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. - (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

This blog once bore the name 'EDL Extra'. I supported the EDL until 2012. As the reader will see, the last post which supports the EDL dates back to 2012. This blog, nonetheless, retains the former web address.

Friday, 23 June 2017

George Soros on His Open Society



There is something to sympathise with when it comes to George Soros's position on what he calls “the open society”. However, judging him by his deeds, there are many reasons to be sceptical. Therefore, in loyalty to the ad hominem fallacy, perhaps his words can stand despite his deeds. Having said that, many of his words (though taken at different times) are also self-contradictory.

Soros's understanding of Karl Popper - from whom he got the idea of an open society - seems to be broadly correct in its largely unspecified details. (As primarily expressed in Popper's well-known book The Open Society and its Enemies.) It is that Popperian vision which people can have some sympathy with; not Soros's own take on it.

****************************************

Here's George Soros on the – or his - open society. He says:

An open society such as ours is based on the recognition that our understanding of reality is inherently imperfect. Nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth. As the philosopher Karl Popper has shown, the ultimate truth is not attainable even in science. All theories are subject to testing and the process of replacing old theories with better ones never ends.”

No one can deny that “our understanding of reality is inherently imperfect”. It's what the consequences of our accepting that are. It's also the case that “nobody [not even George Soros] is in possession of the ultimate truth”. But so what? No one claimed otherwise outside of crazed fanatics and dictators. 

In any case, what Soros says on the subject of open societies seems written into modern democracies regardless of the work of Karl Popper. Indeed it can even be said that Soros's own version of Popper is a little vague; though it won't be anathema to any kind of totalitarian (whether Left or Right). 

Why mention totalitarians? Because both Karl Popper and Soros experienced Nazi totalitarianism. Soros also experienced communist totalitarianism.

Soros (in his George Soros on Globalization and interviews) wrote:

You know, I learned at a very early age that what kind of social system or political system prevails is very important. Not just for your well-being, but for your very survival. Because, you know, I could have been killed by the Nazis. I could have wasted my life under the Communists. So, that's what led me to this idea of an open society. And that is the idea that is motivating me.”

The obvious point to make here is that Soros sees the open society in very personal terms. Perhaps that's not a big deal. However, according to others and indeed himself, his experiences with the Nazis were entirely positive.

Western Democracies

The interesting thing, according to Soros, is that the open society needn't be instantiated by any particular political system. Not even exclusively by Western democracies. This is what Soros himself had to say (in 2003) on the matter:

First, there is no single sustainable model for national success. Second, the American model, which has indeed been successful, is not available to others, because our success depends greatly on our dominant position at the center of the global capitalist system, and we are not willing to yield it.”

There may not be a “single sustainable model for national success”. Nevertheless, it surely must be the case that we can rule out certain models – even many models. 

All this also makes me think that if Soros's open society is so flexible (or so vague), then surely it can't be much of a productive (or substantive) political concept. If it isn't instantiated by Western democracies, then how much meat is there to his theory of an open society? (We'll see in a second that Soros's theorising about an open society is very different from his practice in politics itself.)

Does Soros give any examples of non-Western states that instantiate the open society? No. Does Soros give any speculative (or possible) realisations of an open society? Not really.

Soros's Politically-Specific Open Society

Soros's defence of the open society includes believing that “it's possible to be opposed to the policies without being unpatriotic”. In full:

The people currently in charge have forgotten the first principle of an open society, namely that we may be wrong and that there has to be free discussion. That it's possible to be opposed to the policies without being unpatriotic.”

What if Soros only have a problem with Republican “policies”? Indeed what if his views, funding (of activist groups, etc.) and actions could very possibly lead to the destruction of the United States? Is all that still “patriotic”?

It was mentioned that Soros is keen to stress that his open society is flexible in nature. Yet Soros is extremely party-political when it comes to actually advancing his open society. For example, he states:

This election transcends party loyalties. Our future as an open society depends on resisting the Siren's song.”

I love it! Yes, at first Soros says that the 2003/4 American “election transcend[ed] party loyalties”. Yet it's also crystal clear that he wanted his readers to reject the Republicans (or Bush) and embrace the Democrats. That “Siren's song”, after all, was sung by none other than President Bush. That also means that the/his open society is best advanced by the Democratic Party and not by the Republican Party. In fact Soros believed that the open society isn't advanced at all by the Republicans; at least not under George W. Bush... and now not under Donald Trump either.

