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.)

Friday, 17 November 2017

Facebook banned me for tying Islamic terror to... well, Islam


Add caption

A week or so ago I was banned (again!) by Facebook for critical comments I made about Islam. I was reported by a Muslim female called Farnaz Javed. This Muslimah frequently carries out Islamic Da‘wah on a Facebook discussion page called The Great British Political Debate. In other words, she does very little politics; and what politics she does do is always connected to Islam in some way.

I've been reported – and subsequently banned – by Facebook before, either by Muslims or by their leftwing enablers. Indeed I've been previously banned after debating with this very woman. I also know other people who suspect that it was this woman who reported them to Facebook. Who knows how many other people Farnaz Javed has reported over the months.  


Facebook's Community Standards

Facebook firstly told me (see image) that

[i]t looks like something you posted doesn't follow our Community Standards”.

They aren't “community” standards at all because the users of Facebook don't formulate them. Facebook itself does. (This is Facebook's Community Standards page.)

And then Facebook stated its position this way:

We remove posts that attack people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability.”

One can argue that one's race, ethnicity, national origin, gender and disability are things one simply can't do anything about. However, that's certainly not true of one's “religious affiliations”. As adults, we choose (or should choose) our religious affiliations; just as we choose our politics. And that's why - I presume - the category political affiliations isn't included on Facebook's list. Despite saying that, Facebook's clause against “attacking religious affiliations” is something that most newspapers and other institutions (in the US and UK) uphold, especially if those religious affiliations are Islamic.

The other thing is that it's simply not true that Facebook removes all the posts which “attack people based” because of their “race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability”. If they did, then huge numbers of posts would be “removed”. Indeed - depending on how words like “attack”, etc. are defined/interpreted - such a strict policy would probably put an end to political discussion on social media. This means that Facebook is in practice extremely choosy about which posts it removes and which people it bans.

For example:

i) Facebook won't remove posts which are critical of Americans.
ii) It won't remove posts which are critical of whites.
iii) It won't remove posts which are critical of heterosexuality or what's called “patriarchy”.
iv) It will rarely (if ever) remove posts which are critical of Christianity.

Thus Islam - as almost everyone who's familiar with Facebook knows - gains extra-special protection. And this unhealthy situation is added to by the large army of Muslims (along with their leftwing foot-soldiers) who always report the most effective criticisms of Islam to Facebook... I say “the most effective criticisms” because the mindless ones (or the ones which are genuinely racist or full of swearwords) often escape scot-free. This is because they aren't seen as being a real political threat by Muslims and their leftwing lackeys. It's the comments which are factual and argument-based that are more quickly and most often reported to Facebook – and for obvious reasons.
To return to Farnaz Javed and the banning.

Farnaz Javed (like many other Muslims on Facebook) doesn't really do debate at all – at least not when it comes to Islam and her fellow Muslims. She lies and does Islamic Da‘wah instead. Indeed sometimes her lies are so brazen and obvious that one wonders why she bothers. Actually, I know why she bothers. Taqiyya is written into Islam. So too is Da‘wah. This means that every time she lies (or sells Islam) to non-Muslims, she must believe that this will take her one step closer to Islam's Paradise.

As for some of the leftwingers helpers of Islam on this page and others like it, they won't mind Farnaz Javed's lies simply because they believe that by ignoring them this will help their fight against what they see as racism/Islamophobia. And like Islamic taqiyya, leftwingers also have their own notions of “lying for Justice” and “by any means necessary”.

Anyway, what Farnaz Javed is doing is what Muslim countries have been doing since the time of Muhammed: she's attempting to enforce sharia blasphemy law.

The Comment Itself

Now let's look at the comment which led to the banning.

The comment (see image) doesn't uses swear words, profanities or any gratuitous insults. It may indeed be that the post is slightly rhetorical. However, there are no lies in it. In any case, rhetoric can often be fused with fact and argument. Except that, of course, pointing these facts out will be seen – by definition – as being “offensive”, “insulting” or an “attack” – at least to Muslims; and now, it seems, to Facebook too.

In addition, the comment never says that “all” or “every” Muslim is a terrorist; or even that every Muslim is a “supporter of terrorism”. It even acknowledges the possibility of “Christian terrorists” (such words were used by Farnaz Javed and indeed others on this page) when it says “I am prepared to accept that there been some recent Christian terrorists”. It even states that “there are WHITE/CHRISTIAN killers”.

However, I find my own statements on Christian terrorism (in retrospect) to be conceeding too much.

