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.


Saturday, 1 August 2015

Hope Not Hate and the Coming English Civil War

Hope Not Hate has just published a report ( 'The Muhammed Cartoons') on a forthcoming cartoon exhibition which will feature the prophet Muhammed. It has also featured this exhibition in a recent website piece (click here).

The exhibition itself is scheduled for the 18th of September and it will take place in London.

This is the main claim of the piece:

Our report... reveals that while some people are supporting the exhibition out of a strong belief for free speech, others are hoping for a violent reaction from British Muslims in order to prove the incompatibility of Islam in the West.”

You can assume that the stated main worry (as opposed to the real one of being against the criticism of Muhammed) is that counter-jihadists “are hoping for a violent reaction from British Muslims”. As ever, if Muslims do react violently, non-Muslims will be blamed. ( Nick Lowles once blamed Charlie Hebdo for the Islamic violence against it which happened before the recent killings.)

So let's be absolutely clear here: Hope Not Hate wants to ban the exhibition. Nonetheless, Nick Lowles does say that “if the exhibition goes ahead” then his organisation will do X and Y. Though if Hope Not Hate has its way, it will be banned. (My bet is that it will be banned.)

What else would Hope Not Hate ban if it had the political power to do so? After all, the banning of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from the UK was a direct response to Hope Not Hate activism. (Here is Hope Not Hate itself claiming victory!)

Hope Not Hate's Position

Nick Lowles's position is ridiculous anyway. If acted upon, it would render almost all demonstrations, acts, groups, parties, etc. illegal simply because some of the people involved in them may be planning illegal acts elsewhere and at other times.

So let's bring this argument closer to home.

There will be many Hope Not Hate and Unite Against Fascism (UAF) supporters - and indeed leaders - who believe in violent revolution; that 'bankers', 'Tories', etc. should be strung up; and that “racists” and “fascists” should be imprisoned for what they believe, not for what they do. Many supporters of Hope Not Hate and UAF will have also indulged in violent political acts. Indeed, although Hope Not Hate is less violent than UAF, the violence of Hope Not Hate supporters is well documented (as can be seen on the Nope, Not Hope website).

Thus, by his own reasoning, Hope Not Hate exhibitions, demos or activities should also be banned. Indeed since Hope Not Hate has called for the banning of political parties, groups and individuals (as well being the main force behind the omnipresent Leftist “no platform” policy), it can be said that Hope Not Hate itself should be banned because of its communist or totalitarian inclinations.

We believe in free speech... but...”

Nick Lowles rather ridiculously says that Hope Not Hate's

opposition to the cartoon exhibition is not an attempt to curtail free speech....”

You can hear it coming, can't you?... “but”! Yes, Nick Lowles continues by saying “but to prevent a clear incitement to violence” the exhibition should be banned.

In any case, it all depends on what Lowles takes the words “incitement to violence” to actually mean. To him and to others socialists/”progressives”, many varied things will be seen as incitements to violence: critical remarks about Islam, Muhammed or the Koran; critical remarks about immigration; EDL demos; and so on. Indeed the very existence of patriotic parties and groups will be deemed as incitements to violence by Lowles and Hope Not Hate. And that's one of the reasons why Lowles's socialism or communism always leads to totalitarianism.

You can also see how Nick Lowles uses the old trick of “guilt by association”. He connects Anne Marie Waters (of Sharia Watch), for example, with all sorts of bogeymen. Nonetheless, the majority of these bogeymen have never carried out a terrorist attack; never condoned terrorist attacks; don't believe in violent revolution; and are committed to democracy and free speech. Their only real sin, then, is to criticise Islam. And because many followers of Islam have brown skin, that is indeed a sin to Hope Not Hate. After all, as many people know, Hope Not Hate is a racist organisation that has different moral and political standards for people of different colours.

The other strange thing is that just after mentioning Tommy Robinson and Anne Marie Waters, Lowles writes that counter-jihadists “make little or no distinctions between moderate or hardline followers of the religion”. Yet Tommy Robinson and Anne Marie Waters have made precisely that distinction. What happened to them? They were heavily and violently criticised by both Leftists and the Muslim community for doing so!

That must mean that if you make a distinction between hardline and non-hardline Muslims, you loose. And if you don't make such a distinction, you also loose.

Despite all that, some counter-jihadists do believe it's possible for some “Muslims and non-Muslims to get along peacefully” (to use Nick Lowles's words). Nonetheless, it's suicidal to place all our eggs in that basket. Because there are far too few Muslims who can be classed as moderate or reformist (discounting nominal or tribal/family Muslims), it would be madness to do so. Indeed look around the world to see which kind of Muslim is gaining the upper hand at present.

Perhaps there are more seemingly moderate Muslims in the UK simply because Muslims are currently a minority. But what's going to happen once the Muslim population increases? As it is, Muslims on the whole are far more radical and extreme than they were twenty or even ten years ago.

Nick Lowles's touchy-feely stuff (which is insincere anyway) about “Muslims and non-Muslims getting along peacefully together” isn't going to become a self-fulfilling prophesy any time soon.

Civil War?

