The Meaning of “Knife”: Salman Rushdie Pumps His Ego and Helps the Islamic War on Free Speech

Barack Obama was the affirmative-action president. Salman Rushdie is the affirmative-action literary giant. Like Obama, Rushdie didn’t get to the top of his profession thanks to the depth of his talent and power of his intellect. No, he got there thanks to the color of his skin and the leftism of his politics.

Separated by an ocean, united by Islam

And just as Obama harmed Blacks and worsened race relations in America, so Rushdie has harmed the cause he claims to hold most dear: freedom of speech and of the artistic imagination. Still, look on the bright side. Rushdie is now one of the most famous writers in the world, feted by his fellow leftists everywhere from America to the Antipodes. He’s just published a new book with a simple title and pretentious subtitle: Knife: Meditations on an Attempted Murder. It was written in response to the knife attack launched on him in 2022 by one of the countless Third-World savages whom leftists like Rushdie have imported into the West since the Second World War.

Simplicity and pretension: The cover of Salman Rushdie’s Knife

He was lucky to survive. But the odds were always far better for him than they were for the Glaswegian shopkeeper Asad Shah, who was attacked by another Third-World savage in 2016. Like Rushdie, Shah was accused of blaspheming against Islam. Unlike Rushdie, Shah wasn’t immediately helped by a friendly crowd when the savage began stabbing. That’s why Rushdie is alive and Shah is dead. But the living Rushdie has never acknowledged the dead Shah or explored the disturbing parallels between those two knife-attacks separated by the Atlantic and united by Islam. Part of the reason for Rushdie’s silence on Shah may be that Rushdie has no desire to share the limelight. I’ve never been impressed by the depth of Rushdie’s literary talent, but I have always been impressed by the size of his ego.

Asad Shah and his heroic murderer Tanveer Ahmed (image from BBC)

Knife is another vehicle for Rushdie’s ego and another opportunity for White and Jewish leftists to shower him with praise. And yes, I agree with some of the praise. Rushdie has responded with courage and humor to a near-fatal assault and months of painful treatment in hospital. But his writing hasn’t gotten any better and his analysis of art and Islamic pathologies hasn’t got any less pretentious or any more honest. The literary critic Erica Wagner said thatKnife is a tour-de-force, in which the great novelist takes his brutal near-murder and spins it into a majestic essay on art, pain and love.” She also described how Rushdie tries to understand his would-be assassin, a Lebanese migrant called Hadi Matar:

About two-thirds of the way through Knife, Rushdie conducts his own imaginary interview with this assailant, “my would-be Assassin, the Asinine man who made Assumptions about me, and with whom I had a near-lethal Assignation” – Rushdie’s wordplay never fails him — and attempts to conceive of the young man’s motives. (“Review: Salman Rushdie’s memoir is horrific, upsetting – and a masterpiece,” The Daily Telegraph, 15th April 2024)

In fact, Rushdie’s wordplay never fails to be adolescent. And Matar’s “motives” really aren’t as complex or mysterious as Rushdie tries to pretend. In The Satanic Verses, the character based on the Prophet Muhammad bears another piece of Rushdie’s adolescent wordplay. He’s called Mahound. Get it? Rushdie resurrected a medieval European version of Muhammad’s name to associate Muhammad with dogs, which are of course unclean animals in Muslim eyes (Mahound has also been regularly used by Christians to vilify Muhammad as the founder of a false religion). Elsewhere in The Satanic Verses, there are prostitutes named after Mahound’s wives. One of those wives is dead and the prostitute named after her incites “necrophilia” in her clients, “who forbade her to make any movements.” Rushdie was mocking and subverting Islam. Orthodox Muslims have responded to the mockery and subversion in entirely healthy and predictable fashion: by trying to kill him.

The evils of Islam

It’s entirely healthy from the point of view of Islam, that is. Orthodox Muslims believe in being feared, not in being loved or admired for their tolerance. Whereas Christianity in the West tolerates abominations like Piss Christ (1987) and continues to decay and dwindle, Islam in the West responds with violence to abominations like The Satanic Verses and continues to grow in size, power, and influence. There was a very simple way of avoiding this problem, but for obvious reasons Rushdie and his supporters refuse to mention it. Non-White Muslims should never have been allowed to colonize the West. As it is, not only have Muslims been allowed to colonize the West: they’re being heavily subsidized to breed and to deepen the roots of their evil religion.

And I think “evil” is a fair description of Islam. Take this horrible story from fourteen years ago:

My mum has always had a special place in her family because she was the first girl to live beyond childhood. Five of her sisters died as babies or toddlers. It was not until many years later that anyone worked out why so many children died and three boys were born deaf. Today there is no doubt among us that this tragedy occurred because my grandparents were first cousins. …

My family is not unique. In the UK more than 50 per cent of British Pakistanis marry their cousins – in Bradford that figure is 75 per cent – and across the country the practice is on the rise and also common among East African, Middle-Eastern and Bangladeshi communities.

Back when my grandparents were having children, the medical facts were not established. But today in Britain alone there are more than 70 scientific studies on the subject. We know the children of first cousins are ten times more likely to be born with recessive genetic disorders which can include infant mortality, deafness and blindness.

We know British Pakistanis constitute 1.5 per cent of the population, yet a third of all children born in this country with rare recessive genetic diseases come from this community. Despite overwhelming evidence, in the time I spent filming Dispatches: When Cousins Marry, I felt as if I was breaking a taboo rather than addressing a reality. Pakistanis have been marrying cousins for generations. …

Throughout I had to remind myself that this is a health story – nothing more. It is not about religion or cultural identity. It is about avoidable suffering such at that experienced by Saeeda and Jalil Akhtar, whom I met in Bradford. They are first cousins and have six children, three with the genetic disease mucolipidosis type IV. This stops the body getting rid of waste properly and affects brain functions controlling vision and movement.

Mohsin, their second eldest, is 17 and blind. He wanders aimless and helpless, often crying in frustration. His sisters Hina, 13, and Zainab, 11, have the same condition. They live in almost complete darkness. Saeeda is worn down from years of round-the-clock care. She spoon-feeds them, dresses them and fears for them. Neither she nor her husband can quite accept that their familial link is the cause of this pain.

This is a major public health issue that has huge implications for other services. The cost to the NHS is many millions of pounds. On average, a children’s hospital will see 20 to 30 recessive gene disorders a decade, but one hospital in Bradford has seen 165, while British Pakistani children are three times more likely to have learning difficulties, with care costing about £75,000 a year per child. However during this investigation we found no efforts to introduce any national awareness-raising campaign. Why? (“The greatest taboo: One woman lifts the lid on on the tragic genetic consequences of when first cousins marry,” The Daily Mail, 23rd August 2010)

The answer to the question is simple. Why? Because leftists would much rather allow children to suffer horrifically than criticize a doubly sacred minority: brown-skinned Muslims. Leftism collaborates with the evil of Islam. For further examples, take Asad Shah again. If Rushdie had, per impossibile, tamed his egomania in Knife and written about Shah’s murder, he would have had to begin the story with the death-sentence imposed in Pakistan on a Christian woman called Asia Bibi. Her conviction for blasphemy against Islam was grossly and blatantly unfair, but it was enthusiastically supported by mainstream Muslim groups in Pakistan.

A mainstream mosque in Maryland honors the hero-martyr Mumtaz Qadri

When a Muslim politician called Salmaan Taseer began to campaign on Asia Bibi’s behalf, one of Taseer’s bodyguards expressed his disapproval by machine-gunning Taseer to death. The bodyguard, Mumtaz Qadri, then peacefully surrendered to the authorities and calmly accepted his subsequent execution for murder. His photo later appeared on a poster issued by a mainstream mosque in Maryland, USA. Pakistani colonists in America were celebrating the anniversary of his death and hailing him as a ghazi-shahid, a hero-martyr.

