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.


Tuesday, 12 September 2017

My Chat With a Critical Race Theorist

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is obviously theoretical in nature. That's meant in the simple sense that it isn't primarily factual. It CRS were entirely (or even mainly) factual, it wouldn't be theoretical. Despite saying that, it's cetainly the case that many philosophers of science – as well as scientists themselves - often dispute any rigid distinction between fact and theory. It will even be argued that merely mentioning the words “fact” and “truth” - in this or indeed in any context - is philosophically naïve. Nonetheless, in the case of Critical Race Theory, it's clear that theory is the main deal. If theory were only - or simply - factual, then it wouldn't do the political job that “race theorists” want it to do.

In that sense, CRT is very much like Marxist theory. Indeed it is a variation on - or outgrowth from - Marxist theory.

As Karl Marx himself put it:

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”

Franz Fanon - the essentialist about blackness and advocate of “revolutionary violence” (who also inspired Post-Colonial Studies, Critical Theory, Marxism, etc.) – also wrote:

How can one then be deaf to that voice rolling down the stages of history: 'What matters is not to know the world but to change it.' This matters appallingly in our lifetime.”

Moreover, if we also take Sociology of Culture, Critical Legal Theory, Discourse Analysis, Black Studies, Post-Colonial Studies, Deconstruction, Critical Race Studies, Media Studies, Peace Studies, Subaltern Studies, Ethnic Studies, Gender Studies, Cultural Studies, Queer Theory, Critical Theory... ad infinitum, we can safely say that these academic disciplines are deeply political. That is, they don't simply study politics and society: they're also deeply political in themselves. What that means is that such academics have political causes and values in mind before they carry out their “empirical research”. Political causes and values colour almost everything they do. In other words, such academics are as politically-driven as they claim their opponents are.

All the above points to the fact that these disciplines are tools to bring about "progressive change" - not tools for discovering truths/facts. Truths/facts may be found (or used) by such professors/lecturers in their academic work. However, truths, facts and even evidence aren't the raison d'être of their work.

Despite my mentioning “the unseen” (to use Althusser's word) of academia, many professors and lecturers – especially Critical Race Theorists – have been honest about their political use of theory. They've freely admitted that the prime motive behind their theorising is to bring about “radical political change”. Indeed there are numerous quotes - which can easily be found - of such academics explicitly stating (if not to outsiders or to political opponents) their political motivations

And because of my own critical position on Critical Race Theory, Fluetin McX (whom we shall meet later) had this to say:

Sociology is a pseudo-science? I forgot we lived in a 'post-society' world, of course.”

I never actually classed sociology as a “pseudo-science”. Sociology isn't a “pseudoscience” in the same way that astrology, ESP, Freudianism/psychoanalysis, Marxism, etc. are; though it's certainly not like physics, biology and chemistry. However, the term “sociology” is extremely broad and it covers many areas. So my words are really about the sub-disciplines mentioned above. Namely: Critical Legal Theory, Deconstruction, Discourse Analysis, Black Studies, Queer Theory, etc.

None of the disciplines above utilise the scientific method or any of the tools used by physicists, chemists, biologists, psychologists or even philosophers. Indeed there's no reason why these disciplines should use the scientific method if they aren't sciences in the first place.

Many political/social “theoreticians” and “radical” philosophers have also spent a lot of time criticising science and the scientific method. They've also argued that the scientific method doesn't so much as exist. Indeed many disciplines – such as Deconstruction – have even argued against the very existence of truths or facts; as well as against the political or theoretical point of argumentation or evidence. Again, this too has mainly been for political – not factual or philosophical – reasons.

The aforementioned academic disciplines, therefore, are but means to bring about political ends. And if we add to that the fact that almost all these professors, lecturers and “researchers” are leftwing or “progressive” in political persuasion, then we have a massive academic bias on our hands. In fact we've had that bias since the 1960s.

