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, 9 May 2013

Esther Angel (Hope Not Hate) Defends a Violent, Racist & Sexist Islam

How far has the Leftist (in this case HopeNot Hate) position of both defending and supporting Islam and Muslims gone? It’s gone all the way. As far as it could go short of these Leftists actually becoming Muslims. (Some of them already have become Muslims!)

This is a case of a Hope Not Hate supporter/member, Esther Angel, who not only defends a misogynist, supremacist, imperialist and racist (Arabocentric; and anti-black and anti-Jew) religion, Islam, but who now even defends Shia Muslim blood rituals and their eternal celebrations of ancient battles. In other words, she celebrates and supports things which if white people did them, in the UK or anywhere else, she would be severely critical of them. How do I know that? Because people like her, and no doubt Esther herself, have been critical of them and they still are today. But, again, only if white people do such things. (Esther Angel frequently posts on the Facebook page: "We Know How You Feel About Your So-Called Prophet".)

The other thing is that she’s probably an atheist – or was before Muslims came into her field of vision.  At one point, all Trotskyists and Communists were atheists and severely against all religions – “The opium of the people” and all that. All that changed. Why? Because many of the religious people in the UK now have brown skins. That changes everything. Now the Left is silent on that anti-religious aspect of Marxism and Leftism generally. Instead the Leftist "critique" of religion has been inverted – at least when it comes to a religion, Islam, that's mainly believed by people with a brown skin.

The level of racism here is obvious and deep. What do you expect from people who overwhelmingly belong to a class, the Leftist middle class, which sees all Muslims as exotic and therefore automatically worth “celebrating” and patronising?

This woman, Esther Angel, is a profound racist. As much as a racist as any National Socialist. Her racism takes on two main forms. One: a positive or inverted racism in which she sees good - and only good - in the behaviour of brown Muslims and even in Islam itself.

Positive racism is racism. If you only see only goodness in a people because they are not white (therefore by definition victims and people of a childlike status), then you are a racist. (Equivalent of “Blacks have soul”; “Blacks are good lovers.”)

Her other racism is towards whites, or, more usually and accurately, towards the white working class (except Leftist and politically-correct members of the working class). She denies them the sexism, the violence and the religion she only allows brown people (Muslims). She attacks them on all levels. She snorts and sneers at them frequently on Facebook pages. Her profound snobbery towards the white working class is equal to her profound positive racism towards all (brown) Muslims.

Of course Leftists will never see themselves as being racist. They programme themselves to believe that it’s literally impossible for them, being middle-class Leftists, to be racist. After all, they are not white working class. Or, alternatively, they are not middle-class people in suits and ties; such as UKIP leaders. And they don’t have skinheads or Hitler moustaches! Instead, they are hip. They go to gigs by Coldplay or Nathan Fake. They wear Che Guevara t-shirts and “simply adore black music”. How can such people be racist? Surely it’s impossible.

Anyway. This woman, Esther Angel, is a disgrace. A hypocrite. And a racist of the first order.

Some of what she says below is made up of quotes and cut-and-pastes from Islamic or Muslim sources. It’s hard to tell her stuff from the quotes because sometimes they merge into each other. In any case, the very fact she quotes and pastes such stuff shows us that she has an unquestioning faith in both their veracity and goodness. That’s not a surprise because the true authors of these words will have brown skin. Therefore, in her positive racism, she will believe every quote and every word as if it's the unadulterated truth. That's racism, folks.

Esther Angel: You are aware that "jihad" means struggle and as such does not imply violence…

All people are equal in Islam:

It is important to know that all innocent lives are equal in Islam. There is no difference between the rich and the poor, the man and the woman, the free and the slave. All are equal in the eyes of Allah Almighty:

Esther Angel:  What is the punishment for the Muslim who kills an innocent disbeliever?...

Esther Angel:  As we clearly above in Noble Verses 5:32 and 2:190, Allah Almighty prohibits the killing of any innocent person.”

Esther Angel:  How Is Ashurah Celebrated

The day of Ashura falls on the 10th day of the month of Muharram. The word ‘ashura’ literally means ten. The day is observed for different reasons and in different ways by the Sunnis and Shias. The Sunni Muslims observe the da...See More

Esther Angel:  Sayyed Nadeem Kazmi's quest to find out what devotion to Hussein means for those who participate in the ceremonies is documented in his film Ten Days. Here, he explains why he thinks Ashura is yet to be properly understood.”