Headchopping for Muhammad

Are Salman Rushdie and his leftist admirers disturbed that Muslims in America are celebrating Mumtaz Qadri, a murderer for Muhammad and dedicated enemy of free speech? They should be. After all, it’s certain that Qadri would just as happily have machine-gunned Salman Rushdie as he machine-gunned Salmaan Taseer. But Rushdie and his fellow leftists have ignored the mosque in Maryland. They don’t want to face the true scale of the disaster they’ve inflicted on the West. That’s also why Rushdie and his fellow leftists have ignored the murder of Asad Shah in Glasgow, which was carried out in direct imitation of Mumtaz Qadri by a Pakistani migrant called Tanveer Ahmed. That murder earnt Ahmed the title of ghazi, “hero,” but Britain no longer has the death-penalty, so he didn’t go on to become a shahid, “martyr,” too.

Many other Muslims in Britain would be very happy to earn the title of ghazi. That’s why a schoolteacher who worked in the Yorkshire town of Batley is still in hiding. He showed his religious-studies class some satirical cartoons of Muhammad in 2021 and roused the wrath of local “Islamists,” as conservatives and libertarians dishonestly call them. They’re not Islamists: they’re mainstream Muslims. And the death-threats they issued to the teacher were entirely believable. After all, a teacher called Samuel Patey had recently been beheaded by an “Islamist” in France after he was falsely accused of showing blasphemous cartoons of Muhammad to one of his classes. Libertarians and conservatives blame such murders not on Muslim migration but on “liberal cowardice.” We’ve got to act robustly in defense of free speech and stop treating Muslims like children. But a decadent Western state that allows mass migration by Third-World savages is never going to act robustly against them.

To ask is to answer

And what if, per impossibile, Britain did begin to “act robustly”? Suppose the state had responded to the death-threats in Batley by hunting down and jailing those who had issued or inspired them. Would that have pacified or inflamed the situation? Would the “Islamists” have been cowed or emboldened by this infidel persecution? Would those sent to jail have seen the error of their ways and ended their sentences as staunch supporters of free speech? Merely to ask the questions is to answer them. There are only two kinds of “robust action” that will solve the worsening Third-World pathologies in the West, including the Muslim war on free speech. The first is an immediate and permanent end to Third-World migration into the West. The second is the deportation of all non-Whites now resident on Western soil back to their homelands.

But leftists and their libertarian allies can’t admit the truth. That’s why they’ll turn Knife into a best-seller. It offers them comforting fantasy rather than uncomfortable reality. And note that Rushdie can’t even be realistic about the central fact of the book: the vicious attempt on his own life. He indulges in adolescent wordplay about “my would-be Assassin, the Asinine man who made Assumptions about me, and with whom I had a near-lethal Assignation.” But an “assignation” is agreed by both parties. Rushdie didn’t agree to that meeting with a Third-World savage. It was imposed on him against his will. Just as Third-World migration has been imposed on ordinary Whites against their will by the hostile elites of Western nations. Unlike Salman Rushdie, countless ordinary Whites have not survived their one-sided “assignations” with Third-World savages. I wrote about one of those ordinary Whites in an earlier article about Rushdie and his “asinine assassin.” In the same month as the attempted murder of Rushdie, an 87-year-old grandfather called Thomas O’Halloran was murdered in a “shocking act of unprovoked violence” whilst riding his “mobility scooter in broad daylight.” A Black career criminal called Lee Byer is due to go on trial for the murder.

A choice between truth and lies

Leftists ignored the actual murder of Thomas O’Halloran, but wailed in shock and horror about the attempted murder of Salman Rushdie. And now, in April 2024, they’re heaping praise on Rushdie’s Knife and ignoring the murder of another White grandfather by another Third-World savage. A so-called asylum-seeker called Ahmed Alid has just been found guilty of murdering 70-year-old Terence Carney in October 2023. Like Hadi Matar, Salman Rushdie’s would-be assassin, Alid used a knife. Unlike Matar, he was successful in slaying an infidel for Islam.

Two Third-World savages imported by leftists: Hadi Matar and Ahmed Alid

But there will be no close analysis of Terence Carney’s murder by leftists like Salman Rushdie. That’s why I can reach a simple conclusion. I don’t know the meaning of life but I do know the meaning of Knife. Rushdie’s tour-de-force is yet more proof of how leftists never hesitate when given a choice between truth and lies, between reality and fantasy, between facing facts and feeding their own egos. It’s lies, fantasy and ego every time.

Hamas Are Rapists … and Other Obvious Truths of the Muslim World

You probably missed one of the most horrible stories of 2023. Border-guards in Saudi Arabia were accused of firing on Black Ethiopian migrants with powerful weaponry, including mortars, and leaving the desert strewn with body-parts and corpses. Survivors were allegedly told “to choose a limb to be shot in” and one was allegedly forced to rape another “under threat of execution.” It seems as though the guards were amusing themselves with the murder and mutilation of despised Blacks, knowing that no-one would care and nothing would be done.

Auster on Islam

If so, they were right. No-one did care. The mainstream right are allied with the vile Saudi government and the mainstream left aren’t interested in anything that portrays Muslims in a bad light. And there’s no shortage of news doing exactly that. If that story from Saudi Arabia is one of the most horrible I’ve ever seen, then another from Tunisia is one of the saddest. A young Arab called Mohamed Bouazizi was trying to scrape a living for his family as a street-vendor. But bullying police kept harassing him, confiscating his produce-cart, and humiliating him with kicks and blows. Seeing no means of redress, Bouazizi despaired and set himself on fire in December 2010 outside the office of the local governor. He was rushed to hospital but died in January 2011. His death was one of triggers of the so-called Arab Spring, which was obviously never going to succeed in bringing decent governments to the Middle East. And it didn’t. Instead, it reinforced one of the central truths of Islamic history: that no-one massacres or oppresses Muslims more enthusiastically and effectively than other Muslims. If you have a strong stomach, try reading about the Syrian prison-system and the methods used by the minority Alawite regime to suppress its enemies and retain power.

When it comes to Islam, I think the late great Larry Auster got it right: all dealings with Muslims should start with the simple recognition that Islam is evil. It’s an accurate description of Islam and an acute prescription of how we should treat Muslims. Evil is both dangerous and infectious, so Auster’s insight tells us very clearly that we should not interfere in Muslim nations and that we should not allow Muslims to inhabit our own nations. Which is not at all to say that Muslims can’t be the victims of great evil at the hands of non-Muslims. The neo-con “wars for democracy” in the Middle East should have put George Bush, Tony Blair, and their Jewish controllers in the dock for crimes against humanity. Communist China is currently oppressing and committing atrocities against Uighur Muslims just as it is against Tibetan Buddhists. But Uighur Muslims had tried to slaughter their way out of Chinese control. It wasn’t a wise move: terrorism doesn’t work against totalitarians. I would prefer both Tibetans and Uighurs to be free and sovereign nations, but I also prefer Tibetans to Uighurs. In Muslim nations, the streets run regularly with the blood of animals and less regularly with the blood of humans. As Larry Auster said: Islam is evil.

Unspecified “gangs”

But it’s precisely because Islam is evil that leftists are so enthusiastic about Muslims entering the West in unlimited numbers. Like Blacks, Muslims are ideal foot-soldiers in the left’s war on White Christian civilization. As I described in “The Arch-Invertebrate of Contemptible,” the Church of England once sent missionaries to Muslims to bring them out of their false religion and into the light of Christ. Now Justin Welby, the most senior cleric in Anglicanism, performs the kaffir krawl before Muslims and refuses to even mention the name of Jesus. And when he condemned the kidnapping of Nigerian Christians in March, he blamed unspecified “gangs.” He couldn’t even bring himself to add the weasel-word “Islamist.” He’s a devout leftist who believes in the Guardian, not the Gospel, which is why he collaborates with the evil of Islam.