Finally, the following is primarily a commentary on a conversation I had – on social media - with a strong believer in Critical Race Theory. I've used his own words in the piece and changed his name to Fluetin McX.

Systemic White Racism?

Fluetin McX said:

In terms of sociology: yes! all white people are racist. That because all whites benefit from systemic racism.”

I replied:

In terms of very specific progressive/leftwing theories within sociology: yes! it's indeed the case that “all white people are racist”.

McX continued:

We identify racism as a systemic network where there is perpetuation of prejudice rather than single instances.”

McX's ideas above are political additions to the everyday notion of racism. They're a result of leftwing theory. No one accepts them unless they already accept the politics inherent in them and the political causes they advance.

McX had more to say on “systemic racism”: He said:

The fact that this system is skewed into direct benefit of white people means that we take, tacit or not, advantage out of the system.”

Even if all that were true, it still wouldn't stop blacks from being racist or succeed in making all whites racist. It's theory and theory alone which does that trick.

As for every white person being a racist, McX also said:

Participating in a racist system, whether apologetically or not, is being part of the system. and being part of a racist system means being racist, whether we want it or not, this is truth.”

I then asked him if - being a white person himself - he too was a racist. I also asked if he also “participates in a racist system”.

So McX believes in a sociological theory which makes it the case that all whites are racists and that no blacks can be racist against whites. That basically means that theories and definitions can do miraculous things. Especially if they're used to advance political causes.

The main claim, then, is that all whites – presumably this also includes white Leftists/progressives – "benefit from systemic racism". That must also mean that not only is white racism built into all political and social institutions in the “capitalist West”: it's also the case that all whites benefit from that systemic or institutional racism. And if that's the case, then, by definition, all whites must be racist (either in a strong or a weak sense).

So do all whites benefit from systemic racism?

What about homeless, unemployed and poor whites? In parallel, don't some – or even many - blacks benefit from such “racist institutions”? What about Barack Obama, Diane Abbott MP, Al Sharpton, black politicians, lawyers, pop stars, sports celebrities, rap stars, actors and, last but not least, Critical Race Theorists?

Fluetin McX's logic is faulty in another way.

Even if whites do benefit from “systemic racism”, that doesn't automatically mean that they're racist. Perhaps they can't help but benefit from such a system. This is like the case of people being born into a rich, privileged and politically-powerful families. That accident of birth can't be held against them. Though what they do after birth may be held against them. This, of course, depends on what they do after birth and also on one's own political and moral position on those people born into rich families.

In any case, presumably a person's racism is primarily a psychological phenomenon; which can indeed have social/political consequences. Thus it must also be about a person's attitude towards black people. Even if a white person does benefit from a “racist system” (if only in a passive way), he may still not be racist. Of course this is where theory comes in. Hence you can define a racist as "any white person who benefits from a racist system"; regardless of his psychological attitudes towards black people.

Why would someone want to define racism in this highly specific and theory-laden way? The answer is simple. That definition is a very good way to advance the political cause of utterly changing a political system. That is, the definition is designed to help radically change (or even destroy) "capitalist democracy" in the West.

This isn't hyperbole.

If the system – by definition - makes all white people racist, then the only solution to this is to change (or destroy) that system. Thus these theoretical definitions of racism are also designed to bring about large-scale political power for black people; as well as for the white (leftwing) enablers of blacks.

The Racism/Prejudice Distinction

McX also said that blacks can “hold prejudices; though they can't be racist against whites”. That's another theoretical/technical pair of terms from Critical Race Theory. It's yet another mindless expression of the cliched and very well-embedded distinction between “racism” and “prejudice”.

The strange thing is that (some?) CRTs do believe that blacks can be racist – though not against whites! McX, for example, said:

I never said black people cannot be racist, as there are other racisms, like against Asian people and so on.”

