Wednesday, 19 November 2014

RationalWiki: American Thinker is a Wingnut Publication

A RationalWiki piece informs its very-intelligent readers that American Thinker is a “wingnut publication”.

In a sub-link which explains the word “wingnut”, moonbat RationalWiki says that “not all conservatives are wingnuts”. Nonetheless, American Thinker is a “wingnut publication”. That must mean that RationalWiki believes that American Thinker isn't even a good kind of conservative publication. Bad conservatives, apparently, are “reactionary” or “radical right”: unlike the good ones.

It must now be asked whether or not this distinction between wingnut conservatives and rational conservatives is simply disingenuous. In other words, would this writer be willing to cite those conservatives he thinks are good? Would he also be willing to tell us why, exactly, he thinks that they are good? Judging from the tone of this piece and RationalWiki generally, I doubt that he would - or even could - do that.

Anyway, American Thinker is either reactionary or radical right (not both?). On top of that, people like me are “paranoid” and “authoritarian”. We also “refuse to accept any source as information” (what the hell does that mean?); as well as being prone to “conspiracy theories”, “psychological projection” and “crackpot theories”.

It gets worse.

American Thinker writers are also likely to be a “racist”, “misogynist” and “homophobic”.

Nonetheless, RationalWiki does acknowledge the possibility that “not all wingnuts” suffer from all these maladies at once. Despite saying that, such a bundle of evil and irrationality in a single human being “seems all the more common every day”.

It's fairly clear – to my irrational mind – that this writer might not have read a single American Thinker article. (As Uncyclopedia hints at later, he seems to rely on other Wikipedia articles.) For example, he comes out with this unbelievable claim:

"The magazine, of course, is chock-full of right-wing concpiracy theories, woo, pesudoscience, and anti-science.”

All this is stated without a single argument of any kind. All we have is smugness and sarcasm.

So apart from the smugness and hightened self-belief, RationalWiki's main thing seems to be its position on what it sees as “pseudoscience” and general irrationality.

Firstly, is there a RationalWiki piece on left-wing “conspiracy theories”? (Answer: no.) Secondly, I've never seen a single piece of “pseudoscience” in American Thinker. (Though that may be because, as an irrational wingnut, I wouldn't recognise pseudoscience if it slapped me in the face.) As for “anti-science”.... now that's simply outrageous. (What a pipsqueak this RationalWiki writer is!)

What this youth doesn't realise is that – to a rational thinker - generalising about your opponent is supposed to be a very bad thing. Ad hominems are generally to be avoided too.

So when he says that “they promote” (i.e., American Thinker promotes), he really means that a paticular American Thinker writer has promoted X or Y. (I doubt that I can even trust him on this claim.)

Now how many articles did this boy actually read? I can't answer that for sure. My bet is probably one or less. It's highly likely that he got all his information from elsewhere. Nonetheless, his very specific references to Jared Taylor and Vince Foster seem to suggest that he might have spent at least ten minutes writing this RationalWiki piece on American Thinker.


RationalWiki sells itself in this way:

"Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

  1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
  2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
  3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
  4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.”