And although Welby will express concern about Blacks in Nigeria, he won’t express concern about Whites in Britain. Decade after decade, Muslims have been raping, prostituting, and destroying the lives of White working-class girls in numerous British towns and cities. The Labour party, which was founded to defend the White working-class, hasn’t merely ignored the Muslim rape-gangs: it’s helped them carry on their work by suppressing the truth and demonizing whistle-blowers as “Islamophobic” and “racist.” The Church of England, which is tasked by God with defending the innocent and fighting evil, has responded to sexual jihad by bleating that “We all benefit from the many ways that Muslims in their diversity seek to be good citizens and contribute to our common good.” The Church of England no longer believes in the Way, the Truth, and the Light.

Not natural allies after all

Instead, it believes in the waste, the trash, and the lie. That’s why it won’t speak the truth about the evil of Islam or the central Jewish role in importing that evil into the West. When Denis MacShane, the Labour MP for Rotherham, was jailed for fraud in 2013, he was hailed by the Jewish Chronicle as “one of the [Jewish] community’s greatest champions.” Of course, MacShane wasn’t elected to champion Jews: he was elected to champion the White working-class. Naturally enough, he betrayed the White working-class, ignored the Muslim rape-gangs in his “beloved” constituency of Rotherham, and worked for the rich Jews of far-off London. Like all sensible leftists, MacShane knew that genuinely championing the White working-class is a sure and swift route to obloquy and oblivion, not riches and repute. And his refusal to confront the evil of Islam was part of his work as a shabbos goy (or possible crypto-Jew). Jews have often hailed Muslims as “natural allies,” although they’ve tactfully declined to name the shared enemy of the supposed alliance. They don’t need to name it, because it’s obvious: Jews and Muslims are natural allies against White Christian civilization.

“Open borders for Israel!”: lying Jewish propaganda is turned back on its Jewish creators

Alas, those “natural allies” of Jews have turned out to be natural enemies. Since the atrocities of October 7, Jews have watched with dismay as Hamas-fans have flooded the streets of Western cities week after week, siding with the oppressed non-White Palestinians rather than the oppressive White Israelis. Part of Jewish dismay comes from the fact that they don’t see themselves as “White.” Whites are wicked and Jews, being saintly victims, cannot be part of the White race. QED. But that simple logic isn’t getting through to the Jew-trained left, who think that Ashkenazi Jews like Benjamin Netanyahu are hyper-whites with hyper-privilege. I think this is an example of what observers of the lunacies of Western foreign policy have long called “blowback.” The West supported the Taliban against Russia, then the Taliban turned against the West. Jews trained the left to hate Whites and worship Muslims, then the left sided with Hamas against Israel.

Faithful to Muhammad’s teachings

As for me, I don’t support either Israel or the Palestinians. All the same, Israel is much closer to my ideal for civilization than Gaza is. Palestinians are dedicated to marrying close relatives, not to mastering calculus. But I don’t think my preference for Ashkenazi intellect over Islamic inbreeding has stopped me recognizing the truth about the Hamas invasion of October 7. Yes, Jews are among the world’s greatest hysterics and most enthusiastic liars. And yes, some of the stories about October 7 — the baked or beheaded babies, for example — seem to be hoaxes. But I don’t think the reports of sexual violence by Hamas are hoaxes. Rape of infidel women is sanctified in Islam, not forbidden. The founder of Christianity is not reported to have ever married or had a sexual relationship of any kind with a woman. It isn’t plausible that he never married and never had sex, but Christian texts are silent on the matter and no Christian could ever justify rape or sex-slavery by Christ’s example. That isn’t true for Muslims. The founder of Islam is extensively reported to have had sexual relations not merely with numerous adult women, willing and otherwise, but also with a nine-year-old girl. When the Muslim warriors of Islamic State turned Yezidi women and girls into sex-slaves, they were not rejecting Muhammad’s example, they were being faithful to it. Why would Hamas be any different?

Jewish control is very bad for the West, but  Israel is not uniquely evil

And does it matter in the slightest to the left whether the rape-reports are true or not? Of course it doesn’t. Even if we suppose that Hamas didn’t commit any rapes on October 7, Hamas certainly execute homosexuals. Hamas will continue to execute and the left will continue to turn a blind eye. Leftists insist on seeing Palestinians as saintly non-White victims and Israelis as evil White oppressors. Which isn’t to say that the Israelis aren’t committing evils against the Palestinians. But Palestinians are not saintly and I genuinely do not believe that Israel is behaving towards them with unusual savagery and cruelty. Israel is certainly not committing “genocide” against the inhabitants of Gaza. Saudi Arabia has been waging a war against Yemen since 2015 that is much more deserving of the epithet “genocidal.” But how much outrage has Saudi Arabia’s brutal war on Yemen generated in the West? Not a hundredth as much as Israel’s much briefer and no more brutal war on Gaza. Saudi Arabia is worse than Israel by any objective standard and receives far less condemnation. As I said above: The mainstream right are allied with the corrupt Saudi government and the mainstream left aren’t interested in anything that portrays Muslims in a bad light. Meanwhile, some on the dissident right seem to have abandoned reality when it comes to the war in Gaza. This is what Ron Unz has said:

So in retaliation for perhaps 100 to 200 killings of unarmed civilians, the Israeli government has now gleefully slaughtered tens of thousands of helpless Palestinian civilians while apparently seeking to raise that body-count into the millions. (“American Pravda: Gaza, Jewish Power, and the Holocaust,” Unz Review, 19th February, 2024)

I think Ron makes a good case that most Israeli deaths on October 7 were actually the fault of the IDF, not of Hamas. But I also think that his final claim about Israel’s intentions is hysterical and hyperbolic. I see no “appearance” that Israel wants to kill “millions” of Palestinians. I do, however, see not merely the appearance but the reality that Israel wants to deport millions of Palestinians to the West. Donald Trump’s Jewish son-in-law, the deeply sinister Jared Kushner, has said that it’s “unfortunate” Europe “isn’t taking in more Palestinian refugees.” Does Ron seriously think that Israel would prefer to exterminate millions of Palestinians rather than deport them? And if Palestinians do begin entering the West in large numbers, would Ron be happy for his female friends and relatives to test whether they receive the same “decent and respectful treatment” from Palestinians that he alleges Hamas bestowed on their female captives after October 7?

I hope that he wouldn’t. I also hope that Ron wouldn’t be happy to allow Palestinians unsupervised access to his male friends and relatives either. Not if he knows anything about the long Muslim tradition of male rape, at least. But I will of course apologize to Ron if he turns out to be right and the Israeli military does do what it’s perfectly capable of doing and so far hasn’t done, namely, exterminate Palestinian civilians by the million. Hamas isn’t capable of exterminating Israeli civilians by the million, but is there any doubt that it would if it could? Hamas is a death-cult that is yet more proof of Larry Auster’s simple truth: Islam is evil.

Caliphate for the UK?

In December of last year, Gaza’s oldest mosque was largely destroyed by Israeli air-strikes. The Omari mosque dating back to the seventh century and named for Umar ibn al-Khattab, Islam’s second caliph, and so is much mourned. It is worth noting in passing that Islam does not separate religion and state as the West does, and so such a strike is against a target as much political as religious.

One act in the tragedy of war is the destruction of venerated architecture. Göring’s Luftwaffe tried desperately to bomb St. Paul’s Cathedral in London during World War II, the bombs falling all around the famous dome but never finding the target. The destruction of St. Paul’s would have adversely affected British morale, but both miraculously survived.

Now, another ancient and respected British institution is under attack; Parliament. Three events in England in the last month may have seemed singular viewed individually, but taken together they could permanently shift the tectonic plates of British government. First, intimidation by pro-Palestinian mobs, along with death threats made to Members of Parliament (MPs), may have altered the outcome of a Parliamentary vote on a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. A few days later, a local by-election was won by a veteran Islamist White politician who dedicated his win with the opening line of his victory speech; “This is for Gaza!”. Finally, the next week, a leading figure in the Conservative Party said in an unguarded interview moment that he believed that the London Mayor, Muslim Sadiq Khan, was under the control of Islamists in the nation’s capital. Within days, there was one word predominantly on the media’s lips; Islamophobia.

