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, 19 June 2015

The Oxford Union, UAF & “The Colonial Comeback” Comeback


The Oxford Union (not to be confused with Oxford University's Student Union) is, according to Wikipedia,

Britain's second oldest University Union (after the Cambridge Union Society) and it has gained a worldwide reputation for its debates, having trained politicians from Britain and other countries”.

At the end of last month, Oxford Unite Against Fascism demanded that theOxford Union “recognise that inviting fascists to speak is also a reflection of the institutional racism that exists within the Oxford Union”.

The Oxford Union has faced the ire of Unite Against Fascism (UAF) beforewhen it hosted Tommy Robinson (his first visit was cancelled), Nick Griffin, David Irving and Marine Le Pen.

Apparently the Oxford Union (when the thumb screws were tightened during a recent anti-racist inquisition) confessed to its racism. Or, if not to its racism, then to its lack of fanaticism and zeal when it comes to “fighting racism”.

These accusations of “racism” are flying around (as they tend to do in universities) partly as a result of the “colonial comeback”controversy in which the Oxford Union dared to joke about colonial times in the form of a cocktail drink. Apparently, the joke -according to the University Student Union's Black and Minority Ethnic Students' and Anti-Racism Officer (what a mouthful!) - was “highly offensive”. Indeed PhD student Adam Cooper told the Telegraph:

Oxford still has a problem with racism. I think racism is widespread at Oxford and I think this kind of poster is a crass example of how unashamed that racism is. I can't think of anything worse than a cocktail that celebrates enslavement."

To top all that, Triska Hamid wrote this on Twitter:

"This is perhaps one of the least shocking incidents of colonial #racism to have happened at Oxford Uni."

You see, in a progressive society (or in British and American universities) there's no place for humour. There's only a place for piety and intolerant political correctness. In the past, such people as the the 16/17th century Puritans, Stalin and the Khmer Rouge had similar views to Oxford Unite Against Fascism. They too saw laughter as impious or counter-revolutionary. It's abundantly clear to all puritans that such a joke would inevitably lead to the genocide of all black people and other ethnic groups in the UK... Well, if not one single joke, then perhaps two or three... Don't you know the theory?

(Many British students today remind me of the National Socialist students of early 1930s Germany and the Chinese studentRed Guards of 1966 and 1967.)

Partly as a response to the “colonial comeback” comeback, the Union offered this statement:

With these commitments we join the pre-existing movement to address the pernicious problem of racism.”

The Union went further than that and humbly apologised with the following words:

The Standing Committee commits to eradicating racism and addressing the issues of institutional racism that it has recognised.”

The first quote mentions “the pre-existing movement”. Which movement is that I wonder? The Trotskyist movement that is Unite Against Fascism (or at least the movement which includes Unite Against Fascism)? Whatever the case is, the Union's President, Olivia Merrett, has bitten the bullet and said that the Union shouldn't“issue any further invitations to fascists to speak”.

Oxford Unite Against Fascism itself has puts its case explicitly. It said that the Oxford Union mustn't give a platform to any “far-right”groups or individuals or to those who have “anti-immigrant and Islamophobic views”. (Clearly UAF will deem UKIP to be“anti-immigrant”... as well as sections of the Conservative Party.) Oxford UAF's Kate Douglas said:

Fascists express the most extreme forms of racism and for the Union to refuse to recognise this would show the Oxford Union’s apology to be insincere and their commitment to anti-racism to be a sham.”

This is all part of the ubiquitous (or universal) “no platform policy”which UK Trotskyists and communists want to impose on quite literally all right-wing groups and individuals outside the Conservative Party. Indeed it's a milder contemporary version of the Bolshevik Gulag.

Debate, Theory, Politics

So Unite Against Fascism is having a go at the Oxford Union again. Basically, the main problem UAF has with the Oxford Union is that's it's not a Trotskyist outfit. It follows that if the Oxford Union doesn't have the same views as UAF on race, “fighting racism” and whatnot, then that means that the Oxford Union itself must be racist.

