Stabbing Salman Rushdie: How a Leftist Literary Giant Has Worked to Destroy Free Speech, Not Defend it

They yawned and looked the other way. That was how leftists reacted to a report in July 2022 describing how at least 1,000 White working-class girls had been raped, prostituted and sometimes brutally murdered by Muslim sex-criminals in merely one town in the English Midlands. The girls were white-trash nobodies, you see, and not worthy of leftist commentary or concern. But when the bad and pretentious novelist Salman Rushdie was stabbed in New York by a “man from New Jersey,” leftists howled with shock and dismay. Like the cartoonists murdered at Charlie Hebdo in 2016, Rushdie is a leftist and his fellow leftists felt his pain.

Maggie’s mighty intellect

And like his great friend Christopher Hitchens, Rushdie is a dishonest windbag, which made it very appropriate that so many other dishonest windbags rushed to their keyboards to write about the attack. The mighty intellect of Margaret Atwood allowed her to reach these conclusions:

In any future monument to murdered, tortured, imprisoned and persecuted writers, Rushdie will feature large. On 12 August he was stabbed on stage by an assailant at a literary event at Chautauqua, a venerable American institution in upstate New York. Yet again “that sort of thing never happens here” has been proven false: in our present world, anything can happen anywhere. American democracy is under threat as never before: the attempted assassination of a writer is just one more symptom.

Without doubt, this attack was directed at him because his fourth novel, The Satanic Verses, a satiric fantasy that he himself believed was dealing with the disorientation felt by immigrants from (for instance) India to Britain, got used as a tool in a political power struggle in a distant country. (If we don’t defend free speech, we live in tyranny: Salman Rushdie shows us that, The Guardian, 15th August 2022)

No, Maggie: the attack happened because leftists like you have allowed millions of Muslims who hate free speech to flood into the West. The only surprise about the attempted murder of Salman Rushdie is that it took so long. Among much else, Rushdie’s “satiric fantasy” depicted prostitutes play-acting as wives of the Prophet Muhammad and satisfying sexual perversions like necrophilia. Muslims correctly viewed the novel as blasphemous and Rushdie himself as an apostate. That’s why they want to impose on him the traditional Islamic punishment for blasphemy and apostasy, namely, death.

Atwood didn’t discuss any of that or the numerous “assassinations” of blasphemers in Muslim countries like Pakistan. Nor did she discuss the vibrant Lebanese origins of the would-be assassin or indeed mention the words “Muslim” and “Islam” at all. Instead, she tried to suggest that Trump and the Republicans were somehow to blame: “American democracy is under threat as never before [the new mantra of the American left]: the attempted assassination of a writer is just one more symptom.”

Shock News: Import Muslims, Get Islam

No, it was a symptom of Muslim enrichment, like the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France and the murder of Asad Shah in Britain. Atwood’s dishonesty and refusal to state the obvious were universal among other leftist commentators on the “attempted assassination.” The leftist Michael Hill, president of the Chautauqua Institution where Rushdie was speaking, said that it was “an attack on the very foundation of who we are and what we stand for” and represented “the utter antithesis of everything that the institution has stood for since its founding 148 years ago.” Fancy that! White America imports millions of non-Whites from violent, illiberal cultures and suddenly old traditions of American civilization are under attack. Hill didn’t, of course, discuss why a Lebanese Muslim might have been responsible for formulating an “utter antithesis” to free speech.

In Britain, the leftist Lady D’Souza also refused to mention the obvious. She waffled thus: “It seems to me that there’s one important lesson here, which is no one anywhere should ever, ever, ever be threatened with death for writing a novel. Yet we seem to be living in a world, despite Salman’s fight, where that could be well be a possibility.” No, Lady D’Souza: we don’t “seem” to be living in such a world. We are living in such a world. And it’s thanks to leftists like you, who have flooded the West with low-IQ non-Whites from the world’s most violent and illiberal cultures.