On one hand, leftwingers and Muslims consistently and deliberately conflate the notions of killing for Christianity and killers who just happen to be Christians. On the other hand, when Muslim terrorists kill, they kill for Islam and in the name of the Prophet.

In any case, Timothy McVeigh, for example, was a self-described “agnostic” who didn't believe in Hell and who said that science was his religion.

As for Norway's Anders Breivik. He described himself as an “agnostic” and only a“cultural Christian”. Not only that: he also believed in abortion, prostitution and vampires. Indeed even Andrew Brown (a writer on religion for the leftwing Guardian newspaper) said that 'Anders Breivik is not Christian but anti-Islam'. In addition, in a Huffington Post article ('Is Anders Breivik a Christian Terrorist?') there's a quote which says that Breivik

classed himself as a 'cultural Christian' with no religious feelings or views”.

That same article then quotes Anders Breivik himself saying:

"I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a mono-cultural Christian Europe.”

It can hardly be said that a Muslim killer of Western soldiers or civilians would ever come even close to saying that he's “not an excessively religious man“; that he's “foremost a man of logic”; and that he's an “agnostic” who doesn't believe in Hell.

To get back to the comment.

The point, again, is that most of the post is factual:

i) It's a fact that “very many Muslims [not all, obviously] are terrorists and are killing on a massive scale throughout the Muslim world and even in Europe and the US”.
ii) It's a fact that “Muslims have killed dozens of thousands of people in the last twenty years”.
iii) Finally, it's a fact that many of them did so “in allegiance to Islam and the life and works of the Prophet Muhammad”.

To repeat. The death, oppression and persecution of non-Muslims in the Muslim world is a factual reality - to those who care to look! And everyone knows that we have have a problem with Islamic terrorism in the West.

The “removed” comment tried to account for all that.

Conclusion

As it is, we can say that there are so many Muslims on the planet - and that Islam has lasted for so long - precisely because of actions like Farnaz Javed's. That is, for 1,350 years Islam has disallowed literally all criticism of Islam, Muhammad and the Koran. That is truer today than it was a hundred years ago.

One other reason for Islam's longevity and demographics is that Islam is passed on from generation to generation within this very context of complete “submission” and universal blasphemy law.

That's why Islam has survived and has large numbers of believers.

And this censorious and oppressive Islamic reality is what Farnaz Javed wants to bring to Facebook. The big problem is, Facebook seems very happy to enable Farnaz Javed's Islamic mission.

Wednesday, 8 November 2017

Metro says 'Allahu Akbar' means 'Hug one another'






'Allahu Akbar’ means 'God is greatest'.”

Well, that's an improvement because many non-Muslims (at least those involved in the Church of Interfaith) usually translate it as “God is great”; as does one tweet used in the article itself. Of course that means that such an innocuous translation looses a very important aspect of this Islamic phrase.

It's this accurate or genuine translation which gives the game away. That is, the phrase is comparative to other gods and religions. The Muslims who use it are effectively saying: Allah is greater than your god! That's how it was originally used some 1,400 years ago and that's how it's used today. Thus the words “Allahu Akbar” are a statement of Islamic supremacism and war. And that's the case no matter how many times Metro willingly allows itself to be hoodwinked by various Muslims. (Presumably Metro does this because it believes it will help the fight against racism/Islamophobia.)

Metro also claims that

many Muslims have been speaking out to reclaim a key part of their religion from extremists who have given it that negative connection”.

How can the word “Allahu Akbar” have been misappropriated by extremists when it was first used by the Prophet Muhammad himself in the Battle of Badr, which is itself classed as “the first battle in Islam”?

If we jump forward to the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, it was then proclaimed from the rooftops as a form of Islamic “revolutionary” action.

Now let's move to the 9/11 attack in New York. These words were found in Mohamed Atta's suitcase:

"When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, 'Allahu Akbar,' because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers."

Now for Iraq in 2004. In Nick Berg's beheading video the Muslim killers can be seen and heard shouting "Allahu Akbar". Then, in 2009, the Fort Hood killer, Nidal Malik Hasan, also shouted "Allahu Akbar" before opening fire and killing 13 people. It can also be seen that all the Muslim participants in the Syrian civil war - from the pseudo-moderates to the Islamic State - shouted "Allahu Akbar" after a killing or a successful bombing. Even the Free Syrian Army (officially designated a “secular” outfit by Westerners) shouted "Allahu Akbar" when a killing was made.