(RationalWikialso tells us that at one point it was receiving “32,000 unique visitors per day”.)
The comedic Uncyclopedia, on the other hand, sells RationalWiki in this way. It says:
"RationalWiki is a wiki full of ratio-nal articles, which are part truth and part copied off Wikipedia. A majority of the userbase on RationalWiki are established liberal thinkers whose liberal interpretation of everything including the wiki's rules allows them to ban any fundamentalists who stick to the rules. On RationalWiki, the users frequently relish in taking IQ tests to prove themselves worthy of copying and pasting bits of Wikipedia on a blank page.....”
Unlike the sometimes-excellent Uncyclopedia, there's no hint that RationalWiki is actually designed to be funny. (That may explain why it isn't.) Nonetheless, in most of the pieces I've read there is some studentile sarcasm (though little humour) in almost every sentence.
So what about that adjective “rational” (as in RationalWiki)?
It's strange really because in this article - and in most of the others I've read at RationalWiki - there are virtually no arguments. There's a lot of sarcasm (as I said); though not much logical reasoning, argumentation or even discussion. It's as if the very fact these writers/editors have used the self-description “rational” (as well as the fact that it has a liberal - sometimes outright Leftist - slant) is all it takes to be, well, rational.
Similarly, RationalWiki believes that all it takes for someone to be irrational is to be a “right-winger”; or, worse still, be a writer for American Thinker.
RationalWiki's frequent citicisms of pseudoscience seem to be tied very closely to a lot of student sarcasm against the Right. And, of course, all conservatives (or “wingnuts”) are very “anti-science”; as well as being very susceptible to all sorts of “pseudoscience”. We're also extremely likely to be “authoritarian” and “fundamentalist”.
Contrawise, authoritarianism and fundamentalism are virtually unknown in the Left. Indeed almost every Leftist and Left-Liberal on the planet is a supremely “rational” being. Equally, the pious upholders of science can never - by (self)definition - be fundamentalist or authoritarian.
All that, my friend, is a scientific truth. And to believe otherwise is to be a wingnut.
RationalWiki on Other Things
To be fair, a few RationalWiki pieces do offer a little bit more – though not much more – detail. So it may be that American Thinker simply doesn't warrant much space. Nonetheless, the article on the UK's Daily Mail (which is slightly longer) informs us that “by any objective standards the Mail is Fascist”.... Yes, I'll repeat that just in case you think it's a misprint. RationalWiki believes - objectively believes - that the Daily Mail is fascist.
In addition, it's apparently the case - rationally speaking - that all Ukip supporters are “more-or-less completely scientifically illiterate”. (Yes, you can almost taste the combined smugness and snobbery here.)
And even in RationalWiki's slightly-more-detailed pieces there's still a superabundance of sarcasm and almost zero argument. I stress argument here because this website is called RationalWiki. And rationality - more than anything - should include genuine argumentation and debate.
So I wonder what purpose – other than grandstanding its own cleverness - RationalWiki serves.


RationalWiki responded very quickly (within a day or two) to my article for American Thinker by updating its piece on the aforesaid American Thinker:

"... RationalWiki: American Thinker is Wingnut Publication (The Thinker (or, sorry, Paul Austin Murphy) is upset that RationalWiki labelled it "wingnut" and attacks RationalWiki's article for not having "a single argument of any kind", while in no way disproving the wingnuttiness of the Thinker. The Thinker claims that RationalWiki would not be willing to cite "good" conservatives and that RationalWiki doesn't ever attack leftists or left-wing conspiracy theories. When whining about being labeled conspiracy and pseudoscience prone, they leave out their strong history of global warming denialism and apparently ignore the external links below. They also attack "rational" in the name. To the taps!)"

One point I made in the article was how relentlessly sarcastic and smug RationalWiki is. And, lo and behold, even the writer of this riposte can't control himself. (He classes me as “the Thinker”.)

The quote above says that I haven't contributed to “disproving the wingnuttiness of the Thinker”. One, I didn't set out to do that. Two, what does RationalWiki mean by “disproving” exactly? (Proof, strictly speaking, belongs only to logic and mathematics. What would a disproof of American Thinker's “wingnuttiness” so much as look like?)

I wrote my piece on the single article by RationalWiki, not on the entire website (which will have many writers). So, yes, it does indeed provide a list of good conservatives. Most of them, as Uncyclopedia suggests, are made up of cut-and-pastes. But I will concede that RationalWiki does say that some conservatives - in some small ways - are “good”. And they are probably deemed to be good to the extent that they display liberal or even Leftist views or inclinations, which sort of defeats RationalWiki's object (if you catch my drift).

It also mentions my accusation that RationalWiki doesn't have a piece on left-wing conspiracy theories: it doesn't. However, in response to that it supplies a link to a piece on “moonbatery”, which is certainly not the same thing. Here again my bet is that many of the articles simply involve numerous cut-and-pastes from Wiki articles. The piece on Dianne Abbot, for example, is nearly all cut-and-pastes and involves no RationalWiki criticisms except in the indirect sense of using critical quotes from other people. In some of the other pieces on Leftist individuals and subjects, there are no RationalWiki criticisms at all, only endless cut-and-pastes.

