This blog initially set out to focus primarily on Islam and the Islamisation of the UK. However, since that time the subjects covered have broadened. They now include (amongst other things): IQ tests, Jean Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Marxism, Trotskyism, David Cameron, Foucault, Nazism, Ralph Miliband, economics, statistics and so on. - Paul Austin Murphy
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.)

Thursday, 17 August 2017

Daily Stormer's Nazis have more in common with socialists than with Trump

The National Socialist website, the Daily Stormer, has been dropped by its server (GoDaddy) because of what it said about the woman killed in Charlottesville. (The website, rather pathetically, said that Heather Heyer was a “fat, childless slut”.) Then the website briefly registered with Google, only to have its registration cancelled.

The Daily Stormer has almost exclusively been called a “white supremacist website” by the media. In actual fact, it's really a National Socialist website; which has white supremacism as a byproduct (as it were) of that ideology.

In parallel to all that, much – very much! - has been made of Donald Trump's “failure to condemn white supremacists” and the KKK; just as much – very much! - was made of Steven Bannon's links to the Alt-Right. 
The Daily Stormer's Andrew Anglin.

Yet the Daily Stormer (or its editor, Andrew Anglin) and other National Socialists despise the Republicans - and Donald Trump personally - in very many ways. Trump himself – throughout his life - has always been a capitalist, a believer in (American) “capitalist democracy”, the First Amendment and non-raced-based politics (unlike Nazis, Black Lives Matter, Al Sharpton, Diane Abbott, etc.). In no way whatsoever is Trump either a National Socialist or an International Socialist. In addition, there are very many anti-racists in the Republican Party, including many supporters of Trump himself. That, according to the Daily Stormer, makes all of them “race traitors”.

Sure, there are elements of Trump's Republican Party which “white nationalists” relate to; just as there are many elements of International Socialism and black supremacism which they also relate to. (The Daily Stormer's Andrew Anglinrecently praised the British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn for his fierce position against Israel and his hatred of Jews.) You can always find some common ground with a political leader. As I said, even though white Nazis hate the Republicans; they still see them as a better bet than the Democrats; just as Trotskyists and communists would rather support the Democrats or Corbyn's Labour Party than the Republican Party or the Conservative Party. 

Jeremy Corbyn image. Found in the Daily Stormer.

Thus it's not a surprise that Mr Anglin said that Trump had “outright refused to disavow” his fellow National Socialists.

The upshot here is that - yes, there's a continuum from the Republicans to National Socialists; just as there is a continuum from the Democrats and the British Labour Party to Trotskyists and communists. Logically speaking, there's even a continuum between “centrist parties” and the political extremes. That's what is meant by the word “continuum”.

In addition, my - and many other people's - claim that Daily Stormer readers - and other National Socialists - are socialists may seem ridiculous (or extreme) to... well,International Socialists. The clue, however, is in the name. Sure, it takes more than the name 'National Socialist' to make the Daily Stormer - or other National Socialists - socialist.

So here goes.

This is Andrew Anglian writing in 2013 in his other website Total Fascism (which is also now defunct):

We will initiate massive state-subsidized work programs in order to fulfill our goal of full employment at fair and just wage… the capitalist system has created a war between the classes. The losers of this war have been the working class… the modern class structure being based largely on one’s economic prowess… The spoils of this parasitical elite class will be seized and redistributed to the people.”

And here's the words of the guy who inspired Anglin's own words, Adolf Hitler:

We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” - May 1, 1927

International Socialism vs. National Socialism

What we have here is a tribal war between National Socialists and International Socialists (e.g., communists and Trotskyists). Indeed this endless war has become a little boring after all these decades.

International Socialists are parasitic on National Socialists; and vice versa.

However, much of the media is far more happy with Internationalist Socialists than it is with National Socialists. That's why we've had saturation coverage of what happened in Charlottesville. On the other hand, we had virtually no coverage (especially in the UK!) of all the International Socialist and anarchist violence in American universities - and on the streets - over the last year or so.

