Another day in Brave New Britain, another Muslim rape-gang is convicted and another set of ugly, alien, melanin-enriched faces stare out from news-reports. But not for long. As Douglas Murray spotted in 2018, the leftist media are now determined that these stories should disappear as soon as possible. After all, in 2017 a White idiot called Darren Osborne drove a car at worshippers outside a mosque in London, killing one man and injuring twelve others because he had been “radicalized” by Tommy Robinson and angered by a BBC drama about Muslim “grooming gangs” in the Lancashire town of Rochdale.
The ugly, alien, melanin-enriched faces of a Muslim rape-gang from Rotherham
That, for leftists, was proof that the choice for society is clear: it’s either silence or violence. Either we cover up Muslim imperfections as much as possible or evil, bigoted Whites will rise up and kill Muslims. The Sudanese-British journalist Nesrine Malik has laid out the official line in the Guardian and attacked “The myth of the free speech crisis.” According to Malik, free speech must be used only for “challenging upwards,” not for “punching downwards” and “attacking the weak and persecuted.” She asserts that “Our alleged free speech crisis was never really about free speech. The backdrop to the myth is rising anti-immigration sentiment and Islamophobia. Free-speech-crisis advocates always seem to have an agenda. They overwhelmingly wanted to exercise their freedom of speech in order to agitate against minorities, women, immigrants and Muslims.”
Nesrine Malik Is Punching Up At You
So shut up, you White male bigots! If you criticize non-Whites, you’re punching down and should be silenced. If non-Whites criticize you, they’re punching up and should be celebrated. What could be simpler? But I see a big flaw in Nesrine Malik’s arguments on behalf of “minorities, women, immigrants and Muslims.” Although she is definitely on the side of Muslims and immigrants, I don’t think she is on the side of women. Darren Osborne, who came from the White majority, killed one Muslim from the non-White minority. But it’s clear that non-Whites are far more likely to kill and otherwise harm Whites than vice versa.
“Groomed” at 12, murdered at 17
Non-Whites are a particular danger to White women. As the judge at the most recent rape-gang trial has said, the Labour council and police in Rotherham “had been aware vulnerable teenagers in [Rotherham] were being targeted for sexual exploitation more than a decade ago.” The council and police decided that silence and censorship were the best responses to the flourishing rape-culture of Muslims. And so a White girl called Laura Wilson was “groomed” for sex at the age of 12, then brutally murdered by two Muslim men at the age of 17. She was stabbed repeatedly, then thrown into a canal to die.
In Telford, another small English town heavily enriched by Muslims, the same pattern played out. The authorities preferred silence and censorship about Muslim rape-gangs, not publicity and prosecution. And so a White girl called Lucy Lowe was “groomed” at 13 and murdered at 16 along with her mother and 17-year-old sister. They were burned alive when a Muslim called Azhar Ali Mehmood set fire to their house. Wherever Muslims and other non-Whites have emigrated in the West, they have murdered Whites and wrecked the lives of White girls and women. This has been going on for decades and the response of the authorities has always been the same: silence and censorship.
Rape-culture in Sudan
The internet began to change that, allowing Whites to discuss and challenge the pathologies introduced to their nations by mass immigration. But Nesrine Malik and other leftists hate that free discussion. They want silence and censorship to reign again. Yes, non-Whites must be allowed to criticise Whites openly and endlessly, but Whites cannot be allowed to criticize non-Whites. After all, I’m such a bigot that I think Sudanese immigrants like Nesrine Malik are bad for the West. And the only things I’ve got on my side are facts and endless stories of crimes committed by Sudanese people. For example, rape-culture is so bad in Sudan that both men and women were raped by security forces during recent unrest in the capital Khartoum. And it’s not surprising that Sudanese bring their rape-culture with them when they emigrate to the West. A Sudanese rapist left a woman with “horrific life-changing injuries, including a ‘shattered’ skull and bleeding to the brain” in the English city of Leicester in 2018. And three Sudanese “asylum seekers” committed a gang-rape in Huddersfield in the same year. In 2019, another Sudanese “asylum seeker” improved on that vibrant tradition by “savagely murder[ing] a 21-year-old [White] woman” in Leeds “after she refused to have sex with him.”