The worst aspect of RationalWiki's riposte is to conflate anthropogenic-global- warming scepticism with “pseudoscience” and “conspiracy”. But in order to follow that through I would need to check all RationalWiki's pieces on global warming, etc., which I simply can't be bothered doing.

Finally, it would be hard to generalise about all RationalWiki articles because they are no doubt written by many different people with (slightly) different political views. The same, of course, can be said about American Thinker.

However, I suspect that the average RationalWiki writer is between 17 and 24 and is either a university student or a recent graduate. (I may be wrong: that assumption rests only the pieces I've read.) Hence the smugness and juvenile politics. And I suppose the average writer's smugness is a result of him thinking that he's learnt just a tiny bit more science than his average straw-target opponent.

Sunday, 16 November 2014

Tony Blair's 'Neocon' Globalism

Attached to much – or all - neocon foreign policy is a particular strand of globalism. Or, at the very least, that's certainly the case when it comes to Tony Blair's position on foreign policy.

Now I'm fully aware that the notion of globalism is a favourite of many people - on both the Left and Right - who are often deemed to be paranoid conspiracy-theorists. However, when you read what Tony Blair has to say on these matters, you may well come to think that they (or at least some of them) have a point. (Tony Blair is kind of British version of the United Nation's Maurice Strong.)

The problem is that anti-globalists say different things. For example, some say that's it's all a “capitalist global conspiracy”; whereas others say that it's a “communist global conspiracy”. Indeed, according to some conspiracy-theorists, many of the conspiracists who say mutually-contradictory things are actually in league with one another. (This is a variant on the unfalsifiable Protocols of the Elders of Zion meme that Jewish communists, Jewish capitalists and Jewish whatevers are all in league with one another.)

Conspiracy-theorists about globalisation also give different reasons as to why politicians and others are “globalists”. In addition, all sorts of mutually-contradictory groups and individuals are classed as globalists.

Despite saying all that, even if many claims about globalism contradict each other, that may just mean that various globalisms (as it were) are at work at the same time; though without necessarily being in league with one another. In other words, some globalists may be attempting to bring about X; whereas others may be attempting to bring about not-X.

Tony Blair's Globalism

Tony Blair often uses the word “globalisation” (if not the word “globalism”) himself.

More specifically, Blair believes that the “clash [is] not so much between civilisations”. Instead, it's a result of “the force and consequence of globalisation” (346) itself.

Blair explicitly committed himself to globalism at the Labour Party conference of 2001. At the time he said:

"The issue is not how to stop globalisation. The issue is how we use the power of community to combine it with justice....

".... Because the alternative to globalisation is isolation.

"Confronted by this reality, round the world, nations are instinctively drawing together.... In Europe, the most integrated groping of all, we are now fifteen nations, with another twelve countries negotiating to join, and more beyond that...” (365/66)

In terms of Tony Blair's own strand of globalism, he realised that in order to encourage the fight for globalisation, you have to convince people that's there's a globe to fight for in the first place.

This is how Blair sees that globe:

"All around the globe, the new technology – the Internet, computers, mobile phones, mass travel and communication – was opening the world up, casting people together, mixing cultures, races, faiths in a vast melting pot of human interaction.”

What Blair says about globalisation – in the above - actually sounds like sales-speak for a global company of some kind.

For a start, take the “new technology” he speaks so glowingly of. Why does it necessarily work towards “casting people together” and the rest? Osama bin Laden, for example, used the new technology in the caves of Afghanistan to plot mayhem and destruction. The Internet generally is also a hotbed of radical and extreme Islam.

And as for “mixing cultures, races, faiths”, in the literally dozens of Muslim ghettoes in the UK, there's no evidence at all any of that. Instead there has been what has amounted to the (non-violent) ethnic cleansing of white people (or non-Muslims generally) from these areas; alongside their accompanying Islamisation.

Everyone Wants Blairite Globalism

Neocon globalists also have to convince people that every person on the planet – apart from cartoon baddies – wants freedom and democracy. Indeed if that weren't the case, then political globalisation could never be achieved (not even in theory).

And it's here that Tony Blair is at his most philosophically, historically and politically illiterate.

Basically, Blair doesn't believe that human rights, democracy and freedom are Western creations. Or, alternatively, he does believe that (deep down); though it doesn't matter now because everyone around today wants these things.

