PAUL AUSTIN MURPHY ON POLITICS

PAUL AUSTIN MURPHY ON POLITICS


The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... 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


This blog used to be called EDL Extra. I was a supporter (neither a member nor a leader) of the EDL until 2012. This blog has retained the old web address.

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

Saturday, 9 December 2017

British Fantasy Novelists for the European Union



In their attempts to reverse the democratic decision that is Brexit, the imaginations of many Remainers have become quite feverish. Yes, Remainers have resorted to fiction/fantasy about “Brexit lies”, the false consciousness of Brexiteers, and all the monumentally disastrous things which will happen once we leave the European Union...

Basically, some of the claims of Remainers are so outlandish that it's worth discussing some of the reasons why that may be the case.

English Remainers are overwhelmingly leftwing or Lib-Dem. They're also mainly based in London, the Home Counties and British universities. (Students and professors are generously funded by the EU.) This isn't the same as saying that “the North voted for Brexit” (as it's been put) because, according to some accounts, slightly more southerners voted this way. However, that doesn't stop it from being the case that Remainers are mainly from London and the Home Counties; as well as being disproportionately made up of recent immigrants (again, who're mainly based in London).

On the whole, these Remainers don't see the dark sides of the EU. And even when they do, they're quite happy with what they see.

This means that it's not surprising that most writers and artists are Remainers too.

Particularly, it's clear that it's those infamous Brexit lies which have strongly inspired various novelists and writers. In other words, many of them decided to advance the Remain cause through their fiction or fantasy.

So let's see what various authors and novelists have had to say on the subject.

Novelists for the EU


An early “post-Brexit” novel was Michael Paraskos's Rabbitman; which was published in March 2017. This book ties together the election of “a right-wing populist” American president with Brexit. The new American president also happens to be a rabbit (which is, I suppose, hilarious). Both his victory and Brexit were the results of “Faustian pacts” with the Devil.

This book also chimes in with Remainer end-times' prophesy because not longer after the UK leaves the EU, society collapses and - wait for it! - the British people then become dependent on EU food aid! (Really? Germany, for example, depends on us: in 2016 it sold about £26 billion more to us than we sold to it.) I'm surprised that Michael Paraskos didn't also paint a picture of the UK becoming a Nazi state led by a white-supremacist serial killer who was formerly a member of Brits for Trump. However, the EU food aid is almost as good a touch.

In the introduction I mentioned Brexit lies.

This takes us neatly on to Amanda Craig's novel, The Lie of the Land; published in June 2017. (Yes, note the title of this book.) In The Lie of the Land we find ourselves in 2026. At this future date, a posh couple from Jeremy Corbyn's Islington is forced to move (because of “austerity”) from London to Devon (which, the Guardian tells us, is full of “casual racists”). The author sees Devon (which is “poorer than Romania”) as a pro-Brexit heartland. Not surprisingly, Amanda Craig gives a more or less Marxist/Corbynite account of Brexit in which it was the case that “the disparities in society that led to June’s result”. (I don't know, perhaps, being superior and so utterly non-provincial, this fictional Islington couple could no longer afford three foreign holidays a year and the fees for their kids' private school – such austerity!)

Now what about Douglas Board's Time of Lies; published, again, in June 2017?

This is perhaps the most over-the-top of the lot. In 2020, Douglas Board has it that a retired football hooligan wins the election! (He wins it in a “populist power grab”.) Not surprisingly, there then follows an almighty clash with the “pro-European Union metropolitan political elite”. I suppose that all the peaceful and extremely tolerant Remainers were put in concentration camps too; in which they were forced to read Mein Kampf and the Daily Mail.

One piece of fiction which occurred after the Brexit result was that “hate crimes” immediately increased. On close inspection, this was shown to be, at worst, false; or, at best, extremely speculative. That didn't stop politicians, anti-racists and Remainers going on about this ostensible “spike” in hate crimes. (See this account of these hate crimes.)

The novelist Mark Billingham might have picked up on all this Brexit hate when he wrote his book Love Like Blood (published, yet again, in June 2017).