Esther Angel:  Alan, the reason your videos do not show the women/girls in chains is because those videos only show the males' participation in the Ashura Festival. If you follow the link above then you will find three more images from the Ashura procession and re-enactment complete with the captions from credible sources. “


  1. I noted this passage (above), from Esther Angel:

    "It is important to know that all innocent lives are equal in Islam. There is no difference between the rich and the poor, the man and the woman, the free and the slave. All are equal in the eyes of Allah Almighty."

    Ah! So Islam does accept slavery. How can you accept slavery and also the equality of those very same slaves? This is a blatant logical contradiction...

    Even if Muslims, and Muhammad, treated some slaves well, he still treated SLAVES well. He still had slaves. And slavery, in Islam, has continued to this very day. Who cares if a few individuals treat them OK or even "equally" - they are still both the slaves of Muslims and "the slaves of Allah".

    Also, "all innocent lives are equal". So who is deemed "innocent" in Islam? Not Jews. Not infidels. Perhaps not a single non-Muslim on the planet. As usual, if you actually analyse what Muslims say, a take away the interfaith jargon and even the seemingly positive texts in the Koran, you will find Islamic hate, racism, slavery, etc. underneath.

  2. Some people have told me that Esther Angel may be a male Muslim. I doubt that very much. She does the quintessential Leftist snobbery too well to be a Muslim.

    Also, when she defends Islam she always cuts and pastes; which an educated Muslim wouldn't do (unless to save time). When she does her Leftist snobbery and her hatred of the (non-Leftist) white working class, that's all genuine stuff.

    She/he/it could be male. She has gone by various other names and does stuff on Islamist hacking sites. But Leftists have gone so far in their TOTAL support of not just Muslims, but of Islamism, that there's hardly any difference in what matters)any more between the Islamists and their Leftist enablers.

  3. It's impossible to convince people like this that they are wrong. They are experts in the art of crimestop.

    Instead, show them up as the idiots they are to a wider audience. After all, what attracts people to left-ism is that their opponents are so easily mocked.

    Take that stupid thing she said about jihad not implying violence. Put what she said on a whole bunch of images from the most famous incidents of jihad. Or that 'everyone is equal in Islam' - except infidels, apostates, women, children, ethnic minorities, and those without beards.

    Stuff like that could be great for little summaries at the top of articles for those same leftist intellectual slobs who can't add two and two together without asking how it would benefit the Socialist State.

  4. Dear Esther Angel,

    If you didn't consistently ban me and report me, your FB friends did.

    Why do I associate you with Hope Not Hate? You posted many HNH articles. I have seen you on HNH websites and FB pages and you put HNH positions. What more do you want? Can I prove any of that? No. I don’t know how to do screenshots and you may have deleted any evidence anyway.

    At least you admit that you were HNH. So you fell out with HNH for personal reasons? That’s very shallow and hardly a political falling-out. That is, the disgraceful tactics of HNH only bothered you when a victim was a personal friend. Until then, you weren’t bothered?

    Again, you say that you’re not HNH or UAF. Don’t you at least admit that it would be very beneficial for these two movements, and their causes, to have people who deny being members (as you do)? That way they are not such an easy target. In the end, what matters is that you have the same positions as these groups. Not in detail because I never really remember you doing politics as such, just sarcastic comments about the EDL and cut-and-pastes from Islamic websites.

    You logic is terrible when you say that you and others can't believe in the no platform policy if you debate on FB pages, etc. Leftists will indeed debate on sites and FB pages when they can’t impose their no platform policy on those sites. If they can’t ban a page, or stop it, then they’ll ‘debate’ on it, as you did, until it is banned. There’s no contradiction there. You ban and silence when you can. But if you can’t, then you report the page or person and then ‘debate’ until he or it is silenced by Facebook, a by a student union, or whatever.

    I stopped ‘debating’ with you and your friends because it was easier for you to ‘report’ me if I posted on those pages. That’s why I stopped. If you have nothing on me (‘racist’, 'pornographic' images, etc.), you can’t report me to FB. It really is that simple. The no platform policy is about PUBLIC institutions. If I personally block someone, that has nothing to do with the Leftist policy which applies to FB as a whole, student unions, television interviews and to other PUBLIC arenas. As a private individual, I have no obligation NOT to block you.

    I won't respond to the rest of your post because this could go on forever...

  5. Paul. you blocked and banned me when you put the first blog up so I couldn't respond to any of these accusations and outright lies. If you steal my photo and then start making up bullshit about someone and refuse to hear their side, then you have adopted a no platform policy.