The leftwing/"progressive” and Liberal-Left parts of the media (as well as the Labour and Democrat parties) often class - or simply see - International Socialists as being part of their own “progressive broad church”. Republicans and Conservatives, on the other hand, don't class - or see - National Socialists (or fascists) as being part of their own broad church.

The British Labour Party has many links with numerous Trotskyists and communists. The British Conservative Party, on the other hand, has literally zero links with Nazis and fascists. As for Nazi links to the Republicans – they're almost all extremely tangential in nature (e.g., pro-Trump tweets on Twitter from Nazis). The British Labour Party, on the other hand, has a leader, Andrew Murray, who left the Communist Party of Britain in December 2016 to join Corbyn's Labour Party. He was immediately made the party's “election chief”.

To take another example. The Labour Party's own subgroup of agitators, Momentum, is full to the brim with Trotskyists and communists (often ex-Socialist Workers' Party/Alliance for Workers' Liberty) who – all of a sudden - decided to throw in their hats with Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party once it was clear that it had adopted full-blown “radical socialism” (one of Corbyn's own descriptions of his political position).

Thus - with Trump, Charlottesville, Leftist violence in the universities and Trotskyists and communists in the British Labour Party - there's an extreme, omnipresent and longstanding double-standard at work in much of the media and elsewhere. And that's why, to take just one more example, Metro (a British newspaper) didn't just have one article today (15.8.2017) on what happened in Charlottesville - it had four separate ones! Yet this British newspaper virtually never mentioned the frequent and very violent leftwing violence that has occurred in the United States over the last year or so.

Finally, all this means that we should start treating International Socialists (Trotskyists, communists, etc.) in the same way we treat National Socialists (Nazis, fascists, white supremacists, etc.). Only then can we take the media seriously when it sternly and piously comments on Donald Trump's reactions (or lack thereof) to what happened in Charlottesville.

Wednesday, 9 August 2017

Saint Jeremy of Islington

It's often said that Jeremy Corbyn is a “different kind of politician”. (This was also said about Tony Blair, Barack Obama, Margaret Thatcher, Bernie Sanders, Arnold Schwarzenegger... ad infinitum.) That he's been “unblemished from any scandal”. And it's also said that Corbyn's a “genuine politician who has never compromised or changed his political ideas in his life” (more of which later).

There are many replies to all the above.

Until Jeremy Corbyn became the leader of the Labour Party in September 2015, he'd never been a leader within a political party. He was indeed leader  of the Trotskyist/communist Stop the War Coalition from 2011 to 2015. (Not every member/supporter of the StWC is a Trotskyist/communist.) He'd never even been in a Shadow Cabinet. Thus it's unlikely that he'd be “blemished” by any scandal. Sure, some humble MPs are sometimes blemished without actually being leaders. Though, as everyone knows, most media attention is focused on leaders or high-profile MPs.

Take the example of Tony Blair. He was often called “Teflon Tony” by the media. However, that name was only applied to Blair when he was Prime Minister. (He wasn't seen as Teflon Tony before he became PM.) Indeed he didn't really acquire that image until the Iraq War in 2003 – seven or so years after he was elected PM.

And is it the case that Jeremy Corbyn is unblemished anyway?

He's unblemished by any financial scandal. So what about political scandals – such as his support from the IRA, Trotsky, Lenin, the Soviet union, Hamas, Hezbollah, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and his he desire to abolish the army? Why only focus on financial scandals or sexual infidelities? (It can be argued that personal financial scandals don't affect as many people as political scandals do.) Yes, Corbyn's supporters can easily select instances in which Corbyn is clean and ignore those cases in which he isn't clean. One can do the same with Tory MPs or politicians who've been involved in financial scandals.

As for the fact that Corbyn is a “genuine politician who had never compromised or changed his political ideas in his life”.

Read that back and think about it. Corbyn has never compromised or changed his political ideas in his life. Is the fact that Corbyn adopted his socialist views at sixteen - and that he still believes them at 68 - meant to be a good thing?