Squirming Maps and Pallid Streets

It’s also thanks to Salman Rushdie himself, who has worked all his life to destroy free speech, not defend it. That’s because, like his fellow leftists, he is an ardent anti-racist and passionate supporter of non-White immigration. You could call leftism a Salmanic virus that has infected the West and is now bringing about its dissolution. Way back in 1982, Rushdie was using terms like “white supremacy” to condemn the entirely legitimate resistance of Britain’s native Whites to Third-World immigration. He was also demonstrating that he’s a clumsy and pretentious writer:

Now I don’t suppose many of you think of the British Empire as a subject worth losing sleep over. After all, surely the one thing one can confidently say about that roseate age of England’s precedence, when the map of half the world blushed with pleasure as it squirmed beneath the Pax Britannica, is that it’s over, isn’t it? Give or take a Falkland Island, the imperial sun has set. And how fine was the manner of its setting; in what good order the British withdrew. Union Jacks fluttered down their poles all around the world, to be replaced by other flags, in all manner of outlandish colours. The pink conquerors crept home, the boxwallahs and memsahibs and bwanas, leaving behind them parliaments, schools, Grand Trunk Roads and the rules of cricket. How gracefully they shrank back into their cold island, abandoning their lives as the dashing people of their dreams, diminishing from the endless steaming landscapes of India and Africa into the narrow horizons of their pallid, drizzled streets. The British have got other things to worry about now; no point, you may say, in exhuming this particular dead horse in order to flog the poor, decomposed creature all over again. (“The New Empire within Britain,” Salman Rushdie, 1982)

It’s obvious that English isn’t Rushdie’s mother-tongue and that he has a typical leftist grasp of reality and logic. For example, how does a map “squirm”? What on earth are “pallid … streets”? British streets are paved in black. Rushdie’s hatred and envy of Whites spilt over into his description of inanimate objects. How did the pink conquerors “diminish” from “the endless steaming landscapes of India and Africa”? Rushdie isn’t using the right verb or seeing any clear picture of what he’s trying to say. And look at how clumsily he riffs on the already stale idiom of “flogging a dead horse.” No doubt he fondly imagined that he was demonstrating his mastery of the pink conquerors’ language: “See, sahibs, not only do I know your oh-so-obscure idiom, I can wittily expand on it!”

The Self-evident Savagery of Blacks

Well, no, Rushdie isn’t a witty or clever writer. He’s pretentious and clumsy. His entire career has consisted of posturing for leftist sahibs. And he’s been richly rewarded for it, showered with literary awards and knighted by the supreme representative of British Imperialism in 2007. Part of his shtick has been to attack ordinary Whites on behalf of the hostile leftist elite. For example, he laid out this core leftist principle in his “pallid streets” essay: “Immigration is only a problem if you are worried about blacks; that is, if your whole approach to the question is one of racial prejudice.” Well, Salman: immigration led directly to you being stabbed on stage by a Lebanese Muslim thousands of miles from Lebanon. Was that stabbing a “problem” or something to celebrate? If it was a problem, then obviously there’s more than “racial prejudice” to doubts about non-White immigration. Rushdie also said in his essay that “perhaps the worst thing about the so-called ‘numbers game’ is its assumption that less black immigration is self-evidently desirable.”

A Black with White blood on his hands: the vibrant Lee Byer and his 87-year-old White victim

But it is indeed self-evident that “less black immigration” is desirable. When Blacks arrived in Britain, they began to do what Blacks always do when they arrive in a White nation: to prey on the natives. They’ve been preying on the natives ever since. In the same month as Salman Rushdie was stabbed in New York to universal leftist condemnation, another elderly man was stabbed in London under even worse circumstances. But the second stabbing will not receive universal leftist condemnation. Indeed, leftists will send it down the memory hole as soon as possible. Unlike Salman Rushdie, Thomas O’Halloran did not survive his encounter with a vibrant non-White. Not that vibrancy of any kind was mentioned when news first broke that an “87-year-old grandfather” had been murdered in a “shocking act of unprovoked violence” whilst riding his “mobility scooter in broad daylight.” However, as a committed member of the racist community, I immediately assumed that a non-White was responsible — most probably a Black. Sure enough, a Black called Lee Byer has been charged with the murder.