The logic of UAF's position is excruciatingly crude and laughable. Because the Oxford Union has invited people who UAF deems to be“racist” and “fascist” (some of the invitees have been racists; though not always right-wing racists), then it must follow that the Oxford Union itself is racist (surely fascist too?). Indeed Oxford UAF has called it “institutionally racist”.

That's the theoretical position of Oxford Unite Against Fascism.

But don't expect sophistication from UAF. The views it upholds are monumentally infantile and deeply hypocritical. The activists of UAF have almost zero skills when it comes to self-analysis and self-criticism.

For example, although UAF has a big problem with right-wing extremists being invited to the Oxford Union, it has no problem whatsoever with Islamic, Leftist and other kinds of extremists being invited to the same place. Take these names which didn't even cause a storm in teacup from hypocritical Leftists: Malcolm X, Yasser Arafat, Gerry Adams, O.J. Simpson, Pervez Musharraf, Sheikh Masina and Zakir Naik.

The Oxford Union is a debating society. Hence it believes in debate. If the views it debates weren't controversial, then there wouldn't be much point in debating them. The Oxford Union may as well invite people to offer the motion than the earth isn't flat or that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

The Oxford Union doesn't “recognise” these “most extreme forms of racism” (as Oxford UAF has it) because it wants to debate them. If such views aren't debated, then they'll never be truly understood and therefore never effectively counteracted.... or, for that matter, endorsed.

You don't show your sincerity about extremism by adopting extreme views and banning everyone. You do so by debating the issues and convincing people.

UAF activists think that because all their views are based on Marxist or Marxist-derived theories (which were probably concocted in Kings College, Goldsmiths or the London School of Economics), that this alone makes their positions sophisticated. (Apparently these theories scrape away the “false consciousness” that's a result of“capitalist propaganda from the mainstream media”.)

Apart from the fact that most UAF are only dimly aware of the theories which lead to their absurd and hypocritical views, the theories themselves are primarily designed to further various political causes. They're not ways of understanding the world or social reality. Just like many conspiracy theories, Marxist theories are designed to achieve certain political ends. They're also tailor-made to suit various political agendas. Thus the UAF or Marxist theoretician first decides what political results he wants, and then he designs the theory which will be best suited to bring that result about.

For example, take the Marxist theory that results in the proposition that“only whites can be racist”. That has nothing to do with the fact that, well, only whites can be racist. What it's to do with is the desired political results such a theory will help bring about. The theory, you can assume, is designed to bring about a “non-racist society” and to help stop “the oppression of people of colour”.It's believed, in tandem, that saying that “blacks can also be racist” won't help further those particular goals. Thus an arcane and convoluted theory (which only very few Leftists can fully articulate) is designed to further the “liberation of black people from capitalist oppression”. It's not meant to to be true. It's meant to work.

Everything that's just been said can therefore be applied to Oxford Unite Against Fascism's theoretical position on the Oxford Union's purported racism. It's all theoretical trash designed for various purposes which are deemed to advance both the revolution and anti-racism. Basically, at this moment in time, anti-racism itself is literally the best weapon in that revolution.

Tuesday, 16 June 2015

Is Professor Rachel Dolezal a Wigger?


Rachel Dolezal has the perfect credentials to, well, fake being black. She's a professor in the Africana Studies Program at Eastern Washington University. She's taught such things as African History, African American Culture and the Black Woman's Struggle.It seem also that's she's an adherent of the recently popular theory of“intersectionality”in which (to simplify) race, gender and class “oppressions”are said to merge into one; though one such oppression (usually racial oppression) is often given primacy.

Ironically, this story has elicited some racism from what is often called the“black community”.

For example, one Twitterer, a Kim Moore, said:

"Don't talk to me about how #RachelDolezal understood/knew the Black struggle when she could pick & choose when to be 'Black'."