If someone changes their views in order to gain political office (though there are signs that Corbyn is doing that) or for reasons of pragmatics, that's a bad thing. However, to never grow or learn politically, that must surely be a bad thing. Hitler, David Cameron, Gary Lineker might also have first believed what now believe at 16. So what? Again, why is that automatically – if at all - a good thing?

Chameleon Corbyn”?

Even though this piece is critical of Corbyn's politics, it's still the case that we shouldn't class him as “Chameleon Corbyn”. That's because he's now doing what all/most politicians do when they gain positions of power or influence. Rather, I think that the problem with Corbyn is the opposite: he's an extremely rigid ideologue. Everything he believes his filtered through radical-socialist ideology and theory. Nothing remains untouched by the ideology he's held since he was sixteen years old. In that sense, he's certainly not a chameleon. He may be forced (as it were) to be a chameleon now that he's Leader of the Opposition; though, as I said, that's true of all politicians.

The fact that there's a clash between Corbyn's ideological rigidity and the fact that he's also the leader of a political party (attempting to become the government) can be seen with various examples.

Corbyn (as radical socialist) would like to abolish the army and dismantle Trident. This man was also a leader of the Stop the [Western Capitalist] War Coalition until he became leader of the Labour Party. He's still a member of CND. Yet, as leader of the Labour Party, he and his party have focused on the Tory Party down-funding the army; as well as down-funding the police.

What about Brexit?

Corbyn is so obviously against the EU that it's quite silly to deny it. Yet he's part of a party which includes many Europhiles/anti-Brexiteers. The radical-socialist ideologue within him, then, clashes with the demands of realpolitik. Of course I could of course be wrong about Corbyn and the EU. However, all radical socialists since the 1970s have been radically against the EU. Even most moderate (or “democratic”) socialists have been anti-EU. Corbyn himself has repeatedly spoken out against it. So is it unfair of me to mention Corbyn's anti-EU/pro-EU schizophrenia?

If Corbyn is truly anti-EU (as I believe he obviously is), then many Labour voters may well get a shock when - or if - he's elected. A profound shock in the sense that being pro-EU is of vital importance to a number of Labour voters; though this is far more true of Labour MPs.

And then there's “student debt”...

Monday, 7 August 2017

Sir Vince Cable's vicious outburst against old Brexiteers

Perhaps the Lib Dem leader, Sir Vince Cable, thought that he could get away with his nasty tirade (as written in the Daily Mail) against old people simply because he's old himself. (Cable is 74 years old.) Wouldn't that be like a black man making racist jokes against blacks? Yes, it's certainly the case that Cable can still be a bigot against old people even if he is 74; just as a black man can still be racist even if black.

It's very odd that Cable should use the word “fanatical Brexiteers” in his very ownfanatical outburst against old Brexiteers. It's also strange that Cable talked about “an undercurrent of violence in the language [of Brexiteers] which is troubling”. Again, that could perfectly sum up Cable's own words! He should look in the mirror.

The other strange thing is that Cable made himself the honourable exception to all those old people who don't care about the young today (or about future generations). Yet if he cares so deeply about the young (at the same time as being old), then so too may many other old people. Of course if Cable arrogantly assumes that only by embracing his own Europhilia can old people care about the young, then that - as a matter of definition – automatically rules out any other ways of caring about the young. That means that old Brexiteers can't care for the young simply because they don't hold the same views as Sir Vince Cable. How arrogant is that of Vince Cable?

Almost everything Vince Cable said to the Mail (on Sunday) is full of bigotry, arrogance and smugness. Firstly, he said that Brexiteers would be happy to see the economy fail if it meant leaving the EU. No; that doesn't make Brexiteers happy. They don't believe that the economy will fail after Brexit. And even if it does fail (which is something Cable is hoping for), that doesn't mean that they would be happy about it. It simply means that old Brexiteers don't believe that this is going to happen.

It's certainly true that a YouGov poll “suggested” that 61% of Leave voters thought a damaged economy was a price worth paying for leaving the EU. That was probably a direct and honest answer to a very biased and loaded question. What Brexiteers want is an end to the “democratic deficit” that's been brought about by the EU. People – not only the old - don't want the bureaucratic elite in Brussels imposing its political will and laws on the British public.