Rushdie wakes up to Woke

Mr Byer seems to have hit the headlines before, as one of the “masterminds behind a string of jewellery shop robberies.” Like a wildly disproportionate number of Blacks, he excels at theft and violence, not at anything that sustains or strengthens White civilization. Salman Rushdie, of course, is more intelligent than the vast majority of Blacks. But that simply means that he’s able to attack White civilization more effectively and on a wider scale. Leftist intellectuals like Rushdie don’t often commit “shocking acts of unprovoked violence” (except against logic and the English language). But they support and facilitate the mass immigration responsible for the presence of psychopathic Black thugs like Lee Byer in the West. And although Rushdie is an intellectual, he doesn’t have much of an intellect. This is what he recently said about the excesses of woke culture: “If you can only write about a gay character if you’re gay or you can only write about a straight character if you’re straight, very rapidly the form of literature becomes difficult to continue with.”

Rushdie doesn’t understand how Woke works: Black actors can take on any White role

Rushdie’s powers of observation and reason have not improved since 1982. No wokester argues that only straight people can write about or perform as straight characters. That isn’t how Woke works at all. No, Woke insists that minorities can write or perform as they please. It’s the White or heterosexual majority that is censored and circumscribed. For example, Black actors can take on any White role, but White actors are now banned from taking on any Black role. The same applies to gay actors and straight actors. And some Jews, as I described in “Jewface and the Under-Race,” are trying to make it apply to Jewish actors and goy actors.

Rushdie’s Jewish admirers

Rushdie doesn’t appear to have noticed any of that. But he has certainly noticed the importance of not offending Jewish sensitivities in his work. He’s mocked Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, but he’s never mocked the Holocaust or questioned the way it is used to justify censorship and imprisonment right across the West. And Jews greatly appreciate Rushdie and his work on their behalf, which is why he was given a knighthood in 2007. The two most important members of the “Arts and Media Committee” that recommended him for the honor were Jews: the plutocrat Lord Rothschild and the BBC Director Jenny Abramsky. Jews are also at work in the Chautauqua Institution that hosted vibrant Rushdie and his vibrant attacker:

There is a strong Christian and Jewish presence in the community, and a growing emphasis on reaching out to Muslims. The summer season includes a programme on “Islam 101” and there are regular dialogues attempting to unite Jews and Muslims. The calendar for next week includes an interfaith talk billed as “Being the change — a leap of faith”. It features the founders of a network of Muslim and Jewish women, Sisterhood of Salaam Shalom. Against that tradition, Friday’s attack came as a violation. “This was principally an attack on Mr Rushdie, who we continue to hold in prayer,” [Michael] Hill said. “But it was also an attack on the very foundation of who we are and what we stand for. At the core, for us, it was an attempt at silencing.” (Rushdie stabbing was ‘an attack on who we are’, says venue’s president, The Guardian, 14th August 2022)

It’s nonsense to claim that the attack on Rushdie was a “violation” of a “tradition” of outreach to Muslims and cooperation between Jews and Muslims. Both Jews and Muslims believe firmly in silencing their critics. High-IQ Jews play to their strengths and work in politics, media and law to create and enforce laws and propaganda against “hate.” Low-IQ Muslims play to their strengths, stabbing novelists or machine-gunning cartoonists. The Sisterhood of Salaam Shalom embodies a principle set out by many Jews down the decades, namely, that “Muslims and Jews are natural allies.” But what are they natural allies against? That part is left implicit, but the answer is obvious. Muslims and Jews are natural allies against Whites and White civilization.

Burned alive by her Muslim rapist: the White girl Lucy Lowe

To any objective observer, it’s obvious that Jews are the world’s biggest and most effective enemies of free speech. That’s partly because they campaign directly against free speech through 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. But it’s also because Jews work tirelessly to import the world’s second-biggest and second-most-effective enemies of free speech, namely, Muslims.

The attack on Salman Rushdie was more proof of how bad Muslim immigration is for free speech. The attack was also poetic justice. Rushdie is a rich member of the leftist elite and has now suffered some of the violence imposed on ordinary Whites for decades by non-White immigration. It isn’t supposed to work like that, which is part of why leftists were so upset by the attack on Rushdie. Leftists like Margaret Atwood don’t care about White girls being raped and incinerated by non-White Muslims in Telford or 87-year-old grandfathers being stabbed to death by Blacks in London. And when they say they care about free speech, they mean that they care about free speech for leftists. That’s why leftism is a Salmanic virus that is destroying the West.