The term “Islamophobia”, which came into being around a century ago and has been, to use a modern term, weaponized by the Islamic lobby, is as potent as the word “racism”, and ultimately just as devoid of meaning. Words, however, do not have to have meaning nowadays, and some are increasingly purely performative, used not as descriptive but as accusatory. Muslims and their cheerleaders use the term to damn perceived opponents and critics, while those who challenge it point out that a “phobia” is an irrational fear, and there is nothing irrational about fearing Islam. As noted, meaning is not a priority in modern political linguistic usage.

The chain of political events that led to the word once again being prominent began at Westminster, when the Speaker of the UK’s House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, broke with Parliamentary precedent during a vote over a ceasefire in Gaza. As with any such proceedings, the details are intricate, but essentially the vote was allowed to take place in such an amended way that it would assist the opposition Labour Party and its leader, Sir Keir Starmer, to head off a major rebellion by their front-bench MPs. Equally important were the reasons Hoyle gave for his controversial decision, or rather one of them. He was, said the Speaker, concerned for the safety of MPs leaving the building after the vote. What could have been the threat outside the Mother of all Parliaments? Knife crime? Global warming?

The reason was a mob of pro-Palestinian supporters massed outside the House, who seemed to be looking to re-create the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, when men of Kent and Essex burnt many of London’s landmarks to the ground.

What happened that evening cannot be under-stated. If the outcome of a British Parliamentary vote can be swayed by the activism of a mob, then all bets are off. The pro-Palestine mobs that have infested London streets every Saturday since October 7 last year have been increasingly brazen as they realize they are not really being policed, and if thus emboldened they are unlikely to slacken, and will go from vocal to violent. In addition, the Gaza vote was extraordinary in that it will have registered little interest in Gaza itself, while it has become the focal point for a seismic shift in British politics taking place over 2,000 miles from Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Just over a week after Sir Lindsay kicked a hornets’ nest with his irregular constitutional decision, attention shifted to a local by-election in a regional seat made empty by the death of the incumbent Labour MP, and which has a good claim to be the dirtiest such ballot ever fought in Britain. Again, the relevance of the outcome to UK politics cannot be over-emphasized.

Rochdale is a northern English town famed during the industrial revolution for its cotton production. More recently, its fortunes have fallen, and it was one of the towns exposed as being home to largely Muslim “grooming gangs” who drugged and raped young White girls with impunity for many years. They were unhampered by the police and only briefly reported by the mainstream media, very late and even then, minimally and reluctantly. Peter McLoughlin’s book Easy Meat charts this industrial-scale rape, often of minors, perpetrated almost exclusively by men of Pakistani origin. He is clear on the political gain of a cover-up: “Thousands and thousands of schoolgirls were sacrificed so that the elite in Britain could make obeisance to their religion of multiculturalism”.

The rape epidemic — which is still going on — was blamed on culture rather than religion, the apologists seemingly failing to notice that, in the case of Islam, the two are inextricably linked.

The Rochdale by-election was dirty and chaotic. Two weeks before the ballot, Labour withdrew support for its candidate, Azhar Ali, over alleged anti-Semitic comments made on social media. For the opposition party not to field a candidate at a by-election in the UK is vanishingly rare. The ruling Conservative Party expected to be trounced anyway in a dress-rehearsal for their likely wipe-out in the General Election later this year, and the up-and coming Reform UK fielded a candidate who had only recently been accepted back into political life after a scandal involving texts sent to a teenage girl. Even an unknown independent candidate, campaigning on issues concerning Rochdale (as you would normally expect from any candidate), finished second above what are usually recognized as the three main parties in Britain. But the clear winner, with more votes than those three parties combined, was veteran maverick George Galloway.

Galloway is a chancer and a rogue, seeking election wherever he believes he can be backed by a Muslim voting bloc, and has now represented four different constituencies in Parliament, a record equaled only by Sir Winston Churchill. The fiery Scot converted to Islam over two decades ago, and has had four wives, each one a Muslima. He is staunchly pro-Islamic and thus pro-Palestinian, which was the centerpiece of his campaign.

Galloway is a superb rhetorician in the Aristotelean sense. “Rhetoric” has now come to mean words alone, but there is far more to it than that, Aristotle defining it as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion”. Rhetoric is a lot more than words, a fact Galloway knows very well indeed. He is a hero to many British Muslims, and infamously met with Saddam Hussein, telling the Butcher of Baghdad that he saluted his “indefatigability”. Galloway regularly laces his speeches with heavily accented Arabic words and phrases.

Galloway is also a consummate campaigner. His team delivered two versions of the party’s campaign leaflets with basically the same text, but featuring a slight amendment depending on the recipient. Muslim households received a leaflet saying that Galloway would fight specifically for Muslims, while kuffar residences received a missive stating that he would fight for the people of Rochdale. Again, the situation in Gaza is shaping and molding politics in the UK, even at grassroots level.

At a hustings in Rochdale (“hustings” are British campaign-trail events, like stump speeches in the US), every question from journalists concerned the conflict in Gaza. At another, Galloway asked Muslim voters what they would say to their maker on Judgment Day when he asked them what they did for Gaza. This is a powerful image for some Muslims, and shows Galloway’s astute understanding of the Islamic faith. At a press conference, he said intriguingly that “the next election will be all about Muslims”. The next election in Britain is the General Election.

Lee Anderson is one of those British politicians known as “enforcers”. This is unofficial, and nothing like the enforcement of the Chief Whip, who ensures voting solidarity among his party’s MPs. But Anderson is a bullish man who does not suffer fools gladly. He was, until recently, the Chairman of the Tory Party and, until even more recently, still in the party. Not anymore. His comments on Sadiq Khan started a media squabble which soon become political, and led to Anderson’s suspension from the Conservative Party on charges of racism and Islamophobia. There is no point in pointing out yet again that Islam is not a race, and so Anderson’s comment could not be racist but, as noted, words don’t mean what they used to mean.

Anderson stated during a TV interview that Khan was controlled by Islamists. This started a furious media squabble about language, an increasingly strong focal point this century with respect to political, or politicized, words and their usage. Every TV hack is suddenly a linguistics expert after a row over the latest contentious Tweet or post, and it often seems as though the media are hosting a semantics seminar rather than confining themselves to mere reportage. Free speech was arguably freer during the reign of Queen Elizabeth —the First, that is — than that of the ailing son of Queen Elizabeth the Second, and politicians in particular are under forensic scrutiny. It is hardly surprising that MPs do not flock enthusiastically to the cause of free speech when their own is the most policed in the country.

Anderson was accused by Khan of both Islamophobia and racism, a double tap for a man often suspected of being a Muslim fifth-columnist and likely to be re-elected to the London Mayorship later this year. Khan has been a great proponent of immigrants coming to London, and this is the clearest example of the deliberate importation of a ready-made voting bloc, as Khan knows perfectly well that the vast majority of immigrants are Muslims, sectarian differences notwithstanding.

For immigration to the UK is not simply a steady procession of arrivals on dinghies on the Kent coast who have to be housed and fed and provided with debit cards and telephones. It is also a part of the political system, and the arrival of ever more Muslims will be as pleasing to Muslim leaders as it is to business owners. Immigrants were (in)famously described as part of an “invasion” by then Tory Home Secretary Suella Braverman, connoting an invading army. That may be hyperbole, but the invaders of which she spoke could also be reservists in an army which is still at the stage of assembly.

A strong element in Britain’s self-deception about Islam since 9/11 is the tired homily telling us that “not all Muslims are terrorists” and “Islamists are just a handful of extremists and don’t represent Islam”. The first statement is literally true but not all Muslims need to be terrorists, and there will be plenty of smiling Muslim families — perhaps running your local shop, if you’re British — who will be quite happy that ISIS are doing the heavy lifting. There will be many DVDs of the Twin Towers in the collections of some Muslim households, right next to the video of Mohammed and Shamima’s wedding. Anything for the ummah, everything for Islam. And perhaps Islam is seeking to unite the British chapter of that ummah, and is eyeing a key caliphate in the new reconquista. This begins with alliance, forced or otherwise.