So blacks can indeed be racist against Asians; though not against whites. Why is that? Because “whites have the power”. Asians don't... or at least Asians don't have as much power as whites. However, Asians (i.e., mainly Chinese, though also Japanese, Korean, etc.) often do have more power – at least economic/business power – than blacks. And that partly explains the extensive and long-running black racism and violence against Asians in the United States.

To get back to the racism/prejudice distinction.

What most leftwingers (or “progressives”) do is quote this theoretical contrast as if it's progressive scripture. Yet, in actual fact, this distinction – along with the views that “all whites are racist”, etc. - is only held by a tiny number of people (mainly academics and students) at a particular moment in history. Nonetheless, these academics have immense social and political power: not only on their students; but also on the wider (non-academic) world.

Finally, there's no reason why anyone should accept Critical Race Theory's highly-theoretical distinctions and ideas unless they already accept the political causes, beliefs and values which have given rise to them. Thus, if one rejects the political theory, then the prejudice/racism distinction – along with all the other theories which run parallel to it - will very quickly collapse.

Friday, 8 September 2017


Incredible and amazingly-sexy news has come to light about the World's Sexiest Couple: Pim Kardashian and Khan O'West. While the evil and sexist homophobite, Donald Trump, has been very busy killing cisgendered Mexicans, the sexy and beautiful couple announced that they'll be standing for the American Presidency – as Progressive Democrats! They hope to fight against Global Warmings and Right-wing Evil; as well as for Equalitude. They're also hoping that their new African-American child will be a cisgender. (The surrogate mother is a Black Democrat, who's also a member of the Church of the Jesus H. Corbett, which is in East Sussex.)  
Kimmy and Westy - as we at Metro like to call them - take seriously their fight against racist evilitons and bigoted bigotry.

The couple say that they are committed to their marriage and have been sexually and spiritually unified for at least four months.

. Meanwhile, and on a very different topic, we at the progressive Metro would like to announce that Katie Holmes and Jamie Foxx’s relationship has been the best kept secret in showbiz for at least three weeks.

The great Black Actor, Sir Jamie Foxx, and the bestist and most sexiest actress of the last 40 years, Katie Holmes, have been dating since July 2017. And we – at Metro - love them!

Thanks to our highly-trained investigative journalists, this very-important story is now available to Joe Public. According to an in-depth critical analysis, Katie Holmes and Brand Pitt's divorce contained a clause that Katie (38, sexy, and attractive) wasn't allowed to date anybody who isn't rich or sexy.

Katie Holmes - as Metro fans already know - is a great Shakespearean actress and X Factor presenter, who has also appeared in Shakespeare's MacDuff and Samuel Beckett's Where's that sandwich? She also has her very own line in feminist dildos, which she sells for two bob each....

Saturday, 2 September 2017

When did fascism/communism become fashionable again?

I found the image above on a Facebook page. The following image is my response to it:

Yes, it's those double-standards again! That is, 

National Socialism/fascism = bad 

International Socialism (communism, Trotskyism) = good

This is striking primarily because - according to many - communism claimed far more lives than Nazism in the 20th century. Indeed it can also be argued that the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc. were far more oppressive than the Nazis. The Nazis get a worse deal, of course, primarily because they instigated a Holocaust against Jews. Yet communists also wiped out entire classes and ethnic groups. Many contemporary Leftists – including some fans of Jeremy Corbyn – would like to do the same today; though this time with different “counter-revolutionary” or “reactionary” targets.

Many Corbynistas, for example, want to rid the world of the entire Right and indeed all other “haters”: e.g., “Tories”, fans of Trump, Ukip, the EDL, Britain First, “bankers”, “Daily Mail readers”, “Sun plebs”, “low-information voters”, “bigots”, “racists”, “Nazis”, “fascists”, “sheeple”... ad infinitum. Thus, in order to bring about peace, tolerance and equality, segments of the Left now realise that a hell of a lot of people will need to be silenced, imprisoned or killed in order to bring about a socialist utopia. (How many Tories/patriots/rightwingers are there in the UK? 20 million or more?)