I too believe that a certain degree of “damage to the economy” is a price worth paying for democracy. Indeed Brexiteers have never said that there will be no economic cons to leaving the EU. There will, however, also be many economicpros; as well as end to the democratic deficit.

So why does Sir Cable see all this in purely economic terms? Is he a Marxist or a “market fundamentalist”? The economy is important, sure; though let's not get reductionist about its importance. There is more to life than the economy. And there's more to politics than economics. 

Cable also said that the “old have comprehensively shafted the young”. What? Allold people? Every single one of them? And what does he mean by “shafted” anyway? Have the old shafted the young simply because they don't believe what he believes?

Cable also wrote the following:

And the old have had the last word about Brexit, imposing a world view coloured by nostalgia for an imperial past on a younger generation much more comfortable with modern Europe.”

I think that is a gross generalisation about what motivates Brexiteers – young and old. The great “imperial past” of Great Britain came before the early 1950s. How many adults of that period are still voters today? That begs the question: What does Cable mean by “old”? Is he referring to those born before and just after the war? Or is he referring to everyone over 40? In other words, is Cable hoping for the Yoof Vote – just like Corbyn?

To top his indulgent and aggressive rhetoric, Cable brought up “Brexit jihadis”. I mean... that really is taking the biscuit! He's beginning to sound like a Lib Dem Dave Spart.

Sunday, 30 July 2017

A Lesson from Cambridge University: “All white people are racist.”

A black student at Cambridge University has just said that “all white people are racist”. (This was in response to the riots in Dalston, east London.) His name is Jason Osamede Okundaye. He's also the President of the Black and Minority Ethnic society at the University.

Okundaye wrote:

All white people are racist. White middle class, white working class, white men, white women, white gays, white children they can ALL geddit.”

The other fantastically ironic thing is that he also claimed that “middle-class white people” have “colonised” Dalston. In full:

Watching these middle-class white people despair over black people protesting in their colonised Dalton is absolutely delicious.”

Of course when white people claimed that Dalston was formerly colonised by black people, they'd have been classed as racist by Diane Abbott and many other anti-racists. Though since blacks can't be racist (they don't “have the power”), then this statement can't be racist either. Nothing a black person says or does can be racist. That's according to the standards of the various and many anti-racist theorists and academics who exist today; some of whom will teach at Okundaye's Cambridge University. 

Predictably, once the news spread beyond the Students' Union and the University itself, a spokesperson from the University said: “The College is looking into this matter and will respond appropriately.”

However, if blacks can be racist, then what can Cambridge University do about this? Jason Osamede Okundaye has done nothing wrong. That is, according to many theorists and academics at Cambridge University, he's done nothing wrong. He's black and therefore he can't be a racist. He's only a victim. Not a suspect or even a free agent. He's a black man. A man infantilised by anti-racist theory and activists.


According to Trinity College [Cambridge] Students' Unionwebsite:

BME, Black and Minority Ethnic, is a term used in the UK to describe people of non-white descent.”

Thus the Black and Minority Ethnic society seems to think that all people who aren't white have something in common. That's from middle-class African blacks (likeJason Osamede Okundaye?) to deprived Indians who've been given a scholarship. Thus this institution is racist for the simple reason that it places an absolute emphasis on race and colour. What better definition of racism can there be? After all, racism can be both positive and negative. Presumably, the BME sees itself as practicing and promoting positive racism; though it won't use the word “racism” about itself.

Indeed at Cambridge University there are academic courses which teach that “all white people are racist”. They won't, of course, use the same inflammatory “discourse” which Jason Osamede Okundaye uses. Nonetheless, he's the logical and political conclusion of such theoretical and academic anti-white racism.

For example, there has been a series of seminars on Critical Race Theory in July this year at Cambridge University. The University also featured “research” under the headline: 'Racism in the US runs far deeper than Trump's white supremacist fanbase'. (It was written by Nicholas Guyatt, a Cambridge University lecturer.) More relevantly, the University of Cambridge published a piece which states that it's wrong to single out or “demonize” the “white working class for racism”; when, as a matter of fact, all white people are racist. (This, I presume, is class prejudice.)