France is having the same problem as Britain with Muslim influence, and Michel Houellebecq, the French novelist who has been on the wrong side of Islam in the past, has one of his characters in the novel Submission suggest what could be about to happen in the UK (Houellebecq also predicted the current European farmers’ revolt in his novel Serotonin): “It’s true that Christianity and Islam have been at war for a very long time … but I think the time has come for accommodation, for an alliance”.

Islam is used to such alliances, provided the jizya is forthcoming — i.e., the tax occupying Muslims historically levy on their new subjects. The British wouldn’t even notice a new tax, currently being rinsed by the Internal Revenue at the highest rate since the end of World War II. As for Islamic shariah law, a lot of Brits would make a day of it if young offenders who have previously terrorized their neighborhoods were flogged in the town square, or more likely the car-park in today’s Britain. It would not surprise me if Galloway intends to turn Rochdale into a testing-ground for shariah courts, which already exist de facto in Britain.

The day after Galloway’s election, the British Prime Minister — fabulously rich Hindu Rishi Suna — made a speech outside Number 10 Downing Street in which he rehearsed themes that are becoming familiar to watchers of political semiotics. He conflated Islamism with the “far-Right”, an entity which does not exist in any meaningful sense, as I wrote about here at The Occidental Observer.  Sunak called Galloway’s election “beyond horrifying”, and he had a strange take on Anderson’s comments, saying that “the words were wrong”. There is something incantatory about this, as though Anderson were a sorcerer’s apprentice who had uttered the wrong summoning spell. Henry Bolton, the leader of Nigel Farage’s old outfit, the UK Independence Party, described Sunak’s speech as follows: “His words were good, but it wasn’t going anywhere”.

This extraordinary statement shows, as noted, that there is a deep crisis in contemporary English-language usage and it needs bringing to light. We used to have philosophers to do that sort of thing for us.

But it is not all political machination. Islam, metaphysically equipped to play the long game but not averse to hurrying things along a little, knows that violence, or at least rumors of violence, are powerful rhetorical tools too. Richard Tice is the leader of the Reform Party, who are being spoken of as the heirs to conservatism should the Tories expected General Election defeat be even worse than expected. Tice has yet to prove that he differs from the political class, but he has not shied away from severe criticism of the campaigning by representatives of both Islamist parties in Rochdale. He claims severe staff intimidation and threats, polling station harassment, and a sudden spike in postal voting. Simon Danczuk, Reform’s candidate at the Rochdale by-election, is more specific in his allegations here.

Islam has been establishing beachheads in the British political process for years, and they have received an accelerant. As in the European lowlands of Belgium and Holland, local Muslim political power grows in the UK, and towns and cities gradually become micro-caliphates which may one day join hands. The Omari mosque was destroyed by military means. The destruction of British democracy may take time, but not a shot need be fired (although the possibility cannot be discounted).

The dissident Right are often conflicted over the question of Islam. Muslims, it goes without saying, are animated by a hatred of Jewry, and so get a pass from many on the far Right. My enemy’s enemy and all that. But the leading two British parties are heading into a General Election which has just come astonishingly to life, as if envious of the gunfight at the OK Corral which the American Presidential Election looks likely to be. If the UK’s election follows the same lines, Islam is drawing its revolvers first. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his opposite number, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, are trying desperately to placate two bitterly opposed factions over Gaza. Muslim leaders and imams in Britain know this, perceive weakness in the leadership, and know how to mobilize in synchronicity. Islam is increasingly setting the political agenda because Islam is the political agenda.

Finally, the question every politician asks secretly in that little part of themselves where they think what they really mean. Is it good for the Jews? Anti-Semitic violence is increasing in Britain (although every identitarian group claims the same thing), and the first Jew to die at pro-Palestinian hands in the UK — should that happen — may strike a match to a situation every bit as potentially explosive as the stash of dynamite with which Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up Parliament in 1605. For decades, Jewish influence on British politics had been monopolistic and required no enforcement. With sufficient influence in business and the media, British Jewry felt no need to bring in the Stern Gang. This surety no longer exists, and British-Jewish interests are about to discover that there are different types of power and different ways to exert political influence than just money.

The Sweet Smell of Head-Chopping… And the Stench of Silence from Libertarians

Enlightenment enthusiast Kenan Malik is at it again. So are Kenan’s Komrades, the fanatical Furedite freedom-fighters at the libertarian journal Spiked Online. Or rather, Kenan & Komrades aren’t at it again. The problem is not what they’ve done, but what they’ve yet again failed to do. A fascinatingly horrible story about censorship has been in the news. It cries out for condemnation by defenders of free speech, for expert analysis and interpretation by enthusiasts for the Enlightenment. So how have Kenan and his comrades responded to the story? By ignoring it.

The sweet smell of cephalotomy

It’s very easy to understand their silence. Like the murder of Asad Shah, the story explodes all their bullshit and obfuscation about why free speech is dying in the West. Even though the story itself takes place in the East. In Pakistan, to be precise. It’s a good example of how Lewis Carroll (1832–98), the author of Alice in Wonderland, and the Marquis de Sade (1740–1814), the author of 120 Days of Sodom, seem to be collaborating from the afterlife on the script for Pakistani culture. Carroll supplies the absurdity and the Marquis de Sade supplies the atrocity. In this case, fortunately enough, Carroll had the upper hand and the Marquis held himself in check.

An innocent woman in terror of a mainstream Muslim mob: the Arabic script says halwa, meaning “sweet”

So how does the story go? It goes like this: on 25th February, 2024, a young Muslim woman went shopping in Lahore in a pretty new dress. The dress came from a Kuwaiti fashion-house and had Arabic calligraphy on it. Even if you don’t read Arabic, it isn’t hard to see that a single word is repeated there in various colors. The word is حلوۃ, halwa, meaning “sweet” and having no religious significance. Pakistan uses an adapted (and less attractive) form of Arabic script for its own national language of Urdu, so this dress shouldn’t have got the woman in any trouble.

But remember, Lewis Carroll and the Marquis de Sade are writing the script for Pakistan. So here come the actual absurdity and the attempted atrocity. As the woman did her shopping, some men falsely accused her of blasphemy for wearing verses from the Qur’an on her body. The woman fled into a food-shop and huddled there in terror as a mob of hundreds gathered outside. Some of the mob chanted for her death using well-known advice for lovers of the Prophet Muhammad in Pakistan:

!⁧گستاخ رسول کی ایک ہی سزا سر تن سے جدا

Gustakh-e-Rasūl kī ek hī sazā, sar tan se judā!

“For insult to the Prophet, there is only one punishment: cut the head from the body!” (See “sar tan se juda” at Wiktionary)

Fortunately for the woman, her alleged blasphemy didn’t result in actual cephalotomy (Greek kephalos, “head,” + tomos, “cutting”). The police arrived and a brave policewoman called Syeda Shehrbano Naqvi faced down the mob. Naqvi then escorted the woman to safety with her head covered and the dress concealed. Three bearded mullahs later interviewed her at a police-station, examined the dress, and certified that she was entirely innocent of blasphemy. The woman herself issued a terrified apology: “I didn’t have any such intention [of provoking trouble], it happened by mistake. Still I apologise for all that happened, and I’ll make sure it never happens again.”