Now what's being said here? Does she have a problem with Dolezal's lies or with Dolezal's race? I think it's the latter. She's saying that whites can't understand the “Black struggle” quite simply because they're white. That's tricky because it assumes one of two things: that every black has been part of the “struggle” or that those blacks that haven't suffered struggle (if that possibility is so much as allowed) can't understand the black struggle either.

The claim is also a little unfair.... in a sense. I don't suppose that Dolezal did “pick and choose when to be 'Black'”. What she did is choose to be black once and then retained that racial identity. It's not as if she was black during Christmas and white in the summer.

Another black person (a Broderick Greer) magnified this black racism even more when she said, "Only a white person could get this much attention for being black."

I'm not sure what her point is; though it sounds like anti-white racism to me.

Bizarrely, this case has engendered a new genre (as it were): that of beingtransracial. This, of course, follows the genre/condition ofbeing transgender.

Well, we've all heard the term “wiggers” applied to white kids who want to be black and, according to many black “racial essentialists” (as poststructuralists and post-modernists put it), fail miserably. I've personally witnessed many white kids and adults (usually middle class) mimic black speech patters and jargon – and not just the use of the word 'man'. There's also the case of whites who're obsessed with black culture. This is a very common phenomenon. So much so that there are many whites who only ever listen to black music. Needless to say, this is often a very self-conscious anti-racist stance from such white people.

In the case of Rachel Dolezal possible transracialism, it has had negatives criticisms from blacks and some positive support from whites. For example, one Tweet, from ReignOfApril, said:

"There is nothing 'trans' about #RachelDolezal. Stop w/ the false equivalencies to transpeople. Rachel is a lying, deceitful fraud. The end."

In any case, have you ever heard the cliché that the best way to be is to be “colour-blind”? You hear it a lot from Leftists or 'progressives'. That's strange really: large segments of the Left are utterly obsessed with race. Rather than colour being the last thing Leftists see, it's the first.

Because anti-racism is the most important tool in the revolution (or for 'radical change'), race becomes everything. Thus racism is seen everywhere and everwhen.

Take the case of Rachel Dolezal again. Perhaps she thought that the best way to fight racism (or prove her love of blacks) was to actually to become black.

Monday, 15 June 2015

Leftist Hypocrisy About Crony Capitalism


The accusation of “cronyism” can be applied to just about anything –not just capitalism. In the 20th century, for example, you certainly had crony communismin virtually every communist or socialist state. You also have cronyism in universities (especially in left-wing departments)councils, political parties, anti-fascist groups and so on.

The same is true of that broader term which has become so popular withverbatim Chomskyans and followers of Naomi Klein –'corporatism'. In this case you have fascist corporatism, Christian corporatism, Communitarian corporatism, kinship corporatism, and even“progressive” and socialist corporatism.

In addition, what's been said about cronyism can be said about corruption and the abuse of power. These two things aren't peculiar to capitalism either. Yet, as we know, all sorts of things have been attributed to capitalism which have been pretty much universal in nature.

Cronyism seems to occur in all systems. That doesn't mean, of course, that we shouldn't do anything about it.

So, yes, businessmen and corporations do use their wealth or status to buy political power and influence governments; as do left-wing think tanks, universities, environmentalists, newspapers, pressure groups, etc.. All this can be dealt with. It has been dealt with. However, that doesn't mean that cronyism has ever been obliterated. It hasn't. It hasn't because no system has ever been perfect. And, as I said, cronyism was much worse in communistcountries than in capitalist ones. (Where such cronyism, of course, featured different players.) In addition, well before capitalism, cronyism obviously existed.

The term “crony capitalism” is also a massive generalisation. Are Leftists really claiming that crony capitalism is prevalent everywhere there are businesses or private enterprises? Is every corner shop, every small and large business, every private art gallery, every service, etc. subject to crony capitalism?