Love Like Blood charts Brexit and the subsequent rise in “xenophobic hate crime”. (The Guardian talks about “Little Englanders” in relation to this book.) What I never understood about this supposed spike in hate crimes is that if Brexit was seen as a positive result when it came to the amount of immigrants coming into the UK from oversees, then why would that cause an increase in racist crimes? Surely if the result had been negative (i.e., in favour of remaining in the EU), then that would have caused rage and then an increase in racist crimes. If British racists found out that there would be less immigrants coming into the UK in the future, then why the increase in hate crimes?

However, forget the crimes of those racist Brits (basically, all non-leftwing whites): what about conspiracies about a government quango?

In David Boyle's The Remains of the Way (yes, published in June 2017), Brexit was brought about not by the votes of 51.89% of British voters; but by an old government quango which, miraculously, still worked within Whitehall. It gets worse. This quango was set up by Thomas Cromwell under King Henry VIII. What did this quango want? It wanted a “Protestant Brexit”. In addition, after Brexit the UK suffers famines and general destitution. However, I'm not sure if the EU then supplied the UK with “food aid”, as with Michael Paraskos's Rabbitman.

On a very similar theme, we also have Stanley Johnson's Kompromat.

According to this work of fiction (replicated by some Remainers), Brexit was the responsibility of “Russian influence” on the referendum. (But what about that Protestant quango?). However, thank God that Stanley Johnson believes that his book is “just meant to be fun”!

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




Friday, 8 December 2017

Remainers: their “Brexit lies” & “fake news”



One thing that can be said is that some - or even many - Remainers have been lying about what they call “Brexit lies”: those lies which are said to have occurred during and since the referendum. They've also massively over-exaggerated both the political significance and psychological power of those supposed lies.

Basically, in order for such large masses of people – over 17 million - to have succumbed to lies during the Brexit campaign (as well as after), they must have suffered from “false consciousness”. Yes, Remainers have resurrected that ancient leftwing concept. There are, of course, variations on this theme. Such as arguing that Brexiteers have been “brainwashed by the mainstream media”. Or that the Daily Mail or Sun “told them what to think” about the EU and our relationship with it.

Clearly the arrogance of these leftwing and Lib-Dem metropolitans knows no bounds. The snobbery is also blatant and obvious. It's only the self-image of Remainers which has it that they can't possibly be snobs. After all, don't snobs have a problem with blacks, ethnic minorities and the poor? No, contemporary Remainers and leftwing snobs have a problem with white working-class right-wingers (some of whom are poor) and Brexiteers instead. Many of these snobs also wear Che Guevara t-shirts, go to “gigs” and smoke cannabis – so how on earth could they possibly be snobs? I mean, the very thought!

This reminds of the public-school girl, Laurie Penny. This particular leftwing snob, Corbynite and Remainer is the daughter of a lawyer. He sent Laurie to a private school after which she ended up at - rather predictably - Oxford University. Since then she's spent most of her life in – yes, you guessed it – London.

When an audience on the BBC's Question Time reacted in shock and outrage to her elitist and arrogant snobbery about Brexiteer racism (which she hinted at, rather than explicitly stated), she then rather fatuously and pathetically said that she didn't also think that Brexiteers were “stupid”.

More fully, she said:

I don't believe that people who voted for Brexit are stupid. I think, unfortunately, that people may have been lied to and manipulated.”

So how can over 17 million people who're so easily lied to – as well as “manipulated” - not be... well, “stupid”? Laurie Penny's comment is as close to containing a self-contradiction as it's possible to be.

Now if Laurie Penny's isn't a smug, metropolitan snob, then why wasn't she also the victim of all those Brexit lies and manipulations? If those lies were so powerful, then why were Remainers like her immune to them? Is it Remainers like her are intellectually, morally and politically superior to Brexiteers? What else can explain this Remainers' lack of susceptibility to such terrible Brexit lies?

The EU-NHS Lie?

The mass meme about Brexit lies has been utterly essential to the Remain campaign. It's mentioned in virtually every comment which Remainers make.

So let's be specific about the lies we hear so much about.

In the vast majority of cases, it's a reference to that infamous “Vote Leave” billboard/poster and bus advert. The advert on the bus was this:

"We send the EU £350 million every week. Let's fund our NHS instead."

The billboard advert was this:

Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week.”

The thing is, according to many, that figure wasn't a lie at all. And according to others, it was simply unclear.