    As I said, if I did adhere to a no platform policy, I wouldn't be in various groups debating and having a laugh and a banter. Those UAF I know who do stick to a no platform policy (not an official UAF stance, but adopted by many all the same) would not be seen on such pages. You say "Why do I associate you with Hope Not Hate? You posted many HNH articles. I have seen you on HNH websites and FB pages and you put HNH positions."
    This is a blatant lie.

    What HnH and UAF do with regards to no platform has nothing to do with me. I am not a member of either and as I said I do not associate with HnH because I find some of their tactics distasteful and I fell out with them years ago.
    I do not post under another name and I very rarely delete comments or posts, only if there is no alternative or it is to protect someone from being doxxed. I am not in the least embarrassed about the comments I post and the FB group I'm admin in is open to view by all.

    The last time you could have possibly seen me comment on Hnh would have been a few years ago. It was a caption competition of a photo of Kevin Smith lifting up his shirt to show off a new tattoo. I was on there saying I disapproved of taking the piss out of someone's appearance instead of challenging their politics and views. I nearly got banned. After this I did not bother to look at the FB page again until early last month to see if their blog on Steve Littlejohn had been posted and to give them hell if they had done so. They hadn't and I just left the page again.

    HnH has nothing to do with me. I do not write their policies or any articles or blogs nor do I post any info to them.

    1. “… then you have adopted a no platform policy.”

      The no platform policy can’t be applied by a single person - me. It applies to parties, groups and institutions. Also, it only concerns the public sphere – as I’ve already said!!

      Also, I blocked you simply because your lot systematically got me banned by Facebook – around five times within a short time. I was fighting fire with fire. One ban lasted 30 days. My EDL Extra page was also closed down. So stop crying about one person, me, blocking one person, you. That is NOT an example of the no platform policy.

      “Those UAF I know who do stick to a no platform policy (not an official UAF stance, but adopted by many all the same) would not be seen on such pages.”

      Yes it is an official UAF stance! Weyman Bennett hardly gets through a week without asking for some group to be banned or silenced. Hope Not Hate changed its totalitarian position on this but only in response to much criticism – some from the Left. But the change is only verbal. They still try to ban groups and their supporters try to get Facebook to do the same with Facebook pages. And because they will deny being HNH, Lowles can deny it’s his policy.

      HNH doesn’t shout too loudly about its no platform policy because it knows that sometimes it doesn’t work. So now they they hypocritically say: ‘Let the Nazis make a fool of themselves.’ Something they simply DIDN’T believe until very recently. There are still HNH supporters defending that policy on its website and the leadership still supports it.

      The UAF doesn’t even hide it totalitarian views and methods. Have you noticed how the SWP internet site doesn’t even have places for comments? That’s how extreme they are. When it was hard copy, they just didn’t print anything critical. Now they go one step further by disallowing a comments section. Even HNH has a comments section, or at least Searchlight does.

      I personally think that UAF-SWP is far more extreme than HNH, but that HNH pretend ‘moderation’ is just tactical, as with the ‘non-Nazi patriotism’ that some, very few, HNH members affect.

  6. No, Paul, I never was HnH or UAF and my falling out with them was over their tactics including their no platform policies and it was very much political and long before they published that horrible blog on Steve this June.

    I am against anyone who is an extremist and who will stop at nothing to silence the opposition. I do not belong to that camp. I discuss. I sometimes have a laugh, but if you had talked to people who had known me a fair bit longer and were or still are admins on the EDL main page, then you would have realised I am not who you think I am. But you didn't take the time or bother to actually see if you had me sussed and instead went on to write lies about me.

    You just used the same brush to tar me as a lot of people who I dislike because of their tactics. You have also deleted my replies again. You clearly do not wish to allow me to reply or to defend myself and you are removing my right to free speech.

    If you prefer to see a conspiracy instead of seeing the truth, then I sadly concede that there is very little point in trying to discuss with you.

    1. “lling out with them was over their tactics including their no platform policies and it was very much political and long before they published that horrible blog on Steve this June.”

      You said yourself that was why you broke with HNH. Anyway. You are just one person. How much time, exactly, do you want me to spend on this – on you? Whether you are or are not HNH doesn’t change anything in the blog blog post above.

      “I am against anyone who is an extremist and who will stop at nothing to silence the opposition. I do not belong to that camp. I discuss. “

      No you’re not! Not on FB pages anyway. I don’t know what goes on in your mind and I don’t care. I responded to your comments and mindless defences of Islam on FB pages. Whether or not you also defend Buddhists and attack Trotskyists elsewhere doesn’t concern me. I am not an expert on Esther Angel and have no wish to be.

