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, 17 March 2015

The Telegraph's Dan Hodges Morphs into Hope Not Hate's Nick Lowles

 



TheTelegraph published Dan Hodges' “'No dogs. No blacks. No Irish' is now Ukip policy” only four days before his 'Ten things you actually can't say about racism' (16th of March). In both pieces, he fuses race and nationality/culture.

Dan Hodges does, nonetheless, hint that he's open-minded on race. After all, he writes for the Telegraph; so you'd think that it wouldn't allow a mindless Leftist rant on racism. Indeed he has written on the racial aspect of the Rotherham scandal.

Dan Hodges even tells us that “[s]ome of Trevor Phillips' 'explosive truths' are things I’ve written about myself”.

Yet if Dan Hodges and Hope Not Hate (Hodgesonce worked for this organisation) had their complete political way, none of these subjects would have even been discussed.

The fact is that such "explosive truths" were eventually discussed only because people well outside the political/social milieu of the Left had forced them into the open. (This was most certainly the case with Muslim sexual-grooming gangs.) So it's not that Dan Hodges, the Labour Party, SarahChampion MP, etc. decided (off their own backs) to tackle these issues. It's that other people and groups (such as the EDL, BNP, locals in Rotherham, victims, etc.) have forced them to do so.

Let's put it this way. Only when the shit had well as truly hit the fan (at least in the Muslim grooming-gangs case) did the Dan Hodges and Sarah Champions of this world speak out. In fact Rotherham's Sarah Champion MP first raised her voice about Muslim grooming gangs in 2013/14: over 13 years after it was common knowledge in Rotherham and elsewhere. Dan Hodges (as far as I could see) first wrote about the same subject as late as August the 27th, 2014.

10 True Things You Can’t Say about racism

Dan Hodges offers us his own counter-list of “10 True Things You Can’t Say about immigration and race”. I'll only comment on threeof them (as well as on a couple in the notes).

Firstly we have this:

1)“Most of the people who demand an open and honest debate about racism are racist.”

How does Dan Hodges know that? How could he know that? And how does he show us that he knows that? The thing is, he doesn't even attempt to demonstrate his point. Then again, on issues such as UKIP and racism, he rarely does.

3)“Most of the people who demand an open and honest debate about racism only ever see one side of the debate. That’s because they’re invariably white, and have no personal experience of what racism actually is.”

Well, for one, I've many experiences of anti-white racism. When I lived inEccleshill in Bradford, for example, most of the people under the age of 30 I knew had experienced anti-white racism (mainly from Muslims).

So is this a numbers game?

I suppose you could assume that because most people in the UK are white, then proportionately you'd expect that non-whites would make up most of the victims of racism... Though not so quick! There's a hell of a lot of evidence that says otherwise. (That's also true of the United States.)

Take these statistics:

*)According to the BBC, a report published in 2004 stated that 87,000 blacks and other ethnic minorities were victims of racial attacks in the UK, compared to 92,000 whites.

*)AnIndependent article of 1999 states that when it came to the victims of racial attacks and offences, 100,000 of the victims were Asian, 42,000 were black and 238,000 were white.

*)TheTelegraph tells us that “62% of the 572 racial attacks reported in Oldham” in the year 2000 “were committed by Asians on white victims”.

*)And even according to the Guardian (in 2006), out of 58 murders which were“racially motivated”, 24 of the victims were white.

I'm not saying that any of these stats are conclusive. However, it would help if Dan Hodges (as well as people like them) would at least make the effort to acknowledge that such figures even so much as exist.

Having said that, I'll willingly admit that some (yes some) of the people who talk about “anti-white racism” (especially those who use the phrase “white genocide”) are racists. Indeed their argument is (basically) this:

If blacks and Muslims are allowed to be racists, then so too should whites.

However, Dan Hodges doesn't make these distinctions. (He doesn't make any distinctions.) In fact what he says sounds like Hope Not Hate stuff. In other words, although Hodges may not explicitly state it, he may believe the Marxist theory that it's “impossible for people with power to be the victims of racism” and therefore that “only whites can be racists”. Has Dan Hodges ever rejected this widespread – especially in universities and the law - Marxist theory? I don't know.

10)“Ukip represent the biggest threat to British race relations since Oswald Mosley’s black-shirts.”

The biggest threats to race relations, Mr Hodges, were and still are things like the Rotherham grooming-gangs (as well as Muslim grooming-gangs generally), racist blacks and Muslims (who get away with their crimes because of their colour), the social experiment in mass immigration carried out by the Labour Party between 2000 and 2010 (when Dan Hodges, apparently, was a keen Blairite), Marxist theory on race, positive/inverse discrimination/racism, Hope Not Hate and Unite Against Fascism, the slow Islamisation of the UK, Leftist professors and lawyers and, last but not least, articles such as 'Ten things you actually can't say about racism'.

*)Read my “'No UKIP. No patriots. No platform' is Dan Hodges & Hope Not Hate's policy”.....