Or as Blair himself puts it:

"There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values, or Western values...”

Now some of that is just plain false: historically false. In other words, what Blair says isn't the case, is (largely) the case.

And even if it's true that “others” do now “love freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law”, it's still categorically and historically the case that these things are “a product of our culture”. Sure, at certain times and in certain places certain non-Western societies might have had systems and cultures which approximated to ones which valued freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law... it's just that I can't really think of any.

Tony Blair then goes on to argue for globalism or universalism. He says:

"Members of Congress, ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit.”

Again, either this is historical illiteracy on Blair's part or he's simply letting sentiment, desire and rhetoric get in the way of fact, history and even in the way of human nature.

However, as I said before, we can indeed make a distinction here between the historical reality of “Western values” and the fact that today many non-Western peoples do indeed want to embrace these values.

Blair claims that

"anywhere, any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police”.

Now I don't want to be too pedantic here because this was a speech given to Congress; not to a gathering of philosophers or political theorists. Nonetheless, even if all “ordinary people” do want some of these things, it doesn't follow that they want all of them.

For example, of course it's the case that most people don't like “the rule of secret police” (though even that's a generalisation). On the other hand, it may not even be the case that most people are against “dictatorship”. In fact, in many cases, they're not and that has been the case throughout the 20th century and indeed throughout the world.

The other problem is that many of the peoples subject to what Blair calls “tyranny” or a “dictatorship” won't see the regimes they live under as being either a tyrannies or dictatorships.

In the end, then, one gets the feeling that Tony Blair isn't actually arguing about what is the case. (He's certainly wrong about what has been the case.) He's arguing about what should be the case. To Blair, it's not really that non-Western and Muslim peoples “want to be free”: it's that they should want to be free.

Hence the neocon attempted “imposition of democracy and freedom” (Tony Blair's own words) on the almost hopeless case of the Muslim and Arab world...

Saturday, 15 November 2014

Prophet Naomi Klein's 'This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate'

Like most prophets, Naomi Klein's message is both messianic and Manichean:i.e., the good of progressocialism vs. the evil of capitalism. (Or in her own words: “capitalism vs. the climate”.)

Naomi Klein was born to be a prophet: as all prophets are.
Her paternal grandparents were communists, her grandfather was a “social activist” and her parents were war-resisters as well as “rights activists”.
So now try to imagine the amount of Leftist ideological “brainwashing” Naomi Kleine would have experienced in the first two decades of her life (as did Noam Chomsky). I'd reckon that would be about the same amount that she and her fellow Leftists (such as her husband Avi Lewis) would accuse the children of “Christian evangelicals” (Avi Lewis’s term) or “conservatives” of having undergone.
(I may as well add here that Naomi Klein's just-mentioned husband has hosted shows for Al Jazeera, sneered at Ayaan Hirsi Ali's support of American democracy and thinks that the criticism of Islam is racist. Clearly Naomi Klein doesn't like to stray too far from her Leftist “herd of independent minds”.)
And along with Naomi Klein's prophethood comes the inevitable talk of end times(as with the Prophet Karl Marx). Or as Kline herself puts it:

"Climate change is a civilizational wake-up call, a powerful message delivered in the language of fires, floods, storms, and droughts. Confronting it is no longer about changing the light bulbs. It's about changing the world - before the world changes so drastically that no one is safe.”

All that reminds me of what the writer Christopher Booker had to say in his magnificent The Real Global Warming Disaster.He writes:

"... [warmist language] had much in common with ancient myths and Biblical tales of the world being visited with 'extreme weather events', plagues, fires, mighty winds and above all floods so immense that whole cities would vanish below their waves.”(340)

So what does Christopher Booker think about warmists themselves? This:

"The true believers in global warming similarly exhibited a moralistic fanaticism, justified by the transcendent importance of their cause. The basic narrative by which they live was one familiar from the history of religious sects down the ages, the conviction that the end of the world was nigh, thanks to the wickedness of mankind, and could only by saved if humanity acknowledge its sins and went through a profound change of behaviour....”