Nesrine Malik poses as a feminist, but does not discuss stories like that or explore the way in which emigration from Third-World countries with violent, misogynist cultures will inevitably mean raped, maimed and murdered White women in the First World. After all, exposing Sudanese rape-culture would be “punching downwards” and “attacking the weak and persecuted.” And let’s be fair: Sudanese culture isn’t just about rape. Steve Sailer has chronicled how Sudanese emigrants have enriched Australia with violent crime and gang warfare. And an enterprising Sudanese mother and son have defrauded Australian tax-payers of six million dollars. You can find lots more stories of the vibrancy Sudanese emigrants have brought to the West. That’s why I reach the bigoted conclusion that they aren’t good for the West and should go back where they came from.
Lucrative careers of anti-White agitation
Nesrine Malik won’t agree, of course. She doesn’t want to go back to Sudan because it’s what Donald Trump would hatefully — and accurately — call “a shithole.” The natives of Sudan have low average intelligence and the only things that flourish there are corruption, oppression and violence. Although Malik herself is from the right-hand side of the Sudanese bell-curve, she isn’t an original or interesting writer. Nor is Afua Hirsch, a half-Jewish, half-Ghanaian Guardian journalist who pursues the same lucrative career of endlessly criticizing Whites, blaming White racism for all non-White failure, and demanding that Whites be censored and silenced.
Half-Black, Half-Jew, Afua Hirsch Is Hating You
The White journalist Rod Liddle, a fearless anti-PC warrior and unashamed Islamophobe, has noted that many people “are sick to the back teeth of this egregious illiberal shite, this closing down of debate, this hair-trigger sensitivity.” But Liddle has never discussed where “this egregious illiberal shite” came from. To do that he would have to break a strict taboo of his own and criticize the only minority that he himself regards as sacred. But let’s do what anti-PC warriors like Rod Liddle and Mark Steyn never do. Let’s ask a simple question: Who wrote the anti-White script for unoriginal, uninspired non-White journalists like Nesrine Malik and Afua Hirsch?
Britain’s Chief Rabbi answered that question in 2007:
Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy
Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book … Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, he said the movement had run its course. “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.
“Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.” Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007)
Arch-Anti-Semite Jonathan Sacks with Tony Blair
“The progress began with Jews,” according to the arch-anti-semite Jonathan Sacks. He’s right. But it’s precisely because Jews are the originators of “this egregious illiberal shite, this closing down of debate, this hair-trigger sensitivity” that so few people will dare to say so. Jews devised and popularized “identity politics” for their own benefit: to undermine White society and to place themselves beyond criticism. Jews are a tiny minority who wield huge financial, political and cultural power. That’s why they want to place themselves beyond scrutiny and criticism. Power that can’t be discussed is also power that can’t be challenged. Jews believe fervently in minority-worship because they see themselves as the supreme minority.
A never-ending blood-tax
And by forcing Whites to tolerate the pathologies of Muslims and other non-Whites, they reassure themselves that Whites are passive and will not act in their own interests. To Jews, the deaths of Laura Wilson, Lucy Lowe, Mary-Ann Leneghan, Christina Edkins, Kriss Donald and countless other White men, women and children are a small price to pay for Jewish peace-of-mind. Indeed, they’re not a price at all, because Jews aren’t paying it.
To me those deaths are an intolerable price, a never-ending blood-tax on Whites who never voted for mass immigration and have consistently opposed the invasion and colonization of their homelands. As the hate-blogger Chateau Heartiste points out: “Diversity + Promixity = War.” Nesrine Malik would no doubt be delighted to learn that Heartiste was thrown off WordPress as part of the on-going purge of hate. But this is because “Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.” And the biggest haters of truth are Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in America, the Community Security Trust (CST) in Britain and the Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme (LICRA) in France.
Pro-White views are very bad news
It’s no surprise that those Jewish organizations are also dedicated supporters of mass immigration by anti-White, pro-censorship non-Whites like Nesrine Malik. Free speech is a rare and fragile phenomenon that was created very recently by White men in north-western Europe. It depends on a unique combination of intelligence, objectivity, humility and self-control. Unlike White science and White technology, free speech has never been successfully exported to the non-White world — not to high-IQ China and certainly not to low-IQ Sudan.
And when the non-White world comes flooding into the White world, free speech inevitably begins to die. With free speech, Whites can defend their own interests and resist the destruction of their nations. Without it, they’re disarmed and helpless. That’s precisely why those who hate Whites also hate free speech. Nesrine Malik is an obvious example, but she’s a symptom of the death of free speech, not a cause. For the cause, you need to look at the ADL, CST and LICRA. To Jews, pro-White views are very bad news.