The fact is that a civil war is very likely to occur in the UK whether or not there are any counter-jihadists or “far-rightists” egging it on. How do I know that? Well, Muslims have already caused civil conflicts in the UK dating back to 1989 and most notably in 1996 and 2001. (E.g., riots in Dewsbury, Bradford, Oldham, Burnley, Birmingham, London, etc.) There have also been Muslim riots in Paris, Oslo, Malmö, Marseilles, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Gothenburg, Stockholm, the Hague, Dijon, Tours, Orleans, Nantes, Grenoble, Toulouse and so on. And then there were the Islamic terror attacks in Europe: in Madrid (2004), Paris (1995, 1996), London (2005), Copenhagen (2015), Brussels (2014), Toulouse (2012), Montauban (2012), Frankfurt (2011), Stockholm (2010) and so on.

Now we can think globally and see what happens when Muslims live next to non-Muslims in the Philippines, southern Thailand, Burma, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Indonesia, Armenia, Albania, Chechnya, the Sudan, Libya, Nigeria. Israel/Gaza and so on. The list, basically, includes every country in which Muslims live next to non-Muslims. In virtually all cases, there is violence – often mass violence.

Civil war in the UK (rather than civil conflict) will be entirely dependent on Muslim demographics. In order for full-scale civil war to ensue (rather than civil conflict – which could occur tomorrow), the Muslim population would need to have reached a certain level – a certain critical mass.

Now when it comes to certain demographers on the Left, by 2050 the Muslim population would have only increased by one or two people. Some on the Right, on the other hand, have forecasted a British Muslim population of 100 million by the same period... As you can see, I'm joking. So all I can do here is cite the lowest possible figure of around fifteen million Muslims by 2050. However, the lowest estimate I've seen – by Channel 4 News - puts the Muslim population at 10% by 2050. (It doesn't give the numbers; though the percentage must mean that at least ten million Muslims will live in the UK by that date.) The Commentator, on the other hand, argues that Muslims will be the majority by 2050.

Consequently, Hope Not Hate and Lowles's fluffy (if insincere) words and anti-free speech actions will ultimately lead to more violence, not less.



1) Nick Lowles knows that every single banning, act of censorship or imprisoning that's ever occurred has been carried out under noble rationales not too dissimilar to his own. In other words, no one simply bans, censors or imprisons for the hell of it. Every banner or censurer in history has given a whole host of impressive reasons for doing so – just like Nick Lowles. It still ends up with the same result – banning, censorship or imprisonment.

So carry out this act of imagination. Imagine what would happen if Nick Lowles and Hope Not Hate had total/complete political power. I'm pretty sure that thousands of people (probably more) would need to be imprisoned and virtually all right-wing parties would be banned. Perhaps the Conservative Party wouldn't be... at first.

Of course this scenario is far-fetched in that even I can't see it happening. But the best way to stop such a thing happening is to understand the true nature of Nick Lowles and Hope Not Hate's politics. The more people who are fully aware of that, the less chance this totalitarian will have his way. And, luckily, many people do realise all this – even a couple of Conservative MPs probably do so. Having said that, HnH has the full support of the Mirror, various trade unions, all Labour MPs, most councils, the Guardian, the Independent, large parts of the legal establishment, the universities (at least at the official level) and so on.

2) Nick Lowles is a communist; though, for publicity reasons, I would guess that his preferred term would now be 'socialist'. Of course it's hard to establish Nick Lowles's views in terms of documentary evidence because the Guardian, the Independent and even right-wing newspapers have rarely interviewed him or even discussed him, let alone asked him what his political views are on issues not directly related to “fighting racism and fascism”.

And just as Lowles frequently attempts to besmirch people by associating them – however tangentially – with Nazifascistbigots, so we should do the same with Nick Lowles himself. For example, he can be linked to the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Communist Party of Britain and various extremely violent “anti-fash” groups in the 1980s and 1990s. (Matthew Collins, Lowles's second-in-command, began life as a black/Nazi fascist and is now a red fascist.)

What does Lowles think about, say, capitalism, “public ownership of the means of production”, what causes racism, the nature of the United States foreign policy, the Conservative Party and so on? He must have views on all these issues. And, indeed, some of his political and theoretical views on these things will determine to some extent his position on the nature of racism and fascism and what to do about them. So, again, other than being against racism and fascism, what does Nick Lowles believe? Is any Guardian or Independent journalist ever going to ask him these questions? After all, they scrutinised and quizzed the EDL's Tommy Robinson until the cows came home. Is Nick Lowles an untouchable simply because he's a Leftist rather than “far right”?

3) Some supporters and activists within Hope Not Hate and Unite Against Fascism yearn for such violence as much as Nick Lowles claims the “far right” does. After all, every communist/socialist revolution in the 20th century only occurred after much violence and political turmoil. “The worse, the better.”

4) The thing is that laws already exist “to prevent a clear incitement to violence”. (Though they're very rarely used against Muslims.) You can't ban simply on the whim of a theoretical interpretation of a future event or a set of words. And you can't ban before there is any actual incitement to violence.


1 comment:

  1. I applaud you as you work to keep free expression in the market place of ideas.