And since Naomi Klein fuses warmism with Marxism, I'll also quote Booker on Marxism when he writes:

".... [Marxism's] dogmatic explanations for everything; it's incredibly moralistic view of the world; and above all its capacity to inspire its followers to a kind of righteous fanaticism, convinced that it was their destiny to save mankind from those 'heretics' and 'unbelievers' who did not share their world-saving creed.”

Let me give you a taste of some of the rather sycophantic reviews of Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything:Capitalism vs. the Climate.
One blurb says it's “her most provocative book yet”. The strange thing is that other blurbers also said that The Shock Doctrine was “her most provocative book yet”. (The same was true of No Logo.) In other words, it must be important to Naomi Kline and her fans that her latest book is her most provocative book yet.
There's also a review by Owen Jones (Son Of Dave Spart) which tells us that This Changes Everything “[w]ill be one of the most influential books of our time”. As forThe New York Times, it says that Naomi Klein's book is the “most momentous and contentious environmental book since Silent Spring”.
Don't you just love it when book reviewers wax lyrically about books which simply restate exactly what it is they already believe (give or take some minor details)? It's a kind of political narcissism.
The Independent, on the other hand, is slightly more level-headed when it says that the “proposition that the world's political and economic institutions are preventing us from meeting the lethal challenge of global warming is hardly novel”.
Global Warming is Capitalism

When I accuse anti-global-warming activists of really being against capitalism, they usually deny it. They say it's not about wanting to destroy capitalism: “it's all about the science”,or “saving the planet”, etc. In fact warmists often return the criticism and say that it's us sceptics (about anthropogenic global warming) who are really just “immoral supporters of capitalism”.It's people like me who aren't concerned “with the science”, or the planet, or mankind.
Yet one of the most important (certainly the most popular) “progressive” writers around today - Naomi Klein - explicitly agrees with us global-warming sceptics. She now says (well, in a sense she always did) that it is indeed all about capitalism. Or, more correctly, it's all about being against capitalism.
Just as Marxists/Leftists think that capitalism has sole responsibility for – believe it or not – racism, sexism, poverty, inequality, war and (according to Marx) prostitution; so Naomi Klein and nearly all her fellow Leftists believe that capitalism has sole responsibility for global warming.
This could lead people to the perfectly acceptable and justifiable conclusion that - all along - most of the Leftists who've spoken out against global warming were really speaking out against capitalism. It may well follow from that many of these virulent anti-capitalists might therefore have simply manufactured (or at least endorsed) the global-warming theory (or at least parts thereof) in order to attack capitalism. After all, anti-capitalists (or socialists) did exactly the same thing with the global-cooling scare of the 1970s.
Not only that: all sorts of other causes, theories and movements have been used as a means to bring about the death of capitalism: anti-racism, “black rights”, “gay liberation”,the adoption of environmentalist positions, anti-globalism (another idée fixe of Naomi Klein's), mass immigration and, more recently, the defence of Islam and Muslims. (The furtherLeft you go, the truer this becomes.)
Don't take my word for all this, listen to Naomi Klein's own words in her new book:

"Forget everything you think you know about global warming. It's not about carbon - it's about capitalism. The good news is that we can seize this existential crisis to transform our failed economic system and build something radically better.”

Commentators have said that Klein only “turned to environmentalism” in 2009. What took her so long? Were there other weapons in her anti-capitalist arsenal before 2009 and have they now become a little blunt?
Neoliberalism or Capitalism?
Naomi Klein has done more than almost anyone else to popularise the word “neoliberalism”.
Even though there may well be semantic differences between the words “capitalism” and “neoliberalism”, it's clear that this doesn't really matter in the end. It's often a difference that doesn't really make a difference.
For example, what would change if you substituted the word “neoliberalism” with “capitalism” in Klein's following words from This Changes Everything? -

"This, without a doubt, is neoliberalism’s [capitalism's] single most damaging legacy: the realization of its bleak vision has isolated us enough from one another that it became possible to convince us that we are not just incapable of self-preservation but fundamentally not worth saving.”