The UK Statistics Authority watchdog, for example, said that it was “misleading”. That's because the figure wasn't false in itself. Instead its citation solely relied on the UK’s £19 billion gross annual contribution to the EU. The figure failed to take into account the UK's rebate and other monies which come back from the EU.

Thus, even if it were taken as true that the UK sends £350 million to the EU every week, and at the very same time the UK receives back £100,000,000,000 every week, then that still doesn't make this claim a lie. Yes, it's still the case that we send the EU £350 to the EU every week! See? It's complicated.

As ever with economics and statistics, the truth is complex. Indeed almost every article on this “lie” fixates on different aspects of the figures and facts. None of these articles conclusively – or even convincingly – demonstrate than the claim was a brazen or willful lie.

Despite all that, according to some accounts, the figure was actually an underestimation! That is, it's been argued that we actually send (or sent at that time) more than £350 million to the EU every week!

Thus saying that this figure was a “lie” is to take a simplistic position on a complex matter. One thing, however, that can be conceded is that the billboard promise to directly link EU payments to NHS funding was probably a mistake. However, the bus advert is a different matter entirely because it didn't promise that our EU payments would go directly to the NHS.

In any case, the idea that 17,410,752 voted for Brexit on the sole basis of a single statistic (or promise) is monumentally patronising and obviously false. But what do you expect from those metropolitan Remainers who have a severely condescending view of Brexiteers?


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


Sunday, 3 December 2017

Theresa May and the Left Declare War on Trump's Tweets



As many Americans will know, the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, said that Donald Trump was “wrong” to re-tweet the videos which had previously been tweeted by the political group, Britain First. Indeed Britain's ambassador to Washington, Sir Kim Darroch, said he has raised the Government's concerns with the White House.

PM May said that Britain First is a “hateful organisation”. Nonetheless, she didn't have anything to say about the content of the videos themselves. After all:

Britain First didn't stage the videos.
It didn't get that Muslim to smash a statue of the Virgin Mary.
It didn't force that Muslim man to attack a boy on crutches.
And it didn't force those Muslims to throw a boy off a rooftop.

And much has also been made of Britain First tweeting a video from 2013 (not, I presume, from 2017). So here's a video of Islamic terror (in London) from 2017! (Is the implication here that there hasn't been any Islamic terror since 2013? Really!?)

Britain First simply tweeted these videos for reasons which are obvious: it wants people to know what's going on in the Muslim world and in Europe too.

The British tabloid Metro, however, said:

Trump re-tweeted her fake news and racist tweets.”

Now every syllable of that mindless (though ideologically-correct) comment is false. (That doesn't matter: it's political and moral grandstanding that matters to Metro and to many others.)

Firstly, how, exactly, were the tweets racist?

Secondly, why were the tweets fake?

The Dutch attacker was a Muslim who's parents are Muslim immigrants. The only statement which was false was that he's an “immigrant”. Now is that really such a monumental mistake, Metro? In addition:

Is the statue-smashing video fake? No.
Is the video of Muslims throwing a boy off a rooftop fake? No.
Is the video of a Muslim attacking a boy on crutches fake? No.

No surprisingly, Trump wasn't happy that Prime Minister May has profoundly missed the point. He tweeted:

Theresa May, don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine!”

Now that's spot on! Theresa May has clearly ignored the content of the videos. That is, she's ignored the “destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism” and focussed entirely on Britain First.

Now if the British Government were honest about the massive violence in the Muslim world (as well as the violence from Muslims in Europe and the UK), then Trump wouldn't have needed to rely on Britain First for these videos. Besides which, there's a very good chance that Trump didn't even know who Britain First is. Many in the UK don't really know much about Britain First. I also suspect that Theresa May doesn't either. (My guess is that she'll have been fed information on Britain First and these videos mainly by groups like Hope Not Hate – see its piece on this - and various Muslim organisations.)

Thankfully, Theresa May hasn't succumbed to the cynical opportunism of leftwing groups in that she hasn't decided to cancel Trump's state visit to the UK. And since authoritarian leftwingers wanted Trump banned from the UK before this video bonanza, then it's not a surprise that they now want him banned after it too. These people want to ban Trump for the same reason they managed to get Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders banned from British shores. (See American Thinker's 'Geller and Spencer Banned from the UK'.)