Let's see what more Soros has to say about Republicans and his open society.

Soros pitted Bush W. Bush against his – our? - open society. Moreover, Soros portrayed Bush as even worse than a villain. He writes:

The supremacist ideology of the Bush Administration stands in opposition to the principles of an open society, which recognize that people have different views and that nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth.”

Now all that's very heavy stuff. Apart from the loaded and rhetorical material about the “supremacist ideology of the Bush administration”, we can still ask if it's really impossible to square such a Republican administration with an open society. And if not, why not?

Soros even has the audacity to cite another case of Bush running up against an open society. According to Soros, “President Bush has shown that he is incapable of recognizing his mistakes”. Unlike Soros himself, Bush was/is not a Popperian fallibilist. Not only that:

[Bush] insists on making reality conform to his beliefs even at the cost of deceiving himself and deliberately deceiving the public.”

Is that unlike all other American Presidents? There's certainly copious evidence that this can also be applied to other American presidents. Unless these things are only bad when the President discussed is a Republican; not, say, a Democrat.

Soros became even more explicit about the Republican Party when he said that the “Republican Party has been captured by a bunch of extremists”. So, here again, it can be said that the Republican Party doesn't seem to fit Soros's very own open-society template. 

Soros continued and gave some reasons why the Republicans (as political actors) may be excluded from his open society. It's primarily to do with what he calls “market fundamentalism”. He continues:

People who maintain that markets will take care of everything, that you leave it to the markets and the markets know best. Therefore, you need no government, no interference with business. Let everybody pursue his own interests. And that will serve the common interest.”

There is such a thing as “market fundamentalism”; though only in the sense that there's also anti-market fundamentalism, collectivist fundamentalism, fundamentalism about the importance of eating eggs, etc. Indeed one can take a fundamentalist position on anything. The problem is, however, that the vast majority of people who speak about “market fundamentalism” are against the market – full stop. This is just as those who speak about “neoliberalism” are against capitalism – full stop. Noam Chomsky, for one, is always talking about “market fundamentalism” and “neoliberalism” - thus many others do too. So does that mean that Noam would like a moderate market or capitalism – to misquote the man – with its gloves on (rather than off)?

As it is, Soros claims that he's not an anti-market fundamentalist. And, as a billionaire, he isn't. Indeed he went on to say that there “is a good foundation for this” market fundamentalism. Though it's only “a half-truth”.

Religion in an Open Society

Strangely enough (or perhaps not), Soros ties his political fallibilism into a stress on the importance of religion. His basic position is that because “understanding is imperfect”, then religion must come to our rescue. In his own words:

Faith plays an important role in an open society. Exactly because our understanding is imperfect, we cannot base our decisions on knowledge alone. We need to rely on beliefs, religious or otherwise, to help us make decisions. But we must remain open to the possibility that we may be wrong so that we can correct our mistakes. Otherwise, we are bound to be wrong.”

This seems like a reasonable position; except for the fact that different religions believe and say different things. So what, exactly, is Soros talking about here? Is he referring to religions generally or the religions of the United States? For example, how would Islamic sharia law squared with the U.S's “separation of church and state”?

And just as it was stated that Soros is very particularistic about the political instantiation of his open society (despite his claims to the contrary), he's also very particularistic about religion within his open society (again, despite his claims).

Soros believes that some religions are more equal than others. Take George W. Bush again. His Episcopal (“Protestant yet Catholic”) religion doesn't appeal to Soros. Or at least as it's expressed through - or by - Bush himself. In the following, Soros is both patronisingly positive and negative. He writes:

There is something appealing in the strength of [Bush's] faith, especially in our troubled time. But the cost is too high. By putting our faith in a President who cannot admit his mistakes we commit ourselves to the wrong policies.”

Again, Soros is saying things about Bush that he could have said about many other American presidents. But these presidents weren't both George W. Bush and Republican. 

Conclusion: Open Societies and Global Government

Soros is often very specific as to how his open societies tie in with global government. Indeed he believes that the prime purpose of a global government is to bring about open societies.

