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, Philosophy Now, 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 of the EDL until 2012. This blog has retained the old web address.


Thursday, 4 November 2010

'British Sikhs warned of EDL and BNP support' [from: World Countries]

[The World Countries article follows the comment; after the dotted line.]

The EDL doesn't need to promote disharmony between the Sikh and Muslim communities because it already exists. Islam, being a proselytising religion, will always be at odds with Sikhism, just as it at odds with every other religion. This disharmony, in fact, goes back hundreds of years. Today, to cite just one case of contemporary disharmony, there is the big problem of Muslims pimping or ‘grooming’ Sikh and Hindu girls, whom they see as Islamic ‘booty’. (It’s all there in the Koran!)

There is no reason for Sikhs to be ‘next on the EDL list’. The reason is simple. Sikhs are not, on the whole, proselytisers. They do not believe in terrorism against the UK. Jihad is not the most important aspect of Sikhism (though the call-to-arms in self-defence is). Sikhs males don’t pimp and groom white and other non-Muslim girls. Sikhs weren’t responsible for the killings on 9/11, 7/7, and in Bali and Madrid. So there is no reason at all for the EDL to turn on the Sikh population. Oh, yes, and there is a minority of Sikhs in the EDL as well. Leftists have made fun of the small numbers - but Sikhs are a minority in the general population too. Unless Leftists are saying that the EDL should positively discriminate in favour of Sikhs. In addition, there aren’t that many Sikhs (or blacks) in the SWP/UAF either! What hypocrisy!

As for ‘divide and rule’. This idea has become a religious tenet amongst Trotskyites and other Leftists. They see it everywhere. Conspiratorial leftist minds work that way. That’s why they say the EDL has ‘sinister aims’. They call their conspiratorial fantasies ‘theory’. And reality, in their books, must fit the theory, rather than the other way around.

Another conspiracy theory is that the EDL ‘only pretends to be against Muslims but it is a racist organisation’. Any evidence for this - apart from a few UAF plants at EDL demos who’ve been ordered, by the SWP Central Committee, to chant racist stuff and give the Nazi salutes? It’s called ‘lying for Justice’ in Leftist circles.

- 2 November 2010, from World Countries

BRITISH Sikhs supporting the British National Party and the English Defence League have been warned they could be in line as the groups’ next target.

The warning came as Unite Against Fascism and the Indian Workers Association launched a joint statement condemning the groups.

Balwindar Singh Rana, spokesperson for UAF said the EDL were using Sikh youths to promote disharmony amongst the Asian communities.

“The EDL are trying to use the well known tactics of ‘Divide and Rule’ by recruiting mis-guided Sikh youth to their cause,” he said. “They pretend to be only against the Muslims but they are a racist organisation with very sinister aims."

He added: “The Sikh youth have to realise that today it’s the Muslims and tomorrow it will be all of us, Black and Asian, Hindu and Sikh.”

Members of UAF and IWA visited Gurdwaras and Mandirs in Southall this weekend urging community leaders to add their names to the statement.

Mr Rana added the aim of the EDL was to “provoke race riots and make black and Asian people scapegoats for all current economic problems.”


  1. Same submitted idiots like the Jewish Board of Deputies!!

  2. Can you correct your statement on "Jihad is not the most important aspect of Sikhism". This is an ignorant and naive statement to make.

    Sikhs do not have any concept of the Islamic teaching of Jihad nor is it a phrased used in Sikhism to describe self-defense. It is like saying "Jihad is not the most important aspect of Christianity (though the call-to-arms in self-defence is)" i.e the Crusades. To imply jihad is part of the christian religion in this way is absolutely ridiculous!
    I hope it is clear why use of the word 'jihad' as sikh teaching is also similarly as ridiculous as contextualising it as a christian one.
    As a recommendation, please read up on any of robert spencer's books and become more educated on the matter of islam and what the full meaning jihad actuality is. Please do not confuse it with any other teachings from the other religions.