23 replies
  1. James Clayton
    James Clayton says:

    In the 1960s, the WASHINGTON-POST in a weekend supplement commented on a phenomena of young people “Paki-bashing” in Great Britain. Haven’t seen the term since.
    Anticipating that some don’t like those of us preferring to pick our battles, I submit angry, articulate, shows well-enough that you can forward to your less extreme friends and family Jared Taylor on the problem:

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      Might be because ‘Paki’ is our version of ‘nigger’.
      You absolutely must not say it, if you do, you’re diabolically evil, etc, etc.
      Not that normal working people don’t call their local newsagents Paki shops, they do, they’d sound weird if they didn’t. But our betters . . . you know the script.
      Any white person running a newsagent is derogatorily called a ‘white Paki’. Rightly in my view, as whites running these shops are useless.
      They open from like 0900 till 1630, close for an hour at lunch, and the place is too clean & half empty.
      Pakis do it properly, shop is over-flowing & jam packed with choice, hasn’t been renovated in 50 years, some uncle from the old country with no English works from 0530 till like, midnight.
      Presumably for buttons, you often see the owners arrive in their Jaguars & Range Rovers to collect the takings or whatever.
      This may be off topic, but we all know the mayhem and misery importing these invaders has cost British people, I thought it only fair to point out they do at least provide us with one helpful convenience.

      As for Salman, Andrew Anglin’s bit was good:
      Just compare and contrast the two faces, Sir Salman’s and the old Ayatollahs’ as seen in that article.
      It sais everything about our sick culture that we make a hero out of the one you wouldn’t trust around your kids, and a villain of the Godly face any village, town, city or nation would confidently put their trust in, and sleep easily.
      Ones’ a leader of men, the other looks a degenerate creep.
      Kevin Barret’s was good as well, I cannot link to it so this is the text, if anyone is interested:

      Rushdie Attacker Working for Israel, not Iran?
      It wouldn’t surprise me.

      Kevin Barrett
      Aug 16

      We missed the Salman Rushdie story on this week’s FFWN (watch on Rumble or HERE with links.) Below is my Press TV interview on the topic.

      #1: Salman Rushdie was attacked on Friday before a scheduled lecture in western New York. Rushdie was stabbed by a 24-year-old New Jersey man. Rushdie’s fiction book, “The Satanic Verses”, was released in September 1988. It has been prohibited in Iran, India, Bangladesh, Sudan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Thailand, Tanzania, Indonesia, Singapore, Venezuela, and Pakistan. Rushdie referred to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in his book as “Mahound,” a disparaging epithet given to the Prophet by early crusaders that meant “devil” or “false prophet.” What is your take on the attack?

      The obscene blasphemy in Rushdie’s book is actually much worse than just calling the Prophet (pbuh) insulting names. It is way over the top, and raises the question, why did he write such a book? Several decades ago I read three of Rushdie’s novels as part of my graduate studies in World Literature. My impression was that he wrote The Satanic Verses as a deliberate provocation designed to get exactly the kind of attention it got. In other words, he deliberately set out to make himself into some kind of literary martyr. Why? Because he is an extreme egotist with boundless ambition but without the talent to match it; he wanted more fame than his writing alone would ever earn him.

      Rushdie’s first book Midnight’s Children attempts to turn the author himself into a mythical hero whose birth and biography represent the birth and biography of modern India. That is quite a grandiose self-image. Midnight’s Children won the Booker Prize and sold well. What could he ever do to surpass that? I think he realized, consciously or unconsciously, that Midnight’s Children was overrated, his talent was limited, and that he would never again achieve that kind of success…unless he did something so outlandishly provocative that his name would become a household word for extra-literary reasons.

      So in my view Rushdie deliberately courted the notoriety that ensued from the publication of The Satanic Verses. He invented himself as a character—the obscenely blaspheming author held up as a symbol of Western-style freedom, hunted and forced to live on the run, vastly more famous than thousands of much better writers, a kind of real-life cartoon character in the West’s comic book narrative of free speech (us) versus its enemies (them).

      As time has passed, Rushdie’s one-note act has gradually faded from public view. So though I wouldn’t have been surprised to hear he been attacked in, say, the mid-1990s, it seems rather incongruous in 2022.