Could it be, though, that Soros has got this the wrong way around? Surely, according to Soros's own lights, open societies should come first. It's open societies which should bring about a global government. After all Soros has often stated that “democracy can't be imposed on non-democracies”. Hence it must surely be the case that a global government can't impose open societies on states either. You'd think that Soros would believe that open societies must be the First Cause of all things global, democratic and political. Not so, says Soros himself:

I advocate an alliance of democratic states, with a dual purpose. One, to promote what I call open society. I talk about an alliance of open societies which would first foster the development of open societies within individual countries, because there's a lot that needs to be done in that effort.”

In the above Soros stressed open societies. In the following he stresses global government – or at least global/”international institutions”. He continues:

And secondly, to establish basic international law and international institutions that you need for a global, open society.”

Here again, global government comes first and open societies are said to follow. However, the idea of bringing about open societies seems ridiculous. Indeed international institutions - or a global government! - imposing open societies is no less silly and dangerous an idea than individual states attempting to impose democracies on non-democracies with the help of military power.









Friday, 16 June 2017

George Soros on Soros and America



In the words of the “political pundit” Matt Welch (writing in 2003), George Soros “has a long and storied track record of being all villains to all people”. This same writer also finds something that's a little worrying and self-contradictory about many of these portrayals of the billionaire “villain”. For example, he concludes by saying the following:

Thus we now have the spectacle of one of the world's most active and influential anti-communists (not to mention one of its most successful capitalists) being tarred as a particularly dangerous friend of Marx and Lenin.”

On the surface it seems that it is indeed a contradiction to portray someone as being both an “anti-communist” and a “particularly dangerous friend of Marx and Lenin”. (Or it would be if the same person said it.) Surely Soros can't be both. Yet it's George Soros we're talking about here! Thus, as a billionaire villain, surely he can be both a communist and an anti-communist! Or at least he can play both characters at different times to different people. This kind of thing has happened many times before with other people. So why not with George Soros? What's to stop Soros from being an anti-communist on Monday and a friend of Marx and Lenin on Friday? After all, it will be seen in the following that not only does Soros contradict himself in terms of his own deeds (which has often been commentated upon), he also contradicts himself in terms of his own words.

Soros has written many books. He's said a lot of things. Much of what I've read is sophisticated and of interest; and that's despite what's just been said about Soros's contradictory words. I was particularly impressed with Soros's George Soros on Globalization; though, even here, the fact that he uses his own name in the title shows us that we're also dealing with a very vain man.

The fact that some of his writings are sophisticated isn't a surprise. Or at least it shouldn't be a surprise. Even the people who hate him “with a perfect hate” must admit that a villain can also be highly intelligent. Indeed to be both a billionaire and a global political actor must require intelligence and even wisdom. (A few people - who look down on moneymaking - deny all this.) Quite frankly, I'm fairly impressed by the expertise of Soros's ideas. That's not to say that I agree with a single sentence he's uttered or written. It's simply to say that he may not be a cartoon baddie. Or, if he is a cartoon baddie, then he's one who can be fairly convincing when he sets pen to paper.

**************************************

It can be said George Soros's following words would provide a perfect opening for his autobiography:

Well, you know, I was a human being before I became a businessman.”

Having said that, Soros then went on to admit that he “used to be opposed to the idea of social entrepreneurship”. So was that after he became a “human being” again? Whatever the case, Soros “now recognize[s] that actually you do need to mix it up [business and morality] and I think there is room for social entrepreneurship”.

In a similar vein, George Soros is often honest about himself (at least up to a point). He's therefore honest about his own conceit. For example, he claims to be “primarily interested in ideas” and that he doesn't “have much personal use for money”. He then goes on to say:

But I hate to think what would have happened if I hadn't made money: My ideas would not have gotten much play.”

That's Soros admitting that having a hell of a lot of money is a very good way of gaining political power – which, of course, it is. Certain “ideas” too can be a means to political power. Or, as Soros himself puts it, if he weren't a billionaire, his “ideas would not have gotten much play”.

