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

Tuesday, 24 September 2013

Professor Alan Sked: 'UKIP is led by morons who are fascistic'

Professor Alan Sked

The founder of UKIP, Professor Alan Sked, has just claimed that UKIP is 'obsessed by race, Islam and immigration'... hang on a minute! Didn't people once say – about a week ago - that UKIP is 'obsessed by Europe'? So now UKIP's not obsessed by Europe - it's obsessed by Islam, race and immigration instead. Nonetheless, what exactly does 'obsessed' mean here?

Politically speaking, sometimes you need to be obsessed by certain things otherwise you may find your country, your democratic traditions, culture - or whatever - annihilated. Take, for example, Churchill's 'obsession' with Hitler and the Nazis. No doubt Churchill was deemed to be obsessed with the Nazis (from 1933 onwards). He was certainly forced to shut up by the BBC, the government and by many pillars of the establishment at the time. (Yes, I'm fully aware that some will laugh at my comparisons between Churchill and the Nazis and our current problems with Islam and mass immigration. Even so, the arguments which can back up these comparisons can't be discussed here.)

The other point which can be made is that there's no point in UKIP reverting back to being 'obsessed by Europe' (if that's what Alan Sked wants) if there are bigger problems facing the UK. Or, more accurately, collectivist Europe may not be capable of being tackled if we succumb to yet more mass immigration, ever-increasing Islamisation and the rise in Muslim demographics.

Most UK politicians don't think that Islam and mass immigration are big problems largely because they aren't the subjects they find in their in-trays each morning. Thus they don't officially exist as problems. They aren't even discussable. They are non-subjects. They are not the stuff that parliamentary debates are made of. The don't seem to excite or interest most of our well-known political journalists either.

Perhaps Professor Sked is looking for a job within a party which actually has power (the Conservative Party) rather than one that is hoping to gain power (UKIP). Hence his eulogies to the Conservative Party. He claimed that the Conservatives are moving in a Eurosceptic direction. He precise words were:

I'm glad the Conservatives are moving in a eurosceptic direction but I think what's happened is that Ukip has gone so far towards the extreme right that the only votes they are taking away are from the Conservatives in the shires.”

Haven't journalists being saying that for ages – that the Conservative Party is moving in a Eurosceptic direction? Yet, well, it hasn't really moved in a Eurosceptic direction, has it? There are of course Eurosceptics in the Party, but they're usually smirked at by the leadership and sometimes... yes, called 'fascists'... or 'xenophobes', or 'Little Englanders'. However, perhaps Sked is talking about another Conservative Party - the one that only exists in his head.

The last clause in his argument (in the quote above) suggests that Labour Party supporters are, on the whole, pro-Europe. It follows from that, to Sked, that UKIP's Euroscepticism may well snatch a few votes from 'the Conservatives in the shires'; but that won't be enough to gain power.

I don't know if most Labourites are pro-Europe. However, Sked should deal in what he believes and what is right, not in what will gain his party – whichever one that is now - power. Perhaps that's naïve. Sked seems to think it is. But don't British voters respect honesty in politicians? Again, perhaps not. In any case, honesty in respect to Islam and mass immigration is most certainly off the radar. When it comes to electability, Islam and mass immigration are verboten - or so Professor Sked thinks.

Nonetheless, Sked's position seems bizarre. He believes that in order to get us out of the United States of Europe (USE), UKIP - and others - mustn't be too critical of it (or be seen to be too 'far right'). That way, it can snatch some Labour voters. You know, the voters who are pro-Europe. Or as Sked puts it:

The result of this will not be to squeeze the political system towards getting us out of Europe, it will mean that the Tory party will lose some seats, a Labour party which is pro-Europe will get in and that will actually cut the throats of what UKIP is supposed to stand for.”

Let me put Sked's position another way. If Tories (let alone UKIP) are too Eurosceptic, then the Labour Party may gain power and things will end up being even more pro-European. So, Sked argues, let's not be too anti-European today in order to stop the UK being too pro-European at a later stage. In other words, let's tone down our Eurosceptic views - thus effectively become more pro-European - in order to stop another pro-European party, Labour, from gaining power and implementing more pro-European stuff in the future. What the fu*k! Why not just tell the truth and do what's right instead? It's worth a go, surely.

The mistake which both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party often make is that they ignore all the problems and issues which aren't strictly party-political or parliamentary in nature. Take the belief that the revolutionary Left is of no concern because it has no party in Parliament and, officially at least, there are no revolutionary Leftist councillors. Despite all that, there is all sort of political things happening outside the strictly party-political and Parliament. For example, our universities are deeply political institutions. The rights and race industries impinge on all sectors of society (even Parliament). Many Muslims are organising their own Islamic politics in complete separation from British party politics. The SWP/Stop the War Coalition managed to get over a million people on the streets to protest against the Iraq war and they did the same - though with less numbers - over the possible intervention in Syria.

So there are political subjects all over the place which the main political parties are not discussing in any shape and form. And two of them were summarily dismissed by Alan Sked: mass immigration and Islam. There are many others too.

The situation seems to be that because UKIP dares to tackle Islam and mass immigration (but it doesn't!), Alan Sked deems its leadership to be made up of 'morons' and 'fascists'. Here again is the phenomenon of a non-Leftist using the 'discourse' of the Left. What I mean by that is if the Left didn't blabber on all the time about all critics of Islam being 'fascists' or 'racists', then Sked simply wouldn't have used the word 'fascist' about UKIP. Yet in order to see all critics of Islam as fascists; you must either imbibe a lot of Leftist theory (which miraculously turns all Islam's critics into fascists); or you must use that term - 'fascist' - mindlessly (as so many people do). I would suggest that the later possibility is the case with Alan Sked (although you never know).

Again, I must stress that I'm not saying that Professor Skid is a Leftist. I'm only saying that he's using words purposely created by Leftists in order to dismiss and/or silence all critics of Islam and the behaviour of Muslims as Muslims (amongst other things). This, I'm sorry to say, is true of many people and it happens all the time. Think about all these those word which are either fully Leftist/Marxist in nature and content; or those which, at the very least, are coloured by such ideologies. Take these words which have become common parlance in the UK: 'fascist', 'racist', 'Nazi', 'Islamophobe', 'bigot', 'xenophobe', 'Israel's apartheid state', 'neo-Con', 'neo-Liberalism', 'community cohesion', 'embrace diversity' (or simply 'diversity'), 'community leaders', 'far right', 'thugs'... All these words were concocted in various Doublethink Tanks of the Left, or in university departments or at some sweaty meeting of Trotskyists in Walthamstow.

Finally, so Sked thinks that it's not worth telling the truth or doing what's right. This means that every syllable of what Alan Sked has said about UKIP is actually about that party's electability - not about principles or beliefs. (I don't think he would deny this.) He is offering a recipe which he thinks will enable UKIP to gain more votes. That means that Sked, in theory at least, may be as aware of the threat of rising Islam and continued mass immigration as anyone else. Nonetheless, speaking about such things is not where the votes are. Or, more likely, if you speak about these things then the Left, the BBC, The Guardian, the race,, Rights and Islamophobia businesses, etc, will be on your back. Indeed these people will be on your back in exactly the same way as Alan Sked was when he used that now compulsory word, 'fascist', to describe its leadership.

No comments:

Post a Comment