      #2: Some self-proclaimed advocates of human rights have condemned the attack. How do you see this?

      During the same week that Rushdie was attacked, several Palestinian children were shot dead by Israeli snipers. Unlike Rushdie, those children did nothing to provoke the attacks. Their crime was to be born under occupation. They were targeted for genocide simply for existing.

      Why are so many Western self-styled human rights advocates so obsessed with the likes of Salman Rushdie and so uninterested in the Palestinian children being murdered by the genocidal occupation? The answer is that they see Rushdie as a martyr who represents their deepest “religious” values of liberal secular humanism. The liberal pseudo-religion holds up individual freedom as its highest value. And the freedom to transgress religious and moral prohibitions — ultimately, the “freedom” of Machievelli and the Marquis de Sade—represents the secret desire of the devotees of the religion of liberalism. So for them, the obscene blasphemer Rushdie is the martyr, while the innocent children of Palestine are simply collateral damage in the exercise of absolute freedom from religious and moral restraint as exercised by the Zionist de Sades, with whom they ultimately identify, and whose crimes they fund with Western taxpayer dollars.

      #3: Some also argue that the attack was a plot hatched by the US or an attempt to spread islamophobia. Do you believe so?

      The timing of the attack on Rushdie was curious indeed. His case had been largely forgotten since the peak of his notoriety forty years ago. Suddenly, at the exact moment that the JCPOA nuclear deal was about to be revived, this incident generated worldwide headlines and threw a new roadblock in the path of the deal. And it happened just days after reports of an alleged Iranian plot against John Bolton.

      If we ask cui bono, “who gains,” the answer is thunderingly obvious. The state of Israel has made no secret of the fact that it views the JCPOA as an existential threat. The Israelis have done everything they can to derail the JCPOA. And they have a long history of using false flag terror to achieve political goals. Anyone familiar with Thomas Suarez’s State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel and Ronan Bergman’s Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations, knows that the Israelis will kill anyone, anywhere, any time, to achieve their desired political objectives.

      Additionally, the Israelis have a history of using mind-controlled patsies in their targeted killings. Perhaps the best-known case is that of Sirhan Sirhan, a young Palestinian who was put under hypnotic control and set up as the patsy in the killing of Robert F. Kennedy in 1968. (The Israelis had killed John F. Kennedy in 1963 to remove a mortal threat to their nuclear weapons program, and needed to kill Robert in 1968 to stop him from winning the US presidency and exposing the truth.)

      So it would not surprise me if the young man who is accused of stabbing Salman Rushdie was acting under the influence of Israel, not Iran.

      I also remember Boris Johnston comparing Salman Rushdie unfavourably with the author Dick Francis on TV, Christopher Hitchens’ face was a picture.
      That was funny. As it was when George W. Bush called some Pakistani politician a ‘Paki’, being American and not aware it’s an insult. It’s like Trump talking about ‘shithole’ countries.
      The only pleasure right-wing people get from mainstream politics is when they accidently tell the truth. It happens so rarely you can count 20 years worth of instances on one hand.

  2. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    I am tired. I am weary. I could spend the rest of my life in Russia. And the next life after this.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      I’m also worn out. I think people should focus on work, raising their families, being part of something growing, continuing, alive. We can’t save the world, can’t save our societies; but we can earn enormous pay checks, can raise families. The job market will likely be horrible soon, but it’s extremely good at the moment, doesn’t require degree stamps just skills that can be obtained outside schools. Exciting times in that regard; I hope young men are really benefitting.

      There needs to be some sort of divergence. Those who understand that we face major problems don’t need to be reminded constantly. We can then focus on building a future to the extent a future is even possible.

      I’m really enjoying listening to Nick Griffin’s podcast. And I’m a huge fan of emeriticus on twitter, a mestizo who likes whites and has good sense. They don’t stress me out. We’ve been in constant crises, especially with the war in Ukraine, and I guess this reset is happening. I’m mostly going to sit things out unless Panquake comes along, might post some things there.

      Worrying, stress, accomplishes nothing. And my apologies if I’ve stressed anyone here at some recent point.

      For what it’s worth, I see a lot of single, white females around, perhaps looking for young men with good job skills.