This honesty (or is it game-playing?) also comes into show when he admits to suffering from “fallibility”. As a consequence of this, he also claims to be adept at self-criticism. Not only that: Soros believes that these frames of mind are very productive – both politically and financially. In his own words:

I am a very critical person who looks for defects in myself as well as in others. But, being so critical, I am also quite forgiving. I couldn't recognize my mistakes if I couldn't forgive myself.”

As I said, there's an honest vanity being proudly displayed here. Indeed Soros has what some psychologists or moral philosophers would see as a self-contradictory personality.

For example, in one breath he says that he admits to “being wrong” and “fallible”. In the next breath he says that this is a “source of pride”. Thus he's proud of his being wrong and self-critical. (Or, at the least, he's proud of finding these things within himself.) To us mere mortals, on the other hand, being wrong and fallible is a “source of shame”. That means that being wrong and fallible are only bad things if we “fail[] to correct our mistakes”.

Thus, in the end, Soros is “quite forgiving” of himself. Indeed that forgiving nature itself leads to positive and beneficial personal and even (politically) global ends.

Soros gets even more vainglorious when he tell us that he wishes that he “could write a book that will be read for as long as our civilization lasts”. And if he managed that, he

would value it much more highly than any business success if I could contribute to an understanding of the world in which we live”.

This kind of conceit and moral grandstanding can be found everywhere in Soros's words and writings. Take this piece of embarrassing autobiography:

I have devoted half my fortune and most of my energies in the last 15 years to promoting the values of democracy and open society all over the world... I came to feel that those principles need to be defended at home.”

So how, exactly, does Soros intend to “defend” his “principles” in the United States? By financing Black Lives Matter and the Democrats, for example? (See this article on Soros's funding of Black Lives Matter.)

Soros on America

George Soros is deeply anti-American. Of course he would strongly deny that he is. Indeed he does deny it in his writings and interviews. Though this is because his personal America - America as he wants it to be - isn't what he's against. What he's against is America as it is and has been.

For example, Soros (as everyone knows) is very anti-Trump. He was also anti-George W. Bush. Soros (as everyone also knows) wasn't anti-Obama. Why? Because Obama's America squared fairly well with Soros's own America. Then again, Soros still believed that Obama didn't go far enough. He'd have needed more terms in office to go far enough.

Not that Soros is critical of America in precisely the same ways that, say, juvenile Marxists or progressives are critical. In other words, Soros's position is far more sophisticated than typical (Leftist) anti-Americanism; even if it's the case that he's very happy to fund and support many groups and individuals who take an extremely unsophisticated - and indeed violent - approach to America.

Soros was at his most extreme on America (in 2006) when he said the following:

The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States. This is a harsh — indeed, for me, painful — thing to say, but unfortunately I am convinced it is true.”

Typically (for Soros) he qualifies his anti-Americanism with that grandstanding central clause: “This is a harsh — indeed, for me, painful — thing to say...” Yet if you genuinely believe that the United States is the “main obstacle to a stable and just world order”, you may wonder how genuinely “painful” it would be for Soros “to say” all that.

Soros also offers his very own solutions to the painful problem that is America. This also explains why he funds numerous groups and individuals who and which are intent on destroying America as we know it. He says:

Changing the attitude and policies of the United States remains my top priority.”

Is that, then, why he funds Black Lives Matter? Is Soros “changing the attitude and policies of the United States” by funding Black Lives Matter? Why not? This group - amongst the many other extreme groups he funds - also wants to change the United States. Indeed the activist group By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), as another example, wants to change America by any means necessary. (See the link between BAMN and Soros in this article.) And considering Soros' s huge influence, he too wants to change America by any means necessary. Indeed he even comes very close to stating that himself.


Another Angry Voice




.... “savage right-wing bias”,  "a pathetically tasteless bit of right-wing victim complex crying”, “outright lie”, “absolutely outrageous stuff”, “lies and deliberately distorting and misrepresenting", "despicable website”, “no outrage in the mainstream media”, “deliberate lying and sick emotional manipulation from the head of a right-wing news outlet”, “hacks at the Daily Telegraph (a right-wing propaganda sheet”, “hard-right Guido Fawkes blog”, “were always extremely right-wing”, “a hard-right blog”, “outright derision as despicable gutter press”, “savagely dishonest hard-right attack rag as their tabloid bedfellows in the gutter press”, “lazily churnalised an extreme-right blog post”, “hypocritical and outrageously lazy Daily Telegraph hacks”, “right-wing purveyors of fake news”, “the Economist (the in-house magazine for neoliberals)”...