Metro's Version of “Allahu Akbar”

Metro also interviews a Muslim woman (called Rabia Chaudry) who says that the words “Allahu Akbar” have

no inherent political/violent connotation meriting instant terror diagnosis”.

In a sense, that can also be said of the words Sieg Heil. After all, it just means Hail Victory. Thus a sportsman could say it. Nonetheless, like “Allahu Akbar”, it is historically associated with totalitarianism, violence and war. In the context of “Allahu Akbar”, it's innocent usage doesn't stop it being a fact that it's always used by Islamic terrorists. And it it doesn't erase the parallel fact that the “role model” of these Islamic terrorists is the Prophet Muhammad's own violence.

In any case, I've never personally heard a Muslim use it in any other context other than war or conflict (unlike, say, the word InShaAllah). So it's unlikely to be used in the context of an interfaith meeting or during an anti-racism/Islamophobia demonstration organised by Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party.

So it's also strange how oddly Metro comments on the words “Allahu Akbar” when its says that

some people believe it’s code for a terror attack, because that’s the only context they have heard it reported in”.

Some people? I would suspect that all non-Muslims see the phrase that way. Indeed I even suspect that this pious anti-racist journalist (Jen Mills) does so too; though, of course, she'll probably never say that when she attends London's dinner parties or in other Metro articles on “Muslim issues”.

The word “code” seems slightly patronising (or at least judgmental) too.

The phrase “Allahu Akbar” isn't “code for a terror attack” - it's part of an Islamic terror attack! It's a vital part because it shows victims, other non-Muslims and the terrorists themselves exactly why they're doing what they're doing. That is, they are blowing people up because Allah is greater, not because Allah is great.

Two Typical Muslims?

Rabia Chaudry, according to Metro, also says she states it “like 20 times a day”. Wajahat Ali, on the other hand, trumps Rabia Chaudry by saying that he states “'Allahu Akbar' out loud more than 100 times a day”. Really? Well Mr Jeremy Hussein Akhtar says it 1000 times every hour while simultaneously fighting racism, attending interfaith meetings and hugging Jews.

Do Rabia Chaudry and Wajahat Ali really say it between 20 to 100 times a day? How would Metro readers know that to be true? Should we believe them? And how would we know that thoughts of “Islam's ultimate victory” aren't also on their minds – at least some of the time?

The thing is, even if Metro's choice specimens are indeed ultra-moderate, it doesn't make much difference anyway. No doubt had Metro been around in the 1930s it could have found very moderate Nazis or communists too. That wouldn't have made much of a difference either. The fact is that when Nazis used the phrase Sieg Heil (or communists say “smash capitalism”) we know what they mean. And we know what “Allahu Akbar” really means too, despite the dissimulation and obfuscation.

Conclusion

Finally, Metro really takes the biscuit when it decides to indulge in some IslamicDa‘wah itself. It recounts a Muslim saying:

But if we’re blessed enough ALLAH can easily turn them into the most amazing of life’s moments.”

Still, if by selling Islam to the non-Muslim British public Metro helps the fight against racism/Islamophobia, then so be it. Metro's anti-racist piety (or gullibility) is worth it. Perhaps allowing in another five million Muslim immigrants into the UK or imprisoning all critics of Islam will also help the fight against racism/Islamophobia. After all, anything goes in that sacred fight; including dissimulation and lies about Islam's battle-cry - “Allahu Akbar”.


Monday, 6 November 2017

Britain's Brexit: Try seeing the wood, not the trees!




To be honest, most British people probably don't follow the Brexit debate day in and day out; as many uber-pundits do. And if they did, then they'd probably end up seeing pretty minor details as being major; and fairly insignificant happenings as being momentous. Yes, they'd cease to see the wood for the trees.

In one article on the “vote of the final deal”, for example, it was very difficult to understand what exactly it was all about. Yet the journalist who wrote it and the politicians involved were all trying their very best to make every single letter of the issue seem monumental. (Their careers depend on doing so.) Now of course it could be that most Brits are political philistines who don't like the trees simply because they're ain't titillated by the political “small detail”; as serious politicians are. (Or at least the politicians directly involved in this stuff.)

Of course it can also be said that it takes just as much intelligence – sometimes more intelligence – to see the wood rather than the trees. (This accusation is also often aimed at analytic philosophers.) That's primarily because many of those involved with the small political detail are often simply pedantic opportunists intent on furthering their own political causes and/or careers.

Despite all that, the bottom line is very simple:

On the 23rd of June, 2016, the United Kingdom held a referendum on whether or not to remain in the European Union. The “leave” vote turned out to be higher than the “remain” vote.

