “neoliberal” it it. (Jason Wilson himself obliges us with uses of the words “conspiracy theory”, “patriarchal authority” and “capitalism”.)

Jason Wilson is a Marxist

Is Jason Wilson a Marxist? Yes; though probably not a pure one because - in certain senses - there's never been such a being. Not even Lenin was a pure Marxist. And Gramsci and the Frankfurt School (who basically turned Marx's base-superstructure model upside down) evidently weren't.

Jason Wilson is most certainly some kind of Marxist. He may not class himself that way; though that shouldn't concern anyone: what he writes in this article shows us that he is one.

In any case, Wilson doesn't exactly hide his Leftism/Marxism when he says that cultural Marxism“distracts from the most important factor in these changes [brought about by capitalism]” and that capitalism's “crises have eroded living standards”.

Jason Wilson then goes on to say that those evil people who endlessly talk of cultural Marxism have “dragged politics as a whole a little further right”.

In other words, Wilson is offering a fairly traditional Marxist analysis of those of us who have a problem with the wide-ranging cultural and political power of institutional Marxists/Leftists.

Thus there's no escape from Marxist theory – not even in an article about the critics of Marxist theorists.

No Argument



You'll quickly see that Jason Wilson hardly ever argues against what people say about cultural Marxism (or against anything else for that matter). Instead he simply states what he thinks “right-wing conspiracy theorists” take cultural Marxism to be. (He also uses a lot of self-conscious poeticisms; perhaps because he's taking a break from university academese.) And then, after putting the conspiracy theorist's position, he just sneers at it.

Jason Wilson simply assumes that what the critics of cultural Marxism say is all just plainly false (or at least politically nefarious). In only two paragraphs (perhaps one) out of fifteen paragraphs does he mount a argumentative defence of that sneering.

Take, for example, a passage in which he states what he takes to be the right-wing position on cultural Marxism:

The conspiracy theorists claim that these 'cultural Marxists' began to use insidious forms of psychological manipulation to upend the west.... they had, the story goes, a chance to undermine the culture and values that had sustained the world’s most powerful capitalist nation.”

And?

For a start, why does Jason Wilson put the words “cultural Marxists”in scare quotes? The Frankfurt School itself, for example, used those words about itself! What's more, many academic and political fans of this the individuals within the Frankfurt School (people not that unlike Jason Wilson) have called them “cultural Marxists”. So is this term only wrong when used critically or negatively?

Not only that: the Frankfurt School also more or less said that its role and aim was to “undermine the culture and values” of capitalist states. Walter Benjamin, Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer (as well as Saul Alinsky later) can easily be quoted saying this.

Indeed if the Frankfurt School didn't want to undermine the culture and values of capitalists states, then what the helldid they want to do? What was it all about?

Exactly the same kinds of thing can be said of Jason Wilson's comments about Antonio Gramsci and György Lukács. He writes:

[Gramsci and Lukács believed that] culture and religion blunted the proletariat’s desire to revolt, and the solution was that Marxists should carry out a 'long march through the institutions' –universities and schools, government bureaucracies and the media –so that cultural values could be progressively changed from above.”

Yes, and that is false, misguided and conspiratorial because....?

And, finally, this is also true of Wilson's comments about Anders Breivik. He writes:

Anders Breivik killed young social democrats because he believed that their party was involved in a cultural Marxist plot to undermine traditional European values by means of mass immigration from the Islamic world.”

Yes, and Jason Wilson's argument against that is?

Anyway, even if Anders Breivik's position is flawed in some - or even in many- ways, must Guardian readers simply assume that mass immigration isn't a Leftist social experiment? After all, leaders figures in the British Labour Party explicitly admitted (if after loosing power) that New Labour's policy on immigration (roughly between 2000 and 2010) was exactly that: a socialist experiment in mass immigration which was partly intended to “rub the nosesof the Right in diversity”! (Up to five million immigrants entered the UK in that period; the lowest figure is around three-and-a-half million.)

There is No Leftist Hegemony?

As I said, Jason Wilson hardly bothers to argue against the right-wing conspiracy theorist position. Though there is one such paragraph which seems to do so. Wilson writes:

If humanities faculties are really geared to brainwashing students into accepting the postulates of far-left ideology, the composition of western parliaments and presidencies and the roaring success of corporate capitalism suggests they’re doing an astoundingly bad job.”

Jason Wilson hasn't read his Antonio Gramsci. Or, more correctly, he has read Gramsci; though he's (kind of) pretending that he hasn't.

He talks about “western parliaments and presidencies” not being overrun with Leftists. Indeed Leftists haven't gained total control because - unlike Swinburne University's Institute for Social Research (where Jason Wilson works) - the people in parliaments require votes to get there. They require popularity as well as working-class support. That's why Gramsci focused on those “institutions” -such as universities, schools and the law – which don't require the vote or such support.

Such institutions, therefore, are ideal for those middle-class Leftists/Marxists who are generally despised by the majority of the working class and by most other people too. Thus Gramscians (to use one term) have “taken over the institutions” instead. And despite what Leftists and others say, members of Parliament and councillors do, at first, require the vote and popular support (regardless of what they do after they gain power). Not so Marxist/Trotskyist/communist academics, lawyers, journalists, teachers human rights activists, bureaucrats, civil servants, etc.

Conclusion

If Leftists like Jason Wilson himself really don't have much influence or much political/ideological power (as Wilson claims), then why did he write this article on the critics of cultural Marxism? Indeed why is Jason Wilson a Leftist sociologist at Swinburne University's Institute for Social Research? (Though he be in it just for the money.)So what Jason Wilson is really crying about is the fact that American and European Leftists haven't gained the total and complete political power that Trotsky, Gramsci and the Frankfurt School fantasised about throughout the 20thcentury.Yes, Jason Wilson wants yet more political power for the Left. Power which doesn't have to rely on votes, popular support or the working class. In other words, power which relies very heavily on people like him “taking over the institutions” and then propagating cultural Marxism (yes, cultural Marxism) from above.