***********************************************************

Much has been made (see here, here and here) of the ubiquitous snobbery against all non-socialists (except ethnic minorities) which we face nowadays. Some of this can be see in the obsessively pro-Corbyn blog called Another Angry Voice. This is a Corbynite groupuscule (made up of the blogger and his loyal defenders/commentators) of particular virulence, aggression and, yes, snobbery

The disgusting and patronising snobbery of left-wingers (usually from middle-class people aimed at the entire white right-wing working class) just gets worse and worse. And there's not much discernment in it either – all the very many “enemies of the people” are subhuman. I'm surprised I wasn't victim of the well-used term “knuckle-dragger” from these particularly pompous snobs.

In any case, for an “English teacher” (as stated in his 'About the Author'), Another Angry Voice (AAV) is “full of hate”. This blogger is indeed a fully-fledged "hater". Unless, of course, it's logically impossible for a Corbynite or socialist to be full of hate.

The blogger of AAV is called Thomas G. Clark.  


Those Evil (Non-Socialist) Old People!

Another Angry Voice snobbery isn't just aimed at the “far Right” and evil “Tories”: old-age pensioners get it in the ear too.

In one article ('Bridging the Generational Divide') is was talk of the “cognitive impairment” of the old. (Or at least the old who aren't socialists or fans of Corbyn.) The blogger and his resident whores, of course, claimed otherwise; though that was only after the shit had hit the fan. Part of that shit was thrown by fellow Corbynites who didn't like AAV's snooty arrogance vis-a-vis old people.


One Leftist snoot said it was all down to the “data and facts”. He talked about “basic Gaussian distribution data” and the fact that you couldn't argue with such a highly technical thing – even when aimed at old people. So I said that I was very impressed. Very impressed! Of course I wasn't impressed at all. The blogger wasn't really interested in “basic Gaussian distribution data”. He was interested in making a point about right-wing “cognitive impairment”. But the commentator already knew that. His grandstanding use of technical terms was prize bullshit.

The ostensible position advanced in this blog post, according to commentators, was simple: older people become “cognitively impaired”. And that's why AAV wrote:

"The older people get on average, the more gullible they are, the crapper their mathematical abilities, the more they're likely to over-estimate their own expertise, and the more attracted to right-wing authoritarian leaders they become."

If Thomas G. Clark (the name of the AAV blogger) hadn't mentioned the word "right-wing" on more than one occasion in the blog post, I might well have agreed. This blog post wasn't about old people becoming “cognitively impaired”; as they claimed in retrospect. It was about “Tory voters” - and very probably all other kinds of rightwing people - becoming cognitively impaired. Talk of “statistical facts being facts” simply evaded the point. AAV is a political blog. Why else would Thomas G. Clarke be covering such topics if he didn't have a political slant on them?

Finally, after an arrogant, hateful and condescending blog post about the cognitive impairment of old people, one commentator had the nerve to call me a "condescending prick".

The Mainstream Media

Like most Jeremy Corbyn's supporters and all Marxist socialists, AAV has a serious problem with what he/it calls – taken mainly from Chomsky's words - “the mainstream media”.

It's bizarre. Many on the Right criticise the Media (with a capital 'M'). Most of the Left do too. Is the media really such a massive and uniform cesspool of uniformity? Or do people simply get frustrated and angry when they hear/read opinions they don't like? Besides which, most people don't rely on a single newspaper (or a single news-outlet) any more – not in the age of the Internet. One commentator on AAV agreed; though only after previously frothing at the mouth about the MSM. He said that “the printed press itself is becoming less relevant with every passing year”. Then what was the nature of his former problems? Though if one thinks that the whole damn show is biased in one direction, then only those who miraculously escape false consciousness (or "media brainwashing") will be free of mind.

You see, every Corbynista is profoundly intelligent, sophisticated and never suffers from any "cognitive impairment". I wonder how they all do it. What would I need to do to have True Consciousness? What does it take? Read AAV everyday? Or is reading The Canary, Chomsky or Marx every day the answer? Whatever the solution, I bet it doesn't involve one echo chamber (a left-wing one) being put in the place of another echo chamber (a right-wing one). Leftists are far too intelligent to get trapped in any echo chamber (such as Another Angry Voice).