As the north Norfolk DJ, Alan Partridge, once put it: “It really is that simple.”

True, it wasn't a 99% to 1% vote on behalf of Brexit. And many Remainers do believe that it's the worst thing that's happened since the Bubonic Plague or the Second World War. However, the vote was taken and the British people decided to leave the EU.

Yet many Remainers are essentially attempting to veto the vote by questioning it in all sorts of arcane and convoluted ways. They talk about voters (i.e., Brexiteers) being “lied to”. What they mean by that is they really think that all (or perhaps just most) Brexiteers are, well, dumb (or, as they put it, “low-information voters”). Either that, or they claim that Brexiteers are “racists”... or “provincials” (i.e., peasants) ... or “Nazis”... or “haters”...

Indeed there have been all sorts of confabulations and ultra-complex arguments as why the vote must/should be retaken. Though what if the same kinds of thing were also said after a re-vote which went in the Remain direction? Ad infinitum... Of course in this instance Remainers wouldn't talk about “low-information voters” and the “the tiny voting margin”. Instead they'd talk about high-information voters and state that the largeness/smallness of the voting margin is irrelevant. Yes, many would even mouth the cliché, “The people have spoken.” Such is the self-deceit of many Remainers.

Just like all those outraged, angry and pious leftwingers and Democrats after the election of Donald Trump, Remainers simply didn't like the result of the vote. Thus they suddenly became deeply unhappy with democracy. That's the true source of their ornate and convoluted case against the Brexit referendum.

Not that anyone should believe that our democracy is perfect. And not that the referendum itself was perfect. We all know that neither is or was perfect. However, we simply shouldn't trust those who very suddenly discovered the flaws of democracy on the 24th of June, 2016. 

Tuesday, 31 October 2017

Fake disgust at Michael Gove's Weinstein joke




The British Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael Gove, has just been summoned before (or hauled off to) the Politically-Correct Inquisition for his sinful faux pas (i.e., joke) on BBC Radio 4. Indeed the very wording of some of newspaper reports show this to be the case. One newspaper, for example, wrote:

Michael Gove has been forced to apologise after making a crass Harvey Weinstein joke.”

Note the word “forced”. Yes, Michael Gove MP has been forced to repent for his sin.

So what was Michael Gove's joke? This:

Sometimes I think that coming into the studio with you John [Humphrys] is like going into Harvey Weinstein’s bedroom.”

What hasn't been much commented upon is that the British Labour Party's very own Lord Kinnock also got in on the act by adding: “John [Humphrys] goes way past groping.” Not only that: the audience laughed at - and applauded - the joke! It's also strange that Lord Kinnock hasn't also been summoned to the Politically-Correct Inquisition.

For those who have no sense of humour, or who don't know anything about John Humphrys and Radio 4: Michael Gove's joke was a reference to John Humphrys (a BBC journalist) and his confrontational (or “in-depth”) style of interviewing.

Gove's joke is moderately funny. It's not a stroke of comedic genius, sure. Then again, he's not a comedian and he wasn't at a comedy club. In fact if he had been a comedian he'd have got away with this joke. That's because moral grandstanders and political activists wouldn't have been able to make any political capital out the joke had it been said by a comedian.

Thus it's very hard to believe that anyone was truly “furious” or offended. It's hard to believe that the comment – joke – was “crass”. And it's hard to believe that the joke was “clumsy”.

So what I believe is that people who're politically against Michael Gove anyway used the joke as an excuse to have a go at him.

In any case, Gove has predictably apologised. Indeed he got on his knees and apologised “unreservedly”. More concretely, he tweeted:

Apologies for my clumsy attempt at humour on R4 Today this morning -it wasn’t appropriate. I’m sorry and apologise unreservedly.”

We should have very little respect for those people who later apologise for what they, at the time, didn't see as a sin or a political faux pas . Gove and others should have the courage of their convictions. Having said that, I can see that such ritual self-flagellation is required in order to save one's career. So perhaps we'd all do the same thing if we were put in the same position. The problem is that if people keep on apologising for pretty harmless jokes, words or actions, then our Puritan Leftwing Age will become even more puritan and pious. So should we feed the crocodile which will eventually eat us?