The average Leftist zombie, of course, wouldn’t be able to distinguish capitalism from neoliberalism (unless he had a handy book by Chomsky or Naomi Klein in his backpack). That's not to say that some Leftists wouldn't be able to do so. And it's not to say that there are no differences.
Leftists often seem to hint – rather than state – at the fact that neoliberalism is capitalism gone bad/extreme. (Or, as Noam Chomsky put it, neoliberalism is “capitalism with gloves off”.) But, when you think about it, they shouldn’t believe this because that would imply that they also believe that once-upon-a-time capitalism – i.e., before contemporary neoliberalism - wasn't (that) extreme/bad. Yet they can't possibly believe that. Leftists have always believed that capitalism is bad/extreme.
So what's all this guff about “neoliberalism”? Is it just a gimmicky “sign-substitution” (to use Jacques Derrida's word) used to disguise the fact that people either got bored with - or embarrassed by - the use of the word “capitalism”? Either that, or communists/socialists/progressives wanted to pretend they were talking about something entirely new when they dropped the word “neoliberalism” into every conversation.
The best was to put all this is that way Doreen Massey put it in 2013 in an article for The Guardian:'Neoliberalism has hijacked our vocabulary'. Except, of course, I would put it this way: The word 'neoliberalism' has hijacked our vocabulary.

Thursday, 13 November 2014

Arrest George Galloway

Arrest Him Now


FAO: George Galloway, CC: Home Secretary, Director of Public Prosecutions, and Galloway's Management (Agent)

George Galloway, You are hereby formally notified in writing that I have placed you under arrest under the powers contained within section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1974.

Arrest without warrant: other persons

(1)A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.
(2)Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.
(3)But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if—
(a)the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and
(b)it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.
4)The reasons are to prevent the person in question—
(a)causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(b)suffering physical injury;
(c)causing loss of or damage to property; or
(d)making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.

In line with this legislation I am placing you under arrest because you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of abiding by the law, namely section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 which is an indictable offence and meets the requirement of part 1 of section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1974 .

Furthermore with this legislation I am placing you under arrest because I have reasonable grounds for suspecting you to be guilty of breaking the law, satisfying part 2(b) section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1974 .

In addition to this it is my belief that the police may not be aware of your offence and as a result have not arrested you themselves and that you may make off before a constable can assume responsibility for you. This satisfies parts 3 & 4 of section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1974 .
As all conditions of section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1974 have now been met you can consider yourself formally under arrest.

What you have been arrested for:

It is my belief that you are guilty of offences under section 127 of the communications act 2003.
You have always engaged in unpopular and offensive activity including comments and statements on said social media and in a public forum in Leeds but in more recent months have escalated to highly offensive and indeed discriminatory behaviour.

In recent days you have escalated to racially motivated attacks which are both extremely offensive, obscene and menacing.

Section 127 of the communications act 2003 states:
Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).
What happens now:

You can now consider yourself formally under arrest. You are to immediately convey yourself to your local police station. The Home Secretary & The Director of Public Prosecutions have both been attached to this notice and have been notified of your offences and that you have been arrested for them under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1974 .
They are hereby directed to wait a suitable amount of time (5 days) for you to turn yourself in to the police or the police are to be directed to attend your home and assume responsibility for you, at which time you will be processed and questioned.
We are formally advising the relevant authorities to formally investigate and prosecute you based on the evidence.
[Your Name]

For more information on George Galloway's racism in Leeds see these links:



According to the website, Arrest Katie Hopkins, her Tweets are "racist".

So why didn't they create a website to call for the arrest of George Galloway? He called for violence against any Israelis who dared to visit Bradford.

I only made a fuss about Galloway because of hypocrisy like this. It wasn't that I really wanted him arrested. It was that similar comments about Muslims would have seen his head roll... as may be the case with Katie Hopkins.

Why is the Left so selective?

The hypocrisy is both blatant and staggering.

The Left have tried this sort of stuff well before Katie Hopkins. Indeed George Galloway himself has tried to use the law to enforce his own political opinions (see video below).

Since Leftists rule large sections of the law, it's no wonder they are bypassing the democratic system and using the law to enforce Leftist behaviour and even Leftist thought.


Tuesday, 11 November 2014

The Guardian’s Andrew Brown claims Islam’s critics aren’t “telling the truth”



You’d better get one thing straight here.