The White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, also knows that this isn't really about Britain First. It's about the content of the videos. In full, she said:

I think what he’s done is elevate the conversation to talk about a real issue and a real threat and that’s extreme violence and extreme terrorism, something that we know to be very real and something the president feels strongly about talking about and bringing up and making sure is an issue every single day.”

However, it's not all about Islamic terrorism either. It's also about Islamic sharia law, ghettos, gang violence, grooming-gangs, etc. in Europe and the UK.

Prime Minister May also seems to believe that we have a big problem with “far-right terrorism” as well. She said:

We must all take seriously the threat that far-right groups pose both in terms of the terrorist threat that is posed by those groups and the necessity of dealing with extremist material which is far-right as well.

... In the United Kingdom we take the far-right very seriously and that’s why we ensure we deal with these threats and this extremism wherever it comes and whatever its source.”

That's very odd! There has been no “far-right terror attack” in the UK. The MP Jo Cox (more of which later) was killed by a man who shouted “Britain first” - not “Britain First”. (In full he said: “This is for Britain”; “keep Britain independent”; and “Britain first”.) This phrase “Britain first” dates back to the 1960s and that's why the group Britain First chose it. There's also one single photo of the killer holding a British First banner; though he wasn't a member and there's no other evidence connecting him to the group.

In terms of Europe, we had Anders Breivik's massacre in 2011.

However, according to Europol, Islamist terror attacks in the European Union increased from four in 2014 to seventeen in 2015. And the number of people killed increased from four to one hundred and fifty. In 2016, 135 people were killed in ten Islamic attacks in the European Union.

France alone suffered eight attacks between 2014 and 2016.These attacks included the January 2015 Île-de-France attacks, the November 2015 Paris attacks, and the July 2016 Nice truck attack.

As for the United Kingdom, it saw three major attacks in four months in early 2017: the Westminster attack, the May 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, and the June 2017 London Bridge attack.

There have been other Islamic attacks in Europe; including ones in Belgium, Germany and Spain.

So what about right-wing terror in the UK in recent years? There's been one murder (as already mentioned). In addition, a few young men who made bombs in their bedrooms have been imprisoned.

That murder of the MP Joe Cox occurred in 2016. She was murdered by Thomas Mair. He was was motivated by his political views and was said to had “links” to several organisations in the UK, US, and South Africa.

Consequently, it's somewhat bizarre that Prime Minister May has done two things:

i) Criticise Trump for tweeting the truth about Islam in Europe and the Muslim world.
ii) Made a big deal about almost non-existent “far-right terrorism”.






Wednesday, 29 November 2017

Outrage Over Trump's Video-sharing: Silence on the Content






The phony outrage over Donald Trump sharing Britain First videos has been nauseating.

To state the obvious. The entire thing has exclusively been about Trump sharing the videos of a “far Right” political group. There's been absolutely no discussion at all about the video themselves - except to reject their legitimacy. 

It's as if the things on the videos don't happen. 

Yet Muslim gang violence against non-Muslims in Europe has reached very-large proportions. I myself have been the victim four times in the last twenty years. As for the Al-Nusra Front/al-Qaeda Muslim (who may now be an immigrant in Europe) smashing the statue of Mary, something like that that has probably happened again – somewhere in the Muslim world – in the last few weeks (e.g., in Pakistan). It's happened countless times in the last twenty years or so.

So Trump sharing videos about Islamic hatred is “spreading hatred against Muslims”? That must mean that Islamic killings and hatred are fine and dandy. However, “Islamophobia” most certainly is not.

To put things simply. One video seems to be a fake; in that it doesn't involve Muslims. One occurred in Egypt, not Europe. However, the smashing of the Mary statue is not fake. (See this video here.)

First things first.

Donald Trump won't have known that the Amsterdam video doesn't involve Muslims. (It turns out that the attacker is a Muslim; just not an immigrant.) Perhaps he should have known. Britain First might not have even known that one of the videos is a fake either. In any case, as I said, these things do happen! Muslim violence against the “kuffar” is commonplace in the part of the UK in which I live (i.e., the north of England). It's also common in the Midlands, London, Malmö, Paris, Stockholm, Marseilles.... basically, in any European city or town in which Muslims live in large numbers.

So this furore about Trump and his videos is inadvertently a godsend. These videos are being spread around the Internet by leftwingers and Islamophiles. And that can only be a good thing!