Crony Capitalism = Capitalism

Russell Brand & Naomi Klein
Basically, the accusation of “crony capitalism” is just another way which Leftists can use to have a go at capitalism. Yet Chomsky says that the adjective “crony” (in “crony capitalism”)is redundant. The “radical economist and political activist”, Robin Hahnel, believes that too. Hesees the term as an “ideologically motivated attempt to cast what is in their view the fundamental problems of capitalism as avoidable irregularities”. Naomi Klein, in The Shock Doctrine(2007), also wrote:

...the alliance between a small corporate elite and a right-wing government has been written off as some sort of aberration – Mafia capitalism, oligarchy capitalism and now, under Bush, 'crony capitalism.' But it's not an aberration....” (316)

Thus those who speak out against crony capitalism are actually speaking out against, well, capitalism; just as those who speak out against what is now called “neo-liberalism” (a term which was resurrected very recently) are really speaking out against, yes, capitalism. (See my “'Neoliberalism'? They Mean Capitalism'.)

In any case, if Leftists were truly against crony capitalism, they would be in favour of the free-market position which states that the government or state should have virtually nothing to do with private enterprise.... Yes, Leftists are against that too. Not only that:free-marketeers argue that crony capitalism is closer to socialism than it is to free-market capitalism. After all, interfering with the market is what socialist governments do, isn't it? What's more, free-marketeers make the obvious point that when the government involves itself in business, true competition is lessened and even ended entirely. Free-marketeers also believe that what they call “natural monopolies” rarely occur without both governments and the wealthy colluding in various ways by placing limits on competition.

Now, is this the type of capitalism Chomsky and Naomi Klein, for example, want? Of course not. To state the obvious, they want socialist collectivism run by people who adhere to the views and values of, well, Chomsky and Klein.

Capitalism = Fascism

There's a dangerous line here; though Leftists aren't always explicit about it.

This is a transitive argument that's often (though not always) hidden in the prose:

i) Capitalism is crony capitalism (or vice versa)

ii) crony capitalism is corporatism

iii) corporatism is fascism

iv) Therefore capitalism is fascism.

This is the line of argument which has been delivered by Marxists galore; both today and throughout the 20th century. However, it can take different forms.

For example, you can begin with the words “crony capitalism is corporatism” (or even with the inverted “crony capitalism is capitalism”) and then work through the transitiveidentities to end with “capitalism is fascism”. It doesn't really matter as long as you end with fascism. And that's because all the terms are taken to be virtual (sometimes literal) synonyms.

Despite that argument being applied to all capitalist democracies, what happened in Italy and Germany (in the 1920s and 1930s) has of course been given massive attention by Marxists (hence the conclusion -“capitalism is fascism”). Just as Leftists say that “capitalism inevitably leads to crony capitalism” (e.g. Naomi Klein, Chomsky, etc.); so the older refrain “capitalism always leads to fascism”has been heard throughout the 20thcentury (especially in universities and in Trotskyist/communist parties or groups).

Thus capitalism isn't only tainted with crony capitalism: it's also tainted with fascism. That's one reason why Chomsky (who said that the United States need to bede-Nazified”), Naomi Klein and Leftists generally believe that capitalism (in toto) must be completely destroyed.

Now for an account of how corporatism is fascismwhich is ironically (perhaps not ironically) offered by a believer in“free capitalism”. He writes:

I would say that corporatism is just another name for fascism.

Corporatism/fascism is basically when private companies use the government to gain unfair advantages in the market. So it's when the private companies take over the government, and the government and the private sector team up to seize power and screw over the average citizen and take their rights away.”

And this is his preferred alternative:

With capitalism however, the government is small and run by the people and the private sector works for the benefit of the citizens.”

So how can crony capitalism, corporatism and indeed fascism fit the capitalist template when capitalism is surely about providing the goods and services which people want and are prepared to spend money on? Crony capitalism, corporatism and fascism are about governments and businesses/corporations conspiring together to effectively decide which products and services to produce. In these systems, the government basically hands out tax-payers' cash in the form of concessions, subsidies and bailouts to businesses and corporations. The government also creates laws and regulations which are tailor-made to benefit the aforesaid businesses and corporations. All this violates capitalism and comes closer to socialism... surely.