This means that it's massively ironic that many Leftists have made various very-tangential links between Donald Trump and white supremacists and Nazis. The Leader of the British Opposition, on the other hand, has very many intimate, strong and blatant links to communists and Trotskyists all over the world; not just in the UK. (He also has strong links with Iran, Iran's Press TV, Venezuela, etc.)

Jeremy Corbyn on Karl Marx

Of course it's true that someone could say that Marx was an“essentially a fascinating figure.. from whom we can learn a great deal” and not be a fan - politically or ideologically - of the dead German. But if that someone is Jeremy Corbyn saying these things, then that's something else entirely.

What is it, anyway, that Corbyn thinks we can learn from Marx? If he were specific, what would Corbyn say? Most people now think that as a futurologist (or prophet), Marx proved to be a joke. (Socialists don't think that.) Most people believe that Marx's economics are stuck in the 19th century. (Socialists don't think that.) Politically, most people think that Marxism is very dangerous and indeed deadly. (Socialists don't think that.) Though as a prophet of a future utopia and a stern moral critic of capitalism and capitalists, even Marx's critics can see the religious appeal. (So can socialists.)

The Islington North MP also said: 

“Marx obviously analysed what was happening in a quite brilliant way and the philosophy around Marx is fascinating.”

And as a Marxist socialist, I suppose that it's almost inevitable than Corbyn will think of capitalism in 19th century terms. After all, that's when Marx was writing. Thus when Corbyn also said that “[t]he [Conservative] Government's policies... are a return to the workhouse” he was being a gross rhetorician – as Marx himself was.

Corbyn on the Soviet Union and Trotsky

Many people say “a man is known by the company he keeps”. That's not always true. However, it becomes truer when the person you're discussing appoints one of his friends the Executive Director of Strategy and Communications and another friend the Campaign Chief of his own political party; as Corbyn did. Both these friends are self-described "communists" and former fans of the Soviet Union.

His Campaign (Election) Chief is Andrew Philip Drummond-Murray; who dropped his double-barrelled name to disguise his “class origins”. (He's now named Andrew Murray.) He was a a member of the Communist Party of Britain until he joined the Labour Party under Corbyn's leadership. (He's also became Chair of the Stop the War Coalition after Corbyn himself stepped down.) He only joined the Labour Party only at the end of 2016. That's less than half-a-year ago. He's already Campaign Chief.

Seumus Milne is now Executive Director of Strategy and Communications for Corbyn and the Labour Party. His “communist tendencies” are well-known.

I don't usually go into detail about the “class origins” of people. However, Marxist socialists do. (Especially if they're discussing "Tories".) Class has been everything for Marxist socialists since Marx. Indeed Corbyn himself is still a fierce fighter in the class war. So why can't I too carry out a “class analysis” of the many Marxist public-schoolboys in Corbyn's Labour Party? After all, if “class determines consciousness”, then how did Corbyn, Milne and Murray's class determine their own consciousnesses? Despite saying that, I'll just include class details here; with no class analysis.

Anyway, these very posh Marxists are right at the top of the Labour Party... Where else would they be?

Corbyn himself went to Castle House Preparatory School, an independent school in Shropshire. He was brought up in a seven-bedroomed house in that charming county.

Andrew Murray (Campaign Chief of the Labour Party) is the son of Peter Drummond-Murray of Mastrick, a stockbroker and banker. His dad was also Slains Pursuivant (a private officer of arms) from 1981 to 2009. Andrew Murray was educated at Worth School, a Benedictine independent boarding school in Sussex. From 1986 to 1987, Murray worked for the Soviet Novosti news agency. He has also expressed “solidarity” with North Korea.

Seumus Milne (Executive Director of Strategy and Communications for Corbyn and the Labour Party) is also a public-schoolboy, like Andrew Murray. He's the younger son of former BBC Director General Alasdair Milne. He attended the private Winchester College and read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Balliol College, Oxford.