Of course the joke wasn't “clumsy” at all. It was a joke which was said off-the-cuff. However, there is one way in which the joke can be seen a clumsy. Namely, it was clumsy because Gove should have know that political activists and moral grandstanders would have jumped on this joke to further a political cause, have a go at a politician they don't like, or to morally exhibit themselves. Thus the fact that Gove didn't foresee all of this did make his comment clumsy in that he clumsily threatened his own career (if only in a very small way) when he made this otherwise harmless joke.

In any case, the confession won't be enough for those who've only cried crocodile tears.

One politician who used Gove's joke for her own ends was the Labour MP Jess Phillips. (Phillips once said that the equivalent to the mass sexual assaults by Muslims in Cologne occurred every week – by white men - in a single Birmingham city-center street.) She's well-known for being purer than pure when it comes to these issues. That is, she virulently anti-“Tory” and also a massively self-conscious feminist and self-selling politician. She wrote:

Michael Gove just left the studio without his dignity.”

In other words, Gove's joke has been used for political ends and/or for moral grandstanding.

The main problem here is that we live in a Puritan Age. Our Politically-Correct Puritan Age is the way it is primarily because of leftwing morality and theology (i.e. theory). True, political correctness can sometimes run free of its leftwing grounding (or source); though leftwing morality and theology essentially brought about political correctness.

The Puritan Age's ultimate sin is to offend any “identity group” or designated victim class. However, some groups can be offended without even an eyebrow being raised – and such groups aren't always “majorities”. Namely, whites, men, right-wingers, conservatives, Christians, patriots, nationalists, American “rednecks”, “white-van man”, Brexiteers, “provincials”, those north of Watford Gap, etc. The list is long. Thus politically correct and incorrect groups are selected according to leftwing theology. That theology decides who or what we can offend.

Wednesday, 25 October 2017

Dear Mr Corbyn, What is “democratic socialism”?




Many supporters of Jeremy Corbyn class themselves as “democratic socialists”. So the question we should ask is whether or not contemporary “radical socialism” (to use the Morning Star's words for Corbyn's position) can ever be truly democratic. After all, this is an ideology which demands that all the “means of production”, public services, schools, much (or all?) of the media, etc. should be state-owned... or, as Corbyn's supporters sometimes put, “socially-owned”. We would also need to contemplate what a Corbyn government would do to political dissidents - of whichever flavour. Think here of the leftwing “no platform” policy. (Not simply the named “no platform” policy of the National Union of Students; but that which can also be found in councils, libraries, public spaces, public services, etc.) This politically-correct (no-platform) milieu has has already claimed (i.e., without the help of a Corbynite state) political parties/groups, academics, non-political/political individuals, well-known celebrities, etc. as victims... 

An image from the blog, Another Angry Voice.

Many Corbynites also say that Jeremy Corbyn is himself a “social democrat”; not just a “democratic socialist”. For example, the very nasty and popular pro-Corbyn blog, Another Angry Voice, tells us that 'Jeremy Corbyn is a social democrat'. Then we have openDemocracy (a “socially liberal and internationalist political website”) with its article, 'Jeremy Corbyn – a mainstream [Scandinavian] social democrat'.

On the whole, however, it's more often said that Jeremy Corbyn is committed to “social democracy”; rather than saying – explicitly - that he's a “social democrat”. (Prospect - the “leading magazine of ideas” - published an article called: 'How Corbyn turned the tide for social democracy'.) Here we must simply assume that the words “social democrat” have a negative ring for those socialists who were around in the early 1980s (see later section); whereas - for some bizarre reason - the words “social democracy” don't.

What we have, then, is the case of Corbynites intentionally fusing democratic socialism with social democracy. They even have the audacity to cite Scandinavian countries as being Corbyn's political exemplars. Yet no Scandinavian government is democratic-socialist, let alone outright socialist.

Sweden, for one, is a parliamentary (representative) democracy and a constitutional monarchy; with a King as head of state. The country is now run by its Social Democratic Party.

Norway is also a parliamentary (representative) democracy and a constitutional monarchy; with a King as head of state. The government of Norway is a coalition between the Progress Party (which is “classical liberal-libertarian and conservative-liberal”) and the Conservative Party.

Finally, Denmark. This country too is a parliamentary (representative) democracy and a constitutional monarchy; with a Queen as head of state. At present, the Government of Denmark is made up of a “center-right bloc” which includes the Liberal Party, the Liberal Alliance and the Conservative Party. (Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Denmark's Prime Minister, is from the Liberal Party.)

Jeremy Corbyn, Richard Seymour & Andrew Murray

More relevantly, we should ask if Jeremy Corbyn himself is a democratic socialist. Or perhaps we should simply ask: Is Corbyn a democrat?