The Socialist Solution

To democratic socialists (if they exist), it's important that governments fully regulate the economy – both in political, social and economic terms. But isn't that plain socialism? Indeed, once the economy and society have been regulated or collectivised, where the hell is the capitalist remainder?

Such socialists also say that that the political power of the wealthy has to be circumscribed and controlled. Yet in a socialist state, the only wealthy people would be socialist politicians and, perhaps, union leaders and Leftist activists. Thus the wealthy (the capitalistwealthy) wouldn't need to be regulated because they wouldn't so much as exist. Instead it would be socialists (of various descriptions) who'd need to be regulated; though since it would be socialists doing the regulating, there would be an obvious problem.


If crony capitalism or capitalism is the problem, capitalism has always proved to be the solution too. Revolution (or the world made in Naomi Klein or Chomsky's image) is an attempt to create utopia. In the process, it will create hell –as the 20th century graphically displayed.

Capitalism is like an animal which evolves to suit the environment. (As the Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek, for example, is more than willing to admit.) Capitalism responds to people by giving them what they want, whether that's jacuzzis, horror films or, according to Žižek, post-modern philosophy/politics. It also gives them health foods, clean air, medicines,internet websites (that preach violent revolution), punk, non-polluting cars and books by Chomsky, Naomi Klein and SlavojŽižek. In addition, it responds to people's demands for the“better use of finite resources”. Though, admittedly, only if that's what people want. So if people want environmentally-friendly goods and books by Al Gore, it will give them such things. And, as the phrase goes, capitalism will “relocate resources” too. Though, again, only if people want this.

Leftists say in response: But what if they don't want these goodlythings?

And it's here that Leftists display their undemocratic and even totalitarian instincts. Because people don't want such things (though sometimes they do), the socialist demands that the state provide them instead. Thus people will get the supposedly good things even if they don't want them. Consequently, the government/state will gain complete control because it knows what's good for us in all respects. Goodness will then be imposed upon us from above.... regardless.

And when socialist goodness is imposed it becomes badness – as the 20thcentury graphically shows.



1)Karl Marx himself must have known that capitalism isn't always cronified. Indeed the success and productivity of Great Britain's Industrial Revolution was partly a result of de-cronification(as it were) – that is, of true competition. What this meant is that people and even politicians took action against cronyism between government and business. More specifically, these people stopped those who wanted to “block innovations” because such innovations were a threat to various business-government alliances.

So, Marx was also against the opposite of crony capitalism; as are contemporary Leftists. Indeed in Marx's own Germany there was far more crony capitalism than in the United Kingdom. For example, there were merchant guilds which put severe limits on competition. Such merchant guilds were actually given that power by governments.

2)I myself have some problems with capitalism. Or rather, I have a problem with some people who happen to also run businesses; as well as governments. One is immigration. In the UK, it can be said that one reason for mass immigration is that businesses require cheap labour and thus cheap workers are imported to increase the profits of certain businesses. Despite saying that, most immigrants end up on the dole and the experiment in mass immigration carried out by New Labour between 2000 and 2010 was done so for ideological reasons, not for reasons of economics. However, mass immigration in the UK was sold as to do with economics - not that the British people were told much about what was actually going on.

3)It's claimed that the term “crony capitalism” was first used as recently as 1997. It referred then to what was going on in Thailand, Indonesia and other countries involved in the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. Thus its use is almost as new as the term 'neoliberalism' (which became fashionable again very recently). Later the term “crony capitalism” was also applied to Hong Kong, Malaysia and Russia. Here again, this has probably more to do with human nature than it has to do with capitalism. It may also have more to do with Asian states and Russia than it has to do with capitalism.