In terms of politics, Milne has been a systematic fan of Stalin and the Soviet Union.Milne once claimed that “history has been unkind to” Joseph Stalin. He also gave the lowest number I've ever seen for the number of people killed by the Soviet socialist regime.

Milne is now Executive Director of Strategy and Communications for Corbyn and the Labour Party.

So let's get back to Corbyn and the Soviet Union. Take the following speech:

“... I had an interesting meeting with an environmental campaigning group from the Soviet Union.... those people felt that they had the power to change the policies to stop the destruction of their own environment. The policies of free-market economies... have led to the pollution of the North sea and the Irish sea...”

So Corbyn believed that environmental activists had more political power in the Soviet Union than their equivalents did in the Western democracies? What's more, Corbyn seems to have thought this simply because of what was said to him during a single meeting.

In retrospect, it's ironic that Corbyn said the above just two years before the fall of the Soviet Union. This isn't a surprise. Corbyn, at that time, had a more favourable opinion of the Soviet Union than he had of the United Kingdom - at least under Margaret Thatcher.

Corbyn's friend George Galloway (also of the Stop the War Coalition) mourned the death of the Soviet Union. I wonder if Corbyn did too. He'd never admit that today. After all, large sections of the Labour Party (before Corbyn's rule) have always been strongly against communism and Marxism – and not only since Tony Blair!

Of course the official Leftist mythology (though not for Seumus Milne and Andrew Murray!) is that the Stalinism - and sometimes the Soviet Union itself - weren't true theological examples of socialism/communism. All true examples of socialism will, of course, come in the future. All past examples of socialism/communism have been false examples. One true example of socialism might have come to pass on the 9th of June, 2017; if Jeremy Corbyn had been elected Prime Minster. Corbyn's socialist country will only become false socialism when it fails; which it will do because every other socialist state (dozens of them) have failed in the past.

In 1988 Corbyn also took his honeymoon in the Soviet Union. It must have been then that Corbyn called for a “complete rehabilitation” of Trotsky; which some socialists will say shows the doubters that he isn't, after all, a fan of either Stalinism or the Soviet Union.

A Labour source, in response, said:

"Jeremy Corbyn has clearly been fixated by the political ideology and tactics of Leon Trotsky for some time, but perhaps he could now focus on the rehabilitation of the Labour Party, which has been performing very poorly in the polls since he became leader. Trotsky didn't have to worry about the troublesome business of winning elections, but the Labour Party does."

Trotsky has a glowing name in many socialist circles simply because his name isn't Stalin. Unlike Stalin, however, Trotsky never had massive state power. Thus it was impossible for Trotsky to have done as much damage to the masses, people and workers as Stalin did. Had Trotsky gained state power, however, he would quite possibly have been even worse than Stalin.

For example, in 1918 Trotsky was the first Bolshevik to agitate for concentration camps (the Gulag) for political prisoners and the “bourgeoisie”. Before Lenin's death (in 1924) there were hundreds of Bolsheviks concentration camps in the USSR (i..e, before Stalin's rule). Trotsky is also well-known for having slaughtered thousands of anarchists and the wrong kinds of socialist in Kronstadt. In any case, Trotsky was much more ideologically obsessive than Stalin and thus, perhaps, he would have potentially been far more dangerous and bloodthirsty (i.e., had he gained power) than Stalin.

So when did communism become fashionable again? When Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party? 

Tuesday, 29 August 2017

A Short History of Leftist/Nazi Violence

Socialists/progressives are still utterly committed to violence and intolerance.

We shouldn't be surprised.

Like their estranged brothers, the National Socialists (i.e., Nazis), International Socialists/communists murdered dozens of millions of people - and persecuted/imprisoned/starved/"liquidated" many more - in the 20th century (e.g., in China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, various African states, east Asia, eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea, etc.). Today they're still fixated on violence and intolerance.