So does every one of us Naziracistfascistneoliberal bigots – the vast number of us - suffer from false consciousness? Marxist socialists probably think that we do! This is, of course, monumentally patronising; though the idea of false consciousness (or being "brainwashed by the media") has under-girded Marxist-socialist theory since the 1850s. And you wonder why so many people in the U.K. (i.e., millions) hate Marxists and find them condescending snobs.

In any case, what about the Guardian, New Statesman, the Mirror, Red Pepper, The Canary, etc.? Sure, they aren't as Leftist-than-thou; though they are Left or at least Liberal-Left. (Yes, I know, True Leftists call the Guardian and Independent “neoliberal - thus showing their extreme colours.) Do these Corbynites really want the entire media to be socialist? Is that at the heart of Another Angry Voice? They must know that they'll never have a Marxist socialist version of the Sun. Why is that? Because the vast number of people find Marxist/socialist news 'n' theory boring and often false.

In terms of detail, AAV shouted:

"Is there anything as hypocritical as a claim of political bias from the Daily Mail?"

Yes there is: a claim of political bias from a Corbynite, Corbyn, Chomsky, the Guardian, The Canary, Red Pepper, etc...

It's best to be honest about one's political biases anyway. And that includes the Daily Mail and left-wing outlets. That means that you shouldn't adopt the left-wing "no platform" policy or refuse to debate. It also means that it's silly to claim that your (political) view is a View From Nowhere.

This Marxist-socialist critique of the media was made explicit by one commentator on AAV. He wrote:

Some people adopt ideological perspectives that militate against their class interests... it's fairly obvious... that membership of a particular social class means that someone will be more likely to lean towards a certain ideological perspective.”

That simply assumes that the Marxist theory of “class interests” is (entirely) true and legitimate. The assumption is that a working class person voting for the Tories, Ukip or any non-socialist is voting against his “class interest”. I would say that voting for middle-class Marxists - and for middle class Marxist ideas/values - would be voting against his own class interests, and for many reasons.

The same commentator said that membership of a class means that “someone will be more likely to lean towards a certain ideological perspective”. Again, does that also apply to the legions of middle-class and upper-middle-class Marxists?

If the Marxist theory of “class interests” were so simple and absolute, then the very many middle-class and indeed upper-middle-class people (this especially applies to Trotskyists) who've been Marxists over the last 100 years would also speak their class interests. So would Jeremy Corbyn, Andrew Murray, Seumas Milne and the other public-schoolboys and girls who lead the Stop the War Coalition, etc. How do socialists and Marxists escape class interests? Simply by reading Marxists?

No one exclusively – and sometimes not at all (as Marxists claim about themselves) – serves his class interests. This is an extremely deterministic Marxist theory. The theory (as Marx himself acknowledged) is primarily designed to further the revolution and bring about "class war". It has very little truth to it.

This commentator also said:

They are, however, overwhelmingly the ideological perspectives that get represented in the printed media.”

Certain “ideological perspectives” are bound to get represented in the printed media. How could it be otherwise? Would this Corbynite complain if that ideological perspective were Marxist socialism? Indeed would he complain if the entire media was Marxist-socialist; as in the Soviet Union, Mao's China and all other socialist regimes?

Finally:

I think the reality is that because the printed media are dominated by large private capital, they, whether liberal or conservative*, are inevitably imbued with an ideological bias that reflects the class interests of those who own them.”

Have Marxist socialists ever thought that these ideological perspectives are sometimes believed because they are believed – that is, after critical thinking, etc. of the sort, presumably, socialists are capable of? Sometimes the platonic Media reflects people's views, rather than only determines them. Even in right-wing newspapers, sometimes journalists or commentators argue against aspects of capitalism; not for them. Indeed sometimes the Telegraph, for one, has allowed people to put the socialist perspective.

AAV Against Islamic Terrorism?

It's very strange hearing socialists and Another Angry Voice talk about the Tories being “weak on terrorism”. Specifically, their bone of contention was the “underfunding of the police”. The article is called '13 questions the mainstream media should be asking about Salman Abedi'. Thomas G. Clark (AAV) said:

... Salman Abedi.... repeatedly reported to authorities for by other members of the Manchester Muslim community too.”