In detail. We've heard much about the video of a supposedly Muslim migrant attacking a man on crutches. What we hasn't been discussed – and for obvious reasons! - is the video of Muslims smashing a statue of Mary and the large-scale violence against non-Muslims in Europe. Why? 

The statue video includes a Muslim saying the following:

"No-one but Allah will be worshiped in the land of the Levant."

Thus a White House spokeswoman, Sarah Sanders, was perfectly in order when she said:

"These are real threats that we have to talk about. Whether it's a real video, the threat is real."

Yet the British Birmingham Mail, for example, felt the need to stress the fact that this video is from 2013. So what! This sort of thing has happened countless times since then. It's just that such acts of Islamic supremacism haven't always been caught on video. Then again, some such acts have.

The BBC, for one, fails to comment on Muslim violence against non-Muslims or the smashing of the statue and instead tells us this:

Donald Trump is once again using Twitter to weigh in on contentious religious-tinged political issues in the UK.”

Even Piers Morgan said to Trump:

"What the hell are you doing? "Please STOP this madness & undo your retweets."

As for the Islamists and fake moderates at The Council on American-Islamic Relations. This Islamist group said:

"These are actions one would expect to see on virulent anti-Muslim hate sites, not on the Twitter feed of the president of the United States. Trump's posts amount to incitement to violence against American Muslims."

As for our own version of CAIR, the Muslim Council for Britain, it said:

"This is the clearest endorsement yet from the US president of the far-right and their vile anti-Muslim propaganda."

Now what would you expect these notorious Islamist groups to say?



Friday, 17 November 2017

Facebook banned me for tying Islamic terror to... well, Islam

Add caption

A week or so ago I was banned (again!) by Facebook for critical comments I made about Islam. I was reported by a Muslim female called Farnaz Javed. This Muslimah frequently carries out Islamic Da‘wah on a Facebook discussion page called The Great British Political Debate. In other words, she does very little politics; and what politics she does do is always connected to Islam in some way.

I've been reported – and subsequently banned – by Facebook before, either by Muslims or by their leftwing enablers. Indeed I've been previously banned after debating with this very woman. I also know other people who suspect that it was this woman who reported them to Facebook. Who knows how many other people Farnaz Javed has reported over the months.  


Facebook's Community Standards

Facebook firstly told me (see image) that

[i]t looks like something you posted doesn't follow our Community Standards”.

They aren't “community” standards at all because the users of Facebook don't formulate them. Facebook itself does. (This is Facebook's Community Standards page.)

And then Facebook stated its position this way:

We remove posts that attack people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability.”

One can argue that one's race, ethnicity, national origin, gender and disability are things one simply can't do anything about. However, that's certainly not true of one's “religious affiliations”. As adults, we choose (or should choose) our religious affiliations; just as we choose our politics. And that's why - I presume - the category political affiliations isn't included on Facebook's list. Despite saying that, Facebook's clause against “attacking religious affiliations” is something that most newspapers and other institutions (in the US and UK) uphold, especially if those religious affiliations are Islamic.

The other thing is that it's simply not true that Facebook removes all the posts which “attack people based” because of their “race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability”. If they did, then huge numbers of posts would be “removed”. Indeed - depending on how words like “attack”, etc. are defined/interpreted - such a strict policy would probably put an end to political discussion on social media. This means that Facebook is in practice extremely choosy about which posts it removes and which people it bans.

For example:

i) Facebook won't remove posts which are critical of Americans.
ii) It won't remove posts which are critical of whites.
iii) It won't remove posts which are critical of heterosexuality or what's called “patriarchy”.
iv) It will rarely (if ever) remove posts which are critical of Christianity.

Thus Islam - as almost everyone who's familiar with Facebook knows - gains extra-special protection. And this unhealthy situation is added to by the large army of Muslims (along with their leftwing foot-soldiers) who always report the most effective criticisms of Islam to Facebook... I say “the most effective criticisms” because the mindless ones (or the ones which are genuinely racist or full of swearwords) often escape scot-free. This is because they aren't seen as being a real political threat by Muslims and their leftwing lackeys. It's the comments which are factual and argument-based that are more quickly and most often reported to Facebook – and for obvious reasons.
To return to Farnaz Javed and the banning.