We have the large-scale violence and Leftist killings in Venezuela. Trotskyist/communist/Antifa/BLM/etc. violence in U.S. universities on and on American streets. There's also the leftwing "no platform" policy (often called for on Facebook) which calls for the silencing of right-wingers. Then there are the frequent calls for the banning and censorship of all people to the Right of Jeremy Corbyn or Lenin (e.g., Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Tommy Robinson, speakers for UKip, academics/scientists who do research on IQ, Islam, race, sociobiology, Intelligent Design, etc.). Political groups also suffer the same fate (e.g., EDL, UKip, Britain First, etc.). “Evil, greedy and selfish Tories", of course, will be dealt with when/if the Left has TOTAL power; probably in the manner seen in Venezuela.

Here's a suggestion.

Why don't Nazis and InterNazis (who indulge in an obscene symbiotic/parasitic relationship with each other) get together in a huge private space and sort each other out? Perhaps then we'll be rid of both of them.

[As for the video below. We have a white middle-class Leftist violently attacking a black man. This violent and intolerant white man called the black supporter of Trump a "racist" and "Uncle Tom".)

Sunday, 27 August 2017

Sadiq Khan's cliché: "London stands more united than ever."

On Saturday (in London) a Muslim waved a sword and shouted “Allahu Akbar” at the police. This was outside Buckingham Palace; which is the Queen's “official residence”. The man was arrested on suspicion of terrorism.

Hours after the attack, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, predictably said:

London stands more united than ever.”

This is yet another rendition of the formula and cliché which is often proclaimed after an Islamic terror attack:

X is united.

And then Khan said the following.

My thoughts are with the police.”

This too is a use of the following formula and cliché:

My/our thoughts are with X.

What does it mean to say that “London stands more united than ever”?

Not much.

For a start, London is a geographical place. It certainly doesn't speak as a whole. That's because it doesn't speak at all.

When politicians come out with such cliches, either of the following may be suspected:

i) Such politicians believe that there's no solution to the problem (or event) they're talking about
ii) Such politicians aren't really that concerned with the problem (or event) they're talking about.

Sadiq Khan, after all, did say that terrorism is “part and parcel of living in a big city”.

The Mayor of London said that “London stands more united than ever” only a few hours after the attack. Thus even if the whole of London could talk to him, how did Sadiq Khan find this out so quickly? 

How many Londoners did Khan speak to? Which Londoner didn't he speak to? Did he speak only to to those Londoners who're bound to say “London stands more united as ever”? On the other hand, did he speak Trotskyists, communists, members of Momentum, Islamists, Deobandis, Salafists, the leaders of Corbyn's Stop the War Coalition, “radical lawyers”, “human rights activists”, "civil liberties groups", etc? All the former would never have said that “London is more united as ever” because they neither believe nor want that.

Again, to say that “London is more united than ever” is to say almost nothing.

Moreover, how can London be “united” if this attack occurred in London? That's a contradiction in terms. Sure, the attacker is from Luton; though he most certainly could have been from London.

London isn't united anyway.

There's a large minority of Muslims who want to destroy London and Britain and then make it fully Islamic. There's also a large minority of leftwingers who want to destroy London and Britain and then make it fully socialist. These two groups tie into each other in that many middle-class leftwing lawyers, politicians, academics, activists, anti-racists, etc. defend Muslims - and even Islamic terrorists - no matter what they say or do. Moderate leftwingers or Labourites, on the other hand, simply come out with cliches instead.

The upshot is that nothing radical is ever done about Islamic terror because middle-class leftwing professionals make it almost impossible to do anything at all. Such socialists/progressives effectively succeed in bringing about non-action against Islamic terror. They do this with the help of legal action, EU law (at least until March 2019), accusations of "racism"/"Islamophobia", political activism, demonstrations, council policy, etc. As for moderate leftwingers and Labourites, as I said, they come out with mind-numbing cliches instead.