So I wonder if Jason Osamede Okundaye will win one of the award categories Cambridge University Students' Union (CUSU) has announced as part of its “anti-racism campaign”. After all, what better way is there of being anti-racist than being racist against all whites?


Jason Osamede Okundaye is digging his own grave anyway; even if he is a student at Cambridge University. If “all white people are racist”, then that must be some kind of racial fact. A fact about white DNA, perhaps. And if that's the case, there's nothing white people can do about it. Therefore condemning white racism is pointless. It's racial. It's genetic. It's a given. So why the political and moral outrage? Changing white racism would be like changing the colour of one's skin or how many fingers one has.

It's also ironic that this black racist is a member of a Cambridge University “equality group”. Although only black and brown people can be members, many white middle-class Trotskyists, communists and progressives will support it to the hilt. And these are the very people aiming Jason Osamede Okundaye is aiming his racist words at.

This is a variation on the more polite and theoretical anti-white racism of people like Diane Abbott; who, rather predictably, has also stuck her own nose into the Dalston riots. From her previous statements, she believes more or less the same things as Jason Osamede Okundaye. For example, in 2012 she wrote:

"White people love playing 'divide and rule' We should not play their game."

In 1988, when, at a black studies conference in Philadelphia, she claimed that "the British invented racism”. She also made a racist comment about Finnish nurses.

Jason Osamede Okundaye is the logical/political conclusion of academic “anti-racism”. So reap the harvest!

Friday, 28 July 2017

Baby “shambles” over Brexit!

'Shambles' = A state of total disorder.

First things first. The Government, after Brexit, will not stop the entry off all EU “nationals” into the United Kingdom. What it will (or should) do is stop the automatic right of entry of all EU nationals into the United Kingdom. That means that if EU nationals have something to offer the United Kingdom, then the government will (or should) allow them in. If they have nothing to offer, then they shouldn't be allowed in.

Thus it's not a surprise that a Labour MP, Pat McFadden (a Blairite Europhile member of Open Britain), has accused the government of making a “shambles” of Brexit. Labour is itself in a shambles over Europe. (“Shambles” is McFadden's word.)

Many Labour MPs are very strongly in favour of EU. Many other Labour MPs (mainly radical-socialist Corbynites) are strongly against it.

In any case, the movement of skilled workers won't end after Brexit. What hopefully will end, according to Immigration Minister Brandon Lewis, is the “[f]ree movement of labour”.

And because Brexit doesn't mean that EU workers will stop coming to the UK (it'll be their automatic right to come that will stop), Amber Rudd (to the Financial Times) said:

I want to reassure businesses and EU nationals that we will ensure there is no 'cliff edge' once we leave the bloc.”

Rudd went on to tell us that

what we’ll need is a new system and we’ve said that that new system will have a proposal whereby new EU workers coming here will need to register”.

If the government will allow skilled EU immigrants in, then it's a surprise that Michael Gove has said that a “pragmatic” approach to Brexit would mean that the “freedom of movement” may continue until 2023.

So there is indeed a (baby) shambles here. That's to be expected. This is a big and complicated issue. That hasn't stopped, however, the Pat McFadden from milking this issue.

Nonetheless, pro-Brexit Labour MPs also have a problem. Frank Field, for one, has called the change “alarming”. And, not surprisingly, the CBI also wants “clarity” on this issue.


The main thing is that because various newspapers, activists and politicians are fanatically against Brexit (as well as the fact that Brexit is indeed a big and complicated thing), then we're bound to have almost daily reports about the shambles that is Brexit. Take most – or all - of them with a pinch of salt. These shambles are probably neither epic nor disastrous. However, there will indeed be teething problems for Brexit. Of course there will!

Scaremongering about “skill shortages” and the rest is exactly that: scare-mongering. If there are hordes of European brains surgeons, doctors or quantum physicists wanting to come in - and we need every single one of them, then let them in. No problem. If a EU “citizen” wants to come here to sell drugs or live off the dole, then we shouldn't let him in. (Providing, of course, the government can find out these things beforehand.)