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

Notes:

1)On Dan Hodges' point 5):

When people want to excuse racism, they channel it through the prism of class. Say 'I have a real problem with immigration' and you will be challenged. Say 'Many working class communities are experiencing real problems with immigration' and you are given a pass.”

Here again Dan Hodges simply assumes that all the people who say such things (e.g., “many working class communities are experiencing real problems with immigration”) are racist.

As I said in the piece, some (yes, some) people will of course use these class-based analyses of immigration as a rationalisation for their pre-existing racism. Then again, many Leftists use anti-racism (as well as much else) as just another tool to further the revolution (or simply to “radicalise” various groups and causes).

In any case, Dan Hodges' blanket dismissal of these “working-class problems with immigration” is condescending and arrogant. Though because he's an upper-middle-class son of a famous actress and Labour politician, perhaps that explains both his snobbery and ignorance.

2)On Hodges point 8):

The lack of black, Asian and minority ethnic representation in British public life is a far greater scandal than the under-representation of women.”

Here again Dan Hodges doesn't even consider the possible (or actual) answers to his own statements.

The obvious point to be made in response to 8) above (so obvious it's often simply missed) is that since minorities are minorities, then there's bound to be less of them in “British public life” than there are whites in public life....

Unless Dan Hodges believe in quotas or positive discrimination! Of course he does.

The thing about positive discrimination (like the positive/inverse racism of middle-class Leftists) is that it actually contributes to racism; rather than dissipates it. But that doesn't matter. As long as Leftists and Dan Hodges can preen their anti-racist feathers in public and get paid a lot of money for doing so.

3) Dan Hodges has the audacity to round off his list by saying that “there may be some people who disagree with some of my inconvenient truths”.

What's with the word “truths”? The things he says in the article couldn't possibly function as truths because they're so overloaded with theory, opinion and hyperbole. There's no data. No argumentation. Only rhetoric and sanctimony. Therefore even if they are politically acceptable in terms of opinion, they still can't stand as “truths” by any stretch of the imagination.

4)Of course it can be said that most victims of racism are white simply because most people in the UK are white. (Just as when Leftists and Muslims say that “most British sex-abusers and paedophiles are white” they conveniently forget the fact that most British people are white.) Yet you'll also have to factor in the fact that there should be proportionately less ethnic minority individuals who would- or do - carry out such racial attacks. In other words, why are their so many white victims of racial attacks from a smaller number of ethnic minorities?

5)People tell me that the Telegraph used to be a very good newspaper. So does that mean that Glenda Jackson MP goes to the same Hampstead dinner parties as the Telegraph's editor?

Monday, 16 March 2015

"No UKIP. No patriots. No platform" is Dan Hodges & Hope Not Hate's Policy


 



This piece is a response to Dan Hodges' article 'No dogs. No blacks. No Irish' is now Ukip policy (inthe Telegraph).

The main thing you note about Dan Hodges' article is how he cleverly fuses race and nationality. In other words, what Nigel Farage says about nationality, Dan Hodges attempts to make it sound as if Farage is talking about race (or about the colour of people's skin). In other words, Hodge is making out that Farage is a good old-fashioned racist.
But firstly, here are a few words from the man himself:

About a year ago I was having a chat with a friend of mine called Nick Lowles. Nick is the director of an organisation called Hope Not Hate, which campaigns against political extremism. I used to provide media advice for HnH, and Nick wanted to sound me out about Ukip."

I love it! Hope Not Hate “campaigns against political extremism”. That's like saying that Hitler or Stalin campaigned against Jew-hatred or extremism.

Hope Not Hate precursor, Searchlight, was set up by a former member of the Communist Party of Great Britain (he's still a communist) – Gerry Gable.Nick Lowles himself was a member of extreme and violent Trotskyist groups (e.g., Anti-Fascist Action, Socialist Organiser, etc.) until he worked for Hope Not Hate.

The entire Hope Not Hate agenda (like Dan Hodges' own agenda... perhaps) is based on values and goals which are largely fed by Marxist theory. In other words, you can't separate Hope Not Hate from the Marxist theory and International Socialism which exist at its core.

The Telegraph



Here's the Telegraph's own blurb for Dan Hodges:

Dan Hodges is a former Labour Party and GMB trade union official, and has managed numerous independent political campaigns.”

Think about it: the Telegraph is employing a Leftist to write articles on UKIP (as well as on many other subjects). As a Conservative Party supporting newspaper (generally speaking), perhaps it thinks that an International Socialist can do UKIP more damage than any delicate namby-pamby Conservative journalist.

For the Telegraph, the agitproplanguage of Dan Hodges' article is quite extreme. It sounds more like the work of a first-year student in the first flush of his religious conversion to revolutionary Trotskyism. Yes, it doesn't sound like anything you'd normally expect from the Telegraph.