The result of all this is that the situation with Islamic terror will almost definitely get worse and worse (i.e., exponentially worse) in the coming years. The use of political clichés is going have zero affect on that fact.


It's possible that the arrested Muslim was planning some kind of attack on Buckingham Palace. For a start, he was stopped because his car was in a restricted area. That, in itself, wouldn't be that suspicious. However, the fact that he had a large sword in his car and immediately cried “Allahu Akbar” means that there might have been good reason to stop him.

(The Arabic words “Allahu Akbar” mean God is greater, not God is great. That means that it's a direct challenge to other gods or the God of Christianity.)

Middle-class professional leftwingers will challenge all of this, including the reasons the police gave for the police stopping the Muslim in the first place. They may even talk about “Islamophobia” and “racism”. Who knows, perhaps Jeremy Corbyn will mention our role in Afghanistan and Iraq or what the British Empire did in 1947, 1917 or even in 1583. What Corbyn won't mention is Islam and its 1,400 years of jihad and violence in which literally dozens of millions have died.

If there had been an attack on Buckingham Palace and people had died, then today there would be “peace vigils” and many pious and empty words (like Sadiq Khan's). Then, on Monday, life would carry on as before... until the next attack! The next attack could very well be next week or even tomorrow. 

As Sadiq Khan famously implied: Londoners have to live with Islamic terror.

Thursday, 17 August 2017

MP Sarah Champion speaks truth to power: anti-racist MPs devour her

A person who said – to the BBC - that many people are afraid to even raise cases of Muslim grooming for fear of being labelled racist has herself been labelled a racist. At least certain leftwingers and people in Jeremy Corbyn's (radical-socialist) Labour Party have done so.

Jeremy Corbyn himself said that the Labour Party wouldn't "demonise any particular group". Fellow Labour MP Naz Shah also said her words were "irresponsible" and "setting a dangerous precedent".

And so will the Muslim child-grooming show carry on just as before?

Sarah Champion (a Labour PM and member of the Shadow Cabinet – until now) made her comments after 18 people (17 of whom were Muslim) were convicted of offences in a series of trials related to Muslim gangs grooming white (non-Muslim) girls in Newcastle.

In an article for The Sun, Champion wrote:

Britain has a problem with British-Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls.”

Is that factually incorrect? No.

Is it politically incorrect? Yes; to many leftwingers and to some Labour MPs.

And so it goes on.

In that article, Champion continued:

There. I said it. Does that make me a racist? Or am I just prepared to call out this horrifying problem for what it is? These people are predators and the common denominator is their ethnic heritage.”

Again – all true! Except that socialist causes (or theories) are more important to the Labour Party than truth or young, white working-class girls. Truth (or fact) doesn't advance “progressive politics”.

The Labour Party and the Left generally are saying - yet again - that associating grooming gangs with Muslims - or with Pakistanis - is racist. It was precisely this crazy anti-racism which caused the problem in the first place. 

Here we go again!

Does the Labour Party - and the Left generally - want yet more white girls to become sacrificial lambs for its socialist theology?

The fact is that nearly all groomers are Muslim. A large proportion - of that large proportion - are Pakistanis. Now the Labour Party and the Left say that it's racist to point this out. This was precisely what happened in Rotherham in 2012/13.... and in Oldham, Keighley, Blackburn, etc. before that.

The Left has learned precisely nothing!

It can't learn anything. Socialist theology doesn't allow it. Thus if acknowledging the ethnic or religious identity of 98% of groomers is - by leftist definition - racist, then the Left – or Corbyn's Labour Party – will carry on fighting against the facts. Progressive theory and sacred causes come before the facts.

This is also true of the BBC! Take this highly-deceitful passage on Sarah Champion:

Ms Champion's article was written after 17 men were convicted of forcing girls in Newcastle to have sex. The men, who were mostly British-born, were from Iraqi, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian, Iranian and Turkish communities.”