Yet asking that question may seem very odd when set it within the context of his being a Member of Parliament for thirty-four years. But please read on...

Take the cases of the the “Irish Marxist writer and broadcaster” Richard Seymour and the Labour Party “adviser” Andrew Murray. 

Richard Seymour: former SWP, now Labour.

Richard Seymour left the Socialist Workers Party in 2013. He then joined the Labour Party when Jeremy Corbyn became its leader in September 2015. Arguably, since then, Seymour has done as much to further the cause of Corbyn than anyone else not directly working for the Labour Party machine.

To more or less paraphrase the man himself. Richard Seymour joined the Labour Party because he finally came to realise that Trotskyist and communist sects/parties had quite simply failed to bring about a revolution in the United Kingdom. He came to dislike their perennial political failures. Thus Seymour needed a more concrete and realistic option.

Firstly, Richard Seymour asks his fellow Leftists/socialists this question:

[W]hy, in more than five years of turmoil for the global capitalist system, has the left made such a practically negligible impact?”

In parallel to these political failures, Seymour also believes that Trotskyist and communist sects are

all too often subculturalised, dependent on forms of sociality and on shibboleths that are exclusive and tend to repel new participants”.

Yet now, of course, we have Jeremy Corbyn at the helm of the Labour Party. And this man “did pull off the most stunning upset in recent political history”. What's more (as found in The Times Literary Supplement),

he did this by turning out voters who, according to all received wisdom, would never vote, above all the young and poor”.

Thus Richard Seymour jumped ship from his own favoured Trotskyist sect (i.e., the SWP) to Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party.

Now for Andrew Philip Drummond-Murray (now called Andrew Murray). 

Andrew Murray, Corbyn, Tony Benn

Murray left the Communist Party of Britain (after being a member for 40 years) in November 2016. Then – in December 2016 – he glided effortlessly over to Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party. Not long after that he was made Election Chief during the 2017 campaign. (The same kind of thing also happened with the well-known “Stalinist” - as the New Statesman put it - Seumus Milne when he too rose to the top of the Labour Party by becoming a top adviser during the 2017 election campaign.)

It's hard to find many quotes from Andrew Murray because most of his articles for the Communist Party of Britain have been erased (as has John McDonnell's for the Alliance for Workers' Liberty). Nevertheless, here's one from Autumn 2016 – just before Murray joined Corbyn's Labour Party. (Indeed it must have been the last article he wrote for this particular communist party.)

In this article, '100 Years of Lenin's Imperialism', Murray writes about the need to “reconceptualise” the “revolution”:

[Lenin] would look for the way to reconceptualise the need for world revolution in the light of the recent very heavy defeats and the emergence of globalisation.”

This could of course mean (as it does for Andrew Murray himself and Richard Seymour) that communists, Trotskyists and other radicals should now reconceptualise the revolution by joining Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party.

And then Murray explicitly states his Leninism:

"These views [of Lenin] are most clearly expressed... [when] he wrote that 'all democracy consists in the proclamation and realisation of rights which under capitalism are realisable only to a very small degree and only relatively...'...”

As you can see, it's hard to see how any of the words above tie in with Corbyn's ostensible democratic socialism.

In addition, Murray isn't happy with all parts of the “labour movement” either. He continues:

Lenin would emphasise... the need to support all struggles against imperialism under whatever banner [e.g. the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad's Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.] ... and he would stress the need to rupture ideologically with those sections of the labour movement [e.g., “Blairite vermin” and all non-communist sections] which argued for support for the new order.”

There's also explicit backing for my interpretation of these Labour Party entryists from the International Socialist Review journal. In an article called 'The rise of Corbyn' (which, ironically enough, is about Richard Seymour), we have the following words of advice for Trotskyists, communists and other revolutionaries:

Corbyn has not obviated the need for an extra-parliamentary left. As [Richard] Seymour has noted in the past, Corbyn and Corbynism need a left outside Labour, which is unimpeded by party unity and capable of drawing knives against the LP right wing, and mass mobilization in the streets to succeed in implementing any of his platform...

Finally, the writer of this article – probably in a state of intense excitement - states that

the magnet of Corbynism [is] drawing many revolutionaries into Labour Party membership...”

As you can see, my paranoid conspiracy theories about Richard Seymour and Andrew Murray - as well as about Jeremy Corbyn himself - are backed up by the Left itself. In the above we have everything we need without any requirement to indulge in any ad hoc conspiracy theories.