Farnaz Javed (like many other Muslims on Facebook) doesn't really do debate at all – at least not when it comes to Islam and her fellow Muslims. She lies and does Islamic Da‘wah instead. Indeed sometimes her lies are so brazen and obvious that one wonders why she bothers. Actually, I know why she bothers. Taqiyya is written into Islam. So too is Da‘wah. This means that every time she lies (or sells Islam) to non-Muslims, she must believe that this will take her one step closer to Islam's Paradise.

As for some of the leftwingers helpers of Islam on this page and others like it, they won't mind Farnaz Javed's lies simply because they believe that by ignoring them this will help their fight against what they see as racism/Islamophobia. And like Islamic taqiyya, leftwingers also have their own notions of “lying for Justice” and “by any means necessary”.

Anyway, what Farnaz Javed is doing is what Muslim countries have been doing since the time of Muhammed: she's attempting to enforce sharia blasphemy law.

The Comment Itself

Now let's look at the comment which led to the banning.

The comment (see image) doesn't uses swear words, profanities or any gratuitous insults. It may indeed be that the post is slightly rhetorical. However, there are no lies in it. In any case, rhetoric can often be fused with fact and argument. Except that, of course, pointing these facts out will be seen – by definition – as being “offensive”, “insulting” or an “attack” – at least to Muslims; and now, it seems, to Facebook too.

In addition, the comment never says that “all” or “every” Muslim is a terrorist; or even that every Muslim is a “supporter of terrorism”. It even acknowledges the possibility of “Christian terrorists” (such words were used by Farnaz Javed and indeed others on this page) when it says “I am prepared to accept that there been some recent Christian terrorists”. It even states that “there are WHITE/CHRISTIAN killers”.

However, I find my own statements on Christian terrorism (in retrospect) to be conceeding too much.

On one hand, leftwingers and Muslims consistently and deliberately conflate the notions of killing for Christianity and killers who just happen to be Christians. On the other hand, when Muslim terrorists kill, they kill for Islam and in the name of the Prophet.

In any case, Timothy McVeigh, for example, was a self-described “agnostic” who didn't believe in Hell and who said that science was his religion.

As for Norway's Anders Breivik. He described himself as an “agnostic” and only a “cultural Christian”. Not only that: he also believed in abortion, prostitution and vampires. Indeed even Andrew Brown (a writer on religion for the leftwing Guardian newspaper) said that 'Anders Breivik is not Christian but anti-Islam'. In addition, in a Huffington Post article ('Is Anders Breivik a Christian Terrorist?') there's a quote which says that Breivik

classed himself as a 'cultural Christian' with no religious feelings or views”.

That same article then quotes Anders Breivik himself saying:

"I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a mono-cultural Christian Europe.”

It can hardly be said that a Muslim killer of Western soldiers or civilians would ever come even close to saying that he's “not an excessively religious man“; that he's “foremost a man of logic”; and that he's an “agnostic” who doesn't believe in Hell.

To get back to the comment.

The point, again, is that most of the post is factual:

i) It's a fact that “very many Muslims [not all, obviously] are terrorists and are killing on a massive scale throughout the Muslim world and even in Europe and the US”.
ii) It's a fact that “Muslims have killed dozens of thousands of people in the last twenty years”.
iii) Finally, it's a fact that many of them did so “in allegiance to Islam and the life and works of the Prophet Muhammad”.

To repeat. The death, oppression and persecution of non-Muslims in the Muslim world is a factual reality - to those who care to look! And everyone knows that we have have a problem with Islamic terrorism in the West.

The “removed” comment tried to account for all that.

Conclusion

As it is, we can say that there are so many Muslims on the planet - and that Islam has lasted for so long - precisely because of actions like Farnaz Javed's. That is, for 1,350 years Islam has disallowed literally all criticism of Islam, Muhammad and the Koran. That is truer today than it was a hundred years ago.

One other reason for Islam's longevity and demographics is that Islam is passed on from generation to generation within this very context of complete “submission” and universal blasphemy law.

That's why Islam has survived and has large numbers of believers.

And this censorious and oppressive Islamic reality is what Farnaz Javed wants to bring to Facebook. The big problem is, Facebook seems very happy to enable Farnaz Javed's Islamic mission.