It’s absolutely true that most (perhaps nearly all) Leftists – in this case a Guardian journalist – do believe that the criticism of Islam is racist. It may also be the case that some Leftists/progressives – though certainly not the majority – use all sorts of arcane (Marxist) theories and convoluted arguments to back this belief (or theory) up; but that’s nonetheless what they believe. Either that, or this is what they pretend to believe.

Take Andrew Brown’s very own Associate Editor at The Guardian: Seamus Milne. Mr Milne’s a “former Stalinist”, according to Workers’ Liberty (as well as many others); “a Stalinist Rip van Winkle”, according to the novelist Robert Harris; and “a sincere, eloquent and uncomplicated Marxist”, according to Conservative MP Daniel Hannan. So it’s no surprise that Milne once wrote an article for The Guardian which put the the-criticism-of-Islam-is-racist case in these simple words (which are in the addendum to the linked article):

"Islam has become a proxy for race, and Islamophobia a form of racism."

Andrew Brown – being another Guardian journalist – has form when it comes to hating the “haters”. For example, he once wrote a very conspiratorial article about what he called“far-right conspiracists”. (Click here for a response to that article.) He accuses all sorts of critics of Islam of being “paranoid”. And when I say all sorts of critics, I mean all sorts of critics. Brown’s hate-list of haters (in only one article) includes: Bat Ye’or, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Anders Gravers, Fjordman, the EDL, Douglas Murray, Damian Thompson, Geert Wilders, Paul Belien, Daniel Hannan and ‘Mad’ Melanie Phillips.


Andrew Brown starts off his fifth-of-November article – ‘Why I don’t believe people who say they loath Islam but not Muslims’ – by telling us that it’s

"a trope among people who loathe and fear Islam that their fear and loathing has nothing in common with racism because Islam is not a race".

So you can guess what’s coming next: Andrew Brown believes that this “trope” is simply false or deliberately misleading. (He forgot to mention that critics of Islam are just as likely to that “Muslims don’t constitute a single race” than they are to say “Islam is not a race”.)

Brown then goes on to argue that

"[s]ome people who claim that Islam is profoundly evil will also say that they bear Muslims no ill will…."

Andrew Brown thinks that all these people are lying. He doesn’t “think they are telling the truth”. That is, Andrew Brown thinks all critics of Islam “bear [all] Muslims ill will”.

I’ve just said that Andrew Brown believes that all – rather than some – critics of Islam bear all Muslims ill will because when he himself uses the determiner “some” (as in “some people”), it’s the case that this is a reference to only those critics of Islam who say that “they bear Muslims no ill will”. (He doesn’t believe them, as Brown has already said.) Therefore that’s why I say that Brown believes that all critics of Islam bear all Muslims ill will because he doesn’t even believe that those who explicitly deny this are telling the truth.

Now Guardian journalists – as well as Reza Aslan – seem to have a big problem with generalisations. However, what they really have is a big problem with are generalisations about Muslims or Islam; not about, say, the critics of Islam (or “the far right”).

Brown continues:

"It is really difficult and indeed psychologically unnatural to claim that you hate an ideology without hating the people in whose lives it is expressed."

Andrew Brown is partly correct in what he says above and he’s partly correct for this reason.

Critics of Islam do indeed bear some – not all – Muslims “ill will” (to refer back to Brown’s earlier quote). The Muslim they bear ill will are those who act on the Islamic principles and texts which are destructive, intolerant and violent. If these Islamic texts and principles didn’t lead to negative actions, then us critics wouldn’t concern ourselves with them.

So let’s write what Andrew Brown says and change some of the words within. See what happens now:

It is really difficult and indeed psychologically unnatural to claim that you hate Nazism/Communism/racism without hating the Nazis/Communists/racists in whose lives it is expressed.
Expressed that way, it’s even harder to disagree with what Andrew Brown says.

Mr Brown now says:

"If religions, nations, and even races are all shared imaginative constructs…. and if you really want to extirpate them, you must extirpate the people who imagine them as well."

What Brown says above may also contain some truth. The problem is, however, that his words can be applied to all sorts of other cases. More relevantly, they can be applied to the numerous hate-figures of Guardian journalists (such as Andrew Brown): Nazis, racists, “Islamophobes”, “the far right”, neo-liberals, bankers, nationalists, patriots, conservatives, etc.