Firstly, we have the fact that Leftists realise that those outside the Labour Party are still of vital importance; even though Party itself is indeed democratic and committed to parliamentary politics. And, just in case readers have got the wrong impression, I don't mean workers or people who aren't members of the Labour Party. I mean (mainly) middle-class revolutionaries and students (i.e., the “vanguard of the working class”).

Secondly, we have the traditional anti-democratic vehemence of the Left when we read the words “drawing knives against the LP right wing”. Along with that, we also have the threat that if any aspect of Corbyn's “platform” isn't implemented, then there'll be “mass mobilisation”; which often means riots and violence. Yes, these radicals are offering to be Corbyn's boot boys/ brown shirts/squadristi.

Thirdly, there's the frank admittance that Corbyn is “drawing many revolutionaries into Labour Party membership”. Yet this is something which is aggressively denied by many supporters of Corbyn when you debate with such people on social media.

And in tandem with all the above, we can now ask if Corbyn himself might have always known (as Murray and Seymour now know) that the Labour Party has always had more of a concrete chance of radically changing the “capitalist democracy” that is Britain than all the communist and Trotskyist sects put together. Indeed how much truer is that today now that he's the leader of the Labour Party?

Corbyn's Democratic Socialism?

It can be said that many of the socialists who've also been genuine democrats weren't at all socialists in the way in which Jeremy Corbyn, Richard Seymour and Andrew Murray are socialists. For example, many of them were committed to large elements of private enterprise. They were also committed to parliamentary democracy. (Until December 2016, Richard Seymour and Andrew Murray weren't committed to parliamentary democracy at all – perhaps they still aren't!)

Now of course it's unlikely that Corbyn would explicitly say that he wants every part of Britain's economic and social landscape to be state-owned. However, recently Corbyn has come closer and closer to saying exactly that. His Marxist Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the dour ideologue John McDonnell, for example, is much more honest about these matters. Readers should also note here that when McDonnell was asked - by the Alliance for Workers' Liberty - to name the “most significant” influences on his thought, he replied: “The fundamental Marxist writers of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, basically.”

And neither should we expect Corbyn be too explicit about his dislike of - and scepticism towards - “the parliamentary road to socialism”; as his fellow socialist/Marxist Ralph Miliband was in the 1960s and 70s. Both Ralph Miliband and Corbyn's friend today, Andrew Murray, argued that the Labour Party could never be truly “radical” within a parliamentary context.

One must assume that Corbyn's response to these communist/socialist sceptics would be something like this:

If Parliament were ruled by a socialist party (as well as if Parliament itself were largely socialist in nature), then there'd be no problem at all. There'd be no need for a revolution.

This would also mean - at least in theory - that Corbyn doesn't need to take a categorical or extreme position against Parliament. And isn't that precisely why he's been an MP for 34 years?

Again, no politician – let alone a leader – is entirely honest and truthful when they're positioning themselves for political power. Neither is Corbyn. For example, he's been less than explicit and honest about the IRA, Karl Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, student fees/loans, the European Union, Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran, Venezuela, the British army, etc. Put simply, Corbyn's total honesty on all these issues would quite literally end his (leadership) career over night. Exactly the same has happened to other leaders in his position.

The Social Democratic Party of the Early 1980s

Now let's move on to the Social Democratic Party (SDP), which was formed in 1981.  

It's clear that there are lots of lessons to learn about the difference between social democracy and socialism within the SDP context. What's particularly relevant is the fact that the SDP was created as a response to the growing “radical socialism” of the Labour Party in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

As just stated, the SDP was formed in reaction to the increasing Marxist/Leftist leanings of the Labour Party. In this instance at least, social democracy and socialism certainly didn't fuse. Thus the SDP was as hated by the socialists of the time as “Blairite vermin” are hated by Corbynites today.

It's interesting to note that many members of the Social Democratic Party had previously been members of the the Manifesto Group. This group - like Militant in the early 1980s and Momentum today - could actually have been found within the Labour Party.

The primary gripes of the Manifesto Group included the growing prominence of Tony Benn (who, according to the BBC, “has been a key influence on Corbyn's politics”) in the Labour Party and the fact that the trade unions – with their “block votes”, etc. - had a very strong say in choosing the party leader. Now, in 2017, Corbyn himself still believes in “secondary strikes”; that unions can charge a “political levy” (i.e., to support the Labour Party); and that strikes are acceptable – in health, education, transport, etc. – even if less than 40% of the workers in these services support the strike.