Patriarchs pronounce: the terrified female fashion-fan is cleared of blasphemy by bearded mullahs

The woman was entirely innocent, remember. But she still felt obliged to apologize to the misogynistic fanatics who threatened to chop her head off. Misogyny was definitely part of what happened. So was patriarchy. Misogynists don’t like seeing women happily shopping in pretty new dresses. Patriarchs do like dictating female behavior. It’s not just libertarians in the West who should have been writing about this story, even though it took place in the East. Western feminists should have been all over it too. This is because the West is importing the East, so misogynistic and intolerant Pakistani culture is now firmly established on Western soil. Misogynistic and intolerant Afghan culture is firmly established too, as we saw when the Afghan “asylum seeker” Abdul Ezedi threw a flesh-eating alkali over a woman and her two young daughters in London in February.

The stench of silence

That was a horrific act of misogyny by a convinced patriarch, but feminists ignored it and wrote no outraged commentaries about its significance for Western women. After all, no White man was involved, so there was no advantage to be gained for leftism in condemning the attack. Similarly, there’s no advantage for leftism or libertarianism in the story about the fashion-phobic mob in Pakistan. Given the enthusiasm of the mob for decapitation and what was written on the woman’s dress, you could say that it was a story about the sweet smell of head-chopping. By ignoring it, Kenan & Komrades have also made it into a story about the stench of silence. After all, the fashion-phobic mob revealed the lunacy of importing Pakistanis and other Muslims into the West. The mob also exploded the lies in articles like this, posted at Spiked by one of Frank Furedi’s fanatical freedom-fighters:

British schools are being turned into political battlegrounds. A militant Muslim identity politics is mounting an ever-stronger challenge to their educational authority. Over the past few weeks alone, the Michaela Community School in north-west London has appeared at the High Court, having been sued for discrimination by a Muslim pupil over its decision to ban prayer rituals. And a few miles away in east London, Barclay Primary School has been under attack from Islamists and a few parents after it told children not to wear clothing or badges displaying some form of ‘political allegiance’ in school — a move interpreted as a clampdown on pro-Palestine symbols.

In both cases, activists’ response to the school’s decisions has been marked by menace. Following Michaela’s decision to ban prayer rituals last spring, bomb threats were made to teachers, the school was vandalised and a brick was thrown through a classroom window. And in response to Barclay Primary’s change to its uniform code, arson and bomb threats were sent both to the school and individual staff. Masked men climbed the school’s fence at night to hang Palestinian flags around its perimeter.

There is a tendency to frame cases like this as part of an age-old conflict between religion and modernity. Between the demands of faith and the demands of public life in secular societies. But it’s a misleading characterisation. The aggressive imposition of Muslim cultural practices on to education has very little to do with Islam and everything to do with decades of multicultural policymaking. That is what we’re seeing right now in the cases of Michaela and Barclay. Not quiet displays of faith, but loud, all-too-visible assertions of Muslim identitarianism. (“How Muslim identity politics colonised education,” Spiked, 28th January 2024)

If you’re like me, your jaw may still be aching from the speed at which it dropped when you read this line: “The aggressive imposition of Muslim cultural practices on to education has very little to do with Islam and everything to do with decades of multicultural policymaking.” What planet is the author on? Planet Trotsky, that’s what. That article was a “Long Read” but it might as well have been called a “Long List of Lies.” It was written by someone called Tim Black, but plugs the same line as Kenan Malik’s many articles on the ever-increasing pathologies created by Muslims in kaffir countries

Black and Malik were once members of a Trotskyist cult called the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). They’re still devoted disciples of the RCP’s leader, a Jewish sociologist called Frank Furedi (born 1947) who isn’t remarkable for insight or intellect but is remarkable for his ability to create cognitive clones of himself. Just as Furedi taught them, Kenan and his comrades carry on claiming that Islam and Muslim migration have never been a genuine problem. No, it’s the mistaken policies of the non-Muslim elite towards Muslims that causes all the trouble. If it weren’t for the foul and foolish policy of “multiculturalism,” Muslims would long ago have begun erecting statues of Voltaire and forming reading-clubs to probe the collected works of John Stuart Mill. Their Islamic faith would have remained “a private affair, a matter of conscience and ritual.”

Murderers for Muhammad

That’s the theory, anyway. Alas for libertarians, it falls apart when it’s set against reality. “Multiculturalism” didn’t embolden that Muslim mob chanting for the decapitation of a terrified woman in Lahore in 2024. Nor did it embolden the Muslims who burnt a copy of H.G. Wells’ A Short History of the World in London in 1938. Wells had disrespected the Prophet Muhammad, you see, so Muslims burnt his book for lack of ability to chop his head off. And “multiculturalism” definitely didn’t embolden the Muslim hero-martyr Ilm ud-Deen, who stabbed a Hindu blasphemer to death in 1929, then calmly accepted arrest, imprisonment, and execution. The Hindu had satirized the Prophet in a book called Rangila Rasul or Colorful Prophet, so Ilm Ud-Deen did the decent thing and dispatched him to Hell (“colorful” also implies “promiscuous” or “wanton” in Urdu and Hindi).

Islamic Hero #1: Ilm ud-Deen, who murdered for Muhammad in India (image from the movie Hero Ilmuddin the Martyr)

Islamic Hero #2: Mumtaz Qadri, who murdered for Muhammad in Pakistan (the poster is for a celebration of Qadri in a mainstream Muslim mosque in Maryland, USA)

Islamic Hero #3: Tanveer Ahmed, who murdered for Muhammad in Britain (Ahmed is described as ghazi, “hero,” and his victim Asad Shah as kazzab, “liar”)

Ilm Ud-Deen’s heroic defence of the Prophet’s honor explains why there are shrines devoted to his memory in modern Pakistan. A movie was released there in 2002 celebrating his love of the Prophet and noble self-sacrifice (you can watch it for free at Youtube). It’s called Ghazi Ilmuddin Shahid, which means Hero Ilmuddin the Martyr. To millions of Pakistanis that’s exactly what he is. He’s a hero for killing the Hindu blasphemer and a martyr for welcoming the execution that followed.

Given the continuing veneration of Ilm ud-Deen in Pakistan, it’s no surprise that in 2011 another devout Muslim followed his golden example and became a ghazi-shahid too. Mumtaz Qadri was a bodyguard for the Pakistani minister Salmaan Taseer. But Taseer tried to help the Christian woman Asia Bibi, who was rotting on death-row after a righteous conviction for blasphemy. Taseer “advocated reform of Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws,” so Qadri did the decent thing and machine-gunned him to death, then calmly accepted arrest, imprisonment, and execution. His golden example inspired another yet devout Muslim, this time one living in Britain. After his arrival here from Pakistan, Tanveer Ahmed was horrified to learn that an Ahmadi heretic called Asad Shah was disseminating blasphemous videos from his shop in Glasgow. So Tanveer got in his taxi and drove up from Bradford in 2016 to do the decent thing. He stabbed and stamped Asad Shah to death, then calmly accepted arrest and imprisonment for murder.

Murderous Mumtaz was a “true Muslim”

If Britain still had the death-penalty, he would have accepted execution just as calmly. He didn’t get to be a shahid, a “martyr,” but he’s still a ghazi, a “hero,” to many mainstream Muslims in Britain. For example, Glasgow Central Mosque and the Muslim Council of Scotland refused to take part in an “anti-extremism event” held in memory of Asad Shah. They too thought that Asad Shah was a heretic and deserved all he got. Indeed, only a month before Shah was dispatched to Hell-fire, an imam at Glasgow Central Mosque had expressed his “pain” at the execution of Mumtaz Qadri, the Martyr with a Machine-Gun, called him a “true Muslim,” and pronounced a blessing on him. Kenan Malik’s own newspaper, the Guardian, reported that “One of the largest mosques in Birmingham said special prayers for Qadri, describing him as ‘a martyr’, as did influential preachers in Bradford and Dewsbury’.” Qadri-fans from Pakistan have toured mosques in Britain and praised his heroic defence of the Prophet.