Finally, one of the main motivations for “free movement of labour” (as far as the EU leadership is concerned) is that this will help bring about a EU super-state. It's not, therefore, primarily about “open borders” or “free movement”. This is an attempt to substitute small nations (or states) with a single very-large state. The free movement of European peoples is but a means to help bring that about.

Monday, 24 July 2017

Saint Jeremy's halo looses its glow over student debt

Various people - of many political persuasions - have accused Jeremy Corbyn of “misleading students” over student debt and fees. Others have also said that Corbyn “indicated” - during the election campaign – that he'd wipe out the sums owed by students. 

It seems, then, that Corbyn is a “typical politician” after all.

That means that of course Jeremy Corbyn, Momentum and the Labour Party were using students as “election fodder”. (Except that most middle-class students want to be fodder for radical socialism.) Indeed Corbyn has also focused much of his attention on all those middle-class Trotskyists and communists who flocked to the Labour Party (like flies to shit) once he became Chairman of the Labour Party.

So, yes, Corbyn was never explicit about student debt. Politicians are rarely explicit about anything. Again, that's to be expected – except in the case of a saint.

Apart from what Corbyn actually did and didn't say, the Labour Party did promise (i.e., before the election) to end tuition fees. That would have cost £7.5 billion a year.

Labour also promised to restore maintenance grants. That will mean that if Labour had been elected, it would have spent an extra £11.2 billion on higher education... or would it?


In an interview with the NME, Jeremy Corbyn said that he didn't see why those students who have the “historical misfortune” of large fees should be “burdened excessively” when compared to other people.

That's fairly vague. Basically, it can be taken as an explicit promise and not as an explicit promise. Those that wanted it to be an explicit promise (i.e., students) took it as an explicit promise. Most sceptics doubted the promise from the very beginning.

Thus it's not a big surprise that Jeremy Corbyn told the BBC's Andrew Marr that his comments weren't a “commitment” to erase student debt. After all, he said that before the election. And now Corbyn is backtracking (at least a little) after the election. That is, students have already done the business – they voted for Corbyn's radical socialism.

Jeremy Corbyn retrospectively tells is – in reference to his promises to students - that the Labour Party “had written the manifesto in a short space of time because there was a surprise election”. Does he also apply the logic of off-the-cuff manifestos to all the other parties, including the Conservative Party?

Some of Corbyn's other post hoc statements sound a little strange... and that's putting it mildly. For example, Corbyn also says that he “did not make a commitment we would write it off because I couldn’t at that stage”. What does that mean? He seems to be making the point that because Labour wasn't in power before the election (never?); then, because of that fact, he didn't have the power (at that time) to erase student debt. What? Of course he didn't! Yet he was campaigning to have that power. He wasn't promising jam sandwiches tomorrow asShadow Prime Minister. He was promising jam sandwiches tomorrow if he were elected.

Corbyn also said that the Labour Party was “unaware of the size of it [the “debt burden] at the time”. Now that just sounds like plain bullshit. One, he should have been aware. Two, if he was aware, then Corbyn is misleading the public again.


It was very easy for Saint Jeremy to be a saint when he wasn't a political leader. Very easy. It's also very easy to be “principled” (as his disciples put it) when you don't have much political power. Sure, Corbyn is principled in the rather pathetic sense that he believes the same thing now (more or less) as he believed when he converted to socialism when he was 16 (in 1964). Is that supposed to be a good thing – believing at 68 what you believed at 16?

Corbyn shows us that he's a liar and misLeader just like most other politicians; and, indeed, many ordinary mortals. That's not the problem. The problem is the way Corbyn's supporters portray him as some kind of secular saint. Yet he's lied about his support for the IRA even before this student baloney. Again, it's not the lying: it's the image Corbynites have created around Saint Jeremy. A self-serving and obviously duplicitous image manufactured about a man who has praised Hamas and Hezbollah, Trotsky, the Soviet Union, Lenin and Castro. 