The title itself (“'No dogs. No blacks. No Irish' is now Ukip policy”)is a piece of outrageous propaganda. Nigel Farage hasn't said anything that even comes close to that. Yet Dan Hodges uses it as his title.

In any case, it seems that the Telegraph has far more breadth of opinion than, say, the Guardian. Indeed the Telegraphhas published pieces by Nigel Farage himself.

Would the Guardian or New Statesman, for example, ever publish an article by an UKIP leader – let alone by a member of by a self-described fascist or Nazi party? Of course it wouldn't!

In a sense, it's quite commendable that the Telegraph publishes articles written by Leftist and Left-Liberal journalists. It's just that Leftist and Left-Liberal outlets rarely – if ever - return that favour. (Nick Cohen is also published a lot in The Spectator.)

The Article: Race or Nationality?

Dan Hodge starts off as he means to go on.

He states: “So it’s official. Nigel Farage wants to make racism legal.”

Dan Hodges tries to convince his readers that Nigel Farage can't “obfuscate and weasel” by complaining about “media misrepresentation” because what he said is crystal clear... or at least that's what Hodges would like us to think.

In fact even the very first quote which Dan Hodges uses makes it clear that Farage didn't say what Hodges wants him to say.

He quotes Nigel Farage (from the Trevor Phillips interview) in this way:

Phillips asks: 'In Ukip-land there would be no law against discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Would there be a law against discrimination on the grounds or race or colour?'

'No,' Nigel Farage responds.”

Here again Dan Hodge tries to fuse the terms (as well as the concepts)race and nationality. Dan Hodges should know the difference. After all, all sorts of socialist/communist regimes have also been nationalist: from the Soviet Union, to China and Cuba to many regimes in east Asia and Africa. (Some of which were racist too!)

The other strange thing is that Dan Hodges quotes that part of the Trevor Phillips interview (above) and simply leaves it at that. It's as if he thinks he can rely on his readers to fuse nationality and race as well.

Dan Hodge immediately moves on in order to fuse nationality and race again.

He quotes Farage saying this on LBC:

What I said is this: that if a British employer in small business wants to employ a British person over somebody from Poland they should be able to do that without fear that they contravene discrimination laws. That’s all I have said."

Yet because Nigel Farage didn't say what Dan Hodges wanted him to say, all Hodges can do is hint at the fact that what Farage actually said wasn't the whole story. Instead he he says that “we have all been able to watch the actual interview, we can all see it isn’t true”.However, Dan Hodges doesn't quote anything from Farage to demonstrate his point. Rather he relies entirely on innuendo and rhetoric.

And here yet again Dan Hodges fuses race with nationality. He says:

We’ve had some incredible interventions on immigration and race from Ukip’s leader. Funny languages on the train. Immigrants clogging up the M4. Romanians next door.”

Is there a big problem with being put-out by hearing nothing but foreign languages on an English train? And if it is a problem, why is it a problem?

Is it impossible - in principle - that our massive rates of immigration have contributed something to the “clogging up the M4” and to similar problems? And if that's impossible, why is it impossible?

And what's wrong with having a problem with one's Romanian neighbours if, say, they are known criminals who constantly harass locals?

Despite his many attempts to fuse racism and nationality, Dan Hodges himself puts Nigel Farage's position in this way:

He admits he wants to change the law so employers can discriminate on grounds of nationality.”

Yes, not on grounds of race or colour – on “grounds of nationality”! In other words, what Farage said has nothing to with discrimination against British people who happen to have brown or black skin. It's about possible discrimination against the foreign workers who've only just arrived in the UK (often to take the jobs of local people); after which they may very well go straight back to their home countries.

In fact Dan Hodges quotes Farage saying exactly that:

"I think the situation that we now have, where an employer is not allowed to choose between a British-born person and somebody from Poland, is a ludicrous state of affairs. I would argue that the law does need changing, and that if an employer wishes to choose, or you can use the word 'discriminate' if you want to, but wishes to choose to employ a British-born person, they should be allowed to do so."

Despite all that, Son of Dave Spart (actually, Dan Hodges is the son of Glenda Jackson MP) says:

There was a time when people used to post signs saying: 'No dogs. No blacks. No Irish.' Nigel Farage, by his own admission, wants to make it permissible to again put up signs that say: 'No dogs. No Irish.'”

He then makes a big deal about Farage's use of the term “British-born”.Yet every country on the planet puts their own native citizens first– including former socialist and communist states. In fact this is also far truer of non-communist countries like Japan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. than it's true of the UK.



Most deceitfully of all, Dan Hodges purports to offer us Nigel Farage'sreal position on race (not, this time, on nationality). Yet he doesn't do that either.

Firstly Hodges writes: “And then finally we have his views on race.” He then says: “ Look again at how he answers the question.” Which question, Mr Hodges? He doesn't tell us what that question is. Despite that, Hodges does state what Farage's answer was: “No.”

This really is terrible political journalism from the Telegraph. It's as if George Galloway or even Leon Trotsky had been let loose on its pages.

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