      • Poupon Marx
        Poupon Marx says:

        In America, there is a dearth of worthy females of all ages. Who is the most loyal and slavering cohort and group that supports the NMW (No Matter What) Democrat/Bolsheviks? 45 year old White suburban college indoctrinated women. Let that sink in.

        Go East, men. Like prospecting for gold, there’s more in them hills than the West. For every Btu you expend digging and sifting, you will get higher yields.

        The West is forlornly lost. Act in accordance with Reality.

        • Weaver
          Weaver says:

          Sakhalin Island would be fun to develop. There’s tremendous tidal energy potential, also in the Kuril Islands. I know little of the region, do know it’s poor and has earthquakes, but it could dam the ocean I think to heat the ocean water to its south.

          It would be exciting to be part of that development, whenever it happens. Also, deep sea mining. Russians want foreigners in Moscow, of course.

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        Nick Griffin has always been a valiant and courageous fighter for our lost cause.
        Even better in my view, he has that ‘swivel-eyed racist’ look of leftist nightmares on lock.
        I didn’t know he had a podcast, thanks for the info.

        • Weaver
          Weaver says:

          NickGriffinBU on twitter will link you. It looks silly at first, but he focused recently on demographics and what that means. And he has the most constructive plan for the future. And he has no ego. He doesnt blame Jews much, which is probably best; lately with war in Uke Ive realised anew how Jews are powerful. It’s confusing, bc I rely on antiwar Jews who are saints, though Jews.

          redicetv on twitter another, oddly pagan but good analysis

          JamesEdwardsTPC is another

          dr. thomas fleming recently published a new book which is likely excellent: “Properties of Blood: The Reign of Love” book title

      • joe
        joe says:

        worn out? sounds like something a jew troll would say, in the hopes that we will get worn out, and walk away from the fight. no f-ing way jews. Your ancient tricks and false consciousness have been broken on the rocks of the modern age/internet. This time the world! meh

  3. John White
    John White says:

    I see no real loss for free speech. A traitor to his people- and, as a zionist, a traitor to the entire human race- got a fraction of the justice he deserved. A good start.

  4. Ole H. Johansen
    Ole H. Johansen says:

    “Burned alive by her Muslim rapist: the White girl Lucy Lowe”
    Is this man set free now?

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        As much as we all despise the industrial child torture and sex slavery on little white girls conducted by Muslims, we shouldn’t be getting all emotional over it and hating Muslims in general.
        We need to hate the game, not the players.
        Muslims aren’t the problem.
        Everyone who’s looked into this always comes up with the same major villains: the police and the usually female leftist local councils who enable it due to slavish devotion to Political Correctness.
        And people like us know exactly which ethnicity created the three evils that results in the mass rape of our most vulnerable children: the invasion of Muslims, the enforcement of P.C. and the Sexual Revolution that wrecked the protective families the girls came from, and encouraged mass sluttery.
        Take away any one of these 3 and the thing wouldn’t exist.
        Look at it from the young Muslims’ point of view, he can’t get anywhere near any of their own swarthy moustachioed girls(protected by the community), but there is a total overflow of damaged, fatherless, rebellious, materialistic, Godless 12 & 13 year old white girls dressed like whores.
        The state has pounded it into these young Muslim men that British people are racist haters who humiliated their ancestors. They also insinuate to young white girls that they owe *something* to Muslims. Well what else have young girls got to offer except themselves?
        What does anyone expect the Muslim men to do?
        They can’t get their own girls, and the only white girls they can get over say, 16 are ghastly tattooed trollopes.
        This is the reality, it’s retarded to blame the young Muslim guys.
        Of course none of us would be so sadistic with the little girls the way they are, but they aren’t us, they are Third World, low IQ peasants, we cannot compare them to us.
        Any and all hatred directed to Muslims is energy directed away from the real source of the problem, it’s a diversion. Why else do you think the Jews found and run the ‘counter-jihad’ sites?
        We should be allied with Muslims. The Jews try to ally with Muslims against us, it’s about time we started to copy all these Jewish subversive strategies that have worked so well for them.
        George Galloway is going in this direction(a bit late after supporting P.C. and the Sexual Revolution all his life mind), right-wing whites, -populists-, have more in common with Muslims than greasy Satanic Jews do.
        I’d rather live under Muslim domination than Jewish domination. Anyone who wouldn’t belongs in Bedlam.
        I’d also rather live under Muslims than under this white female-homosexual-child tranny axis as well.