When Muslims are reported to the authorities, what do you think Leftists/socialists usually do? They scream blue murder! They shout about “Islamophobia” and the “victimisation of the Muslim community”. Then posh Trotskyist lawyers get to work frustrating the evil machinations of "the capitalist state". Muslims too talk about “demonisation” and “Islamophobia”.

This article, then, is not about fighting terrorism. It's about campaigning for Corbyn by attacking the Tories.

The blogger even had the audacity to say:

So much for the extreme-right mantra that 'Muslims should do more to root out terrorists'!...”

How many times was he reported? And if all radical Islamists (hundreds of them) are reported by fellow Muslims and others at the same time, wouldn't there be overload? Here again, Leftist activists will start to scream. The authorities, in other words, are scared to take action against radical Muslims because radical socialists make it such hard and controversial work.

There is more hypocrisy:

The next damning revelation was that the UK secret services were tipped off in January 2017 by the Americans that Abedi was actively planning an act of terrorism.”

It's not often that one hears a Corbynite or a Marxist socialist stressing the importance of listening to the Americans on matters of terrorism. Then again, there was an election coming up when this was stated. Thus Corbyn's red end justified the means.

One may now ask if AAV believes in “open borders”. Or was that last week (i.e., before the election)? Corbyn believes in open borders – if not always explicitly. Most Corbyn activists believe in open borders too. Open borders and the arrival of thousands of terrorists will be an interesting problem for Corbyn to sort out. I wonder how he'll solve it.

Now, after the election, perhaps socialists and the supporters of Corbyn will get back to frustrating every action against Islamic terrorism and extremism – something they're very good at. Corbyn has already said that the Evil West is entirely to blame; as do the Islamic terrorists themselves.


***********************************************

Is this the Another Angry Voice blogger, Thomas. G. Clark? He's a professor at Sheffield University by the name of Dr. Tom Clark. I have many reasons for believing it's him: including where he lives, what he studies, his politics, the fact that well-paid professors have a lot of spare time, who he's connected to, etc. Though I'll get back with conclusive confirmation soon: 






***************************************

By the way, here's a list of Leftist news-outlets and websites (some alive, some now dying):

Weekly:

New Statesman – independent political and cultural magazine.
The New Worker – from the New Communist Party of Britain.
The Socialist – from the Socialist Party (England and Wales).
Socialist Worker – from the Socialist Workers Party.
Sunday Mirror – sister newspaper to Daily Mirror, published every Sunday.
Weekly Worker – from the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee).
Solidarity – from the Alliance for Workers' Liberty.

Fortnightly:

Scottish Socialist Voice – from the Scottish Socialist Party.
Socialist Appeal – from the British section of the International Marxist Tendency.
Tribune – democratic socialist Labour movement newspaper, with Labour Party connections.

Monthly:

Labour Briefing – from the Labour Representation Committee.
New Internationalist – independent activist magazine.
Socialism Today – from the Socialist Party (England and Wales).
Socialist Review – from the Socialist Workers Party.
Socialist Standard – from the Socialist Party of Great Britain.
Workers' Fight - from the British section of Internationalist Communist Union.

Bi-monthly:

Chartist – connected to the Labour Party.
Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! - from the Revolutionary Communist Group.
Lalkar – formerly the journal of the Indian Workers' Association, now independent, but sympathetic to the CPGB (ML).
New Left Review – independent New Left journal.
Peace News – independent pacifist magazine "for nonviolent revolution".
Proletarian – from the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist).
Red Pepper – independent, appeared monthly from 1994, relaunched as a bi-monthly in 2007.
Scottish Left Review – independent magazine.
Socialist Resistance – from the International Socialist Group and Socialist Solidarity Network.
Workers – from the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist–Leninist).

Quarterly:

Anticipations – the Young Fabians' journal.
Ceasefire Magazine – independent magazine.
Challenge – from the Young Communist League.
Communist Review – from the Communist Party of Britain.
In Defence of Marxism – from the International Marxist Tendency.
International Socialism – from the Socialist Workers Party.
rs21 – from Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century.
Socialist Studies – from Socialist Studies.
Workers' Hammer – from the Spartacist League.
World Revolution – from World Revolution.