      Also, why is your language different here from the personal messages you have sent me, in which you threaten me with police action and said that I ‘wank over [your] picture’ - not very modest are you?

      You may not be HNH, but I’ve already replied to that point. You worked as a gang on that FB page. You were all obviously mates and the rest of them certainly are HNH or UAF. Again, if you’re not – so what? Your views are indistinguishable from them and you worked together as a gang, as you are now. Are you joined at the hip with this Anonymous guy because every time you appear here, so does he? It’s a bit like when I first had a run-in with you lot on that FB page and then, suddenly, my FB page had loads of visits from Leftists (who all sound the same with their smug, ‘clever’ sarcasm and personal stuff, but no politics) who had never visited the page before – ‘the herd of independent Leftist minds’.

      Your ‘right of free speech’? It only applies to the public sphere, not the private. This is MY private blog. I can do what I like, as when I blocked you. Arguments about free speech apply to the public sphere, as in newspapers, local councils and their actions, the BBC, etc. By your reasoning, you should allow Nazis into your home to discuss ‘Islamophobia’.

  7. If you don't care about who I am and whether your blog is accurate, then you shouldn't write one about me. You are having to deal with me on here because you blocked and banned me from contacting you on FB. If I'm not important enough for you to spend time on, then kindly remove the three blogs you posted about me. They do not reflect the truth, just what you wanted to see and believe about me.

    Shame you deleted my previous replies. They clearly stated I fell out with HnH in 2007. I do not "work as a gang" on FB or anywhere else. You have a very screwed perception, which is unsurprising as you also thought I was Gilly. It was very clear that you did not approach discussing with me with an open mind. You had me pegged before you ever really talked to me. That and the fact that you expected me to reply in a certain way did not allow you to approach the discussion with an open mind. So Gazza had a bit of a laugh at your expense. I did not ask him to join in, he is not on my fl and he just turned up and had a bit of a laugh. It lightened up the mood. You seem to take this FB malarkey too seriously by far!

    Meanwhile you are having a go at me over not countering the tactics of HnH more? May I remind you that it is you who are acting in a very similar manner with your unresearched blogs on people and by leaving up that Casuals blog on Julia Gregory in your "No More Child Abuse" group? Or has no one told you yet who she really is? That blog is a lie. She never was part of SLATEDL and only ever commented on there twice and has never even been on the Expose page and has never doxxed anyone. She also isn't a lefty. She is not political. She is the soon-to-be ex-wife of a member of the BNP who lives in Hove and because he gets very little BNP action down Brighton way he is active with Pompey EDL and linked to many other similar groups and people like Shane Calvert of NWI. Julia wants to divorce her husband. This blog appeared two days after she had the divorce papers served on him when he was in court. His name is Steven Sands. If you google his name and MfE you will be able to verify his court appearance. You are partaking in the harassment of a battered woman who has a marker against her with police because of the domestic violence Steve Sands put her through.

    No, the rest of the "gang" on FB are not HnH or UAF either. We've been through this and whether you believe me or not, those friends of mine who are UAF do not go to groups and pages like that to debate with the EDL or any of their splinter groups, the BNP and much less with the likes of NF and C18. Some of the people who were in Alan's Kuffars group are my friends, others are not.

    1. "... by leaving up that Casuals blog on Julia Gregory in your "No More Child Abuse" group? Or has no one told you yet who she really is? That blog is a lie. She never was part of SLATEDL and only ever commented on there twice and has never even been on the Expose page and has never doxxed anyone."

      Again, I have never heard of Julia Gregory and I've never heard of the 'No More Child Abuse' group. It's funny. You just accused me of paranoia (not with that word) and taking Facebook too seriously but all this stuff from you is Facebook-related and has zero to do with politics. It's all about YOU and the trials and tribulations of FB... I'm not sure what SLATEEDL is either, or 'doxxed'. You probably don't believe me. But so f-ing what.

      All those other names too. I have nothing - and I mean NOTHING - to do with NWI infidels. Has someone been feeding you false information? I left all these discussion pages after about a week because they depressed me and they get people nowhere. They are just gang fights with Leftist snobs trying to prove how morally and intellectually superior they are to EDL members. Pure Daily Mail but with Leftist spots on!

    2. Finally, the only thing I would change about those blogs is this:

      "I don't know for definite that Esther Angel is HNH, or that she isn't, but her views and attitudes more or less perfectly square with that group and its tactics."

      Will that do?