How have Kenan and his comrades responded to this perfectly mainstream Muslim love of violent censorship and hatred of peaceful free speech? Well, to the best of my knowledge, Kenan Malik has never written a word about the murder of Asad Shah or the deep-rooted Pakistani tradition of murder-for-Muhammad that inspired it. The same silence has long been maintained at Spiked, where no senior writer mentioned Asad Shah until 2023, when Spiked’s editor Tom Slater (who isn’t one of Kenan’s original comrades) wrote a detailed article about the murder. But detail didn’t preclude dishonesty. As I described in “Blasphemy and Bullshit,” Slater blamed “liberal cowardice” and “state multiculturalism” for “fuel[ing] Islamic intolerance” and encouraging Muslims “to see themselves as separate and distinct.” Contra Slater’s dishonesty, Tanveer Ahmed came to Britain as an adult with his “Islamic intolerance” fully formed by his upbringing in Pakistan.

“Love Muslim migration, hate free speech”

And Slater doesn’t understand — or pretends not to understand — that “multiculturalism” harmonizes perfectly with mass immigration. Opposing “multiculturalism” and supporting open borders, as Slater and his comrades have always done, is like opposing maggot infestation and supporting open wounds. When the elite of a civilized nation is on the side of the ordinary people in that nation, it does not allow mass immigration from the Third World. That’s why Frank Furedi’s homeland of Hungary is not troubled by rape-gangs, suicide-bombing, murder-for-Muhammad, and other aspects of Islamic enrichment. However, when the elite of a nation is hostile to the ordinary people of that nation, it imposes Third-World immigration on the ordinary people no matter how much they protest. At the same time, the hostile elite privileges the Third-World invaders over the White natives and allows them to pursue their own advantage at all turns.

You can see this elite betrayal in Britain, which has had an official policy of multiculturalism, just as much as in France, which has had an official policy of monoculturalism. In other words, the imposition of Third-World immigration by a hostile elite harmonizes perfectly with the incubation of Third-World pathologies. Kenan Malik and Spiked never point out that the greatest enemies of free speech, like Labour in Britain and the Democrats in America, are simultaneously the greatest supporters of Third-World immigration. Nor do they point out the rarity and fragility of free speech. Across almost all the world throughout almost all of history, tyrants and religious believers have maintained their power by silencing their critics with violence and imprisonment. Given their own political history, Malik and Spiked should need no reminding that it was the freedom-hating Josef Stalin who triumphed over the freedom-loving Leon Trotsky.

Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses

Not that Trotsky was a genuine lover of freedom. He might well have become a worse tyrant than Stalin if he’d won the battle for supremacy. Malik and Spiked aren’t genuine lovers of freedom either. If they were, they wouldn’t have ignored the horrific murder of Asad Shah for so long. When Tom Slater finally broke that shameful silence at Spiked, he complained that Shah’s “name doesn’t mean much to people in Britain today. But it really should.” I fully agree. That’s why I’ve been writing about the murder of Asad Shah ever since it happened: see here, here, here, here, here, here and here. But alas, I’m a crazed far-right extremist and I don’t have the mainstream audience enjoyed by Spiked and by Kenan Malik at the Observer, the Sunday version of the Guardian. If Kenan & Komrades had written regularly and often about Asad Shah, he would now be much better known. But if they’d done that, they would have contradicted their own bullshit about “multiculturalism” rather than migration being to blame for “Muslim identity politics” in the West.

As I’ve said, that theory falls apart when it’s set against reality. That’s why Kenan Malik, for example, has protested loudly about Uyghur Muslims being persecuted by kaffir communists in China even as he’s ignored the murder of Asad Shah in Glasgow and the fashion-phobic mob in Lahore. If Lewis Carroll and the Marquis de Sade are writing the script for Pakistan, then it’s Douglas Adams (1952–2001), author of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, who’s writing the script for Kenan & Komrades:

Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses have been specially designed to help people develop a relaxed attitude to danger. At the first hint of trouble, they turn totally black and thus prevent you from seeing anything that might alarm you. (From Douglas Adams’ The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (1980), chapter 5)

Metaphorically speaking, Kenan & Komrades have been wearing Joo Janta Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses for decades. But the real problem isn’t that they’re blind to the truth about Islam and Third-World migration, it’s that they see the truth and then refuse to be honest about it. That’s why they’ve ignored so many inconvenient stories about Muslim love of Muhammad and hatred of free speech. As I said above, Lewis Carroll had the upper hand on the dress-script, rather than the Marquis de Sade. But the Marquis had the upper hand on this script for lovers of Muhammad:

A mob in Pakistan tortured, killed and then set on fire a Sri Lankan man who was accused of blasphemy over some posters he had allegedly taken down. Priyantha Diyawadana, a Sri Lankan national who worked as general manager of a factory of the industrial engineering company Rajco Industries in Sialkot, Punjab, was set upon by a violent crowd on Friday.

In horrific videos shared across social media, Diyawadana can be seen being thrown on to the floor, where hundreds began tearing his clothes, violently beating him. He was tortured to death and then his body was burned. Dozens in the crowd can also be seen taking selfies with his dead body. The incident began when rumours emerged that Diyawadana, who had been manager of the factory for seven years, had taken down a poster bearing words from the Qur’an. By the morning, a crowd began to gather at the factory gates and by early afternoon they had charged into the factory and seized Diyawadana. (Man tortured and killed in Pakistan over alleged blasphemy, The Guardian, 3rd December 2021)

If Kenan Malik and Spiked were genuinely concerned with defending free speech, they would write about stories like that. There’s no shortage of them from Pakistan and other Muslim countries. But alas, if Kenan & Komrades wrote about horrific stories like that, they would find it much harder to plug bullshit like this:

Discussions about ideas or social practices or public policy should be as unfettered as possible. But when disdain for ideas or policies or practices become transposed into prejudices about people, a red line is crossed. It’s crossed when castigation of Islamism leads to calls for an end to Muslim immigration. (“Blurring the line between criticism and bigotry fuels hatred of Muslims and Jews,” The Observer, 3rd March 2023)

That’s Kenan Malik in the Sunday version of the Guardian. He wants both discussion about ideas and Muslim immigration to “be as unfettered as possible.” But the murder of Asad Shah proves that “Muslim immigration” is very bad for “discussion of ideas.” That’s why Kenan has ignored the murder of Asad Shah. He’s also ignored the fact that ideas do not have to be accompanied by immigration. Here is an image of a Muslim expressing an idea in India:

A Muslim offers some wholesome head-chopping advice in Hindi script (image from OpIndia)

The Hindi script on the placard reads Gustākh-e-nabi ki ek hi sazā, sar tan se judā, sar tan se judā, which means “For insulting the Prophet, there is only one punishment: cut the head from the body, cut the head from the body!” It’s the same wholesome head-chopping advice that I discussed at the beginning of this article (or nearly the same: it uses nabi for “prophet” rather than rasūl).

That’s the magic of writing, you see: it allows ideas to fly across vast stretches of space and time without any accompanying body or brain. The Muslim is in India, I’m in Britain. I’ve seen his “idea” and I reject it. But alas: Muslims who accept the same idea have colonized Britain in ever-growing numbers. Tanveer Ahmed accepts that idea. That’s why he triumphed in his “discussion” with the heretical Asad Shah in Glasgow. Asad wanted to shake hands with his opponent; Tanveer wanted to murder his opponent. It was Tanveer who won the discussion and who strengthened his violent form of Islam at the expense of Asad’s peaceful form of Islam.

Phony friend of free speech

As Kenan Malik never told you, Asad Shah had been granted asylum in Britain precisely because he was at threat of violence in Pakistan. But Pakistan followed him to Britain thanks to Britain’s insane and evil immigration policies. When you import Third-World people, you inevitably import Third-World pathologies with them. But it isn’t just the murderous intolerance of mainstream Pakistani culture that Britain has imported. It’s also the rape-culture of Pakistan. And the horrible genetic diseases caused by the Pakistani tradition of marrying close relatives. How does Kenan Malik respond to all these pathologies? To the best of his ability, he ignores them completely. But he claims that “a red line is crossed” when those who oppose “Islamism” call for “an end to Muslim immigration.” So there you have Malik’s “red line.” Not the murder of Asad Shah, which he ignored, but any call for an end to Muslim immigration.