Let me put that another way.

As a Guardian journalist, Andrew Brown will hate (though he may deny this) critics of Islam, nationalism, racism, conservatism, “neo-liberalism”, Nazism, patriotism (though he may deny this too), Islamophobia and so on. Thus in order “to extirpate” the counter-jihad movement, nationalism, patriotism, conservatism, etc., Andrew Brown and his fellow Leftists (to use Brown’s own words) “must extirpate the people who imagine them as well”. That is, Leftists “must extirpate” all nationalists, patriots, conservatives, “neoliberals”, “Islamophobes”, counter-jihadists, racists, Nazis, etc.

Nonetheless, in a democracy you don’t really need to extirpate anyone. The critics of Islam, for example, don’t need to extirpate all Muslims. All they need to do is stop Muslims from enacting sharia law in non-Muslim countries or stop them from carrying out those Islamic acts which are (so far!) illegal in such countries.

Similarly, Leftists don’t need to extirpate the critics of Islam, Nazis, conservatives, etc.: all they need to do is convince the public – democratically – that everything these people believe is wrong.

The Criticism of Islam is Racist?

You can see that so far Andrew Brown has had nothing to say – strictly speaking – about race.

The thrust of Andrew Brown’s argument now seems to be that because “racism became a kind of moral leprosy” it was necessary for us – well – racists to hide our racism by reinventing it as something else : the criticism of Islam. So, basically, Brown is saying that what we have is still racism; though it’s deceptively presenting itself in another form. (Think here of the Seamus Milne quote at the beginning of this piece.)

Alternatively, Brown may be telling us that racism isn’t the unique crime it’s painted to be. He says, for example, that “it’s worth noting that in other societies and at other times racial prejudice has not been the most urgent incitement to communal hatred”.

In any case, Brown labours at the blatantly-obvious point that there are kinds of hatred which aren’t racial in nature. He says, for example, that Stalin or Mao “are not excused in the slightest by saying that the most terrible atheist dictators were not very racist at all”.

(I wonder what the “former Stalinist” Assistant Editor of The Guardian – Seamus Milne – thinks about these comments on Stalin and Mao. In addition, Stalin most certainly was a racist. He was a fierce and long-running Jew-hater and this has been documented in great detail.)

So it’s hard to tell what Andrew Brown is now getting at.

Is it that Brown thinks that all criticism of Islam is racist; although the critics of Islam pretend that it’s not?

Or is Brown now arguing that “religious hatred” is as bad as racial hatred?

Perhaps he’s arguing for both positions.



The Guardian’s Andrew Brown delivering a pious sermon to smug and snobby Guardianistas.

Andrew Brown finishes off with a unfunny and trite comparison. He says:

"In the end, the position of people who claim that hatred of Islam is somehow superior to hatred of black people is pretty much like Alan Partridge boasting that at least he’s not David Brent."

All I can do to respond to that is ask Andrew Brown this question:

Don’t you, Andrew Brown (along with your fellow Leftists), also hate “Islamophobes”, counter-jihadists, Nazis, racists, “the far right”, conservatives, “neo-liberals”, patriots, nationalists, global warming, Big Oil, bankers, etc?
In other words, is Andrew Brown saying that hating anything is wrong? (Is he, say, a pacifist or a Quaker?) Or is he only saying that the hatred of a specific religion – Islam – is wrong?

I don’t think that Andrew Brown can claim any of these things. Brown himself admits, for example, to not being able to distinguish between ideologies and the people who uphold those ideologies when he says – in the comments section below his article – that he

"broke off a rather valued friendship because of politics — in particular, as it happens, my ex-friend’s tolerance of the Spencer/Geller axis".

Again, Andrew Brown:

What about the hatred of Nazis, or Communists, or racists? Is such hatred also wrong in itself? Indeed what about the hatred of the followers of the “Spencer/Geller axis”?
As usual, that well-known and much-commented-upon Guardian hypocrisy looms in the background of Andrew Brown’s rather pious and smug article.

Oh, by the way, I sincerely hate Guardianistas. Moreover, Andrew Brown’s article certainly didn’t help quell that hate: it justified it.