The Manifesto Group was also against unilateral nuclear disarmament. Hard Leftists/communists within the Labour Party – right up to Corbyn - have, of course, always been in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament.

It's also interesting to note (considering the comments made in the introduction) that the SDP modelled itself (at least in part) on the “social-democratic governments” of Europe. This, of course, was something many Labour Party socialists of the time were very much against – primarily because such social democracies were also “capitalist” social democracies... with monarchies!

In addition, it's ironic that the Bennites - and other radical socialists – had a problem with a political party that had a constitution which declared:

"The SDP exists to create and defend an open, classless and more equal society which rejects prejudices based upon sex, race, colour or religion.”

One can conclude that Labour's radicals must have been against both the democratic part of social democracy and also against its commitment to some forms of capitalism. It was indeed the case that the SDP was committed to a restrained and controlled capitalism. (As is the current Conservative Party and all Conservative parties since the Second World War.) The SDP itself deemed its position to be a “middle way” between “Thatcherism” and “hard-left Labour”. In concrete terms, its constitution also stated that it was in favour of the “fostering of a strong public sector and a strong private sector without frequent frontier changes".

The NHS

The immediate post-war Labour government is the only government which gets a good press for Corbynites and other radical socialists. So why is that? It's primarily because of the creation of the National Health Service in 1948.

Take Professor James Tomlinson's book, Democratic Socialism and Economic Policy: The Attlee Years,1945-1951. This has frequent mentions of the NHS. We also have Robert M. Page (who's a “Reader in Democratic Socialism and Social Policy” at the University of Birmingham) who refers to something he calls the "transformative democratic socialism" of this period.

This is why so many Corbynites today claim that the NHS was entirely a “socialist invention”. Yet is that really the case? We can certainly say that NHS was indeed put in place under a Labour government – i.e., after a world war which had caused so much havoc! However, non-socialist public services date back to the Romans – if not before. And the NHS's very own William Beveridge was a Liberal.

We also had the Chancellor of the German Empire in the 1870s and 1880s. Otto von Bismark implemented various public services (or “welfare programs”) which included sickness insurance, accident insurance, disability insurance and a retirement pension. In addition, the German National Socialists (i.e., Nazis) later - in the 1930s - also had an extensive public services (if only for Aryans) such as maternity pay, animal rights legislation, health services, green policies, pollution controls, etc. It also had full employment. All this was of course at the expense of civil liberties and freedom; and it also partly relied on forced labour. However, exactly the same can be said of all the socialist/communist regimes of the 20th century and beyond!

The Labour Party's Reformist Socialism

It can be argued that Jeremy Corbyn believes that “eventual socialism” (or “reformist socialism”) has – up until now - failed. (Richard Seymour – discussed above - believes that Corbyn is the Labour Party's first socialist leader.) Hence his radical message. Apart from the immediate post-war Labour government, all Labour governments have been seen (by radical socialists) to have appeased the “capitalist system” in various and many ways.

However, historically and in the contrary direction to Corbyn, some Labour Party leaders have argued that Western states have been moving (since the post-World War Two) from "liberal capitalism" towards what they deemed to have been democratic socialism.

The Labour Party politician, Fabian and “revisionist”, Anthony Crossland, for example, argued that a more "benevolent" form of capitalism could be seen after the War. This was the case because of such things as the many regulations on private enterprise; the elements of democracy within the industrial infrastructure; and the small pockets of workers' self-management. Crossland also spoke against revolution and the need for revolutionary/radical or “fundamental” economic and political change. To him, equality came about through an economic growth which would be achieved by better management of the economy; not through class war or total state ownership. Indeed, from such economic growth, the funds for better and more public services would be found. Such things could even happen, it was argued, without massive “fiscal redistribution”.

Conclusion

This above shows us that alongside revolutionary/radical socialism within the Labour Party, there have always also been those who've argued that their own brand of socialism could exist alongside capitalism. That is, that socialism isn't about utterly destroying capitalism in its entirety. Needless to say, radicals within the Labour Party haven't been keen on any of this. To them, it hardly deserved the name socialism. Perhaps they are right.

In addition, this Leftist hatred of the Labour Party's democratic traditions and its (non-revolutionary/radical) values isn't only the case when it comes to Jeremy Corbyn himself and all those entryists discussed above (e.g., Richard Seymour, Andrew Murray, John McDonnell, Seumus Milne, etc.). As mentioned earlier by the International Socialist Review, it also includes the “many revolutionaries drawn into Labour Party membership” by the “magnet of Corbynism”.