Saint Jeremy is a very strange saint.

Saturday, 22 July 2017

The BBC and Gary Lineker are Pro-Market... On the Sly

In reference to Gary Lineker spending £630 each night at a Los Angeles hotel, Lineker's “representative”, Jon Holmes, said: “The market has set the rate.”

Does that mean that Gary Lineker (despite his pro-Corbyn and leftwing statements) is actually pro-market? Well, his representative certainly is.

Not surprisingly, then, Gary Lineker's agent also reacted defensively to criticism of Gary Lineker's £1.8 million BBC pay p/racket. But that doesn't matter. Lineker is a “progressive anti-racist”. Being paid massive amounts is only a sin if you're right-wing and/or wear suits and ties. And, as we all know, all sorts of millionaire rock/pop stars, actors and film-makers make millions. Though they're also politically hip. So that's okay then.

This BBC hypocrisy has even been debated in Parliament. MPs have said that BBC big knobs should be questioned about their special high-earners. For example, take the presenter of Radio 5 Live, Stephen Nolan. This geezer earned between £400,000 and £450,000 last year. (He also faces scrutiny for allegedly “hiding” extra payments.)

These very high BBC salaries – which almost equal those of many leftwing/progressive Chancellors/professors at various British universities – are quite amazing if one keeps in mind the fact that the BBC is funded by the British people in the form of license fees.

Thus the BBC believes in the capitalist market. And The BBC doesn't believe in the capitalist market.

As for Gary Lineker himself. I wouldn't class him as a typically vicious and nasty (Dave Spart-like) supporter of Jeremy Corbyn (of which there are many). I suppose he seems like a decent bloke. He even posted a tweet in which he said that it's an “outrage” that he's paid less than DJ Chris Evans (who earned £2.5 million last year).

Nonetheless, I'm not as critical of the aforementioned Chris Evans as I am of Gary Lineker. That's because the former hasn't supported the radical socialist, Jeremy Corbyn. 

As just stated, Gary Lineker is a supporter of Saint Jeremy. (Lineker publicly stated that he voted for Corbyn at the June 8th election.) Indeed the website Vicepenned an article called 'How Gary Lineker Became the British Left's Loudest Voice'. According to this article, Lineker has “taken down” Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and supported refugees (Without, of course, letting refugees live in his very expa/ensive British home or in his £2 million house in Barbados.)

However, like many other supporters of Jesus H. Corbyn, Lineker has a problem with Corbyn's extremely ambivalent position on Brexit and the EU. Thus we can conclude by saying that Lineker is a Corbynite apart from his very strong championship of the European Union (which Corbyn certainly doesn't share).

Let's face facts. There are very many extremely rich and well-off socialists, Corbynites and progressives: from Gary Lineker and Michael Moore to Seumas Milne and George Soros; from George Monbiot and Naomi Klein to Madonna and George Clooney.

However, earning a hell of a lot of money doesn't cause any of these people any moral or political problems whatsoever. There are two main reasons for that:

1) There are always some people who are even richer than they are! (They're usually billionaires in suits and ties who run businesses; which is so unhip!) After all, inequality is relative, isn't it?
2) It doesn't matter if you're very rich, as long as you're also leftwing or progressive.

The BBC itself is in a terrible predicament. This institution is politically Liberal-Left (i.e., its general “editorial position” is Liberal-Left). Indeed a few BBC journalists are radical socialists like Corbyn. The BBC is also a capitalist institution which wants to make as much money as it can. That means that its Liberal-Left or leftwing “values” come up full square against its practices or actions (e.g., the salaries of BBC employees). This clash between human nature and leftwing piety can also be seen with Micheal “nine homes” Moore, Roger Waters (of Pink Floyd), Seumas Milne and Andrew Philip Drummond-Murray (two well-off public-school boys who now run Corbyn's political machine), Charlotte Church (a Corbyn supporter), Emma Watson (actress, feminist and progressive “activist”), George Soros and many other members of the rich leftwing “tribe of independent minds”.