Tri-annually:

Capital & Class – from the Conference of Socialist Economists.

Bi-annually:

Organise! – from the Anarchist Federation.
Revolutionary Perspectives – from the Communist Workers Organisation.

Annually:

Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory – independent Marxist journal.

Then there's the blogs:


ALL BLOGS (ALPHABETICAL)

21st Century Manifesto
33 Revolutions per Minute
100 Miles from the Sea
a better nhs
A Green Trade Unionist in Bristol
A Latent Existence
All That Is Solid
Anarch*ish*
Another Angry Voice
Another Angry Woman
Another Green World
Another Rant
A Thousand Flowers
Ayes to the Left
Bella Caledonia
Benefit Scrounging Scum
Black Activists Rising Against Cuts
Black Triangle
Boffy's Blog
Bright Green
Capitalism Creates Poverty
Caroline Lucas
Celyn
Chartist
Class
Collective Invective
Compass
Cost of Living
Country Standard
Dan Hancox
Dave Brinson
Dave Watson
Disabled People Against Cuts
Disillusioned Marxist
Dissent Dispatched
Dream Housing
Ducksoap
Electoral Reform Society
Fabian Society
FairDeals4theProletariat
False Economy
Fitwatch
For a Fair Society
George Monbiot
Green Left
Green Party Trade Union Group
Greenpeace
Hannah Mitchell Foundation
Hatful of History
Housmans Blog
Ian's Unite Site
Ian Manborde
Izzy Koksal
J-Voice
Jane Watkinson
Jason E Cooper
Jews Sans Frontieres
Jim Jepps
Jon's union blog
Jon Worth
Kate Belgrave
LabourLeft
LabourList
Left Foot Forward
Left Futures
Left Gleaning
Left Unity
Lenin's Tomb
libcom
Liberal Conspiracy
Life on Wheels
lipstick socialist
Lisybabe
London Antifascists
London Green Left
London Radical Bookfair
London Socialist Film Co-op
Look Left
Mabinogogiblog
Madam Miaow Says
Manchester Mule
March The Fury
Marxist World
Michael Greenwell
NetPoliticsBlog
new economics foundation
No comment
Noel Lynch
No Fixed Abode Anti-Fascists
Notes from a Broken Society
Oliver James Opinion
OpenDemocracy
Organized Rage
Paul Mason
Penny Red
People's Republic of Southwark
Peter Cranie
Peter Kenyon
Philobiblon
Pieria
Platform
Political Scrapbook
Politics Plus with Nick Venedi
Power in a Union
Pride's Purge
Psephology from the Periphery
Radical Independence Campaign
Radical Wales
Random Blowe
Reading Marx
Red Flag Walks
redgreenblob
Red Pepper
Richie Venton
Rick Coyle
rs21
Salman Shaheen
Scarlet Standard
Scriptonite Daily
Shiraz Socialist
sian and crooked rib
Socialist Health Association
Socialist Unity
Steve's Ramblings
Stumbling and Mumbling
Tax Research UK
Tea and Solidarity
Tendance Coatesy
theabsoluteknave
The Bemolution Will Not Be Televised
The Canary
The Daily Cameron
The Ecosocialist
The Files of Mason Dixon, Autistic
The F Word
The Green Benches
The Industrial Reporter
The Marxist Minx
The People's Assembly
The Project
There Is No Alternative
The Skwawkbox
The Socialist Way
The Third Estate
The Vagenda
The Void
the way i see things
Though Cowards Flinch
Thoughts on What's Afoot
Tony Wilson's Union Blog
Too Much To Say For Myself
ToUChstone blog
Transition Culture
Trevor Chaplin
Two Left Feet
Uckfield Labour
UK Uncut
Unions Together
Viridis Lumen
Vox Political
Welsh Labour Grassroots
Wembley Matters
What Is To Be Done?
Where's the Benefit?
Whisky and Tea
William Morris Unbound


... I suppose this is where socialists say that the above still isn't enough. It won't be enough until there is a socialist version of the Sun or when every newspaper is controlled by a socialist state under the control of, say, Jeremy Bernard Corbyn.