  5. Eric
    Eric says:

    Maybe one day the white world will wake up en masse and expel the Jews.
    England opened its doors to Jews with joy. They give knighthood to countless Jews. Whaddayagona do?
    This is how Jews repay.

  6. Weaver
    Weaver says:

    And yet one mayn’t question the holo myth either. Import Islam, get Islam; import x, get x. May we even define x there? Not in many parts of the “free world.”

    So, Islam might be a major threat, might be most likely to inherit large parts of our future societies, but the other group should be acknowledged also.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      Assange and Snowden never talked about the Israel Jew control of the West. They are useless to Americans.

  7. John Peters
    John Peters says:

    So-called “prejudice” against blacks is really for the most part a vague understanfding of how the averege african of subsaharan kind works due to in most scoentific ways avery very different race.

    A race of hatred lies sneaky behaviour and EVIL.

    They hate everyone but themselves most of them and even more they hate whites. And the inferiority they feel when encountering white societies is another factor that leads to THIEVERY ewspecially of intellectuual property.

    And let’s not forgett the controll this race has in secret societies due to racial mixing.

    And let’s not forgett the controll this race has in secret services, especially in USA and Europe due to racial mixing, Obama, the high racial organizational frequency of the race members and other factors.

    Really anti white racemixed jews have used the (n-word) african to take down white culture.

    Modern art abstract, picasso and the like influenced by abstract african sculptures.

    Then we have rap, which is in so many ways stealing music. Used by large.

    And finally they will lower the IQ of whites by racial mixture with this race and thereby racemixed jews will rule the world due to their averege high IQ.

  8. T.Gilligan
    T.Gilligan says:

    Our mayor of London, (2nd generation Pakistani). Siddique Khan was briefly ridiculed for proving insulting excuses for the death of Thomas O’Halloran: long hot days; post-Covid frustration. Laugh-out-hilariously! Had the the ethnic roles being in reverse then we would be having a Georges Floydus moment with every boot and posterior- kissing white bending-the-knee in public realm.
    The English London working-class are trade-professionals have always truncated names and words: ‘Paki’; of course there was an element of malevolence articulated.
    Our evening London regional news programme inevitably features an anti ‘police’ story at least thrice a working week (read police as proxy for ‘white’ ). One incident that is cited was the tasering an Nigerian with sharp instrument on Chelsea Bridge; he then jumps off said bridge to his death. ‘The police don’t treat black men with mental health problems with understanding; the organisation is racist’. Meanwhile, in Great Britain, more young black or mixed-race men or killed by their ethnic cohorts. In Tom O’Halloran’s case the killer was an equal-opportunity assassin.
    What surprises me is the silence by the high-I.Q blacks: solidarity and acquiesce prevail.

  9. Armoric
    Armoric says:

    There was an assassination attempt on both Rushdie and Dugin. Our Jewish-controlled media, which enforces a blanket ban on Russian voices in the West, has portrayed Rushdie as a symbol of free speech, and Dugin as a fascist close to Putin…

    But the comparison between Rushdie and Telford works even better. From a White man’s perspective, what happened in Telford is worse than the failed murder of Rushdie. In itself, the systemized rape of White girls is worse than a simple murder, but above all, it is part of the Jewish assault on the White race. Whereas the attack against Rushdie isn’t really part of anything bigger. There was a big conspiracy to kill Rushdie, but there is no Muslim assault against the White race, or even against free speech. The ideal of free speech is a European ideal that has nothing to do with deliberate provocations against Muslims. Silencing Rushdie is not as bad as silencing Russian voices and Judeoskeptic voices.

    I think I started hearing Rushdie’s name a lot after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, when many political blogs became active. There were also the names of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, who were murdered in 2002 and 2004. Until 9/11, you couldn’t say that a terrorist attack was Muslim. The Jews would sue you if you did. White nationalists were walking on eggshells. But after 9/11, the Jews suddenly became the champions of Muslim-bashing and began to infiltrate the White Nationalist movement.