Firstly, the BBC – of course - doesn't mention the fact that they were all Muslims - minus one. Secondly, it downplays the fact that most of them are Pakistanis. How does it do that? By mentioning that some groomers are also “Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian, Iranian and Turkish”. It's true that Muslims from other communities have been involved in grooming; as have a tiny number of whites. However, the BBC doesn't mention the fact that they're all Muslims. In addition, the fact that groomers include a very small number of Bangladeshi, Indian, Iranian and Turkish Muslims doesn't stop it from being a fact that most are Pakistanis. Indeed the BBC's deceit is so subtle that it attempts to fuse the words “were mostly British-born” with the latter fact that they weren't all Pakistanis. Thus the BBC is happy to stress the fact that they're “mostly British-born” (in order, perhaps, not to provide succor to those against immigration): though it isn't happy with the parallel fact that they're all Muslims and mostly Pakistanis. In other words, one factual generalisation is okay (about being “British-born”) to the BBC; though the other isn't (about being Pakistani/Muslim).

Sarah Champion MP

I'm not fan of Sarah Champion. She didn't speak out against massive Muslim grooming of white girls until the shit hit the fan in 2013/14. Sure, she only became an MP in Rotherham in 2012; though she'd lived and worked in Rotherham before that. In terms of detail, Champion ran the Rotherham Arts Centre from 1992 to 1994. From 2008 to 2012, she was also the Chief Executive of the Bluebell Wood Children's Hospice – ironically enough - in Rotherham.

Sarah Champion first spoke out in 2013 (or possibly as late as 2014) – and then only after an academic report on grooming went public. (She must trust academics more than she trusts the people of Rotherham.) That was one year after she'd become an MP in Rotherham (in 2012). Before that, Sarah Champion had lived and worked in Rotherham; as already stated. (See this piece about an MP who was sued by Sarah Champion for stating these truths about Muslim grooming gangs.)

One person who knew about the abuse wrote to Sarah Champion in 2012. Vice tells us:

"He [Mr Cole] wrote that she needed to get her hands dirty and speak out. Cole told Champion, 'I was warning about people in that gang in 2005 - RMBC ignored these concerns'. Champion assured him that she believed that 'we have a strong system in place'..."

In other words, Sarah Champion only spoke out – as I said - when the shit had hit the fan.

Sarah Champion also once said (to ITV News, in August 2014) that in the U.K. most abusers are white. In her own words:

"Of the 1,400 abusers, I don't know how many were of Asian descent. What I do know is...95%...are single white males."

That's simply because most people in the UK are white. It's proportionality that matters. Virtually every sex-groomer in Rotherham was a Muslim and virtually every victim was white (a non-Muslim). Apart from that, she used the words “1,400 abusers” - that's the figure for the victims, not the abusers.

Despite all that, Sarah Champion may well have seen the error of her ways. However, the fact that she's apologised for her comments showed that she's descended back into tribal leftwing anti-racism. Indeed she said that she apologised 

“for the offence caused by the extremely poor choice of words in The Sun article on Friday”.

What Champion said in The Sun is true. Why apologise for telling the truth? Why? Because she's a member of Corbyn's Labour Party: mentioning facts like this is racist. Full stop.

In 2011 (just before the Rotherham scandal), Sarah Champion would never have dared to say that the UK had a “‘problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls” because all hell would have been let loose had she done so. She would have been sacked by the Labour party. She wouldn't have needed to resign.

Yet what Champion is saying today is true. It was true in 2012 when the Rotherham scandal broke. Indeed it was also true in the year 2000 and even before that. Muslim gangs have been grooming white girls for well over twenty years. 

And yet the Labour Party is still fighting against fact/truth in order to advance – yet further – its eternal and fanatical war against (often fake) racism. The only racism I can see here is against white working-class girls: the sacrificial lambs of socialist theology.