In other words, Malik isn’t a genuine friend of free speech and isn’t a genuine opponent of identity politics. That’s why he ignores horrific stories about Muslim intolerance and why he uses weasel-words like “Islamism.” I don’t think murderers like Mumtaz Qadri and Tanveer Ahmed are “Islamists.” I think they’re perfectly mainstream Muslims. I think the same of the Muslims at Glasgow Central Mosque who refused to attend the “anti-extremism event” for Asad Shah and who pronounced a blessing on Mumtaz Qadri, the Martyr with a Machine-Gun.

“Love Muhammad, hate free speech”

But I’m a crazed right-wing extremist, so I’m sure that Kenan Malik won’t take my word for it. That’s fine. He can take the word of his own newspaper instead. In 2011 Saeed Shah, the Guardian’s correspondent in Islamabad, reported that “mainstream religious organisations applauded the murder of Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Punjab, earlier this week and his killer was showered with rose petals as he appeared in court.” In 2014, the Guardian was back with an update: “A mosque named in honour of the killer of a politician who called for the reform of Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws is proving so popular it is raising funds to double its capacity.”

Is Kenan Malik wearing his Joo Janta Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses when stories like that make their regular appearance in his own newspaper? Do the sunglasses “turn totally black and thus prevent him from seeing anything that might alarm him”? No, that’s not what happens. The problem with Kenan & Komrades isn’t their eye-wear but their dishonesty and refusal to admit the truth. Murder for Muhammad is mainstream in Islamic countries. Thanks to Muslim immigration, murder for Muhammad is becoming mainstream in Britain too. And in France, where cartoonists have been massacred and a schoolteacher beheaded by yet more imported lovers of Muhammad and haters of free speech. Lying leftists are responsible for those murders. But so are lip-sealed libertarians.

Measuring the Islamization of France and Belgium: 20% of Newborns Given Muslim Names

Unlike in the English-speaking world, most countries in Continental Europe sadly do not collect official statistics documenting the ethnic situation. In France, the mainstream media goes so far as to desperately claim that the Grand Remplacement (Great Replacement) of the indigenous French population, which is visible in every city, is a mere “conspiracy theory.” The media hacks, who for the most part work for or are subsidized by the state, really take their fellow-citizens for fools.

Meanwhile, intrepid, genuinely independent citizen-journalists are doing the work which the official media refuses to do by trying to measure this development. The nativist French website Fdesouche recently published the percentage of newborns given Muslim names in France and Belgium, according to official statistics.

As can be seen, France and Belgium have experienced similar developments, with the granting of Muslim names rapidly rising from 5-8% in 1995 to around 20% today:

Fdesouche had previously found that one third of newborns in France were tested for sickle-cell disease, a procedure usually performed if the infant was of African or Middle-Eastern origin. Given that Muslims by no means make up all of France’s non-White immigrants, the data is broadly congruent. Read more

‘Heaping Up Its Own Funeral Pyre’: Britain, Islamic Terror, and the Cult of Pacifism

“Fail, and that history turns into rubbish,
All that great past to a trouble of fools.”
—­ W.B. Yeats, Three Marching Songs

In 1937 the great Anglo-Irish poet William Butler Yeats was visited by a professor from India who, after lengthy discussion over lunch, requested a message to his country. ‘Let ten thousand men of one side meet the other. That is my message to India,’ replied Yeats, who then seized a Japanese sword and shouted, ‘Conflict, more conflict!’ To twenty-first-century ears, the message might seem bizarre, and may even have jarred the constitution of Yeats’s visitor. It was rooted, however, in the context of the poet’s Romantic and nationalistic belief system — a belief system in which conflict was both natural and good, and essential to the prevention of tribal decay, pollution, and decadence.

We are now, of course, far removed from such an understanding. It has been exiled from artistic and political expression, and driven from instinct by a weak and perverted culture. In the present, to be angry is ‘to let your enemy win.’ To hate is to commit the most grievous of sins of personality. To assert yourself and your interests is to perpetrate a pathological level of selfishness. Yeats would be repulsed. He would have understood that whereas conflict offers at least the opportunity for victory, and thus assumes a heroic quality, the pacifism currently inculcated in the West offers only ignoble defeat and death.

The Yeats anecdote recurred to me in the early hours of the morning as I cast my eyes over emerging media commentary on the latest jihadist attack in London. With depressing regularity the mainstream media, politicians, and cultural personalities ascended into the airwaves like insects disturbed from a nest, all carrying the same poison. To be sure, no-one dared express surprise at the latest Muslim atrocity — we are, perhaps fortunately, getting to the point where that particular affront has exhausted its viability, although faux expressions of ‘shock’ continue to reverberate. Instead, the narrative advanced by these elites was based around the idea that terrorism “should not divide us.” Quite apart from the fact that a multicultural society means that there is no longer any ‘us,’ and the fact that terrorism aims to terrorise rather than ‘divide’ a population, the statement itself should be read as containing a subliminal message: “Do nothing.” It is an enjoinder to pacifism — to surrender.

There is nothing noble about refusing to be moved or motivated by terrorism. If a man broke into my home and assaulted my family I am not made heroic by standing in the corner and pretending that nothing has happened or pretending we’re brothers after all. In the last twenty-four hours social media has been awash with liberals appealing to images of British stoicism during the Blitz of the Second World War. Such allusions are flawed for two reasons, the first being that the stoical, ‘stiff upper lip’ Blitz narrative is nothing more than a myth and a cultural trope. The late British historian Angus Calder’s masterpiece, The Myth of the Blitz, clearly demonstrated that far from showing the British at their finest hour, the Blitz disrupted the lives and broke the will of the vast majority of Londoners, causing a quarter of the population to flee to the countryside.[1] And rather than encouraging national solidarity, both Winston Churchill and the Royal Family were booed while touring the aftermath of air-raids. If the aim of the German air raids was to instill genuine terror, weaken morale, and disrupt the life of the city, it largely succeeded in these goals. And if contemporary Britons believe that they can survive Islamic terror by appealing to a fictional ‘Blitz spirit,’ then they are horribly mistaken. Read more

Manchester Malady: Traitors Lie, Children Die

“Diversity is indeed a strength, not a threat.” That’s a line from the Queen’s Christmas message in 2004. “I love the diversity of London — I just feel comfortable.” That’s a line from the former immigration minister Barbara Roche in 2011. “Our priority as a government must always be to keep people safe.” That’s a line from the British Home Secretary Amber Rudd in 2017.

Liberal fantasy: “Peace + Love Manchester”

Racial and religious enrichment

All three women are suicide-mommas promoting an insane and deadly liberalism. All of them bear some responsibility for the suicide-bombing in Manchester on 22nd May 2017. But give Barbara Roche her due: unlike the other two, she was speaking the truth. She does indeed love an atomized society, because it fulfils her deepest political ambition: “to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.” Roche is Jewish and feels paranoid in a homogeneous White society. That’s why she worked so hard to open Britain’s borders to the Third World under the traitorous Tony Blair.

And if the glorious project of racial and religious enrichment goes wrong, Barbara can always seek refuge in Israel, where her Jewish identity gives her an automatic right of citizenship. But let’s suppose that Salman Abedi, the British citizen responsible for the Manchester vibrancy, had wanted to take a short holiday in Israel to soak up some sun and enjoy some of that famous Israeli courtesy and charm.

Unpleasant reality: Robo-cops to combat vibrancy

Would he have been granted a tourist visa? No, not a chance. He was on terrorist watch-lists maintained by both British and American intelligence, so we can be absolutely certain that Israel would have refused him entry. Israel would also have refused his Libyan parents entry if they’d tried to claim asylum as refugees when they escaped the Gaddafi regime. Israel’s government really does make it a “priority” “to keep people safe.” Read more