    Criticism of Islam is useful for two contradictory reasons. On the one hand, it’s a good way to fight against race replacement without saying so. It makes it harder for Jews to sue you for racial incitement. On the other hand, it’s also a good way for the Jews to hijack the resistance movement against race replacement. In France, the media already did this in the 1980s, with phony debates about the Muslim veil in public schools, as if the problem was the Muslim veil and not race replacement.

    After 9/11, Pamela Geller was one of the leading figures in the internet ‘counter-jihad’ movement. She could also be called a neocon. She was virulently anti-islam, and still very much in favor of Muslim immigration to White countries, but not to Israel. It makes sense that people like her would promote Rushdie.

    In France, the media made stern comments about free speech and the murder attempt on the fake intellectual Rushdie but they didn’t mention the Telford inquiry and its recent findings, even though similar things are probably happening in France. Between 2001 and 2003, the French media talked a lot about the gang rapes taking place in the immigrants suburbs. Then they completely stopped mentioning the subject. At the time, they emphasized the shame of Muslim victims, but my guess is that most victims were white. It was and still is a racial thing, like in Telford.

    In Telford, there has been a dereliction of duty by the police, the courts, the media, welfare services, politicians, civil servants, teachers, and others. How was that possible? The chairman of the Telford inquiry claims that there was a concern that “probes into Asian men would inflame racial tensions”. This is nonsense. He could just as well claim that the invasion of the West continues for fear that stopping it would inflame racial tensions! The real reason the invasion isn’t stopped is that our governments want it to continue.

    The problem is Jewish power, not fear of racial tensions. The authorities in Telford are bowing to Jewish power. They are afraid of being called racist by the Jews and their White collaborators, not by the Pakistanis. They are afraid for their personal careers. And the Telford inquiry chairman is afraid to say that the sexual grooming of young White girls by Pakistani migrants is a racial attack on Whites, part of a larger Jewish attack. He will never say that the central problem is Jewish, but he could have said that there are political forces that want White people replaced and English girls raped. He could have said there was a problem of intimidation by the anti-White government.

    By the way, they seem to be saying that what happened to those young girls would be acceptable if they had not been underage. In my opinion, many adult women would also need protection from Pakistanis and Jews. Unfortunately, our Jewish-controlled media specializes in the sexual grooming of the White race, disguised as anti-racist propaganda, with the blessing of the government and the police.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      That’s correct. Blaming the Muslims for raping the white children is like blaming the bullets after a Jew shoots you.

    • Armoric
      Armoric says:

      In Telford, the chairman of the official inquiry into the pimping of White girls by the Pakistani migrant community thinks that the anti-racist ideology of the powers that be is an excellent thing overall. But he thinks it may have had the unfortunate unintended damaging effect of intimidating White people and preventing them from stopping the sexual exploitation of White girls in Telford. He doesn’t believe the promoters of the government’s anti-racist ideology have anti-White intentions. He thinks the cooperation of the Telford authorities with the Pakistani pimps is a bug in the anti-racist ideology, not a deliberate feature. He thinks the current anti-racist ideology is a good thing as long as you don’t go overboard with it. But he’s wrong about that.

      From the beginning, anti-racism has been a scam and a camouflage for anti-White attacks and policies. From the name, you would think that ‘racism’ has something to do with racial persecution. And we all agree that racial persecution should be avoided. But everyone can see that the accusations of ‘racism’ are mostly directed at Whites who oppose the Jewish plans of collective race replacement for White people. The persecution of White Nationalists is the main objective of the phony ‘anti-racism’ ideology. It is not an unintended side-effect.

      So, there is no bug in the anti-racist ideology. It is meant to destroy us collectively. Destroying White girls is part of the plan. Without the Jewish so-called ‘anti-racism’, the Pakistani migrant community would not be prostituting White girls. There wouldn’t be a Pakistani community in Britain in the first place. But the chairman of the Telford inquiry won’t denounce the anti-White nature of the anti-racism scam. This means he is not an honest advocate for the victims.

      Jewish activists and Pakistani pimps work in the same anti-White direction, but I think the pimps could also become a liability. The spectacle of the complicity of local institutions with the Pakistani pimps has rubbed a few people the wrong way. I think the Jewish leadership would rather avoid anything that might provoke a strong White reaction.

Comments are closed.